CURIOUS INDEX, 10/28/08
 |
||
|
For the record: Deliverance was filmed in Rabun County, Georgia.
That was a bit awkward. Ty Willingham got his awkward on at the press conference announcing his resignation effective at the end of the 2008 season. From the AP: Willingham took his normal place at his weekly news conference on Monday, then flatly announced: “We have come to a decision that at the end of the 2008 football season they will move in another direction with the head football coach at this university…” When asked if this was his decision, the stone-faced Willingham said, “Uh, no.” It’s good when you include the “uh” for effect. The name we can and can’t understand that is mentioned here is Gary Pinkel, who coached at UW but who also has a program he single-handedly resurrected at Mizzou. He’ll likely use the UW job to renegotiate a more lucrative contract and nothing more. Lane Kiffin, you just tango on out there for all to see. (Gary Barnett! Tanned! Rested! Available!) Make it rain, T. Boone. T. Boone throws a little more cash on the pile, and might spend fifty stacks if the white girl asks him. Rudy Carpenter is not Mr. Popularity. Arizona State is burning up on re-entry into the Pac-10 schedule’s atmosphere, losing by 34 to Oregon. Audible considerations on hiring Dennis Erickson, taking Rudy Carpenter over Sam Keller, and all the other what-if considerations of a program in a midlife crisis follow. Les Miles looks inward, meditates in mountainside hut. Coach Balls admits he may have deceived himself about the ability of Jarrett Lee to pick up the offense where Matt Flynn left off, but LSU’s inexperienced, flaming, and screaming-on-the-ground-rolling secondary is also a serious issue. |
||
 |
||
Loading ...
51
Goatroper says:
One thing is for certain…..with Tebow and Stafford on the same field….. Verne Lumpquist’s head will asplode with a level of manlove never before witnessed on national television.
October 28th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
52
Jonathan says:
#44 I have never worn penny loafers, to the other assertion I will confess that I have and will continue to shake a shaker during games, as the handle of said shaker is perfect for stirring the bourbon I poured into my coke.
Be glad you don’t have to play in Athens, that concerted shaker shaking is intimidating………. wait it’s not? Damn that could explain our not so intimidating home game record. Can we switch it to just playing in the swamp? I think that would help us out a little here
October 28th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
53
Stacy Keibler Luvs Me says:
Musically Challenged Dept:
#45 – paddy: First, mistakes were made by the young men of Troy, no doubt about that. But, to whack USC for the mistakes of a few is un-American. Two, guilty as charged regarding my musical abilities. I was actually trying to put to ‘paper’ the introductory music for “Conquest, which it appears, I failed miserably to adequately document.
October 28th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
54
ocphil.com says:
#45 If you watch for awhile you will probably see that SLKM is very seldom 100% serious, and seldom 100% not serioius.
Pete isn’t going anywhere. The picture I use as my icon in the champaigne room is of he and I talking about that topic. Pete absolutely loves the control he has at USC which is pretty much absolute. The only way he’d go back to the NFL is if a warm weather team on the coast made him president, GM, and coach with a long term deal. He would need absolute total control of a sort that owners seldom give in the NFL. Plus he actually enjoys recruiting and other aspects of the college game.
As far as the Bush thing goes. The key point is that the agent was basically giving RB money to LEAVE USC early. That is directly against the interests of the team it is a whole different issue than boosters paying a player to come to a school. It is not something that USC should, or will end up being punished for. The latest is that Bush is trying to settle the lawsuit out of court and the inevitable confidentaiality agreement will mean that the NCAA will get no information or evidence on the matter. I see why that would make the haters see red, but it ends up being the correct result from a sleazy process.
October 28th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
55
patty-pat-pat says:
To SKLM and OCPhil–dont want Pete go anywhere and did not comment on that. But if you HONESTLY believe its okay to give players money whether their coming OR going is indicative of the problem I believe exists at SC. Besides which, is it okay to provide housing for the parents? I mean REALLY? I can certainly cut you slack on the “extra” monies provided for one of your kids that roomed with Sanchez. (I am not 100% sure who the player was, but whoever it was, his father was picking up the slack vis-a-vis available funds for off campus housing versus 1/2 the rent) But if you think nothing should be done about money given to a player–as well as housing for the parents GRATIS–then you lose (in my opinion) the right to comment on the “haters.” You are so blinded by your “loyalty” to SC that serious discussion is rendered moot.
October 28th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
56
oc phil says:
I”m not saying that Bush getting advances from an agent is OK, just that it is a totally different situation than paying students to come to a program. I also think that there was a reasonable amount of due diligence on the part of the university. The university really can’t be monitoring the finances and living arrangements of all families, especially those not in the same city. And there would be no way to spot the transgressions if the “agent” hadn’t blown the whistle in this case. Parents don’t submit copies of there rent or morgage checks to any university
Do you really believe that the university should be punished for someone breaking the rules in a way that hurts the interests of the university?
BTW it was Leinart and Jarrett who were the roomies.
October 29th, 2008 at 1:01 am
57
patty-pat-pat says:
I guess I would say that someone cheating on a test that was caught should be penalized. Obviously the student cheating was a) breaking the rules and b) hurting the interest of the school. Hopefully you would agree a “cheater” certainly isnt doing the reputation or integrity of the school any good…therefore hurting its “interests.” Your logic seems to say because the student wasn’t caught by the faculty, but an outside source, nothing can (or should) be done. Dont some schools impose “self-inflicted’ loss of scholarships? (admittedly, its usually in a selfish attempt to ward off more serious sanctions from the NCAA) Every SC fan I know proudly acclaims the very high academic ratings of the school—usually somewhere in the top 20 to 30 of the very best universities in the country. It is INDEED something to be proud of. However, to an outsider, the “laxness” in how you handle your football program (graduation rate for football players for instance, or the seemingly endless incidents, large or small, of improprieties) just doesnt pass the smell test. Obviously the success of Pete has taken SC to the top of the college football world. But I wonder if, as you mow down the competion, you shouldnt take a look at one of your rivals (ND) and see how they handled the case of a kid recruited from your state. (Will Yeatman) If you dont know the background of the situation I wont bore you with the details–suffice to say it seems rules mean more in South Bend than they do in South Central. (perhaps thats why you’ve been kicking their butts on a regular basis) Ultimately it is about ones honor, and not what one can get away with…or shrug off. Let me end with an attempted analogy. Do you really believe that a university (marriage) should be punished for someone (husband/wife) breaking the rules (infidelity) in a way that hurts the interest of the university. (marriage) What do you think, OC?
October 29th, 2008 at 7:02 am
58
Domderva says:
SKLM
USC and graduation in the same sentence…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
USC’s GSR for football players is54%…nuff said.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:56 am
59
oc phil says:
pat, you make some strong examples to support my thoughts.
If my ex-wife ran off with a plumber do my kids and I deserve punishment because of her infidelity? Nope. She does.
Or if the student in the class was caught cheating and dropped out of school, should the teacher and remaining students be punished just because they are still around? Again, the answer to me seems a clear no from a pure fairness point of view. The punishment should is due to those who made the transgressions not those who were harmed by them.
October 30th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
60
patty-pat-pat says:
LOL…you remind me of Brian over at mgo who tried to construct (via the rule book) how the infamous “cone” touchdown against MSU was legit…he was quickly put in place by his own readership. The cheating student didn’t leave school immediately did he? In fact, took quite a few more exams? As to the analogy…re-read and pray for comprehension…you totally miss the point. But that is okay…I understand Bush still has an approval rating somewhere around 22 %. Certain people are going to believe what they want to believe regardless of reality.
October 31st, 2008 at 9:41 am