bill simmons take shot at auburn and our state

[AU64 10,122]

9 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Don't forget that we were recruiting Jonathan Taylor until the Ray Rice thing blew up and the media basically forced Gus to say we weren't recruiting him (anymore). 

If Briles is exonerated, then it's a different conversation. But yes, if you don't actually think we should "win at all costs" as you originally said, then we have no disagreement. 
 

What else is on the table since the below? Point me to it, I'd love to not think a guy is capable of what the Pepper Hamilton report said Briles did (and didn't do).

 

I mean......why is a football coach involved in something like this at all....meeting with complainant or parent of a complainant?   That's for law enforcement or school Administration....Dean of Students or someone independent of the athletic department.   The fact that a coach would meet with victims (real or alleged) in such a situation..... or intervene with the local police stinks to high heaven as far as I'm concerned.....and that goes for Jimbo too. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

10 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

This was the main article everyone was looking at:
http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Sources-question-whether-BU-sexual-assault-investigation-was-flawed-392649461.html

The university refuses to release the report from the investigator and only released their interpretation of the findings.  Several lawyers are suing for the original report. In the meantime, more than one person associated with the case has come out and said that Briles got a raw deal.  It's still a wait and see situation, but it really feels like a school trying to save their enrollment numbers by finding a witch to burn.

I'm sure if one is inclined to want to believe that Briles wasn't at fault, then this article would be mighty tasty. I find it far less substantial than the other things I've read and heard. We'll just start with the obvious: what motivation did Baylor have to hire some law firm with an agenda to carry out a witch hunt against a coach who had brought them unprecedented success and was no doubt filling a lot of coffers that they didn't even know they had? I'm sure plenty of unnamed sources in the athletic department saw it that way...

[McLoofus 35,182]

Lion, I get your point about a scapegoat, but it seems that they had that and then some in Starr. Who knows, maybe they were actually dumb enough to drum up a false case against a morally sound cash cow and then send him packing. Seems unlikely. 

Way off track, though. I was responding to the notion of "winning at all costs" vs "creed monsters". I guess the person I responded to has changed his stance, or something. That's cool.

 

[lionheartkc 6,150]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

I'm sure if one is inclined to want to believe that Briles wasn't at fault, then this article would be mighty tasty. I find it far less substantial than the other things I've read and heard. We'll just start with the obvious: what motivation did Baylor have to hire some law firm with an agenda to carry out a witch hunt against a coach who had brought them unprecedented success and was no doubt filling a lot of coffers that they didn't even know they had? I'm sure plenty of unnamed sources in the athletic department saw it that way...

The investigation wasn't into the football program, it was an investigation into the school as a whole. Even the report released by the school only devotes a small portion to the football program, and doesn't go into any detail.  

What bird, I, Titian, and others found particularly damning about the article was this... "Baylor’s Title IX coordinator, Patty Crawford, said athletics was not the main concern. 'A very small percentage of our cases have anything to do with athletics' "  That's not a unnamed source.  Then, this revelation "Neither of the two players stepped foot on the field after the coaching staff learned of the accusations." left us wondering what else they expect a football coach to do. Dealing with this issues is the administrations job, and they certainly didn't thing the students were kicked off of the football team for nothing.

I believe it's Titan who also makes the point that he was paid pretty handsomely to go away for someone who was fired for a very serious offense. 

Here's the deal, I can't be a guilty until proved innocent kind of guy. Until there are facts on the table that specifically show that Art Briles knowingly protected players who committed sexual assault, I can't handle the idea of saying he is guilty of something so heinous. So far, I'll I've seen that go against him are blanket statements about how the team handled discipline and references to players who we know were kicked off the team.  

[lionheartkc 6,150]

8 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Lion, I get your point about a scapegoat, but it seems that they had that and then some in Starr. Who knows, maybe they were actually dumb enough to drum up a false case against a morally sound cash cow and then send him packing. Seems unlikely. 

