TheColonyEagle

this question of "who is our rival" comes up a lot. No UTSA is not our rival. If a school that's only been around a few year is our rival...that's sad. Rivals have to develop naturally over time. I'll say this....it seems the past few years, our game vs La Tech has had conference implications....that is a recipe for a developing rivalry. This season should be no different

So it seems we're setting the bar here of what is acceptable from a moral standpoint. Somewhere below a rude tweet up to a filmed rape? Your stretch there is kind of moot because a rapist wouldn't be a leader because they would be in prison. (I mean....we've never elected a rapist anyway right?) So as for morality coming from experience and interaction within societies? Who says? Who is the arbiter of all things moral that says that's the standard? If morality comes from experience and interaction....whose experience and interaction within society does it come form? Would you like me to dictate to you a morality based on MY experience and interaction within society? I'm guessing you would have a problem with that. I sure don't want you dictating to me because evidently, if I don't think like you then I'm a bad person? A racist? I support racism? That's the whole point of this view on subjective morality. It delves us into chaos. It's like a quarterback competition...when you have 3 QBs you have no QBs. (Boom! Sports!) And the snake I saw eating another snake on the internet the other day didn't seem to be very moral or concerned with his fellow snake to me. He just looked hungry. I'll pose this to you. What is the moral standard you think we should hold our elected officials to? Where is the line? Is there an objective line we can all agree on? Or is it just what you personally think everyone should think? That's an honest question. I'm curious what you think. I can't figure out if you're just trolling. The title of your thread is such a hot button issue...part of me thinks you put it here just to stir it up. If you're serious, debates like this are good...I learn from them. But in my experience, most people shut them down.

Mostly pretty fair comments. Except for the one that said the crowd was predominantly UH fans in 2011. That’s a bit ridiculous.

I just wanted to make sure I didn't jump to a conclusion and make an assumption on what he was saying....I think I know but wanted to be clear. I think what he's saying really falls under what I've read a lot. "How can a Christian vote for Donald Trump?" This is a very popular sentiment today. The logic being "Christians are supposed to be about morals and Donald Trump is immoral. So therefore: A Christian shouldn't vote for someone that is immoral." I think the fallacy in this line of thinking comes from a misunderstanding of Christianity and their view on morality. More specifically: where do morals come from and is there such thing as a moral person? To a Christian, morals come from an objective, unwavering absolute truth: the word of God presented in the Bible. A Christian's world view is shaped by the Bible, not what the Christian thinks. That's an important distinction. Objective world view vs Subjective world view. The tricky part comes when the Christian FAILS to uphold this standard. And here's another absolute truth, 100% of people, including 100% of Christians fail. Whether it's a preacher that has an affair, gets caught stealing money, a politician that "cloaks himself in the Bible" that gets caught in a bribery scandal, a Christian that lies, cheats on his taxes, dodges the draft, gets married 3 times, judges others, is a massive hypocrite...it's a guarantee. When it comes to the biblical standard of morals...of a "good person," the bible says there is no such thing as a good person. They don't exist. As for biblical standards of "good" there's not one human being on this planet that is good. True Christians know this. So if the expectation is that a Christian needs to wait on a "good person" to run for office....they'll be waiting until Jesus returns and gets on the ballot (as an independent...I assure you). Because outside of one person in history, there is no such thing as a good and moral person when it comes to Biblical standards. It's the central reason for Jesus Christ ever being on this earth. So knowing that...the question then becomes to anyone that doesn't have that world view: "What is a good person? What is a moral person? Where do morals come from?" Without an objective, singular consistent place to go to define morals....the only place left to define morals.....is the individual. Here's where it becomes tricky. This is where truth becomes subjective and crowd sourced. This is where a Christian might say: "there's no such thing as a moral person" and someone could say "yeah but Donald Trump is a real scoundrel." Ok...so where's the list of things we'll permit from a leader. What is better than others? Once the person hits 10 on the scoundrel list...then they're disqualified? Maybe 8? Who decides the standard? Now person A with one view of what is good has one set of expectations for a leader and person B with another view has a different set. What one person sees as immoral, another person doesn't have a problem with. There's no logic in this scenario.....it's chaotic. "You do you" Ok, that's fine and all but who is right? How do you know? I can decide what's moral for me...but then when that disagrees with what someone else thinks is moral for them..there's no standard. It's why I always marvel at the "moral superiority" charge. You can't be more "morally superior" than getting your morals from your own view on things vs from a book you didn't write. So the comment: "How can a Christian vote for Donald Trump?" doesn't make sense to a true Christian. Christians aren't afraid of "bad people." Because we're all bad people. To see things from a Christian world view is to see a BIG PICTURE. And no...I didn't think all this up on my own.....it came from a book I didn't write.

The challenge I see in today's political boxing matches...is the jump to knowing the motives behind what someone says. And this goes for both sides (right and left) So to this particular tweet from the president.... I lived in Birmingham for a while. I'm from Texas. If I had told the same group of people over and over: "man the humidity sucks here" "the Mexican food is terrible...ya'll need better choices" "I can't believe it costs $800 for vehicle registration...it should be $75" "The water department is a joke here...you should have a better option" "Hey guy I keep telling this to...you're a real a**hole by the way and not nearly as good a person as me." over and over and over and over..... The logical reply to me may be from that local that is sick of hearing me complain and sick of being called an a**hole: "dude...if you're so miserable here...why don't you go back to Texas if it's so great" There is ZERO in that statement that has anything to do with race. So the trick is you have to have a predetermined opinion about the person from Birmingham that said that and you have to just know (without really knowing but think you know) the motives behind his statement. If I already think that guy is racist because all my friends tell me he's a racist then it really doesn't matter what he says...I will always come into the situation from the point of view that the guy is racist.

So what is the principle they're trading?

He wasn't happy.... Did Thulen ever correct himself? *edit* I just saw he did....

This could be the toughest D we’ve faced with Fine. Since Florida his freshman year? We can’t be predictable. Gonna have to have a game plan. Catch them off guard. The whole point of an offense like ours is to put the ball where they ain’t. We’re gonna have to put the ball where they ain’t.

Agree to a point. But that defense has been touted for 2-3 years. Last time we went to Hattiesburg, it’s all we heard about and then we put it on them fairly well.

good stuff Brett. Man...Bill Clark is under a LOT of pressure this year. He lost so many players and he's about to come back down to earth and have to follow the rules like everyone else. If he went 6-6 and then next year slid to 5-7 or something....that would be bad and it's certainly possible. He's making loads of money and they're trying to build a new stadium in a state that fights them at every turn and has no use for them. Their rise is a little bit of smoke and mirrors. People got so caught up in the good story of them coming back, they forgot how bad they were before they shut their program down. Big pressure the next couple of years. They have to keep winning and building support. The latter is not easy there.

C-USA Media Members Predicted Order of Finish WEST DIVISION North Texas (20) Southern Miss (4) Louisiana Tech UAB (2) UTSA Rice UTEP EAST DIVISION Marshall (14) FIU (9) Florida Atlantic (3) Middle Tennessee WKU Old Dominion Charlotte Southern Miss is getting a lot of love...but I think it's pretty right on. I think they nailed the east. Tough schedule, we play USM and LaTech on the road....

That's a 100% objective truth

I've seen a lot of the 16 team super conference scenario thrown out.... We could get there by adding TX St in the West and...maybe South Alabama in the East? Good rivalries, close travel. I think it would actually have local interest UNT/SMU UNT/La Tech UH/Rice UTSA/TX State (or UTEP) Ark St/Memphis UAB/USM MTSU/Memphis La Tech/USM Troy/S Alabama There are some teams there that don't like each other..... SMU, Houston and Memphis would have to give up on their hope of being in the new Div 1 (that will probably have 40-50 teams)

If I'm being honest....I don't care who in the current CUSA/Sun Belt we're with... I want to be in a conference with SMU, Houston and La Tech. From a regional/rival aspect....that's the best scenario. Fill in with Rice and UTEP for a division if you must. Bowl contracts and TV deals are up soon....D1 is going to blow up. I know the topic is just CUSA/Sunbelt but G5 is going to explode....I would put it back together like this: West: UNT, UH, SMU, La Tech, Rice, UTEP, UTSA East: UAB, Troy, Ark St, Memphis, MTSU, USM, ULaLa You know....if it were up to me

I see it as "I want to play for a coach and if he's not there...all that's left is UT San Antonio..." the new coach better be a good recruiter

Ok.....that’s awesome.

Transferred to UNT and got to Denton in 1997. First stop: Apartments off McKinney and Loop 288 (I think they're called McKinney Park Apts now...but I don't think that's what they were called then) My roommate at the time only needed 60 hours so he could join DPS. He did (and is a Lt. with them now) Next: Woodhill Apartments Worked at Footaction in Golden Triangle Mall then I got a job in Dallas making more money Then: Westwind Apartments (first apartment by myself...man I was broke) Then: moved into a condo complex on Country Club Rd (off 377). Hobson Ln dead ended right into our complex. One night there was a big boom...someone on Hobson ran through Country Club Drive and hit the railing that was set up in front of our complex. (now I know why the railing was there) We came outside and the driver had fled....fun times.

I thought that was the plan as well.... Fall camp starts in what though...3-4 weeks?

And that. Yes.

I feel like Torrey unfairly caught some criticism on our short yardage failures (and there were some critical ones that cost us games) last season. I look forward to seeing how Reeder will use him. He likes to run the ball (as does Littrell) The short yardage problems can be fixed with creative play calling....

any update on completion?

Keep studying hard little buddy. You’ll get yours eventually.

that's stupid

If I had my choice between the AAC and MWC. Of course I would take the AAC. But that wasn’t the topic of this thread. The two choices are choosing between MWC (higher profile) and CUSA (easy road trips)