(11-16-2013 11:06 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Look at the first year records of Haywood (1) and Gill (2) wins before winning a MACC in their 2nd or 3rd years...

Hey Steve, what is the MACC?

Amended my list to include Mike Haywood.

(11-16-2013 11:24 AM)HuronRob Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 11:06 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Look at the first year records of Haywood (1) and Gill (2) wins before winning a MACC in their 2nd or 3rd years...

Hey Steve, what is the MACC?

MAC Championship

Frankly, Haywood could replace Cubit on my list. He has all of Cubit's positives, he's much younger, and he has interest in the job...

(11-16-2013 12:04 PM)holybovine Wrote:  Frankly, Haywood could replace Cubit on my list. He has all of Cubit's positives, he's much younger, and he has interest in the job...

Why? He manhandled a woman. Sorry,but this dude is bad news.

(11-16-2013 12:32 PM)wolverineeagle Wrote:  Why? He beats women. Sorry,but this dude is bad news.

You don't know what he did, unless you have access to the court records.

You know, writing increasingly outrageous responses is not worthy on your behalf. It's almost sensationalism. You don't know anything, really, about the case and unless you are privy to information no one else here is I suggest you refrain from slanderous depictions of what Mr. Haywood may or may not have done.

Ridiculous.

(11-16-2013 01:02 PM)HuronRob Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 12:32 PM)wolverineeagle Wrote:  Why? He beats women. Sorry,but this dude is bad news.

You don't know what he did, unless you have access to the court records.

You know, writing increasingly outrageous responses is not worthy on your behalf. It's almost sensationalism. You don't know anything, really, about the case and unless you are privy to information no one else here is I suggest you refrain from slanderous depictions of what Mr. Haywood may or may not have done.

Ridiculous.

It isn’t slander when it’s true. The man was charged with domestic violence. The fact that the charges were dropped was due to him taking diversionary courses and other pre-trial requirements. He obviously did SOMETHING wrong. Otherwise the charges would have been dropped without any sanctions whatsoever.

Your defense of the man is disturbing.

(11-16-2013 01:35 PM)wolverineeagle Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 01:02 PM)HuronRob Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 12:32 PM)wolverineeagle Wrote:  Why? He beats women. Sorry,but this dude is bad news.

You don't know what he did, unless you have access to the court records.

You know, writing increasingly outrageous responses is not worthy on your behalf. It's almost sensationalism. You don't know anything, really, about the case and unless you are privy to information no one else here is I suggest you refrain from slanderous depictions of what Mr. Haywood may or may not have done.

Ridiculous.

It isn’t slander when it’s true. The man was charged with domestic violence. The fact that the charges were dropped was due to him taking diversionary courses and other pre-trial requirements. He obviously did SOMETHING wrong. Otherwise the charges would have been dropped without any sanctions whatsoever.

Your defense of the man is disturbing.

You asserted that he beats women (plural). As far as I know it was one accusation against one woman. Your flippant disregard for accuracy is disturbing and slanderous.

(11-16-2013 01:45 PM)HuronRob Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 01:35 PM)wolverineeagle Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 01:02 PM)HuronRob Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 12:32 PM)wolverineeagle Wrote:  Why? He beats women. Sorry,but this dude is bad news.

You don't know what he did, unless you have access to the court records.

You know, writing increasingly outrageous responses is not worthy on your behalf. It's almost sensationalism. You don't know anything, really, about the case and unless you are privy to information no one else here is I suggest you refrain from slanderous depictions of what Mr. Haywood may or may not have done.

Ridiculous.

It isn’t slander when it’s true. The man was charged with domestic violence. The fact that the charges were dropped was due to him taking diversionary courses and other pre-trial requirements. He obviously did SOMETHING wrong. Otherwise the charges would have been dropped without any sanctions whatsoever.

Your defense of the man is disturbing.

You asserted that he beats women (plural). As far as I know it was one accusation against one woman. Your flippant disregard for accuracy is disturbing and slanderous.

I retract the plural statement.

