Monkeypox

This would be my thinking as well. Again, it's different because there WAS a huge talent gap between Indiana and most of their conference mates. But still, they were a terrible defense. Since our head coach is a former OC and has his experience on that side of the ball, I'm less concerned about the lack of job-specific experience from Harrell (that, and he was a QB who played in that offense most of his life). As for the DC, though, it's a different story. I'm not downgrading him based on his stint at Indiana due to the talent gap, but for the same reason, I'm not going to upgrade him based on his experiences in programs where he was the beneficiary of the same kind of talent gap for half the games. Lots of coaches can recruit to Georgia, OU, USC, etc. and he didn't actually run the defenses there. What are we going to see, when it comes to X's and O's? And while Indiana was a bottom-dweller in their conference, they're still miles ahead of us when it comes to national recognition, perception, and support. Just the fact that they're IN the conference they're in puts them in a better position. Those guys average like 40k fans for their home games, even when they're doormats going 1-7 in conference play. Part of that is playing big name opponents, but they still show up vs. the WKUs and Arky States. So for those reasons, I think having concerns is valid. But I don't think there's any reason to be overly concerned at this point. I think what UNT90 is posting are generally legitimate concerns. I might not feel them to the DEGREE that he does, but it's not something to completely dismiss, either.

I agree, with the caveat that he was regularly facing teams like Wisconsin and Nebraska, and those throw off the averages a bit. We'll see, I guess, but in my mind we'll be looking at a lot of high scoring wins/losses when we play equal talent, and 30, 40 point losses in our bodybag games. The Air Raid puts pressure on the defense of both sides. You have to be a hell of a DC to compensate, and this guy doesn't have the skins for me to get too excited. Hopefully he's learned something in the last few years. I'm okay with our coaching hires, but not ecstatic. I understand the excitement anytime you get new guys in. I'm excited in the same way. But it's mostly just being optimistic to that end. Proof will be in the pudding.

Good quote from dad, Sam: "You hate to say this, but it takes winning," Sam Harrell said. "You've got to start winning for kids get excited and parents to get excited. Since the 1970's when they had won the state and gone on to another playoff, from the 70's all the way to the mid-90's they had been to the playoffs one time. One time in like 20 years. They had one playoff game in 22 years. They had no tradition in winning in football." https://texastech.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1385148

This is a pretty natural hire, as have all those on the offensive side, quite frankly. Right now, we're going with youth, system familiarity, and upside. While I share concerns about the lack of experience, particularly at schools with little to no Athletics support or history of success, I'm fine with all this. The Harrell name is still well-respected and dug deep in Texas coaching circles. The fact that his college success was so recent, I think his dad only recently stopped coaching (or is he still?), and that both of Graham's brothers are coaching out west can't hurt. Zac, as I'm sure everyone knows, is a North Texas grad and lives in Denton. So, yeah, we'll see if they can make this thing tick, but I'm not so worried about the offensive scheme or playcalling. We're not to a point where we can even begin to worry about that, IMO. Right now, we need to be able to pull recruits and coach them up. Maybe if we start getting within 30 points of a decent opponent, I can start bitching about playcalling or something. Also, like others, I'm anxiously awaiting the hires on the DEFENSIVE side of the ball, since that will be the side with the most pressure on it when running an offense like this.

http://www.chron.com/sports/cougars/article/Cougars-hire-Utah-State-s-Todd-Orlando-as-new-5995499.php http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12139351/houston-hires-major-applewhite-offensive-coordinator http://houston.suntimes.com/hou-sports/7/76/50913/kenith-pope-is-new-running-backs-coach-at-university-of-houston

Any candidate needs to be reviewed to see if they have a kid that's a QB or a friend's kid that's a high school QB. Then it should be based on how good that kid is.

Chris Cosh will make you jump! jump! out of a f*cking window.

Yep. RV is gonna try and move fast on the coaching search to cover himself.

This right here. Why I can't get too excited.

