In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 736
Online now 754 Record: 6210 (3/13/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I understand the multiple mistakes by the kid. It just been an onslaught of attacks on kids on these boards, and in the stands. Thanks for the response.
when NCAA catches up with Butt Hurtt..uavel will be in Da Crapper..Anything goes at that sewer..
+1from me i know if this was my kid i wouldnt want to read this.
I would also hope I had rised my child to not throw away a great opportunity for the hopes hecould find another to fall back on.
I dont believe in all the i had a bad child hood bs
I know people with great parents who are not good people and i know people who had drunk abusive parents who are great people. We are who we choose to be IMO.
I hope he works his demons out, but i hope we whoop his ass if he ever steps on the field against UK!
This kid is young enough to have made a mistake or two and get a pass, but he's old enough to understand that he has a tremendous opportunity on his plate and he's squandered it.
I do have sympathy for situations some of these kids come out of, and I know nothing about in particular about his home life, but I have a pretty good guess that he didn't grow up in poverty or in a disadvantaged neighborhood. I think coaches have that understanding, too, and if Chizek thought there was anything here to work with, he'd still be down there.
If you had mentioned Hurtt in the first place - rather than Bridegwater - the discussion might have been interesting. Instead you make it appear as if you actually have some insight into a specific player.......ironically, the best player on the team.
None of us know much about Hurtt's situation, other than that he is cooperating with the NCAA. Crawford's column this morning dealt well with it all, i thought. Did you happen to read that?
"There is an eloquence in true enthusiasm."
Edgar Allen Poe
It seems there's a problem with your reading comprehension and/or participation level.
Inferences are things we make when discussing subjects on the meta-level. For example, if I have discussed, in the past, potential sanctions against a coach for recruiting violations, and then later discuss the potential eligibility problems of a player recruited by said coach, it is an "inferential" reference back to the coach.
Missing those inferences is always a danger when you jump suddenly into a conversation.
Good luck with Pike though, I'm sure that a top 10 positional recruit and Elite 11 finalist who committed to a recent National Championship team will harbor absolutely no ill-will or resentment at being relegated to a position he has little, if any, familiarity with.
Very nice job Law. Sad thing is, he probably didn't understand a word of it.
LOL, do you know me?
"Inferential" stops at the line where a literal case commences. I have as yet seen not a whit of interest in disallowing Teddy Bridgewater his college eligibility. Whether or not Hurtt whored for Shapiro, Golden and the various Miami miscreants has very little to do with his time at Louisville.
While I admit a coach can find himself in a perception of compromise owing to his various handlers and methods of recruiting, I am sure your deep understanding of these events, based on other and possibly even more obvious candidates, well acquaints you with the subtleties involved.
Strictly meta-level-speaking, I must have missed those conversations. Forgive me. I realize that may be hard for you to comprehend.
Your tying Teddy's Louisville eligibility with Hurtt's Miami experience is tangential in exactly what way? Help me out here.
Go ahead and come down to my level for just a bit. I also apologize for mentioning my shock at seeing Teddy's eligibility discussed - well - in any form or fashion. This is rather new - and I actually read a lot, believe it or not.
But here there was no literal case.
A message board is one overarching meta-discussion. You chose to insert yourself into a situation where the meta-conversation was not clear to you. When you realized your mistake, you blamed the poster of the comment which, when taken in the context of numerous other comments, made perfect sense. A better solution, hinted at by your comment concerning "mention[ing] Hurtt in the first place," would have been to realize that you did not understand the context of the post.
What will happen to Clint Hurtt is ultimately unclear. What may happen to Teddy Bridgewater is also unclear, although far less likely when compared to Hurtt. By extension, what may happen to the UL is just as unclear, if unlikely.
I find it amusing that because nothing has come to pass yet, your position is that nothing must be coming to pass. It seems you hold the extreme opposite position where it concerns a university that you do not affiliate with.
