NHRA Thunder Valley Nationals Pairings
At Bristol Dragway
Bristol, Tenn.
Sunday's Pairings
Top Fuel
1. Tony Stewart, 3.755 seconds, 325.77 mph vs. 14. Cameron Ferre, 8.295, 80.35; 2. Justin Ashley, 3.762, 330.80 vs. 13. Antron Brown, 4.699, 164.37; 3. Shawn Langdon, 3.800, 328.54 vs. 12. Cody Krohn, 4.078, 252.47; 4. Clay Millican, 3.812, 328.86 vs. 11. Shawn Reed, 4.047, 282.78; 5. Steve Torrence, 3.834, 329.50 vs. 10. Dan Mercier, 3.941, 309.70; 6. Josh Hart, 3.860, 324.67 vs. 9. Doug Kalitta, 3.909, 289.01; 7. Brittany Force, 3.899, 288.95 vs. 8. Ida Zetterstrom, 3.904, 322.88.
Funny Car
1. Austin Prock, Chevy Camaro, 3.931, 329.10 vs. 16. Buddy Hull, Dodge Charger, 5.230, 143.75; 2. Alexis DeJoria, Charger, 3.948, 328.14 vs. 15. Dave Richards, Ford Mustang, 4.078, 315.78; 3. Ron Capps, Toyota GR Supra, 3.960, 326.56 vs. 14. Matt Hagan, Charger, 4.060, 319.75; 4. Jack Beckman, Camaro, 3.969, 323.74 vs. 13. Julie Nataas, GR Supra, 4.037, 317.05; 5. Daniel Wilkerson, Mustang, 3.977, 325.92 vs. 12. Bob Tasca III, Mustang, 4.022, 320.20; 6. J.R. Todd, GR Supra, 3.987, 327.03 vs. 11. Spencer Hyde, Mustang, 4.014, 319.98; 7. Cruz Pedregon, Charger, 3.988, 322.11 vs. 10. Hunter Green, Charger, 4.004, 294.75; 8. Paul Lee, Charger, 3.996, 319.22 vs. 9. Chad Green, Mustang, 3.998, 323.43.
Pro Stock
1. Dallas Glenn, Chevy Camaro, 6.645, 205.66 vs. 16. Fernando Cuadra Jr., Camaro, 6.710, 206.01; 2. Greg Anderson, Camaro, 6.652, 205.98 vs. 15. Kenny Delco, Camaro, 6.708, 203.40; 3. Matt Hartford, Camaro, 6.652, 205.16 vs. 14. Deric Kramer, Camaro, 6.706, 205.26; 4. Aaron Stanfield, Camaro, 6.666, 206.32 vs. 13. Mason McGaha, Camaro, 6.697, 205.16; 5. Cody Coughlin, Camaro, 6.667, 205.32 vs. 12. Greg Stanfield, Camaro, 6.690, 205.13; 6. David Cuadra, Camaro, 6.669, 205.63 vs. 11. Cristian Cuadra, Ford Mustang, 6.686, 206.13; 7. Erica Enders, Camaro, 6.670, 205.88 vs. 10. Cory Reed, Camaro, 6.681, 205.19; 8. Matt Latino, Camaro, 6.674, 205.01 vs. 9. Jeg Coughlin, Camaro, 6.679, 206.01.
Did Not Qualify: 17. Troy Coughlin Jr., 6.714, 205.29; 18. Chris McGaha, 6.731, 205.60; 19. Brandon Miller, 6.774, 203.34; 20. Jerry Tucker, broke.
