
SL Xpress
Full Members-
Posts
4299 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by SL Xpress
-
I'm not quite sure what all this means, but I'll tell you right now Beard is going to win at Ole Miss. Maybe not next year, but maybe. But by year 2 he'll have Ole Miss on a heck of a trajectory, and the SJB Pavilion will be rocking like it never has. Just be resigned to him signing with Kentucky when that job opens up.
-
Well, regardless of who is the next coach they'll have their work cut out for them. This is a senior laden roster. If Beard was the coach I wouldn't think twice about it because the dude is a wizard at roster management. But I don't know if the next guy will be anywhere as good. I'm like the zen master in Charlie Wilson's War. "We'll see!"
-
Nonetheless, the Cowboys didn't go out and hire someone else after they won the Super Bowl. If people want to think Rodney Terry is a terrific coach based on what they've seen this year, let them. I don't see what harm it causes. None of us are making the hiring decision. It will play out over time. I hope he retires a legend and the court is named after him. Barring that, I hope he helps to create some great memories before he's canned. I'm grateful to him for this year. I hope for a deep run. Let's see what this group can accomplish together, and by that I'm including Terry as well.
-
We'd never need the artillery shell use Ukraine is utilizing. We have aircraft, missiles, and helicopters - and armed drones - to do all the heavy lifting, way more effectively, that the Ukrainians are using artillery for. And we'd use the mobility of our forces to destroy the means of the enemy to effectively fire artillery back. There was no way for the US or Europe to foresee this level of artillery shell usage. Not based on past experience. It's not how the western countries - the US specifically - would carry out their mission.
-
We're far from empty, but I'd argue we've already been tapping into our emergency reserve as it is. I've been meaning to make a longer post on it for a week or so, but the tl:dr version of it is that neither the US nor Europe are geared to produce a bunch of artillery shells, and ramping up that production takes a lot of time and work. We went all in on investing in technology and expertise that allows us to establish air superiority and to use mobility, initiative down the chain of command, and special forces force multipliers to defeat the enemy. And, of course, all the wars have been very much asynchronous warfare following the Chinese invasion of Korea. The war in Ukraine does not allow for the establishment of air superiority by either side, and in any event Soviet/Russian doctrine has always relied heavily on artillery shelling as a principle part of conducting warfare, mostly because of its cheap cost. Especially with the way they conduct it, which is laying out squares and simply bombarding from one square to the next indiscriminately rather than relying on adjusting fire or precision of any kind. The Ukraine defense minister has said that the Ukraine army can be effective in launching 360,000 shells per month. That would be the ideal. They've asked for about 60% of that, or 250,000 shells per month. My guess is they know they won't get that amount, but maybe it would help get something closer to it than farther away. US industry produces about 14,000 155mm shells per month. The pentagon has already indicated plans to increase that to 40k per month this summer, and to eventually get it to 90k per month in a couple of years. That's not actually for Ukraine. That's simply to replenish the loss in reserves from supplying Ukraine. It's also an acknowledgement that artillery is more important than Western doctrine has made it out to be in conditions that are less than ideal for establishing air superiority. Europe's production is even more stymied. There has been talk to increase European 155mm shell production to 25,000 per month, and it's been a struggle. The latest talks led by badass Estonia, are talking about creating a separate funding of $1 billion Euros dedicated to purchasing shells and expanding production. The way they're trying to frame it is that this would be a voluntary fund, so that countries that are against its creation would not have to fund it, but it would still allow the other countries to band together within the EU framework to get it done. That has hair all over it because that sets a precedent, but it's slowly but steadily moving forward. But while getting the funding mechanism in place is the hardest part, the logistics also have hair all over it, because the way the European defense industry works is that different parts of its production are located in multiple countries, for political purposes. I don't know exactly how that works specifically in regards to 155mm shells, because I'm not a subject matter expert. I'm simply relaying what I'm reading from people who are. Estonia has put forward a proposal to send 1 million rounds of ammunition to Ukraine right now, but that hasn't gone anywhere so far. Bottom line, the west doesn't have the production capacity to meet Ukraine's needs in this regard, and there's not a lot of hope on the horizon for it to get better. And believe it or not, that's the tl:dr version of it. Well, at least my version. I'm obviously not so good with the tl:dr thing.
