fidel sport betting

AUSTIN, Texas — Any Texas or Texas A&M player has heard the lore of the rivalry between the two schools, a grudge match that dates to 1894. But for more than a decade — two generations of college football players — that's all it has been: Ghostly memories of great games and great plays made by heroes of the distant past. That changes this week when one of college football's great rivalries is reborn. Third-ranked Texas (10-1, 6-1) and No. 20 Texas A&M (8-3, 5-2) meet Saturday night for the first time since 2011, with a berth in the Southeastern Conference championship game on the line. "Guys that have been in my position and bleed burnt orange, they have not gotten to play this game," said Texas fourth-year junior safety Michael Taaffe, who grew up in Austin. "Remember them when you step on Kyle Field." For Aggies fans, who have carried the misery of Texas' 27-25 win in 2011, getting the Longhorns back in front of a frenzied crowd in College Station is a chance for some serious payback. "I was born and raised an Aggie, so I've been dreaming about playing in this game my whole life," Texas A&M offensive lineman Trey Zuhn III said. Zuhn played high school football in Colorado, but his parents and grandparents attended A&M. At SEC media days back in August, Zuhn said his family would turn Texas gear upside down in stores. He keeps a picture of a longhorn in his room, hanging upside down, of course. "It should be the most amazing atmosphere that I've ever experienced," Zuhn said. "I can't wait for that, and I feel bad for Texas having to play in that." Texas players said they are ready. "That place is going to be rocking," Texas senior cornerback Jahdae Barron said. "It's good to go on the road and play in hostile environments." The Longhorns have overcome big and loud road crowds before. They won at Alabama in 2023. They won at Michigan and Arkansas, another old rival, this year. The Longhorns have won 10 in a row on an opponent's home field. "When the hate is on us, we love it. We enjoy it," Taaffe said. But some former Texas players say the current group has faced nothing like what awaits them in College Station. Playing at Texas A&M is more than just noise and a lot of "Horns down" hand signals. The "Aggie War Hymn" fight song calls for Aggies to "Saw varsity's horns off." Beating Texas is their passion, said former Longhorns All-American offensive lineman Dan Neil, who won at Texas A&M in in 1995. He calls that win one of the best of his career. "I was done showering and getting ready to leave, and their fans were still standing outside the locker room screaming and throwing things," he said. "The (Texas) players have no idea what they are walking into. They have no clue. No one on that team has walked into that stadium in burnt orange." The rivalry broke up when Texas A&M left the Big 12 for the SEC in 2012. The Aggies have twice finished tied for second but have otherwise found little success there. Texas is in its first year in the SEC and has smashed its way to the top. Texas is the only SEC team with one loss this late in the season, which would make beating Texas that much sweeter for A&M. "The hype is definitely saying it's a rivalry. History says it's a rivalry, but for us, it's the football game we have this week," Texas senior center Jake Majors said. "It's important for us to not let the environment, the game, get the best of us. ... I get to go out there and play not only for me and my team, but for the guys who came before me, so that's a true honor to have." Even though the game hasn't been played since 2011, there has always been an element of the rivalry simmering under the surface, Texas A&M coach Mike Elko said. Elko is in his first year as the Aggies' coach, but he was the Texas A&M defensive coordinator under Jimbo Fisher from 2018-2021. "Even though it hasn't been played, it just doesn't feel like it's ever really left the fabric. I really don't think it's as removed from the psyche as maybe it feels," Elko said. "I think our kids are very much aware of what this is all about."Bitdeer Announces Proposed Private Placement of US$360.0 Million of Convertible Senior Notesfidel sport betting 。

Winston's performance in snowy win adds new layer to Browns' QB conundrum

Katie Couric Makes Her Opinion On Trump Voters Extremely Clear

Schomburg Heating & Cooling Offers Furnace Replacement & Heating Repair in Platte City, MO

