Pages:
Actions
  • #1 by Fan701 on 04 Jun 2018
  • https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/pearl-gets-contract-extension-despite-fbi-investigation/ar-AAydFr5?ocid=spartanntp

    For those of us who thought the FBI investigation would lead to a purge of the bad actors, dream on.  Will MA ever be able to rise to the top in an environment where he follows the rules and others don't, yet there are no consequences?
  • #2 by sowmonella on 04 Jun 2018
  • This says everything about who Auburn is. I guess they are just sick of being little brother and have now freely admitted they will cheat to win.
  • #3 by pigzwillrise on 04 Jun 2018
  • Nothing new for them
  • #4 by Inhogswetrust on 04 Jun 2018
  • This says everything about who Auburn is. I guess they are just sick of being little brother and have now freely admitted they will cheat to win.

    Heck they fire coaches that don’t want to cheat.
  • #5 by husker71 on 04 Jun 2018
  • Why offer an extension at this time??  Do you really think that other bigger schools are standing in line to get him after the Person debacle??   Tell me what bigger school you think would be looking at him as their next coach. 
  • #6 by k.c.hawg on 04 Jun 2018
  • This was done to get Bruce to reconfirm his commitment to cheating after his FBI/Prison Time scare. He was guaranteed an 8 digit buyout if caught cheating and will be provided with another sacrificial lamb to replace Chuck Person, to do any time that might come from a criminal investigation.
  • #7 by greasy_corner on 04 Jun 2018
  • Well deserved.
  • #8 by MakingPlays on 04 Jun 2018
  • I have no respect for Auburn's program what a joke.  It'll come back to bite them like it did on Louisville.  Those guys get away with cheating for a while, but it always gets them and ruins the programs in the end.  Auburn's basketball program has been a joke for so long, they are willing to trade everything for a couple of good years. 

    I'll never forget the famous Bruce Pearl quote when asked why he wasn't complying.   “We complied enough to still be here” 
  • #9 by RacinRazorback on 05 Jun 2018
  • I like the fact that we don't stoop to their level of cheating, but if you are MA how do you overcome blatant cheaters who have no consequences for their actions? It makes you wonder how good we could be if we blatantly broke the rules??? How much better would the incoming class be with Reggie Perry coming here instead of cowbell hell??
  • #10 by HF#1 on 05 Jun 2018
  • It was Auburn's decision to give him a contract extension, not the FBI's. Also, their investigation isn't over by any stretch.
  • #11 by urkillnmesmalls on 05 Jun 2018
  • This was done to get Bruce to reconfirm his commitment to cheating after his FBI/Prison Time scare. He was guaranteed an 8 digit buyout if caught cheating and will be provided with another sacrificial lamb to replace Chuck Person, to do any time that might come from a criminal investigation.

    I thought it was just that they felt like they've found a coach that's really good at cheating, so they better lock him up for the foreseeable future.   :D
  • #12 by Hawg Red on 05 Jun 2018
  • I like the fact that we don't stoop to their level of cheating, but if you are MA how do you overcome blatant cheaters who have no consequences for their actions? It makes you wonder how good we could be if we blatantly broke the rules??? How much better would the incoming class be with Reggie Perry coming here instead of cowbell hell??

    I think the bigger issue might be, if you're MA, how do you overcome non-cheaters like Butler who mop the floor with you in the NCAA tournament? Cheating is always going to happen. But you have to beat the non-cheaters, though, right? Isn't that the logic here? That Mike is struggling to get to the top because so many programs are cheating. I don't think Butler's cheating.
  • #13 by pigroots on 05 Jun 2018
  • They found a coach who will win. Now the race is on to bury the skeletons so they can keep him. College basketball is 75% finding a good coach. Like it or not Pearl is a guaranteed winner. You can compare him to Petrino in a lot of ways…They will win but no one will respect the program when they are at the helm
  • #14 by mykidsdad on 05 Jun 2018
  • I think the bigger issue might be, if you're MA, how do you overcome non-cheaters like Butler who mop the floor with you in the NCAA tournament? Cheating is always going to happen. But you have to beat the non-cheaters, though, right? Isn't that the logic here? That Mike is struggling to get to the top because so many programs are cheating. I don't think Butler's cheating.

    You are right. I guess it is easy to draw a conclusion from 1 game in the NCAA tournament. I mean a sample size of one game is pretty telling. We lost to 10 different teams last year. You call out the only one you believe hasn’t cheated. What about the other 9?

    Mis state (cheat), LSU (cheat), UNC (big cheat), Kentucky (biggest cheat), Auburn (caught cheating again), Texas A&M (who knows but I would guess not on the up and up), Missouri (pretty obvious they have returned to their Snyder ways), Florida ( not sure people have talked for a while about the dating back to Billy D’s days), Tennessee (been known to turn a blind eye to ‘extra benefits’).

    Seems to me that if the playing field were indeed level we might fair pretty well, but that is just me.
  • #15 by onebadrubi on 05 Jun 2018
  • They found a coach who will win. Now the race is on to bury the skeletons so they can keep him. College basketball is 75% finding a good coach. Like it or not Pearl is a guaranteed winner. You can compare him to Petrino in a lot of ways…They will win but no one will respect the program when they are at the helm

    I believe Petrino has been much more successful without as much baggage as Pearl.  From memory alone I don't think the two are even comparable when it comes to success in their professions.
  • #16 by Hawg Red on 05 Jun 2018
  • You are right. I guess it is easy to draw a conclusion from 1 game in the NCAA tournament. I mean a sample size of one game is pretty telling. We lost to 10 different teams last year. You call out the only one you believe hasn’t cheated. What about the other 9?

    Mis state (cheat), LSU (cheat), UNC (big cheat), Kentucky (biggest cheat), Auburn (caught cheating again), Texas A&M (who knows but I would guess not on the up and up), Missouri (pretty obvious they have returned to their Snyder ways), Florida ( not sure people have talked for a while about the dating back to Billy D’s days), Tennessee (been known to turn a blind eye to ‘extra benefits’).

    Seems to me that if the playing field were indeed level we might fair pretty well, but that is just me.

    I called out the one who matters the most -- the one we played in the NCAA tournament. The one we played against in Year 7 with one of the oldest rosters in the country. Butler didn't cheat. That's the team that embarrassed us in the NCAA tournament, which what the season is really all about or did I miss the memo there?

    Again, I repeat, the logic is what could Anderson do if the playing field were level. Well, okay, was it not level against Butler? Let's not make something like cheating, which has always been done and will always be done, a crutch because we absolutely blew it against a non-cheater in the game that mattered the most all season. Am I really off base here or is the nerve just that raw?

    The NCAA tournament is a bunch of one-game samples. If you get a non-cheater in one of those games, don't you need to come through to make good on the insinuation that Anderson would/could be a top coach if the playing field were level? We didn't just lose. We got annihilated.

    It doesn't matter if programs like LSU or Mississippi State cheated. They weren't good enough to make the NCAA tournament while Arkansas was good enough. So they are irrelevant to the discussion because we still should haven't beaten them, right? They didn't win because they cheated. They one because we lost to inferior teams.
  • #17 by mykidsdad on 05 Jun 2018
  • I called out the one who matters the most -- the one we played in the NCAA tournament. The one we played against in Year 7 with one of the oldest rosters in the country. Butler didn't cheat. That's the team that embarrassed us in the NCAA tournament, which what the season is really all about or did I miss the memo there?

    Again, I repeat, the logic is what could Anderson do if the playing field were level. Well, okay, was it not level against Butler? Let's not make something like cheating, which has always been done and will always be done, a crutch because we absolutely blew it against a non-cheater in the game that mattered the most all season. Am I really off base here or is the nerve just that raw?

    The NCAA tournament is a bunch of one-game samples. If you get a non-cheater in one of those games, don't you need to come through to make good on the insinuation that Anderson would/could be a top coach if the playing field were level? We didn't just lose. We got annihilated.

    It doesn't matter if programs like LSU or Mississippi State cheated. They weren't good enough to make the NCAA tournament while Arkansas was good enough. So they are irrelevant to the discussion because we still should haven't beaten them, right? They didn't win because they cheated. They one because we lost to inferior teams.

    You called out one that fits your completely biased agenda. I see thru it as does everyone. You called out 1 game when in fact anyone that has any sense knows can be won by anyone.

    You have your little self serving “I hate Anderson, waa, waa” opinion.

    I guess every team that lost 1 game to anyone defines that program, “when it mattered”? Those 15 seeds that beat 2s, or the 16 that beats a 1 seed.

    You are beyond logic and reason. Sad, really sad!
  • #18 by nwahogfan1 on 05 Jun 2018
  • You are right. I guess it is easy to draw a conclusion from 1 game in the NCAA tournament. I mean a sample size of one game is pretty telling. We lost to 10 different teams last year. You call out the only one you believe hasn’t cheated. What about the other 9?

