There are 10,000 ciswomen athletes in the NCAA for every 1 transwoman.

That means that the vast majority of athletes will never encounter a transathlete in 4 years of college competition, let alone have one come between them and a championship.

This is one of the biggest non-issues I’ve ever seen.

Sorry. They would rank 11th in payroll, not 8th.

I watch so little TV/Movies that I never have much to say, or when I get around to seeing it and saying something, I find that there was a thread about it two years earlier.

But… I did watch Emilia Perez on Netflix. I knew nothing other than that it received many AA nominations. I liked it a lot. It felt fresh and original. There were several times that the plot surprised me (I did not see that coming), and the performances were interesting. Bill Maher claims that the movie was a victim of Woke. The trans actor who played the lead apparently was guilty of some racist tweets some years ago, and Maher thinks that’s why she didn’t win, and the whole movie was consequently punished. Since I’ve seen none of the other nominated films, I have no idea, but I do know I dislike Bill Maher.

The other thing I watched…and just finished recently…was “The Fall of the House of Usher,” an 8-part series that I also liked a lot. It had that slick Hollywood feel to it, and there weren’t a lot of surprises (well… it draws from Poe’s work, and the episodes are titled after Poe’s stuff, so you can anticipate where the story is headed), but it managed to make relevant social commentary, especially the final episode which has some blistering material on corporatism, and even takes shots at current political situation. There are also some fine Easter Eggs for Poe fans, “I’m having Richard Parker for dinner.”

That’s my report for 2025.

I have no idea what this means, but Jourdan does.

Relevant! 👇

— Jourdan Rodrigue (@jourdanrodrigue.bsky.social) 2025-04-03T15:33:42.287Z

ChatGPT then told me that I couldn’t get more than 3 images in one day unless I upgrade to the Pro version.

zn wrote:

To be honest, I just expect them to hit on all 3 top picks. Is that too optimistic?

If that was a betting prop, I would take the other side: missing on 1 or more.

But hitting on all 3 is certainly possible. They hit on their first 3 in 2023, nailing 3 quality starters. Maybe they did last year, although the jury is out on Corum, and I have doubts. Scroll back through preceding years, and they didn’t hit on all 3.

zn wrote:

BTW they have 8 picks. Add the 6th rounder for Jackson. ‘

I was just coming back to make that edit, but now the sole error of my life is part of the permanent internet record. {sigh}

Half of their picks are in the 6th round which is a bit of a bummer.

zn wrote:

Pro Football Focus writer Dalton Wasserman jumped out after the end of the 2024 NFL season to pen an article entitled 10 highest-graded UDFAs from the 2024 NFL regular season. Two items that jump off the page at anyone who checks out the article. Only three NFL teams that made the playoffs last season appear on the list. They are the Los Angeles Rams, Buffalo Bills, and Kansas City Chiefs. Only one postseason competitor made the list with two players: The Los Angeles Rams.

He means from the rookie class, in case that isn’t clear. The Rams had more than two highly-rated UDFAs playing last year.

zn wrote:

Alaric Jackson’s new contract, averaging $18.8 million per season, establishes him as the highest-paid undrafted free agent in NFL history, surpassing Tony Romo’s peak of $18.0 million.

Unbelievable. A undrafted FA as a solid starting LOT. It can’t be overstated how fortunate it was for the Rams to score Alaric Jackson for zero acquisition cost.

I never thought I’d see an adorable football player. But…

Who is Nate Landman?

Turns out, the information available for free.

zn wrote:

Meanwhile in the last 2 years, after they had a serious re-evaluation of their drafting, they have had 7 hits in rounds 1-3, which now includes 6 starters (Avilla, Turner, Young, Verse, Fiske, Kinchens), or an unbelievable 85.7% hit rate.

If they can keep this up, they will be getting a few more players. Or to be more specific, if the percentages stay the same or close to the same, they will be getting 4-5 starting and/or contributing players out of this draft.

Just to be absolutely clear, I am not complaining about the Rams’ drafting ability.

I think I read something here a year or so ago about the Rams’ ranking in draft success, and they were up there, but not really at the top. I don’t know how you can really do any better than the Rams have done. Of course, the past two drafts have been off the charts, it seems like. Not just guys who stuck, but guys who are substantially better than their draft positions.

Yeah. Another draft like the past two, please.

zn wrote:

They have a hole or 2 to fill but this is already a better team that the one that game just short against the Eagles on the road in the snow.’

Adams and Ford are good signings. They are set up to draft well. This will be a better team than the one that took the division last year.

Last year they got solid to great contributions from 6 draft picks: Verse, Fiske, Kinchens, Karty, Limmer, and Whittington (ie. with Whitt it was not just on offense, on different special teams units too). That includes the defensive rookie of the year.

In the last 3 drafts combined they had 9 6th round picks. Usually the hit rate on round 6 is anywhere from 2% to 8.84%, depending on your source. That means that 9 6th round picks should yield at best 1 player. But of out of those 9 Rams picks I would say so far that we know the Rams hit on 5: Lake (2022), Ethan Evans (2023), and 3 from 2024: Whittington, Karty, & Limmer. That’s a 55.6% hit rate. They have 4 more 6th round picks in 2025.

So IMO if they continue this good streak drafting, they ought to come up with 4-5 players, ie. counting
both immediate and depth/future contributors. As a result, the 2025 team could be even better than we already know it is.

And now that they’re set at P and K, they can focus on drafting a long-snapper.