forums

OT- Coach O Getting Divorced Unfortunately

Paranos said:
I am calling uber bullcrap on this one my Cane Brethren. There is this wonderful thing called a punani prenuptial they are wonderful. I found this after my first divorce which was tu'rrible and my judge was a gator an let it be known, needless to say I lost everything but my boxers. My exwife is a teacher and I paid more in taxes then she made in salary. But good lord she had a snapper, that could make you forget your name and hers too.

Go Canes
Click to expand...
Like this???
👇👇

AD50EF3F-7405-43C2-9F59-1CE5A4C86437.gif
 
Advertisement
The Svengali said:
Men with means never understand simple rules. I say never get married at all, but if you must marry, never, ever marry a poor woman. You should never even date a broke woman unless she’s a play thing for a couple weeks. Always date “up” or your economic equal.

Namely, if you’re making $300K+ you should never ever marry a woman making $50K or not even $90K. If you do, you’d be giving her a lifestyle she’s otherwise never be able to afford.

And It’s a fools errand because she’ll be living your lifestyle and not hers, and when the divorce happens you’ll need to pay her so she can maintain it. No, if you’re making $300K+ it’s better to have the woman you marry making $225K+.

Men sucker themselves into marrying poor women with nonsense like “she’s hot”, she’s funny or she’s really cool AND likes sports, etc and then mortgage their economic future on that kind of nonsense
Click to expand...


I was unaware that making 50k was considered 'poor'.

Welp, guess I gotta head for the food stamp line tomorrow.
 
The Svengali said:
No one. I’m happily married to a physician. And my mother drilled this into all of us (I have all brothers) before we all went off to college. She was an Attorney.

I just know the laws and what a smart pairing looks like under this system. I’ve seen plenty of male friends get burned.
Click to expand...
Guilty as charged.
 
A coaches life is very busy. With that being said she’s kinda hot and I think someone was pounding that *** while he was blowing that whistle at practice.
 
Advertisement
jsmittycanes said:
This is actually a dangerous sign for other college football teams. Now, he can devote his time to football 24/7 without worrying about spending time with his wife. I have never seen someone who loved football more than coach O. And now he gets to invest more time with it.
Click to expand...
The more he’s involved the better for the opposing team...
 
Paranos said:
Actually she finally won with his new $42MM contract extension into 2026, which she will get alimony for life or until she marrys again..

Coach may have a new young thang half his wife's age, but he will only have half his money. #CheaperToKeepHer

Go Canes
Click to expand...
This!!!
 
Advertisement
You never know what is really going on in someone else's life. She may have contributed...she may not have. Who are we to know or judge?

Maybe she was holding him back....no telling how many natty's he could have won without her....OR not

Who knows? Either way it's their lives and choices.
 
Last edited:
The Svengali said:
Men sucker themselves into marrying poor women with nonsense like “she’s hot”, she’s funny or she’s really cool AND likes sports, etc and then mortgage their economic future on that kind of nonsense
Click to expand...

Don't disagree people get married for the wrong reasons but this isn't really the issue for you, is it?

You already have a low opinion of marriage so people should be factoring that in before taking your advice on it.

Marriage is essentially for starting families and is a lifelong commitment. It's not a business merger. Otherwise, yeah, best not to get married for those other reasons.
 
MichiCANE said:
That's fair. A good friend of mine got divorced a few years ago, he said he pretty much hid his money in different funds/places when he was going through it to where he only had $5,000 liquid so she could only take a small percentage of his money. I think he said he ended up paying her somewhere around $30k when it was all said and done. Dude makes probably $300k+ per year. Don't know how he did it, but genius
Click to expand...

Sounds like a selfish oath breaker.
 
The Svengali said:
Men with means never understand simple rules. I say never get married at all, but if you must marry, never, ever marry a poor woman. You should never even date a broke woman unless she’s a play thing for a couple weeks. Always date “up” or your economic equal.

Namely, if you’re making $300K+ you should never ever marry a woman making $50K or not even $90K. If you do, you’d be giving her a lifestyle she’s otherwise never be able to afford.

And It’s a fools errand because she’ll be living your lifestyle and not hers, and when the divorce happens you’ll need to pay her so she can maintain it. No, if you’re making $300K+ it’s better to have the woman you marry making $225K+.

Men sucker themselves into marrying poor women with nonsense like “she’s hot”, she’s funny or she’s really cool AND likes sports, etc and then mortgage their economic future on that kind of nonsense
Click to expand...

Or actually keep your vows and work towards living a happily married life.
 
Advertisement
Salt said:
Don't disagree people get married for the wrong reasons but this isn't really the issue for you, is it?

You already have a low opinion of marriage so people should be factoring that in before taking your advice on it.

