2006 Vols Biggest Surprise???

[OldVol]

Wow, what a waste of time.

That's probablby the most relevant post in this thread.

What was this thread about anyway?

 

[VolBeef88]

GeriatricVol, I hope you don't take offense. I often take points to an extreme for entertainment value. That said, I had you pegged just about right, didn't I?

By the way hate, I know what you do. In fact I enjoy it quite a bit.

 

[VolBeef88]

That's probablby the most relevant post in this thread.

What was this thread about anyway?

Old people with buzz cuts who say yes ma'am.

 

[hvwarrior58]

I believe Vol surprises for this coming season.

I'll stick with my original prediction: Austin Rogers

 

[OldVol]

GeriatricVol, I hope you don't take offense. I often take points to an extreme for entertainment value. That said, I had you pegged just about right, didn't I?

Well, except for the part about the buzz (which was by coercion, which does not count in my book) and the implication that all the guys I played with were prejudiced, obnoxious racists, who always went about doing good and sayin' 'yes ma'am, ...... yeah you had it down pat.

 

[OldVol]

Old people with buzz cuts who say yes ma'am.

No: Old people with buzz cuts who say yes ma'am and are racists.

Get it right.

 

[hatvol96]

Do you realize how easy it is to draw the wrong perceptions?

I don't know about that Paleozoic guy, but have you ever heard of Georgetown?

Geez!

Next thing you know, I'll be James Earl Ray's accomplice.

Just because I played football in the South does not mean I've never stepped foot outside of it.

Shucks, they's a whole other world North of Knoxville. I seed it once.

Besides kid, If'n I'd know'd you was such a straplin' I'd have taken it a lot easier on you.

Why would you draw racial overtones out of that post? I reference Sam Cunningham simply because that was the seminal moment in modern Southern Football. College Football, and the South itself, changed in the ensuing years. I don't see it as implying racism to say a group might long for days when things were simpler and more in their control.

 

[VolBeef88]

Why would you draw racial overtones out of that post. I reference Sam Cunningham simply because that was the seminal moment in modern Southern Football. College Football, and the South itself, changed in the ensuing years. I don't see it as implying racism to say a group might long for days when things were simpler and more in their control.

Do you think that is an intellectually honest post?

 

[hatvol96]

Do you think that is an intellectually honest post?

I find people always take out of posts what they bring to them. If AgedVol sees charges of racism in that post, it comes from his view of the world.

 

[OldVol]

Why would you draw racial overtones out of that post. I reference Sam Cunningham simply because that was the seminal moment in modern Southern Football. College Football, and the South itself, changed in the ensuing years. I don't see it as implying racism to say a group might long for days when things were simpler and more in their control.

Well, let's put it like this.

Put that post, in and of itself, allowing it to stand simply on its own merits, in a message board of Southern guys, and I can't imagine anyone thinking your post was meant to shine kindly on men who played football in the South prior to and during desegregation.

You must remember, as someone pointed out, my handle on another board has 74 in it. So, without giving away too much, you might say the fellows I played with should be given more credit for desegregation than any group that preceded or followed us.

I prize my anonymity, and that won’t change, but I can say there were no problems with desegregation on my teams.

It was as if it had never been any other way. I think that's a testament to the quality of people who had to endure those times.

Most of the events you've read and learned of were hugely amplified by the media. Most of the people who worked through desegregation
saw it as something that should be done and just did it. We didn't expect pats on the back for doing the right thing. On the other hand, it was tiresome to see the media blow up isolated events and paint the whole South as being that way. It just wasn't the case.

 

[hatvol96]

I'll shock everyone now and get back on topic. Even more shocking, I'll list a positive surprise. Lucas Taylor will learn to secure the ball and become an elite kick returner.

 

[VolBeef88]

I find people always take out of posts what they bring to them. If AgedVol sees charges of racism in that post, it comes from his view of the world.

Overtones and/or perception are hard to pick up and deliver on a message board. How one recieves in person by voice inflection and body language is one thing. How one interprets a message on a board is much murkier.

 

[hatvol96]

Well, let's put it like this.

Put that post, in and of itself, allowing it to stand simply on its own merits, in a message board of Southern guys, and I can't imagine anyone thinking your post was meant to shine kindly on men who played football in the South prior to and during desegregation.

You must remember, as someone pointed out, my handle on another board has 74 in it. So, without giving away too much, you might say the fellows I played with should be given more credit for desegregation than any group that preceded or followed us.

I prize my anonymity, and that won’t change, but I can say there were no problems with desegregation on my teams.

It was as if it had never been any other way. I think that's a testament to the quality of people who had to endure those times.

Most of the events you've read and learned of were hugely amplified by the media. Most of the people who worked through desegregation
saw it as something that should be done and just did it. We didn't expect pats on the back for doing the right thing. On the other hand, it was tiresome to see the media blow up isolated events and paint the whole South as being that way. It just wasn't the case.

