PN-G bamatex

  Call you an idiot that's now officially beneath contempt. That's what.   Your comparison of Hawaii and Ukraine is bogus. End of conversation.

  Did you actually just accuse me of lying?   [Hidden Content]         Further reading will reveal to you that it was not until the following presidential administration that Hawaii's annexation became a serious possibility, and that President Cleveland, who was a friend of the Hawaiian queen's, wanted nothing to do with it. The first democratic, pro-American reform in Hawaii took place in 1887, a full decade before territorial annexation would be granted.   Most importantly, however, is that US military forces never invaded Hawaii prior to their democratic revolution, unlike in the Ukraine, where Putin's forces had invaded Crimea before the election took place.

  As I said, you didn't take the course I thought you were going to. Although this one is arguably equally as asinine.   It's hard to argue we didn't give them a choice when we initially refused to annex Hawaii because the queen had been overthrown. I'm no expert in Hawaiian history, but it seems pretty clear after glancing through the Wikipedia page that much of what happened in Hawaii was an internal struggle over the country's monarchy and constitution that America spent about a decade trying to stay out of.   It takes an awful lot of spinning to try and liken that to the situation in Ukraine.

  Posts like this are why this site shouldn't have a limit on how many likes you can give in a single day.

  You would have seen that patience wear very, very thin if she had gone where I thought she was going.

  Maybe it's different because US military forces didn't invade Hawaii first and then have the people decide if they wanted to be an American territory?

I realize it's very early in the season to say this, but I think this game may decide the SEC East. South Carolina will want redemption from the A&M game and it's at home, but Georgia has two weeks to prepare. I think Georgia keeps their roll alive and wins by 10+.

  Fair enough.

  I'm glad someone admits that. Props.   I personally am very optimistic about Strong. UT picked a good coach. But he has more to overcome than I think any first year head coach in UT history ever has, especially in the recruiting game. A&M, Baylor and even Tech all have a lot more clout than they used to, and there's even more competition from out of state now that the SEC is represented in Texas.

You know, sometimes I really just have to sit back and wonder if the UT fans realize how much the rest of the country's fanbases have been laughing at them over the Longhorn network, its unintended consequences, the demise of Mack Brown and the shell of a conference they now play in for the past three years.   And I say that as someone who hopes to be in Austin wearing burnt orange next year.

  Check your PMs.       :D   That's actually kind of how we got Alaska.

  Why don't you elaborate on that? I'm afraid I don't follow your analogy.

  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.