-
Posts
3456 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by hpslugga
-
-
"There's a thing called fact-checking"
Well yeah, there is. The thing is that you're not very good at it...because you listen to Alex Jones.
-
25 minutes ago, chesthair said:
ACU gonna beat rapeU 9/1. Book it!
Go wildcats!
Who?
-
18 minutes ago, Red Five said:
“Conservative news outlet”. Lulz
He says that as if opposition of the local water turning frogs homosexual is "conservative" or "news."
If anyone hasn't seen it yet, I'd recommend watching that botched encounter he had with Bernie at the airport. That effeminate loser actually blames Hillary Clinton for his Sandy Hook denialism. And why does he do it? Because it's all about the gimmick. It's all about the work. He's never off it. He'd rather climb up a tree and believe a lie than stand on the ground and accept reality. At first I thought he was a snowball artist, but I think the more reasonable explanation is that he started off that way and grew to believe his own bullshit...either that or he knows that he has to keep outdoing himself in order to stay relevant.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, EMAWesome said:
Stay the fuck out of the way of the private sector for starters.
He said “good ideas,” not “wishes upon a fucking star.”
-
Placing CC expectations on ANY coach in Lubbock or Pullman isn’t realistic at all. Coaching is about leaving the program in better shape than you found it.
Did anyone fear Dykes’ Red Raiders by 1999? As I recall, a fairly mediocre Texas team sent his ass out with his tail between his legs and his balls in his mouth that season. No one gave a shit about Tech by that point, nor should they have.
Did anyone in the PAC 12 give two chunks of baboon shit about Wazzu in 2011? They went 4-8 and finished dead last in the division, which was typical in their post-2003 era in that very brief period of success they enjoyed.
-
8 minutes ago, Dropout said:
And you’re talking about one year
You pick the beginning.
Clemson was somewhere in the 50's in 2016
Bama was 4th in 2015
Ohio State was 35th in 2014
Florida State was 55th in 2013
Bama was 15th in 2012 and 12th in 2011
Auburn was 64th in 2010 (and the team they beat in the MNC game was 104th)See what I mean? It's all over the fucking place and there's no positive or negative correlation to it.
QuoteAnd the list I’m looking at has last years champion at 59.
They were 70th. https://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/2018/team/705/p2
Either way, that's not a huge difference.
-
15 minutes ago, Dropout said:
So if you were a betting man you’d take the bottom half of those lists over the top half?
I'm saying that I wouldn't base any hypothetical wagers I'd make on teams by TOP.
Your question-begging, strawman argument implies that I said there's an inverse correlation. I said no such thing. I said it's unimportant. Those are two different things.
Seriously, you're talking about a stat where the national champion ranked 70th. Any stat where the national leader has a 6-6 regular season and the national champion ranked 70th is by definition an unimportant statistic.
-
3 minutes ago, Dropout said:
Alot of the top ten throughout the years admittedly run gimmick offenses Army Navy Air Force etc. I’d still take my chances with the teams holding the ball more than 30 min than those who don’t. And I didn’t make TOP the golden goose or most important stat ever. I simply asked slorch if he was insinuating it’s not an important aspect of the game.
And I answered your question: it's not. Now, you might have your own personal preference, but that in no way proves that it's important.
-
53 minutes ago, Dropout said:
Are you insinuating TOP isn’t important in football?
I can't speak for slorch, but I'm telling you directly that it isn't. Look at the top 10 teams in TOP last season and understand those teams, combined, had a 59-48 regular season record in 2017. 3 of them had losing records, 1 had a .500 record, and another would have had Harvey not cancelled the UH vs. UTSA game (no fucking way UTSA wins that game). Either way, that's a winning percentage of 55%. That should tell you that there's a shitload of considerations when it comes to statistics, and TOP isn't the golden goose you imply that it is.
Or to put it another way, here's the final regular season poll and to the in parentheses is their TOP ranking (playoff teams highlighted).
1. Clemson (49th)
2. Auburn (31st)
3. Oklahoma (23rd)
4. Wisconsin (2nd)
5. Alabama (70th)
6. Georgia (19th)
7. Miami (123rd)
8. Ohio State (98th)
9. Penn State (58th)
10. USC (43rd)Avg TOP rank: 52nd (it's 40th among the CFP teams)
It's not important, at least not as much as you make it out to be.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Shmitty said:
Explain. That 2007 LSU defense was loaded.
