To also factor in: according to Football Outsiders, the Seahawks had the league's 2nd best offense in power situations and the Pats had the league's worst defense in power situations. The decision to pass is like Lebron playing me 1 on 1 and choosing to shoot from half court, since obviously I'd be expecting him to…

Where's the racist part?

Honestly, I've never really seen a need to have a full fledged bar. For most normal purposes, you can get by with Bourbon, gin or Vodka, and then a choice of Rum/Tequila/wildcard. Just pick 2-3 simple go to cocktails and get what you need for them (always citrus, bitters, and soda, but whatever else you need for…

Are you kidding? Players can get cut (and lose their scholarships) at any time, for any (or no) reason. Try again.

Explain it for me. They're performing a job for the university, from which the athletic department makes boatloads for money. Give them fair compensation, that is to allow them the exact same rights every other worker gets, and taxes are no problem.

I've moved things around in my tiny ass Brooklyn apartment so that there's enough space for a real table, so no more eating off of my coffee table. Regular, high top, or use the cash on a massage and keep to my slovenly ways instead?

"The NCAA is under no obligation to provide a labor market for athletes that don't meet the minimum standard to be otherwise professionally employed in their career of choice."

None of that matters one bit. Take your example of the fresh out of high school worker and imagine that there were a law that said that no one under the age of 22 would be allowed to earn more than $15,000 a year. Even if you think that's "plenty" fair, it's still exploitative. In capitalism, individual actors are…

How on earth can you say that athletes are fairly compensated when their benefits are capped by a cartel?

I get your point, although I'd note that Stanford is so dominantly "yacht set" that a student who also works would seem out of place.

I'd wager that he had a more demanding schedule than most at Stanford. Are we supposed to be angry that he succeeded at Stanford?

I think it's more along the lines that any student who worked full time while in school would understand the burden, so they wouldn't be making stupid arguments about how easy athletes have it in the first place.

His self esteem is hurt no matter what the reason is. That lie is picked because it's the safest one (i.e. the one that makes him feel the best, so he doesn't lash out).

He was harassing a stranger. He's clearly in the wrong. She (or anyone), didn't owe him anything. You're willfully ignoring the risks women face, and for what? The guy isn't being harmed in any way.

OH MY GOD THEY'RE IN THE SAME GANG???????

Why is that bad?

I don't see the problem. Lynch loses out on endorsement deals and whatnot by not participating, which means more for Sherman and Wilson. He's perfectly free to be as boring in interviews as he wants.

Hilariously, a quick look back at his columns shows Hayes lauding Seattle for being "outlaws," leading to lines like:

Yeah, these fuckers are monsters, but that doesn't change the fact that all rape is evil.

But then how will we know if both teams played hard????