-
Posts
14257 -
Joined
-
Days Won
22
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 Huckleberry
-
-
On 6/16/2019 at 10:45 AM, aggie08 said:
Other than career points, does anyone actually care about total stats? John Stockton is barely in the best point guard conversation, despite being the all-time leader in assists and steals.
I think Pam's post was a direct response to the insertion of the baseball season's length into the discussion. Baseball fans obviously care a lot about career totals so dropping that season by 25% is never going to happen.
Not to mention baseball actually needs far more games than any other sport because of the nature of the game. The worse team beats the better team in baseball far more often than other sports.
-
On the multi year scholarship is one area we can agree on completely.
This is actually a point that most people agree on even if they start out on opposite sides of the argument. And that's why I think it should be at the forefront of the debate.
If a player does not have a guaranteed multi-year scholarship then he should have complete freedom to transfer with no forced sitting out at all. If the schools want to control a player's movement then they need to have some skin in that game. If the school didn't guarantee the scholarship for multiple years then the player should have the right to decline the following year's scholarship just like the school has the power to decline giving the scholarship for the following year. And he should then have zero restrictions on his movement.
And don't get me started on how non-scholarship players have their movement restricted. That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. The schools have made zero commitment to those players but expect loyalty and punish them if they want to move. The players need to beat that drum loudly and continuously so that the general public understands that the NCAA's and their constituents' wishes to restrict player movement have nothing to do with actual concern for the welfare of "student-athletes" and 100% to do with maintaining control and profit margins. -
24 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:
It sucks for us fans but I believe players should not only be able to transfer without permission but they should not have to sit out a year. Yet, I still believe the transfer portal should be closed for the first two years. When a person signs a contract in the real world they have to honor it. So these players make a commitment, regardless of promises they know they have to compete for a job. They should at least honor a two year commitment. Grow up a little. Limit transfers to one for their career in college.
It is like everything in the free market. To much regulation and nothing gets done. To little and it is the early 1900's with children working, no middle class and people being shot for asking to make things better. It is human nature to cut corners for self interest at the expense of others and the right balance of rules are always needed.
Terrible. They should be allowed to move whenever they want. Do regular students have these burdensome limitations put on them? Are coaches required to sit out a year when they take a new job? Are NCAA administrators locked down for two years even if a better job comes calling? You know the answer to all those questions. The only way I can see requiring anything of players is if schools guarantee multi-year scholarships. If a player has a guaranteed multi-year scholarship then we can start discussing the concept of an adult signing a contract that entails a multi-year commitment. What you're suggesting is the same thing that exists now where all the power is with the school that is raking in money hand over fist. They are under no obligation to renew a player's scholarship but the player is obligated to stay there or suffer consequences associated with changing schools. It's bullshit.
5 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:You must have grown up in the days of Charles Haley, Deon Sanders and Terrell Owens and not the days of Randy White, Drew Pearson and Tony Dorset. On one hand we got players that put us over the top via free agency. On the other we lost knowing the great ones would only be on one team and be only ours. For, the players it was great and well deserved. For many of us that had to make the transition it sucked.
Tough shit, we're not the ones doing the work.
-
1
-
-
Not good, it's dumb. Let them go and play wherever they want whenever they want.
-
2
-
-
I had basically a full fellowship in grad school. But I was still eligible for an interest-free student loan. So I took advantage of that and used the cash to buy a truck.
Well then you get a new truck. Can I count on your vote?
-
And that's why it is seriously damaging the sport's long term health. Coach Bakich at Michigan is a national hero for his attitude about inner-city kids, etc. High school coaches in all sports are outsourcing their jobs to club teams and it is absolutely screwing over talented kids from lower income families. When faced with one cut to make and two freshman of relatively equal skill, a smart high school coach would cut the kid who's played club ball for 8 years. The other kid has more room for improvement over the next 4 seasons. But that's not the decision that most high school coaches make. Ol' Johnny Club Ball's dad will donate more to the booster club during his 4 seasons.
-
Yeah, first foul in the box was on Holland. A Japanese player got the shit kicked out of her ankle before the Japanese player did the same to the Dutch defender. That was a mad scramble.
-
1 minute ago, closetojumping said:
So let me get this straight, you guys just got a dude banned who was cutting his teeth learning how to post and actively engaged in the conversation? And then the S2YB rube shows up around the same time to remind us that word soup is a thing and you guys start actively engaging him in conversation to remind those of us who have put him on ignore that he exists? Yet you haven't actually done a fucking thing about remedying the site of his insipid shit when that would legitimately be a productive crowdsourcing? And then, AND THEN, you go all fucking elitist on the football board in the middle of that?
Fucking solid work. I'm all for clubbing baby seals, but it would be more impressive to take down the manatee with 360 rep points that floats by this board to slow fart, groan, and generally get in the way.
While you have a point, SWC made the classic blunder of whining about his rep total when it was low enough to hit -100 within minutes.
-
1
-
-
Prompt changes? Hahaha.
You think Connelly wasn't already in talks with ESPN when he essentially added an SEC bonus to his formula?
