How Football Fleeces Taxpayers: Gregg Easterbrook on The King of Sports

|

Whether you like football or not - whether you've ever bought a ticket to a high school, college, or NFL game - you're paying for it.

That's one of the takeaways from The King of Sports: Football's Impact on America, Gregg Easterbrook's fascinating new book on the cultural, economic, and political impact of America's most popular and lucrative sport.

"The [state-supported] University of Maryland charges each…undergraduate $400 a year to subsidize the football program," says Easterbrook, who notes that only a half-dozen or so college teams are truly self-supporting. Even powerhouse programs such as the University of Florida's pull money from students and taxpayers. "They do it," he says, "because they can get away with it."

At the pro level, billionaire team owners such as Paul Allen of the Seattle Seahawks and Shahid Khan of the Jacksonville Jaguars benefit from publicly financed stadiums for which they pay little or nothing while reaping all revenue. Easterbrook also talks about how the lobbyists managed to get the NFL chartered as a nonprofit by amending tax codes designed for chambers of commerce and trade organizations.

As ESPN.com's Tuesday Morning Quarterback columnist, Easterbrook absolutely loves football but also isn't slow to throw penalty flags at the game he thinks is uniquely America. In fact, he sees the hypocrisy at the center of the business of football as "one of the ways that football synchs [with] American culture….Everyone in football talks rock-ribbed conservatism, self-reliance. Then their economic structure is subsidies and guaranteed benefits. Isn't that America?"

Easterbrook sat down with Reason's Nick Gillespie to discuss The King of Sports, how the business of football burns taxpayers, and whether increased worries about brain injuries and other problems spell eventual doom for the NFL and other levels of play.

Produced by Todd Krainin. Cameras by Meredith Bragg and Krainin.

Runs about 8:45 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notification when new material goes live.

NEXT: Banning Doorknobs, Frat Parties, and "God Bless America" Signs?! Nanny of the Month ('13-11)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. As with all problems, everywhere, anywhere, this is all Art Modell's fault. FUCK ART MODELL.

      1. My mothers neighbour is working part time and averaging $9000 a month. I'm a single mum and just got my first paycheck for $6546! I still can't believe it. I tried it out cause I got really desperate and now I couldn't be happier. Heres what I do,...WWW.JUMP85.COM

    1. Don't forget the evil that was Al Davis.

    2. It's all the fault of Reagan and his bastard son, jorge w Boosh.

      / craigheadinmass

    3. I can relate, you must live somewhere in northeastern Ohio....

  2. Why pick on football? I would say basketball and baseball and the Olympics have fleeced just as much or more money. Professional sports fleeces America.

    1. I don't if that's true when you factor in college football, which is where this interview starts.

      1. It's really women's sports that's fleecing college athletics.

        TITLE IX, YO

        1. ^^THIS^^

          Get rid of title IX and let schools only run sports that make money and the money equation totally changes.

          1. That means one sport, maybe two.

            And that one sport only really applies for the top 20 DI schools. MAYBE.

            1. Nope. If some girls at a college want to put together a water polo team, they are free to form one. They can even compete against teams from other schools. They'll have to figure out how to pay for it on their own. Stuff like bake sales, dance auctions, etc. that's how all college sports used to work.

              1. You must be confusing my argument for one that supports Title IX.

                I was addressing John's absurdist "only run sports that make money". Well, that leaves football for about 20 DI schools and basketball for about as many.

                I don't think many people would like that.

                1. I agree that a lot of people would be unhappy. Most people would rather use govt coercion to pay for girl sports, rather than making girls pay for their leisure activities. Just because some people would be unhappy doesn't mean the status quo is moral.

                  1. Again, you're attacking an argument I didn't make.

                    I agree that club sports should be the way of things in a perfect world.

                2. I don't think many people would like that.

                  No they won't. Don't see why that would be a reason for the rest of us to pay for shit we don't want though.

