PN-G bamatex

I generally agree that LSU is our toughest regular season match-up. But I'm not going to call that a 2-3 possession win. That's a game we may win by a field goal or less. If LSU plays against us the way they played Georgia and Miami, I'm legitimately scared. If it's a night game, I'm terrified.

I don't think anybody's crossed the line yet, but I wanted to nip it in the bud before anybody does.

A quick reminder that the forum rules bar singling out or ridiculing players.

You see this a lot in the recruiting at the college level. When the spread became the norm in Texas, we stopped producing top quality defensive linemen at the same level as other states that haven't embraced it. If you look at a map of where the best defensive linemen in the country come from, the top producing states are all in SEC country, where we still play 'grown man football' from Pop Warner to the pros, followed by the B1G states. Texas produces some incredible quarterbacks and players at the skills positions, but we just don't shell out a lot of super talented players on the D-Line. We do put up a lot of talent in our secondaries (I can't be a good Alabama fan and forget the likes of Tony Brown and Deionte Thompson), but that's also a product of a state where pass-prolific offenses reign supreme. Southeast Texas is a little bit of an exception to the rule with the likes of WO-S and Nederland. But Faircloth's not a product of the Golden Triangle football academy. He cut his teeth at places like Odessa Permian, where Mack Brown's spread offense is the law of the land. For what it's worth, I'm hopeful Jimbo Fisher will change some of that. But if he does, it'll take a while.

We talked a lot this year about PN-G's 72-69 win over Crosby in the playoffs last year. Seems it wasn't that long ago that PN-G beat Dayton 42-41, or something like that, in the first round of the playoffs. As I recall, somebody went back and looked it up. That was the Indians' first win over the Broncos since 1947. Lots of history between these two. It was my freshman year of high school, 2007, when PN-G beat Lumberton, who beat Dayton, who beat PN-G, splitting the district championship three ways. I seem to recall PN-G losing to Dayton in the first round of the playoffs around 2014 or so (at Lamar, maybe). I wasn't there, but I've heard stories about PN-G's first round loss to Dayton in 1998 with Dustin Long at quarterback. Everyone remembers Mr. Long's playoff run the following year. Given Dayton's history, it's unfortunate to see how they're doing in the post-Stewart era. Still don't want to count them out, though. Never know what a game against the Broncos is going to look like. I'll call it for the Indians, but not by more than two possessions.

By high school football board standards, political forum standards or youth football league standards?

Oh, I hear you. I just enjoy trolling Nederland, and it’s really easy to do on this subject. If PN-G and Crosby have a rivalry in the making, I’d say it looks a lot less like our rivalries with Nederland and TJ and a lot more like the pseudo-rivalries we had with WO-S and Beaumont Central. It’s not a rivalry built out of genuine hate and decades of history, it’s a rivalry built out of genuine competition year in and year out. I’d bet good money that PN-G and Crosby are going to be in the same district for a several seasons to come, so I guess we’ll see where it goes. But if we’re gonna have a rivalry, we’re gonna start it off right with me pointing out that we played Crosby three times when I was in high school and we won 29-28, 37-7 and 38-7, respectively. That first score was one of the only three wins we scored in Matt Burnett’s last season, as I recall. The Cougars were more like kitty-cats back then.

Wait, all-time records matter in rivalries? Cue the Nederland posters in 3... 2... 1...

After Roschon was hurt and we lost to Huntsville, I told y'all we were going to see how this team responds to adversity. I told y'all we were going to find out what they were made of. We found out what they're made of tonight. Great game, Cougars. Good luck the rest of the season. Scalp 'em, Indians, and God bless Roschon Johnson.

This is what I get for posting when I'm not paying attention.

