SL Xpress

When I think of the kind of coach I'd love to see at Texas, I drool over career .500 records and sub .500 records in conference. He took Fresno State and UTEP places they'd never been. That's for sure. Hire someone with Penders', Barnes', Smart's resumes or better and let's see what happens. It's hardly a guarantee of success, but there's a better chance there than with Terry. There is nothing Terry has done in his career that would make him a candidate for this job other than what he's accomplishing this season with a roster and staff he was handed. That said, if he does well enough in his extended job interview, he should be given the job. End of story.

I'm going full retard arguing about something that's never going to be a factor, that's for sure.

You're saying there can't be a lawsuit. I'm saying I think that's wrong. Offering him a year deal at a pittance wage looks like clearly discriminatory behavior to me. It's moot, because none of that is going to happen. He's not going to be offered a year deal at a relatively pittance wage. Whether it's discriminatory or whether he'd sue is completely tangential. I'm saying it wouldn't happen. It's dumb to speculate about. But here we are arguing whether he could sue for something that's not going to happen.

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discriminatory employment practices, not limited to rates of pay, based on the race, color, religion, sex or national origin of the employee or applicant. 12 Title VII differs most notably from the Equal Pay Act in that Title VII is much broader, sweeping within its purview all aspects of the employment relationship, and not limited to wages as is the EPA. The proofs under both acts for pay equity issues are similar, with all of the defenses to a pay equity case available under the EPA similarly available under Title VII. For a coach to state a pay equity claim under Title VII, the aggrieved coach must establish that: (1) the coach is a member of a protected class; (2) the coach was qualified for and occupied a particular position; (3) despite the coach's qualifications, he/she was treated less favorably than a male/female counterpart; and (4) the circumstances gave rise to an inference of discrimination. 13 Upon such a showing, the burden shifts to the defendant institution to proffer a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the disparate treatment.' 4 The burden then shifts back to the aggrieved coach to establish that the institution's articulated reason was merely a pretext for discrimination."

If that's the best you could do, it's fairer to say there weren't any options. Herman spent two years at UH. He had a nice win against Florida State in a major bowl game his first season, and some good wins in the regular season along with some unfortunate losses. He was for sure a hot name. Beard had been a head coach for 10 years, being successful at every stop, oftentimes wildly successful, with an overtime loss in the national championship game and a separate Elite Eight finish at Texas Tech of all places, in addition to a second round finish going 30-5 in his one season at Arkansas Little Rock. He's by far the most accomplished men's college basketball coach Texas has hired in its history. Tom Herman was not that.

I didn't say anything about him signing it. I'm saying if he does well enough to be offered the head coaching job, and all he's offered is a one year deal worth a relative pittance, to me there's a potential lawsuit for discriminatory behavior possible. I would consider it discriminatory. If he's done well enough to earn the starting job, he's done well enough to be offered a contract at a market rate. That's a multi year deal and at UT it's an annual compensation package in the millions. Again, not $5m+ a year, but not $1m a year, either.

We'll see. I won't remember this specific post when it becomes a possibility, but I'll remember someone saying it. When he gets his next job people are following him there. No question about it.

Mentioning Herman and Beard together pre UT is beyond silly. That's a terrible comparison.

I like the way you think.

Russia's 1st Tank Army has been reconstituted with mobilized units and outdated armor pulled out of storage, and redeployed in the Luhansk Oblast for a likely offensive soon. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/01/28/beaten-twice-in-ukraine-russias-elite-1st-guards-tank-army-is-poised-to-attack-yet-again/

I can agree with everything you wrote there, and also say that was exactly the problem. The expansion of democracy is not the unbridled good thing its advocates say it is. German occupation lasted 9 years. Japan occupation lasted 7. Then democracies were established. South Korea and Chile both had long time dictators not exactly known for their friendly approach to human rights, both heavily supported by the US, that eventually led to two of the more successful democracies in their respective regions. The implementation of democracies throughout the middle east and the Islamic world has ended in one unmitigated disaster after another, including failed democracies in Afghanistan, Egypt, Tunisia, an all but failed democracy in Iraq, and completely failed states in Syria and Libya. The Carter administration and its emphasis on human rights is the chief architect behind the Shah having to abdicate his position, after enjoying unbridled support under Nixon and Kissinger. Its support of Khomeini to counter communism and in lieu of an impending military coup has led to arguably the biggest foreign policy blunder in the region. The wars started by other administrations post WWII, including the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Panama, the first Gulf War, the invasion of Afghanistan - all achieved the objectives they set out to do. I believe the world is ultimately a better place because the US intervened in those areas, although obviously there's some controversy around that opinion, especially (rightly) the Vietnam War. The Second Gulf War required a successful occupation, given its false pretenses under which it was prosecuted, which was never adequately planned for nor implemented, and so I consider that war a failure in ways I do not the others. Regardless, I do not consider the moniker "didn't start any wars" the unmitigated positive comment you view it as. I'd also point out the massive underfunding of the military, which across all branches was in a terrible state, contributed greatly to the complete disaster of Operation Eagle Claw, and was an accurate reflection of the Carter administration's approach to the military, rather than some kind of unhappy coincidence.