Your resolute defense of a wife-beater is disgusting and disturbing. Why do you insist on defending a man who was guilty enough that his employer fired him and to be required to fulfill certain requirements in order for said charges to be dropped?

(11-16-2013 01:58 PM)wolverineeagle Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 01:45 PM)HuronRob Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 01:35 PM)wolverineeagle Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 01:02 PM)HuronRob Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 12:32 PM)wolverineeagle Wrote:  Why? He beats women. Sorry,but this dude is bad news.

You don't know what he did, unless you have access to the court records.

You know, writing increasingly outrageous responses is not worthy on your behalf. It's almost sensationalism. You don't know anything, really, about the case and unless you are privy to information no one else here is I suggest you refrain from slanderous depictions of what Mr. Haywood may or may not have done.

Ridiculous.

It isn’t slander when it’s true. The man was charged with domestic violence. The fact that the charges were dropped was due to him taking diversionary courses and other pre-trial requirements. He obviously did SOMETHING wrong. Otherwise the charges would have been dropped without any sanctions whatsoever.

Your defense of the man is disturbing.

You asserted that he beats women (plural). As far as I know it was one accusation against one woman. Your flippant disregard for accuracy is disturbing and slanderous.

I retract the plural statement.

Your resolute defense of a wife-beater is disgusting and disturbing. Why do you insist on defending a man who was guilty enough that his employer fired him and to be required to fulfill certain requirements in order for said charges to be dropped?

When a high profile hire or high profile person is involved in a high profile incident there is a lynch mob mentality which completely runs amok or over our famous "innocent until proved guilty" mantra.

A college janitor wouldn't have gotten fired. Probably put on leave w/out pay. Not high profile and no PR emergency.

Amazingly organizations fire "innocent" people because of PR reasons and then worry if because of their 'rush to judgement' for "damage control" they screwed up...

As indicated by others, the deposition of the case makes his firing seem unfair.

He is not a felon. Hell, a coach can get fired for DUI, etc. only for PR "damage control" under some of these ridiculous contract provisions.

End of soap box...

(11-16-2013 02:34 PM)emu steve Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 01:58 PM)wolverineeagle Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 01:45 PM)HuronRob Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 01:35 PM)wolverineeagle Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 01:02 PM)HuronRob Wrote:  You don't know what he did, unless you have access to the court records.

You know, writing increasingly outrageous responses is not worthy on your behalf. It's almost sensationalism. You don't know anything, really, about the case and unless you are privy to information no one else here is I suggest you refrain from slanderous depictions of what Mr. Haywood may or may not have done.

Ridiculous.

It isn’t slander when it’s true. The man was charged with domestic violence. The fact that the charges were dropped was due to him taking diversionary courses and other pre-trial requirements. He obviously did SOMETHING wrong. Otherwise the charges would have been dropped without any sanctions whatsoever.

Your defense of the man is disturbing.

You asserted that he beats women (plural). As far as I know it was one accusation against one woman. Your flippant disregard for accuracy is disturbing and slanderous.

I retract the plural statement.

Your resolute defense of a wife-beater is disgusting and disturbing. Why do you insist on defending a man who was guilty enough that his employer fired him and to be required to fulfill certain requirements in order for said charges to be dropped?

When a high profile hire or high profile person is involved in a high profile incident there is a lynch mob mentality which completely runs amok or over our famous "innocent until proved guilty" mantra.

A college janitor wouldn't have gotten fired. Probably put on leave w/out pay. Not high profile and no PR emergency.

Amazingly organizations fire "innocent" people because of PR reasons and then worry if because of their 'rush to judgement' for "damage control" they screwed up...

As indicated by others, the deposition of the case makes his firing seem unfair.

He is not a felon. Hell, a coach can get fired for DUI, etc. only for PR "damage control" under some of these ridiculous contract provisions.

End of soap box...

The man was guilty of something or otherwise they would not have made him fulfill certain corrective measures. Again, EMU cannot afford to hire guy who arrested for domestic violence. Not with the Reed shooting so close in the past. EMU will be portrayed as a desperate program willing to hire an accused wife beater in order to win football games. PR matters, EMUSteve.

