#fwiw i think it's stupid there's even a debate

[sunflowerdigs]

Me and my Lokius-obsessed self watching the 24-hour daycare debate thinking: Don would have used the hell out of a 24-hour daycare

[breezeinmonochromenight]

okay, i know we see trooper cloud being a precious bean in CC buuuut what if that's just his country boy manners that come out when he's meeting new people/freaked the fuck out and he's actually always been a little ball of rage and spite? Like, defaulting to "nice polite boy" is great for making good impressions and such, so he often does it when he doesn't know how to react to something. And then, when he's gotten more comfortable or someone actually pisses him off, he just snaps. Never throws the first punch, of course, but always gets the last one in.

So, when cloud time travels, he's afraid that him being his usual ball of rage will get him caught because he only has tifa's word to go on how he used to act, so he's all "shy country boy" and it freaks everyone the fuck out because it's so out of character and it's only when he full-on snaps at some shithead and gets into a fight does everyone relax around him.

fwiw: I don’t think you’re too far off the mark. The Cloud we meet in Crisis Core seems all cute and innocent/wide-eyed and sweet, but it could be combination of wanting to make good first impressions/small fish in a big pond/etc.

He’s literally not even hitting the bare minimum for a legal adult* by the time he gets to Midgar, and his options are (realistically) pretty limited in this situation, so it would behoove him to not make enemies immediately upon arriving.

But yeah. Like. He is canonically a bit of a prickly little shithead as a kid in Nibelheim in the OG game. OG VII never explicitly states that he was bullied or why the other kids didn’t like him (though there are a few popular and very reasonable speculations out there), but he does basically say he thought the other kids were stupid and immature and whatnot, too. I think the ‘picking fights regardless of who/why/his chances of winning’ thing started specifically after the whole Tifa/bridge thing, but the point is that Cloud did in fact start shit and he’s not innocent in that regard.

But yeah! I agree that people around Cloud the most would think something was seriously wrong with him lol. Like, for example, you know he probably would snark back at Zack at least a little in private once they got to know each other, so to have “soft uwu shy baby 🥺” Cloud around constantly would probably put him on edge/wondering if he did something wrong. And if he knows Genesis by [insert whatever reason here]? Genesis would probably slowly lose it because he’d probably be the type to have found it refreshing that a cadet had the spine to snap back at him lol.

*(And that’s bare minimum, as in, assuming 16. I realize this raises the old ‘did Cloud (and Zack) lie about his (their) age to get in?’ or ‘is ShinRa just deadass cool with child soldiers?’ debate, but that’s a debate for another time lol. But I mean they sent Sephiroth into battle at like fucking 12 because that makes total sense. So.)

[lavenderek]

fwiw i’m an A*3 volunteer - i do tag wrangling, actually - and i really do need to emphasise the fact that we are VOLUNTEERS, and there’s really nothing we can do when it comes to bigger issues re: the core of how the site runs and the values people feel it holds.

what i am really tired of is people assuming things about me because i’m a volunteer. people can be so ridiculously vitriolic - like that anon you got who was immediately at you like ‘SO YOU’RE FINE WITH CHILD ABUSE?’ is a perfect example of what i mean. no, i’m not, but i honestly do appreciate a rare space online that is *relatively* unmoderated - which is NOT to say it isn’t completely unmoderated. like you said, there are so many cultural aspects to even simple tags, and as a tag wrangler, you’re ‘trained’ on that. that’s just tag wrangling - i’m sure higher up volunteer positions also take the time and care to educate volunteers correctly on how to manage their roles.

again, though, there is fundamentally very little us volunteers can do for parts people might disagree with. we come from all walks of life and there are so many roles and we all only have so much time. fact is, the website is the way it and it’s unlikely to change beyond perhaps adding more ‘social media’ type functions, like blocking people. if you feel that there is content that is inappropriate or commenters that are inappropriate or whatever, you can report it directly to the people running the website (which i’ve personally done before for an extreme underage fic about a real life - albeit of-age - person), and i obviously didn’t check back to see if it had been removed, but i assume it was dealt with because i genuinely do have faith in the moderators. anyway, just some insight as someone who works with the site.

