Disappointed in the loss but not the effort. The ladies took Valley preseason #5 team to the final buzzer on the road. The ladies look capable of making some noise in the AAC this season.

goldenhurricane2 said:

Unfortunately I could absolutely see this floated by Haisten.

Click to expand...

You just guaranteed it by posting for him to see!

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

dougheffking said:

No

Hell no for anyone who’s failed recently in a job..and hell no to the Indiana guy.

Click to expand...

If you are talking about Guerrieri who jumped from TU to Indiana after 3 days on the job (yes, I know it was longer) he’s not even on the staff at Indiana this season. Cignetti brought his DC from JMU with him.

Are you talking about Tom Allen (Penn St DC)?

With Poindexter gone opponents can double on Crawford. Her numbers are really down in the first couple games.

goldenhurricane2 said:

Waiting for the Haisten article that always includes super under qualified candidates and even a high school coach or two.

Click to expand...

Maybe Haisten will suggest TU hire Shaker Reisig's dad in order to sign his son. Haisten has a huge bro-crush on them both.

TU_BLA said:

Since Wilson's ouster seems to be imminent, let's start discussing possible replacements. Obviously Kinne is going to be choice #1. Do we even have enough leverage anymore to pull him from Texas State? I would assume Milkman is on the list...he's at least on my list. My hope is they don't go after Seth Littrell.

Is Gillespie even an option now after his "failed" stint at TCU? (I mean he did help get them into the CFP).

Heck, is the DC at Indiana (you know the guy who was the DC here for like 3 months over the summer before leaving for that job) a candidate? That IU defense is really really good.

Does Jerry O have any more pro-connections he could pull a darkhorse candidate for?

Click to expand...

Gillespie is probably out of college coaching for the next 2 years minimum. He is enjoying being able to actually watch Jake as a dad and not as a coach right now. He’s also got a pretty good gig at Midway right now. Possibly the only reason he would jump on the TU HC job is that his grandkids are mostly (all but 1 I think) are in the Tulsa area still.

I’ve heard Kinne is the #1 from multiple people, both lettermen and others. A couple times I have heard Kinne and bring Leftwich and Dex with him as well. I think it will not only be hard to get Kinne away from Texas St., but out of Texas in general.

Milkman has been floated a few times as well. I’ve heard HC and I have heard Kinne/Milkman/Dex as a staff wishlist as well.

Whoever it is, they need to jump on them fast.

goldenhurricane2 said:

Waiting for the Haisten article that always includes super under qualified candidates and even a high school coach or two.

Click to expand...

Yeah, guaranteed he asks if now is the time for Loren Montgomery (Bixby) to make that jump. Or he'll push a Demarco Murray as the best TU can afford.

TU1NNJ said:

Game thoughts:
Hit our FTs we win
Out rebounded by 10
Terrible officiating
Clack’s arm was held while she tried to throw the shot at end of game.

Click to expand...

Rebounding has been an issue for the TU women for quite some time. I used to think it was a size problem but I know Nelp has been adding some good size. Need these girls to be rebounding against the practice squad men. Almost every loss TU had last year could be attributed to poor rebounding, especially on the defensive end.

No

TU_BLA said:

Since Wilson's ouster seems to be imminent, let's start discussing possible replacements. Obviously Kinne is going to be choice #1. Do we even have enough leverage anymore to pull him from Texas State? I would assume Milkman is on the list...he's at least on my list. My hope is they don't go after Seth Littrell.

Is Gillespie even an option now after his "failed" stint at TCU? (I mean he did help get them into the CFP).

Heck, is the DC at Indiana (you know the guy who was the DC here for like 3 months over the summer before leaving for that job) a candidate? That IU defense is really really good.

Does Jerry O have any more pro-connections he could pull a darkhorse candidate for?

Click to expand...

Hell no for anyone who’s failed recently in a job..and hell no to the Indiana guy.

Since Wilson's ouster seems to be imminent, let's start discussing possible replacements. Obviously Kinne is going to be choice #1. Do we even have enough leverage anymore to pull him from Texas State? I would assume Milkman is on the list...he's at least on my list. My hope is they don't go after Seth Littrell.

Is Gillespie even an option now after his "failed" stint at TCU? (I mean he did help get them into the CFP).

Heck, is the DC at Indiana (you know the guy who was the DC here for like 3 months over the summer before leaving for that job) a candidate? That IU defense is really really good.

Does Jerry O have any more pro-connections he could pull a darkhorse candidate for?