They cannot afford to hire a guy who has baggage. Not with the high profile murders of EMU students, the president getting drunk at an alumni chapter meeting, English’s tirade, and the Devon Still conviction. It’s been an almost endless line of bad news for EMU these past two years.

(11-16-2013 02:50 PM)wolverineeagle Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 02:34 PM)emu steve Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 01:58 PM)wolverineeagle Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 01:45 PM)HuronRob Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 01:35 PM)wolverineeagle Wrote:  It isn’t slander when it’s true. The man was charged with domestic violence. The fact that the charges were dropped was due to him taking diversionary courses and other pre-trial requirements. He obviously did SOMETHING wrong. Otherwise the charges would have been dropped without any sanctions whatsoever.

Your defense of the man is disturbing.

You asserted that he beats women (plural). As far as I know it was one accusation against one woman. Your flippant disregard for accuracy is disturbing and slanderous.

I retract the plural statement.

Your resolute defense of a wife-beater is disgusting and disturbing. Why do you insist on defending a man who was guilty enough that his employer fired him and to be required to fulfill certain requirements in order for said charges to be dropped?

When a high profile hire or high profile person is involved in a high profile incident there is a lynch mob mentality which completely runs amok or over our famous "innocent until proved guilty" mantra.

A college janitor wouldn't have gotten fired. Probably put on leave w/out pay. Not high profile and no PR emergency.

Amazingly organizations fire "innocent" people because of PR reasons and then worry if because of their 'rush to judgement' for "damage control" they screwed up...

As indicated by others, the deposition of the case makes his firing seem unfair.

He is not a felon. Hell, a coach can get fired for DUI, etc. only for PR "damage control" under some of these ridiculous contract provisions.

End of soap box...

The man was guilty of something or otherwise they would not have made him fulfill certain corrective measures. Again, EMU cannot afford to hire guy who arrested for domestic violence. Not with the Reed shooting so close in the past. EMU will be portrayed as a desperate program willing to hire an accused wife beater in order to win football games. PR matters, EMUSteve.

They cannot afford to hire a guy who has baggage. Not with the high profile murders of EMU students, the president getting drunk at an alumni chapter meeting, English’s tirade, and the Devon Still conviction. It’s been an almost endless line of bad news for EMU these past two years.

Amen to this posting..

(11-15-2013 07:49 PM)wolverineeagle Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 03:57 PM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 03:49 PM)fbgab Wrote:  Martin turned down an interview at Purdue.

Maybe Martin is waiting for Kelly to leave ND so that he can get his job. Instant millionaire.

No way in hell is that happening. When Kelly leaves ND will go after a big name.

Well wolverineeagle,

I guess you're happy now, I've just left Evanston and watched your Wolvering beat my Wildcat.. What a game, it was a triple overtime and went down to the last play.. I must admit that I wasn't impressed with your OL, they couldn't block anyone when NU were blitzing or putting 8 in the box... I think they are a young group and will only get better.. The B1G teams are no joke..

(11-16-2013 09:46 PM)NUPudge Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 07:49 PM)wolverineeagle Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 03:57 PM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 03:49 PM)fbgab Wrote:  Martin turned down an interview at Purdue.

Maybe Martin is waiting for Kelly to leave ND so that he can get his job. Instant millionaire.

No way in hell is that happening. When Kelly leaves ND will go after a big name.

Well wolverineeagle,

I guess you're happy now, I've just left Evanston and watched your Wolvering beat my Wildcat.. What a game, it was a triple overtime and went down to the last play.. I must admit that I wasn't impressed with your OL, they couldn't block anyone when NU were blitzing or putting 8 in the box... I think they are a young group and will only get better.. The B1G teams are no joke..

UM’s OL is horrendous and so is the OC. NU has some rotten luck this year.

(11-16-2013 02:34 PM)emu steve Wrote:  When a high profile hire or high profile person is involved in a high profile incident there is a lynch mob mentality which completely runs amok or over our famous "innocent until proved guilty" mantra.

A college janitor wouldn't have gotten fired. Probably put on leave w/out pay. Not high profile and no PR emergency.

Amazingly organizations fire "innocent" people because of PR reasons and then worry if because of their 'rush to judgement' for "damage control" they screwed up...

As indicated by others, the deposition of the case makes his firing seem unfair.

He is not a felon. Hell, a coach can get fired for DUI, etc. only for PR "damage control" under some of these ridiculous contract provisions.

End of soap box...

Steve,

Agreed. In today's day and age it doesn't take much, if anything, to be accused of something and, by extension, arrested. People are wrongly accused and fired all the time.

My caution in all of this has simply been that we do not know the particulars of the case. Maybe he did beat the crap out this woman. We don't know. Maybe she came at him with a baseball bat and he defended himself. We don't know. One situation is vastly different than the other. Until and unless he progresses in the coaching search process, and the information is disclosed, we will never know and anything we say or assert (like wolverineeagle has been doing) is slanderous and pure speculation. Yeah, wolverineagle, spreading falsehood about someone is slander (def: the action or crime of making a false statement damaging to a person's reputation) because you don't know ANYTHING about the particulars of the incident.

Again, I caution everyone involved in this thread not to add to the slander being bandied about by wolverineeagle. We do not know what happened between Haywood and this woman. What we do know is this: the charges were dropped when he agreed to some type of counseling.

Rob

I encourage everyone to google Mike Haywood and decide for yourself.. Rob is correct in his statement. Please keep in mind that you may have to draw your own conclusions on something.. I am just saying the risk factor and is this person the one who Martin and Lyke want to base their career around?

As Someone posted he may not even be in the top 10 listing..

(11-17-2013 12:20 PM)NUPudge Wrote:  I encourage everyone to google Mike Haywood and decide for yourself.. Rob is correct in his statement. Please keep in mind that you may have to draw your own conclusions on something.. I am just saying the risk factor and is this person the one who Martin and Lyke want to base their career around?

As Someone posted he may not even be in the top 10 listing..

Pudge,

This is a statement I can agree with. For wolverineeagle to assert that Haywood beats (plural) women (plural) is a gross misstatement. Later in the thread, wolverineeagle asserted that Haywood is a wife-beater. I have read that he was accused of domestic abuse against the mother of his child but not his wife:

ESPN: "Haywood was arrested about 3 p.m. Friday after a custody issue developed with a woman with whom Haywood has a child..."

Rivals.com: "He was arrested around 3 p.m. Friday, after an apparent custody dispute with a woman with whom he has a child (but is not married) led to an altercation..."

There is a legal difference between being a baby-momma and spouse.

Accuracy should be important, even in forum participation. I daresay that if wolverineeagle were to be so sloppy with statements in a college paper he would be graded rather poorly for being so loose with the facts. You would think wolverineeagle would be more careful with his assertions since he was called out on it in the reply he was responding to but he wasn't.

No one has to hit "POST REPLY" without first proof-reading their reply. In fact, I encourage everyone to proof-read their response prior to hitting "POST REPLY".

At this point, he has been contacted by Heather Lyke only to gauge his interest in the position. As far as I know, that is the extent of the current situation. As far as we know, nothing more - nothing less. There is, at this point, no commitment towards a future relationship by either party. At this point, all of this (this thread) is pure speculation.

Rob

Dear Friends,
Have any of you here on the Eagle's Nest, checked out cmadler's outline of his picks for head coach on the Eagle Totem? He gives positives and negatives on about a dozen possible candidates. Many discussed here on Eagle"s Nest.

I had posted this on another thread, maybe this one is a better thread for this posting:

http://eagletotem.net/blog/2013/11/09/po.../#comments

http://eagletotem.net/blog/2013/11/18/em...rt-2/6454/

Dear Pudge,
You're right, sorry for not paying closer attention to what is being said.