Texasrocks

I'm sure there are lots of reasonable fans in the SEC. Fuck them. What makes college football fun is pure, unadulterated hatred. I hate everything about OU - the players, the coaches, their stupid band that only plays one song, the morons in the schooner. Everything. I would also murder anyone who suggested we not play them every year. Unfortunately, you can't hate everyone. ISU and WVU are fine. I don't hate them even though they have no business beating Texas. I mostly pity Tech and don't think of TCU unless we're playing them. I could see LSU, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama being really easy to hate, which will just make college football more fun.

For someone who doesn't know anything about WVU, what's wrong with them?

Sure, but I bet more people watch UT's spring game than would watch KState vs half of the Pac 12.

OSU and ISU I get. Maybe Tech, but why KState? Do they bring anything?

If ESPN wants this to happen (and why wouldn't they), the GOR won't be a problem. They own the rights to the ACC, AAC, and PAC 12. Facilitating two moves shouldn't be too difficult.

Doesn't the LHN deal go through 2031? So ESPN is still on the hook for $150 million in payments to Texas plus operating expenses. Anyone know what LHN expenses are?

I'm pretty sure the yearly buttfucking is their favorite part.

Texas Perpetual Destination Thread?

Because you already have this cesspool?

Unless we have a big lead late in the fourth quarter in College Station. Then it would be hilarious.

Without any context, 16 seems like a reasonable ranking for Texas. But no way should A&M, Oregon, or Cincinnati be top 10 teams.

I'd be ecstatic if I was Arkansas right now. They haven't been the same since going to the SEC and A&M joining didn't really help. They'd have more competition for Texas recruits, but bringing back that rivalry would be help them a lot. A&M and OU seem like the biggest losers. Literally and figuratively.

16 seems about right until you look at the teams in front of us.

FIFY.

How does your lack of reading comprehension speak to my ignorance? I said the support staff stuff looks like the 9.95 equivalent of wagging the dog. It had nothing to do with flip-flopping.

Somebody's manager seems a little sensitive today. Nothing in my post was angry nor was I mocking insiders. They are salesman and they're selling the perception that they know shit. I'm sure some do and others don't. If they're good, we can't tell one from the other. If they're really good we don't care. Our support staff may completely suck. CDC may be awful. I have no idea. So you're right, I can't present a credible argument to counter that. But here's the thing - you haven't made a credible argument that supports it. I believe that's called an "argument from ignorance." Two months ago, Texas had momentum, recruits loved us, and we were gettin errbody! I don't recall seeing stories about the support staff then. Fast forward a couple of months, 9.95ers get a string of recruits wrong and now Glasscock is an uninspired choice and Searels is disappointing and Brandon Harris isn't connecting with recruits. The accusations are vague, yet have a very specific target like CDC or Glasscock. The information isn't really measurable or meaningful, but sounds plausible and reinforces the idea that the author really is tied into the program and recruiting. Does the support staff suck? Maybe. But I haven't seen anything that supports a conclusion either way that doesn't amount to, "Trust me because I know things and all those things I was wrong about... hey look, there's a squirrel!"

How did people decide CDC or the recruiting support staff are the problem? Is that from 9.95ers? The same ones who don't seem to know shit about anything? This happened when we hired Sark. No one had a clue who we were going to hire yet knew the inner workings of the decision making process? Now we get the same stories in recruiting. You were wrong about where player X was going, but somehow know they didn't choose Texas because of the recruiting support staff? Really? I see why "insiders" put that shit out, but I'm less clear on why anyone would believe them.

That's towards the tame and tasteful end of the famous athlete fashion spectrum.

For the record, the correct answer is: figure out the Surly consensus and then do the opposite.

Asking Surly for marriage advice. What could possibly go wrong?

Two kinds of people use alpha/beta - aggys and losers.

I'm just going to assume this means Sanders is the hardest working guy on the team.

QB runs are a means to an end. Well, not in Herman's offense... There was a good video series on Chip Kelly's offense at Oregon that broke down the use of inside and outside zone. The ultimate goal was to make defenders choose who they were going to defend and then make sure that was the wrong choice. He didn't use deception and even telegraphed the plays by alignment. That served his purpose because he wanted the defender to be decisive. It is a good example of having a coherent approach and understanding what you want and what you don't. The opposite of what Mack Brown did has last few years. For Kelly, QB runs were just a mechanism for punishing the decision. From what I can tell, Sarkisian looks at the defense as a whole. Instead of forcing a single player to commit to a specific ball carrier, his goal is to create space for backs and receivers and simple reads for the QB. QB runs just aren't that important for what he wants to accomplish.

You can plug a lot of laptops into an F-150 Lightning.

Wait, Leon O'neal drives a Bentley? Some aggy booster went full retard. What's the going rate for guys that don't suck?