cottageavebuckeye's picture


MEMBER SINCE   June 20, 2018

Recent Activity

Comment 17 Jan 2019

i am still grappling with the "transfer" concept and how it relates to the famed "culture" that UFM has continually referenced as essential to the health/brotherhood of his teams.  Presumably, it takes time for coaches to teach and time for players to embrace, all the while based upon a recruiting approach that insists on finding players from good families.  Seems we are developing a crash course on all the above.

Comment 12 Jan 2019

Let's not ignore the special "relationship" these kids have with the universities.  the school invests time and money into a kid, and if all goes well makes a ton of money.  the kid gets as many as 5 years of his life paid for, a marketable skill set, and for some, the inside track to a ton of money as well.

if the "ton of money" is disrupted, the deal changes.  and there is no greater disruption than if the most valuable player on the team gets to play musical chairs at any point in the deal.  

i'm just thinking out loud here...but for most teams the quarterback is the most valuable position on the field.  maybe special considerations need to be factored into transfer rules as they apply to quarterbacks.

Comment 11 Jan 2019

some of you are racing down a rabbit hole that you, your kids cannot escape...that a mere mention of a word becomes the rock bed of outrage, condemnation, and moral superiority.

and that an attorney would use the utterance as a basis for petition is only attorney using whatever gruel he can muster to argue a case.

were you not 13 once, trying out the "bad words" and seeing how they apply in modern discourse?  apparently for some here, there is no leeway. 

there have been many posts indicating that georgia does not presently have a culture of discrimination.  should this not be a major consideration involving fields?

to post otherwise feeds a part of a new culture in america that i think is utterance in the public square...guilty.

my kids are grown, i don't have to navigate this.  for those raising kids right now, fear the wrath of those comfortable in judging others. 

Comment 30 Oct 2018

"HE HAS TO DO WHAT'S SMART FOR HIM"...notice the pronouns?  i have not been conflicted about this from the get go.  we expect every one of the 'less than bosa' teammates to act selfishly, fill any roll requested, do whatever it takes...whatever it better the team.

you can rehab anywhere in the world.  athletes arguably better than you, in all kinds of world sports have done just that.  i honestly don't even know why change of rehab venue even came up!  your team is in columbus.  not good enough?  guess all his teammates have to suffer with inferior medical care, midwest weather,  pale women, mostly chain food (apologies to cameron mitchell).  this screams special class, and many just dance around it.

tell me the care difference, define the superior rehab diagnostic equipment, state the case of superior rehab regimens.  until i see it, i don't believe it.

Comment 26 Aug 2018

Cookie, of all the motivations, the simplest to figure out is let's set that one aside.

Sadly, a James Carville might be needed here to manage the PR aspects of this.  And that's an easy call, given that i think that we think that UFM was trying to do the right thing by all parties involved.

Honestly, a marriage gone bad and the figurehead of a huge organization is at risk?  Come on, people...grow a set and stop with the drama!

i get that with the NCAA oversight, that protocols and procedures are in place...i even support it...but where is the evidence of insidious, evil intent here?  Was ZS such an amazing coach that UFM would do anything to protect him? 

Where/When  does the altar sacrifice stop?   

Comment 19 Aug 2018

Seriously, where does UFM go to get his '3 weeks without his team' back?

On another note, Scott Rabalais is one piece of work (writes for the Baton Rouge Advocate).  Check out this link, paragraph 15 under the Drake Davis photo  it will have you jumping out of your chair:

Comment 13 Aug 2018

This rushing to the bonfire really bothers me.  We have a he said/she said incident apparently directing bearing on the professional life of an employer (UFM).  i guess there is nothing else to do, its hangin time!

Are we so comfortable with the notion that the 'Court of Public Opinion' has risen to the legitimacy of our legal system (you know, the one that protects you, me and God forbid, ZS?) that we are willing to demand our brand of justice?

Comment 12 Aug 2018

JD, a well written, thoughtful piece.  Your final paragraph was most intriguing; how could TOSU resolve the matter in such a way that ensures TOSU 's reputation remains intact (no more "surprises) but perhaps even enhanced?

It's clear CS has issues, but under a larger umbrella the whole DV/mental health nature of this situation is a target rich environment.  Anything from establishing a personal mental health account for CS to addressing the mental health issues from an institutional perspective could be on the table.  But a home run would be getting CS's buy-in....turn the victim into a crusader.  Probably too much to hope for, but if she was convinced her problem was resolved why continue the public accusations?  And if she felt part of an effort to help families in similar situations i think TOSU could really turn this around.   

Comment 11 Aug 2018

raleigh...why would say that?  you have no idea the inner workings of the staff and their wives.  FTLOG can we just slow down and not shoot from the hip?  consider the alternative...that we have a staff of coaches watching this couple self-destruct and nobody gives a sh*t?  

Comment 11 Aug 2018

so the whole world revolves around a psycho chick?  And we are all comfortable in evaluating this sh*tshow based upon her actions pushing everybody into the crucible of "what did you know, when did you know it and who did you inform?" 

i would be surprised if other coaches (and their wives) witnessing the hell this couple was going through did not try to help.  Why is this news?  

Comment 09 Aug 2018

So much of the frustration voiced here would have been avoided if at the outset the committee identified the scope of its mission.  As it stands, an information vacuum only fuels wild speculations on their methods and goals.  For instance, they could have stated that they are reviewing only the actions of UFM (and those of his superiors) while employees of TOSU.  They could have stated their primary focus is to rule on UFM as quickly as possible, and should there be systemic issues within TOSU organization, that those would be addressed secondarily.  This would temper expectations of what their report will include and what it won't, and perhaps limit the skepticism it will likely receive. 

Comment 06 Aug 2018

We throw around words like "investigation" with little knowledge of the operating constructs of any particular one.  If i had my wish before the dream team started it's work, parameters and priorities would be, if possible first priority is to get the man back to coaching football.  For instance, let's say the dream team determines UFM innocent, or that any possible culpability does not raise itself to the level of suspension...why hold him hostage while the remaining parties and their actions/inactions are scrutinized?  An example of what i consider a mandatory parameter would be a statement from the dream team regarding privacy, that while many on this board have dozens of questions, those answers of a personal nature with little linkage to UFM will be protected, and therefore will not be part of the summary report.   But as it stands if they are operating under the mandate of drafting a comprehensive report addressing all the principles involved, institutional protocols and recommendations moving forward i for one find it hard to believe this ends within 2 weeks.  

Comment 25 Jun 2018

While i own many guns (and share with others on this board a reflexive defense of the 2nd amendment) 
i have always viewed UFM's rule of "NO WEAPONS" as a rule akin to another common rule amongst college
coaches of "NO MOTORCYCLES".  they have invested time and $ into these athletes, i think it is reasonable
to restrict activities known to expose the athletes to 'off the field' injury (and i have owned 
motorcycles as well).