Showing Hart the door

#179
#179
madbamahater said:
Let's remember that Hamilton did these things:

Fired Fulmer
Hired Lane Kiffin
Didn't protect UT at all with Kiffin's lopsided contract
Hired Dooley
Mishandled the Pearl incident
Basically fired Pearl
Hired Martin on his way out the door

Here's what Hart has done, will do:

Woke up early Sunday morning to fire Dooley after Vandie loss
Hired bUTch Jones.
Will soon hire Bruce Pearl.
Click to expand...

I know your saying basically firing Pearl...
Cheek fired Pearl, I know this for a fact, Hamilton and NCAA wanted to suspend Pearl for 4 or 5 games, can't remember howmany for sure.
But as long as Cheek is there Pearl want be back.....:hi:
 
#180
#180
BigOrangeTrain said:
So when do you think Hart will be shown the door? How long is his contract? What would it take to get rid of him? Or does his hiring of Jones cement his position for a long time?
Click to expand...

Where in the H E double hockey sticks did this come from?

There are a lot of posters that could serve humanity better by donating themselves to a lab so their brain could be studied.
 
#181
#181
BearBryant said:
Where in the H E double hockey sticks did this come from?

There are a lot of posters that could serve humanity better by donating themselves to a lab so their brain could be studied.
Click to expand...

Science fiction
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#182
#182
BOP said:
The last AD destroyed the men's brand. The new AD is destroying the women's brand. Just what the Cheeky one wanted.
Click to expand...

The stupidity off this thread knows no bounds.

Cheek came here a year and a half before Hamilton resigned (long after Mikey had wrought his destruction as AD). He is here as chancellor on an academic mission to make UT a top 25 research university. He makes appearances at athletic events as the top UTK official, not because he controls the athletic department. Cheek did relieve the athletic department of the burden of gifting the university 6 mil a year for the forseeable future...for what it's worth.

Getting rid of Hart is not the answer to our current athletic slide, nor is getting rid of Cheek, Susan Martin, Joe Dipietro, or Bill Haslam. Getting rid of any of those is a pipe-dream anyway, unless you count the governor's re-election bid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#183
#183
Doyle Hargraves said:
Pick me! Pick me!
Click to expand...

Man I knew your name sounded familiar. I watched Sling Blade again last night you made one he!! of a bad guy. :)

"Your momma knows I hate weak little kids and retards and whats does she do, she brings home one of each!"
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#184
#184
Lefteye said:
Man I knew your name sounded familiar. I watched Sling Blade again last night you made one he!! of a bad guy. :)

"Your momma knows I hate weak little kids and retards and whats does she do, she brings home one of each!"
Click to expand...


Don't forget the fear of antique furniture
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#186
#186
bigslk said:
I know your saying basically firing Pearl...
Cheek fired Pearl, I know this for a fact, Hamilton and NCAA wanted to suspend Pearl for 4 or 5 games, can't remember howmany for sure.
But as long as Cheek is there Pearl want be back.....:hi:
Click to expand...

The SEC suspended Pearl for eight games. Later the NCAA gave Pearl a 3-yr banishment from coaching. NOT 4 or 5 games -- hello? More like 105...
 
#190
#190
therealitytheory said:
The stupidity off this thread knows no bounds.

Cheek came here a year and a half before Hamilton resigned (long after Mikey had wrought his destruction as AD). He is here as chancellor on an academic mission to make UT a top 25 research university. He makes appearances at athletic events as the top UTK official, not because he controls the athletic department. Cheek did relieve the athletic department of the burden of gifting the university 6 mil a year for the forseeable future...for what it's worth.

Getting rid of Hart is not the answer to our current athletic slide, nor is getting rid of Cheek, Susan Martin, Joe Dipietro, or Bill Haslam. Getting rid of any of those is a pipe-dream anyway, unless you count the governor's re-election bid.
Click to expand...
Pretty good and accurate post. There however was some resistance to the change in athletic funds being diverted. Control of the AD funds should be changed back over to the President of the University instead of Cheek having to deal with it.
 
#192
#192
If anybody needs to be fired, it is a small but vocal percentage of the fans. (that is if fandom actually paid a salary) Seems like some spent too many of their formative years believing professional wrestling was real.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#194
#194
bigslk said:
I know your saying basically firing Pearl...
Cheek fired Pearl, I know this for a fact, Hamilton and NCAA wanted to suspend Pearl for 4 or 5 games, can't remember howmany for sure.
But as long as Cheek is there Pearl want be back.....:hi:
Click to expand...

The NCAA was going to ban Pearl from recruiting for two years, his staff for a year. There was really no choice in the matter but to cut ties.
 
