Online Now 185

The House of Blue

The home for all discussion on UK athletics

Online now 456
Record: 6210 (3/13/2012)

Reply

"BUYOUT BARNHART"!

  • ukblueforever said... (original post)

    AGAIN!!!! He is not saying replace Barnhart. He's saying give Barnhart the nickname "Buyout Barnhart" because he's insinuating that's what he does. He makes bad hires and then has to buy them out. It's not that hard to understand.

    Thank you! People are so quick to defend Mitch, they don't even take time to comprehend what someone is posting. Then, they wanna scream... "HE BROKE THE RULES!!!". It's Pathetic.
    I know it's Sunday, but some people on here obviously need a stiff drink. cheers

    This post was edited by JawJacker 3 years ago

    signature image signature image
  • rompcat said... (original post)

    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.

    roflmao

    cry

    signature image signature image
  • JawJacker said... (original post)

    roflmao

    cry

    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.

    signature image
  • JawJacker said... (original post)

    Lighten up fella's... the OP was just trying to be funny by giving Mitch a nickname. He was just trying to say that "buying out" contracts is beginning to become a habit for Mitch... assuming he may have to buy Joker out in another year or two. There were no rules broken here rompcat.

    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.

    signature image
  • JawJacker- the only reason your defending the OP is because it's obvious he agrees with your views. It has absolutely nothing to do with wanting people to lighten up. I called that you would try and come to his rescue as soon as I read this where this thread was going. Thank you for not disappointing.

  • Real Deal 2 said... (original post)

    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

    You are obviously well informed.

    Very well said.

  • MossCat15 said... (original post)

    JawJacker- the only reason your defending the OP is because it's obvious he agrees with your views. It has absolutely nothing to do with wanting people to lighten up. I called that you would try and come to his rescue as soon as I read this where this thread was going. Thank you for not disappointing.

    I was defending him, because people were attacking him for wanting Mitch fired.... HE NEVER SAID THAT. He was simply suggesting a new nickname for Mitch. Then, we had rompcat crying about Mitch being ridiculed. SMDH ... Get over your damn self... Mossypoo

    This post was edited by JawJacker 3 years ago

    signature image signature image
  • JawJacker said... (original post)

    I was defending him, because people were attacking him for wanting Mitch fired.... HE NEVER SAID THAT. He was simply suggesting a new nickname for Mitch. Then, we had rompcat crying about Mitch being ridiculed. SMDH ... Get over your damn self.

    No crying.

    Simple statement of facts.

    Barnhardt was being ridiculed.

    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.

    signature image
  • rompcat said... (original post)

    No crying.

    Simple statement of facts.

    Barnhardt was being ridiculed.

    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.

    Dude, you are taking things WAAAAAY too serious. If you are so worried about a little fun being poked at someone.... you need to give up the internet message boards.

    signature image signature image
  • Gents this is getting close to locked. Clean it up and post about the subject or move on. Either way. I understand both sides of the story.

    Romp we understand that you are upset with the way things are being handled. If we feel that threads are directly disparaging to the University of Kentucky we will either delete or lock them.

    Gents some of you are skirting the rules and its getting old quick. Debate is fine, complaining is fine, hell whining is fine. Just try to ensure that every post you make isnt a "witch hunt". It brings undue attention to yourselves and it brings unrest to this site. Now is that a rulebreaker? No, absolutely not, but what it does is raises eyebrows and puts a spotlight on you. Which isnt always the best of things. Some of you are some very fine and very strong posters that I have a lot of admiration for. Some of you have been around the boards for years, we greatly appreciate your contributions to this site. That being said relax a bit. You have problems with UK take it to the source. Come here and vent sure but once you vent on Monday no need to do it Tues-Sunday. I seriously hope this works its self out in the days to come because its putting quite a damper on the boards. Just how I see it.

    signature image signature image signature image

    It smells like microwaved homeless people in here.

  • JawJacker said... (original post)

    Dude, you are taking things WAAAAAY too serious. If you are so worried about a little fun being poked at someone.... you need to give up the internet message boards.

    Point is very specific.

    From the rules:
    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.

    The OP violated it. Plain and simple. Such disrespect being rampant in the internet does not mean that it should be accepted at a site that is pay to post with rules against it, if I understand the House of Blue correctly.

    Second point, address the post rather than the poster. No need to say that I am "crying" (previous post), use crying emoticons (previous posts), or presume to tell me what I should or shouldn't do regarding the internet so long as I am not attacking others. Common courtesy and respect is a simple thing to expect. Please exhibit it. My " taking things WAAAAAY too serious" has been limited to using copy paste on a repeated basis and pointing out the obvious when the obvious is being denied.

    signature image
  • rompcat said... (original post)

    No crying.