Pro Stock Motorcycle
1. Brayden Davis, Suzuki, 6.834, 197.59 vs. Bye; 2. Richard Gadson, Suzuki, 6.859, 197.83 vs. 13. Charles Poskey, Suzuki, 7.229, 188.31; 3. Matt Smith, Buell, 6.871, 199.46 vs. 12. John Hall, Beull, 6.993, 195.59; 4. Gaige Herrera, Suzuki, 6.876, 197.39 vs. 11. Chris Bostick, Suzuki, 6.992, 193.99; 5. Angie Smith, Buell, 6.907, 196.53 vs. 10. Steve Johnson, Suzuki, 6.967, 192.91; 6. Chase Van Sant, Suzuki, 6.911, 195.48 vs. 9. Ryan Oehler, EBR, 6.967, 193.79; 7. Marc Ingwersen, EBR, 6.941, 190.89 vs. 8. Jianna Evaristo, Buell, 6.952, 194.52.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
2 minutes ago
- New York Times
A La Liga match in… Miami? Plus: Liverpool need fine-tuning, Musah's Nottingham Forest talks
The Athletic FC ⚽ is The Athletic's daily football (or soccer, if you prefer) newsletter. Sign up to receive it directly to your inbox. Hello! Christmas in Miami for La Liga? You heard it here first. On the way: Ever since the resolution of a major U.S. legal case, the staging of a European league game on American soil has been a matter of when, not if. Today, we're one step closer to putting a date on the 'when'. Mark down the weekend of December 20-21 this year in your diaries because, if all the ducks get themselves in a row, a La Liga match featuring Barcelona and Villarreal will be headed for Miami, Florida, on or around those dates. There's enough enthusiasm for the proposal to suggest it will happen, making it the first top-flight fixture involving clubs from Europe to take place in the States. Advertisement To rewind a little first, the initiative — a controversial one among those who object to teams playing thousands of miles away from home, predominantly for financial gains — has been in the ether for a long time. La Liga first attempted to take a Barcelona game to the U.S. back in 2018, only to be met by opposition from the powers that be, including world governing body FIFA. What ensued was an antitrust lawsuit brought by the American promoter behind the plan, Relevent Sports. It challenged both FIFA and U.S. Soccer in court, claiming it should be allowed to host foreign league matches in American cities — and in April this year, the dispute was comprehensively settled. That development was the starting gun for Relevent to turn the concept into a reality and La Liga, which has been at the forefront of seeking more U.S. exposure, has presented a swift and viable option, involving one of the biggest teams on the planet. Writing for The Athletic, Adam Crafton and Pol Ballus have spelt out the various hurdles which still have to be cleared. Objections to European games taking place outside their traditional jurisdiction have softened dramatically — but Villarreal-Barca in Miami is not a slam dunk. For one thing, the NFL's Miami Dolphins have a nationally-televised home game with the Cincinnati Bengals at Hard Rock Stadium on the night of December 21, and any scheduling will surely prioritise the Dolphins, rather than the other way round. But in reaching an arrangement which works for all sides, it doesn't hurt that the founder of Relevent happens to be the Dolphins' owner Stephen Ross. It's also handy that certain relationships have thawed. La Liga is on better terms with the Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) than it was previously, and it needs the organisation's consent to proceed. UEFA and Concacaf, the regional federation concerned, also have to provide the green light, as does the United States Soccer Federation (USSF). Advertisement In short, plenty of pieces need to fall into place yet, but the impetus is so great that substantial resistance from those who could thwart the concept is hard to imagine. A litmus test will occur today (Monday) when the RFEF formally decides whether to approve La Liga's request. La Liga craves a bigger chunk of the U.S. market (hence why it has an office in New York). It trails behind the Premier League commercially and is seeking new horizons. It stands to be the first league to make it to the States — but make no mistake, others in Europe would follow. Liverpool's defeat to Crystal Palace in yesterday's Community Shield match — England's annual curtain-raiser for the new season, contested by the reigning Premier League champions and FA Cup holders — shouldn't worry them too much. History shows that in the past 14 years, only one Community Shield-winning side has gone on to lift the title. In all, it was a day of ups and downs — the worst of them a disrupted minute's silence for the late Diogo Jota which had to be cut short. Liverpool head coach Arne Slot was charitable about it. His captain Virgil van Dijk less so. On the pitch, Florian Wirtz and Hugo Ekitike combined for Liverpool's first goal and Jeremie Frimpong scored their second. That's lift-off for £200m-worth of summer signings right there. The less said about Salah's penalty in the shootout Palace edged (above) the better. The ball is believed to be somewhere in a tower block outside Wembley. As James Pearce notes, a busy off-season has given Slot some fine-tuning to do — but I'll be surprised if Liverpool aren't good to go. Weekend one in the Championship very nearly served up statement wins from two of the clubs with most eyeballs on them: Birmingham City and Wrexham. Birmingham were within seconds of a 1-0 victory over Ipswich Town (everybody's pick for the title) when a letter-of-the-law handball decision salvaged a penalty for the visitors. Lyndon Dykes' right arm is at head height, above, so the call was bound to go against him. Advertisement The following afternoon, Wrexham had the beating of Southampton until goals in the 90th and 96th minutes stole the moment from them. The Hollywood memo evidently passed Southampton by. Two conflicting conclusions to draw here: one, that the Championship will be ruthless with Birmingham and Wrexham, in a way that League One wasn't last season. But two, that at first glance, both teams are going to cause the second division some trouble. Strap in. Any list of the worst club debuts ever invariably includes Jonathan Woodgate's for Real Madrid. The highlights of his introduction at the Bernabeu in 2005 were an own goal and a second-half red card. 