Not that we'd be able to tell.

Pretty sure it's Blake Bean, linebacker from Butler CC and Buffalo. One year of eligibility left. http://www.usatodaysportsimages.com/image/thumb/600-600/7409934.jpg

Good to know that somebody who wants policy changes has no idea what they are. That isn't correct. Large magazine does not make something an assault weapon. It never did. Not even in the AWB that attempted to make up a definition for the word. Now name some and what makes them any better at killing people, than, say, a 9mm handgun with a 10-round magazine.

What's an assault weapon?

Looking at the footprint of the conference and given preference to established teams that we (and some of our new conference mates) have a history with, I think I would rank them. 1) Arkansas State 1a) Louisiana - Lafayette 3) Western Kentucky 4) Georgia State 5) Texas State The top 2 maintain both history and footprint, and are mostly interchangeable to me. At this point, I'd support either one. WKU and Georgia State both fit better in the East, which is already pretty spread out with teams (few that would make sense in the West). I wouldn't add TxST because I don't know what they give the conference that UTSA doesn't already provide. While it MIGHT benefit us as a single team, I don't think it helps the conference.

That's the thing. Beyond the cheating and the lying about cheating, it's the aggressiveness and vindictiveness with which he and his people went after anyone who questioned him. We're talking about lawsuits and attempts to ruin people, from friends to tiny beat reporters, some of whom committed the crime of answering questions about him and his doping honestly.

I like the unintentionally disturbing starting point for the Gun-death tally. By starting with and including an Newtown, it's stating that the time to care about gun control is after white kids from Connecticut die from it. Not even to get into that the data itself is even more useless than CDC data. But it makes for some nice alarmism, I guess.

Who brought the motion to add UTSA?

It doesn't say that, though. If you want to cut hair, you need scissors. It doesn't mean that if you have scissors, you're required to cut hair.

I have Pats over 49ers, but these are interesting matchups. I've never been sold on Atlanta, but they're a much better looking team at home (as was the case with Seattle this year, but to a much greater degree). I still think it's a 49ers win, because they're a more balanced team (though that doesn't mean what it once did in the NFL). The BAL-NE matchup I have even less of a read on. Both teams are playing some of their best football right now (though I guess that could be said about anyone in a Championship). I give the very slight edge to New England in a shootout. New England works at a pace that it's tough for Baltimore to counter, but New England's defense is suspect. If it's New England vs. San Fran, I like San Fran better, but Tom Brady has the experience. I'm not terribly confident in any of these opinions, though.

Now, personally, I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment, in its intent, was to protect individual rights to bear arms, but I believe in a Living Constitution. If they had wanted to, they likely would've included such provisions, as were wanted and included by several states (Pennsylvania I remember specifically, but there were others). As a person who's had to protect myself and my property more than once with firearms, however, I can say that this is a big time issue for me. It is for many Americans. That's why candidates have to be very careful, and you won't find many pursuing it except on the way out of office. There's a lot of loopholes that need to be covered, and I think that's where regulation can come into play. But understand that violent people can and will commit violent acts. You can't regulate crazy. If the killer is unconcerned with their own life, they will succeed. Violence won't end. Gun violence won't end.

Except that grammatically, those two statements are not required to be related, STRICTLY speaking. It says that in order to have a well-regulated militia, you need the right to bear arms. It does not say that you can not have arms unless you are already in a militia. This is one of the arguments that people like to make, ignoring that the Supreme Court already ruled that a militia was the PURPOSE of the right to bear arms, but not a requirement to exercise that right.

Some of them were. And that horrifying total equated to about a week's worth of automobile deaths within the same timeframe. But the reality is "The data are not comprehensive and are not suitable for statistical analysis." is all you need to know.

After we fire Benford, we'll be naming the practice facility for him.

Huggins is committed to OU (just flipped from A&M). He's a 4* recruit, so I'd say he's pretty good.

Tuurrrrrble.