Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports

Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: Kaos on August 26, 2009, 07:23:27 AM

Title: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Kaos on August 26, 2009, 07:23:27 AM
Had work to do. Was awake.  Watched most of the Auburn-Ole Miss game from 2003.  I remember that game hurting me more than any other in Auburn history because it was the last nail in the coffin of the dreams that season held.  It eliminated us from the SEC chase after we'd been drummed from the national title race by USC and Georgia Tech. 

Of all the losses we ever endured, that one destroyed my soul because of the hopes with which I'd come into that season.  Even after the USC loss, I kept alive the hope that we'd win the SEC. And we had a chance. That game derailed even that.

Buried in the pain of that loss, I had forgotten just how great those kids really were.  And also maybe how miserably our coaching staff failed them that season. 

We should have won that game.  But the things that plagued Tuberville his entire Auburn career bit us in the ass. 

Erratic field goal kicking for one.  Missed a 31-yarder that would have left the final drive needing just a chip shot from the four to win it.

Conservatism for another.  Yeah we had Ronnie and Carnell, but we played so conservatively that we wasted the talents of Jason Campbell, Ben Obomanu, Jeris McIntyre, Devin and others. 

Don't tell me Campbell wasn't worth a shit prior to 2004.  He was absolutely heroic in that game.  The last drive where he did everything but score the touchdown himself was a testament to his coolness and ability. I'd gladly take somebody with half his moxie today. 

Good GOD, our receivers today are awful compared to those guys.  Even though Ben dropped that easy pass in the end zone, he was still so much more talented than anything we had on the roster last season.  It's easy to dump on Burns and Todd, but if they'd had ONE guy of Obomanu's caliber things might have been different. 

After watching that game and seeing all that obvious talent squandered?  I don't blame our people for getting on the plane to Louisville.  I don't blame them at all. 

What Tuberville did after that debacle of a season redeemed him. But it's still disconcerting to look back and realize what we wasted that season. 
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Saniflush on August 26, 2009, 08:04:10 AM
  I don't blame our people for getting on the plane to Louisville.  I don't blame them at all.   

I do. That is not how an adult handles their business.
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Kaos on August 26, 2009, 08:22:31 AM
I do. That is not how an adult handles their business.

Yes it is. 

It's how Alabama ended up with Saban.  How LSU got Miles. How Michigan got Rodriguez.  It's how Nutt got to Ole Miss.  How Petrino got to Arkansas.

It's how we ended up with Chizik, probably. Because we went about things the alleged "above board" way and nobody worth a fiddling shit would talk to Jacobs' stupid ass.

Nobody goes through channels or through the front door.  All of this stuff happens behind the scenes and is a done deal before anything is announced. 

Had they not gotten caught?  Here's what would have happened.

Auburn would have announced that Tuberville was resigning.  Housel would have pledged to begin a thorough coaching search.  Several names would be "leaked" all would deny interest. 

A few weeks later -- after denying interest himself -- Petrino would have been introduced as the new head coach. 

That is the way it's done in the real world. 
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Ogre on August 26, 2009, 08:32:39 AM

Nobody goes through channels or through the front door.  All of this stuff happens behind the scenes and is a done deal before anything is announced. 


This is correct.  My eyes have been opened over the past 3 years to the way that this business operates. Even though Jacobs preached and preached about doing it all 'above board', he was still burning up phone lines to at least one coach's agent without getting approval from that school's AD. 
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Kaos on August 26, 2009, 08:38:54 AM
This is correct.  My eyes have been opened over the past 3 years to the way that this business operates. Even though Jacobs preached and preached about doing it all 'above board', he was still burning up phone lines to at least one coach's agent without getting approval from that school's AD. 

Too bad somebody smarter than him wasn't burning the phone lines. 

That idiot was probably calling Rush Probst or Ty Willingham.
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Saniflush on August 26, 2009, 08:41:00 AM
Yes it is. 

It's how Alabama ended up with Saban.  How LSU got Miles. How Michigan got Rodriguez.  It's how Nutt got to Ole Miss.  How Petrino got to Arkansas.

It's how we ended up with Chizik, probably. Because we went about things the alleged "above board" way and nobody worth a fiddling shit would talk to Jacobs' stupid ass.

Nobody goes through channels or through the front door.  All of this stuff happens behind the scenes and is a done deal before anything is announced. 

Had they not gotten caught?  Here's what would have happened.