                  1. You realize, of course, that you are responding to a comment from last year, yes?

              2. The football team for the area high school is having a 31 gun raffle.

      2. Of course college football, unlike the professional variety, really does work as a marketing tool for colleges. It makes alumni, who would normally leave college never to think about the place again, into a tribe. And since schools at similar levels compete for the same students, it is used as a bread and circus to attract students from other schools. Take away basketball and Duke is no better than Emory or Vanderbilt. Take away its football program and Nebraska is as attractive to out of state students as the University of Wyoming. Embittered geeks like this guy don't like to admit it, but college football is not quite the same thing as professional football. We know for a fact that a professional football team does squat for a city. But a college football team in fact does a lot for the marketing and fund raising of a university.

        1. and the football team brings in a few bucks from TV contracts, bowl games, merchandise, etc. At larger institutions, the football program bankrolls the rest of athletics.

        2. Yeah, but the pipeline of black students from crummy high schools to gigantic research universities that don't hold them to a high enough academic standard makes a mockery of every alumni's diploma. I understand that these guys have NFL on their mind, but there must be at least some sort of rigor to the academics to justify the subsidies.

          1. Right now, Alabama football loses 15 athletes a year to the pros who never even declared a major after 3 years.

            1. I'm pretty sure Auburn is competitive on the number of "students" who put on a uniform. Not one of our shining achievements.

              For every Cam whose mama insists that he go back and earn a degree, there are several who neither graduate nor play for a living.

              1. It's "Jimmy V Week" this week on ESPN, which always makes me think of all of the players recruited to NC State by the con man who left without pro careers, degrees or futures of any kind. But he was a good quote and he died of cancer, so let's lionize him.

          2. But Alabama doesn't subsidize football. Football subsidizes Alabama. As far as the athletes goes, Alabama pays them in kind via free admission to the school. How they choose to use that payment is their choice. Some use it well others don't.

            1. and maybe it's a separate issue, but the point is still valid re: the academic part. For every offensive lineman or kicker with a decent GPA in some genuine subject, there are a half-dozen guys barely afloat in some manufactured program.

              At LSU, it was called Interdisciplinary Studies; seemed that half the team was in that a couple years ago. The rest have something similar. I'll cheer as loud as anyone but most football careers end with the last bowl game.

              1. Those are huge universities. Does the presence of a few bad students really make it worse?

                1. it's not a 'few bad students,' per se, it's the pretense of the academic side. A lot of these kids are barely ready for Juco classes, let alone a big-time institution where football is going to occupy a large part of their time.

                  As much money as the programs bring in, might be nice if some of it was set aside to prep these guys for life after football. I don't expect them to be Econ majors but I would rather they not be barely literate, either.

              2. I guess I wouldn't be so upset about if the high school pipelines didn't exist. The black athletes from poor schools get sucked up into the bigger university athletics were they are wagering a 1/100,000 that they might make it to the NFL. I often wonder if it wouldn't have done them better to just take a scholarship from a D-1AA or D-2 university were their chances would be more like 1/1,000,000 but they wouldn't be as coddled or infantilized and might actually graduate with a degree of some kind.

                1. I agree with you about that Caleb. But at some point they are responsible for their own fates. And the other thing is if college football didn't exist, would life be very good for many of them anyway?

                2. If football is "America's most popular sport" why aren't there multiple leagues with a team in every city?

                  1. Why is that the standard for being America's favorite sport?

                    1. Why is that the standard for being America's favorite sport?

                      It would be, if my tax dollars weren't propping it up at every level.

                  2. Rhywun, that's what we call "high school football".

                    1. Shit, as if my being forced to pay for professional and college football wasn't bad enough.

                    2. I was responding to the "why aren't there multiple leagues with a team in every city?" post of yours, not the "tax dollars" post, just to be clear.

                    3. just to be clear

                      Got it. To be fair, I am not from an area where high-school or college football is anything special, so it's hard for me to picture that as a substitute for something like minor league professional teams that are common elsewhere and in other sports.

                  3. I don't know about currently, but in terms of particip'n not long ago, America's (maybe the world's) most popular sport was fishing.

                3. What makes you think that is the viable alternative?

        3. . . . really does work as a marketing tool for colleges.

