greg.w.h said:
91AggieLawyer said:
Jock 07 said:
The blind loyalty to Childress is absolutely mind blowing. The amount of folks on here who defend him no matter how much the teams underperform year after year boggles the mind. It's sad how so many have lost interest in A&M baseball over the years
Not sure why there are near 50 stars on this post (even though it deserves far more) when I've been all but kicked off this board for simply asking why we've put up with Childress for all these years when, at least since about 2010 (as I documented then) he was hardly an upgrade over the previous coach. In many respects, other than (I think) one losing season, he wasn't an upgrade.
Its very frustrating that too many on this board, including many who have been around for a long time, are just now seeing what some of us have known for over a decade.
Your omniscience probably is not.
Now if they TMF wouldn't take your $5-10 million endowment to establish a replacement staff, please do show your work, counselor. Otherwise yours is just one opinion among a group of people who it turns out all have at least one,
There are reasons to not actually try to make changes when there is better than average success that isn't yet transformative. One of them is to allow things to play out. The notion because a group of people insists therefore they should have the upper hand isn't even democratic. But if you want to use power to accomplish change specifically to address a specific intercollegiate athletic program, you arguably know the law and exactly how that can be accomplished. Why didn't you try that???
Or are you now going to claim ignorance in your omniscience??
The posing must be exhausting. Performance art is HARD!!!
Several things I learned a LONG time ago with respect to big words:
1. They don't make the writer look any smarter (except to some people, who aren't worth impressing in the first place) -- in fact, quite the opposite;
2. If you can't get your point across with simple words, you either can't get your point across, or it isn't worth getting across. Sort of like pounding the table.
Your arrogance and condescension (not to mention illogic -- and I'll leave it at that, though I'm tempted to use MUCH harsher language but won't since I don't want to risk a ban and desire to keep this as professional as possible) is, well, pretty breathtaking here. Please name the individual(s) that submitted such an endowment to get rid of Mark Johnson. How about the one that took care of Melvin Watkins in basketball? Peggy ____ (I think was her name) in women's basketball?
As far as mine being one opinion, just exactly who's on this board isn't? How in the world is that relevant to this discussion? Or for that matter, any discussion.
As far as better than average success, its clear that you either didn't read or didn't understand my post. Perhaps that was, at least in part, my fault. My point, if I didn't make clear, was that Mark Johnson was turning in better than average success. FAR better than average. Were we frustrated with his results? Absolutely. I got a warning on TA for suggesting he needed to go after the Cougar high debacle in, I think, 2003. It was clear in 2009, 2010 and certainly by 2012-13 that RC wasn't producing results much better, if at all, than Johnson had produced. In fact, I argued then that Johnson's results came during a period of much stronger competition as the early 2000s Big 12 had several CWS teams, and 2 winners. Not so much the late 2000s.
I KNOW why we haven't made a change. There are probably a half dozen reasons -- some different due to different ADs we've had since the late 2000s. But that has
nothing to do with my point. This board, as far as I can tell, wanted nothing to do with a change until recently. Those like me who suggested that we did not have the right guy (nothing more, mind you) were all but shouted down and ran off. Why you're making ad hominem after missing my point so badly is beyond me.
