All That and a Bag of Mail: Checking Poo For Toys Edition

Oh, Alabama, we love you so. 

This picture is from Hoover High School, one of the "smarter" high schools in the Birmingham area. 

They wanted to make sure they were responsible and, well, things just fell all to pieces.

Seriously, no cheerleader thought, "Y'all, I'm pretty sure there's not an a in responsible."

Not one? 

They all have smart phones, how long would this have taken to check?

Sigh. 

On to the mailbag. 

A billion of you via email or Twitter:

"What's going to happen with Johnny Manziel?"

I think Manziel will play.

I also think Johnny Manziel signed autographs for money. 

But I don't believe the NCAA can prove that he did. Nor do I believe the NCAA wants to prove that he did. 

So Manziel will play.

Is there a possibility that the two sides could agree on a one game compromise suspension for Manziel with A&M and Manziel admitting that while he didn't receive any money for the autographs -- wink, wink -- he agrees it was improper for him to have signed that many autographs for autograph dealers?

Yeah, I think that would be a face-saving move all around.

Like most of y'all I'm just ready for this story to be over.   

Mike I. writes:

"Clay,
Yesterday, my 6-year old son swallowed a lego piece. It was the only such piece in the set. He was extremely upset about this, not because he actually swallowed a toy, but because he was now missing this piece. When I told him that there was no way to retrieve the toy and that he was going to eventually poop it out, I could tell that the wheels started turning in his head. It got my friends and I to thinking. Under what circumstances is it appropriate to sort through poop to retrieve a toy? Or anything else, for that matter? Is there a minimum dollar amount the item must be worth? Or is there a sentimentality level that must be attached to the item? And if it is appropriate to conduct such a search and rescue mission, what are the guidelines? How long do we need to wait until we start? What method is preferred? Since my friends and I all have young kids, this information could be useful as I'm sure this scenario will occur again."

For those who don't have kids, the first couple of years of being a parent you're at war with sh--. 

I mean, really, sh-- is your biggest enemy.

It comes at you at all hours of the day and night and at all geographic locations. You're armed against it with diaper bags and clean-wipes everywhere you go, and you get to know so much about sh-- that it will blow your mind. When you're about to change a diaper you actually find yourself thinking, "I really hope this is a solid sh--." And when it's not a solid sh-- you want to cry.

Don't even get me started on diarrhea diapers.

Or, god forbid, diarrhea baths.  

I'm reading all these zombie books now and the degree of overlap between fighting zombies and being a parent of a pre-potty trained kid is overwhelming. You're constantly armed and prepared to fight a foe, but you have no idea when that foe will appear.

Anyway, then you get to the potty-training and everytime your kid uses the potty you want to throw a party.

For the past couple of months every time he poos my two year old comes running into the room with his arms raised like he just scored a touchdown. We all pump our fists, cheer and give high fives. But that's the payoff to ending your war with sh--. 

In the meantime, being a parent means that you're up to your elbows -- and sometimes more -- in someone else's sh-- all day long.

So what do you do if your kid swallows something of value?

In your above example, I'd just go buy another lego set even if it's just for that one piece. What's that lego set cost? Fifty dollars? Would you pay fifty dollars not to have to pour through a six year's old craps every day for a week or more? I would.

Given that your son is six, you'd also have to get him to go through his own poo at school. I mean, you talk about a disaster. Do you trust your six year old to wash his hands really well after he searches his poo? If not, do you want him to be known as poohands for the next five years of elementary school?

So I think the kid has to swallow something very, very valuable for a parent to be willing to go through the poo looking to reclaim it.

For instance, if he swallowed your wife's engagement ring you'd probably have to poo dive. (Or you can finally confess what you actually spent on the ring. Surprise, honey, it's cubic zirconium!) 

But for anything less than $500 of value, there's no way I'm examining the poos for a week.

No way.

Plus, here's the wild card, kids lose stuff all the time. What are the chances you're looking through his poo for two weeks and then he remembers that he actually hid that object in his room? Pretty decent, right? You have to balance all of this out in your analysis.

No way you can poo dive for less than $500 of value. 

Dave K. writes:

"Clay, I'd like your advice on a domestic issue coming to a head in my household since you appear to be an expert in these situations. My wife of six years and I are both die hard Aggies, season ticket holders who own a travel trailer with a group of our friends and also attend most of the big away games. We're also expecting our first child on September 9th, five days before arguably the biggest game in Kyle Field history, the show down with Alabama. 

My question is, how many days after the baby is born am I obligated to stay home and thus miss the game in person?  We live in Houston so we're only an hour and a half from College Station, meaning I can leave my house at 7 AM, get in a full day of tailgating, attend the game and be back home by 9 PM.  I'm really excited about becoming a father, but also excited about the game of the year in college football featuring my University and team. (Background - On a scale of 1 to 10 on the cool wife scale she's definitely a 10, so I feel like my chances are pretty good)."