          If it *worked*, they wouldn't need to FORCE people to pay for it.

        4. I sort of agree with you John. If it wasn't for top class basketball my alma mater, Memphis State would be mocked for the pedestrian school that they are. Yet because they manage to do well in March Madness, most employers have heard of it and somehow think it makes me smarter.

    2. I've come to like fleeces! They're fluzzy and soft!

      Oh, you mean something different....never mind.

      1. "fluzzy" - OH! Fluffy and Fuzzy - got it!

    3. Ironically, it's the two most liberal cities in the U.S. that have examples of 100% privately built stadiums: Boston with Gillette Stadium and San Fran with AT&T Park.

      1. And didn't San Fran just tell the 49ers to go to Santa Clara if they wanted welfare? And of course LA has told the NFL to get bent for going on 20 years now.

      2. Not sure that's ironic, since liberals are the group least likely to enjoy football. Since they hate the market, that's where they want football to live.

        OTOH, there are fiscal conservatives and fiscal "conservatives" - the latter being the kind who hate government spending unless it's on something they really like.

        1. liberals are the group least likely to enjoy football

          You're not familiar with NE Ohio?

        2. "since liberals are the group least likely to enjoy football"
          ----
          According to whom? San Franciscans LOVE their 49ers. They just didn't want to subsidize their existence in their city anymore.

    4. Football has the largest and hardest to maintain venues, the most players, the most expensive equipment and the highest medical costs. So it's a fine place to start.

  3. Great interview. But I still love my football! Go Chiefs!

    1. Except yesterday. GO BRONCOS!

      I did, however, find it amusing that they had adopted FSU's war chant.

      1. I did, however, find it amusing that they had adopted FSU's war chant.

        and that we've not had a repeat of the pearl-clutching that accompanied the Braves using it when that team started being good in the 90s.

        1. The Braves still use it, although with an organ instead of a kickass marching band so it sounds all organy and lame. Fuck the Braves. Go 'Noles.

      2. I have no worries at all that Manning will as he always does spit the bit come playoff time. He couldn't close out that game yesterday and ended up giving the Chiefs the ball with more than enough time to tie the game. Eventually that will catch up to him like it always does. That game was classic Manning. Throws for a ton of yards and five touchdowns but still couldn't run out the clock when he needed to and made the Broncos sweat out a final Chiefs' drive

        1. Manning's best chance at another Super Bowl ring is to not necessarily have home field advantage throughout the playoffs. True, he do much better at Mile High than at Gillette. But I'd bet he'd rather play at Lucas Oil, Reliant, or Miami than anywhere near the Rockies.

        2. Yeah, lousy defense by Peyton. All those blown assignments and missed tackles. He should play better and stop letting Alex Smith (Alex Smith!!!) score 4 TDs. And if he didn't take that bad angle on Flacco's deep ball at the end, the Broncos would have won in regulation. I'm with you. I'm still pissed that he missed that FG at home in 2005 against the Steelers. And don't get me started on letting the Pats come back last week. How does he let them score 24 unanswered and then he has the gall to let a punt hit him in the ass inside his own 20!

          1. ^THIS^

            There's 52 other players on Denver's roster. Football isn't like basketball where one guy can pretty much take over a game and single handedly win or lose the game.

            1. But if they win...it was thanks to Manning.
              /sports commentator

        3. John, he is having the best season a quarterback has ever had through 12 games. No qb has thrown for 41 touchdowns after 12 games. No qb has thrown for as many yards after 12 games.

          Yesterday, he throws for 5 TDs and 403 yards. Now matter how hard you try, you cannot transmogrify such an outstanding performance into suckitude.

          Can't you leave it at that?

          1. Yeah. But look at the loss to the Ravens in the division round last year and the New England loss this year. Manning is uncomfortable in the cold weather, which is compounded by his nerve regeneration from his neck surgery. In the loss to the Ravens, a wobbly pass cost him a crucial interception.

            To give Denver some credit, they have surrounded Manning with a lot of weapons. But come January, he's got to play at either Mile High or Foxboro, and I can't help but think he's not up for a sub-freezing environment.

