The House of Blue

If it were one mistake it'd be one thing but he had an awful reputation high school. He Does he deserve a second chance but IMO he isn't worth taking a risk on because he has the potential to ruin team chemistry. Uofl has a history of taking chances on unsavory characters z. The beat goes on.

when NCAA catches up with Butt Hurtt..uavel will be in Da Crapper..Anything goes at that sewer..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

because it's what all our football conversations turn into Chris. You SHOULDN'T be surprised in the least

LOL, have I had a Twilight Zone run in with the old CardLaw?

God, that figures. My luck has been crappy for a week.