Wasn't the popular narrative that U of L football coaches?...

zipp

Elite Member
Gold Member
Jun 26, 2001
47,314
10,718
26
So let me get this straight. The “numbers” guy who goes on and on about facts, who posts graphs and dancing goal posts, THAT guy is telling us he doesn’t NEED facts to support his positions. You are describing your argument perfectly. Since Jurich didn’t pay out 14 million before, he wouldn’t have again. A new low.
No, I have facts in lieu of hypotheticals and assumptions. One fact being, Jurich never paid vast sums of money that he couldn't cover.

You and a few others in this thread evidently have an argument based on ignorance (not my words)...
 

Knucklehank1

6000+
Jul 12, 2004
7,463
3,543
26
No, I have facts in lieu of hypotheticals and assumptions. One fact being, Jurich never paid vast sums of money that he couldn't cover.

You and a few others in this thread evidently have an argument based on ignorance (not my words)...
Still waiting on examples of TJ’s superior relational skills being used to work down a contractual settlement. Just hand over the examples and I’ll happily move away from this thread.
 

beantowncard

Four-Star Poster
Gold Member
Mar 9, 2009
13,142
6,180
26
No, I have facts in lieu of hypotheticals and assumptions. One fact being, Jurich never paid vast sums of money that he couldn't cover.

You and a few others in this thread evidently have an argument based on ignorance (not my words)...
It’s funny how you have actually destroyed your own argument without even realizing it. First, your whole position is hypothetical- IF TJ were still AD he WOULD HAVE found a way out of the Bobby contract debacle, presumably through the magic of his relationship. By your own definition, IF and WOULD HAVE are markers for the hated “hypothetical”. THEN you come back with “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. You made a direct assertion, admit no basis, then confidently state that it is still true because it has no been disproven. But it’s a hypothetical. A creation of a fantastic imagination. It can’t be disproven. The burden of proof (or at least support) is on the one making the assertion. By resorting to this line of argument you admit you cannot support your own assertion.
Fact: Jurich honored contracts
Fact: Bobby had a contract
These are facts. Not hypotheticals. In order for your statement regarding Jurich to be meaningful, it must be applied to this specific situation. Then it might be rightly considered a relevant fact. Therefore, it is for you, who make the assertion to apply it coherently. You have failed to do this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knucklehank1

Knucklehank1

6000+
Jul 12, 2004
7,463
3,543
26
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..."

It only took 11 pages but it appears that “Zipp” has finally accepted defeat (in his own unique way). Just pick up the pieces and move forward from here. If you do uncover examples though, just let us know.
 

zipp

Elite Member
Gold Member
Jun 26, 2001
47,314
10,718
26
...First, your whole position is hypothetical- IF TJ were still AD he WOULD HAVE found a way out of the Bobby contract debacle...
No, that's not my original position, and I stopped reading your narrative at that point. THAT'S YOUR ATTEMPT TO ASSERT THAT HYPOTHETICAL FOR ME. I simply state the facts, which again are...
  • Jurich never made big expenditures without the money to cover them.
  • "Vince" paid $14 million to cover Petrino's buyout.
  • "Vince' didn't raise that money, because he couldn't.
In FACT, I don't even need to bring Jurich into the debate because the last two points stand on their own merits. Clown show apologists keep evoking Jurich's name.

There are other pertinent facts, such as Petrino's buyout being the same as Mack's and Satterfield's--three years salary. And we can talk about where "Vince" pilfered the money, as well as the overarching evidence about how bad and fast our financials have deteriorated under his management.

On the flipside, you can't ground your counterargument WITHOUT using hypotheticals. And that's mostly because you have no evidence except for the appeal-to-ignorance variety. I don't care that it sucks to be you...
 

zipp

Elite Member
Gold Member
Jun 26, 2001
47,314
10,718
26
It only took 11 pages but it appears that “Zipp” has finally accepted defeat (in his own unique way). Just pick up the pieces and move forward from here. If you do uncover examples though, just let us know.
I don't need MORE facts to base my arguments. Your guy has provided plenty of them...

 

Villebandit

One-Star Poster
Feb 6, 2019
228
138
6
No, that's not my original position, and I stopped reading your narrative at that point. THAT'S YOUR ATTEMPT TO ASSERT THAT HYPOTHETICAL FOR ME. I simply state the facts, which again are...
  • Jurich never made big expenditures without the money to cover them.
  • "Vince" paid $14 million to cover Petrino's buyout.
  • "Vince' didn't raise that money, because he couldn't.
In FACT, I don't even need to bring Jurich into the debate because the last two points stand on their own merits. Clown show apologists keep evoking Jurich's name.

There are other pertinent facts, such as Petrino's buyout being the same as Mack's and Satterfield's--three years salary. And we can talk about where "Vince" pilfered the money, as well as the overarching evidence about how bad and fast our financials have deteriorated under his management.

On the flipside, you can't ground your counterargument WITHOUT using hypotheticals. And that's mostly because you have no evidence except for the appeal-to-ignorance variety. I don't care that it sucks to be you...
I bet you get really mad when people walk in your yard, bro.
 

beantowncard

Four-Star Poster
Gold Member
Mar 9, 2009
13,142
6,180
26
No, that's not my original position, and I stopped reading your narrative at that point. THAT'S YOUR ATTEMPT TO ASSERT THAT HYPOTHETICAL FOR ME. I simply state the facts, which again are...
  • Jurich never made big expenditures without the money to cover them.
  • "Vince" paid $14 million to cover Petrino's buyout.
  • "Vince' didn't raise that money, because he couldn't.
In FACT, I don't even need to bring Jurich into the debate because the last two points stand on their own merits. Clown show apologists keep evoking Jurich's name.

There are other pertinent facts, such as Petrino's buyout being the same as Mack's and Satterfield's--three years salary. And we can talk about where "Vince" pilfered the money, as well as the overarching evidence about how bad and fast our financials have deteriorated under his management.

On the flipside, you can't ground your counterargument WITHOUT using hypotheticals. And that's mostly because you have no evidence except for the appeal-to-ignorance variety. I don't care that it sucks to be you...
As a matter of fact, it does NOT suck to be me; earth is a wonderful place. Please visit sometime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BPGhost and Art79

beantowncard

Four-Star Poster
Gold Member
Mar 9, 2009
13,142
6,180
26
Doesn't every coach? Are you trying to change your narrative again...
I have never changed my “narrative”. It has always been that in this particular case, Vince NQ didn’t do anything different from what TJ would have done. You made the statement that Jurich would have talked Bobby into taking a lower buyout. You have never supported that with anything. I and others have asked, how? First it was his “relationship” with Bobby, then he would have magically “raised” the money, then he wouldn’t, then he would have found an offset. ALL HYPOTHETICALS which you find abhorrent when others use them, all the while using them liberally yourself.
At least you admit that Bobby had a contract. It doesn’t matter if the buyout was the same as Mack or any other coach. He had a contract.
Now, answer this question: did the buyout call for Bobby (in this situation) to be paid 14 million?
 

Villebandit

One-Star Poster
Feb 6, 2019
228
138
6
Bro, you’re getting carpal tunnel for no reason. @zipp is just gonna sit on his porch and shake his fist at the #birdgang no matter how hyped and successful we are. When Chris and Scott are holding up trophies next to Queen Neeli and Vince, @zipp still gonna say “Tom, Rick and Bobby” were better. I love those guys but a new age is here. Old dude ain’t getting on board because the change frightens him. No big deal.
 

acf1016

One-Star Poster
Gold Member
Feb 27, 2017
157
128
6
So just to confirm the following coaches from last year still don't have jobs:
Nick Petrino
Bobby Petrino
Chris Klenakis
Lorenzo Ward
Kolby Smith
LD Scott

So half of the of coaches are unemployed and the rest, outside of Galloway, are not at Power 5 schools.