Auburn would have announced that Tuberville was resigning.  Housel would have pledged to begin a thorough coaching search.  Several names would be "leaked" all would deny interest. 

A few weeks later -- after denying interest himself -- Petrino would have been introduced as the new head coach. 

That is the way it's done in the real world. 

I never said that it doesn't happen.  I said that is not how an adult handles their business IMO.  We all want to win ball games but at the end of the day is it not more important to attempt to follow our own creed?

I believe in honesty and truthfulness, without which I cannot win the respect and confidence of my fellow men.


So you are saying no one else would talk to Jacobs because we were above board?  Okay.  Let me know when the space shuttle lands.
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 26, 2009, 09:10:43 AM
I agree 100% that's how it's done when big name schools are trying to one-up everyone else and work behind the scenes to nab their guy.  However, Auburn's search may have been "above board" because of the timing of Tuberville's departure.  He turned in the keys at the end of the season and they seemingly took their time to find the guy they wanted.

Of course, the issue is whether the guy they wanted turns out to be the right guy for the job.
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Buzz Killington on August 26, 2009, 09:16:00 AM

So you are saying no one else would talk to Jacobs because we were above board?  

As much as I friggin hate to admit it, I believe this to be true.  The amount of media coverage has made most coaches do everything like this in private, behind the scenes.
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Kaos on August 26, 2009, 09:27:21 AM
I never said that it doesn't happen.  I said that is not how an adult handles their business IMO.  We all want to win ball games but at the end of the day is it not more important to attempt to follow our own creed?

I believe in honesty and truthfulness, without which I cannot win the respect and confidence of my fellow men.


So you are saying no one else would talk to Jacobs because we were above board?  Okay.  Let me know when the space shuttle lands.

Don't fly the creed in my face.

Business is business.  There was nothing wrong with the Louisville flight beyond getting caught and blown out of proportion.  If you are going to remove one CEO you want to make sure you have a definite plan in place. That wasn't underhanded. It was business.

The clown circus Jacobs ran where Tuberville was shoved out the door and there was no plan in place is the royal ass-up.  You go around knocking on peoples front doors to ask if you can talk to their wives you're going to get a lot of doors slammed in your idiot face. And you end up with some bitch another guy is happy to be shed of.

Yeah. I'm saying it. Without hesitation. The best coaches would not talk to Jacobs because it was all being done in public. Idiot.
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: wesfau2 on August 26, 2009, 09:39:46 AM
Don't fly the creed in my face.

Lip service?
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: CCTAU on August 26, 2009, 09:42:37 AM
I still gasped when Obamanu dropped that ball. And I knew it was coming.
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Saniflush on August 26, 2009, 09:44:01 AM
Don't fly the creed in my face.

I am not flying it into your face.  Either you try to adhere to it and want the people representing you to or you do not. 
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: RWS on August 26, 2009, 10:19:37 AM
I still gasped when Obamanu dropped that ball. And I knew it was coming.
I watched this game the other night as well. I never saw the original airing, so it was a pretty exciting game. Couldn't believe Obamanu dropped it either.

I watched the '08 LSU vs. AU game night before last as well. Holy shit, you guys better hope that Todd's shoulder was fucked up that early in the season. He had I think 17 completions in that game, but maybe half of them were completed due to a blown coverage. The other half were decent passes. If that was a healthy Todd, then damn....
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: War Eagle!!! on August 26, 2009, 10:23:46 AM
I disagree RWS. That was actually one of Todd's better games. I watched the first half again the other night and I din't think he played bad. I know I wear blue tinted glasses, but I thunk Todd's play had as much to do with Franklin's schemes than anything else. We had ZERO running game...
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: RWS on August 26, 2009, 10:39:46 AM
I disagree RWS. That was actually one of Todd's better games. I watched the first half again the other night and I din't think he played bad. I know I wear blue tinted glasses, but I thunk Todd's play had as much to do with Franklin's schemes than anything else. We had ZERO running game...
It looked like y'all ran maybe 10 different plays the whole game, if that.
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Godfather on August 26, 2009, 10:40:54 AM
It looked like y'all ran maybe 10 different plays the whole game season, if that.
FTFY
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Kaos on August 26, 2009, 11:11:43 AM
I am not flying it into your face.  Either you try to adhere to it and want the people representing you to or you do not. 

It's not appropriate for every situation. 

I want the people who represent Auburn to be honorable people, but I also realize that business decisions have to be made. 

