The Hot Seat.

#11
#11
Volfan2012 said:
Seeing rumors and comments that Finley at Florida and Taylor at Texas A&M may be replaced. I suspect that will probably be it in the SEC this season.
Click to expand...
Finley total value 3.7 million
Feb 27,2022 - April 15, 2027
700,000 annually
100,000 longevity bonus
71,000 talent bonus
That they was other bonus or compensation things
But TV bro browser Al
Didn't find where contract had been extension past the original term 2027

It wouldn't cost Florida much to cut lose one season salary
There no April 1 fools 50% off buyout option
Being interesting if keep her do they extent her contact and how much.

Or do fire her.

Or do let coach contact to it expires end of next year.

Don't like the April fool's 50% women's sports while football don't have it until 2030 .
But at least Tennessee lady Vols Kellie Harper or Kim Caldwell would get 50% of fours.
Kellie Harper got 50% of the 4 years left on there contract.
Maybe reduce by Missouri job or completely off the hock.

Tennessee left Kellie Harper with more compensation
Than if Florida fired there coach one left on contracts terms.

This isn't about firing Kim Caldwell
Was looking into Florida women's basketball contract
While I was at was wondering about the buyout option
 
  • Like
Reactions: krichunaka, chuckiepoo, 1reVOLver and 3 others
#15
#15
In all SEC college athletics, I now have no clue who/what is wagging the tail, that is wagging the dog, that is taking a dump on the joy of what used to be amateur competition.

The quality of college coaching most likely follows the Pareto Principle--20% are very good/ 80% are average or less. It looks like there's another layer, wherein of that very good 20%, 20% of them are exceptional. If so, that ain't enough to go around.

Being a fan used to be a mostly positive pastime--you cheered for your team and did things to encourage your players during the game. Many of us remember when it was unimaginable that college fans would boo their own players! You celebrated their victories, and said "we'll get 'em next year" after their losses. Fans belonged to a tribe, but neither individual self-image nor individual self-worth were tied to your tribe's success or failure. That was something you only saw in children, and something adults addressed and corrected as immature.

Being a college fan today feels like constant striving, 24/7, 365 days a year. We take on the urgency of a CEO (and now CFO, with NIL) throwing around words like "unacceptable" as if we were trustees facing stockholders.

Pastime, amusement, leisure activity, diversion... all seem like bygone concepts. Maybe that's the age we live in speaking. Maybe that's just my age speaking.

Maybe it's time to relegate the good times to nostalgia, and go find a Gen Alpha kid to host a YouTube channel called "First Time Hearing John Ward call a Tennessee Football Game."

[depressed rant/off]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rooster1, I4Vols, mudcat1973 and 4 others
#18
#18
BruisedOrange said:
In all SEC college athletics, I now have no clue who/what is wagging the tail, that is wagging the dog, that is taking a dump on the joy of what used to be amateur competition.

The quality of college coaching most likely follows the Pareto Principle--20% are very good/ 80% are average or less. It looks like there's another layer, wherein of that very good 20%, 20% of them are exceptional. If so, that ain't enough to go around.

Being a fan used to be a mostly positive pastime--you cheered for your team and did things to encourage your players during the game. Many of us remember when it was unimaginable that college fans would boo their own players! You celebrated their victories, and said "we'll get 'em next year" after their losses. Fans belonged to a tribe, but neither individual self-image nor individual self-worth were tied to your tribe's success or failure. That was something you only saw in children, and something adults addressed and corrected as immature.

Being a college fan today feels like constant striving, 24/7, 365 days a year. We take on the urgency of a CEO (and now CFO, with NIL) throwing around words like "unacceptable" as if we were trustees facing stockholders.

Pastime, amusement, leisure activity, diversion... all seem like bygone concepts. Maybe that's the age we live in speaking. Maybe that's just my age speaking.

Maybe it's time to relegate the good times to nostalgia, and go find a Gen Alpha kid to host a YouTube channel called "First Time Hearing John Ward call a Tennessee Football Game."

[depressed rant/off]
Click to expand...
Good essay. Thanks.

A nit to pick: your definition of the Pareto Principle is wrong. Pareto postulated that
for many matters, 80% of results were due to 20% of causes or inputs. It is not about a frequency distribution curve of coaching excellence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rooster1, knoxvol52, BruisedOrange and 1 other person
#20
#20
1reVOLver said:
Good essay. Thanks.

A nit to pick: your definition of the Pareto Principle is wrong. Pareto postulated that
for many matters, 80% of results were due to 20% of causes or inputs. It is not about a frequency distribution curve of coaching excellence.
Click to expand...
I absolutely appreciate that correction, 1reVOLver. Edit the font back to normal 15 size.
This forum is at its best when we can sharpen each other and learn mo' better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rooster1, 1reVOLver, RetroVol and 1 other person
#21
#21
1reVOLver said:
Good essay. Thanks.

A nit to pick: your definition of the Pareto Principle is wrong. Pareto postulated that
for many matters, 80% of results were due to 20% of causes or inputs. It is not about a frequency distribution curve of coaching excellence.
Click to expand...
One might say that the 20% cause or input in this case falls into the realm of coaching mostly. You see, it could be that the HC’s input Is mostly good, but around 20% of it is bad and affects 80% of the results. Since we are picking nits. Besides, I was trying to recover @BruisedOrange ’s excellent post and it was worth a spin….😉


IMG_0497.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1reVOLver
#22
#22
Rooster1 said:
One might say that the 20% cause or input in this case falls into the realm of coaching mostly. You see, it could be that the HC’s input Is mostly good, but around 20% of it is bad and affects 80% of the results. Since we are picking nits. Besides, I was trying to recover @BruisedOrange ’s excellent post and it was worth a spin….😉


View attachment 816971
Click to expand...
OK, I yield to the gentleman (more or less) from the Department of Advanced Spin.
The Pareto Principle seems to explain the curious point production of 20% of starters,
hockey line #1, Barker and Cooper, accounting for 80% of points recorded by said cohort.



IMG_3604.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rooster1
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top