Just a question

#53
#53
3L with debt said:
My experience: not so much with Bama boards but Auburn or LSU.... geez, talk about a complex.
Click to expand...


I made this statement on a Bama board.

"Back in the old days all coaches paid players. Neyland, Bryant, Dodd, Wade and all those guys. However, there was a gentlemen's agreement. You didn't tell on the other guy. When you got outbid, you moved to the next recruit."

I was immediately banned, and my post deleted. The reason given for the ban? That I had insinuated that Bear Bryant had paid a player.
 
#54
#54
SavageOrangeJug said:
I made this statement on a Bama board.

"Back in the old days all coaches paid players. Neyland, Bryant, Dodd, Wade and all those guys. However, there was a gentlemen's agreement. You didn't tell on the other guy. When you got outbid, you moved to the next recruit."

I was immediately banned, and my post deleted. The reason given for the ban? That I had insinuated that Bear Bryant had paid a player.
Click to expand...

lol... ok, point conceded.
 
#55
#55
SavageOrangeJug said:
I made this statement on a Bama board.

"Back in the old days all coaches paid players. Neyland, Bryant, Dodd, Wade and all those guys. However, there was a gentlemen's agreement. You didn't tell on the other guy. When you got outbid, you moved to the next recruit."

I was immediately banned, and my post deleted. The reason given for the ban? That I had insinuated that Bear Bryant had paid a player.
Click to expand...

lol
 
#56
#56
#57
#57
BigPapaVol said:
Oh, so by LCD you meant some concept where all of the denominators are 100. I get it.

How does all denominators being the same support your condescending LCD comment?

Maybe math for something beyond dummies would help you a bit.
Click to expand...

The very nature of LCD is same denominator (C= common; i.e. same). And no thanks, I have learned and taught all the math I will ever want.

Please just send me a PM message if you need help understanding. This has no place in this thread or on this board...
 
#66
#66
3L with debt said:
The very nature of LCD is same denominator (C= common; i.e. same). And no thanks, I have learned and taught all the math I will ever want.

Please just send me a PM message if you need help understanding. This has no place in this thread or on this board...
Click to expand...
no, lowest common denominators absolutely says that some are different. Percentages are fractions expressed with 100 as a denominator. 3/4 and 2/4 both have 4 as lcd, but have 100 as denominator in percentage form. That just doesn't work in your favor.

LCD is not a term that works with percentages.

We digress. If you think I represent the LCD of football fans, more power to you.
 
#67
#67
Jesus Christ....

Please note in your example that the denominators are equal. That is what LCD represents.

Power to me.
 
#68
#68
3L with debt said:
Jesus Christ....

Please note in your example that the denominators are equal. That is what LCD represents.

Power to me.
Click to expand...
in percentages the denominator is always 100. Every time. Always. Without fail. That concept does not mesh with lowest common denominator, ever.
 
#69
#69
you introduced percentages (see post 45) and I just simply answered that by saying that a percentage was just a ratio (see post 47). Then you entered dollars and cents in to the discussion, so, yes, it will always be 100.

Maybe we should just grab a beer together and stop hijacking other people's threads.

Peace?...
 
#70
#70
3L with debt said:
you introduced percentages (see post 45) and I just simply answered that by saying that a percentage was just a ratio (see post 47). Then you entered dollars and cents in to the discussion, so, yes, it will always be 100.

Maybe we should just grab a beer together and stop hijacking other people's threads.

Peace?...
Click to expand...
Peace on this board is much less fun than antagonistic banter, IMO. However, if we must....
 
#71
#71
tidenumber1 said:
In all honesty as a Bama fan I would love for Fulmer to be there for 20 more years.

My question though is when will UT quit buying into the whole scape goat thing. First it was Randy Sanders in 05. I really disagreed with that b/c it looked like the same ole plays that have always been called under Fulmer.
Now I get the feeling that after this year Clawson will be the scape goat and I still have not seen the plays change.

Maybe it is just me and I am not trying to flame or anything b/c I truely love the rivalry we share. (Except where you guys owned us there for awhile)
Click to expand...
That's because it os soo subtle......double-ought spy crap. :hi:
 
#72
#72
JMBIGORANGE said:
Cartervol said:
Cut knew this. Thats why the short passing game was as effective as it was last year. Its sad that our O-line has become a liability rather than a strength.[/QUOTE

Seems like Cutt was covering up for alot of our weaknesses. Everyone complained about Crompton not getting enough snaps last year. Well it's pretty evident now why he didn't play Crompton. Our line was considered so good because Cutt's offense was designed to get the ball out quick and Ainge was very good at finding the open recievers. I always thought Cutt went away from the run to quick but maybe it was because our line wasn't very good.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true... Hindsight is 20/20. I never thought I'd post this, but Cut knew what he was doing and dammit, I owe the man an apology for questioning things that I did not know.
Click to expand...
 
#73
#73
tidenumber1 said:
In all honesty as a Bama fan I would love for Fulmer to be there for 20 more years.

My question though is when will UT quit buying into the whole scape goat thing. First it was Randy Sanders in 05. I really disagreed with that b/c it looked like the same ole plays that have always been called under Fulmer.
Now I get the feeling that after this year Clawson will be the scape goat and I still have not seen the plays change.

Maybe it is just me and I am not trying to flame or anything b/c I truely love the rivalry we share. (Except where you guys owned us there for awhile)
Click to expand...

Let me apologize for the rude posters. It's already been a long season and it's just going to get longer. Your comments are accurate and I truly believe that the problem begins and ends in Fulmer's lap. If we continue on the track that we seem to be on now, Fulmer will resign effective at the end of the season and I believe that the next HC will be Lane Kiffin or Will Muschamp. If that scenario comes true, I believe that the rivalry between Bama and UT will heat up again to historic proportions. We're not that far from being very good, and I think that Bama has arrived. It will be fun to see how it plays out.
 
#74
#74
Vol71 said:
Let me apologize for the rude posters. It's already been a long season and it's just going to get longer. Your comments are accurate and I truly believe that the problem begins and ends in Fulmer's lap. If we continue on the track that we seem to be on now, Fulmer will resign effective at the end of the season and I believe that the next HC will be Lane Kiffin or Will Muschamp. If that scenario comes true, I believe that the rivalry between Bama and UT will heat up again to historic proportions. We're not that far from being very good, and I think that Bama has arrived. It will be fun to see how it plays out.
Click to expand...

No problem. We have all been there. Ex. Shula
 
#75
#75
Well, Shula was handicapp by scholarship reductions. I'm not sure what Fulmer's can cite as the problem.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top