This is what will get a Congressional investigation started - think “Quiz Show.”

You can clearly see Luck saying in the clip “Sorry Matt, you’re not old enough to get a call like that.”

The Catholic Church, particularly the local priests and bishops, were focused on trying to stop the violence and eventually became linked to the movement by association. There was the famous picture from the Bogside Massacre (aka Bloody Sunday) where a local priest was waving a bloody white kerchief after the soldiers…

It does, but in the specific context of football, you’re talking about pushing yourself beyond the limits of endurance or injury for the most part. Doesn’t really apply to kickers. In other words, “added motivation” may allow a defensive back to transcend his normal performance levels. But it won’t make a kicker…

This. The Troubles were never really an issue of Catholicism v. Protestantism, although the media sometimes portrayed it that way. It was all about nationalism and governance. Identifying the IRA with Catholicism was almost always a red herring to derail the argument. It wasn’t like it was the bloody Crusades or…

He would have totally made those kicks if it hadn’t been for you pesky Deadspin commenters.

Meh. One of best friends was the starting kicker for a major college football program (he didn’t quite make the NFL cut) but he’d always get cranky when he’d read something like this on a forum or heard a broadcaster say it. “The motivation for Scobee would’ve been over the moon.”

We need a phrase for something that is “the opposite of Occam’s Razor.” How about “Macco’s Spatula?.”

Cheers.

What you’re saying is certainly a reasonable discussion for Congress to have as to whether the U.S Government should be using the branding of its various departments or entities for marketing purposes but, bear in mind, this has been going on for a long time. Perhaps these look familiar?

To be fair, BP doesn’t state this correctly in the article above, which is causing a lot of people to immediate pile on the NFL as an entity, although this doesn’t involve them. Feel free to be pissed at your local franchise, though, if they’re on of the ones doing this.

First of all, thank you for your service.

Part of the problem is how BP phrased it in the article above by saying the “DoD is paying the NFL 6 million,” which is not accurate.

They can’t, actually. DoD submits a budget to Congress, Congress fiddles with it, and then allocates the money. Last year, Congress gave them 1.6 BILLION dollars for advertising/recruitment. http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Doc… They’re going to spend it somewhere. These Senators are just picking on the NFL…

Why? The DoD has an recruiting/advertising budget of 1.6 BILLION dollars.http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Doc…. This is arguably some of the most visible and effective advertising they do (hence this article, this legislation, and you and I having this discussion). We can debate the morality or ethics of it,…

They’re not. You’re confusing the NFL’s (the actual National Football League’s) charitable partnership with the DoD raising money for their agreed charities through “Salute the Troops”http://www.nfl.com/salute with the Baltimore Ravens (for example) taking money from the Maryland Army National Guard’s advertising…

This gets a little technical, and I’ve pointed it out elsewhere, but don’t confuse the charitable partnership that the NFL (the actual National Football League) has with DoD to raise charitable donations for their agreed organizations (Wounded Warriors, etc.) through the “Salute to Service.” http://www.nfl.com/salute.…

If that were the argument being made, it would be a different story (although I don’t know how you’d quantify it). But, sorry man, that’s not the argument John McCain is making in the quote above. He’s saying ON PRINCIPLE, the DoD shouldn’t have to pay the NFL for advertising. It’s not being couched as an issue of…

OK, that’s a fair perspective. And I enjoy the spirited discussion (I’m a lawyer, if you haven’t figured that out yet). It IS democracy at work - just like us having a discussion, as citizens, as to whether this is something we think Congress should or shouldn’t be legislating, is just that. They’ve got the power of…

You didn’t, and I apologize if I misunderstood the point you (and a lot of other people responding to my original response to this article) are trying to make. What ARE you saying, then?