ADVERTISEMENT

This program - history lesson

Continually wilts in the pressure of opportunity

1975 - we were #2 and lost to Arkansas
1985 - 87 - could never get over the opening game hump
1992 - lost to ND in the cotton bowl
1995 - as the ap#3 team, we lost to CU
2012 - JFF and we lose to UF and LSU
2013 - lose to Bama and AU - both at home
2015 - #6 - lose to MSU
2016 - #6 - lose to Bama
2020 - miss the playoffs by one spot
2024 - in first place - and shit the bed against USCe and AU.

Beating Texas will be no consolation- just a reminder we don’t have a championship DNA in this program.

We just can’t have nice things.
  • Like
Reactions: rrdog and Mac1014

Let’s play the hypothetical scenario

Without knowing how the season ends let’s assume Elko decides to make changes to the staff at the end of the season. Who’s safe? Who’s getting let go? Who do you replace them with?

This is what I have so far.

Safe:
Offense -
Klein (OC), Taylor (RB), Cushing (OL),

Defense -
Aristide (DB), Jerod-Eddie (DL)


Undecided:
Wiggins (WR), Spencer (DL): both most likely to be retained


Let Go:
Bateman (DC/LB)


Possible DC Replacement:
Santucci, Fuller, Aranda (if fired by Baylor)


Staff Needs:
Passing game coordinator

SECCG Tickets

What’s going on Aggies, I just joined here for the month to post some tickets I have for sale for the big game.

I have sold these tickets for the past few years and have all of these in my account and ready to transfer. Right now everything I have is pairs.

Sections are as follows-
230 row 4 $1500 obo
244 row 10 $1500 obo
227 row 6 $1500 obo
341 row 18 will be yalls 30 yard line SOLD
132 row 24 seats 1,2 on aisle SOLD

You can call or text me at 229-630-2600

I have been a member on UGA Rivals since 2015.

I figure once yall or Texas win Saturday prices will go up.

DEI for the win..... NOT

Would love to hear how @Aggie98nHouston , @travster23 or @KeithDB would interpret this study considering it works against everything their political party believes in.....


Corporate media outlets have buried, downplayed, or otherwise shelved a new study which reveals that "diversity, equity, and inclusion" (DEI) policies cause people to become 'hostile' - essentially seeing racism where none exists.

The new study from the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) and Rutgers University found that people exposed to DEI talking points about race, religion and gender form integroup hostility and authoritarian attitudes towards others.

"What we did was we took a lot of these ideas that were found to still be very prominent in a lot of these DEI lectures and interventions and training," said NCRI Chief Science Officer Joel Finkelstein, a co-author of the study. "And we said, ‘Well, how is this going to affect people?’ What we found is that when people are exposed to this ideology, what happens is they become hostile without any indication that anything racist has happened."

Researchers exposed 324 participants to two sets of reading material; a racially-neutral text about corn, or the writings of race-baiters Ibram X. Kendi or Robin DiAngelo. The participants were then exposed to a racially neutral scenario in which a student was rejected from college.



Those who were exposed to the writings of Kendi and DiAngelo injected racism into the scenario.



It gets worse... as X user Crémieux (@cremieuxrecueil) notes, those exposed to DEI wanged to punish the "offenders."


SHUT IT DOWN!

As Colin Wright of Reality's Last Stand notes (h/t Mike Shedlock), the New York Times and Bloomberg "abruptly shelved coverage" of the study.

The implications of these findings cannot be downplayed. DEI programs have become a fixture in workplaces, schools, and universities across the United States, with a 2023 Pew Research Center report indicating that more than half of U.S. workers have attended some form of DEI training. Institutions collectively spend approximately $8 billion annually on these initiatives, yet the NCRI study underscores how little scrutiny they receive. While proponents of DEI argue that these programs are essential to achieving equity and dismantling systemic oppression, the NCRI’s data suggests that such efforts may actually be deepening divisions and cultivating hostility.

This context makes the suppression of the study even more alarming. The New York Times, which has cited NCRI’s work in nearly 20 previous articles, suddenly demanded that this particular research undergo peer review—a requirement that had never been imposed on the institute’s earlier findings, even on similarly sensitive topics like extremism or online hate. At Bloomberg, the story was quashed outright by an editor known for public support of DEI initiatives. The editorial decisions were ostensibly justified as routine discretion, yet they align conspicuously with the ideological leanings of those involved. Are these major outlets succumbing to pressures to protect certain narratives at the expense of truth?

Research cited in the report highlights how many DEI programs rely on untested theories or unverified self-reports, with little oversight or accountability. A 2021 meta-analysis found that some initiatives not only fail to reduce prejudice but actually exacerbate it, fueling resentment and perceptions of unfairness. The NCRI study’s findings echo these conclusions, suggesting that far from fostering inclusion, DEI programs may perpetuate a cycle of suspicion and punitive retribution.

Yet, as troubling as the study’s findings are, its suppression may be even more consequential. The decision to withhold this research from public discourse speaks to a larger issue: the growing entanglement of ideology and information. In a moment when public trust in institutions is already fragile, the media’s role as a gatekeeper of information becomes all the more worrying. When powerful outlets like The New York Times and Bloomberg withhold stories of such significance, they fracture trust with the American people.
ADVERTISEMENT

Filter

ADVERTISEMENT