bullets13

Pirates lost a close game in the first round and LCM lost by more in the 4th round? Not sure that’s a very sound argument you’re making there. Mathews had a good season, and I’m not denying that. But Peevey taking a team that went 1-7 last year and turning them into a team that finished 11-3 this year and went 4 rounds deep was a much more impressive coaching job. It’s not a head-to-head or common opponent award. It’s based on the full body of work. Mathews took a pretty decent team from last year and had a good season this year. Peevey took an awful team from last year and had a great season this year.

On a hot streak. Solo first last week and tied for 2nd this week. If I hadn’t missed 13 week 2 of the playoffs I’d be in contention 😏

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but it’s cheaper than a bunch of lawsuits, and the publicity would be a lot worse as well.

School has to do it. Imagine the outrage if they didn’t. “My baby got pepper sprayed by a school cop, and the school didn’t even get him medical attention. Just poured water on his face and told him he was alright.”

Interesting matchup

Nice bounce back win

They looked pretty good to me, and have a solid record on the year. I turned the game on with HJ up six, and from that point on La Porte pretty much dominated

[Hidden Content]

That was Crosby’s shot

Crosby making it interesting all of a sudden

If LH can pick up a few first downs here and there then Crosby is going to run out of time

Crosby offense has been stagnant. Playing like it’s their first scrimmage of the season

United wins 69-58 per the announcer (TL scoreboard read 68-58). United up well over 20 in the fourth but king caught back up some in garbage time, including an uncontested 3 at the buzzer

HJ falls 70-63. Fell apart in the 4th. LP made about 8 straight FTs to ice it

As best I can tell HJ is up 52-48 after 3 over La Porte

HJ beat vidor 80-49 earlier

United turned it on at the end. Haven’t looked real sharp tonight

Made a topic at the same time you did. King finished the 1st on 10-0 run.

they both worry me, as well as several different groups in between.

I did. That's why i highlighted the statement you made "I can't imagine taking their license simply on age", and said "nope" (meaning i agree), but that I do think it should be based on performance (also agreed). then i provided an example of a very sharp person who i was very close to who had more than their fair share of faculties for their advanced age who still had no business driving.

Only explanation that I've heard that would make much sense.

too old to get that high. maybe back when i was experimenting in college.

nah, this award was hands down peevey's with or without the playoffs. The bears went 1-7 last year. they were 8-2 at the time this award was decided this year. Results from the playoffs only make it more obvious.

nope, but on performance for sure. My step-grandmother was 86 years old. Still burned all her own trash, cut down trees, pressure washed the siding of her house, etc. etc. She was as sharp as a tack. She also pulled out in front of a van with 7 people in it and was killed instantly when she didn't think to look in both directions pulling out to check her mail. Thankfully nobody died in the van, but several were badly hurt. This woman was smarter and sharper than a lot of posters in this forum, but age had still greatly dulled her decision making (like the time we found her on the very top step of a 6-ft ladder cutting tree branches), and reflexes. So if your hypothetical 80-year-old doesn't have anyone looking in on them, BUT also doesn't have all of their abilities from younger years, then what? Let them drive anyway rather than "putting a gun to their head?" I've known several 80+ year old drivers, and i've only known one who drove as well as when they were younger.

If she’s been in jail for the past three years, that could very well explain the probation at this point.