mop

That's a good point. I would think it is based on individual player's points, but I don't understand that math either if they have 5 more 4 stars than us.

Is it time to start talking about the possibility of Mason Graham and Kenneth Grant from Michigan coming our way after Spring ball?

ha...ok, but this is basically the class of '24 in that they will be joining our team at the same time as the freshmen.,

Our Transfer Portal Team ranking is now #8, which is quite a feat. We have the highest per recruit rating by quite a bit and should pick up another 2-3 recruits between DT's and another TE.

Thanks Huckleberry. I get so tired of the strange myths surrounding the SEC being amazing from top to bottom. They aren't and they never have been. Their top 2 or 3 teams in any good year is better than the Big 12. From there down, there is almost no difference and honestly, take away the top 2 teams from the SEC most year and the Big 12 is a stronger conference.

ESPN is now predicting we jump to #3 https://www.espn.com/college-football/insider/story/_/id/39027715/projecting-college-football-playoff-committee-final-top-6

I think you are right Wilcox....as much as I hate to admit it.

Ok...but if it were real, what would it mean? I was struggling to get the point of the fake DM. (thanks for the explanation for us old folks...! ; ) )

This is unbelievable....we lost a tight game on the road with a Freshman QB. We have 4 games left and we will win at least 2 of them...maybe all of them. Don't be a bunch of babies. We have made some huge strides this year but still have a lot of young players.

This basically happens every single year after we lose a game. It's really pretty silly. We used to get HAMMERED by OU under Mack and then come back and win out or almost win out....when it looked like we weren't going to win any more games. I learned then that one game is a pretty piss poor predictor of future performance.

Do you have any notion at all what it means to "act" to prevent climate change? We are talking about spending many trillions of dollars to affect the temperature 100 years out by 1 degree. Bjorn Lomborg (liberal, climate change believing Danish economist) estimated it would cost around $427,000,000,000,000 to reduce the temperature of the earth by 1 degree by 2100. In other words, that sort of mitigation may hardly be worth it. Instead, by letting the world's poorest countries develop we are much better equipped to face what may be coming as we continue to learn more about climate change. We were told that 2005 (when we had several large hurricanes) was the "new normal" then we went into the longest dearth of large hurricanes (3 and above) to make landfall in the US in over 100 years of keeping records. But have no fear, every time a hurricane hits us now we are told it is somehow related to climate change. What was it during the 4,000 days of no large hurricanes making landfall? Was that climate change too? The inconsistency of alarmists on this topic is embarrassing. Thankfully there are other realities that are taking precedent. I am quite pleased that the Eco-Imperialism of the West isn't doing too much damage to the developing world (though it is certainly doing some). I want to see us have energy breakthroughs that make this discussion moot.

ok, now we are getting somewhere. So yes, I agree with much of what you said. First of all, it is important to point out that the fact that we have warmed the earth is not entirely negative. For that matter, the fact that we have added massive amounts of CO2 to the earth is not all bad either. Heck, mankind has added just under 900,000 square miles of forest (NET) in the past 4 decades...yet you would think from the environmental hysterical crowd that all the news is bad. for the record, that means we have added an area the size of Alaska and Texas combined in forests to the earth. In addition to that, we have seen the greening of the world's deserts by 15% over the past 50 years or so and much of that is sped along and improved because of more CO2 in the atmosphere. By reducing cooling, we have also not only done bad things. Mankind is at much greater risk of death and destruction heading towards ice ages than the other way around, but I agree we don't want to just keep warming indefinitely. After a few degrees it would become largely negative for sure.

Notice that anthropogenic forcing is minimal up to around 1960. Seriously, you guys can't back your stuff up. Dahobbs, you appear to know very little about this subject.

again...I am not questioning whether or not we have warmed. We certainly have. That is really not up for debate. What is up for debate is how much we have warmed, what percentage of that warming is due to anthropogenic causes and how to address these issues.

are you able to engage in the discussion or only in childish insults? I graduated from The University of Texas. I won't be returning my degree. I guess I graduated during a time when I was taught to think for myself? ; )

This graph is ridiculous. It is a projection out to 2100. you need to cut off the last spike upwards and then you have a somewhat helpful graph. This graph is Michael Mann level stupid.

You didn't look at your graph did you? the graph shows cooling from 1940 to around 1975. I read it correctly. Can you?

To be honest ElFenix, the fact that you posted that graph reveals that you know very little about the discussion. It is sort of stunning to me that you felt that graph revealed anything beyond what we all agree on. The world has warmed. Even virtually all of your most ardent skeptics wouldn't deny that. A graph doesn't show causation...it doesn't reveal much except that the trend has been upwards since the mid-19th Century.

Yep. Notice how we have been warming for 150 years. You do realize that Climate Scientists are in virtual unison in saying that we didn't start affecting the temperatures until post 1950. So we have certainly warmed....no one debates that. The questions are: -how much is our warming due to anthropogenic causation? I think some of it is. -How much of our warming has been negative/positive? Our warming thus far has been overwhelmingly positive as we have been leaving the Little Ice Age.... -What policies can we embrace to help put off future warming? This is quite unclear. Is innovation and adaption the answer or is it major steps of prevention? It may be come combination of the two, but if we want the developing world to care about the universe, we had better help them grow wealthier and for now, the involves abundant fossil fuels.

I don't question that Arctic ice has decreased significantly since 1979. We had just finished over 3 decades of global cooling....it isn't surprising ice in the Arctic was high. As for hurricanes: "13 yrs ending 2018 had fewest Cat3+ CONUS landfalls since 1900 with 3" Roger Pielke Jr. we just finished the quietest period for US Hurricanes (which make up a very larger percentage of global cyclone energy)...by some counts over 50%. Hurricanes have been on the decline...yet every time we DO have a hurricane, we are told it is due to "Climate Change."

June 27, 2008: " By Alan Duke CNN (CNN) — The North Pole may be briefly ice-free by September as global warming melts away Arctic sea ice, according to scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. Scientists say it’s a 50-50 bet that the thin Arctic sea ice will completely melt away at the geographic North Pole. Scientists say it’s a 50-50 bet that the thin Arctic sea ice will completely melt away at the geographic North Pole. “We kind of have an informal betting pool going around in our center and that betting pool is ‘does the North Pole melt out this summer?’ and it may well,” said the center’s senior research scientist Mark Serreze. It’s a 50-50 bet that the thin Arctic sea ice, which was frozen last autumn, will completely melt away at the geographic North Pole, Serreze said. The ice retreated to a record level in September when the Northwest Passage — the sea route through the Arctic Ocean — opened up briefly for the first time in recorded history. “What we’ve seen through the past few decades is the Arctic sea ice cover is becoming thinner and thinner as the system warms up,” Serreze said. Specific weather patterns will determine whether the North Pole’s ice cover melts completely this summer, he said."

what a thread. the thread i jumped on back in like 2008 or something started with a claim that the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2012. this didn't happen. in fact, while 2012 was left with something like 4,000,000 square kilometers of sea ice, it was a relatively low ice year. it is now 2019....and we are having a year roughly the same as 2012. consider that 4 million square kilometers is about 2.5 times the size of Alaska. so the prediction was an ice-free arctic by 2012. 7 years later we have an area 250% the size of Alaska with ice.

i like football