Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
47 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

A degree doesn't need to be critical to remember things from conversations folks have with each other. Does one need a degree to remember that my neighbor has 2 kids? Does one need a degree to remember Thursday is trash day? 

You know, it's almost like behavior is demonstrating intelligence here. 

Wednesday is trash day.

But when it comes to OU and A&M, every day is trash day.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:



Maybe the real fucking lesson here is that slorch should learn to stop speaking in fucking absolutes, and maybe he won't end up posting back to back shit like "I don't remember where anyone ever went to school" and "I almost always remember where people went to school" in back to back posts. Guy has to be the worst, most ineffectual Sith of all time. 

The point was that yes, in passing, I might know where they went to school.  The other part was with regard to assessing their performance/ value.  The notion that we're at work thinking about how bad Cathy sucks because she went to Missouri is asinine.  "Hey we have 10 candidates to interview. 4 of them are from Austin.  I know they will be the top 4..."

You know that too.  You got me though.  Congratulations.

Edited by Iceman
Posted
6 minutes ago, Iceman said:

The point was that yes, in passing, I might know where they went to school.  The other part was with regard to assessing their performance/ value.  The notion that we're at work thinking about how bad Cathy sucks because she went to Missouri is asinine.  "Hey we have 10 candidates to interview. 4 of them are from Austin.  I know they will be the top 4..."

You know that too.  You got me though.  Congratulations.

Who on earth is letting you manage and hire people? You don't think the overall quality of someone's education has an impact on their performance in a job? If you're talking about senior roles, fine. Entry or lower management roles? Yes, that shit matters. 

We were hiring entry level folks for the same analyst position for years at a start-up. The role required very little knowledge or experience but involved complex problem solving in a truly chaotic environment that involved 70+ hour weeks for years. The role also required self-management to some degree. We rewarded that with low pay. Oh, and also, the right person would basically learn what MBA schools teach, but like 10 times over and many successful in the role went on to accelerated management or founder careers with success. 

What we eventually learned was that a few schools, or groups of schools, had exceptionally high failure rates and we chose to just stop hiring from those places out of necessity. LSU, Stanford, and non-Penn Ivy schools were the main ones. LSU because the people we kept getting from there were too stupid to handle the work, simply put. They also were not given the tools in college to understand how to be proactive for their own growth and learning in a business setting. It was unbelievable how consistently bad those employees were. The non-Penn Ivies and Stanford because they were far too entitled and educated in theory versus actual business world understanding. Those folks needed to go into consulting or a Wall Street management program. Once we applied that filter, 1 year retention in role soared. 

So, yeah, you're absolutely full of shit if you don't think quality of degree earned matters. 

The best workers who went on to further success were not UT people, btw. We had plenty of UT people do well, but plenty failed out due to the same entitlement shit as the Ivies. The best group, by far, were UH grads. I've seen that playout elsewhere over the years as I've gotten older and hired for various roles or partnered with various people and teams. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Sydney suggested he owed it all to Texas.

I'm saying there's an awful lot of substance that he provided as well.

and @CTJ, of course I am discussing non- entry level jobs. A degree from  Texas can certainly open doors, but to act as if it matters after real work occurs, well, that's just false.  Nobody cares at that point, nor should they.

Posted
7 hours ago, closetojumping said:

The best group, by far, were UH grads. I've seen that playout elsewhere over the years as I've gotten older and hired for various roles or partnered with various people and teams. 

Out here, UH grads are known as ivory tower sell outs. 😉 

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
3 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

Helluva game by backup QB Hammond... 💥

Morton shouldn't play another snap all season. He just isn't him and never has been.

It won't happen like that but Hammond is clearly better, Morton think he's Mahomes and tries to force everything.

  • Like 1
Posted

Morton is average as fuck, surrounded by a badass defense, solid OL, and decent playmakers.

Hammond is the backup, in name only.

The team is better with him at the helm, and there are no 2 ways about it.

Morton can go coach somewhere eventually.  That should be his focal point.

Posted
21 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Isn’t their coach a Tech guy too?

UNT HC Eric Morris, from Shallowater,  played for Leach, although today the announcers kept saying the Mean Green were running the Air Raid.  Not so much. 

