hpslugga

Correct

That’s the part that’s least understood by those who choose to walk with the shepherd.

Or, you know, six?

I am and that's shit, but why the fuck did Central Michigan have a shot to beat us at the end? It's inexcusable. It's pretty on-brand for us though and I stopped losing sleep over things like that years ago. I mean I get where your gripe is and I get that the culprit on the final play is the officials, but rightly or wrongly, when shit like that happens, the “victims” of such shenanigans have a tendency to view the other team as the perpetrators. Some instances are more true than others (again see Texas vs Baylor 1992), but that kind of shit goes with the territory.

You are aware that under the rules of the NCAA, y’all actually won that game, are you not?

Of course. I think that's the point though. The posts on this board for six years have been overwhelmingly 'Fuck Okie Lite' when in reality the hate should all be directed at the refs. I mean I guess Boone may have paid them off... but he's dead. Of course what you’re saying is true, but be honest in answering the following: When I say the words “Central Michigan,” what image immediately comes to mind?

I want to say this unequivocally about the 1992 Baylor game: Yeah, the officiating was beyond horrible. It’s actually on YouTube in its original broadcast (with commercials, evidently what you Austinites all saw if you watched on TV judging by the ads). I actually took notes on the very obvious calls: -Two ridiculous holding calls on Brockermeyer, and he evidently was so pissed off that Mackovic had to take him out. -Clear fumble by Baylor recovered by Texas, ruled down by contact. -Defensive pass interference on Texas that shouldn’t have been called and if anything should have been called on Baylor (this is the flea flicker play for those somewhat familiar with the game) -Baylor receiver catches a pass on the flat, fumbles it clearly in bounds, Texas recovers, but the ref marks him out of bounds. It wasn’t a forward progress thing either because the hit that jarred the ball loose was instant and the first replay shown was with sound and you can clearly hear the whistles well after the ball was rolling on the ground. -Touchdown Baylor (the last one), ball never broke the plane. -Personal foul face mask on Texas when it clearly was incidental. Was on a play where Baylor was stuffed for a 5 yard loss on 2nd and 9. It’s actually a stretch to say this was even a penalty, but if it was, the correct ruling is incidental face mask, 5 yards on the end of the run, and that makes it 3rd and 9 instead of an automatic first down. -There was also a play early in the game where Baylor gained 4 yards on first down, Texas gets flagged for a 5 yard face mask, it gets tacked onto the play and repeat the down, so 1st and 1?! But with all that said, Texas had two chances to win the game at the end and Peter Gardere sucked shit through a straw. Baylor went for it on 4th down with like 6-7 minutes to play on their own 40, got stuffed because the QB dropped the snap. Gardere picked up 2 yards on the 1st play. But then, he doesn’t call mayday and back out of a pass play where a middle blitz is clearly coming, somehow bounces off the blitzer but in doing so he spins into the arms of the rush end for a 9 yard loss. He then drops back on 3rd and 17, tries to hit Duke on a 12 or so yard stop on the sideline but he’s well covered. On the replay, you can clearly see Baylor was using a soft cover 2 (this was back when zone coverages played out exactly as they’re drawn and it was beyond easy to beat it if you called the right play and had adequate protection) and Mike Adams was clear as day wide open in the middle void. Now, does he get the first if he gets the pass? Maybe and maybe the safeties rally and stop him short. But even if he’s stopped short, Texas is back in field goal range and you’re talking about Scott Szeredy with the wind at his back. The next series was even worse as Gardere just kept forcing passes into tight coverage. So yeah the ref fuckery had a lot to do with it, but our beloved Peter Peter the Sooner Beater absolutely blew it at the end.

Seriously that play was like that cop-cam video showing a dude surrendering to the police well before they approached, they beat the living fuck out of him and when other cops asked how he came to be bleeding so much, they said “he was resisting.” And the cop who asked the question just goes “oh.” Like case closed, no more questions, nothing to see here, show’s over folks. ”Why’d you drop your hat?” ”Oh I thought he stepped out but the wind is really bad and it dried my eyes and I now remember seeing the defender pushing him out.” ”Oh…”

Can anyone do that for the 1992 Baylor game?

I haven’t read the thread but this is the reason that I post the grading the teams performance chart every week.

It’s not nearly as pronounced and egregious as it is in the Big 12. If Alabama vs A&M was a Big 12 game last night, no way aggy wins that.

My thoughts exactly. They’re going to have to fundamentally change how they coach offensive linemen once that move is done. If not, those 2008 Florida, 2012 A&M and 2018 Alabama games are going to be damn near week-to-week occurrences.

