Pu-leeze.  Let me explain something to you.  The Braves are a professional sports franchise.  Their players are paid handsomely.  Whereas bammer is...uh....oh, wait.

Prayers sent.   

But look on the bright side......bammar still suxes!!!

+ infiinity 

As good as Fulmer's teams were from '95-'98 I am still not convinced that those '89-'91 teams weren't equally talented. If not for Majors' penchant for blowing games he should've won (especially against Bama), there's no reason UT couldn't have won at least 2 national championships in that 3-year span.

We were really close in 1990. So close....but there is no such thing as a moral NC.  Well, actually there IS...or was until 1998, lol.   

noice

To be fair on the average number of players drafted per year and the total number drafted in comparison between the Majors and Fulmer years, you have to consider that during Majors' entire tenure at UT the NFL draft was 12 rounds long.  In 1993 the NFL shortened the draft to 8 rounds, and then in 1994 to the 7 rounds that it remains today.  So, taking that into consideration, there were more opportunities for Majors' players to be drafted.  Many in the Fulmer years who were free agent signees would have likely been drafted in rounds 8-12, as they were under Majors. 

Good point.  It would be interesting to see the average ranks between Majors and Fulmer.  Fulmer was likely higher in that stat.....

Great news, period.

When did you choose?

http://www.upworthy.com/watch-these-straight-people-answer-a-question-gay-people-have-been-asked-for-years-6

My answer..."I have always chosen not to be gay".   

. The problem is that while the study was debunked, the science community at large still falls back on it. Name any other issue that happens with.

Quite a few actually....IMO.  Science is unfortunatley not as unbiased as it should be. 

"And if homosexual sex did occur in animals, it would die out in one generation for obvious reasons." Then you are saying that genetics play no role? Let's say that it is not caused by a mutated gene but by a single recessive gene. Then a person would have to be pure bred for that trait to appear, meaning that both parents would have to be a carrier for that allele. Neither parent would show that trait but would have a one in four chance that any offspring would have that characteristic. If it is indeed passed in the gene pool by a recessive trait it would never be removed from the population. Thus we have hemophilia and other recessive traits crop up all too often. To not consider genetics in this conversation would be a gross oversight. I have taught genetics at the HS level for many years and never underestimate the power of the human genome.

I understand about recessive genes and I don't deny that genetics plays a role.  Certainly some people are born hermaphrodites.  I can't think of a better example of genetics having an effect on sexual preference or confusion.  Yet, who would argue that hermaphrodites are normal or that it's good to be that way?

But back to my main point....genetics no doubt plays a role, as it does in everything, but the effect has been greatly exagerated IMO.  People ultimately choose their sexual orieintation IMO. 

If only he would make it a permanent gig....

The only tights I wear are my Under Armour base layers when I'm hiking, hunting or fishing on cold mornings.

Anyhow, in my mind I get this image of a guy who sees someone closing in on his rear bumper in the left lane and immediately starts gripping the wheel with both hands and staring at the rearview mirror like Chevy Chase in the highway scene at the start of Christmas Vacation, daring the guy to get within 50 ft. of his bumper. You aren't that guy, are you? 

meh

Just wondering where it will all end. Makes the purity of the amateur game questionable. Heck, what am I thinking? The purity of college sports has been gone a long time.

yep

For real.  

Batman and Robin strike again.  Do you guys also wear tights and hang out in the Bat Cave?  Because where one of you posts, there the other is.  NTTAWWT.  

And this applies to my post above as well Creek...I am done with the original topic.  That doesn't include taking pot shots at the likes of you.  

Thank you for being predictable.   

And other than that.....

   

Mission accomplished..... 

I'm done with this topic.

Now this is your cue...I have posted this 3-4 times in the past, and you have piped up with a smart ass comment intended to keep me posting.

So don't disappoint me....go ahead and jump in.

The conceit that some of have that this site is somehow "better" than others sites...if it was ever true, it becomes less so all the time.

Shame on all of you.....

If you click the link at that site, you get the top teams for the last FIVE years:

http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2013/biggest-sec-nfl-factories/

Sadly, we drop from 5th to 10th...which speaks volumes.  Heck, we might be no 1 or 2 from 2003-2008, in fact I think I recall that we were.

The good news is, it might finally be changing.

