Podcasts about grading

In today's episode, Mike Renner and JP Acosta update the NFL coaching carousel. They also break down film from the Divisional Round and give offseason plans for every team that lost this weekend! (00:00) Indiana Wins CFP Title Game (4:22) Coaching Carousel (28:48) Film Breakdown (50:27) Bills Offseason Plan (55:09) Texans Offseason Plan (59:40) Bears Offseason Plan (1:03:42) 49ers Offseason Plan Pushing the Pile is available for free on the Audacy app as well as Apple Podcasts, Spotify and wherever else you listen to podcasts. Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@pushingthepile Download and Follow Pushing the Pile on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2RFkEgdbFxbPBDU5F5xEjJ?si=1062d40c04e24fd5 Follow our PTP team on Twitter: @mikerenner_, @Ky1eLong, @acosta32_jp, @pushingthepile Sign up for the Pick Six Newsletter at https://www.cbssports.com/newsletters For more NFL coverage from CBS Sports, visit https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/ To hear more from the CBS Sports Podcast Network, visit https://www.cbssports.com/podcasts/ Visit the betting arena on CBSSports.com for all the latest sportsbook reviews and sportsbook promos. You can listen to Pushing the Pile on your smart speakers! Simply say "Alexa, play the latest episode of the Pushing the Pile podcast" or "Hey Google, play the latest episode of the Pushing the Pile podcast." To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Grading your dynasty fantasy football trades from last week—did you win or lose?  

Sean Fazende and Andre Johnson Jr break down the #Saints 2025 draft class now that we've seen them play, and look back on how they did

In this episode of the JMU Sports News podcast, Bennett Conlin and Jack Fitzpatrick get into everything happening around JMU athletics right now, with a heavy focus on basketball and the transfer portal. They start by talking roster construction, including the recent wave of big offensive linemen coming in, and why size, experience, and physicality matter so much heading into next season. From there, the conversation turns to all things transfer portal. Bennett and Jack break down the newest additions, where they're coming from, what they bring to the table, and how tricky it can be to manage a roster in today's portal era. They also zoom out and look at what all of this means for JMU as it tries to compete week-in and week-out in the Sun Belt. Then the guys don't hold back when it comes to JMU men's basketball, sharing their frustrations with the team's recent play and questioning some of the coaching decisions along the way. Offensive struggles, defensive lapses, and the overall direction of the program are all on the table. To wrap things up on a brighter note, they shift to the women's basketball team, talking about the upside, the energy around the program, and why there's genuine excitement heading into the next stretch of games. Chapters 00:00 Introduction to the Podcast and Topics 00:23 The New Offensive Linemen: Size and Potential 02:50 Assessing the Offensive Line's Experience 06:12 Listener Questions: Portal Additions and Expectations 11:41 Concerns About the Secondary and Linebacker Depth 15:45 Quarterback Competition and Offensive Strategy 23:09 Evaluating the Transfer Portal Class Compared to Previous Years 26:14 Redemption Arcs in College Football 27:05 Transfer Portal Insights 29:05 Challenges in Scheduling G5 Teams 30:17 Standout Players from the Transfer Portal 33:39 Concerns in the Running Back Room 36:48 Defensive Strategies and Coaching Decisions 38:25 Evaluating Coach Spradlin's Performance 40:41 Roster Management and Player Development 44:04 Looking Ahead: JMU's Future in Basketball Big thank you as well to our sponsor, Sign Pro! Follow us on Twitter Subscribe on Youtube Check out our website!  Like what you hear? Buy us a coffee (or beer...)  Leave us a review! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

1. Wild Card Weekend Takeaways-DKrom: The NFL MUST name the Coach of the Year award after Kyle Shanahan-Hal: Finally, the NFL put the "WILD" in Wild Card Weekend2. Wild Card Weekend Honors-GOAT of the Week (DKrom: Colston Loveland, Hal: Caleb Williams)-Dunce of the Week (DKrom: Kevin Patullo, Hal: Omar Khan & Art Rooney II)3. 2026 NFL Draft (Top-10 Mock Draft)4. Coaching Carousel-Grading the Giants hire of John Harbaugh as head coach (DKrom: A-, Hal: A-)-Putting aside historical precedent, how much sense does hiring Chris Shula as head coach make for the Steelers? -Do you think there's a good chance the Ravens see in Jesse Minter exactly what they lost when Mike Macdonald left? -Grading the Dolphins hire of Jon-Eric Sullivan as GM (DKrom: A, Hal: A)-Would you be willing to bet that either Jeff Hafley or Anthony Campanile will be the next head coach of the Dolphins?-If the Browns hire a Grant Udinski, Dan Pitcher, Tommy Rees or Nate Scheelhaase as their new head coach, do you think the odds of them working out in the long run may be far greater than many think? 5. NFL Divisional Weekend Game Picks-Bills at Broncos-49ers at Seahawks-Texans at Patriots-Rams at Bears6. NFL Divisional Weekend Bold Predictions-DKrom: 49ers FB/H-back Kyle Juszczyk sets the single-game postseason receptions record with 16, including the game-winning TD pass from Brock Purdy with less than a minute remaining to give the 49ers the 19-17 upset win-Hal: Bears down 27-20 at midfield with less than 10 seconds left, and Caleb Williams throws a Hail Mary that's tipped twice...and Rome Odunze comes down with it for the TD...and they go for two and the win...and Odunze comes up with the Octopus on a fade in the corner of the end zone to send the Bears to the NFC Championship! 7. Challenge Flags-DKrom: All head coaches of the 8 remaining teams, if you go for it on 4th-and-1, DON'T GET CUTE and just RUN THE BALL!!!-Hal: Caleb Williams, Drake Maye, and Bo Nix...SEIZE YOUR OPPORTUNITY NOW because this could be it!

patreon.com/alwaysirish #notredame #collegefootball #SEC #Georgia #pennstate #ohiostate #miami #mikegoolsby #goolsby #notredamefootball #notredame #miami #cfp notre dame x @AlwaysIrishINC https://alwaysirishmerch.com/https://www.si.com/college/notredame

patreon.com/alwaysirish #notredame #collegefootball #SEC #Georgia #pennstate #ohiostate #miami #mikegoolsby #goolsby #notredamefootball #notredame #miami #cfp notre dame x @AlwaysIrishINC https://alwaysirishmerch.com/https://www.si.com/college/notredame

Why do you see so much Australian Wagyu in the U.S.—and what does it actually mean for the beef you're buying?We go to sit down with Jesse Chiconi of 4C Consultancy for a beginner-friendly deep dive into Australian Wagyu. We break down how Australia scaled its Wagyu industry, why exporting is such a big part of the program, how Aussie grading works, and what really drives flavor and quality (genetics, feed, marbling “fineness,” and more).No sides. No hype. Just straight-up Wagyu education—so you can shop smarter, cook better, and understand what's on your plate.

