CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big XII => Topic started by: Drew4UTk on September 29, 2019, 03:01:12 PM
-
The way the top of both conferences play, I'd say they could just about be interchanged. It's been a while since we've seen an SEC stand on D, as it seems they've adopted what was going on west of them...
If i had to rank the teams right now there would be two distinct tiers atop it all, then a sizable gap and the rest- some better than others, but just not in that tier.
Tier One: (no particular order) Alabama, Oklahoma, tOSU, Auburn, LSU, Clemson,
BREAK
Tier OnePointFive : Wiscy, UGA, perhaps Texas belongs here, and perhaps ND does as well...
UF has a chance to bust in this weekend, but I am not sold on neither their O or D- they play sloppy as much as on point, and I'm thinking they've simply been surviving. Wake Forest is undefeated, but... It's hard to take them serious until they play someone. SMU is also undefeated. They may be the G5 sweetheart this season? Boise?
Eyeball testing between week five and six, my guess at how the teams are playing now and how their schedules stack, I'm thinking the Four standing will be:
Oklahoma, tOSU, Clemson, Bama... and that will be the ranking, too. I don't think UGA will get past Auburn and I don't think Auburn will get past LSU, and I don't think any of them will get past Bama. I'm thinking the final will be an OU/tOSU affair, and a LOT of points.
the reason I bring this to the BigXII board is I'm thinking this is OU's year at this point. But, I also want to point out the similarities of the teams in 'my' final four.... the fact that several players on all four of these teams were all recruited by all four teams, and a couple actually have playing time on opposing teams rosters, it is indicating to me that we're entering a period of parity that is almost parody- one team from another conference imitating teams from others- and it didn't start in the SEC for once. The style is from the BigXII.
Seriously, if you take Wiscy out of the conversation, these teams all play similar ball that defies what their conferences looked like ten years ago but absolutely look like the modern preferred method- and you can interchange 'my' last four teams.... it isn't that i'm thinking 'one' is better than another, it's that they're pretty much all the same.... so... pick one. 25% chance of being right.
-
Yeah, there's increasing similarity. And not just on offense. Bama's defense has looked a bit spotty this season, while OU's defense has crawled out last year's cellar and--so far--looks "decent."
I think Florida might be a bit overrated. However, as OAM has said on the Big Ten board, who ya gonna put ahead of 'em? I'd say Penn State should rank ahead of the Gators, but beyond that, I don't know.
Herbie said last night that Ohio State looks like the most complete team so far. He's biased on that, of course, but he may be right nevertheless.
Clemson beat Texas A&M, which seems to be pretty good, but in the other games, has not looked dominant.
Auburn might have the best resume right now, but it's hard to see them getting past both Bama and LSU to get to the SEC CCG.
OU would have a tough time making the playoff with a loss, even as Big 12 champ, because its OOC schedule has turned out to be crap. And it was foreseeable that it might be exactly that, as neither UCLA nor Houston are perennially good programs. I think that Texas, if it were to run the table, would be a stronger bet for the CFP than a one-loss OU.
-
The way the top of both conferences play, I'd say they could just about be interchanged. It's been a while since we've seen an SEC stand on D, as it seems they've adopted what was going on west of them...
If i had to rank the teams right now there would be two distinct tiers atop it all, then a sizable gap and the rest- some better than others, but just not in that tier.
Tier One: (no particular order) Alabama, Oklahoma, tOSU, Auburn, LSU, Clemson,
BREAK
Tier OnePointFive : Wiscy, UGA, perhaps Texas belongs here, and perhaps ND does as well...
UF has a chance to bust in this weekend, but I am not sold on neither their O or D- they play sloppy as much as on point, and I'm thinking they've simply been surviving. Wake Forest is undefeated, but... It's hard to take them serious until they play someone. SMU is also undefeated. They may be the G5 sweetheart this season? Boise?
Eyeball testing between week five and six, my guess at how the teams are playing now and how their schedules stack, I'm thinking the Four standing will be:
Oklahoma, tOSU, Clemson, Bama... and that will be the ranking, too. I don't think UGA will get past Auburn and I don't think Auburn will get past LSU, and I don't think any of them will get past Bama. I'm thinking the final will be an OU/tOSU affair, and a LOT of points.
the reason I bring this to the BigXII board is I'm thinking this is OU's year at this point. But, I also want to point out the similarities of the teams in 'my' final four.... the fact that several players on all four of these teams were all recruited by all four teams, and a couple actually have playing time on opposing teams rosters, it is indicating to me that we're entering a period of parity that is almost parody- one team from another conference imitating teams from others- and it didn't start in the SEC for once. The style is from the BigXII.
Seriously, if you take Wiscy out of the conversation, these teams all play similar ball that defies what their conferences looked like ten years ago but absolutely look like the modern preferred method- and you can interchange 'my' last four teams.... it isn't that i'm thinking 'one' is better than another, it's that they're pretty much all the same.... so... pick one. 25% chance of being right.
Texas barely lost to LSU. I don't see them being on two different tiers.
OU is complete question mark since they haven't played anyone. I'm not commenting on their scheduling, Houston and UCLA should have been better tests than they were. But they weren't. Know what I mean?
Should be a fun race down the stretch.
Of immediate concern, Texas owes the snot-nosed horns-down hillbilly hordes of West Virginia a big dose of revenge. Hook 'em.
-
Tier One: (no particular order) Alabama, Oklahoma, tOSU, Auburn, LSU, Clemson,
So just to get this out of the way, both Texas and oSu will beat 0U. There. It's said.
-
I only "bumped" Texas a half tier and only nod LSU through because the 0 in loss column. I think NEXT season is "their" season. They lose to Bama or Auburn or both, but that is in close matches and not a given, just that reason says they drop one of them.
Auburn is good but I truly believe Swartz, removed, and they are firmly 2nd tier. That little speed demon has to be accounted for on every play he's on field, and the way he's being used is likely concerning opposing DCs to the point they miss the forest for the tree so to speak.
Clemson still plays with fire. But they have a literal clear path unless wfu is better than I think they are.
OU using MY eyes, are in a league apart right now, and with tOSU, Bama, possibly UGA, LSU, and perhaps Wiscy.
oSu has the most productive RB in the nation, and he's for real. Texas played a helluva game and game plan against them. That could have gone either way. Just like the LSU game could have.
I don't know who is peaking, who's spent, and who will get better and likely won't till after week 8 or nine. What I'm saying is RIGHT NOW. if season ended today I've made my offer for the CFP, and looking at them AND the top tier and those just outside of it, other than Wiscy, they ALL play a similar game. I may expand that and say UGA hasn't fully adopted the same manners as the top tier, but it's closer than wiscy's adoption... Not that either are "out" just because they aren't interchangable.
-
I'm really not sure how you're seeing OU in a league of their own when they haven't played anyone with a pulse. I guess we'll find out in a couple of weeks at the Cotton Bowl. *shrug*
.
-
i'm watching them execute, that's how. they are executing complex plays with certainty. I've watched Texas flounder several times, and it wasn't their competition, it was them. I hope you see the difference.
if it means anything, this is the measure at this point in the season. sure there are some games where the opponent was beat down or the team in question was beat down. i don't have to look past my Vols to find that. it's my opinion, and i don't expect it to be adopted, that the biggest opponent a team faces on the field is NOT the other team, but themselves. If they can get out of their own way they usually win. it's pretty much that simple in just about every game. it's the opponents goal to take a team out of their comfort zone or to disrupt enough the team can't find it's rhythm or 'groove'.
some teams, ala Bama, OU, and tOSU, haven't been pushed by an opponent.. true story.. but the 'eye' test which is watching execution on both sides of the ball tells me both tOSU and OU are for real. Texas has been pushed- twice. They were taken out of their comfort zones twice, once ending in loss. you can think i'm being negative if you want, but i'm not... what i would suggest instead is that team has margin for improvement and there is a good chance they haven't peaked yet.