Marriage is essentially for starting families and is a lifelong commitment. It's not a business merger. Otherwise, yeah, best not to get married for those other reasons.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Salt said:
Don't disagree people get married for the wrong reasons but this isn't really the issue for you, is it?

You already have a low opinion of marriage so people should be factoring that in before taking your advice on it.

Marriage is essentially for starting families and is a lifelong commitment. It's not a business merger. Otherwise, yeah, best not to get married for those other reasons.
Click to expand...
I have been happily married to a physician for 10 years - we have a son - so I don’t have a low opinion of marriage at all. She’s a great woman and we have an awesome partnership. However, I married my socio-economic and educational equal and we were in our mid 30’s when we met. We were mature, built our careers, traveled quite a bit had our own resources. We lived a bit before marrying and we both had a good sense of self. Also, we talked openly about finances. In short, she had her **** and I had mine - we had lifestyles we wanted to maintain - and neither of us needed to leech off each other.

My parents (especially my mother) drilled “proper mate choices” into all of my brothers before we went off to college. Namely, never ever marry a poor or uneducated woman - not under any circumstances - and status and economics matter just as much as love when choosing a mate. Date and marry “up” or your social economic equal if you have means, or else you’re a fool.

Why? Because law are skewed heavily against men, so economics should play a major role in your life partner (if you’re smart), especially since 50% of marriages end in divorce. Therefore, if you’re a man with means, marrying a poor woman is a pretty **** stupid thing to do, and dare I say, irresponsible, given the way the laws are written.

And what you wrote is exactly why soooooo many wealthy men get burned when marrying a poor woman. Marriages should be carefully thought through when there are large assets involved.

Think about it: 50% of marriages end in divorce, which is a coin flip, so how is it logical or make economic sense for a man with means to marry a poor woman when there is a 50% chance he’d need to continue PAYING her for the rest of her life to maintain a lifestyle he introduced her to (if divorced)???

Also, If you understood the history of marriage in the United States and Europe you’d understand the concept of marriage IS underpinned on concepts of it being a business merger.

But look, if both parties are poor and don’t have many resources....sure, go for it. Get married until your heart is content. Have a party.
 
Last edited:
The Svengali said:
I have been happily married to a physician for 10 years - we have a son - so I don’t have a low opinion of marriage at all. She’s a great woman and we have an awesome partnership. However, I married my socio-economic and educational equal and we were in our mid 30’s when we met. We were mature, built our careers, traveled quite a bit had our own resources. We lived a bit before marrying and we both had a good sense of self. Also, we talked openly about finances. In short, she had her **** and I had mine - we had lifestyles we wanted to maintain - and neither of us needed to leech off each other.

My parents (especially my mother) drilled “proper mate choices” into all of my brothers before we went off to college. Namely, never ever marry a poor or uneducated woman - not under any circumstances - and status and economics marry just as much as love choosing a mate. Date and marry “up” or your social economic equal.

Why? Because law are skewed heavily against men, so economics should play a major role in your life partner (if you’re smart), especially since 50% of marriages end in divorce. Therefore, if you’re a man with means, marrying a poor woman is a pretty **** stupid thing to do, and dare I say, irresponsible, given the way the laws are written.

And what you wrote is exactly why soooooo many wealthy men get burned when marrying a poor woman. Marriages should be carefully thought through when there is big money
Think about it: 50% of marriages end in divorce, which is a coin flip, so how is it logical or make economic sense for a man with means to marry a poor woman when there is a 50% chance he’d need to continue PAYING her for the rest of her life to maintain a lifestyle he introduced her to (if divorced)???

Also, If you understood the history of marriage in the United States and Europe you’d understand the concept of marriage IS underpinned on concepts of it being a business merger.

But look, if both parties are poor and don’t have many resources....sure, go for it. Get married until your heart is content. Have a party.
Click to expand...

Sure, there are economic benefits in marrying but that is not the sole reason for the institution of marriage. It is to start a family which is the foundation of society. Divorce and family breakdowns bring more hardship on society so it is not a frivolous venture. If people are marrying for reasons other than starting a family then it is not likely to hold up as well.

Marriage is a commitment to not just further your progeny but to provide the glue that holds society together. If you want to marry your social/educational equal there is nothing wrong with that. I did the same. But to suggest that as some rule of thumb is just a superficial view of marriage and it's purpose in my view.
 
Advertisement
Salt said:
Sure, there are economic benefits in marrying but that is not the sole reason for the institution of marriage. It is to start a family which is the foundation of society. Divorce and family breakdowns bring more hardship on society so it is not a frivolous venture. If people are marrying for reasons other than starting a family then it is not likely to hold up as well.

Marriage is a commitment to not just further your progeny but to provide the glue that holds society together. If you want to marry your social/educational equal there is nothing wrong with that. I did the same. But to suggest that as some rule of thumb is just a superficial view of marriage and it's purpose in my view.
Click to expand...

Good points, but I disagree that starting a family is foundational to marriage, and I’ll give you two contrasting but equally interesting examples that support it:

1. couples the marry in their 50s-60s, etc that never had children
2. Scandanavian countries: A vast majority of Swedish and Norwegian children are born out of wedlock (60%) even though Scandanavia is one of the strongest, most fundamentally sound societies on the planet. Also many couples raise children together but never marry
 
The Svengali said:
Good points, but I disagree that starting a family is foundational to marriage, and I’ll give you two contrasting but equally interesting examples that support it:

1. couples the marry in their 50s-60s, etc that never had children
2. Scandanavian countries: A vast majority of Swedish and Norwegian children are born out of wedlock (60%) even though Scandanavia is one of the strongest, most fundamentally sound societies on the planet. Also many couples raise children together but never marry
Click to expand...

Interesting you mention Scandanavian countries. Their cradle to grave welfare programs render marriages obsolete. You are correct. Couples "marry" and have kids but have no obligation to maintain the relationship. However, essentially individuals become wedded to the state. Personally I would rather promote the integrity of the family as a bottom up foundation to society vs some top down state leviathan that I will be dependent upon the rest of my life.
 
The Svengali said:
Men with means never understand simple rules. I say never get married at all, but if you must marry, never, ever marry a poor woman. You should never even date a broke woman unless she’s a play thing for a couple weeks. Always date “up” or your economic equal.

Namely, if you’re making $300K+ you should never ever marry a woman making $50K or not even $90K. If you do, you’d be giving her a lifestyle she’s otherwise never be able to afford.

And It’s a fools errand because she’ll be living your lifestyle and not hers, and when the divorce happens you’ll need to pay her so she can maintain it. No, if you’re making $300K+ it’s better to have the woman you marry making $225K+.

Men sucker themselves into marrying poor women with nonsense like “she’s hot”, she’s funny or she’s really cool AND likes sports, etc and then mortgage their economic future on that kind of nonsense
Click to expand...
A poor woman might feed you to pet tigers.
 
Salt said:
Interesting you mention Scandanavian countries. Their cradle to grave welfare programs render marriages obsolete. You are correct. Couples "marry" and have kids but have no obligation to maintain the relationship. However, essentially individuals become wedded to the state. Personally I would rather promote the integrity of the family as a bottom up foundation to society vs some top down state leviathan that I will be dependent upon the rest of my life.
Click to expand...

You’re bringing ideology into the mix, which weakens your stance. Namely, it seems you’re veering towards the American construct of marriage as an ideal. For example, and to paraphrase your original point, you stated “getting married to bear children were foundational to building a strong society”. So, as a counterpoint, I mentioned Scandinavia to disprove that premise, especially since the US is only 4.7% of the worlds population. That’s just a slither.

I’m focusing mostly on western societies (plural) - Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, US, because our systems are relatively similar, but the takeaway is, there are many different kinds of societies built on wholly different principles and institutions. But I certainly can’t wrap my brain around marriage and having children as some duty to the State for building society. That seems far closer to being wedded to the state under that concept, than a single patent being so called wedded to the state in scandanavia.

Also, not only do I disagree social programs have rendered marriages obsolete in scandanavia, I totally disagree Scandavia is a cradle to the grave welfare society (they practice compassionate capitalism), and I’ll argue against both premises with these points:

1. Their cultural norms are just different (see cultural relativism)...America is a very young country and still figuring things out, I’d argue and,

2. Denmark is ranked nearly 10 spots HIGHER than the US on the Index of Economics freedom scale....and Sweden is only a few spots behind the US. The index of Economic Freedom is an annual index created by the Wall Street Journal and Heritage Foundation to measure the degree of economic freedom in the worlds nations. It’s underpinned by Adam Smiths approach in the Wealth of nations. Denmark is 8, US is 17 and Sweden is ranked 22

Also, America is the second largest social welfare state in the world and it’s most certainly cradle to the grave, which nullifies your point about welfare programs making marriages in Scandinavia obsolete. Their society is strong and there are having children out of wedlock choosing not to marry as a choice. Real per capita social welfare spending in the United States is second largest in the world. America is the epitome of a so called welfare state!

www.heritage.org

The Heritage Foundation

Since our founding in 1973, The Heritage Foundation has been working to advance the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
www.heritage.org www.heritage.org

www.heritage.org

The Heritage Foundation

Since our founding in 1973, The Heritage Foundation has been working to advance the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
www.heritage.org www.heritage.org
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Back
Top