the smith hire says

[BULLheaded]

what the heck are you talking about???

I'll try to be more clear:

I used some POINTS of yours (which were not up for debate) in order to point out some inconsistencies about things you said that ARE up for debate. I really didn't think it was that complicated.

[Bullpride08]

what the heck are you talking about???

I'll try to be more clear:

I used some POINTS of yours (which were not up for debate) in order to point out some inconsistencies about things you said that ARE up for debate. I really didn't think it was that complicated.

HELP!  Not making sense...stop...typing so much has confused you....stop....Proper search was never up for debate or questioned...stop....the longer you continue the more confusing you become....stop

[BULLheaded]

HELP!  Not making sense...stop...typing so much has confused you....stop....Proper search was never up for debate or questioned...stop....the longer you continue the more confusing you become....stop

hmmmmm...

Let's see....

I think it's a fair assumption that given a proper search there would be more qualified people interested and therefore passed over for the job. I doubt we ran much of a search just to end up with Smith and fail to see why particular names have to be given.....hence the word "search" applies.

and your response was...

Actually it isn't a proper assumption.  But then again who's checking.  Certainly not you.

and:

A search was done, and the applicants were not more qualified.  How many times does it need to be explained to you that this wasn't a plum opportunity and no one was lining up to take it.  Therefore, Smith was the best, and possibly only real plausible option at this point.  Regardless of mine or your feelings regarding him.  

explain to me how this was not up for debate please.

[Bullpride08]

Listen, this has become highly semantical.  Your original post suggested that not much of a search was conducted.

There was an extensive search, however, Smith was the best possible candidate.

And it was a "PROPER" search.  However, if one waits until a more optimal time, as you suggest after the season, then it is suspected that 'another' "PROPER" search would yield a far better list of candidates.  

Allow me to explain before you create more tangents.  The original post refuted your claim about an IMPROPER SEARCH.  You took it to mean that I felt Smith was the 'best possible candidate', and thus the wheels began turning and assumptions started flying.  

I suppose my rude and indignant responses didn't help matters.

[BULLheaded]

no it hasn't become semantical. The whole basis to my comment was the lack of a proper search. No more no less. You said that was a faulty assumption and that we had actually conducted one. I simply mentioned a couple of your own points as to why I felt a proper search had not been conducted (keep in mind I tried to stress proper). That's all.....period. I'll stick with what I said. If we do a proper search then I believe it is fair to assume a more qualified coach then Smith would be discovered.

It's pretty obvious that you disagree given you just flat out state you think the search was proper. Now that we are back on track with the initial debate, this is where I bring up your points of this happening so late and Leavitts need to have someone who will run his offense. I agree with those points and I take it further to say these are also the reasons I think the search was not proper. My only disagreement with you is on making a permanent commitment to Smith instead of making the decision to do so temporarily given the problems at this stage of the game with the intent to conduct the proper search post season. That's all, very simple and not at all semantical. If you think that knowingly conducting a search during a time that the majority of potential candidates are commited and therefore unavailable is proper I'll just disagree with you. The way it appears to me (and you can disagree) is that they were stuck with the need to replace someone at a bad time and they had a few "thoughts" in mind as potential candidates who ended up not working out so they went to Smith. I'm not critisizing anyone for that type of decision however I certainly wouldn't consider it a full fledged and proper search. Which again is why I felt making this a temporary decision until there is a time they could conduct one was prudent. Maybe in private that really is what is happening and I hope so.

[Bullpride08]

no it hasn't become semantical. The whole basis to my comment was the lack of a proper search. No more no less. You said that was a faulty assumption and that we had actually conducted one. I simply mentioned a couple of your own points as to why I felt a proper search had not been conducted (keep in mind I tried to stress proper). That's all.....period. I'll stick with what I said. If we do a proper search then I believe it is fair to assume a more qualified coach then Smith would be discovered.

It's pretty obvious that you disagree given you just flat out state you think the search was proper. Now that we are back on track with the initial debate, this is where I bring up your points of this happening so late and Leavitts need to have someone who will run his offense. I agree with those points and I take it further to say these are also the reasons I think the search was not proper. My only disagreement with you is on making a permanent commitment to Smith instead of making the decision to do so temporarily given the problems at this stage of the game with the intent to conduct the proper search post season. That's all, very simple and not at all semantical. If you think that knowingly conducting a search during a time that the majority of potential candidates are commited and therefore unavailable is proper I'll just disagree with you. The way it appears to me (and you can disagree) is that they were stuck with the need to replace someone at a bad time and they had a few "thoughts" in mind as potential candidates who ended up not working out so they went to Smith. I'm not critisizing anyone for that type of decision however I certainly wouldn't consider it a full fledged and proper search. Which again is why I felt making this a temporary decision until there is a time they could conduct one was prudent. Maybe in private that really is what is happening and I hope so.

HUH?  Remind me never to get into it with Bullheaded, that bullheadedness took away all his cognitive abilities.

You can't create the basis of an argument on hypothetical assumptions.  Let's start from the beginning so we can get all the facts straight, and possibly end the bickering.

Your original post:

I think it's a fair assumption that given a proper search there would be more qualified people interested and therefore passed over for the job. I doubt we ran much of a search just to end up with Smith and fail to see why particular names have to be given.....hence the word "search" applies.  

It really should stop here because this post is again highly hypothetical as you have no idea IF a PROPER SEARCH was done, and whether there were more qualified people interested.

However, my response:

Actually it isn't a proper assumption.  But then again who's checking.  Certainly not you.

Again, a rather accurate response considering the hypothetical nature of your previous post, but clearly terse.  

Then we danced, and here's your response:

So, after all your talk about how Smith had to go you now believe that it isn't a fair assumption that there are plenty of more qualified coaches in the nation. What was that you said about losing respect for those who change their tune?

Obviously you became agitated by my pithy response because you threw two very brazened back-handed comments at me.

However, to placate I felt the need to explain a bit better my position (more like defend myself), and thus this response:

A search was done, and the applicants were not more qualified.  How many times does it need to be explained to you that this wasn't a plum opportunity and no one was lining up to take it.  Therefore, Smith was the best, and possibly only real plausible option at this point.  Regardless of mine or your feelings regarding him.  

It's difficult if everything needs to be spelled out for you in blatant terms.

Generally, here's where we both converge and our opinions meet.  Possibly it was my tacky response, or aggressiveness, however, given your previous back-handed insults my response could be expected.

Now here's your response:

bien, I'm not an idiot like you seem to think. Yes a search was done and by your own admission we were left with little if no option since a)the timing was so late that very few would be available (which I have agreed with you about time and time again) and b)the field was even more narrow since Leavitt would only pick someone who ran his offense. So I never said there wasn't a search, I said there wasn't a PROPER search done. ie...make Smith or someone interim (yes I know you hate the term but I still don't see the need to make a complete comitment) coach and do a PROPER search next year when at least one of those roadblocks are gone. Given the proper time of the year to allow for an in depth search of all available options I think is very fair to say there would be more qualified candidates. Will there be many who are more qualified AND agree to strictly adhere to Leavitts ideal? Maybe not but we've already discussed our feelings on that issue.

First, that was your assertion that you're an 'idiot' not mine.  Second, you begin to generally agree with me except here's where you bring "SEMANTICS" into the equation by trying to delineate between a "Search" and a "Proper Search".  That's when we went on some very poingnant attacks arguing the semantics of "PROPER."  In the end, a search was done, and Smith was chosen, you've decided that the "Search" wasn't "Proper" by your own fruition and clearly based on little to no facts.  Furthermore, you've decided to start squabbling over the word 'interim' and when a "Proper" search should be conducted, and Smith's validity as a qualified coach.

I think my breakdown is a bit more comprehensive and not so selective (of course sans my obnoxious interjections), and we can both agree to end this ridiculousness.

[BULLheaded]

bien,

I'm done debating it. It was an offhand comment about an opinion of mine that someone didn't need specifics. I've agreed with several of your points yet some of my opinion differ from yours given the reasons I stated. I think they make sense obviously you don't I'll leave it at that.

[smazza]

how bout them bulls fellas

[S p e n c e]

LOL