Darrell Scott update..
As most of you know both teams have had In-home visits with Darrell this week.
Colorado held theres yesterday. What may be news to some of you is that Dan Hawkins was not allowed to attend because he had already taken his in-home sometime back.
Scott told Orangebloods that we had widened our lead after Mack and Major's In-home. But after CU's in-home the picture has become a little cloudy because Darrell is playing everything close to his vest even with those close to him.
- Just received note that he knows who he is going to commit to but is going to make us wait until NSD for the announcement. -
A full report of both the visits will be posted in a little while on Orangebloods.com
So I suggest those of you with subscriptions get on over there to get a read on. Or troll the free boards for pieces of info that fall from the premiums!
PS; I have a premium subscription so I'll try to keep you guys posted but I'm afraid I will have to limit how much I can disclose.
PB, is most of this consistent with the info you are receiving?
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
0 recs |
39 comments
Comments
Whats so hard?
by texasboi01 on Jan 27, 2008 10:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
His borther plays at CU
Huge influence there.
by anonyMoose on Jan 28, 2008 1:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well Said
I don't understand, I could understand his indecision if Jamaal Charles was coming back. Go UT and you are, probably, guareented a starting job next year and you will be running behind an improved o-line. Go to CU and you will play for a team that goes to Shrievport for their bowl games.
I personally think he is going to UT. If he is think NFL UT is the obvious choice.
by FNJ on Jan 27, 2008 10:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
If i was a superstar HS Football Player
that played DB RB or PG....do you know what school im going to without a doubt? University of Texas....especially DB's....they call Penn State Linebacker State....we should be known as University of Defensive Backs....i cant say the same in regards to running backs because there are other schools that put more runnin backs in the pro's but back to my point, if i play point guard or defensive back and i want to play professional, im making a stop at UT for college ball.
by texasboi01 on Jan 28, 2008 1:17 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Texas coaches feel great about Scott
That's what I was told before the in-home. One of the posters on Orangebloods who has always posted reliable information is saying the same thing.
This looks really good for Texas.
by Peter Bean on Jan 28, 2008 5:40 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
high horse talk
I know we all love UT and it was a great fit for most of us who went there. But let's not be so snobbish as to think there's no imaginable alternative. Boulder is a beautiful town, and while Colorado doesn't have UT's storied history it's hardly a nobody school. Every year a number of blue chippers will snub us to go to TAMU, FOU, or some other school. The world don't move to the beat of just one drum, what might be right for you, may not be right for some.
If Scott lands here we'll welcome him with open arms, and he'll be surrounded by world-class talent, facilities, and a great town. Let's hope he does!
by the chairman211 on Jan 28, 2008 9:02 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
And
CU has churned out a few NFL backs as well. Not to mention their run centric offense in sure is attractive to any running back looking to get noticed on the next level.
That said, lets see him in Burnt Orange =D
by BoddickerIsClutch on Jan 28, 2008 9:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One HUGE difference
between UT and CU: it's COLD IN BOULDER! I mean, it's REALLY COLD IN BOULDER!! Did I mention that he's from southern CA? Oh, and did I mention it's FUCKING COLD IN BOULDER!!!
by Bombilla on Jan 28, 2008 12:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It is not that cold in Boulder
Have you even been there? It is on the front range, which means thin dry air, but not high like the ski resorts. When it snows it usually is gone within a week, and if it is sunny, which it is 300+ days a year, you can out in a T-shirt, even if it is in the 30s or 40s, because the thin dry air does not transfer heat very quickly and the sun is warmer.
by Wells on Jan 28, 2008 1:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
I used to live in Laramie which is around 7200 ft. Also, I lived in Aurora and Boulder when I was a kid. Not to pull out my basic thermodynamics axe, but the thin dry air actually transfers heat very quickly. Humidity, however, complicates the transfer of heat due to the inherent thermal capacity of water. This is why it's much much colder on clear winter night versus a cloudy one: the clouds are a blanket that hold the humidity near ground level and the humidity hold the warmth inside the water. So, your assertion that the thin air of Boulder keeps it warm is inaccurate. This ridiculous assumption may be due to the mental retardation that most of the citizens of Boulder mistake for hypoxia.
Oh, and the sun is pretty warm down here, too.
Regardless, Austin is better than Boulder. 1) Women. 2) Bigger stage/stadium. 3) You're high if you think a CA kid is going to think that 30F is "t-shirt weather".
by Bombilla on Jan 28, 2008 2:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
actually you are wrong
Not to pull out my basic thermodynamics axe, but the thin dry air actually transfers heat very quickly. Humidity, however, complicates the transfer of heat due to the inherent thermal capacity of water.
Thin dry air is a much worse conductor than thick wet air (see this paper which uses thermal conductivity to measure relative humidity or this paper which is the US standard atmosphere, figure 16 which shows thermal conductivity dropping from 0 to 10 Km Alt).
The only thing you are right on is that humid air has a larger value of specific heat, another reason that you feel the weather extremes in humid air, because there is more energy at a give temperature to transfer.
