MrTitleist said:
Grizzoola said:
MrTitleist said:
Grizzoola said:
Note: Bobby Hauck is into his 3rd year at UNLV, and NO OFF-FIELD PLAYER PROBLEMS AND EVEN FEWER WINS. Just sayin'.
FIFY
Nice way to move the goal posts, Titleist. I refer you to the title of this topic.....MOD!! :roll:
You're the one that injected Hauck into this thread, genius. Don't be pissed at me because everyone is beating you over the head now.
You didn't get it: The thread is about off-field player problems, not on-field player problems (W/L records). I brought Hauck into this as a means of comparison to McElwain's problems and the fact that many eGrizzers, here castigate Hauck for being a corrupt coach.
I'm just pointing to a fact that possibly because of the new direction UNLV wanted to take, BH had it from the top of UNLV's unequivocal position, plus maybe BH himself reformed, if indeed there was a reformation in him to be made. As already posted, UNLV has been under the NCAA's microscope because not only of the Tarkanian years, but also college football in the town that is the sports betting capital of the U.S.
Lots of issues, there. I also believe Engstrom, the Penn State board, and now the Arkansas pres. are clamping down on off-field player/coach issues. It's a long-delayed policy in college football. It's about time, even if past time. I believe this will be the rule for some time to come re: college football, to the chagrine of the big donors, who
as much as anyone have muddied the waters re: player/coach misconduct off-field. (See the other thread about donations going south.)
I do not believe McElwain should be fired, if that is even a question. But, those alleged offending players could well have their football careers ended, SUMMARILY. It's past time for college presidents, the REAL leaders of their football programs, to seize the reins of those programs and end this gray area of football player/coach misconduct. It's up to the presidents, not the big donors, who should be hired/fired in college football.
Finally, not only is Engstrom constrained by legal considerations, but by MT state personnel procedures as to confidentiality. Most of us tend to forget that. It's as much for protection of the employees involved as the protection of the institution from litigation.
I know I've wandered all over the place with this post, but these matters get so intertwined, it's hard to separate them into separate threads.