ScotsAU

Done. One is just an abstract, but I can perhaps download the full article from my university library if you want it.

Has to mean it is down to either us or Bama. Glad we have the last visit.

I don’t see how the two things you are talking about are comparable at all. Do you mean to tell me you’ve never left a company for an opportunity to make more money? That’s all this transfer portal stuff is. When they opened NIL and the transfer portal, they made playing college football very similar to employment. People have always followed more money. That’s not a generational thing. It is predicted partially by age and socioeconomic status. Younger people are always more likely to jump around until they feel financially comfortable. People that make less money tend to jump around because they never feel financially comfortable. A lot of football players are both of these things. They’re very young, and many of them come from lower SES backgrounds. So, yes… the opportunity of more money is enticing. It is a system problem, not a generational one. …And that certainly doesn’t have anything to do with concerns over a team’s culture.

And how many of those players claimed abuse or walked out of a meeting on Kirby? They left UGA for better opportunities for money or play time. They didn’t leave UGA because they found their coach abusive.

Science has pretty much confirmed the entitled kids thing to be a complete myth. Every “generation” says it about younger ones. In fact, I have close colleagues that have done generations research. Generations in general have no predictive power behind studying population growth and decline. People are generally the same as they’ve been for a very long time. As such, the whole “they’re just a bunch of entitled kids” argument doesn’t really hold up. Would be happy to provide peer reviewed citations if necessary because I’m very familiar with this research. But let’s consider that argument as valid for a second. Let’s assume kids are just entitled now. Wouldn’t that matter in establishing a culture? If the premise that they’re entitled brats is true, that means coaches have to account for that when building a program’s culture or risk losing the team. Also, for a final point, look at other programs. Are mass numbers of players at other schools walking out of team meetings on the regular? Obviously something that was said in that meeting at a minimum rubbed his team the wrong way. Is it a sign of a cultural problem? Not necessarily. It could have been one thing he said wrong in that meeting. But it is still suspicious.

Calling a sex hotline is one thing. Causing the death of a player is something else.

Kiffin But if he’s not available, anyone who was not accused of player abuse should be in front of Durkin on the short list.

🤮🤮🤮

If it were Durkin, we would’ve hired him already. He’s been available for some time now, and there would’ve been no reason to wait to make the hire. The only reason to have waited this long is that the coach is or had been still coaching up to this point. That means it has to be Chris Kiffin or someone else in the NFL.

While you are probably right, 1. What if Williams ends up being the one that lives up? 2. I think at this point a lot of us just want him for what it would mean… Stealing 2 5 star receivers from Bama in one class would be send a huge message about where Auburn is looking to go.

Then no idea why that would’ve held it up. That clause is so easy to get around legally.

But it is easy to get around. Hugh could “let him call plays for one game.” Then he could say it wasn’t working out and take back play calling duties. Hugh could dictate what plays Nix calls. So many ways around that clause that will easily hold up if Ole Miss decides to sue. And btw, it wouldn’t be Lane filing a lawsuit. It would be the athletic department.

TLDR most of this. I actually buy more into the 2 spectrum model that separates views on social/moral issues from economic ones in terms of regulation amount. It gives essentially 5 political views: - conservatives strongly support economic deregulation and moral regulation -libertarians support deregulation of both -liberals support moral deregulation but economic regulation -populists support regulation of both -moderates that don’t fit cleanly in any box and/or fall in the middle of one or more spectrums Using this model, here’s how you’d classify extremists at each and a political leader that endorses that philosophy. conservative- examples- Nicki Haley, Ronald Regan, Both Bush presidents; extremist conservatives would be fascists libertarian- examples- Ron Paul (Rand is kind of in between a conservative and a libertarian), Gary Johnson; extremist libertarians are anarchists liberal- examples- Bernie Sanders, AOC; extremists would be communists (but note the comment below) populist- Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis; extremists would be Leninist Communists Someone above mentioned that communism often turns into authoritarianism. Those governments were never truly communist because they suppressed moral and social freedom. They were what’s known as Leninist Marxist. The leaders wanted both control over business and society, and used their government influence to do it. Case in point with DeSantis… a conservative would stay out of the affairs of businesses. But he’s gone to war with Disney. With Trump, trade wars and NAFTA withdrawal. A conservative position is to open trading connections and allow the free market to operate. They’d support things that allow our companies and entrepreneurs to succeed internationally. Starting a trade war is actually more of an economically liberal approach. For the record, Bernie Sanders was a big fan of withdrawing from NAFTA. But virtually no other conservatives backed that plan.