You have to consider the bigger picture.  I think I am honorable.  I try to do the right thing by my employees.
 
I'm going to fire somebody tomorrow because it just isn't working out.  She isn't getting the job done like I need it to be done.  I've known for three weeks I'm going to fire her. I haven't told her.  I knew it when she started talking about wanting to buy a new car.  I quietly told her that it was a risky move in this economy.  Cash for clunkers... she did it anyway. 

I've already lined up her replacement.  It's somebody who currently has another job.   

Is that dishonorable? 

No. It's business. 

What would be dishonorable would be to fire her and have no plan and leave all the other employees in this company in a bind because I didn't think ahead. 

I believe in doing the right thing.  But there's nothing in the creed that says you can't do what's necessary in a business situation to survive.  Sometimes its better to keep things to yourself.  Which Auburn would have if they'd used a different plane than Lowder's.  It was no clandestine, crooked deal.  It's the way business is done in the real world.
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Saniflush on August 26, 2009, 11:20:46 AM
It's not appropriate for every situation. 

So at best the creed would be what you consider selective advice?
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 26, 2009, 11:31:19 AM
So, Creed is back together? I got to where I hated that Scott Stapp fellow.  He got too big for his britches.
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Kaos on August 26, 2009, 11:36:25 AM
So at best the creed would be what you consider selective advice?

Nope.

Which parts of the Bible are selective?  

You do your best to adhere to the general principles while functioning in a society that requires you to follow the processes in place if you want to remain competitive.  

If we really don't want to remain competitive?  I'm really okay with that too.  

Just don't shiitake in one hand and wish in the other.  
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Godfather on August 26, 2009, 11:38:40 AM
When did we play Miami in 03?
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: DnATL on August 26, 2009, 11:39:20 AM
Nope.

Which parts of the Bible are selective?  


Looks like you selectively ignore this:

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's plastic piece of ass"
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Godfather on August 26, 2009, 11:43:06 AM
So at best the creed would be what you consider selective advice?
Hes lucky you didn't fly something else in his face. (see Tigers X golfing thread pictures)
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Kaos on August 26, 2009, 11:46:25 AM
Looks like you selectively ignore this:

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's plastic piece of ass"

Is it plastic?  Or maybe symethicone? 
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: GH2001 on August 26, 2009, 11:57:28 AM
Don't fly the creed in my face.

Business is business.  There was nothing wrong with the Louisville flight beyond getting caught and blown out of proportion.  If you are going to remove one CEO you want to make sure you have a definite plan in place. That wasn't underhanded. It was business.

The clown circus Jacobs ran where Tuberville was shoved out the door and there was no plan in place is the royal ass-up.  You go around knocking on peoples front doors to ask if you can talk to their wives you're going to get a lot of doors slammed in your idiot face. And you end up with some bitch another guy is happy to be shed of.

Yeah. I'm saying it. Without hesitation. The best coaches would not talk to Jacobs because it was all being done in public. Idiot.

I agree. The only thing I didn't like about the plan to go to Louisville, was that they didn't cover their tracks enough. Yeah - that's right! I really wish it had gone through. Look at what Petrino did last year with a LOT less talent than us. Once he got his system into those players, Arky looked decent the last 6 games of the year...and they were started almost ALL underclassmen. Best side effect of jetgate "going through" would have been that we would have a much better coach right this minute than we actually DO.
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Godfather on August 26, 2009, 12:36:33 PM
I agree. The only thing I didn't like about the plan to go to Louisville, was that they didn't cover their tracks enough. Yeah - that's right! I really wish it had gone through. Look at what Petrino did last year with a LOT less talent than us. Once he got his system into those players, Arky looked decent the last 6 games of the year...and they were started almost ALL underclassmen. Best side effect of jetgate "going through" would have been that we would have a much better coach right this minute than we actually DO.
Not necessarily, I think his dream was to Coach NFL (remember thats where he came from). I think he would have bolted from us to go to the Falcons, assuming all else stayed the same.
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Saniflush on August 26, 2009, 12:42:20 PM
Nope.

Which parts of the Bible are selective?  

You do your best to adhere to the general principles while functioning in a society that requires you to follow the processes in place if you want to remain competitive.  

If we really don't want to remain competitive?  I'm really okay with that too.  

Just don't shiitake in one hand and wish in the other.  

When you used the example of an employee about to get fired you stated, "I knew it when she started talking about wanting to buy a new car.  I quietly told her that it was a risky move in this economy".  If I understood this correctly I contend that in lieu of speaking in tongues and secret meanings about not buying another car a greater service is done by explaining how they are fucking up and they are on borrowed time.  In my mind it does the employee a disservice by not attempting to mentor and grow them into what they were not before.

We agree to disagree and I am ok with that.  Just a difference in philosophies.  

Contrary to earlier statements I too live in teh real world.  I just don't believe that we cannot be competitive by having higher standards of how we conduct ourselves.
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Jumbo on August 26, 2009, 12:42:59 PM
So, Creed is back together? I got to where I hated that Scott Stapp fellow.  He got too big for his britches.
I should of been dead on a Sunday morning.
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Kaos on August 26, 2009, 01:11:28 PM
When you used the example of an employee about to get fired you stated, "I knew it when she started talking about wanting to buy a new car.  I quietly told her that it was a risky move in this economy".  If I understood this correctly I contend that in lieu of speaking in tongues and secret meanings about not buying another car a greater service is done by explaining how they are effing up and they are on borrowed time.  In my mind it does the employee a disservice by not attempting to mentor and grow them into what they were not before.

We agree to disagree and I am ok with that.  Just a difference in philosophies.  

Contrary to earlier statements I too live in teh real world.  I just don't believe that we cannot be competitive by having higher standards of how we conduct ourselves.

I couldn't tell her at that point.  Things have to play out.  The decision had been made.  I can't get her replacement in immediately and I can't go lagging for two weeks while I wait around.  

She's been "counseled" and "mentored" and written up and scolded. She just isn't getting it done.  Her personal shiitake continues to impact the business.  And she's out.   Replacement on the way.  If you think you can mentor her into competency, she's all fucking yours.  I'll send you her address and phone number.  And also the phone number to her married boyfriend. And her estranged husband. And her kid's five doctors. And her back doctor. And her bowling league captain. And her hair stylist that only works on days she's schedule to work. And her manicurist who only works on days she's supposed to work. And her mechanic. And her vet...

It's business.

When big companies do layoffs do you think they just decide that day who is going to be canned?  Nope.  They talk about it for weeks -- months -- prior and make the decisions.  They've usually got boards up on the wall where they scratch out names and put them back on when they can scratch another one. But they don't tell the employees who are going to be affected.

When I worked at another company I watched my bosses decide who got to stay and who was laid off by flipping a damn coin when it was between two that had relatively similar skill sets and none or both had solid backing.  We couldn't tell them.

It's just business.

Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: AUChizad on August 26, 2009, 01:14:57 PM
I should of been dead on a Sunday morning.
Actual conversation I just had through the wall of my cubicle:

"Hey dude, have you heard the new Creed single? They just came out with it yesterday. It's called "Overcome". It's awesome. Old School Creed."

My reply: "Awesome."

He went on and on about how he's a huge Creed fan and how this album is classic old school Creed.

"(Whatever the guitar player's name) guitar solos, solid drumming by (whatever the drummer's name is)."

Me: "Awesome."
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Godfather on August 26, 2009, 01:16:16 PM
When you used the example of an employee about to get fired you stated, "I knew it when she started talking about wanting to buy a new car.  I quietly told her that it was a risky move in this economy".  If I understood this correctly I contend that in lieu of speaking in tongues and secret meanings about not buying another car a greater service is done by explaining how they are fucking up and they are on borrowed time.  In my mind it does the employee a disservice by not attempting to mentor and grow them into what they were not before.

We agree to disagree and I am ok with that.  Just a difference in philosophies.  

Contrary to earlier statements I too live in teh real world.  I just don't believe that we cannot be competitive by having higher standards of how we conduct ourselves.
Also ...don't ever touch his face.
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 26, 2009, 01:18:13 PM
Actual conversation I just had through the wall of my cubicle:

"Hey dude, have you heard the new Creed single? They just came out with it yesterday. It's called "Overcome". It's awesome. Old School Creed."

My reply: "Awesome."

He went on and on about how he's a huge Creed fan and how this album is classic old school Creed.

"(Whatever the guitar player's name) guitar solos, solid drumming by (whatever the drummer's name is)."

Me: "Awesome."

I didn't know Creed put out enough stuff to have some of their music considered, "Classic old school".
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Argo on August 26, 2009, 01:23:46 PM
I didn't know Creed put out enough stuff to have some of their music considered, "Classic old school".

