PFB blog

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

jetman

Federal Marshal
Nov 27, 2004
15,000
9,354
1,743
Edmond Oklahoma
#41
Nah, olderschool is real... he's been around for a while. He used to just call people he disagreed with a floater back in the day.
Yeah I know he's been here for a long time. Still could be a long running sock. Unless you've actually met him in person? I'm not saying I'm right about it. It was just a hunch. I just thought it was odd how he reacted to this thread last night and then a couple of other coincidences.
 
Aug 7, 2006
1,460
1,075
1,743
#42
Yeah I know he's been here for a long time. Still could be a long running sock. Unless you've actually met him in person? I'm not saying I'm right about it. It was just a hunch. I just thought it was odd how he reacted to this thread last night and then a couple of other coincidences.
I think the odds of Boone running a sock account for over a decade are pretty slim.
 

NotOnTV

BRB -- Taking an okie leak
Sep 14, 2010
9,017
6,025
1,743
Gondor
#43
Just to clarify; I agree that some of Gundy's antics have gone a bit far, but I consider it a minor issue. A few times I've wondered if some of what he has done just to generate pub for the program. Bottom line he's still a very good coach and he is who he is. As for politics, studies show a great majority of NCAA coaches are politically conservative:

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...explains-why-football-coaches-vote-republican

So if you think conservative politics is the issue, even a new guy would likely not change the program values and systems that much.
Tommy Tuberville is the GOP Senate candidate in Alabama, FFS.
 
Sep 8, 2007
1,884
913
1,743
#45
Really disappointed in PFB.

I remember a few years ago when they interviewed Mike Holder, he mentioned to them that they need to Ride for the Brand more often. Didn't stick with them.

Agree with the others; chasing green more than Orange at our University's expense. Shame!
 
Apr 7, 2006
2,670
1,363
1,743
#46
The other thing I've noticed. They use the fan/loyalty card to their advantage and then claim to be journalists/need to be unbiased when they bash OSU with clickbait/controversy. I have no expectations of am OSU slant with any other outlet because theyre a sooner (generally) or work for an organizations that doesnt allow them to be biased. I expect "OSU sites" to have OSU interests in mind.
 
Nov 16, 2013
4,794
2,435
743
35
tractor
#47
Lets go one step further, would you see Sooner Scoop unload crap like this? They have three guys on a six game suspension for PEDs and not a word. These dumbasses don't even know their stinking job.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,501
4,172
743
#48
It's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but I disagree on several points. The Kyles are quite a bit more liberal politically than I think most OSU alums are, and that shines through from time to time.
This is interesting. Someone on the Chuba thread accused olderschool of being Kyle because he had a post that mirrored one of his tweets. Last night, after exile started this thread, olderschool posted the famous picture of Johnny Cash flipping the bird on this thread. Which a mod deleted. Seems he took great offense to this thread for some reason. Now you're talking about Kyle's liberal politics. Did someone's sock account get exposed? Is olderschool just a fictional old miserable curmudgeon played by Kyle?

I only did it jokingly, but it did seem interesting that he pointed out the exact same thing about the video as Kyle, not long after Kyle's tweet.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Nov 21, 2008
6
4
1,553
Stroud, OK
#51
The most impactful thing is probably to email Holder and recommend he pull their media credential. If they no longer have access to press conferences and media events as a school approved member of the press, their ability to do their job is greatly impacted. They made a really big deal about finally getting credentialed and their content has steadily gone downhill and anti-OSU in general since. I quit going to their site after the Kyles went in on Gundy about bringing players back.
 
Jun 5, 2020
69
16
8
OKC
#53
It's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but I disagree on several points. The Kyles are quite a bit more liberal politically than I think most OSU alums are, and that shines through from time to time. I disagree with most of their political positions as I have read them, but I appreciate a lot of their analysis and news on OSU football. However, they have said n numerous occasions that Gundy is the best football coach in the history of OSU - and I agree with that. They just disagree with Gundy politically and with some of his antics not directly associated with football. They can think that if they want, and I'll still read the analysis.

In this case, what did Gundy do? He was on a private family fishing trip and wore a shirt with a conservative news station logo on it. I have a big time problem with people taking such great exception to that. Chuba over-reacted and did so in the wrong format. I do not believe it should be "social unacceptable" for Gundy to watch a conservative news channel, or wear a shirt with their logo on a personal fishing trip. In spite of what mass media often presents, listening to a politically conservative news outlet does not automatically make anyone a racist, a xenophobe, or a homophobe and it certainly doesn't disqualify a person from being a football coach.
Gundy does not have "private" time - he represents the University 24/7, and is paid well to do it
 
Sep 29, 2006
530
439
1,613
#54
Although I agree with you in principle, it's easier to change Gundy than it is to change society. This is the world we live in and Gundy needs to recognize that. It still comes down to competing with OU, UT, and the rest for that 3 - 4 star recruit who will not care about respect for Gundy's right to his personal political choices.

I think Gundy has finally pushed the "any attention is good attention" idea off the table.
 
Feb 15, 2017
1,262
594
243
66
Texas
#55
To beat the cancel culture, join it?
Not exactly.
I didn't suggest we all send tweets and public posting "don't drink Hoboken" (which is what Chuba did).
I said go to Hoboken and tell them what you think (which is what Chuba admits he should have done).
And do the same to PFB directly.
No public slamming.

I know . .. . so he says in a public forum . .. .
 
Jul 9, 2011
2,508
1,468
743
earrth
#56
I believe that until we can have open and honest discussion based on data and facts, race relations will never improve. Take the OAN criticism that BLM is a "farce" which has been roundly denounced by other media and individuals (and which Fact Check dismissed as false). Farce might be a little strong, but let's take a look Department of Justice data from 2015 (the numbers lag, this is the most recent reports I could find). What they show is BLM is not based on data. These numbers have been fairly consistent from year to year, so I have no reason to believe that 2019 would be much different.