-
Must watch interview with Madisen Skinner. This is really worth your time if you're a fan of the program at all:
-
I don't see it as problematic as you do. If the scenario doesn't fit making depositors whole, don't make them whole. That wasn't the case here. Collecting premiums to insure all deposits in the entire banking system doesn't sound like a good policy to me.
-
Less flexibility is the downside. I don't know what future events transpire, but I don't agree that it's necessary to put it into writing that all deposits are insured. Could be at some point it's seen as helpful to not insure all the deposits, but once it's the law that option is no longer available.
-
What would it take for Rodney Terry to earn the job?
SL Xpress replied to HookEm's topic in Basketball
No. -
Very few, actually. Most coaches that leave Texas don't do anything at all. Mack Brown at North Carolina has done better than most. Richard Quick and Mick Haley are the two I always cite as the exceptions. But neither one was fired. I guess Mack Brown wasn't either, technically, but he was definitely forced out before he wanted to go. Obviously Shaka Smart did extremely well at Marquette this year, but a coach in basketball is always measured by their performance in the tournament. It's why I don't think of Barnes as doing a whole lot better at Tennessee than at Texas. He's done pretty well in the regular season, but his tournament record in Knoxville has not been good. I have a feeling he's on the hot seat right now. With a #5 seed it would do him some good to make it to the second weekend. But the overwhelming number of coaches who leave Texas do not experience a lot of success.
-
I guess I feel like there's a lot of that that goes on. It's very expensive to cover peak events, which is why Black Swan events are so dangerous. You can prepare for a certain amount of flooding, but it's too expensive to prepare for 100 year events. You can prepare for a certain energy usage surge, but not for the most extreme. You can create a transportation network or a bandwidth network, or a communications network that handles excessive demand, but not extreme amounts. It would be too big of a drain towards an efficient economy to collect premiums to cover all deposits. But there's sufficient premiums to cover this incident, particularly if it prevents anything further from happening - whether something further would have happened or not. Why risk it if it's not necessary? Especially if it could be harmful in a way it doesn't have to be. You say it's a dangerous policy, and I will agree that's a legitimate point of view. I don't want you to think I'm dismissing it or think it has no merit. But from my point of view it's not necessary, and actually sends a harmful signal if you put it in writing. To be fair, the federal government IS insuring the whole banking system, if not every deposit made there. If a decision is made in the future not to cover the uninsured portion of deposits, then hopefully the circumstances warrant it, whatever they might be. But removing that option doesn't make sense to me. But I'm grateful to have a civil sharing of different points of view, regardless. I'm glad to hear your thinking on it, and appreciate it.
-
I'm surprised Baltimore isn't just considered a suburb of DC.
-
I think it's fairer to say there is no bailout for the owners of SVB. I don't know if this is being advocated for elsewhere. I haven't followed this on other social media outside of this forum. I have read a bunch of articles, but that's about it. It seems like it has been in places. I do know not one person has advocated for it on here. I think my main thing on making depositor's whole is I don't feel like the juice was going to be worth the squeeze. Whatever limited market lesson is taught by not making depositor's whole is not worth the uncertainty introduced into the system. To me it was worth giving depositors immediate access to their money simply to calm markets around the globe and not let this thing become more than what it is. I understand that's not everyone's perspective, but it is mine. I'm not a fan of making FDIC insurance an unlimited amount, even if what is happening in the case of SVB and Signature is sending that market signal. Once you make it the law it sends a much different signal. Maybe there's a future instance where it's more appropriate not to make depositor's whole. I don't think this was it, but maybe there's a circumstance in the future where that is true.
-
Or maybe it all works out. But I don't understand why you do that when it takes relatively little resources to restore a semblance of calm by making that money available now. People want this whole thing to be a lesson. It certainly should be. It's a lesson in the dangers for a bank of having so much of your deposits tied up in such a small fraction of your clients. It's a lesson in how quickly money can be moved out of banks. It's a lesson in the dangers of banks holding so many assets in long term bonds in a time of rising interest rates. But I don't agree that we should be sending a big fat lesson to depositors all around the country that the money they have in the banking system - even if it's above the $250k FDIC insurance threshold - is at risk. There were also international implications for this, which massive reassurance now heads off at the pass. All of this seems so obvious as the right move. I'm not trying to convince anyone that their point of view is wrong. I couldn't even if I wanted to. But I do not share that sentiment and I'm glad the government doesn't either.
