greenminer

"Go Fun Me"? ????

Vintage white. This is a retro hat.

Josh as an assistant!

If anyone is like me and was wondering what @Matt from A700 meant when he said "linear" broadcasts, here's a pretty interesting read about that stuff. Compares traditional linear TV to what they call OTT (Over-The-Top) TV. https://www.vplayed.com/blog/what-is-linear-tv/

I wish you were making the formulas!

I'm not even sure what we're talking for here. What you think should be done with Rice, what you think Rice is trying to accomplish, what you think the AAC should do, and/or what you think the AAC will actually do?

I don't think you can have a world where athletics is 100% separate from academics. I believe there are many legitimate reasons for a conference to WANT a high-academics institution, even if they are not invested in athletics. PS: same possibly goes for wanting a high endowment, even if - as stated - they have zero intent to use it on athletics.

NIL makes me skeptical, because part of me wonders if he is backing out to pursue more money than UT was willing to throw at him.

If money is the fuel, they'll be fine. Their endowment is nearly 4x SMU's.

Bleed Green Merch! @flyonthewall, do sales help with the team's budget, or does that strictly benefit the tournament only? Maybe a balance between both?

I interpreted the top ranking as, Amazing coach! Demonstrated enough to keep him here the rest of his career. If this tier is simply, Yes! Keep him one or two more years. Then I am with you. What Burton did in one year is amazing.

I think Burton is still in the second tier. NT has taught me to never judge a coach by one single season (McCarney), but especially their first. For the same reason, I cringe a bit at the posters who assume too much about Kinne's first year at TxState.

Thank you!

I can't find a link to this. Do you have one?

Helping the little guys! I think our brand recognition and appeal only helps bring attention to the little guys like SMU, A&M, ND, UT and Nebraska. We're all in this together, right? I'm okay with this.

Boston shouldn't either. Mavs in 6.

Back in my day, we had two jets.

I've read two completely different takes on this, basically that either team is too good for the other and will win in 5 or less. I haven't watched enough of both sides to have my own feel-good opinion on this, so I'll just roll with the sturdy science of bias and say Mavs in 4.

Edmonton could just be on absolute fire and win the Cup series in, say, 5 games. Let's see what happens in the Finals.

The future is taller, that's fur shurr.

Title IX still applies, right?

They're paid to get viewership.