Jump to content

SL Xpress

Full Members
  • Posts

    4879
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by SL Xpress

  1. I don't understand your numbers. Regardless, it's a big amount. Where's the 15-20m to buy out a coach coming from? What assistant has that kind of buyout? How many of the assistants currently on staff have a guaranteed contract, and for how long? I don't know the answer. But I'd be shocked if it's all of them. Sure, 10m to pay for the next staff. But the current staff is already getting paid some amount. That seems like a wash to me. I'd think the total amount is closer to $40m, paid out in installments, to get rid of the current staff. Then the salary of the next head coach would be less than what Venables is getting paid on his extension. It's still a lot of money for an athletic department that has some pretty big gut checks in the new college football environment, so I'm not trying to be dismissive of the difficulty of firing him.
  2. Alabama "will do whatever it takes" but if you don't have the money, you don't have the money. They need a new coach, though. Venables ain't it. And if you don't have the right coach it doesn't matter what resources you surround him with. They pulled the trigger too quickly with the extension they gave him, but at that time they thought he was the answer. I still think if they go 6-6/7-5 this year they figure out a way to fire him and hire another up and coming assistant from somewhere and hope they land another moonshot the way they did with Stoops.
  3. Apparently $34.9m after the end of 2025. That's not Jimbo money, but it's not cheap. The key thing is it's not a lump sum, so I don't think there's any question they could afford it. I didn't do a lot of research. Just a quick google search. But the articles I came across whining about UT's schedule compared to the Sooners were awesome.
  4. Who are y'all? I'm one person. Name a dictator who has been voted out. A dictator who holds power for two years and then is voted out of power is not a dictator. We still have the voting system until that's completely superseded. Not saying it won't be, but it hasn't been, yet. Not to mention his mortality. The dude is 78. And he still has to make his play with the judicial system. He either has to use some kind of mechanism to purge the federal judges who are appointed for life or he has to ignore their rulings. We'll see how that goes.
  5. OU never hires coaches who have been a head coach. They've hired two since WWII and both of them lasted one year. All the rest of their head coaches were previously assistants.
  6. That's what I'm scared of. It doesn't have to be 90% GOP. 55% is enough. The filibuster in the Senate is on its last legs, so won't need the 60 votes there. Weaponize the FBI to investigate any Democratic candidates that win close elections.
  7. It's a huge problem that the Democrats didn't win either the House or Senate. We'll see how much of a problem. I'm most concerned with losing our ability to have peaceful transfers of power. Not trying to diminish the damage that's been done, but if people can vote in an alternative to what we're seeing now, that's at least a hopeful dynamic. But if everything is so rigged that the Trump followers can control the levers of government regardless - and it's obvious that's what they want to do - then Sauron won.
  8. I don't know. I just know it's going to be extremely important for those in power to hold all the key sources of power. Especially having a majority in the House and Senate. It's going to be extremely challenging for the Democrats to go after any initiatives that work in the Trump administration's favor. The courts are our only real hope. Even if the Democrats win the House or Senate - or both - it won't mean the threat is over. But it sure would at least force the administration to show their cards and force a confrontation. I hate to say this, but we need a constitutional crisis. An action so bold by the Trumpists that everyone can see we've crossed the Rubicon. Honestly, I thought that's what January 6th was. Our democracy is on the precipice of ending. Where do you stand on that? (the general you).
