2006 Vols Biggest Surprise???

[hatvol96]

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.

OU hasn't had any NCAA problems since '88. What's your point?

 

[RockyRod]

After Tennessee goes undefeated! Coach Fulmer is the unanimous pick for coach of the year. Please, do wake me up because its a great dream!!!!!! :angel: :angel: :angel:

 

[OldVol]

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.

Herein lies the rub: While Bear Bryant, and others, were buying talent, there were men like Bob Neyland and Bowden Wyatt who would not.

I don't believe Bill Battle ever knew of any wrong doing on The Hill either. I believe those 3 men were above the fray when it came to cheating to win.

Yet, Bryant never could be Neyland.

Now, if you chose to go to any number of schools in the South in those days, you knew what you were getting. And, this may sound pious to some, but there were a lot of kids who did not want to be viewed as cheaters.

There's the rub when it comes to the Bama teams of the 70s and 80s, as well as Oklahoma and Miami. While Jimmy and Barry may have never given an illegal inducement, that's probably true, but the cheating at those schools was so prevalent that they had to have known, and that in my opinion is just as bad.

For what it's worth, those schools and all the wins they achieved, fair or not, will always be remembered and marked by cheating. The very fact that we're having this conversation is credit to that sad fact.

Were there more do-gooders in my day? Probably. Yet, I really feel it isn’t people who have changed so much as it is the environment of win-at-all-cost mentalities.

It’s the environment that pulled poor kids into the web of cheating and deceit, you can name any number of qualifiers for this. But the bottom line is it feels good to have won and to have done it cleanly and honestly. Some can never say that and they, not me and all the ‘yes ma’am’ boys, are the true losers.

 

[hatvol96]

Herein lies the rub: While Bear Bryant, and others, were buying talent, there were men like Bob Neyland and Bowden Wyatt who would not.

I don't believe Bill Battle ever knew of any wrong doing on The Hill either. I believe those 3 men were above the fray when it came to cheating to win.

Yet, Bryant never could be Neyland.

Now, if you chose to go to any number of schools in the South in those days, you knew what you were getting. And, this may sound pious to some, but there were a lot of kids who did not want to be viewed as cheaters.

There's the rub when it comes to the Bama teams of the 70s and 80s, as well as Oklahoma and Miami. While Jimmy and Barry may have never given an illegal inducement, that's probably true, but the cheating at those schools was so prevalent that they had to have known, and that in my opinion is just as bad.

For what it's worth, those schools and all the wins they achieved, fair or not, will always be remembered and marked by cheating. The very fact that we're having this conversation is credit to that sad fact.

Were there more do-gooders in my day? Probably. Yet, I really feel it isn’t people who have changed so much as it is the environment of win-at-all-cost mentalities.

It’s the environment that pulled poor kids into the web of cheating and deceit, you can name any number of qualifiers for this. But the bottom line is it feels good to have won and to have done it cleanly and honestly. Some can never say that and they, not me and all the ‘yes ma’am’ boys, are the true losers.

That's where you're wrong. Not everyone thinks, or cares about how OU, Miami, or whoever won. Outside of the South, most people don't really know about what went on at Alabama under Bryant. They simply know Alabama was the gold standard for winning. People equate Miami and OU with flashy, exciting football. You act as if there's this huge majority of people who share your outrage about NCAA. I cerftainly don't think that's the case. These days, they don't ask how you won, they ask how many you won.

 

[hatvol96]

Herein lies the rub: While Bear Bryant, and others, were buying talent, there were men like Bob Neyland and Bowden Wyatt who would not.

I don't believe Bill Battle ever knew of any wrong doing on The Hill either. I believe those 3 men were above the fray when it came to cheating to win.

Yet, Bryant never could be Neyland.

Now, if you chose to go to any number of schools in the South in those days, you knew what you were getting. And, this may sound pious to some, but there were a lot of kids who did not want to be viewed as cheaters.

There's the rub when it comes to the Bama teams of the 70s and 80s, as well as Oklahoma and Miami. While Jimmy and Barry may have never given an illegal inducement, that's probably true, but the cheating at those schools was so prevalent that they had to have known, and that in my opinion is just as bad.

For what it's worth, those schools and all the wins they achieved, fair or not, will always be remembered and marked by cheating. The very fact that we're having this conversation is credit to that sad fact.

Were there more do-gooders in my day? Probably. Yet, I really feel it isn’t people who have changed so much as it is the environment of win-at-all-cost mentalities.

It’s the environment that pulled poor kids into the web of cheating and deceit, you can name any number of qualifiers for this. But the bottom line is it feels good to have won and to have done it cleanly and honestly. Some can never say that and they, not me and all the ‘yes ma’am’ boys, are the true losers.

I met Jamelle Holieway and Lydell Carr at the OU-Texas game in '04. I don't think they lose any sleep over how they won all those games at OU from '85-'88.

 

[Lexvol]

I have to tell you that while Johnson's image is not as tarnished, Barry Switzer, likeable or not (seems like the successful "everyman") is often lumped in with Jackie Sherril when it comes to conversations on ethics.

 

[hatvol96]

I have to tell you that while Johnson's image is not as tarnished, Barry Switzer, likeable or not (seems like the successful "everyman") is often lumped in with Jackie Sherril when it comes to conversations on ethics.

To the shock of nobody, I like Sherrill.

 

[Lexvol]

I personally can't believe that none of these great posts have called Lou Holtz into question at all. He encompasses qualites that both Hat and Oldvol can identify with. He is a smash mouth coach that likes to cheat a bit.

 

[hatvol96]

I have to tell you that while Johnson's image is not as tarnished, Barry Switzer, likeable or not (seems like the successful "everyman") is often lumped in with Jackie Sherril when it comes to conversations on ethics.

I think Switzer's personal problems(SEC charges of insider trading, the daliance with Lacewell's wife, liking more than the occasional drink, etc.)get projected on to his coaching records.

 

[hatvol96]

I personally can't believe that none of these great posts have called Lou Holtz into question at all. He encompasses qualites that both Hat and Oldvol can identify with. He is a smash mouth coach that likes to cheat a bit.

I don't like those guys because they cheat. I like them because they see life much as I do. They are iconoclasts. Holtz is just dull and sneaky.

 

[Lexvol]

I don't like those guys because they cheat. I like them because they see life much as I do. They are iconoclasts. Holtz is just dull and sneaky.

Just poking a little fun. There is nothing wrong with leaving your mark on the world. Carpe Diem.

 

[hatvol96]

Just poking a little fun. There is nothing wrong with leaving your mark on the world. Carpe Diem.

The amazing thing is that Switzer, Johnson, and Sherrill share one common link. Johnny Majors.

 

[allvol@15]

ok im gonna make a post that is appropriate for this thread:

offensive surprise: Erik Ainge
defensive surprise: Rico McCoy

 

[OldVol]

That's where you're wrong. Not everyone thinks, or cares about how OU, Miami, or whoever won. Outside of the South, most people don't really know about what went on at Alabama under Bryant. They simply know Alabama was the gold standard for winning. People equate Miami and OU with flashy, exciting football. You act as if there's this huge majority of people who share your outrage about NCAA. I cerftainly don't think that's the case. These days, they don't ask how you won, they ask how many you won.

I am rather well traveled. I've discussed college football in most states of the union, since it is still a passion. And, since you put such high value on personal observations, you can take this one to the bank; people all over the nation who follow college football think of Oklahoma under Switzer and Miami of the 80s as cheating programs. That's been my experience. I don't know who you discuss college football with, nor even if you discuss such things outside of this state, but my experience tells me you could not be more wrong on this point if you attempted to be. Also, my ADVANCED age does place me at a premium on these topics, since you were still in diapers when most of them occurred. But, I won't attempt to take advantage of your youth and inexperience. The fact remains, everyone who loved and followed college football during that era did view both programs as cheaters. Now, as I said, in your shrunken circle of yuppies, that might not be the case, but it is a fact among the more mature, better informed, elder set. sniff, sniff ...