Yea I get you.  At the same time, the way I see it, you sacrifice a cash cow to save the university as a whole. If you blame it on the football team and fire the coach, parents are less likely to tell their daughters that they can't go to Baylor than if the headline is that the entire university has a systemic problem with improperly handling sexual assault cases.

If a couple of the people who were let go's lawyers win their suit and get the original report, all will be known.

[alexava 6,973]

i went to toomers after the Arkansas game in 2010. the trees were already rolled fully when i got there. maybe one or two rolls were thrown that i witnessed. i think people either leave the game early or didn't go at all to do this. i have no problem with it but when the game is over i am going home or to my hotel in Prattville. i aint got time for all that. if people joke about it, so be it. it is different. i don't see it as offensive........ On a serious note,  I heard Art Briles and Jarett Stidham was handing out cases of Angel Soft after the LSU game.

[hutchids 227]

On 9/30/2016 at 4:39 PM, aubiefifty said:

Apparently, Bill Simmons was in Auburn for the LSU game and took some video in Toomer's Corner. He used it in a bit on Any Given Wednesday discussing fired college coaches and their lucrative buyouts (he brought up Miles' $12.9 million buyout and Malzahn's potential $8.8 million buyout). He gave this quote about Auburn:

"Auburn fans cover trees with toilet paper after they win...needless to say, Trump state"




i will certainly not ever watch his show again..........

I thought ESPN fired him?

[GwillMac6 20,666]

On 10/4/2016 at 3:23 PM, McLoofus said:

Don't forget that we were recruiting Jonathan Taylor until the Ray Rice thing blew up and the media basically forced Gus to say we weren't recruiting him (anymore). 

If Briles is exonerated, then it's a different conversation. But yes, if you don't actually think we should "win at all costs" as you originally said, then we have no disagreement. 
 

What else is on the table since the below? Point me to it, I'd love to not think a guy is capable of what the Pepper Hamilton report said Briles did (and didn't do).

 

works for HBO now and started the ringer. HBO paying him upwards of 7 mill a year.

[aubiefifty 16,757]

On 10/3/2016 at 9:08 PM, aucanucktiger said:

Thought this was one knucklehead on an Auburn rant but there's some sort of surge in anti Auburn rhetoric the last couple days. SI and their butthurt buddy Thamel (yes somehow he's still employed) says Auburn is the type of program that would win at any cost and will prove it by enduring public criticism and hiring art briles to keep up with saban. Our football last ran afoul of the ncaa 24 years ago! Then today jimbo Fisher - three years later - accused us if running an illegal O against bama. Not fsu, bama! Added to his blather that we stole his signs in 2013. Waiting for bielema to jump in. WTF is going on!

wow! someone gets it!. i am not thin skinned as one of the mods seemed to imply. but it adds up. and now we got game time coverage people openly pulling for the other team almost makes me think it is fashionable in some sense. i am just pointing out this simmons guy so no one can support this guy while taking pot shots at auburn.

[lionheartkc 6,150]

On 10/3/2016 at 9:08 PM, aucanucktiger said:

Thought this was one knucklehead on an Auburn rant but there's some sort of surge in anti Auburn rhetoric the last couple days. SI and their butthurt buddy Thamel (yes somehow he's still employed) says Auburn is the type of program that would win at any cost and will prove it by enduring public criticism and hiring art briles to keep up with saban. Our football last ran afoul of the ncaa 24 years ago! Then today jimbo Fisher - three years later - accused us if running an illegal O against bama. Not fsu, bama! Added to his blather that we stole his signs in 2013. Waiting for bielema to jump in. WTF is going on!

It's simple, really. When you are a championship level program, people desperately need to hate you, since either they aren't, or you are their direct competition. Auburn is the team to hate for a few reasons.  

