Recent Comments

yet, that seems to be the movie everyone wants to see

I see both sides here.

On one hand, let the kid go home to his dad. On the other, if he did sign a 2 year NIL deal, there has to be a penalty for breach of contract, otherwise you're never going to be able to enforce anything.

The whole thing sucks, I hate the NCAA for being too feckless to lift a finger anymore to try and reign this under control, and I hate every agent and person influencing these kids to spiral the entire sport into the quagmire it now is in. There probably is no saving it anymore, and it's only a matter of time before the whole house of cards collapses. It's like the NBA which shined exceedingly bright for about 10 years but is now seeing absolutely terrible viewership numbers across the board leaving power brokers to scramble to figure out what is going on, but it's hard to pinpoint any single thing because so much of it is fundamentally broken.

As promised, here are consolidated tables showing transfers in-and-out and each position's average on3 rating. I put 2 different ratings for OL, dropping the lowest rated outgoing transfers to get a better comparison of players that would have likely seen the field next year.

If anyone knows the html snippet I need to force column widths please let me know. I tried a couple things and couldn't get it to keep TKP formatting.

We need to start differentiating between House Money (aka rev share), Collective Money (Booster inducements), and Endorsements (aka actual NIL).

cant wait to hear about how he's entitlement is ruining the sport because this kid decided to forego two years of NIL to be closer to his sick dad

Money changes everything.

If there were no money involved on either end (or, more likely, both ends) it seems that there wouldn't have been any problems with allowing the student to use the portal, so you wonder about the rest of the story.

The interest part is the word "Contract" that he signed.

Popularity is not always based on the popularity of your sport. Plenty of female athletes have millions of thirsty followers on social media.

Of course. Cholesterol is a needed molecule.
But the more we are able to reduce serum Cholesterol, the more we seem to reduce risk of heart disease. When I started, the goal was to get LDL <160!!?. Now <70, is considered goal for a patient with heart disease or risk. AND studies have not shown issues with LDL levels as low as 20.
There is a J-curve mortality with total cholesterol but these studies had patients with malnutrition, cancers etc that caused very low cholesterols.

Short answer is yes. Get the test.

Cholesterol levels are an inaccurate risk indicator for cardiac disease. Imaging has gotten so much better, a quick 30 second non-contrast CT scan can detect calcifications in the coronary/heart vessels (and others). CT imaging is 94% sensitive, whereas traditional stress testing is 70+% sensitive in picking up heart blockages. And a CT screen is relatively inexpensive (our local lab charges $139...insurance may/may not pay. But patients can use HSA monies)
I tell patients I'm too old to guess anymore..just get the scan and then we know. THEN we can deal with the results and reduce future risk, even move to intervention (cath, stent) if appropriate.
The old way was to look at cholesterol levels and push statins for most people.
There is predictability with cholesterol levels, but it's clearly not as accurate as a quick CT image.
I can tell you of patients with very high cholesterol levels with absolutely no blockages, and patients with low/normal cholesterol that have infarcted, even died from heart disease.

I run a CT heart screen on all 50 year olds, or younger with family history, smoker, etc.

Yeah, you kinda need cholesterol to move fats through the water (blood).

Well....Walton certainly fits into the "still coaching" category.