This is why it's much much colder on clear winter night versus a cloudy one: the clouds are a blanket that hold the humidity near ground level and the humidity hold the warmth inside the water.
Wrong again. The reason it is warmer on a cloudy night has nothing to do with humidity. It is due to radiative energy transfer. One, the clouds reflect the radiative heat from the earth back down. And two, because the total radiative heat transfer between two objects depends on the difference between the two object temperatures to the fourth power (t1^4-t2^4), when it is clear you radiate much more energy out to the sky (cosmic background is about 3 kelvin) than to the clouds (which are closer to ambient 273 kelvin).
by Wells on Jan 28, 2008 3:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice.
Now I'm going to blow my brains out all over my thermo homework.
by Horn Brain on Jan 28, 2008 4:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I love it when Good Wells Hunting does that...
My boy is wicked smart.
by 54b on Jan 28, 2008 5:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
actually you're all a little off
Humidity affects two factors that determine how you feel: conduction and evaporative heat loss. At a given temperature, one loses more heat by evaporative heat loss to dry air than moist because dry air has a lower partial pressure of water vapor and thus can absorb more water vapor. When liquid water evaporates, it releases heat, which cools the surface containing the water. In winter, however, most of us non T-shirt in 30 degree wearers have little in the way of exposed skin and so lose little heat to evaporation. However, humidity also affects conduction if there is sufficient moisture to condense on warm surfaces. Moisture on the surface of a coat or skin can increase the conduction across the coat surface or skin, leading to greater heat loss and feeling colder.
Those who argued that it is radiative heat LOSS that causes you to feel colder on a clear night are also off by a little. Radiative heat LOSS is strictly a function of the your surface temperature, which would presumably be the same regardless of the night sky. In fact,a clear night sky is colder (the temperature of the upper atmosphere) because it radiates less heat to the ground. NET heat loss by the body is therefore greater because the body receives less radiation from the sky. The purpose of putting a cover over trees is to allow the tree to receive radiation from the cover, which is close to the temperature of the air near the ground, rather than the sky, which is usually a good 70 oF colder than the air near the ground, even when it is below freezing.
The reason you can wear a T-shirt on a clear, non-windy 35 oF day is because solar radiation is high and unreflected by clouds, and this heat input is sufficient to make a person feel like it is 40 oF warmer.
by burnt in ny on Jan 28, 2008 6:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To the trees!
The only thing Ill comment on is the tree cover, as that was from my post.
What you described is a radiation barrier. You thermally radiate to everything you can see. For instance, thermal radiation happens between me and the wall next to me, but not the wall beyond that. The frequencies that thermal radiation occurs on prevent it from being anything other than line of sight, unless you do some crazy physics things, but thats not what we are talking about here.
Putting it in terms of giving and receiving doesn't make much sense, there is only heat transfer. Oranges will radiate to the blanket, or they will radiate to the sky. The rate of heat transfer due to thermal radiation, varies dependently on the temperature differential, the emissivity of the orange, and the absorption of the surrounding objects.
Clear, open space, is a black body with an extremely low temperature, and high absorption. So when you don't want heat transfer to take place between your oranges and that body, you put something between it to block the radiation.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Jan 29, 2008 8:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't you just say what I said
Humidity affects two factors that determine how you feel: conduction and evaporative heat loss. At a given temperature, one loses more heat by evaporative heat loss to dry air than moist because dry air has a lower partial pressure of water vapor and thus can absorb more water vapor. When liquid water evaporates, it releases heat, which cools the surface containing the water. In winter, however, most of us non T-shirt in 30 degree wearers have little in the way of exposed skin and so lose little heat to evaporation. However, humidity also affects conduction if there is sufficient moisture to condense on warm surfaces. Moisture on the surface of a coat or skin can increase the conduction across the coat surface or skin, leading to greater heat loss and feeling colder.
Ok you got me on evaporative heat loss, although I am not sure that in cold weather this has much effect, both because of the clothes and because you don't sweat in cold dry weather, unless you are doing some serious exercise. As you said, it would be a factor in humid cold weather, which only better supports my point.
Those who argued that it is radiative heat LOSS that causes you to feel colder on a clear night are also off by a little. Radiative heat LOSS is strictly a function of the your surface temperature, which would presumably be the same regardless of the night sky. In fact,a clear night sky is colder (the temperature of the upper atmosphere) because it radiates less heat to the ground. NET heat loss by the body is therefore greater because the body receives less radiation from the sky.
Also true, which is why I was talking about total radiative heat transfer, which is a measure of the Qrad total between two bodies. As I said, on a clear night, the Qrad between the sky/clouds and the earth is much higher due to temperature^4 differential. So we stated pretty much the same thing.
The reason you can wear a T-shirt on a clear, non-windy 35 oF day is because solar radiation is high and unreflected by clouds, and this heat input is sufficient to make a person feel like it is 40 oF warmer.
