Jump to content


Verified Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Shoney'sPonyBoy

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Shoney'sPonyBoy's Achievements

Rising Star

Rising Star (9/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Reacting Well
  • Very Popular Rare

Recent Badges



  1. This is what I think. He doesn't need the money or the notoriety—he's already got both. And I think he sees his role in the historically black schools as a leader participating in a movement.
  2. I don't think that's what it would mean. It might mean we were witnessing the biggest thrown game in history. It might mean 3/4 of the UGA team were out with COVID. It might mean we should be watching for the StayPuff Marshmallow Man to rampage through town any minute. But it wouldn't mean we were wrong about Harsin.
  3. They just wanted it more than we did. The loss, that is.
  4. Honestly I don't remember all the details. The gist of it is that the reason he left after one year in a three year contract that was unusually generous for a coordinator is because he had personality conflicts with...someone (I really don't remember the full story). That despite the fact that it would have been in his best interest to work out that contract and THEN try to find another HC position he aggressively searched and took the first thing he could find to get out as quick as he could. And he reportedly made some sort of show of leaving and insulted Auburn on his way out the door in some way. But really, that's not the big reason I wouldn't hire him. He's just not a good HC.
  5. There's really no reason to think that. Muschamp as a head coach fields much weaker defenses than Muschamp the DC. At Florida his defenses ranked top ten in total team defense only once. His season rankings were 21st, 5th, 15th, 20th. At South Carolina the highest they ever ranked was 25th and the majority of the years he was there they were ranked in the 50s and 60s, and the last year they were ranked 109th. The defenses got worse every year he was there. Similarly, he started out recruiting lights-out at UF. But his 3rd and 4th class dropped from 3rd in 2011 and 2012 to 9th and then 21st his last year. At USCe he hovered right around 20th in recruiting every year he was there. I think Muschamp would be a bad hire for three reasons. 1. He's a bad HC. He may be a great DC, but he's a bad HC. Two different skills sets. 2. I think we need an offensive specialist, not a defensive one. 3. The way he went about leaving Auburn the last time was very jerky. Clearly there is someone associated with the program he can't get along with. I think we'd be guaranteeing problems of that kind by hiring him again.
  6. Yes. If there was a reason for Auburn fans to be familiar enough with a man to spell his name correctly when there are at least 8 different ways his name could be spelled (that I can think of off the top of my head), then we definitely would.
  7. Yeah, but when you think about championship teams—even some of the dominant ones uat has put up over the past 15 years—they usually have at least one game a season in which everything goes wrong and they have to hang on by their fingernails to survive that one game. Our 2010 team had a few of those. Hell, we didn't win against Kentucky that year so much as they lost. Same with MSU. Yet we were able to beat good uat and Oregon teams to win the title. In 2013 we had two miracle plays in one season to make the title game. Anyway, the point is that when you play in a harder conference the chances that you don't survive those "survival games" to get a chance to play a top opponent in the championship game are higher. As are the chances of injury to key players over the course of a season.
  8. Some of us may not have realized that. I know I didn't. I honestly chose Kiffen because none of the names on the list really excite me, I thought (wrongly, it seems) that Kiffen did attract talent, and he seems to be innovative offensively, which is the best way in today's version of the game to make up for lack of talent while we're rebuilding it. I don't know who we need to hire. For some reason it seems like the list of coaches who would be considered great hires is smaller than it has been in the past.
  9. Most coaches with similar levels of talent can beat Saban. Maybe not every time they play him, but they can split games with him. uat has been given a completely free pass to cheat for around 15 years at this point. And no, that doesn't mean no one else cheated during that time frame, but they were allowed to cheat. Ha-Ha Clinton-Dix. They got caught doing exactly the same thing we got two years of probation, no bowl, no championship eligibility, no t.v. even for one year, loss of scholarships, and a 60 Minutes segment dedicated to how scandalous we were, and they got...nothing. Not even an investigation. They. Didn't. Even. Get. Investigated. And that's on an infraction that they didn't even deny, and that there was a paper trail to prove it and that was a national media story. Saban won a NC at LSU (but so did Les Miles and so did Ed Orgeron), but other than that, before going to uat Saban's record was somewhere between mediocre and pretty good. He was not SUPERCOACH until he was able to buy more talent than everyone else. Not sure why winning when you have a giant talent gap is considered so impressive. I remember SI doing a story a few years back on the four teams in the playoffs because uat had more five star players than the other three teams combined. That kind of talent hoarding happened organically. Sure it did. All that is to say that with NIL, that advantage is going away. And Saban knows it, and he knows what's going to happen as a result of it. That's why he whined about A&M pre-season so hard that the league sanctioned him. He knows that if you want to see how hard Nick Saban is to beat when you have as much talent as he does, you need only look at the uat-UGA games from last year. He doesn't dominate, he splits those games. NIL hasn't had time to even things out yet, but it will. Now everyone is allowed to buy players. Give it three more years, and I predict that Saban won't be any bigger factor than half a dozen other coaches in the SEC, just like he was before he went to uat. He'll either go ahead and retire at that point (I guess he'll be 73 or so) or just stop winning championships. He's not the one you've got to worry about. Kirby Smart is the one you've got to worry about.