-
1
-
-
Disch-Falk is not nearly the cavernous monstrosity that Texas fans like to think it is. The problem is much more the hitters than the park.
We hit 18 home runs in 32 home games. We hit 9 home runs in 22 road games. It's a bit of a pitchers park but not nearly as much as people believe.
-
I believe this is my old man yells at cloud moment. Now get off my lawn.
-
My favorite b_t "everyone else is being emotional while I'm being rational" moment was when he immediately bought Sabrina Erdely's story in Rolling Stone hook, line, and sinker then proceeded to berate everyone whose bullshit detector was actually functional.“Conservatives make this sane argument” is also not an argument.
And this entire thread is emotionalist, beginning with its title.
It's his go to move. It's his personal "every accusation is a confession" moment except it repeats. -
4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:
You're trying to equate primary education costs to secondary education costs?
According to the TEA, primary education costs over $9,000 per student per year.
-
1 minute ago, Fozzz said:
Or you can support wiping out student debt as the pragmatic choice given how such a policy would positively impact the economy.
Nice non-sequitur. We were discussing how to handle people who no longer carry any student debt because they already paid theirs off.
Solid work as usual, Fozzz.
-
2 minutes ago, Asithappens said:
Except it is. Or at least it's closer to being paid back than you think. Anything else is awarding a double return.
The "return" on the original $40k "investment" (yeah, I know) is from a higher earning potential. If the person didn't get paid more then that's on them. Why pay them according to a time value of money scenario?
But here's another approach: don't pay them squat.
But do wipe out the current crop of student loan debt, or at least set a limit.
I'm not even talking investment return like assuming 5% or anything like that. Just simple inflation and spending power. If I had $40,000 to spend 25 years ago and you assume worst case scenario that I just spent it on stuff, I'd have to have something like $70,000 to buy the same stuff now.
-
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:
Bitterness and resentment are basically the only reason you would say "pragmatic" and then make emotional arguments, especially when the first part of the argument is about your own personal situation. I didn't see a single pragmatic argument.
That's a pretty bad take, even for you.
What I did was specifically point out that I think recompense for already paid student costs is an unrealistic idea despite the fact that I myself would be getting the short end of that stick. So your entire terrible theory breaks down to the idea that I am spiting myself. While I'm sure plenty of people think I deserve some bad things to happen to me, I'm not one of them. If I were actually bitter and resentful I would be for the idea of getting my money back. This is pretty simple stuff, man.
And the pragmatic arguments are obvious to most people, no need to belabor them. But if you'd like to do so you can start with the fact that paying someone back for the $40,000 they spent decades ago is not nearly paid back by giving them $40,000 in 2019.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:
You said it wasn't spite... then you were spiteful.
You shouldn't use words if you don't know what they mean.
-
Or you can support college assistance moving forward but not backpay for already paid college costs out of something other than spite, like say pragmatism.
My wife and I paid for our college during and after it. We would theoretically be getting screwed if future generations have that covered. Oh well. Suck it up and improve the world, you don't have to expect the world to go back and right every wrong.
-
6
-
-
In that situation I would get kicked out myself and then take my team off the field. Still wouldn't let parents or kids yell at umpires.That’s the kind of bullshit that Huckleberry ought to allow parents rallying the refs. At some point, that home cooking is such bullshit, y’all shoulda just walked off the field. I gather that Huck’s sons team is much younger than that, and at that level, I totally agree that all parents ought to keep their mouths shut at all times.
Coaching basketball, I’ll jaw at the refs, but I know them all, and it’s generally an attempt to change their thinking on the next call, and even after horribly officiated games, I shake their hands afterwards and instruct all my players to thank the refs. I had a mom once go ape shit on a ref, and I calmly removed her from the scene.
Just because the umpires start completely disrespecting the game doesn't mean the parents and players should. And a coach arguing for his team and then withdrawing them in light of corrupt officiating is respecting the game. Parents crossing the line is not. Players doing so is debatable at that age. At least in my opinion.
Don't be chumps just because the umpires are being chumps. I'd either play under protest (and instruct parents and assistant coaches to record everything) or if the tournament/competition doesn't have that mechanism I'd take my team off the field.-
1
-
-
Canada has been out of gas and out of ideas for about 20 minutes now.
-
Canada getting chances and can't even get one on goal.
-
Yeah, that's another technical rule violation. I still think the offside rule should be based on daylight. If there is daylight between the farthest upfield part of the offensive player and the farthest downfield part of the second to last defensive player then it's offside, otherwise play on. But by the current rules that was offside.
-
Holy shit what a save.
-
7 minutes ago, smwhorn said:
I did not see a reply of the first foul where US got a penalty kick. I saw the second one and thought, when I first saw it, it was a BS call on Spain. It looked to me as if she had gone for the ball first, not the shin/leg.
She went for the ball but that's not what matters. She missed the ball because she was late and she kicked our girl in the calf with her studs.
-
1
-
Just another reason the Statesman sucks
in Daily Texan
Posted · Edited by Huckleberry
Your opinion is wrong.
The very fact it bothers you this much is exactly why you need to see it.