What did Santa bring you for Christmas? Because after reading all the delusion in your posts, I have no doubt you still believe in him

I didn't see the play and just watched it for the first time. That wasn't just targeting it was attempted murder. That sip LB or DB should be criminally charged.

Coming from the referee, "personal foul" is always followed by what the foul was. No ref has ever uttered the words "hitting a defenseless player." If that were the case, nobody would be arguing whether the Taafe hit was targeting or not. He hit a defenseless receiver so it should have been 15 per your rules right?

But you CAN hit a defenseless player, it's just how you do it.

OBJTEX said:

---

bslater07 said:

---

Good lord dude. Which personal foul was it? "Personal Foul" is a category of a number of different infractions carrying a 15 yard penalty, not a catch-all. So which one was it? The only one you can claim is unnecessary roughness which you just said "is not part of the rule." Tell me which infraction was committed, because saying "it was a PF" isn't in the rulebook.

Late hit? No.
UNNECESSARY roughness? No. <------- there's your "unnecessary"
Roughing the passer? No.
Roughing the kicker? No.
Illegal blindside block? No.
Hands to the face? No.
Facemask? No.

I could go on. Answer my question or give up the argument

---

I did answer it. The call is a personal foul, hitting a defenseless player. My only point is all PFs don't need to be unnecessary to be called PFs. And as I said, one could argue any contact with a defenseless receiver is unnecessary.

Regardless, he hit a defenseless receiver. It is a personal foul. I don't know if that actual words used by the referee woudl be personal foul, UNR, hitting a defenseless player.

---

Hold up! You're trying to say any hit on defenseless player is a personal foul and and in your opinion is that any contact is unnecessary?

You do realize most completions over the middle of the field have a defenseless receiver in possession of the ball, and often times they're tackled / hit immediately right? Defenders aren't counting steps to determine when someone is no longer defenseless.

bslater07 said:

---

Coming from the referee, "personal foul" is always followed by what the foul was. No ref has ever uttered the words "hitting a defenseless player." If that were the case, nobody would be arguing whether the Taafe hit was targeting or not. He hit a defenseless receiver so it should have been 15 per your rules right?

But you CAN hit a defenseless player, it's just how you do it.

---

I am not a white hat, and as I said, I don't know the words you use. But that hit was a PF. There is zero doubt on it. The player hit was a classic case of a receiver/back being defenseless and the hit was quite substantive and violent.

Trying to get caught into semantics does change the nature of the play, the players, etc.

It was a missed PF. Period. One could argue targeting if one wishes. I see pretty substantive contact to the neck area and the player was defenseless.

But fine either ways.

But it was a foul that was missed. Would have changed the game.

Silly to argue over the word unnecessary.

blackshoe10 said:

---

2thFixinAg said:

---

blackshoe10 said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

I thought it was a textbook case of targeting. However, a high school referee friend of mine explained it this way:

1. The ball was tipped which eliminates the defenseless receiver rule.
2. The DB never ducked his head and made contact with his facemask and not the crown of his helmet.

By rule, although it looked egregious, it's not targeting. Not sure I agree, but that's what he said.

---

I have never heard of #1. Not saying it's not true, but I need to see the rule before I believe it.

#2 doesn't matter. When the player is defenseless, any forceable contact to head or neck is targeting. It doesn't even have to be with the helmet. A shoulder to the head is also targeting. They've explained this dozens of times on tv.

---

Definitions from the NCAA Football Rule book: (my emphasis added in italics)

Quote:

---

Section 19 Article 1. Passing: Passing the ball is throwing it. A pass continues to be a pass until it is caught or intercepted by a player or the ball becomes dead.

Section 19 Article 2. Forward Pass: A pass is forward if the ball first strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else beyond (forward of) the spot where the ball is released.

Section 11 Article 3. Batting: Batting the ball is intentionally striking it or intentionally changing its direction with the hand(s) or arm(s). Batting the ball does not change its status.

Section 27 Article 14. Defenseless player: A defenseless player is one who because of their physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When is question a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to...a receiver attempting to catch a forward pass...and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become the ball carrier.

---

This should demonstrate that the above HS Ref is incorrect to say a tipped ball doesn't change the status of the forward pass or the receiver's defenselessness attempting to catch it.

---

I don't think your definitions back your opinion enough.