Always dread these. Always dread turning in a solid offensive performance that goes with a loss against the big rival. The offense was by no means perfect. Line of scrimmage play was a huge issue which is what ultimately led to the red boxes next to 3rd and 4th down plays. But at the same time, fuck. Turning in 48 against those dick lickers should always be sufficient to win. Line of scrimmage play on offense? C-. Line of scrimmage play on defense? What’s worse than F? I haven’t read any of the board here but I heard it in the stands: people bitching about LB play. Look, if your DL are a non-entity in the run game, it really doesn’t matter what the fuck your LB’s are doing. If you’re Overshown or Brockermeyer, you’ve got far too much ground to cover to hope to be adequate. Brian Urlacher would have looked like shit out there yesterday. Block shedding? Hardly ever saw it. The flow was going exactly where they wanted it to, so it’s not like the Texas front overpowered any one. And this isn’t a scheme issue, either. It’s a talent issue that negates coaching advantages. Special Teams: goddamnit, stop returning fucking kickoffs 6 yards deep. When you do that and when you get it out to the 22, you didn’t net 28 yards on a return: you lost 3. And when you fumble it, no one can write that off to “well he was just trying to make a play.” That’s bullshit. Admire and applaud the effort, but all that game did was expose how thin Texas is on the interiors. In fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen a set of skill players and a set of interior players on offense with that much disparity between them like the Texas offense has. It’s depressing but not near as depressing as the defensive front.

I imagine that was the case for many, which sucks so fucking hard

SIAP as a topic, but just wanted to get a gauge at your histories of in person attendance. For me, tomorrow will be 30 in a row (and I do not count the 2018 Big 12 CCG, I’m only talking about the Cotton Bowl during the State Fair).

That’s correct. And this isn’t the first time we’ve seen hysteria expresses with such bewildering inanities in stark opposition to learning. -We went through this when various states actually did ban the teaching of evolution, and also when they went down kicking and screaming when such laws were deemed unconstitutional. To this day we still have a large chunk of people who cannot for the life of them tell you what it is. -We went through this when schools were desegregated. -We’ve been going through this lately with dishonest religious fanatics trying to sneak creationism into biology classes by calling it “intelligent design.” -There’s also the fact that any time some institution wants to teach about Karl Marx, it’s met with fanatic hysteria. -Do I really need to mention the Abstinence Only movement? -We now have people who want to teach the things I mentioned earlier (the constitution is rooted in mosaic law, Africans were brought here as guest workers, etc). This is all hysteria that’s whipped up by people in power to keep those not in power fighting with each other. Critical thinking to which the Republican Party, at least the one in Texas, is literally opposed. And IMO, you can only punt on the whole “meet new ideas head on with cogent arguments” issue so many times before you forfeit your privilege to be listened to. Legislating shit out of existence because it makes you feel funny just seems so…Bret Bielema-ish. I would also add to that “but it’s not like you can’t be an agent of change to reverse that, either.” I mean that part is there, but what do you expect when this education system of ours has been failing multiple generations? It’s not like this is a new thing. But at the same time, you’re right in that it’s what ultimately leads to the turning of the tide in that same field. Vicious cycle.

I’m only going to touch one aspect of what was said above because the rest of it reads like a very poor confession beneath its facade. Amazing. We’re posting on a discussion about people who want to ban the teaching of a subject, which even you concede they know next to nothing about, in public schools (when it’s not even being taught in public schools), and you’re accusing me of wanting to control how other people think. That’s just pitiful.

That’s a dodge. Truth isn’t property. It doesn’t belong to me anymore than it belongs to you. Truth has to be demonstrated. That’s why intelligent design is considered a joke. It was falsified in a court of law. Its falseness is a matter of public record; not that I simply “dislike it.” That’s a straw man. And in that society, its truths have to be demonstrated. If they aren’t, they aren’t truths. The way it works is: Positive claims require positive evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and what is asserted without evidence is dismissed without evidence. THAT is why the “ban CRT!” crowd is a collective failure. They cannot demonstrate the truth of what they say, and it’s very likely because there is no truth to what they say. Imagine that.

Except it's not. When I'm right, it's not on me to move towards the wrong position under some misguided notion of "compromise." If I'm a biology teacher and some student wants me to teach Intelligent Design instead of evolution, I'm not going to meet him half way. I have no obligation to do that, and he has no right to ask it of me. He has an obligation to sit his fucking ass down and learn or go to some other school that will teach that debunked garbage. His choice. And what I'm telling you is that it's their problem to deal with and not mine.

