glenn
i dance like a mover
re-read your post, ord, and this really stuck out. i didn't know this about them, but that can be a real association killer. the bag 12 is rife with that kind of me-ism without the stratospheric self-impressions. probably a big reason the bog 12 sucks so bad.ORD_Buckeye;1625915; said:
mack gets a lot of grief during recruiting season for occasionally passing on obvious takes who express a lot of interest in us. he really understands the value of chemistry, and my impression is that sometimes it is simply a concern for that that causes him to walk away from a real talent. i mentioned the big red automotive scandal at ou in one of my posts where i warned against taking the cheese on stoops. apparently the qb (a five-star recruit that we were lucky to not get--we wanted him) and back-up offensive lineman were emotionally poisonous to that team, and the qb turned out not to be that good. the big red scandal neatly removed those two players from the team (and the dad of the qb!), and the team was much the better for it.
odd thing, though, is a walk-on wide receiver also got caught in that trap. i've never heard a thing bad about the receiver, and the sooner drumbeaters apparently didn't want that to be public knowledge: it slipped out during the investigation. for one thing, it was bad enough to have a backup lineman getting extra bennies, but to have a walk-on player on the elicit payroll really raises questions about just how many of those guys were getting that good deal. the sooners wanted the scandal to look like just two guys who were conspiring roommates, and that it was confined to those sneaky scoundrels. something like 20 or 25 players were employed at that dealership at that time. i don't have a clue as to what that was about concerning the walk-on kid. maybe he was trouble and i didn't know it. getting rid of a high-profile scholarship player is tricky business--especially the starting qb--when dealing with the press and public, but i have a hard time seeing why a walk-on couldn't just be pitched unceremoniously. a real puzzle to me. i've heard that the investigating committee found enough that it wanted to loom large but that the ncaa had some legislation that former us senator from okla david boren, who is the ou president now, offered help on with some of his former cronies and that that caused the home office to silence the committee. story is that well-connected sooner boosters feel like they dodged a huge bullet. expect a sooner to come along and straighten us all out on this and all else of importance in this world. [if i cause your very nice board to be infested with sooners, some of who admit it, i apologize in advance.]
is it perfume from a dress that makes me so digress?*
at any rate, if we were members in a not dysfunctional conference, and somebody wanted to join who had a history of being uncooperative, i would raise a real stink. i don't think somebody can bring enough to offset the rancor that they could spark, and the value of an association that really gins is not something you want to throw away. i know the nebraska people see us as bullies since we have insisted on a few things that others in that conference didn't want--and got our way--but i see that as a very different thing. we've just made it clear that a few things were unacceptable, and that we would not stay under those conditions. that the conference saw us as so valuable a member that it acquiesced rather than see us leave is not at all the same thing as taking without giving something of comparable value in return.
----------
*apologies to tom eliot, rip.
Upvote
0
) with no concrete process in place.
