From The Rumble Seat, a Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets community

This is incredible stuff right here. Reading or listening to something get spun six ways from Sunday is always an interesting thing but this just goes to new levels. Excerpt: Accusation: "…the company…has been criticized for violent and sexually suggestive programming." Peter Wallsten – The Wall Street Journal – July 2, 2010 Truth: * All of WWE’s programming has been TV-PG since June 2008. * Friday Night SmackDown, which made its network debut in 1999 has always been rated TV-PG. * 87 percent of WWE fans say WWE content is appropriate for families. * Of the 14 million weekly viewers in the United States that watch WWE programming, six million are women. Accusation: "The company also has been accused of looking the other way as wrestlers, feeling pressured to maintain the pumped-up bodies showcased in the W.W.E., turned to steroids." - Ray Hernandez & Joshua Brustein – The New York Times – July 15, 2010 Truth: * WWE’s Talent Wellness Policy strictly prohibits the use of steroids, the abuse of prescription medications, performance enhancing drugs and the use, possession and/or distribution of illegal drugs. * WWE’s entire substance abuse and drug testing policy is independently administered by third party leading medical experts. * The Talent Wellness Program is designed to result in all WWE Talent being tested at a minimum four times a year, but may result in more frequent testing due to the random selection process.

Hey guys, this is my first post/Fanshot on Tomahawknation. Love the site. Here is an interesting article in the WSJ about conference realignment ala English Premier League style.

Tom Tango, who I got this link from, feels title would be better substituting "dubious" for "worst." In any case, it's an interesting look at a set of established ideas. Tall Catchers Pulling Your Best Hitter for a Pinch Runner Pitcher's Batting Ninth Calling in the Closer with a Three Run Lead Managers in Uniforms The catcher one was the most brow-raising to me, because it concerns internet baseball's current favorite meme: Matt Wieters. It suggests he would be the tallest catcher to have an exceptional career if he doesn't end up busting. I hadn't considered that as an actual concern, and I don't know if there's necessarily enough data to support it as a real correllation, but it might make Wieters being the best catcher ever a little less of a sure thing. As far as pitchers batting 9th, Tango had a pretty good response to that: "For the pitcher-batting-ninth, I’d flip that to "reactions to pitcher batting 8th". The dubious aspect is not that the pitcher bats 9th. It’s justifiable. It’s not that pitcher bats 8th. That’s justifiable too. It’s the reaction of people who think it’s a bad idea for the pitcher to bat 8th. It’s that reaction that is bad." Reliever usage continues to be one of the most baffling aspects of baseball management to me. I just cannot understand the logic. Is it all just about a weird fascination with a meaningless stat? Most bad baseball ideas I can understand the logic even if I disagree with it. I can't say that for bullpen use.