Baylor at #9 Texas (-14) #22 Texas A&M (-2.5) at South Carolina (I don't think it will be that close.) Pitt at #5 Notre Dame (-21) Michigan St at #8 Penn St. (-13.5) #7 Washington (-3) at #17 Oregon #2 Georgia (-7.5) at #13 LSU (The only reason I think Georgia won't cover is the game's location.) #16 Miami (-7) at Virginia (By more than that.) Missouri at #1 Alabama (-27.5) (We better not give up 31 points again. Also, Dixieland Delight is back.) #15 Wisconsin at #12 Michigan (-9.5) (Michigan won't cover.) #19 Colorado at USC (-7.5) (My upset pick for the week.) #6 West Virginia (-7) at Iowa St

And the other side WILL leave with it stuck in their heads.

I’m going to start handing out suspensions if it doesn’t stop. I’m on a phone right now, otherwise I already would have.

Evidently, y’all didn’t see this the first time. Cut down on the personal insults and get back to the football. No more bashing of a particular vocation or a particular SETXSports user by anyone.

Y'all keep the personal insults down and get back on topic.

Lol, I completely understand.

If I recall correctly, he lost the ball on that hit that knocked him out of the Huntsville game (could honestly be wrong). That's the only time I think he's had a turnover.

I take your point, and I'm not trying to quibble with it in this post. I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but I think the issue is broader than what you've outlined here. Simply put, I think we have a generation of people that has lost its sense of reality. It's not merely that people around my age were raised without a sense of discipline or morality. This generation has not had to grow up living with the same, harsh realities that prior generations had to contend with. I think what I'm trying to say here is best explained through examples. There are young women that I went to law school with at UT who will look you in the eye and tell you, with a straight face, that your mere existence as a white male means you will always have power over them. You can ask them what they mean by that, and most of them won't even try to explain it to you. They'll tell you it's just something you wouldn't understand. The gist of their argument appears to be that men carry out certain microagressions in professional environments which inherently oppress women, and there are certain things men can get away with doing that would be looked at differently if carried out by women (though they'll never accept the corollary that there are things women can get away with which men can't). Occasionally, they'll point to general, conceptual examples, though I've rarely seen them offer hard evidence even by anecdote. The most popular one I've heard proffered is that a man's assertiveness is characterized as confidence and desired in the work place, where a woman's assertiveness is characterized as "b*tchiness" and shunned. I've looked - hard - for concrete examples of this, and haven't been able to find it either at the law school or in working for a host of state and federal offices during law school and since graduation. The best example I've been able to come up with to date involved important contextual factors that simply eviscerate the point. But even accepting this as a premise, the best example that these very intelligent, driven women can come up with of the "oppression" they face boils down to office semantics. More tangible issues, like the pay gap or the number of women holding executive positions, are undermined when factors like maternity leave and the number of women who leave the workplace altogether to raise children are accounted for. The infinitely more significant factor in this equation, though, and the one that seems to get overlooked the most in my experience, is that the same women who will tell you this with a straight face at UT Law, and I imagine in dozens of other highfalutin academic circles around the country, will turn around and leave the building they have access to because their father is paying their tuition through a trust fund, go to the $200 parking space in the nearest garage that their father purchased access to, hop in a BMW, Mercedes, Lexus or Range Rover that their father bought, and drive to the million dollar condo down on Rainey Street that their father rents with his oil money. The whole time, they're carrying around the Louis Vuitton handbags and the Prada sunglasses they received as Christmas and birthday presents from - you guessed it - their parents. They'll spend their breaks from school on vacations in East Asia, or the Bahamas, or Europe, or Latin America, all expenses paid for by - guess who - their fathers. The women that say this are not the middle and working class women of America who help keep America running; the ones who go out and do real work to earn their paychecks every day can't even spell Louis Vuitton, much less afford it. These women have never had to fight for the right to vote, which was so coveted by Susan B. Anthony. They never watched the family fortune evaporate, and have never been left wondering if they'll have food on the table or clothes on their back like so many millions of women were during the Great Depression. They've never done an ounce of real, physical labor, like the millions of women who stepped up to the plate to perform during the manpower shortages of World War II, just to be sent back to the kitchen when the men came home and could work the jobs again. The women who make these claims were never passed around in the Antebellum slave trade, or in the modern day sex trade. These women who run around saying these things never had to fight for the passage of egalitarian milestones like Title VII; they've never walked into a workplace where their paychecks were literally withheld until they performed sexual favors, because they've never lived in a world where the law allows that. And yet these women have the audacity to claim they know what 'oppression' is because they feel a few things they say or do may be mischaracterized by men in the workplace. The very idea indicates to me that they don't know what actual oppression is. And why should they? We've done a damn fine job of eliminating it in this country so they wouldn't have to. The unfortunate side effect, though, is that when these little inconsequential incidents occur, they're taken as the dead giveaway of sexism by a generation that hasn't experienced real sexism and thus can't differentiate. On a very related note, I think the same issue presents itself with respect to all of this newfound outrage over sexual assault. Once upon a time, rape was what happened to the poor, defenseless woman who was cornered in a parking garage or a back alley late at night. It involved real violence - as in beatings, lacerations and even gunshots. That conception was formed by generations of Americans who lived in far more violent eras than the one we're in today. And it was against that background that we construed other forms of sexual contact. It wasn't that long ago that drunk sex was something Willie Nelson wrote songs about, and the subject of those awkward scenes in romantic comedies. When it happened in real life, at worst, it was a regrettable mistake. 99% of the time, the parties got over it and moved on with their lives, understanding that people have been getting drunk and having sex since alcohol was invented. Heck, sometimes, relationships even formed out of it. In that world, drunk sex and rape were flatly incomparable. They were just two different things. But now, if two people get drunk and have sex on a college campus, it's a sexual assault. Heck, at UT, even if both parties were drunk and can't remember having sex, the guy still committed a sexual assault - there's a lawsuit over that very case right now. That is the product of a generation that doesn't know what violent rape actually is. We are fortunate today that violent crime rates, including sexual assault rates, are at historic lows. We just don't see the street violence in this country that we did even twenty years ago. The unfortunate side effect, though, is that this generation, which has never had to live in that violent world, conflates drunk sex with actual rape. They just don't have the raw experience to draw the distinction. The same can be said for the changing conceptions surrounding guns. There were whole generations of Americans who fought in long, terribly bloody wars with guns everywhere. To the men who spent four years driving tanks in Europe and firing 16" shells from battleships in the Pacific, the idea of a man with an AR-15 just isn't all that scary. They've seen worse. The guys who spent a decade in Vietnam getting shot at by guerrillas with AK-47s don't take much issue with the idea of buying an AK of your own to have around the house if things ever get out of hand - they know exactly how good of a gun that is. But to the kids who barely remember 9/11 and didn't pay all that much attention to Iraq, the mere presence of a Glock is earth-shattering. On that note, it shouldn't be lost on anyone that a generation that throws around the word "Nazi" with the likes of Donald Trump and his supporters has never lived in a world where actual Nazis had actual power; if they were alive today, I shutter to think what my great uncles who went ashore at Normandy and helped liberate Buchenwald would say to the white liberals who think they know what a Nazi is. And I can't make a post like this and not mention the LGBTQ+ movement. I have sat there when transgendered students have literally said their very right to exist is abridged by multi-stall bathrooms reserved for specific sexes. It wasn't that long ago that homosexuals were castrated, tarred, feathered, burned at the stake and/or hung by their entrails. Now they can get married. It wasn't that long ago that transgendered persons were committed to mental institutions. Now they can get on the cover of Time Magazine. A generation that hasn't seen those burnings, hangings and so on doesn't understand what infringing on a person's right to exist really is. I say all of that to say this: I think you're correct in saying that we have a generation of "spoiled brats," but I think it's a mistake to narrowly describe them as spoiled because their parents have given them whatever they want or they haven't received proper moral instruction. They're spoiled in the sense that they've grown up in a world free of the lion's share of brutalities prior generations dealt with every day, and sacrificed substantially to eliminate. For all the benefits of that, the bad biproduct has been a generation that's lost vital perspective, and doesn't realize how good it's got it.

I’ll admit to being skeptical of the Herman hire before today. Before today.

Listened to most of the game. Vidor always play us hard and it sounds like tonight was no exception. Glad to hear the Indians are back to their winning ways, and that Roschon is back at full speed. Good luck during the rest of what's shaping up to be a great season, Pirates.

Susan Collins gave an excellent speech in which she explained her decision to vote for Kavanaugh's confirmation. "Some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee. "Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamental legal principles—about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness—do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them. "In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy. "The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee’s otherwise exemplary record. I worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward. "Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape. This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness." -- Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) [Hidden Content] It's a fitting end to this mess that a female, Republican United States Senator from a solidly blue state should be the one to cast the swing vote confirming Kavanugh tomorrow evening, and to articulate such a thoughtful rationale so well-grounded in our nation's core philosophical principles today. A lot of my faith in our system of government was restored today.

I can see the Historical Commission's landmark now. "Constructed when Anglo settlers first colonized the area under Mexican land grants in the late 1820s, Bulldog Stadium has been the continuous home of the Nederland High School football team since before the high school even existed. It is one of the only structures in the state to have survived the 'Runaway Scrape,' the scorched earth policy instituted by Sam Houston during his retreat from Mexican President-General Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana's forces prior to the Battle of San Jacinto in 1836. When asked whether the stadium should be burned, then-General Houston is rumored to have responded, 'It's not worth the lighter fluid.' "Dick Dowling and his men are said to have used the field to practice drills before fighting the Battle of Sabine Pass in 1863; in fact, local legend holds that Nederland's dogmatic dedication to military style marching bands stems from the Confederate colonel's wartime routines, and that the uniforms worn by Nederland's marching band to this day are the same ones donated by Dowling's men in 1865 because they were of no further use after the Confederacy surrendered. Patillo Higgins is said to have hosted games on the field for his wildcatters during company recreational events around the time the Spindletop geyser began producing oil in 1901. "When the stadium began showing its extreme age in the mid-1930s, United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt offered to replace it through the Works Progress Administration. Nederland ISD turned the offer down, however, due largely to opposition efforts headed by the SETXSports poster formerly known as 'smitty,' who charged that the WPA was a 'socialist program' that would inevitably lead to higher taxes, and that President Roosevelt was a 'communist' who would be a better fit to lead 'Stalinist Russia' than America. smitty was later instrumental in the election of Joe McCarthy. "In 1984, the stadium hosted Nederland's first win over the arch-rival Port Neches-Groves Indians since 1965. Local legend and substantial eyewitness testimony suggest that Nederland ISD's groundskeepers wet the field before the game to slow the Indian ground game, eventually culminating in a 13-7 win. Grown men in the Nederland stands are said to have briefly ceased their incessant barking to openly weep as time expired, as none of the students then involved in the game were old enough to remember the last time Nederland had beaten PN-G. In honoring the win, considered legendary in Nederland but mostly ignored by the rest of Southeast Texas, the field has been kept continuously - and suspiciously - muddy for more than three decades. "During early 2000s renovations, a local Nederland family donated their mid-1990s 'big box' TV for use as a jumbotron. Nederland ISD gladly accepted the hand-me-down, and the television sits atop brick pillars today, providing low definition instant replays for those in the stands not too annoyed by the stadium's terrible sound system to watch. (2018)"

I thought Nederland preferred wet fields?

#19 Texas vs #7 Oklahoma (-7.5) #13 Kentucky at Texas A&M (-6) (My upset pick for the week. Y'all don't disappoint me.) #1 Alabama (-33.5) at Arkansas (Lol.) Florida St at #17 Miami (-12.5) #5 LSU (-3.5) at #22 Florida (I honestly don't understand how the spread is this close. I watched LSU beat a good Auburn team at their place and absolutely demolish Ole Miss at home. Florida's getting better, but Mullen still has a lot of rebuilding to do. LSU should be favored by more.) Indiana at #3 Ohio St. (-25) #8 Auburn (-3) at Miss St. (As much as I hate to say it, I don't think this one will be that close either.) #6 Notre Dame (-5) at #24 Virginia Tech Maryland at #15 Michigan (-17) #10 Washington (-21) at UCLA Nebraska at #16 Wisconsin (-21)

Y'all please shut Mike Stoops up.