I do not share your confidence. If he makes the Sweet Sixteen it will be enough of an accomplishment he’ll be seriously considered. Even more so with an Elite Eight - and rightfully so, given how few of them Texas has. If he makes the Final Four or better and isn’t retained, I’d argue it would be a mistake. That’s enough of an accomplishment at Texas it doesn’t matter how bad the rest of his tenure ends up being. I don’t understand the mentality that no matter what happens, CDC is looking elsewhere. That’s not realistic.

The only thing that will show alleged basketball savviness is hindsight. I gave up on Shaka Smart way before most people. There’s no way I enjoyed my Texas fandom during his 6 years more than those who kept thinking it would get better because of it. If Rodney Terry stays on as the head coach and fails, I won’t enjoy that more either. If he ends up being highly successful I’ll look like an idiot - which would absolutely be preferable. I’m not trying to lord over my alleged savviness over anyone. I simply have a strong opinion and am expressing it, and folks would prefer I didn’t. Which is understandable.

You act as if someone is admonishing you for unadulteratedly enjoying the results from this team. Who is doing that? Am I doing that? I’m expressing my perspective, and it happens to be different than your’s, mostly because I have stronger, long held opinions regarding Rodney Terry that the rest of you aren’t saddled with. But I’m not lecturing anyone for holding different beliefs than I do. Have at it.

Do you want to understand it? Or would you just prefer I keep to myself and let the people who do appreciate what he’s doing monopolize the thread? The bottom line is it’s not possible to separate how well Terry does this year with his chances for being named the head coach at the end of the year. If you’re just fine with Terry being the head coach depending on how well he does, there’s no conflict. If it scares you to death Mack Brown style that he’s going to be our next head coach, watching this team brings about a lot of ambivalence. He’s not a substitute teacher for the day. He’s the guy who was the TA for high school calculus before the stud instructor was suddenly fired, and if enough of his students place out on the AP exams he gets the job permanently, even if he’s not that great of a teacher. He still deserves the opportunity, but I’m not excited at the prospect of him getting that opportunity. To me it’s pretty simple.

A miracle? This is one heck of a roster, a heck of a staff, and a heck of a culture Terry inherited. The miracle had already been performed when he took over. He absolutely deserves credit for it not falling apart, but Lazarus from the dead type plaudits are not exactly warranted. It’s been a team effort by everyone. If Beard gets the Kentucky job in the offseason (I don’t expect that, but hypothetically) how many of the people involved with this year’s team follow him there? I bet it would be quite a few. He wasn’t the architect who put this together. He’s the first mate who is trying to bring the ship to port after the captain was suddenly tossed over board.

My appreciation of Terry is inherently limited. It’s unfortunate we can’t control other people’s responses to our posts, but it is what it is. It’s the start of the thread. If Terry does well enough this thread is going to be full of all kinds of plaudits. There won’t ever be a 100% consensus, but if we all agreed on everything message boards would become boring wastelands. Your gesture is noted and seems entirely warranted, regardless of my feelings on the issue.

Any reply I make to you likely involves information and observances that aren’t that interesting to you. If you’re good with Terry being the replacement because Beard wasn’t that great of a coach to begin with you’re entitled to that opinion. I suggest you’ll be much happier with the current and future results of the program than I will be. You’re not the only one who feels like maybe Beard is a tad overrated. I don’t agree, but it’s just a game, and we’re all just fans, so I don’t see the harm in that approach.

He’ll get three to four years minimum after this year if he’s kept on. 3 years only if he’s truly Charlie Strong awful, which I don’t anticipate. Or he has Chris Beard level felony charges brought against him. He’d have to be given an extended competitive contract. He wouldn’t be able to do his job without it, and frankly there’s an element of discrimination if he’s low ballled with a one year deal. It’s not just sabotage. It’s likely illegal. He hasn’t earned the $5m+ per annum Beard was making. But he’d need to be paid at least half of that, I’d think, if not more. You’re not the first I’ve seen suggesting giving him a one year option. Or maybe you’re the same person repeating it. Regardless, that’s not how this works. He’s not going to be given a trial run. This is his trial run. If he’s successful enough he’ll be given every resource to win at the highest level on a permanent basis. As he should be.