    Mis state (cheat), LSU (cheat), UNC (big cheat), Kentucky (biggest cheat), Auburn (caught cheating again), Texas A&M (who knows but I would guess not on the up and up), Missouri (pretty obvious they have returned to their Snyder ways), Florida ( not sure people have talked for a while about the dating back to Billy D’s days), Tennessee (been known to turn a blind eye to ‘extra benefits’).

    Seems to me that if the playing field were indeed level we might fair pretty well, but that is just me.

    We can not continue to make excuses for Mike.  Mike is getting paid $3+ million to get the job done.  He excepted it and now must produced.   If those other coaches are cheating then lets caught them and punish them but if they are not caught then lets find ways to beat them.

    Great coaches over come.
  • #19 by Hawg Red on 05 Jun 2018
  • You called out one that fits your completely biased agenda. I see thru it as does everyone. You called out 1 game when in fact anyone that has any sense knows can be won by anyone.

    You have your little self serving “I hate Anderson, waa, waa” opinion.

    I guess every team that lost 1 game to anyone defines that program, “when it mattered”? Those 15 seeds that beat 2s, or the 16 that beats a 1 seed.

    You are beyond logic and reason. Sad, really sad!

    You lose all credibility when you paint me as an Anderson hater. Nothing more needs to be said. But I will say more. I’ll also say that your credility goes into the negatives when you attempt to create a reality where an NCAA tournament game is just another game and there should be no criticism of a first round loss.

    Then to try to equate an outlier upset like Virginia losing to UMBC? Virginia’s had 3 30-win seasons in the last 5 seasons and been to a Sweet 16 and an Elite 8 in that time. They lost won the ACC three times and the ACC tournament twice. And I doubt they are cheating. Virginia has plenty of success to outweight that outlier of a game vs UMBC.

    And you’re talking to me about reason and logic?? This is silly. You tried to come at me ask about the losses the Hogs had to cheaters and 3 of those losses were to 2 non-tournament teams!!! That shows you that this cheating stuff is overblown to a degree. Plenty of cheating programs not having great success. Anderson is still having solid recruiting results. His teams are still performing well in the regular season. So go beat Butler for crying out loud. Bulter is a good program but at what point do we start having expectations?
  • #20 by Hawg Red on 05 Jun 2018
  • We can not continue to make excuses for Mike.  Mike is getting paid $3+ million to get the job done.  He excepted it and now must produced.   If those other coaches are cheating then lets caught them and punish them but if they are not caught then lets find ways to beat them.

    Great coaches over come.

    We’ve beaten and lost to cheating programs. Nothing’s going to change there. It’s silly to sit here and wonder how good Anderson can be on a level playing field it’s not going to be much different than what we have already experienced with him. If cheating were magically impossible, those players going to cheating programs would still be facing Arkansas. A lot of these cheating coaches can still recruit because they have to recruit against other cheaters. It’s not as if a level playing field makes Anderson a better recruiter. Marginal difference when you get down to it because top programs are still going to be the most attractive and the cheating coaches are still good recruiters.
  • #21 by k.c.hawg on 05 Jun 2018
  • We can not continue to make excuses for Mike.  Mike is getting paid $3+ million to get the job done.  He excepted it and now must produced.   If those other coaches are cheating then lets caught them and punish them but if they are not caught then lets find ways to beat them.

    Great coaches over come.

    If you are going to state his salary don’t overstate it by 20%. It diminishes your credibility. His actual contract is readily available by a simple search. That’s all.
  • #22 by MakingPlays on 05 Jun 2018
  • We’ve beaten and lost to cheating programs. Nothing’s going to change there. It’s silly to sit here and wonder how good Anderson can be on a level playing field it’s not going to be much different than what we have already experienced with him. If cheating were magically impossible, those players going to cheating programs would still be facing Arkansas. A lot of these cheating coaches can still recruit because they have to recruit against other cheaters. It’s not as if a level playing field makes Anderson a better recruiter. Marginal difference when you get down to it because top programs are still going to be the most attractive and the cheating coaches are still good recruiters.

