The House of Blue

He is the best AD in the past 50 years hands down and it's not even close. To cry for a buyout of Mitch is silly.

"The sign of a great ad isn't whether or not he makes perfect
Hires. It's whether or not they admit when they make a bad one"

While we are handing out superlatives, you win the Dumbest Statement of the Year with this beauty!

Mess up, but admit it, and all is well!

I am not asking to buyout Mitch's contract. Lee Todd gave him that unprecedented AD contract forever.

I am saying that Mitch's nickname needs to be "BUYOUT BARNHART" because he hires head coaches who are ill fitted for their positions and whose contracts must be bought out by the UKAA for millions.

The second buyout under Mitch's watch is coming within two years once we get what Mitch negotiated for Joker down to around 3 million dollars owed.

QFT! +1 Trillion

This thread is about a new nickname for the Kentucky Athletic Director.

It is NOT asking to buyout Mitch's contract!

Still, the new nickname works upon the supposition and comments stated in previous posts and threads. it is either a.) everyone has to agree with the OP and give applause (not gonna happen) or b.) all the exact same discussions take place.

IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE "It's time for Barnhardt to go" THREAD
http://kentucky.247sports.com/Board/296/Its-time-for-Barnhart-to-go--4912429/1

OR ANY OF THE "Faaar Joker" THREADS..

This has all been stated before. Coming up with a new way to package the displeasure in Barnhardt regarding Joker and the football program does not mean the discussions will be any different.

Now you're talking, but thank God he isn't like some AD's who keep losers around 6-8 years. SMU basketball?

Now there is a problem because this thread is not about discussing principles of Barnhardt's administrating the football program and his success or lack thereof.

It is about inventing a way to ridicule and make fun of Barnhardt.

From the rules of the boards:

http://kentucky.247sports.com/Article/Board-Rules-20431

1. All members and visitors are required to respect each other and show respect for University of Kentucky coaches, players and administrators. Constructive criticism is permitted and friendly debate encouraged, but must be done in a civil manner that demonstrates a basic respect for all involved. Name-calling and personal insults will be removed and are grounds for having board privileges revoked.

Placing emphasis on the first sentence. Ridiculing an administrator is not showing respect for an administrator. The responsibility and success (or lack thereof acoording to one's perspective) is a discussion currently in the top half of the first page in the form of this thread:

It's time for Barnhardt to go
http://kentucky.247sports.com/Board/296/Its-time-for-Barnhart-to-go--4912429/1

By the very words in the OP,
I think the name fits......"BUYOUT BARNHART"..... I hope it sticks!",
this is a thread about ridiculing Barnhardt. This is pretty clearly in conflict with the rules and obstructing free speech is hardly a problem considering that there is another thread discussing the performance of Barnhardt in the top half of the front page.

Yes, there were rules being broken plain as day.

The OP was trying to be funny at Barnhardt's expense by implying the execution of his job responsibilities was something to make fun of. This was done explicitly to poke fun at how Barnhardt is performing his job ("haphazardly spent someone's money", "poor hires", "poor decisions") by giving a nickname to the AD. Giving someone a nickname to make fun of his performance (something that many strongly contest) is ridiculing someone. 'Just trying to be funny' being the reason for ridiculing someone does not mean that person is not being ridiculed.

That is explicitly disrespecting someone. There is no way around that.

Cute, but no cigar.

The reasoning is explicitly stated it and matches the facts.

Posting emoticons rather than taking up the points demonstrated does not dismiss them.

Repeated for good measure...

Yes, there were rules being broken plain as day.

The OP was trying to be funny at Barnhardt's expense by implying the execution of his job responsibilities was something to make fun of. This was done explicitly to poke fun at how Barnhardt is performing his job ("haphazardly spent someone's money", "poor hires", "poor decisions") by giving a nickname to the AD. Giving someone a nickname to make fun of his performance (something that many strongly contest) is ridiculing someone. 'Just trying to be funny' being the reason for ridiculing someone does not mean that person is not being ridiculed.

That is explicitly disrespecting someone. There is no way around that.

I would say Mitch has had some sketchy hires even for guys like me who have mostly been in his camp.

To be fair, he let tubby go for 2 years too long, he bungled the Morriss deal, he got Brooks when a lot of people felt like he only looked in one direction, did not look at a lot of candiates, Brooks was his confidante on the hiring and Mitch was desperate. That hire was a tough one due to penalties. Those first Brooks teams should have gone bowling, the next 2 not so much. HCIW is debatable now, I was for it and when it happened and for the guy put in charge.

THe BCG hire was terrible, hiring that firm and paying them to come up with this guy was ridiculous. I would say Mike Pratt saved Mitch in a big way when he ran the Cal hiring. Cal did not want but knew they had to do something big. Cal was on table 2 years before but Mitch and Dr. Todd nixed.

I have been a pro Mitch guy for many years, I was writing this post and come to realization that he has had some real head scratching moments, lucked into some things. He has also hired well in olympic sports but the other hires have been some disasters.

The problem with Mitch is that the guys who he covets or wants to support Fb have all been pushed away, they don't like Mitch, it can be that he is not a good ole boy, may be that he has alienated them with demands, may be that he rubs people the wrong way. I think a lot of it has to do that they have very little input,

I think Mitch is by far the best FB AD UK has had, not even close but in the realm of things he is not a great FB AD when you compare him to others in SEC, in terms of hires, rasing money and the ability to lead. I think Joker and Mitch are one and the same when it comes down to it, they are joined at hip and what happens to one happens to all.
IMO