hey! thanks for the info actually this is really interesting. sorry about the delayed response, i saved it as a draft to come back to it later and then i got busy at work and forgot

while you're here, you mind if i ask you some questions? feel free not to answer, you're not obligated

i separated it into sections because i’m what? longwinded and easily confused

1. can this happen (has questions for you in it)

it's my understanding that the big uproar vis a vis CP fic on a*3 is more that a*3 is inadvertently creating a space where p*dophiles feel safe and can establish a following, in turn allowing them to normalize what they're doing and gain access to potential victims.

tldr, it's less "this is inappropriate" and more "the person who made this is dangerous." like, if the person who wrote that nasty fic you reported had a whole profile full of similar content and was gaining a following from it, that would be concerning.

is the overall effect a user has something that you all take into account when you're going through content on the site, or are you instructed to take the specific piece of content at face value?

and, do you think that's something it's possible to address by moderators? regardless of whether or not it’ll actually happen, do you think that is possible on this system?

and, even more optional than the other questions, if that was possible, what do you think that would look like? 

2. what is the process like on your end (has questions for you in it)

just for my own curiosity, how much leeway do you as a volunteer have over whether a fic should be reported? 

is it up to your own judgment or is there like a rubric or something? 

and what happens if the moderators decide that yeah, this fic can't be up anymore, do they remove the fic or kill the user's profile or what?

what happens if you report something, and the moderators decide it’s fine? does that reflect on you in their eyes? 

how often do you report fic? 

3. clarification of motive (does not have questions for you in it, now i’m just talking)

like i hear you that you, personally, Anon J. Wranglerton, don't have control over the site itself. the topic of CP and abuse is touchy and wigs people out because it sort of self perpetuates.

it's like that anecdote that went viral a few years ago where a bartender explained that allowing one polite n*zi into the bar leads very quickly into lots of n*zis being in the bar. people want the n*zis removed from the bar. 

i'm sorry people accuse you of being an abuse apologist because of that, i think the idea that people wouldn't really see abuse as a concern is like, actually horrifying to them lmao and i can't necessarily blame them for that in and of itself

4. if i see where they’re coming from then what’s my problem (does not have questions for you in it, now i’m just talking)

i guess i don't share that reaction because disgusting content online isn't anything new for me. i accidentally came across it all the time when i was a kid going online. i nearly fell victim to an actual predator when i was 12 or 13. thankfully, once he asked me for more personal information i was able to get scared and see some red flags. (or if he wasn’t a predator then i should probably go and find my chat room boyfriend Oukami who explained “yiffing” to me and told me to send him pictures of myself so he could make me a wolf fursona)

from my perspective, the a*3 debate looks like this: predators are a concept that is deeply embedded in every corner of the internet, and very suddenly, people are very up in arms about a very specific website having predators on it. it’s like if all of a sudden people were like, “there are customers at Target who yell at the employees. if you still shop at Target, unfollow me.” 

like, yeah, you’re right, and that’s bad, but why Target specifically, and why now, you know? 

i think predators should be made to feel extremely unsafe in fandom spaces lmao, but i also think that’s something that can only be tackled socially. playing whack-a-mole with predators is a tale as old as time.

5. online predators (does not have questions for you in it, now i’m just talking)

this is just me talking out of my ass, but my theory is that a huge component in kids today getting caught up by predators online is that the concept of anonymity and fear of strangers online has some holes in it on here.

first of all, people just a couple years younger than i am grew up on social media. that was the entire online landscape ever since myspace.

influencers use their real names and faces, and they have millions of followers and are treated like celebrities. a lot of these social networks make it extremely difficult to hide your identity at all. you sign in to youtube with your google account, which is linked to your phone and all your other accounts. instagram, twitter, facebook, and tumblr can all be connected, and a few of those apps encourage it and will interrupt you posting to be like “do you want to also put this on twitter, Firstname Lastname?” no, janet, i’m good. thank you though

this lends a certain amount of freedom to predators, because there is nothing stopping them from assessing somebody’s vulnerability and reaching out to them. 

6. online predators in fandom spaces specifically (does not have questions for you in it, now i’m just talking)

i think the fandom space cultivated on tumblr has actively contributed to that. 

look at all these blogs, they’ve got “about me” descriptions with their name, their age, a blurb about their interests, their gender identity, their romantic/sexual preferences, sometimes their fuckin myers-briggs designation. this is all expected behavior on tumblr. 

it starts as a sort of “this is my blog, here’s what i’m about,” and is compounded by like, “NTs can reblog this post but don’t say anything stupid,” or “minors DNI, how old are you,” like, you have to kind of verify that you’re “allowed,” in a sense, to participate in some conversations or interact with some posts. 

i think there’s merit in both of those things, blogs are for self expression and for interacting with likeminded users; and i don’t think it’s “gatekeeping” to stop straighties from clowning on your post about queer issues. 

but this has inadvertently created a sort of entitlement to private information. it also creates this false idea that because you and i have x and y in common, we can interact comfortably. 

it’s crucial to remember that predators aren’t all scary white men who want to visit you at home. some of them are cool 20-somethings who just happen to be normalizing sexual content with children in it. and they genuinely don’t see what they’re doing as wrong. if they’re already your friend, and you see them saying shit about how they’re not hurting anybody, it’s just pretend, it’s just a kink, then you’re probably going to sympathize with them. 

this isn’t to say, “stupid kids, they’re bringing this on themselves by oversharing to the wrong people,” because it’s neither kids’ fault nor unique to children. this kind of oversharing is taking place with all ages and kinds of people on tumblr. 

this is to say, this is what this particular subculture has caused: healthy boundaries are kind of bulldozed to make room for a kind of disorganized sense of community and morality.

7. back to CP on a*3 (does not have questions for you in it, now i’m just talking)

i think this kind of “CP is disgusting and you’re disgusting for looking at it” shit is dangerous. 

things this is NOT because of: 

CP deserves a place online

It’s A Slippery Slope, What Will They Ban Next

um, kinkshaming

there is no point in even trying to get predators off a*3

i just think it’s completely unhelpful. it’s literally a waste of their time. they’re wasting their time and hurting themselves and others in the process. it’s lacking in nuance and perspective. 

what we should be saying is “CP is a red flag. CP tells you something about the person posting it.” 

we shouldn’t be asking “are you okay with child abuse,” we should be asking, “what does this content say about the person posting it? are they unsafe to have around? if i realize too late that they’re unsafe, who can i turn to?” those are the kinds of questions we should be asking if our goal really is to protect people.

what the collection of block lists of supposed abuse apologists says is this: “you have to choose between not having to police online behavior, and proving your morals to me, a complete fucking stranger. if your morals are lacking, you’re out, we don’t speak to you anymore, and we tell everyone who will listen that you are a bad person.” 

not to delegitimize their concerns, but it’s fully just mccarthyism. like... that’s what mccarthyism was like. the fact that mccarthyism was bad isn’t even the point, it’s important to recall that mccarthyism did not work. it stopped happening for myriad reasons, one of which was that it was hurting people and wasting resources and doing absolutely nothing else. 

i obviously don’t want to be labeled “anti-american pinko scum” and fired from my job and disallowed from my neighbor’s house. who would? they’re not actually weeding out anybody dangerous, they’re just rounding people up who are just as angry as they are or who are scared of them lmfao. 

ever since that shitty post of mine went viral (which - “viral,” i guarantee it isn’t viral, i stopped looking at it literally that night) i’ve been terrified that one of these days i’m gonna like, comment on something and have the OP be like “wait a minute, you’re that bitch who made fun of some anti-a*3 people, unfollow me” lmfao. like, that’s what this rhetoric is accomplishing. 

i’m not boohooing, i deserved a slap on the wrist for making rude comments. i’m just telling you the extent of the results they’re getting. they made me feel sad. so at least there’s that. 

8. anti-a*3 people (has questions for anyone in it)

“fine, so we’re not trying to evangelize for not liking CP. so what? we don’t want people who like CP around. supporting that stuff is disgusting. we are blocking them for our own safety and don’t appreciate the tone police coming in and telling us it’s no big deal.” - an anti a*3 person, probably

yeah i mean, i get that. if i was really upset about something important and somebody told me “you’re right, but shut up about it,” i would also be pissed. 

my question, though, is this: is the underage tag on a*3 the limit we want to place on our activism against predators online? at minimum, is yelling at and blocking people about it on tumblr making us feel safer?

and also: how are we going to define the things we are trying to get rid of? what is underage? how do we account for differences in culture? how do we account for nuance when we make broad judgments? 

and also: who do we really hold responsible for this? who do we think is at fault and what do we want them to do?

i feel like we could all benefit from some perspective here.