President-elect Donald Trump's youngest daughter Tiffany is expecting her first child with her husband Michael Boulos. The 31-year-old confirmed the news via her Instagram Story. Tiffany Trump, like Barron Trump, has steered herself away from the public eye. Ivanka Trump dazzles in a series of festive looks after politics admission Barron Trump fans say he and an unlikely royal are ‘a match made in heaven’ She attended her friend's wedding where she posted a picture with her friend, cradling her baby bump. In the next photo alongside Boulos, she added the message "5 months" with an emoji of a pregnant woman. Trump had appeared to leak the news about her pregnancy at a donor event in October. At an event at the Detroit Economic Club that also included Tiffany Trump's father-in-law Dr. Massad Boulos as one of the attendees, Trump gushed over his 30-year-old daughter whom he shares with ex-wife Marla Maples. While acknowledging Dr. Boulos in the audience, Trump said, "He happens to be the father of Tiffany's husband, Michael, who's a very exceptional young guy." "And she's an exceptional young woman. And she's going to have a baby. So that's nice," he added. Tiffany had not addressed her pregnancy publicly until now. Michael Boulos is the heir of a wealthy Lebanese family with businesses in Nigeria. Tiffany Trump met Boulos in 2018 at Lindsay Lohan's club in Mykonos, Greece, before getting engaged in January 2021, towards the end of Trump's first term. As the US Capitol riot rocked the nation, the duo announced their news on social media the day before Trump left office. Boulos proposed to her with a $1.2 million diamond ring in the White House Rose Garden, according to PEOPLE. "It has been an honor to celebrate many milestones, historic occasions and create memories with my family here at the White House, none more special than my engagement to my amazing fiancé Michael! Feeling blessed and excited for the next chapter!" Tiffany had then announced on Instagram. The couple got hitched at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida in November 2022. As Melania Trump has largely kept Barron out of the public eye, Tiffany, who is rumored to be the closest Trump sibling to Barron, has also been quite absent in the spotlight. She was raised in California by her mother and allegedly had a strained relationship with her father, PEOPLE reported. "They always had a strained relationship her whole life, and it got exacerbated by the presidency," a source close to her alleged to PEOPLE.Social media users are misrepresenting a Vermont Supreme Court ruling , claiming that it gives schools permission to vaccinate children even if their parents do not consent. The ruling addressed a lawsuit filed by Dario and Shujen Politella against Windham Southeast School District and state officials over the mistaken vaccination of their child against COVID-19 in 2021, when he was 6 years old. A lower court had dismissed the original complaint, as well as an amended version. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on Nov. 19. But the ruling by Vermont's high court is not as far-reaching as some online have claimed. In reality, it concluded that anyone protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP, Act is immune to state lawsuits. Here's a closer look at the facts. CLAIM: The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that schools can vaccinate children against their parents' wishes. THE FACTS: The claim stems from a July 26 ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court, which found that anyone protected by the PREP Act is immune to state lawsuits, including the officials named in the Politella's suit. The ruling does not authorize schools to vaccinate children at their discretion. According to the lawsuit, the Politella's son — referred to as L.P. — was given one dose of the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a vaccination clinic held at Academy School in Brattleboro even though his father, Dario, told the school's assistant principal a few days before that his son was not to receive a vaccination. In what officials described as a mistake, L.P. was removed from class and had a “handwritten label” put on his shirt with the name and date of birth of another student, L.K., who had already been vaccinated that day. L.P. was then vaccinated. Ultimately, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that officials involved in the case could not be sued. “We conclude that the PREP Act immunizes every defendant in this case and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case,” the Vermont Supreme Court's ruling reads. “We conclude that when the federal PREP Act immunizes a defendant, the PREP Act bars all state-law claims against that defendant as a matter of law.” The PREP Act , enacted by Congress in 2005, authorizes the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a declaration in the event of a public health emergency providing immunity from liability for activities related to medical countermeasures, such as the administration of a vaccine, except in cases of “willful misconduct" that result in “death or serious physical injury.” A declaration against COVID-19 was issued on March 17, 2020. It is set to expire on Dec. 31. Federals suits claiming willful misconduct are filed in Washington. Social media users described the Vermont Supreme Court's ruling as having consequences beyond what it actually says. “The Vermont Supreme Court has ruled that schools can force-vaccinate children for Covid against the wishes of their parents,” reads one X post that had been liked and shared approximately 16,600 times as of Tuesday. “The high court ruled on a case involving a 6-year-old boy who was forced to take a Covid mRNA injection by his school. However, his family had explicitly stated that they didn't want their child to receive the ‘vaccines.’” Other users alleged that the ruling gives schools permission to give students any vaccine without parental consent, not just ones for COVID-19. Rod Smolla, president of the Vermont Law and Graduate School and an expert on constitutional law, told The Associated Press that the ruling “merely holds that the federal statute at issue, the PREP Act, preempts state lawsuits in cases in which officials mistakenly administer a vaccination without consent.” “Nothing in the Vermont Supreme Court opinion states that school officials can vaccinate a child against the instructions of the parent,” he wrote in an email. Asked whether the claims spreading online have any merit, Ronald Ferrara, an attorney representing the Politellas, told the AP that although the ruling doesn't say schools can vaccinate students regardless of parental consent, officials could interpret it to mean that they could get away with doing so under the PREP Act, at least when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court appeal seeks to clarify whether the Vermont Supreme Court interpreted the PREP Act beyond what Congress intended. “The Politella’s fundamental liberty interest to decide whether their son should receive elective medical treatment was denied by agents of the State and School,” he wrote in an email to the AP. “The Vermont Court misconstrues the scope of PREP Act immunity (which is conditioned upon informed consent for medical treatments unapproved by FDA), to cover this denial of rights and its underlying battery.” Ferrara added that he was not aware of the claims spreading online, but that he “can understand how lay people may conflate the court's mistaken grant of immunity for misconduct as tantamount to blessing such misconduct.” John Klar, who also represents the Politellas, went a step further, telling the AP that the Vermont Supreme Court ruling means that “as a matter of law” schools can get away with vaccinating students without parental consent and that parents can only sue on the federal level if death or serious bodily injury results. — Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck .