Tell you what CU...keep telling yourself this is all rumor-mongering by a bunch of overzealous Longhorn fans if it makes you feel better. Tell yourself that there's NO way anybody from Colorado would ever make an under-the-table offer. That's the ticket...we're all hallucinating over here, broken-hearted at our rejection. Tell yourself all of that if it'll make you feel better...right up to the point that the truth comes out. It will. Feel better?
How do you know that the Presidents are involved? Just because some guy on the radio repeated a rumor? Please. I'm begging for credible information to support ANY of this. Just ONE PIECE. So far, this is it: -A vague quote from a high school coach that "something was offered". (A scholarship, maybe? I hear those are worth a fortune.) -A radio guy saying that he heard that the Presidents were talking. -Mack Brown vaguely answering a question about how he deals with recruiting violations by other schools. -Internet rumors from God knows where. -a couple of NYT articles that add very little to the story except that it doesn't exactly paint a flattering picture of some UT coaches. (I can understand if Applewhite or Kennedy is pissed - neither was portrayed in what I would call a posititve light.) Am I missing something?
darrell is now bound to cu, but this supposed alum bank job is not bound to mrs scott. and she can't possibly accept a bank job in boulder now(legitimate or otherwise) without starting the avalanche above her head. so what does she and the school do now? find her another job? say sorry, we can't give you what we promised you? if so, what does she do in response? if there' s anything to this, it could reveal itself in several different ways. to those arguing on this thread - i did not hear chip brown's comments. did he say that he heard the presidents were going to speak, or did he say he was told so by the school? big difference, IMO.
Let me see if I have any of this straight... A major argument that seems to be presented here is that anytime news surfaces it should not be talked about and bantered around on an Internet bulletin board until, or unless, it meets certain requirements, or standards. is that it? In other words, fan groups can't jaw about thing unless it meets certain requirements? Because what I think a fan board is for is just that. Jawing, talking, bantering around. A factor of the Internet is the "Net-etiquette" that we all share -- namely there really isn't any. For going well into the second decade of the existence of the Interent and Email I see no evidence of a any kind of Net-etiquette established in the art of dialogue and exchange. The Net has a history of flaming and a history of in-your-face talk, and on boards quite a history of not just presenting one's own view of a thing, but routinely talking about what we think of (a) another person and (b) what another person said. The Net is a cauldron of simply arguing not over the points of something but purely at one another. "You can't say that! What the hell do you mean by that? Are you nuts?" For a society based on free expression, it's hardly free. Our thoughts are subject to the trump card of another. Everybody so bent on getting the next guy's "mind right," as said in Cool Hand Luke. It's hard to find a thread where majority of the posts avoid hitting on another poster or poster's comments. I'd like one day to read one long thread where every post and poster respects the opinions and views of the others and limits their input strictly to their view of the matter -- with not a single freaking word diminishing another or another's views. By that I mean, without diminishing that other person... personally. Just on the facts of the matter. Period. Nothing more. It can be done. But it requires having a solid point to make. To me, it is pure cowardice to have nothing to say but "Hey, I don't like what you just said." Or, 'I don't like you." In the late 1700s, I believe it was, Samuel Johnson and James Boswell and others would meet about 7 o'clock on a particular night of the week (I think it was Thursdays, might have been Wednesdays) in a Tavern in London and there they would take up a fine art of fencing with words. I can't imagine what level of conversation that was. But if I was going to engage in trading barbs as I would clashing swords I'd at least like to do it with the finest art of doing it. I couldn't have held a good sentence among those men, but God I'd have loved to have been at a nearby table and listened to it. Only then would I enjoy listening to arguing and debating. On the Net I'm afraid it's pretty much fan talk. Which is fine with me. Only if it's not taken so darned seriously. It's a fan board. It's fan talk.
Not to imply that he's the next Bob Woodward, but Chip Brown is hardly just some "radio guy". He's a writer for the Dallas Morning News, and he's a fairly credible sort. Not immune to a little hyperbole now and again, but he's not a complete schmuck, either.
UTCU- Jeez, calm down. You're acting as if this is the end of a trial where final arguments are being made and all the evidence is in, which is obviously absent being that the story only broke 48 hours ago, and that if no one has anything else to offer *gavel slam* CASE CLOSED! I imagine this will go on for months, especially if an internal/NCAA investigation ensues. As I stated before, I think the vast majority here haven't reached any conclusion yet hold that there's a very real possibilty that recruiting violations may have occurred in Scott committing to CU. There are a few who have pretty much made their conclusions:
Key post made earlier -- the mom cannot accept the job now. IF there was ever a job to be had that is. So that is interesting. If all that was accomplished by this entire episode is that people know they will be called out for bull ****, then that's fine with me. I don't have to see D. Scott sit out a year or CU under sanctions... Just clean it up some.
bevo, what makes you so certain there is anything to clean up? all of your comments are based upon an "if." they are based upon evidence thinner than vapor, unless you have something concrete to discuss? don't you think gumming about whether or not the buffs can fill up the stadium for the spring game is something more substantial to opine on?
That was Wozniak, not Jobs. And no, I don't suppose he's a football fan - he is wearing black and gold, though... Big Woz
As far as I know, HFs are not claiming CU cheated. UT certainly has not turned CU in. Virtually the only people saying CU cheated are (someone blogging at DMN and) Buff fans misrepresenting themselves as quoting HFs. What we are saying is that we (1) are intrigued by what someone said/did to Mack to fire him up publicly about lying and cheating (2) are curious about the word that our university may be privately contacting CU (3) are against cheating. If a CU fan can catch breath long enough from calling UT fans brats to notice this, he might realize that all of the above HF behaviors are normal and far from unethical or immoral. 70-3 was a showing of mercy.
the quoting me tripped me up, sorry. but "wait" goes both ways. circumstantial evidence is not irrelevant evidence.
So hornfans got these rumors circulating in the Dallas Morning News and The New York Times? The BOMC strikes again!
It wasn't hornfans, it was the Buffs own Rivals site that got it going. A poster on there, who was the point man for that site bragged about the job offer and confirmed it through his "Level 1 source". That is where all of this started.
