Officials Hand Close Victory to Steelers Over LIons

 On this Sunday in the weekend preceding Christmas week, 2025, there were some NFL games being played, with teams on the outside of the postseason playoffs picture struggling to get themselves better positioned for eligibility.  One of these are the Detroit Lions, who were sensational in 2024 but have declined this season with their offense and defense.  They were 8-6 entering their home contest against the Pittsburgh Steelers, the last one for the 2025 regular season.  Pitt led for most of the game against the Lions, but the latter put on a furious comeback trying to win it in the end.  Then with just a few seconds left, quarterback Jared Goff threw a short toughdown pass in the front corner of the Steeler end zone and for a very short time Detroit had taken a shocking 30-29 lead, causing dejection along the Steeler sideline.  But an offensive pass interference penalty was promptly called, setting Detroit back.  But they held on and apparently scored "again" on a bizarre play...only to have it negated with a penalty: The officiating crew seemed to take pleasure in slapping down Detroit and handing Pittsburgh the victory, which makes the Lions' playoff prospects very doubtful.  I strongly dislike seeing this sort of mischief going on with penalties or non-penalities (or fast whistles) becoming directly responsible for a game's outcome.  It makes me want to turn off the TV in frustration.  In the long run it makes no difference whether "my" team wins a game or not, but the way the so-called authorities enforce their rules on the playing field can completely extinguish within me the feeling that they is any real level of intregity to the sport.  Why follow it any more...

Will Colleges on the FBI List Play in the NCAA Basketball Tournament?

I was watching college basketball on TV for much of yesterday.  I saw teams like Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, and Vanderbilt play...the first four are thick in the running for NCAA tournament spots.  All are among the many schools that the FBI had been investigating for paying out money to out-recruit star players over other institutions and have been put on the list of those suspected of this cheating.  And then there's Arizona, whose coach had reportedly been wiretapped as offering $100,000 to obtain a freshman standout.  The question I have is what will the NCAA do about this information as we approach the time when the NCAA championship tournament will be seeded and begin?  Will they say they need more time and let the tournament go on, even if many of the teams are tainted by scandal?  Or will they quickly act and, according to the case-by-case severity of the charges, hand out appropriate punishments even if they involve banning certain schools from post-season play?  I suspect that the first option is the one they'll take: the NCAA loves to rewrite their own history and if some of these teams are found culpable enough, they will simply go back and take away their tournament victories...as if they never happened...

I was listening to sports talk radio yesterday and heard the argument that college basketball players should be paid anyway.  But by violating the current rules, the cheating schools are gaining an unfair advantage over those who are following them...and that is unacceptable.  If they want to change the rules later to allow for paid athletes, then fine...but for now they should be punished if this is a part of their strategy to beat out other colleges when they are recruiting for the top talent...

Need to Learn Robert's Rules of Order

I regularly watch the televised proceedings of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate on C-Span1 and C-Span 2.  Sometimes, though, I get confused and lost as to what exactly they are talking about...tabling, reconsidering, quorum, objections...these and many other aspects of parliamentary-constructed meetings are obviously necessary, since they are used so much.  Yet I don't know all the ins-and-outs on when, how...and, most importantly...why they are used.  My own union local also uses the rules of order, and having started attending its bi-monthly meetings in September, I am similarly taken a little aback at how the proceedings flow there.  Supposedly, Robert's Rules of Order lay out everything one needs to know regarding how to conduct such meetings, and I feel it's about time I learned them.  Of course, sometimes in these assemblies the rules can get to be stretched or overlooked, and it's always good that the participants go into them with a spirit of comity, which is the attitude and expression of mutual courtesy and respect.  Sometimes this can be difficult with some folks by their nature, and also the degree of familiarity they might feel about those with whom they are attending.  I do know from watching the U.S. Senate for some sixteen years that it is possible to engage in some pretty passionate verbal combat on some issues while at the same time maintaining a sense of at least formally-expressed goodwill toward the opposing speaker, being deliberately generous with praise...and absolutely NO criticism or animosity on a personal level.  So order and civility go hand in hand in formal meetings, be they legislative, labor, or any other kind...it's probably a good idea to become well-trained in both...