Jump to content

Stupid Questions - $9.95 edition

Ricky's one-hitter

By Ricky's one-hitter
in 🤫$9.95🤫

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
UncleSonny

UncleSonny 6598

Posted
Posted

For whatever reason the Demas news today had me thinking of an Aggie recruit but I can't remember his name or exactly how long ago. In the last then years or so probably. 

Can anybody help me with his name? Linebacker, super athletic 5-star. Never made it to campus because of grades but I think their fan base was strung along for a bit thinking eventually he would enroll. Bonus points if you can tell me what the hell ever happened to the guy and if he ever even played football after high school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CHEF RIBS W/ THE HAMM YALL

CHEF RIBS W/ THE HAMM YALL 1269

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, UncleSonny said:

For whatever reason the Demas news today had me thinking of an Aggie recruit but I can't remember his name or exactly how long ago. In the last then years or so probably. 

Can anybody help me with his name? Linebacker, super athletic 5-star. Never made it to campus because of grades but I think their fan base was strung along for a bit thinking eventually he would enroll. Bonus points if you can tell me what the hell ever happened to the guy and if he ever even played football after high school.

I was going to guess Hoza Scott, but I don’t think he was a 5 star and don’t really know if he was committed to A&M, or what happened to him. 
 

You’re welcome. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
UncleSonny

UncleSonny 6598

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, CHEF RIBS W/ THE HAMM YALL said:

I was going to guess Hoza Scott, but I don’t think he was a 5 star and don’t really know if he was committed to A&M, or what happened to him. 
 

You’re welcome. 

Yup, exactly who I was thinking of, thanks. 

https://247sports.com/player/hoza-scott-13610/

Looks like he was enrolled or maybe committed to Eastern Arizona College for a bit but mostly has dropped off the map. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Ricky's one-hitter

Ricky's one-hitter 9140

Posted
  • Author
Posted

For anyone interested: SCOTUS hears arguments in NCAA v Alston today at 9c. While some states have passed legislation allowing athletes to benefit from the use of their name, image, and likeness, the NCAA is still pushing amateurism at the federal level. Oral arguments, specifically Justice questions, are a decent indicator of how they're leaning.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?508652-1/student-athlete-compensation-consolidated-oral-argument

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ricky's one-hitter

Ricky's one-hitter 9140

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Ricky's one-hitter said:

For anyone interested: SCOTUS hears arguments in NCAA v Alston today at 9c. While some states have passed legislation allowing athletes to benefit from the use of their name, image, and likeness, the NCAA is still pushing amateurism at the federal level. Oral arguments, specifically Justice questions, are a decent indicator of how they're leaning.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?508652-1/student-athlete-compensation-consolidated-oral-argument

It'shappening.gif

 

 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enchubben

Enchubben 5549

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Ricky's one-hitter said:

 

 

Regardless of your opinion on how this shakes out this is a dumb comparison.  The coach is neither an athlete or student. Why would they be subject to limitations of amateurism. Are they supposed to work for tuition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ricky's one-hitter

Ricky's one-hitter 9140

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 minutes ago, Machinator said:

 

Application of the rule of reason is sought by the plaintiffs, quick look test is sought by the NCAA.

Rule of Reason:

Quote
2. The “Rule of Reason” approach

A contract, combination or conspiracy that unreasonably restrains trade and does not fit into the per se category is usually analyzed under the so-called rule of reason test. This test focuses on the state of competition within a well-defined relevant agreement. It requires a full-blown analysis of (i) definition of the relevant product and geographic market, (ii) market power of the defendant(s) in the relevant market, (iii) and the existence of anticompetitive effects. The court will then shift the burden to the defendant(s) to show an objective procompetitive justification.

This analysis distinguishes between restraints with an anticompetitive effect (or resulting in conduct likely to cause such injury) that are harmful to the consumer, and restraints stimulating competition that are in the consumer’s best interest. (Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 26, 49 (1977); State Oil v. Kahn, 522 U.S. 3, 10 (1997)).

Most antitrust claims are analyzed under this test, according to which courts must decide whether they impose an unreasonable restraint on competition. In doing so, judges consider a variety of factors, including (i) intent and purpose in adopting the restriction; (ii) the competitive position of the defendant—specifically, information about the relevant business, its condition before and after the restraint was imposed, and the restraint’s history, nature and effect; (Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 485 U.S. 717 (1988); National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Board of Regents of university of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984); (iii) the structure and competitive conditions of the relevant market (State Oil v. Kahn, 522 U.S. 3, 10 (1997)); (iv) barriers to entry; and (v) the existence of an objective justification for the restriction (California Dental Ass’n v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756 (1999).

None of the factors are decisive and courts must balance them to determine whether a particular restraint of trade is competitively unreasonable (Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. v. PSKS Inc. 127 S. Ct US (2007).

If you want to read more about the contours of the rule of reason test, you might review section 3.3. of the U.S. Dep’t of Justice and Federal Trade Comm’n, Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors from April 2000, which provides some analytical criteria about applying the rule of reason test to agreements between actual and potential competitors.