Individual talent means jack shit compared to team output. All those draft picks mean is that they were a good team on paper, no different than that 2003 Texas team that wound up with 13 drafted players from that squad.
You’re literally suggesting that a 2-loss team with a defense that surrendered 20 points per game somehow had a better defense than Ohio State in 2002; a unit that surrendered 13 points per game.
-Ohio State got to that BCS game on their own merits in 2002. They had a perfect season.
-LSU needed outside help in 2007, namely Kansas losing to Missouri. Les Miles actually campaigned for LSU to get into the BCS title game on the grounds that “we’re undefeated in regulation.” A truly dominant team shouldn’t have to have their coach say something that ridiculous on their behalf...but they evidently did, especially given the loss to unranked Arkansas at the end of the year. I’m sorry, but that Arkansas game alone is a trump card against them.
Also, 2002 Ohio State beat a much better team in the MNC game than LSU beat. That’s not in dispute.
EDIT: And having said all that, the question you posted is highly inappropriate. I specifically stated that there was “no reason to believe” the comment you made. I don’t need to explain shit to you. When you state that you disagree with a comment like “there’s no reason to believe X,” you therefore assume the burden of proof because you made the positive claim by implying that in fact there is a reason to believe it. So what are the reasons? Well you said that LSU’s 2007 defense was “loaded” and that was it. That’s not terribly convincing.
-
7 minutes ago, Shmitty said:
Ohio State had a solid defense no doubt but even that 2007 LSU defense was better than that 2002 Buckeye defense.
There’s no reason to believe that.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
23 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:twice in one day?? At my age??
Well I mean as long as we’re jackin’ off fantasizin’ about shit.
-
1
-
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
7 hours ago, RayDog said:Actually it is not an occupied part of any country
Come again?
-
1
-
-
Nikolai Volkoff dead at 70
Brian Lawler dead at 46
-
3 hours ago, HenryJames said:
Marcellus Wallace doesn’t like to get fucked by anyone except Mrs Wallace
-
3
-
1
-
-
2007 LSU over 2002 Ohio State. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Obviously I take no issue with 2005 Texas being at the top, but that list completely falls apart after that. And I have to jump back on the first thing I said: I cannot take seriously anyone who says that a 2-loss team, who only got into the BCS MNC game because Kansas had a stupid loss to Missouri at the end of the season and cost themselves a berth in the Big 12 CCG, was better than perhaps the greatest defense of the BCS era. Hell, it's arguable that LSU wasn't even the best team in the SEC that year.
-
18 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:
They were running around 100 plays a game in the 70s for each side? Bullshit.No one runs 100 plays a game in the present era. Hell, no one even runs 90 per game. Yeah, those 100's do happen in today's era, but those are outliers and are usually done by teams on the very high end of offensive efficiency (none of those MAC schools do that).
Last year, Syracuse led the nation in plays per game at 88, UTEP was at the bottom at 58, and if you look closely at the list, there's very little separation between teams and is a steady drop from top to bottom. In other words, it's safe to assume that the mean and the median are roughly the same. Since that's the case, the actual number for today is around 73 plays per game (88+58=146, /2=73).
In 1970, it was around 76-77 plays per game. I'll grant you it's not a huge difference, but it was still a greater number. In fact, Texas ran 84 plays per game with its wishbone offense, which would put them at 4th place nationally in 2017, ahead of the fucking Washington State Mike Leaches at 82.9.
So no, it's not "bullshit" by any means other than one's own preconceived perceptions.
-
Just now, kopp0e said:
What assumption was most likely based on wanting to run a "ball controlled" offense, which theoretically keeps the defense fresher, with less snaps taken on that side...
That may have been tenable when everyone was running the same type of equally "uncreative" offense as Knoxhorn put it, but that's a universe apart from today's environment. I liken that whole dynamic to, and I admit this is a bizarre comparison, a back and forth from Vice City: "The families can't keep their backs turned while our enemies reap the rewards." Besides, fewer snaps are taken today than were in the 70's, so again, that wasn't an assumption: it was a wish upon a star.
-
1 hour ago, Knoxtnhorn said:
This was before my time but, whenever I watch older games on LHN, I am amazed at how uncreative the offense used to be.