At your age I can understand why you don't view this as I do. You don't have personal experience of it, therefore, no matter how much you've read, you probably could never have a feel for that era as those of us who were old enough at the time to drink without a lid on our cups.

Even today, how you win is important.

If you don't think so, just listen to Barry Bonds. There is a wide gulf between those who believe his accomplishments will forever be tarnished because he used a substance to enhance his performance, whether it was legal or not, it really is unimportant to a vast host of fans because they view his accomplishments as tainted. If you think 'how you win' is not important, talk to some of the older fans of SMU. The program has never recovered due to how they won.

Saying, "These days, they don't ask how you won, they ask how many you won" does not speak well of the people who are saying it.

It's like saying, "Nice diamond ring."

"Say what? You stole it!"

"Oh, don't worry; it's the ring that counts."

I think I've about got you figured out. You're not as nasty as you'd like everyone to think you are. You're a conflicted, palpitating yuppie whose mum wouldn't let him push his mush off the table growing up.

 

[milohimself]

OldVol:

1) You're old as dirt, admit it
2) I'm the expert on yuppies around here. I live in Portland Oregon for crying out loud

 

[jakez4ut]

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.

now that's a good question....and if the answer is no, which i assume it is, then therin lies part of the problem.

I learned a valuable lesson in my career several years back. I was a front line manager for one of my previous employers, and i had a crew of about 4-10 people, depending on whether or not it was Friday.

One of the rules my company had was that at no time would you be permitted to wear any clothing that depicted anything other than company logos....so this meant if you were going to wear a hat, it better be a hat with the company logo, no UT caps, if you wore a jacket, it had better have a company logo on it, no Yankees or Braves jackets..the only alternative was if it had NO logo on it.

My regional manager was out on the dock one night, and one of my guys was wearing his HS lettermen jacket. He came direclty to me and aske why i allowed him to get away with this? I was floored. it was in the middle of the shift, we were extremely busy, and this guy, who was my boss's boss's boss, was worried about a jacket a guy was wearing? He made me send the guy home. For the longest time, i could not figure this out, and my attitude was who the hell cared what jacket the guy was wearing as long as he was getting the job done? what did it really matter?

Then, after i left that company for the company i work for now, i realized why. My previous company was, at the time anyway, an industry leader, very profitable, good marketshare and growing very well. We had sound processes and operated efficiently. The company i now work for, while it is profitable, we are very undisciplined, and many times have a "flavor of the week" management philosophy. We are constantly putting out fires, and sometimes feels as though we are in a constant state of crisis management, on one issue or another. One of the reasons for this, is we as a company don't hold all things with the same priority, as my previous employer did.

the dress code at my previous employer was as important as the service, prodction and operating performance. There was no choice in the matter of what procedure or process you were going to follow. It was ALL important, even the dumb dress code i didn't understand at the time.

i'm not saying that i wish my current company would do the exact same thing, otherwise i'd still be with that other company, but there are some things that we could learn from. One of which being, it's all important, and it's all designed to instill discipline in everything you do, from how you dress for work, to how you perform at work. Plus it instilled a "team" mentality, since there were no individual expressions of fashion while on the clock.

I tell this only to share my experience as to why it could be considered a good thing to have your football team have a buzz cut. Nowadays that's a bit archaic, in and of itself, but there's no reason to believe that you can't hold your players, or employees for that matter, to the same standards you expect from everyone else.

 

[hatvol96]

I am rather well traveled. I've discussed college football in most states of the union, since it is still a passion. And, since you put such high value on personal observations, you can take this one to the bank; people all over the nation who follow college football think of Oklahoma under Switzer and Miami of the 80s as cheating programs. That's been my experience. I don't know who you discuss college football with, nor even if you discuss such things outside of this state, but my experience tells me you could not be more wrong on this point if you attempted to be. Also, my ADVANCED age does place me at a premium on these topics, since you were still in diapers when most of them occurred. But, I won't attempt to take advantage of your youth and inexperience. The fact remains, everyone who loved and followed college football during that era did view both programs as cheaters. Now, as I said, in your shrunken circle of yuppies, that might not be the case, but it is a fact among the more mature, better informed, elder set. sniff, sniff ...

