In partnership with CBSSports.com
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I'll stand up for Rapid City in this thread. My dad was stationed out there when I was in middle and early high school, and it's not anywhere near the craphole that some people are making it out to be. I wouldn't want to live there because the weather absolutely blows and the pace of life is too slow, but at least it's in a really scenic area with the Black Hills nearby. I think some of you expect way too much from a city with 60K people in it. The people are great out there as well, for the most part, although you can get some serious cowboy-rednecks as well. At least the population density of the rednecks is really low though.
Regardless, my answer to the thread is probably Rhode Island, for reasons already mentioned. The risk in virtually any other state of being a long way from any major city is too great.
It's one of the most beautiful places to sit on a beach and read a book for a week.
I think the country one in particular would be more interesting if you could weight it by pop density as well. With virtually any country of any size, you just have way too great a chance of ending up somewhere horrible. I'd probably pick the Vatican for this hypothetical.
If you weight it by pop density, you're pretty much just picking which big city outside the US you like best.
This post was edited by HoopheadVII 2 years ago
Not really. Plenty of countries with cool cities have a reasonable rural population. If not rural, then at least "less desirable urban area" population. I mean, what percentage of Brits live in the London metro area? I think living in London would be great, but I think living in Manchester or Birmingham would completely suck. The calculus would have to reflect that.
You really didn't look too hard if the only thing you could find to eat was in the Holiday Inn convention center. There are several places to eat down town that are very good.
I just spent 2 years in Rapid City, and it really wasn't that bad. If you can get through the bitterly cold winters, the summers are absolutely awesome.
No. This is jtp's doing. He's kept me around for his bizarre HOF resume.
I used to play against Liechtenstein in Fifa (06 I think) to try to score 10+ goals. No way I associate with those losers!
Yea well, you chose Florida!
Agreed. Definitely not hard to find a good steak out there. Some pretty good eats up in the hills too, though that's a bit further away.
I'm a fan of cold weather, but Rapid City was pretty brutal. I can't imagine living in the eastern half of SD, anywhere in ND, or anything in MN north of the Twin Cities, which are a good bit colder than Rapid City. June through early October were absolutely awesome though.
As did several others!
south carolina, georgia, california, and florida picks fall into the "posters who have instantly lost all credibility" category
im sorry i was confusing...your "Superbowl" was the Redskins losing since you know that the Ravens cant win it all.
Have you ever been to either? Ukraine for the most part is a lawless shithole with a horrible economy. Have fun beeing fleeced by the Roma in Hungary.
Ireland's a good call. New Zealand would probably be my pick. Even if you're in the most remote part, you're not too far away from the coast and/or the major cities. Netherlands also a possibility.
Im not counting little municipalities like Andorra, Monaco etc
Maryland or Virginia. beaches to mountains and limited natural disasters.
Pic Sigs are for losers.
9/21/2010...RIP Old IMS.
California at least has tremendous upside to justify the risk of its tremendous downside. The other three, though, yikes.
I mean if the dart puts me in south central with all of my friends and my job that makes no sense, can I just move across town?
No, but you can use the dart in your new profession: mugging mah fuggers.
Id rather be in South Central than some hellish central valley town like Visalia. The closest "big" town is shithole Fresno, and everyone who lives there is an illegal avocado picker or meth addict/dealer
Being from Cumberland, it is great to see that everyone holds it in such high regards...
As someone who would rather be dead than stuck in some godforsaken rural area for 5 years, I think this list is as reasonable as any.
It makes me feel pretty dirty, but Jersey doesn't seem like that bad of a choice, considering some of the alternatives.
eamhokie94: Is your name Nazi in pig Latin?
Sorry, I don't know what I am talking about. I was assuming South Central is Anacostia. Cue someone telling me Anacostia is pretty great.
I've been to both, and frankly, it sounds like your last visit was 20 years ago. Ukraine certainly still needs improvement in a lot of areas, but it's nowhere near as bad as you make it sound. I'd move to Budapest in a heartbeat...beautiful city. There are nice parts of the country outside of Budapest too, though like the rest of Eastern Europe, the bigger purely industrial towns are pretty terrible and drab.
Anyone even entertaining California is seriously underestimating the geographic size of the terrible areas of the state. Even in the prettier areas, you could be really, really far away from civilization.
Have fun living in Calexico or Ridgecrest just because you wanted a 0.2% chance of living in San Francisco or San Diego.
Well I won't go that far, but I'd take Anacostia in a heart beat over anything in Kansas.
Its not. But Id rather live in a bad area very close to a great city (not with a family, mind you), than 5 hours from civilization in a horrible beaten down farming region
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports