Post Reply to Rock's House
This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
Do you think it's puff to increase Kelly's marketability? by tdiddy07
The only thing that would make sense to me is that Jack was open to change last year, but there was no demand for Kelly and the buyout was too big. I could conceivably see Jack trying to puff up the value of Kelly so Kelly has an 8-5 season and some program will take him off our hands.
I had that hope shortly after the SC game. But based on the complete jackassery of his public comments, the smug contempt for alumni dissension, and the misplaced institutional priorities and excuses for failure throughout the Kelly-era, that hope expired.