hpslugga

FIFY

I’d watch the video but I’m a little busy

Alright. Let's say you did that: By what logic/authority would you have any business using that label?

That’s nice

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/9029054002

Edit: nvm

yep. They always said they absolutely loved the fans and loved the city. It’s just that organization is shit and it’s been shit for a very long time. In fact, none of us have been alive during a period where their organization wasn’t shit.

There actually was a team in 1995 that featured 3 1,000 yard WR’s in a season and it actually was a DSWM offense, but that was Atlanta with Metcalf, Emanuel and Mathis. Anyways, Moore/Perriman from 95-96 was a fleeting flirtation with success in the passing game. Overall, their passing game was ass over the entire span of Barry’s career, and it was especially upsetting considering the nature of their passing game in the early years. As far as the OL was concerned, to address a previous point, yeah Brown was great and Glover was serviceable but those other 3 positions were occupied by total chumps. When you’ve got bad QB play, bad WR play and overall bad OL play, you’re gonna have a back that’s constantly trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit, which is why they only had one truly great season, and that was 1991.

That would be correct.

FIFY

Hell, “if you put Barry Sanders on the 1990’s Houston Oilers” But that’s how you can tell how special he really was: that he had a HOF career on a team that was arguably the least conducive to achieving that reality.

We does

Except in their case it’s “don’t care, jerked off.”

So those effeminate losers just twisted in the wind for months only to reveal that their effeminate loser in chief lost by an even larger margin than the liberal pinko commie fascist CNN reported by the end? Clearly those guys are Biden plants. Sad!

No, but Robertson (fuck you, no relation) and Falwell certainly were.

Right the only thing I see in the video is shitty signaling and communication. That’s a bad look for sure, but it’s still hard to generate any more sympathy than that because NI was not “robbed” of a win.

1950. Sunset Of course taking that 1988 title away from Carter was complete bullshit, but that’s still a long time

I don’t call it a gimmick because I want to; I call it a gimmick because it’s a gimmick

LH’s offense is a gimmick

I’m sure AWK has a perfect explanation for this. Well, at least he thinks it is.

You're a degenerate to even watch the game. Think of the children, man! Toledo is playing this game on the final day of its exam schedule!!!

What a shock The internet is where I found the documents of the depositions of all the relevant characters of the lawsuit. You claim to have “first hand knowledge,” yet you won’t say who you are and you won’t produce anything. Yet somehow, in your own mind, that means you apparently know more even though all you’ve provided is recycled Kent Hance lies. Again, if you don’t give us a reason to believe you, we have no reason to believe you. And yes, Hance absolutely did admit that they (not just he) had made the decision to fire him well before the lawsuit. And it wasn’t just him, either. You don’t seem to grasp the significance of Bingham’s revelation. She was saying the exact same thing that Hance said in the deposition. Hance was asked the same question Bailey was asked, and I point Bailey out because his answer to that question is in that amendment that I posted. So if Hance said what I said he said, then my assertion was correct: Hance conceded that the decision to terminate was made prior to (and therefore independent of) Leach’s decision to file the TRO. If I’m wrong, and you’re right that the decision to terminate was in retaliation for his filing of the TRO, then you’re saying that all these Tech guys lied in their depositions when they said it wasn’t that AND that they were in violation of their own policies. So you either sank the 8-ball in a pocket you didn’t call or you sank the 8-ball in a pocket you did call but the cue ball went into a pocket as well. You lose in either scenario. As to this offer of the money he’s owed, again what evidence is there of this? Your word? That’s gonna be a tough sell, especially since we know that Leach offered to settle the case and Texas Tech rejected it. https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/college/texas-tech-rejects-mike-leachs-offer-to-settle-suit-college-football/

I already did. I'll quote myself For some reason, Texas Tech's webmasters have felt the need to scrub these depositions off the website from which I originally got them: https://www.vivathematadors.com/platform/amp/2010/5/6/1460333/leach-and-james-fire-back-world You'll notice that the guy has a link (which are all from Texas Tech's website) to pretty much everyone's deposition, but if you click on them, they just time out. And it's not just Hance; it's everyone. That's...handy. But it doesn't even matter because that statement I quoted was corroborated by Charlotte Bingham. http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/351139/Leach_4th_Amended_Petition.pdf "Defendant Hance called Leach to advise him that some members of the Board of Regents wanted to fire Leach over the complaints made by Craig James. Hance also advised Leach that they were going to take some kind of disciplinary action against Leach, though Hance could not articulate what Leach had done wrong. Hance indicated he wanted to fine Leach up to $100,000 and demanded a letter of apology from Leach. When Leach reiterated that he had not done anything wrong and did not believe an apology was appropriate, Hance also advised Leach that he would call Leach after the board meeting. Hance never called Leach. According to Ms. Bingham, Defendants Turner and Anders had resolved to fire Leach for cause during their meeting on December 22nd. The Tech Defendants admit that they never gave Leach the 10 business day notice of an opportunity to cure as allowed by his contract because they wanted to terminate Leach and avoid payment." Leach didn't sue until a week later, so it's impossible to argue that his decision to do so played any part in the decision to terminate whatsoever. Again, there's no mention of it in the termination letter, and Hance even fessed up to it in the deposition after months of this horseshit, "if you sue your boss, it's not gonna turn out well" falderal. And there's a reason that he said that, too: Texas Tech was not permitted to fire Leach out of retaliation. You'll notice in that same link, it explicitly states: "Among other things, the TTU Operating Procedures ("OP") provide that an employee aggrieved by an employment decision of the University may appeal that decision through a grievance proceeding without fear that the University will retaliate. Moreover, the University expressly acknowledged that the purpose of these policies and procedures was to ensure that University employees received the due process to which they are entitled: It is the policy of TTU/TTUS to ensure due process and to seek fair, just, and prompt resolution of complaints and grievances by non-faculty employees arising from the employ relationship with TTU/TTUS. OP 70:10.1.c (emphasis added) (Ex. 2). Operating procedure 70.31:11 specifically provides that Any employee of the university may present complaints and grievances without retaliatory action being taken against him/her in accordance with the policy governing appeals and grievances." Hell, even Bailey was asked essentially the same question that Hance was asked, and he too answered "yes." He had to because he understood the policies of the University full well and to answer "no" would be a commission of perjury. Texas Tech's whole argument about this is like a giant, rotten onion that began rotting from the inside: just keep peeling those layers and it just continues to look worse.

Correct. When I said that, I mean that one would have to be so closed-minded as to cling desperately to a preconceived conclusion that was spoon fed to them by obvious liars with obvious skins in the game. And I understand where you’re coming from by objectively trying to assess blame, but it’s hard for any learned person to muster even 1% sympathy for the spoiled brats when they violated both civil and criminal law to cheat a guy out of what he was owed. They breached his contract under false pretenses and tried to advance their crime further in civil court by committing fucking perjury. To even pay a microsecond worth of attention to anything Leach was saying/doing is a waste of time. Petty, small minded, and I would add that they suffered from really poor character judgment. If they looked at Mike Leach and saw a smarmy, weasley, shifty little fucker and then looked at Kent Hance and saw a straight talkin’ no nonsense guy, their character judgment had to have been as ass backwards as it is humanly possible to be. If you don’t give us a reason to believe you, we have no reason to believe you, and not having a reason to believe you is the best reason not to believe you. That’s dubious at best. It wasn’t just that the other Tech coaches didn’t want him, it was that no other school would offer. But Leach did, even though he said that they could never get his lazy and entitled ass to work hard? Sure. Of course you omitted the part where Craig James and Kent Hance were involved in a business deal together. So yeah Hance kissed his ass, but you’re only telling half the reasons why. He didn’t just go to ESPN about it, he went to Hance himself. And he had no reason to sign it. At all. And Hance wanted him gone well before that circus act started. Kent Hance should never have been the Chancellor. Period. He was an abject disgrace. Again, there’s absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this. When you attach “literally” to this, you’re “literally” asserting baseless speculation as if it were a matter of fact. That’s tantamount to lying. If you had actual evidence of this instead of hearsay from a known liar, you would have presented it already. You and the rest of those who take this position have had 12 years to present tangible evidence of this and there’s been nothing. Leach denied it, the liar said it happened. Poor judgment on your part to believe the latter. Neither his termination letter nor Kent Hance’s deposition support this. His termination letter said it had to do with his treatment of Adam James, and Hance’s deposition said the decision had already been made. Again, that’s bullshit even by Hance’s own admission. They had already made the decision to fire him prior to the lawsuit. You will never be correct about this.

I mean I only said that because that’s all he’s been left with. We can’t sit around pretending that Tech will one day muster enough humility to admit “yes, our BMD’s drove us to fuck this guy around starting with our initial refusal to give him a raise that he earned by having the greatest season in program history and ending in a full blown hoax of an incident that was so heinous that our own chancellor committed perjury in a deposition in a desperate effort to legitimize said hoax.” And it’s not just Tech that they exposed; they exposed the entire state. The whole lesson that was learned from that freak show was “in the state of Texas, public universities are not bound to their contracts.” It’s a hideous and embarrassing look.