The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(01-13-2013 10:22 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 09:30 AM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  Dude seriously, go away. You have stalked every thread Tuberville related on every board yet claim that you don't care...

I don't care and I extremely happy he got the heck out of dodge. I have nothing against UC but when I see untrue posts about my University, I will respond.

Like I mentioned, I have no problems with UC but I do dislike your coach. I think he is a fraud and a liar and I fear UC fans will find that out in the future. He is repeating the same crap at UC that he said at Tech, Auburn and Ole Miss.

Remember guys, this is a coach that is done playing in big time TV games.

Screw off. Go back to boards that focus on that miserable hell hole known as Lubbock.

You've become the pathetic jilted girlfriend who is so happy to be out of that relationship that you stalk him on facebook.

"Lost his fire?" I doubt it. One thing "The Lubbock Invasion" (my new nickname for all the Texas Tech posters who constantly remind us how bad of a coach Tommy Tuberville is) seems to harp on quite a bit is the game where CTT smacked the headset off the GA in anger. Criticize that incident if you will (and I would actually agree), but "losing his fire" would not seem to be an issue there.

(01-13-2013 12:03 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  "Lost his fire?" I doubt it. One thing "The Lubbock Invasion" (my new nickname for all the Texas Tech posters who constantly remind us how bad of a coach Tommy Tuberville is) seems to harp on quite a bit is the game where CTT smacked the headset off the GA in anger. Criticize that incident if you will (and I would actually agree), but "losing his fire" would not seem to be an issue there.

I think he lost his fire...

to coach Texas Tech. It was never a good fit for either Tuberville or Texas Tech. He didn't want to be there anymore, the fans were done with him and he escaped to greener pastures in Cincinnati. A change of scenery was the best for everyone involved.

Head south until you smell it then go west until you step in that pile of crap, Lubbock.

(01-12-2013 09:26 PM)ctipton Wrote:  Doc: Tuberville's UC recruiting off to rocky start
4:50 PM, Jan 12, 2013


Tommy Tuberville is 58 years old and admittedly has some old-school ways, but the new University of Cincinnati football coach also promises to bring some pizzazz to the table.
Pizzazz as in a high-flying, explosive offense.
"At Texas Tech we were No. 2 (nationally) in passing offense," Tuberville said. "We'll go very fast and we'll run a lot of plays. It'll be exciting to watch."
(Photo by The Enquirer's Joseph Fuqua II)

Written by
Paul Daugherty

Tommy Tuberville hasn’t fumbled at the goal line. There is no flag on the play. Recruiting is ugly and strange and the ugly strangeness cuts all ways. Stories of how “kids’’ pick their schools have been curling notebook pages for decades. Tuberville isn’t a scoundrel. He just coaches quasi-amateur football. A hint of scoundrel is in the DNA.

But the man is bumping into some furniture.

It’s probably not a good idea to alienate Massillon High. Massillon isn’t what it used to be. But it still produces big-time talent. And its influence isn’t slight. If the coach there calls you out, and you are the new UC football coach seeking inroads into the state’s motherlode of talent, you have made a tactical error.

Massillon quarterback Kyle Kempt had committed to UC when Butch Jones was still in Clifton. When Jones left, Kempt told Tuberville he would be re-thinking his options. Tuberville said UC would do likewise. The logic was, “You’re a quarterback. You’re important. We can’t operate on a ‘maybe’ basis with you.’’

UC moved on, and quickly signed another QB. That displeased Kempt and his coach.

"I think they thought he was going to go to Tennessee with Butch Jones and they offered another quarterback,’’ Massillon coach Jason Hall told the Canton Repository last week. “But that wasn't the case. Cincinnati will not be allowed back in Massillon on our campus as long as Jason Hall is in Massillon."

You could argue that Hall’s decision is hurting the very same players he’s trying to protect. Limiting an athlete’s college options isn’t Hall’s job. But his point is well taken. A deal is a deal, in most arenas of repute. In college football, a deal means nothing at all.

We shouldn’t forget that players do this to coaches, too. Few humans are less predictable than 18-year-olds. We’re talking typical 18-year-olds, not football studs whose self-importance grows with every text message and home visit. These kids aren’t great at managing life solo, let alone with an orchestra of self-interested voices competing for time and space in their heads.

Sometimes, mom and pop can control the noise. Just as often, they contribute to it.


New football coach Tommy Tuberville watches practice at UC's practice bubble. / The Enquirer/Glenn Hartong

A few days after Hall was running off Tuberville, a high school linebacker named Alex Anzalone was a day from signing a letter of intent to attend Notre Dame. Anzalone changed his mind and signed with Florida instead, ostensibly over concerns that Irish coach Brian Kelly would be the next coach of the Philadelphia Eagles.

(You mean Brian “Dream Job’’ Kelly? That Brian Kelly? Yeah. Scoundrels of the world, unite.)

Before that, Anzalone had committed to Ohio State, then de-committed after he’d made contact with a Buckeyes fan. The larger problem was the fan, Charles Eric Waugh, was a registered sex offender. Lovely.

Anzalone didn’t know that. As soon as he found out, he turned his sights to Notre Dame. And so it goes.

Tuberville has ridden a whirlwind since his hiring a month ago. One of the biggest rides involved sorting out the recruits who’d agreed verbally to play for Jones. A UC source told me Saturday that every kid who’d made a verbal commitment to play in Clifton had been contacted by the new staff, and given his options.

At least one recruit went with Jones to Tennessee. Others de-committed and stayed available. Others, Tuberville decided he didn’t want. “Eight or 10 guys,’’ the source told me. A few of those players have complained publicly. They are right to howl. But don’t put all the blame on Tuberville.

The new sheriff arrives, he wants his own deputies. Signing Day is Feb. 6. Telling players at this late date they have to look elsewhere is heinous. It could also be a mistake, especially with the Massillon QB. Tuberville, who says he wants the bulk of his recruits to come from this region, has burned a bridge already.

That said, the system makes it all but inevitable.

The NCAA could amend that. It could declare January a “dead’’ period for recruiting. It could move back Signing Day a month, thus eliminating the urgency for a coach to leave a job before his team finishes its year, in a bowl game. It would give all involved another month to catch a breath and sort out the sordid details.

Colleges could do something even more radical. They could mandate that all contracts be five years. The coach can’t leave, the college can’t fire him. That’s one entire recruiting cycle. If both parties opt for shorter deals after that, OK. But set the first five in stone. That’d turn down the heat on the current madness.

Either that, or keep it as is. If Tuberville wins big at UC, nobody will care how screwed up the current system is. Except maybe a few players. Right now, they’re just commodities. That’s the real problem.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130...ocky-start

As usual Daugherty blows it. So suppose we have a dead period for recruiting lasting the entire month of January, and the new coach still doesn't want you come February 1st. The player is scrambling even later into the year to find another school.
The five year contract where you can't leave? How would that even be enforceable and who would be dumb enough to sign it? Plus, suppose your coach winds up being a turd, but you have to keep him around for five years while your program swirls down the drain?

I think college football should have an early signing period.

early signing period or not it doesn't matter to me. You can sign early then that coaching staff takes another job and you
are committed to a school/staff that you might not want or the new staff might not want you.

(01-13-2013 01:07 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  I think college football should have an early signing period.

That's the only thing that would solve this whole problem reasonably. Never understood why some sports were granted that opportunity while others were not.

(01-13-2013 01:19 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  early signing period or not it doesn't matter to me. You can sign early then that coaching staff takes another job and you
are committed to a school/staff that you might not want or the new staff might not want you.

Right, then you're better off in the current system of verbal commitments, soft commitments, and conditional offers.

(01-13-2013 01:56 PM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 01:19 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  early signing period or not it doesn't matter to me. You can sign early then that coaching staff takes another job and you
are committed to a school/staff that you might not want or the new staff might not want you.

Right, then you're better off in the current system of verbal commitments, soft commitments, and conditional offers.

Why not just give athletes the option to rescind if there is a subsequent head coaching change?

(01-13-2013 02:21 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 01:56 PM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 01:19 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  early signing period or not it doesn't matter to me. You can sign early then that coaching staff takes another job and you
are committed to a school/staff that you might not want or the new staff might not want you.

Right, then you're better off in the current system of verbal commitments, soft commitments, and conditional offers.