So yes, the popular opinion of the coaches sucking is true.

Let see you spin this Zipp
 

Knucklehank1

6000+
Jul 12, 2004
7,463
3,543
26
So just to confirm the following coaches from last year still don't have jobs:
Nick Petrino
Bobby Petrino
Chris Klenakis
Lorenzo Ward
Kolby Smith
LD Scott

So half of the of coaches are unemployed and the rest, outside of Galloway, are not at Power 5 schools.

So yes, the popular opinion of the coaches sucking is true.

Let see you spin this Zipp
Kolby Smith has kind of overperformed, he landed a P5 (sort of) job at Rutgers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acf1016

zipp

Elite Member
Gold Member
Jun 26, 2001
47,314
10,718
26
I have never changed my “narrative”. It has always been that in this particular case, Vince NQ didn’t do anything different from what TJ would have done...
What is there about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" that you don't understand? Are you in denial or simply don't understand what those words mean? And why do you keep making references to Jurich anyway?
...At least you admit that Bobby had a contract. It doesn’t matter if the buyout was the same as Mack or any other coach...
Sure it does. Your argument is premised on the fact that "Vince" was saddled with Petrino's buyout left him by Jurich. Petrino's buyout was no larger than "Vince" is doling out.

How ADs manage their circumstances is their responsibility, unless you're making excuses for them...
 
Last edited:

zipp

Elite Member
Gold Member
Jun 26, 2001
47,314
10,718
26
Bro, you’re getting carpal tunnel for no reason. @zipp is just gonna sit on his porch and shake his fist at the #birdgang no matter how hyped and successful we are. When Chris and Scott are holding up trophies next to Queen Neeli and Vince, @zipp still gonna say “Tom, Rick and Bobby” were better. I love those guys but a new age is here. Old dude ain’t getting on board because the change frightens him. No big deal.
FWIW, I actually attend games unlike some people with posting privileges...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Villebandit

zipp

Elite Member
Gold Member
Jun 26, 2001
47,314
10,718
26
So just to confirm the following coaches from last year still don't have jobs:
Nick Petrino
Bobby Petrino
Chris Klenakis
Lorenzo Ward
Kolby Smith
LD Scott

So half of the of coaches are unemployed and the rest, outside of Galloway, are not at Power 5 schools.

So yes, the popular opinion of the coaches sucking is true.

Let see you spin this Zipp
They just got pink-slipped a couple months ago in six-figure paying jobs. What are benchmark stats for that situation?

The narrative was that they couldn't get football jobs because they weren't good coaches. Oops!...
 

Villebandit

One-Star Poster
Feb 6, 2019
228
138
6
Good job on throwing around your rich white male privelege, bro. Are you implying that folks who can’t attend basketball games are beneath you?
 

Knucklehank1

6000+
Jul 12, 2004
7,463
3,543
26
They just got pink-slipped a couple months ago in six-figure paying jobs. What are benchmark stats for that situation?

The narrative was that they couldn't get football jobs because they weren't good coaches. Oops!...
The popular narrative was that the staff wasn’t on par with the positions they held given the conference and the pay they received. Given that all of them are in lower paid positions, primarily in G5 football, the popular narrative seems to be spot on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acf1016

beantowncard

Four-Star Poster
Gold Member
Mar 9, 2009
13,142
6,180
26
What is there about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" that you don't understand? Are you in denial or simply don't understand what those words mean? And why do you keep making references to Jurich anyway?

Sure it does. Your argument is premised on the fact that "Vince" was saddled with Petrino's buyout left him by Jurich. Petrino's buyout was no larger than "Vince" is doling out.

How ADs manage their circumstances is their responsibility, unless you're making excuses for them...
That is not my premise. You’re a bit slow in the uptake, here, so I’ll try again. The premise is that Vince NQ paid Bobby because he had to, just like Jurich would have. This is just about the Petrino buyout. It had nothing to do with anybody else’s payout.
 

beantowncard

Four-Star Poster
Gold Member
Mar 9, 2009
13,142
6,180
26
A short list
Hypothetical #1:
all "Vince" had to do was clamp down on Petrino, force his hand with his assistants, and make the job unattractive for him to keep. Petrino would have come to him asking for a much cheaper and easier exit.
Hypothetical #2:
First thing I would have done is direct Petrino to get rid of his family members on staff. That would have definitely gottenthe ball rolling.
Hypothetical #3:
My belief is that Jurich could have negotiated a far less painful exit for both Pitino and Petrino when needed because of the relationship he had with his coaches. That's only logical, and they no such relationship with "Vince". One more miscalculation on the part of clowns in their impulsiveness...
Hypothetical #4:
My argument is a fact...he never got the chance. And that he never paid anything close to that for any other issue/problem, another fact.
 

zipp

Elite Member
Gold Member
Jun 26, 2001
47,314
10,718
26
Good job on throwing around your rich white male privelege, bro. Are you implying that folks who can’t attend basketball games are beneath you?
I have no problem with people who can't afford to go to games. I have a problem with many of the words that come outta your mouth...
 

zipp

Elite Member
Gold Member
Jun 26, 2001
47,314
10,718
26
The popular narrative was that the staff wasn’t on par with the positions they held given the conference and the pay they received. Given that all of them are in lower paid positions, primarily in G5 football, the popular narrative seems to be spot on.
Because everyone moves up the corporate ladder two months after they've been fired. :rolleyes:

As usual, you're morphing the story when it's invalidated. And for all of the coaches personally, I'm glad to see they're landing football jobs pretty quickly...
 

zipp

Elite Member
Gold Member
Jun 26, 2001
47,314
10,718
26
...The premise is that Vince NQ paid Bobby because he had to, just like Jurich would have...
Let the record show that you can't describe your position ONE time without a hypothetical reference to Jurich. Not a single time...
A short list
Hypothetical #1:
all "Vince" had to do was clamp down on Petrino, force his hand with his assistants, and make the job unattractive for him to keep. Petrino would have come to him asking for a much cheaper and easier exit.
Hypothetical #2:
First thing I would have done is direct Petrino to get rid of his family members on staff. That would have definitely gottenthe ball rolling.
Hypothetical #3:
My belief is that Jurich could have negotiated a far less painful exit for both Pitino and Petrino when needed because of the relationship he had with his coaches. That's only logical, and they no such relationship with "Vince". One more miscalculation on the part of clowns in their impulsiveness...
Hypothetical #4:
My argument is a fact...he never got the chance. And that he never paid anything close to that for any other issue/problem, another fact.
#4 is not a hypothetical; it's historical evidence. I'm still not sure if you know the difference.

And I don't need 1-3 to support my argument. Re-read the OP or I can repost it for you. (It was short and to the point.)

It also contained no reference to Jurich...
 

Knucklehank1

6000+
Jul 12, 2004
7,463
3,543
26
Because everyone moves up the corporate ladder two months after they've been fired. :rolleyes:

As usual, you're morphing the story when it's invalidated. And for all of the coaches personally, I'm glad to see they're landing football jobs pretty quickly...
So because they are landing lower level jobs that validates their skill level? Lol. Nice analysis as usual.
 

Villebandit

One-Star Poster
Feb 6, 2019
228
138
6
Son, you’re trash talking folks that don’t have the means to attend all men’s basketball games. That speaks to you and your priveliege, bro.

No true member of the #birdgang support that. Take your ass to coRUPPt arena with that nonsense, son.
 

Jhectus18

Two-Star Poster
Gold Member
Nov 17, 2018
1,157
1,025
26
To bring this thread back to coaching, Malik Cunningham had some very interesting words in the Courier regarding the coaching (lack thereof) and accessibility (lack thereof) of his coaches last year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Villebandit

beantowncard

Four-Star Poster
Gold Member
Mar 9, 2009
13,142
6,180
26
Let the record show that you can't describe your position ONE time without a hypothetical reference to Jurich. Not a single time...