First, because we don't shy away from our classy, by the book image, and people hate that.  Heck, the term "holier than thou" is thrown around here all of the time.  Auburn is the holier than thou team in college football.  We're good AND we're not buying players, hiring classless coaches, or letting our team run amuck.  Look at everyone else with a championship level program.  Ohio State - busted for impermissible benefits... FSU - Do I even have to run the list?... bama - above the law but breaking it regularly and everyone knows it... Clemson - Dabo's mouth/ties to Saban give people enough to hate on by itself. So people make u crap to hate about Auburn, just to have something to hate.

Second, people are desperate to have something to hate about Auburn since we are among a handful of championship caliber programs AND we don't have the pedigree of Ohio State, FSU, bama, etc.  We are the nerd at the cheerleaders table. It's tolerated once, but we keep coming back.

Finally... it's because of the Cam issue. Hating on us in 2010 became fashionable... and when something is trendy, it's hard to make it go away.  People who know nothing about us, haven't seen a single one of our games, set foot on our campus, etc LOVE to hate us because sometime, in 2010, someone they thought was cool did it, so they wanted to do it too.

Ad for Thamel... he just can't cope with the fact that 2010 left egg on his face and he's been out to get us ever since.  He's just a vindictive hack who apparently knows the right people to stay employed. 

[aucanucktiger 1,791]

Good points. A follow up on not having the pedigree though. We do (esp compared to FSU). We have 12 undefeated seasons - 2 in the last 12 years - that our public relations dimwits finally deemed worthy of pointing out in our stadium. Highlighted that for a reason.

[lionheartkc 6,150]

2 hours ago, aucanucktiger said:

Good points. A follow up on not having the pedigree though. We do (esp compared to FSU). We have 12 undefeated seasons - 2 in the last 12 years - that our public relations dimwits finally deemed worthy of pointing out in our stadium. Highlighted that for a reason.

Unfortunately, in college football, pedigree does not come from the last 12 years.  It comes from who were the big teams in the glory days of football. We could run a streak of 10 championships and we still will not be considered part of the Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Nebraska, bama, Florida State, Oklahoma, USC, Penn State, Texas club. 

Per AP rankings, we are the 12th best team in the history of college football... but we might as well be 50th because we aren't one of those teams I listed.  Heck Tennessee is 9th... ranked above Penn State, but they don't have the national following, so they might as well be 50th too.

[aucanucktiger 1,791]

I won't wrangle but I think the confusion is you appear to be saying media elite, "national following" and "pedigreed" are synonymous. Our success on a NATIONAL scale (and pedigree) goes back a bit further than 12 years.

[GwillMac6 20,666]

4 hours ago, lionheartkc said:

Unfortunately, in college football, pedigree does not come from the last 12 years.  It comes from who were the big teams in the glory days of football. We could run a streak of 10 championships and we still will not be considered part of the Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Nebraska, bama, Florida State, Oklahoma, USC, Penn State, Texas club. 

Per AP rankings, we are the 12th best team in the history of college football... but we might as well be 50th because we aren't one of those teams I listed.  Heck Tennessee is 9th... ranked above Penn State, but they don't have the national following, so they might as well be 50th too.

DING DING MOTHER F$CKIN DING!!!!! This is arguably my biggest pet peeve in sports!!! in the NFL besides the cowboys (and MAYBE the steelers and packers mainly cause they are always good) Its a what have you done for me lately league. No one cares who was great 50 years ago like they do in college football. You could have washington go undefeated and curb stomp every pac 12 team but the narrative will be WHATS WRONG WITH USC?!? when is USC going to be great again? all the talk will be mainly about usc. I dunno why it is but college football is set up where they want the same damn teams to be great year in year out. I HATE IT. I hate the term O college football is better when INSERT BLUE BLOOD is good. NO IT ISN'T COLLEGE FBALL IS GOOD PERIOD! Who cares if the blue blood teams are down. Its so damn annoying and all of that affects recruiting! even in their worst years those blue blood teams will always recruit good because the media empowers them and makes those programs a big deal and keeps their names right at the top of every college football story. No sport is controlled more from the media narrative than college football. It is SO HARD to break that glass ceiling and get to blue blood status mainly because its all about who was great in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Auburn is a borderline top 10 college football job and you would never know it. We get treated like s*** in the main stream and national media. So many people do not even know where Auburn is. Its disrespectful. We should be talked about among all those blue blood teams because we are right outside of that club we are a top 12 all time program for Gods sake. RANT OVER

