Reply With Quote
Ucla.
Arizona State.
Ucla.
Illinois.
Ohio State.
North Carolina.
Edit: Not north carolina.
Lol.
If the hire is Sumlin (which I'm pretty much expecting) Then I think this wasn't as much of the regents wanting Sherman out but more of them not wanting to miss on Sumlin who they reportedly are very high on.
If that's the case then it all makes more sense although I'm not just sure yet I totally agree with the hire.
weren't all those examples scandal fallout coaches?
Be it for Sumlin or someone else, this is exactly why it makes sense for A&M to can Sherman now instead of waiting for the bowl game. Coaches typically don't like to interview for jobs that aren't open, plus there's a recruiting class that needs to be reaffirmed by February. A&M is much better off not wasting 3-4 weeks of time letting Sherm have some glorious ride off into the sunset moment at whatever gallery furniture-esque bowl game A&M ends up in.
Ucla, Arizona State and Illinois had a scandal?
Not that I'm aware of.
Sherman's performance this season was poor enough to qualify as a scandal.
Erickson will be coaching in the bowl game.
It's not out of the question when two of those coaches are Neuheisel and Zook. But Zook was probably fired before this I guess.
Will most likely finish 6-7.
...and Rick will still be the coach in the Pac 12 le game.
are you talking about Cooper 8-9 years ago?
If Illinois accepts an invitation to a bowl, then this will be an oddly timed firing as well, imo.
Since we now have evidence of a second similar situation as A&M, I retract the adjective "extremely" from my original post and just leave it at "odd".
Why does it matter if they coach the bowl game or not? Not like it matters. They were still fired.
and what does Ucla finishing 6-7 have to do with anything.
Apparently it matters because blake feels the need to move the goalposts instead of just admitting that he was talking out of his ass.
Definitely a class act. Hope him well in the future that's for sure. Unfortunate that he couldn't get the job done.
I find it odd to not let a coach be at the bowl game he led his team to.
6-7 means no bowl for ucla, unless I'm mistaken.
We are talking opinion, not facts.
You don't know what my goal posts are.
It matters because if they finish 6-7 they have to get a waiver to play in a bowl and may not get it
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