Even more amazing is that for years, we've had fans that wanted to return to that era under the faulty presumption that it will somehow magically help the defense.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
8 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:Yeah, you want Israel to annex the West Bank officially into Israel and remove or completely disenfranchise the Palestinians who currently live on it. Israel doesn't want peace. If they did, they could have built the wall and left the West Bank long ago. They are the only party with power there. They can create a Palestinian state entirely unilaterally.
Greggy: If Israel wanted the West Bank, they could take it.
DD: If Israel wanted to offer up the West Bank they could always just recognize it as Palestine and leave.
Greggy: There is no occupation. That land was won in battle. Its that simple.
Yeah, that sounds like someone that wants to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank.
But here's your problem, greggy. The below simply isn't true, and you know it:
Greggy: And if the Israelis wanted, they could get rid of every Palestinian if they chose to do so.
Unfortunately, the world will tolerate your apartheid just as it tolerated South Africa's. It will even tolerate the inhumane treatment of people. It won't tolerate genocide, so you'll continue to be stuck trying to figure out what to do with the Palestinians there.
To the world's credit, they will not tolerate the apartheid arrangement. The problem is that the UN has a defect in its structure, namely the permanent member status and all the powers/rights that come with it. Were it not for the US veto, Palestine would be an established state going back to 1976 at the very latest. But people like greg don't want to hear that and they want to forcefully tell fanciful stories, almost as if to convince themselves, that the fantasy world they live in is any more real than the Wizard of Oz.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
1 hour ago, realgreggym said:Its that simple.
It is, in the Land of Make Believe and Pretend.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
2 minutes ago, realgreggym said:They left Gaza unilaterally in hopes that it would help the peace process and they were wrong.
Yeah, that's total bullshit.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
11 minutes ago, realgreggym said:You're an idiot. Quit embarrassing yourself. The Palestinians could have already had their own country. They declined. And to say that Hamas has no relevancy is beyond stupidity. The only thing that you proved is that you have no clue. Keep up your hatred. Its always good to read what people like you at the bottom of the bell curve think. Its comic relief.
They've been voting with the majority every year this issue comes up twice per said year (Arab League and OIC) and voice solidarity with the majority (because they can't actually vote) in the UNGA. They vote in the affirmative of the Two State Settlement each time it comes up, and they've been in favor of it for 42 fucking years ever since that first SC resolution came up that the US vetoed after Israel practically begged them to. Every word of what you just said is bullshit.
4 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:now useless due to Iron Dome
Actually, Iron Dome doesn't do jack shit. That whole thing is a hype machine and essentially nothing else. You'd do well to read the literature provided by Theodore Postol on the topic. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/528991/an-explanation-of-the-evidence-of-weaknesses-in-the-iron-dome-defense-system/
What makes those "rockets" as impotent as they are is the fact that they aren't actually rockets in any meaningful sense. They're enhanced fireworks. Israel has imposed a blockade of Gaza since 2007. Hardly any materials get through to them. In 2014, Israel claimed that something like 8,000 projectiles were fired at them...and only 3 hit their targets (5 Israeli civilians killed, 1 house destroyed). But Iron Dome only exists in the major urban centers and Hamas cannot fire such puny "weapons" that far. In fact, Postol examined the contrail evidence and estimated that its efficacy was about 5%.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
6 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:Hamas has no relevancy in the WB so all this fluff about the charter is yet another bogus excuse to keep occupying the west bank
Oh we've known that for quite some time. They said the same thing about the PLO Covenant and it was just as ridiculous, not to mention totally hypocritical.
When the PLO drafted its Declaration of Independence in 1988, Israel's response was that "Israel opposes the establishment of an additional Palestinian state in the Gaza district and in the area between Israel and Jordan." It also stated that "Israel will not conduct negotiations with the PLO." And far from what they did say, notice what they did not say. They did not say "Israel will not conduct negotiations with the PLO unless it revises its Covenant by omitting all inferences that contests Israel's legitimacy." It just says that they won't even talk to them under any conditions.
This is just shameful goal-post moving and excuse making that seeks to evade a peaceful settlement to the conflict, which has enjoyed perhaps the broadest of international support more than any other issue in international affairs for the past 51 years.
-
1
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
Posted
You're asking that useless fucking retard to explain something?