ColoradoEagle

Looks like I found some outdated information. Thanks.

Their average revenue/athletics budgets are still smaller. They're still a largely rural based conference and lower tier academic schools. A couple years with a handful of top 25 appearances doesn't change that.

Depends on what's poached. If only three schools are taken from CUSA, then CUSA will poach 1 to 3 schools to replace and call it a day. If both AAC and MWC raid CUSA, then sure, the conference is dead and SBC will take the leftovers. Regardless of how they see themselves, there's still a pecking order and SBC is at the bottom.

Ask her, “When does North Texas play SMU?”

The only one that brings more than every current CUSA school is SMU, and honestly that's not even them so much as our fanbase showing up for that game.

Well, I don't think any school that may move into that conference satisfies those questions. If they did, they'd already be there. This is most definitely a "best of the rest" type of situation. And out of the names that have been thrown out there so far, we're certainly in the running.

We have a higher budget than (almost?) everyone being talked about. SMU owns DFW the same way I own Apple.

A poll on Twitter doesn't mean anything. It's hard to tell what goes through their minds when deciding, but I feel like this would be a rational list of questions: What is the athletic budget? What kind of commitment is being shown to the athletics program? For example: Do they have their own football stadium? Is it relatively new? Are they building additional facilities, and/or have legitimate (not pipe dream) plans in the works? If the P5 (P4?) pull away, will the funding be there to continue athletics? What does it take to travel to the school? How do the academics rank? I'm sure there are other criteria I have no idea about. I'd be surprised if 'media markets' was on the tip of anyone's tongue for a G5 in 2021, but who knows. At this point, it seems like it would be about finding an established program that is easy to travel to and doesn't drag down the prestige of the other schools.

Anything less than 6 wins, and we need to be looking for a new HC. After two 4 win seasons, that's the bare minimum to keep the job.

You can read their methodology. It isn’t secret or nefarious, and it’s fairly extensive. What are you using for comparison? They actually just put out a version 8.0, but I’m on my iPad so it’s not easy to paste here. Interesting that they’ve started ranking individual shows and podcasts as well.

I'd agree with this. I place this type of news in the "cat in a tree" territory, because 1) it's Rolling Stone (does anyone actually rely on that source for hard hitting news?) and 2) it's barely news. The local news station (KFOR) knew that, and that's why they tried to sensationalize it. Even if you do classify this as life or death, the end result of the article is "don't eat horse paste", so it's a net positive I imagine. Hard agree on this. I've always liked the Media Bias Chart (pictured below), and I've watched over the years as CNN and MSNBC have drifted further left (lean) and down (less fact based), and Fox News has drifted further right (lean) and down (misinformation, propaganda, etc). I'm honestly not sure how anyone watches any of them, but for different reasons, obviously. Regarding publishing and retracting later, you're seeing that more and more on the outlets rushing to beat the internet, as you mentioned. Mainly MSNBC and Fox News. CNN has an international presence, so they're slightly more disciplined than those two, but they're nowhere near the journalistic quality they had in the 90s. Sounds like a quote you should take to heart. I regularly reply to El Paso Eagle and LongJim knowing full well that we don't see eye to eye politically, but also seeing that we do share common ground from time to time.

Nah, it's the version I posted. You can watch the original story that Rolling Stone lazily re-reported, since I know you haven't thus far. And I had never seen this article until it was posted here, so the visceral reaction you imagine above is all in your head.

SMU doesn't have veto power, lol. We're well ahead of those schools in a hypothetical conference realignment. UTSA doesn't even have their own football stadium. UTSA, Marshall, and La Tech (especially the last two) run on a Sun Belt level athletic budget. UTEP is in a no man's land travel-wise, and is not enticing to anyone. Rice Stadium is always embarrassing on TV and they haven't had a winning season in 7 years. There's no telling what will happen with all of this. That said, we're in a better position than a lot of people think, just not the position we could ideally be in.

First time seeing it. At least it has more flavor than their food.

Me, a normal person, reading the story: "This is lazy." You, UNTLifer, reading the story: "They're intentionally lying and trying to dupe us! Just look at those winter coats! We caught those motherf*ckers trying to lie to us!"

I actually only listed two highly skewed sources, Mother Jones (left) and Fox News (right). I consider Newsmax and Infowars to basically be parody and farcical. You could survive with Mother Jones or Fox News as your only news sources, you'd just be highly misinformed. With the other two, you basically live in an alternate reality. Everything after that, I'm not going to respond to because you haven't budged one millimeter from how you started the thread despite an honest effort by myself and others to discuss the topic.

I agree, however the frequency of mistakes is also going to vary on output and organization size. The smaller the organization, the much more likely it is they’re not going to do their due diligence and simply reprint or summarize information from someone else. If something is reported by CBS News, for example, it’s likely to be researched far more than something like Rolling Stone. Again, doesn’t mean a large organization like CBS News or the New York Times are going to get everything right (they most definitely do not), but it does mean they have the resources to properly vet their sources and maintain higher journalistic integrity. I would argue that especially the larger news outlets do their best to uphold standards. But there’s obviously also a gradient here, and that’s where I’d again recommend multiple sources and critical reading.

@UNTLifer against my better judgment, I'm going to attempt a real response to this. For reference, I have an undergraduate degree from our University of North Texas in Communication Studies and took several courses that covered media bias, rhetoric, and technology as it pertains to communication. Give that whatever level of respect you deem appropriate. If your point here is that "the media is biased," then that is accurate. All media includes the biases of whoever is creating it. From low levels of bias (AP and Reuters) to highly skewed media (Fox News and Mother Jones) to outright junk (Newsmax, Infowars, etc). It is good to be skeptical of what you read and view, because a person or an organization is giving you information from their perspective, and that will always carry some level of bias. That is why taking information from a website like "Outkick" that openly mocks its reader saying, "Do you want the facts delivered to your inbox each morning?" and one of the options is "No, I prefer mainstream bias" is so laughable. They're telling you straight up that they're biased, clueless, or (most likely) both. This Rolling Stone article was a lazily written non-sourced article repeating bad spin from local TV news. Stuff like that happens. And again! It is good to be skeptical of what you read and view for that very reason. But trusting, "You can't trust these guys, you can only trust us!" by a website from a sports shock jock, "here's why you should be outraged" by a guy who was fired for advocating lynching people, and "ivermectin isn't that bad" as written by a guy who may or may not be a real doctor, but definitely wants you to buy his eBook entitled, "Ivermectin for the World." is ... odd. I know that a certain handful of people who always downvote my posts will just do the same here. Realize, though, that I have talked nothing about politics here. At all. Simply that people should be more skeptical of media, wherever it may come from.

What hard hitting reporting from **checks notes** the psuedonym using author of the eBook "Ivermectin for the World." Seriously?

No, the definition of disinformation is "false information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media." This is not that. This is poorly sourced reporting that allowed the writer to jump to the conclusion he wanted to arrive at. That type of reporting has always and will always happen so long as humans are doing the writing. If you want to get down and dirty into the bias part of it, even local news in DFW has been having stories about feed stores selling out of Ivermectin. So maybe writing an article exaggerating the effects on hospitals wasn't the best route to take, but saying that yokels are eating horse paste to cure COVID isn't exactly a fantastical take.

It's less a case of lying and more a case of bad reporting. In the end, the message is "don't take veterinary grade Ivermectin" so I don't really see any harm in it, especially since they have also published more information refuting the reporting. Just seems like the latest outrage of the day.

Yeah, I'm gonna go with no, I don't care about the opinion of someone who stated that women having an abortion, as well as the doctors and nurses who performed the procedure, should be hung.

Honestly, you're sensationalizing. I think you'll find very few people who will say this operation went off perfectly, but it's also not the catastrophic failure that some are trying to paint it to be. It just is what it is, and what it would always be regardless of when it happened. Trump did embolden the Taliban, and if you don't believe me, believe the RNC who tried to dust that under the rug. It's not a zero sum game. It's not, "it's 100% Trump's fault!" or "it's 100% Biden's fault!" or even "it's 100% Bush's fault!" It's been 20 years. There's plenty of fault to go around. Pointing out that Biden is not solely responsible for Afghanistan shouldn't even be controversial, but here we are. Here's a news flash for you: The "librul MSM" is anything but. That whole war cry is just to shift the Overton window for certain 'news' outlets to the right. Over the past two weeks, I've seen almost every single news outlet directly or indirectly make the case that we should stay in Afghanistan forever, that this is the most important issue to the country today, and that it's worthy of 90% of the news airtime over the pandemic, a massive hurricane hitting the Gulf Coast, outlawing abortion even when it's the product of incestual rape, and a guy I saw yesterday being able to open carry a gun into freaking Aldi. Again, I don't necessarily disagree with the points you're making. I am sure there are areas of the evacuation that could've been improved, and those details will more than likely bore themselves out in the next few months. But people acting like this is a world ending catastrophe while 230 Texans are dying per day to COVID just belies greenminer's point.

Leaving equipment behind always happens in war. Always. Some draw downs are better than others, but there is not a case of 'no equipment left behind'. The first result to pop up on Google when searching for equipment left behind in Vietnam: ARMS LEFT BY U.S - The New York Times (nytimes.com) I get your point, but outside of what they did, there are only two alternatives: 1) continue occupying Afghanistan indefinitely, or 2) set up a facility multiple times the size of Gitmo. But staying in the war forever isn't an option, so the Taliban would've always been in power. If anything, it's the negotiations with the Taliban that excluded the Afghan government last year that set the stage for distrust of working with the US. But honestly, it's beside the point. Even if Trump had done nothing, all indications are that the Afghan government wouldn't have been able to survive without US military protecting them.