Why not just give athletes the option to rescind if there is a subsequent head coaching change?

Yeah, like that's gonna happen.

(01-13-2013 02:38 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 02:21 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 01:56 PM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 01:19 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  early signing period or not it doesn't matter to me. You can sign early then that coaching staff takes another job and you
are committed to a school/staff that you might not want or the new staff might not want you.

Right, then you're better off in the current system of verbal commitments, soft commitments, and conditional offers.

Why not just give athletes the option to rescind if there is a subsequent head coaching change?

Yeah, like that's gonna happen.

Why not? It's not like the NCAA has an aversion to making rules. It's just off the top of my head but seems relatively simple to me.

(01-13-2013 03:13 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 02:38 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 02:21 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 01:56 PM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 01:19 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  early signing period or not it doesn't matter to me. You can sign early then that coaching staff takes another job and you
are committed to a school/staff that you might not want or the new staff might not want you.

Right, then you're better off in the current system of verbal commitments, soft commitments, and conditional offers.

Why not just give athletes the option to rescind if there is a subsequent head coaching change?

Yeah, like that's gonna happen.

Why not? It's not like the NCAA has an aversion to making rules. It's just off the top of my head but seems relatively simple to me.

As an example, remember when a certain BOT and fishnet wearing president decided to force a certain corpulent coach out of his job, but made sure the recruiting class was signed before moving? Schools don't want to take the chance of losing their better recruits when they ditch the coaches who originally recruited them.
Your idea won't work for the same reason that college presidents won't make any rules which might hinder their grabbing a new coach ASAP, regardless if it trashes another school's bowl game. They don't want to hurt their own competitive advantage. The NCAA won't make a rule like this that the presidents don't want.

(01-13-2013 03:32 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 03:13 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 02:38 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 02:21 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 01:56 PM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  Right, then you're better off in the current system of verbal commitments, soft commitments, and conditional offers.

Why not just give athletes the option to rescind if there is a subsequent head coaching change?

Yeah, like that's gonna happen.

Why not? It's not like the NCAA has an aversion to making rules. It's just off the top of my head but seems relatively simple to me.

As an example, remember when a certain BOT and fishnet wearing president decided to force a certain corpulent coach out of his job, but made sure the recruiting class was signed before moving? Schools don't want to take the chance of losing their better recruits when they ditch the coaches who originally recruited them.
Your idea won't work for the same reason that college presidents won't make any rules which might hinder their grabbing a new coach ASAP, regardless if it trashes another school's bowl game. They don't want to hurt their own competitive advantage. The NCAA won't make a rule like this that the presidents don't want.

I don't follow you. Under the current system, none of these athletes (verbally committed or not) have signed anything and all of them were and are free to change their mind after all (or nearly all) of the coaching changes have taken place (or even if there was no coaching change fwiw). So if you set up an early signing period where the athletes could rescind if there was a subsequent coaching change, the schools have "lost" nothing because they never had anything to start with. To the plus side, they can get a signed commitment (with rules against poaching signed commits) as long as their coach doesn't leave. If he does leave, the new coach still has the opportunity to convince the athlete not to rescind (or perhaps to rescind as the case may be).

(01-13-2013 04:02 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 03:32 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 03:13 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 02:38 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 02:21 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Why not just give athletes the option to rescind if there is a subsequent head coaching change?

Yeah, like that's gonna happen.

Why not? It's not like the NCAA has an aversion to making rules. It's just off the top of my head but seems relatively simple to me.

As an example, remember when a certain BOT and fishnet wearing president decided to force a certain corpulent coach out of his job, but made sure the recruiting class was signed before moving? Schools don't want to take the chance of losing their better recruits when they ditch the coaches who originally recruited them.
Your idea won't work for the same reason that college presidents won't make any rules which might hinder their grabbing a new coach ASAP, regardless if it trashes another school's bowl game. They don't want to hurt their own competitive advantage. The NCAA won't make a rule like this that the presidents don't want.

I don't follow you. Under the current system, none of these athletes (verbally committed or not) have signed anything and all of them were and are free to change their mind after all (or nearly all) of the coaching changes have taken place (or even if there was no coaching change fwiw). So if you set up an early signing period where the athletes could rescind if there was a subsequent coaching change, the schools have "lost" nothing because they never had anything to start with. To the plus side, they can get a signed commitment (with rules against poaching signed commits) as long as their coach doesn't leave. If he does leave, the new coach still has the opportunity to convince the athlete not to rescind (or perhaps to rescind as the case may be).

