Jump to content

Horn of Gabriel

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1474
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Horn of Gabriel

  1. 6 minutes ago, Sal said:

    So we have a good punt returner. That’s not Banks’ doing. What is his doing is four illegal formations because we can’t get lined up to punt. 

    Coaches only get credit for the bad stuff, not the good

  2. As bad as it feels for BB, I feel more for the graphics design guys in the room who have to stand there while she shits on their faces with the "I could do this in 3 minutes in Adobe Photoshop" bullshit by a zero-taste, low-IQ golddigger who seems to think putting animated gifs on a website is in any way the same as building motion graphics for a television production.  Every job looks easy until you're the one doing it, bitch. 

    I'm thankfully at a point in my life now where I generally don't have to work with people I don't like, and I can walk away.  That one guy leaning on the table looking at the ground probably doesn't have a tongue anymore because he just bit it right off.  Good for him for being the bigger man, I'm not sure I wouldn't have snapped back at her when she showed her ignorance.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. For reference, we were west side upper deck.

    Things that were improved:

    • Entry/Ingress: we were in our seats an hour before kick, but once we actually found Gate B (which has really shitty access and is wedged between the edge of the cotton bowl and an exterior building), we had an easy ride up the escalators to our seats.
    • Restrooms (slightly)
    • Walkways: they were less cramped than years past and expanded outwards?

    Still needs improvements:

    • Squatters
    • Signage
    • Sound system (please don't make it Zillatron level pain but just enough to hear announcements)
    • Seat labels in our section were basically gone
    • Wifi/Cellular coverage: put up some temp towers Verizon/ATT!  And yes, our focus is on the game not our phones but we also have kids at home that we're trying to stay in touch with...

    As immamac said above if they pushed out the upper deck concourse another 25 feet all the way around, they could build a ringed walkway around the entire stadium, which would make room for more concessions, more restrooms, and better flow.  It would probably cost $100MM too.  Some of those buildings that abutt the stadium are ancient and are not what drive tens of thousands of people to the fair.  Knock down and relocate the damn foot court building to make room for expansion of the stadium!

  4. Aside from beating OU by a million, what is your ultimate TX/OU weekend list of stuff to do outside of the game?

    For this weekend, we are leaving from Austin on Thursday around noon.  We'll stop in West at the Czech Stop and get some kolaches/klobasknics and gorge on those on the drive up.  From there we're bypassing Dallas and heading up to Choctaw casino to burn some money and steal some from the Okies. 

    Friday morning we have a 8:30AM tee time for the couples on the trip, after that unwind back at the casino and get a decent steak dinner there.

    Saturday drive down early to enjoy the fair, beer in a wax cup and corn dog and see an OU beat down.  We're old so after the game we don't have a ton planned - maybe hit a bar and watch whatever other games are on.

    Sunday sleep in and get brunch somewhere (recommendations?) before heading back down to Austin.

    What are your go-to's, aside from the obvious "beat OU by infinity," and "get a beer in a wax cup and corndog."

  5. I want to know what is the PE asking for in the deal?  They don't give money without getting a positive ROI back, and that means control.  Are the universities and AD's willing to cede control over hiring/firing within the AD?  Or the coaches?  Or changing how they do sponsorship deals? Or their scheduling?  Those are all things the PE are going to want.  Of course the PE is dating, not married, so they're going to paint a rosy picture of the future, but having been through multiple PE transactions myself, it will never work out the way that they say.  They always say "we're going to invest and make the business grow!" ...more likely they're coming to feast on the carcass and squeeze whatever revenue they can before they flip it to another more ruthless PE firm who will do it again until the whole thing collapses.

    You can tell me experience with PE has been sub-par.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  6. 1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

    Totally agree they deserve a raise, but comparing salaries to the NBA is nonsensical.  The league already offered a sizable increase as their base offer, and if they negotiate above that, they will all receive a large increase across the board.  Their focus though, is on comparing percentages to the men which is not a good faith argument.

    It's a negotiation, at least partially happening publicly in the media.  That's why we get owners lying about their true costs, or at a minimum not correcting people who make egregious assumptions about "the W has and never will turn a profit!," and the players are going to do it from the other side to appear reasonable by saying "hey we're just asking for the same deal the men have, not on a dollar but on a percentage-basis."

    Like any negotiation, it will land somewhere in the middle.  The owners don't get to set the value of their labor, that is set in the market and the players do have alternatives that currently pay them more, especially the stars.  The owners just need to decide if they're willing to pay the new market rate, or go for a lockout.  And I guess the players need to decide if the value of the WNBA's amazing platform is worth giving a discount to on their salaries.  

    I come down more on the side of the players than the billionaires, but none of us here know what's actually going on in the room where it happens.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  7. 5 hours ago, Js1 said:

    By who? The owners like her. Adam Silver likes her.  Most players and fans hate the commissioners

    She’s allegedly on her way out anyways. If not, it would likely be a stipulation of the new CBA because the players hate her so much 

    I'm not sure Adam Silver liking Cathy is a flex.