#195
#195
Lefteye said:
Man I knew your name sounded familiar. I watched Sling Blade again last night you made one he!! of a bad guy. :)

"Your momma knows I hate weak little kids and retards and whats does she do, she brings home one of each!"
Click to expand...

Best one liners for any character.....EVER.
 
#196
#196
There was a proposed rule change from Alabama before the NCAA to ban the multi-year scholarship offers that have recently emerged in recruiting efforts. Tennessee voted for that proposal and it was done in consultation with UTAD.

It is the only major thing I can find fault with Hart for now. That ban would not have been of benefit to Tennessee. It would only have assisted those schools who frequently engage in the practice of cutting players after their first year on scholarship. In other words--we put Bammer's interests over those of Tennessee.

I do believe, however, that he is a strong voice for the role of athletics at UT and has worked to ease the interference/resistance from the anti-athletic Provost.

We needed someone in that position willing to fight for the people working for him. I think Hart fits the bill there.
 
#197
#197
T.N. Buckingham said:
There was a proposed rule change from Alabama before the NCAA to ban the multi-year scholarship offers that have recently emerged in recruiting efforts. Tennessee voted for that proposal and it was done in consultation with UTAD.

It is the only major thing I can find fault with Hart for now. That ban would not have been of benefit to Tennessee. It would only have assisted those schools who frequently engage in the practice of cutting players after their first year on scholarship. In other words--we put Bammer's interests over those of Tennessee.

I do believe, however, that he is a strong voice for the role of athletics at UT and has worked to ease the interference/resistance from the anti-athletic Provost.

We needed someone in that position willing to fight for the people working for him. I think Hart fits the bill there.
Click to expand...

Players need to earn their scholarships each year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#198
#198
Vol8188 said:
Players need to earn their scholarships each year.
Click to expand...

Said the guy who was never an athlete, never earned a scholarship and never had anybody in their family earn / keep a scholarship. It must be a 2 way commitment.

There are so many mitigating circumstances that might prevent good performance on the field that I can't name them all here, suffice it to say that I disagree with you 100%. When a school commits to a kid, the school should be there for them for all 5 years (or until the kid graduates). This is one of the Fulmer things that I liked the best. Several of my friends went back and finished their degrees on UT dollar after their playing days were through. Fulmer always made that happen. Now, the funny business of counting against the NCAA magic number doesn't matter to me, i'm more concerned that a kid gets his education paid for REGARDLESS of the latest offensive playbook / coaching staff or whatever might happen in his life. To do anything else other than pay for the kids school would be clearly abused by places like Bammer. They are student-athletes first and not a widget and not a pro with a contract to renegotiate.

edit: All that said, i still count the days til we run Hart off the campus, he's just horrible for UT and his chest bump is the worst photo of the year. it will end up being equal to Dooley's wearing of the Chick-FilA helmet or Kiffin's "Sing Rocky Top All night Long" comment in a few years.
1115020.jpg
 
Last edited:
#199
#199
Brianchevy said:
Said the guy who was never an athlete, never earned a scholarship and never had anybody in their family earn / keep a scholarship. It must be a 2 way commitment.

There are so many mitigating circumstances that might prevent good performance on the field that I can't name them all here, suffice it to say that I disagree with you 100%. When a school commits to a kid, the school should be there for them for all 5 years (or until the kid graduates). This is one of the Fulmer things that I liked the best. Several of my friends went back and finished their degrees on UT dollar after their playing days were through. Fulmer always made that happen. Now, the funny business of counting against the NCAA magic number doesn't matter to me, i'm more concerned that a kid gets his education paid for REGARDLESS of the latest offensive playbook / coaching staff or whatever might happen in his life. To do anything else other than pay for the kids school would be clearly abused by places like Bammer. They are student-athletes first and not a widget and not a pro with a contract to renegotiate.
Click to expand...

So you don't believe those on academic scholarships should have to maintain a certain GPA to keep their scholarships?
 
#200
#200
Vol8188 said:
So you don't believe those on academic scholarships should have to maintain a certain GPA to keep their scholarships?
Click to expand...

Academic Scholarships are much different that athletic ones, let's be real here. The University has an interest in Athletes being successful, the academic ones, not so much. I personally believe that students on full academic ride should maintain a 3.0, but that's just IMO.

With the athletes, it just has to be a 2 way street IMHO.

EDIT: Think about the Bammers scandal. Saban could perhaps, just saying, call the Education Department and suggest that this 4th string LB was perhaps not a strong student. That student would then suddenly be graded harshly on his final and become academic ineligible, thus freeing up a scholly for the 5star LB coming in. Yeah, that would NEVER happen. :)
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top