Jump to content

EastCoastFan

Members
  • Content Count

    1,230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

105 Excellent

About EastCoastFan

  • Rank
    EastCoastFan

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,470 profile views
  1. The next step is to embrace what happened, and to keep it in the forefront of words and actions.
  2. Apparently the other coach was Shah. Make what you will of that. Given the context, it looks like Utah did the right thing, with the suspension, the 50% cut in pay, and the removal of the "head coach in waiting" label. That's a big hit on Scalley's career, and sends a clear message. One thing that shouldn't happen is the idea that "It’s time to move on." It is not. It's time to keep what happened in the forefront of thoughts and actions, and to embrace a new paradigm of racial respect. We need to do that not just with coaching staffs, but as a nation, all the way from the top down to the family dinner table.
  3. Thank you for the clarification. However, when you get past who it was mistakenly sent to, it still leaves the question of coaches communicating to one another using the language. Somebody was supposed to receive this. Apparently there are other coaches who receive message like this and don't object. Isn't that the more troubling part?
  4. What does it mean to have "inadvertently texted a racial slur"? How can using the n-word be "inadvertent"? That specific "finding" raises questions about the entire report. When you put something in writing, it leaves a trail, and coaches need to know that. It also raises questions about the original readers of the message. Didn't they call him out about it? If not, why not. The "report" is silent on that.
  5. This is what happens when we continue to have a Politics forum. The ugliness creeps over here and makes what ought to be a reasonable discussion about the new California law a name-calling board appealing to low life. I wanted a sports forum. Our past mod did too. But he's gone, and this is what we have. Signing off.
  6. It's 2025. A high four-star recruit, coming from a not-well-off-family, has narrowed his choices to Arizona, Washington State, and USC. He really likes the Arizona coaches, and also feels WSU's offense fits his style. Near decision day, the USC recruiter points out to him that a dozen of their players earned more than $100,000 the previous year in advertising money, and that none of the Arizona or WSU players earned anything like that. The recruiter also points out that a number of key LA Basin business that advertise a lot just "love" this particular recruit. Given a backdrop like that, which team do you think will get the recruit's commitment?
  7. He'd have a better argument to dish on his players in public if he totally owned the horrible defeat from Stanford; when you're ahead by 32 late in the third, only the dumbest of coaches fails to manage the clock so that there's no way that defeat is possible. That Leach-led disaster against UCLA killed the team's enthusiasm and their trust in him. He has only himself to blame.
  8. This is the RichRod I remember...
  9. I'm not new to this board, but I never spend any time over on the political board (I opposed it's re-start because I don't want to know the politics of sports forum posters). So Bruin is jus another sports poster to me. As for Bruin, and the fair pay discussion, I'd like to treat him as an adult. My question, really, is why all the politicians got on board supporting what I consider a poorly thought out bill.
  10. You say the program is dead (as if it's any worse than it's been.) Are you saying that Chip can't fix it?
  11. You're partisanship is overwhelming. Every single Republican in office voted for the bill. I'm willing to listen to arguments that make sense. However, you're just spouting your political views rather than thoughtfully analyzing why the entire political spectrum favored this bill. I have great respect for the school in Westwood. I expect more nuance and insight from those who hail from there.
  12. Bruin, I'm not gonna argue this isn't dumb legislation, but I'm not sure why it's only Newsome who you refer to -- didn't the bill pass 73-0 in the senate and 66-0 in the assembly, with every republican and every democrat supporting it? Why make this a one-sided political statement when both parties fully supported it? If you have problems with it (I do...) your problem should be with all politicians, not just one. It's arguments like this that destroy credibility when it's just a partisan attack.
  13. If this were nation-wide, it would provide an inherent (and unfair) advantage to schools with big media markets, where the $$$'s would flow for advertising face-time. This means either major metro areas (e.g., Atlanta or L.A.) or schools with a crazed fan-base deeply into their college team (e.g., Nebraska, Bama, or Penn State) -- players would gravitate to those areas even more than now because of the heavy cash expectations. Conversely, teams from Champagne-Urbana, Piscataway, or Corvallis would suffer because players would know their media markets wouldn't provide likely big paychecks to all but the very top performers.
  14. Here's Stuart Mandel's take (if you can read an article from The Athletic). Link: https://theathletic.com/1245743/2019/09/27/mandel-california-bill-is-not-the-existential-threat-ncaa-says-it-is/
  15. There are things a coach now and then ought to say to his team that he shouldn't be saying in public, especially the players' parents, family, friends, and teachers. It's a distinction that seems to elude Leach. He has some great characteristics. This isn't one of them.
×
×
  • Create New...