all jili games CFP games top 10M average, but NFL wins head-to-headNoneMy older brother is a New York Jets fan, and we talk after every Miami Dolphins and Jets game. He couldn’t see the game on Sunday, so he just saw the score and how it went to overtime. He said it looked like a typical Dolphins vs. Jets game. I said, “Yes, it was. The Dolphins should have lost the game on Sunday because the Jets were the better team, but the Jets have stupid coaches, and they bailed the Dolphins out.” I was very disappointed in the Dolphins’ defense on Sunday. They were bad, and yes, they had a 5-yard loss and a sack on back-to-back plays on the final possession. Kendall Fuller was able to get Devante Adams out of bounds to keep time on the clock, but for the most part, the Jets’ offense had its way with the Dolphins. It started up front where the Jets don’t have a very good offensive line, but they ran the ball decently against the Dolphins with two rookie running backs drafted late in the draft. The Dolphins were giving up 4 yards a carry, making you wonder why the Jets didn’t keep running it. The Dolphins were missing a tackle and not getting much push up front. Aaron Rodgers picked apart the Dolphins all day long, throwing his first 300-yard game in over two years. Adams and Garrett Wilson looked like the duo the Jets had been looking for all season. The Dolphins had no answers for them. I feel like the Dolphins have more holes than ever on defense, and they are getting labeled as being soft , and it’s more than justified. The Dolphins don’t set the tone up front and get pushed, especially against good teams, but the Jets aren’t even an average team. Our defensive line lacks physicality as a whole and can’t dominate up front. I knew it would be different this year after losing Christian Wilkins , but the Dolphins banked on 38-year-old Calais Campbell and many guys on one-year contracts. Campbell and Zach Seiler have played well, but the other guys don’t give the effort those guys offer. The Dolphins have to find some younger, bigger, and more physical players to compliment Seiler on the defensive line next year, or we are going to see the same issues upfront. The Dolphins also need better linebackers. Yes, Jordan Brooks has played well but missed some tackles on Sunday. Anthony Walker has provided a little spark after moving on from David Long but has durability issues. The Dolphins need to find an inside linebacker who can run sideline to sideline and make tackles—one who doesn’t take bad angles, over-pursue, and miss the ball carrier. It’s been a while since the Dolphins have had that type of linebacker. Instead, they have had undersized guys who aren’t physical enough against the better teams. How many games this year have we seen the Dolphins miss over ten tackles? Too many. That’s why they were overmatched by the Green Bay Packers, and it cost them the game against the Arizona Cardinals on their final drive to win earlier this year. And the safeties are horrible as a group. Jordan Poyer needs to retire because he can’t play anymore, and it is so clear every time you watch him play. He’s not as fast as he used to be, and he is a liability. Jevon Holland is supposed to be our blue-chip safety for years to come, and his contract is up after the season. Well, I would tell him to take a walk after the season because his play has been uninspiring to say the least. He takes bad angle,s and he and Poyer are constantly having communication issues in the secondary. The Dolphins have to tear down that position as well and more physical ball-hawking safeties. I’m not going to place the blame on defensive coordinator Anthony Weaver because it’s an easy cop-out. I blame the person who put this team together, and that’s general manager Chris Grier. I don’t know why he thought this defense would be good signing older players and a bunch of scrap-free agents to one-year deals. He should have done a better job last offseason. If he returns next year, this team currently has ten draft pick,s and he needs to use at least half of them to rebuild this defense. It needs to get younger, and it needs players that are tough-minded and physical. This group as a whole doesn’t have it. They also need to get faster. I understand the Dolphins went into the season without their top pass rushers from a season ago coming off season-ending injuries, but that’s on Grier for not stocking up the defense better. This side of the ball went through change with free-agent losses, and it needs more change next year. If they don’t, then it’s going to be the same soft defense. You can change the defensive coordinator, but that would be lazy putting lipstick on the pig. If the Dolphins want to shed the soft label on defense, go find more tough-minded players. This article first appeared on Dolphins Talk and was syndicated with permission.

Romanians cast ballots in presidential race that could pit nationalist against leftist in a runoff

HOUSTON (AP) — Will Levis and the Tennessee Titans were far from perfect Sunday. But they did just enough to outlast the mistake-prone Houston Texans and get their first AFC South win of the season. Levis threw for 278 yards and his 70-yard touchdown pass to Chig Okonkwo put Tennessee on top in the fourth quarter and the Titans held on for the 32-27 victory. “The coolest thing about this game was just the way our team fought,” coach Brian Callahan said. “It was a back-and-forth game. Our guys did a good job of not flinching and keeping the blinders on. We’ve been in games like this before, and we haven’t been able to make a play, but this week, we made a play.” Okonkwo grabbed a short pass and rumbled for the touchdown to put the Titans (3-8) up 30-27 with 91⁄2 minutes remaining. Safety Eric Murray missed a tackle that would have stopped him near midfield. The Texans (7-5) had a chance to tie it with less than two minutes remaining, but Ka’imi Fairbairn’s 28-yard field-goal attempt sailed wide left. He fell to the ground after the miss before getting up and slamming his helmet on the field. Callahan held both hands in the air and smiled after watching the miss that allowed his team to win on a day it had three turnovers. The Texans forced a three-and-out, but couldn’t move the ball after that and Harold Landry sacked C.J. Stroud in the end zone for a safety to make it 32-27 and allow Tennessee to snap a two-game skid. Stroud threw for 247 yards and two touchdowns, but also threw two interceptions as the AFC South-leading Texans lost for the third time in four games. Stroud has thrown five interceptions combined in the past three games to give him more interceptions in 12 games this season (nine) than he had in 15 games as a rookie last season (five). “It’s no secret that I haven’t been playing well... I’ve got to be harder on myself,” he said. “I’m not going to hold my head down. I know I can be a great player, but I’ve got to make better plays.” Jimmie Ward had a 65-yard interception return for a touchdown in the third quarter and the Texans tied a franchise record with eight sacks. Danielle Hunter led the group with a season-high three sacks and Will Anderson Jr. added two in his return after missing two games with an ankle injury. But the offense sputtered for most of the game as Joe Mixon was held to 22 yards on 14 carries. “Just a disappointing loss for us,” coach DeMeco Ryans said. “We didn’t do anything well enough to win this game. Out of all the positives that we did have, there were way too many negatives.” It was Tennessee’s first win of the season in a game that Levis both started and finished. The second-year player missed three games this year with a sprained AC joint in his throwing shoulder. “I’m really proud of Will,” Callahan said. “He’s done a lot of things to get himself back in the right place, mentally and physically. It was a really good performance.” Levis knows he can be better, but was happy to leave Houston with a victory in this difficult season. “It feels awesome,” he said. “A lot of people have been working really hard to get a win like this. I’m just happy for the organization, top down.” Tennessee extended the lead to 23-17 on a 51-yard field goal by Nick Folk with nine minutes left in the third. Stroud threw his second interception with about 90 seconds left in the third quarter but Ward’s touchdown came three plays later to put the Texans on top 24-23. The Titans fumbled a punt early in the fourth quarter and Houston recovered it. A 54-yard field goal by Fairbairn extended the lead to 27-23 with about 10 minutes to go. Dameon Pierce returned the opening kickoff 80 yards to get the Texans in the red zone. Houston cashed in on the next play when Stroud found rookie Cade Stover on a 19-yard pass for his first touchdown reception. The Titans trailed by four after a field goal by Folk when Nick Westbrook-Ikhine got in front of the defense and was wide open for a 38-yard TD catch that made it 10-7 late in the first quarter. Tennessee extended the lead to 17-7 when Tony Pollard ran 10 yards for a touchdown with about 11 minutes left in the second. Pollard finished with 119 yards and a touchdown. Nico Collins scored on a 5-yard reception with about six minutes left in the second. Levis levis lost a fumble with about 3 1/2 minutes left and the Texans added a 28-yard field goal to tie it at 17-17. Houston forced a punt after that, but rookie Jarvis Brownlee Jr. got his first career interception two plays later to give Tennessee the ball back. Folk’s 56-yard field goal, which tied his career long, put the Titans up 20-17 at halftime. Injuries The Titans were without cornerback L’Jarius Sneed, after he was placed on injured reserve with a quadriceps injury, and safety Amani Hooker, who was added to the injury report Sunday morning with an illness. Callahan said Hooker was vomiting “every time he stood up” Sunday. ... Houston S Jalen Pitre injured his shoulder in the second quarter and didn’t return. ... CB Ka’dar Hollman left in the fourth quarter with a knee injury. Up next Titans: Visit the Commanders next Sunday. Texans: Visit Jacksonville next Sunday. AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/nfl