Actually, I was just about to post that my guess was that you were probably among the classes of players that were in the SEC when integration took place. It really depends on what you mean by isolated incidents. From an athletic standpoint, I've never talked to any players, black or white, from that era who saw integration as that big a problem among the players. Fans and society at large were a different story. The conduct of the Governors of Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, and Mississippi weren't exactly isolated incidents.
However, do you think it's a fair assessment that most of the guys you grew up playing with dislike the modern athlete? Do you find them too showy and self centered? I can't imagine part of your emnity toward Switzer's OU teams and Miami is because they aren't humble. They were good and made sure everyone knew it. That wasn't your generational ethic. I think you're just to quick to rip and criticize people who don't run their program like Stalag 17. You seem to be just a little too wedded to the rule book. Loosen up. If the worst thing that happens is a booster giving a kid some money, I'm pretty happy with the state of the world.

 

[VolBeef88]

But hate, time does not change wrong to right. If it is wrong it is wrong. If you don't like the rules then do somthing else. Taking responsibility for ones own actions is timeless IMO.

 

[hatvol96]

Well, except for the part about the buzz (which was by coercion, which does not count in my book) and the implication that all the guys I played with were prejudiced, obnoxious racists, who always went about doing good and sayin' 'yes ma'am, ...... yeah you had it down pat.

Actually, the fact you adhered to the mandatory buzz proves my point. Could you see Switzer or Johnson trying to implement such a Draconian rule? Actually, could you see either of those guys caring about such a rule.

 

[OldVol]

Actually, I was just about to post that my guess was that you were probably among the classes of players that were in the SEC when integration took place. It really depends on what you mean by isolated incidents. From an athletic standpoint, I've never talked to any players, black or white, from that era who saw integration as that big a problem among the players. Fans and society at large were a different story. The conduct of the Governors of Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, and Mississippi weren't exactly isolated incidents.
However, do you think it's a fair assessment that most of the guys you grew up playing with dislike the modern athlete? Do you find them too showy and self centered? I can't imagine part of your emnity toward Switzer's OU teams and Miami is because they aren't humble. They were good and made sure everyone knew it. That wasn't your generational ethic. I think you're just to quick to rip and criticize people who don't run their program like Stalag 17. You seem to be just a little too wedded to the rule book. Loosen up. If the worst thing that happens is a booster giving a kid some money, I'm pretty happy with the state of the world.

Well, I could tell you some stories. But I won't.

I'll just say that the occasional hundred dollar handshake was not, by far, the worst that was happening.

OK, I will tell you a story or two. One of the young men from my area, not my HS, but a rival, was moved to a town, South of the Tennessee border (but not U of Alabama, but in that state-that really narrows it down, huh?) his mother who worked in his HS cafeteria was moved into a home (I'd estimate $250K by today's dollars) given a job well above her pay rate, and Buddy (not his real name, obviously) came out of the deal with a new red Firebird, which he wrecked.

This was just something you accepted as part of the process back then. Not all of the schools were doing it though, and it showed up in the win/loss columns.

Now, as to being tied to the rule book; I think everyone should be. I personally think it's destructive to put kids in college and not educate them simply because they're a football player.

I know a young man who was in my HS, graduated a year ahead of me, went to an SEC school and the boy is working with the county today driving a truck. No shame in that, but he was not given a chance, simply because he could play football.

Again, not all of the schools treated their student athletes that way. Some institutions actually believed you should be a student first. That's not to say they didn't want to win, they did, but not at any cost.

When winning becomes so important that you're willing to cheat, you'll also do the destructive things to the athletes that those schools did in my day.

You talk about mistreatment of the players. That was, and is the real mistreatment of the athletes. We're still graduating kids from some SEC schools who can't read at a 8th grade level.

So, if I seem tied to some old, principled ideas; yes, I admit it.

I also wear it as a badge of honor.

Question: If/when you have children; will you teach them to win at any cost, or to win with integrity and character?

 

[OldVol]

Actually, the fact you adhered to the mandatory buzz proves my point. Could you see Switzer or Johnson trying to implement such a Draconian rule? Actually, could you see either of those guys caring about such a rule.

Uhm, could I see Switzer mandating a buzz?

See what you think? http://www.nndb.com/people/419/000032323/

 

[hatvol96]

But hate, time does not change wrong to right. If it is wrong it is wrong. If you don't like the rules then do somthing else. Taking responsibility for ones own actions is timeless IMO.

I guess I miss what great "wrongs" Switzer's OU teams and Miami have committed. Switzer's nephew was at UT while I was there. Great guy, got a chance to meet his uncle a couple of times. He was the most down to earth celebrity I've ever met. The company I work for has a facility in South Florida. I enjoy the occasional evening on South Beach. I've met a few 'Canes, past and present. Again, great guys, except for Sean Taylor who is legitimately scary. I don't understand the vitriol people have towards those teams. Trust me the teams UT had on campus when I was there were every bit as freewheeling and OU or the "U." Chris Mims would have been the baddest gangsta at either of those schools.

 

[hatvol96]

Uhm, could I see Switzer mandating a buzz?

See what you think? http://www.nndb.com/people/419/000032323/

Not saying Frank Broyles couldn't get him to do it, I'm saying he wouldn't require it. Jimmy Johnson had a buzz when he and Switzer were teammates.

 

[VolBeef88]

I guess I miss what great "wrongs" Switzer's OU teams and Miami have committed. Switzer's nephew was at UT while I was there. Great guy, got a chance to meet his uncle a couple of times. He was the most down to earth celebrity I've ever met. The company I work for has a facility in South Florida. I enjoy the occasional evening on South Beach. I've met a few 'Canes, past and present. Again, great guys, except for Sean Taylor who is legitimately scary. I don't understand the vitriol people have towards those teams. Trust me the teams UT had on campus when I was there were every bit as freewheeling and OU or the "U." Chris Mims would have been the baddest gangsta at either of those schools.

I don't know, maybe all of the NCAA rule violations. Like them or not they are the governing body that all schools agree to abide by. If you break the rules and get caught you have to pay the penalty.

 

[hatvol96]

Well, I could tell you some stories. But I won't.

I'll just say that the occasional hundred dollar handshake was not, by far, the worst that was happening.

OK, I will tell you a story or two. One of the young men from my area, not my HS, but a rival, was moved to a town, South of the Tennessee border (but not U of Alabama, but in that state-that really narrows it down, huh?) his mother who worked in his HS cafeteria was moved into a home (I'd estimate $250K by today's dollars) given a job well above her pay rate, and Buddy (not his real name, obviously) came out of the deal with a new red Firebird, which he wrecked.

This was just something you accepted as part of the process back then. Not all of the schools were doing it though, and it showed up in the win/loss columns.

Now, as to being tied to the rule book; I think everyone should be. I personally think it's destructive to put kids in college and not educate them simply because they're a football player.

I know a young man who was in my HS, graduated a year ahead of me, went to an SEC school and the boy is working with the county today driving a truck. No shame in that, but he was not given a chance, simply because he could play football.

Again, not all of the schools treated their student athletes that way. Some institutions actually believed you should be a student first. That's not to say they didn't want to win, they did, but not at any cost.

When winning becomes so important that you're willing to cheat, you'll also do the destructive things to the athletes that those schools did in my day.

You talk about mistreatment of the players. That was, and is the real mistreatment of the athletes. We're still graduating kids from some SEC schools who can't read at a 8th grade level.

So, if I seem tied to some old, principled ideas; yes, I admit it.

I also wear it as a badge of honor.

Question: If/when you have children; will you teach them to win at any cost, or to win with integrity and character?

You and I actually have some common ground. The only chink in Switzer's armor I see is that he didn't graduate enough players. Contrary to public perception, except for the very end of Dennis Erickson's tenure, Miami has done considerably better than most when it comes to graduating players. The type of cheating you're talking about is of a different scale than what I'm saying I don't worry about. Switzer, even once under oath, swears he never offered a player anything illegal to get them to come to OU. Now, did he look the other way once they got on campus? Yes. However, it was never the lavish stuff OU was accused of providing. Look at the violations the NCAA penalized them for in '88. they're fairly minor. I dare say if the NCAA set up shop on the campus of any major football power, they could find they same level of noncompliance. The NCAA never found any substantive violations committed at the "U" during Johnson's tenure Again, the only problem in that regard came at the end of Erickson's era, when the program was admittedly out of control.

 

[hatvol96]

I don't know, maybe all of the NCAA rule violations. Like them or not they are the governing body that all schools agree to abide by. If you break the rules and get caught you have to pay the penalty.

Miami has been on probation once. OU was penalized only once for conduct that occured during Switzer's time at OU. I wouldn't consider that rampant lawlessness. UT got placed on probation a couple of times in the '80s and '90s. Doug Dickey's solid relationships with Infractions Committee was the only thing that saved UT from more severe punishment. People in glass houses.......

 

[GAVol]

Switzer sort of became the NCAA's big fish in going after the old Southwest Conference.

 

[VolBeef88]

Miami has been on probation once. OU was penalized only once for conduct that occured during Switzer's time at OU. I wouldn't consider that rampant lawlessness. UT got placed on probation a couple of times in the '80s and '90s. Doug Dickey's solid relationships with Infractions Committee was the only thing that saved UT from more severe punishment. People in glass houses.......

Can see through the walls?!

I never said only during Switzers tenure. But the rules that are agreed upon should be heeded. I didn't say you or I or the coaches/schools had to like them. But they are what they are like it or not.

 

[hatvol96]

Switzer sort of became the NCAA's big fish in going after the old Southwest Conference.

The power DeLoss Dodds, the Texas AD, had with the NCAA was more than a minor factor in OU's trouble with the 'AA in '88.