So Legendary Coach Pat Summit was forced out...

[zjcvols]

I'm just trying to say there are many degrees to it. Some, not talking about you Z, put her into a wheelchair and rolled her into an institution last year. And, yes. I know a bit about the disease.

As someone said earlier, there are a 1,000 hypothetical situations here. If Pat feels forced out (and I hope she didn't and that she came to this conclusion on her own), then I do feel bad for her, but agree with Hart's decision. It's an incredible, unfortunate situation that is sad, no matter what way you spin it.

 

[vol66]

I'm not going to lie. Some of this has been fishy with Hart and women. But it could be someone who believes that he's doing what is best for the athletic department and it's just an ugly side of things. I'll take Hart's side right now unless I see more proof he is some sort of sexist demon.

I have been of the "take some time, wait and see approach". On another board, a predominately lady Vol B-ball board, there was a lot of discussion about this and I must say...It's almost impossible to refute what they have been saying because this day was predicted there months ago. That CPS was forced out and that there had been actions behind the scenes to get rid of the the Lady Vol brand/logo...they've been saying it for about 6 months or longer. I'm still of the "wait and see" mind set but I'm no longer of the "Surely Hart and UT can't be this stupid" one. JMO

 

[zjcvols]

I have been of the "take some time, wait and see approach". On another board, a predominately lady Vol B-ball board, there was a lot of discussion about this and I must say...It's almost impossible to refute what they have been saying because this day was predicted there months ago. That CPS was forced out and that there had been actions behind the scenes to get rid of the the Lady Vol brand/logo...they've been saying it for about 6 months or longer. I'm still of the "wait and see" mind set but I'm no longer of the "Surely Hart and UT can't be this stupid" one. JMO

As long as Hart isn't sexist, then I support his decisions. And I don't feel it's sexism. I think he's doing what is best for the program.

If Pat was forced out, it had to be done.

The Lady Vol logo I just don't care about.

 

[BearCat204]

I have been of the "take some time, wait and see approach". On another board, a predominately lady Vol B-ball board, there was a lot of discussion about this and I must say...It's almost impossible to refute what they have been saying because this day was predicted there months ago. That CPS was forced out and that there had been actions behind the scenes to get rid of the the Lady Vol brand/logo...they've been saying it for about 6 months or longer. I'm still of the "wait and see" mind set but I'm no longer of the "Surely Hart and UT can't be this stupid" one. JMO

I think the three issues: jennings case, forcing Pat out, and the logo issue, are three seperate things. The jennings case is ridiculous IMO and there seems to be no proof that Hart discriminated against anyone. The Pat issue.......is the Pat issue and while Hart probably went about it the wrong way, I dont think he did anything unlawful or discriminatory. Thirdly, the lady vol logo.......I just dont see a need for a different logo.....they arent sepearate from the University and the apparent seperation from the football program that is suggested with the lady vol logo is ridiculous especially since the lady vol program would cease to exist if not for the mega money the football program brings in.

 

[vol66]

As long as Hart isn't sexist, then I support his decisions. And I don't feel it's sexism. I think he's doing what is best for the program.

If Pat was forced out, it had to be done.

The Lady Vol logo I just don't care about.

I'm just trying to understand where you are. So, are you saying, Pat had no intention of stepping down, Hart knew it and decided to inform her before she left for the tourney?

Are you saying she didn't have the capacity to make the decision?

Even if either of those are correct the timing bothers me as it did with Pearl and even Fulmer. What good comes from that?

As for the logo, I presume there are many who share your view and I can assure you that there are many who do not. To me the issue is not the logo, it's that Hart lied about it and Pat Summitt has signed a sworn affadavit saying that he did so.

So, as usual at UT, whether I agree or not with the decisions being made our AD/PR dept. botch another one. It's stupid.

 

[zjcvols]

I'm just trying to understand where you are. So, are you saying, Pat had no intention of stepping down, Hart knew it and decided to inform her before she left for the tourney?