And if we are going to bring this up again...Granny I did finally get around to reading this blog:

http://jalopnik.com/5501615/left+lane-passing-laws-a-state+by+state-map

The most popular law follow the Uniform Vehicle Code, which says a car driving below the "normal speed of traffic" should be driven in the right hand lane.  Because it indicates "normal speed" instead of saying "speed limit", a driver going above teh speed limit but slower than most traffic is still in the wrong.

Is he seriously suggesting that the law is going to write someone a ticket for going 80 in a 65 because someone behind them wants to go 90?  It's certainly worded that way!  If so, this guy is a complete DA.   


Because that is NEVER going to happen.  Ever.   

Notice it says "IF THERE IS SOMEONE BEHIND YOU...." on the left.

There is rarely, if ever, anyone behind me.

So KMA.  

The big thing about the genetic role in this is there doesn't have to be a particular gene that says you are this way or that way. A gene or group of genes that control the endocrine system can make a person have certain tendencies though each individual may handle it differently. I think we all know males from our past that were extremely effemminate (sp?) at a very early age, much too young to make that conscious decision. I know that I knew a few and I'm not proud of the way I treated them in retrospect. Today I'm much different in the way I view them (much more tolerent). I really believe that the problem is genetic though I think some make choices and consider it "trendy" or something. I can't imagine anyone choosing that kind of lifestyle and the stigma that goes with it. That's just my opinion and I don't think there is an opinion that is 100% correct on this. As far as other species having tendencies go I can use my dog as an example. He is the alpha male of the neighborhood and he sniffs both genders, but only humps the females.

Okay...but. My main point is, does it occur with animals?  I don't think it does.  A dog may occasionally mount another male dog, but only to show dominance.  In nature, with animals, only heterosexual sex is observed.  And if homosexual sex did occur in animals, it would die out in one generation for obvious reasons.  Of course a "bi animal" could still pass the gene, but I think I already made my point.

Which is, you can say it goes against God, or you can say it goes against nature.  Both are true.  And it is most definitely NOT a survival trait.

Uhh. I haven't participated in this thread. Maybe the quote is from another thread. As far as being a part of the gene pool goes, it doesn't have to be since it may be caused by a simple mispelling in the code which happens all the time. These are mutations and simple ones like this are not necessarily lethal but may cause irregularities in personality. This being said then there is no way for this trait to be weened out of the general population.

My bad. I meant MurfVol.  Easy to get your two names confused, if one is sloppy and in a hurry.

Open question as to whether homosexuality is a mutated gene....I don't think there is any proof of that.

I wouldn't deny genetic aspects of it...but for the most part, I believe it's a choice of the individuals.

And my main point is that if it is natural, it has no way to propagate itself in nature, as by it's very nature it will die out.  Genes do get passed through reproduction.

One thing I see that is rarely discussed, is how homosexuality plays out in nature.  Are there gay animals?  Some would say yes, but let's get real....if there were gay animals, they aren't going to reproduce, right?  And if so, how long would that gene pool last?

So you can approach it from a religious angle or a natural angle, but homosexuality is not conducive to the long-term survival of the species.

Even the sexual act has to be changed.  Are there animals who practice oral sex?

Excuse me for the vulgar language....but when dogs start wearing dildoes and monkeys start munching carpet...that's when I will accecpt that it's 100% natural.

But again...hate the sin, not the sinner.  I agree with MidTNVolMurfVol...I have sinned myself, and often.  "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone".  

Being morally opposed to a .lifestyle does not unilaterally equate hatred.  And all Christian groups aren't teaching their kids to go out and bully gay peers.  Why don't you go ahead and lop us all in with the Wetboro crowd.  Lol, good grief.

This.  Homosexuality is a sin (if acted on) according to the Bible.  So is adultery, lying, stealing, murder, etc.  Christians are not supposed to hate those people, any more than they hate their fellow Christians.  You know who the sinners are?  Everyone.  The Bible says that ALL have fallen short of the glory of God. 

So, hate the sin, not the sin, not the sinner.

But by no means say that sin is okay either.  And to me, those wanting to legalize gay marriage are seeking a legitimacy through the law that those who think their actions wrong deny them.  Just my opinion....I personally don't see any need for gay marriage.  All the other things you discuss...inheritance, life insurance, etc, could be achieved through a form of legal adoption. 

But at the end of the day, I am not sure it matters that much one way or the other.  But to me, homosexuality is a sin and I won't change that belief no matter what legislation is passed.

Don't worry he'll be fine.

The article says he is making changes this spring.

I am sure that will go very well.