OU, on the other hand really can't peak any more than they have- they are clicking... now it's a matter of sustaining, and it's obviously a matter of seeing if they encounter someone capable of taking them out of their groove. the problem with OU's schedule, insofar as their opponents should be concerned, is they may solidify that 'rhythm' into a groove almost impossible to break- which means you've got to really beat them down 'cause you ain't finessing a win out of the game.
it's my observation that one team not capable of breaking the other's groove ends up in high scoring affairs- where when both teams are disrupted it's a low scoring event... and when one team, although just as good as the other most the time gets blindsided by some disruptive force either planned or discovered during the game ends up with a blowout that ought not to have been such... ND found a way to disrupt UGA and why i can't give UGA the appreciation right now everyone else seems to have given. LSU found a way to disrupt Texas.. Texas disrupted oSu... nobody has broken bama's stride (not even bama), nobody has broken tOSU's stride (even tOSU), Wiscy disrupted the hell out of UM's stride, but couldn't get cleanly out of their own way with NW. They almost beat themselves (not really, but it shouldn't have been as close as they allowed). UF, as another example, have been lucky- sloppy ball and broken all over, but still winning. Auburn disrupted the shit out of aTm, but so did Clemson. Oregon pushed Auburn into throwing down- but that was sans Schwartz- they are a completely different animal with that dimension.
all of that said- and i don't have a dog in the fight and could care less who wins at this point (my boys are aiming for somewhere around 2028 i think.. er, something like that... if i'm lucky..), what i'm remarking isn't about 'who is better and how the CFP will happen' which would be a thread played over and over in every forum in the land- what i'm saying is the fashion- the style- these mentioned teams play are interchangeable. you could dress out tOSU in OU's garb, and hardly anyone would notice. Same with Bama and Clemson.. or any combination... they are playing something 'new', (not really but...), they are playing in a bubble that is obviously the dominating 'type' of game we're going to see a LOT of teams adopting.
the title of the thread beckons to a thought i had after Dr.Osborne took both the SEC's better teams to the woodshed with his option- UF and UT.. and those teams responded, and the era that came next was shut down aggressive D's- the components of D's changed where the prototypical players for positions changed- RC Slocum and Joe Lee Dunn both played roles... LB's trimmed down and were expected to cover more- DL's picked up speed and started shifting more. OLB's/DE's began using more flats coverage.. it was answered with spreads and spread options... the game changed in a notable and measurable- maybe 'tangible' is a better term, way. It was something that could be pointed out- THAT changed. THIS changed. THIS is working more against THAT and is ALSO better than what was before against THAT... the SEC led that movement and earned a reputation the rest of the CFB world wants to scoff at, but... it happened.
What I'm saying (or trying to) is the game is measurably- tangibly- RIGHT THERE WE CAN POINT TO IT- changing again in a way that is dominating and the rich get richer with an ability to recruit, develop, scheme, coach and win with- that will take those not privileged (aka the rest of the FBS CFB world pulling from the 'pile of material') a few years to catch up to... and they will... but only after HS coaches move that direction to. The only good news? this time it's not cornered in one conference- it's moved across borders.
the transfer portal further complicates this.
as far as a perceived attack or a prop of one team over another, that isn't at all where i was going... Texas is on the bubble this year and they're in the hunt for making this transition if they already haven't LSU is a parallel... I'd say Auburn and UGA are too... OU, Bama, Clemson, tOSU- they're playing in this 'model' NOW. They have the edge.. teams not adopted or adopting, are going to lose ground....
-
Interesting discussion, Drew. Really interesting. The analysis of high-scoring games, low-scoring games, and blowouts merits further investigation, I think.
I'd add this, that Miami in the 1980s was a pioneer in the shut-down defense field. Under Jimmy Johnson, they put their best athletes on defense and ran well-constructed passing offenses that were "good enough."
OU--with some of its most talented teams ever--went 33-3 from 1985 through 1987. The three losses were to Miami. OU--coming out of the "run first, second, and third" Big 8--had some trouble stopping Miami's offense. But what they really had trouble doing was moving the ball with the wishbone offense against Miami's big, fast defenders.
Miami won 27-14 in 1985, 28-16 in 1986, and 20-14 in the 1987 MNC game. Some OU guys who played in all those games said they finally had Miami figured out by the end of the third one, and wished that they could play another quarter or two. But that might just be wishful thinking--who knows?
The AP national championships of those three years are interesting: 1985, #3 OU beat #1 Penn State to win the AP MNC; 1986, #2 Penn State beat #1 Miami 14-10 to win the AP MNC; 1987, #2 Miami beat #1 OU for the AP MNC.
-
I wonder how much knowledge of recruiting rankings influences our notions about all of this?
-
I personally would have Ohio State at Number 1 right now. They passed the eye test in flying.
The Bama D has been a bit suspect. They and Clemson may have "issues" that have shown up to date. UGA had to work to get past ND. Auburn has a couple nice wins, but A&M may not be that good. OU looks threatening to me, able to outscore folks for a change. To me, the only team that has not shown an indication of some weakness if OSU.
Mobile QBs are tough to defend, and those who can throw dimes are tougher.
-
I personally would have Ohio State at Number 1 right now. They passed the eye test in flying.
All these no schedule teams are killing this "eye test". Nebbie has been the toughest thing on the OSU schedule, and we all knew how that would play out. Frost is no answer in Lincoln.
-
i'm watching them execute, that's how. they are executing complex plays with certainty. I've watched Texas flounder several times, and it wasn't their competition, it was them. I hope you see the difference.
if it means anything, this is the measure at this point in the season. sure there are some games where the opponent was beat down or the team in question was beat down. i don't have to look past my Vols to find that. it's my opinion, and i don't expect it to be adopted, that the biggest opponent a team faces on the field is NOT the other team, but themselves. If they can get out of their own way they usually win. it's pretty much that simple in just about every game. it's the opponents goal to take a team out of their comfort zone or to disrupt enough the team can't find it's rhythm or 'groove'.
some teams, ala Bama, OU, and tOSU, haven't been pushed by an opponent.. true story.. but the 'eye' test which is watching execution on both sides of the ball tells me both tOSU and OU are for real. Texas has been pushed- twice. They were taken out of their comfort zones twice, once ending in loss. you can think i'm being negative if you want, but i'm not... what i would suggest instead is that team has margin for improvement and there is a good chance they haven't peaked yet.
OU, on the other hand really can't peak any more than they have- they are clicking... now it's a matter of sustaining, and it's obviously a matter of seeing if they encounter someone capable of taking them out of their groove. the problem with OU's schedule, insofar as their opponents should be concerned, is they may solidify that 'rhythm' into a groove almost impossible to break- which means you've got to really beat them down 'cause you ain't finessing a win out of the game.
it's my observation that one team not capable of breaking the other's groove ends up in high scoring affairs- where when both teams are disrupted it's a low scoring event... and when one team, although just as good as the other most the time gets blindsided by some disruptive force either planned or discovered during the game ends up with a blowout that ought not to have been such... ND found a way to disrupt UGA and why i can't give UGA the appreciation right now everyone else seems to have given. LSU found a way to disrupt Texas.. Texas disrupted oSu... nobody has broken bama's stride (not even bama), nobody has broken tOSU's stride (even tOSU), Wiscy disrupted the hell out of UM's stride, but couldn't get cleanly out of their own way with NW. They almost beat themselves (not really, but it shouldn't have been as close as they allowed). UF, as another example, have been lucky- sloppy ball and broken all over, but still winning. Auburn disrupted the shit out of aTm, but so did Clemson. Oregon pushed Auburn into throwing down- but that was sans Schwartz- they are a completely different animal with that dimension.
all of that said- and i don't have a dog in the fight and could care less who wins at this point (my boys are aiming for somewhere around 2028 i think.. er, something like that... if i'm lucky..), what i'm remarking isn't about 'who is better and how the CFP will happen' which would be a thread played over and over in every forum in the land- what i'm saying is the fashion- the style- these mentioned teams play are interchangeable. you could dress out tOSU in OU's garb, and hardly anyone would notice. Same with Bama and Clemson.. or any combination... they are playing something 'new', (not really but...), they are playing in a bubble that is obviously the dominating 'type' of game we're going to see a LOT of teams adopting.
the title of the thread beckons to a thought i had after Dr.Osborne took both the SEC's better teams to the woodshed with his option- UF and UT.. and those teams responded, and the era that came next was shut down aggressive D's- the components of D's changed where the prototypical players for positions changed- RC Slocum and Joe Lee Dunn both played roles... LB's trimmed down and were expected to cover more- DL's picked up speed and started shifting more. OLB's/DE's began using more flats coverage.. it was answered with spreads and spread options... the game changed in a notable and measurable- maybe 'tangible' is a better term, way. It was something that could be pointed out- THAT changed. THIS changed. THIS is working more against THAT and is ALSO better than what was before against THAT... the SEC led that movement and earned a reputation the rest of the CFB world wants to scoff at, but... it happened.
What I'm saying (or trying to) is the game is measurably- tangibly- RIGHT THERE WE CAN POINT TO IT- changing again in a way that is dominating and the rich get richer with an ability to recruit, develop, scheme, coach and win with- that will take those not privileged (aka the rest of the FBS CFB world pulling from the 'pile of material') a few years to catch up to... and they will... but only after HS coaches move that direction to. The only good news? this time it's not cornered in one conference- it's moved across borders.
the transfer portal further complicates this.
as far as a perceived attack or a prop of one team over another, that isn't at all where i was going... Texas is on the bubble this year and they're in the hunt for making this transition if they already haven't LSU is a parallel... I'd say Auburn and UGA are too... OU, Bama, Clemson, tOSU- they're playing in this 'model' NOW. They have the edge.. teams not adopted or adopting, are going to lose ground....
Your condescending tone here is not aiding your argument. I didn't read anything past your first paragraph. Executing against garbage, means garbage.
-
OSU has looked very solid on both sides of the ball against suspect opponents, but some other teams have at times looked a bit soft against suspect opponents.
I thought Nebraska would be more of a test, so I'm influenced by that.
-
I've only seen tOSU in their game against Michigan, well about half of that anyway, and they looked very good. Not sure how much of that was them, and how much was just Michigan being pretty much hopeless against them for the past couple of decades.
-
@utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) it's apparent you just want to argue... condescending? eff you. i went out of my way, if you would have read, to explain my position and it isn't giving one team something nor taking away from another. it's a freakin' concept. it would be a good thing to discuss the 'concept' without team blinders on.
take your longhorn glasses off and give it a shot- or don't.
~break~
player position while the play unfolds either O or D.. scheme.. executing... right now, is still the best measure. there has only been a few games so far where teams got under each others skin. week five behind us, week six inbound, conference games and cards on the table insofar as recon of the opponent- we'll likely see more, but not as much as we'll see after week nine. so WATCHING the 'execution'- the timing routes, the misdirection in the backfield, the LACK of procedural penalties, we can see who is better coached and who is better prepared, and which teams understand their purpose. And... the top tier down to the "point five" tier offered are playing heads and shoulders above the rest. .... this isn't unusual... what is a little unusual is the very top tier is playing a game with tools others CAN'T, and it's my 'offer' here that THIS 'attack' is not only the RIGHT NOW, but the FUTURE of the game.
I recall watching the SECCG when Saban and Meyer met.. I recall thinking "it's old school vs new wave", and old school won. However NOW, 'new wave' IS the game Saban plays... along with that top tier. HE moved. Riley already did under Stoops but with his own tweaks.. Clemson is playing same, but following a trajectory more akin to Bama's approach.. tOSU is playing that approach, implemented by Meyer but being expounded upon now. Texas under Herman who is from Houston has been doing it for a long while but is positioning the Horns to follow right into this {right now} 'exclusive' club. LSU may be in 'it'... UGA may be 'in'. Auburn may be 'in'. Oregon has been fiddling with it a while but seem to have faltered of late. The pirate made his career on 'it'. Boise may be where it started but never had the tools to pull it off like the big boys can.
how the hell someone can take this discussion as 'condescending' and an affront is freaking beyond me... it's about schemes and components and STYLE of play... what i'm suggesting is a changing of the guard and pegging the direction of the game for likely the next ten seasons, until someone else comes up with something that 'works better' and has the balls to implement it.
-
@utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) it's apparent you just want to argue... condescending? eff you.
Utee's a good fellow. Yes he's got an eruditious complex, but he's the one who has to satiate it by drinking skank microbrew.
-
oh i know- and he ought to know me too- which means he should realize i'm not condescending to anyone. except @scotchvol (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1622) ... that is different..
and he ought to know i'm not angry but making a point- just as he is.
this wasn't supposed to be about placement in ranks or tanks... it's about a scheme.
and here is what i was hoping to interject as the conversation developed- and it ties into where it went sideways discussing 'opponents'... and it's simple- and the reason this 'set' is being pushed and promoted at the top level in my opinion:
it takes 'opponent' out of the mix. IF the team can execute without being pushed off the line, the game truly comes down to play calling exclusively. that means the lines have to be absolutely solid, but also means the skilled positions have to be in the right place at the right time- the play call is depending on the presented D as it seems to use a lot of pseudo 'pick' plays and/or complex blocking schemes using other skill position players. if a team can 'execute', it's theirs to win or lose. so far, i've yet to see a D that can stop these top tier teams on the field. Not a one. not from Bama, not from tOSU, not from anyone.. what i've seen is explosive O's and the point spread forcing teams to play deep downfield who aren't suited for playing deep down field, and not being able to 'keep up'. this is really nothing new to some BigXII teams, but as an SEC fan? It may be actually two or three season's old now, but.. it's seemingly the direction the entire game is headed.
-
I'll just watch the next couple of weeks and see what happens. Everyone told me OU was in a different tier last year after Texas lost to Maryland. Turns out, the second weekend in October is usually a telling one.
I said GOOD DAY SIR.
:)
-
execution of a team, offense or defense is a good measure of coaching and talented smart sometimes experienced players
execution vs an opponent that is also well coached with similar players (talented, smart, experienced) is much more difficult
and then there are the wildcards on all these top couple of tier teams - the freak playmakers that defy scheme and execution. They are just bigger faster quicker, stronger, better instincts, luckier (right place at the right time)
some of these GREAT players just disrupt the execution of an otherwise great team
-
execution of a team, offense or defense is a good measure of coaching and talented smart sometimes experienced players
execution vs an opponent that is also well coached with similar players (talented, smart, experienced) is much more difficult
and then there are the wildcards on all these top couple of tier teams - the freak playmakers that defy scheme and execution. They are just bigger faster quicker, stronger, better instincts, luckier (right place at the right time)
some of these GREAT players just disrupt the execution of an otherwise great team
agreed... Auburn is a good example of this. The team is good edging on a great team sans Schwartz.. with him? They are a totally different animal... that guy can take it all the way every time he touches it. when he's on the field i'm betting opposing DC's focus too much on him, which opens other prospects- and would be a good reason Auburn has been lighting folks up since the aTm game (when he returned from injury). Without him, one single player, Auburn is firmly in the second tier. they can still beat up most the CFB world, but... that one element if only a threat pushes them into the elite tier.
that running back for oSu may be the same type of impact.. Hubbard is his name? he's leading the nation rushing... quietly and without a lot of fanfare... but the difference is he is 'part' of the 'standard' puzzle. Auburn without Schwartz is a puzzle, but with him is an entire different thing.
-
Ed Zachery
Bama, Clemson, Ohio St., the well respected Sooners all have multiple players that can simply change the game
-
Executing against air just isn't that difficult. Alabama has yet to play anyone. Oklahoma has yet to play anyone. Clemson has yet to play anyone and almost choked on their cupcake anyway. Ohio State might have played someone, not really sure though.
-
the real reason ou is finally a real contender this season, and it's fairly obvious, is because they finally got a decent qb to run things. that's clearly what they've been missing the last few years. you're welcome, sooners, and roll tide.
-
that running back for oSu may be the same type of impact.. Hubbard is his name? he's leading the nation rushing... quietly and without a lot of fanfare...
This is what I'm saying. And that oSu QB can be deadly as well. Both oSu and Texas had bad games when they met. Texas came out on top.
But oSu is still going to do damage.
-
Executing against air just isn't that difficult. Alabama has yet to play anyone. Oklahoma has yet to play anyone. Clemson has yet to play anyone and almost choked on their cupcake anyway. Ohio State might have played someone, not really sure though.
None of them have. Usually 3 games into the season you can tell which way the wind blows. Not this year. The presumed lead dogs haven't played anybody.
-
the real reason ou is finally a real contender this season, and it's fairly obvious, is because they finally got a decent qb to run things.
Wow, tide fans don't know nuthin'. The last 2 OU QB's are NFL starters.
