Reusse says Kill is best at slinging his act, Holtz included

Donate To GopherHole
DMB123 said:
This is getting ridiculous. Both of those guys are old and over the hill. Bud Grant is qualified too. Are you wondering why he isn't coaching? Your arguments are incredibly weak.
Click to expand...

Since when is age relevant to qualifications? Are Phil Fulmer and Larry Coker qualified to be BCS head coaches, yes or no?
 

dpodoll68 said:
Since when is age relevant to qualifications? Are Phil Fulmer and Larry Coker qualified to be BCS head coaches, yes or no?
Click to expand...

Of course they are. But not because they held the position before. They are both qualified because they both WON NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS.

That's the difference in our opinions on this matter. I believe Fulmer and Coker are qualified to be a head coach at a BCS school because they won at the highest levels possible. You believe they are qualified to be a head coach at a BCS school by simply holding that same position in the past.

When Coker had taken over for Butch Davis, and instead of winning a National Championship and winning 25 games in a row, he went out and had a 1-11 season followed by a 2-10 season and got fired, I would say "well that guy's obviously not qualified to be a head coach, at least not in the BCS."

But not you. You would say, "Of course he's qualified to be a head coach, after all, he's been a head coach before, and even though he failed miserably, he's qualified for this position simply because he's held it before!"

Is that fair?
 

DMB123 said:
Tim Brewster applied for, interviewed for, and was turned down by North Texas for their head coaching position a few years ago, after he left Minnesota.
Click to expand...

Well, in all fairness, they hired Dan McCarney. Who has 12 years of HC experience at Iowa St and 5 years as DC/DL at Wisconsin.
 

DMB123 said:
Of course they are. But not because they held the position before. They are both qualified because they both WON NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS.

That's the difference in our opinions on this matter. I believe Fulmer and Coker are qualified to be a head coach at a BCS school because they won at the highest levels possible. You believe they are qualified to be a head coach at a BCS school by simply holding that same position in the past.

When Coker had taken over for Butch Davis, and instead of winning a National Championship and winning 25 games in a row, he went out and had a 1-11 season followed by a 2-10 season and got fired, I would say "well that guy's obviously not qualified to be a head coach, at least not in the BCS."

But not you. You would say, "Of course he's qualified to be a head coach, after all, he's been a head coach before, and even though he failed miserably, he's qualified for this position simply because he's held it before!"

Is that fair?
Click to expand...

This is all semantics. You're saying to be qualified, the coach needs to be a guy the institution would hire. I believe DPO is saying a coach is qualified as long as they meet the minimum experience requirements necessary to send a resume in.
 

DMB123 said:
Of course they are. But not because they held the position before. They are both qualified because they both WON NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS. That's the difference in our opinions on this matter. I believe Fulmer and Coker are qualified to be a head coach at a BCS school because they won at the highest levels possible. You believe they are qualified to be a head coach at a BCS school by simply holding that same position in the past. When Coker had taken over for Butch Davis, and instead of winning a National Championship and winning 25 games in a row, he went out and had a 1-11 season followed by a 2-10 season and got fired, I would say "well that guy's obviously not qualified to be a head coach, at least not in the BCS." But not you. You would say, "Of course he's qualified to be a head coach, after all, he's been a head coach before, and even though he failed miserably, he's qualified for this position simply because he's held it before!" Is that fair?
Click to expand...

Neither Kill or Pitino have won a national title, are they not qualified?
 


cjcarter8 said:
Dang it. I hoping not to get lured back in.

First, I'm willing to bet the college coaching landscape is not the same today as it was when Paterno and Fry were hired. I wasn't around when Paterno and Fry were hired but I imagine those searches were regional compared to the national searches of today. Which is probably why the jump from position coach to BCS head coach has become rather rare.

Second, let's say you are a factory worker in the auto industry for 18 years. You've never been the manager of the factory just worked the same job on the assembly line and you've done a damn good job for those 18 years. In fact, you're the best. Are you qualified to be the CEO at GM?

And with Brewster now, I'd probably agree that he is technically qualified but he doesn't appear to be a capable candidate.
Click to expand...

