Wednesday, May 15, 2013
SI: The 50 highest-earning athletes
(sportsillustrated.cnn.com)
posted 3 days ago by RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) to adrian gonzalez, albert pujols, alex rodriguez, alfonso soriano, barry zito, boxing, c.c. sabathia, carl crawford, cole hamels, derek jeter, felix hernandez, golf, joe mauer, joey votto, justin verlander, mark teixiera, matt cain, matt kemp, miguel cabrera, nba, nfl, prince fielder, roy halladay, ryan howard, salaries, tim lincecum, vernon wells, yankees, zack greinke
|
40 comment(s)
Read More...When welterweight Floyd Mayweather was No. 1 on Sports Illustrated’s Fortunate 50 last year—knocking out Tiger Woods, who had been No. 1 every year since SI started producing the list in 2004—it looked like a fluke, the result of the $85 million he received for his fights with Victor Ortiz and Miguel Cotto. Now Mayweather is proving that he belongs at the top. From just two bouts this year, one earlier this month and the other scheduled for September, he will earn at least $90 million, ...
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 33 of 79 pages
‹ First < 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 > Last ›There was plenty of time for the holder to throw the ball away.
I'm not sure I would feel good about that being my head coaches reaction.
Do you think when Smith and Carroll met at midfield Carroll said "you're lucky I never kicked a FG."
Yes, I can't imagine a team that has lost 3 consecutive postseason games - and whose collective sphincters could have spewed out enough diamonds to feed a first-world country, and who were on the verge of the second-biggest collapse in the history of the NFL - handling a botched snap on a potential field goal with anything but aplomb.
Why would they have any reason to panic in that scenario? Just calmly grab the odd-shaped object, get up, scramble away from the behemoths chasing you, and toss it out of bounds. Easy peasy. And certainly much easier than throwing a short sideline route to get into a better range for your up-and-down kicker.
I know I wouldn't feel good if Pete Carroll was my teams head coach.
I'm not arguing that they should have factored that in. I like I said, I too wondered "why the hell are you leaving time on the clock?" I'm saying that maybe that's why. Or as I also said, maybe it's because as someone said, coaches get dumb in the final minutes of the game.
You don't use them before the two minute warning, then after their was not great option.
They played it right... At least in re: to time outs.
I wasn't speaking about just after the two minute warning, but once it's clear Houston was going to have excess time, the Pats should have been calling time outs to make sure they have as much time as possible for their own drive. Before the two minute warning would be slightly better, but I don't know why they shouldn't call them afterwards. What am I missing?
I don't mind missed calls, or bad calls. But when you make the right call and then go back on it, something is wrong.
Well:
1) the pats don't need more than 80 seconds with 2 time outs
2) Houston can stop them and giving the ball back is bad..,, which is what happened.
Just because they're capable of scoring with 75 seconds and 2 time outs doesn't mean they wouldn't be more likely to score with 115 seconds and 1 time out. They should be doing what they can to maximize their point expectancy.
Yes, that's the risk, but I don't think Belichick should be giving up equity to protect their lead going into the half when their lead is only 7. It's the kind of decision that gets every other coach in the league rightfully mocked.
Well, the lead was more like 9-10 when you account for Houston being a near lock to score. And whether it's 7, 14, or something in between doesn't really matter. You don't trade value for reduced risk that early in the game unless the game is already a blowout.
If the pats hold on this game, they will lose next. The NFL has spoken.
Haven't really noticed any. The Pats have left points on the board and went into prevent mode way too early.
(Play just finished). Doesn't matter. Very little benefit, huge risk.
EDIT: I'm talking about the 2-point conversion.
I take it back. Damn homer.
Fortuitous, certainly, but looked like a clear hold on the replay. Of course I'm also not whining about the calls.
Not as hilarious as Atlanta chances of lifting the Lombardi trophy. Wait do you rednecks know who Vince Lombardi was?
True odds of less than 3 to 1.
Vegas will have them closer to even money which is absurd.
They will be, they're always the betting favorite in the playoffs. But I don't know that they're overwhelmingly better than Baltimore, and I don't really think they're better than SF. Atlanta is an enigma to me, I have no idea what they're capable of.
Page 33 of 79 pages
‹ First < 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 > Last ›You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.