Violent Crime Offenders (murder and assualts):
2015 US population was 69% white, 12% black, 15% hispanic and 4% asian.
2015 Offenders: 44% white, 23% black, 14% hispanic and 2% asian; in 2015 blacks committed violent crimes at just about twice the rate per capita while all other races were at or below their per capita population.
2015 most violent crimes were intraracial (black offender/black victim, white on white, etc). There was slightly higher black on white and black on hispanic victims.
2015 notes: in several large cities (Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC) the percent of black violent offenders were dramatically higher and skewed the nationwide data some.
2015 If non-violent offenses are included the % of black offenders moves quite a bit higher - over 50%.

Contacts with Police (includes traffic stops, arrests, everything):
2015 estimated total contacts with police was just over 53 million.
2015 contacts 23% white, 20% black, 17% hispanic and 18% other (mixed, pacific island, unknown). Based strictly on population contacts would appear slightly high for blacks, but based on the percentage of total crimes committed of about 50% by black offenders, one would expect about 50% of contacts would be with black citizens. The numbers indicate there are quite a bit fewer contacts with blacks based on the percentage of crimes committed than there should be (police have been pressed to match contacts % with the population %).

Violent Police Confrontations:
2015 - 965 persons were shot by police in a contact/confrontation, or .0012%. It is EXTREMELY rare. Of those, 564 offenders were armed with a gun, 281 were armed with a knife or another weapon. In total over
80% of the persons shot by police either were brandishing a weapon, were suicidal/mentally disturbed, or they fought/ran when police told them to halt/attempted to take them in to custody.
2015 - 90 were unarmed, or .000016% - as you would expect, an infinitesimally small percentage. Of the unarmed offenders 6 were white and 40 were black. Even based on the higher percentage of crime, the number appears high for blacks. The difference here is black offenders were far more likely to fight an officer; 6 were shot while trying to take the officer's gun away and 5 were physically beating an officer,
and 2 were innocent bystanders hit by stray bullets from police shooting at an offender. White offenders were far less likely to physically assault the officer.
2015 - I could not find the exact number, but many of the shootings were by an officer of color, not a white officer. I do know DOJ data showed that in total for 2015 white officers used "deadly force" (fired their weapon at an offender) quite a bit less frequently than officers of color. Whatever race the offender, the safest police officer to have a confrontation with was a white male officer. This has been consistent for years.

If you want to look at/research the data yourself you can follow the link. Takes a little digging, but it is all there:

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=70
 
Last edited:

SanditeCowboy

Territorial Marshal
Jan 11, 2005
6,561
2,195
1,743
Sand Springs, OK
#60
I believe that until we can have open and honest discussion based on data and facts, race relations will never improve. Take the OAN criticism that BLM is a "farce" which has been roundly denounced by other media and individuals (and which Fact Check dismissed as false). Farce might be a little strong, but let's take a look Department of Justice data from 2015 (the numbers lag, this is the most recent reports I could find). What they show is BLM is not based on data. These numbers have been fairly consistent from year to year, so I have no reason to believe that 2019 would be much different.

Violent Crime Offenders (murder and assualts):
2015 US population was 69% white, 12% black, 15% hispanic and 4% asian.
2015 Offenders: 44% white, 23% black, 14% hispanic and 2% asian; in 2015 blacks committed violent crimes at just about twice the rate per capita while all other races were at or below their per capita population.
2015 most violent crimes were intraracial (black offender/black victim, white on white, etc). There was slightly higher black on white and black on hispanic victims.
2015 notes: in several large cities (Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC) the percent of black violent offenders were dramatically higher and skewed the nationwide data some.
2015 If non-violent offenses are included the % of black offenders moves quite a bit higher - over 50%.

Contacts with Police (includes traffic stops, arrests, everything):
2015 estimated total contacts with police was just over 53 million.
2015 contacts 23% white, 20% black, 17% hispanic and 18% other (mixed, pacific island, unknown). Based strictly on population contacts would appear slightly high for blacks, but based on the percentage of total crimes committed of about 50% by black offenders, one would expect about 50% of contacts would be with black citizens. The numbers indicate there are quite a bit fewer contacts with blacks based on the percentage of crimes committed than there should be (police have been pressed to match contacts % with the population %).

Violent Police Confrontations:
2015 - 965 persons were shot by police in a contact/confrontation, or .0012%. It is EXTREMELY rare. Of those, 564 offenders were armed with a gun, 281 were armed with a knife or another weapon. In total over
80% of the persons shot by police either were brandishing a weapon, were suicidal/mentally disturbed, or they fought/ran when police told them to halt/attempted to take them in to custody.
2015 - 90 were unarmed, or .000016% - as you would expect, an infinitesimally small percentage. Of the unarmed offenders 6 were white and 40 were black. Even based on the higher percentage of crime, the number appears high for blacks. The difference here is black offenders were far more likely to fight an officer; 6 were shot while trying to take the officer's gun away and 5 were physically beating an officer,
and 2 were innocent bystanders hit by stray bullets from police shooting at an offender. White offenders were far less likely to physically assault the officer.
2015 - I could not find the exact number, but many of the shootings were by an officer of color, not a white officer. I do know DOJ data showed that in total for 2015 white officers used "deadly force" (fired their weapon at an offender) quite a bit less frequently than officers of color. Whatever race the offender, the safest police officer to have a confrontation with was a white male officer. This has been consistent for years.

If you want to look at/research the data yourself you can follow the link. Takes a little digging, but it is all there:

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=70
How dare you bring common sense and data to this discussion!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk