Aggies2009 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Aggies2009 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Aggies2009 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

chester said:

---

Never saw this reported anywhere. Prove it!

Quoting your anti-Childress friends' rants is not proof.

---

Along the same vein, prove he wasn't on the hot seat.

---

I don't know if you know how burden of proof works, but it usually is the responsibility of the person who makes a claim.

That said, I think Childress is definitely on the "hot seat" in that if he doesn't do something next season, he won't be back the year after because of the way his contract is set up.

---

I know exactly how it works. But this isn't the courtroom, now is it. And if such a vehement refute to a message board claim comes so quickly, my message board legaleese ass feels like I can ask such a question. Which I can. And I did.

---

The concept of "burden of proof" exists as a philosophical idea, not only in a courtroom lmao

You can ask someone to prove a negative, but it's a very bad argument tactic that anyone with any basic understanding of logic will look at and dismiss. Your call, though!

---

Not really - especially given the context of the quotes. I get it, you will argue with anybody that thinks it's time for RC to leave, no matter the circumstance or context. It's what you do.

---

I guess you missed the entire point of when I said he's gone next year if he doesn't perform because of how his contract is set up?

Sorry that you don't understand burden of proof and can't be a calm and rational adult. You'd rather throw your little temper tantrums when you can't respond.

---

Just because he's exposing you with facts about your history on this board doesn't mean he's throwing a temper tantrum.

You can say what you want about posting styles, what you can't say is that you've been right about RC and the other side has been wrong. And that's why you're so sensitive.

BoozingAg said:

---

Aggies2009 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Aggies2009 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Aggies2009 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

chester said:

---

Never saw this reported anywhere. Prove it!

Quoting your anti-Childress friends' rants is not proof.

---

Along the same vein, prove he wasn't on the hot seat.

---

I don't know if you know how burden of proof works, but it usually is the responsibility of the person who makes a claim.

That said, I think Childress is definitely on the "hot seat" in that if he doesn't do something next season, he won't be back the year after because of the way his contract is set up.

---

I know exactly how it works. But this isn't the courtroom, now is it. And if such a vehement refute to a message board claim comes so quickly, my message board legaleese ass feels like I can ask such a question. Which I can. And I did.

---

The concept of "burden of proof" exists as a philosophical idea, not only in a courtroom lmao

You can ask someone to prove a negative, but it's a very bad argument tactic that anyone with any basic understanding of logic will look at and dismiss. Your call, though!

---

Not really - especially given the context of the quotes. I get it, you will argue with anybody that thinks it's time for RC to leave, no matter the circumstance or context. It's what you do.

---

I guess you missed the entire point of when I said he's gone next year if he doesn't perform because of how his contract is set up?

Sorry that you don't understand burden of proof and can't be a calm and rational adult. You'd rather throw your little temper tantrums when you can't respond.

---

Just because he's exposing you with facts about your history on this board doesn't mean he's throwing a temper tantrum.

You can say what you want about posting styles, what you can't say is that you've been right about RC and the other side has been wrong. And that's why you're so sensitive.

---

LOL Sure thing, bud. He completely whiffed on the concept of burden of proof and immediately retreated to his straw man arguments and tempter tantrum, where he goes off the rails and accuses people of things as if it's a completely black and white scenario. It's also funny that when he got completely annihilated on the concept of burden of proof, you support him "exposing me with facts" when really all he posted was an attack on me. Meanwhile you cry every time it's mentioned that you've been banned from this site multiple times (talk about exposing with facts lol) because that's a personal attack and your poor feelings are hurt.

Never mind that I've said many times that Childress is (and should be) gone after next season, barring a big year. Oh no... What goes on in your little fantasy worlds is the truth! My viewpoint is similar to Captain Pablo's when I read what he says. But for some reason you consider him on your "side" and me on the other "side".

Everyone isn't on one "side" or the other. This isn't gender where only 2 things exist >_>. You can say, "That's a bad criticism of Childress" but still criticize other things. You can say, "That's a bad point you made" and still be in favor of him being gone. The sooner you can wrap your head around that concept, the sooner you'll have productive discussions on this board. Til then, the two of you treat everyone as some sort of enemy because you have it in your head that they're on the "opposing side" when really they may have just disagreed with one small point you made.

I suspect there are other potential hires. That we were going directly for a coach that specializes in hitting is the key messaging I am noticing about the attempt to hire Clements. Not a base running guru. That seems the right focus.

I'll note that I think it was biobioprof that asked if we do batting practice primarily against fastballs or not. It would be great if the potential hire gets asked about philosophy on improving mechanics via repetition in real-game situations/with realistic pitching. I'm curious.