            1. You are right Manning looked really bad in Gillette when he led them down the field to tie the game in the 4th quarter.

              1. Dude, I'm not a Manning hater. But the Broncos offense did stall in the third quarter as the Patriots erased a 24-7 deficit.

          2. Plus two interceptions.

            He's not having close to the best season a quarterback has ever had. It's not solely about yard and TD totals. Efficiency and interceptions matter a ton too. It's still a very great year, but it's not the best ever. Hell, it's not even his own best. His 2004 season was better.

  4. I "get" the uniquely American incestuous relationship between sports and college - but I think it's totally wrong. Sports should be clubs.

    1. Correct. The confluence of the crooked NCAA, crooked state schools, crooked boosters, and crooked coaches makes for a lot of badness. I don't think any B-level Euro soccer clubs have managed to cover up decades of boyrape, for instance.

      1. The NCAA pretty much incentivizes crookedness out of the state schools, boosters and coaches.

        What a horrible organization.

      2. The NCAA is horrible. I can't believe it continues with the fiction that the student-athlete's "payment" for literally risking life and limb is a free education. I mean, they can't even sell THEIR OWN JERSEYS to fans without being kicked out.

        Schools' funny stuff with sports scholarships is downright evil. You get injured your freshman year and can't play anymore? Well, better find a way to pay for your education, bud, because we got to make room for the next grunt.

        All around disgusting.

        1. It is disgusting. I don't watch college football and very little basketball because of it, and when I do I feel like it's wrong.

      3. NCAA's a striking example of regulatory capture. it was founded to curb intercollegiate football, and for some years after its founding it seemed to be succeeding, reducing schedules steadily. At the rate they were going, intercollegiate football would've ceased by maybe 1940, and some observers expected more or less that, or at least to have IC football reduced to maybe 1 ceremonial game a year per every 2 colleges?something like the bowls & nothing else, and with even the bowl games being only a small part of some larger and soberer ceremonies.

      1. Because there is no reason for any of it other than the horseshit "scholar/athlete" fable that we've been telling ourselves for the last 150 years.

        Plus, what Warty said.

        1. Wasn't the scholar/athlete nonsense invented to absolve the schools of liability in the case of a debilitating injury to a player? Since it isn't for "profit" and the players don't "work" for the school?

      2. Mostly the boy rape thing. Other reasons, too.

    2. "Sports should be clubs."

      Can I get a witness - hell yeah!

      College + sports always struck me as a hangover from the European aristocracy - a complete throwback to an era when only a tiny fraction of wealthy young men were sent to "university". This schooling was a mere "finishing" for a wealthy young man who was set to assume a position in his father's firm, etc. In other words - the education, the exposure to culture, the participation on the **football**, **rugby** or **rowing team**, was just part of making a well-rounded man. Part of that molding was physical - and that's where the sports came in. After all, the man might end up with a seat in the House of Lords etc.

      I cannot see ANY reason, today, for sports to be a part of an educational institution.

      1. Actually it was worse than even that. Intercollegiate (and before that, intramural) sports in the USA were a sign of collegians having a lot of time on their hands & opp'ty for rowdiness, as opposed to the relatively genteel organiz'n of intercollegiate sports in the UK.

  5. No physics major ever donated a science building, so obviously football is essential to the survival of higher education.

  6. I haven't seen the video and Easterbrook may be right on this particular topic, but in general he's a colossal idiot.

  7. but in general he's a colossal idiot.

    Ab-so-fucking-lutely.

    I went to college with that bozo.

  8. Might be off-topic but I saw these articles from February 2012 about the "death of football"
    http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/s.....g-about-it
    http://profootballtalk.nbcspor.....-football/

    1. And to be on topic again, there was that episode of the Simpsons where Lisa denounced a situation similar to Gregg Esterbook. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48tiw5ArX_Q

  9. Gillespie's interview with Gregg Easterbrook was extraordinarily informative. Some absolutely devastating information that's been hiding in plain sight. What an outrage that many colleges and universities are publicly so blatantly deceptive and immoral about their financial dealings involving football ? and inherently at the cost of providing a better education to their students! And that Congress would at all, much less so lavishly, subsidize such rich and powerful profit machines as professional football organizations. Yes, an outrage, hiding in plain sight! Congratulations for presenting this eye-opening interview! But will the net reaction inevitably be silence? In this regard some of the reader's comments here are discouraging!