If you can't follow, go back and review the thread. These comments were not about the current system, they are predicated on the idea of an early signing period for football. Your comment about being able to rescind LOI's was in response to SuperflyBcat's:
"Early signing period or not it doesn't matter to me. You can sign early then that coaching staff takes another job and you
are committed to a school/staff that you might not want or the new staff might not want you."
I doubt what you propose would ever fly because it would be an admission by the powers-that-be that players more often sign for coaches not schools.

(01-13-2013 12:03 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  "Lost his fire?" I doubt it. One thing "The Lubbock Invasion" (my new nickname for all the Texas Tech posters who constantly remind us how bad of a coach Tommy Tuberville is) seems to harp on quite a bit is the game where CTT smacked the headset off the GA in anger. Criticize that incident if you will (and I would actually agree), but "losing his fire" would not seem to be an issue there.

Like I said earlier, I wanted him fired during the 2011 season. Headset gate and his initial response to that embarrassing crapfest should have been cause for immediate dismissal. His crappy apology on the Monday after should have warranted a firing.

Unlike other posters on here, I won't disparage UC or Cincinnati because I have never been to Ohio. I seriously doubt that the posters on here trashing Lubbock and Tech have been to Lubbock. It reeks of aggyism( Texas A&M) stereotypes. I will say this Ole Miss and Auburn fans came to our boards and said the same things I am saying today. He left Ole Miss in a pine box and Auburn fired his lazy butt because he couldn't compete with the elite coaches in the SEC. He thought he could to Lubbock and build on what Leach built. He was a failure on all accounts and our AD told him to shape up or he would be shipped out after 2013. He lost his fire and knew he couldn't compete in the offense happy Big 12 so he ran to a conference that is dying.

For that I thank him.

(01-13-2013 05:04 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 12:03 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  "Lost his fire?" I doubt it. One thing "The Lubbock Invasion" (my new nickname for all the Texas Tech posters who constantly remind us how bad of a coach Tommy Tuberville is) seems to harp on quite a bit is the game where CTT smacked the headset off the GA in anger. Criticize that incident if you will (and I would actually agree), but "losing his fire" would not seem to be an issue there.

Like I said earlier, I wanted him fired during the 2011 season. Headset gate and his initial response to that embarrassing crapfest should have been cause for immediate dismissal. His crappy apology on the Monday after should have warranted a firing.

Unlike other posters on here, I won't disparage UC or Cincinnati because I have never been to Ohio. I seriously doubt that the posters on here trashing Lubbock and Tech have been to Lubbock. It reeks of aggyism( Texas A&M) stereotypes. I will say this Ole Miss and Auburn fans came to our boards and said the same things I am saying today. He left Ole Miss in a pine box and Auburn fired his lazy butt because he couldn't compete with the elite coaches in the SEC. He thought he could to Lubbock and build on what Leach built. He was a failure on all accounts and our AD told him to shape up or he would be shipped out after 2013. He lost his fire and knew he couldn't compete in the offense happy Big 12 so he ran to a conference that is dying.

For that I thank him.

So why are all you guys so insecure that you're still posting this stuff on UC boards? Seriously, I'm happy that Butch is gone, but have had no inclination to post a word on a UT board.

Methinks y'all protest...too much.

(01-13-2013 04:38 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 04:02 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 03:32 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 03:13 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 02:38 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  Yeah, like that's gonna happen.

Why not? It's not like the NCAA has an aversion to making rules. It's just off the top of my head but seems relatively simple to me.

As an example, remember when a certain BOT and fishnet wearing president decided to force a certain corpulent coach out of his job, but made sure the recruiting class was signed before moving? Schools don't want to take the chance of losing their better recruits when they ditch the coaches who originally recruited them.
Your idea won't work for the same reason that college presidents won't make any rules which might hinder their grabbing a new coach ASAP, regardless if it trashes another school's bowl game. They don't want to hurt their own competitive advantage. The NCAA won't make a rule like this that the presidents don't want.

I don't follow you. Under the current system, none of these athletes (verbally committed or not) have signed anything and all of them were and are free to change their mind after all (or nearly all) of the coaching changes have taken place (or even if there was no coaching change fwiw). So if you set up an early signing period where the athletes could rescind if there was a subsequent coaching change, the schools have "lost" nothing because they never had anything to start with. To the plus side, they can get a signed commitment (with rules against poaching signed commits) as long as their coach doesn't leave. If he does leave, the new coach still has the opportunity to convince the athlete not to rescind (or perhaps to rescind as the case may be).

If you can't follow, go back and review the thread. These comments were not about the current system, they are predicated on the idea of an early signing period for football. Your comment about being able to rescind LOI's was in response to SuperflyBcat's:
"Early signing period or not it doesn't matter to me. You can sign early then that coaching staff takes another job and you
are committed to a school/staff that you might not want or the new staff might not want you."
I doubt what you propose would ever fly because it would be an admission by the powers-that-be that players more often sign for coaches not schools.

I've read the thread and agree that I responded to SFB. He thought you couldn't have an early signing period because kids would still be locked in. I suggested a detail/modification/enhancement to the early signing period idea that would address his issue. The result would be a change that seems like it could well be better for everyone involved: from recruits to schools to coaches (in many situations) compared to the current situation.

I still don't see why you think the idea of an early signing period with an option to rescind for head coaching changes is so far-fetched. I think it acknowledges that the coach is an important (but not the only) consideration for recruits and helps to address the issue of coaches changing jobs without ramifications except for the players. (BK never had close to a top 3 class at UC or CMU for that matter. I doubt he changed much. So recruits must be deciding on a school/program for reasons not limited to head coach. Which is not to say that the head coach is not an important consideration.) I've never heard anyone, associated with the NCAA or not, deny that coaches and their recruiting a significant factor in school choice. I don't think most people see it as an either/or basis. I, and I think many others, would characterize it as choosing a school based upon a large number of factors with the coach being a major one. That's why they have so many rules - to try to even the playing field. They also purport to be looking out for the student-athlete which this seems to do.

(01-13-2013 08:39 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(01-12-2013 09:43 PM)CD11 Wrote:  

(01-12-2013 11:51 AM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  

(01-12-2013 10:02 AM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  

(01-12-2013 09:46 AM)Vewb1 Wrote:  The media is just piling on. This is coming from somewhere, most likely west Texas as they are still having problems understanding why anyone would leave their beloved Texas to go to Ohio of all places. How about better pay, better facilities and a overall better opportunity. Some of this maybe coming from up north and Urban Meyer as well. Meyer is a snake in the grass if there ever was one. Tuberville is doing nothing wrong or different than any incoming coach. How many recruits did Jones turn away at UT recently? I'm certain not everyone with a commitment was honored.

I bet Texas Tech and their fans really doesn't care about Tuberville anymore. A number of them wanted him gone after the sideline incident. They ended up with a pretty good young coach who loves the University. Sounds like a win for both UC and Texas Tech.

Actually they really do. The original story about Tuberville came out of Lubbock. Also, the lone TT fan that I've seen on NCAABS constantly is posting articles that are praising the new coach and taking pot shots at Tuberville. In a place like TT where they suck at everything other than football it is a 24/7 thing to talk about it...

? They're fairly horrendous at football too.....

We were pretty good under Spike Dykes and Mike Leach. During the Leach era(2000-2009), we had the 3rd best record in the Big 12, went to 10 straight bowl games and expanded the football stadium 3 times( capacity almost 61K).

Yeah sorry nobody's impressed by any of that. "3rd best record in the Big XII"? Uh, good job? Here's a gold star. Walk away.

(01-13-2013 02:21 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 01:56 PM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 01:19 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  early signing period or not it doesn't matter to me. You can sign early then that coaching staff takes another job and you
are committed to a school/staff that you might not want or the new staff might not want you.

Right, then you're better off in the current system of verbal commitments, soft commitments, and conditional offers.

Why not just give athletes the option to rescind if there is a subsequent head coaching change?

And how is that any different than the current system in place now? That's my point. You have an early signing day with that contingency and it's no better than the current system.