-
Wow, tide fans don't know nuthin'. The last 2 OU QB's are NFL starters.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/gBpY4p7bbhsiI/giphy.gif)
-
Executing against air is more difficult than it should be for many teams
that was Drew's point or part of it.
the top dogs haven't played anyone yet, but they are executing at an incredible rate
-
Executing against air is more difficult than it should be for many teams
that was Drew's point or part of it.
the top dogs haven't played anyone yet, but they are executing at an incredible rate
Bingo.
And I will further offer: the biggest opponents on the field any given Saturday are dressed the same. The cohesion is what makes a team great, and that is measured by the consistency of execution.
-
Executing against air is more difficult than it should be for many teams
that was Drew's point or part of it.
the top dogs haven't played anyone yet, but they are executing at an incredible rate
I get it.
I am flat out disagreeing with drew's point and I've explained my opposition multiple times now.
Texas has played one game against a known bad opponent so far, and one game against an overmatched opponent, and executed perfectly in those games. That's all we know about Oklahoma or Alabama, as well.
The fact that Texas has also played two GOOD teams, and didn't execute perfectly, doesn't change the fact that against the one bad team and one questionable team Texas has played, they played pretty much a flawless games.
You just can't compare Texas' performances against LSU and Oklahoma State, to OU's performances against, well, nobody. That's not the proper comparison.
The proper comparison is comparing Texas' performances against Rice and Louisiana Tech, to the entire body of work that OU, or Alabama, or Clemson have put together this year.
-
The good news is we are about to get "more data" in a torrent, almost.
-
So anyway, back to the thread title:
Southwest division:
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
Arkansas
Northwest division:
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Kansas State
Missouri
Iowa State
Southeast division:
LSU
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
Auburn
Alabama
Florida
Northeast division:
Georgia
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Kentucky
West Virginia
-
i reread this... i'm thinking the element missed or misunderstood is RIGHT NOW... Right Now, the teams are ____.
but even that said, i stand behind the element of execution is not disrupted by anyone but the team executing. clean execution and positioning based on timing is the key to these teams playing these 'type' of offenses. maybe they'll meet up with someone who bumps the crap out of receivers off the line and disrupts the timing route, or a player savvy enough to miss the pick play/block. Maybe they have a D line that crowds the lanes or gets penetration enough to upset the play as it develops.. Maybe the game comes down to power, and if it does the game they're trying to play (this what i'm referring to as 'new' developing style) goes out the window. So far that hasn't happened- but it certainly can.
watching the Texas/LSU game there was certainly individual players playing 'freak' tough, but most of those plays were after the catch or hand off and started (the freak hits and drags) in space pitting individual against individual- and the individual player made the play. ... but that is a matter of talent and ability and is in actual opposition to the 'concept' i'm speaking of which is reliant on TEAM and TEAM position (scheme). That game ended a 45-38 affair. It's more than safe to say that neither team broke the others cohesion on O else the score wouldn't have been so high for both teams- what happened is one team survived and the other ran out of time.
the 'game' i'm speaking of runs a hurry up, runs high percentage passing plays with plows in front of the receivers (often other receivers), and crossing plays that are designed to net medium gains of 5-7 yards. As soon as the O catches the D in a set they've been waiting for they try to keep them on the field and exploit it. this 'type' of O has roots in the BigXII, which is again why i started the thread here- oSu has been doing it.. TT was doing it.. Baylor, for cripes sake, was doing it. Texas under Herman is doing it. OU has been doing it for a while. Now, Saban is doing it. Auburn is doing it. Freakin' LSU is doing it now that they've found a QB capable of even threatening it.... the Saints do it. The Rams do it. Those coaches spent a lot of time with each other over the past several years developing their concepts, and those concepts are settling on this type of play. and this type of play is dependent on proper execution and players being where they are supposed to be when they are supposed to be there more so than any other element... meaning: their biggest opponent is themselves.
-
So anyway, back to the thread title:
Southwest division:
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
Arkansas
Northwest division:
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Kansas State
Missouri
Iowa State
Southeast division:
LSU
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
Auburn
Alabama
Florida
Northeast division:
Georgia
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Kentucky
West Virginia
not that i disagree with the alignment, but damn is that se div stacked compared to the rest. the ne div is looking light, at least based on current form. sw and nw are both top heavy, but respectable in middle.
-
not that i disagree with the alignment, but damn is that se div stacked compared to the rest.
It's pretty hard to group the deep southern part of the SEC without making it a blood bath.
Bama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia are all neighbors, and LSU is just a skip across Mississippi.
-
i reread this... i'm thinking the element missed or misunderstood is RIGHT NOW... Right Now, the teams are ____.
but even that said, i stand behind the element of execution is not disrupted by anyone but the team executing. clean execution and positioning based on timing is the key to these teams playing these 'type' of offenses. maybe they'll meet up with someone who bumps the crap out of receivers off the line and disrupts the timing route, or a player savvy enough to miss the pick play/block. Maybe they have a D line that crowds the lanes or gets penetration enough to upset the play as it develops.. Maybe the game comes down to power, and if it does the game they're trying to play (this what i'm referring to as 'new' developing style) goes out the window. So far that hasn't happened- but it certainly can.
watching the Texas/LSU game there was certainly individual players playing 'freak' tough, but most of those plays were after the catch or hand off and started (the freak hits and drags) in space pitting individual against individual- and the individual player made the play. ... but that is a matter of talent and ability and is in actual opposition to the 'concept' i'm speaking of which is reliant on TEAM and TEAM position (scheme). That game ended a 45-38 affair. It's more than safe to say that neither team broke the others cohesion on O else the score wouldn't have been so high for both teams- what happened is one team survived and the other ran out of time.
the 'game' i'm speaking of runs a hurry up, runs high percentage passing plays with plows in front of the receivers (often other receivers), and crossing plays that are designed to net medium gains of 5-7 yards. As soon as the O catches the D in a set they've been waiting for they try to keep them on the field and exploit it. this 'type' of O has roots in the BigXII, which is again why i started the thread here- oSu has been doing it.. TT was doing it.. Baylor, for cripes sake, was doing it. Texas under Herman is doing it. OU has been doing it for a while. Now, Saban is doing it. Auburn is doing it. Freakin' LSU is doing it now that they've found a QB capable of even threatening it.... the Saints do it. The Rams do it. Those coaches spent a lot of time with each other over the past several years developing their concepts, and those concepts are settling on this type of play. and this type of play is dependent on proper execution and players being where they are supposed to be when they are supposed to be there more so than any other element... meaning: their biggest opponent is themselves.
Still don't agree with you. You're acting like a defense can't disrupt the offense of these teams. I'm telling you they simply haven't faced any defenses capable of it, so far this season. They've played air. Leaving 11 players standing around not moving at all, might even be better than what they've faced so far. We're clearly not going to agree on this, and that's okay, but I don't feel like going round and round over and over again, so I'll leave it at that.
All that aside, yes, some SEC teams are beginning to run offenses similar to what the B12 has been doing for a couple of decades. Here on the B12 board, we've been pointing this out for years. Welcome to 2007. :)
-
my question:
are the new aged offenses creeping into the SEC causing the defenses to give up more yards and points
creating the image that SEC defenses aren't as good as in the past, or more like Big 12 defenses?
-
my question:
are the new aged offenses creeping into the SEC causing the defenses to give up more yards and points
creating the image that SEC defenses aren't as good as in the past, or more like Big 12 defenses?
Good question.
I haven't looked at it very closely. Anecodotally, when A&M entered the SEC-West with a more wide-open offense in 2012, they certainly put up bigger numbers against those SEC defenses than folks were used to. Same thing for Missouri in the SEC-East for some of those years.
This year, Texas' offense put up more yards and points against LSU than you might expect from a top-notch SEC defense.
But I've never really tried to look at it from a statistical point of view. It'd be interesting to check out for sure
-
It's pretty hard to group the deep southern part of the SEC without making it a blood bath.
Bama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia are all neighbors, and LSU is just a skip across Mississippi.
agree. lsu would need to move, which would cause a major shuffle.
move lsu from se to sw div.
move arky from sw to nw.
move mizzou from nw to ne.
and move vandy from ne to se. (uga would probably make more sense geographically, but then you're not solving anything.
sw strengthens quite a bit (lsu>arky), ne strengthens some (mizz>vandy), nw is about same (arky=mizz), and se gets much more comparable to other divs.
to be clear, i would not be in favor of this move. but if goal is even divs, that would likely be best move, geographically at least.
-
Why would anyone want a conference with 24 teams in it?