As a lifelong bicyclist, I’ve logged tens of thousands of miles commuting in urban areas, pedaling to and from work, enjoying weekend rides through suburban and rural areas, and taking on multiday touring trips. These miles include several Latin American counties and Japan. Over the years, I’ve also been knee-deep in bicycle advocacy circles, most notably in the San Diego area, where I sat on the board of the local bicycle coalition and regularly participated in groups like the California Association of Bicycling Organizations. Given my history, one might assume I’m excited to see the growing network of bike lanes popping up in cities across Colorado, which I once again call home. After all, cyclist, motorist, and pedestrian safety is a shared concern for everyone on the road. But my enthusiasm for bike lanes — specifically those built within the rights-of-way of public highways — is far from absolute. In fact, I’m against them more often than not, especially as “protected” bike lanes have become the new default tool in the bike lane visionary’s toolbox. Bike lanes are often celebrated as solutions for cyclist safety, environmental sustainability, public health and urban transformation. Yet, the reality is far less rosy. These lanes frequently fail to deliver on their promises. Instead, they create significant trade-offs, often compromising cyclist safety, marginalizing riders, perpetuating dangerous misconceptions about road use and hindering urban mobility for everyone. Bike lane advocates make compelling promises that resonate with visions promoting healthier, safer and more sustainable cities. These promises can be distilled into five main areas: safety, environmental sustainability, health, urban renewal and transformation. Bike lanes, especially those separated from motor traffic by barriers, are promoted as life-saving infrastructure that will prevent collisions and encourage “interested and concerned” cyclists or noncyclists to take to the streets. These bike lanes are further touted as aiding in increasing mobility options, including reducing car dependency and providing a transportation option for those who cannot afford automobiles or are unable to obtain or keep a driver’s license. There’s also an environmental angle since bicycles emit no tailpipe emissions and do not combust hydrocarbons. Advocates also regularly point out the poor health of millions of Americans, including the obesity crisis. These promises are aspirational, and the rhetoric behind them has become a powerful force in bike lane advocacy. However, as economist Thomas Sowell once said, “Visions are the foundations on which theories are built. The final structure depends not only on the foundation but also on how carefully and consistently the framework of theory is constructed and how well buttressed it is with hard facts.” Sowell also wrote, “There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.” Bike lane advocates often fail to acknowledge the trade-offs that come with their implementations instead relying an “anointed vision.” One of the most common justifications for bike lanes is safety. Advocates argue that today’s roads “feel” unsafe to “all ages and abilities” and claim that only the “athletic” or “strong and fearless” are comfortable riding without dedicated lanes separated from motor traffic. Separating cyclists from cars will reduce collisions and encourage new riders, they also say. However, hard evidence often contradicts these claims as the most common crash types between cars and bikes are turning and crossing movements which most bike lanes do little to nothing to mitigate. While bike lanes might “feel safer,” particularly to less experienced riders, they introduce new dangers at intersections, driveways and merging points where conflicts with cars are more likely. Feelings aren’t always reality, but they’re potent and persuasive in grand, anointed visions. In my riding experience and in my years of independent research on crashes, I’ve seen how bike lanes can lead to collisions — referred to among cycling-safety enthusiasts as right hooks, left hooks, drive outs, pullouts and doorings. Many of these collisions are fatal, and surprisingly many bike lane advocates either don’t know what they are, downplay them or outright ignore them. Cyclists using “protected” bike lanes regularly collide with the very bollards, flex posts, wheel stops, or other elements that are supposed to protect them. I saw these crash types increase dramatically firsthand with many protected bike lane projects in the San Diego area despite decades-long warnings from both myself and cycling safety experts on these issues. A lot of cyclists don’t like to hear it, but much of their safety is under their control. This, of course, doesn’t dismiss reckless, inattentive, intoxicated motorists or those ignorant of traffic laws pertaining to cycling, but many crashes are at least in part the fault of the cyclist for not obeying traffic rules. Cyclists fare best when they learn to navigate roads as vehicle drivers, following traffic laws, riding visibly, predictably and in cooperation with other road users. This approach is taught in “bike-ed” programs such as Cycling Savvy. Training cyclists to ride competently is a far more effective and sustainable solution than relying on infrastructure that may introduce new risks. True safety in most on-road cycling encounters comes not from segregation by “protection” but from integration by cooperation. Bicyclists who embark on this journey of education and empowerment often go through a paradigm shift, viewing existing roads suitable and safe for their needs while recognizing the vast trade-offs of bicycle lanes. Promoting bike lanes over education, which is done dogmatically by many of these activists, often promotes and encourages unsafe cycling and problems with other road users, such as motorists. Furthermore, the constant fear-mongering that the roads are inherently unsafe and the cyclist has no control over their situation further discourages cycling. Instead of reducing danger, poorly designed bike lanes following flawed traffic engineering standards can create a false sense of security for cyclists and motorists alike. Bike lanes are promoted as a way to combat climate change by reducing car use and emissions. Yet, the impact is often overstated. Many bike lane users are recreational cyclists or existing riders, not drivers switching modes of transport. As a result, the carbon savings are modest at best. Many cyclists also own cars, especially in Colorado, with long travel distances and the varying hobbies which are impractical by bike. Bicycles have severe practical limitations for most people given their limited range in practical times, minimal cargo capacity, and the inability for most bicycles to carry passengers. While places such as San Diego have a year-round mild climate with few days of precipitation, Colorado, and most of the country have four proper seasons. Only extremely dedicated and passionate cyclists with proper equipment and mindset or those with no other transportation choice take up riding in rain and snow. Moreover, the construction of bike lanes comes with its environmental costs, including resource use and emissions. One proposed “protected” lane project in San Diego requires the use of eminent domain to seize part of the adjacent canyon, home to a rare swath of California chaparral and bird nests, to make room for the new right-of-way of the protected bike lane. One of the photographs in a recent Gazette Editorial showed two gas-powered generators being used to power the equipment for the construction of one of Denver’s protected bicycle lanes. A lot of bike lane activists tie their beliefs to the absurd idea that we can eliminate hydrocarbons or bring on their utopias without environmental impacts. Poorly planned networks can even exacerbate congestion, as reduced road capacity leads to idling motor vehicles and longer commutes. Competent cycling on existing roads achieves similar environmental benefits without these trade-offs. There’s no denying that cycling can improve the health for those who engage in the activity. One doesn’t have to be an athlete to see the benefits, as even regular short and slow cycling trips can improve one’s heart, blood pressure, mental health, and waistline. However, it’s worth questioning whether bike lanes are the best way to achieve this goal. There’s a massive diversity in how people get or stay active, with many who don’t see cycling as part of their exercise programs. Encouraging cycling through education, workplace incentives, and secure bike parking can be just as effective — if not more so — without the expense and challenges of building segregated lanes. Public parks, recreation centers, or gyms might warrant a second look, as well as restoring the safety in parks. In places such as Denver, petty crime and public camping pose safety and quality of life concerns among many residents. In recent years, homeless encampments could be found in many of Denver’s parks and even some of the urban protected bike lanes. This is the case, too, in other cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle, where the bike lane expansion projects are also underway. The vision of bike lanes as a catalyst for livable cities is appealing. Bike lane advocates look to car-light and bike-heavy cities such as Amsterdam or Copenhagen, viewing these places as utopian blueprints for transforming cities back in the United States. In truth, these cities have significant safety issues with their bicycle infrastructure as well, especially thanks to the rise of e-bikes and scooters. But these visions often oversimplify the complex factors that make cities thrive. These visionaries also ignore the cultural differences surrounding the American desires for larger private property and the popularity of the automobile for individual mobility. Most of these people dogmatically demonize single-family housing, zoning, and the popularity of the automobile while insisting they know what’s best for everyone else. That includes feedback from actual taxpaying and contributing locals over political special interest groups or unaccountable bureaucrats. Much of the backlash against building these bike lanes stems from long-time property owners frustrated with the lack of accountability and transparency from the governments that impose them and grow frustrated at the declining quality of the roads, schools, or public safety. I saw this numerous times in the San Diego area, and it appears to be repeating in Denver. Bike lanes cannot achieve these urban transformation outcomes, and their alleged benefits often flow disproportionately to affluent or politically connected neighborhoods, leaving underserved communities behind who may be served better by increased public transportation or even automobiles. Instead of doubling down on bike lanes, I propose a few alternative ideas if governments and cities want to continue encouraging cycling. These proposals cost less taxpayer money, benefit a greater number of people, including noncyclists, and are less intrusive. Training and education are a must for road users. The Colorado Department of Transportation has a bike safety manual similar to the motor vehicle driving manual people use to study for their driver’s licenses. While it’s a great start, the cover shows a woman and child cycling in a dangerous door zone bicycle lane, and it contains other questionable safety items. Such manuals have their place but need improvement. Formal bicycling education courses need to be normalized. I’m a huge fan of Cycling Savvy’s program because they understand the safety issue, but they also help cyclists adopt an empowering, cooperative, and nonvictim-oriented mindset. They also have programs targeted toward group recreational riders and teenagers on e-bikes. More effort to reach out to noncyclists needs to be made as well. The city of Fort Collins hosts an excellent program geared toward motorists about bicycling safety. With education comes enforcement in the form of police handing out warnings for minor infractions along with ticketing and mandatory educational programs for the more severe infractions or for repeat offenders. Also, law enforcement needs to take the issue of bike theft seriously. Bicycle lanes have their place in some contexts and in certain conditions, but their designs need to be scrutinized for safety issues, and most “protected” bike lanes fail miserably for their safety. If governments are going to promote them, they need the backing of their residents, and they need solid safety and use studies of both before and after their installation. Bureaucrats and activists need to be open and honest with shortcomings, especially when their promises do not materialize. Even with these efforts, we shouldn’t be surprised if the mode share for cycling remains relatively low in most cities. At the end of the day, it’s just not that practical a form of transportation for most people. Bike lanes promise a better future, but they often deliver less than advertised. They create trade-offs that compromise safety, marginalize cyclists, and fail to address the root causes of urban mobility challenges. As someone who has spent decades on the road and in the advocacy world, I believe we need a paradigm shift: from segregation to integration, from symbolic infrastructure to meaningful cyclist empowerment. But I also believe individuals should be able to choose the mode of transport that suits their needs best. When we abandon the utopian vision of bike lanes and embrace the realities of trade-offs, we can chart a more practical path forward. Frank Lehnerz is a Fort Collins-based engineer who works in the electric energy industry. His roles in bicycling advocacy included board positions in the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition and the San Diego Bicycle Club. He also participated regularly in the California Association of Bicycling Organizations. In addition to his passion for bicycling he’s a car enthusiast, telemark skier, shooter, and student pilot.