    1. Given what was in the OP here, it sounds terrible. UM's football program, like almost all major football programs, is profitable and subsidizes the rest of the school's athletics (although it's probably not profitable this year due to a contract dispute)

      Those $400 he's talking about? They're not actually going to football, but to other sports.

      1. Those $400 he's talking about? They're not actually going to football, but to other sports.

        I am trying to figure out how any of these funds are ultimately separated from the University. If there is revenue produced in the name of organic mushrooms or football it goes to the University itself, not the individual programs funded by the University, doesn't it? Do football, or any other programs, have revenues which are not remitted to the University itself? It isn't like the "Football program" decides what it will keep and what it won't.

  10. Sports? ritualized violence? I as a taxpayer MUST subsidize that, whether I want to, whether I enjoy it, or not. The naked titty dancing or naked dwonky dancing (I prize my privacy, I am NOT going to 'fess up which I might be inclined towards), THAT, on the other hand, MUST be harassed and taxed nine ways to Sunday! Whether I as a taxpayer, enjoy it, or not! And WHO, I must ask you, WHO is more likely to show up at that them thar emergency room and suck down our pubic (ooops, I mean public) taxpayer / insurance money, ritualized violence players or ritualized nake titty / dwonky players?!?! WHO, I must ask you! Then WHY is one subsidized, and the other penalized? Ken anybody? EXPLAIN, as you would, to a child?!?!?!

  11. until I looked at the draft that said $8761, I have faith ...that...my best friend had been actualie erning money part time at their laptop.. there mums best friend has been doing this 4 only about 8 months and resently repaid the morgage on there villa and purchased a brand new Aston Martin DB5. see here now
    ==============================
    http://www.fb49.com
    ==============================

  12. The University of Alabama makes 80 million a year out of its athletic programs after expenses and turns in it to help the University. Maryland must be doing something wrong.

    1. I used to live near College Park, and I wouldn't be the leats but surprised to discover that U Maryland was hip deep in incompetence and graft.

  13. This has nothing to do with federally guaranteed student loans. Nothing at all. Hey look, football!!!

    1. That was my first thought, too, and would have commented to that effect. But then I realized the comments were all nine months old. (I didn't think a Saturday post would get 78 comments in 45 minutes.)

      Interestingly, no columnist deleted the nine month old spam.

      1. You are far more observant than I. There should be some sort of warning.

  14. This article is still too close to millenial issues for comfort.

  15. Football is totally why college is so expensive. That is why the University of Chicago, which has no athletic program, is so cheap. Right? And the University of Maryland is over $15,000 a year for IN STATE tuition. But man that $400 a year fee is the real back breaker.

    This article is retarded.

    1. University of Chicago, which has no athletic program

      If you say so...

      This article is retarded.

      The clickbait headline assigned to it on H&R is retarded. The "article" (actually an interview summary) is fine.

      1. Chicago ended all of its athletic programs in the 1930s. They once had a top notch football program. They were the original Monsters of the Midway. Amos Alonzo Stagg coached there. But they decided to end it as it got expensive in the late 30s.

        1. The University of Chicago hosts 19 varsity sports teams: 10 men's teams and 9 women's teams,[114] all called the Maroons, with 502 students participating in the 2012?2013 school year.[114]

          The Maroons compete in the NCAA's Division III as members of the University Athletic Association (UAA). The university was a founding member of the Big Ten Conference and participated in the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball and Football and was a regular participant in the Men's Basketball tournament. In 1935, the University of Chicago reached the Sweet Sixteen.[114] However, the university chose to withdraw from the conference in 1946 after University President Robert Maynard Hutchins de-emphasized varsity athletics in 1939 and dropped football.[115] (In 1969, Chicago reinstated football as a Division III team, resuming playing its home games at the new Stagg Field.)