  9. I don't think someone is a dictator until they establish a rule for life. In Trump's case that likely wouldn't be long anyway. Often we'll see a handpicked successor, but that's always fraught with difficulty, since the first person the new ruler would want to eliminate is the former ruler. As long as there's a realistic possibility for a transfer of power, it's not a dictatorship, in my opinion. For example, Putin is a dictator. Erdogan, as much as he makes it extremely difficult to unseat him, is not so far. That said, at this pace it's hard to believe we're going to have fair elections at the midterm. But we'll see. Part of the issue currently is that Trump and his allies have control over the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court. If any one of those was in the Democrats' hands it would be extremely helpful. I don't think we have to speculate what community they're going after first. They're going after immigrants. It's obvious they're going to go after the Muslim community at some point through various means, although that's challenging because of the need to stay on good terms with Arab rulers. They're also going hard after transgender communities. But anyone who disagrees with any element of their policies is subject to attack, possibly vicious, including ending careers or even violence. I read a great article that featured someone who killed over a hundred people during the Rwandan genocide. He said he did it in part because he was a known ally of many Tutsi people and so he had to prove his bonafides or him and his family would have been killed. Then he got carried away. It was not written as an apologia. It was written to show how easy it is for people to be complicit, especially when they're ruled by fear. That's a lot of how genocides happen. They're written into our DNA. Someone seeks dominion by stoking fears, suspicion, and superiority over some other group. When they take power it's either a with us or against us mentality. The people perpetrating the violence are either believers, opportunists who want to be on the winning side, or people who don't want to be considered disloyal for fear of reprisal. I honestly don't think we're that far off from establishing a surveillance state. I don't think it will happen tomorrow or the next day, but it's obvious there's no limit to what the Trump administration and its allies will consider in terms of taking control over the government. The technology is available. Maybe I get a door knock at some point because of posts I've made on message boards. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility, that's for sure.
  10. I'm just responding to the post. I'm not aware of your posting history.
  11. I feel like you haven't been watching closely. It's not enough to be Republican to be safe. You have to be a certain type of Republican. In fact, not being enough of a certain type of Republican is the best way to commit political suicide right now. This isn't about purging Democrats. This is about purging anyone who is not sufficiently loyal. If someone tried to tell me the FBI traditionally has been a Democratic Party bastion in the federal government I'd laugh in their face. It's not a matter of if the FBI has been sufficiently progressive or conservative in their outlook. The Trump administration wants complete control of the domestic security force. Judicial system. Military. Internal police force. That's how you take over complete control of the government. After that you control other mechanisms, too, including the media. but first you need to control the judiciary, the military, and domestic security. If the Trump administration has their way, I assume we're going to see some mechanism to purge judges at some point. Could be a reconstituted FBI that does it, if they're successful.
  12. Why would you read it that way? It looks like she's trying to hand over more ammunition and cover for him to go through with the purges already planned. I mean, in any organization about loyalty over competency the greatest competency is being able to finger scapegoats, and the best way to be promoted is to successfully torpedo the career (in many cases the life) of the people above you. But this seems more like documenting and making public the rationale for various career beheadings within the FBI. You know as an institution there are going to be a lot of people trying to conduct some kind of guerilla warfare to protect their organization. This seems like an attempt to root some of that out as ruthlessly as possible.
  13. I think you're the one being obtuse. There's nothing special about Deloitte Touche that makes them or their enforcement mechanisms free from antitrust law. Your analogy about the bugatti is not a good one. If someone wants to buy the $2m Bugatti for $3m the state of Texas isn't going to bat an eye. The market will keep shifting upwards and what a realistic deal for a college athlete looks like will shift upwards as well. What would be nice is to have more transparency, so that all actors have a better idea of the actual pricing rather than rumor and innuendo often setting markets. Not that people are all making decisions in a vacuum, but there's a lack of coherent pricing information that means the market can't work as efficiently as it otherwise could, which presents all kinds of arbitrage opportunities all the way around. And those arbitrage opportunities help create new market pricing. So I'm hopeful the House settlement will help in that regard. But there's still going to be a problem that the value of a college player is not directly tied to how much sheer market value they have from an endorsement perspective, but rather the emotional return on investment provided by helping the alma mater be more competitive in football games and hopefully win a national championship. The House Settlement isn't going to change that, and I personally don't believe any enforcement mechanisms attempted are going to actually work. It will simply end up in more court cases, none of which will go to trial. They'll just keep kicking the can down the street because all parties involved are scared shitless of the triple damages a losing verdict would entail. Rightfully so, IMO. All I know is that the housing industry had all kinds of steps to help ensure fair market value was being paid to protect global institutional lenders investing in the pooled mortgage notes. It was purposefully circumvented at an institutional level. So will anything coming out of the House Settlement. When demand is greater than supply - which is the case in terms of highly skilled athletes capable of being the difference between winning the national championship and not - then the market is going to continually find ways around whatever strictures are put in place unless those strictures are severely enforced with a repressive institution and draconian penalties. The House Settlement isn't going to solve any of that.
  14. I mean, it's right there in the post. I felt confident Trump wouldn't have done it, and here we are with Trump behaving in exactly the way he said he would.
  15. Biden didn't have limited congressional support. It was a tiny group of representatives in the House that successfully prevented any bill from reaching the floor by threatening to upend the Speaker of the House and throw the House into chaos. Once it reached the floor it was passed with an overwhelming majority in both houses. He could have done any number of things to put his support of Ukraine front and center. The fact he was such an unpopular president and foreign assistance is rarely going to garner populist acclaim handicapped him, but the fact is he never tried to make a case for support of Ukraine. He depended on the members of congress to do that, and told them so. I hate Trump. I think he's an extremely dangerous president. I fear for the future of our democracy. But Trump would have found a way to send more arms, and more lethal arms, to Ukraine in a way the Biden administration refused to do so for fear of escalating the conflict. It's practically the Democratic playbook since WWII. I'm still grateful for the support that was sent because I felt confident Trump wouldn't have done it, and here we are with Trump behaving in exactly the way he said he would. Biden gets kudos from me for galvanizing the world, and Europe in particular, to support Ukraine to the extent they have. He never went far enough, and that was a continuous source of frustration for me. It doesn't change my gratitude for what he did do, but claiming that his hands were tied as president and he couldn't do any more than he did is a falsehood. He didn't want to go all in. And while the reasons for it are certainly there for anyone to see, it was still a choice he made. He wasn't forced into it by anyone, much less a group of less than a dozen house of representative congressmen.
  16. I read that as "even if she shits the bed" and thought, "you're a better man than me."
  17. It's a realistic reason why they weren't able to compete even with resources and a fan base. You seem angry at me for pointing that out. Comparing a podunk out in the middle of nowhere university specializing in engineering and agriculture, providing a higher education to young males who often had no other realistic alternative because they came from rural non monied backgrounds, to Annapolis and West Point is beyond silly. I feel no need to defend A&M. But I'd like to at least be a little realistic when we're criticizing them. For most of their existence they had no real shot at being consistently competitive. That's not a good excuse now, but for most of their history it is. They're still a weird cult that mythologizes themselves, and have throughout their existence.
  18. So now we're comparing the prestige and national reach of Annapolis and West Point to College Station and sticking your arm up a cow's ass for your major? The truth is A&M was an afterthought for Texas fans through most of its history. It couldn't compete. Now it's a diploma mill with a much larger student body than Texas, but they cling to their wacky traditions, most notably their hatred of the tsips, as their bonding agent. I'm just saying it's unsurprising they were unable to compete for most of their history.
  19. Through their entire history? They were a smallish all male school with compulsory ROTC. They did have some resources and a fan base, but when everyone you recruit has to do ROTC drills and there are no women on campus, that's going to be an inherent problem with being competitive. Oh, and majors were very limited. Doesn't change the last 50 years, though.
  20. Not only does America support dictators, but I'd argue in some instances it's been in our best interest. You've already done a mea culpa, so I'm not trying to pile on. I'd also argue that America has never supported a dictator with the means available to them that Russia has, even with their military hobbled by their actions in Ukraine.
  21. Yeah, they're pretty good in basketball, but like Olivia Dunne, that's not their chief value in NIL terms.
  22. They're a pretty big deal in the NIL world. Especially women's basketball and women's sports in general.
  23. Showing my age that I get that reference. Saw them live multiple times including a gig in a record store, which was completely and utterly awesome.
×
×
  • Create New...