BigRedBuster

Ummm.....no.

These decisions are (I firmly believe) quite possibly the most important political issue in America...that nobody is paying attention to.

I found this read this morning rather interesting. It's not as cut and dried as we have been lead to believe. It's still an issue to pay attention to and be concerned about...but....as with anything, more information is good. A new study says much of the rise in inequality is an illusion. Should you believe it?

If we get all that and still can get a good QB, I would assume they would tell Mapieu that he no longer has an offer so they wouldn't accept his commitment.

"in right left"

I'm not so sure about that. Right now, if Alabama's starting stud RB goes down, they have gobs of talent behind him to fill in without missing much of a beat. Meanwhile, if a team like Illinois has a stud RB go down, chances are, there would be a big drop off. Now....assume this happens later in the season and they have a stud RB redshirting. With this rule change, that doesn't punish the player for coming in those last 4 games and playing...which helps make Illinois more competitive. I honestly don't know how I feel about this.

That's really why I can't wrap my head around being a true libertarian economically. One of the government's main rolls is to establish an economic system where commerce can flourish in a fair manner. That isn't done by getting rid of all regulation and just let the place be a wild wild west show. It's done by putting in regulations that benefit both the consumer and the business providing the service or product. The Banking industry is a prime example. It would be disastrous if we did away with all banking regulations. The system that is in place is an amazingly efficient system that allows commerce to take place in a controlled environment. Now...yes....there are tweaks that could happen that would make it better and more fair. But, in general, it's a great system....in very large part due to the framework and regulations the government has put in place over time.

If we over sign by three and Mapieu and Smith don't make it, we really only are long by one player. Even in normal/good years, there's typically someone that falls off after Spring and into Summer. That said, I'm sure Mav is right. But, I thought we had to be down to 85 by the start of Practice in August....not June.

Interesting.

That tweet is amazingly telling. What a time to be alive......

This comment basically exposes where you come from politically. You disdain anything Republican and you're offended when someone claims they have no desire to be a Democrat or criticizes Democrats. It's OK. A lot of people are all in for a party just like you.

And...when I look to see if a team is "talented", I look at the roster. Does the QB have the ability to manage the offense and make plays to distribute the ball to the other play makers. Does the RB have the speed, agility and strength to hit the correct hole, make people miss or run over other players to gain yards. Does the O line players have the physical ability to block the guy on the other side of the ball....etc.

I'm for taking big money and billionaires and their influence out of politics no matter what side their on. You obviously don't agree with that.

Isn't that sort of contradictory? You admit Texas recruits a lot of talent ( and still does). But, they aren't a very talented team? I would change that to say, Texas has recruited a lot of good talent and still does. But, they aren't a very good team. I wouldn't say UCF is a more talented team than Nebraska. I would say they are a better team. Now, while reading your post and writing mine, something came to mind. In your definition, the term "talented team" appears to talk specifically about the team as though the team itself is a single living entity. I know this is getting kind of deep, but, maybe this is where the disconnect is coming from. Are you saying that the UCF offense is talented because as a unit it can physically be successful even though the players by themselves are not as physically gifted as the players on the UT roster? I'm not sure I'm asking that in a manner that is understandable. But, maybe this is where the differing interpretation of the term "talented team" is.

This block was not just Vedral. It was a blanket move to try to prevent any players from following Frost to Nebraska. It also included a block from them transferring to conference foes. I have no problem with this. It seems like Vedral understands the situation and is working through it. No need to get all worked up about it.

Well....if someone had a video of you urinating on prostitutes....wouldn't you "stand practically idle" too?

it is??? I think we are differing on a small but important part to this. When someone says a team is "talented". I believe they mean that it has the pieces(players) on the team to put the puzzle (Team) together and succeed. There have been very talented teams throughout history that have failed. Texas football is a prime example. For a long time, they have been an extremely talented team. But....that success didn't show up on the field because they were poorly coached and bad attitudes towards what it takes to succeed. Just because Texas hasn't won football games doesn't mean they weren't talented. They have had some great athletes on that team that were very talented. So, the word "talent" is specifically talking about the pieces(players) that are on the team. Are they physically and mentally able to accomplish what is being asked? The answer to UT is definitely "YES".

Not necessarily arguing against any of that. I think there was so much crap being thrown around that it's hard to figure out what was real and what wasn't. That hasn't changed.

So....basically.....you support big money in politics as long as that money goes to the side of issues the you support. Got it.

I think your definition is flawed. Talent means, is the player physically and mentally able to play at a certain level. That's it. The rest is player development and scheme. We could have had great DBs and a great DB coach teaching them great technique. But, if the DC had them in a horrible scheme that made them look bad, does that mean we didn't have good talent at the position? It Callahan's last year, did Suh not have good talent and then all of a sudden in 2009 he had good talent? Talent doesn't eb and flow with the coaching that is affecting how the player plays. Talent is much more stable and based on the player's abilities.

Good read.

So.....drilling everywhere is important....well....unless a republican governor doesn’t want it.

Every President since Reagan has seen a higher level of partisan hate. It’s like each party is trying to out due the other. The issues around clinton were not the BJ and a messy blue dress, it went back to the election with stories of sexual assault and affairs. Then it went into issues with investments...etc. The BJ was just what they caught him lying about.