So… Finally an opportunity to speak with no one having any ground against me. I’m literally an expert on this. I run a DEIA analytics program for an undisclosed government organization. I have a PhD in industrial psychology, where my research focused on fairness, abuse, and well being in organizations. I teach college psychology, engineering management, and management classes on managing workplace personnel, leadership, and worked well being. I also interface with folks at the EEOC on the regular for my job and my research. I’m also a very interesting person regarding this topic, because my initial interest in DEIA was because I thought they were outdated programs. I’d never been discriminated against. I’d never noticed anyone else being discriminated against. It was only after I delved into the science that my perspective drastically shifted. As for the video. I’ve seen this video pop up many times before. This person twists a lot of semi-facts around the story they want to weave, and ignores actual science on DEIA. I once had a colleague say, “if you are using facts or data for the purpose of proving a point, you aren’t doing science. You’re doing data manipulation. Science requires an objective eye, where you let the data and theory truly do the talking.” This person is manipulating data, not analyzing it. So, for the sake of science, let me address some common misconceptions about DEIA. If you see a company, federal agency, manager, etc. not doing things in line with this, they are doing it wrong and are probably breaking federal law. Quick definitions: Diversity- How much does your demographic distribution match the workforce or skilled workforce? Equity- How much do your programs and policies promote fairness? Inclusion- Is everyone being treated in a way that encourages participation and trust? Accommodation- Are people with certain special requirements (related to a disability, a religious belief, etc.) able being given reasonable assistance to be able to balance the special requirement with their work? I once worked for a manager that equated the first three terms to a party. Diversity is making sure party invites are given out to everyone fairly. Equity is making sure everyone that has a party invite can actually enter the party. Inclusion is making sure everyone at the party has an opportunity to dance. As you’ll maybe notice, none of these are described as exclusionary. It is all about giving everyone a chance. And you’ll see that play out in the next section below. On to some misconceptions: Misconception 1: DEIA is for the benefit of minority groups only. Reality 1: This is a false narrative. DEIA is about creating a mobilized, satisfied workforce, with the ability to take multiple perspectives. Companies that embrace DEIA and do so in a way that is in line with science significantly and substantially out perform companies that skirt it or reject it. Misconception 2: DEIA isn’t for (or even hurts) white people and/or men. Reality 2: This myth comes from people that either a) have experiences where DEIA initiatives were misused or b) comes from people that only half understand what the initiatives are. DEIA is about preventing discriminatory behavior AND enhancing positivity. The reason it tends to focus on non-white people and women is because those groups are statistically more likely to experience problems. That’s not to say it can’t go other ways. (In fact, I have a white friend right now who is in a lawsuit over racial discrimination. His case is solid.) It can happen. But it is less common. Studied by the NIH and psychologists have found that about half of women and about 1/2 of racial minorities have experienced discrimination within the past year. That rate is around 10% for men experiencing gender discrimination , and around 15% for white people experiencing racial discrimination. As someone who also does this for a living, there’s evidence of pretty disparate hiring rates and promotion rates by race and gender as well, and this accounts for applicant quality, training and development differences, and performance evaluation discrepancies. So I got a little long winded on this one. But essentially, discriminatory acts are problematic no matter who is being discriminated against. Embracing inclusion if done correctly benefits everyone. But some groups are more hit by the former than others. So efforts toward the latter can sometimes be unbalanced because of that. Misconception 3: DEIA and diversity offices are punitive. Reality: No on so many levels. Yes. If there’s a complaint, it has to be investigated. If there’s evidence of discrimination, the company has to take action. But the primary focus of a diversity manager or diversity office should be to create programs to promote cross demographic collaboration, interaction, and etc. This is largely based on Allport’s contact hypothesis among other findings in research that have shown that positive inter-demographic interaction and cultural learning improves communication and trust, which enhances things like innovation and group level productivity. Misconception 4: DEIA programs are outdated. Reality 4: I want to start by reminding you here that this was originally the concern that brought me to this discipline. There are new studies capturing rates of discriminatory behavior every year. These studies have accounted for a variety of factors and theories, including people being too sensitive. (They’ve actually entered different emotional and personality traits in as statistical moderators to test whether life outlook or something like that might make people more prone to feeling discriminated against… In the words of Yukon Cornelius… “Nothin’.”) Findings have actually been pretty consistent. Since around the 1980’s, bias has steadily changed from something that is very public to something that is often operating below people’s conscious levels of awareness. As such, people can have subtle thoughts in their mind that can cause them to subtlety but noticeably (to the recipient) treat people different. These kinds of thoughts can then creep into your decisions. In my field, it’s well documented that it affects hiring decisions, promotion decisions, and access to training opportunities, and many of these folks claim publicly to not be biased. Simply put, the extant evidence shows that bias has not gone away. Thus, attempts need to be made to reprogram potentially biased thoughts, and put in process improvements to where unchecked biased thoughts are able to be kept out of decision making. Misconception 5: DEIA initiatives are members only. Reality: If anyone ever tells you this, slap them. Not really. But they should be slapped. I’m a Caucasian male. I’ve been involved in activities for women, Hispanics, black people, and asian people. Why? If the the goal is really to make things better, it takes the majority group to do it. Again, the goal of EEO and DEIA isn’t punitive. The goal is to embrace what people from different backgrounds bring to the table rather than getting them to divide or exclude over it. If you don’t have diverse leaders, you don’t have innovative product. If you don’t have a diverse workforce, you don’t have innovative solutions. If your workforce is full of unfairness, aggression, hostility, or distrust, it’s going to suffer high rates of turnover and productivity decline. The real goal of DEIA is to prevent those negative outcomes, in turn making people as a whole happier, healthier, and more productive. If you are experiencing a situation where that’s not how DEIA is being used, that group is doing it wrong. By the way, if you are curious about where you might have biases of your own that you maybe don’t recognize, check out the implicit association test (IAT) that was created by some researchers at Harvard. It isn’t flawless, but it’s been shown to be relatively psychometrically sound.

Never thought about it before. But even his season ending injury ultimately helped Auburn. He probably would’ve transferred in 2022 either way. But the end of 2021 was what started tipping everyone off that Harsin was a dud. As such, he entered 2022 already with a slightly warm seat. Had Bo not been injured but with him still transferring, Harsin’s seat would’ve been cooler going into 2022, and he may have ended up with another year.

This has been talked to death. It’s pretty much been established that both coaches did something they shouldn’t have done that wasn’t against NCAA rules and wasn’t criminal. If you don’t want to drag their names through the mud, the best thing you can do is move on and not talk about it anymore.

After how he was treated by fans, I wondered how he felt about Auburn now. Glad to see he still loves Auburn.

There’s some real negative nancies here lately. First is was “he’s not going to flip from Bama.” Now it’s “he’s clearly going to Texas.” It was rumored that he was wavering toward us after the multiple unofficial visits. Now, after Saban retires, he decommits. Pretty clear what was going on. He wanted to play for Saban but loves the atmosphere of Auburn. He was stuck between the two. With Saban gone, his decision got easier. Could he go to Texas? Sure. Could he go to Bama? Not likely given that he actually decommitted. Yet it is possible. But anyone suggesting we aren’t the front runners at this point is going out of their way to be negative.

Ah yes. Sorry for the confusion. I was just trying to say I think he will be better than Harsin and worse than Saban. Then I went on to compare him to Harsin and didn’t really circle back to Saban. Sorry for the confusion.

Somehow, I don’t think we are on the same page… It seems like we’re talking about different things.

Most of his career has been in the dakotas, California, and Washington. All of his head coaching experience is well away from the southeast. He had 2 brief stints at lower level midwestern schools. But most of his career has been in the northwestern US Even Harsin had some experience outside of the northwest. He was at Arkansas state and Texas as a coordinator.

I just looked. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough data to compare how Utah was recruiting before and during Meyer’s tenure. But I did take a closer look at Washington. Recruiting classes were in the mid to upper teens before DeBoer got there. Recruiting fell off a little under him from what it was under Chris Petersen.

Do recruiting services go back far enough to see how meyer recruited at Utah? If so, that might reveal an answer.

Could be partially correct here, but not completely correct. Oregon has signed top classes for several years straight. USC, before their fall off, was recruiting quite well. And Washington is near a pretty densely populated area (Seattle). I think he’ll recruit better at Bama than he did at Washington. But I don’t see the recruiting prowess of Saban. And that was one of the things that made Saban so effective. He was a decent in game coach. But it was the stuff he did leading up to the start of his season (getting the exact players and coaches he wanted) that really won games and championships for him. I don’t see DeBoer being that effective. That should open the door for us to get players that we maybe wouldn’t have if Saban was still the coach.

Hard to get a feel for this hire. He’s not Nick Saban level. But he’s also not a Harsin I don’t think. Both coaches came to the sec from primarily northwestern careers. But Harsin was at a group of five program with no pressure that had been on the up at their level for a while before he arrived. DeBoer was at a power 5 school, and just played in the NC game a few days ago. They had a losing record prior to him getting there. I think it will come down to recruiting. He didn’t recruit super well at Washington, but Washington doesn’t typically pull in top notch classes anyway. So hard to know how that will turn out. Either way, he’s not a Saban level recruiter. We should start winning more battles moving forward within the state which should help us majorly on the field.