9. back to you (has questions for you in it)

so like, is it fun? how’d you get the position? how long do you work typically?

do you talk directly with higher-ups or whatever? do you have coworkers?

do you have to read through lots of fic yourself or does stuff get reported to you and then you look at it? 

what other stuff do you report content for, aside from abusive content? like i read a post saying people shouldn’t be advertising their paypal or whatever on their a*3, do you nip stuff like that in the bud or is that something else? 

what if it’s just mistagged, presumably by human error not by a legitimate abuse of the system, what do you do? do you tag it for them or do you reach out to them and tell them to fix it or what?

who decided on the color scheme? can there be a skin that’s orange and avocado green? can you pass that on for whoever does the colors? i think i’d spend more time on any particular website if the color scheme was a nice, desaturated orange and avocado green.

nice

[bartramcat]

Some Odd Thoughts on CSI 06x03

It's an unfortunate aspect of my existence that the best way for me to resolve an issue in a piece of fiction (or even an evolutionary theory) is to write about it. Also, unfortunately, I used to be a much better writer. I think I have spent too much time on Twitter the last several years and have lost my ability to sustain coherent thought. So here I go again rambling incoherently about my obsession de l'annee, i.e. CSI/GSR. As per usual, it will probably be all over the map. Oh well.

I have no idea why, but I was thinking about the scene in Bite Me as I was driving home the other day. It's a rather weird scene in that it almost comes across as Grissom intentionally trying to hurt Sara. Until we remember it's Grissom. 

The thing about this love story is that we, as viewers, were given entree in medias res, but, unlike a true epic, nobody backfilled in the blanks, so, instead, we have to watch the episodes before the revelation of their affair and try to piece together how different scenes fit into the tale. 

Then there is the Gumdrops problem. If the affair was to have been revealed 2 episodes after Bite Me, then it's pretty safe to conjecture that Grissom probably was projecting his own fears and insecurities about their relationship into the scene. GSR is nothing if not a treatise on the insecurities of love.

Grissom seems to have 2 contradictory responses to the fact that a married couple has separate bedrooms. His first reaction is almost mystification. Why be married and sleep separately? Sara provides some mundane explanations. Then he jumps to the fact that they may well have been suffocating each other, and he couldn't breathe, an hypothesis that seems to both stun and hurt Sara. Then she finds the sexual lubricant, confirming that sex was indeed occurring, despite the separate bedrooms. She asserts that sleeping in the same bed is not a requirement for either sex or romance. Grissom studies her thoughtfully for a moment and then beats a hasty retreat to see the doctor, a statement which at first Sara doesn't seem to comprehend.

I believe that Grissom always wanted to marry Sara, perhaps from the moment he first saw her, although I suspect he was painfully aware of how young she was when he first met her. (When I watch the first 2 seasons, she seems so young, and that was supposed to be a couple of years after he met her.) It's one of the things that makes me question the probability of his having sex with her in SF. I do not think a typical man would have had compunctions, but Grissom is not a typical man. (As much as everything pointed to the possibility of their making love in the time gap in Nesting Dolls, I think Grissom would have seen it as "taking advantage" of Sara's need for comfort.) Initially, he may have viewed her interest in him as no more than an eager student trying to impress a renowned entomologist, and her seeming attraction to him as no more than a short-term crush. In Grissom's worldview, how could the most wonderful girl he had ever met be as attracted to him as he was to her? Even if Sara offered sex, would he have accepted her invitation? I'm not sure. (Of course, the other side of that same coin is that he was so knocked over by his attraction to Sara that he went with it.)

A question I ponder every once in a while: Grissom tells us sex for him is pointless without love. Does that apply only to him, or does he also need to feel his partner loves him for the experience to have meaning? To give him joy, not despair? I don't know the answer to that. One thing is clear: he is not a casual sex kind of guy. He may have had a couple of relationships, including Julia Holden, he tried to make work, but when he couldn't love them, he drifted away from them. The ultimate oxymoron about Grissom is that the man who does his best not to feel is the true romantic: sex and love are inexorably intertwined in his psyche. 

So now back to what I think might have been going on in the scene. I believe that they have been lovers in some sort of undefined relationship for over 6 months. Despite the fact that I think each of them is in it for the long haul, neither believes it will last forever. All along, Grissom has probably subconsciously wanted to propose, but both their work situation and his fear of rejection prohibit the possibility. If he asked, and she said no, that would in effect ruin what was. It's highly possible he was thinking about asking Sara to move in with him, which would be like a marriage without an official commitment. So he's confronted by this married couple who do not share a bed, and it kind of contradicts his expectations of sharing his life with Sara. At first, he cannot comprehend the why of separate bedrooms. (If he was married to/living with the love of his life, he damned well would be sleeping in the same bed with her.)