While I agree that a non-windy day is essential to keep the energy transfer low and the solar radiation does have an effect as I stated in my original statement, you seem to be glossing over the fact that there is still a palpable difference at given temperature (especially cold temperatures), between humid sea level air and dry thinner air, and this is mostly due to the difference in thermal conductivity, as was shown in both of my linked to examples.
by Wells on Jan 29, 2008 12:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe you are both forgetting...
The governing law of physics for this debate is simply the fact that the Motion of the Ocean is inversely proportional to the Heat of the Beat.
by Shake on Jan 29, 2008 3:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What???
That's totally inconsistent with what I learned on The Discovery Channel! DAMN YOU TIME WARNER!!! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!
Still, Wells, you never addressed my #1 reason for coming to Austin.
by Bombilla on Jan 29, 2008 3:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Girls in Boulder and Austin
I guess it depends on your type. Both schools have an abundance of amazing looking girls.
I always said that the girls in Austin look better when you meet them that night because they get done up more, but the next morning the girls in Boulder still look similar to the girl you met the night before, which can't always be said for Austin girls.
by Wells on Jan 29, 2008 5:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Themal capacity of "dry" vs "wet" air...
Doesnt mean squat.
Thermal radiation is why its warmer on a cloudy night, and colder on a clear one. Same reason why farmers will cover their trees with blankets on near freezing nights, its not to keep in the warmth of the near freezing ground, its to create a thermal radiation barrier.
And thermal radiation is much more a basic thermodynamic idea than humidity.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Jan 28, 2008 3:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I hate you all
I'm in thermo this semester and I sure as hell don't get on this site to hear more about it.
by ryanlionrah on Jan 28, 2008 7:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
in Thousand Oaks/Moorpark area
I live in Thousand Oaks, which is next to Moorpark, and the weather is very similar to Austin. Winters can get into the 30's at night (it did hit 27 a few days ago) and summers can hit the 110 range. I'd say it stays in the upper 90's during the summer however.
Not sure what the "official" ranges are I just follow whatever Thousand Oaks High school shows on their scrolling marquee.
by Forty on Jan 28, 2008 3:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Scott
I have to say, I respect the kid for saying all along that he wasn't going to declare his decision until signing day, and sticking to it. As much as Mack would have liked to lock him up early, it's completely within his rights. He's been honest and consistent about when he'll make up his mind.
I'd much prefer that than to see guys pull a Perrillioux or Brantley flip-flop.
by SelimSivad on Jan 28, 2008 9:23 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Completely disagree
Davis,
As soon as he knows where he is going, he should let the CU and UT know so the team that does not get Scott can make other plans. It is just a matter of good manners. It is absolutely childish to wait until signing day just to make drama. His approach only makes sense if he wants to hurt the team that does not sign him.
Of course I could be Miles off in my answer.
by Kafka on Jan 28, 2008 10:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
second that
But, we shouldn't forget that he is just 18.
by Cyrus on Jan 28, 2008 3:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly, he has earned the limelight and he can
make it last as long as he wants. BTW, I love watching Brantley signal the plays into Tim Tebow. He's real good at it.
by the1austin on Jan 28, 2008 4:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is out of control!
We need to send in Rick Barnes - He got Smash Williams to commit in a single short visit at the burger joint.
by horndude on Jan 28, 2008 3:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
hahaha
Great post! Rick Barnes will settle this..
by longhornricky on Jan 28, 2008 5:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Update!
Seems that CU in-home went well. Apparently the coaches from CU told Darrell that they'd completely redesign their offense to suit him. Seems kind of odd seeing that that would take the ball out of the coaches son's hands.
So from here on out it looks to be a neck and neck battle.
Each school will send another coach for an in-home later this week. We will be sending Coach Kennedy who should primarily be looking to slap the offensive redesign pitch into the cheap seats. We don't need to change our offense for him to flourish.
by mvplonghorns on Jan 28, 2008 5:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
any thoughts about Mack's frosh RB policy...
which has always to date been that Freshmen don't know how to p/u the blitz...and until they learn it don't get the reps they might otherwise get.
It makes sense and he's stuck to it for some really talented guys in the past, don't you think that the CU coaches were sure to point that out, Mack's made the statement openly about that many times.
May seem like a minor point but when one team is promising to make you the center of the show as a frosh, and the other traditionally makes them earn the right for more carries by learning pass blocking and blitz reading, could tip the scales...
Another point, no matter what we promised Chiles he got stiffed last year, and again I'd not doubt that opposing coaches are pointing to him as an example of how we treat our blue chippers.
Just wondering if there's been any comments to the contrary from new RB Coach Applewhite (boy I love typing that!) or even from soon-to-be-retiree Greg Davis?
by longhornJ on Jan 29, 2008 10:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
WOW, thermalwhat??!!!
all I was thinking is how close my nuts are to my body in 30 degree weather.
by thanos on Jan 28, 2008 7:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

by 






















