Thoughts After Reading The Letter...

#53
#53
LawVol13 said:
I'm not going to engage in a back and forth with you about this. I'll just say the 95% probability he's going to be given at least a 1 year show-cause makes the cost of keeping him more than the benefit of keeping him. And, I think rationally, whether you like Pearl or not, he can't survive that.
Click to expand...

Just curious, but from which crystal ball/orifice did you pull that probability of a show-cause?

If Jim Calhoun working with an agent to land a recruit (of which he still disavows knowledge) only garners a 3 game ban, then there is no way Bruce gets a show-cause.

The comparison does raise an interesting debate: would you rather have a Calipari who cheats and lies about it to the bitter end, or would you rather have Pearl who cheats and then comes clean?

For my part, I take the latter. I can still see why others may have a contrary position.
 
#54
#54
LawVol13 said:
It just doesn't apply. If you lie to your employer, conspire to get others to lie, crying about it doesn't save your ass from being fired. That's life. And that's what should happen to Pearl.
Click to expand...

That's a gross generalization. It all depends on how bad the lie was in the first place, whether you came clean, and how much $$$ the company would lose if you left.
 
#55
#55
kcvols1 said:
Just curious, but from which crystal ball/orifice did you pull that probability of a show-cause?

If Jim Calhoun working with an agent to land a recruit (of which he still disavows knowledge) only garners a 3 game ban, then there is no way Bruce gets a show-cause.

The comparison does raise an interesting debate: would you rather have a Calipari who cheats and lies about it to the bitter end, or would you rather have Pearl who cheats and then comes clean?

For my part, I take the latter. I can still see why others may have a contrary position.
Click to expand...

One offense committed by an assistant left a coach with plausible deniability. One was committed by a HC who admitted lying about it to the investigative team. Not sure how the two, as HCs are concerned, are really comparable.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#56
#56
BigPapaVol said:
One offense committed by an assistant left a coach with plausible deniability. One was committed by a HC who admitted lying about it to the investigative team. Not sure how the two, as HCs are concerned, are really comparable.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The road from plausible deniability to willful ignorance there is about as big as big as the "B" and "S" buttons on this keyboard.
 
#57
#57
kcvols1 said:
Just curious, but from which crystal ball/orifice did you pull that probability of a show-cause?
Click to expand...

Maybe the crystal ball of the front page ESPN story that states that of the last twenty coaches to get charged with unethical conduct, 19 of them were given a show-cause. Let me see, yep, that's 95%. Try having a clue before making yourself look foolish.
 
#58
#58
kcvols1 said:
The road from plausible deniability to willful ignorance there is about as big as big as the "B" and "S" buttons on this keyboard.
Click to expand...

So? One has it, the other has forgone the option. That is a massive difference.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#59
#59
kcvols1 said:
That's a gross generalization. It all depends on how bad the lie was in the first place, whether you came clean, and how much $$$ the company would lose if you left.
Click to expand...

If it's the same level as Pearl's, you would be fired the vast majority of the time.
 
#63
#63
So what did we learn from the elder Coach Calhoun??? When in doubt lie, lie, lie!!!
It is inconceivable that the AA actually thinks Calhoun was being truthful. And the last time I checked, USC was still denying any wrongdoing w Reggie Bush and have appealed the sanctions. If the AA did not have evidence of the major infractions then they would not have hammered them. So logic dictates that they know as a matter of fact that those involved at SC lied and continue to lie.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#69
#69
LawVol13 said:
Maybe the crystal ball of the front page ESPN story that states that of the last twenty coaches to get charged with unethical conduct, 19 of them were given a show-cause. Let me see, yep, that's 95%. Try having a clue before making yourself look foolish.
Click to expand...

...and of those 20 situations, exactly zero are on point with Pearl's.

Good job identifying the orifice. Next apply a good salve.
 
#72
#72
kcvols1 said:
...and of those 20 situations, exactly zero are on point with Pearl's.

Good job identifying the orifice. Next apply a good salve.
Click to expand...

Right. Every single case had a coach lying directly or conspiring to lie. Pearl managed to do both. Some of the other coaches' activities were worse than lying about a barbecue, but the underlying dishonest act was the same. It absolutely indicates that, barring a break from precedent, he'll get a show-cause. Not that hard to understand.
 
#73
#73
LawVol13 said:
Right. Every single case had a coach lying directly or conspiring to lie. Pearl managed to do both. Some of the other coaches' activities were worse than lying about a barbecue, but the underlying dishonest act was the same. It absolutely indicates that, barring a break from precedent, he'll get a show-cause. Not that hard to understand.
Click to expand...

I agree its not hard to understand if you are operating from the false assumption that the situations are directly analogous. Pearl went back and tried to set it right knowing the $--tstorm it would cause.

I already know that you will discount this in some way to fit what you think should happen, so let's try to think another step ahead.

If Pearl gets a one-year show cause, does he get canned by UT? Does the NCAA show-cause penalty require a coach's present employer to show cause of his continued employment?
 
#74
#74
kcvols1 said:
I agree its not hard to understand if you are operating from the false assumption that the situations are directly analogous. Pearl went back and tried to set it right knowing the $--tstorm it would cause.

I already know that you will discount this in some way to fit what you think should happen, so let's try to think another step ahead.

If Pearl gets a one-year show cause, does he get canned by UT? Does the NCAA show-cause penalty require a coach's present employer to show cause of his continued employment?
Click to expand...

I think that means nothing. He went back when he knew he was caught. And to the last part, I really have no idea what they would do if he gets a one-year; my hope would that they would can him. And, apparently according to Hubbs Hamilton thinks they can somehow ignore the show-cause by pretending it only applies to subsequent employers. I would think trying that crap would be about the last thing UT should try.
 
#75
#75
LawVol13 said:
I think that means nothing. He went back when he knew he was caught. And to the last part, I really have no idea what they would do if he gets a one-year; my hope would that they would can him. And, apparently according to Hubbs Hamilton thinks they can somehow ignore the show-cause by pretending it only applies to subsequent employers. I would think trying that crap would be about the last thing UT should try.
Click to expand...

Hamilton's going to do everything he can to keep Pearl; his own precarious situation is too tied to Pearl's hip for anything else. If Pearl gets the standard two-year show cause order, then Hamilton won't have a choice, but anything short of that and he's going to try desperately to keep him.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top