The more he compares the marriage in front of him to the hypothetical marriage/living with Sara, the more his own doubts creep in. What if they end up like this? What if they suffocate each other? As far as we know, Grissom hasn't cohabitated with anyone since leaving home. Probably pretty daunting a proposition. As per usual, his heart and head are in conflict. Then Sara finds the lubricant. The couple was having sex after all (or so they assume at that point). So she reminds him you can have sex and romance without necessarily sleeping in the same bed. More than likely, that is exactly where they are; they are having sex and whatever passes for their version of romance at each other's apartments, but they are not sleeping in the same bed. (Instead of candlelit dinners, they probably seduce each other over some weird combination of Shakespeare Sonnets, crossword puzzles, and forensic textbooks.)

I know a lot of people think they were fighting around the time of this scene. I'm not one of them. I think it's probably more a matter of Grissom being Grissom and saying things without context, because of his own internal conflict. He creates analogs with victims/suspects often enough that it's easy for me to see him self-identify with the husband, who might also be the primary suspect. Grissom knows what he wants: a " beautiful life" with Sara, but so many things could go wrong. I actually think they don't fight, and I think that's one of their problems. They both internalize their hurt and anxiety instead of letting it out.

At the moment Sara reminds him that sharing a bed is not a prerequisite for sex and romance, I think he realizes that the marriage between these two strangers has nothing to do with his relationship with Sara. He studies her for a moment and beats a hasty retreat. Does he realize she may have thought he was saying she was suffocating him? The look on her face says she does. Does he know he may have hurt her?

Of course, this being GSR, there is no follow up. We really don't see them interact again in this episode, although we do get Catherine's comment to Sara about lovers and coworkers never working out, which also may serve as a kind of sidelong foreshadowing. My guess is that with Gumdrops on the horizon that the whole Bite Me scene was supposed to make everyone go "What the hell was that about?" 

I have read at least 3 different versions of the Gumdrops scenes. What is not debated is that they have sex in the hotel room, and it is implied that their affair is not new. Personally, I would never believe in a million years that these two would ever have sex for the first time in a hotel room while working a crime scene. In no universe can I see either one of them making an overt sexual advance to the other under those circumstances unless sex was already an established component of their relationship. 

FWIW I have always read their relationship as very physical on multiple levels. I remember reading a review in which the reviewer did nothing but complain about the fact that these "two sexless characters" were being sold as a love story. (I think it was the LA Times, but I could be wrong.) You see, the fact that neither character is a "typical" TV romantic icon is, I think, what makes it more compelling, more real, and, yes, more romantic. Even the most socially inept among us can find someone to love and be loved in return.

While the vast majority of the world doesn't possess the intellectual capacity these two do, that same intellectuality is often a large part of their stupidity in love. They overthink, overanalyze everything. And, to a large degree, I think that is what Grissom is doing in this scene. 

[frankensteined]

7 and 35 from that ask game for Roxie? (If you're still doing it!)

i am never not answering oc ask memes :')

7. How do they cope with losing an argument?

depends on the severity of the subject matter!! if it's a really stupid argument, about a really stupid topic that has no merit outside of a genuinely pointless debate between friends (like: gummy bears vs gummy worms?)? she will argue to the death and never accept defeat. there is no "losing an argument" if you just nope and keep digging in! there's been many a pointless debate between roxie vs hurk vs sharky over stupid shit like that, and she'll happily call in the others over the radio to have them weigh in on silly arguments (cue jerome radioing in like "i hope you know that you're having this conversation over an unsecured channel and everyone can hear you" and her going "...well okay, what do the seeds think about gummy bears then?") (pastor jerome is team gummy bear, fwiw) much more serious arguments are taken to heart, though, and she can be swayed/won over to at least trying to see things from another perspective if the other person is serious or passionate enough about it. she jokes about dumb stuff, but she understands how important Giving A Shit is and will treat that with respect, even if she thinks the other person is completely full of it. losing an argument at that stage is more "i can't debate with you anymore so are we done here?" and she's a mix of frustrated and disappointed (or, outright sad, if it mattered to her). losing an argument because she's just not got all the facts/is outright wrong, though, is met with "well. that's...shitty." and she'll accept the loss....but will have to lick her wounds for a bit. sorry roxie.