Are you saying she didn't have the capacity to make the decision?

Even if either of those are correct the timing bothers me as it did with Pearl and even Fulmer. What good comes from that?

As for the logo, I presume there are many who share your view and I can assure you that there are many who do not. To me the issue is not the logo, it's that Hart lied about it and Pat Summitt has signed a sworn affadavit saying that he did so.

So, as usual at UT, whether I agree or not with the decisions being made our AD/PR dept. botch another one. It's stupid.

I don't know. If, again, he had to say she was let go, I have no qualms with it. If he didn't before Pat came to a conclusion in March, then to me that kind of tells me Pat was wanting to come back. That's strictly JMO.

I don't know. She has dementia. It's highly possible she doesn't.

That's the only part that would get me and I'd be curious to know Hart's position on that.

I don't know enough about the logo issue to make a statement on it.

It's the University of Tennessee. They are going to botch things, because that's the University of Tennessee way.

 

[zjcvols]

I think the three issues: jennings case, forcing Pat out, and the logo issue, are three seperate things. The jennings case is ridiculous IMO and there seems to be no proof that Hart discriminated against anyone. The Pat issue.......is the Pat issue and while Hart probably went about it the wrong way, I dont think he did anything unlawful or discriminatory. Thirdly, the lady vol logo.......I just dont see a need for a different logo.....they arent sepearate from the University and the apparent seperation from the football program that is suggested with the lady vol logo is ridiculous especially since the lady vol program would cease to exist if not for the mega money the football program brings in.

Apparently he lied about the logo? Or some claim. Why would he lie about that?

 

[Slydell]

I don't know. If, again, he had to say she was let go, I have no qualms with it. If he didn't before Pat came to a conclusion in March, then to me that kind of tells me Pat was wanting to come back. That's strictly JMO.

I don't know. She has dementia. It's highly possible she doesn't.

That's the only part that would get me and I'd be curious to know Hart's position on that.

I don't know enough about the logo issue to make a statement on it.

It's the University of Tennessee. They are going to botch things, because that's the University of Tennessee away.

Hey, we're in agreement.

 

[BearCat204]

Apparently he lied about the logo? Or some claim. Why would he lie about that?

And???????? I mark it up to "AD speak". Also there is no need for the logo IMO. You want to seperate yourself from the football program.....go ahead and support your own program then.

 

[zjcvols]

Hey, we're in agreement.

The place is a mess, from the ground up. From hiring DiPietro (there were so many better candidates), to Mike Hamilton to Jimmy Cheek, etc.

 

[zjcvols]

And???????? I mark it up to "AD speak". Also there is no need for the logo IMO. You want to seperate yourself from the football program.....go ahead and support your own program then.

I'm not disagreeing with the premise of the logo (no need for two), just curious as to why he lied.

Maybe he just changed his mind. That does happen with people.

 

[Slydell]

The place is a mess, from the ground up. From hiring DiPietro (there were so many better candidates), to Mike Hamilton to Jimmy Cheek, etc.

As someone stated before, it's been in array for a long time.

 

[vol66]

I think the three issues: jennings case, forcing Pat out, and the logo issue, are three seperate things. The jennings case is ridiculous IMO and there seems to be no proof that Hart discriminated against anyone. The Pat issue.......is the Pat issue and while Hart probably went about it the wrong way, I dont think he did anything unlawful or discriminatory. Thirdly, the lady vol logo.......I just dont see a need for a different logo.....they arent sepearate from the University and the apparent seperation from the football program that is suggested with the lady vol logo is ridiculous especially since the lady vol program would cease to exist if not for the mega money the football program brings in.

I used to agree with you about this being seperate issues but I no longer think that is clear cut. There are folks claiming that it's all one issue, that Hart has it in for women's sports. I don't agree with that, or at least I didn't.

One guy, even if he's the head man, can't undo 30 + years all by himself, and now I think he's had some, help that is. I think there are folks running the show that get sick of the "Jennings" of the world telling them how it needs to be done and the women's ad does/did it better.

