Breaking News

[dubs21]

The FCS is gonna be so awesome without JMU, Ga. Southern, ODU and others. Can't wait for Presbyterian to join the SoCon, now that will be a great rivalry and so awesome football.[/quote]

I certainly don't miss Marshall or ECU......

Seems to me that you care more about WHO we play than the fact that we play.. I've sEEn plenty of GREAT ASU football in the past few years.. Heck, the ending of the Samford game this year was pretty awesome.. The Furman game certainly was interesting!

You see, for some of us fans we really dig our boys black and gold... It's folks like yourself that really "want" that sky blue on the opposite sidelines...[/quote]

I want to see sky blue on the other sideline, as we whoop their butts.

[ggasu]

Hungry - Got Food?
Sign from the guy with a home better than I have, but pretends to be homeless because it's a much better paying gig than having to work for a living.

Not all are this way, but the few rotten ones make it hard to pick out the honest folks who are down on their luck.

Well for the Christians the bible tells you "to give to all that ask of you" ... It is better to give sometimes to an undeserving person than to turn away one who is really in need

[asumike83]

An analogy made before that I agree with is that a university is like a corporation and athletics are like the marketing department. You may just break even, spend some money or make a small amount but it is a cost of doing business. Playing at the FBS level does allow the opportunity to generate greater exposure for your school if you have the proper funding and support.

I don't totally disagree with the marketing analogy. But, its worth noting that few of the world's top colleges and universities seem to need this this kind of marketing. None of the top liberal arts colleges do. Michigan and Notre Dame are really the only top schoosl that are also football universityies. Duke, UNC, and UCLA are really it for basketball. I don't think Notre Dame became less of a university when it was going through an athletics funk, and I don't think Alabama's is getting anything other than more athletic donations from its recent success. I'm not sure what positive benefits came to Marshall when it was rolling athletically. I get the theory, but I think I don't know how accurate it is. I'd like to see some proof of results.

If anyone has the resources to do the research, it would be VERY interesting. It may not be applicable to schools like Duke, Notre Dame, Stanford, Ivy League, etc. who have pre-existing national exposure due to their academic history but for regional universities that have made the move, I'd love to see how the quality of incoming freshmen, university endowment, addition/removal of new departments, etc. have changed since they transitioned from FCS to FBS and how it correlates to their on-field success.

I do think the general principle holds true that there is potential for greater exposure at the FBS level than FCS but it would be tough to quantify.

[GlassOnion]

Hungry - Got Food?
Sign from the homeless guy on the corner who can't find a job.

Being a realist helps you understand what might be coming instead of being so blinded by rosy colored glasses that you get hit by the Mack truck you never saw.

You know being in the FCS sucks when your program is compared to a homeless guy on a corner begging for food.

And you obviously have the wrong opinion of me if you think Im an optimist, just ask anyone with a Rivals subscription.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Interesting thing that the all so hot breaking news banner from 6:23 last night has been taken down and no story has appeared, even though they said it would appear on their site "at once". Perhaps there was more (or less) included in the documents than they thought or they didn't say what they expected. Or it didn't fit the agenda of people like the Asheville Citizen Times writer. Guess we'll see what type of spin they put on the story if and when it does come out.

Either way I hope this is over soon and most of us can move on as we want to.

If a story isn't posted because it doesn't fit their agenda of venerating Coach Moore, then that is pretty damned irresponsible journalism.

EDIT: Just checked the WD page again and the breaking news short story is now listed in the regular news section. That just popped up in the last 5 minutes.



This is the Watauga Democrat were talking about here. Could go either way. That's why I said it will be interesting to see what the story does say when it does come out. There is one other thing. IF, and that's a big IF, there was something about the CM situation mentioned then they might be checking with legal to see exactly what they can print.

I did e-mail the Asheville CT writer that did the hit piece on App and asked him if he would have the guts to print a front page retraction of his story when everything comes out, since he's the one who started the whole FOIA stuff. Haven't gotten a reply yet but that's no big surprise.

Ask the editor is what you need to do. The reporter may be following his marching orders, and even if the FOIA request was the reporter's idea, the editors decide the location of stories and front page, etc.

[Rekdiver]

Yep GO is who he says he is! it's me GO,
PKP

[firemoose]

Hungry - Got Food?
Sign from the homeless guy on the corner who can't find a job.

Being a realist helps you understand what might be coming instead of being so blinded by rosy colored glasses that you get hit by the Mack truck you never saw.

You know being in the FCS sucks when your program is compared to a homeless guy on a corner begging for food.

And you obviously have the wrong opinion of me if you think Im an optimist, just ask anyone with a Rivals subscription.

That's about as real a statement as you'll see anywhere.

[GreatAppSt]

From what I gleaned it wasn't an underhanded blindside by Cobb and Peacock for Coach, as the papers led many to belive in the interest of selling more papers Much ado about nothing.