Pretty soon all the divisions would be treated like conferences and you start all over again
-
Why would anyone want a conference with 24 teams in it?
Why would anyone want to pay players? Ask California.
And who would want a 4-division, 24 team "SEC"? ESPN, for starters.
-
move lsu from se to sw div.
move arky from sw to nw.
move mizzou from nw to ne.
and move vandy from ne to se. (uga would probably make more sense geographically, but then you're not solving anything.
The thing about aligning divisions based on "strength", is that is assumes the same teams (schools) will be the best teams eternally.
The NFL doesn't realign when one division gets strong and another gets weak. They just let time run its course.
I understand that pure geography is a little different in college, because the best players largely all come from the same geographical areas. But when the Big Ten did "Leaders and Legends", everybody did a knee slap.
-
Forget all that gobbledy gook upthread.
Texas and OU to the SEC West.
Auburn and Alabama to the SEC East.
16 teams, two 8-team divisions, and Texas gets all three traditional rivals-- OU, Arkansas, and A&M-- back on the annual schedule. Plus LSU for added fun.
Peace out.
-
That would be brutal.
-
Forget all that gobbledy gook upthread.
Texas and OU to the SEC West.
Auburn and Alabama to the SEC East.
I refuse to be in a conference with Vanderbilt unless we can bring Baylor along.
This is why I'm not 100% in favor of Texas/OU to the SEC. They get to add us, but keep their crap?
-
I hear ya, but I'd really enjoy playing the ags and pigs again, plus the Sooners.
-
why would anyone want to bring Baylor along?
-
Not it.
-
this is what i'm talking about... highly trained and expected/predictable execution like a well oiled machine not a gaggle of 11 each with different idea of what needs to be done and no clue what those around them are doing.
the game is about cohesion. 11 as one is the key.
check it:
https://twitter.com/soonergridiron/status/1179067367604867077 (https://twitter.com/soonergridiron/status/1179067367604867077)
-
Oh God! There is no defense that can stop that especially if their play is on their
wrist bands
-
you longhorns really are a whiny lot who takes everything as a slight... or sometimes use words you've only got a slight grip on like 'condescending' ....
here is the funny thing- y'all scream about how OU sucks, but if you win? you'll gladly offer that as a 'good' win and elevate yourselves atop it like some goofy bovine version of Captain Morgan putting a foot on the keg.
damn, fellas. why can't y'all offer up at least a nod when something is done right even if done so by your opponents?
that is the SAME sooner D that was in disarray at this point last season. they're doing a lot better now, and it is because 'cohesion'.
-
i'm watching them execute, that's how. they are executing complex plays with certainty. I've watched Texas flounder several times, and it wasn't their competition, it was them. I hope you see the difference.
You know what? Fuck off drew. If you can't see how this reads as condescending, then you're not nearly as discerning as I thought you were.
I don't agree with your take, I have a difference of opinion, and you say something demeaning like that? Why?
You can take it back, or you can continue to act like a complete dick about this.
-
You know what? Fuck off drew. If you can't see how this reads as condescending, then you're not nearly as discerning as I thought you were.
I don't agree with your take, I have a difference of opinion, and you say something demeaning like that? Why?
You can take it back, or you can continue to act like a complete dick about this.
that red bit wasn't meant snarky.. it was appeal for confirmation you understood what i was trying to say.
-
that red bit wasn't meant snarky.. it was appeal for confirmation you understood what i was trying to say.
It reads that if I don't see what you see AND AGREE-- and I clearly don't from the resulting 13 responses I've given-- then I'm not smart enough to understand.
And I can guarandamntee you that I am.
I just don't agree with you. And I've thoroughly explained the reasons why I do not.
-
And I don't hate you for that. I don't even mind, a matter of fact. I'm making light of it yes but not meant mean. I don't even KNOW if I'm right. I damn sure don't know if you're wrong. ... And it doesn't matter either way.
-
Well okay, I can certainly agree that it doesn't matter either way.
Simpatico? :)
Also, we say OU sucks all the time, because as a matter of course, they do. It doesn't mean that beating a good OU team isn't worthy of celebration. Heck, we got to celebrate it just last season!
-
why would anyone want to bring Baylor along?
Ok, Texas Tech, TCU, Ok State, pick your poison.
My point is, I hate to see more deserving schools get the shaft while Vanderbilt rides the wave - while adding Texas/OU money to the kitty.
-
You know what? Fuck off drew. If you can't see how this reads as condescending, then you're not nearly as discerning as I thought you were.
I think I'm being baited by these two. But just for good measure, here's what condescension looks like. I'll mention no names.
"I'm 100% comfortable with my opinion being better than yours."
-
I think I'm being baited by these two. But just for good measure, here's what condescension looks like. I'll mention no names.
"I'm 100% comfortable with my opinion being better than yours."
If you had called me out as being condescending, I wouldn't have denied it.
How ya like THEM apples?
-
I used to tell my reports in performance reviews that they were contentious.
-
You know what? Fuck off drew. If you can't see how this reads as condescending, then you're not nearly as discerning as I thought you were.
I don't agree with your take, I have a difference of opinion, and you say something demeaning like that? Why?
You can take it back, or you can continue to act like a complete dick about this.
listen, @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) , if you;ve got a problem with @Drew4UTk (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1) , just come out and say it. don't pent it up inside.
this is dripping with sarcasm, if it's not apparent. lol
-
you longhorns really are a whiny lot who takes everything as a slight... or sometimes use words you've only got a slight grip on like 'condescending' ....
I refer to this as Texans being a bit too sensative
it's not meant to be a slight or derogatory
some folks are just more sensative than others on message boards
the new term for this I think I've understood properly is "snowflake", but it's seems a bit offensive to me, so I don't use that new fashionable term.
-
I've become more direct in my old age. I find it liberating.
But don't forget I'm the GD cnnsi.com 1999 Internet Nice Guy and if you don't like that, you can suck it.
-
it's possible, I might garner more votes than you if there was an election this year
-
I've become less direct IMOA I think, mostly in the sense of "I don't respect you enough to give you my real thoughts" day to day.
Fortunately, I'm not afflicted with acquaintances who annoy me these days. Retirement solved most of that problem.
I'll tell the story of my official retirement party someday.
-
it's possible, I might garner more votes than you if there was an election this year
Anyone that would vote for you over me can suck it, too!
-
@Drew4UTk (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1) might rather vote for me at the moment ;)
-
I refer to this as Texans being a bit too sensative
it's not meant to be a slight or derogatory
some folks are just more sensative than others on message boards
the new term for this I think I've understood properly is "snowflake", but it's seems a bit offensive to me, so I don't use that new fashionable term.
Snowflakes are people who are bitching about a different topic than I am.
-
What are "snowflakes"? I think we see them on occasion around here, they fall to the ground and disappear.
-
All I can say is we didnt have snowflakes when I went to UT
You were either for the war or against it
You were either a hippy or a frat rat
You were either for Frank Irwin or against him
but nobody needed a special quiet place where nobody bothered you
now I understand Austin is getting more and more of them
sad really
-
but nobody needed a special quiet place where nobody bothered you
now I understand Austin is getting more and more of them
doesn't everybody have a bedroom? There's your damn safe space.
-
Are they really implementing safe spaces at UT or is this just one of those things that old people write on their Facebook pages while shaking their fists at clouds in the sky?
-
Are they really implementing safe spaces at UT or is this just one of those things that old people write on their Facebook pages while shaking their fists at clouds in the sky?
Not sure they have literal quiet places on the UT campus but my understanding is that on campus free speech has more threats then in my era
-
Are they really implementing safe spaces at UT or is this just one of those things that old people write on their Facebook pages while shaking their fists at clouds in the sky?
So I have a son at UT. He says that UT is doing a pretty good job at not being so "west coast" with regard to political issues. The student body isn't as sensitive as say, the snow flakes of Austin.
-
Meh, the student body IS the snow flakes of Austin, but I'm glad to hear The University is trying to be a little less PC compared to the West Coast.
-
So I have a son at UT. He says that UT is doing a pretty good job at not being so "west coast" with regard to political issues. The student body isn't as sensitive as say, the snow flakes of Austin.
well you would know better then I
good to hear it
-
My daughter is a freshman (fresh-person?) this year at Texas. Other than their newfound love for undergrads, things seem to be functioning very much like they did in the early 90's when I showed up.