#4 is not a hypothetical; it's historical evidence. I'm still not sure if you know the difference.

And I don't need 1-3 to support my argument. Re-read the OP or I can repost it for you. (It was short and to the point.)

It also contained no reference to Jurich...
If you are going to criticize Vince NQ (which is perfectly fair to do) it should be in reference to someone, or some thing, else. Otherwise, what is the basis of the criticism? You have made repeated references to Jurich and how he could have/ would have handled the Petrino situation better. Your explanations of this have shifted constantly. First he would have made Bobby so miserable he would have left for a much smaller buyout. Then, he would have leveraged his “relationship” with Bobby to get a better deal. Then he would have raised the money or found an “offset” to pay the buyout. All of these are hypotheticals. All of them are flawed theories with no historical facts behind them. You only begrudgingly acknowledged that Bobby had a contract as a fact. You have not yet acknowledged that that contract called for a 14 mill buyout in these circumstances. This is another fact. You have not given any evidence, historical or otherwise, of TJ failing to honor contracts or negotiating down a buyout. You have given no historical or other evidence of Jurich harassing a coach or other employee into accepting a lower buyout. Vince NQ couldn’t do those things either. You have not yet argued that Bobby should have been retained, so I assume you would agree that he should have been fired. You must really let go if your anger toward Vince NQ. He didn’t fire Jurich, or Pitino, or Ramsey. He’s doing his best, even though we need more. Hopefully, he will be replaced with a more experienced person soon. Everything he does is not wrong or bad, just because it’s him doing it. A Jurich reference is absolutely appropriate because Jurich was a superb AD. He is an example of excellence in his job. He would have done the same thing in this case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PushupMan

zipp

Elite Member
Gold Member
Jun 26, 2001
47,314
10,718
26
Son, you’re trash talking folks that don’t have the means to attend all men’s basketball games. That speaks to you and your priveliege, bro.

No true member of the #birdgang support that. Take your ass to coRUPPt arena with that nonsense, son.
You're trying to master the art of deflection. Not sure how much value there is in that...
 

zipp

Elite Member
Gold Member
Jun 26, 2001
47,314
10,718
26
To bring this thread back to coaching, Malik Cunningham had some very interesting words in the Courier regarding the coaching (lack thereof) and accessibility (lack thereof) of his coaches last year.
Saw those, and I'm glad Malik has a good attitude about his situation which can only help us.

Understandably, I'm also not sure I've ever heard a player make a negative statement about his new coaching with respect to the old...
 

zipp

Elite Member
Gold Member
Jun 26, 2001
47,314
10,718
26
If you are going to criticize Vince NQ (which is perfectly fair to do) it should be in reference to someone, or some thing, else. Otherwise, what is the basis of the criticism?...
I can't read these long epistles...be more succinct.

It's fair to criticize "Vince" based on data. Data are NOT hypothetical. Financial results are my favorite and where ultimately "Vince" will end up sinking or swimming. Petrino's buyout feeds into that financially, and I'm patient enough to wait for that.

Hypotheticals are not necessarily a valid point of reference esp. when they're ill-conceived. I tried to make that point with the "absence of evidence" generality. Because YOU can suggest a hypothetical doesn't make it necessary or relevant...
 

Knucklehank1

6000+
Jul 12, 2004
7,463
3,543
26
It invalidates the narrative which you're changing--again...
You’ve invented so many narratives that you obviously cannot keep them all straight. You even underperform on the straw man arguments you formulate.

Anyways, the staff was one of the top paid staff’s in the ACC. They were a top 25 paid staff in college football. Despite that, only one landed an equivalent position (which is generous considering Kolby Smith went to Rutgers), one other landed a P5 job, and the rest are either still unemployed or landed low level D1 jobs.