    The arrogance is demonstrated in that quote by Cathy, but I'm sure shared by the owners because as you said she's just a mouthpiece.  Anyone who believes that CC "wouldn't be making any money if not for the platform of the WNBA" is not living in the real world.  CC was making millions before the WNBA, and if she wanted to she could go join that stupid 3v3 Unrivaled league and make $1M/season playing over there too, plus her shoe deal, plus her Gatorade endorsements, plus more.  

    The arrogance displayed by the WNBA's management and ownership is the kind of thing that if it continues could cause them to get disrupted.  What happens if Unrivaled decides enough-is-enough and opens a 5v5 league that directly competes and pays players more?  I could see a PGA vs. LIV type split in women's ball because the WNBA's "platform" isn't' nearly as strong as they seem to think it is, especially if their stars start opting out.  I'm sure the TV partners wouldn't like that much either, and if their lawyers are smart (they are) they put some clauses in the contract for just this type of contingency.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 1 hour ago, ChickenSandwich said:

    The NBA percentage is irrelevant compared to the WNBA percentage of league revenue.  The NBA makes billions in profit annually, and the WNBA is still looking for their first break even or modest profit season in their 3 decades of existence.  

    It is good click bait but not based in reality

    It is like arguing the burger cook at McDonalds should be making the same as a chef at the French Laundry

     

    Let's compare the NBA/WNBA wages as a percentage of the NBA/WNBA profit. 

    As discussed many times before, the profit is a red herring.  Their new TV deal has gone up 6X and the W will now by making close to $500MM/year in TV money alone.  The cost side of the equation 1) not disclosed by the owners, so the talking point about "losing money" is a "sure-billionaires-we'll-take-your-word-on-that" point, and 2) is also conveniently pumped up by those same billionaire team owners who have the teams play in facilities owned by them (paying themselves, loss harvesting).

    Just like the NBA, the billionaire owners do not buy WNBA franchises to turn a profit.  They make their money on selling the franchise at 50 or 100X what they bought it for down the road.  Those owners benefit greatly by the increasing values of the franchise, and the players do not.  That's fine, that's what ownership is all about since they put up the money, "took the risk," whatever we want to call it.  

    However it's selling the players short to say they don't deserve a much larger slice of the pie than they're currently getting.  Caitlyn Clark's WNBA salary was $76,535 in 2024 and will go all the way up to ... $97,582 in 2027 before she's a RFA.  That's less than what my company pays an entry level product manager, and it's ridiculous considering the value that CC and the players bring to the WNBA and to the owners.

    • Hook 'Em 4
  9. 1 hour ago, immamac said:

    I watched the whole video. I think she did a really good job explaining the problem. 

    No kidding.  If even half of those quotes from Cathy are accurate, she should get walked out the door immediately.  Talk about working against your own self-interest.  Such unjustified arrogance.

  10. 3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    You sure people aren't saying that at IT?  He'd do that kind of thing at BC, but when people there, and "here," and elsewhere were saying the things he took on.  Usually someone like echeese.

    Maybe there are a handful at IT or elsewhere on the internet, there's always idiots.  I think Waddlington is doing a straw man argument to make himself look smart vs. "the others."  Both can be true.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  11. On 9/16/2025 at 4:11 PM, Bobby Western said:

    Scipio does this weird thing where he can’t make a point without pretending that there’s a swath of people who have been arguing the opposite. It’s not enough to analyze the offense and say the OL is weak at the point of attack. He has to build this pretend group of people who are saying they just need time to gel or they’ll be okay because they need experience. No one worth listening to is saying that! He can’t just be right—someone else has to be wrong. To Scipio’s credit, he knows he’s arrogant. 
     

    At any rate, he def loses some credibility not just for taking Clemson in all these bets but also for saying he knew they’d be awesome the day after they lost to UT in the playoff (while others only came on later to Clem). 

    That said…I’ve read just about every word he’s written since early Barking Carnival and always enjoy his stuff. 

    Yes!  You put words on it, that's what bugs me.  "...and for all those people who just want to say 'the OL is fine and it just needs time to gel!', well you can continue to say that but you'll be wrong!" ...Uhh, NO ONE is saying that.  At all.  It's fine to point out obvious stuff but inventing and pretending there is some huge group of naysayers taking the opposite opinion just to puff up your own obvious takes is annoying.

    I also have an allergic reaction to arrogant people, especially if their arrogance is unwarranted.  You can be arrogant if you've earned it; Paul Waddlington hasn't.

  12. 10 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

    I think stacking the box would be a major mistake. OSU went mostly light boxes and dared Texas to bet them running the football. If UTEP didnt feel the need to stack the box, why would anyone else? The only thing Arch has done at a reasonable level is run the ball and throw deep. No need to open yourself up to explosive plays. I would say the same for blitzing. Why give Arch easy reads or open yourself up for him to scramble, while your DBs have their backs turned in man coverage. 

    PK would destroy this offense. Just take away explosives and force them to execute 8-10 play scoring drives. You can always adjust if out of the blue the offense finds a running game or a consistent short passing game. 

    Mostly because I don't think Arch can hit enough of those plays to make a difference.  Sark is obviously going to be running Arch more so I'd be run blitzing to wreck Arch on those, and if he is trying to throw he shows a propensity to hold the ball for way too long which will create sacks.  The 3-high shell limits explosives.

×
×
  • Create New...