"Snowflake" is essentially a pejorative invented by right-wing trolls for empathetic people. "Social Justice Warrior" failed to gain traction, so the Russians focus groups tried again. Now, it's been co-opted by everyone to indicate someone who complains about different things than they do.
Labels. Rather than use our unprecedented communication to explore and learn, we use it to scream our flatly stated opinion as loudly as possible while sticking derogatory adjective labels on anyone who doesn't immediately shout their unfettered agreement.
It's mostly 'cause ya'll are idiots who don't agree with me.
-
Meh, the student body IS the snow flakes of Austin
Yeah those dang kids are flaking out the conservative bastion of Austin, TX.
-
College should be a place where the student grows up a little facing various challenges life throws at them
not a place that shelters the student from the harsh realities of life
students need to learn that there is no God given right not to be offended
-
There were more "groups" of students when I went to college early-mid70s. The frat types were a major group. They seemed to be interested in PARTYING.
There were some hippies, including good ol' boy hippies, guys who drove jacked up Mustangs and drank beer and had a southern twang and very long hair. There were quite a few small town types who were awed by the Big City, they seemed not to survive Year One much. Then there were the premeds, who also didn't survive Year One as such in droves. A lot of the coeds were looking for the MRS. degree. And there were a few "students" mingling quietly with the rest.
-
i'd like to take some folks to Afghanistan where little boys around 4 are removed from their families and given purposes... and around six they are pitted against each other in a single fight that will alter the direction of their fates forever, the winner being trained as a fighter and heralded as a savior, hero, and future of the tribe while the loser becomes a sex slave to the elders, performing... what they perform... and washing clothes, making dinner, cleaning up- and held in lowest of esteem by the community.
that's fair as they see it. but we're to see that practice as 'culture' and we're to accept it else be condemned a bigot.
some dude in Boston wants to come down hard on some fella on the southern border trying to divert coyotes from traversing his land while some guy in the mid atlantic thinks shooting 'at' in effort to repel those people seeking to illegally enter the country is okay while that same border property owner says "why? ol' julio is a pretty good guy. I just don't want him on my property".
we got a pretty good and widely accepted contract with society in this Country, and we've held it together for a long time. I'm tired of folks set to disrupt the simple concept that got us here which is 'live and let live' which is a spin off of 'do unto others' and not too far from 'mind your own damn business and leave mine alone', all of which are far more noble than "I demand ____!!! (oh, and by the way i'm going to be needing a safe space too)."...
y'all all alright by my accounts. we may have differing opinions on things, but we got enough regard for each other to see it just as a difference.
anyway... yo @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) , I'm done 'fucking off' now... anything else you'd like me to do? heheheheeeeeee!!!!!
-
I too wish we would live by what got us here and it sure wasnt the government taking some of my stuff and giving it to
folks that they think deserve it more then me
-
This thread's taking an interesting turn.
As far as the fucking off @Drew4UTk (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1) , I'd say, WELL DONE. :)
I'll back up a little bit and offer what might be a slight correction to droog's "history of the term snowflake" because its roots run a bit deeper. First, it was a taunt thrown at younger people-- mostly millennials-- by older people (mostly baby boomers), to insult them about their perceived need to be viewed as unique and special. You know, the stereotypes that millennials are the "everyone gets a trophy" generation and the "I won't take that job because it's beneath me, so I'll just live in my parents' basement" generation.
It sort of morphed after that, since a lot of the old people using it were right wingers, and a lot of the millennials being targeted by it were left wing, and it became a taunt used by a broad group of older righties to target the "entitlement" they felt was present among the younger lefties.
And then after that, as droog said, it morphed again into "you think differently than I do and you are therefore a snowflake." Labels are grand, aren't they? Especially when they don't even have a distinct, unique meaning.
Anyway, that's just my observation. It's not written down in a history book or anything. But it could be!
-
This thread's taking an interesting turn.
As far as the fucking off @Drew4UTk (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1) , I'd say, WELL DONE. :)
I'll back up a little bit and offer what might be a slight correction to droog's "history of the term snowflake" because its roots run a bit deeper. First, it was a taunt thrown at younger people-- mostly millennials-- by older people (mostly baby boomers), to insult them about their perceived need to be viewed as unique and special. You know, the stereotypes that millennials are the "everyone gets a trophy" generation and the "I won't take that job because it's beneath me, so I'll just live in my parents' basement" generation.
It sort of morphed after that, since a lot of the old people using it were right wingers, and a lot of the millennials being targeted by it were left wing, and it became a taunt used by a broad group of older righties to target the "entitlement" they felt was present among the younger lefties.
And then after that, as droog said, it morphed again into "you think differently than I do and you are therefore a snowflake." Labels are grand, aren't they? Especially when they don't even have a distinct, unique meaning.
Anyway, that's just my observation. It's not written down in a history book or anything. But it could be!
Thats me, howd you know
-
"Snowflake" couldnt be a better term for the entitled class... Theyre all "delicate" and 'special" in their uniqueness, while being "beautiful" in their native state until someone comes along and spits tobacco juice on them, as a for instance. When that happens? Theyre hard to tell apart from that vile waste. I don't know who coined it, but it couldn't be more descriptive in a single word.
-
"Entitled" is another throwaway word. It usually means "people who get different stuff from the government than I do".
-
The term "entitlement" gets abused often. It simply means something to which you are entitled, duh. If you have health insurance, you are entitled to get some kind of coverage for health care expenses. If you have life insurance, same thing, your beneficiaries are entitled to a death benefit. If you own property, you are entitled to live there. Duh.
Entitlements are not bad.
-
"Entitled" is another throwaway word. It usually means "people who get different stuff from the government than I do".
I don't know, I think it's pretty descriptive at a macro level.
There is no doubt in my mind that my generation feels more "entitled" than my grandparents' generation (The Greatest Generation) did. It's not entirely our fault, we were simply raised with more "stuff" in a more comfortable lifestyle, more convenience, less demand for physical labor and more demand for knowledge workers, etc. And so we came to expect having more and getting more as a matter of course.
On the flipside, in general my grandparents' generation worked more hours for less pay and less buying power. Over their lifetimes they suffered more hardship from famine, disease, and war, and they didn't really complain about it. At least, not until they got really, REALLY old. :)
And in general, I also see what I consider to be even more entitlement than GenX, from the millennials. It's not every single one of them, but there's certainly a pattern. For example, my two nephews in their late 20s, both are smart, but neither graduated from high school because it was just too hard for them to wake up in the morning. Not kidding, one of them basically just couldn't wake up in the morning, didn't want to go to school, and dropped out and got his GED.
They expect the government to do a LOT more for them than I ever did, and they crave it. One of them actually got angry and posted a social media rant when the news went around that Domino's Pizza was out fixing roads. He didn't think they should be doing that, he felt it was entirely the government's responsibility (which it is of course) but that private businesses shouldn't even be allowed to do it. I was shocked. Definitely not the viewpoint I took when I heard about it. I applauded it, because I'm happy when corporations do something for the societal good, even if it's to their own advantage as well.
And all of the other myriad of examples that come to mind when one thinks of "entitled millennials" pretty much applies to them. But like I said, it's not all of them. I work closely with a couple millennials on my team at work, and they are bright, hard-working, and motivated. Still, I think the term "entitled" applies in a lot of cases, and isn't necessarily so easily written off as "he/she thinks different or gets more stuff than I do."
-
The term "entitlement" gets abused often. It simply means something to which you are entitled, duh. If you have health insurance, you are entitled to get some kind of coverage for health care expenses. If you have life insurance, same thing, your beneficiaries are entitled to a death benefit. If you own property, you are entitled to live there. Duh.
Entitlements are not bad.
Obviously, the way the term is used in the pejorative, implies that someone expects an entitlement to which they are NOT actually... entitled. In all of your examples, someone has bought and paid for a certain right or entitlement. In the case of the pejorative, that is implied to NOT be the case.
-
interesting the different definitions of a new hip term "snowflake"
here in the upper midwest (dirt farmer territory), snowflake has been used in the context that those folks are simply much too easily offended (sensative)
but, obviously different things have different definitions or different meanings
similarly, the United States flag may mean something different to a veteran of war than to another person
same with the confederate flag, to some it's a symbol of slavery, it's never been that to me.
-
So, an entitlement is one to which one is not entitled.
