-
Posts
10685 -
Joined
-
Days Won
5
-
2024 SEC Championship Game: Texas vs. Georgia - 3pm on ABC
Burt Macklin replied to Pancho's topic in Football
You mean the team who scored 3 points against Oklahoma just two weeks ago? -
That call was absolute bullshit just like all these weak holds. Are we back in the Big 12?
-
Sub-Educated Cretins: The SEC screenshot mega-thread
Burt Macklin replied to SimkinsMan's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
I realize we’ve discussed it plenty on here, but I’m not sure Venables decision to go with Jackson Arnold over Gabriel gets enough attention. That may be one of the worst personnel blunders of all time. He watched both those guys practice for a year and decided to push Gabriel out. Absolutely wild.- 774 replies
-
- 12
-
@Bruh Man
- 7859 replies
-
- 13
-
This looks like the best mock draft I've seen yet. Not nearly as many head scratching picks as a lot of the others I've seen, and Brugler is actually reflecting this year's level of play in his mock. Interesting that he has Collins all the way in the first round. I think that's the first I've seen him there, but it makes sense. He's always had 5 star athleticism but he's finally adding the play on the field along with it. Collins is starting to remind me of Calais Campbell. He obviously still has a ways to go before he gets to that level. Also interesting that Scourton is not in this mock. He's looked slow and unable to rush the passer this year, so it's not a surprise. The A&M S&C staff have majorly failed him this year and cost him millions.
-
Texas Recruiting Notes 2025: Duck Around and Find Out
Burt Macklin replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
TIL that going to a school that's a 9 hour drive from where you live counts as staying at home. This will have huge implications for recruits from Silsbee moving forward. -
2024 CFB polls/rankings - Texas #3/ #4 /#4 (CFP/AP/Coaches)
Burt Macklin replied to TKthunder2's topic in Football
Your constant fixation on number of losses without accounting for strength of schedule is getting very tiresome. Miami has played one team in the top 20 of F+ all year: 8-4 Louisville in a back and forth shootout. Bama played 4 teams in the top 20 and went 3-1. Miami only played 3 teams in the top 40 all year. Bama played 7. Miami got an absolute cakewalk of a schedule and still dropped two games. There's no legitimate basis for claiming they absolutely deserved a playoff spot. Exactly. I don't get why people act like SMU will be robbed if they lose to Clemson and are out. You can mess around with the cutoffs, but SMU has only played one team in the top 20 and they lost to them. Clemson will be their second. If they go 0-2 against top 20 teams (neither of which are in the top 15), there's no reason why they should get to be in the CFP. On the flip side, Clemson is 0-3 against top 20 teams, so if SMU is even one of the 20 best teams in the country, they should be able to handle Clemson and guarantee their spot in the CFP. People need to stop fixating so much on number of losses when there's such huge schedule disparity. The ACC is an absolute fucking joke of a conference. Their bad teams are horrible, and the ACC's top 3 teams (SMU, Miami, Clemson) didn't play each other. Duke is 46th in F+ and they went 1-3 against teams in the top 50. They are 9-3 because they go to play 8 teams outside of the top 50 in CFB. That's not a power conference schedule and shouldn't be treated as such. This is a great example of people not understanding how bad the ACC is. Oklahoma is 31st in F+. They would be favored on a neutral field against all of Duke (46th), Georgia Tech(42nd), and Syracuse (50th). Oklahoma would not have had to play all 3 of SMU, Clemson, and Miami, and they would probably be 9-3 instead of Duke. It really shouldn't be this hard to understand that you can't just compare records straight up, especially when you're talking about ACC teams versus the SEC. -
Texas Recruiting Notes 2025: Duck Around and Find Out
Burt Macklin replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
aggy Rob posting this tweet just days after getting absolutely dominated on both lines of scrimmage is absolutely hilarious. -
The reports are they did it because Audi wanted more emphasis on battery/electric for road relevance and they held this over FOM before they joined. Catering to manufacturers and greenwashing have really ruined a lot of racing in F1. I agree with your other posts. V10s on sustainable fuels (lets FOM still claim moral high ground on green efforts) and make the cars way smaller and lighter for better racing is the route they need to go to make the actual product better, but FOM has clearly shown they're more interested in catering to manufacturers and talking about sustainability efforts unfortunately. I understand why they needed/wanted manufacturers when it was only Ferrari, MB, and Alpine with Alpine looking shaky. But now we have Ferrari, MB, RB Power trains/Ford, Honda, Audi, and Cadillac. There's really no benefit to keep adding manufacturers beyond 4; if anything, they're a hindrance because they push for rules that hurt the racing product. And what fan really cares if there are 4 or 6 engine manufacturers involved?
-
Texas Recruiting Notes 2025: Duck Around and Find Out
Burt Macklin replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!