MootPoint

Nah, just enjoying the vacation😃

lol; some things never change; always come back to see threads like this*sigh* :)

Looks like a solid snapper. https://chrissailerkicking.com/player-rankings/?year=2017

:)

58 FIU shot attempts to 32 UNT shot attempts so far!? What in the world....

That was about the worst 4 minutes of basketball I've seen in a while

regardless of how this game ends up, it's been an extremeley disappointing season so far

Love the argument, but in the end, I just don't see it. Still, it's early in the musical chairs game. It will be interesting to see if the BE can survive. Based on what I've been hearing, I see alot of potential for additional poaching of the BE leftovers (although it's still too early to say if anything more will actually happen). The ACC's move was long anticipated and they're probably going to slow play this next little bit to see if they can pull ND in. The ACC worked hard on ND in the last round of expansion and they kept going back to how are they going to explain to their donors why they finished fourth in their division

We had this game won and didn't finish

I almost lost it there

Thank you Shorter!!!

Yah, the intentional foul in the first half was

Their crowd wasn't enough last week and we were short-handed; here's to hoping we can pull away early and get into their heads.

I'd prefer ULAR just based on the fact that they would also being playing their 4th game.

Nice! We have more depth! I was cracking up when the espn3 announcers were saying they thought we had more depth than Western Kentucky

Ok, I swear I've watched or listened to every game this year, but I have no memory of Egenti. Did we just pick up some guys off the street for this game?

One of the most disappointing performances I've watched in a while....

That is correct

Phew, JJ dodged a bullet;)

Great game by TT!

I'm always around and reading the threads; just don't necessarily take the time to log in and post as often is all

As I recall, the Bears used to play there before moving to Soldier Field and when they played, the field was North-South and they had no issues. For some reason, the powers that be decided to make the field East-West this time....

This would be my reason for going after NMSU; I don't think La Tech would seriously consider the SBC, even now. It also puts us in the position of power to do what we want. If the WAC falls, the remnants will be clamoring for a home and several of them will HAVE to come to the SBC and we would be able to dictate whatever terms we want (assuming we had any interest).

Figured I might as well throw in my 0.02 on this one. I've got an inkling of how this will turn out, but I'll leave that for Cerebus to guess at;) But, just some general thoughts, as it appears most people have kind of made up their minds on this one. 1) If his attorneys are taking this case on contingency, I would point out that most attorneys do not take cases on contingency unless they feel like they have a pretty good chance of being successful. Basically, because if they're not successful, they will have wasted (at this point eight months+ of their time pursuing this case) a lot of time and expense for no return. The better option (if this case were "weak") would be to pursue "paying" cases during that entire time period and not pursue this case. 2) Additionally, all this banter about guilt/innocence/"official reports"/etc seems meaningless to me. An official report from one party, including USF here, is about as compelling to me as Leavitt's own "official report." Neither deserves any more credence than the other imho. The truth is we really don't know what happened, who is more "credible" or "believable" and why Leavitt is currently out of a job. A jury trial doesn't "prove" or "disprove" what occurred; all it will find is whether USF "breached" their contract with Leavitt. USF could be fully correct about their version of the events, but still have "breached" their contract. 3) A lot of times, with employment related cases, it's not about what's "reasonable" or acting "practically"; the parties are "emotional" about the fact that they are "right" or that they were "screwed" somehow. Both sides may honestly feel they are in the right and that's what makes these types of cases tougher. After all, who wants to "settle" knowing that you're giving up something you never should have lost out on to begin with? That's why other types of cases that include say, an insurance company, are resolved so much more easily. In that case, the insurance company isn't looking at a case emotionally; it's just dollars and cents to them and what's the best "business" decision. 4) As far as him having baggage by being involved in this lawsuit, I have mixed thoughts. Yes, I agree it is baggage, but I also don't think someone should be penalized for pursuing their rights or trying to vindicate themselves if they feel they have been wronged. It's the just get on with your life path vs. the I want to be vindicated/I don't want these guys to ever screw someone else over like this and they need to be taught a lesson path. 5) Regardless, I doubt this case will ever go to trial; it will be settled, probably with a confidentiality/non-disclosure clause and somebody will be driving around in either a Lexus or an Aston Martin (and that will tell me how it finally ended up). Cheers.