Quote:

---

. Meanwhile you cry every time it's mentioned that you've been banned from this site multiple times (talk about exposing with facts lol) because that's a personal attack and your poor feelings are hurt.

---

Thanks for making my point. Out of arguments, this is what you've been reduced to. Personal attacks, claiming someone is throwing a temper tantrum which is really rich after your last post, and claiming I care that I've been banned before

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

Wicked Good Ag said:

---

BoozingAg said:

---

You think we finished 17th in seasons in which we were a 3 seed? I mean using the same logic you could just as easily say we finished 48th.

LOL

---

Regional finalist would be 17th
Or because we were a three seed in 17 then as a CWS participant we finished 48th ??

---

That's fudging the numbers quite a bit...what makes us the best regional finalist that lost in a regional those years?

There are 32 regional finalists every year, how did you get 17?

---

Because those that win move on to super regionals this they tie for 9th
The regional finalist that doesn't advance finishes tied for 17th.

As stated in my post earlier it is just one metric of many. But I am sick of hearing the metrics that say fire RC and complete dismissal of the other metrics that don't fit their narrative
If he is fired I will get behind the new staff if he isn't fired I will get behind the staff for 2020. But I find some arguments stating "facts" that are much more opinion based
To say we finished 48th because we were a three seed but advanced to the regional final makes no sense unless you completely dismiss the actual postseason. By using that metric Michigan as a three seed will finish 48th as well as will Duke and FSU etc

I'm not saying equating a Regional finalist to the 48th place team is right, I'm just saying it's not different than saying they're the 17th best team. You've provided the only instance anyone has ever seen of that metric.

Ok, and do you think every one that loses in a Regional final is the same quality team?

I never said they were the 17th best team. I said they finished in a tie for 17th. All teams that make the super regionals are for the postseason tourney the top 16. Those who finish as the last eliminated in the regional are tied for 17th (16 teams). This is standard practice for most tourney situations. I have never said that 2017 we were really a top ten team but we finished tied for 7th in the postseason. We tied for 9th in 1989 but arguably we were the best team in the country which is why we were voted number two in the final poll.

People saying Hosting is a minimum to me is a bit of a issue since the metrics change all the time on the whim of a committee

We had the metrics even with our dismal hitting numbers to host that would have been so in the previous few years but not this year.
We went 7-5 against the teams in the CWS even with our hitting so we would compete in spite of the hitting issues. Scoring an average of 7 runs a game this season at a regional would have likely had us advancing but we didn't.

None of these times you mention that we finished tied for 17 did we finish in the top 25 of the polls

BoozingAg said:

---

Quote:

---

. Meanwhile you cry every time it's mentioned that you've been banned from this site multiple times (talk about exposing with facts lol) because that's a personal attack and your poor feelings are hurt.

---

Thanks for making my point. Out of arguments, this is what you've been reduced to. Personal attacks, claiming someone is throwing a temper tantrum which is really rich after your last post, and claiming I care that I've been banned before

---

Except I surrounded that with plenty of other points that completely sent you crawling back to your hole, unable to respond.

nm

I'm sure you think you do, but you don't. You try to single out singular points in an argument as if that's a counter for the entire theme. And now that mine and a few others position on RC for the past few years has been proven right, you try to save with your "just give him next year" bit, as if you haven't been a blind RC loyalist for years. That's why you use phrases like temper tantrums and the low IQ level **** talking in your last post.

I also find it ****ing hilarious that with your new position on RC you can't call for that Childressssssss!!! meme any more. That was your go to and now it's gone. Too bad.

cevans_40 said:

---

TexasAGGIEinAR said:

---

Everyone shut the hell up with the Childress talk and stick to the actual subject of the thread. Go create another thread to talk about the same tired sh*t over and over again. We need a hitting coach. OM's just said no. Any others known to be on a short list? Thanks and please whine and make lame rebuttals to my disliking of every thread turning to Childress discussion.

---

Its gonna be someone you have never heard of. Someone who just needs a stop like A&M for 1 year on his resume.

---

Quote:

---

People saying Hosting is a minimum to me is a bit of a issue since the metrics change all the time on the whim of a committee

We had the metrics even with our dismal hitting numbers to host that would have been so in the previous few years but not this year.

---

No one should have been surprised with what happened. We got dinged for the same reason we've been singed before and for the same reason plenty of other teams have been dinged.

BoozingAg said:

---

None of these times you mention that we finished tied for 17 did we finish in the top 25 of the polls

---

2019 we did