MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF

Not just human life, but also plant life, birds of the air, fish of the sea, the creature that creep upon land, insects, etc. ALL randomly created by the colliding of non-living particles is the belief some believe is correct. (With the female of the specie being the one to give life among the people and animals alike as well...strangely accidental? Planned? Dare I say it: designed?)

Soros on the loose in VA!

RV scheduled an away game at Mizzou for 2021. Would it be acceptable for us to visit them once more if they would give us a home game in return for what would then be the two roadies to Columbia? My vote is, yes, for the record. I think 2 for 1s with Big 12s or SECs are acceptable.

Dear Brett, We already know that Liberty's Ian McCaw jobbed our little Wren Baker. Quit rubbing it in, please. Sincerely, North Texas alumni and fans.

Spread offenses use crack back blocking as well, especially on bubble screens. It was used so much that coaches started complaining about it and got a rule change in 2011. But, it still happens on bubble screens, same as it happens in option attacks. It's a cop out to say a spread crack back is any more or less dangerous than a run game crack back block. Wren Baker gave a flimsy excuse for cancelling two games of a good Army series and replacing them with Liberty; that's all there is to it. He's likely learned his lesson about over-explaining his decisions.

There are actually people on this board who likely believe Army and the other academies play dirty. I think statistics bear out that they are among the least penalized schools in all of college football. They simply run fewer plays more often in practice; so, they get better at executing. That's option offense. (By the way, it's hard to believe a coaching staff led by a former Oklahoma prep and Sooner fullback would shy away from playing against option schools.) Anyway, UNT-Army was an excellent series. For whatever reason, our new coaches and AD, though, fear it. It's a little bit more than pathetic. Worse is to replace the series - straight up replace it - with a home and home against a school that is basically still an FCS start up. I love my alma mater, but will laugh if Liberty beats us up there. It could happen.

RV already had us playing Mizzou at Mizzou in 2021. Oklahoma State's next opening that would correspond with ours is 2022. Final game in the Army series is slated for 2020. So, can we stop with the, "It was switched to get Oklahoma State" bit. It was never necessary to drop Army/switch for Liberty to get Oklahoma State. The game was never there where we and Oklahoma State had room to schedule anyway. Same with Mizzou. No schedule break to match us until 2022. And, again...Army series will be complete by then. What happened with the Liberty - Army scheduling is that former Baylor AD Ian McCaw jobbed Wren Baker. Army and Liberty have nothing to do with them.

Yes, I believe that's all true. However, the thing is, after everyone (non-BCS schools and conferences) had their attorneys scour for ways to break up the BCS, the vast majority of antitrust legislation and cases end up with, you can either compete or you can't. If you can't, courts and legislatures aren't going to compete for you. This seems counter intuitive to many because of the equal rights and affirmative action-type laws and cases. However, those cases are based on people; courts of law view products and entertainment differently than they do people. Next to Oil and Gas Law, I found Antitrust Law the most fascinating, by the way. You hear so much about competition and monopolies and so forth. But, so few actually understand it well. My Sports Law prof, Ray Yasser, wrote one of the two main textbooks for Sports Law (the other is by a prof at Tulane). He was always trying to work in an antitrust angle in there, even if it didn't quite fit. The guy taught you how to look for angles in the law, even in sports. He's a long time Title IX plaintiffs' attorney as well. Great professor, too, Yasser. If you have some interest in the nitty -gritty details of lawsuits involving professional or amateur athletes, and you have the iron butt to sit and read a law text, get a used copy of one of Professor Yasser's textbooks.

Doesn't matter. The point should not be how "tough" it is to play Army. The issue is whether Liberty is a suitable home and home replacement after buying out of two Army games. The answer for most of us is, no. Maybe Wren learns a lesson here, though: no matter why you are changing a contract, do not tell why. And, for pete's sake, don't say it's because the games are too tough! Can't imagine the defensive players enjoy being thrown under the bus publicly like that...even if it might be true.

Also, if anyone thinks Vandy or Iowa State is going to be less physically taxing than Army...? The attractive on-the-field thing about Army is that is was a winnable game. Vandy and Iowa State are not as much as Army was.

Army is on the list.

This is a good piece; thank you for showing it to me. I agree with most of what he says. I spent my first three years in college as a Radio/TV major. This was 1987-1990. I was a real, record spinning, PSA reading, bulk cart erasing, tape-splicing DJ for the first two year, then Music Director my third year. Between my second and third year of school, I made a demo tape and sent it to a couple of dozen radio stations around Texas and Oklahoma (strategically, where I had family living and, so, could live rent free for three months) in an effort to land a summer internship. I remember getting a letter back from the top country music station in Tulsa at the time. Having family up there, I phoned them, gassed up the Celica, and headed north for the interview. When I got there, I was shocked at what I found. Unlike our little campus radio station - and, many stations I'd seen locally - there was almost no one there. On site were the owner, who was there to interview me, and, a black guy, the engineer, sitting in a room of computer equipment. This was in the middle of the day at the top FM country music station in Tulsa. I asked where the DJs were. The owner laughed. He said most came early in the morning, and did their "on-air" work for the 15 minutes breaks, top of the hour/regulatory, and ads. The engineer put the DJ's "on air" at their appropriate time ("it's 15 minutes past the hour, and you've just heard..."). Morning show was a national syndicate, with local cut ins for traffic...provided by a local outfit that served many stations. The playlists were all computerized and made out days in advance, sometimes as far out as a week in advance. There were no albums, 45s, tapes, reel-to-reels. Nothing. During the day, the "DJs" doubled as sales force and were out cold calling local businesses. This was the summer of 1988, just about in the heart of the Midwest - Tulsa, Oklahoma. I was crushed. I turned down the internship offer and drove back to Texas. After serving my year as Music Director, I transferred to North Texas and switched majors. ---- The other part of the article that strikes me is the AM/FM talk. I remember my first Radio/TV class, Broadcasting (good name for an R/TV course if there ever was one), well. The professor, who was a local radio veteran, said that within 10 years (this was 1987, so he meant sometime before 1997) there would be no more AM or FM and everything would be on one universal band. AM stations, he preached, were unprofitable, laden with outdated technology, and, therefore, soon to be going out of business anyway. And now for the political part that ties is all together...the professor had no idea that a struggling, radio wanna be named Rush Limbaugh was toiling away in Sacramento, but the very next year would make a leap to New York City and go national. Whether you agree with Rush's politics or not, you cannot disagree with this: he made owning an AM radio station gold again. He made many small AM station owners - and, their advertisers - rich. The political talk radio talk radio exploded, as did another format that was birthed by the newly energized and enriched AM stations: sports talk radio! And, so, here is the only point at which a disagree with Mr. Rowan: at the end of the day, whatever the media format, the bills have to be paid by advertisers. And, advertisers flocked to conservative talk radio, then later to sports radio (more, to the political, though), because they paid the bills...and, then some. Wise business men - Aggie and Longhorn alike, who just happened to be more conservative than liberal - saw what was happening, and simply took advantage of the situation. Ted Turner could have done the same. He didn't. George Soros? He didn't either. Name any million or billionaire liberal of that time period and it's the same - they didn't see it coming either. The more liberal media moguls and funders were too busy believing that Rush Limbaugh would simply disappear...because they were still getting their news/world view fed to them by the very media Rush's audience had long ago begun to ignore. To them, mistakenly, Rush was some hick from Missouri on the radio. A fad at best to the Ted Turners of the media world. It seems like sour grapes, in my view, for anyone to complain about conservatives dominating talk radio. And, that is what the Fair Doctrine renewal talk is always about. We went through these types of exercises in Antitrust Law class in law school. Coca Cola and Pepsi have been sued over and over and over again about grocery store shelf space access. But, guess what? Courts still unanimously favor Coke and Pepsi in those suits. Why? Because someone got to an idea before you did and took advantage of it first does not give you the right to demand a piece of the pie later when you decide to jump in. The courts in every circuit in America - even the Ninth - agree on this point: competition means competition, not equality of access. I personally like RC Cola better than Pepsi or Coke. But, sometimes, I'm bouncing from appointment to appointment in my car with a Cherry Coke or Pepsi because the gas station or convenience store I stopped into didn't stock RC. This is why the BCS was never successfully sued as well. The bigger schools and conferences (and, Notre Dame) were the first to begin to see the future, tie down bowls and television rights, and feed the fan bases year round instead of just during football season. No court was going to reward other conferences and school for being slower on the uptake. (I bitterly, bitterly tried to find an antitrust exception, having earned degrees from North Texas and Tulsa. But, alas...then, the biggest complainer, Utah, got an invite to the Pac-12. Utah to the Pac-12 was truly the squeakiest wheel getting the grease!) Finally, you have to sell. Liberal talk shows, like any talk show, have to sell advertising to succeed. If they can't do it as well as the conservative ones, that is not the fault of an act or corporation. You do have to have something to sell in order to make money. Conservatives felt underserved by the "mainstream media" and rewarded advertisers for giving talk radio folks an outlet. Government already subsidized some public radio...and it's not profitable for them. They cannot do it on a larger scale under a supposed revival of the Fairness Doctrine in some form.

