The AFL: Nine doesn't go into eight evenly

            The two longest finals participation streaks in the Australian Football League belong to the Hawthorn Hawks and the Sydney Swans, who have each competed in the eight-team finals bracket for seven consecutive years, from 2010-2016.

            Presumably, sitting at a combined 3-11, those streaks will likely end this year.

            The next longest streak belongs to North Melbourne, with three straight finals appearances in 2014-16.

            Those Kangaroos are 14^th at 2-5 and presumably making other plans for September.

            The upshot of this is that the closest thing to a ”veteran” club in the 2017 finals might very well be Adelaide, or Western, or West Coast, with two consecutive berths under their belts. Geelong and GWS will make their second straight this year, and three “new” teams will probably join them, very possibly Port Adelaide and Richmond being two of them. Neither team is a stranger to September action, although September winning might be more foreign to these players. The two pre-season darlings, Melbourne and Saint Kilda, are still very much in the hunt, and while finals would be a novel experience in either club’s recent history, they each carry players on their roster who can share their background with premiership teams.

            Round seven, when finalists often solidify, is a good time to glance at some meta-numbers for each of these clubs. As it has for several years now, my “Spreadsheet of Death” is tracking basic stats, our own “ELO-Following Football” rating system, and trends of both reality and perception. Watching the tipping change gradually as the punters and the casual fan gradually realize that Hawthorn 2017 is not the same as the three-time premiers, that Richmond and Adelaide really are that good; and that Sydney really does have some issues to deal with.

            In addition, the spreadsheet tracks what I call the “meta-Brownlow”, the Player of the Year as determined by accumulation of as many other “PotY” and “team of the week” and “3-2-1” rating systems as I can track: the AFL itself, best & fairest, the game coverage, The Age, the AFLCA and AFLPA, SuperCoach and other fantasy ratings, and yes, The Roar. Besides following individual point totals, it’s interesting to see how the team totals of these votes compare to the ratings and ladder positions: often, they’ve shown a possible future trend that hasn’t manifested yet in the win-loss columns.

            Adelaide: In six weeks, the Crows moved from an ELO-FF rating of 73.5 (50 is average) to 90.0, the highest since Sydney before the 2016 GF – and then dropped 12 of those rating points on Saturday, most of them during that surreal 64-0 first quarter. Their cumulative player vote total is also first place, as is their point differential in reality and predicted through ratings, so they should maintain a solid grasp on the ladder’s top rung. Rory Sloane sits first overall with 255 points in our meta-Brownlow race, and Rory Laird is ninth, with Taylor Walker, Eddie Betts, and Sam Jacobs all in our top 25.

Geelong: Why are we still surprised when the Cats win? Perhaps because we’ve long expected them to do what the Hawks and Swans did this year. Their rating was third two weeks ago; now, though, they’ve dropped 16 points in two weeks, sit just seventh, and lie 12 points below where they ended 2016. But their record still has them holding a double chance right now, and their player vote totals sit third overall. How do they do this? <strong> Mirrors?</strong> Well, yes, if Paddy Dangerfield and Joel Selwood are mirror-images of each other. At 4^th and 5^th overall, they’ve carried this club for a year and seven games: only Mitch Duncan joins them in the top seventy in our meta-Brownlow at 38^th.

            GWS: I love Ryan Buckland’s “the team who shall not be named” moniker for the Giants: not even in the Hawks’ recent heyday, or the early 2000s when you just knew the Lions would find a way, did we ever have that feeling of inevitability that the Giants give you in 2017, even after the hiccup in week one, and the injury-pressed loss. Most punters have them winning every game, and nine players in our meta-Brownlow top 80 explains why a real Brownlow winner won’t come from western Sydney: too many players split their votes too many ways. (Toby Greene, Jeremy Cameron, and Josh Kelly all sit within a few points of each other in our top 30.)

            Melbourne: They started the season with a rating of 43.8; currently, it’s 43.9. All of their prediction numbers are spot on their actual record. But they’re only 2-5 against-the-spread, and Clayton Oliver is the highest-ranked player in our meta-Brownlow, barely top 20, with nobody else top 70. With their overall player vote total at 8^th, and currently sitting on the deadly ninth rung, losing winnable games against Geelong, Freo, and Hawthorn means that while they’re close to being 6-1, their margin for error is (ahem) Gawn.

            Port Adelaide: Before Saturday, their two losses were to the two best teams in the comp, which is why they’re still a clear third on our rating table. Last week’s 76.0 was their highest rating in three years. Bettors haven’t figured out how strong this team is, or just don’t believe it yet. But all the signs are there, and Ollie Wines is holding the largest sign, currently in 6^th place at 146 points. With Robbie Gray back in the top ten again, and about a dozen in the top 125, they’ve got a strong team that could earn a double chance this spring.

            Richmond: The Tigers are for real. They are NOT going to win it all – the Crows showed us why – but Dustin Martin (2^nd in our meta-Brownlow), Alex Rance, Trent Cotchin, and Jack Riewoldt are all top 40 players; Dion Prestia, Toby Nankervis, and Shaun Grigg lead a crew of the second tier all playing top 100 footy, and the team is still 15 rating points up from the start of 2017. Except for a trip to Spotless in Round 9, they should be favored in every game until July. This might be the year they win a final, especially if they can finish top six.

            St. Kilda: Their rating had dropped from an average 49.2 to a below-average 45.5 until the Trampling in Tassie; now, they’re fourth. No player was in the top 40 of our meta-Brownlow count, not even Sir Nick Riewoldt, until Hawthorn; now Riewoldt, Jack Steven, and the surging Dylan Roberton all are. While the writers kept picking the Saints, the punters had jumped off the band wagon. Whether they return depends on the next month: will they beat the teams they should beat (Carlton and the Kangas the next two weeks), and split the next two with Western and the Crows? Or go 1-3 and fall out of a tight pack in finals contention?

West Coast: Elliot Yeo leads the way and sits 3^rd on our meta-Brownlow ladder with 157 points, but he, Luke Shuey, and Josh Kennedy can’t do it all. (Sometimes, Jeremy McGovern has to help.) They’re 15-4 in their last nineteen: three losses at the MCG and one where they stepped in front of a rampaging September legend about to be written. Their only road games before July are Essendon and Gold Coast, by which time they might be 11-2. Even nine or ten wins sets them up for finals. (And then?)

            Western Bulldogs: We all had them top three this season (alongside the Swans – whoops – and the Giants). Are they a top three team? They’re currently in a pack at 5-2, but their rating is 6^th at 61.2 with the Eagles, Saints, Power, Giants and Crows above them. In player voting, they wallow in 9^th. Marcus Bontempelli is doing his part, in 11^th place in the meta-Brownlow, but it may be a bad sign that next comes a defenseman (Jason Johannisen). If they come through trips to West Coast, Geelong, and essentially a neutral game with the Saints with three wins and reach the bye at 8-2, they’re golden. Go 2-1, and they’ll make finals. Lose two, and it’s uphill.

            Quickly looking at the other nine, Brisbane started a distant last in our ratings at 9.5, and is back down to a 9.1, still last. Carlton, on the other hand, is up five to 34.2, and might top last year’s seven wins. Collingwood’s numbers drives home the theme of the Magpie season: “if only they could kick straight!” They’ve kicked 75.96; had they flipped goals and behinds in rounds 4-5, they’d have a winning record.

I expected Essendon’s ELO-FF rating to continue to drift upwards towards 40, but they’re back down to 25, barely above their start value of 22. Fremantle may drift up towards average but won’t surpass 50. Nat Fyfe and David Mundy sit top 20, but no one else is top 50. Gold Coast’s rating is higher than both, their player vote totals exceed both and sit them in 10^th overall. They’ve been consistently undervalued by punters this season, but if they can avoid another plague of injuries, anything’s possible.

At one point, Hawthorn had NO projected Brownlow votes through four rounds for ANY player, an unheard-of “achievement”. They still have no players in our meta-Brownlow top 40, with Tom Mitchell the closest at 71 points. Their rating fell by half to below 30 after round four, and still sits at 29.9. At least the Kangaroos were expected to lose this year but they’re back in the ELO-FF top 8 at 57.5, above Richmond and Melbourne. Sydney’s Big Four last year (Franklin, Hannebury, Kennedy and Parker) were all top 20 in the meta-Brownlow last season; right now, none are even top 35. They’ve lost 36 rating points since 2016.

            The Wanderings expects to see Adelaide and GWS on September 30th, with Geelong and Port reaching Prelim Finals. Richmond, West Coast, and Western also seem likely finalists, and if the Saints bring the bettors to their side, they’ll play in September as well. 

           Last weekend was the first in AFL history where all nine games were won by the team with the worse record.

           St. Kilda upset GWS on Friday night by 23; Carlton upset Collingwood's 125th anniversary celebration with its own 23-point victory. Port Adelaide was upset at home by West Coast, 85-75. Gold Coast upset Geelong 104-79, and Western came from five goals down to beat Richmond 80-75. Sydney routed Brisbane 122-68, Fremantle wore out Essendon, running out to a 37-point victory, and Hawthorn held on for a three-point win against Melbourne. In the most surreal moment of the weekend, 6-0 Adelaide were blown out of Tasmania by 1-5 North Melbourne by 59...after the Kangaroos somehow won the first quarter by the insane score of 64 to zero. The Crows went inside the 50-meter line four times; the Roos went in 28 times. It was a bizarre moment in a bizarre weekend.

Even the expression "Boys will be boys" doesn't work here...

Let's start by sharing an article about a huge incident at a high school near where I live, in south-central Idaho. Twin Falls High School holds an annual "Spirit Day" each year, one which by my meager understanding has gone off harmlessly for years as a Boys v Girls event.

In the spirit of the 21st century culture of inclusiveness, and trying to make everyone feel more comfortable, the powers-that-be at TFHS chose to adjust the teams slightly. It turns out that "Blue v Pink", despite seeming to be a safer arrangement, actually set the stage for a disastrous turn of events when the bigots and zealots both came out to play. Here's the article:

Spirit Day Sparks Backlash At Twin Falls High School (MagicValley.com - the Times News)

The TL:DR version? When a group of students who felt marginalized by the "blue v pink" (presumably because they didn't feel either blue or pink) chose to come to school wearing purple, the battle lines were drawn. To be fair, there was a "wear purple" campaign done in advance, so this didn't come out of the blue, for students OR staff. 

My immediate reaction was one of shock, with a side helping of the haughtiness groomed from thirty-three years of teaching this age group. The adults should have dealt with this situation better. 

Then I read the comments following the article.

Holy frijole.

desertman10 May 3, 2017, 8:13am

"Sounds like a simple case of having a bunch of hypersensitive snowflakes in close proximity to a bunch of insecure a-holes. If you go looking for a reason to be offended, you're probably going to find one. At the same time, shame on those students who said vulgar and despicable things. Thicker skins and decent manners could save these kids a lot of unnecessary drama. I'm not saying they need to have a big group hug everyday, but good grief, just live and let live (on both sides)."

DanE May 3, 2017, 7:04pm

"Oh please, there are multiple generations of American snowflakes who couldn't handle black people using the same bathroom as them. Rural folks in Idaho stutter when I tell them I'm an anarcho-communist. White cis/het insecurity is a vital part of conservative American identity."

Jarrik Varizen May 3, 2017, 8:18am

"Yawn. Get the gender dysphorics help, instead of forcing the world to accept insanity."

Ramsey May 3, 2017, 11:57am

"Or, you could just go ahead and worry about things that actually affect you. There's a thought."

confucius57 May 3, 2017, 2:04pm

"I promise that most of these kids you claim to be insane are smarter and have far more potential than your sad, pitiful life has likely amounted to. Must be rough to hate yourself as much as you do. Of course, ignorance to the degree you exemplify must be somewhat comforting. Quite the conundrum. A conundrum you'll never fully understand. Ironic, isn't it?"