The month of October was a busy one for Tulsa football coaches, as they extended several new scholarship offers in the 2025, 2026 and 2027 recruiting classes. The 2025 recruiting cycle has an important signing period that is fast approaching, as TU looks to fill out its recruiting class.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

Gmoney4WW said:

You are talking about hacking online machines at local polling precincts or tabulation counts coming from election boards as far as I understood it. I reread it, and you were talking about hacking a hand count which I either misread, or you edited right after I read it. Because I didn't recall you talking about a hand count being hacked. I'm not even sure how that would work.

There is no online of voting machines at local polling precincts in Oklahoma. The count is figured by the offline machine and not sent anywhere online. It does not even have the capability to go online. There is a memory stick that stores the count inside the machine, and paper ballots in the machine. They can be hand counted, recounted by the machine, and/or the original count on the memory stick looked at, if there is a question about a count.

The election board receives the machines brought to them by individual precinct inspectors driving to the election board to hand in all of their materials. They then do all of their checking and rechecking of the tabulations. They check the spoiled ballot bag to make sure all the numbers add up. They also check the provisional ballot bag to make sure those #'s add up. At some point, I assume they send their counts to a central location in OKlahoma(OKC) and/or directly to Washington. It may be online, or it may be over the phone, or both. I have never checked how it gets to Washington. But if it is online, it would be only after it is tabulated and seen by I assume at least two people with printouts at their desk.(I assume it goes to many more desks than this.) They would have several places to catch it, if hard count #'s in election board offices are not matching what they have seen in the offices in Washington DC.

My understanding was that you were talking about local polling precincts being online and transmitting live counts over the internet as they came in. I was saying that it would be harder to catch hacking if the results were being transmitted live, and only live, without a hard count done offline for checking purposes. It could be done, but it would be harder to catch it, than if results were tabulated offline, and then transmitted to a central location. If that is not what you were addressing, then I didn't understand the post I was responding to properly.

Click to expand...

I didn’t edit my post, as you can see at the bottom right of every post. When I do edit, it’s typically to correct syntax that doesn’t translate well from a voice app I sometimes use.

I never said the voting machines transmit results live as they happen.

You gave a more lengthy statement of airgapping, which is what I was describing. It’s good to know that OK uses memory card/thumb drives locally, so long as they are digitally signed to prevent duplication and there’s public inspection available of those signatures. And assuming that isn’t the only air gap that occurs, as I glossed over above.

As you might be able to tell, I litigated dozens election integrity cases, though I got out of the business in the early 2000s when it was apparent courts had no interest in the cases, even when defendants confessed in open court. Not to mention candidates are typically broke and want you to work for free on the promise of a job that pay a quarter of what you make and adds a boss to your life.

My personal favorite: the convicted sex offender who bought a gas station so he could trade stolen gift cards redeemable at his station for $20 in gas in exchange for the absentee ballots of the local Black community which he cast for a relative on the ballot. The bought ballots flipped the elections. Plural. Anyone who says vote by mail is secure knows they are lying to you.

Least favorite: local election chief who turned a blind eye to subordinates who used spare ballot bags and old seals to cover up a strategy of slow counting a multi jurisdictional race so they didn’t report their totals until they knew the margin they needed to make up to ensure their candidate won and using very cleverly disguised unauthorized copies of ballots. She knew but we couldn’t prove she knew. And it was a classic case of why all the hubbub about hand counts are always better than electronic tabulators is flawed argument, especially in underfunded counties and off presidential elections.

Most troubling: the number of known political operatives, of both parties, volunteering in nursing homes to collect absentee ballots.

Most fun: defending strippers accused of giving free lap dances in exchange for “I Voted” stickers in an election with a referendum on a zoning ordinance to ban adult entertainment.

You may be too eager to disagree with me.

loca2874 said:

UAB over SE Louisiana 82-72
Oklahoma State over st Thomas (mn) 80-71

Click to expand...

Wow, OSU & UAB are not doing nearly as well as I expected.

9 & 10 pt margins over those two schools are unexpected for UAB & OSU. I don't think it's because St Thomas or SE Louisiana have taken a huge jump in team talent.

HuffyCane said:

I’m not quite sure what you mean with the above.

But in most jurisdictions there’s logic and accuracy testing that happens publicly with each tabulator at the beginning of the day that is printed out. In short, they test the counters. Then they publicly zero them out. Then the real votes are tabulated as each ballot is entered. Then the end totals are compiled and a second test confirms that the counting was correct. That is also printed out and can be reconciled with the actual paper ballots in the box after the results are uploaded at the end of the day. Any discrepancy is forwarded to the Election Board. Again this all happens in real time in public with monitors to observe should they wish to be there.

Click to expand...

You are talking about hacking online machines at local polling precincts or tabulation counts coming from election boards as far as I understood it. I reread it, and you were talking about hacking a hand count which I either misread, or you edited right after I read it. Because I didn't recall you talking about a hand count being hacked. I'm not even sure how that would work.

There is no online of voting machines at local polling precincts in Oklahoma. The count is figured by the offline machine and not sent anywhere online. It does not even have the capability to go online. There is a memory stick that stores the count inside the machine, and paper ballots in the machine. They can be hand counted, recounted by the machine, and/or the original count on the memory stick looked at, if there is a question about a count.

The election board receives the machines brought to them by individual precinct inspectors driving to the election board to hand in all of their materials. They then do all of their checking and rechecking of the tabulations. They check the spoiled ballot bag to make sure all the numbers add up. They also check the provisional ballot bag to make sure those #'s add up. At some point, I assume they send their counts to a central location in OKlahoma(OKC) and/or directly to Washington. It may be online, or it may be over the phone, or both. I have never checked how it gets to Washington. But if it is online, it would be only after it is tabulated and seen by I assume at least two people with printouts at their desk.(I assume it goes to many more desks than this.) They would have several places to catch it, if hard count #'s in election board offices are not matching what they have seen in the offices in Washington DC.

My understanding was that you were talking about local polling precincts being online and transmitting live counts over the internet as they came in. I was saying that it would be harder to catch hacking if the results were being transmitted live, and only live, without a hard count done offline for checking purposes. It could be done, but it would be harder to catch it, than if results were tabulated offline, and then transmitted to a central location. If that is not what you were addressing, then I didn't understand the post I was responding to properly.

TulsaRulzOSUdrools said:

Chris's third grade level of analysis of the use of the word fight is where we are today. The continual lack of nuance is truly disappointing.

Click to expand...

In certain circles, I'm known for my third-grade level analysis. In all seriousness though, I think even a third-grader can recognize that the rules should be applied the same to both sides with no nuance needed.

But I'll go ahead and add some nuance. When Trump said ‘we have to fight’, there were bad actors either in the crowd or listening to him. Just as I’m positive there were bad actors in the crowd or listening to Harris say ‘the fight must continue’, and there have already been attempts on Trump’s life. So, again, if Trump was irresponsible for saying it, then so was Harris. To say otherwise is just showing a bias, IMO.

loca2874 said:

You forgot to put down that he can also suck it

Click to expand...

I remember some of his early interviews with the TU media team. They asked what he liked about Tulsa and TU. His main answer was "coach wants me to play my game."

That's about it. Did not really pretend to care about the university or city. I noted it in my mind back then.

UAB over SE Louisiana 82-72
Detroit mercy over Niagara in overtime 84-78
Loyola Chicago over eureka 105-53
Oklahoma State over st Thomas (mn) 80-71

TU1NNJ said:

He will transfer to the next school for more money after this season.

Click to expand...

You forgot to put down that he can also suck it

This latest conspiracy theory seems to be pertinent to this discussion

Gmoney4WW said:

That's why you have a # on paper, and in a system that doesn't go online with this data, as well as people who remember this data. It can, and would be caught in Oklahoma if it was hacked, or any other similar system. If it's attacked before the #'s are tabulated, no matter how much more difficult, the #ers are impossible for you to catch. You can't remember, or have all the #ers on your desk at that stage. There is always the paper ballots to recount, as a back stop if that happens. But if you aren't aware it's happened, then who calls for a recount. (which is less likely in a system that is hacked in the middle of the tabulation) Not putting it online until the end has it's advantages.

Click to expand...

I’m not quite sure what you mean with the above.

But in most jurisdictions there’s logic and accuracy testing that happens publicly with each tabulator at the beginning of the day that is printed out. In short, they test the counters. Then they publicly zero them out. Then the real votes are tabulated as each ballot is entered. Then the end totals are compiled and a second test confirms that the counting was correct. That is also printed out and can be reconciled with the actual paper ballots in the box after the results are uploaded at the end of the day. Any discrepancy is forwarded to the Election Board. Again this all happens in real time in public with monitors to observe should they wish to be there.