Monkeypox

And because the equation is valid, you'd be hard pressed to find an answer to C) Disaster without addressing A) Population Growth. Before you sound an alarm, you'd better have a solid plan. Otherwise, you've got a bunch of idiots running into each other creating chaos and exacerbating the situation, and that's pretty much what US energy policy l has looked like since the 80s.

Wow. I REALLY hope McCarney makes it work here, because I love his attitude. In the end, it'll be about the Ws, though.

You too! LOL. Yeah, MAYBE we'll have a rivalry with SMU. Just like MAYBE we'll have a rivalry with Notre Dame or Southern New Mexico State or MAYBE we'll have a top 10 football team in 60 years, and MAYBE we'll have flying cars and MAYBE we'll be ruled by alien monkey people from future Earth. Anything's possible.

LOL. This article, however, does more harm than good, IMO. Fact of the matter is that they should be studying these as possible scenarios, regardless of cause. Of course, they already are. The situation in Pakistan (which the article uses as its prime example) is far more complex and not necessarily related to global climate change as much as it is population growth and improper infrastructure to handle it. These problems are already inherently anthropogenic. It's not about having your head in the sound. It's about practicing intellectual honesty and staying away from the kind of alarmism that gives good science a bad name. But "OMG CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSED A WATER SHORTAGE IN PAKISTAN AND INDIA AND THEY'VE GOT NUKES THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!!!" sells pretty well. The fact of the matter is they already study how all of these micro events - water shortages, blackouts, riots, etc. can potentially effect national security. The article admits as much and then goes on to say that the study doubts the ability to appropriately and efficiently respond to these events anyway. If the cause were "Alien Invasion," it would be just as relevant. Population Growth ------> Cimate Change-------> Disaster

http://en.wikipedia....-Fashioned_Hate They play annually, and their historical rivalry goes back to the 1890s. They fall into the same category as all the other big time rivalries... history, and state history in particular. They didn't arbitrarily pick a nearby school to be their rival. Only about their own teams. Otherwise, I doubt you'll find many non-Texas Southern/non-UNT fans saying that our matchup mattered in even the slightest way. 1) Notre Dames rivalries are partly due to the historical success of the school, as well as their status as an independent. They get to play on a national stage vs. other top teams in meaningful games. They have more rivalries than anyone, but it primarily hinges around the importance of the games and Notre Dame's status at the top of the college football world (well-earned or not in recent years). Still, there's no Wake Forest-Notre Dame rivalry. 2) It's not about being contrarian, but if that's what you call making sense, then so be it. It's just that I don't think that every college football game is a rivalry game, nor is it sensible to try and make a non-conference opponent who already has a primary rival into one. You have to have meaning to have a rivalry, and every other rivalry you name has that, and most of them go back a good 100 years. The Army-Navy game goes back to 1890. And they have national significance because of what they represent, and their history. I actually think the ASU-Memphis rivalry is developing, but it lacks some of the big-game appeal of many of the others. If they could schedule every year or played in the same conference, it would become a bigger deal. As it is, you have fans at both schools who don't consider it a rivalry. I see it Arkansas State-Memphis as a developing one, I just don't know how far it has to go. 3) This entire board is obsessed with SMU. That's why every year there's a SMU rivalry thread.. I gave you my reasons for why they won't be a rival, and it hinges on them playing in another conference and having no historical basis for one. We're pretty much having to take a back seat to any of their in-state rivals from the SWC, CUSA, etc.days. Why try and make yourself someone's 3rd biggest rivalry? Regardless, rivalries happen naturally. Maybe 60 years from now, we'll have a long-standing series with SMU that's been defined by big time games and heated battles. I just don't see any near-term potential for one, and, as it is, we'll always be 2nd fiddle there, anyway.

Given the number of SMU alums I work with, I'm pretty aware of the general sentiment of North Texas among SMU. It's mostly ambivalence. The only people that "loathe" us are the ones that are irritated by our constant trolling and obsession over them. I think the key part of the other rivalries that Georgia has is that whole SEC part you mentioned. OF COURSE THEY HAVE RIVALRIES WITH CONFERENCE FOES. That actually makes sense. Those rivalries happened. It wasn't just Georgia saying "Hey, guys, we want to be your rivals now, despite the fact that we don't play every year and we're not in the same conference." And no, every game is not meaningful. And no, every game on Notre Dame's schedule isn't a rivalry. That's ridiculous. People wouldn't have the annual "We need a rivalry!" thread if that were the case, because everyone in college football would have at least 12 rivalry games a year. If nobody outside of the home region knows about it, it's not a rivalry. I KNOW who other teams rivalries are, even if I've never been a big fan or don't live in the area. Nobody other than a handful of alumni from North Texas believe there's any sort of rivalry with SMU. And there won't be one until such time as SMU and North Texas have a long-standing series with national implications. People here REALLY need to get over the SMU obsession. It's sad. I applaud focusing on the regional competition within our new conference. We have plenty of reasonable teams with whom a rivalry could develop (DEVELOP, not be artificially created). You don't get rivalries by wishing.