If you heard their first record, it sounds a lot like it.  I'm not a Creed fan, but only because they sold out like the Hanson brothers after they sold a few records.  When I heard their new single yesterday, I was actually shocked when I found out it was Creed.

I still won't consider buying the record until I'm certain doves won't fly out of the CD case when I open it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wF9SpmAJ68 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wF9SpmAJ68)

Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Kaos on August 26, 2009, 01:25:21 PM
I didn't know Creed put out enough stuff to have some of their music considered, "Classic old school".

They have a greatest hits CD.  Consists of about four songs. 

What else do you need?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/98/Creed_Greatest_Hits.jpg/200px-Creed_Greatest_Hits.jpg)

The GH CD came after three studio albums. 

I submit that you must have at least four studio albums before you're allowed to make a Greatest Hits.

It's okay to release a Live! CD after three, but not a Greatest Hits.   
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Kaos on August 26, 2009, 01:26:11 PM
If you heard their first record, it sounds a lot like it.  I'm not a Creed fan, but only because they sold out like the Hanson brothers after they sold a few records.  When I heard their new single yesterday, I was actually shocked when I found out it was Creed.

I still won't consider buying the record until I'm certain doves won't fly out of the CD case when I open it.


You don't have Limewire?
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: AUChizad on August 26, 2009, 01:27:29 PM
You don't have Limewire?
T-O-R-R-E-N-T-S, people.
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Kaos on August 26, 2009, 01:31:37 PM
T-O-R-R-E-N-T-S, people.

Yeah, but if he's still buying "records"  maybe we should move him along in baby steps...
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Argo on August 26, 2009, 01:37:11 PM
Yeah, but if he's still buying "records"  maybe we should move him along in baby steps...

Nah, I don't buy records, just wanted to use the "doves flying out of their cd" analogy.  I guess "doves out of my hard drive" would have sufficed.
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Saniflush on August 26, 2009, 01:43:36 PM
She's been "counseled" and "mentored" and written up and scolded.

You never said this and that is why I said "if I understood" what you were saying.  Progressive discipline is the best way IMO to not only do right by the employee but also by the comapny.

When big companies do layoffs do you think they just decide that day who is going to be canned?  Nope. They talk about it for weeks -- months -- prior and make the decisions.  They've usually got boards up on the wall where they scratch out names and put them back on when they can scratch another one. But they don't tell the employees who are going to be affected.
Layoffs or firing? They are two different problems that are dealt with in different ways.

When I worked at another company I watched my bosses decide who got to stay and who was laid off by flipping a damn coin when it was between two that had relatively similar skill sets and none or both had solid backing.  We couldn't tell them.

It's just business.

I understand business.  I also understand that I have never had two employees whose skill sets matched so closely that one did not outshine the other in some fashion.  Maybe I need to get some different drill press operators?
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 26, 2009, 01:53:25 PM
So, do you reward the better employee with his/her own personal Chizphone?  Mount that baby right next to the drill press.
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Saniflush on August 26, 2009, 02:15:01 PM
So, do you reward the better employee with his/her own personal Chizphone?  Mount that baby right next to the drill press.

Did you say Mount?
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Kaos on August 26, 2009, 03:07:53 PM
 I also understand that I have never had two employees whose skill sets matched so closely that one did not outshine the other in some fashion.  Maybe I need to get some different drill press operators?

These were copy editors, web editors and production assistants.  They were pretty much interchangeable.

During the coin flipping session, I always supported the female if it was a male/female decision and if two females were in contention, I backed the hottest of the two. 

I did call the hottest one of the entire group -- who lost the coin toss, unfortunately -- and ratted out the boss who tried to hit on her by telling her he'd "gone to the mat for her" and "done everything he could."   I guess everything he could was to call heads when the quarter flipped.

That was a really awful scene.  At one point we'd agreed to keep one girl who was relatively useful when another boss got his pecker in a twist because he was losing his "assistant" who was absolutely worthless (and sort of ugly) but sucked up to him in a big way.   When he kept throwing a fit, the main boss said "fine, we'll just cut them both."

He was fine with that.  It pissed me off because a valuable employee lost her job (and she had kids) when a pompous prick threw a fit.

I understand progressive discipline.  I wrote the handbook.  And I read it too.
Title: Re: 2003 AU-UM
Post by: Jumbo on August 27, 2009, 01:12:28 AM
The karaoke crowd still loves to hear Creed, if anyone in the bar can sing it.