          1. Division III is non scholarship. Those are effectively club sports.

            1. How's that for a classic John response?

              You were wrong.

              1. Dude, he has a point. College sports are a very marginal part of what is making tuition costs soar.

                1. A point which I never contradicted, because I agree.

                2. Besides, Chicago suspended it's athletic program during Andrew Johnson's successful Presidential election campaign and tuition wasn't lowered a bit, right IT?

                  1. With that laser-focus on remembering and holding grudges over minute incidents which no one gives a damn about, you're well on your way to becoming "the bitchy wife" of some unlucky fella's nightmares.

                    1. Um, alright then.

                    2. Not you, the lawyer-in-training.

                    3. Oh wait, that was directed at Bo. I have that fuckwit blocked in fascr; didn't even notice.

                    4. You'd make a great college administrator!

                    5. U mad bro?

            2. Are scholarships the only or even main expense to having college sports? I would think equipment, travel and facilities cost a pretty penny

              1. Yes they are in the sense that the divisions don't offer them spend a fraction than the schools that do.

                Yeah Chicago doesn't have Division I athletics. Yet is still wildly expensive. My point that athletics is not the reason college is so expensive still stands.

                Sorry but "they still have D3 sports" is a response only Bo could find compelling.

                1. Sorry but "they still have D3 sports" is a response only Bo could find compelling.

                  Response to what? You said they don't have an athletics program. I responded that they do. Pretty straightforward.

                  1. IT: facts are for lil people, look at the main point!

    2. And the $400 is not earmarked for football, but for the athletic facilities the student body is able to use for intramurals, workouts etc.

  16. I am Jack's utter lack of surprise.

    President Obama has abandoned his pledge to reform U.S. immigration policy by the end of summer and will instead wait until after the November congressional elections, The Associated Press reports Saturday.

    Obama concluded that using executive action to circumvent Congress during the campaign season would politicize the issue and hurt future efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

    1. I think that might be worse for Dems than doing it. It demoralizes Hispanics and the right is just as motivated since they hate his guts and don't believe him.

      1. I think you're right on the effect here.

      2. I don't see that happening. It's not a quid pro quo, it makes political sense for the Dems just from the direct effect of ushering more third-world voters into the electorate. The Herpanics know they're getting what they want regardless.

      3. He was rightly worried about pissing of blacks by passing it.

        If they stay home in droves the republican wave turns into a mega-tsunami.

  17. Fun Topic:

    Louisiana has six of the 30 most armed counties/Parishes in the nation. Mine is among them.

    http://www.theblaze.com/storie.....prise-you/

    1. So they are the most unsafe right? I mean guns are evil and cause violence. Tony told me so.

    2. Unsurprisingly gun violence in those places is lower than average.

      Here is another interesting tidbit.

      http://www.realclearpolicy.com....._1058.html

      1. Never. How are all of those feral guns not roaming the streets killing children?

        1. I have them locked up in my safe.

      2. According to this your state us number two (of course that's a state average) fwiw

        http://kff.org/other/state-ind.....er-100000/

        1. See my second link above.

  18. NPR is covering heroic women of history. It seems that the authors they interview, who chronicle these heroic women, are men. Eeeew.

    1. Up next on NPR, we examine the increasing strides made for women college athletes with our guest Geno Auriemma.

  19. Everyone in football talks rock-ribbed conservatism, self-reliance. Then their economic structure is subsidies and guaranteed benefits.

    But that "everyone in football" actually is only a narrow slice of the game. I coach children's football, and we have hugely more particip'n than does the level of play he's referring to. And children's isn't the whole story either; there's interscholastic, men's & women's minor leagues, etc. Plus, what about American football in other countries?

  20. OT:

    Question about Wikipedia: Back in 2009, I created a Wikipedia page concerning James K. van Brunt, who was a model for Norman Rockwell. One minute after I created it, some chucklehead requested for its speedy deletion. Here is the page's edit history. Does anyone know enough about Wikipedia's editing policies to see what was going on?