    Simple statement of facts.

    Barnhardt was being ridiculed.

    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.

    JawJacker....thanks for explaining the intent of my post. You obviously got where I was going with it, but many others didn't. I will take the blame for the confusion, but all everyone had to do is read it.

    Rompcat saying the Mitch Barnhart was being "ridiculed" by me is a poor choice of words on his part. Mitch is/was being "questioned". There is no getting around the fact a buyout of Coach Phillips' contract is inevitable. This will be the second big buyout under Mitch's watch. And again, it will be for big bucks.

    I "question" Mitch on a five year contract to a very unproven head coach. Every great head coach out there had to have a first head coaching job at some point, but how many of them got their first head coaching job at an SEC school and with a five year contract worth over 8 million dollars? A huge gamble by Mitch, any way you look at it.

    I do not know anyone who wants Joker to fail, but he has and it is not going to get any better. You could give this staff another top rung SEC team's talent and they would not do well. The chemistry in the UK football camp is not good.

    Under Rich Brooks' watch, the most impressive thing he did was change the culture. It was a winning culture and a culture where the staff was in harmony with their players and each other. It was a culture created by a very seasoned, experienced head coach.

    A lot has changed over on Cooper Drive within the last 20 or so months and a lot of changes loom on the horizon in the next 20 months.

  • 5368ppi said... (original post)

    JawJacker....thanks for explaining the intent of my post. You obviously got where I was going with it, but many others didn't. I will take the blame for the confusion, but all everyone had to do is read it.

    Rompcat saying the Mitch Barnhart was being "ridiculed" by me is a poor choice of words on his part. Mitch is/was being "questioned". There is no getting around the fact a buyout of Coach Phillips' contract is inevitable. This will be the second big buyout under Mitch's watch. And again, it will be for big bucks.

    I "question" Mitch on a five year contract to a very unproven head coach. Every great head coach out there had to have a first head coaching job at some point, but how many of them got their first head coaching job at an SEC school and with a five year contract worth over 8 million dollars? A huge gamble by Mitch, any way you look at it.

    I do not know anyone who wants Joker to fail, but he has and it is not going to get any better. You could give this staff another top rung SEC team's talent and they would not do well. The chemistry in the UK football camp is not good.

    Under Rich Brooks' watch, the most impressive thing he did was change the culture. It was a winning culture and a culture where the staff was in harmony with their players and each other. It was a culture created by a very seasoned, experienced head coach.

    A lot has changed over on Cooper Drive within the last 20 or so months and a lot of changes loom on the horizon in the next 20 months.

    No, it is not a poor choice of words on my part.

    The manner in which he was being questioned was one that chose to ridicule him with a nickname as a means of questioning him.
    Doing so in such a manner is a poor choice of words at best but is still ridiculing him.
    Describing it as ridiculing him is not a poor choice of words. There is no way around this. It is what it is.

    signature image
  • JawJacker said... (original post)

    clap

    I was done until 5368ppi decided to mischaracterize my post and the OP.

    signature image
  • Warmother51 said... (original post)

    Gents this is getting close to locked. Clean it up and post about the subject or move on. Either way. I understand both sides of the story.

    Romp we understand that you are upset with the way things are being handled. If we feel that threads are directly disparaging to the University of Kentucky we will either delete or lock them.

    Gents some of you are skirting the rules and its getting old quick. Debate is fine, complaining is fine, hell whining is fine. Just try to ensure that every post you make isnt a "witch hunt". It brings undue attention to yourselves and it brings unrest to this site. Now is that a rulebreaker? No, absolutely not, but what it does is raises eyebrows and puts a spotlight on you. Which isnt always the best of things. Some of you are some very fine and very strong posters that I have a lot of admiration for. Some of you have been around the boards for years, we greatly appreciate your contributions to this site. That being said relax a bit. You have problems with UK take it to the source. Come here and vent sure but once you vent on Monday no need to do it Tues-Sunday. I seriously hope this works its self out in the days to come because its putting quite a damper on the boards. Just how I see it.

    Bout time you showed up! I was getting ready to send you a PM... and tell you this thread needed some moderating. lol .. Seriously though, I get it... thanks Eric.

    signature image signature image
  • JawJacker said... (original post)

    I was defending him, because people were attacking him for wanting Mitch fired.... HE NEVER SAID THAT. He was simply suggesting a new nickname for Mitch. Then, we had rompcat crying about Mitch being ridiculed. SMDH ... Get over your damn self... Mossypoo

    The whole thing is just getting old bro. It's easy to see your agenda is getting through loud and clear when someone who doesn't know you can predict your responses on a message board. I understand your "purpose" for defending the OP, but evenstill your whole act on here as of late is just growing tiring. I know I should prob put this post on another thread where it would make a little more sense, but what are you guys trying to accomplish by trashing the UKAA every chance you get here? Are you expecting us to all grab torches and start sprinting downtown to just burn Mitch and Joker out or what??

    Most all of us have the same concerns, but I come here to read inside information on what is being done to fix our issues, not to read post after post made by the same few posters on every single thread trashing the current state of UK Football.

  • MossCat15 said... (original post)

    JawJacker- the only reason your defending the OP is because it's obvious he agrees with your views. It has absolutely nothing to do with wanting people to lighten up. I called that you would try and come to his rescue as soon as I read this where this thread was going. Thank you for not disappointing.

    MossCat15 said...

    The whole thing is just getting old bro. It's easy to see your agenda is getting through loud and clear when someone who doesn't know you can predict your responses on a message board. I understand your "purpose" for defending the OP, but evenstill your whole act on here as of late is just growing tiring. I know I should prob put this post on another thread where it would make a little more sense, but what are you guys trying to accomplish by trashing the UKAA every chance you get here? Are you expecting us to all grab torches and start sprinting downtown to just burn Mitch and Joker out or what??

    Most all of us have the same concerns, but I come here to read inside information on what is being done to fix our issues, not to read post after post made by the same few posters on every single thread trashing the current state of UK Football.

    MossCat- the only reason your (mispelled) defending the UKAA is because it's obvious you agree with their views. It has absolutely nothing to do with wanting people to lighten up. I called that you would try and come to their rescue as soon as I read where this thread was going. Thank you for not disappointing.

    The whole thing is just getting old bro. It's easy to see your agenda is getting through loud and clear when someone who doesn't know you can predict your responses on a message board. I understand your "purpose" for defending the UKAA, but evenstill your whole act on here as of late is just growing tiring. I know I should prob put this post on another thread where it would make a little more sense, but what are you guys trying to accomplish by trashing those who disagree with you every chance you get here? Are you expecting us to all grab torches and start sprinting downtown to just celebrate and throw a party for Mitch and Joker or what??

    Most all of us have the same concerns, but I come here to read inside information on what is being done to fix our issues, not to read post after post made by the same few posters on every single thread trashing those fans who are frustrated and disappointed with UK Football. biggrin

    See how easy that was.... it goes both ways. Again, get over yourself. thumbsup

    signature image signature image
  • Real Deal 2 said... (original post)

    To be fair, he let tubby go for 2 years too long, he bungled the Morriss deal,

    care to elaborate? I don't think he bungled it at all. Morris was looking for a big payday that he didn't deserve. He was talking with Baylor midseason and demanded way too much money. His recruiting sucked and the first few years of Brooks partly sucked so bad because Morriss couldn't recruit an OL to save his life. IIRC we were extremely thin on the OL.

    signature image

    Stoopified!

  • cobbycobb said... (original post)

    care to elaborate? I don't think he bungled it at all. Morris was looking for a big payday that he didn't deserve. He was talking with Baylor midseason and demanded way too much money. His recruiting sucked and the first few years of Brooks partly sucked so bad because Morriss couldn't recruit an OL to save his life. IIRC we were extremely thin on the OL.

    This is bringing back a provoking thought.

    Second year head coach Guy Morris went 7-5 in 2002 and Mitch Barnhart offered him, what, $700,000 per year and a very short, in terms of years, contract. Morris left for Baylor.

    In 2003, Mitch hired seasoned head coach Rich Brooks for about the same money. The length of the contract escapes my memory.

    In 2010, Mitch brought on Coach in Waiting with no head coaching experience, Joker Phillips, and gave him a five year contract worth over 8.5 million.

    Makes sense?

  • Depends...How did Morriss fare at Baylor. Oh that's right not so well. If Joker doesn't get it together he will fare the same.

    signature image signature image signature image

    It smells like microwaved homeless people in here.

  • Cobby,

    To answer your question about the Morris situation. First of all MB had no intention to bring Morris back. Mitch thought he could do better, he was new to job, Morris went to admin. and asked for raise and extention. This was mid season and really he had done a good job. MB felt he could do better and was not going to let Morriss have an answer. MB IMO wanted to part ways and find someone he could bring in. Morris and staff recruited pretty good, Woodson, Burton and quite a few more, recruited better than Brooks the first 2 years.

    MB used Brooks as consultant, he was picking his brain for candidates, he focused on 2 guys if you believe him, Parcells-Rich Brooks. I don't believe it was that close to Parcells, I think Mitch had tunnel vision on candidates, Morris called his bluff and he was not really prepared to make the hire even though deep down he wanted change. He was unprepared when time came. He had talked to Brooks about candidates and has to go back and get him as head coach when he has no other options.

    Morriss recruited Woodson and Burton and many others. Brooks owes much to that last 2 classes they got in bad situations with probation. Fact is Mitch was not in real good shape to make a hire. He went with his consultant and confidante. Brooks first year was a disaster, that was a bowl team IMO. I also think they recruited pretty good (Guy) because they should have beaten Fl one year that they just totally lost it after big lead. Abney had phantom return called back.

    Mitch was very lucky that things turned around for him, he was within 1-2 games from having to let Brooks go.
    Brooks did a good job stabalizing program, I think of it as missed opportunities, top 10 for team for a week or so,
    blew 3-4 UT games, MISS ST games come to mind, Those teams should have been better I stand by this. We should have won 9-10 games in 2007, and we underachieved. Mitch talks as if we were within one game of BCS invite during Brooks tenure.

    MB going back to the glory years of really average FB.
    IMO

  • Real Deal 2 said... (original post)

    Cobby,

    To answer your question about the Morris situation. First of all MB had no intention to bring Morris back. Mitch thought he could do better, he was new to job, Morris went to admin. and asked for raise and extention. This was mid season and really he had done a good job. MB felt he could do better and was not going to let Morriss have an answer. MB IMO wanted to part ways and find someone he could bring in. Morris and staff recruited pretty good, Woodson, Burton and quite a few more, recruited better than Brooks the first 2 years.

    MB used Brooks as consultant, he was picking his brain for candidates, he focused on 2 guys if you believe him, Parcells-Rich Brooks. I don't believe it was that close to Parcells, I think Mitch had tunnel vision on candidates, Morris called his bluff and he was not really prepared to make the hire even though deep down he wanted change. He was unprepared when time came. He had talked to Brooks about candidates and has to go back and get him as head coach when he has no other options.

    Morriss recruited Woodson and Burton and many others. Brooks owes much to that last 2 classes they got in bad situations with probation. Fact is Mitch was not in real good shape to make a hire. He went with his consultant and confidante. Brooks first year was a disaster, that was a bowl team IMO. I also think they recruited pretty good (Guy) because they should have beaten Fl one year that they just totally lost it after big lead. Abney had phantom return called back.

    Mitch was very lucky that things turned around for him, he was within 1-2 games from having to let Brooks go. Brooks did a good job stabalizing program, I think of it as missed opportunities, top 10 for team for a week or so, blew 3-4 UT games, MISS ST games come to mind, Those teams should have been better I stand by this. We should have won 9-10 games in 2007, and we underachieved. Mitch talks as if we were within one game of BCS invite during Brooks tenure.

    MB going back to the glory years of really average FB. IMO

    It's easy to speak in hindsight.

    Revisionist history run amock in that post.

    Burton and Tamme were told they had to pick. Only one scholarship for the two of them. Woodson was not solid either.

    Morris' recruiting outside of those two guys was MISERABLE. he was a trainwreck as a coach and that was proven at Baylor. Why else has he not gotten a decent job?

    Barnhart did the right thing parting ways with the ENTIRE mumme staff. We were close to hiring several guys. Rich Rodriguez was close as was parcells. But the HUGE probation chased a lot of decent one's off like david cutcliffe.

    Look at how low USC had to go on the totum pole when they were placed on probation...

  • Hoptown,

    The fact that they committed Burton-Woodson and others. There recruiting was not atrocious, they had to endure the onlslaught of sanctions and in fact they had to take more hits because they followed Mumme. Tamme was the only one that Brooks brought in, truth be told is they weren't gonna offer but they had a decommit and had open scholly. Sure Brooks and staff had to re recruit them but Morriss first recruited.

    Brooks did terrible that first year, that was an underachieving team. Not going to harp on missed opportunities and squandered chances with Rich Brooks tenure.

    I still say MB did not want Guy, MB did not think Guy would leave. The problem is that he was caught with one man and that was Brooks, you must admit that many of his hire's have been atrocious and he was 1 game away from going down with Brooks. That was a 7 win team the year before Brooks

    I don't believe the Parcells thing, geez, only one stated this was MB, never remember Rich Rodriquez, don't believe this for one moment and in fact never heard this.

    David Cutcliffe chose elsewhere, others wanted no part of it, MB was unprepared having had that much time to find coach, He settled on Brooks because he was in contact with on daily basis on search. He was caught flat footed and had to settle. It was lucky for him that things turned around or he would have been gone as well
    IMO