[GreatAppSt]

The one fact in the story already says I all I need to know..."Documents dated from December 2011". The one thing no one has brought up here, and that should give everyone pause - if, in fact, Jerry Moore doesn't remember what appears to be a well documented transaction - shouldn't that be proof enough that he no longer has the faculties to run a football program? Not the most sensitive thing - but it was a thought I've had for a week.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1261&p=11186#p11186

"I have no recollection of ever being told that" Ronald Reagan

I guess I was being to subtle.

[wataugan03]

The one fact in the story already says I all I need to know..."Documents dated from December 2011". The one thing no one has brought up here, and that should give everyone pause - if, in fact, Jerry Moore doesn't remember what appears to be a well documented transaction - shouldn't that be proof enough that he no longer has the faculties to run a football program? Not the most sensitive thing - but it was a thought I've had for a week.

Except you don't know what the final agreement looked like - or if there even was one. You know the deal that Cobb outlined to Peacock. But, you don't know if there were further negotiations. You don't know if Cobb was as explicit with Moore as he was with Peacock. You don't even know if Peacock agreed to everything that Cobb was proposing in the memo (I read the memo as a proposal to a higher up, not as an explanation of a decision that had been already made). The conversations b/w Moore and Cobb, Moore and Peacock, Moore and Beasley, etc. over the past 11 months may have led Moore to think that the situation was something other than what Cobb expressed to Peacock in that December 2011 memo.

[appgrad]

I don't know, and I don't care. What we have in front of us is Charlie Cobb informing Peacock that Jerry Moore had requested and received one more year to coach here. Again - there needed to be no formal agreement of this, as it was the last year of his contract.

[Rekdiver]

The one fact in the story already says I all I need to know..."Documents dated from December 2011". The one thing no one has brought up here, and that should give everyone pause - if, in fact, Jerry Moore doesn't remember what appears to be a well documented transaction - shouldn't that be proof enough that he no longer has the faculties to run a football program? Not the most sensitive thing - but it was a thought I've had for a week.

Except you don't know what the final agreement looked like - or if there even was one. You know the deal that Cobb outlined to Peacock. But, you don't know if there were further negotiations. You don't know if Cobb was as explicit with Moore as he was with Peacock. You don't even know if Peacock agreed to everything that Cobb was proposing in the memo (I read the memo as a proposal to a higher up, not as an explanation of a decision that had been already made). The conversations b/w Moore and Cobb, Moore and Peacock, Moore and Beasley, etc. over the past 11 months may have led Moore to think that the situation was something other than what Cobb expressed to Peacock in that December 2011 memo.

and you don't know what you don't know and it doesn't matter anymore so drop it.

[appdaze]

The one fact in the story already says I all I need to know..."Documents dated from December 2011". The one thing no one has brought up here, and that should give everyone pause - if, in fact, Jerry Moore doesn't remember what appears to be a well documented transaction - shouldn't that be proof enough that he no longer has the faculties to run a football program? Not the most sensitive thing - but it was a thought I've had for a week.

Except you don't know what the final agreement looked like - or if there even was one. You know the deal that Cobb outlined to Peacock. But, you don't know if there were further negotiations. You don't know if Cobb was as explicit with Moore as he was with Peacock. You don't even know if Peacock agreed to everything that Cobb was proposing in the memo (I read the memo as a proposal to a higher up, not as an explanation of a decision that had been already made). The conversations b/w Moore and Cobb, Moore and Peacock, Moore and Beasley, etc. over the past 11 months may have led Moore to think that the situation was something other than what Cobb expressed to Peacock in that December 2011 memo.

and you don't know what you don't know and it doesn't matter anymore so drop it.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.

[appgrad]

You just made me dizzy.

[AppinVA]

Hungry - Got Food?
Sign from the guy with a home better than I have, but pretends to be homeless because it's a much better paying gig than having to work for a living.

Not all are this way, but the few rotten ones make it hard to pick out the honest folks who are down on their luck.

Well for the Christians the bible tells you "to give to all that ask of you" ... It is better to give sometimes to an undeserving person than to turn away one who is really in need

I'll give you that. One thing I readily admit, is that the bet thing I do as a Christian is sinning.

[AppAttack]

2011 was supposed to be Coach Moore's last year. He requested one more year. We gave it to him. Now he's requesting ANOTHER? Please let this die. We need to focus on FBS and move on.

[ASUMountaineer]

The one fact in the story already says I all I need to know..."Documents dated from December 2011". The one thing no one has brought up here, and that should give everyone pause - if, in fact, Jerry Moore doesn't remember what appears to be a well documented transaction - shouldn't that be proof enough that he no longer has the faculties to run a football program? Not the most sensitive thing - but it was a thought I've had for a week.

Except you don't know what the final agreement looked like - or if there even was one. You know the deal that Cobb outlined to Peacock. But, you don't know if there were further negotiations. You don't know if Cobb was as explicit with Moore as he was with Peacock. You don't even know if Peacock agreed to everything that Cobb was proposing in the memo (I read the memo as a proposal to a higher up, not as an explanation of a decision that had been already made). The conversations b/w Moore and Cobb, Moore and Peacock, Moore and Beasley, etc. over the past 11 months may have led Moore to think that the situation was something other than what Cobb expressed to Peacock in that December 2011 memo.

Doesn't matter, 2012 was the last year of his contract. That agreement was in place. Time to get over it and move on.

[wataugan03]

The one fact in the story already says I all I need to know..."Documents dated from December 2011". The one thing no one has brought up here, and that should give everyone pause - if, in fact, Jerry Moore doesn't remember what appears to be a well documented transaction - shouldn't that be proof enough that he no longer has the faculties to run a football program? Not the most sensitive thing - but it was a thought I've had for a week.

Except you don't know what the final agreement looked like - or if there even was one. You know the deal that Cobb outlined to Peacock. But, you don't know if there were further negotiations. You don't know if Cobb was as explicit with Moore as he was with Peacock. You don't even know if Peacock agreed to everything that Cobb was proposing in the memo (I read the memo as a proposal to a higher up, not as an explanation of a decision that had been already made). The conversations b/w Moore and Cobb, Moore and Peacock, Moore and Beasley, etc. over the past 11 months may have led Moore to think that the situation was something other than what Cobb expressed to Peacock in that December 2011 memo.

Doesn't matter, 2012 was the last year of his contract. That agreement was in place. Time to get over it and move on.

All my post did was to cast doubt on the idea layed out in the post I'm quoting, that JM may not remember because he is losing it mentally. I didn't claim that 2012 wasn't his last year, that Cobb had any obligation to renew Moore's contract, or whatever. I obviously didn't say that. I'm pointing out that we don't know if there was an agreement in place other than the contract that was set to expire in June 2012, which Cobb apparently ended a few months early. I've made no value judgments on any of this, I'm only reminding everyone of some facts that ought to throw some doubt on the claims that Moore knew his contract wouldn't be renewed, that he had a deal with Cobb, etc.

[ASUMountaineer]

The one fact in the story already says I all I need to know..."Documents dated from December 2011". The one thing no one has brought up here, and that should give everyone pause - if, in fact, Jerry Moore doesn't remember what appears to be a well documented transaction - shouldn't that be proof enough that he no longer has the faculties to run a football program? Not the most sensitive thing - but it was a thought I've had for a week.

Except you don't know what the final agreement looked like - or if there even was one. You know the deal that Cobb outlined to Peacock. But, you don't know if there were further negotiations. You don't know if Cobb was as explicit with Moore as he was with Peacock. You don't even know if Peacock agreed to everything that Cobb was proposing in the memo (I read the memo as a proposal to a higher up, not as an explanation of a decision that had been already made). The conversations b/w Moore and Cobb, Moore and Peacock, Moore and Beasley, etc. over the past 11 months may have led Moore to think that the situation was something other than what Cobb expressed to Peacock in that December 2011 memo.

Doesn't matter, 2012 was the last year of his contract. That agreement was in place. Time to get over it and move on.

All my post did was to cast doubt on the idea layed out in the post I'm quoting, that JM may not remember because he is losing it mentally. I didn't claim that 2012 wasn't his last year, that Cobb had any obligation to renew Moore's contract, or whatever. I obviously didn't say that. I'm pointing out that we don't know if there was an agreement in place other than the contract that was set to expire in June 2012, which Cobb apparently ended a few months early. I've made no value judgments on any of this, I'm only reminding everyone of some facts that ought to throw some doubt on the claims that Moore knew his contract wouldn't be renewed, that he had a deal with Cobb, etc.

All my post said was that the doubt you're trying to cast doesn't matter because either way, there was an agreement that 2012 was Coach's last season--his contract. I'm also not making a value judgment, but pointing out a universally accepted fact that contractually 2012 was Coach's last year.

You're correct that none of us have definitive proof as to what transpired outside of the two documents that have been released. It appears you take the absence of documented conversations as "facts" that cast doubt on CC/KP's telling of the events. I am not so quick to accept undocumented, alleged conversations as facts. To bring about doubt, your "facts" need a lot of assumptions. What we know is that CC/KP have made statements regarding an agreement and have released documents that back up those statements. I have seen no other documentation that supports anything other than CC/KP's statements. Maybe that is because they hold all the cards, but that doesn't mean that their statements are incorrect, incomplete, or not factual. Outside of the documents that have been presented, anything else is speculation--including your "facts."

[AppAlum1]

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.

BRILLIANT!!! Sorry to interrupt this here thread, but ...

There are four levels of knowledge: Knowledge that:
1) you know, and you know that you know; (highest level)
2) you know, but you don't know that you know; (2nd highest level)
3) you don't know, and you know that you don't know; (3rd highest level) and
4) you don't know, and you don't know that you don't know. (lowest level)

However, I would posit that there is a fifth level of knowledge that exists only on this here MMB:
Knowledge that:
5) you don't know, but you know that you know.