  10. Clemson is an interesting outlier. Not saying they haven't had a couple of very highly ranked classes, but if you go back and look, they have had their biggest successes with pretty pedestrian recruiting classes. (They also had them when the ACC was probably at their weakest point in who knows how long.) But if you look at the four years prior to their first playoff appearance and go forward through last year their recruiting classes are as follows: 10th, 20th, 15th, 16th, 9th, 11th, 16th, 7th, 10th, 3rd, and 5th. For comparison's sake, Auburn's recruiting classes over the same time period were: 5th, 11th, 10th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 9th, 12th, 11th, 7th, and 19th. So for seven of those years Auburn out-recruited Clemson, and in an eighth year we were only one spot lower.
  11. I agree and I think it's more fundamental than that. He doesn't need the money or the fame and I think he sees coaching at a historically black college as a personal mission.
  12. O.k. I have no idea what any of that has to do with what I typed. I know health care a pet topic of yours. The bottom line is that you can't have a massive centralized federal government and expect that people aren't going to—one way or another—attempt use it to exert control whenever and wherever they can to benefit themselves. Anywhere there is a massive sword laying around, people are going to fight for the ability to pick it up and swing it in furtherance of their objectives. If you voted for Hillary Clinton for POTUS you voted for probably the individual most willing to sell government influence and generally all around greediest grifter to seek that office since I don't know who. So if you did that I can't see that your concern about American greed is genuine. It's likely just an excuse to give yourself a moral high ground to argue for the policies you favor. But tying this to your recent hysteria about guns, the more powerful the tool, the greater the capacity for damage. Also the greatest capacity for good. The guy who makes drive-by cryptic statements as though they are fact yet never substantiates them may call that simplistic, but I challenge anyone to actually refute it (what he does is not in any way a refutation). The problem is that you think you can limit the damage while preserving the good. And you are willing to do violence to the first amendment to accomplish this (and btw, calling a person's own campaign for a candidate "dark money" might play well in certain audiences, but all you're talking about is telling citizens that they don't have free speech when it comes to politics). And, as usual, you completely ignore the direct questions I asked about how you plan to accomplish this practically. Yes or no: Posting "AU9377 For President!" would become illegal under your plan? If not, you've done exactly nothing to achieve your goal. Again, more people will see that on a decent online platform than they would on a billboard. The internet IMO has made what you want to do impossible, so there's no point in considering it, really.
  13. That's the whole point. If it's so important to them, why do they include it with a bunch of stuff that they know—or at least SHOULD know—is a non-starter? They guarantee its demise out of the gate, same as with the Republicans and Obamacare. It's a political strategy, not a real attempt to change anything. Then they (and you) can claim they are standing up for the people and fighting for what's right (while violins play and an American flag waves in the breeze in the background), all the while knowing that it won't pass. So instead of taking responsibility for that themselves, they get to blame the other party for "blocking" all of their snow-white attempts at virtuous governance. Again, the Republicans do it too. They are the masters of it. I have come to believe that they don't even want to be the majority party any more. They love that position of not having to do anything they campaigned on because the evil Democrats won't let them.
  14. The constitution is not a "guiding document" in our system of government. It's a governing document. It is the highest governmental authority we have. It trumps lower court rulings, legislative actions, and executive actions. The examples you gave are both examples of constitutional contradictions. Specific instances that contradicted the overall principle of the document. In other words, instances that were in and of themselves unconstitutional because they violated the spirit of the rest of the document. How is placing a limitation on political speech similar to those examples? Do you really think censoring political speech goes against the intent of the 1st Amendment in the same way that excluding minorities from possessing the same inherent rights as white men does? "I don't like the consequences of upholding these inherent rights," isn't the same as violating the notion of inherent rights. Plus, like I said earlier, there's a way to fix this without ignoring the constitution. It would take a long time to fix and would be difficult, but it's not a complicated idea. You just reduce the size and scope and reach and power of the federal government. The people who conceived of the idea of a constitution that guaranteed inherent rights never intended for them to co-exist with a behemoth federal government like ours. Faced with a choice between the federal government that by your own words is the enforcement arm of the very problem you describe and the constitution, I'm taking the constitution and the 1st Amendment.
  15. No, it's the truth. If they really wanted to have done something about it so far they would have. They've had opportunities.
  • Create New...