I think using other industry analogies here is a waste. I'm not going to go back and re-read the last few pages but it seems to me DMB stated Brewster was not qualified and dpo jumped all over him for saying that. There are going to be different views as to who or what determines 'qualified'. I see no need for Dpo to go all wacko about it......other than his need to argue and make multi-quote posts.

For the record, I don't think Brewster was qualified.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Since when is age relevant to qualifications? Are Phil Fulmer and Larry Coker qualified to be BCS head coaches, yes or no?
Click to expand...

If you were the athletic director at Iowa State, would you hire Tim Brewster to be your head coach following the 2014 season?
 

station19 said:
...and dpo jumped all over him for saying that. I see no need for Dpo to go all wacko about it...
Click to expand...

Here is the first response from Dpo.

dpodoll68 said:
What was missing from his résumé that would have made him qualified?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider that "all wacko". And then DMBfanboy spent the next 2 pages proving that he is incapable of understanding the difference between qualified and successful.
 




Unregistered User said:
Here is the first response from Dpo.



I wouldn't consider that "all wacko". And then DMBfanboy spent the next 2 pages proving that he is incapable of understanding the difference between qualified and successful.
Click to expand...


The point is Dpo knew exactly what DMB was saying and chose to be his normal jackass self.

He sits in his effing corner waiting to prove how he has more understanding of anything he can find. He does not add to discussion...he invents and prolongs arguments. It's how he gets his jollies. It's actually very sad. He likes to brag about how he 'owns people' on this board.
 

Unregistered User said:
Here is the first response from Dpo.



I wouldn't consider that "all wacko". And then DMBfanboy spent the next 2 pages proving that he is incapable of understanding the difference between qualified and successful.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your problem is with me, but you're not being accurate at all with your above post. You completely left out the other part of dpo's FIRST response to me after I made an innocent comment about Brewster. Here in bold is what you left out...

How could someone who has already held a position for just under 4 years not be qualified for said position? Do you understand what the word "qualified" means?

Yep, he's not trying to be his normal jackass self with that post. I'm not surprised that you would come in and lie to make dpo and yourself look better. And as far as not knowing the difference between successful and qualified, I posted the Webster's definition of qualified earlier in the thread and it proved my point entirely and the fact that dpo and yourself didn't just give up after that point was embarrassing for you.
 

cjcarter8 said:
This is all semantics. You're saying to be qualified, the coach needs to be a guy the institution would hire. I believe DPO is saying a coach is qualified as long as they meet the minimum experience requirements necessary to send a resume in.
Click to expand...

I agree, that's how it started. But dpo stated that Brewster's 3 1/2 years at Minnesota is what makes him qualified to be head coach at a BCS school again. He literally said that it's that fact alone, the fact that he held the job once before, that makes him qualified to hold it again. That's where his stupidity came in. In Dpo's world there's never been a case of someone getting hired that wasn't qualified. Once you're hired, you're qualified for that position according to dpo. It's absurd logic. Dpo isn't aware that there are some really stupid bosses (and AD's) out there who can't always judge correctly if someone is qualified or not. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they hire someone where later on they would say, "That hire was a mistake, he's clearly not qualified for this job."

In Brewster's case, The idea that someone can get hired for a position ONCE, end up completely failing at that position, and then be considered qualified for that same position based SOLELY on that specific experience is insane. And that's Dpo's logic.

I'm done, I've made my point and repeated it more than I should have.
 

DMB123 said:
In Dpo's world there's never been a case of someone getting hired that wasn't qualified.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

DMB123 said:
Once you're hired, you're qualified for that position according to dpo.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. Once you've worked in that job, you're qualified for it. Forever and ever. It's not difficult logic. Before hire does not equal after hire does not equal worked in the job. Qualified also does not mean successful. Thanks again for playing.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you're trolling. No one who figured out how to make it to this message board (presumably on purpose) can be this lacking in basic intelligence.
 



Wow, DMB123, just wow. You just won't get it.

Brewster is most definitely qualified to be a head coach. What you believe is that he isn't very capable of performing said job well. Big difference.
 

JoeDirt said:
Wow, DMB123, just wow. You just won't get it.

Brewster is most definitely qualified to be a head coach. What you believe is that he isn't very capable of performing said job well. Big difference.
Click to expand...

You simply don't get it. Brewster is not qualified to be a head coach, and all the evidence is on my side. The one time he was a head coach, he failed miserably. Just because Joel Maturi made a bad decision 7 years ago doesn't mean that Tim Brewster is qualified. He hired someone who turned out to not be qualified for the position. Proof is in the pudding.

Regarding the bolded part... the fact that that statement can come out of a Gopher fan's mouth is mind blowing to me. Do you remember the years 2007 to 2010? Seriously, do you? THAT guy was qualified?

We simply disagree, let it go.
 

JoeDirt said:
Brewster is most definitely qualified to be a head coach. What you believe is that he isn't very capable of performing said job well. Big difference.
Click to expand...

I'm convinced that he will just never get it. It's not enough for Brewster to have merely been an unsuccessful head coach. He has to be a dog-kicking, sister-screwing, baby-hitting, neophyte charlatan to make up for the all the pain and suffering he's caused us.
 

DMB123 said:
You simply don't get it. Brewster is not qualified to be a head coach, and all the evidence is on my side. The one time he was a head coach, he failed miserably. Just because Joel Maturi made a bad decision 7 years ago doesn't mean that Tim Brewster is qualified. He hired someone who turned out to not be qualified for the position. Proof is in the pudding.
Click to expand...

The only time Charlie Weis has been a head coach (fired at ND after 3 years and stinking it up at Kansas), he's failed at it. Was/is he not qualified?
 

dpodoll68 said:
I'm convinced that he will just never get it. It's not enough for Brewster to have merely been an unsuccessful head coach. He has to be a dog-kicking, sister-screwing, baby-hitting, neophyte charlatan to make up for the all the pain and suffering he's caused us.
Click to expand...

You're the guy who says Tim Brewster is qualified to be a head coach at a BCS school based SOLELY on his performance as head coach at Minnesota. Smart take.
 

DMB123 said:
You're the guy who says Tim Brewster is qualified to be a head coach at a BCS school based SOLELY on his performance as head coach at Minnesota. Smart take.
Click to expand...

Where ever in this thread did DPO say anything about Brewster's performance being a factor of his being qualified? You need to just shut up now and admit you were wrong.
 

I'd love to buy a beer for the person who successfully steers DMB to the subtle distinction that is eluding him.

+Cheese curds, if the journey to the lightbulb moment happens here.
 


DMB123 said:
I'm not sure what your problem is with me, but you're not being accurate at all with your above post. You completely left out the other part of dpo's FIRST response to me after I made an innocent comment about Brewster. Here in bold is what you left out...

How could someone who has already held a position for just under 4 years not be qualified for said position? Do you understand what the word "qualified" means?

Yep, he's not trying to be his normal jackass self with that post. I'm not surprised that you would come in and lie to make dpo and yourself look better. And as far as not knowing the difference between successful and qualified, I posted the Webster's definition of qualified earlier in the thread and it proved my point entirely and the fact that dpo and yourself didn't just give up after that point was embarrassing for you.
Click to expand...

Sigh.

I don't have a problem with you. I do have a problem with your inability to separate "qualified" from "best suited". And I was 100% accurate with what I quoted from Dpo. He quoted you, and responded with what I provided. He THEN quoted a different part of your post, and responded with what you added. I stated it was his first response, which it was.

I see people every day that are "qualified" to be parents; they possess the correct parts, know how to use them, and may have the financial means to raise a child. This does not equate to being "best suited" to be parents. When they look back, they may realize that having children at that time was not the wisest choice, but that dos not mean that they were not "qualified" at the time.

I am "qualified" to rebuild the carburetor on my vintage Vespa. I did a crap job of it last time, and brought it in to an expert to get it running right. This spring, I will be taking apart the carb again to clean it, and I think the jets are gunked up. I am qualified to do that job. I might not have the experience of having done it numerous times, but I have the tools, and understanding about how it all fits together. And if I jack it up (again) I'll have to take it to Scooterville, or some of my other contacts to get it running tight. I'm not good at it yet, but I am qualified to perform that task.
 