Do you ever wonder whether your grocery store cares about whether you have a healthy diet? Every time we shop or read advertisement flyers, food retailers influence our diets through product offerings, pricings, promotions, and of course store design. Think of the candy at the checkout counters. When I walk into my Costco, over on the right there's this wall of all these things they would like me to buy and I'm sure it's all done very intentionally. And so, if we're so influenced by these things, is it in our interest? Today we're going to discuss a report card of sorts for food retailers and the big ones - Walmart, Kroger, Ahold Delhaize USA, which is a very large holding company that has a variety of supermarket chains. And this is all about an index produced by the Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNi), a global foundation challenging the food industry investors and policy makers to shape a healthier food system. The US Retail Assessment 2025 Report evaluates how these three businesses influence your access to nutritious and affordable foods through their policies, commitments, and actual performance. The Access to Nutrition Initiatives' director of Policy and Communications, Katherine Pittore is here with us to discuss the report's findings. We'll also speak with Eva Greenthal, who oversees the Center for Science in the Public Interest's Federal Food Labeling work.   Interview Transcript Access ATNi's 2025 Assessment Report for the US and other countries here: Retail https://accesstonutrition.org/index/retail-assessment-2025/ Let's start with an introduction to your organizations. This will help ground our listeners in the work that you've done, some of which we've spoken about on our podcast. Kat, let's begin with you and the Access to Nutrition Initiative. Can you tell us a bit about the organization and what work it does? Kat Pittore - Thank you. So, the Access to Nutrition Initiative is a global foundation actively challenging the food industry, investors, and policymakers to shape healthier food systems. We try to collect data and then use it to rank companies. For the most part, we've done companies, the largest food and beverage companies, think about PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, and looking are they committed to proving the healthiness of their product portfolios. Do the companies themselves have policies? For example, maternity leave. And these are the policies that are relevant for their entire workforce. So, from people working in their factories all the way up through their corporate areas. And looking at the largest companies, can these companies increase access to healthier, more nutritious foods. One of the critical questions that we get asked, and I think Kelly, you've had some really interesting guests also talking about can corporations actually do something. Are corporations really the problem? At ATNi, we try to take a nuanced stance on this saying that these corporations produce a huge amount of the food we eat, so they can also be part of the solution. Yes, they are currently part of the problem. And we also really believe that we need more policies. And that's what brings us too into contact with organizations such as Eva's, looking at how can we also improve policies to support these companies to produce healthier foods. The thought was coming to my mind as you were speaking, I was involved in one of the initial meetings as the Access to Nutrition Initiative was being planned. And at that point, I and other people involved in this were thinking, how in the world are these people going to pull this off? Because the idea of monitoring these global behemoth companies where in some cases you need information from the companies that may not reflect favorably on their practices. And not to mention that, but constructing these indices and things like that required a great deal of thought. That initial skepticism about whether this could be done gave way, at least in me, to this admiration for what's been accomplished. So boy, hats off to you and your colleagues for what you've been able to do. And it'll be fun to dive in a little bit deeper as we go further into this podcast. Eva, tell us about your work at CSPI, Center for Science in the Public Interest. Well known organization around the world, especially here in the US and I've long admired its work as well. Tell us about what you're up to. Eva Greenthal - Thank you so much, Kelly, and again, thank you for having me here on the pod. CSPI is a US nonprofit that advocates for evidence-based and community informed policies on nutrition, food safety and health. And we're well known for holding government agencies and corporations to account and empowering consumers with independent, unbiased information to live healthier lives. And our core strategies to achieve this mission include, of course, advocacy where we do things like legislative and regulatory lobbying, litigation and corporate accountability initiatives. We also do policy and research analysis. We have strategic communications such as engagement with the public and news media, and we publish a magazine called Nutrition Action. And we also work in deep partnership with other organizations and in coalitions with other national organizations as well as smaller grassroots organizations across the country. Across all of this, we have a deep commitment to health equity and environmental sustainability that informs all we do. And our ultimate goal is improved health and wellbeing for people in all communities regardless of race, income, education, or social factors. Thanks Eva. I have great admiration for CSPI too. Its work goes back many decades. It's the leading organization advocating on behalf of consumers for a better nutrition system and better health overall. And I greatly admire its work. So, it's really a pleasure to have you here. Kat, let's talk about the US retail assessment. What is it and how did you select Walmart, Kroger, and Ahold Dehaize for the evaluation, and why are retailers so important? Kat - Great, thanks. We have, like I said before, been evaluating the largest food and beverage manufacturers for many years. So, for 13 years we have our global index, that's our bread and butter. And about two years ago we started thinking actually retailers also play a critical role. And that's where everyone interfaces with the food environment. As a consumer, when you go out to actually purchase your food, you end up most of the time in a supermarket, also online presence, et cetera. In the US 70% or more of people buy their food through some type of formal food retail environment. So, we thought we need to look at the retailers. And in this assessment we look at the owned label products, so the store brand, so anything that's branded from the store as its own. We think that's also becoming a much more important role in people's diets. In Europe it's a really critical role. A huge majority of products are owned brand and I think in the US that's increasing. Obviously, they tend to be more affordable, so people are drawn to them. So, we were interested how healthy are these products? And the US retail assessment is part of a larger retail assessment where we look at six different countries trying to look across different income levels. In high income countries, we looked at the US and France, then we looked at South Africa and Indonesia for higher middle income. And then finally we looked at Kenya and the Philippines. So, we tried to get a perspective across the world. And in the US, we picked the three companies aiming to get the largest market share. Walmart itself is 25 to 27% of the market share. I've read an amazing statistic that something like 90% of the US population lives within 25 kilometers of a Walmart. Really, I did not realize it was that large. I grew up in the US but never shopped at Walmart. So, it really does influence the diet of a huge number of Americans. And I think with the Ahold Delhaize, that's also a global conglomerate. They have a lot of supermarkets in the Netherlands where we're based, I think also in Belgium and across many countries. Although one interesting thing we did find with this retail assessment is that a big international chain, they have very different operations and basically are different companies. Because we had thought let's start with the Carrefours like those huge international companies that you find everywhere. But Carrefour France and Carrefour Kenya are basically very different. It was very hard to look at it at that level. And so that's sort of what brought us to retailers. And we're hoping through this assessment that we can reach a very large number of consumers. We estimate between 340 to 370 million consumers who shop at these different modern retail outlets. It's so ambitious what you've accomplished here. What questions did you try to answer and what were the key findings? Kat - We were interested to know how healthy are the products that are being sold at these different retailers. That was one of our critical questions. We look at the number of different products, so the owned brand products, and looked at the healthiness. And actually, this is one of the challenges we faced in the US. One is that there isn't one unified use of one type of nutrient profile model. In other countries in the Netherlands, although it's not mandatory, we have the Nutri Score and most retailers use Nutri Score. And then at least there's one thing that we can use. The US does not have one unified agreement on what type of nutrient profile model to use. So, then we're looking at different ones. Each company has their own proprietary model. That was one challenge we faced. And the other one is that in other countries you have the mandatory that you report everything per hundred grams. So, product X, Y, and Z can all be compared by some comparable thing. Okay? A hundred grams of product X and a hundred grams of product Y. In the US you have serving sizes, which are different for different products and different companies. And then you also have different units, which all of my European colleagues who are trying to do this, they're like, what is this ounces? What are these pounds? In addition to having non-comparable units, it's also non-standardized. These were two key challenges we face in the US. Before you proceed, just let me ask a little bit more about the nutrient profiling. For people that aren't familiar with that term, basically it's a way to score different foods for how good they are for you. As you said, there are different profiling systems used around the world. Some of the food companies have their own. Some of the supermarket companies have their own. And they can be sort of unbiased, evidence-based, derived by scientists who study this kind of thing a lot like the index developed by researchers at Oxford University. Or they can be self-serving, but basically, they're an index that might take away points from a food if it's high in saturated fat, let's say but give it extra points if it has fiber. And that would be an example. And when you add up all the different things that a food might contain, you might come away with a single score. And that might then provide the basis for whether it's given a green light, red light, et cetera, with some sort of a labeling system. But would you like to add anything to that? Kat - I think that's quite accurate in terms of the nutrient profile model. And maybe one other thing to say here. In our retail index, it's the first time we did this, we assess companies in terms of share of their products meeting the Health Star rating and we've used that across all of our indexes. This is the one that's used most commonly in Australia and New Zealand. A Health Star rating goes zero to five stars, and 3.5 or above is considered a healthier product. And we found the average healthiness, the mean Health Star rating, of Walmart products was 2.6. So quite low. Kroger was 2.7 and Food Lion Ahold Delhaize was 2.8. So the average is not meeting the Health Star rating of 3.5 or above. We're hoping that by 2030 we could see 50% of products still, half would be less than that. But we're not there yet. And another thing that we looked at with the retail index that was quite interesting was using markers of UPFs. And this has been a hotly debated discussion within our organization as well. Sort of, how do you define UPF? Can we use NOVA classification? NOVA Classification has obviously people who are very pro NOVA classification, people who also don't like the classification. So, we use one a sort of ranking Popkins et al. developed. A sort of system and where we looked at high salt, fat sugar and then certain non-nutritive sweeteners and additives that have no benefit. So, these aren't things like adding micronutrients to make a product fortified, but these are things like red number seven and colors that have no benefit. And looked at what share of the products that are produced by owned label products are considered ultra processed using this definition. And there we found that 88% of products at Walmart are considered ultra processed. Wow. That's quite shocking. Eighty eight percent. Yeah, 88% of all of their own brand products. Oh, my goodness. Twelve percent are not. And we did find a very high alignment, because that was also a question that we had, of sort of the high salt, fat, sugar and ultra processed. And it's not a direct alignment, because that's always a question too. Can you have a very healthy, ultra processed food? Or are or ultra processed foods by definition unhealthy beyond the high fat, salt, sugar