Jump to content

Texas at Kansas


UTfanatic

Recommended Posts

Okay, i'll say this. I'm not going to boo hoo about a holding call, false start, or even pass interference. But what could have been a game ending play and a win for Texas was the interception in the end zone that they called incomplete. Texas' defender caught the ball, fell on the turf, thenthe Kansas player pulled it from his grasp. Wasn't even reviewed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, baddog said:

Okay, i'll say this. I'm not going to boo hoo about a holding call, false start, or even pass interference. But what could have been a game ending play and a win for Texas was the interception in the end zone that they called incomplete. Texas' defender caught the ball, fell on the turf, thenthe Kansas player pulled it from his grasp. Wasn't even reviewed.

Even with that catch Strong would still be out - that close a game to Kansas when they were "turning it around" - nail in the coffin man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OldTimer said:

Even with that catch Strong would still be out - that close a game to Kansas when they were "turning it around" - nail in the coffin man.

Agree OT.....and I hate to bellyache about a call, but when the game actually hangs on a call, it's tough not to say something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, baddog said:

Okay, i'll say this. I'm not going to boo hoo about a holding call, false start, or even pass interference. But what could have been a game ending play and a win for Texas was the interception in the end zone that they called incomplete. Texas' defender caught the ball, fell on the turf, thenthe Kansas player pulled it from his grasp. Wasn't even reviewed.

 I thought the same thing.  Are we missing something?  How is that not even reviewed?? Going to have to get the officiating expert John Kimbrough to explain that one to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OldTimer said:

Even with that catch Strong would still be out - that close a game to Kansas when they were "turning it around" - nail in the coffin man.

I agree with you.  But for me, that would have been the best case scenario.  Bowl eligible and he's gone.  Not for the bowl but for the month of extra practice, and quite possibly with the new coach.  But when it came down to the wire with a 1-9 team, you're right about his fate being sealed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bandwagon Ranger said:

Why did the head coach not throw a fit? 

Good question. I think he was out of timeouts but I didn't see what he was doing if anything on the sidelines. They were already in field goal range and lining up for one. I would have been at midfield raising hell and let them flag me for half the distance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, OldTimer said:

My opinion:

Strong is very likely a better coach than he has shown - just think that when you coach at Texas you have to be prepared to be EVERY teams big game and be ready to face every teams best.

I think he is also a good man but likely will be out of a job - perhaps as early as Monday.

 

OT agrees with what I have always believed and said. 

Every opponents big game is when they play Texas.

 

Horns up and Hookem 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UTfanatic said:

Yea 

#btbb.........and lsu reportedly waiting on Strong!

Hookem 

I've been playing craps with a bunch of LSU fans all night in Marksville.  They all seem to think Jimbo is headed to Baton Rouge. I don't see why he would make a lateral move at this point unless he doesn't get along with the admin.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, PhatMack19 said:

Charlie needs more time.  The team is still young and at least they didn't give up 50.

I understand the fear when Aggy is unable to out recruit a losing Texas. 

Imagine trying to out recruit a winner. 

Either Fedora, Fleck, or Herman, will be reason for the "eternal dumpster fire" in Collie Station. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UTfanatic said:

OT agrees with what I have always believed and said. 

Every opponents big game is when they play Texas.

 

Horns up and Hookem 

OT is one of the most reasonable, and honestly insightful posters on this or most any board, especially for an Aggie.  But of course, he's just a "t shirt" Aggie (which is a vile, dirty word among the ring wearing Gomers), so according to them he's not really an Aggie.  So maybe that explains it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,206
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Ceb2000
    Newest Member
    Ceb2000
    Joined



  • Posts

    • Here’s a link to another story about it This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up
    • It’s behind a paywall but here’s Baytown Sun’s story on it.  It was reported on in other papers statewide so if you search by the date I think you’ll find other stories on it. UIL strengthens student transfer rules By Ron McDowell [email protected] Oct 18, 2024   In order to maintain a level playing field for all member schools, the University Interscholastic League strengthened rules regarding transfer student eligibility at its most recent meeting in Austin. Every year thousands of students transfer schools in the state of Texas. A student’s ability to participate in UIL sanctioned activities may be limited base on the reasons for the transfer. A change in family status, work transfers, enrollment in an academic magnet program, or a move across town, receive scrutiny, but only rarely does one of these reasons result in the loss of eligibility. The only reason to automatically cause the loss of participation eligibility is a transfer for athletic purposes. The current rule, which has been in place since 1981, does not require a Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPFs) to be submitted if the student-athlete does not participate in a varsity level sport during the first year of enrollment. There has been growing concern among some member schools, that other members are breaking the current rule and creating “super teams” with new transfer enrollees, and that the UIL is not doing enough to police, what appear to be, the inordinate number of transfers among high school athletes. To mitigate these concerns, the UIL approved a proposal to expand the power of the State Executive Committee (SEC) and allow it to investigate schools based upon the number of PAPFs submitted. Schools that submit an inordinate number of PAPFs would face heightened scrutiny and possible public reprimand and future sanctions. The UIL has also changed the requirements for PAPF submission, mandating that the form be submitted before a grade 9-12 transfer student may participate at any level of school athletics. This is a marked departure from the current policy which encourages schools not to complete PAPFs for students who transfer in, if the school believes that the student will not play a varsity sport in the first year the student is enrolled at the new school. Some critics of the current system think that the change doesn’t go far enough. Speaking on background, one local school district source suggested that there should be an automatic year wait for transfer students due to the number of loopholes in the waiver process. “If a student transfers, it should be a year out of competition automatically,” the source said. In addition, the UIL also approved a proposal that gives the SEC the power to appoint an independent administrator to oversee the conduct of the local District Executive Committee (DEC) if it is determined that the DEC is not consistently enforcing the rules of the governing body. The change is significant since all appeals that a school brings, starts and usually ends with the DEC. That includes the determination of transfer student eligibility. It is believed that with the implementation of this change, schools in a UIL district will be less likely to face retribution from the DEC chair and other members. The policy changes will go into effect, Aug. 1, 2025 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  
    • I was hoping WOS was going to win. To get another chance to redeem ourself. Silsbee did not look good in that game and has not played consistent during the season. Hopefully against La Vega they will play 4quarters of football
    • This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up   GCCISD paid a firm called PASA to compile this report ahead of them closing/consolidating some schools and redrawing attendance zones.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...