-
It did come true. Just like I said it would.
-
You poor bastard. I understood what you meant.
-
That sounds like a good plan. Certainly better than mine, where I have a lasting bitterness about Chris Beard and his decisions that led to that night. Let's root for a deep run this coming weekend and beyond. These guys have been fun to follow, and I'm grateful to Terry for helping to get everyone to this point.
-
I was called out by UTEE7 for name calling because he was making nonsensical posts. I felt like I was very unemotional in explaining my responses to him. You keep mentioning this "our standard" thing. I don't know where you're getting this from. I've never claimed to speak for UT or what its standard should be. I have my opinion, and that's it. That's all its ever been.
-
No, it's 10k or nothing. If this is going to take 5 years I want it to be worth my while. I haven't seen a good portion of posters say they'd rather lose in the first or second rounds if it means being rid of Terry. I've seen one, and I think he's an idiot. The escrow is as much for your protection as mine. But 5 years is a long time. If we're doing this, let's make sure the funds are there. I have no idea what "our standard" is. Why am I suddenly speaking for anyone other than me? My opinion of Terry was formed a long time ago while he was an assistant under Barnes. Nothing he did after he left changed my mind. This season doesn't change my mind. I've liked what I've seen the last few games, but that doesn't say anything about his ability to run a program. I know Gerry is saying none of the assistants are going to leave, but they haven't had Beard make an appeal to them, yet, and they haven't had tensions in the staff, yet. I've already said what my parameter is. He just needs to be able to keep the job. Do well enough to stay as the head coach at Texas and he's done enough to be considered a success as far as I'm concerned. That seems pretty cut and dried to me. But again, I'm not trying to speak for anyone else, and I'm certainly not trying to pretend my "standard" should be anyone else's.
-
That's why the money goes in escrow. If I'm not around the money still is. Frankly I find it beyond idiotic to make a bet that won't have a result in five years. I hate making bets anyway. But if we're going to do it, let's do it. If Pancho won't hold the money we'll find someone we can agree on who will. I'll send the money out FedEx tomorrow in certified funds in the name of whoever is the escrow agent to their address. If you haven't matched it in 14 days I'll get my money back. I don't need your money, and I have no desire to send you any, so it will go to a charity of our choosing, whoever wins the bet. If Terry is the coach at the start of the 2029 season, it will go to a charity of your choosing. If he leaves the job before then it will go to a charity of my choosing. I want to be clear I think the whole thing is stupid, and I think you're dumb if you take me up on it. But whatever. Talking about bets to make a point is lazy in my mind, so it's worth calling you out on it for that reason alone.
-
Is this supposed to hurt my feelings? I'm answering your posts as honestly as possible. Not sure what more you want, and I don't really care. I'll bet you $10,000 dollars Rodney Terry will not be the coach at Texas for the season 2029-30. Is that better? Charity of your choice, with the same conditions for you. We can give the money to Pancho as an escrow agent. BTW, no money in escrow, no bet.
-
I would say so. I've already pointed out our new emphasis on the post up game. I feel like Allen having to take a seat allowed Terry to move the lineups around in ways he wasn't willing to do previously, and it's helped in a variety of ways. Not that the team wouldn't be better with Allen, because I think they would, but being able to play with different lineups for the first time since Beard's suspension has been good for the team, IMO. Also, Hunter has come on of late. Could be he's better healed from an injury? I don't know. The problem is so much of how a coach is measured is in terms of tournament performance. So while all of this has been a feel good story, and I'm ecstatic we won the Big 12 tournament, next week is when the rubber hits the road. But absolutely I credit some of the things I've seen this weekend to coaching.
-
The chances of me being active in 5 years are not very good. I'd likely welsh on it if you won. But yes, with next year being the first year, if he lasts through 5 years to make it to a 6th year, he will have been more successful to have done that than I anticipate. I'd consider that success on his part.
-
Keeping his job in year 5. That would be a success I don't expect. Is that enough of a goal post?
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!