content. And I know you've explored that with others. Don't the retailers just say that they're responding to demand, and so putting pressure on us to change what we sell isn't the real problem here, the real issue. It's to change the demand by the consumers. What do you think of that? Kat - But I mean, people buy what there is. If you went into a grocery store and you couldn't buy these products, you wouldn't buy them. I spent many years working in public health nutrition, and I find this individual narrative very challenging. It's about anything where you start to see the entire population curve shifting towards overweight or obesity, for example. Or same when I used to work more in development context where you had a whole population being stunted. And you would get the same argument - oh no, but these children are just short. They're genetically short. Oh, okay. Yes, some children are genetically short. But when you see 40 or 50% of the population shifting away from the norm, that represents that they're not growing well. So I think it is the retailer's responsibility to make their products healthier and then people will buy them. The other two questions we tried to look at were around promotions. Are our retailers actively promoting unhealthy products in their weekly circulars and flyers? Yes, very much so. We found most of the products that were being promoted are unhealthy. The highest amount that we found promoting healthy was in Food Lion. Walmart only promoted 5% healthy products. The other 95% of the products that they're actively promoting in their own circulars and advertising products are unhealthy products. So, then I would say, well, retailers definitely have a role there. They're choosing to promote these products. And then the other one is cost. And we looked across all six countries and we found that in every country, healthier food baskets are more expensive than less healthier food baskets. So you take these altogether, they're being promoted more, they're cheaper, and they're a huge percentage of what's available. Yes. Then people are going to eat less healthy diets. Right, and promoted not only by the store selling these products, but promoted by the companies that make them. A vast amount of food marketing is going on out there. The vast majority of that is for foods that wouldn't score high on any index. And then you combine that with the fact that the foods are engineered to be so palatable and to drive over consumption. Boy, there are a whole lot of factors that are conspiring in the wrong direction, aren't there. Yeah, it is challenging. And when you look at all the factors, what is your entry point? Yes. Eva, let's talk about CSPI and the work that you and your colleagues are doing in the space. When you come up with an interesting topic in the food area and somebody says, oh, that's pretty important. It's a good likelihood that CSPI has been on it for about 15 years, and that's true here as well. You and your colleagues have been working on these issues and so many others for so many years. But you're very active in advocating for healthier retail environments. Can you highlight what you think are a few key opportunities for making progress? Eva - Absolutely. To start off, I could not agree more with Kat in saying that it really is food companies that have a responsibility for the availability and affordability of healthy options. It's absolutely essential. And the excessive promotion of unhealthy options is what's really undermining people's ability to make healthy choices. Some of the policies that CSPI supports for improving the US retail environment include mandatory front of package nutrition labeling. These are labels that would make it quick and easy for busy shoppers to know which foods are high in added sugar, sodium, or saturated fat, and should therefore be limited in their diets. We also advocate for federal sodium and added sugar reduction targets. These would facilitate overall lower amounts of salt and sugar in the food supply, really putting the onus on companies to offer healthier foods instead of solely relying on shoppers to navigate the toxic food environments and make individual behavior changes. Another one is taxes on sweetened beverages. These would simultaneously nudge people to drink water or buy healthier beverages like flavored seltzers and unsweetened teas, while also raising revenue that can be directed towards important public health initiatives. Another one is healthy checkout policies. These would require retailers to offer only healthier foods and beverages in areas where shoppers stand in line to purchase their groceries. And therefore, reduce exposure to unhealthy food marketing and prevent unhealthy impulse purchases. And then another one is we advocate for online labeling requirements that would ensure consumers have easy access to nutrition, facts, ingredients, and allergen information when they grocery shop online, which unbelievably is currently not always the case. And I can also speak to our advocacy around the creating a uniform definition of healthy, because I know Kat spoke to the challenges in the US context of having different retailers using different systems for identifying healthier products. So the current food labeling landscape in the US is very confusing for the consumer. We have unregulated claims like all natural, competing with carefully regulated claims like organic. We have a very high standard of evidence for making a claim like prevents cold and flu. And then almost no standard of evidence for making a very similar claim like supports immunity. So, when it comes to claims about healthiness, it's really important to have a uniform definition of healthy so that if a product is labeled healthy, consumers can actually trust that it's truly healthy based on evidence backed nutrition standards. And also, so they can understand what that label means. An evidence-based definition of healthy will prevent misleading marketing claims. So, for example, until very recently, there was no limit on the amount of added sugar or refined grain in a product labeled healthy. But recent updates to FDA's official definition of healthy mean that now consumers can trust that any food labeled healthy provides servings from an essential food group like fruit, vegetable, whole grain, dairy, or protein. And doesn't exceed maximum limits on added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat. This new healthy definition is going to be very useful for preventing misleading marketing claims. However, we do think its reach will be limited for helping consumers find and select healthy items mainly because it's a voluntary label. And we know that even among products that are eligible for the healthy claim, very few are using it on their labels. We also know that the diet related chronic disease epidemic in the US is fueled by excess consumption of junk foods, not by insufficient marketing of healthy foods. So, what we really need, as I mentioned before, are mandatory labels that call out high levels of unhealthy nutrients like sodium, added sugar, and saturated fat. Thanks for that overview. What an impressive portfolio of things you and your colleagues are working on. And we could do 10 podcasts on each of the 10 things you mentioned. But let's take one in particular: the front of the package labeling issue. At a time where it seems like there's very little in our country that the Democrats and Republicans can't agree on, the Food and Drug Administration, both previously under the Biden Harris Administration, now under the Trump Vance Administration have identified for a package of labeling as a priority. In fact, the FDA is currently working on a mandatory front of package nutrition label and is creating a final rule around that issue. Kat, from Access to Nutrition Initiative's perspective, why is mandatory front of package labeling important? What's the current situation kind of around the world and what are the retailers and manufacturers doing? Kat - So yes, we definitely stand by the need for mandatory front of package labeling. I think 16 countries globally have front of package labeling mandated, but the rest have voluntary systems. Including in the Netherlands where I live and where Access to Nutrition is based. We use the voluntary Nutri Score and what we've seen across our research is that markets where it's voluntary, it tends to not be applied in all markets. And it tends to be applied disproportionately on healthy products. So if you can choose to put it, you put it all on the ones that are the A or the Nutri Score with the green, and then you don't put it on the really unhealthy products. So, then it also skews consumers. Because like Eva was saying, people are not eating often. Well, they, they're displacing from their diet healthy products with unhealthy products. So that that is a critical challenge. Until you make it mandatory, companies aren't going to do that. And we've seen that with our different global indexes. Companies are not universally using these voluntary regulations across the board. I think that's one critical challenge that we need to address. If you scan the world, there are a variety of different systems being used to provide consumers information on the front of packages. If you could pick one system, tell us what we would actually see on the package. Kat - This is one we've been debating internally, and I saw what CSPI is pushing for, and I think there's growing evidence pushing for warning style labels. These are the ones that say the product is high in like really with a warning, high in fat, high in salt, high in sugar. And there is evidence from countries like Chile where they have introduced this to show that that does drive change. It drives product reformulation. Companies change their products, so they don't have to carry one of the labels. Consumers are aware of it. And they actively try to change their purchasing behaviors to avoid those. And there's less evidence I think interpretive is important. A Nutri Score one where you can see it and it's green. Okay, that's quick. It's easy. There are some challenges that people face with Nutri Score, for example. That Nutri Score compares products among the same category, which people don't realize outside of our niche. Actually, a colleague of mine was telling me - my boyfriend was in the grocery store last week. And he's like picked up some white flour tortillas and they had a Nutri Score D, and then the chips had a Nutri Score B. And he's like, well, surely the tortillas are healthier than the chips. But obviously the chips, the tortilla chips were compared against other salty snacks and the other one was being compared to bread. So, it's like a relatively unhealthy bread compared to a relatively healthy chip. You see this happening even among educated people. I think these labels while well intentioned, they need a good education behind them because they are challenging, and people don't realize that. I think people just see A or green and they think healthy; E is bad, and people don't realize that it's not comparing the same products from these categories. One could take the warning system approach, which tells people how many bad things there are in the foods and flip it over and say, why not just give people information on what's good in a food? Like if a food has vitamins and minerals or protein or fiber, whatever it happens. But you could label it that way and forget labeling the bad things. But of course, the industry would game that system in about two seconds and just throw in some good things to otherwise pretty crappy foods and make the scores look good. So, yeah, it shows why it's so important to be labeling the things that you'd like to see less of. I think that's already happening. You see a lot of foods with micronutrient additions, very sugary breakfast cereals. You see in Asia, a lot of biscuits and cookies that they add micronutrients to. I mean, there's still biscuits and cookies. So Eva, I'd like to get your thoughts on this. So tell us more about the proposed label in the US, what it might look like, and the history about how this got developed. And do you think there's anything else needed to make the label more useful or user-friendly for consumers? Eva - Absolutely. It is a very exciting time to work on food policy in the US, especially with this momentum around front of package labeling. CSPI actually first petitioned calling for front of pack labeling in 2006. And after more than a decade of inaction, industry lobbying, all these countries around the world adopting front of pack labeling systems, but not the US. In 2022 CSPI filed a new petition that specifically called for mandatory interpretive nutrient specific front of package labeling, similar to the nutrient warning labels already required in Mexico, Canada, and as Kat said, around 16 other countries. And in early 2025, FDA finally responded to our petition by issuing a proposal that if finalized would require a nutrition info box on packaged foods. And what the nutrition info box includes is the percent daily value per serving of sodium, added sugar and saturated fat, accompanied by the words high, medium, or low, assessing the amount of each nutrient. This proposal was a very important step forward, but the label could be improved in several ways. First off, instead of a label that is placed on all foods, regardless of their nutrient levels, we strongly recommend that FDA instead adopt labels that would only appear on products that are high in nutrients of concern. A key reason for this is it would better incentivize