Recruiting Forum Football Talk IV

[VolGee4]

No, even or especially if you cannot understand my point, you should quit reminding small donors that the tax code treats their donations differently. How does that not cause resentment in people who are bright enough to understand what that says. I could say much more; I have been exercising restraint. Only just notice that the there are people who want the school to keep all the donation money and TV and gate money and pass the cost of NIL along to small donors. They are worried lest a large donor divert some portion of their giving to something that would bring joy to tens of millions of Vols fans everywhere. And further consider that all of those expenditures that the donors are funding make their way to an army of builders, consultants, vendors, administrators, etc. Those people, above all, should be giving to Spyre. What they receive -- since you continually emphasize that the big donors want something back, which while true is not so flattering -- should be the satisfaction of spreading happiness and above all the gratitude of the small donors and Vols fans everywhere who will highly esteem them and emulate them. They can set an example.

Your remark that "People are bitching about our millionaires" is a dumb thing to say. Btw, they are not "yours." What you call "an adult discussion about why they make certain decisions" would amount to you slandering them while imagining yourself taking up for them.

Large donors will be and deserve to be honored. It is beneficial to all concerned. Honored and emulated is even better. What I am suggesting will increase their satisfaction.

Also notice that many are involved or who did we get Nico?

You somehow took this well beyond where it needed to go. Sounds like you want to dumb down our fans- go for it. What I was suggesting is factual and the very reasons why big donors decide to pay gifts for other reasons. I’m slandering? That’s funny. I’m walking away from it.

 

[SugarCC]

Heupel had to deal with an NCAA investigation and a mass exodus of the top talent from the roster. Morris left behind a full roster at least, and Kiffin got to take over AFTER Ole Miss’s investigation was done and sanctions had run their course.

Anyone who believes Pittman and Kiffin walked into worse situations...that should be the immediate stopping point of listening to ANYTHING else they have to say.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Fyp below

View attachment 470470

Oh, I remembered the quote and altered it on purpose.

That was the funniest show my sensibilities prohibited. lol

 

[MadWorld]

Happy hump day VN. Worth a watch or two... or 20

 

[SweetasSoda]

I’m guessing the Francis thread. Nobody should be in that thread now anyways

No, I don’t go there. Can’t remember whose though.

 

[Orange.]

You somehow took this well beyond where it needed to go. Sounds like you want to dumb down our fans- go for it. What I was suggesting is factual and the very reasons why big donors decide to pay gifts for other reasons. I’m slandering? That’s funny. I’m walking away from it.

Please do. I beg you.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Go back and look at Arkansas’s record under Chad Morris and tell me Heupel inherited a worse program than Pittman. What Kiffin inherited wasn’t that far off what Heupel got either. My point is with the portal it doesn’t take 5+ years to build the team they want, and if a coach can both take advantage of it as well as recruit well it significantly shortens a team’s “rebuild” and by year 4 the entire roster is composed of players that staff recruited and developed. So if they’re not able to get over the hump and beat every team they play except Bama and Georgia there’s no reason to believe they’ll be able to in another year or two. Florida is only going to be down for so long. Same goes for Auburn and LSU and Texas and Oklahoma joining the SEC isn’t going to make it any easier. I guess what I’m really saying more than anything is that in today’s landscape of college football what you’re getting in year 3-4 with a coach is likely what you’re going to get in the long haul. I thought Heupel was definitely going to get it done midway through last season, but our lack of success in the portal and the apparent lack of emphasis this staff puts on the back 7 of a defense has me concerned. The fact the only LB we got in the portal was a walkon and we got no corners when inferior programs were able to get guys we should’ve went after and been able to land isn’t a good sign. It also looks like we’re only taking 2 LBs again this class and only 1 corner who may or may not pan out at that position. It doesn’t take a P5 coach to realize that isn’t a recipe for success in the SEC either

Did Pittman take over a team in the throws of an NCAA investigation? No. Did he inherit a team from a previous staff that cheated and bought players? No. Did he inherit a team that saw its best defensive and offensive player, along with almost 30 other players hit the transfer portal? No. Arkansas has had the same AD since 2017. Guess how many we have had since then? 3. When Pittman took over, did the ENTIRE recruiting department have to be replaced? No. Did Pittman take over a team that was accused of stuffing money in McDonalds bags? No. Did Pittman take over a team that was being negatively recruited against? Likely not. Did Pittman take over a team that had about 70 scholarship players? No.

Let’s look at Kiffin. The same questions I proposed about Pittman applies to him as well. Did he have to deal with all of those things when he took over at OM? No he did not. See your problem is like many others. You use a blanket statement that assumes every single program, because of the current portal situation, is the same. It’s clearly not. If it were, then your statements would be true.