Mark down: I agree 118% with this Tasty post. Army game and series has meaning. And, now, with a bowl tilt thrown in, some history; Liberty...you've given a home and home to an FCS/start up. Yes, Wren, thank you for Tech series; but. the Army series was not a problem. Liberty is dog vomit of a football schedule home and home. By all means, have them be your season opener at home! But, there is no reason to give them a game at their stadium. Ever. Further, if the coaches are afraid to defense the run, fire them. And, if the coaches believe Army is a bigger injury risk than Florida, LSU, Alabama, or any other P5 we sacrifice on the road for, fire them. What a complete crock of sh*t. We've hired the wrong coaches and AD if they believe Army is a huge problem.

http://www.investors.com/news/disney-reports-after-the-close-expect-sports-chatter-studio-hits/ The interesting this to me is that in past books and film about "the future," the media is always controlled by some central entity - either controlled by the government or giant media conglomerate. However, "the future" is turning out to be decidedly different. People are rejecting centralized media, and instead picking and choosing what they want to digest. This vexed the political media class in 2016; and, I think it is now vexing the sports media folks. Everyone has news and sports information that cater only to their own points or view, whims, and loyalties. Perhaps that is why we are seeing what we are seeing out of young people, namely college students who fight violently - violently - against free speech: they are the first generation raised to simply ignore other points of view with the touch of a button or swipe of a screen. It makes me agree all the more with the premise of Idiocracy as well - society getting dumber not more refined, even as technology advances. Longhorn Network was/is a ratification of the Idiocracy problem: "I don't want to hear about sports in general, I just want to hear about Longhorn sports." FoxNEWS: "I don't want to hear about news in general, I just want to hear about conservative views of the news." CNBC/MSNBC: "I don't want to hear about news in general, I just want to hear about liberal views of the news." The ESPN problems: "I don't want to see the Yankee-Red Sox as Game of the Week; I'm in Texas, show me the Rangers and tell me about the Rangers." And, on and on it seems to be going.

Agree. We went to the opening game this year because our niece was in one of the bands. Having a high school football game indoors definitely takes away the atmosphere of a high school game. And, I'd say ditto to high school games at Toyota Stadium in Frisco. However, times are different. The fun of high school games to me as a kid was playing under the bleachers, running around the back side of the track near the end zone, etc. But, kids these days are glued to iPhones and whatnot anyway, so they may like the indoor games and stadiums. Would have to see basketball in the Star to determine whether it was good. Just sound weird, though, that they'd partition it off and have two games going at once. Seems like it would be confusing if noise from the one game bled over to the other - crowds cheering, officials whistling fouls, etc. They do something similar to that at The Fieldhouse in Frisco with tons of basketball teams playing at once in tournaments. It's very discombobulating to be in there when all the courts are filled, cheers are incongruent, and whistles are everywhere.

The air conditioning in the IPFs might break down, causing the players to sweat unnecessarily.

Exactly. Was discussing this with neighbors over the weekend as local elections were held. We lamented the corruption at the local level that is no longer investigated because there are no longer real local papers - and, by real we meant willing to dig in and actually print something bad about the local government if need be. Some free rag gets thrown in every yard in Frisco on Friday mornings. But, it's just a collection rah-rah, patting-ourselves-on-the-back stories. I take mine out back and chunk it in the trash without opening it. Brett has what he has to work with. Denton is an eclectic town, UNT is an eclectic school. Both have, in fits and starts - and, only sometimes congruently - supported UNT athletics. I'd like to hear from the NTSU era posters: What was the coverage like back then? Was the community support higher, lower, or about the same?

Guys, you have to look at what Vito has to work with: he's the beat writer for North Texas! We've all sat through some poor athletic performances for a couple of decades now. I mean, how would you approach the job, having to sit through what you know will usually be subpar football and basketball? Then, after 20 years, how do you think your approach would change/be? To me, although we don't agree on everything, he does the best with what he's given to work with.

I don't think people have been nonchalant about it. I think the feel of the thread is that most of us are surprised and disappointed by it. The Tech get and RV's Memphis get last spring take away a little of the sting; but, few here have been nonchalant, clearly stating their disapproval.

