Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Huckleberry

Certifiably Surly
  • Joined

Posts posted by Huckleberry

  1. 14 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

    You said the University's brand was key in your employment, was just stating that brand you got was not "free". You may have had the cost covered by scholarships money or others, but it was not "free".   As for the walk-on question its zero. 

    ps. I'm FOR players getting paid, I am just in the belief that it will change things and likely not for the better for the sport or college sports in general. I'm ok with that though as the current path is doing that too, this is just a different path.

     

    In all likelihood the NCAA will just cave and say agreed, players can be paid but we will switch to the Ivy league system of no athletic scholarships, only need based scholarships.

    So you understand and acknowledge that it's commonplace and perfectly understandable that UT gave me academic scholarships because they believed it raised the profile of the school to have me attend, then I used the UT brand to gain employment not only after school but while still attending school, and the University did not ask me for any silly franchise fee.

    But you don't understand or acknowledge that it would make sense for UT to give a player athletic scholarships because they believe it would raise the profile of the school to have them attend, then for the athlete to use the UT brand to gain employment not only after school but while still attending school, and for the University not to ask for a silly franchise fee.

    Somehow in the first example you understand that it's not free but that's okay because that cost is covered by scholarships and a franchise fee would be absurd. But in the second example you can't quite grasp that it's not free but that's okay because the cost is covered by scholarships and a franchise fee would be absurd.

  2. 2 minutes ago, Modessit said:

    Re: muffed punts

    Did either JS or BJ signal "fair catch" before doing so?

    I was watching the ISU/Baylor game and there was a PF penalty on a muffed punt for "kick catch interference" because "by rule, because a fair catch was signaled, the returner must have an opportunity to recover the muff". Just wondered why we didn't benefit from that rule - besides the fact that Texas doesn't get a break from the refs.

    That's only until the ball hits the ground. What happened in the ISU/Baylor game? Anyone have a clip?

  3. ·

    Edited by Huckleberry

    15 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

    Other people refer to that as tuition... which I find to be a pretty high non-zero fee

    No they don't. Tell me how many licensing deals walk-on (i.e., non-scholarship) athletes are allowed to sign by the NCAA.

    By the way, I received enough scholarship money from the University of Texas to more than cover tuition, fees, and books. Still no franchise fee required for employment.

    Keep flailing, dude.

  4. ·

    Edited by Huckleberry

    I'm scared. I had a paid internship between my junior and senior years at UT. I got the job because I was a mechanical engineering major at the University of Texas with a good GPA. If I hadn't been attending UT I wouldn't have gotten the job.

    Now for the scary part. I never paid UT a franchise fee even though the University's brand was key in my acquisition of that employment. Is UT going to sue me if they find out? Scary times.

  5. Just now, pops said:

    I get that it isn't about the school paying the players but they would not be getting paid without going to school. 

    Seriously, why is this so hard to understand for y'all? The school will have nothing to do with the endorsements so Title IX does not apply. What is confusing about that?

  6. 36 minutes ago, PencilPusher said:

    This!

    However, the seemingly well intentioned governor of CA did open up a Pandora's box of unintentional issues that haven't been explored. Some have been mentioned above.

    • Title IX will be a bigger issue than thought because all of the SJW's will be out in force talking about things like gender pay gap, etc. I think we all know the economics arguements, but don't think this won't become an issue. California will be ground zero for this. Do we end up with a system where the athlete has a significant "franchise fee" withheld due to association with a university's brand that than gets "distributed" to other student athletes. This is not an issue in any way whatsoever. The market will determine whose likeness is worth what. And your franchise fee is just a continuation of the dumb argument from earlier. Does Aaron Rodgers pay a similar fee to the NFL and the Packers out of his State Farm checks? Of course not.
    • Taxes - regardless of who pays the $, the IRS and state governments will absolutely come after their share of $, especially since the $ will no longer be shielded by the non profit status of the universities. Almost think this is one of the underlying reasons for CA passing the bill because they see tax revenues that could be generated from this that they aren't getting today. I don't think kids will get thrown in jail per se as was intimated above, but the IRS/states may extract their share of penalties if the laws/rules aren't followed and those could be substantial if the athletes aren't getting the proper advice/representation No shit. People make money, government expects taxes. Not an issue at all.
    • Amateur status - This could also become a bigger deal because at what point do the universities decide that having semi-pro athletics associated with the school is not part of the university mission. Like Greg Fenves has always said, athletics is the front door to the university which is extremely important in terms of alumni engagement and fundraising but if it begins to get too unwieldy to manage, do institutions change their mind. I think that there will be a number of universities that "bow out" of big time college athletics because the juice won't be worth the squeeze (Rice would be a perfect example of a school that may move that direction) Hahahahahahaha. Jesus H. Christ on a cracker. Yes, big universities are going to bow out of billions of dollars and publicity because their QB makes a few thousand bucks on a local car dealership commercial. Hahahahahahaha.

    As is typical with government "interventions", we pass the bill and sort out the details later, but it is clear that the full ramifications of this have not been fully considered (hello law of unintended consequences). The NCAA probably has limited recourse on this, but if they wanted to slow the train down, they should immediately announce that if the law goes into effect, that schools from the state of California will be ineligible to complete in any NCAA competition (no March Madness, no road to Omaha, etc.).

    HAHAHAHAHA. Good luck with that.

    Football is a slightly different beast since the NCAA doesn't control it per se, but could influence the CFP to not select CA teams and even pull the Rose Bowl from the CFP rotation. By isolating California, the NCAA would then have a decision to make. It could either work to come up with a system that works for all member institutions or dig in its heels and say no way in hell. If the NCAA digs in its heels,  the can would get kicked down the conferences and university regents who would then have to decide what course to take.

    HAHAHAHAHA. You wanna know the fastest way to make sure that all the best players in the country go to California to play? Well, you just nailed it.

    Long term, athletes will probably be compensated in some form, but how we get there and what collateral damage occurs along the way is anyone's guess.

     

    Addressed your flimsy arguments above.

  7. Yeah, go ISU. Although I'm not gonna lie, if y'all don't stop this shit where you choke against Iowa then play well in conference every year I might have to start disliking your team.

  8. 1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:

    they don't even have to ask that.  they just have to ask "when you heard people inside what you thought was your apartment were you scared for your life".

    IANAL but I've watched enough legal dramas on film and television to know you don't ask a question when you're not sure of the answer. This question could very easily be answered "yes" by someone. The question "in those situations did you ever shoot anyone?" would be a lot safer way to go based on my Hollywood expertise.

    1 minute ago, Orange&White said:

    The one thing I keep thinking about is that if my job is as an apartment maintenance person, this case could very well insure that it is absolutely 100% ok for someone to shoot me while I am doing my job.

    I thought of this, too. If I'm an apartment maintenance guy I would refuse to enter an unoccupied apartment at any time moving forward.

  9. 2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

    I don't know.  Isn't there a "take my ball and go home" reaction that is compatible with malignant narcissism.

    "Mr. Trump, the Presidency isn't good enough for you. It doesn't deserve you."

    Easy to plant seeds in a narcissist's head.

  10. 1 hour ago, Bolero88 said:

    No, I don't like it. This is a recruiting forum. Most of the last 3 pages have been anything but recruiting. To top it off, most of the "discussion" regarding TEs and WRs has been absolutely, dumbfoundingly stupid. 

    Who the fuck are you?

  11. 5 minutes ago, hookem17 said:

     

    Ranger Armstrong is just paying it forward. 

     

    2 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

    That is fucking absolutely outrageous if true. I'm sure he doesn't think she should be charged with a crime. How the fuck is driving 84 in a 45 in a mental state that by definition is compromised NOT at MINIMUM criminally negligent?

    Yeah, what's the source on that?

    And lawdogs, can that kind of thing be introduced toward the credibility of an expert witness or no?

  12. ·

    Edited by Huckleberry

    13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    As dramatic as her testimony was, and likely damaging, don't think for a minute that the defense team didn't anticipate or was unready for that outcome.

    I am relatively certain that they decided her testimony could be a shitshow and they needed to get it done hours before the jury began deliberations.  The jury is going to now listen to several hours of phd testimony about how irrational people are under stress.

    Getting the testimony we just heard as the last evidence the jury heard would have been an epic disaster.

    But her testimony seems to undermine that defense to some extent. Now the jury has learned that she created the stressful situation. When we thought she crossed the threshold and entered the apartment before realizing Jean was there then arguments regarding stress response would have likely been very persuasive. 

    However, now we know from her testimony that she heard noise in the apartment before she went to open the door. Not only did she have the opportunity to avoid the stressful situation and call for backup before engaging, but she also has extensive professional training that taught her to do just that. But instead of doing so she chose to move into a confrontation and thereby provoked a tragedy. 

    Will the jury let her get away with using the stress she caused as a defense? You can't go up to someone, punch them in the face, shoot them when they prepare to hit you back, then use self-defense as a valid argument. So can you be the willing and purposeful cause of a stressful confrontation in someone else's home and then use that stress as a defense? To me the fact that she had not yet begun opening the door before she knew something was wrong is a very damaging fact. 

    Essentially now we know that the confrontation with a supposed intruder wasn't thrust upon her suddenly where it caught her unprepared. She knew before it happened that she was entering a confrontation with an "intruder" and was prepared for it.

  13. Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with any of the analysis of that move here. It was terrible and Vettel got extremely lucky.

    As for the Ferrari undercut of Leclerc situation, it happens. The one thing I would be furious about if I were Leclerc is that he apparently wasn't told Vettel was pitting as soon as it happened. There absolutely should have been a message to Leclerc that Vettel had just pitted and that Leclerc would be pitting the next lap so he needed to push hard on his in-lap. If that really didn't happen then he has every right to bitch about it. I thought he handled his post-race interview in a much more professional manner than many would have if all this is true.

  14. 15 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

    (I'm also guessing Chubba Hubbard will go since it's best to go out ASAP if you're a draftable RB.)

    Well that and Gundy has him on pace for 388 carries this season (averaging nearly 32 carries per game against FBS opponents, apply that average to the rest of the season plus bowl game, throw in the 8 carries against McNeese State).

  15. A&M sports fans are the dumbest I've ever seen. Seriously. At least fans of interior institutions like UH stick with one consistent argument about how they're kept down by the man. But A&M fans will talk about how they run the state (#WRTS) and then one paragraph later whine about the BOMC and how UT keeps them down with our connections all over Texas with zero hint of irony. In fact they'll actually use both those thoughts as part of the same argument sometimes. 

    "We run this state and are the real powerhouse around here and everyone else would know it if it weren't for t.u. conspiring to keep us down all the time! "

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.