CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Precedent

by Mars · 1/29/2010

Sponsored Advertisementad content
M
Mars
bigbluepuma wrote:
If you still can't see the difference in the two situations, then you must be dead stoned. :skeptic:

Seriously. It's like saying "BYU and Texas are both colleges. Therefore I see absolutely no differences between the two." Purposefully ignorant.
C
clemdiggitydog1
I'm sorry for seeming argumentative,was not my intent.i agree with much of what you've said,although i still don't know if we're in possession of enough "facts" to render judgement, even if that's important.I do feel strongly however that the HC should not be used,as has been so aptly stated by Lawboy,as a weapon to try to cow a recruit into submission,if that's what was done,and i don't see a big difference between that and coach Reid saying to the kid who went to Duke,what you quoted.
B
bigbluepuma
I used this metphor on another thread where another poster talked about letting his fiance back out after a couple of weeks because she had cold feet, and she returned later





I'm glad that you used my metephore, but would it have been the same if she had started flirting, and even going on a few double dates with another guy while committed to you. What if you had had several conversations about her activities (which were, after all, legal, because you weren't married, just committed), and she always assured you that she was still 100% committed, and that he was just a friend? What if it got down to the week before the wedding, and you had rented the tux and the hall, and sent out the invitations, and bought the wedding cake and the refreshments, and the flowers, and the decorations, and what if it was not all refundable? What if then, she was going away for the weekend with " just a friend," who happens to be a really good looking very rich guy with all kinds of charm? And what if you wouldn't even be able to talk to her again until you were at the wedding? What if you talked to her again as she was about to leave, and she and her father both assured you that she was still 100% committed? Would you say, oh allright, go ahead and go. I'll be waiting.



The fiance' is fair game for other suiters until the wedding. Other suiters are not fair game for the fiance' after she commits unless she first de-commits. I think recruits, like anyone else, have a right to change their minds, because circumstances change. There comes a point, however, when one needs to be true to his commitment.
C
clemdiggitydog1
Mars wrote:
If you still can't see the difference in the two situations, then you must be dead stoned. :skeptic:

Seriously. It's like saying "BYU and Texas are both colleges. Therefore I see absolutely no differences between the two." Purposefully ignorant.

Mars,i'm gonna have to flag you for piling on.actually,even though two of you are now saying it,no,i don't see that there's a material difference in the two situations.there is an issue of timing,expediency,which is understandably important to Bronco but does not make Apo=good,Kona=bad.temperance Mars,temperance.
M
Mars
clemdiggitydog1 wrote:
i still don't know if we're in possession of enough "facts" to render judgement... I do feel strongly however that the HC should not be used,as has been so aptly stated by Lawboy,as a weapon
A- We NEVER have 100% of the facts in life, and yet we still must live and make choices.



B- Those portraying Bronco's explanation as a "weapon" are being intellectually dishonest. He told McKay "this is why I am pulling your son's schollie". Wow, what a disgraceful attack. :utard:
Sponsored Advertisementad content
B
bigbluepuma
clemdiggitydog1 wrote:
I'm sorry for seeming argumentative,was not my intent.i agree with much of what you've said,although i still don't know if we're in possession of enough "facts" to render judgement, even if that's important.I do feel strongly however that the HC should not be used,as has been so aptly stated by Lawboy,as a weapon to try to cow a recruit into submission,if that's what was done,and i don't see a big difference between that and coach Reid saying to the kid who went to Duke,what you quoted.




Thank you. I think one place we are having trouble seeing eye to eye (meaning understanding the intent differently) is the HC comment. First, Bronco may not have been quoted exactly. We see that a lot with disgruntled people. Second, I think all Bronco was saying (or at least meaning) is that he wants to be able to completely trust his players, and that he felt the under the table aspect of this trip was showing him that Kona was not willing to do what would earn his trust.
B
bigbluepuma
clemdiggitydog1 wrote:
bigbluepuma wrote:
If you still can't see the difference in the two situations, then you must be dead stoned. :skeptic:

Seriously. It's like saying "BYU and Texas are both colleges. Therefore I see absolutely no differences between the two." Purposefully ignorant.

Mars,i'm gonna have to flag you for piling on.actually,even though two of you are now saying it,no,i don't see that there's a material difference in the two situations.there is an issue of timing,expediency,which is understandably important to Bronco but does not make Apo=good,Kona=bad.temperance Mars,temperance.


See my engagement metaphor for the difference. I think there is a HUGE difference.
C
clemdiggitydog1
Intellectually dishonest.i'm not sure what that has to do with rightly identifying using something like the HC,in order to coerce someone into coming around to your way of thinking,as a weapon.I can see how subtle nuances might be lost on you,however.ironic that someone who sees life in such black and white fashion, types his posts in blue,not that I'm trying to infer anything.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
C
clemdiggitydog1
I think the reason that the engagement story may be strained,metaphorically speaking,is that the NCAA has clearly stated that both parties,though betrothed,may still negotiate for the best deal they can get,without any fear of "buyer's remorse".



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
B
bigbluepuma
bam wrote:
clemdiggitydog1 wrote:
bigbluepuma wrote:
If you still can't see the difference in the two situations, then you must be dead stoned. :skeptic:

Seriously. It's like saying "BYU and Texas are both colleges. Therefore I see absolutely no differences between the two." Purposefully ignorant.

Mars,i'm gonna have to flag you for piling on.actually,even though two of you are now saying it,no,i don't see that there's a material difference in the two situations.there is an issue of timing,expediency,which is understandably important to Bronco but does not make Apo=good,Kona=bad.temperance Mars,temperance.


See my engagement metaphor for the difference. I think there is a HUGE difference.


Is Texas or BYU the really rich good looking guy? I'm a little confused.


I think we were talking about ND. :roll:
Sponsored Advertisementad content
B
bigbluepuma
clemdiggitydog1 wrote:
I think the reason that the engagement story may be strained,metaphorically speaking,is that the NCAA has clearly stated that both parties,though betrothed,may still negotiate for the best deal they can get,without any fear of "buyer's remorse".



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


I haven't once stated or implied that it wasn't legal to shop, although I don't think this will be "without buyer's remorse." The agreement, however, was not with the NCAA, it was with BYU, and Bronco has every right to set the terms of his agreements, and when a commit violates those terms, or plans to violate them, he has every right to call them to task for it, and to state the reason that he is doing so. Unlike many universities, he never violates his side of the contract.



As for the metaphor, the law allows both betrothed parties to negotiate their best deal before the signing ceremony (wedding), but that doesn't mean that the prospctive groom is obligated to allow his fiance to date around. As for "buyer's remorse," Bronco is not allowed to go after Kona for breach of contract when one has not been signed, and he won't, but he had every right to let the kid know what he was losing, and why. (before you bring it up, breach of contract does not exist anymore for engagements in America, even if it hasn't been taken off from all law books)
Page 3 of 3
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.