No doubt Jim is up against the machine.Well, I reject the notion of me being a bleep-hole (guessing). We can agree that I get flippant and wreckless at times, and I've owned that baggage. Most of that is just not realizing how seriously people take insults on the internet. Still, I get it.
In all honesty, I've consciously tried to be more civil lately. And thought I was (I actually defended Hudspeth to start this thread), but I guess I'm not very good at it. You guys will take this how you will, but I got a TON of ____ after taking a hardline stance on hale, on the Tigue, and a couple other things. Look at my post history. I was never aggressively insulting people before that time. I still get people sending me stupid crap about those topics. And most of the time when I tried to handle it differently, it turned out to be BS. All BS. Got old, and just assumed the worst of anyone coming AT ME.
Anyway, to bring it back to the topic, the Falgout comments are deep rooted and really a conversation for another platform. I have many reasons why, in my view, the separation needs to be much more detailed than how its currently constructed and I'd be happy to discuss that in depth as well. As for Jim, I've spoken to him enough to feel like I have a good gauge on his intentions. You've seen me profess my support over and over for Jim. The thing is, Jim is up against a machine. These people want to keep their power or influence in place. The athletic program at UL is not their number 1,5,10,25th priority to them. Their seat at the table is priority #1. The entire foundation is rife with past powerful people's surrogates, and its one of the many many many problems we have getting anywhere. Politically and athletically.
On the Hudspeth deal, I think I was saying they were thinking about playing a 3 deep and you didn't like it. Or vise versa. Something like that.