derpyhorndog

Better get used to being disappointed for many offseasons to come, bucko.

Context is important. He made his ominous posts in a Longhorn sports subreddit. In the daily sports thread. A thread where it's middle of fall camp and football is the dominating topic of discussion. Right around the time where the QB decision looms large and is the most discussed topic. Given the context, it's logical for someone to infer what he was making a call about the football team in some way, and there being a big development being hinted at. Particularly where there is opportunity for OP to clarify any wrong inference. But what did ol'gordogg do? Doubled and tripled down with more vague hints and enticements. No CR, but it's like someone strolling into 4Chan /pol and saying "there's going to be some big news around Capital Hill tomorrow about a laptop, tune in to the news at noon," then wondering why frenzy ensues. Lastly, can't take the resident sleuth guard dog off the leash from time to time for the fun detective work, then be surprised when he takes a few bites at some random Reddit troll when things are slow. I've had my fun now, but no ragrets or sympathy.

Hey man, I've actually grown to find your shtick entertaining more often than not (as evidence by even being able to see and respond to your post), but let's call a spade a spade.

Look, we already have our established resident shitposters and trolls (@futureman, et. al.), and there's not a lot of emotional bandwidth for newcomers.

The fanbase is pinning its hopes for a decent season on a particular QB starting. It's only natural someone would take advantage of the tension for their entertainment and troll, though not going to stop me from negging the bitch if he doesn't own it / pops up to defend it as simply speculation running wild.

So this isn't you making a claim about some team-related personnel decision, regardless of whether made it in jest (to troll) / you're otherwise full of shit?

Like like this is the program that will be on during the noon window tomorrow: Almost Sports with Jason Dick & CJ Morgan. Their (already very dubious) cachet took a huge hit upon seeing this.

Apparently this guy on Reddit (username is gordogg24p) is involved in some capacity in a podcast called The Fire Steve Sarkisian Podcast. It's under the HornsCast umbrella, along with podcasts by IT, TFB and BarkingCarnival. Screencaps below.

Let's not go into debate in here on the meaning of the "generational" tag and when its use is merited. If there was an appropriate time/place (debatable), it was months ago when it was in every $9.95'er writeup about Ewers. Please start a dedicated thread or kindly STFU and let us bask in the aura of our pets' heads falling off.

The charade is up. Neyor needs to crawl over to the UTPD and fess up to his boot problem. It was wrong to pressure Agiye into being the fall guy when it was Neyor who deserved a knee-capping at the hands of the criminal justice system. I am beginning to question the strength of his moral fiber. IMO, he should offer to serve a voluntary one-year suspension in return for reinstating Agiye, effective immediately. Someone please start the petition.

Y’all are fucking depressing.

Section 3.3 Notice Date and Interim Period. The “Notice Date” of the Withdrawal shall be the date of the occurrence of the event that causes the Withdrawal under Section 3.2. Section 3.2 Withdrawing Member. A Member: (i) may Withdraw if it gives notice of the intent to Withdraw from the Conference; or (ii) shall be deemed to have Withdrawn if a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors by affirmative vote determines that such Member: (A) makes statements or takes actions that are determined by a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors to evidence the intent of such Member to withdraw from the Conference either currently or in the future . . . (C) if a third party offers to, or attempts to induce a Member to, leave the Conference, and the Member does not immediately and unconditionally reject that offer. @nunna yo bizness is correct in that UT has not given formal notice of intent to Withdraw, so UT has not directly Withdrawn under Section 3.2(i). So, we are in the Section 3.2(ii) universe. @Hurtlocker gets halfway there. UT has obviously taken actions covered in (ii)(A) and (ii)(C), but for a Withdrawal to be deemed to have occurred under (ii), the Board must have held a formal vote making that determination. The "word getting out" is not enough. We don't know whether that sort of vote actually happened. But if it did, the date of the vote would be have been the "Notice Date." But what if you're a bad-tempered, unfriendly corporate lawyer that loves UT football and discussing it with other like-minded assholes? I got nowhere else to go!

This fast food sandwich is right, guys. Time to shut it down. No more QB talk.

Anyone know whether Hall ever had any UT-related stuff in his Twitter or Instagram bio(s)? If so, it gone.

Probably not alone in thinking he’s the most badass aggy I’ve encountered. Had a class at the very end of his UT tenure and he was still sharp as hell.

Think you're missing the point @statsman was trying to make but, regardless, think it's a moot point because on further review of the bylaws it looks like UT/OU doing what was suggested in his hypo would increase the amount of any exit buyout. Specifically, I would have to think them declining to play any scheduled game would result in "the Conference’s telecast partners [being] unable to produce and telecast games of [UT or OU] during the then-remaining term of the Grant of Rights Agreement or the Conference is unable to realize the revenues relating to those games from its telecast partners."

If that's the case, the point I was making remains. That, whatever the circumstance may have been, UT/OU did not vote in favor of admitting the G5 adds, so that would not be a basis of conflict for UT/OU now taking the position that they did not agree to host or visit those schools once they're on the 2023+ schedules.

Per the B12, it was unanimously approved by the eight remaining members. If UT and OU both voted yes, why not just say unanimously approved? Their careful phrasing is a very strong indication that UT/OU either voted no or were blocked from the vote, IMO.

Below is the best response so far. Which of you surly assholes is Bill?