'It wasn't the best,' the English defender said afterwards. Yesterday, Milan centre-back Andrei Coubis, 21, succeeded in outdoing Woodgate on his first senior start in a friendly against Chelsea — scoring an own goal after five minutes and receiving a red card for a professional foul after 19 (above). More defending like that from Milan this season and Christian Pulisic will have his work cut out up front… Spot the pattern. Connect the terms Find the hidden link between sports terms Play today's puzzle
Forbes
3 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Behavioral Economics Battle Lurking In EPA's Endangerment Finding Repeal
The EPA's 2009 Endangerment Finding was the agency's formal determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. Ever since, it has served as the legal foundation for EPA climate regulations. Without this finding, EPA lacks Clean Air Act authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Trump administration's EPA has now proposed to repeal the Endangerment Finding, along with the agency's greenhouse gas standards for light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles that depend on it. In the agency's announcement, EPA justifies the repeal by citing the severe economic burdens of its existing rules, including over $1 trillion in compliance costs. As the agency moves to dismantle the Endangerment Finding, another battleground has opened up that has received less attention. That fight is about whether regulators should trust consumers' preferences or instead attempt to 'correct' them. The outcome of this debate could swing the measured benefits of climate rules by trillions of dollars. The Role of Regulatory Impact Analysis Because repealing the Endangerment Finding would also remove the legal basis for existing greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks, EPA is required under longstanding executive orders to analyze the economic effects of that policy change. This requires the agency to tally the costs avoided and the benefits forgone from the action. To comply with these requirements, agencies prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) whenever a rule or policy change is expected to have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more. RIA is a framework for identifying the expected consequences of a regulation, quantifying them where possible, and monetizing them when the data and methods allow. In the case of the Endangerment Finding repeal, that means examining how vehicle technology, fuel use, air pollution, and consumer welfare would differ with and without the greenhouse gas standards, and then converting any differences into dollar terms. In its draft RIA for the repeal action, EPA's core engineering-model estimate finds the repeal would yield net costs of roughly $260 billion (at a 3% discount rate, over the years 2027 to 2055). This traditional government approach counts fuel savings as a benefit to consumers, making the repeal appear costly since those savings would be lost. However, Appendix B of the RIA includes an alternative 'revealed preference' analysis that estimates net benefits of the repeal ranging from $3.05 trillion to $8.18 trillion. This set of estimates assumes that if consumers aren't voluntarily choosing more fuel-efficient vehicles, then forcing them to do so through regulations actually harms them. Any estimated savings, in that case, were pure fiction. By extension, so were many of the benefits of regulation. The Assumption of Revealed Preference Cost-benefit analysis aims to tally up the monetized social gains and losses from a policy. An economist adds up the 'private benefits' to particular individuals to arrive at a cumulative "social benefit" estimate for society as a whole. 'Revealed preference' is a concept central to this endeavor. By examining what people buy and how much they are willing to pay for different items and features, economists can estimate dollar values for different types of benefits and costs. This approach assumes that the observed willingness to pay of an individual reflects the value of a benefit to that person. This method has a major advantage in that it respects people's choices and doesn't involve analysts judging whether people's choices are good or bad; they merely accept that the choice made was what the individual preferred. The downside of this approach is that people don't always make decisions that accord with their own interests, or that of society. Fuel Savings Violate Revealed Preference For years, agencies writing fuel economy and energy efficiency rules have counted fuel and energy savings as a benefit of those rulemakings. When a consumer buys a more fuel-efficient car or appliance, they save money on gas or their utility bill. The government counts that as a significant benefit of a regulatory action phasing out less-efficient devices. This approach is valid if consumers genuinely underappreciate those savings when they buy a car or appliance. But if they already weigh fuel economy and energy efficiency against other attributes of a product before making a purchase, the savings are not a windfall benefit of the rulemaking. They're the flip side of losing other features the consumers value more. Appendix B of EPA's regulatory analysis relies on exactly that logic. If a consumer picks a gas-powered truck knowing it'll burn more fuel, they've made a trade they prefer. Forcing them into an EV to 'save' fuel costs is a net loss to them. Yet for many years, the government has treated this as a benefit. Behavioral Economics and the "Energy Efficiency Gap" Economists use the term 'energy efficiency gap' to describe the puzzling difference between the level of energy efficiency that appears cost-effective in theory and the lower level people actually choose in real life. For example, engineering calculations might show that spending $1,000 on better insulation, more efficient appliances, or a higher-MPG vehicle would pay for itself in a few years through lower utility or fuel bills. Yet, many consumers routinely forgo those investments. What explains the gap? One interpretation is that buyers are making biased, short-sighted decisions. This is the classic territory of "behavioral economics," a field focused on how real-world decisions often deviate from the assumptions of rational, optimizing behavior found in economists' models. Cognitive biases like hyperbolic discounting (placing too much weight on present rewards relative to future ones) or inattention (failing to notice or process fuel cost information) could lead people to under-invest in efficiency and leave money on the table. This perspective justifies counting the full value of 'missed' fuel savings as a regulatory benefit to the consumer, because the regulation is correcting their mistake. But there's another possibility, which is that the gap isn't a sign of bias at all, but instead a reflection of genuine trade-offs. A consumer might choose the lower-MPG car because they care more about acceleration, cargo space, style, or any number of attributes that are not captured in the fuel-savings calculations. An analyst who misinterprets the gap as a bias, when in fact the choice was based on a rational calculation, could force consumers into a less-preferred option and make them worse off. What's at Stake Separating bias from legitimate preferences is exceedingly difficult, and some would argue impossible. From the outside, the decision looks the same whether it's the product of error or preference. If we can't reliably distinguish between bias and preference, then the case for 'correcting' consumer choices becomes more about paternalism than empiricism. The stakes in this debate go beyond the Endangerment Finding. In many energy-efficiency rulemakings, 80 to 90 percent of the total monetized benefits come from the government's calculations of consumers' avoided energy costs. Environmental benefits to Americans are often in the low single-digit percentages. This means the overwhelming majority of the official benefit calculation hinges on the assumption that regulators can improve consumer welfare by steering people toward more efficient—and more expensive—products, even when buyers themselves would freely choose otherwise if left to decide on their own. This leaves economists in a quandary. Do they assume that observed market behavior is the best available measure of welfare, even if it sometimes reflects mistakes? Or do they override those choices based on models of what they think people should want if they made careful choices using all the available information? Or do they seek a middle ground, acknowledging that their models are often accurate but may also ignore important context-specific trade-offs? The answer to these questions determines whether a regulation's calculated benefits can be trusted. Private vs. Social Benefits Another complication relates to the difference between private and social benefits. Even when consumers make perfectly rational choices, what is in the interests of an individual doesn't always benefit society as a whole. When one person's gain imposes external costs on others, this can reduce, or even reverse, the net benefit for society. One obvious group affected by our purchasing decisions is future generations. It is easy to imagine future people might prefer that today's consumers forgo some luxuries in favor of greater savings and investment, which would improve living standards in the long run. But those intergenerational considerations are typically not reflected in market prices or, similarly, in economists' measures of revealed preference. In the context of energy and fuel economy, a dollar saved at the pump can be invested elsewhere in the economy, compounding to boost growth and future welfare. The enjoyment from a car feature like more horsepower or a panoramic sunroof can't be reinvested in the same way. So while a consumer may be better off paying more for those amenities, future generations probably will not be. From society's perspective, fuel and energy savings likely do represent social benefits for this reason, even when they don't compensate for their drawbacks from an individual's standpoint. A Rulemaking Worth Watching EPA's Endangerment Finding RIA pushes this debate forward by putting the revealed preference framework front-and-center, challenging the government's conventional inclusion of full lifetime fuel savings as a benefit. Whether that approach gains traction will matter well beyond this rulemaking. It's a core issue for how government evaluates climate and energy efficiency regulations generally. And it's another reason to watch closely how this already-high-stakes rulemaking unfolds.
