methomps
an imbecility, a stupidity without name
StadiumDorm;752750; said:The point is that this is not an unusual situation. It's part of the dirty world of recruiting, and it is bullshit. As I said before, I'm not fan of Houston Nutt.
True, but beside the point.
StadiumDorm;752750; said:Again, the family has to be practical about it. The program and its success was ALWAYS going to come first. If they thought different, then they are stupid.
The family is being practical. They met to see if things were going to change. They weren't satisfied, so they're leaving. The aren't taking Arkansas to court. They're just leaving. Is that suddenly impractical?
StadiumDorm;752750; said:First of all, I'm not really sure in what terms Nutt said what about the offense. It's he said-she said.
Of course
StadiumDorm;752750; said:Second of all, this family and the Springsboro kids in general can't possibly have expected the rest of the players at Arkansas and the fans of Arkansas football to suffer through mediocre football because of it.
At the same time, are the Springsboro kids expected to suffer through a situation that was not what they had been promised?
StadiumDorm;752750; said:They sound like little league parents that think it's all about them.
Not quite. Little league parents are a pain because they ASSUME that such a promise (playing time, etc) is implied. This is nothing like that.
StadiumDorm;752750; said:Again, he said-she said on the promise thing.
If we're going to take a he-said, she-said approach and give the benefit of the doubt, why not do it to both parties? Yes, we're not going to assume that Nutt is going against his word. Let's also not assume that Mustain is being unreasonable. How can you say when, as you say, we don't really know what was promised?
StadiumDorm;752750; said:I expect that you would hold Pete Carroll to such a standard as well on signatures he gets - you know like attempting to reassure a recruit that USC won't face sanctions (when he can't say for certain about that at all).
Can I also expect he-said, she-said deference? And, let's really parse out the issue. The issue isn't that Nutt should be forced to keep his promise. The issue isn't that Nutt should be punished. The issue is should Mustain be criticized if he relied on promises, finds out those promises are not true, and is now looking elsewhere?
So, in your hypo, I agree not to call the SC recruit a malcontent and troublemaker if he is lied to and then transfers.
StadiumDorm;752750; said:I think implicit in anything that you say to a recruit is that there are contingencies.
Contingencies, yes. But also consequences. Nutt can change his mind if he wants. And Mustain can react accordingly.
StadiumDorm;752750; said:Certainly if Mustain went 0-15 with 6 picks in a game, the family couldn't reasonably expect that the offense was going to revolve around him anymore. Or if Mustain went out and picked up an OVI, he might get suspended or even kicked off the team. Or if Mustain became an massive lazy prick at practices, was a horrible teammate, then maybe he shouldn't expect to start.
I think the promise was more as to the style of offense. And these hypos you're suggesting are things I don't believe anyone would dispute. But I don't know how you get from "I can go with the McFadden offense if you are lazy or get arrested" to "I can go with the McFadden offense if I change my mind"
StadiumDorm;752750; said:Again, no coach can make any ironclad promise, so this "certainty" you speak can't possibly exist. And if the family didn't know that, they're stupid.
Things can happen that can void the promise (eg, Mustain ends up being the worst QB ever), but that doesn't mean the promise is meaningless.
Last edited:
Upvote
0