At your age I can understand why you don't view this as I do. You don't have personal experience of it, therefore, no matter how much you've read, you probably could never have a feel for that era as those of us who were old enough at the time to drink without a lid on our cups.

Even today, how you win is important.

If you don't think so, just listen to Barry Bonds. There is a wide gulf between those who believe his accomplishments will forever be tarnished because he used a substance to enhance his performance, whether it was legal or not, it really is unimportant to a vast host of fans because they view his accomplishments as tainted. If you think 'how you win' is not important, talk to some of the older fans of SMU. The program has never recovered due to how they won.

Saying, "These days, they don't ask how you won, they ask how many you won" does not speak well of the people who are saying it.

It's like saying, "Nice diamond ring."

"Say what? You stole it!"

"Oh, don't worry; it's the ring that counts."

I think I've about got you figured out. You're not as nasty as you'd like everyone to think you are. You're a conflicted, palpitating yuppie whose mum wouldn't let him push his mush off the table growing up.

1) While you are older, I'm confident I'm better traveled. I'm pushing 70,000 frequent flyer miles a year for the last several.
2) If they think the Miami teams of the '80s were cheaters, they're just pathetic, whining haters. The NCAA never had any real issues with Schnellenberger or Johnson, just Erickson.
3) I was in my early teens when Miami and OU were running the show. I realize that, since you are now probably back in diapers, they are a subject that interest you.
4) I like how you claim to speak for everyone. given the fact the stadium in Norman is full every Saturday, I bet I can find some people who "love and follow college football" who have a very high opinion of the OU teams of the '80s. I realize you and your balding, beer gutted compatriots have to have some reason teams you played on/root for don't win, so just label the teams who do cheaters.
5) Know your sociology. I'm a generation Xer. Yuppies are the slightly less balding and beer gutted guys you play golf with.
6) Grand theft and sports. Yeah, a very valid comparison.

 

[hatvol96]

now that's a good question....and if the answer is no, which i assume it is, then therin lies part of the problem.

I learned a valuable lesson in my career several years back. I was a front line manager for one of my previous employers, and i had a crew of about 4-10 people, depending on whether or not it was Friday.

One of the rules my company had was that at no time would you be permitted to wear any clothing that depicted anything other than company logos....so this meant if you were going to wear a hat, it better be a hat with the company logo, no UT caps, if you wore a jacket, it had better have a company logo on it, no Yankees or Braves jackets..the only alternative was if it had NO logo on it.

My regional manager was out on the dock one night, and one of my guys was wearing his HS lettermen jacket. He came direclty to me and aske why i allowed him to get away with this? I was floored. it was in the middle of the shift, we were extremely busy, and this guy, who was my boss's boss's boss, was worried about a jacket a guy was wearing? He made me send the guy home. For the longest time, i could not figure this out, and my attitude was who the hell cared what jacket the guy was wearing as long as he was getting the job done? what did it really matter?

Then, after i left that company for the company i work for now, i realized why. My previous company was, at the time anyway, an industry leader, very profitable, good marketshare and growing very well. We had sound processes and operated efficiently. The company i now work for, while it is profitable, we are very undisciplined, and many times have a "flavor of the week" management philosophy. We are constantly putting out fires, and sometimes feels as though we are in a constant state of crisis management, on one issue or another. One of the reasons for this, is we as a company don't hold all things with the same priority, as my previous employer did.

the dress code at my previous employer was as important as the service, prodction and operating performance. There was no choice in the matter of what procedure or process you were going to follow. It was ALL important, even the dumb dress code i didn't understand at the time.

i'm not saying that i wish my current company would do the exact same thing, otherwise i'd still be with that other company, but there are some things that we could learn from. One of which being, it's all important, and it's all designed to instill discipline in everything you do, from how you dress for work, to how you perform at work. Plus it instilled a "team" mentality, since there were no individual expressions of fashion while on the clock.

I tell this only to share my experience as to why it could be considered a good thing to have your football team have a buzz cut. Nowadays that's a bit archaic, in and of itself, but there's no reason to believe that you can't hold your players, or employees for that matter, to the same standards you expect from everyone else.

Given the success OU, Miami, and SC have had running loose ships, why would they change? If it's causing a problem, change it. Otherwise, don't attempt to repair something that's in working order.

 

[hatvol96]

I am rather well traveled. I've discussed college football in most states of the union, since it is still a passion. And, since you put such high value on personal observations, you can take this one to the bank; people all over the nation who follow college football think of Oklahoma under Switzer and Miami of the 80s as cheating programs. That's been my experience. I don't know who you discuss college football with, nor even if you discuss such things outside of this state, but my experience tells me you could not be more wrong on this point if you attempted to be. Also, my ADVANCED age does place me at a premium on these topics, since you were still in diapers when most of them occurred. But, I won't attempt to take advantage of your youth and inexperience. The fact remains, everyone who loved and followed college football during that era did view both programs as cheaters. Now, as I said, in your shrunken circle of yuppies, that might not be the case, but it is a fact among the more mature, better informed, elder set. sniff, sniff ...

At your age I can understand why you don't view this as I do. You don't have personal experience of it, therefore, no matter how much you've read, you probably could never have a feel for that era as those of us who were old enough at the time to drink without a lid on our cups.

Even today, how you win is important.

If you don't think so, just listen to Barry Bonds. There is a wide gulf between those who believe his accomplishments will forever be tarnished because he used a substance to enhance his performance, whether it was legal or not, it really is unimportant to a vast host of fans because they view his accomplishments as tainted. If you think 'how you win' is not important, talk to some of the older fans of SMU. The program has never recovered due to how they won.

Saying, "These days, they don't ask how you won, they ask how many you won" does not speak well of the people who are saying it.

It's like saying, "Nice diamond ring."

"Say what? You stole it!"

"Oh, don't worry; it's the ring that counts."

I think I've about got you figured out. You're not as nasty as you'd like everyone to think you are. You're a conflicted, palpitating yuppie whose mum wouldn't let him push his mush off the table growing up.

Oh, I forgot. I'm far nastier than I portay on the board. I don't have censors and board rules in real life.

 

[tclowers23]

With all due respect... let's find out who people think will be the surprises this season.

 

[jakez4ut]

With all due respect... let's find out who people think will be the surprises this season.

i think it's a little late for that now....this thread has gone off on so many different tangents, at one point i thought i was on an Ole Miss message board, and i could of sworn, i heard "hottie tottie, gosh allmighty...." in the back ground?

 

[jakez4ut]

Oh, I forgot. I'm far nastier than I portay on the board. I don't have censors and board rules in real life.

:devilsmoke: you da man hat.

 

[milohimself]

Given the success OU, Miami, and SC have had running loose ships, why would they change? If it's causing a problem, change it. Otherwise, don't attempt to repair something that's in working order.

Some would say you'd need to run a "loose ship" to even have any real long term success. I'm confident in saying that the number of coaches who have had long term success at any high-level program by bending the rules far outnumber those who played it straight.

 

[jakez4ut]

Some would say you'd need to run a "loose ship" to even have any real long term success. I'm confident in saying that the number of coaches who have had long term success at any high-level program by bending the rules far outnumber those who played it straight.

and history would probaby agree with you, right up until they got put on probation or had some other penalty leveled against the program....clemson, Miami and OK all had some serious issues after their glory days, and the programs all went thru very down times...though both Miami and OK are back in the middle of things, they both had several years of mediocre football in between....and don't even get me started about Bama...they're still suffering...compared to where they want to be anyways.

 

[tclowers23]

yeah, i guess ur right jakez4ut...