Associated Press
3 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Naples Soccer Academy Welcomes Nicole Burke as Academy Program Director
Naples Soccer Academy prioritizes the growth and development of female athletes at every level in Southwest Florida. 'NSA's mission reflects my own values as a coach—to inspire, challenge, and empower players to reach their highest potential'— Nicole Burke NAPLES, FL, UNITED STATES, August 11, 2025 / / -- Naples Soccer Academy (NSA), a club-neutral 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated exclusively to advancing female youth soccer training and development in Southwest Florida (EIN-99-2663889), proudly announces the appointment of Nicole Burke as its new Academy Program Director. Burke, who is entering her first season as assistant coach at Florida Gulf Coast University, brings an impressive coaching résumé and a proven track record of developing athletes at the collegiate level. 'Nicole's experience, leadership, and passion for developing female athletes make her an extraordinary addition to Naples Soccer Academy,' said Jason Gruner, Executive Director of Naples Soccer Academy. 'Her ability to elevate players both on and off the field aligns perfectly with our mission to provide elite, athlete-first training in Southwest Florida. We are thrilled to have her lead our Academy program into this next chapter.' Prior to joining FGCU, Burke served as interim head coach at Jacksonville State University during the 2024 season, leading the Gamecocks to an 8-9-2 overall record and a berth in the C-USA tournament. Under her leadership, the program ranked No. 25 nationally in goals scored, with three players earning All-C-USA honors, including a First Team selection. Offensively, Jacksonville State led the conference in goals scored, with signature wins over West Georgia (1-0) and North Alabama (5-0). Her career also includes two standout seasons at Hanover College, where the program compiled a 26-5-7 record, captured the 2023 HCAC Tournament Championship, earned an NCAA Division III Tournament berth, and posted back-to-back HCAC regular-season titles (including an unbeaten 8-0-1 mark in 2023). Burke began her collegiate coaching career as a graduate assistant at Bluffton University in 2021. As a player, Burke was a standout goalkeeper for the University of Findlay, helping lead the Oilers to two regular-season championships, one tournament championship, and a trip to the NCAA Tournament second round after hosting the opening rounds. 'I'm honored to join Naples Soccer Academy and contribute to an organization that prioritizes the growth, safety, and success of youth female athletes,' said Nicole Burke, Academy Program Director. 'NSA's mission reflects my own values as a coach—to inspire, challenge, and empower players to reach their highest potential.' About Nicole Burke: A native of Hilliard, Ohio, Burke played her club soccer for Ohio Premier before continuing at the University of Findlay as a goalkeeper. She earned her undergraduate degree in Criminal Justice from Findlay in 2021 and her Master of Business Administration from Bluffton University in 2023. About Naples Soccer Academy (NSA): Naples Soccer Academy is a club-neutral, 501(c)(3) nonprofit (EIN-99-2663889) committed to empowering young female athletes through elite-level training and mentorship. Led by collegiate and professional female athletes, NSA offers year-round development in a supportive, athlete-first environment designed to elevate performance on and off the pitch. Jason T. Gruner Naples Soccer Academy Corporation + +1 239-272-1082 email us here Visit us on social media: Instagram Facebook TikTok Legal Disclaimer: EIN Presswire provides this news content 'as is' without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
