-
Posts
14336 -
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
-
-
-
Also, from a selfish perspective this would be the best possible system for schools like Texas. Programs with huge followings in marketable cities would be more desirable and valuable as landing spots for the top talent. Local sponsorship markets for programs like Texas would dwarf those of competing teams.
That's the only reason this kind of system might have a chance in the distant future, eventually you have to think power brokers would figure that out. Being a big fish in a big pond would be significantly more lucrative than being a big fish in a small pond.
-
1
-
-
For fuck's sake it's spelled rogue.
You're missing the point of the bill entirely. It's not about the schools paying them directly, it's about sponsorship deals. That's why I mentioned EA Sports and Nike.
-
1
-
-
The rest of the country's interest is when all the top recruits are headed that way. The end goal is to force NCAA change, not stay independent forever.
Being paid under the table is one thing. Sponsorship deals with EA Sports or Nike with your face and name in advertising is something else entirely.
-
28 minutes ago, Not a Sock said:
This actually more than likely kills the college football on the west coast if the rest of NCAA doesn't follow suit.
Gotta think big. If all Pac-12 states agree to this and the NCAA doesn't budge, then the Pac-12 should be willing to leave the NCAA and have an 11 game round robin for their championship and allow full compensation for players. They already have a network in place and watch how fast every 5 star player gets interested in Pac-12 schools if that's the only place in the country where they can get paid.
It's a pipe dream because the university presidents don't have the balls to do it, but it's a power play that could work.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:
I think what bad teammate is saying is if you didn’t vote for Hillary in 2016 your judgment really can’t be trusted.
I have yet to hear any Gary Johnson voters admit they got it wrong in 2016 and that says a lot IMO.
And I say that as a 2012 Gary Johnson voter that got it wrong.
I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 and I don't regret it. Trump was winning Texas, period. My vote was merely a hail mary for the 5% mark.
-
3
-
-
46 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:
A white flag would have taken less time than the 2 minutes it took for me to pull stats where I destroyed your entirely subjective, anti-Brown, dumbass argument?
You keep using the term "anti-Brown" and it's making it obvious that you're the one who really, really wants emotion to be a part of this discussion. It's fine with me if you're emotional about it, but just be honest about your perspective.
And you didn't pull any stats that destroyed any arguments and I already explained why. But here, I'll do it in a bit more detail as you're apparently pretty slow to catch on. I'll do it with a mix of cherry picking just like you employed because that seems to be the kind of stat usage you enjoy.
On 2/3/2019 at 5:47 PM, Dr. Beeper said:This is lunacy. Below are some comparisons that are apt (Number of x-win seasons and bowl appearances were excluded given the changes between their eras ).
Winning %: DXB .649; Mack .767 Texas WPCT in the 4 preceding years: DXB .475, Brown .622
National championships: DXB 0; Mack 1 Best teams in the country by standard power rating: DXB 1, Brown 1
Top 5 Finishes: DXB 1 in 10 seasons; Mack 5/16 Texas Top 5 finishes in history before said coach started: DXB 0, Brown 14
Top 10 Finishes: DXB 2/10; Mack 7/16 Texas Top 10 finishes before coach: DXB 0, Brown 19
Losing seasons: DXB 2 /10; Mack 1/16 Texas losing seasons in 4 preceding years: DXB 3, Brown 1
Conference championships: DXB 3/10; Mack 2/16 (this is literally the only criteria Dana wins on, and it's not a huge advantage).
Number of losses by greater than 22 points: DXB 2 (1 of which was to a wartime military installation, not a real college team), Brown 8
Record against Oklahoma; DXB 7-2-1, Brown 7-9
Now, to be clear, I included some less than meaningful stats in here because you did the same. I also intentionally included stats heavily affected by the era in which they coached, hopefully the reason being obvious. The entire point is that context is important. The fact Bible fell short of a national title while Brown had one is so incredibly dependent on the context in which they took over the program that chalking that up as clear evidence Brown was better is absurd. Snyder fell short in 1998, too, but if some guy wins a title at Kansas State in 2062, that doesn't necessarily make it a better accomplishment than what Snyder has done. Same thing with winning percentage, top poll finishes, etc.
You claim to understand that historical context, but you clearly don't.