    I was going to stay out of this, because mykidsdad was already giving you all you could handle.  But, everything you said is complete BS.  You mean to tell me Malik Monk wouldn't have made our 2016-2017 season better?  He wasn't a good enough player to be a 5 point difference against UNC?  If everything was equal, Malik Monk would have been a Hog, I have no doubt about that from people I've talked to that would know that I trust.  It's like one of the worst kept secrets in Arkansas that Cal didn't play by the rules to get Monk.   Then I can also point to the more recent shady situation with Reggie Perry and Mississippi State, everybody knows Mississippi State paid him.  Reggie Perry with Daniel Gafford without a doubt would have been the best front court in the SEC next year, probably the best front court in Razorback history, but according to you if everything was on a level playing field it's a "marginal difference."  Well, I'm pretty sure most experts consider Malik Monk and Reggie Perry better than marginal players. 
  • #23 by HogFaninMemphis on 06 Jun 2018
  • I have no respect for Auburn's program what a joke.  It'll come back to bite them like it did on Louisville.  Those guys get away with cheating for a while, but it always gets them and ruins the programs in the end.  Auburn's basketball program has been a joke for so long, they are willing to trade everything for a couple of good years. 

    I'll never forget the famous Bruce Pearl quote when asked why he wasn't complying.   “We complied enough to still be here” 
    Let's not compare this to Pitino. Pitino was doing some really, really bad stuff. Cheating on the recruiting trail is nothing compared to committing dozens of ethics violations, paying a mistress to get an abortion, and acting like you're doing everything right.
    Pearl is generally blunt saying that he thinks the NCAA's recruiting rules are stupid and that he bends them. The only reason he got in big trouble at UT was because he lied to the NCAA about what he did wrong, not the violation itself. I don't want Auburn to succeed in any sports ever, but I actually don't mind Bruce Pearl that much. Hopefully, adjusting some rules will level out the recruiting trail and weed out the people truly doing evil things.
  • #24 by Hawg Red on 06 Jun 2018
  • I was going to stay out of this, because mykidsdad was already giving you all you could handle.  But, everything you said is complete BS.  You mean to tell me Malik Monk wouldn't have made our 2016-2017 season better?  He wasn't a good enough player to be a 5 point difference against UNC?  If everything was equal, Malik Monk would have been a Hog, I have no doubt about that from people I've talked to that would know that I trust.  It's like one of the worst kept secrets in Arkansas that Cal didn't play by the rules to get Monk.   Then I can also point to the more recent shady situation with Reggie Perry and Mississippi State, everybody knows Mississippi State paid him.  Reggie Perry with Daniel Gafford without a doubt would have been the best front court in the SEC next year, probably the best front court in Razorback history, but according to you if everything was on a level playing field it's a "marginal difference."  Well, I'm pretty sure most experts consider Malik Monk and Reggie Perry better than marginal players.

    Plenty of posters more respected than I have made the argument that Arkansas was better off without Malik Monk. Shadow Hawg has said it. Kevin McPherson has explored that thinking (not necessarily taking that stance but did give his thoughts). It's out there. I'd have rather had Monk no question, but we can't just drop Monk into that season and talk about beating UNC because the season would go differently. We do not know what effect Monk would have actually had on that team. You add another guard and you have to take a lot away from a guard. Is that guard Manny Watkins, the best perimeter defender? What effect does that have? I wouldn't be so certain about unfalsifiable scenarios.

    I also don't know why Perry flipped to Mississippi State. Do I think something shady happened? Yeah, I do. I said that at the time. But I don't know that and you don't know that. He said he needed to play closer to home because of his father, and well, Starkville is about half the distance from his home. Again, I don't really believe that, but it could be true. And I would have loved to have Perry on the Hogs, but if we get Perry, we don't get Chaney for 3-4 years. Perry is likely a one-year player, like Monk. Could we make a tournament run with freshman and sophomore studs and absolutely no veteran, upperclassmen leadership? I'm not certain we could. I could see the difference that Perry brings being getting bounced in the first round (NCAA) again with him and going to the NIT without him. You can argue that's really a marginal difference, but obviously I'd rather be in the NCAAs.

    But this all comes back to the logic that Mike Anderson would be somehow be elevated, possibly, into a higher tier of coaches with a level playing field. I just don't buy that. I think he's a good but not great head coach. I like Mike Anderson and he's done a fantastic job turning this program around. I don't want him fired or replaced. But I do feel that we will take the next step with a different coach (and I hope it's the next coach). I'm not looking to dig at Anderson but I'm not going to hide my opinion that he's not the coach to take us to the next level. I feel like he's served a purpose in turning the image of the program around and greatly improving the culture, though. We needed that. I know he'll retire here and I know he wants the Hogs to be successful just like I do. And he's going to run a clean program, which I appreciate. I do not want a cheater as a head coach even if it means we aren't as successful. But I do see limitations in Anderson that eliminating cheating won't fix.
  • #25 by MakingPlays on 06 Jun 2018
  • Plenty of posters more respected than I have made the argument that Arkansas was better off without Malik Monk. Shadow Hawg has said it. Kevin McPherson has explored that thinking (not necessarily taking that stance but did give his thoughts). It's out there. I'd have rather had Monk no question, but we can't just drop Monk into that season and talk about beating UNC because the season would go differently. We do not know what effect Monk would have actually had on that team. You add another guard and you have to take a lot away from a guard. Is that guard Manny Watkins, the best perimeter defender? What effect does that have? I wouldn't be so certain about unfalsifiable scenarios.

    I also don't know why Perry flipped to Mississippi State. Do I think something shady happened? Yeah, I do. I said that at the time. But I don't know that and you don't know that. He said he needed to play closer to home because of his father, and well, Starkville is about half the distance from his home. Again, I don't really believe that, but it could be true. And I would have loved to have Perry on the Hogs, but if we get Perry, we don't get Chaney for 3-4 years. Perry is likely a one-year player, like Monk. Could we make a tournament run with freshman and sophomore studs and absolutely no veteran, upperclassmen leadership? I'm not certain we could. I could see the difference that Perry brings being getting bounced in the first round (NCAA) again with him and going to the NIT without him. You can argue that's really a marginal difference, but obviously I'd rather be in the NCAAs.

    But this all comes back to the logic that Mike Anderson would be somehow be elevated, possibly, into a higher tier of coaches with a level playing field. I just don't buy that. I think he's a good but not great head coach. I like Mike Anderson and he's done a fantastic job turning this program around. I don't want him fired or replaced. But I do feel that we will take the next step with a different coach (and I hope it's the next coach). I'm not looking to dig at Anderson but I'm not going to hide my opinion that he's not the coach to take us to the next level. I feel like he's served a purpose in turning the image of the program around and greatly improving the culture, though. We needed that. I know he'll retire here and I know he wants the Hogs to be successful just like I do. And he's going to run a clean program, which I appreciate. I do not want a cheater as a head coach even if it means we aren't as successful. But I do see limitations in Anderson that eliminating cheating won't fix.

    Are you really going to sit here and say Malik Monk wouldn't have been a difference maker?  You always talking about credibility, you lose all credibility when you say stuff like that.  The dude was an absolute stud in college and would have been the best player on our team, despite what some bitter razorback fans say on a message board.

    Also, just because you don't know something doesn't mean I don't know something, you can speak for yourself on what you do or don't know, but don't speak for me.  I'm not going to sit here and play the I know more than you game like some people do on here, but as I said in my previous post I talked to some people who would know the situations I mentioned and the things that were shared to me confidentially gives me no doubt there was foul play in both situations and if everything was on an even playing field both of those guys would have been Hogs.  Whether you want accept that or not, I really don't care, but I'm telling you those guys are program changing players that we lost due to the other teams not playing 100% by the rules.
  • #26 by Hawg Red on 06 Jun 2018
  • Are you really going to sit here and say Malik Monk wouldn't have been a difference maker?  You always talking about credibility, you lose all credibility when you say stuff like that.  The dude was an absolute stud in college and would have been the best player on our team, despite what some bitter razorback fans say on a message board.

    Malik Monk, as an individual player, is a difference-maker. I don't lose credibility by stating a fact that some respected posters have given consideration to the thought that we wouldn't automatically been better off as a team with Malik Monk. I even stated in the post you just quoted that I'd rather have Monk. You can't take credibility away from someone who referencing something that definitely happened. I'm also open-minded enough to recognize that you can't just drop guys onto rosters and predict how things go because you have chemistry and corresponding personnel changes that would occur. There is no doubt that Malik Monk would have had a great individual season as a Razorback but you can't copy and paste what he did surrounded by all of that talent at Kentucky and automatically apply it to Arkansas.

    Also, just because you don't know something doesn't mean I don't know something, you can speak for yourself on what you do or don't know, but don't speak for me.  I'm not going to sit here and play the I know more than you game like some people do on here, but as I said in my previous post I talked to some people who would know the situations I mentioned and the things that were shared to me confidentially gives me no doubt there was foul play in both situations and if everything was on an even playing field both of those guys would have been Hogs.  Whether you want accept that or not, I really don't care, but I'm telling you those guys are program changing players that we lost due to the other teams not playing 100% by the rules.