Yes! Watched the Canelo - Chavez, Jr. fight at a party thrown by one of my wife's Mexican family friends. They required a $5 bet from everyone. I took Canelo simply based on his work against Mayweather and Amir Khan. I had never heard of Chavez, Jr. fighting anyone close to that level of competence. For whatever reason, Alvarez allowed Chavez to stay upright. He could have knocked out Chavez at any point of the fight, in my estimation. Sadly, of the two dozen or so Mexican folk at the party, only my wife and the husband of the host family put money on Alvarez with me. The husband predicted a 8th round knockout; I chose a decision, and won the money. The thing was, all the Mexicans just heard the name Julio Cesar Chavez, ignored the Jr. part of his name, and threw in their money. I don't think any of them had ever really seen Alvarez fight. Crazy. None of them knew Alvares was Mexican. Before the fight, many asked me if he was Puerto Rican! Golovkin is a great fighter. He and Alvarez are obviously two of the best pound for pound in the world. Boxing desperately needs more matches like this one. And, let me say something else to the UFC crowd, if Conor McGregor (28 years old) was a real man, he'd be asking to fight Alvarez (26 years old) or Golovkin (35 years old). Mayweather is 40 and has not fought in two years. McGregor is about money, not competition. He knows Alvarez and Golovkin would pummel him senseless. And, I feel the same about Mayweather. He gave Maidana two fights, but not Alvarez? I respect Mayweather because he is technically as sound a boxer as I've ever seen. But, he does tend to pick and choose instead of taking the toughest fight he can. He put off the Pacquiao fight until Pacquiao had nothing left. And, in my opinion, he's always ducked Amir Khan.

Yes, I wrestled and boxed, but never did martial arts. You don't understand what I've written. I appreciate and respect those who master a martial art. If you want to prove you are a great wrestler, make the Olympic wrestling team. If you want to prove you are a great boxer, get in the ring and box. However, I know from fights that mixing the two is stupid. In high school, I took down two guy who tried to fight me, but didn't know how to wrestle. They swung, I ducked and shot single leg take downs on both and immobilized them until they agreed to stop. But, at no point did I then begin to choke them or punch them when I had them immobilized. To me, that's not proving anything. I'd already proved that they couldn't beat me by taking them down and immobilizing them. Had I chosen to box with them, even though I done so as a youth, they likely would have beaten me because they were both bigger and had longer reaches. UFC allows people to do things that are illegal in wrestling and boxing...and, likely illegal in pure martial arts contests as well. Mainly, choking, locking hands (i.e., "full Nelsons"), hitting in the back/kidney, hitting in the back of the head, etc.

I discussed that, too, during the IPF threads. It didn't make sense to me that they would fly up to Liberty when there were several regional schools of all sizes they could have visited instead. Seemed like a waste of time...and, money. However, we can now logically surmise that Baker likely used the trip to hammer out details of a home and home football series...only, he's the one that got hammered. Liberty's AD is former Baylor AD Ian McCaw, who is far more experienced (and conniving) than Baker. Here, McCaw used Baker's inexperience to his - and, Liberty's - advantage. Getting not only a home and home, but the front end of it, McCaw was absolutely schooling Baker in the fine art of college football scheduling.

I'm also for limits of federal judges. The branches, in my view, are not co-equal if the executive branch is the only one term limited. I'm certain that conservatives and liberals alike can think of judges and justices they wish were term limited. I believe all branches or none should be term limited. As far as Liberty and bigotry, it's just one of those arguments people make regarding private institutions for having their own rules, regulations, and beliefs. I could say the Knights of Columbus are bigoted for being a Catholic organization, catering to Catholic principals. But, why waste time doing so? in my view, let birds of a feather flock together, unless they are violent/anarchist. Liberty is not a place I'd send my kids, but others would. I feel the same about Baylor and BYU. To me, you are probably limiting yourself professionally with a degree with those names on it, to a certain extent; but, that is also another discussion. In reality, those who get degrees from those type of schools are usually connected enough to have jobs lined up after school anyway. They have a mindset and will likely stick close to people with the same mindset. The alumni of those schools are very loyal to its grads. And, in truth, graduates of liberal schools are the same. Not everyone is for a school as liberal as, say, the University of Texas. Not everyone would be down for going to a private, "Church-based" school. I think UNT is pretty much in the middle. I don't know how it is today, but from 1990-95, I had a fair shake with all my professors at UNT. Outside of my political science classes, I can only think of two professors who were open about their politics - an old, cranky English professor, who was likely a lesbian; and a Logic professor who droned on and on about the rain forests instead of Logic. After a couple of weeks of class, it was like, "Okay, dude, we get it - you think the rain forests need to be more protected. Move on, please, we've paid the tuition to study Logic, not listen to extended diatribes about the rain forest situation...as you see it in your head." The thread discussion, though, is football and whether Liberty's program is worthy of a home and home. I think they are not. I much prefer Wren's Tech series and RV's final effort, the Memphis home and home.

Wallace's performance notwithstanding, I'd feel more comfortable with this guy in the two-deep rather than a walk-on JUCO baseball player, which is where we are now.