Gismo

WHOA! Guy is going crazy with speculation. Wouldn't surprise me it was all true, or false. If Big East teams stand firm and none leave ESPN is f'd and I think the Big East knows it.

I don't think the Big XII is stable. Texas was trying to get into the Pac12. Rumors were of Texas and OU trying to get into Pac12 and bring TXTech and Oky State with them. From what I saw on one of the boards linked in this thread, those Big XII fans do not think highly of USF. One poster said Texas would jump ship if they had to play an infant D1 school like USF every year. Big XII is controlled by Texas and OU and everyone else is put in their place, part of the reason A&M left to escape Texas' control of the league, there is very bad blood between the two university's now, apparently Dodds has said he would never schedule A&M again after the events that lead up to the move to the SEC. Also Texas tried to strong arm (bribe?) Texas Tech into playing a game aired on the Longhorn network, were Texas Tech's opponent (not Texas) from a smaller conference had made a deal to air their games on the network. Texas Tech held and said they would cancel the game if it wasn't moved to a different network. I really don't think the grass is greener in the Big XII. We would be the bottom there in league decisions and respect. In the BEast from what I've seen we have a lot of influence within the conference and its direction. Maybe the money and stability aren't yet there, but I really don't think the Big XII is stable in the long term either. If the Pac12 wanted to expand I think Texas and OU would be first pick and willing. Pac 12 rumors were that they rejected expansion because they were satisfied with their revenue and they could not agree with Texas on distribution of media rights, as Texas wants higher revenue vs the rest of the conference, and to have their own independent network and not share the revenues with the league. Their network has so far been a failure, no providers want to get anywhere near it because they are likely to lose more subscribers than they would gain if they offer it.

If true, ESPN once again trying to devalue Big East in case they don't get the contract.

I see your 12-0 and raise it: 13-0!! I'm all in.

Diverse list of schools.

Just curious smazza are all of these cases you are working on or just that you are aware of?

This would have been an exciting class period to have sat in on.

It's like a monument to themselves. I mean 70 million is A LOT of money to spend exclusively to benefit one sub-section of the student body, the athletes. It does benefit the university as a whole if they reap rewards on the field from such a facility and if it has any effect on recruits which is very likely. I guess if they have money to burn or are in major need of new facilities, then sure, but what I see in those images just seems over top. I just hope that the boosters who have invested in this project have also given charitably in a similar fashion to other causes with a bit more reach than a monument to USC athletics.

Well, at least among his 15 offers so far he has chosen us. I honestly don't see the carrot on the end of the stick that many of these players do. It appears they have this idea that the SEC will yield an NFL contract by default and that just isn't the case. I can understand however choosing one of the top SEC schools for the likely hood of competing for a national championship, I would agree it is higher at one of the top two SEC schools, but aside from that your chances are as good at many other schools in the other established conferences. Look what Oky State did last year for example, they came very close and performed a lot better than most of the SEC in a very difficult BigXII conference. Every player wants to maximize their success by making the best choice on NSD and the SEC for some reason seems to have these kids thinking SEC = maximum future success. I can understand that receiving offers from SEC schools may be considered the highest accomplishment possible for a high school player, but that doesn't neccessitate attending an SEC school, and attending an SEC school doesn't guarantee a maximally successful college or future NFL career. I think the opportunity to play in the SEC should be viewed more as reflection of a successful high school career than as some sort of miracle conference that increases the likelihood of future success. Schools should be chosen as a whole package in terms of the coaching staff, the needs of the team, education, atmosphere, location and just overal chemistry. That said the SEC has many schools that can be a great choice for those reasons but I think the conference affiliation is way too high on the importance list for some of these recruits. My belief is that it is mostly an ego driven priority, to be able to say "I play(ed) in the SEC." means they have made it, at least in this point in their life, but moving into the future that mere fact alone is meaningless for the most part. It's like owning a Ferrari, in some ways, a statement that one is accomplished, but really owning a Ferrari instead of a civic or even let's say a lesser sports car like a BMW M3 doesn't make you automatically more successful (except maybe on the race track... Does my analogy break down here? I hope you understand what I mean in terms of an ego driven expression of accomplishment however).

Despite the fact this is UCF I can honestly say that I would not wish ill will on our rivals. I think they must serve whatever penalties the NCAA finds appropriate but I actually wish that they had not found themselves in this situation. I know it is good for the Bulls in terms of recruiting and wins but we ought to be able to perform well regardless of the success of our opponents. I would like for all our of new members to be tarnish free, including UCF. Sorry to see our future rival in this state. I think it lessens the enjoyment of whatever rivalry we have now or in the near future when I just honestly feel kinda bad for them. Anyway, they need to serve their penalties for their infractions and hopefully they will be clean moving forward. who wants a rival that is constantly serving NCAA penalties? I will say I certainly don't feel bad taking any of their recruits, or those of any other program for that matter (assuming we are not commiting NCAA infractions to do so). However, I will continue to mock them and their fans in rivalry jest and to not their heads fill with so much air that is infused with ideas of grandure as is often the case.

Let's not stoop to their level.

Football and basketball might actually need each other in this instance get the best deal possible.

We should have flamingos on the sideline. I'm sure it would catch on. Someone can sneak in a pink flamingo and let loose on the feild. I am neutral on the war flamingo but the above would be quite humorous.

Second time... what is tamplona? Starting a green rally rag tradition is very very easy. Just raise the price of the our shirt by $1 and then include a green rag with each our shirt purchase. Got that.... include green rag with each our shirt purchase and that's all it will take. Make the our shirts $6 or $7 dollars to cover the cost. If a business is selling the A&M rags for $1 I'm sure SG can find a place to get green ones for a similar price. I can't imagine green dye raises the cost by much, if at all. EDIT: So for those who support that idea just write an email to SG with the above suggestion, I think they could easily implement it and include a little green towel with each 2013 our shirt. If they get enough emails I'm sure they will at least give it thorough consideration. It can go through SG and be tied to the our shirt. I think that would be the path of least resistance.

It's purely just for career networking and self branding. Career networking website, not social networking.

http://www.nbebasket...tro-bo-zeigler/ Looks like he may be a long shot if these are his criteria.

Muschamps ass will be gone soon if he doesn't improve. He literally is the 2nd coming of Zook when it comes to coaching. What a terrible hire for the Turds. He has only coached one season, but I agree, things aren't looking great for them at the moment.

Nope, he hasn't changed it. Out of curiosity, If they were to offer him, I wonder if he'd flip since they are his favorite school? Maybe he doesn't use facebook much.... or maybe he would flip. I hope not. He does look a little foolish having the Gators listed as his favorite team and as I fan I am disappointed. Really makes me wonder how he feels about USF.

What is tamplona?

Both are expensive! TA&M Towel $1.00 + $8.95 S&H = $9.95 USF Towel $7.95 + $5.95 S&H = $13.90 Except there is no S&H when you get it a tent sale on game day. What ever happened to the raising the females after each score? That is one thing I remember that I don't think I've seen anywhere else.

$7.95 a total rip off. Compare that with the cost of this $1.00 12th man towel: http://aggielandoutf...-man-towel.html

I cannot help but reply to your notion of what constitutes a fact and what constitutes a belief. I thought the latter was based on the former. Christianity is based on facts. Atheism is probably better put as being based on a lack of facts, as most assert insufficient evidence. Most believers assert there is sufficient evidence. Does a non-theistic world view based on the lack of facts, well, does that itself constitute a fact or a belief? Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. Athethism would also constitute a belief as you have defined it above. It is based on lack of evidence which is not evidence of anything. It's a pissing match between theists and non-theists at times. Atheists say "show me proof and I will believe, you cannot prove god exists" and theists will say likewise to an atheists "you cannot prove god does not exist". In totality I believe the philosophical and historical case for theism is much stronger. All based on facts and reason, that an atheist would however assert are not sufficient. Therefore atheists belief is an "I haven't seen it, so it does not exist" mentality. Theism nor atheism can be scientifically evaluated. It is by the very nature of God such that science cannot repeatedly test him in any manner. There is no attribute of god that can be measured; what scale is there that can measure the attributes of love, justice, morality, mercy, grace, knowledge, etc? How these concepts are perceived is dependent almost entirely on the experiences of the observer, yet at the same time founded in some universal understanding of what these ought to look like. Can a miracle be measured? No because it is by definition not scientifically repeatable, were it, it would no longer be a miracle but science, and there would also be the risk of the scientists believing the power to perform this miracle comes from himself. It is impossible to test God in a scientifically repeatable way and would be logically inconsistent with the nature of God. To have a scientific test for God would mean that God would be bound in some manner by the physical, his own creation, and that is impossible for an all powerful God. God has power over the physical, not the other way around. Claiming that there is no scientific proof for God is consistent with his nature. I hope any atheists or agnostics reading this come to realize the profoundness of this statement and logical inconsistency with the nature of God and the request for scientific evidence. To demand a miracle from God for belief is also a notion I find absurd and arrogant, to assert that God is obliged to comply with your request in exchange for your belief! There are so many things wrong with this demand that it honestly is the most laughable of any argument an atheist makes. What standing does the creation have to demand anything from God that he doesn't already provide? Were God to grant every request this would likewise make Him subject to his own creation. God is not obliged in such a manner as atheists would like. The creation is subject to the creator, not the other way around. Asking for scientific proof of God is like asking can God create a rock so massive that even He cannot lift? The question itself is logically inconsistent and complete nonsense. Of course God cannot do something that is against his very nature, but this is the burden placed upon him by atheists. God however has provided us with enough reasoning power and miraculous interventions (past and present) to deduce his existence. I tend to believe however one of the most powerful undeniable evidence comes when an individual receives his undeserving love, and that it is the calling of his disciples to spread his love throughout as long as hearts are open to it (many are not). As I asked earlier, how can an attribute of God such a love be measured? It cannot, it must be experienced, and for those who have experienced it and come to know it His existence is undeniable. There is no past or present sin or behavior that will keep God from loving anyone. Unfortunately many have not experienced or witnessed this first hand, or perhaps their hearts have hardened to this message, and unfortunately sometimes the misguided notions of his supposed believers are to blame.

Yes, the professor in this case may not realize he himself is doing in his email what he is accusing his students of. That it's not okay for profs or students to give instruction, except when he's doing it of course. He said ther are policies in place to ensure that teachers and students have freedom to express themselves but it seems he didn't like it when Christians were doing that. But without having been in the class you can't know if he is overreacting to polite assertions of faith or if the students were going westboro church up in there. I just think emails from professors to students like this must be very uncommon. Calling your Christian students bigots and mocking them by thanking them for showing the class what bigotry looks like? Rate my prof review are positive for the most part but some say he's an out right atheist that has no problems offending students. Not necessarily negative as just the statement that the bible isn't true, which is his expression of belief, some will find offensive, but kind of hypocritical to say Christians aren't allowed to assert their beliefs. It would be inappropriate to condone outright hate speech in a class however. We can't know which is the case without being there.

I think he was just saying he was going to be sitting with a group of non-students outside of the student section. In that case he would have to purchase tickets.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1789406.html Its' hard to tell if the professor or the students or maybe both are bigots in this case. Is it safe to say UCF is full of bigots?