[Tiger 8,818]

I don't know...the media seemed to be firmly planted on the Gus bus from 2013-2014. I think if you put together a few outstanding seasons and the media will sniff your jock like all the other good teams -- the media even liked Gus enough to keep us ranked throughout the 2014 season ending collapse. Or take, for example, Oregon. They sure as hell aren't a blue blood but they definitely got the benefit of the doubt from the media the last 6 or 7 years up until this year when they started struggling. We were on track if things stayed on course to be one of those teams people are sick of hearing about because of media fatigue. JMO

[GwillMac6 20,666]

2 minutes ago, Tiger said:

I don't know...the media seemed to be firmly planted on the Gus bus from 2013-2014. I think if you put together a few outstanding seasons and the media will sniff your jock like all the other good teams -- the media even liked Gus enough to keep us ranked throughout the 2014 season ending collapse. Or take, for example, Oregon. They sure as hell aren't a blue blood but they definitely got the benefit of the doubt from the media the last 6 or 7 years up until this year when they started struggling. We were on track if things stayed on course to be one of those teams people are sick of hearing about because of media fatigue. JMO

That helps me and lion heart point though. The blue blood teams are always gonna be talked about regardless of their actual record. Auburn and Oregon have to be great or near it to warrant being talked about that much in the national media spotlight. The media wants insert any DOWN blue blood to be back. Remember TEXAS IS BACK after that win over notre dame?! lol they are so desperate for the teams that were good 75 years ago to always be good. its sickening.

[lionheartkc 6,150]

1 hour ago, aucanucktiger said:

I won't wrangle but I think the confusion is you appear to be saying media elite, "national following" and "pedigreed" are synonymous. Our success on a NATIONAL scale (and pedigree) goes back a bit further than 12 years.

As an Auburn fan and alum, I agree. But it's certainly not just the media. If you ask 90% of college football fans, especially those outside of the SEC, our "pedigree" consists of "didn't Bo Jackson play there?" If you ask non-football fans you get "Auburn?  Never heard of it." or "Isn't that in Georgia?" 

[Tiger 8,818]

Just now, GwillMac6 said:

That helps me and lion heart point though. The blue blood teams are always gonna be talked about regardless of their actual record. Auburn and Oregon have to be great or near it to warrant being talked about that much in the national media spotlight. 

I get what you're saying. But when we were spanking Bama for 6 straight years and they were struggling across the board nobody across the nation cared about Bama's mediocrity it seemed like. At least thats how it felt up here in NC so my view could be different.

 

I do agree with a lot of your points though. The media does drive certain things and gives more air time to certain programs, but I don't think AU gets shafted particularly. When we are good we get a lot of love. When we are bad we are laughed at because we should be good.

[GwillMac6 20,666]

7 minutes ago, Tiger said:

I get what you're saying. But when we were spanking Bama for 6 straight years and they were struggling across the board nobody across the nation cared about Bama's mediocrity it seemed like. At least thats how it felt up here in NC so my view could be different.

 

I do agree with a lot of your points though. The media does drive certain things and gives more air time to certain programs, but I don't think AU gets shafted particularly. When we are good we get a lot of love. When we are bad we are laughed at because we should be good.

remember the SI cover of Brodie when they beat florida and started that year out red hot? BAMA IS BACK it said. they wanted bama to be back so bad just like SI put out the cover TEXAS IS BACK when they beat Notre Dame. they will always get treatment like that. When in actuality bama was never back till saban got there. not close.

[Tiger 8,818]

9 minutes ago, GwillMac6 said:

remember the SI cover of Brodie when they beat florida and started that year out red hot? BAMA IS BACK it said. they wanted bama to be back so bad just like SI put out the cover TEXAS IS BACK when they beat Notre Dame. they will always get treatment like that. When in actuality bama was never back till saban got there. not close.