    It looks like someone named Star Mississippi saved the page.

    I'm asking because I plan to create a Wikipedia page for one Eduardo Antonello (a very talented musician from Brazil who plays Renaissance music--his videos are on Youtube under "Early Music in a Different Way"), and I don't want it deleted by some stupid jerk.

    1. Fortunately I've never had to do any "lawyering" but I do have a little bit of experience with Wikipedia and its policies.

      Well, I assumed it was about notability guidelines, but apparently he cited criterion for speedy deletion A7.

      That same issue could apply to this new article, so include a credible claim of significance.

      What I would do is create it in my user sandbox first (a common practice anyway), then ask some people on whatever WikiProject would be relevant to give their opinion on it (about the content and formatting, not policy per se).

      After you get some feedback, make it as a real page. That way, if some jerk (there are a lot of them there) does come along and try to delete it, you will now have more experienced editors who might go to bat for you, either automatically or if you ask them to.

      1. Oh, and I don't know anything about this Eduardo fellow except what you posted, but I would try to find a relevant WikiProject of relatively narrow scope, where the editors are more likely to know and care about him, rather than a broad one like WikiProject Biography.

  21. I just love the recycled comments. Didn't remember this from the first time. Then I see I'm the second commenter in - WHAT THE!??

    Oh - duh. December, 2013.

    Whatever. May Art Modell burn in his own, special circle of Hell for eternity. Amen.

    Now to the Michigan State - Oregon game!!! (srsly)

    1. Yeah.

      Didn't notice the stamps, saw Caleb Turberville and was like, "Wow, haven't seen him post in a while, gonna ask him what he's been up to." Then I looked at the stamps.

    2. My power is out. Hate to miss that game.

      1. I'm sorry to hear that. We had something like 350K without power in the metro Detroit area. We were lucky and didn't get hit out my way. We got the storm and wind but thankfully didn't lose power (for once).

        Hope you're back on the grid soon!

    3. Well, I hope you weren't rooting for Michigan...

  22. There are less than 12 minutes of playing time in a 3 hour NFL game.

    Percentage-wise, that's even worse than Obama's Congressional Voting record.

    1. It would be much better if they had 15 seconds of scoring and 89 minutes 45 seconds of guys running around pointlessly, like that other sport.

      1. Nothing says excitement like 125+ minutes of scoreless game play. The nil nil tie, it's how you say excitement in every language.

      2. Scarcity increases the value.

        1. "Scarcity increases the value."
          Dunno. Polio is pretty rare.

  23. I think the most telling example of this is the story of what happened to the Redskins owndership after the deat of their long-term owner so,e years back. A consortium of local businessmen tried to set up so,ething like the Green Bay ownership arrangement, and the NFL stated flatly that they were never going to allow that kind of non-profit owner again.

  24. Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it.

    http://www.Crypt-Anon.tk

  25. I love the recycled comments of the delusional Payton Manning fan boys who thought they were not on the Payton Manning heartbreak train.

    "Manning is having the greatest season ever!!"

    Yup greatest regular season quarterback ever!!

    I really hope this is his last year and he goes out with a fitting season; the Broncos go out 14-0 with Manning breaking every statistical record known to man, he then sits the final two games homegirls clinched because Manning would never have the balls to go for 16-0 like Brady did, and then losses in the playoffs in some craptacular way walking off the field with the perfect Payton Manning season.

    1. And it of course won't be Manning's fault. Manning is forever being let down by his teammates. Poor guy.

      1. He has a SB ring and will be a first ballot HoFer so I don't think he'll let it worry him that much.

      2. Your mancrush Brady has lost in the playoffs every time he's been in them since 2006 -- is that his fault?

    2. And then he could make ton of annoying commercials laughing at it.

    3. he then sits the final two games homegirls clinched because Manning would never have the balls to go for 16-0 like Brady did

      There is no way Coach Fox allows Manning to play in that situation, no matter what Peyton wants.