Exactly the opposite. I could tell immediately that you missed the conversations. No trouble comprehending in the least. Which is why I posted in the first place.
I never tied anyone's eligibility to anything at all. I think the question is whether or not potential sanctions for Hurtt will have any effect on Bridgewater's eligibility. Personally, I doubt it. Any eligibility questions will arise from investigations not yet performed, potentially centering on Hurtt's recruiting tactics at UL, not Miami. I have a feeling that, in certain circumstances, you have a strongly-formed belief that past transgressions at one institution couldn't possibly be transferred to another institution.
Hurtt's time at UL is, as of now, unmarred by any accusations. He will potentially be called to task for things he did in the past, and may or may not face punishment for those things. Will those punishments, if levied, have an effect on his current employer? Unknown.
LOL, in other words I was right. A poster inferred that Teddy had "issues" he suspects will take prominence "as time goes glacially by" and which might just affect his eligibility. No, you didn't say that - someone else did, Law. That was what I responded to - not to posts you may or may not have made months or years ago where I am positive you laid out excellent points.
In fact, it is you who leapt into a conversation as far as I can see.
Hey, I don't care. I just like taking on brazen and unfounded assumptions made by people who you may have enabled in the past. You apparently missed my allusion to equal abusers of the recruiting process, but who really gives a dam? Of course you would miss it. I must have been high.
LOL! He didn't come close to saying you were right? You really have a problem with reading comprehension don't you? Wow!
Fact is that the NCAA has been in contact with Hurtt and UL. I know this because it came from a head coach @ UL of another sport. Jurich and Strong are sweating bullets right now. They're not real happy with situation, especially Jurich. And yes Bridgewaters recruitment has been attached to the investigation. If you can't see why then you are totally blind to the situation!
Is this one of those situations where you pretend to misunderstand and declare yourself the winner, regardless of actual outcome?
I'll break it down for you:
1. A poster says something about Bridgewater's eligibility.
2. You assume that post has something to do with academics.
3. Poster points out that he is referring to potential trouble concerning Hurtt.
4. You blame the poster for not referring to Hurtt in the first place.
5. I point out that his post was inferential in that it referenced past posts concerning Hurtt's potential sanctions.
It's quite understandable that you would be a little lost in the meta-conversation of this board. It is, after all, the board for Kentucky Wildcat fans. It's your blame of others for your lack of context that I took issue with.
Your comment concerning my presumed experience with identifying the subtleties of cheating wasn't missed, it just did not address my comment on your obstinate belief that the lack of action is a lack of proof. As I haven't asserted what my position is regarding any coach with regards to allegations of cheating, I'm not sure what led you to draw your conclusion, and therefore did not address it.
Pike will be a replacement for Gardner who once again tore the ACL that cost him his senior year in high school and will miss a second season in a row. Even though both will reshirt, Pike is an insurance policy against a kid that might never play again. Even Louisville 2013 recruit and Lexington native Kyle Bolin is on board with Pike, sending him a tweet welcoming him to the family. You hope the kid learns from his mistakes and In the end, you can never have enough top shelf QB's on your roster.
I think Pike has about a 20% chance of seeing playing time, based on his past behavior and the attitude which slews of Louisville fans are very aware of and not particularly happy with. He is most definitely not warmly welcomed by fans who've watched his act before. This is definitely a Charlie Strong call and one which I imagine does not give a lot of room for future mistakes.
While you make a great point regarding depth, I would wager he never takes a snap and does, indeed, go to TE.
This post was edited by senore 20 months ago
Wow! Now we have two UL fans fighting on a UK board? Go figure? Get ready Coach Strong!
because it's what all our football conversations turn into Chris. You SHOULDN'T be surprised in the least
Pretty sure he was referring to Pike transferring to UL. Nothing else.
LOL, have I had a Twilight Zone run in with the old CardLaw?
God, that figures. My luck has been crappy for a week.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports