Jump to content

Texas at Kansas State


UTfanatic

Recommended Posts

Kansas St starting QB is expected to play.  Winable game for the Horns, but they are just 1-5 in Manhattan since 1998.  Only win in 2002.  K-State has not played very well lately, and both teams desperately need the win.  I'll lean with the Wildcats to bounce back.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eazy said:

Kansas St starting QB is expected to play.  Winable game for the Horns, but they are just 1-5 in Manhattan since 1998.  Only win in 2002.  K-State has not played very well lately, and both teams desperately need the win.  I'll lean with the Wildcats to bounce back.  

Can't argue with you.  Trends would say K St. is the smart play and trends are trends for a reason.  Usually what happens.  Charlie managed to break an 0-14 trend when trailing at the half last Saturday against a very strong Iowa St. team (I am being facetious about "very strong" in case the sarcasm is lost on "others.").  Maybe he can break another this week.  For some reason my hopes aren't real high, but I hope you and I are wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, idk why your expectations aren't high...We lost to good teams, Oklahoma, Okst an Cal are all good teams is not like we just went out their and lost to Kansas, Wake Forest or A&M (lol) we lost to good teams, yea we haven't been lucky in the little apple but, I feel like we should be 55/45 favorite..Is not a lot but a favorite non-the less..

jeeze we lose 3 games and y'all act like we can't win any of em 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CRUSHCOACH said:

In order for me to believe again, Charlies DEFENSE has got to step up and play against a decent team. I don't put much stock in what they did against Iowa State.

Well you say that, but ISU came into that game scoring 38 and 31 points their two previous games against Baylor and Okie Lite. Something changed with our defense last week. I think it was the attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, D3zii said:

Can't ask your dline to come off the ball fast and hard and not expect that, specially young players..gotta get right we gave them that TD drive

Watch the ball.  It's a rule of all levels of football no matter how young they are.  3 offsides on 1 drive is inexcusable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,978
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • Tomball takes wild 2nd game 8-6. Both teams had 3 E's. Tomball gave up a late lead but first game pitching star Sampson nailed a 3 run homer to push Tomball to victory. 
    • My understanding is that the falsification of records was the crime that he was convicted of… but for it to have been a felony act, it had to have occurred in the furtherance of another criminal act. The prosecution had to first prove that the criminal act of falsifying documents had occurred. IF the jury believed that records were falsified, they were given three possible criminal acts… any one of the three would allow a felony conviction. The instructions stated that for any of the 34 charges, all twelve of the jurors had to agree that records were falsified, but they also had to believe that the records were falsified in the furtherance of at least one other, different crime. Six jurors could believe that Trump was falsifying records to avoid paying taxes… the other six could believe that it was skirt around election laws. The jurors didn’t have to agree on which of the three alleged criminal acts Trump was trying to further by falsifying records, just so long as they agreed that a) the falsification occurred and that it b) occurred to help him cover up another crime (for which he wasn’t charged and never proven to have committed or to have even occurred, for that matter).     Complete pile of crap as a prosecution, in my opinion.     But, we shouldn’t cry if our nominee is the kind of man who bangs porn stars while his wife is at home with the kid, then tries to buy her silence, then breaks the law in regards to falsifying documents to hide the evidence of the coverup.    If you’re wondering why falsifying those records might be illegal, it’s this. Money paid to your attorney for services performed can be deducted from one’s taxes as a legal expense. If the money is paid to a person to settle a personal claim, then the amount would be taxable-the falsification would have been done to avoid taxation. On the other hand, if campaign funds were spent to pay hush money and the records were falsified to hide the violation of campaign laws, then the felony occurred.    The bottom line is this…. They didn’t have enough evidence to indict trump on any of those three things that allegedly happened… but they DID have evidence that the financial records were falsified, so they point at these other acts which can’t be proven to bump the charges on falsification to a felony.    And the reason Trump didn’t take the stand is that he can’t go on the record about whether or not he had sex with Daniels… I’m certain that they can prove it and hang him up on perjury too.    The most delicious irony is this… Trump gave his supporters too much credit for their integrity. He thought they’d turn on him if they found out what he’d done, when in reality they wouldn’t have given a care… Trump’s whole falsifying records and quest for secrecy wasn’t even needed… his followers don’t have moral objections to his sinful acts.  
    • Wake is about to go from Preseason #1 to the 1st team eliminated 
    • The Republican Party is dying because of folks like you who want to compromise with socialists and folks that proclaim “from the river to the sea” in reference to Israel.  I don’t want a party that folks such as yourself want to save, may as well be democrats, which you apparently are. My standards haven’t changed, yours have.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...