There Is A Game On Saturday: Baylor

but I read that Syzmanski may be held out of this game due to a concussion.  I read that yesterday and there was some speculation he may be able to go on Saturday but it seemed far from certain.

Does he have a legitimate completion yet?  ESPN says 1 of 8, but I can't even remember the 1.  Was it a screen?

I know coaches say he has a long way to go in the passing game, but you would have thought against Iowa State, with the lead we had, they might have opened it up a bit for him...but I guess we were just trying to run clock at that point.

His running will become a lot more effective when teams actually think he might pass on a down or two.

j-

gotta say, maintaining this website while attending the first year of law school is, for lack of a better word, amazing. I remember in my first semester of law school i barely had time to eat (but i did have time to read BON). keep up the good work PB

That's what I see as the utility of the Baylor game. And that should mean a lot of play by the younger backers; in a "fair" world, whatever lack of recognition of passing plays the younger backers lack could be enhanced in a non-critical game. (Acknowledging, of course, that any of the games are critical if you should lose.)

We will absolutely need the best players on the field versus Oklahoma State, Tech and ATM. Every mistake could cost you points against those adversaries, especially Tech, which feeds on such match ups.

If there were a contra commenter here, I suspect it would be Leach. He wants the slower, less agile LBs to play the whole game. In this sense, Mack is writing Leach's game plan if he stays were the older set.

I want to see a lot of play out of Sherrod, including passing. That extra year of training will show up, I think, if he gets the time on the field, esp. with the first offense. The Horns must have a stable back up who can run the greatest part of the game plan. Chiles can do only some of that; I suspect Sherrod can do much more.

Last, I was late to the great thread yesterday, but there is something I want to say.

The ethic I see with the LB situation resembles that of heavyweight championship boxing. It is not enough to be as good as the champion or even a little better. Without a KO, the challenger must be demonstrably better in the fight for the judges to go against the champion and to transfer the crown. The challenger must attack and provide some dramatic results or the champ must make critical mistakes. In other words, being the champ (the starter) gives him another judge, another factor, on his side.

Starting varsity positions as so hyped and pushed within the team structure that it can easily become a sort of aristocracy, particularly if there are leadership roles involved. You're not just fighting for a lone position but are having to break the hold of the positional groups. This was true in the Royal years and probably for most every coach Texas has had.

This is the critical social element undermining the meritocracy, where status weighs in as a key factor and athletic ability and play-making are pushed down teh scale somewhat. That's the ambiguity you hear in the statements made. In this case, it is times three.

The exception proves the rule: Killebrew made a critical mistake and Mack could rightfully punish him and insert Kindle - and do so with "clean" hands regardless of prior agreements.

When Jamaal said he couldn't lose his position for fumbling, that said a lot with regard to the elevation between starters and non-starters. Just as in society, there is always (in our society, at least) a given amount of narcissistic transfer: that no one can do what you can do as well as you do it. In a meritocracy your last results dictate the situation; in a cronyistic system, the position of power and related cronies in power dictate the results. That is, the terms of consideration are extended in time and definition until there is definitive proof of being unproductive. The key element here - and the relevance to football - is that aristocracies tend to perpetuate themselves to the detriment of the common welfare. And the rub we see is that certain decisions on the field act as a detriment to the goals of the whole team.

Sorry to go political in a sense, but the bitch is that this is (or has become) a political situation instead of a straight forward football one. Football is very democratic within a strict authoritarian structure. The goal isn't to be authoritarian, though, but to produce the best team in the community interests.

Perhaps we should thank our lucky stars that we aren't in Baylor's struggling position or undergoing the fundamental disruptions that torment ATM and NU fans at the moment. I'm sure that Mizzou and CU fans have had an unpleasant week, too. Losing hurts while the winners can be philosophical and march grandioso around the field.

Texas must beat Baylor this weekend and NU the next to set up the final run; the question everyone is well aware of concerns Horns must do to improve as a team to be successful against the last three teams on the schedule. That is the bottom line.

In that respect, Mack has placed his judgment on the line and we'll see if he wants to go all in on a weak - but not necessarily losing - hand.

I must leave and go out of town right now; won't return until late this evening. Hell, I may be chewed to bear meat status by the time I return. Pretend I'm using a mid-rounds rope-a-dope with few counter punches.