And it goes on and on like this, getting progressively meaner and cruder in undoubtedly the same way that the arguments at Twin Falls HS did that day. It would be hard for us to hold the teenagers to a higher standard than the adults in the community who are at equally immobile loggerheads on this topic.

So, let's look at some basics about the whole situation (and please, read the article before you continue here) - 

The "Spirit Day" tradition of boys v girls had not been a problem, but there was a hope on the part of somebody that switching to non-gender specific sides would allow the students more freedom to choose how to participate. If you want to be right-wing Christian about this, then that fact alone was the catalyst, because the argument that gender is not something that should be "chosen" immediately comes into play. It's hard to know from the outside whether the change was made because of some sort of top-down mandate, or if it really was something student-driven. The article says, "But in response to student concerns, student leaders changed it to “blue versus pink” this year in an effort to be more inclusive." When I read the article, and see the emphasis on certain parents' comments in the writing (the woman in charge of the "Mama Dragons" in particular), I suspect that those "student concerns" were more "parental concerns" than anything else. If true (and I have no other evidence that it is), the whole thing was a set-up to begin with to allow the students wearing purple to have a day to make a statement. Right or wrong, that becomes the issue, not the ramifications of the set-up, at least for starters. 

But let's assume that the change was innocuous, for argument's sake. What happened first?

The lead-up to the day was already tense, and the only reason given in the article for this was the "wear purple" campaign itself. One student is quoted as saying that even though he hadn't announced his intent to participate, he was getting harassed ahead of time. An objective reader's presumption would be that the student is either openly LGBTQ or publicly assumed to be at least in strong support, if the common assumption was that he would be in the "protest" group. Does that make harassment right? Never, of course. But it's the problem with sticking your neck out, either as an individual or as a group: crossfire will come your way.

The backlash began almost immediately, it seems. Those students who objected to either the LGBTQ students' agenda or existence (depending on severity) fired back at what they saw as an assault against what they believed. Were they right to harass anyone because of their beliefs? Of course not. But to say it was unexpected by anyone even tangentially familiar with the gay-rights battles of the last forty years would be naive at best, a falsehood at worst. You knew it was coming.

At this point, before Spirit Day has even arrived, as a school administrator I would have cancelled the event.

If you see what seems to have been apparent to these people in advance - the torn down posters, the tension in the student body, the campaign in advance to buck the system on Spirit Day - you have the obligation to protect both sides of this conflict as the adult in the situation. There are teachers and administrators on the ground in that facility - I've taught in similar sized schools my entire career; I've walked the halls of TFHS during school hours; I know whereof I speak. If that was what was going on, there were adults who knew this would be a disaster.

Be that as it may...too late now to change it.

The issue is one of tolerance versus acceptance. Those are two different things. 

To tolerate is to allow something to continue because it isn't infringing on your rights; you do NOT have to agree with their position; you do not have to accept their position; you do not even have to speak neutrally about their position. You DO, however, have to "live and let live". You cannot infringe on THEIR rights, any more than they can infringe on YOURS. 

To accept is to come to an agreement that their position is an appropriate position, lifestyle, belief, etc., to have. You do not have to adopt that position yourself, but you are allowing them to do so "with your blessing", in a manner of speaking. They STILL cannot infringe on your right to hold a different position: they must also be accepting of YOUR position, presumably.

(There is a third rung on this ladder, which would be to regulate their position into everyone's life. That's saying that they no longer will accept OR tolerate YOUR position or lifestyle with regard to the subject at hand. That isn't the situation here.)

In essence, the "purple" group is insisting that everyone else on campus should accept their lifestyle, because requiring the use of purple to accommodate their circumstance implies that the rules needed to change for them. It did NOT mean that the third rung was being used - nobody else had to join them - but they were demanding acceptance, not merely tolerance. 

In contrast, the backlashing people (and I'm reading people's thoughts here - I don't know this for sure - but the logic holds up with the evidence) were retreating from their previously held position. Follow me here: If they knew that kids on campus were indeed LGBTQ, as the one child implied, but never 'sought them out' to punish them or pick on them (and we don't know they didn't, but you'd think that would have come up in the article were it true), then they had already chosen to tolerate the position/lifestyle of the LGBTQ folks. 

But when those folks wanted to push the envelope towards acceptance, they started to back away from even tolerance, going to the extremes of vandalism and social media assaults against those they'd long known were homosexual or trans, but had left alone until now. 

And so the war begins anew. An uneasy truce is disrupted when one side pushes for more ground than the other side was willing to surrender. None of this is meant to address the "right" or "wrong" of the sides; as a Christian, my argument should be obvious to anyone who's truly accepted the Lord into his/her heart. God loves the sinner but hates the sin. We tolerate all sinners, because we are sinners ourselves. We accept all sinners, but we do not accept their sins. They, like us, have issues which they must work out with God in their own time and way. It is not our place to punish them for sin - it's God's. 

We are NOT a Christian nation - we cannot demand all laws align with God's commands. But we have enough Godly men and women in this nation, including in positions of authority, that we can make a strong campaign for such laws, and if the majority of our nation believes those laws are worth enforcing, so be it. As we are granted grace by our Lord, we must also grant grace to the sinners among us, for that number includes ourselves in all situations. No sin is unrepentable.

And we have a responsibility to demand that no laws CONTRARY to God's commands be enacted. We will unquestionably be forced to choose between God's Law, the laws of our permanent home in Heaven, and that of the nation we temporarily reside in while on sojourn here on earth. The choice should not be difficult to make, but it will be stressful on our human bodies as the punishment is enforced by the ungodly who reside here with us until they are cast down below. Rather than be forced into that situation, we must do whatever we can to avoid seeing such laws passed. 

We want to tolerate all people in all actions that do not infringe upon our rights and obligations as Christians. (Leave punishment of sins to God. Leave punishment of earthly breeches to earthly police and judiciaries.) We want to accept all people, but NOT all actions, because we are told to guide all the world's people towards Christ, the only Way to the Father and to eternity in Heaven and not Hell. We never harass, we never pronounce judgment on others - that is for God to do. We gently guide with love in our hearts and words.

In Twin Falls, the situation will resolve itself. Tempers will die down. Protagonists will move on to other situations, often other situations to violate God's commandments on tolerance and acceptance. And we will watch all this, and wonder when God will bring His people Home, where sin does not exist.

Sport as a mirror for Society

Note: This is an article written for The Roar, an Australian sports magazine, where I compare and contrast the issue of racism in sport in our two countries. The bigger issue, though, is how it serves as a canary in a mine for the state of racism in our society, and how Christ would want us to deal with it.

            Although I live and breathe Aussie Rules, I am an American citizen, and have lived my entire life in the western United States. It’s also relevant to this article to point out that I am beige in color, and my ancestry is mostly from the British Isles, many centuries ago. I am old enough to remember the tail end of the 1960s in America, and how race relations between “the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners”, as Martin Luther King Jr put it, evolved from fire hoses and the National Guard in place to integrate Deep South elementary schools into what in some places is still an uneasy détente. Most of the nation, however, reached the point where if its citizens weren’t colorblind per se, they were at least color-tolerant for the most part.

            In 2008, we elected a black President. The major topic of that campaign was not his color but his inexperience. However, his eloquence and his message of cooperation between rival factions won over two good candidates from the opposition party, John McCain in ’08 and Mitt Romney in 2012. We patted ourselves on the back that America had finally overcome its racist past. Our most popular singer was Beyonce, a black woman. Our most popular entertainment figure was Oprah Winfrey, a black woman. Our most popular sports figure was LeBron James, a black man.

            Then Donald Trump happened.

            More to the point, then the significant percentage of white people who’d been swallowing their resentment of their loss of apparent dominance and privilege in American society found a candidate who spoke their language: it’s the fault of all those darker-skinned people. Mexicans. Muslims. The Chinese. They’re taking your jobs, they’re stealing money you should be getting, they’re ruining American trade, they want to force you to follow their laws instead of ours. And while most intelligent US voters recognized the racist code words for what they were, there were enough voters in key states who heard the call that still filled their hearts, that no one else had dared say out loud, that legitimized their racist feelings. So Donald Trump was elected President of the United States over an already weak opponent who was saddled by foreign influences with a fictional scandal. (Observers noted how quickly the cries to “lock her up!” stopped after Election Day: there was nothing there to lock her up for.) That scandal, the racism bubbling under the surface, and (ironically) just a hint of sexism produced the upset; the fact that voters were in some cases ashamed to admit they were voting for an unsavory candidate explained the surprise to the pollsters.

            It turns out we are a racist nation after all. We just hid it well for a few years. (And as an American, I feel the need to apologize to Australia and to every other country in the world for electing an incompetent racist whose main goal is lining his own pockets with as much illicit cash as he can before he gets caught, and who knows almost literally nothing about world relations and may blow the world up before he realizes nuclear weapons aren’t toys. Believe me, a great many of us are trying to rectify the situation.)

            But if you’d been to sporting events in my country, especially in certain parts of my country, you would have figured that out for yourself long before last fall’s election. It showed up again on Monday night, at a Major League baseball game in one of our most “traditionally” racist cities, when Baltimore outfielder Adam Jones (who is black) was the target of “racial epithets”, including many shouts of what we euphemistically like to call “the N-word”, as if making it sound “cute” makes it more acceptable. Jones also had a bag of peanuts hurled at him while he approached the dugout after an inning in the outfield.

            Indigenous athletes in Australia would immediately recognize the aftermath as well: reports of something like 60 arrests in the ballpark after the incident, followed by lots of official statements like “we have zero tolerance for this sort of thing”, other athletes telling about similar experiences in the same location (Boston, in this case), and calls for fill-in-the-blank-solution-du-jour (education, in-park conversations about race relations, advertising, and invoking the name of integration pioneer Jackie Robinson one more time). Ironically, the Boston Red Sox has an all-black outfield, at least on occasion, featuring Chris Young, Mookie Betts, and Jackie Bradley. Boston fans don’t seem to mind them. (Maybe they’re the “good ones”.)

            While most issues of racial conflict in the US happens in the southeast, where slavery was concentrated before its de jure elimination in 1865, there are other pockets like Boston where racial tolerance has been curiously low over the decades. The Boston Celtics, perennial champs of the NBA in the 1950s and 1960s, featured black stars like KC Jones, Sam Jones, and the legendary Bill Russell, yet the fans favored “scrappy” players like John Havlicek or Tommy Heinsohn, good players who happened to share their “heritage”, players they “connected to”. Russell famously refused to return to Boston after his retirement for decades because of the way he felt the city treated him.

            When I read stories about Eddie Betts or Patrick Ryder being marginalized by idiot fans at an AFL game, I can’t help but reflect on the similar shortcomings of my own nation.

For every “King Kong” comment by an Eddie McGuire, we had Howard Cosell exclaiming “Look at that monkey run!” at a black football player accelerating towards a touchdown.  

For every Allan McAlister saying (after Nicky Winmar’s shirt-raising declaration) that “Aboriginal players are welcome at the (Collingwood) club provided that they behave like white people,” there’s an Adolph Rupp, legendary coach of the Kentucky Wildcats men’s basketball team, declaring that “you can’t win a title with a black point guard,” implying that blacks weren’t smart enough.

And somehow, they weren’t “smart enough” to play quarterback in the NFL, either. My personal favorite tale along those lines was an idiot reporter asking Doug Williams, the first black man to quarterback a Super Bowl team, “How long have you been a black quarterback?” Williams’ quick-witted answer? “All my life.”

For every Adam Goodes who draws fire for his assertive stance in defense of his beliefs on race relations, we have a Colin Kaepernick who suffered the consequences of a league which doesn’t want to touch the controversy, mostly because, frankly, Kaepernick isn’t as talented a player as Goodes was.

And obviously it isn’t confined to our two countries – an English Premier League referee using epithets against Chelsea players in 2012, a protest by black players the same year against English captain John Terry for similar name-calling of another player. Grab your Wikipedia and look up “Racism in Association Football”, and you’ll find samples from literally dozens of countries, seemingly every nation that plays the sport.

But sport is simply a mirror of society. The discrimination and hatred you see inside the stadium is only the tip of the iceberg of the sin-filled culture we live in. But it’s the tip of the iceberg that warns us to avoid the trouble that the rest of it causes.

When a target of racism has an identifiable face, as often happens in sport – especially when it’s a player as well-liked as Eddie Betts – it provides a target for our emotional response, a motivation to <strong>do something</strong> about the problem. It’s much easier for us to care about Betts and Ryder than it is the thousands of faceless, nameless indigenous who undoubtedly deal with far worse hatred in Australia every day. It’s much easier for us to care about Adam Jones than it is the thousands of faceless, nameless blacks who I <em>guarantee</em> deal with far worse than some epithets at their jobs.

So, while you’re motivated, do something. The easiest thing is to simply set a good example. No preparation needed, no money required. Live the Golden Rule, and maybe pay a little extra attention to doing so as Christ would recommend: love your neighbor as you love yourself.

And in this rapidly shrinking world, where an old man from Idaho in the US can scribble his thoughts in an Australian magazine, everyone is your neighbor.

A little college football collection of thoughts...and then...

Every once in a while, even in the off-season, we need to pop in on the American football world and see what's going on in that world...starting with the fate of a program near and dear to ACT 2's heart:

Savannah State might return to Division II, which would be for the best
SB Nation

The Tigers have strapped finances and little success on the field to show for their FCS jump. Read the full story

♚

And of course, we haven't had any conference transfer shenanigans in quite a while, so let's consider the following proposal...

Why not merge Conference USA and the Sun Belt like this?
SB Nation

This setup looks more fun and easy to remember than what we have now. Read the full story

♚

The end of spring football means it's time to re-evaluate how the big boys are looking going into the fall, and ESPN has a piece (with multiple links beyond if you're really interested!) that sums up much of the major college spring ball news:

The biggest positive spring takeaway for each Top 25 team

ESPN

The college football season is still about four months away, but post-spring hopes are running high across the country.

Here's a look at the biggest reasons for optimism for each team in Mark Schlabach's post-spring top 25.
As for the spring ball takeaways,...    Read the full story

♚

One of the best stories in the world of CFB is the friendship between Florida State WR Travis Rudolph and autistic Montford Middle School student Bo Paske. It started with a simple gesture on Rudolph's part - when the team visited Montford, he noticed a young man eating lunch alone and decided to sit down by him. It was captured on Instagram and made Paske's mother delighted; a friendship ensued, and the whole thing went viral.

       Tragedy entered the story last week when Rudolph's 55-year old father was accidentally shot and killed. So when the NFL Draft came, and Travis was missing family for this momentous occasion, he brought his newest friend over to watch the draft with him. The fact that he wasn't drafted was probably to his advantage, as it freed him to sign with any team where his best option was; he signed with the New York Giants almost immediately following the end of the draft. 

♥

The article shares the bond they have, and emphasizes one of the coolest parts of the sports world: the majority of these athlete/struggling youngster bonding stories you see and hear are real. They last far beyond the press coverage, and often they avoid the press altogether. The only reason Rudolph's outreach to Paske is public knowledge is because the boy's mother brought it to the attention of the world through her Instagram, not because the athlete or the university promoted it. The same is true in most sports and with most teams and with most players. As with the rest of life, 90% of them are good people, and they come to recognize that the benefits of celebrity and money they receive because of their athletic prowess are to be shared with the world, even if they're not doing so because of Christian beliefs and teachings directly. 

But those Christian beliefs and teachings have permeated the culture to such an extent that they are assumed by all but the most sociopathic to be the "right way to live" or to get along with the rest of society. The devil may influence HOW people behave, but they know how they should behave.

And when Christ said, 19"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age," in Matthew 28:19-20, we have thought that meant a Bible in every human being's hands. But "observing all that I have commanded you" may only mean this: the concept that His Holiness has pervaded every element of life throughout the planet. God's Creation is evident everywhere you look, including inside of yourself. And when young men like Travis Rudolph realize they are role models, His glory shines through them in every action.

Poor Satan...

When Constantine saw his vision of Christ before entering battle to consolidate his Roman Empire on October 28th, 312 AD, he was led to emblazon the letter "chi", or "X", onto the shields of his men, representing both the first letter of the name "Christ" and the Cross upon which He was crucified. His forces, outnumbered two to one, were victorious. Constantine entered Rome the next day and took the reigns of the city and the empire.

The Cross is the symbol of Christ for one very specific reason: it was the purpose of His presence on Earth. He taught many things; He healed many people; He demonstrated great good and raised an entire generation of disciples. But the true purpose of His journey to Earth in 4 BC was to lead a sinless life, be captured, and receive the punishment for OUR SINS by the scourging and beating and eventually the crucifying at the hands of the Romans. 

NOT the Romans.
Satan.

If there was "one biggest loser" in the Gospels, it is Satan. He believed himself in control throughout those last few days of the Passion Week - he had the Son of God in his grasp, and he was NOT going to let Him go! But instead of defeating God by imprisoning and punishing and eventually killing Jesus on the cross, he played his role in God's plan to perfection, and personally arranged the salvation of millions, perhaps billions of Believers throughout eternity.

That would have ticked him off!

Foreigners

Christians, beware. The current American administration wants to round up all of the illegal aliens in this country and deport us back to our country of origin.

Yes, I said "us". You and me both.

There's even a hotline now available, highly publicized by the Trump administration (which apparently never checked within its own system to realize there was ALREADY one in place in the federal government. So much for efficiency of services.), for people to call in and "snitch" on their neighbors. [What's happened, of course, is that the folks who can still laugh about this White House are calling in with reports of space aliens, rather than Hispanics as the administration was aiming for.] 

But we too are aliens in this country - on this earth - and the only documentation we have from our land of origin is the Bible. Reading the words of the apostle Paul in his letter to the Philippians, 3:17-21, he is very clear in verse 20:

17"Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. 18For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. 20But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21Who will transform our lowly body to be like His glorious body, by the power that enables Him even to subject all things to Himself."

Simon Peter, the leader of the twelve apostles, says at the very beginning of his epistle (this is 1st Peter 1:3-5),

3"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

Christ Himself taught us that when we are born again, we become residents of the Kingdom of God. (John 3:5). He tried to teach this to the Pharisees, in John 8, but as always they failed to understand his meaning:  

21So He said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek Me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.” 23He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” 25So they said to him, “Who are You?” Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning." (John 8:21, 23-25)

In chapter 14 of John's Gospel, he quotes Christ's description of our future residence, back in the Kingdom of Heaven:

1“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. 2In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. 4And you know the way to where I am going.” 5Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” 6Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
10"Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own authority, but the Father who dwells in Me does His works. 11Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me, or else believe on account of the works themselves."

Jesus says to His disciples, point blank, I Am God. And yet some of them still worry. "Until I tell you there's a problem, don't panic. Things may be strange here in the next few days, but believe Me: it's all under control!"

Do you have a green card to work here in the United States? (Or Canada, or Australia, or wherever you're reading this from?) Do you have a passport? Or a visa? None of us do, but we know where our loyalties lie. 

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God. 4He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

5And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also He said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” 6And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. 7The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be My son. 8But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:1-8)

When push comes to shove, we are citizens of Heaven first. Our obedience is to our Heavenly Ruler, our God and Lord Jesus Christ, before it goes to our country and our president, whether that be Mr. Trump, Mr. Obama, Mr. Trudeau, or anyone else temporarily installed in office by God Almighty. Governments come and go, but the Lord is Everlasting. We will spend less than 120 years here on earth, but we'll spend eternity in Heaven. (Or Hell, if you've backslid too far, or you haven't taken care of that business from Rev 21:8 when the time comes!)

So, do as all tourists do when you're visiting a 'foreign country'! Enjoy your stay, meet new people, learn the customs, and don't forget to share your stories about your Home Country with the locals who might want to go there someday!

♰

PS - I've always appreciated the irony of this: given the meaning of the Number of the Beast in Revelation, consider what John 6:66 says...
66After this many of His disciples turned back and no longer walked with Him.