companies to reduce the amount of salt, sugar, or saturated fat in their product because companies will want to avoid wasting this precious marketing real estate on mandatory nutrition labels. So, for example, they could reduce the amount of sodium in a soup to avoid having a high sodium label on that soup. And also, as you were saying before around the lack of a need to require the positive nutrients on the label, fortunately the FDA proposal didn't, but just to chime in on that, these products are already plastered with claims around their high fiber content, high protein content, vitamin C, this and that. What we really need is a mandatory label that will require companies to tell you what they would otherwise prefer not to. Not the information that they already highlight for marketing purposes. So, in addition to these warning style labels, we also really want FDA to adopt front of package disclosures for foods containing low and no calorie sweeteners. Because this would discourage the industry from reducing sugar just by reformulating with additives that are not recommended for children. So that's a key recommendation that CSPI has made for when FDA finalizes the rule. FDA received thousands and thousands of comments on their labeling proposal and is now tasked with reviewing those comments and issuing a final rule. And although these deadlines are very often missed, so don't necessarily hold your breath, but the government's current agenda says it plans to issue a final rule in May 2026. At CSPI, we are working tirelessly to hold FDA to its commitment of issuing a final regulation. And to ensure that the US front of pack labeling system is number one mandatory and number two, also number one, really, mandatory, and evidence-based so that it really has the best possible chance of improving our diets and our food supply. Well, thank you for the tireless work because it's so important that we get this right. I mean, it's important that we get a system to begin with, even if it's rudimentary. But the better it can be, of course, the more helpful it'll be. And CSPI has been such an important voice in that. Kat, let's talk about some of the things that are happening in developing countries and other parts of the world. So you're part of a multi-country study looking at five additional countries, France, South Africa, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Kenya. And as I understand, the goal is to understand how retail food environments differ across countries at various income levels. Tell us about this, if you would, and what sort of things you're finding. Kat – Yes. So one of our questions was as companies reach market saturation in places like France and the US and the Netherlands, they can't get that many more customers. They already have everyone. So now they're expanding rapidly. And you're seeing a really rapid increase in modern retail purchasing in countries like Indonesia and Kenya. Not to say that in these countries traditional markets are still where most people buy most of their food. But if you look at the graphs at the rate of increase of these modern different retailers also out of home, it's rapidly increasing. And we're really interested to see, okay, given that, are these products also exposing people to less healthy products? Is it displacing traditional diets? And overall, we are seeing that a lot of similar to what you see in other context. In high income countries. Overall healthier products are again, more expensive, and actually the differential is greater in lower income countries. Often because I think also poor people are buying foods not in modern retail environments. This is targeting currently the upper, middle, and higher income consumer groups. But that will change. And we're seeing the same thing around really high percentages of high fat, salt, sugar products. So, looking at how is this really transforming retail environments? At the same time, we have seen some really interesting examples of countries really taking initiative. In Kenya, they've introduced the first Kenyan nutrient profile model. First in Africa. They just introduced that at the end of 2025, and they're trying to introduce also a mandatory front of package warning label similar to what Eva has proposed. This would be these warnings high in fat, salt, and sugar. And that's part of this package that they've suggested. This would also include things around regulations to marketing to children, and that's all being pushed ahead. So, Kenya's doing a lot of work around that. In South Africa, there's been a lot of work on banning marketing to children as well as front of package labeling. I think one of the challenges we've seen there, and this is something... this is a story that I've heard again and again working in the policy space in different countries, is that you have a lot of momentum and initiative by civil society organizations, by concerned consumer groups. And you get all the way to the point where it's about to be passed in legislation and then it just gets kicked into the long grass. Nothing ever happens. It just sits there. I was writing a blog, we looked at Indonesia, so we worked with this organization that is working on doing taxation of sugar sweetened beverages. And that's been on the card since 2016. It actually even reminded me a lot of your story. They've been working on trying to get the sugar sweetened beverage tax in Indonesia passed since 2016. And it gets almost there, but it never gets in the budget. It just never passes. Same with the banning marketing to children in South Africa. This has been being discussed for many years, but it never actually gets passed. And what I've heard from colleagues working in this space is that then industry comes in right before it's about to get passed and says, oh no, but we're going to lose jobs. If you introduce that, then all of the companies that employ people, people will lose their jobs. And modeling studies have shown this isn't true. That overall, the economy will recover, jobs will be found elsewhere. Also, if you factor in the cost to society of treating diabetes from high consumption or sugar sweetened beverages. But it's interesting to see that this repeats again and again of countries get almost over the line. They have this really nice draft initiative and then it just doesn't quite happen. So, I think that that will be really interesting. And I think a bit like what Eva was saying in many of these countries, like with Kenya, are we going to see, start seeing the warning labels. With South Africa, is this regulation banning marketing to children actually going to happen? Are we going to see sugar sweetened beverage taxes written into the 2026 budget in Indonesia? I think very interesting space globally in many of these questions. But I think also a key time to keep the momentum up. It's interesting to hear about the industry script, talking about loss of jobs. Other familiar parts of that script are that consumers will lose choices and their prices will go up. And those things don't seem to happen either in places where these policies take effect. But boy, they're effective at getting these things stomped out. It feels to me like some turning point might be reached where some tipping point where a lot of things will start to happen all at once. But let's hope we're moving in that direction. Kat - The UK as of five days ago, just implemented bans on marketing of unhealthy products to children, changes in retail environment banning promotions of unhealthy products. I do think we are seeing in countries and especially countries with national healthcare systems where the taxpayer has to take on the cost of ill health. We are starting to see these changes coming into effect. I think that's an interesting example and very current. Groundbreaking, absolutely groundbreaking that those things are happening. Let me end by asking you each sort of a big picture question. Kat, you talked about specific goals that you've established about what percentage of products in these retail environments will meet a healthy food standard by a given year. But we're pretty far from that now. So I'd like to ask each of you, are you hopeful we'll get anywhere near those kind of goals. And if you're hopeful, what leads you to feel that way? And Kat, let's start with you and then I'll ask Eva the same thing. Kat - I am hopeful because like you said, there's so much critical momentum happening in so many different countries. And I do find that really interesting. And these are the six countries that we looked at, but also, I know Ghana has recently introduced a or working to introduce a nutrient profile model. You're seeing discussions happening in Asia as well. And a lot of different discussions happening in a lot of different places. All with the same ambition. And I do think with this critical momentum, you will start to break through some of the challenges that we're facing now too. Where you see, for example, like I know this came up with Chile. Like, oh, if you mandate it in this context, then it disadvantages. So like the World Trade Organization came out against it saying it disadvantaged trade, you can't make it mandatory. But if all countries mandate it, then you remove some of those barriers. It's a key challenge in the EU as well. That the Netherlands, for example, can't decide to introduce Nutri Score as a mandatory front of package label because that would disadvantage trade within the European Union. But I think if we hit a critical point, then a lot of the kind of key challenges that we're facing will no longer be there. If the European Union decides to adopt it, then also then you have 27 countries overnight that have to adopt a mandatory front of package label. And as companies have to do this for more and more markets, I think it will become more standardized. You will start seeing it more. I'm hopeful in the amount of momentum that's happening in different places globally. Good. It's nice to hear your optimism on that. So, Eva, what do you think? Eva - So thinking about front of package labeling and the fact that this proposed regulation was put out under the previous presidential administration, the Biden Harris Administration and is now intended to be finalized under the Trump Vance Administration, I think that's a signal of what's really this growing public awareness and bipartisan support for food and nutrition policies in the US. Obviously, the US food industry is incredibly powerful, but with growing public awareness of how multinational food companies are manipulating our diets and making us sick for their own profit, I think there's plenty of opportunity to leverage the power of consumers to fight back against this corporate greed and really take back our health. I'm really happy that you mentioned the bipartisan nature of things that starting to exist now. And it wasn't that long ago where you wouldn't think of people of the political right standing up against the food companies. But now they are, and it's a huge help. And this fact that you have more people from a variety of places on the political spectrum supporting a similar aim to kinda rein in behavior of the food industry and create a healthier food environment. Especially to protect children, leads me to be more optimistic, just like the two of you. I'm glad we can end on that note. Bios Katherine Pittore is the director of Policy and Communications at the Action to Nutrition Initiative. She is responsible for developing a strategy to ensure ATNi's research is translated into better policies. Working collaboratively with alliances and other stakeholders, she aims to identify ways for ATNi's research to support improved policies, for companies, investors and governments, with the aim of creating a more effective playing field enabling markets to deliver more nutritious foods, especially for vulnerable groups in society. Katherine has been working in the field of global nutrition and food systems since 2010. Most recently at Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation (WCDI), where she worked as a nutrition and food security advisor on range projects, mostly in Africa. She also has also worked as a facilitator and trainer, and a specific interest in how to healthfully feed our increasingly urbanizing world. She has also worked for several NGOs including RESULTS UK, as a nutrition advocacy officer, setting up their nutrition advocacy portfolio focusing aimed at increasing aid spending on nutrition with the UK parliament, and Save the Children UK and Save the Children India, working with the humanitarian nutrition team. She has an MSc in Global Public Health from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and a BA in Science and Society from Wesleyan University.  Eva Greenthal oversees Center for Science in the Public Interest's federal food labeling work, leveraging the food label as a powerful public health tool to influence consumer and industry behavior. Eva also conducts research and supports CSPI's science-centered approach to advocacy as a member of the Science Department. Prior to joining CSPI, Eva led a pilot evaluation of the nation's first hospital-based food pantry and worked on research initiatives related to alcohol literacy and healthy habits for young children. Before that, Eva served as a Program Coordinator for Let's Go! at Maine Medical Center and as an AmeriCorps VISTA Member at HealthReach Community Health Centers in Waterville, Maine. Eva holds a dual MS/MPH degree in Food Policy and Applied Nutrition from Tufts University and a BA in Environmental Studies from University of Michigan.  