Fascinating. It's akin to the word "literally" which literally no longer means literally. Like you know.
Really. We should say burgled instead of burglarized. That drove a friend of mine nutty.
Champagne is wine from the Champagne district of France, except when Korbel and a few others appropriate the term. There are some still wines from Champagne, I've never had one. Do youse guys remember when a lady would order "house chablis" all the time in bars back in the day?
Chablis is also a specific area in France around the town of that name, and the region is famous for Kimmeridgian however you spell it "soils", limestone basically.
Gee, I spelled it right for a change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimmeridgian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimmeridgian)
But I digress.
-
So, an entitlement is one to which one is not entitled.
We're not talking about an "entitlement" we're talking about people feeling "entitled." They believe they are owed something that they have not earned and have no right to.
-
interesting the different definitions of a new hip term "snowflake"
here in the upper midwest (dirt farmer territory), snowflake has been used in the context that those folks are simply much too easily offended (sensative)
but, obviously different things have different definitions or different meanings
similarly, the United States flag may mean something different to a veteran of war than to another person
same with the confederate flag, to some it's a symbol of slavery, it's never been that to me.
People use it that way all over the place now. But that's not how it originated. First, it was an insult intended to convey that the accused insisted on being treated in a special or unique way. And more specifically than that, it was almost exclusively old folks targeting millennials with the accusation.
-
It has a perfectly cromulent definition. I'm suggesting it's become a throwaway word because people just attach it when they think someone is getting a government freebie.
I'm railing against a world in which very complex concepts are being reduced to the absurd and used as cudgels against those with whom we disagree.
We, who go to work, earn our compensation fairly and above board, then return home to our chores and leisure, celebrate the notion of "limited government". It seems compatible with maximal freedom, and who wouldn't want more freedom? It seems most equitable.
In doing so, we leave unspoken the notion of road building, sewage, the building codes, and professional licenses like dentistry. We don't recognize law enforcement, education, nor the elevator inspector. Even then, there's still the capital finance and taxation strata that fund our employers and their customers.
We don't dwell on these because they're a part of being American, and they should be. Guarding the well being of citizenry in their daily pursuits underpins the ethical legitimacy of government. Being able to leave our dwellings and go out into the world, being reasonably secure in person and property, allows us to improve it.
TLDR: Your benefit is a handout. My benefit is a right.
-
Cudgels is a great word.
-
It has a perfectly cromulent definition. I'm suggesting it's become a throwaway word because people just attach it when they think someone is getting a government freebie.
I'm railing against a world in which very complex concepts are being reduced to the absurd and used as cudgels against those with whom we disagree.
We, who go to work, earn our compensation fairly and above board, then return home to our chores and leisure, celebrate the notion of "limited government". It seems compatible with maximal freedom, and who wouldn't want more freedom? It seems most equitable.
In doing so, we leave unspoken the notion of road building, sewage, the building codes, and professional licenses like dentistry. We don't recognize law enforcement, education, nor the elevator inspector. Even then, there's still the capital finance and taxation strata that fund our employers and their customers.
We don't dwell on these because they're a part of being American, and they should be. Guarding the well being of citizenry in their daily pursuits underpins the ethical legitimacy of government. Being able to leave our dwellings and go out into the world, being reasonably secure in person and property, allows us to improve it.
TLDR: Your benefit is a handout. My benefit is a right.
There's a distinction between common goods that benefit everyone, or "society in general," and programs targeted to benefit some people in particular.
Law enforcement, courts, streets, roads, mail delivery (decreasingly), general rule of law are common goods.
OTOH, commodity cheese programs and their ilk have specific beneficiaries.
-
That's all fair.
I still see far more "entitlement" in my generation than where was in my grandparents'. I believe that's indisputable.
I also see somewhat more "entitlement" in the millennials, compared to my own generation. That, however, is not indisputable, rather it is debatable.
I think part of it, is the self-awareness and the recognition that I want something for myself, and I can admit that it might not be what another person wants. That will necessitate some discussion, some negotiation, and likely some concession on my part, since I live in a society with others that might not share my same values and expectations.
But I I see less of that awareness and recognition in the next generation. Speaking broadly, they seem to think that their thoughts and ideas should be exclusively catered to-- they have less understanding of the conflicts of person, of desire, of expectation, and of the means by which such entitlements are earned.
But like I said, that's a generalization and I also work with several millennials who do not fit the broad stereotype at all.
-
People use it that way all over the place now. But that's not how it originated. First, it was an insult intended to convey that the accused insisted on being treated in a special or unique way. And more specifically than that, it was almost exclusively old folks targeting millennials with the accusation.
there isn't too much that originates in these parts
by the time it gets to flyover country it's been thru the mill
-
There's a distinction between common goods that benefit everyone, or "society in general," and programs targeted to benefit some people in particular.
Law enforcement, courts, streets, roads, mail delivery (decreasingly), general rule of law are common goods.
OTOH, commodity cheese programs and their ilk have specific beneficiaries.
There is "food" for thought there.
Almost all government programs will have a more narrow than considered beneficiary. A cheese program (I actually like rat cheese) might benefit the poor, but may also benefit the dairy farmer. Far and away, our government funds the defense industry with the majority of our outlays. For that, we get not just defense, but manufacturing jobs from materials all the way to technology research.
In a more broad aspect, the "haves" benefit from not being terrorized by the "have nots" seeking food through violent means. A government that provides a mechanism to earn vast wealth from speculation should probably provide health security its population as well.
When we lived hundreds of miles apart from each other and largely sustained ourselves through our own hand, government had a role more suited to funding large projects for the benefit of the nation. In that time, a few individuals made quite a profit from those projects. We were all better for it. Nowadays, we cannot (or do not) exist independent of each other. Leveraging economies of scale for our overall benefit would be a proper use of government.
How's THAT for morphing a thread? We started out bantering SEC superiority, and are currently debating Hobbsian government ethics!
-
it's not 'programs' that benefit some off the funding of others... at all. not even a little. it's the systematic abuse of 'programs' that is the issue.
i recall getting out of the Marine Corps and going to the unemployment office as i was being encouraged as a place to find a job, and them straight up pressing to go on various 'programs'- saying as much as "why do you want to take a minimum wage job topping at (then) $9k/year when you can pull $24k on these programs?"... meaning the 'system' is often arranged to trap those already distressed by offering something that's too good to be true.
I know a lot of guys who pull 100% VA unemployable income at $3200/mo and then SSID at another $3k a month and pay taxes on only a portion of the SSID, and clear more than mid level managers in mid/late career when they're still in their 20's. what is their incentive to find work, even though they're fully capable of working (and would likely hugely benefit mentally by doing so.. idle hands and all that).
i don't want to type anymore... just leave it at "it's not the 'programs', it ABUSE of 'programs', and it's the people who think access to these programs is they're somehow 'entitled' to them even though they have to cheat to get them".
-
That's all I want as an old grumpy conservative....
just don't allow lampant abuse of well meaning programs
also, there is no reason for inefficiencies and corruption from the government agencies in charge of these programs
simply do the right thing with tax dollars
-
That's all I want as an old grumpy conservative....
just don't allow lampant abuse of well meaning programs
also, there is no reason for inefficiencies and corruption from the government agencies in charge of these programs
simply do the right thing with tax dollars
Unfortunately, there is a reason for inefficiencies and corruption in government agencies. There are human beings in there pulling the levers and transferring the money from Point A to Poing Z. And some of them will manage to transfer some of that money to themselves or their friends. It's very hard to form a government program that incentivizes efficiency--does the right thing with tax dollars--because what that would do is get that program's budget cut the following year. The natural tendency of a government program is to grow its budget and the number of people it serves, including the people who are not the official beneficiaries. Efficiency gets in the way of that.
That's not just welfare programs; it's the military (Air Force buying $500 hammers and $300 toilet seats? Army reinventing camouflage uniforms every 3 or 4 years?), it's the Secret Service (paying for whores on government credit cards, anyone?), and every other sort of government program, at every level of government, as well. Highway construction, for example, is a particular state-and-local boondoggle, and the fact that the roads don't ever last long before they need to be re-constructed is part of the boondoggle. And highways supposed to be are a common good, not an overt handout to a particular entitlement group.
