Smoke Causes Fire?
- Thread starter DuffMan
- Start date
FreddyBrown
Moderator
Interesting question, Duff. If you define "fire" as what Gary Barta has under his behind right now, the answer is yes.
But I'm not sure that he won't decide that the only way he can effectively douse the fire in the short term is to quash the rumors and keep Lick for at least another year.
But I'm not sure that he won't decide that the only way he can effectively douse the fire in the short term is to quash the rumors and keep Lick for at least another year.
busabus114
Well-Known Member
I think if he did this, it would go from a fire to a raging inferno
Hypothetical: Assume you are Barta and you want to keep Lick:
Do you hold a press conference today or in the next few days and say that Lick is our coach next year?
Do you release a statement today or in the next few days and say that?
What I would do: Wait until the women's season ends, write up a press release about how proud we are of Bluder's team, then in the last sentence say: "And Lick will be back next year."
Do you hold a press conference today or in the next few days and say that Lick is our coach next year?
Do you release a statement today or in the next few days and say that?
What I would do: Wait until the women's season ends, write up a press release about how proud we are of Bluder's team, then in the last sentence say: "And Lick will be back next year."
83Hawk
Banned
I agree with this. It is becoming more and more apparent this "rumor" was false and appears to have been planted in an attempt to force Barta's hand.
It will force Barta's hand all right.....it will put him even more firmly by Lick's side. This little "coup" attempt likely bought Lick not only one....but probably at least two more years (assuming the Hawks win at least 14-15 games next season, which they should do easily).
LG210
Well-Known Member
I hope not. If so, Barta may have fewer (if any) viable replacement prospects since he was not intending to let Lick go after this season. If Barta was unprepared for this, it will only compound the difficulty of finding a worthy replacement.
hawkeyescott
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't say it bought two years if false, because if Lick is back and Iowa doesn't make the NIT at a minimum next year then Barta will be following Lick out the door and the new AD won't keep Lick around.
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
I assume your thinking here is something along the lines of "What coach would want to come to Iowa after they essentially forced the school to fire the coach".
While that has some merit (and in light of what happend to the Doctor) I think most outsiders would think the fans actions reasonable based on the records over the last 3 years.
I don't see how you think the rumor is more and more apprantly false...heck even barta is leaving the coaching staff out on comments he is making...Lick is gone this offseason it is just when it will happen and how much more $$ he steals from the university.
LG210
Well-Known Member
Not really what I was alluding to. I was thinking more along the lines of: (1) we could miss out on other opportunities because other schools who knew they were going to let their coaches go have already reached out to potential coaches and the coaches have reciprocated with a commitment to such schools; and (2) Barta may have been focusing on coaches that may be available a year from now but may not be available this year.
Although I believe that AD's probably do their best to maintain decent and accurate knowledge of the nationwide coaching landscape at all times, I wouldn't think that they maintain the good and deep knowledge that is necessary for an actual job search at all times and, therefore, if Barta was planning on keeping Lick and is now forced to pull the trigger, we may be a couple of steps behind where we would have been if Barta knew all along that he was going to let Lick go.
LG210
Well-Known Member
Enforcing your rights under a contract is not stealing, no matter how you look at it. If we pay him "too much" to leave, it is a result of poor negotiations on the part of the University at the time the contract was made and Lick has no moral culpability for holding the University to its word.
LG210
Well-Known Member
I hope you are right that it is not an issue. However, I am not sure that most schools don't start their coaching searches until after the season--perhaps I am a bit cynical there.
Lavin covered this during the game. Coaching positions are basically year to year these days. That is the price extracted for making millions of dollars.
No one can say,outside of maybe Mrs.Barta, whether any of the rumors of players meetings,ect..are true, really. So, to now assume that there was no fire, is just as thin as to assume there was....but the genie is out of the bottle and it is not going back in....the media is reflecting the angst of Iowa fans, imo. Losing 42 of 57 games vs Big Ten teams the last three years is not a myth..it is a reality. How can anyone sit there and argue that this record warrants more of the same? The prior three years Iowa was 32-22 vs Big Ten teams...not spectacular,but this last three years has been a huge step down. Not all of Licks fault,but bad luck hits almost every coach in the league...and argubly this year, Iowa was one of the healthy teams in the league season...imagine if we had actually had a player of Hummel or Turner go down..say,Fuller, during the big ten season? Or Cully? Horrible personnel management. When Kramer and Lewjack were down for Purdue, Painter plugged in a walkon frosh,Hart, and he became a clutch performer for them...and could start at Iowa....if Cully goes down, we have lil lick starting...not good personnel management.
No one can say,outside of maybe Mrs.Barta, whether any of the rumors of players meetings,ect..are true, really. So, to now assume that there was no fire, is just as thin as to assume there was....but the genie is out of the bottle and it is not going back in....the media is reflecting the angst of Iowa fans, imo. Losing 42 of 57 games vs Big Ten teams the last three years is not a myth..it is a reality. How can anyone sit there and argue that this record warrants more of the same? The prior three years Iowa was 32-22 vs Big Ten teams...not spectacular,but this last three years has been a huge step down. Not all of Licks fault,but bad luck hits almost every coach in the league...and argubly this year, Iowa was one of the healthy teams in the league season...imagine if we had actually had a player of Hummel or Turner go down..say,Fuller, during the big ten season? Or Cully? Horrible personnel management. When Kramer and Lewjack were down for Purdue, Painter plugged in a walkon frosh,Hart, and he became a clutch performer for them...and could start at Iowa....if Cully goes down, we have lil lick starting...not good personnel management.
GhostofBTT
Banned
People keep saying this, but no one has a scrap of evidence to back it up.
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
First there is plenty of evidence that this could be happening. There is not proof but there certainly is evidence.
Secondly there is a a reason a question mark appears in the subject line. It clearly indicates I am not submitting "smoke causes fire" as fact but rather as a question open for debate. If I were submitting it as fact I would have followed proper message board procedure by doing one of the following things...
1) I would have made the post official by making the subject line...
"Official Smoke Causes Fire Thread"
2) The subject would have been in all caps....
SMOKE CAUSES FIRE
3) Rather than follow it with a question mark I would have ended it with either "Book it", lots of exclamation points, or both...
Smoke Causes Fire Book it!!!!!
I'm aware of your brilliance, I'm suprised you didn't already know this.
GhostofBTT
Banned
In response to your question. No. Smoke doesn't cause fire.