IDK we can agree to disagree. Bama went like 10-2 that season, so it wasn't reaching to say they were "back" IMO. In that very moment it looked like they were. I must have missed the "Texas is back" cover 1.5 months ago though. I like your posts that I've seen and I appreciate our back and forth in a civil manner, I just think the hot and cold nature of AU football puts us in a position to make the media look bad so they are apprehensive with us. 

[lionheartkc 6,150]

To @GwillMac6's point, how long has it been since Notre Dame was relevant? During that time period, how many times were they ranked pre-season only to end unranked? Hint, it's not a tiny number. All of those teams get pre-season ranking bonus because of their name and nothing more. And how about the end of the season... Remember 2004? Oklahoma played for a National Championship instead of what may have been the best Auburn team ever, because they were Oklahoma. They and USC came in ranked #1 and #2, pre-season, and no one was going to let us jump them in the polls no matter how much better our team or harder our schedule.  And don't get me started about bama back-dooring it into National Championship games.  

Let's go down the list of polls showing favoritism, shall we?

2000 - FSU vs Oklahoma in the National Championship game, even though FSU was ranked below Miami
2001 - Nebraska was #4 and was killed by Colorado in their final game, but still got to play in the National Championship Game
2003 - Oklahoma lost the Big 12 Championship but still played for the Natty.  LSU won, but the AP made them share the title with USC
2004 - We've already discussed this
2008 - bama is ranked #1, Florida #2.  Florida beats bama in the SEC Championship game and... one-loss Oklahoma jumped Florida for the #1 spot.
2011 - bama loses the SEC Championship to LSU and gets a do-over

[GwillMac6 20,666]

18 minutes ago, Tiger said:

IDK we can agree to disagree. Bama went like 10-2 that season, so it wasn't reaching to say they were "back" IMO. In that very moment it looked like they were. I must have missed the "Texas is back" cover 1.5 months ago though. I like your posts that I've seen and I appreciate our back and forth in a civil manner, I just think the hot and cold nature of AU football puts us in a position to make the media look bad so they are apprehensive with us. 

healthy competitive back and forth banner is good for the soul! its been fun. and FYI I think every non blue blood gets this treatment not just AU.

[McLoofus 35,182]

I'm inclined to agree with @Tiger. Heck, forget the media, most Auburn fans *hate* it when the team is expected to do well because we never live up to lofty expectations. Our good seasons always come out of nowhere, except maybe that nice run in the mid aughts (when we still didn't make it back to the SECCG after '04). And when we have those good seasons, clunkers are usually not far behind. 

I don't really have strong feelings on it. And it's a good point that the NFL is much different than CFB in that way.

Last thing: Tiger's also right that you're solid, @GwillMac6. Love your attitude. I went in hard on you earlier and it bounced right off. I have a feeling we'll disagree from time to time, but I'll try to do my part to keep it fun. WDE

[augolf1716 21,104]

23 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I'm inclined to agree with @Tiger. Heck, forget the media, most Auburn fans *hate* it when the team is expected to do well because we never live up to lofty expectations. Our good seasons always come out of nowhere, except maybe that nice run in the mid aughts (when we still didn't make it back to the SECCG after '04). And when we have those good seasons, clunkers are usually not far behind. 

I don't really have strong feelings on it. And it's a good point that the NFL is much different than CFB in that way.

Last thing: Tiger's also right that you're solid, @GwillMac6. Love your attitude. I went in hard on you earlier and it bounced right off. I have a feeling we'll disagree from time to time, but I'll try to do my part to keep it fun. WDE

Oh lord I can't wait.....

[McLoofus 35,182]

6 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

Oh lord I can't wait.....

What? I'll bring board games, Kool Aid, maybe an old VHS copy of 'Porky's' for after the squares go to bed. And just wait til I break out the magic tricks...