-
Yup, I'm not a fan of government
-
while a FAST Marine we would often 'borrow' equipment from squeal team six, now called DevGru... that one singular unit in Dam Neck had a budget larger than the entire Marine Corps. They had all kinds of toys- i mean ALL kinds. atop that, every operator had a credit card 'impact card' in his pocket and authorization to use it to buy equipment COTS they felt would assist them in whatever job they were up to... there is a joint called London Bridge in VaBeach that has made a fortune off those guys making web gear and such, as a singular example... i bought a ghillie suit from them once- top quality.
anyway... we went out there one day to 'bum' some plain ol' M998's (standard HMMWV's) for some training and those guys were in a little cove adjacent their compound with carpenter belts on.. driving nails.. we were WTF?'n and were told "we have $40k to blow from the rec fund, else we lose it- and decided to take a break and build a proper pavilion down by the water here... want a beer?".
must be nice. the entire USMC is funded by hand me down's. When in Somalia, we 'borrowed' 150 brand new M-4's from JSOC when they were popping smoke... We never gave them back- they literally wrote them off.. meanwhile, in the Marine Corps, if you lose a friggin' sling off a rifle your ass is grass and you'd think it a congressional investigation to find it or replace it- complete with page 11 entries or NJP's in SRB's. freak show.
punch line? there is another unit in the military with a budget larger than DevGru.... once in Qatar aboard As Saliyah a group passed us by in their little tricked out nissan p/u's missing glass and with mount in bed and tires i've never seen before or since- had knobbies the size of your fist not only in normal tread area but all the way up the sidewalls and with two piece steel rims. we knew the squeals and we knew pretty much all of the JSOC guys there... this wasn't them. when the question was asked "who was that?" i knew right off the bat, because even the squeals and CAG/ACE lust after those fella's gear. I bet one of those tires alone was $50-75k after inflated mil prices. I wish i were kidding or exaggerating.
by the way.. they used those vehicles to chase down republican guard and then insurgents through the desserts of western Iraq... who were using toyota landcruiser RJ45 variants 20~30 years old and with tires likely ordered off of tire rack's 1990 closeout sales.... and couldn't catch them for the most part, until they upgraded that is.
-
Drew:
My first TO&E assignment in the Army was as a rifle platoon leader in the 82nd Abn Div. Really, really enjoyed that. After about nine months of that, I got "promoted" to lead the mortar platoon in the same rifle company. 3 x 81mm mortars plus FDC capability in 4 M151A-something quarter-ton trucks. (In aviation, where I was later, everybody called 'em jeeps. But not in the airborne infantry. There, they were 1/4-ton trucks.) Because I had 4 of the company's 8 vehicles (3 more 1/4-tons plus an M561 Gama Goat 6x6 articulated POS), I had the additional duty of company motor officer.
My mortar platoon spent some time at various firing points around the Fort Bragg impact areas practicing (IIRC) "occupation" and "ready for action." Basically, driving into a reasonably cleared area, setting up the aiming circle (my job) and the three mortars and seeing how quickly we could be ready to take a call for fire. (The best NCO I ever worked was my platoon sergeant there. Toward the end of my time in that job, we won the division 81-mm mortar platoon competition over 26 other platoons. It was all due to him.)
A couple of times we encountered USMC Artillery units from (IIRC) Camp Lejeune. Their vehicles always looked a lot nicer than ours. Ours never got repainted. If there was bare metal exposed, they got "spot-painted" with some random camouflage color. They generally looked as if they had leprosy. The Marine trucks and other vehicles looked like they were practically factory-fresh.
I talked to our battalion motor officer--an old warrant officer who had seen many things come and many things go--about it, asking why our vehicles looked like beat-up old pieces of crap compared to those of the Marines. He told me that the Marines put all their emphasis on how those vehicles looked and little emphasis on how they were maintained, while we did the opposite.
I have no way of knowing if what he said was true. He could have had multiple motives for telling me that, and not all of them would need that story to be true. But I always kept that in mind when I saw freshly repainted military vehicles. Of any service.
-
heheheheee- i live in between MCAS Camp Lejeune and MCAS Cherry Point, where a lot of embark takes place (embark in this case meaning shipping, loaded up at the Beaufort docks). I see massive convoys on at least a monthly basis pass within a half mile of my house.... you wanna know what every fifth or so vehicle is? A recovery vehicle. Those things, no matter what variation, are always broken down for some reason or another.
"if you can't astound them with knowledge, baffle them with bull spit" is alive and well, sir. A little make-up and a little paint, will make her something she ain't being a descendant of that lead cliche.
funny story: i got into mountain biking heavily a few years back. at the time, the trail on Camp Lejeune was "the brig trail" which cut behind the brig (duh). it was a decent trail with some decent obstacles and inter-wound between tank training trails. They didn't mind if we 'moved dirt' to make more obstacles... which we did. often.
we found a depression in the ground and decided to dig out a likely 20' long 10' wide 8' deep 'scoop' and tossed the sand/dirt removed on one end of it making a decently functional launch... we had to do it with shovels. we, uh, found something in that hole.
a freakin' fully intact jeep. glass, body, decayed seats and frames, engine- complete. tires were on it- decayed and rotten, telling us it had been subterranean for a good while.
after some digging around (this time through records) we think we figured it out. back in 'the day' and when MotorT was facing a Commanding Generals Inspection, the practice was to 'hide' broken equipment. we're thinking that jeep was buried using another piece of equipment the motor pool had, and simply to hide non-functional equipment and 'passing' inspection.
as i said... freak show.
we ended up actually running some dimensional lumber over that thing and riding right over top as a 'skinny' obstacle before the burst climb and launch... it made a pretty unique 'obstacle' when we had regional mt.bike races there in the years following, and before they kicked us off that patch of ground.
-
A buried jeep! :57:
-
The Auburn-Florida game was a "defensive slug fest", or competitions by two inept offences. I'm curious how well LSU can move the ball on UF, I suspect pretty well. Auburn has a pretty good D but their offense is spotty and the turnovers in that game were epic. One DL scooped and tripped on the 35 yard line.
UGA is playing decent defense. They have some injuries, but so does everyone else.
-
so i don't talk a lot of football on here... turns out playing the bells and whistles and source code takes a good chunk out of that activity... but i still watch.
i reckon lessons like yesterday are better applied than ignored, and that's what i'm going to try to do... meaning:
Auburn wasn't near as good as I thought they were. UF's O is a LOT better than i thought... NEITHER are world beaters. However I'd like to ask WHY doesn't Auburn play and hit the fastest player in college football more? It's baffling. If I were coaching, that fool would be a part of the play at least 25% of the time- enough that D's would put a cross hair on him and open other dimensions. I just don't get that.
Again OU does the RPO thing, and leans on Miles for four quarters- talent, size, speed took over. your A squad may match up, but depth is where it's at... ask Pruitt over in Tennessee about that. Texas? Did same thing... they plink and plunk- and then the 'lean'- these 'have' teams beat the 'have nots' by leaning on them for four quarters, which isn't unlike games of eras past, but the way they do it is different.... it's like bottling fire- you can do it for a while, but if you let even a finger of that fire free? You're cooked.
the game i enjoyed most was freakin' Tulsa and SMU.. very entertaining game.
I DO love this game.
why don't y'all play the 'group of 12'? https://www.cfb51-LINE.com ... choose CFB Group of 12. no lines, no covers, just winners and ties... choose the most games right of all participants? there is a payday coming your way.
-
y'all should play the group of 12
I've been doing well and I'm certainly not the smart guy here
-
https://www.facebook.com/secshorts/videos/390760521619795/ (https://www.facebook.com/secshorts/videos/390760521619795/)
Big Orange.
-
Man, thats stings a little cincy.
But as usual, ol Bear has it wrong. If there is a trick and I'm not disputing the existence of a trick, the trick would be adopting a persona void of self awareness. Drive all conversations to the cutcliffe/FULMER/chavis era or to three seasons out when UT will make their next appearance as MNC's.
-
I saw some encouraging signs from the Vols Sat. night. They just need better talent, depth, experience, and strength and conditioning.
-
I saw some encouraging signs from the Vols Sat. night. They just need better talent, depth, experience, and strength and conditioning.
Which is to say........... They need to retool and rebuild ground up. Heheheheheeee
-
Vols were looking really solid early, no offense intended to our good friend CD but I was pulling for the orange UT team.
Just not enough depth there to hang with a top team for that long, I think. Ms State should be a winnable game though.