So long as the baby is born by September 12th, I don't think you have much of an issue here. I'd think you'd want to be there to get your family home from the hospital so that's why I say the 12th. If the baby's born on the 13th you probably need to stay behind. Although, again, the fact that you're in Houston means you wouldn't even have to be gone an entire day. But do you really want to leave your wife and your newborn in the hospital within hours of the birth?

The bigger issue, by far, is lots of first babies extend past the due date.

What do you do if she's still pregnant on September 14th? You can't risk being that far away at a game in the event she goes into labor. Cell phone service can be spotty or nonexistent at SEC games so you might not even be able to be contacted in the event she went into labor. Plus, traffic getting out of College Station is awful so what if she goes into labor right about time the game ends. What if the game goes to overtime?

That's why if it gets to be September 12th and the baby still isn't here, you stay behind and watch on television.

So you better hope the baby comes early. 

Bryan F. writes:

"Nashville is obviously growing by leaps and bounds, quickly becoming one of the more popular cities around the country. My wife was watching this show the other day and it got me thinking. If "Real Housewives" started a Nashville edition, would you let your wife participate? And if so, what would your role be, other than the token "gay Alabama-lovin' Muslim?"

No way in hell would I let her participate. 

Now let me explain why. 

First, I don't think we're rich enough to be on the show.

We live in a transitional neighborhood in downtown Nashville not far from where I went to high school. (Also within walking distance of the new proposed minor league stadium in Germantown which I think will be outstanding). We love it here, but it would definitely be pretty funny to compare the visuals of our house with the visuals of the suburban Williamson County mansions all the other housewives live in.

So we're not rich enough.  

Second, and much more importantly, I can't think of anything worse than having to spend my free time with people I don't already know. This is the most underrated aspect of this show. You don't know any of these women, you're a busy mom, and you decide to spend your free time hanging out with each other? Why in the world would you choose to do this?

I can't think of anything worse than spending my limited free time worrying about whether people I don't know like me or not. 

I'm on the radio 18 hours a week, I run a website with a million readers a month, and I'm going to be on television all fall. 

Are there really people out there thinking, we need more of Clay Travis? 

Having said all this, I'd be happy to star in an Outkick the Coverage reality show which would basically consist of me sitting in my boxer shorts typing on a computer in my home office. Around lunch time I'd yell for my wife to make me a turkey and cheese sandwich, shower, and then wrestle with my three year old until he has to take a nap.

You could also capture me watching five straight hours of MTV's Challenge on my day off. 

As you can see, it would be thrilling television.  

Michael G. writes:

"With the playoffs in FBS looming, I keep hearing that it will force teams to schedule more dangerous opponents. I really like this idea being an FSU fan with the dynasty days mantra "any time, anywhere". The issue is, I keep seeing Florida State and several other major programs keep scheduling cupcakes down the road. I know we play Florida, but it'd be great if we squared off against Georgia or Tennessee outside of a bowl game. Essentially, do you think the playoffs will actually force teams to play better competition or is this is just a mirage and I'm stuck going to watch FSU beat to death another school like the Little Sisters of the Poor?"

I don't believe any major program will play more than ten tough games a year.

Let's use the SEC as an example.  

Eventually I believe the SEC will go to nine conference games. Then each SEC team will play one tough out of conference game or one rival game not both.

That's it.

Athletic department economics play a big role here and no one seems willing to discuss this fact. That is, if you have a massive stadium you need to play an absolute minimum of six home games in that massive stadium to meet your budget. If you can seat a hundred thousand people in your stadium and sell those tickets, why would you go play somewhere else and cost yourself millions in gate revenue? 

Again, using the future SEC schedule as an example -- if you play five conference road games, you'd get four home games in conference and then you'd have to play at least two more games at home to get to six. Those additional two games will remain bought games because you can only afford to play one home-and-home or neutral site game against a single top opponent.

The absolute bare mininum number of home games is six.

And some SEC schools will argue they need seven or eight to meet their budgets.  

So I'll be shocked if any SEC team ever plays more than ten "tough" games. 

That's not to say the other two games can't be against FBS teams, just that major conference finances dictate that you play at least two out of conference home games every year.      

Jake W. writes:

I was at the Braves-Nats 15 inning game Saturday and two rows in front of me sat a girl no older than 13-14 wearing a "2002 Ohio State National Champions" hat. It made me wonder 1. Is there a statute of limitations on championship gear? 2. Don't you have to be alive/old enough to know who you're rooting for to wear/buy championship gear?"

I don't think there's a statute of limitations, but I definitely think you need to have been aware of the game existing to brag about it. Sure, you can claim championships from the 1940's when it's the 1980's, but then you're really just Alabama. 

Now, here's an exception, vintage t-shirts are pretty cool. 

Let's say you're a huge Georgia fan, but you're too young to remember Herschel Walker. Wearing a Herschel for Heisman t-shirt is still pretty cool, right? So, and this is going to be scary thought for many of y'all, but I'm wondering if this girl thinks of 2002 as being vintage? It doesn't seem very long ago to you or me, but some entering college freshmen this year were born in 1996. 

