Kansas is being taken to woodshed
- Thread starter PryorFan
- Start date
I haven't forgotten or forgiven oregon for the game. I equate their gimmicky uniforms to the boise state blue field.
Last edited:
Two big problems for Kansas, really three.
They didn't shoot with a darn from the arc, while the Ducks hit some crazy treys. But mostly they couldn't get any stops early, to get their running game going. Their freshman stud picked up a quick pair of fouls before the first tv time out, and that just set a bad tone for the whole night.
But Kansas also really didn't have to play against anybody with a great rim protector in 2017. There aren't any in the Big XII. And no, don't go telling me about Lattin. Oregon's big guy inside had Lattin's hops, plus some, and was a lot taller and longer. And stronger. He dominated their guards trying to penetrate inside. That changed everything.
They didn't get the kinds of open looks they're used to in transition, because you can't run when you're throwing it in from the baseline after taking the ball after it's through the net. Their inability to get stops and especially defensive rebounds kept their own running game from having much function.
So once again, the Jayhawks get close, but no cigar. On a night when the men stepped up, all the men, except Mason, were wearing green and gold.
They didn't shoot with a darn from the arc, while the Ducks hit some crazy treys. But mostly they couldn't get any stops early, to get their running game going. Their freshman stud picked up a quick pair of fouls before the first tv time out, and that just set a bad tone for the whole night.
But Kansas also really didn't have to play against anybody with a great rim protector in 2017. There aren't any in the Big XII. And no, don't go telling me about Lattin. Oregon's big guy inside had Lattin's hops, plus some, and was a lot taller and longer. And stronger. He dominated their guards trying to penetrate inside. That changed everything.
They didn't get the kinds of open looks they're used to in transition, because you can't run when you're throwing it in from the baseline after taking the ball after it's through the net. Their inability to get stops and especially defensive rebounds kept their own running game from having much function.
So once again, the Jayhawks get close, but no cigar. On a night when the men stepped up, all the men, except Mason, were wearing green and gold.
When will Sooner fans accept the fact that Kansas sucks and adds nothing to the conference? Yes KU is better than average at basketball but not an elite program anymore. This is no surprise.
I'm not exactly over that one myself. For one game, I'm now a major Tar Heel fan.
Isn't that the truth! A person very easy not to like.
If I had a daughter who played basketball, Mulkey would NOT be allowed to contact her.
Last edited:
I would not. There are various forms of sexual pedators, some of who are simply facilitators. Let's cover up for those who commit sexual crimes.
Oops....I meant Mulkey would NOT be allowed to contact a daughter of mine. I never liked Mulkey even before her stupid remarks recently. I think the game last year when she ripped off her jacket and threw it in the air sealed the deal for me.
We all have our limits. Well, most of us do. There are things we just won't do. It conflicts with our value system too much. Kim Mulkey conflicts with everything that I like about women's sport. She conflicts with my values of how to treat a player, or an opponent. A university is still, first and foremost, a place for education.
Agree. Mulkey's excellent coaching record seems to be upstaged by her emotional meltdowns that reflect badly on her and on an already scarred Baylor athletic program.
I keep in mind that the entire reason for the existence of the NCAA was never to promote academics. Ultimately, it was a matter of "Ringer control." Yale didn't want the guy they hired to play against Cornell this week to be playing for Harvard against Yale next week. It was humiliating to be defeated by a ringer that you had uncovered. So, they began a long process of Ringer Regulation: making them enroll, then making them take classes, then actually making them pass classes. I mean, it only took about fifty years to become alarmed that the ringers couldn't read.
Women's sport became angry with Mulkey when she became the one who hired the ringers. Women's basketball had attempted to refrain from recruiting violations or phony diplomas. They had fifty year of NCAA disgrace to learn from. Mulkey essentially bought a team, a team that she said would win her three titles. It infuriated the women's basketball community that she introduced this into the sport.
And, then, she wasn't a good enough coach to win more than one.