DMB123 said:
You simply don't get it. Brewster is not qualified to be a head coach, and all the evidence is on my side. The one time he was a head coach, he failed miserably. Just because Joel Maturi made a bad decision 7 years ago doesn't mean that Tim Brewster is qualified. He hired someone who turned out to not be qualified for the position. Proof is in the pudding.

Regarding the bolded part... the fact that that statement can come out of a Gopher fan's mouth is mind blowing to me. Do you remember the years 2007 to 2010? Seriously, do you? THAT guy was qualified?

We simply disagree, let it go.
Click to expand...

Speaking of not getting it, you need to follow your own advice. To do that, just let go of your ego. If you don't you will be playing this silly game forever.

The problem is that you want to "win". Do you think that is going to happen?
 

I simply believe that if you fail miserably at a certain job, you weren't qualified to do that job in the first place. What a strange concept.
 

Jayeyem said:
I'd love to buy a beer for the person who successfully steers DMB to the subtle distinction that is eluding him.+Cheese curds, if the journey to the lightbulb moment happens here.
Click to expand...

The distinction you're making is worng. I already posted the Webster's definition of qualified, and it proved my point. It specifically stated "the ability to do a job" is what makes you qualified. By that definition if you've failed at a job, you weren't/aren't qualified for that job.

What dpo and his defenders are saying is that you can fail miserably at a specific job but still be qualified for that job. And that flies in the face of the actual definition of "qualified." It also goes against all common sense.
 

DMB123 said:
The distinction you're making is worng. I already posted the Webster's definition of qualified, and it proved my point. It specifically stated "the ability to do a job" is what makes you qualified. By that definition if you've failed at a job, you weren't/aren't qualified for that job. What dpo and his defenders are saying is that you can fail miserably at a specific job but still be qualified for that job. And that flies in the face of the actual definition of "qualified." It also goes against all common sense.
Click to expand...

Do you think pitino and kill are qualified? What have they done?
 

DMB123 said:
It specifically stated "the ability to do a job" is what makes you qualified.
Click to expand...

Tim Brewster fits that criteria.

Please reread Unregistered User's post about his Vespa a few times before responding.
 

Unregistered User said:
Sigh.

I don't have a problem with you. I do have a problem with your inability to separate "qualified" from "best suited". And I was 100% accurate with what I quoted from Dpo. He quoted you, and responded with what I provided. He THEN quoted a different part of your post, and responded with what you added. I stated it was his first response, which it was.

I see people every day that are "qualified" to be parents; they possess the correct parts, know how to use them, and may have the financial means to raise a child. This does not equate to being "best suited" to be parents. When they look back, they may realize that having children at that time was not the wisest choice, but that dos not mean that they were not "qualified" at the time.

I am "qualified" to rebuild the carburetor on my vintage Vespa. I did a crap job of it last time, and brought it in to an expert to get it running right. This spring, I will be taking apart the carb again to clean it, and I think the jets are gunked up. I am qualified to do that job. I might not have the experience of having done it numerous times, but I have the tools, and understanding about how it all fits together. And if I jack it up (again) I'll have to take it to Scooterville, or some of my other contacts to get it running tight. I'm not good at it yet, but I am qualified to perform that task.
Click to expand...

Obviously you're not qualified to rebuild it. You tried and failed. You weren't qualified to do it, which is why it turned out poorly. Had you been qualified for that type of thing, you wouldn't have to bring it to someone who is actually qualified to do it for you.
 

Jayeyem said:
Tim Brewster fits that criteria.

Please reread Unregistered User's post about his Vespa a few times before responding.
Click to expand...

No he doesn't. He didn't have the ability to do the job, which is why he was fired. Had he had the ability to do the job, in other words had he been qualified, he wouldn't have been fired.
 

DMB123 said:
No he doesn't. He didn't have the ability to do the job, which is why he was fired. Had he had the ability to do the job, in other words had he been qualified, he wouldn't have been fired.[/QUOTE

So every coach that has been fired due to lack of success wasn't qualified??? How do so many get jobs again? You are digging a giant hole because your ego won't let you admit you were wrong!
Click to expand...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom