Why does it take me to some website called WordPress when I try to register on your website? I'd like to register. I had purchased items before on your website, and I thought I had registered then, but, for some reason, searching for myself with the "my account" link brings nothing up. Is there some.problem on my end or on the "The Superior Shave" website's end??. Hope to correct this. Thanks.
I don't know, we have at one time had to move all of the files and it is possible some accounts were lost. You don't need any account to buy, just check out as a guest using paypal express or 'direct payment' and you don't have to sign up for paypal, either.
@@thesuperiorshave I managed to get on, thanks. Now, let's see if I can make that happen consistently. Hope to again be a customer of yours. Very best wishes.
How is the protection/cushion on that soap? I would like to try it but I haven't had much luck with vegan/veggie soaps. NFL- team that takes ball in overtime only win 52%- not "well beyond" 50% What is "fair' in sports? Kansas had home field advantage, and a stadium designed to funnel crowd noise down to the field- is that "fair"? Should we just ignore the massive advantage there? Your proposal would open a giant can of worms. Would people be saying the same things if it wasn't the Patriots that won? On a side note- and I think Mahomes is great, but that "MVP in waiting" was held to 0 points and 32 yards in the first half- that's not fair!
Your 52% data has far too much historical weight upon eras which have nothing to do with the modern structure where the QB/receiver/runner protection rules massively favor offense. It is very simple; the rule's terrible because everyone in the stadium knows what the coinflip winner will "choose" to do. If the rule were debatable in terms of its influence on your chances, we'd have to wonder if they'd elect to kick off. Likely the 2000-2001 Ravens vs 1985-1985 Bears would each so elect. But those teams don't go far in the NFL anymore. Tallow soaps have superior cushioning but "protection" is much about slip and not just physical volume.
Thanks to ProFootballReference, since the 2010-2011 season [the first year w/ modified OT rule], in the playoffs there have been 8 ties in regulation, in all 8 cases the team that won the toss received, in 7 of the 8 cases the team that received won the game, in 5/8 the team that won the toss won with a TD before the other team had possession, in 2/8 the team that won the toss with both teams having possession (but the team winning the toss having +1 possession), and finally the 1/8 outlier of the Rams @ NO with the forced INT and FG win. The data is pretty obvious. la @ no 1.20.2019 - no won toss, received, both teams possession, la fg ne @ kc 1.20.2019 - ne won toss, received, td ne vs atl sb 2.05.2017 - ne won toss, received, td gb @ az 1.1.2016 - az won toss,received,td gb @ sea 1.18.2015 - sea won toss,received,td bal @ den 1.12.2013 - bal won toss, both teams possession, bal fg pit @ den 1.8.2012 - den won toss, received, td sf @ nyg 1.22.2012 - ny won toss, both teams possession, ny fg
@@thesuperiorshave - not to belabor a point, especially on a shaving video, but the 52% only includes games after the Overtime rules were changed to allow both teams a possession in OT (barring a TD) which was well into the "offensive era." I don't know about teams. but i know the Patriots have elected to kick after winning the coin toss 3 times, winning 2 and losing 1. Still seems like the only time this gets brought up is after a Patriots win no?
@@thesuperiorshave - ahh, I didn't realize you were only talking about the playoffs. Just to be a contrarian, throwing out the ATL vs NE Superbowl because of neutral field, 3 out of 7 of those games wound up as 2 possession overtimes, and 4 of those 7 the home team won isn't that like a 57% w.p. adv. for the home team? How do we eliminate that- it's "not fair" Up through the mid nineties the refs could stop a game if the home crowd made too much noise, and if they didn't pipe down they would take time outs away- should we go back to that for fairness? Should the game have been stopped when Tom Brady was getting lasers shined in his eyes to be fair? Football is so subjective compared to other sports. Don Sutton (KC defense coach) got fired over that game, but no one seems to point out Andy Reid's high powered offense didn't score a single point in the first half, or Andy Reid had his usual time management screwups in the second half and overtime- I believe I have seen every one of those games cited- none of them but the 2 Pats games resulted in people calling for a rule change. Coincidence? i get what you are saying, but lots of things in FB is unfair. Changing the rules would have massive unforseen issues. Teams likely would elect to kick off, because if you get a stop you generally would get better field position, have big time clock advantage, or KNOW if you should go for it on 4th down. What if KC got the ball and scored, would we repeat the 2 poss. scenario? It certainly would result in a massive advantage for the home team.
@Dave Kenney what does the neutral field have to do with anything? The idea is very simple; when the season is on the line, because getting the ball is a huge advantage in an offensive era, all teams (8 of 8, nothing to do with the field, only to do with if they won the choice) will choose to receive the ball, every time. Maybe they would alter that choice, en masse, if we made the game sudden death from the end of the second score. Maybe not. If the first team scores a TD and goes for a 2pter and gets it, seems they wouldn't much care about the opponent getting the extra working down, and they'd be enjoying playing a defense that kept everyone in front of the secondary at all times. I don't care about the Patriots hate angle; only the New Englanders play that up. Perhaps it has simply taken this long to realize that (with mounting data of now a sample size of eight) any rule that's too predictable for the choice needs changing. Personally, each offense has to get the ball barring a special teams or defensive score for me to continue to enjoy playoff overtime. I'll eat my hat if the Patriots or anyone else elects to kick off in OT in the current rules. That will NEVER happen, not in the playoffs, anyway. [and I will presume from your writing that you live in or grew up in New England, btw]
Why does it take me to some website called WordPress when I try to register on your website? I'd like to register. I had purchased items before on your website, and I thought I had registered then, but, for some reason, searching for myself with the "my account" link brings nothing up. Is there some.problem on my end or on the "The Superior Shave" website's end??. Hope to correct this. Thanks.
I don't know, we have at one time had to move all of the files and it is possible some accounts were lost.
You don't need any account to buy, just check out as a guest using paypal express or 'direct payment' and you don't have to sign up for paypal, either.
@@thesuperiorshave I managed to get on, thanks. Now, let's see if I can make that happen consistently. Hope to again be a customer of yours. Very best wishes.
How is the protection/cushion on that soap? I would like to try it but I haven't had much luck with vegan/veggie soaps.
NFL- team that takes ball in overtime only win 52%- not "well beyond" 50%
What is "fair' in sports? Kansas had home field advantage, and a stadium designed to funnel crowd noise down to the field- is that "fair"? Should we just ignore the massive advantage there? Your proposal would open a giant can of worms. Would people be saying the same things if it wasn't the Patriots that won?
On a side note- and I think Mahomes is great, but that "MVP in waiting" was held to 0 points and 32 yards in the first half- that's not fair!
Your 52% data has far too much historical weight upon eras which have nothing to do with the modern structure where the QB/receiver/runner protection rules massively favor offense.
It is very simple; the rule's terrible because everyone in the stadium knows what the coinflip winner will "choose" to do. If the rule were debatable in terms of its influence on your chances, we'd have to wonder if they'd elect to kick off. Likely the 2000-2001 Ravens vs 1985-1985 Bears would each so elect. But those teams don't go far in the NFL anymore.
Tallow soaps have superior cushioning but "protection" is much about slip and not just physical volume.
Thanks to ProFootballReference, since the 2010-2011 season [the first year w/ modified OT rule], in the playoffs there have been 8 ties in regulation, in all 8 cases the team that won the toss received, in 7 of the 8 cases the team that received won the game, in 5/8 the team that won the toss won with a TD before the other team had possession, in 2/8 the team that won the toss with both teams having possession (but the team winning the toss having +1 possession), and finally the 1/8 outlier of the Rams @ NO with the forced INT and FG win. The data is pretty obvious.
la @ no 1.20.2019 - no won toss, received, both teams possession, la fg
ne @ kc 1.20.2019 - ne won toss, received, td
ne vs atl sb 2.05.2017 - ne won toss, received, td
gb @ az 1.1.2016 - az won toss,received,td
gb @ sea 1.18.2015 - sea won toss,received,td
bal @ den 1.12.2013 - bal won toss, both teams possession, bal fg
pit @ den 1.8.2012 - den won toss, received, td
sf @ nyg 1.22.2012 - ny won toss, both teams possession, ny fg
@@thesuperiorshave - not to belabor a point, especially on a shaving video, but the 52% only includes games after the Overtime rules were changed to allow both teams a possession in OT (barring a TD) which was well into the "offensive era."
I don't know about teams. but i know the Patriots have elected to kick after winning the coin toss 3 times, winning 2 and losing 1.
Still seems like the only time this gets brought up is after a Patriots win no?
@@thesuperiorshave - ahh, I didn't realize you were only talking about the playoffs.
Just to be a contrarian, throwing out the ATL vs NE Superbowl because of neutral field, 3 out of 7 of those games wound up as 2 possession overtimes, and 4 of those 7 the home team won isn't that like a 57% w.p. adv. for the home team? How do we eliminate that- it's "not fair" Up through the mid nineties the refs could stop a game if the home crowd made too much noise, and if they didn't pipe down they would take time outs away- should we go back to that for fairness? Should the game have been stopped when Tom Brady was getting lasers shined in his eyes to be fair?
Football is so subjective compared to other sports. Don Sutton (KC defense coach) got fired over that game, but no one seems to point out Andy Reid's high powered offense didn't score a single point in the first half, or Andy Reid had his usual time management screwups in the second half and overtime-
I believe I have seen every one of those games cited- none of them but the 2 Pats games resulted in people calling for a rule change. Coincidence?
i get what you are saying, but lots of things in FB is unfair. Changing the rules would have massive unforseen issues. Teams likely would elect to kick off, because if you get a stop you generally would get better field position, have big time clock advantage, or KNOW if you should go for it on 4th down. What if KC got the ball and scored, would we repeat the 2 poss. scenario? It certainly would result in a massive advantage for the home team.
@Dave Kenney what does the neutral field have to do with anything? The idea is very simple; when the season is on the line, because getting the ball is a huge advantage in an offensive era, all teams (8 of 8, nothing to do with the field, only to do with if they won the choice) will choose to receive the ball, every time. Maybe they would alter that choice, en masse, if we made the game sudden death from the end of the second score. Maybe not. If the first team scores a TD and goes for a 2pter and gets it, seems they wouldn't much care about the opponent getting the extra working down, and they'd be enjoying playing a defense that kept everyone in front of the secondary at all times.
I don't care about the Patriots hate angle; only the New Englanders play that up. Perhaps it has simply taken this long to realize that (with mounting data of now a sample size of eight) any rule that's too predictable for the choice needs changing. Personally, each offense has to get the ball barring a special teams or defensive score for me to continue to enjoy playoff overtime.
I'll eat my hat if the Patriots or anyone else elects to kick off in OT in the current rules. That will NEVER happen, not in the playoffs, anyway.
[and I will presume from your writing that you live in or grew up in New England, btw]