This guy, as good as he is, hasn't ever hit more home runs in a season than every other TEAM in his league, like the other guy did in 1920. As Shoehei is to playing both ways, Ruth was to the homer.
it's almost as if you can't stop the foibles of human behavior on the supply side. Has it EVER worked? (don't look too hard, the answer is no). But dammit, we're gonna try again, and the right will keep voting for it because it means they get to blow things up, victim-blame folks for being actual human beings, and then go home at night at huff the paint fumes, or get drunk off our gourds, or high as a kite on Oxy while we blame "them damn Mexicans" for everything that's wrong in the world.
It's not a coincidence that when our OL play rises to the level of "passable P5 team," our RB and WR performances got miles better too. No drops. Topped 100 yards rushing. No INTs.
It all starts with the OL.
I agree with this as well. I'm just saying that with "D1 starter a ANY P5 school" level of output, these challenges in our offense are far less 'the world is falling' and far more 'we might not be able to beat UGA and then tOSU b2b to win the natty, but we're in the conversation with just a few fixes like OL run blocking.' Everything feels worse because we can't even make the easy plays, and there's so little that Sark can do to scheme around the OL gaps without getting SOMETHING from his QB to help.
I don't necessarily disagree, but holy shit look at the clip that @Newy25 posted ... the offense schemed people open ALL DAY, and Arch couldn't make any of the throws. A few were drop-backs with a clean (enough) pockets, a few were quick-single-read chip shots, and at least one was on a roll out (maybe an unplanned roll-out, but still). Every way you can put a QB in a position to succeed, Sark did for Arch.
The clip, in case you hate yourself enough to try and watch again.
My only counter-point is that not all Universities have the size to legitimately compete for the Sears Cup. Success in the AD role there would look like outperforming schools of similar size, or resurrecting a sport that has been a long-time doormat, or winning a championship as a serious underdog, etc. 'Outperforming your peer group' is the real measure, I guess. I'm not deep enough into the world of college athletics to compile that list, but there's probably a few out there that have some skins on the wall through that lens, who don't have CDCs endowment or donor base to pull from, so I wanted to leave some room in the list.
Still a short fuckin' list :).
This is the gods honest truth. Look at the upward trajectory the entire Athletic Department is on since his arrival ... it's really incredible. There might be someone better at the AD job than him, but it's a short fuckin' list.
Fucking same; during my freshman year, my schedule overlapped with Ricky's in a way that I'd pass him walking to class at least twice a week. His thighs were as big around as my waist, and his neck was close. He wasn't ALL that much taller than I was, but I swear he looked like the players we'd design in those early versions of Madden, with 99 speed and 99 BRK or whatever it was.
The story about him building our culture, and realizing that he needed to be first through the door so he called a team meeting and laid bare his troubles with alcohol, and what he does on a daily basis to stay ahead of it, was inspiring as FUCK. I feel like I'd run through a wall for a coach who showed that level of humility and vulnerability (while still clearly demonstrating excellence on the field, and requiring same from me and my teammates).
The cynic in me feels like there's always another shoe waiting to drop, but I can't remember this level of excitement that I have for Texas Foootball since about 2004. I guess specifically, the 2001-2002 season where I felt like we were finally on to something repeatable, which 204-05-06 proved.
Shitbird lawyer: "He hasn't served two consecutive terms yet, which is clearly the only thing that the Amendment, which is really dumb and a terrible deal which the states never should have approved, means, because reasons."
Roberts: "Flawless argument, no notes, go forth, Dear Leader."
It's worth reminding eveyone that AI right now is just really, really, really advanced auto-complete. It can only present answers based on situations that it's seen before, that it's been trained on. There's quite a bit of very advanced science that makes it LOOK like AI is thinking, but it's really not - it's just Deep Blue finally beating a chess grandmaster because it can logically search the entire possible set of outcomes of any chess move faster than a human can do it.
AI gets dirty when pressed because that's what humans do. And generally, in case you haven't noticed, humans kinda suck.
edit: my grammer is very much not good.
I'm legitimately curious as to what you get out of all of this? Not in terms of social structure or global gains ... you, specifically. How are you better after all of this? Do you think you're making valid points? You don't seem to want to debate policy. You aren't raising counterpoints to the dominant narrative in these parts. You don't seem to have an opinion of your own or even a voice, really. You just seem to live on the margins, throwing barbs when it suits you and disappearing as soon as the conversation goes one click below surface level.
Possibly because the exit emails weren't actually the point, but rather the EXITS THEMSELVES are the point. I'm damn proud of the lawyers that left the firms who bent the knee to Trump, because they're standing on the principle of law and of the separation of powers.
I appreciate the self-reflection here. I've had a very, very similar conversation with my dad several times (who voted Trump in '16, and had repudiated him by about March of 2017). Conservatives haven't ACTUALLY been about small government, either fiscally or government-control related, in a very long time. Democrats may spend more in terms of "absolute dollars allocated," but tax rates have consistently come down over the decades, tax programs at least try and target those who can afford to pay, and those dollars are consistently invested in programs with a very high ROI; see the resultant economic indicators at the end of any D president in the last 50 years.
Small government is a dog-whistle for "the rich get richer." Effective government that looks out for every American (not just a talking point) is squarely in the province of the Dems. I wish more people would just vote their conscience.