Why did we miss so much in the portal? Why couldn’t we flip our roster like you assume it’s so easy to do? Why? Because of what Heupel was left. We all know teams negatively recruited against us and they are continuing to do so more than likely. And while many think the NCAA is powerless, that’s simply false. The NCAA could decide to lower the hammer on us at anytime. It’s been said the Pruitt situation has not been dealt with yet.

Given all of that, Heupel absolutely deserves a longer leash than any coach we have had since Fulmer. If you cannot see that then you belong on the group of irrational fans. Let’s say JH wins 8 this year and 8 next year. Under your logic, that means he can NEVER win more than that and deserves to be fired. What you don’t realize is that’s exactly what would cause a top flight coach to spurn us yet again. So yeah keep thinking that the if you don’t get it done by year 3-4 it’s time to go theory still works. It’s severely flawed.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Anyone who believes Pittman and Kiffin walked into worse situations...that should be the immediate stopping point of listening to ANYTHING else they have to say.

Thank you

 

[SweetasSoda]

Absolutely this!

 

[LittleVol]

Some people only look at championships. And they can’t see that they are moving backwards with every coach firing.

People think you have to be like Urban Meyer and Nick Saban was in year 2 and competing for National championships , in order to run a successful program.

If Huepel gets this program to consistently win 10 games on average....that means he's beating one of UGA, UF, and Bama every season. IOW and even playing field finally.

This isn't 1990- 2004 anymore.
People really need to let that stuff go haha.

We literally play 3 teams every year that have won National championships more recently than we have. Multiple titles for 2 of the 3.

It takes time to build something like that in this conference

 

[Cosmo Kramer]

Nope.. probably why they're lumpy

 

[GoBigOrange86]

THE VOLS ARE HEADED TO ATLANTA

I remember watching that 2007 Kentucky game. It was my senior year in college and all I wanted was to see the Vols in the title game. We had a 24-7 lead at one point but had to win in 4 overtimes. A classic. Got so close against LSU, too... that was an up or down season to be sure.

 

[Weezer]

With commits we're in on scheduled for tomorrow, Friday, Sunday, and now Monday, my OCD says there needs to be one for Saturday, too. Someone please make that happen. TIA.

 

[Jackcrevol]

With commits we're in on scheduled for tomorrow, Friday, Sunday, and now Monday, my OCD says there needs to be one for Saturday, too. Someone please make that happen. TIA.

When is Nathan Peacock scheduled?

 

[Johnny Majors' Ghost]

When is Nathan Peacock scheduled?

 

[Jackcrevol]

View attachment 470530

Def gonna put on a show.

 

[SweetasSoda]

People think you have to be like Urban Meyer and Nick Saban was in year 2 and competing for National championships , in order to run a successful program.

If Huepel gets this program to consistently win 10 games on average....that means he's beating one of UGA, UF, and Bama every season. IOW and even playing field finally.

This isn't 1990- 2004 anymore.
People really need to let that stuff go haha.

We literally play 3 teams every year that have won National championships more recently than we have. Multiple titles for 2 of the 3.

It takes time to build something like that in this conference

Yes, and if Heup isn’t the one to lead us to championships, we need him here for 5 years just to stabilize the program so we have a better chance at getting a great coach. This is just simple logic. But being fans, it turns into an emotional thought process.

 

[drvenner]

Teach me ...View attachment 470512

Don't be so negative

 

[Enki_Amenra]

@Ulysees E. McGill

 

[UTvols#1]

Don't be so negative

We all have our days ..Maybe tomorrow the sun will come up..

 

[JT3]

Dawg's hail mary catch still my favorite.

 

[Orange.]

You somehow took this well beyond where it needed to go. Sounds like you want to dumb down our fans- go for it. What I was suggesting is factual and the very reasons why big donors decide to pay gifts for other reasons. I’m slandering? That’s funny. I’m walking away from it.

Wait, I want to say one more thing. You say, basically, that big donors want to see their name on a building and they want a tax shelter. This argument wants to keep it "real." You don't do it on purpose, I suppose, but don't you see how petty you make these great donors seem? This kind of talk introduces a tremendous distortion into things by the small-minded way it conceives of them.

Have you ever been on a campus with a student when a sudden mixture of slight embarrassment or humility and beaming pride comes over her face, and she says "That building is named for my grandfather"? Or in a special collections portion of a library and he says, "My grandfather started this collection"? I don't want to enter into the analysis here, but this is a form of immortality, just like children are. You need to see it from the perspective of the donor, not from below, and to see it in light of human insufficiency and striving.
Now exactly the same thing happens with athletics donations. All the way from huge donors to season ticket holders.

We need to make a way for that to happen within Spyre. First, we need to because we are short of time, and it takes time to build out a small donor base as SoilVol has pointed out: the season should be great for expanding the base. But, I maintain, that we also need those big donors as shining lights that small donors can emulate. Whatever is respected is imitated. Have you ever been at, say, a picnic, and a very prominent person is there, and instead of acting better than, she or he mingles and eats a piece of fried chicken or whatnot leaning over a garbage can to drop the bones and drinks a cheap beer people with everyone and swaps a joke. Do you know how much people respect that? And they will tell that story 100 times, about how so-and-so really is. Granted, in part because to them the story is about them "knowing" so-and-so; but let's not be petty here, either. They are praising.

I am saying we need to figure out ways to do such things inside Spyre. Small spyre donors will derive prestige from it if they are doing something that the big dogs themselves do, and it will spread. That is my notion. Now the big money guy who was at the school or church picnic or whatever it was (the fame doesn't have to be international fame) could have instead skipped the dumb local barbecue and scheduled a tax deductible meeting in the Bahamas. And they still will do that, of course. But they became a part of to support the local cause and to provide an example. And also to win goodwill. Now imagine that a large donor somehow could say (this is off the cuff): "I am a member because I love the Vols and I will match the next 100 donations at the xyz level." His or her name would be on everyone lips. And several multiples of 100 would come in. (This is only a random example.) But find ways to make Spyre seem like being a part of something that even the bigs think is great.

I don't know if you remember the old Groucho Marx joke about not wanting to be in any club that would accept him as a member?! That was hilarious and astute. You don't want it to be a second class designation for the little people with no tax sophistication. Graucho wanted to be in the big club that he couldn't be considered for. Well, we can make something like that happen for Graucho. It's not only athletes who represent the Vols. If you go to an event to meet a player and a big donor drops by alongside the $100/month and $5/month people, I would bet the people would be talking about that to everyone they know. All it takes is one person to say, omg do you know who that is?! They would probably talk about the player too. This is not about denigrating big donors. To the contrary, my friend.

 

[Orange.]

That first clip: Aussie punter commit Jackson Ross one day?

That whole thing is awesome.!

 

[Ace]

Wait, I want to say one more thing. You say, basically, that big donors want to see their name on a building and they want a tax shelter. This argument wants to keep it "real." You don't do it on purpose, I suppose, but don't you see how petty you make these great donors seem? This kind of talk introduces a tremendous distortion into things by the small-minded way it conceives of them.

Have you ever been on a campus with a student when a sudden mixture of slight embarrassment or humility and beaming pride comes over her face, and she says "That building is named for my grandfather"? Or in a special collections portion of a library and he says, "My grandfather started this collection"? I don't want to enter into the analysis here, but this is a form of immortality, just like children are. You need to see it from the perspective of the donor, not from below, and to see it in light of human insufficiency and striving.
Now exactly the same thing happens with athletics donations. All the way from huge donors to season ticket holders.

We need to make a way for that to happen within Spyre. First, we need to because we are short of time, and it takes time to build out a small donor base as SoilVol has pointed out: the season should be great for expanding the base. But, I maintain, that we also need those big donors as shining lights that small donors can emulate. Whatever is respected is imitated. Have you ever been at, say, a picnic, and a very prominent person is there, and instead of acting better than, she or he mingles and eats a piece of fried chicken or whatnot leaning over a garbage can to drop the bones and drinks a cheap beer people with everyone and swaps a joke. Do you know how much people respect that? And they will tell that story 100 times, about how so-and-so really is. Granted, in part because to them the story is about them "knowing" so-and-so; but let's not be petty here, either. They are praising.

I am saying we need to figure out ways to do such things inside Spyre. Small spyre donors will derive prestige from it if they are doing something that the big dogs themselves do, and it will spread. That is my notion. Now the big money guy who was at the school or church picnic or whatever it was (the fame doesn't have to be international fame) could have instead skipped the dumb local barbecue and scheduled a tax deductible meeting in the Bahamas. And they still will do that, of course. But they became a part of to support the local cause and to provide an example. And also to win goodwill. Now imagine that a large donor somehow could say (this is off the cuff): "I am a member because I love the Vols and I will match the next 100 donations at the xyz level." His or her name would be on everyone lips. And several multiples of 100 would come in. (This is only a random example.) But find ways to make Spyre seem like being a part of something that even the bigs think is great.

I don't know if you remember the old Groucho Marx joke about not wanting to be in any club that would accept him as a member?! That was hilarious and astute. You don't want it to be a second class designation for the little people with no tax sophistication. Graucho wanted to be in the big club that he couldn't be considered for. Well, we can make something like that happen for Graucho. It's not only athletes who represent the Vols. If you go to an event to meet a player and a big donor drops by alongside the $100/month and $5/month people, I would bet the people would be talking about that to everyone they know. All it takes is one person to say, omg do you know who that is?! They would probably talk about the player too. This is not about denigrating big donors. To the contrary, my friend.

Good grief!!!!

 

[Cosmo Kramer]

@Ulysees E. McGill

Alex Honnold from Free Solo says Ropes are for Puzzies. What he did was pure insanity