    And I don't really care what you were told because I don't know you or who you know. It seems like a stretch for you to know people who would absolutely know that there was foul play with two different players and two different schools. And it really doesn't even matter if it was true. It does not change the limitations that I see in Mike Anderson as a coach, and that's what I ultimately see holding the program back from success in the NCAA Tournament. Neither of those players would have been on the roster against Butler. I'm not interested in blaming cheating programs for why this program hasn't seen more success. Monk and Perry would have been great to have as Razorbacks, but the reality is Anderson has had a hard enough time balancing the roster (and I think that's really going to hurt us the next two seasons) and they only would have added to that. I'm just not convinced that either would have made a significant impact in the one season they were Hogs (assuming Perry is a one-year player).
  • #27 by MakingPlays on 06 Jun 2018
  • I'm not going back and forth anymore.  I just tried to share with you what I was told.  Obviously you're not interested in any information that doesn't fit your agenda, which mykidsdad has already pointed out.

    And FYI, maybe if you didn't always come off as a know-it-all and always trying to discredit people that don't agree with you, maybe people would share stuff with you sometime, so you're not always talking out of the side of your mouth.  Before your little comment trying to insist I was lying, I was actually going to PM you and share some of the details I was told.  The info I was told about Perry's situation was from an insider on another board, who is very credible, that I've known for years that wouldn't lie about something like this.  But, since it's a stretch for me to know anything, I'll let you continue to strictly listen to the posters in your bubble that you feel are "respected" around here. 
  • #28 by Hawg Red on 06 Jun 2018
  • I'm not going back and forth anymore.  I just tried to share with you what I was told.  Obviously you're not interested in any information that doesn't fit your agenda, which mykidsdad has already pointed out.

    And FYI, maybe if you didn't always come off as a know-it-all and always trying to discredit people that don't agree with you, maybe people would share stuff with you sometime, so you're not always talking out of the side of your mouth.  Before your little comment trying to insist I was lying, I was actually going to PM you and share some of the details I was told.  The info I was told about Perry's situation was from an insider on another board, who is very credible, that I've known for years that wouldn't lie about something like this.  But, since it's a stretch for me to know anything, I'll let you continue to strictly listen to the posters in your bubble that you feel are "respected" around here.

    Maybe you should try to actually read what I'm saying instead of getting in such a hurry to lecture me. I've already said that I do believe something shady happened with Perry. You don't have sell me on Monk or Perry being involved in shady dealings during their recruitments because I could totally believe they were. But I just don't see anyone actually proving anything to me and it's unnecessary for you to try to prove stuff to me.

    The posters that I referenced, Shadow Hawg and Kevin McPherson, are not posters that are "in my bubble." Shadow Hawg does not, I repeat, does not like me at all. We clash often. Kevin McPherson is not even really a poster. He's a recruiting reporter that posts here. Also not someone that always agrees with me. And I said that some of these posters acknowledged the possibility that having Monk might not have made a significant difference when weighing multiple factors. Wasn't necessarily a stance they were talking. This is all just theory anyway since nothing can be proven either way.

    I don't have buddies here and I'm not a part of any bubble. I'm a lone wolf. I listen to what everyone has to say. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. Sometimes posters change my mind with logic and reasoning. Sometimes they only show themselves to be extremely biased, and if that happens, I tend not to take them very seriously (doesn't matter what they're biased for or against). Maybe if you think I'm so biased, you shouldn't bother with me. Or maybe you should just slow down and not jump at any little thing you perceive as an attack on the coach or program.
  • #29 by hobhog on 06 Jun 2018
  • "we'd win more but they cheated!"

    Please....
  • #30 by hogsanity on 06 Jun 2018

  • We can not continue to make excuses for Mike.  .


    Wanna bet?
  • #31 by fullfan on 06 Jun 2018
  • Bunch of whining about what?  Sounds like Aubbie wants to continue winning and thus locked up their coach.
  • #32 by nwahogfan1 on 07 Jun 2018
  • If you are going to state his salary don’t overstate it by 20%. It diminishes your credibility. His actual contract is readily available by a simple search. That’s all.
    Whether his salary is $2.5 pr $3 million it does not change the argument of Mike over coming with what he has been given.  He has to find ways to win.
  • #33 by hawg66 on 07 Jun 2018
  • I’m amazed at how many people hang around Jump Ball for the soul purpose of ragging on Coach Anderson. He’s not going anywhere whether you like him or not. Griping with no chance for change is sour grapes. Seriously, get over it.
Pages:
Actions