PN-G bamatex

  If you're going where I think you're going with that, you are opening up a can of worms I can guarantee you don't want to get into.

  I think she's talking about territorial annexation, not statehood.

  No, I'm not saying that the ranking systems are without flaws. No system is perfect. But at least with the BCS, you had a ranking system that statistically accounted for all of the major ranking systems, both those based on human opinion (i.e. the AP and Coaches polls) and those based on hard data (all the different computer polls). That, in my opinion, is about as close to an objective opinion as you can possibly get, and certainly much closer than the opinion of some thirteen member committee.   As for your suggestion, I made a long post on here about three years ago advocating an eight team playoff system. The five power conference champions plus the three highest ranked teams that aren't conference champs. Keep the BCS system of rankings. I thought then and still think now that it's the only way to really have a playoff that accounts for everyone's concerns.

  Whether or not it should have happened is irrelevant. I may personally disagree with that assertion, but regardless of what you or I think, the fact of the matter is that it did happen.   As for the playoff, we now have a thirteen member committee deciding which teams get in and which don't. You may very well be right in saying that this committee won't let two teams from the same conference get into the playoff in an attempt to add legitimacy to what is, in my opinion, a bogus system. But if you're correct, then that essentially means politics, and not skill, talent, record versus strength of schedule or any objective criteria, will be deciding who gets to compete for the acclaim of the country's best team. If you ask me, that's worse than the BCS.

  And an SEC rematch in the national championship was impossible in the BCS era.   I didn't say it was likely. I just said there's a solid chance. We'll see how things work out.

  And that very fact is why we have a solid chance of putting two SEC teams in the playoffs IF the season plays out the right way.

The definition of dominance is having more than half of your conference in the Top 25.

[Hidden Content]   The workforce data makes you wonder.   Note: *Recovery. The things you notice when you forget to proofread.

[Hidden Content]

  I'm reserving judgment because I don't think any analysis can really be complete and reliable with this question mark hanging over the QB position. I think he was being pretty conservative with the play calling (especially in the first half) to give Sims a chance to get acclimated and to get a feel for what the offense is capable of in a real game. That makes it hard to analyze his play-calling on its own merits. For example, there were several instances where I would normally expect play action or a shot downfield and we would try a screen pass or run the ball instead, but I can't tell you if that's indicative of a real shift in Alabama's offensive philosophy since Kiffin came on board or if it's just Kiffin being conservative due to the circumstances.   I have some pretty serious concerns about Sims, though. I'm willing to chalk some of it up to nerves since he seemed to straighten out in the second half, but there were a lot of underthrown balls at very bad times and he had a habit of throwing into coverage when he had other guys wide open. If he can't handle pressure from West Virginia well, I have serious concerns about what's going to happen when we take on a real, SEC defense, if he wins the job. I'm anxious to see what Coker can do against FAU, even though that'll basically be comparing apples to oranges.

[Hidden Content]   Not worth a hill of beans this early in the season, but interesting, nonetheless.   Cue Longhorn/Aggie hate posts.

Classic LSU freight train syndrome. Hard as heck to get into the game, but once they get rolling, they're almost impossible to stop.

I could go into my analysis, but I don't think anyone really cares, so I'll just say this: we have a lot of work to do.

[Hidden Content]

  Well, this was a pleasant surprise.

Children, please stop arguing.

I would actually personally prefer that A&M win this because I like it when the SEC West dominates the East. Plus I don't like Steve Spurrier.   That said, Cocks take it, 45-24.

  Are you as big of an arse in real life as you are on this website?

I only glanced through the description of the research, but if I understand this correctly, they're trying to determine the best fanbases by loyalty and dedication based on a number of factors. One of those factors is the stability of fan support during seasons where the program doesn't perform well, or at least as well as expected.   That's a double-edged sword for both UT and A&M.

Interesting study.   [Hidden Content]   [Hidden Content]

  Correction.

And there it is. She can't deny that her question was answered anymore, so she has to dismiss the answer as though it's completely fallacious simply because it doesn't support her side.

    I've literally already explained this twice, but fine. What's a third time hurt?   The Local Government Code in Texas cites intoxication as a specific grounds for removal of a district attorney. A DUI, obviously, constitutes intoxication. However, while it makes that cause explicit, it does not explicitly charge a specific public entity with carrying out the removal. Instead, it places the burden of filing the petition for the removal of a DA on those grounds on the residents of the county in which that DA resides who have lived in said county for at least six months and are not under indictment by that DA at the time of petitioning.   The Travis County DA's office houses the Public Integrity Unit, which was created by a former DA in the 80s specifically because of the high incidence of public corruption cases in Travis County due to its hosting the state capitol. To paraphrase Ronnie Earle, the now-retired Travis County DA who created the unit, it is specifically charged with investigating cases of corruption and prosecuting corrupt officials in Travis County. By default, this would include officials at the municipal, county and state level within the county's borders, including the DA herself if necessary, as it obviously would be in this case. And, since the PIU is bound to follow state law, it would, by default, be required to file the petition for removal of its own boss as prescribed in the Local Government Code. It never did.   The Public Integrity Unit is not something that every DA's office in every county has. It is in fact unique to Travis County. So, by default, that renders Travis County a special case. In the other two counties where those other two DAs preside, there is no division of their office charged specifically with investigating public corruption or, as necessary, those specific DAs. Does that change the fact that those two DAs should be removed from office? Absolutely not. What it means is that there's effectively nobody there to remove them except the citizens they serve, unlike in Travis County. And, by proxy, it means that there's no specific unit that Governor Perry could threaten to veto funding for to try and force a removal, which effectively renders your question irrelevant.

I'm not going to get up here and defend the entire profession, but I do think there are people in office whose sole goal in life isn't to simply get reelected. I think they're outnumbered, but they do exist.

  I have already answered that question in a separate post.     No, she doesn't. Which is why I get tired of arguing with her. It's like going in circles. She brings up a point or some irrelevant bit of information that you completely trump with fact, and then two posts later, she's bringing it up again. She either doesn't read it, or she doesn't truly think through what she's reading.