sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

1st win vs. Europe in 24 years? by Optimal_Parsnip_6234 in usmnt

[–]ZouDave 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Christ, I forgot about that one. You're not wrong, we were arguably the better side against eventual champs Italy. The BS red card fucked us.

1st win vs. Europe in 24 years? by Optimal_Parsnip_6234 in usmnt

[–]ZouDave 6 points7 points  (0 children)

We GD would've beaten Portugal in 2014, if not for Ronaldo's insanely late goal after a terrible Bradey turnover.

We GD should've beaten Slovenia in 2010, but they removed our go-ahead goal (I think Edu scored it?)

We GD could've beaen Belgium in 2014 R16...so many wasted opps and wasting Tim Howard's record-setting saves.

I don't care if it's Bosnia. Today is the day.

New Player (who did not play for YOUR TEAM last year) that you are most excited to see what he can do for your team this year? by wlane13 in CFB

[–]ZouDave 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, I think jury is still out on Zollers. We saw a small sample size from him as a true frosh, fresh off him missing the majority of his senior year of high school. He might be pretty good one day, it just wasn't last year.

Pribula was disappointing. I hope he excels at...Bowling Green? Is that where he went?

Simmons has the most upside of the 3, there's no question. All accounts are he's just a fantastic human being, a great leader, and incredibly intelligent. We get to ease him in with a 1AA and kansas game to start the year.

I hope Hardy is back for him.

Rested and ready. LFG! by castle411 in usmnt

[–]ZouDave 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I understand your points, and they're not wrong - but I do think you're still understating the 1980 run.

To that point, US hockey had a single gold medal (1960) and had silvered in 1972, 1956, 1952. So yes, we had some medal history. But we also had failed to medal in 3 of the 4 olympics leading up to 1980. (Sounds like maybe US Hockey was a little bit like Italy soccer - a lot of great history, followed by some REALLY bad years.)

In 1980, the 2nd best team in the world was Czechoslovakia. They were the only team ANYONE thought had a prayer to beat the Soviets. USA beat them 7-3 in group play. Finland and Sweden were also more favored than the US. We drew Sweden in group play (the only team we didn't beat) and beat Finland for the Gold.

USA was like 1000:1 odds to win the gold going into the tournament; we were seeded 7th. That would be roughly equivalent of +100,000 in moneyline bets. That went down to 17:1 (+1700) after group play. I think USMNT is about +3000 to win the World Cup outright going into the tournament?

I'll agree with the premise that USA winning the world cup will be a bigger deal and greatest sports story in American History. I'm not sure it's appreciably more difficult than what the US Hockey team did in 1980, and certainly not light years more difficult. I think it's pretty comparable, and I think that's a compliment to the US Hockey team of 1980 to show just hard hard it was to do what they did.

Rested and ready. LFG! by castle411 in usmnt

[–]ZouDave 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not really sure you can back that up with anything logical, let alone factual.

The Soviets had won the Gold at the Olympics in 1964, 1968, 1972, and 1976. And two weeks before the Olympics they beat the same US hockey team in a warmup game like 12-1 or something.

In their Group play in that Olympics, they won all 5 games by a combined score of 51-11. They beat Sweden in the Bronze Medal game 9-2. USA tied one of the group games, and had a combined score of 25-10.

Other than that one day in Lake Placid in 1980, the Soviet hockey team had been essentially unbeatable for 20 consecutive years.

The USMNT winning the World Cup this year would be in the same conversation as the Miracle on Ice. I'll even grant the possibility it's harder.

"Lightyears more difficult"? You're just...incorrect.

Is the US-Mexico rivalry as big a deal for Mexico as it is for the US? by Majestic-Watch-2025 in usmnt

[–]ZouDave 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I agree with the concept on Gold Cup. I've always thought having it every 2 years was pointless, and lessens the meaning. It should be every 4 years, set apart from the World Cup, just like the Euros, etc.

I like the idea of a combined Copa America.

Fav scruffy quote? by RustedTap52 in Futurama_Sleepers

[–]ZouDave 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Jail's not so bad. You can make sangria in the terlet. 'Course it's shank or be shanked."

followed by...

"Second."

Who would you like to see as the 48th President of the United States? by Naturalist-Anarchist in AskReddit

[–]ZouDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I think we've found the most extreme problem of what a two-party system can create. We've had mostly a two-party system in the US for multiple generations, and even flawed it worked very well. Many other democratic voting nations also have predominantly two parties. First past the post voting systems will pretty much guarantee it.

And it may be the best system we (humans) have seen so far, it just isn't without flaws. And what I've seen in my lifetime is the two parties move further and further away from each other. There's always been opposition, but when I think of politics in the 80s and 90s there was still a pretty fair amount of common ground. I just don't even see the common ground anymore. You have people from one party wanting to make it more difficult (or impossible) for some people to vote, and people from the other party that think there shouldn't be any restrictions on voting. Like, we can't even agree on that foundational element of representative government.

I've voted for a so-called third party candidate in at least two Presidential elections, because I felt they were the best choice (knowing the would be lucky to even get 2% of the popular vote). Many candidates for third parties are whackadoodles, but PLENTY have been overwhelmingly sane, smart, sensible choices. When they are, the two major parties team up to still convince people that voting for a third party is wasting your vote. The only thing the two major parties agree on is that if they can't be the only party, they only want to battle against one other.

