Just saw Rodrigues on the sideline in uniform with ball cap on.

Sounds like Rodrigues is not on sideline according to Marsh?

Quite messing around and get Rodrigues in there. He just runs this offense better.

False start right tackle. Offense looks out of sync.

Atascadero. Just kidding.

Hastings is not as mobile as Rodrigues. I am not sure of this move other than letting Rodrigues look at things a bit.

Weber wins!

Unbelievable penalties on Weber. Delay of games. Illegal substitutions.

Well make it interesting with missed extra point.

Fumble. Game will be over. No way Weber stops EWU.

Going for ball instead of tackle. EWU scores. I think Weber is in trouble with Johnson at qb.

and high blood pressure now….

Weber up after touchdown. 27-21. EWU looks befuddled on offense. Weber keeping Barriere in pocket and good backfield coverage on receivers. Also good rush pressure.

21-20 Weber punts on 4th and 1 from own 39. With 2 fake punts so far I would have thought they would have gone for it with their big back. Don’t want to give Barriere any more possessions than absolutely necessary.

Weber scores. The reason EWU has not won the NC under Barriere is still showing. An inability to stop the run. NDSU blew them out in spring with a run game. If I were Weber, it would be heavy run for the remainder of the game.

back in the day we were lucky if we had enough members to do a “”block UCD let alone “Aggies”

I think the EWU-Weber and Sac - Northern Arizona games will be of most interest to Aggie fans. Big Sky that is.

And as my Ancient Roman History prof at Davis repeatedly said “all roads lead to Lodi” ……

https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201911/rnoti-p1778.pdf
Well written article. I recently was asked to review a promotion package (name and university withheld).

One of the sections in the CV was
“Evidence of incorporating diversity, equity, inclusion and/or social justice (DEISJ) in scholarship, research, and creative artistry”. I had never seen this before in promotion packages and besides the fact that those terms are not well defined, it leaves the candidate searching for something to state in this nebulous section that certainly could be perceived as a requirement. The candidate mentioned something about a “non-binary” student which makes one wonder “how does the faculty member know and is there a student questionnaire involved - which would seem to be an invasion of privacy. Anyway a section like that really has now place in such a package. As Dr. Thompson (UC Davis mathematician) notes, these sorts of politically-charged assessments and perceived requirements can cut both ways. Anyway I pretty much ignored that section in my review.

MacCaffrey no handshake? Maybe Dan said something about his pants.