Posted (edited)

Looking at the remainder of Tech's regular season schedule, they should be favored to win 'em all, given that not a single one of their opponents is currently ranked. That said, they do have several who remain undefeated (still very early in the season) or have one loss (notable games...noted):

@Houston (3-0) beat Colorado.
Kansas (3-1) beat West Virginia; lost to Mizzou.
@Arizona State (3-1) beat Baylor; lost to Mississippi State.
BYU (3-0) beat ...
UCF (3-0) beat the Browbeaten Belichicks last night.

It's way too early in the season. Still, the Red Raiders dominated Utah (their only ranked opponent) yesterday with a couple of interceptions and false start penalties keeping the Utes in the game. That crowd at Rice-Eccles was rowdy early in the game.

As a Tech fan, it's refreshing to see them have a real chance to contend for something for the first time in 17 years, with a decent shot to go undefeated heading into the Big 12 championship to face any of the above or Iowa State, TCU, or Arizona (all undefeated).

Again, way too early, but they could very well find themselves in the playoffs against Texas A&M in the first round. My gawd, the prospect of Tech beating the Fightin' Fake Army in the playoffs is so enticing that every Longhorn should be rootin’ for the Raiders the rest of this season - at least until the universe implodes on itself if Texas and Tech meet in the NC game.

Current playoff projections from The Athletic:
image.thumb.png.256cf053233a1b2b1b08874ccb498afe.png

Edited by bolverk
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Tech looked okay yesterday. Utah continues to get the benefit of the doubt to open every season and why they do is beyond me. That team looked like dogshit. 

I’m guessing they’ll do very Texas Tech stuff here shortly, like coming down and losing to a well-coached Houston team. 

Posted
On 9/10/2025 at 11:56 AM, closetojumping said:

Who on earth is letting you manage and hire people? You don't think the overall quality of someone's education has an impact on their performance in a job? If you're talking about senior roles, fine. Entry or lower management roles? Yes, that shit matters. 

We were hiring entry level folks for the same analyst position for years at a start-up. The role required very little knowledge or experience but involved complex problem solving in a truly chaotic environment that involved 70+ hour weeks for years. The role also required self-management to some degree. We rewarded that with low pay. Oh, and also, the right person would basically learn what MBA schools teach, but like 10 times over and many successful in the role went on to accelerated management or founder careers with success. 

What we eventually learned was that a few schools, or groups of schools, had exceptionally high failure rates and we chose to just stop hiring from those places out of necessity. LSU, Stanford, and non-Penn Ivy schools were the main ones. LSU because the people we kept getting from there were too stupid to handle the work, simply put. They also were not given the tools in college to understand how to be proactive for their own growth and learning in a business setting. It was unbelievable how consistently bad those employees were. The non-Penn Ivies and Stanford because they were far too entitled and educated in theory versus actual business world understanding. Those folks needed to go into consulting or a Wall Street management program. Once we applied that filter, 1 year retention in role soared. 

So, yeah, you're absolutely full of shit if you don't think quality of degree earned matters. 

The best workers who went on to further success were not UT people, btw. We had plenty of UT people do well, but plenty failed out due to the same entitlement shit as the Ivies. The best group, by far, were UH grads. I've seen that playout elsewhere over the years as I've gotten older and hired for various roles or partnered with various people and teams. 

Out of grad school I was hired by a company with an accelerated management program. It was a large company and there were only 12 slots each year. They hired at more than 12 different schools. They finally had to drop Harvard because the graduates were either too ineffective or too entitled to succeed. 

Posted
1 minute ago, closetojumping said:

I’m guessing they’ll do very Texas Tech stuff here shortly, like coming down and losing to a well-coached Houston team. 

 

Yeah, Raider Red does tend to shoot himself in the foot with those big ol' six-shooters, and Fritz has proven himself to be a really good coach. So, yeah, that trip to Houston is going to be a challenge--maybe the biggest of the regular season--but I was very happy with what I saw in Utah, where I'd expected them to lose in typical Tceh fashion.

Posted

David Ubben: Texas Tech is different now, thanks to its cash-fueled, transfer-heavy (and very good) defense

Quote

It’s hard to imagine a worse situation. It’s the kind that’s derailed so many Texas Tech seasons throughout the program’s history. Starting quarterback Behren Morton’s Saturday ended early in the third quarter after taking a big hit and staying on the turf at Utah’s Rice-Eccles Stadium, one of the toughest venues in college football.