If he is kept as the next head coach it will be a mistake. Might not be as bad a mistake as whoever is brought in, because it’s always a roll of the dice, but a mistake nonetheless. He’s done a good job under difficult circumstances, but that’s exactly how he ends up as our next head coach. I can offer him kudos, because he deserves them, but there’s not a realistic way to separate his job performance from his chances of being kept on in the head role after this year. Pretending otherwise is exactly that. Pretending. Being critical of him after wins seems ungrateful. Raging about him after losses is churlish. For those of you that just want to enjoy the season and simply see the team perform as well as possible, I salute you and your approach. I do not share it, and think the likelihood that will change is slim. Hopefully we’ll make a run so deep that I won’t care what happens afterwards. It’s not like we have such a rich postseason tradition that deep runs are a matter of course here. It’d be great to share a Final Four type experience, for example, regardless of whatever misgivings I have. So I hope for the best regardless.

Yeah, even with my mixed feelings - okay, not so mixed - it’s important to give credit where credit is due. It’s been a tough, practically unprecedented situation overall. The team hasn’t collapsed. They’re creating some great memories for fans. Fuck Baylor.

Probably best for the Iran thread, which is very active. Nothing in that article has much relevance to me, since it's about what happened after the fall had taken place. Whether they should or shouldn't have, and it's a matter of personal opinion in many ways, Nixon and Kissinger made Iran the 2nd pillar of their middle east strategy, along with Israel. Ask any Middle Easterner who has anti US feelings and they'll tell you all about the US orchestrated coup of 1953. Truman didn't want to get involved. Eisenhower did. Kennedy wasn't a big Shah fan. LBJ was embroiled with Vietnam. Carter had a complete distaste for the Shah from the very beginning. He wanted a foreign policy based on human rights, and the Shah certainly represented the opposite of that. The above article tries to make bringing the Shah into the US as the pivotal moment. It wasn't. Supporting Khomeini, tacitly supporting him returning to Iran, putting pressure on the Shah not to do anything to suppress the population, and finally, preventing the army from performing a coup, all while seeing Khomeini as a better alternative to a possible Communist Iran in cahoots with the Soviet Union, were all way more important than any decisions regarding the Shah after he'd been deposed. Frankly, bringing the Shah to the US was the right thing to do from a realpolitik perspective (same with Ferdinand Marcos). As a country, we already get a lot of flak for being a fickle partner. Supporting the democratic movement of the Arab Spring through the funding of NGOs and the encouragement of pro democratic forces has been a complete nightmare. Everyone sees how we abandoned Mubarak, and it's left a mark in a lot of places. As far as I'm concerned, the US dodged a bullet when El-Sisi staged his military coup. The idea that a Khomeini led theocracy was ever going to be anything but overwhelmingly hostile to the West was a gullible act by members of the Carter administration. It's an insult to suggest hosting the Shah at the end of his life is where the conflict started. I also don't agree that bringing the hostages home wins Carter the election. Maybe it does, because he looked weak and inept as a leader because of it. But the US had a lot of other issues spring up during the Carter administration. I don't put the blame for all of it at Carter's feet, because like NFL quarterbacks, US presidents get too much credit when things go well, and too much blame when things go poorly. It turns out that many of the US economic ills could be solved by first raising interest rates to astronomical levels, while simultaneously going into unprecedented deficit spending during peacetime that ballooned our expertise in the packaging of debt in this country, and our ability to export it to other countries, allowing us to annually buy goods across the economy while charging the balance to our children and grandchildren. In any case, it's my opinion Carter was going to lose that election regardless. The US was in a malaise, and he simply wasn't the kind of leader that was going to be able to get us out of it. I'm not saying Reagan didn't have his flaws, or that the solution he brought during his 8 years didn't exact a terrible price in many ways. But in the election of 1980, Reagan simply stood out to the American people as what the country needed, and the hostage crisis was merely another symbol of that. Powerful, but not singular. It's irritating to me when people consistently act as if that's the only reason he lost that election.

I just know I gain a different perspective every time I watch one of his powerpoints. Even when it's things I know on some level, his analysis and how he builds his points and conclusions are terrific.

On that front Jimmy Carter withdrawing support from the Shah because of human rights violations, and instead supporting Khomeini because after meeting him Carter felt like they were both spiritual people, and so insisted he be allowed to return to Iran from France, probably wasn't the best geopolitical decision the US has ever made.

By definition, there's not a lot of perspective on it at the moment. Frankly, Russia has been involved in a few, it's just normally it's about invading them. Sweden, France, and Germany all made what I would consider huge geopolitical blunders that way. But the biggest for me are when a culture/people are simply wiped from the face of the Earth. Like Carthage, for example. That's not going to happen here. History has a lot of examples of that happening.