Did NCAA hit Indiana harder because they hired Sampson even though his history was known to them. Is it likely that UT gets hit harder because they have kept Bruce with knowledge of what he did? Would AA be after football more if Kiffin and Orgeron were still here? All things to consider when evaluating if keeping him is worth it. I am not anti-Pearl at all. I hate that this all happened, my bottom line issue is whether or not UT bball is better off, or worse off with Bruce Pearl as coach after the season. I don't think he should be gone during season, never have, but I don't understand how people can say UT wouldn't be justified and ok in long run if they did let him go. I am a fan of UT bball either way, Bruce or not. Was fan during Houston days and will not be jumping ship if he is gone. There seem to be two groups: Bruce fans( who like his personality and record and want him here regardless of consequences becaue he "is UT basketball"), and Ut bball fans(who prefer to protect the integrity of the program over anything else, who realize he didn't invent UT bball, and aren't naïve enough to think he is the one man that can win here on face of earth). Not saying the Bruce fans can't be real UT fans, just saying there seems to be a group that would rather keep him even if it sets UT back 5 years. I don't post here to get in nasty back and forths, just to have discussion of civil nature. Please don't go all Clev02 and start bashing me if you disagree, or accusing me of "going back on comments" and never proving it. I honestly want to know what others think and why because I don't think my own opinion is more valuable than another's. I don't claim to know much either, I am just a lifelong, pre 2005, UT bball fan who wants a successful, respected, program of integrity
Posted via VolNation Mobile