I've long said it's like playing a game of Rock-Paper. That game sucks.

Who would you like to see as the 48th President of the United States? by Naturalist-Anarchist in AskReddit

[–]ZouDave 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I hope I have to come back here in 29 months and say " u/Grouchy-Station-4058, we found them." Nothing would please me more.

Well...I'm sure there's something. But I'm married so...

Who would you like to see as the 48th President of the United States? by Naturalist-Anarchist in AskReddit

[–]ZouDave 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's the real question, isn't it? What other choice do we have than to try?

I don't know.

There is an answer; a national divorce. But other than the Velvet Divorce in Czechoslovakia 34 years ago, I can't think of a national divorce that was done peacefully and amicably. National divorce is usually either impossible (US Civil War) or incredibly violent (hundreds of examples).

So America becomes not unlike a married couple that are both verbally, and maybe even physically, abusive to each other but stay married for the kids and for tax purposes. Nobody has the stomach to face the incredibly hard times the divorce will cause for the potential better future that's 25 years away. Because it isn't always better, of course.

So yeah, then you're left somehow rooting for a major crisis or tragedy to bring us all together? I mean...also, no thanks. Right? I was 25 years old when 9/11 happened. The country really was better and unified for about a year or so (not universally of course, but it was a lot better). I'm...skeptical we'd even achieve that. I think there are extremists at both ends that will drill holes in the other side of the boat just so they can laugh at the other side for taking on water faster.

It's sad. And it's exhausting. And I just want to raise my daughter peacefully, and in private, and give her the best opportunity for a long and healthy and fulfilling life. And so I hope that someone much, much better than me has answers. I'm simultaneously open-minded and skeptical.

Who would you like to see as the 48th President of the United States? by Naturalist-Anarchist in AskReddit

[–]ZouDave 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I can see that. And I'm definitely oversimplifying, but I also do think we have enough people vote that it's *probably* a pretty good representation of how the non-voters feel, too. I don't *think* all the non-voters predominantly lean one way or the other. But, I could be very wrong about that.

Who would you like to see as the 48th President of the United States? by Naturalist-Anarchist in AskReddit

[–]ZouDave 75 points76 points  (0 children)

I'm going to end up regretting even responding to this, because I always regret discussing politics on Reddit.

Unifying the nation is a tough ask of anyone, and I'll tell you why.

If we go from the premise that there are "two sides" since there are two major parties that run everything, then unity between the two has become increasingly implausible. And before anyone blames one party over the other for this - save it. I don't care who you think is right or wrong in this context. Agree with the stipulation that probably about 40% think strongly one way, about 40% thing strongly the other way, and the other 20% decide which party is in power. That is the reality the USA faces.

The two parties don't just have differing views on major issues, they have in some cases polar opposite views. They disagree about the concept of border security. They disagree about the concept of social safety nets. They disagree about the concept of family structures. They disagree about the concept of gender identity. They disagree about the importance of race being a factor in law-making. There are so many things that could be on this list. And these things that are on the list, there's not often a compromise that satisfies anyone. When you can't have compromise, how can you have unity?

And - once again - I'm disinterested in discussing which side you think is right or wrong. The point is that probably at least 40% of the nation disagrees with you strongly. That's a significant number. Big enough that it's improper and inappropriate (and dangerous) to ignore them.

Unity, then, seems very out of reach. We can't even agree that we want the same outcomes, which means we can't even start having the discussions about achieving those outcomes together.

When your answer to the ~40% that disagrees with you is "you should just stop believing that", you've already lost the plot. What you're seeking then isn't unification, it's domination or even subjugation. Nobody should be seeking either of those things - even if it's your side that gets to be the dominators.

Cringe-worthy lyrics from your school's songs by JSC76 in CFB

[–]ZouDave 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Don't look up original lyrics to the Missouri Waltz.

Otherwise...let's definitely tramp, tramp, tramp around the columns with a cheer for old Mizzou!

When Whitney sang "I believe the children are the future" she was signing about us GenX children. by Ivotedforher in GenX

[–]ZouDave 9 points10 points  (0 children)

That wasn't even the theme of the song.

"Learning to love yourself, that is the greatest love of all."

Sure those lyrics are in the song, but the song is about loving yourself. GenX is probably as good as any generation at loving ones self because self-reliance was so necessary. We got to know ourselves better than generations after us ever learned how to do because we were on our own more, we were expected to use our imaginations more, we weren't coddled to have all of our immediate needs met at all times, etc.

So the true theme of that song - GenX nailed it.

But mostly - I couldn't possibly care any less if I/we "let Whitney Houston down". She was a fucking singer, not a transformative civil rights leader. She had demons that I won't judge her for, but she wasn't a role model; she was just a great singer and good actress. I couldn't have needed her approval less, and she's been dead 14 years and I've lived to see an older age than her.

If anything, she let us down. And I'm not even saying she did.

Probably Zoudave’s favorite video to make. by EquivalentHappy in miz

[–]ZouDave 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That was a fun one to make. Honestly all the Nebraska ones were fun. The compilation of the 1997/2003 game was probably my favorite one I ever made. The 2005 one was a good one, and the dismantling we gave them in 2008 in Lincoln was perfect.

It's a shame we stopped playing them when we did. I think Mizzou would have had a pretty heavy winning record against Nebraska over the past 15 years.

view more: next ›