Utah looked like a preseason title contender in the Big 12, boasting an offensive line coach who Kyle Whittingham says is the best he’s had in two decades as a head coach — a tenure that includes three conference titles.

But this Texas Tech is different. And now, it’s 4-0 after piling on the Utes late for a 34-10 road victory, putting it on track to compete for a College Football Playoff bid. Money talks. The Red Raiders spent more than $5 million in the transfer portal on five defensive linemen: David Bailey from Stanford, Romello Height from Georgia Tech, Lee Hunter from UCF, Skyler Gill-Howard from Northern Illinois and A.J. Holmes from Houston.

It was the unit with the highest expectations on a roster being paid around $25 million thanks to an influx of oil money from billionaire super booster Cody Campbell, and early on, it looks like money well spent.

Texas Tech’s defense entered this weekend ranked 10th nationally in yards per play (3.7) through three games against inferior competition. It held the Utes to 3.8 yards on 69 offensive snaps (for 263 total yards), forced four turnovers and kept them out of the end zone for the game’s first three quarters. Devon Dampier, Utah’s dynamic quarterback, was limited to 162 passing yards on 38 attempts and only 27 rushing yards.

The defense ranked 123rd last season in the same category, allowing 6.5 yards per play. In the last decade, it hasn’t had a defense finish higher than 59th. More often, it’s been outside the top 100. But in the NIL era, cash translates to results more directly than ever before. And Texas Tech has it and used it to buy the nation’s No. 2 transfer class to upgrade its roster.

Time will tell how this season ends, but the Red Raiders’ win Saturday was their first in a ranked matchup since 2018. Texas Tech has finished in the top 15 just once since 1976. It has never played for a Big 12 title. Since firing Mike Leach in 2009 near the end of a 9-4 season, the Red Raiders have yet to win nine games in a season. Leach was the only coach since that 1976 season to win 10 games.

Texas Tech is on its way to rewriting its own history. The Red Raiders attacking the transfer portal with cash was the hottest topic in the Big 12 throughout the offseason. There was plenty of skepticism from fans and coaches about how it would work. “The pressure that’s going to come with all the money Texas Tech spent is going to be tough,” one Big 12 head coach told The Athletic.

So far, it looks like the Red Raiders are handling the pressure just fine. Utah employed no such strategy in building its offensive line, which is among college football’s most experienced, accomplished and dominant units. And yet, it was Texas Tech’s cash-fueled, transfer-heavy unit that won the day and gave the Red Raiders an inside track to winning the school’s first Big 12 title in a league that looks wide open at the top.

It’s possible Saturday’s game will be replayed again in Arlington on championship weekend. The questions will continue. Will it work long term? Is this bad for college football? Is this a shortcut that undermines the reasons many coaches got into college football? The Red Raiders won’t hear them. They’re too busy celebrating.

They’ve seen Saturday’s game so many times over the last few decades. It’s a game Texas Tech loses. It’s a game in which Texas Tech gets bullied at the line of scrimmage. Instead, Texas Tech won. Utah was left with a black eye that cost $5 million to deliver. College football has changed. And the Red Raiders are reaping the benefits.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 hours ago, closetojumping said:

Tech looked okay yesterday. Utah continues to get the benefit of the doubt to open every season and why they do is beyond me. That team looked like dogshit. 

I’m guessing they’ll do very Texas Tech stuff here shortly, like coming down and losing to a well-coached Houston team. 

They get the benefit of the doubt because they were contenders most years in the Pac 12, Whittingham is well regarded as a coach, and they usually have what is perceived to be a pretty salty team. Also, they got a big boost at the start of the season by beating the shit out of UCLA on the road, but we all saw how quickly that became fools gold. They weren't going to drop in the polls until they lost, though.

Anyway, they looked bad because we made them look bad, for the most part. Their O-line is legitimately good and so is their defense. They have at least 2 projected first rounders on their O-line and our front seven absolutely destroyed them from start to finish. I don't really know where the Dampier hype came from, though, he was mediocre at UNM and somehow was supposed to be a Big 12 level QB at Utah?

I'm not overly concerned about Houston, they'll likely go up to Oregon State and win a close-ish game against a dookie opponent and we'll get some nice rest on our bye week before rolling into a stadium that'll be half Tech fans and collecting the same result that happens every time Houston thinks they have a good team and are totally gonna beat Tech this time.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...