-
The "data" you're using is only subjective, Huck, but by all means, go Derka level with the condescension because you've walked out on a very narrow limb and aren't capable of backing up. FWIW, I'm familiar with DX Bible and his role in elevating Texas football. For me, he's not unlike Penders in that he put the program on the map, but in no way would I assert that either is the second-best coach in their program's history.
No, it's not. I alluded to the objective rating systems that support the argument. I don't really feel like linking dozens of computer ratings sets but you can certainly find them pretty easily. Nobody wants me to longcat the thread with that.
I'm also not on a narrow limb. Saying that Bible belongs in a discussion on second best Texas coach is not nearly as precarious a position as saying that Brown clearly is and it's lunacy to argue someone else should be discussed.
I understand it pretty well, but don’t let a sports argument stop you from being a presumptuous prick. Your anti-Brown bias is showing through. Good day sir.A white flag would have taken less time. Again, I don't have an anti-Brown bias. I mean I'm glad he's gone because his time was up but I also appreciate what he accomplished.
-
And vice versa, convincing recruits that he can influence schools. In Shepherd's case both schools would have been interested anyway but he has to make sure public perception is still that he has great relationships with all schools.The dude's business model depends on convincing schools he can influence recruits. What's he going to say? "I tried to shop Shephard to A&M but his family told me to piss off?"-
1
-
-
Yes, a great sentiment, even if it makes me wonder how many people pray for their favorite football team.
-
1 hour ago, aggie08 said:
Are you saying that you think that those guys would still be making lewd, matter-of-fact GOAT proclamations if Brady had 6 rings but individual accolades comparable to, say, Eli Manning?
Of course they wouldn't. Of course it's a combination of things.
What are you getting at? Tom Brady has individual success that rivals anyone who has ever played, but you'd prefer that people not take into account the team success--that dwarfs everyone else by miles--as their "tiebreaker"?
They literally quoted just the Super Bowl accomplishments and then said "enough said." Now you are assuming all kinds of other aspects of their argument, which they didn't post or say, just so you can argue that nobody said "enough said." And yet you are accusing me of putting words in other people's mouths.
And then you follow that up in your last paragraph by positing some weird position you think I might have that is nothing close to reality. That is borderline insane considering you started this little sidebar with me by essentially accusing me of using a straw man. Let's recap.
1. I saw Brady is awesome, but winning 6 Super Bowls isn't an argument ender like some people want it to be.
2. You say nobody is saying that.
3. I post verbatim quotes of two people saying that.
4. You claim that they're not really saying that but they're really saying something else.
5. You then follow up by asking if I'm saying something that I'm not saying.You're as maniacal about this conversation as you accuse Bone3421 of being.
-
2
-
-
Troy Aikman doesn't have multiple regular season MVPs, record setting offensive seasons, both individually and as a team, an undefeated season, the most game winning drives in playoff history, 30TDs/12INTs in his last 14 playoff games that include 4 Super Bowl appearances as he approached and entered his 40's, etc., etc., etc.
That's pretty obviously my point.No one anywhere is using six rings exclusively as an argument ender...combined with all the things above though, and it probably is.
You must have these guys on ignore:Nuff said
Brady naysayers are just jealous as hell knowing Tom would be celebrating with Gisele, while the were celebrating with their hand.Sums it up. He’s GOAT.-
1
-
-
You're really good at pointing out intentional non sequiturs. Or do you not know what that actually means?Non sequitur. -
Who here thinks Troy Aikman was the best QB of the '90s? He's not even deserving of being in the discussion. And I say that as someone who was a huge fan back then.
There are a lot of reasons to argue that Brady is the greatest QB ever. It's just that "six rings" isn't the argument ender that some people want it to be.-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:
What if Michael Jordan spent his career with the LA Clippers and didn't have Phil Jackson as a coach, or teammates like Pippen and Rodman?
When you look at the athletes who are in the GOAT discussion within their sport, all of them had the benefit of a strong supporting cast. These are team sports. No matter how great an individual athlete, you don't win championships in team sports without good players and coaches around you.
Maybe some of that is good luck on where someone gets drafted but that's how it works. Brady got the benefit of playing his career under Belichick, but Belichick got the benefit of having Tom Brady as his starting QB for 17 seasons.
Pretty sure that's the entire point of the dissent here. There's no denying that it is that way, the point is that it shouldn't be that way.
-
1
-
-
Well Austin High does have an alum in the NFL right now, so we're on the way up! Also, let's talk about really old school golf and maybe baseball. This football stuff is irrelevant.
-
Just now, Braff Zacklin said:
Eh, for a guy who loves objective stats, you suddenly became very subjective when analyzing/comparing Mack. Your argument is terribly thin and, honestly, smacks of agenda/propaganda.
It's not subjective at all, it's just data that you're not familiar with.
Keep in mind that I'm not saying Mack Brown clearly isn't the second best coach in Texas history. I argued with the position that he clearly was. I think there is a debate between Bible and Brown for that position and in my opinion it's too close to call.
The inferiority of southwestern, State of Texas, and University of Texas football compared to the national powers before DX Bible is objective fact according to every objective rating system in existence. Bible did not coach teams that were as good as Brown coached, with the exception of the 1941 squad. However, he took not just one school but an entire region of football from a second-rate status to nationally competitive. Those are not subjective arguments as they are supported by the data.
I have no agenda other than educating people who don't understand college football history.
-
On 2/3/2019 at 9:44 AM, AugieBall said:
Austin High. Do not want.
Negged.
-
Bill Russell was better than Michael Jordan.
-
Not this stupid argument again.
Some of y'all need to watch the Fastball documentary and learn something. And then just stop watching baseball considering all the players right now suck compared to the ones your great-grandkids will be watching someday, so what's the point?
-
2
-
-
14 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:This is lunacy. Below are some comparisons that are apt (Number of x-win seasons and bowl appearances were excluded given the changes between their eras ).
Winning %: DXB .649; Mack .767
National championships: DXB 0; Mack 1
Top 5 Finishes: DXB 1 in 10 seasons; Mack 5/16
Top 10 Finishes: DXB 2/10; Mack 7/16
Losing seasons: DXB 2 /10; Mack 1/16
Conference championships: DXB 3/10; Mack 2/16 (this is literally the only criteria Dana wins on, and it's not a huge advantage).
It's not lunacy at all, it simply requires at least a little knowledge of college football history. The fact you're attempting to use things like winning percentage in straight up comparisons between one coach from the 1930s and 1940s and another from the 2000s shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
It's the equivalent of someone saying Les Miles is clearly a better college football coach than Bill Snyder. Seems reasonable to those who have no clue as to the relative contexts.
-
If it's not a contest it would be because Brown is a distant third. Bible brought Texas and southwestern football from also-ran status to nationally competitive.
-
No, you don't ever earn latitude. That is exactly why programs go to shit. Perform or leave.We had one disastrous season and 3 mediocre seasons because of Mack. The 3 subsequent disastrous seasons aren’t on him, and that is so fucking tired.
He didnt war with fans. He showed some thin skin and showed his ass a bit. He earned the right to be extended some latitude. People should be over it. He’s far and away the 2nd best coach in our history and returned us to glory.
And he's not far and away our second best coach. He's close with Bible. Two conference championships in 16 seasons doesn't make you far and away the second best. -
No, it's not strange at all. Well it's strange to hate Barnes but not for that reason.You have to admit that it is strange to love and idolize TJ Ford while hating the man who brought him here/means so much to him just because he stopped winning.
This is why it's strange (even if you are overselling his efforts). The fact that some of his players loved him has nothing to do with it.Even when he lost his way he was still actively trying to get better- seeking out the best offense in the NBA and trying to emulate it, asking his peers (famously including Bob Knight) to be real with him and tell him what he needed to change, bringing Rob Lanier back to the program, and so on. Ultimately it didn't work out, and *that's* enough for you to hate someone?


2019 Big 12 Baseball Thread
in Baseball
Posted
Yeah, I have no problem with the Oklahoma State program, but you're being silly if you don't recognize that 1945 claim as an even bigger joke than most. Nobody alive in 1945 thought Oklahoma State was the best team in the country at that time. Even if you don't consider Army a college football team, for which you could make a reasonable argument considering the situation at the time, Alabama had a much better claim to being the second best team that year
A standard power rating system would have favored Army over Oklahoma state by 45 points in 1945. And if you do consider Army a college football team, which pretty much everyone does, they weren't just the best team in 1945, they were likely the best team of all time. They beat four Top 10 teams that year by an average score of 42-5. These teams weren't just Top 10 when they played Army, they also finished Top 10.
Oklahoma State's 1945 claim is the rough equivalent of Tulane claiming the 1998 national championship.