There are also plenty of fans who don't feel anything at all about UNT, like most of the country. Just because you know a few people who love or hate UNT, or because a handful have had message board wars when they so desperately needed attention, doesn't mean that's reality. SMU doesn't think about us at all, unless we try and make them. They have a historical, long-standing rival with TCU. They have some older rivalries with the other old SWC conference mates. There is no situation outside of us being in the same conference with them and playing in important games that will make them a rival. And even then, we'd still be #2 to TCU. That's just how it is. If you're going to wish for a rival, at least make it between some schools who 1) Don't already have one and 2) Have a potential for playing meaningful games with us. If we were to start beating them, they'd stop scheduling us. It wouldn't form a rivalry.

While the underlying global causes of the water shortage in Pakistan probably require research, it's intellectually dishonest to point to their shortage as a climate change issue while ignoring the regional population explosion in India, Pakistan, and surrounding areas and how that led to EVERYONE BUT PAKISTAN funding dam projects and building a crap-ton (scientific terms) of dams along rivers (many of which are regionally disputed). Even still, during India's water crisis, they admitted that rainfall was sufficient, but that they didn't properly manage their resources. Richard Seager has probably done the most research on the subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/science/earth/02drought.html?_r=0 What happened in Pakistan is that they abandoned reservoir projects, and those around them didn't. Exacerbated a problem that Pakistan had been warned about since the early 2000s.

History and competition for the same goals. We have no historical rivalry with SMU, no matter how much people here want to make it the case. They actually don't care about us at all, and that's fine. I can't seem to care much about SMU, either. They're not in the same conference that we're in, nor have they been. History doesn't mean "We've played each other a bunch because we're in the same state." It means that you played each other a bunch in games people cared about. The move to a more regional conference should help us develop a natural rivalry over time... OVER TIME.

SMU will never have a rivalry with us. They don't give a damn about North Texas. A rivalry is based on geography, a competition for the same goals, and history. Not just WISHING it so.

Coached, not recruited. He didn't recruit any at Washington. And he was tenured and had already won a National Championship when UT integrated. You think he would've been fired for having a few scholarship black kids, even though much of the SWC already did? http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/1996-10-04/524684/

Can't fault these guys. They love North Texas.

You can't reason with people who have an unhealthy obsession like this, though. Dude's hung up on North Texas, heck, and more than many alumni. Cougar King is a loyal North Texas fan, no doubt about it.

What's weird is that on their fan boards you have a lot of people criticizing Leach for poor performance, which is weird, because I could have sworn this was the only place where people were crazy enough to do such a thing.

People like to pretend that the only issue with Harbaugh is that we chose not to hire him, and not that he went to coach at Stanford for a million+ a year, where his dad coached, across the street from his high school, in a major conference, in a state where he already had coaching ties...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOUCO5qHGKg

Then you should have said something different. Do you believe that beating MTSU was an unreasonable goal this season? How about being competitive against them?

So as long as they keep picking us low, we'll never have to get better! YIPPEE!

The difference is that Coach Mac doesn't have anyone relevant to care about admitting he's wrong to. I'm sorry, but this isn't the Cowboys. It isn't UT. It isn't Florida. Coach Mac making a QB change wouldn't be a blip on the radar as far as his ego is concerned. This ego business, along with "more than meets the eye" is really just message board material - the kind of things that people like to speculate about. If Mac thought Osborn could win him games that DT couldn't, then he'd put him in. Coaches hate losing more than they hate being wrong to about 30 people on a message board and Brett Vito.

Look for the flag for the holding penalty.

That's not my point at all. My point is that you can't blind yourself with hope for next year when you're consistently at the bottom of the barrel. The Cubs and Browns and any other pro team can be the absolute best team the next season, no matter how bad they are. In college football, you know it's a PROCESS to move up. You go into it knowing it takes time. When you see ABSOLUTELY ZERO progress after decades, what exactly are you deluding yourself with? We suck. We've sucked for a long time. The best we can hope for is to suck a little less next year, and a little less the year after that, and a little less... and then eventually, maybe before I die, we'll have a chance to actually make noise nationally. Pro sports have nothing on college football for prolonged misery. And that was my point. Pro sports is a poor comparison.

I WISH we were as good as mediocre.

Not to go too far down this rabbit hole, but let me know the next time a team in FBS football goes from #120 to #1 in a year. The second that happens, I'll consider any comparisons to pro football relevant. Until then...

I said 8 seed. I can definitely see them sneaking in over the other potential candidates. I can no longer doubt the ability of Rick Carlisle to get better performances out of players than they're used to. Still not a great team, so I think if they make it, it's in one of those last couple of spots.