Grading the fit with NBA teams that could trade for Ja Morant! #nba Check out the TD3 merch: https://the-deep-3-shop.fourthwall.com/ Listen on Spotify!: https://open.spotify.com/show/3elbbqVumwqz8wlIdknsLW Listen on Apple Podcasts!: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-deep-3-podcast/id1657940794 Follow us on TikTok!: https://www.tiktok.com/@thedeepthree Follow us on Instagram!: https://www.instagram.com/thedeep3podcast/ Isaac's twitter: https://twitter.com/byisaacg Mo's twitter: https://twitter.com/Mojo99_ Donnavan's twitter: https://twitter.com/Dsmoot3D Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Jon Sumrall is wasting no time in Gainesville — and it's becoming clear that something is building. In this episode of In All Kinds of Weather Forecast, the guys break down why Jon Sumrall is cooking at Florida and what the early roster moves say about the direction of the program.Neil Shulman and Adrian Perez join the show to walk through a general overview of Florida's roster construction so far, examining how the pieces are coming together and what stands out in the early stages of the Sumrall era.The discussion then turns to player retention, highlighting the most important players Florida has managed to keep in the fold and why those decisions matter for stability and continuity moving forward.From there, the guys break down player departures, identifying the most notable losses, their impact on the roster, and whether Florida is positioned to absorb them without long-term damage.The show also spotlights player additions, discussing the top newcomers Florida has brought in, where they fit, and which additions could have the biggest impact sooner rather than later.To wrap things up, the conversation shifts to the hardwood, as the crew reacts to Florida basketball clobbering two rivals at home, a bright spot in what has otherwise been a season filled with frustration and inconsistency.From roster building to momentum shifts across the program, this episode takes stock of where Florida stands — and why there's growing belief that Jon Sumrall has things moving in the right direction.

Ryan Hoge, President of Grading Business at Collectors, joins The PSA Pod for the first episode of 2026 to preview the year ahead in grading on multiple fronts.1:55 - The big picture in 20266:15 - SGC brand outlook8:20 - Beckett brand outlook17:55 - PSA international expansion updates23:15 - PSA U.S. capacity expansion, turnaround time updates33:15 - Investments in technology, AI, and automation36:40 - PSA Set Registry enhancementsIf you have questions for Ryan Hoge on the 2026 outlook and more, send them directly via e-mail to psapod@collectors.com.

Hour 3 with Joe Starkey: Brian doesn't think this was the angriest the locker room has been all year, but there was grief and the unknown of what comes next. T.J. Watt said it was the same story. Brian thinks that Aaron Rodgers is probably going to ride into the sunset and hang up the cleats. Grading the Steelers for the game against the Texans on Monday.

Ray Fittipaldo's report card and our final grades of the Steelers offense and defense against the Houston Texans on Monday night.

Grading reform has been a decades-long effort—but in this episode, Sharona and Boz argue that it's now urgent. They explore what's changed: post-pandemic student disengagement and distrust that grades reflect real learning, the way AI has shifted the conversation from “cheating” to “purpose,” and growing institutional pressure to demonstrate educational value. They frame grading as the linchpin that can either support or sabotage other reforms, then name what's standing in the way—misconceptions about reform (“no deadlines,” “lower standards”), backlash from top-down policies without training, and the uncomfortable truth that traditional grading can let systems avoid accountability for actual learning. The episode closes with a call for listeners to help crowdsource next steps by emailing ideas to info at centerforgradingreform dot org.LinksPlease note - any books linked here are likely Amazon Associates links. Clicking on them and purchasing through them helps support the show. Thanks for your support!119 – When Flexibility Isn't Enough: Alternative Grading and Neurodivergent Students – A Conversation with Emily Pitts Donahoe and Sarah SilvermanResourcesThe Center for Grading Reform - seeking to advance education in the United States by supporting effective grading reform at all levels through conferences, educational workshops, professional development, research and scholarship, influencing public policy, and community building.The Grading Conference - an annual, online conference exploring Alternative Grading in Higher Education & K-12.Some great resources to educate yourself about Alternative Grading:The Grading for Growth BlogThe Grading ConferenceThe Intentional Academia BlogRecommended Books on Alternative Grading:Grading for Growth, by Robert Talbert and David ClarkSpecifications Grading, by Linda NilsenUndoing the Grade, by Jesse StommelFollow us on Bluesky, Facebook and Instagram - @thegradingpod. To leave us a comment, please go to our website: www.thegradingpod.com and leave a...

We give a grade and Two Thumbs Up (Two Positive) and Two Thumbs Down (Two Negative) aspects of the Season 2 "Seinfeld" episode "The Pony Remark."We talk with those responsible for making Seinfeld the greatest sitcom in TV history. Our guests are Seinfeld writers, Seinfeld actors and actresses and Seinfeld crew.We also welcome well-known Seinfeld fans from all walks of life including authors, entertainers, and TV & Radio personalities.We analyze Seinfeld and breakdown the show with an honest insight. We rank every Seinfeld episode and compare Seinfeld seasons. If you are a fan of Seinfeld, television history, sitcoms, acting, comedy or entertainment, this is the place for you.Do us a solid, support the Podcast

(00:00) Zolak & Bertrand start the show by reacting to the Patriots advancing past the Wild Card round after beating the Chargers last night.(9:53) The crew goes back and forth on Drake Maye's performance.(21:51) We question whether you view Justin Herbert as a loser after last night.(30:00) The crew finishes up the hour with more Patriots calls.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Learn more about Kim at:https://lifestylefoundations.com/https://www.facebook.com/kimecostarealtorhttps://www.instagram.com/kim.e.costaShow Notes with timestamps:

Grading Drake Maye's performance

Grading the team's performance

Patriots beat Chargers, secure first playoff win since 2018 // Grading Drake Maye's performance // Grading the team's performance //

The SOL Citizens grade the development of Star Citizen and Cloud Imperium Games from the past to the present! Featuring: fastcart fc & GriffinGamingRPG Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe97JZDK7J2L3H3FUQ3AB4g/join Merchandise: Design by Humans: https://www.designbyhumans.com/shop/SOLCitizens/ Streamlabs: https://streamlabs.com/solcitizens/merch SOL CITIZENS are supporters and backers covering the development of Cloud Imperium Games upcoming games "STAR CITIZEN" and "SQUADRON 42". Patreon: patreon/solcitizens BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/solcitizens.bsky.social Twitch: twitch.tv/solcitizens Twitter: twitter.com/solcitizens

The Star's Justin Spears and Michael Lev put a bow on Arizona football's 2025 season and do position-by-position grades. Plus, one final take on the Holiday Bowl opt-outs, discussing transfer portal news and answering mailbag questions. 

What do you do when a sports card you know belongs in slab looks better unslabbed? Is what's right for the collector the same thing as what's right for the card?The Shallow End is hosted by Dave Schwartz @Iowa_Dave_Sportscards

Host Carter Yates and senior writer Mike Craven start the new year by giving a letter grade to Texas Longhorns, Texas A&M Aggies, Baylor Bears, Texas Tech Red Raiders, Houston Cougars, TCU Horned Frogs and SMU Mustangs for their 2025 football seasons. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Grading the 6 playoff games Brock Purdy has played in, with one of them being an incomplete grade

In this segment, the conversation shifts from results and strategy into something more fundamental: what “value” even means in the sports card hobby. The group digs into how price gets formed, why comps can both help and mislead, and whether the hobby can ever be considered an efficient market in any real sense. From vintage collectors who do not care about the money, to precision-minded hobbyists who do, the discussion lands on a core truth: this market runs on signals, stories, and human behavior. In this episode, we get into: The case for an all vintage show, and why vintage collectors often feel quieter online “I do not care about the money” vs “I enjoy the money part too” and how both can be true Price as the opinion of two people, and why that can be hard to anchor to Why comps and data tools can improve decision-making while also distorting it Grading as “better than nothing” and the problem of false precision What market efficiency actually means, and why sports cards break the rules The story of the card as a valuation lens, and why narratives keep engagement alive The evolution of pricing: dealer era → price guide era → big data era A quick detour into the “nice card” compliment, what it really means, and what it reveals about collectors Explore the Hobby Spectrum assessment and add yourself to the Spectrum Directory at HobbySpectrum.com. Want to catch the full show live? We stream Sports Cards Live on YouTube every Saturday night. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sam McKewon and Evan Bland discuss what new QB Anthony Colandrea brings to Nebraska, the value of NU's three new linebackers, whether the Huskers should add a running back who else in on Sam and Evan's wishlist. Plus, a little basketball talk! 

