Before I start I ask that all responses be reasoned, articulate and devoid of personal attacks. We all want the same thing, most all of you don't personally know me and just because you may disagree with my opinion doesn't make me a moron or a troll. This is a large problem with society as a whole and I don't know if it's due to lack of intellect or failure to control ones emotions but you should be able to disagree with someone in a reasonable manner--which most everyone does. I'd hope the mods start to clean up some of this because it makes us look poor as a fan base.
Thank you if you're still reading:
This year has been a terrible year record wise. But it was always an "EYE TEST" year. And though that may dishearten or frustrate some of you that use Euphamisms like "You are what your record says you are", most anyone who has been involved in a rebuilding process or coaches or leads an organization understands that it really is a process and that you must look deeper than results to look for progress. (keep reading, I know some of you are ready to yell at me)
Texas has "failed" the eye-test miserably three times this year.
ND, TCU, ISU (Road game road game road game)
They've Passed the eye test 6 times
Rice, Cal, OSU, OU, Kansas and K-State (all home games with the exception of neutral Dallas...hmm)
So the question is, how do you view the Tech/WVU games? Do you look at yards gained and the ability to move the ball against WVU and Tech as signs of progress? Do you look at the significant contributions made by our younger players as signs of development from the coaches who have 18-19 year olds ready to play?
OR do you look at turnovers, penalties, yards allowed, poor play calls and poor depth performance to say that both of those games failed "the eye test"?
These two games are much harder to judge than simply the result and I believe in order to have an understanding, we must look at the opponents performance against other teams as well as looking in depth at the games themselves. How one does that is their own choosing. I won't preach the merits of one methodology vs the other.
That leaves Baylor of course (a road game...yikes)
So if you believe Texas has passed the "eye test" 7-8 times this year, you probably are for supporting Charlie one more year. Because
an 8-4 "eye test" season is pretty good.
If you believe Texas has failed the "eye -test" at 5-6, then you are probably against CS staying.
Thus it is impossible for the Pro and Anti Charlie factions to agree, because they view the games and season entirely differently.
The argument most people make against those who support Charlie is that they have "Lower standards" and "accept mediocrity", when the reality is very different and quite simple:
We both want the same things, we both love the university and want what's best for the team. We just don't evaluate the games the same way and thus will not agree on what to do.
I'll go ahead and duck.
Thank you if you're still reading:
This year has been a terrible year record wise. But it was always an "EYE TEST" year. And though that may dishearten or frustrate some of you that use Euphamisms like "You are what your record says you are", most anyone who has been involved in a rebuilding process or coaches or leads an organization understands that it really is a process and that you must look deeper than results to look for progress. (keep reading, I know some of you are ready to yell at me)
Texas has "failed" the eye-test miserably three times this year.
ND, TCU, ISU (Road game road game road game)
They've Passed the eye test 6 times
Rice, Cal, OSU, OU, Kansas and K-State (all home games with the exception of neutral Dallas...hmm)
So the question is, how do you view the Tech/WVU games? Do you look at yards gained and the ability to move the ball against WVU and Tech as signs of progress? Do you look at the significant contributions made by our younger players as signs of development from the coaches who have 18-19 year olds ready to play?
OR do you look at turnovers, penalties, yards allowed, poor play calls and poor depth performance to say that both of those games failed "the eye test"?
These two games are much harder to judge than simply the result and I believe in order to have an understanding, we must look at the opponents performance against other teams as well as looking in depth at the games themselves. How one does that is their own choosing. I won't preach the merits of one methodology vs the other.
That leaves Baylor of course (a road game...yikes)
So if you believe Texas has passed the "eye test" 7-8 times this year, you probably are for supporting Charlie one more year. Because
an 8-4 "eye test" season is pretty good.
If you believe Texas has failed the "eye -test" at 5-6, then you are probably against CS staying.
Thus it is impossible for the Pro and Anti Charlie factions to agree, because they view the games and season entirely differently.
The argument most people make against those who support Charlie is that they have "Lower standards" and "accept mediocrity", when the reality is very different and quite simple:
We both want the same things, we both love the university and want what's best for the team. We just don't evaluate the games the same way and thus will not agree on what to do.
I'll go ahead and duck.