Here's why. Tipped balls change other things as well. Like pass Interference. It's essentially a free for all if a ball is tipped.

now does that also change defenseless label? it very well might. I will leave it to others to dig through the rulebook.

Im just pointing out that what you posted doesn't really prove your point.

---

How does that not prove my point? The player is defenseless so long as he is attempting to catch a forward pass. The ball being tipped doesn't change it from being a forward pass.
The rules explicitly discuss tipped passes and interference.
The rules do not imply or explicitly say a tipped pass removes a player's defenslessness.

---

The tipped pass eliminates potential interference but it doesn't suddenly take off the defenseless receiver assuming he still has a play on the ball. If it is blocked at the line of scrimmage and it is deep downfield, he would not be defenseless at any point but you could still have unnecessary roughness.

vanderhoosen said:

---

OBJTEX said:

---

bslater07 said:

---

Good lord dude. Which personal foul was it? "Personal Foul" is a category of a number of different infractions carrying a 15 yard penalty, not a catch-all. So which one was it? The only one you can claim is unnecessary roughness which you just said "is not part of the rule." Tell me which infraction was committed, because saying "it was a PF" isn't in the rulebook.

Late hit? No.
UNNECESSARY roughness? No. <------- there's your "unnecessary"
Roughing the passer? No.
Roughing the kicker? No.
Illegal blindside block? No.
Hands to the face? No.
Facemask? No.

I could go on. Answer my question or give up the argument

---

I did answer it. The call is a personal foul, hitting a defenseless player. My only point is all PFs don't need to be unnecessary to be called PFs. And as I said, one could argue any contact with a defenseless receiver is unnecessary.

Regardless, he hit a defenseless receiver. It is a personal foul. I don't know if that actual words used by the referee woudl be personal foul, UNR, hitting a defenseless player.

---

Hold up! You're trying to say any hit on defenseless player is a personal foul and and in your opinion is that any contact is unnecessary?

You do realize most completions over the middle of the field have a defenseless receiver in possession of the ball, and often times they're tackled / hit immediately right? Defenders aren't counting steps to determine when someone is no longer defenseless.

---

Any contact with a defenseless player is NOT a PF of course. Those wanting the outcome to be some crazed Texas conspiracy will try to split hairs on this hit, yet scream to the rafters on the Taaffe hit. I think this one was more violent but regardless, it was major, intentional contact to a defenseless player. PF every time.

It is very clear. Called more times than not. Missed in this case.

OBJTEX said:

---

vanderhoosen said:

---

OBJTEX said:

---

bslater07 said:

---

Good lord dude. Which personal foul was it? "Personal Foul" is a category of a number of different infractions carrying a 15 yard penalty, not a catch-all. So which one was it? The only one you can claim is unnecessary roughness which you just said "is not part of the rule." Tell me which infraction was committed, because saying "it was a PF" isn't in the rulebook.

Late hit? No.
UNNECESSARY roughness? No. <------- there's your "unnecessary"
Roughing the passer? No.
Roughing the kicker? No.
Illegal blindside block? No.
Hands to the face? No.
Facemask? No.

I could go on. Answer my question or give up the argument

---

I did answer it. The call is a personal foul, hitting a defenseless player. My only point is all PFs don't need to be unnecessary to be called PFs. And as I said, one could argue any contact with a defenseless receiver is unnecessary.

Regardless, he hit a defenseless receiver. It is a personal foul. I don't know if that actual words used by the referee woudl be personal foul, UNR, hitting a defenseless player.

---

Hold up! You're trying to say any hit on defenseless player is a personal foul and and in your opinion is that any contact is unnecessary?

You do realize most completions over the middle of the field have a defenseless receiver in possession of the ball, and often times they're tackled / hit immediately right? Defenders aren't counting steps to determine when someone is no longer defenseless.

---

Any contact with a defenseless player is NOT a PF of course. Those wanting the outcome to be some crazed Texas conspiracy will try to split hairs on this hit, yet scream to the rafters on the Taaffe hit. I think this one was more violent but regardless, it was major, intentional contact to a defenseless player. PF every time.

It is very clear. Called more times than not. Missed in this case.

---

Whining sips wanted to be bailed out again on an INTERCEPTION thrown by mid Ewers on yet another underthrown pass. There's no conspiracy.

Even if they called it a personal foul, it still would have resulted in an interception.

ASU would have had the ball on the Texas 40. We know that.

Horrible non call after upstairs review.

i don't think that is right. But I'll check the rule book.

Kansas Kid said:

---

blackshoe10 said:

---

2thFixinAg said:

---

blackshoe10 said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

I thought it was a textbook case of targeting. However, a high school referee friend of mine explained it this way:

1. The ball was tipped which eliminates the defenseless receiver rule.
2. The DB never ducked his head and made contact with his facemask and not the crown of his helmet.

By rule, although it looked egregious, it's not targeting. Not sure I agree, but that's what he said.

---

I have never heard of #1. Not saying it's not true, but I need to see the rule before I believe it.

#2 doesn't matter. When the player is defenseless, any forceable contact to head or neck is targeting. It doesn't even have to be with the helmet. A shoulder to the head is also targeting. They've explained this dozens of times on tv.

---

Definitions from the NCAA Football Rule book: (my emphasis added in italics)

Quote:

---

Section 19 Article 1. Passing: Passing the ball is throwing it. A pass continues to be a pass until it is caught or intercepted by a player or the ball becomes dead.

Section 19 Article 2. Forward Pass: A pass is forward if the ball first strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else beyond (forward of) the spot where the ball is released.

Section 11 Article 3. Batting: Batting the ball is intentionally striking it or intentionally changing its direction with the hand(s) or arm(s). Batting the ball does not change its status.

Section 27 Article 14. Defenseless player: A defenseless player is one who because of their physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When is question a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to...a receiver attempting to catch a forward pass...and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become the ball carrier.

---

This should demonstrate that the above HS Ref is incorrect to say a tipped ball doesn't change the status of the forward pass or the receiver's defenselessness attempting to catch it.

---

I don't think your definitions back your opinion enough.

Here's why. Tipped balls change other things as well. Like pass Interference. It's essentially a free for all if a ball is tipped.

now does that also change defenseless label? it very well might. I will leave it to others to dig through the rulebook.

Im just pointing out that what you posted doesn't really prove your point.

---

How does that not prove my point? The player is defenseless so long as he is attempting to catch a forward pass. The ball being tipped doesn't change it from being a forward pass.
The rules explicitly discuss tipped passes and interference.
The rules do not imply or explicitly say a tipped pass removes a player's defenslessness.

---

The tipped pass eliminates potential interference but it doesn't suddenly take off the defenseless receiver assuming he still has a play on the ball. If it is blocked at the line of scrimmage and it is deep downfield, he would not be defenseless at any point but you could still have unnecessary roughness.

---

Right. No disagreement here. Ball being tipped doesn't make the player attempting to catch it defenseless while they're actually trying to make the catch as described in the defenseless player definition.

ahpetty33 said:

---

Refs called DPI on skattebos catch when he initiated the contact and pushed off with full extension, and then they had the opportunity to call targeting on ASU's game changing interception but did not… don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence. The problem with targeting is it is too subjective with too many variables to apparently be called consistently. The refs were bamboozled on this one because the defender did such a good job of keeping his head completely up, even though the hit was delivered square helmet to helmet

---

HE didn't initiate the contact. He slowed down as the ball was slightly underthrown. The receiver ran into him and then grabbed him. He pushed off after that and then was nearly decapitated by the completely outclassed sip DB who had already gotten beaten and committed an obvious penalty.

But I fully agree, ASU should have been called for targeting. Let's "protect players heads" but allowed players to launch their entire body upward toward the neck area. Ridiculous. Both targeting fouls should be called. If those aren't targeting, then it's time to make the players sign waivers at the beginning of the season releasing everyone but themselves from accountability for any head injury and get rid of this football ruining rule that allows insanely subjective refereeing to ignore the point the rule was put in place for.

LB12Diamond said:

---

Some Texas fans have made it a profession on covering up the officiating corruption that helps them in games.

Just adds to their overall profile as one of the worst fan bases in ALL of sports.

Would gain a little respect for them if they actually stated, darn right we get help bc we are Texas. To thine own self be true. But that's not an option bc they just cannot do it. They have to believe they won the game bc they were the better team that day.

And even better, there's ALWAYS an excuse when they lose the big game.

---

The reason Texas fans don't admit to the deck being stacked in their favor is because they watch every game and see Texas get screwed just as much as anybody else. Officiating across all sports at all levels is terrible. It ain't a conspiracy. If it was, Texas wouldn't have sucked for a dozen years.

It's rigged in favor of multiple teams not just tu. So obvious today that the refs made sure ND won over UGA. Dawgs would have won with fair officiating.

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

LB12Diamond said:

---

Some Texas fans have made it a profession on covering up the officiating corruption that helps them in games.

Just adds to their overall profile as one of the worst fan bases in ALL of sports.

Would gain a little respect for them if they actually stated, darn right we get help bc we are Texas. To thine own self be true. But that's not an option bc they just cannot do it. They have to believe they won the game bc they were the better team that day.

And even better, there's ALWAYS an excuse when they lose the big game.

---

The reason Texas fans don't admit to the deck being stacked in their favor is because they watch every game and see Texas get screwed just as much as anybody else. Officiating across all sports at all levels is terrible. It ain't a conspiracy. If it was, Texas wouldn't have sucked for a dozen years.

---

Texas sucked for 12 years because of horrible coaching decisions.

Ag of Northern Virginia said:

---

It's rigged in favor of multiple teams not just tu. So obvious today that the refs made sure ND won over UGA. Dawgs would have won with fair officiating.

---

You were t watching the same game I was. GA lost because their O sucked bad, they gave up a TD on a kickoff, and their D allowed ND QB run for key first downs. None of that has anything to do with officiating.

Felt like I was watching the Ags instead of UGA with the biased game. Refs called an obvious roughing the punter as a 5 yarder instead of an automatic 1st down early in the game that changed the game's dynamics. ND was holding and committing PI on offense and defense all game long that weren't called. Obviously restricted UGA's QB and gameplay.

I read a lot about rigged games, which i think is horse s--t!.

Question - have you ever seen a rigged game that goes in the Ags favor?

classof92 said:

---

I read a lot about rigged games, which i think is horse s--t!.

Question - have you ever seen a rigged game that goes in the Ags favor?

---

Why don't you just move on?

Edit - Sorry just grumpy at you telling me to do that when all you do is defend Texas on here. Hard to believe you got a grad degree at A&M and then would come on here and post the things you do.

Harder hit when sip literally knocked UGA qb's head off. And people actually wanted tu to get in the SEC.

How about this one?

On the 4th and 13 the ball hits the ground & moves. When a receiver catches the ball, he has to survive the ground.

Catch or no catch? pic.twitter.com/WfWKfL2Je0

— 🌵 Mr. Az (@MrAzSports) January 3, 2025

And on Skattebo's long catch, it was OPI not DPI and ALSO, watch this link. He has massive hands to the face/FM before Taaffe's massive FM. Offsetting fouls. Replay the down. Even if you think the DPI call was right, I don't, he engages and pushes off of Taaffe's FM.

Lots of blown calls for both teams. Let it go!

I’ve watched this so many times… if Taaffe didn’t rip him by his facemask like the dirty player he is, Skattebo is sending him flying like a ragdoll and he strolls into the endzone…. pic.twitter.com/dPJ8sVSlHf

— TigerDillingham (@TigerDillingham) January 2, 2025

You do realize that the ball carrier can use a "stiffarm" open palm to the facemask of the defender, right?

Have you seen the Heisman trophy? That's a stiff arm pose.

I would encourage you to Google Mr. Derrick Henry stiffarm and report back to the group on what you've learned on the art of the Stiffarm expert Mr. Henry.

GenericAggie said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

LB12Diamond said:

---

Some Texas fans have made it a profession on covering up the officiating corruption that helps them in games.

Just adds to their overall profile as one of the worst fan bases in ALL of sports.

Would gain a little respect for them if they actually stated, darn right we get help bc we are Texas. To thine own self be true. But that's not an option bc they just cannot do it. They have to believe they won the game bc they were the better team that day.

And even better, there's ALWAYS an excuse when they lose the big game.

---

The reason Texas fans don't admit to the deck being stacked in their favor is because they watch every game and see Texas get screwed just as much as anybody else. Officiating across all sports at all levels is terrible. It ain't a conspiracy. If it was, Texas wouldn't have sucked for a dozen years.

---

Texas sucked for 12 years because of horrible coaching decisions.

---

Ok, so games are only rigged for good teams? Good to know.

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

LB12Diamond said:

---

Some Texas fans have made it a profession on covering up the officiating corruption that helps them in games.

Just adds to their overall profile as one of the worst fan bases in ALL of sports.

Would gain a little respect for them if they actually stated, darn right we get help bc we are Texas. To thine own self be true. But that's not an option bc they just cannot do it. They have to believe they won the game bc they were the better team that day.

And even better, there's ALWAYS an excuse when they lose the big game.

---

The reason Texas fans don't admit to the deck being stacked in their favor is because they watch every game and see Texas get screwed just as much as anybody else. Officiating across all sports at all levels is terrible. It ain't a conspiracy. If it was, Texas wouldn't have sucked for a dozen years.

---

Texas sucked for 12 years because of horrible coaching decisions.

---

Ok, so games are only rigged for good teams? Good to know.

---

My response had nothing to do with rigged games and Texas getting good or bad calls. Texas sucked for 12 years not because of rigged games but because of bad coaching decisions. That's just a fact.

GenericAggie said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

LB12Diamond said:

---

Some Texas fans have made it a profession on covering up the officiating corruption that helps them in games.

Just adds to their overall profile as one of the worst fan bases in ALL of sports.

Would gain a little respect for them if they actually stated, darn right we get help bc we are Texas. To thine own self be true. But that's not an option bc they just cannot do it. They have to believe they won the game bc they were the better team that day.

And even better, there's ALWAYS an excuse when they lose the big game.

---

The reason Texas fans don't admit to the deck being stacked in their favor is because they watch every game and see Texas get screwed just as much as anybody else. Officiating across all sports at all levels is terrible. It ain't a conspiracy. If it was, Texas wouldn't have sucked for a dozen years.

---

Texas sucked for 12 years because of horrible coaching decisions.

---

Ok, so games are only rigged for good teams? Good to know.

---

My response had nothing to do with rigged games and Texas getting good or bad calls. Texas sucked for 12 years not because of rigged games but because of bad coaching decisions. That's just a fact.

---

It is an absolute fact. And now, Texas is winning because of better coaching, player development, and alignment between the head coach and AD. It ain't because they're paying refs or whatever the zoo thinks.

classof92 said:

---

I read a lot about rigged games, which i think is horse s--t!.

Question - have you ever seen a rigged game that goes in the Ags favor?

---

I dunno, but it sure seemed that the Ags got a lot of favorable calls in the 2024 Missouri game

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

LB12Diamond said:

---

Some Texas fans have made it a profession on covering up the officiating corruption that helps them in games.

Just adds to their overall profile as one of the worst fan bases in ALL of sports.

Would gain a little respect for them if they actually stated, darn right we get help bc we are Texas. To thine own self be true. But that's not an option bc they just cannot do it. They have to believe they won the game bc they were the better team that day.

And even better, there's ALWAYS an excuse when they lose the big game.

---

The reason Texas fans don't admit to the deck being stacked in their favor is because they watch every game and see Texas get screwed just as much as anybody else. Officiating across all sports at all levels is terrible. It ain't a conspiracy. If it was, Texas wouldn't have sucked for a dozen years.

---

Texas sucked for 12 years because of horrible coaching decisions.

---

Ok, so games are only rigged for good teams? Good to know.

---

My response had nothing to do with rigged games and Texas getting good or bad calls. Texas sucked for 12 years not because of rigged games but because of bad coaching decisions. That's just a fact.

---

It is an absolute fact. And now, Texas is winning because of better coaching, player development, and alignment between the head coach and AD. It ain't because they're paying refs or whatever the zoo thinks.

---

I agree.

Now, I also think that Texas was intentionally given an easy first year SEC schedule. It's ridiculous that they did not have to play Bama, Ole Miss, or LSU while OU was given the gauntlet. They also did not play a SEC away game at night. A&M had a similar easier schedule so before you argue that, I acknowledge it. That doesn't take away from the fact that tu should have played a "typical" SEC schedule. They played the weakest of all of the SEC teams. That's not random. The commissioner should have addressed this fact.

oneeyedag said:

---

You do realize that the ball carrier can use a "stiffarm" open palm to the facemask of the defender, right?

Have you seen the Heisman trophy? That's a stiff arm pose.

I would encourage you to Google Mr. Derrick Henry stiffarm and report back to the group on what you've learned on the art of the Stiffarm expert Mr. Henry.

---

There seems to be a lack of understanding of the rules on this board. While i am glad they didnt call the foul on skattebo, there is no exception to the rule for an offensive player to smack the defender in the facemask nor push it back as he did in the video angle that OP showed.

GenericAggie said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

LB12Diamond said:

---

Some Texas fans have made it a profession on covering up the officiating corruption that helps them in games.

Just adds to their overall profile as one of the worst fan bases in ALL of sports.

Would gain a little respect for them if they actually stated, darn right we get help bc we are Texas. To thine own self be true. But that's not an option bc they just cannot do it. They have to believe they won the game bc they were the better team that day.

And even better, there's ALWAYS an excuse when they lose the big game.

---

The reason Texas fans don't admit to the deck being stacked in their favor is because they watch every game and see Texas get screwed just as much as anybody else. Officiating across all sports at all levels is terrible. It ain't a conspiracy. If it was, Texas wouldn't have sucked for a dozen years.

---

Texas sucked for 12 years because of horrible coaching decisions.

---

Ok, so games are only rigged for good teams? Good to know.

---

My response had nothing to do with rigged games and Texas getting good or bad calls. Texas sucked for 12 years not because of rigged games but because of bad coaching decisions. That's just a fact.

---

It is an absolute fact. And now, Texas is winning because of better coaching, player development, and alignment between the head coach and AD. It ain't because they're paying refs or whatever the zoo thinks.

---

I agree.

Now, I also think that Texas was intentionally given an easy first year SEC schedule. It's ridiculous that they did not have to play Bama, Ole Miss, or LSU while Pai was given the gauntlet. They also did not play a SEC away game at night. A&M had a similar easier schedule so before you argue that, I acknowledge it. That doesn't take away from the fact that tu should have played a "typical" SEC schedule. They played the weakest of all of the SEC teams. That's not random. The commissioner should have addressed this fact.

---

I have no idea how the schedule was made, but have a hard time believing it was to give Texas an advantage. I would assume they wanted to protect the Texas-OU game and revive the A&M and Arky games. Outside of that who knows. As for night games or not, I think the tv networks control a lot of that, which is based on nothing more than predicted ratings.

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

LB12Diamond said:

---

Some Texas fans have made it a profession on covering up the officiating corruption that helps them in games.

Just adds to their overall profile as one of the worst fan bases in ALL of sports.

Would gain a little respect for them if they actually stated, darn right we get help bc we are Texas. To thine own self be true. But that's not an option bc they just cannot do it. They have to believe they won the game bc they were the better team that day.

And even better, there's ALWAYS an excuse when they lose the big game.

---

The reason Texas fans don't admit to the deck being stacked in their favor is because they watch every game and see Texas get screwed just as much as anybody else. Officiating across all sports at all levels is terrible. It ain't a conspiracy. If it was, Texas wouldn't have sucked for a dozen years.

---

Texas sucked for 12 years because of horrible coaching decisions.

---

Ok, so games are only rigged for good teams? Good to know.

---

My response had nothing to do with rigged games and Texas getting good or bad calls. Texas sucked for 12 years not because of rigged games but because of bad coaching decisions. That's just a fact.

---

It is an absolute fact. And now, Texas is winning because of better coaching, player development, and alignment between the head coach and AD. It ain't because they're paying refs or whatever the zoo thinks.

---

I agree.

Now, I also think that Texas was intentionally given an easy first year SEC schedule. It's ridiculous that they did not have to play Bama, Ole Miss, or LSU while Pai was given the gauntlet. They also did not play a SEC away game at night. A&M had a similar easier schedule so before you argue that, I acknowledge it. That doesn't take away from the fact that tu should have played a "typical" SEC schedule. They played the weakest of all of the SEC teams. That's not random. The commissioner should have addressed this fact.

---

I have no idea how the schedule was made, but have a hard time believing it was to give Texas an advantage. I would assume they wanted to protect the Texas-OU game and revive the A&M and Arky games. Outside of that who knows. As for night games or not, I think the tv networks control a lot of that, which is based on nothing more than predicted ratings.

---

Noone knew the mississippi power dynamic would be what it is. Seems like ole miss and msu swap good and bad every 2-4 years.

Florida is florida. They got damn lucky to get them with no QB. We traded our yes vote to get them at home. They get a free road game every other year with Ou at cotton bowl.

Who knows with arky but they kicked the sheet out of texas in pigville in 21.




Could have made them go to Georgia. Then they would have