derpyhorndog

The ISP location (of whoever updated Tony’s wiki page to Texas) was Starkville, MS. Looks like his son, James Sexton III, went to Ole Miss — but he should be long graduated at this point. So I don’t think the ISP location supports the “bread crumb” theory, unless big Jimmy has some Starkville connection I’m not aware of (the fact he used to rep Mullen is stale).

@TheMailBox357, care to weigh in? Oh, shit...that's right. Lulz.

One of my favorite purviews, but on an hunting trip and the sleuthing only truly gets my rocks off when it’s for a UT search and fully consumes my life.

Brah, we get it, kindly shut the fuck up already.

It’ll be worse. Something juvenile. Something they falsely think is cool yet portrays a sense of toughness. Something everyone on the outside immediately cringes at. Batman.

Bussey is undefeated

Wingo

IMHO, if we don't get relatively consistent pressure, we're fucked. Defer to you as to whether that qualifies as "bullying."

My god. Pair him with Bert and they'd be runaway favorites for 1st Team All-Hair Team (ST).

If Ducks and Tide both win next week, our resume will remain objectively better than the Ducks’ going into selection. With one lone exception, the “eye test,” which we also have another opportunity to bridge the gap on next week. Directly to your question, we’re preoccupied because we’re fucking running out of clear options (e.g., FSU loss), and this is one of the few even remotely left on the table. And because we’re discussing theoreticals are discussed for entertainment…one of the primary purposes of sports message boards.

Well, congrats on that, not so much on your CFP prognostication.

Great, “don’t believe” all you want. But all least be intellectually honest and recognize it’s a possibility. And that Oregon beating Wash gives at least an opportunity for argument, the inverse does not.

I hope for your sake you’ve been drinking tonight. Wash/Oregon are fighting over one seat in tbh CFP. Deduce the rest.

They were ahead based on eye test. You’re ignoring the consequences of this week. We just got “eye test points” by beating down Tech, as well as “common opponent points.” Their Utah win has also lost all of its luster. While no certainty they make the right call, this all very much sets up the committee to reevaluate and put us in front of Oregon in this week’s rankings.

This makes no sense. Wash winning locks up a playoff spot, guaranteed. Ducks winning at least leaves open a window/argument, albeit small.

Link? I think the rule you’re alluding to only applies to players that enter the portal during the later (spring) transfer period.

That rule was eliminated over two years ago.

Username does not check out

The Saban-to-Texas thing at least had legs to it, wasn't purely message-board wishcasting. That is, if you believe Tom Hicks: Former Texas Regent shares the story of school's pursuit of Nick Saban, claims Mack Brown killed the deal

Hopefully this is clarified in the final language of the “restatement of intent,” but I read some ambiguity in the following language of McMurphy’s tweet: “if multiple Big 12 teams are tied & 1 team holds wins vs. other teams in tiebreaker, then that team wins tiebreaker” Everyone in this thread seems to be assuming that is making the changes to avoid the illogical OSU leave-out in the three way tie scenario with OU and KSU. That is, the bolded language above would be more clearly stated as “vs. all other teams in tiebreaker, after accounting for (excluding) any team in tiebreaker that was selected for the CCG under earlier application of the tiebreaker rules.” Also meaning that, in the four-way-tie scenario with UT, OSU, OU and KSU, the first team would still be selected by the Step 2 rule (since UT has not played OSU), and Step 1 would kick in afterwards to determine the second team only if UT were the somehow the first team selected — since only then would one team (OSU) have played every team then remaining in tiebreak. The ambiguity I see in the McMurphy language is that it could be read to mean that the Step 1 rule applies if any tiebreaker team holds wins over other teams (but not necessarily all other teams) in tiebreaker. If that’s the case, I would read it to mean Step 1 would apply from the jump even in the four-way-tie scenario with UT, OSU, OU and KSU. That is, in Step 1, OSU is the first team selected since it is the only one that survives H2H knockouts: UT is knocked out by OU, and OU/KSU are knocked out by OSU. Then the second team is selected out of UT, OU and KSU by running it back to the top — in Step 1 this round, since OU and KSU didn’t play one another, the only team knocked out is UT (by OU). So OU and KSU then go on to determine their tiebreak under Step 2. Welcome anyone sanity checking me on that ambiguity/read. And to be clear, I doubt that’s where this should or will land. It would be illogical if the intent of the “restatement of intent” is to have H2Hs play out that way. Not to mention the fact that it would indisputably be a drastic change to the rules amounting to “Step 1 always applies, even if just partially.” But at this point nothing the B12 does surprises me.

Michigan is not fighting this to such an absurdly aggressive degree because they care about the suspension. It’s a nothingburger. They’re fighting it as a shot across the bow at the NCAA. UM knows the NCAA has the dirt (and may soon find more) to bring down the hammer, and they‘re trying to send the message: “if we move hell and earth to fight a B10 suspension, imagine what we would do to fight real punishment.” They know the NCAA shits down its leg at the thought of being drug into federal court for a case that would scrutinize the scope/power of the NCAA’s authority.

Negged. Pussy mentality. Immediately to the first tier of the worst-first-post HoF.