Quick look:

Quote

3. The “Quick Look” review

Under this abbreviated version of the rule of reason analysis, the court does not need to conduct the rigorous analysis of the market and anticompetitive effects that the rule of reason requires. Instead, the plaintiff need only show a form of market injury. A court might apply the quick look analysis when the defendant’s conduct is of the type that, while not per se illegal, appears so likely to have anticompetitive effects that it is unnecessary for a court to go through the full analysis. The US Supreme Court in National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Board of Regents of university of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984), commented that this quick look can sometimes be applied in “the twinkling of an eye.”

The Supreme Court—in one of the most famous quick look cases—applied the quick look test in FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447, 459 (1986) to certain rules that restricted insurance company access to x-rays.

Later, the Court in California Dental Ass’n v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756 (1999), held that a court should only apply the quick look test when an observer with even a rudimentary understanding of economics could conclude that the arrangement in question would have an anticompetitive effect on customers and the market.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Machinator

Machinator 32099

Posted
Posted

@BurntOrange&White

From the current roster

Coleman - expected to leave

Andrew Jones - confirmed returning

Ramey - undecided

Febres - confirmed returning

Williams - transferred to UNLV

Hamm - transferred to UNLV

Hepa - in the portal

Cunningham - confirmed returning

Brown - undecided

Sims - undecided

'21 signees

Ellis - signing with Marquette

Joplin - requested NLI relase, expected to sign with Marquette

Bates - released from NLI

Itejere - not expected to stick

Incoming

Jaylon Tyson - released from Texas Tech NLI

Devin Askew - transferring from Kentucky

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
cafe society

cafe society 2879

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

This doesn't really feel 995 related, more of an philosophical question about addiction and recover. 

I know, but with all the conversation about Sark being too laid-back...   in any event, there's a reason I posted it in the stupid questions thread.  If people want it removed, fine by me.

too late for me to delete it.

Edited by cafe society
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ricky's one-hitter

Ricky's one-hitter 9140

Posted
  • Author
Posted
49 minutes ago, cafe society said:

I don't have any experience in this area, so I am curious as to whether or not a recovering addict ultimately adopts a laid-back, leisurely attitude because it helps keep them sober.  

 

41 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

This doesn't really feel 995 related, more of an philosophical question about addiction and recover. 

I think this is a fair question, but idk that you'll find an absolute answer. 

I attribute the laissez-faire attitude to "Cali vibes", personally. I believe he's always had a reputation for being pretty laid back. The more concerning data point is how well he thinks they're doing in recruiting. It's one thing to choose a sunny outlook on something you know is shitty, especially when you know why it's shitty. It's a different thing to choose a sunny outlook on something shitty while having no idea how shitty the thing actually is, or any interest in finding out the cause of said shittiness. 

That's addiction, imo. Choosing to ignore root cause because "I'm fine!" is just a failed attempt at controlling perception, and we're pretty far past that. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SL Xpress

SL Xpress 7518

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Ricky's one-hitter said:

 

I think this is a fair question, but idk that you'll find an absolute answer. 

I attribute the laissez-faire attitude to "Cali vibes", personally. I believe he's always had a reputation for being pretty laid back. The more concerning data point is how well he thinks they're doing in recruiting. It's one thing to choose a sunny outlook on something you know is shitty, especially when you know why it's shitty. It's a different thing to choose a sunny outlook on something shitty while having no idea how shitty the thing actually is, or any interest in finding out the cause of said shittiness. 

That's addiction, imo. Choosing to ignore root cause because "I'm fine!" is just a failed attempt at controlling perception, and we're pretty far past that. 

His motto his All Gas No Brakes. I don't think you're going to find that in any of the Mindfulness literature.

The more concerning data point is how well he thinks they're doing in recruiting.

I don't see it as a concerning data point unless you have a personal relationship with Sarkisian to the point he trusts you're not going to post his vulnerabilities on a message board for everyone to see. In which case, either he or you have failed miserably.

There's never been a college coach in the history of the game who has said anything OTHER than how well they've done in recruiting. What is the upside of saying anything different? That's a terrible criticism, and doesn't make any sense.

Someone who has successfully undergone a 12 step program and religiously maintains it (double meaning intended) is going through a program designed to help a person keep more of an even keel. The same thing with any DBT/CBT programs (Dialectical Behavior Therapy or Cognitive Behavior Therapy). One of the main things people who use pharmaceuticals for in terms of mental health is to take away the edges of their behavior, both the highs and lows. So if an addiction is addressed with practically any form of counseling, there's a good chance some of the modifications were about reducing the most intense mood swings, both upwards and downwards.

But then going further to project this being an issue with Sarkisian is a reach without a long personal relationship with the guy. Coaching at the highest levels is not really laid back at its core. And working with Saban in particular requires a certain intensity and sense of urgency. Sarkisian never built his reputation on being an amazing recruiter. Our expectations were inflated by a number of factors, including Strong and Herman's early successes, and the reactions to recruits in this cycle following the hire. His inability to close on that doesn't have to have anything to do with a previous alcohol dependency. Given his work history between being fired by USC and being hired by Texas, I don't see it having much merit. It was correct to post this under the stupid questions thread. No offense to cafe society.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


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!

×
×
  • Create New...