Dr. Francis Deng discusses the article by Vankawala et al. entitled "Evaluating the Role of Imaging Markers in Predicting Stroke Risk and Guiding Management after Vertebral Artery Injury: A Retrospective Study." The Biffl grading scale assess blunt cerebrovascular injury severity, but its prognostic validity for vertebral artery injuries with respect to stroke risk remains controversial.

LIVE FROM THE POON! Grading the transfer QBs in the SEC The guys pick who wins UofL vs Duke SMUT! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The conversation stays lively as Joe Poirot joins Jeremy and Paul Hickey midstream, and the chat becomes part of the show. What starts as hobby banter quickly turns into a real discussion about market psychology, self awareness, and how collectors actually behave when nobody's watching. Jeremy reacts to a key question about whether early Hobby Spectrum results are skewed by audience makeup, while Joe offers a sharp observation: even long time “collectors at heart” have moments where they check prices first and feelings second. From there, Paul puts real numbers on the table from his 2025 five athlete experiment, including total spend, net profit, and player by player ROI. The segment closes with a deep dive into Paul's biggest mistake of the year: a Michael Jordan Star card play that didn't go the way he expected, plus a fast-moving discussion about grading trends, crossovers, and what it would actually take for a grading company to compete with PSA. In this episode: Joe Poirot jumps in and the chat drives the discussion Is the Hobby Spectrum Directory skewed toward collectors and why that matters The “Beckett Price Guide arrows” effect and why motivation is rarely pure Paul's 2025 results with real numbers: total spend, net profit, and cards still held Player by player ROI: Wembanyama, Ohtani, Jordan, Caitlin Clark, Arch Manning, Cooper Flagg Why Paul chose Anthony Edwards over SGA for liquidity and buyer confidence The Michael Jordan Star card mistake and what it cost Grading landscape talk: turnaround times, acquisitions, and crossover strategies Jeremy's “how to compete with PSA” recipe and Paul's devil's advocate take Why comps can mislead when attention and timing change If you want to go deeper: Watch Sports Cards Live live on YouTube Saturday nights Follow Sports Cards Live on your podcast platform and leave a rating or review Take the Hobby Spectrum assessment at HobbySpectrum.com to see where you land Opt into the Spectrum Directory to connect with collectors who think like you Explore Paul Hickey at NoOffSeason.com and the Sports Card Strategy Show Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Grant reacts to the Packers decision to fully punt the game against the Vikings, and grades their 9 win season. Callers chime in on all things Packers and UW-River Falls DIII title. Monday Mailbag closes the show. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of Buckeye Talk, Stephen Means, Stefan Krajisnik and Andrew Gillis discuss Ohio State's quarterback room and specifically Julian Sayin's performance during the season. They discuss his grades, expectations, and the impact of recent games on his overall evaluation. The conversation also touches on the importance of the room's development, its potential and the non-negotiables heading into the offseason Thanks for listening to Buckeye Talk and sign up to get text messages from experts Stephen Means, Stefan Krajisnik and Andrew Gillis at 614-350-3315. Get the insider analysis, have your voice heard on the Buckeye Talk podcast and connect with the best Buckeye community out there. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Midday Team react to and grade back up QB Tanner McKee's performance last night. Hugh is willing to give QB 2 a little slack.

Hour 3 with Bob Pompeani and Joe Starkey: Around the NFL: Jonathan Gannon has been fired after three seasons in Arizona. Raheem Morris is out in Atlanta despite two 8-9 seasons in back to back years. The Browns have fired Kevin Stefanski. Grading the Steelers offense and defense against the Ravens. We all give Aaron Rodgers an A+!

The linebackers had an up and down game. Lamar Jackson played great in the fourth quarter. Alex Highsmith and Nick Herbig had opportunities and missed some, but converted on many too. Both teams played with high risk to try to win the division. Ray Fittipaldo of the Post-Gazette in his report card gives the linebackers a B-. Bob gives the linebackers a B.

Jonathan Gannon has been fired after three seasons in Arizona. Raheem Morris is out in Atlanta despite two 8-9 seasons in back to back years. The Browns have fired Kevin Stefanski. Grading the Steelers offense against the Ravens. We all give Aaron Rodgers an A+.

Fish for Breakfast | REPORT CARD from New York ... Grading the Organic Tank ✭ Cowboys Roundtable - https://roundtable.io/sports/nfl/cowboys ✭ FISHSPORTS Substack - https://mikefishernfl.substack.com/ ✭ STRAIGHT DOPE. NO BULLSH. ✭ ✭ Fish Podcast - https://www.fanstreamsports.com/show/... ✭ PLEASE LIKE, SUBSCRIBE AND SHARE! ✭ More at www.CowboysCountry.com ✭ UNCLE FISH STORE - https://tinyurl.com/f82dh9sd ✭ FISH Premium Club - / mikefisherdfw   ⛹

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week on Sunday Night Teacher Talk, CJ kicks off 2024 with real talk about easing back into the classroom, navigating grading overwhelm, and how to show up with purpose and joy—even when the work feels heavy. He shares first-day-back routines, practical tips for grading essays and tests without drowning, and why teachers need both play and structure to thrive.Topics also include: navigating burnout in chaotic schools, what to do when admin withholds critical info about student behavior plans, and reflections on whether CJ would ever become a school leader himself. Plus: goal-tracking systems, concession stand joy, and summer travel hopes for New Jersey and beyond.

New DraftKings customers Play just $5 on your first pick set and get $50 in Pick6 Credits. Sign up using https://dkng.co/enjoy or through promo code ENJOY On this episode of 'Numbers On The Board' - Kenny, Pierre, Mike and Darrick gave their gradings on the good and bad takes around the NBA. Intro - 0:00 0:48 - Drop the Awards 52:45 - Good take, Bad Take 1:47:00 - Unplugged Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER. Help is available for problem gambling. Call (888) 789-7777 or visit https://ccpg.org (CT). 18+ (19+ AL/NE, 21+ AZ/MA/VA). Valid only where Pick6 operates, see https://dkng.co/pick6states. Void in NY, ONT, and where prohibited. Eligibility restrictions apply. 1 per new DraftKings customer. $5+ first Pick Set to receive max. $50 issued as Pick6 Credits that are non-withdrawable, single use, have no cash value, and are used prior to any cash or DK Dollars and expire in 14 days (336 hours). Ends 1/25/26 at 11:59 PM ET. Terms: https://pick6.draftkings.com/promos Sponsored by DraftKings. #NumbersOnTheBoard #NBA #Basketball #Hoops Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A University of Oklahoma instructor gave a student a failing grade — and lost their job over it. The reason? Religion entered the chat. We unpack how a routine college assignment turned into a culture-war flashpoint, why academic standards suddenly became optional, and how religious grievance keeps getting rewarded when it collides with higher education. Also this week: Trump administration officials decide government social media accounts are a fine place to preach Christianity, Sarah Huckabee Sanders issues a Christmas proclamation that sounds more like a sermon, and a Colorado megachurch leans hard into child-trafficking panic to push anti-trans ballot initiatives. Plus new Pew numbers on religion in America, a rare LDS feel-good story, listener mail, and yet another reminder that moral panic never really goes away — it just finds new targets.