I have t-shirts older than that.

Your Ohio State fan might have been born in 2000.

In which case 2002 is, gulp, vintage to her.  

A bunch of you on Twitter:

"What are your thoughts on Ben Affleck as Batman?"

Hello, Michael Keaton played Batman. 

I like Ben Affleck. 

Did you see "Argo?" 

It was fabulous. 

The last several Ben Affleck movies have been great. 

It's not like they just announced Larry David as the new Batman. I just don't get these social media uproars over things like this. 

Michael W. writes:

"In the UK they have a widely read daily newspaper called The Sun. The most noteworthy feature of it is the Page 3 girls which basically shows daily a different "girl next door" from somewhere in the UK topless on the 3rd page. Best I can tell this is basically like the New York Post but with boobs. There is some talk over there about getting rid of the Page 3 section and you can read more in the Economist here.

So this really got me thinking.  My questions to you are a) what big US city would be most likely to be able to have a paper like the Sun in it with Page 3 girls and b) what big city would you like to see this in if you could choose? Would it be Kaley from Hoover, AL or Katie from Nacogdoches, TX for instance? Given your appreciation in written word over the years to boobs I cannot imagine anyone else better placed to answer this question."

Los Angeles, New York, New Orleans, and Chicago are probably the only major American cities that could get away with topless girls in the tabloids. Otherwise the same people who flipped out over Janet Jackson's nipple -- seriously, if these same people cared as much about going to war as they do a nipple there would be thousands of people still alive -- would totally lose their minds.

Somehow these people are not aware that Internet porn exists.

Or that most young children used to suck nipples.  

I've never gotten this American terror when it comes to nudity. 

Most American parents walk up to the movie window and they're like, "Are there just 400 people mowed down with machine guns in the movie? Okay, good. I just want to make sure that no one sees a boob too."

This seems completely backwards to me.

I spent my entire adolescent life trying to see boobs. So did you. I think we all turned out fine. Except for you Bama and Kentucky fans, y'all are weird as hell.  

Anyway, I love that the Economist article linked above compared the topless girl tradition to the Super Bowl and said that they've done away with girls with breast implants in the pictures. Which means The Sun is now pretty similar to the old porn magazine called -- and I know some of you guys remember this one too -- "Big Naturals."

By the way, you want to play a fun game. Think up every ridiculous porno web name you can imagine and type it in. 

They all exist!

Where would I most like to see a topless page three? The girls of the SEC, no doubt. But, honestly, print boobs are so passe now. Back when I was a kid a Playboy magazine was like the boob holy grail. I wrote about this in "Dixieland Delight," but if you're my age the amount of scheming that went into getting your hands on a Playboy magazine would make Bernie Madoff blush.

Now kids are just drowning in boobs.

Porn is everywhere.  

By the time my kids are old enough to be able to look for boobs online and clear their search histories, online nudity won't even be a very big deal. It already isn't. 

By the way, I love when sports media moralists complain about Outkick's pictures or articles. Sports Illustrated now has a boob and butt cam on its site. The boob and butt cam cuts off all models faces. So it's just boobs and butts.

Newsflash, if you're in the sports media business writing online, there's a good chance that sex or the pursuit of sex pays your salary too.   

Sam D. writes:

"I am dating a girl who is an Alabama fan, and I am a Tennessee fan/student. We both have long ties to the universities. Pretty much my entire family has graduated from UT, probably 20ish people including extended family. We have been season ticket holders since the 70s and I attended my first game at age 3. My girlfriend has a brother and sister who have graduated from Bama and her family also has season tickets every year. We have been dating for several years now and kids are becoming a very real possibility. We know that neither family is going to budge on university affiliations, so we have been discussing options. Option 1: The winner of the Third Saturday game of the year the first child is born determines fandom for all the children. Option 2: (The Luke/Leia option) Let the children decide when they are old enough whether it be light or dark side. Option 3: We are both planning on attending grad school, so we could attend another school together and completely cut ties with our respective sides. There are only five schools I couldn't ever let my kids cheer for. Bama, USC, UF, UGA, and OSU. Feel free to trash all these options if you have a better plan. Bring your A-game on this one, Clay."

Mixed fan marriages are incredibly common so lots of y'all have to deal with this.

I've spent a ton of time thinking about this issue which is why I can immediately rule out option one and option three. 

If you try and choose for the kid, it will backfire. I have a friend who was so upset about his dad pushing Florida Gator fandom on him that he rebelled and became a Miami Hurricanes fan. That could happen with you guys too.

So I think the only thing you can do is let your kids choose. 

I'm a bit worried about this myself since my wife is a Michigan grad. 

Can you imagine if my two boys grew up huge Big Ten fans?

I'm not going to lie, I've had legitimate nightmares about this.  

You better hope that Nick Saban retires and Tennessee cycles back up. Because right now there's no way in hell your kid is picking UT over Alabama.