Acantha

I feel the same way. There's a lot of debate here about how good the defense could be once we get the right players and they "buy in" and learn the defense, but holy crap why should it be that difficult? This defense was built to dominate on the simplest defensive game plan of them all; let the line move forward, let the LB's/safety clean up and occasionally blitz. With just the right players and time to really learn, Rex's defense may be amazing, but I have no faith that it will be next year.

Count me in with the surprised. I've been out of state for most of my adult life, and I do love coming back and catching a game from time to time, but I still find it surprising that there are so many fans willing to spend that much money on a losing team when the home watching experience can be so great for so much less money. Even if you had weekly parties with the same big group of friends, drinks, and plenty of food, you could still make out on the deal by staying at home and watching on a gigantic 4K screen with better angles and viewpoints of the game (over time of course). Anyway, I'm glad it's not that way. I love seeing the enormous crazy crowd while I watch from across the country!

It is, but the problems predated Strong. I certainly understand the allure, but I thought it was a big mistake for Strong to take that job. I think he's a very solid coach, but UT football is just a monster when it comes to boosters and expectations vs reality surrounding that program. Also the rumors are pretty non stop about how much interference a coach has to deal with there. I do think this will be his last year, and I expect him to catch on somewhere else and start building his reputation again. He's a good solid coach that I think can make those kind of middle of the road teams better than their rosters indicate. He would have been a good fit in South Carolina (How Mushcamp got another HC job so soon, and in the SEC no less, is shocking to me).

Am I mad? Umm, no. Just talking football. Are you mad....bro?? I have not and am not saying that Miami won't be a good team again. The only thing I'm disagreeing with is the Miami fans that are still living off the mystique of those 80's/early 90's teams that dominated the country. Hell, Miami may win a championship in the next 5 years, who knows? But the "U" crap is just living off past glory and has no basis in reality. They're just another big school with a good athletic program. They'll compete some years and not others. And Mark Richt is not on the same level as Saban, Meyers, Harbaugh, etc..., and yes that does matter. The school wasn't built on a haunted Indian burial ground that somehow gives special consideration to the team. They still have to compete with some really great teams from around the country, and currently they have a lot to prove to even be considered better than the other major Florida team in their conference (and that REALLY pains me to say). I didn't say they were great coaches; but Miami fans sure as hell did when they were hired. Each one was finally the one that would restore greatness.

So what happened the past 10+ years? Those head coaches were actually all crap? Seems like any decent coach should be pulling in trophies year after year. Really, you're delusional about "The U". Nobody cares anymore outside of their fans, who have been singing the same old song for a long time now.

He won't make it through the year if the team isn't very much improved this year.

I watched the first two episodes this weekend. The production quality is well above the standard Stephen King mini-series, and the acting is has been pretty good. They're trying to beef up the mysterious stuff a little more than the book did, which I really don't think is necessary. They went WAY overboard with that in the Dome and along with the horrible acting and scripts, it ended up a mess. The really disappointing thing is that they are completely glossing over the "being in the past" part of the time travel thing, which is what I expected to happen. There's just been too many time travel TV shows/movies. The really good thing about the book was the exploration of the extreme differences between the past and present (which was a really perfect niche for SK since he's so long winded in his character and environment build). Outside of "wow, this apple pie is amazing" they just basically ignored all of that, which IMO was probably the point of about 80% of the book. Anyway, it will probably end up being a pretty good watch overall; I just need to adjust my expectations.

I think central FL produces more, especially around the Tampa area. It's crazy the talent that comes out of that region. USF should really have a better team than they do...largest school, crazy talent. They just can't get a foothold. Also, the Texas/OK region competes there as well. Those schools just can't seem to do anything with it lately.

I didn't know they were doing one. I'll watch since I liked the book, but I have very low expectations. The Dome wasn't one of King's best books by a long shot, but the Hulu series was absolutely horrible. Outside of a very few, SK books have a long history of TV/Movie failure. EDIT: After I wrote that I was trying to think of different SK movies and I started remembering more good ones than I initially remembered, so I looked up a list online. Actually quite a few good ones (though still more bad ones). I'll stand by the TV statement though. Almost none of the series stuff worked out.

...and make millions of dollars on merchandise.

Yes, but then they fell off. 25 years ago was referring to the dynasties that couldn't be stopped with the home grown talent that rarely left town. Alabama is the only thing close now a days, and that's all on the coach. Richt isn't Saban. You'll have to tell me exactly what it is about the school that is supposedly different now that Richt is there that wasn't the case for the previous coaches.

Oh come one, talk like that is 25 years past it's time. The talent today is spread too thin; there's too much recruiting in every area by every team for that mentality to hold. If the talent in Miami were really that far above and beyond and somehow restricted from leaving the area, the stream of mediocre coaches that have been through there would have had more success than they did.

As a Gator fan, I've obviously seen plenty of Richt over the years. I'm not sure what Miami thinks will be different from his time at Georgia. The recruiting area is basically the same. He'll get better recruits from southern FL, but less interest from the northern part of the state and GA/Carolina regions. They'll do fine in recruiting, but so did GA. The real question comes down to his coaching ability which just hasn't lived up to his reputation. I don't know how many times during his 14 year tenure at GA that we all got to hear about how loaded their roster was and how THIS was the year they would finally be the year that they won it all, but more often than not never got there. Don't get me wrong, he's a very good coach and will likely do good things for Miami considering how bad it's been there, but IMO he's kind of proven to not be the guy you want to get Miami back to winning titles.

It obviously has an agenda.

Not that there's much correlation, but for some reason this story reminds me of this:

Sorry, I don't need help understanding anything. The arguments you are making are whatever random crap you can throw out; hopefully with enough of that you'll land on one that actually makes sense. There's really no point in this anymore.

I was going to say the exact same thing. Wow.

/sarcasm Never mind.

He's at least 3 versions or his argument past that one. It's in the past. Quit with the theatrics already.

Good one.

None of that is untrue. Maybe incomplete, but the author never claimed to be writing a documentary on the court case, and frankly he's not responsible for such. He passed on the information he was given and gave his opinion about it. He even went as far as to point out his bias at the beginning of the article. Again, show me a lie.

I think there was a lot of information in the article that made it a relevant story. Specifically the lies that were refuted by so many, and the breaking of the confidentiality agreement for his book. I said earlier on that the article is clearly written with an agenda, but as far as I can tell (I skimmed the documents, but really don't care enough to read through the whole thing) he didn't alter the facts, or even embellish them, in order to make his point, which is far more than I expect from most journalists today. He isn't a lawyer in court here, he's just passing on details that he received about Manning's past. What more is needed here?

You're missing a very obvious point; the reasons behind him writing the article aren't the issue. If you have some reason to believe that what he wrote is not true, point it out. Who the hell cares WHY he wrote the article. If it's truth, that's all that matters. Whether he gets national attention for writing it is beside the point.

He describes how it came about in the article. All of the documents he references are right there in the article. Of course he has a slant, but it's not like he's making up the references.

I like the honesty approach: "After all these years, are you really willing to take the chance that this won't be our year?"