In the second hour Grace grades President Trump's first year back in office, then scandal-plagued Tim Walz gives everyone a bizarre fit check.  Visit the Howie Carr Radio Network website to access columns, podcasts, and other exclusive content.

Grading every NBA team's 2025! #nba Check out the TD3 merch: https://the-deep-3-shop.fourthwall.com/ Listen on Spotify!: https://open.spotify.com/show/3elbbqVumwqz8wlIdknsLW Listen on Apple Podcasts!: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-deep-3-podcast/id1657940794 Follow us on TikTok!: https://www.tiktok.com/@thedeepthree Follow us on Instagram!: https://www.instagram.com/thedeep3podcast/ Isaac's twitter: https://twitter.com/byisaacg Mo's twitter: https://twitter.com/Mojo99_ Donnavan's twitter: https://twitter.com/Dsmoot3D Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Connor reviews the NY Deli, your opinions on Matt Rhule, and Producer Josh grades Connor's life decisions during the last week off work.

Happy New Years Freaks!Big week in pro wrestling and Matt & Rhodesia are here to talk about it all! From the title changes, Paul Heyman's proclamation that the members of the Vision will be WrestleMania main eventers in 5 years, previewing WWE's January 5th RAW show, Chris Jericho's WWE return, AEW Worlds End and the William Regal message to wrestlers, Willow Nightingale defeating Mercedes Moné for the TBS championship, to grading WWE's top men wrestlers for 2025, sit back and enjoy!0:00 Intro0:35 Which title change this past week hit you most in the feels?7:12 Matt and Rhodesia's NYE celebration14:34 Who in the Vision will be a WrestleMania main eventer in 5 years20:07 The busy week in wrestling and WWE going back to 3 hour SmackDown's starting this week24:32 Previewing this upcoming WWE RAW on January 5th42:24 Cody Rhodes vs Drew McIntyre in a 3 Stages of Hell match47:33 The return of Chris Jericho to WWE53:38 Carmelo Hayes' moment on SmackDown & his booking this past year1:02:57 Penta and Nikki Bella shout outs1:05:54 Grading the top WWE men stars from 20251:19:22 AEW Worlds End and William Regal's message to the talent1:34:17 Willow Nightingale and Mercedes Moné from AEW Dynamite WednesdayConnect With Us!X: @ThatsFNWIG:@ThatsFNWTik Tok: @ThatsFNWWatch exclusive episodes and segments from the TFW Podcast:

What considerations drive your decision between bland embolization, TACE, and radioembolization in managing neuroendocrine tumors? In this BackTable episode, Dr. Daniel DePietro, interventional radiologist at the University of Pennsylvania joins host Dr. Kavi Krishnasamy for an in-depth discussion on the interventional management of neuroendocrine tumors. --- SYNPOSIS The physicians start by discussing the intricacies of primary and metastatic neuroendocrine tumors, focusing on how treatment decisions are shaped by factors such as symptom burden, extent of disease requiring debulking, and symptom progression despite systemic therapy. Dr. DePietro shares insights from his clinical experience and emphasizes the critical role of interdisciplinary collaboration in optimizing patient outcomes. Dr. DePietro then shares his approach to using Y90 radioembolization in patients with biliary contraindications to TACE or bland embolization—such as those with prior Whipple surgery, sphincterotomy, or biliary stents—where the risk of hepatic abscess with ischemia-based therapies is higher. He also notes that patients who derive less than a year of benefit from prior TACE or bland embolization may be good candidates for radioembolization. The conversation also covers the role of thermal ablation in select patients with solitary lesions, and also touches on several key trials, including the ongoing CapTemY90 study. --- 00:00 - Introduction02:09 - Specialization in Neuroendocrine Tumors06:32 - Patient Selection and Treatment Criteria10:40 - Grading and Treatment of Neuroendocrine Tumors16:09 - Systemic Therapy Options22:22 - Rebiopsy and Its Importance28:01 - Technical Aspects of Local Regional Therapies39:14 - Radioembolization: When and How43:33 - Segmentectomy and Multimodal Approaches45:22 - CapTemY90 Trial and Promising Results49:52 - Hormone Release During Local Regional Therapies53:12 - Combining Radioembolization with PRT56:12 - Thermal Ablation in Neuroendocrine Tumor Patients58:06 - Follow-Up Imaging and Tumor Markers01:02:40 - Updates from Nanets Conference01:05:08 - Collaborating Across Specialties01:07:56 - Managing High Tumor Burden Patients01:13:59 - Treating Carcinoid Heart Disease01:19:37 - Closing Remarks and Acknowledgments --- RESOURCES NETTER-1 Trialhttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1607427 REMINET Trialhttps://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.TPS4148 CapTemY90 Trialhttps://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04339036#contacts-and-locations

This is a re-release of a previous episode with Sean Bailey. It was an absolute banger then, and it is today. Sean's been on a tear recently with his send of AOTB [V17], opening a new gym in Tokyo, and theres rumors of even more hard sending. Because of this, we thought it was a great time to bring this one back.We're on holiday this week, but we'll be back to normal starting next week. Happy holidays and new year everyone!Previous description, as originally aired Jan 29th, 2024.Sean Bailey came on Testpiece and shared his decades of experience from sending and competing at the absolute top of the sport. Sean truly is one of the best climbers in the world right now. Sean recently FA'd the low start to Evilution [“Devilution”] which was a long standing sought after project that clocks in around V16 and is now one of the hardest, proudest lines in the world!How he started climbing and training at a young age and what it was like cutting his teeth on his local crags like Smith Rock.He shares about what WC's were like as an American 7+ years ago when the USA was not competitive at all. Spoiler — it was different and not so glamours! His recent time spent on hard outdoor bouldering and the lessons he learned in sport climbing that help in bouldering.What he thinks the progression in sport climbing will look like.Sean also expands on his recent Instagram post that shared on the struggles pro-climbers have behind the scenes making ends meet. Don't miss this part.Absolutely incredible can't miss podcast by one of the top climbers in our sport!Join Patreon: HERE Follow us on Instagram: HERE Visit our podcast page: HERE

It's a midyear holiday check in at Thrylos International. We're reviewing the 1st half of the season. Grading the transfers, evaluating renewals, making our transfer wishlist and talking TRANSFERS RUMOURS!

With just a couple of days left in the year, it's almost time to say goodbye to 2025, and hello to 2026. In the sport of MMA, there was certainly a lot to like this past year — and a lot that needs to be improved upon, from the UFC, to PFL, and beyond. On an all-new edition of Between the Links, MMA Fighting's Mike Heck and Jed Meshew bring you the fourth annual BTL Promotional Festivus — where they grade the UFC for their 2025 performance, both in and out of the octagon, along with their airing of grievances for things that happened negatively throughout the course of the year. Additionally, the duo do the same for PFL, BKFC, and give their thoughts on things they did better from the year prior, other ideas to bring into 2026, and what could be the breakout promotion in the space for the upcoming year. Follow Mike Heck: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@m_heckjr⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow Jed Meshew: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@JedKMeshew⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ http://goo.gl/dYpsgH⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Check out our full video catalog: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://goo.gl/u8VvLi⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Visit our playlists:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ http://goo.gl/eFhsvM⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Like MMAF on Facebook: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://goo.gl/uhdg7Z⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow on Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://goo.gl/nOATUI⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Read More: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://www.mmafighting.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices