Just curious. Which team out of the East do you pull for?

This is a lesson for society. Hunting for blame and being 100% obsessed with someone paying the price is insane. Yes, if we can confidently assess who is to blame then that party needs to face consequences. But if the players confused something the coach said while blowing off steam then all of a sudden it doesn't look as purely evil as it did initially. And that should be a lesson not to jump to conclusions. Regardless of what details emerge, the biggest takeaway from this ordeal is how eager people are to break out pitchforks and behead the accused then ask questions later.

Context matters, and I said I agreed with Dale and his position that we need context. I can see those words being used in a way that leaves nothing unclear, but I can also see it being used in a manner, like I said before, that is ill-advised but did not intend for players to target the ref. I am not defending the coach because I don't have any ground to stand on. Much in the same manner that anyone outright claiming that statement alone of being clear proof that he "orchestrated" the attack doesn't have ground to stand on. All we have is a one sentence quote that needs more context.

I thought you didn't discrimate!?! Where is our backup long snapper Brent? How can you have an opinion that disagrees with the universe that exists in my mind? Explain that!

I agree. It's extremely ill-advised to say this to teenage football players, but it's a far cry from orchestrating an assault.

This comment section is basically a collection of people who lack basic reading comprehension. "The criteria will involve a mix of talent, past performance, production and outlook." This is not a 'Who had a better week' list. It's a list of the best running backs that is updated over time. Nick Chubb didn't suddenly become a worse RB because of Louisiana Monroe. Getting angry that Henry wasn't ahead of him is missing the whole point.

FWIW, it was the 4th quarter, not 3rd.

"The criteria will involve a mix of talent, past performance, production and outlook."

"The criteria will involve a mix of talent, past performance, production and outlook."

"The criteria will involve a mix of talent, past performance, production and outlook." The list is not based on just this past Saturday.

Your comment has 28 by my count, so that's already halfway there. There are probably a decent amount that hit 50. My problem is just with the incredibly low sample sizes. They basically just picked anonymous internet bloggers, divided up by random nominal qualifiers, and conducted a statistically invalid "analysis". There is exactly no meaningful conclusion to draw from it.

They should have limited it to unique commenters. I have a feeling that at least of few of these schools were subject to the grammar of just a small handful of commenters. It honestly concerns me how many folks in the comments treat this like an academic exercise instead of the entertainment it's intended for.