      The only reason Brady was allowed to stay in the final games was because Belichick was obsessed with revenge against the league for calling him a cheater. An uncharacteristically illogical decision by BB. Speaking of which....

      and then losses in the playoffs in some craptacular way walking off the field with the perfect Payton Manning season.

      You mean like Brady did in his 16-0 season? Or should I say, 18-1 season. Which one of those two QBs has won a SB more recently, by the way?

  26. my best friend's step-mother makes $63 /hr on the laptop . She has been laid off for 10 months but last month her income was $18898 just working on the laptop for a few hours. see here.....

    ================ http://www.netjob70.com

  27. a moving, as well as a unique charm of their own, different colors can represent each of us one day is not the same mood. In addition, it is compared to the 996 version will be more movement and more giving a vibrant sense of youth.new balance 574new balance outlet matching methods do in fact find new balance sales area, guaranteed to make you easy to find here a real fit with their own methods. The shoes to match up with their whole dress with each other, to be able to highlight its features shoes. The shoe itself is a casual fashion, so with clothes, casual fashion with out the effect is certainly no better choice.

  28. a moving, as well as a unique charm of their own, different colors can represent each of us one day is not the same mood. In addition, it is compared to the 996 version will be more movement and more giving a vibrant sense of youth.
    new balance 998
    The most casual fashion new balance 574
    matching methods do in fact find new balance sales area, guaranteed to make you easy to find here a real fit with their own methods. The shoes to match up with their whole dress with each other, to be able to highlight its features shoes. The shoe itself is a casual fashion, so with clothes, casual fashion with out the effect is certainly no better choice.

  29. Chanel (Chanel)
    This season was to explore the theme of fashion and art, Karl Lagerfeld give full play to his unique color technology, to show a different style, this Plaid graffiti bag, stylish yet luxurious, full of personality. Metal and stitching lines, mix color matching, showing not the same style, bags do the old design, reflecting the retro Style.
    Cheap Chanel Handbags
    best chanel gifts


  30. Chanel sunglasses, Chanel Black sunglasses, Chanel Designer sunglasses, Chanel Eyewear, Chanel womens sunglasses, Chanel ladies sunglassesChanel (Chanel)
    The new season's Chanel bag filled with street atmosphere, a new concept of graffiti fashion, showing young rebellious personality, so increasingly popular new fashion, fashion is not necessarily the traditional model. The new graffiti designs, expressed through color rebellious style, different color, with a rope design reflects the combination of personality Feel, chains and fabrics, soft but just.where to buy chanel

  31. Nike DUNK SB series shoes are recommended over the largest number of products in the shoes of a, and 85 years from the first pair of Dunk SB turned out to now, Dunk SB high, mid, low to help, but also ordinary level, P-class, S-class! color is more colorful aspects of it. In addition, because it is closer to the style and casual shoes, it is also better outfit.
    New balance regardless of style or a Nike sneakers
    running shoes
    couple of other shoes are a perfect example of the influx of people in the eyes of contemporary, 575,996 series is to create an essential tool, such as retro sportsman tide woman. And the reason for the brand's new balance shoes to be welcomed because it is regardless of appearance or shoes with colors are very nice, very nice, very wild. I think this is all the more willing to buy because of the brand to wear shoes like it. Couple models is very important that both men and women

  32. Nike DUNK SB series shoes are recommended over the largest number of products in the shoes of a, and 85 years from the first pair of Dunk SB turned out to now, Dunk SB high, mid, low to help, but also ordinary level, P-class, S-class! color is more colorful aspects of it. In addition, because it is closer to the style and casual shoes, it is also better outfit.
    New balance regardless of style or a Nike Air Jordan Retro Shoes Online Store
    Nike Shoes
    couple of other shoes are a perfect example of the influx of people in the eyes of contemporary, 575,996 series is to create an essential tool, such as retro sportsman tide woman. And the reason for the brand's new balance shoes to be welcomed because it is regardless of appearance or shoes with colors are very nice, very nice, very wild. I think this is all the more willing to buy because of the brand to wear shoes like it. Couple models is very important that both men and women

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.