It doesn't matter what term they're using, even if they're using it as badly as Kent Hovind uses "evolution." What matters is that they are wrong. Their wrongness isn't limited to vocabulary. They're even more wrong when they discuss what lies beneath said vocabulary. It's like a rotten onion that began its rot from the inside: keep peeling that shit and it's only going to look worse.

Let's grant that. Hope you can see why people who have a problem with that are dismissed out of hand. Yeah, that's a fantasy. Fantasies do not need to be coddled and one certainly has no right to demand that others do. If you, for example, wanted to go into a biology course and demand that a teacher teaches Stork Theory in lieu of pregnancy because "that's my worldview," he's gonna ask you to take your seat and stop wasting the class' time with your silliness. CRT, in the way you've outlined, is that teacher saying "tough shit." Yeah, reparations are hardly even mentioned in most of the CRT literature I've read (though that's admittedly limited). The issue isn't just history, it's the present. If you're one of those poor fools that seriously believes that racism in America died on August 28th 1963, you're never going to make it in the real world. CRT does not teach that reparations need to be paid to descendants of slaves. If it advocates anything, it's to say to law enforcement "stop targeting minorities." That has short term costs and pain? Either way, what you're talking about is Affirmative Action, which is a distinctly different concept than CRT. Again, if that's the case, tough shit. That's not a legitimate position to take in the real world. It's legitimate in their little cult/ghetto, but it has precious little to do with the real world. It does, but once again, not in the way you think.

Yeah that goes two ways, unlike what Dwight Jaynes did. Today, we have a nearly inexhaustible source of information at our fingers that helps us to learn to dispel the idiocy that gets passed around, which is why it doesn't take nearly as strong of a hold. Yeah you're talking about the internet, but the internet has been one of the prime drivers of people falling out of favor with religion, just as an example, at a faster pace than Enlightenment figures could have ever dreamed. To have debunked Dwight Jaynes would have required a judicious study of Mouse Davis' offense and a judicious reading of Ellison's book (and his critique of Davis, which is not widely available) and a careful comparison of the two when you're all finished. Hardly anyone went through that trouble, which is why you never hear any coaches talking about how Mouse Davis =/= Run-and-Shoot. It, like I said, became doctrine and dogma to the broad public. To debunk "Ban CRT!" takes about a 2 minute google search. So yeah, bullshit spreads quickly, but it also gets killed quickly too. Yeah it's become a doctrine and a dogma, but only to those who live in that chickenshit little cult/ghetto that believes in such degenerate nonsense. That doesn't really answer the question. It tangibly touches on social capital, barely, but you also kept referring to worldviews. Again, what "worldview" is being challenged? If you're going to say "the view that whites should be in the majority and therefore in power," ok fine but I doubt you'll go that far because that's probably the most assailable worldview that there is, and you know that. CRT is an examination in how race is a systemic factor in law enforcement/jurisprudence. That's not a "challenge" to anything. When you turn on a flashlight and see a cockroach running around under your refrigerator, you are not "challenging" that cockroach. Similarly, when you observe data on how minorities have been systematically railroaded via the law, that's not a "challenge." Such as? How so? Again, a threat to what?

You're describing the distinction between misinformation and disinformation. It's still bad information...as in it's wrong. Dwight Jaynes was being dishonest. He was the spreader of disinformation. But even that took about 12 years to take hold within the broad base of the football world. It was not "virtually overnight." The same is true with CRT. And even with that, it's entirely besides the point because whether it's disinformation or misinformation, it's still fucking wrong and we're not going to move the goalposts to make it magically become right. I'm not going to respond to this any further until you articulate what those "identities, worldviews and social capitals" are.

Or worse, that the latter is a legitimate point of view that needs to be respected by those who detest it.

Exactly. It is harmful, however. It's harmful to religious extremists who've pined for years to include in public school texts an enormous list of lies asserted as history/science: They want to teach that the Constitution is based on Mosaic Law, which is a lie They want to teach that Africans were brought to the colonies as part of a "guest worker program," which is a lie They seek to minimize the innovations, achievements, and cultural contributions of non-whites, which is a vicious lie They seek to teach Intelligent Design as a scientific theory on par with evolution, which is a spectacular and unforgivable lie. So yeah, they're going to view any challenge to those lies as being "harmful." That's what their dogma teaches. That does not mean we should grant it any loftier consideration than dismissing it absolutely out of hand. We're absolutely right to do that, and they're absolutely wrong to take offense to that.