Women's sport became angry with Mulkey when she became the one who hired the ringers. Women's basketball had attempted to refrain from recruiting violations or phony diplomas. They had fifty year of NCAA disgrace to learn from. Mulkey essentially bought a team, a team that she said would win her three titles. It infuriated the women's basketball community that she introduced this into the sport.
And, then, she wasn't a good enough coach to win more than one.
The NCAA wasn't formed to stop ringers. It was created because Teddy Roosevelt told college football that the danger wouldn't be tolerated, and the rules of the game had to be cleaned up.
It then grew into the left wing monolith you see today. Girls weren't part of the NCAA for the most part, for 75 years. And they moved it much more to the political left. Women had their own organization into the early 80's. The first broadcast of a national championship was on PBS. Old Dominion against Delta State I think. ODU was a national power. AIWA or something like that.
It then grew into the left wing monolith you see today. Girls weren't part of the NCAA for the most part, for 75 years. And they moved it much more to the political left. Women had their own organization into the early 80's. The first broadcast of a national championship was on PBS. Old Dominion against Delta State I think. ODU was a national power. AIWA or something like that.
It takes some doing to take a profit-driven organization and label it as a left-wing monolith. What do you think they were trying to clean up? Why were the rules so driven towards recruiting and eligibility?
The flying wedge. Ball carriers not down til they said the were. Clipping not a penalty. Players dying. The rules about amateurism weren't really needed at first because there were no pros. National recruiting restrictions didn't become a factor until the 1970s. The stuff before that were about amatuers staying that after pro sports became a factor.
Pro sports didn't pay big money until the 60s. Most mlb and nfl players had off season jobs to support themselves. Schools really didn't make big money until thr OU-UGa lawsuit.
Any organization, enforcing left wing beliefs on all of us, as the NCAA has decided to do reflects who they are. And unfortunately, what most college experiences have become.
Pro sports didn't pay big money until the 60s. Most mlb and nfl players had off season jobs to support themselves. Schools really didn't make big money until thr OU-UGa lawsuit.
Any organization, enforcing left wing beliefs on all of us, as the NCAA has decided to do reflects who they are. And unfortunately, what most college experiences have become.
You do realize that the NCAA is not a government organization?
It is and it isn't. The strong majority of their members are state schools. Most of the politicians on the NCAA come from state schools.
Aren't you stretching it a bit to try to make a point? As a proud liberal, I would be most happy to accept the assignment of a progressive idea, but I suspect that the Progressive would wonder why we have sports under the academic umbrella in the first place.
What is academic? Reading Plato? In his original language? By your proposition, should there be a business school? Is physical education illegitimate? Academia is not what it used to be, it has become a left wing indoctrination, and if you stand outside that, your view isn't dealt with. It's squashed.
I just heard a left winger idiot who promoted the shouting down of someone he considered an academic opponent, to be shouted down as he spoke at Villanova today. And that is the liberal mantra now. They're not for free speech. They're only for speech that they promote, and most of it is out of the mainstream of America, at least in the middle of the country.
I read this week about a Christian student, who was thrown off a campus, because his Muslim professor stated as fact during a lecture, that Jesus was not even crucified. Now that's not consensus, but the student wasn't just squelched in his different opinion. He was thrown out of school. And that is the way it is.
There are a whole lot of people who believe that we were created, and did not evolve from some how-did-it-get-to-be primordial goo. But that point of view is not allowed in college academia. Professors who dare to go there are threatened with loss of jobs if they even suggest the possibilities. Given fair airing, that view has lots of evidence, but students are not allowed to hear it.
I thought college was less about being academic, and more about preparing late teen, early 20's kids mostly, to enter the world and contribute to it, productively, and hopefully at some near future point, paying for their own lives.
We have liberal professors in America spouting unreal ideas under the protection of tenured freedom of speech. But that protection is only seen for the liberal majority in that "academia."
My guess is that your view of "academia" would coincide most with a liberal point of view. Those of us who would, for example, argue for the historical truth of the gospel as presented in the bible, would be outside of "academia." If so, I'd not ask why, but rather get indignant that only a liberal and atheist point of view (might be hyphenated) is allowed in "academia."
I know guys who went to OU, didn't graduate, but ended up making a great living in athletics. And they were better for it, because they spent personal effort taking advantages of class offerings in becoming better citizens. And some real geeks of the 95 pound weakling status, benefited from taking a phys ed class.
Classical academics put some emphasis on physical development. And more to your point, Americans love competing. Our economy is based on it. I know that in high school, the lessons I learned as part of four different kinds of athletic teams, had great value in more than learning how to run, pitch, catch, or run a pass route, or execute a double team.
Notions about preparing for what's valuable. Or teamwork. Or respecting authority. Or so many other intangibles were learned by being in sports led by quality coaches. Those things did more for me in life, than memorizing Chaucer's preamble in The Canterbury Tales. The latter had value. And taking that task and doing what I was told, had value. Doing it well, even more.
But especially young men, often learn better while doing, than by reading and regurgitating. The wise person learns in all kinds of ways about all kinds of things. Figuring a batting average motivated me in math, a whole lot more than two trains leaving at different times and when would they meet.
From my conservative view, athletics done right, is valuable in "academia." Fortunately here, I can say that, without having a bunch of liberal kids make so much noise that nobody could hear what I think. It might not be worthwhile to everybody. But somebody might find it at least slightly interesting.
Last edited:
Well hell they are headed down that road....the NCAA is officially getting into trying to affect government policy with their threat to boycott North Carolina over the transgender bathroom issue.
lol Sometimes, what now calls itself conservative can be amusing.
Very true.....but it works BOTH ways, as far as I'm concerned.
JFK would be too conservative today to be a Dem if he hadn't been ambushed/murdered. Probably Bobbie too. I suspect that most who consider themselves 'progressive' or liberal are actually fiscal conservatives. If not, I'll be happy for you to spread your wealth in my direction...
IA, my guess is that would be a little shaky. JFK would be a possible maybe. But RFK sort of headed us in this left direction, while living a pretty unmoral personal life. I can't think of anything non liberal about Bobby. John, who encouraged Americans to bear any burden and pay any price, and who sought fiscal sanity, maybe.
Plaino is on the right side of this discussion. The liberal power brokers especially those supportive of the mass media and academia are striving to squash conservative speech.
Trump's presidency will be shackled by the divisiveness in our country, fueled by a media that is nothing more than a propaganda tool by both the Left as well as the Right.
What liberals don't get is that Trump, for all his faults and impulsive behavior, is the byproduct of people, mainly in the so-called "fly over zone", that have had enough of being discounted by liberals as stupid, backward, bigoted....for not buying into nanny state BS.
I feel that with Trump and Hillary being THE choices in last November's election, the bar has been lowered for presidential qualification. 320 million people in the country and this is the "best and brightest" of our choices ? Don't think so.
What liberals don't get is that Trump, for all his faults and impulsive behavior, is the byproduct of people, mainly in the so-called "fly over zone", that have had enough of being discounted by liberals as stupid, backward, bigoted....for not buying into nanny state BS.
I feel that with Trump and Hillary being THE choices in last November's election, the bar has been lowered for presidential qualification. 320 million people in the country and this is the "best and brightest" of our choices ? Don't think so.
CT, I don't want to make this into a political board. It would be interesting to have a discussion and see how far apart we might be---or if we simply need to see where there is common ground. I know that there are some with whom I have absolutely no interest in any discussion. If you reject the facts of science, I would also insist that you reject the facts that have enabled you to survive---like medicines, genetically modified foodstuffs, electronics, and mechanics---all of which are based on that which you reject. Do any of you have any idea how big a potato was in 1860? Or, how big a head of wheat was? A kernel of corn? We don't have enough leeches for physicians to treat all of you without science.
Is science really facts? My favorite courses at OU were two History of Science classes taught by Dr Duane Roller. He was the favorite professor of half of his students, at least. Every once in a while, I bump into one, on one of these message boards, and it's a common belief.
I don't know about me, but I'm certain that he knew much more about the subject that you do. Science gives us present paradigms, until we learn more. But the more we learn, the more we learn that we don't know.
And these days, science has more politics in it than ever. Dr. Roller said that the true scientist is the one who gives us the new postulates. The stuff that you're talking about is technology, not science. And lots of good technology comes with imprecise "facts." It's why we keep losing drugs when we learn more about how they work. And many drugs help us, even though we really don't understand why.
It's an oversimplification, but Dr Roller contended that technolgy is accomplished through the scientific method, but science is not. Science is accomplished by the person who is a Platonic thinker and understands that our senses deceive us, like the man chained to a wall seeing only the shadows on the opposite wall in Plato's parable of the caves.
The scientist is the person who knows that there is a man dancing around a campfire on a ledge that he cannot see. He only sees the shadow, but knows that the man is there, even though he cannot see him. He knows the campfire and dancer are there, though the eye of his mind. He showed us how Platonistic thought dominated science, because it's the eye of their mind thinkers, that lead us to the next level.
What we call an atom, really isn't an atom, because the word means not divisible. It used to be considered the smallest possible particle. We now understand that is folly. But how small does the paradigm go? Ahead of our technology. But with incorrect paradigms, we can still get a lot accomplished.
It's the new postulate that is science. The details of the technology comes after. But the scientist already knows it's true. It's why Galileo knew that heavy things and light things fall at the same rate, even though he couldn't prove it, in the real world. But they had to, in the eye of his mind. The testing wasn't done until more than 400 years later in the first space landing.
For centuries, all science was mostly about figuring out God's creation. It's only in the last coupld of centuries that atheism started to dominate, but now they've gone so far as to say that science cannot include God, which is folly if God is real. And there is great evidence for us having been created. You're just not allowed to hear it. Cell complexity is just one of many pieces of evidence.
And the fossil record doesn't confirm your view. It does the opposite. Even Steven J Gould admitted that. The fossil record is absent what you claim is there. And when we discover that the "transition fossils" that were previously proclaimed to be evidence, future discussion omits that those previous claims were shown to be ape or man, not something in between. And the fossils you'd expect have never been found. They aren't gradual.
But when you suppress information, then it hides truth, kind of like those students at Villanova this week.
I don't know about me, but I'm certain that he knew much more about the subject that you do. Science gives us present paradigms, until we learn more. But the more we learn, the more we learn that we don't know.
And these days, science has more politics in it than ever. Dr. Roller said that the true scientist is the one who gives us the new postulates. The stuff that you're talking about is technology, not science. And lots of good technology comes with imprecise "facts." It's why we keep losing drugs when we learn more about how they work. And many drugs help us, even though we really don't understand why.
It's an oversimplification, but Dr Roller contended that technolgy is accomplished through the scientific method, but science is not. Science is accomplished by the person who is a Platonic thinker and understands that our senses deceive us, like the man chained to a wall seeing only the shadows on the opposite wall in Plato's parable of the caves.
The scientist is the person who knows that there is a man dancing around a campfire on a ledge that he cannot see. He only sees the shadow, but knows that the man is there, even though he cannot see him. He knows the campfire and dancer are there, though the eye of his mind. He showed us how Platonistic thought dominated science, because it's the eye of their mind thinkers, that lead us to the next level.
What we call an atom, really isn't an atom, because the word means not divisible. It used to be considered the smallest possible particle. We now understand that is folly. But how small does the paradigm go? Ahead of our technology. But with incorrect paradigms, we can still get a lot accomplished.
It's the new postulate that is science. The details of the technology comes after. But the scientist already knows it's true. It's why Galileo knew that heavy things and light things fall at the same rate, even though he couldn't prove it, in the real world. But they had to, in the eye of his mind. The testing wasn't done until more than 400 years later in the first space landing.
For centuries, all science was mostly about figuring out God's creation. It's only in the last coupld of centuries that atheism started to dominate, but now they've gone so far as to say that science cannot include God, which is folly if God is real. And there is great evidence for us having been created. You're just not allowed to hear it. Cell complexity is just one of many pieces of evidence.
And the fossil record doesn't confirm your view. It does the opposite. Even Steven J Gould admitted that. The fossil record is absent what you claim is there. And when we discover that the "transition fossils" that were previously proclaimed to be evidence, future discussion omits that those previous claims were shown to be ape or man, not something in between. And the fossils you'd expect have never been found. They aren't gradual.
But when you suppress information, then it hides truth, kind of like those students at Villanova this week.
Okay, you have finally made me feel common. I don't buy into all of your beliefs, quite the contrary, but you can really, really express yourself well. A trait I admire.
Last edited:
Thanks. The interesting thing about Dr. Roller, was that he was as liberal as they come, in issues of religion and the teaching process. But it was a different time. He wasn't there to promote a world view. He was there to teach us how to think. And curiously, even though he thought scripture had little credibility, he taught me how to think honestly about that, in a profound way. He taught me more about how to think, than any professor/teacher/instructor I ever had. His teaching is an integral part of my life, 40 plus years later. We just came to opposite conclusions.
No text books. He taught from what he knew, and with slides he had taken from all over the world. And his tracing of scientific thought for centuries showed over and over that the places where original thought was not just encouraged but where that flourished, were the places that grew all of the great science in history. His tests were all discussion questions, usually one discussion question, because he wanted to know if we got it, and how we thought.
He scoffed at those who called classical Greek and Latin dead languages. "Imagine," he said, "reading Plato or Aristotle or Galileo or Copernicus in their own language, to understand the nuance of what they wrote." It's an irony to me, that when you hear consistent truth like that, that it's easily recognized as that, very much like a great sermon on the gospel. It was profound.
I took his graduate course my senior year, and was the only non masters or PhD candidate in the course. He had this gruff and authoritarian way of dealing with us. In the graduate course, 90% of the grade came from the term paper. He told us that the deadline for receiving it was some specific date in mid April, with the non-flexible qualifier. "If I were you, I'd turn it in a week early, because it will not be accepted one day late. You will fail the course if you don't get it in on time. If you've completed it, but are laying in a hospital bed, in a coma, it will not be accepted a day late. So my advice it, plan to get it in, early"
Like Bob Stoops, he believed that the specific rules are fair, so long as we all know what those rules are in advance, and don't change them. Bob would have loved Dr. Roller, I believe. Mack Brown, not so much.
I try not to perceive things necessarily as just liberal or conservative.
I have my opinions which some would call liberal and some would call conservative, but I do not choose to go through life clinging exclusively to one side or the other. I do not see how one can logically hang his/her beliefs on only one school of thought. It's along the same route as religious fanaticism is many cases.
I believe the failure of so many to think eclectically is what is causing this country to be torn apart and why we choose the likes of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to be our last two choices in a presidential election.....and why the bar has been forever lowered in our choices.
I have my opinions which some would call liberal and some would call conservative, but I do not choose to go through life clinging exclusively to one side or the other. I do not see how one can logically hang his/her beliefs on only one school of thought. It's along the same route as religious fanaticism is many cases.
I believe the failure of so many to think eclectically is what is causing this country to be torn apart and why we choose the likes of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to be our last two choices in a presidential election.....and why the bar has been forever lowered in our choices.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Recruiting Story on Baylor RB commit Ryelan Morris' OV plans
- Latest: thewoodlandstxsooner
-
-
Basketball Hoops: Sooners routed by No. 4 Tennessee- Latest: Sooner Dude