 

[utvolpj]

I think the three issues: jennings case, forcing Pat out, and the logo issue, are three seperate things. The jennings case is ridiculous IMO and there seems to be no proof that Hart discriminated against anyone. The Pat issue.......is the Pat issue and while Hart probably went about it the wrong way, I dont think he did anything unlawful or discriminatory. Thirdly, the lady vol logo.......I just dont see a need for a different logo.....they arent sepearate from the University and the apparent seperation from the football program that is suggested with the lady vol logo is ridiculous especially since the lady vol program would cease to exist if not for the mega money the football program brings in.

on Pat, it may not have been unlawful but the AD has to understand what she means to UT. Deerpark has said she was gone this year anyway so why push a lady like that out the door? Just doesn't make sense unless he just wanted to mark his territory

the logo isn't a big deal but it could possibly provide a revenue stream that UT wouldn't get in the future. I know my wife's cousin asked us to get her a Lady Vols shirt because she loves the softball program. She didn't want a regular UT shirt because she's only a fan of that one sport. Just don't see the issue in keeping both unless it costs the AD money

 

[zjcvols]

I used to agree with you about this being seperate issues but I no longer think that is clear cut. There are folks claiming that it's all one issue, that Hart has it in for women's sports. I don't agree with that, or at least I didn't.

One guy, even if he's the head man, can't undo 30 + years all by himself, and now I think he's had some, help that is. I think there are folks running the show that get sick of the "Jennings" of the world telling them how it needs to be done and the women's ad does/did it better.

What's his motive though? If it's costing UT money, then I don't have a problem with it.

How did he undo 30+ years? Pat's legacy is intact. Again, what if something bad to Pat on the court?

 

[zjcvols]

on Pat, it may not have been unlawful but the AD has to understand what she means to UT. Deerpark has said she was gone this year anyway so why push a lady like that out the door? Just doesn't make sense unless he just wanted to mark his territory

the logo isn't a big deal but it could possibly provide a revenue stream that UT wouldn't get in the future. I know my wife's cousin asked us to get her a Lady Vols shirt because she loves the softball program. She didn't want a regular UT shirt because she's only a fan of that one sport. Just don't see the issue in keeping both unless it costs the AD money

No offense to DeerPark, but we don't know that for sure. She might have said, but she could have changed her mind, and apparently hadn't told Hart her plans yet in March. Plus, Pat said she was going to talk with her doctors and family about it.

 

[BearCat204]

on Pat, it may not have been unlawful but the AD has to understand what she means to UT. Deerpark has said she was gone this year anyway so why push a lady like that out the door? Just doesn't make sense unless he just wanted to mark his territory

Then how does it have anything to do with Jennings case other than stirring up emotion and public support due to the love many have for Pat?

the logo isn't a big deal but it could possibly provide a revenue stream that UT wouldn't get in the future. I know my wife's cousin asked us to get her a Lady Vols shirt because she loves the softball program. She didn't want a regular UT shirt because she's only a fan of that one sport. Just don't see the issue in keeping both unless it costs the AD money

IMO, there should only be one logo......one. But I am sure that the dismissal of the lady vol logo will be looked at by some as discriminatory and wrong.....the same people who think Pat being told what the plan was to be (while at terrible timing) somehow makes Hart a woman hater and guilty of discrimination.

.

 

[utvolpj]

No offense to DeerPark, but we don't know that for sure. She might have said, but she could have changed her mind, and apparently hadn't told Hart her plans yet in March. Plus, Pat said she was going to talk with her doctors and family about it.

up to you to believe what you want but I'll take DP's word over most any other sources that claim inside info. If she said she was coming back then that's the time to have a discussion, not before. It's not like Warlick was going anywhere

 

[JonWard]

.

If Pat was forced out, it had to be done.

I agree.

 

[vol66]

What's his motive though? If it's costing UT money, then I don't have a problem with it.

How did he undo 30+ years? Pat's legacy is intact. Again, what if something bad to Pat on the court?

To be honest I feel a little silly trying to press an argument that I was in complete disagreement with until this morning.

I am a fan of UT Sports. Period. I watch every Lady Vol basketball game I can. I watch football. Went to baseball games last year, listen on the radio when I can.

There are those that just like football and conversely the Lady Vols have fans who don't care about any other sports and it's a tradition for them built over the course of Summitt's career. The term Lady Vols and the logo as well as the Blue and the court being named the Summitt is all a part of the tradition. In those folks' mind getting rid of the logo would be akin to the Vols football team getting rid of the checkerboard endzone and discontinuing running through the "T" and the Vol Walk.

It really bothers me that Coach Summitt is having to deal with this mess. It really bothers me that Hart is either a liar or at the very least greatly under estimated the intelligence of the Lady Vol fanbase.

 

[coffeevol]

Debby Jennings suit amended to include Pat Summitt affidavit » govolsxtra.com Mobile

 

[DeerPark12]

No offense to DeerPark, but we don't know that for sure. She might have said, but she could have changed her mind, and apparently hadn't told Hart her plans yet in March. Plus, Pat said she was going to talk with her doctors and family about it.

Look, I know for certain she was planning on stepping down at the end of the year. As I've said before, I don't post here to be believed, you can take it or leave it as far as I'm concerned. But that's what was going to happen.

Again, if he had brought it up a week later and asked the question of her before deciding to dictate terms, everything would have been just fine. But that's not how he operates. In every situation he lets everyone in the room know he's in charge and believes himself to be the smartest man in the room. I don't have a huge problem with that in someone in a leadership role. But good leaders don't treat everyone like that. They only use that attitude when it's needed.

As far as the logo is concerned, it's not whether he keeps it or dumps it. It's that when asked about it by the media, he claimed he never even considered eliminating it. Now, I knew that to be false before this, and now Pat has confirmed it. He lied when he didn't even have to.

Clearly, he changed his mind and elected to keep it, at least for now. So when he was asked the question, all he had to say was "We discussed the issue, considered it carefully and have elected to keep it for now." That's the truth. Instead, he told a flat lie to people who knew he was lying and said they never even discussed it.

That's what should bother people, that our AD lies about even the smallest, insignificant things. If he's lying about these things for no reason, how can we trust a word that comes out of his mouth on important issues?

 

[tvolsfan]

If Pat was forced out, it had to be done.

It's simply unfair to the players and Warlick, otherwise.

 

[zjcvols]

Look, I know for certain she was planning on stepping down at the end of the year. As I've said before, I don't post here to be believed, you can take it or leave it as far as I'm concerned. But that's what was going to happen.

Again, if he had brought it up a week later and asked the question of her before deciding to dictate terms, everything would have been just fine. But that's not how he operates. In every situation he lets everyone in the room know he's in charge and believes himself to be the smartest man in the room. I don't have a huge problem with that in someone in a leadership role. But good leaders don't treat everyone like that. They only use that attitude when it's needed.

As far as the logo is concerned, it's not whether he keeps it or dumps it. It's that when asked about it by the media, he claimed he never even considered eliminating it. Now, I knew that to be false before this, and now Pat has confirmed it. He lied when he didn't even have to.

Clearly, he changed his mind and elected to keep it, at least for now. So when he was asked the question, all he had to say was "We discussed the issue, considered it carefully and have elected to keep it for now." That's the truth. Instead, he told a flat lie to people who knew he was lying and said they never even discussed it.

That's what should bother people, that our AD lies about even the smallest, insignificant things. If he's lying about these things for no reason, how can we trust a word that comes out of his mouth on important issues?

I'm not trying to bash your credibility. I'm just saying that she might have said that but it's far from official. Again, her mind's not right. She could have changed her mind at any point.

 

[Slydell]

Starting to believe Z might be a UT plant.