Stuhoo

All we need to do to become a first choice destination is to put a few of Becker, Marsh, Hoover, Osunsami, Landino, Carter Smith, AJ Harris and the like into the first round.

They’re playing it at “Pizza Pizza Arena” on Thanksgiving? That’s unfortunate.

So we could get to 12-8 or 11-9 in conference 8 seed bball team while having a top ten, national champion - major contender football team? 100% signing up for that deal.

For the love of god, the kid's first name is "Clemens." I feel like that's a Woody-level successful pronunciation challenge.

The primary value of summer hype cycle info is hearing which players are consistently mentioned as thriving in relation to their teammates. The ones that I have heard consistently mentioned as thriving relative to expectations? Sisley Prince Moody Darren Harris Also a consistent theme that Burton, Samet, and Sherrell are our three best players and penciled in to start and max out on court time. Finally, Devries all but admitted that He knows little about Sokolov, including how to pronounce his last name Sokolov is penciled in as the third true big

He's always gotten where he wants with the ball; he's never been a willing distributor. So we will see.

Here’s three guys who clearly state it took away from the game for them. The last three US National Team head coaches, one of whom has his son on the current team, should apparently “check their pulse:” "When it starts going into levels of FIFA and the president is calling ... come on, it's ruining our game," said Bradley, who coached the U.S. at the 2010 World Cup. "I'm sorry." "We can't get to the point where the integrity of the game is totally thrown out the window. When FIFA handles it the way they did and puts out different statements to try and cover themselves, the game loses." Gregg Berhalter, who coached the U.S. at the 2022 World Cup and has a son, Sebastian, on the roster, was most direct in stating that the scandal had a potentially negative effect on Monday's game. "It was a strange decision, really unprecedented in a tournament," Berhalter said. "I think it could have inspired and motivated Belgium. Because now all the chips were against them ... I think it could have hurt our position a little bit." Bruce Arena, who coached the U.S. at the World Cup in 2002 and 2006, has been steadfast in his opinion that Balogun committed "a bad tackle" that could have broken the Bosnian players' ankle. In Arena's eyes, the only question was whether it was a yellow or red card and any retroactive suspension was "a mistake" that potentially made it look like FIFA was supporting the U.S. soccer team. "Those are the rules of the game by which we all play," Arena said. "I don't blame U.S. soccer or, I guess, the president calling FIFA and trying to get it overturned, and I guess he did. But I think it was bad for the game."

Great stuff on open practice #3 from Schumann and Bozich: https://www.thedailyhoosier.com/iu-basketball-open-practice-three-notes-and-observations/ https://www.insidethehall.com/2026/07/07/player-observations-from-iu-basketballs-practice-on-july-7/

It is clearly within the rules to use VAR to judge whether it's a red card. For you, Balogun should have played because you thought that Balogun's conduct did not consitute violent or abusive play (that's the definition of a red card). Admittedly this is an AI summary, but with sourced references: In soccer, raking down the back of an opponent’s leg or ankle is normally deemed serious foul play and usually results in a straight red card. Under the IFAB Laws of the Game, any challenge that uses excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned with a sending-off. [1, 2, 3, 4] Whether it warrants a red card depends on a few specific variables evaluated by referees: [1] Excessive Force: If a player uses their studs to rake down the calf with significant weight and follow-through, it is considered a dangerous motion that can cause severe injuries like ACL tears or ankle sprains. [1, 2, 3, 4] Endangering Safety: Even if the contact is deemed accidental or the player's momentum just carried them into the back of the defender, the letter of the law dictates that a tackle endangering an opponent's safety is a red card. [1, 2] So was this a red card-worthy foul? I would say "no," but I would also say it is subjective and bad calls are part of the game. And here's the kicker; VAR is considered the final review - there are no grounds for appeal after that if the ref makes the subjective decision that play was red card worthy.

I'll give you an (admittedly anecdotal) example: My nephew is a mid-20s professional soccer ref in his spare time. He works nights and weekends through high school, college, and semi-pro leagues. He was an excellent player and he's a true soccer junkie - takes international trips and such. He doesn't know about nor care about politics. He lives in Seattle so I asked him if he scored a ticket for last night's game (he's already been to one WC game). This is a direct cut and paste of the convo between me and him at 7 pm last night: Me: "Did you find a way into the game?" Him: "Not for 2 grand no. also now backing Belgium for the integrity of football."

It was subjectively a bad call. But it was subjective. So they did follow the rules; the ref thought that the red card rule applied to Bolargun's foul.

An understatement: Old Man Messi is still pretty damn good at this. And Egypt is in complete meltdown mode against a sleeping giant of an opponent.

Perfect analogy. And what if that Miami one half suspension had happened immediately after a political leader made a call to a friend that was heading the NCAA?

I am a fan of following the established rules, which do not ever incoprorate a morning of the next match review of referee-issued red card. Bad calls are part of the game. Sometimes bad calls stand when they are not corrected during the game through the established methods. This would be the equivalent of appealing a hockey penalty after the game was over, and only after a political leader made a personal call to the head of the leauge, who that political leader has a personal and financial relationship with. So I'll stick with ... the red card was a bad call, and the reversal of it was really bad too. I'll go one farther - the red card reversal absolutely killed part of the joy for the US: That young US team had to deal with tons of non-game pressure and repeated interview questions about non-game issues. And then they came out flat as a pancake. Coincidence? Maybe - maybe not. Belgium is a top ten team that had underperformed until the US game. After they felt they were wronged? They played truly inspired soccer. Definitely not concidental - they ended their fourth and clinching goal with a team dance in the manner of who they felt they'd been wronged by. The reversal took the edge off of the hyper-pride by some (not all) US fans. Of course all still rooted for their country, but some felt kind of awkward about the whole incident; even those that felt the red card was an abomination (count me as thinking it was).