Last edited:
Wasn't the popular narrative that U of L football coaches?...
- Thread starter zipp
- Start date
Zipp, this thread has not gone well for you, to say the least.
First, your original post: “Wasn't the popular narrative that U of L football coaches couldn’t find good jobs anywhere else?” The use of the word “good” makes this a bit subjective. And I don’t know where exactly you find a “popular narrative”, but what I saw and heard were complaints about the quality of the staff, without anyone ever saying that the staff could not get any jobs elsewhere at all.
Earlier today, you removed the word “good” from the equation, moving your own goal post, saying this:
The popular narrative is/was “couldn’t get jobs”.
So, you apparently gave up on the “good” part of your original argument since some posters had pointed out that what jobs the coaches had received were almost always lower than their Louisville jobs, and in the case of BVG going from DC to a position coach at a G5 school, the job was a major demotion.
A few days ago, you changed the argument to “let me know where they are individually in a couple years" before discussing what jobs they had landed, clearly moving the goalposts on your original position again, since you had started this thread after a few of them (including BVG and his awesome new position) landed new jobs and you didn’t state anything about a timeframe then.
And now you bring up IU and Gonzaga basketball. What a deflection.
Your original position is/was a real loser.
First, your original post: “Wasn't the popular narrative that U of L football coaches couldn’t find good jobs anywhere else?” The use of the word “good” makes this a bit subjective. And I don’t know where exactly you find a “popular narrative”, but what I saw and heard were complaints about the quality of the staff, without anyone ever saying that the staff could not get any jobs elsewhere at all.
Earlier today, you removed the word “good” from the equation, moving your own goal post, saying this:
The popular narrative is/was “couldn’t get jobs”.
So, you apparently gave up on the “good” part of your original argument since some posters had pointed out that what jobs the coaches had received were almost always lower than their Louisville jobs, and in the case of BVG going from DC to a position coach at a G5 school, the job was a major demotion.
A few days ago, you changed the argument to “let me know where they are individually in a couple years" before discussing what jobs they had landed, clearly moving the goalposts on your original position again, since you had started this thread after a few of them (including BVG and his awesome new position) landed new jobs and you didn’t state anything about a timeframe then.
And now you bring up IU and Gonzaga basketball. What a deflection.
Your original position is/was a real loser.
…. And then there was your major deflection and hypothetical in the middle of this thread about how Jurich would have gotten Petrino to accept much less than his $14 million contractual buyout. Borrowing the Jedi mind trick scenario from others, maybe it would have gone something like this:
Jurich: “Bobby, you will accept $4 million instead of the full $14 million buyout that you are contractually owed, and you will be happy about it, even though your entire family’s employment will be greatly affected and they will likely end up scattered across the country.”
Bobby: “I will accept $4 million instead of the full $14 million buyout that I am contractually owed, and I will be happy about it….”
Pure nonsense.
Jurich: “Bobby, you will accept $4 million instead of the full $14 million buyout that you are contractually owed, and you will be happy about it, even though your entire family’s employment will be greatly affected and they will likely end up scattered across the country.”
Bobby: “I will accept $4 million instead of the full $14 million buyout that I am contractually owed, and I will be happy about it….”
Pure nonsense.
Point 1: You're right. "good" is subjective. The point is if you're a fired college football coach, you want a college football coaching job. Is that a low bar? Is knucklehead's "equivalent P5 job within two months" a high bar? Same answer.
Point 2: The Petrino buyout issue is off the subject, but I debated it nonetheless. And I have made it abundantly clear that I don't need a hypothetical argument about what Jurich would have done to make my point. Others have dragged that narrative into the discussion.
But since that narrative has been offered, we now have a couple of exemplary "Vince" apologists willing to make that argument hypothetically. (See companion "nipped it" thread...)
Point 2: The Petrino buyout issue is off the subject, but I debated it nonetheless. And I have made it abundantly clear that I don't need a hypothetical argument about what Jurich would have done to make my point. Others have dragged that narrative into the discussion.
But since that narrative has been offered, we now have a couple of exemplary "Vince" apologists willing to make that argument hypothetically. (See companion "nipped it" thread...)
Money is not the goal. This is not the NFL. Thank god.
We have both made statements without knowledge. They are called opinions, and this board is a proper home for them. You claim “facts” but refuse to acknowledge facts that don’t support your argument. You seek to rule out if order any “hypothetical” when the entire argument is a hypothetical.
As regards Gonzaga, other factors such as size of alumni base, size of fan base, competition from other entertainment sources, even geography play a role. Show me a perennial loser who is awash in cash.
I think it would be best for “Zipp’s” anti-Tyra and anti-Mack be confined to this thread. I see he was already out cross-pollinating some other threads overnight.
If you don't think money is the primary driver of big time college athletics, there's not much I can do for ya.
That's not true. You've tried to drag me into a hypothetical debate, and I refuse. When I offer opinion, I always include the info I'm basing it on. When I make a PREDICTION, I call it that. You do very little of any of that.
You're stating exceptions to your wins-bring-money theory--which doesn't make it much of a theory--and trying to argue with extremes, e.g., "perennial loser". I already gave you Indiana which has been an underperforming basketball program for a couple of decades. Other programs in other sports like Notre Dame and Nebraska come to mind, or Boise State at the other end of the spectrum.
On the field or court, these schools have either been treading water by their standards or consistent winners. Yet, the flow of money hasn't reversed course based on those results--because that's not the primary cause and effect...
Last edited:
Ok, then money is not the purpose. It’s not monopoly. You seem to be confused. Money drives decisions about college athletics to be sure. However, you get to be a big money program by winning; a lot; over an extended period of time. That builds a fan base, which brings dollars and helps weather rough patches. This is especially true for football. However, Indiana (basketball) and Nebraska (football) have multiple national championships, final fours, elite eights, bowl games, etc over many years. Relatively short term trends don’t destroy the ardor of a fan base so quickly.
As regards the “hypothetical” debate, I believe you attacked Vince NQ unfairly (in this case). It is perfectly reasonable to compare his actions to what someone who was eminently qualified and successful at the job would have done. Almost everyone on this board would agree that Tom Jurich was such a person. I simply asked how would TJ get around Bobby’s contract. After all if TJ couldn’t neither could Vince NQ. You never gave any kind of realistic answer to that question. Therefore your criticism of Vince NQ is without basis- nobody could have done better.
I am not stating exceptions, but listing other factors. Nothing trumps a long record of winning, however.
I think you're the guy confused about your own debate, and I'm not sure why you dragged it into an unrelated thread...
The context is U of L winning to bring back fans and money. Basketball fan attrition has been a short term phenomenon with U of L. You just acknowledged that winning and fan support is a LONG TERM relationship that's associated with money, and I agree with that. What's happened(-ing) at U of L is short term and has nothing to do with winning.
If you think it's "reasonable" to argue hypotheticals that can neither be proven or disproven, fine. But I don't have to prove any of them to make my point--which you simply refuse to acknowledge.
"Vince" paid a king's ransom to get at Petrino, and that was his decision. He needs to own that just like fans need to hold him accountable for it. If Satterfield is a tremendous success and millions start rolling in, he made the right call. But there's a flipside. He doesn't get a one-sided, can't-fail outcome except for what clown show apologists wanna give him...
All I can say is you guys love feeding the Troll
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain. Thirteen pages and counting. ; )
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain. Thirteen pages and counting. ; )
Well since you guys don't seem to know one when you see one, I thought the true definition was called for. ; )
Similar threads