35.  In which of their own skill sets do they have the most confidence? Why?

...how bad is it that my first thought was "her marksmanship has really improved since coming to hope county!"?? because "being good at shooting people" is a) NOT something that she is proud of and b) making jacob's conditioning of her and john's assessment of her have validity, and that is the very last thing that she wants. but, still, roxie can admit that she's gotten used to it well enough to be pretty confident in who is going to be walking away from a fight, if it's between her or a group of cultists. and she hates that. it's worth noting, though, that she very rarely travels alone (unless i'm deliberately making her in-game, for my own benefit during necessary story beats. ie: after escaping jacob's capture for the third time, when you wake up on top of the truck. your buddies won't know where you are then!), so it isn't as though she needs to rely entirely on her own killin' skills when she has friends who'll roll up to help her out whenever. if anything, i'd say that a much more positive skill that she has confidence in is her ability to still make strong friendships even in the worst of situations, and to allow herself to rely on them without feeling weak for doing so. i imagine that she's even dropped a handful of "i'm not sure i can do this" vent sessions on both dutch (over the radio) and jerome, so she isn't afraid to be vulnerable and open with people that she trusts. that's a pretty important skill set to hold onto in a situation like. uh. *gestures to hope county* alla this mess.

odd oc asks

[junker-town]

What odds would convince you to bet on a NMSU title?

Let’s take a really stupid question seriously.

Here, look at this:

Odds to win next season's College Football Playoff are now available on EVERY SINGLE FBS TEAM @CaesarsPalace! pic.twitter.com/G0Ix9NnOhH

— Matt Lindeman (@lindetrain) January 29, 2019

Many of those odds are funny. You can bet on Rutgers, Liberty, or Kent State beating Alabama or Ohio State or Clemson in the National Championship! Haha! Donating money to casinos is fun lmao!

And if Texas State somehow goes 13-0, somehow turns that into a Playoff bid, and somehow beats Georgia and Oklahoma or whoever, your $100 bet is now worth $10,000!

That ... does not sound like enough of a reward for that risk, unless you have a bad brain that finds comedy in losing money (mine does, fwiw).

It is basically impossible for Akron, Charlotte, Rice, or UTEP to make the Playoff, let alone win it. Undefeated UCF won a pretty good conference and didn’t get particularly close even in a year clogged with three-loss teams — a team in the MAC, Sun Belt, or C-USA might have to win every game by 90 points or something. And these particular teams would be delighted to win some of their games by any points.

So what number would you actually need to see in order to lay a physical bet on one of those teams with the longest odds? A million to one? A billion? More?

I asked Bill Connelly, a smarter person than me, for the odds of New Mexico State actually going undefeated, making the Playoff, and then beating two top-four teams.

Bill returned:

0.001% chance of winning out against this schedule x 10% chance of reaching the Playoff with this schedule x 1% chance of winning it = .00000001% chance of New Mexico State winning the Playoff

Plugging that probability into an odds calculator gives us something like 100,000,000/1, meaning a successful bet of $100 on New Mexico State winning the Playoff would leave you with $100 million.

That’s much more like it. But is even that enough?

I’d still only lay that bet in order to post a photo of my slip for likes and to make jokes about it as NMSU fell to 0-2 and beyond. Investing in bad ideas that make you laugh is self-care.

What if we tack on a few more zeroes? Would you give a casino $100 just to say a completely impossible event would make you our solar system’s first trillionaire? I think that sounds like a great deal.

An undefeated NMSU’s (minuscule) chances of making the Playoff are a pretty interesting side debate, part of the reason why I chose this team.

We know the committee doesn’t particularly care for non-powers, often ranking them several spots below where the computers and polls have them. And independent NMSU can’t even show off a conference title! That’s the main reason I thought NMSU would be a better pick for this than a team like UConn, which was even worse in 2018, but which at least has a chance to win a decent conference and has some faint media pull.

Of course, the Aggies play Washington State and Alabama this year — beating those teams would be a hell of an argument. But a Power 5 team bad enough to lose to NMSU is probably not going to go on and win 10 games, even if that team’s name is Alabama.

We’re counting on, like, two thirds of Nick Saban’s roster forgetting to even show up for one game, then otherwise playing up to standard.

That settles it. Let’s bet $100 to win $7 trillion once New Mexico State wins the Playoff.

We’re counting entirely on Washington State and Alabama accidentally Transfer Portal-ing their best players to NMSU right at the coin toss. Which planet should we terraform with our winnings??