We almost had Brooks

[Ethnicsands]

Weren't the initial reports saying that DK's parents (huge U fans) called the U first? Later reports didn't mention this, said it was the other way around, but maybe there was some truth to that. Because The U can't comment on that either in the end. And I, nor should anyone, would never expect DK's camp to publicly say they were the ones reaching out. Anyhow, maybe DK's parents talked to them and wanted to hear both sides of the story and the meeting was setup out of courtesy. We don't have a typical coaching stuff; I could see our staff taking a little time to clear up the air over something like this.

That may seem far-fetched, but I don't think as far-fetched as some may see it. And assuming that an re-offer occurred just because the meeting took place is guessing on its own itself and isn't truly any more credible.

Anyhow, I am trying to stop guessing. Because as I said, it's just gonna drive us crazy and not change ****!

Sure, we could have taken the meeting because the parents reached out. Nothing unusual about that, though the whole 'he's heartbroken' thing that Ice was trolling around seems like obvious BS.

But still, if they were ready to take his commitment on Friday, then (a) why pull the ship; and (b) who got the spot? Not Edwards -- he was a fall-back for Collins. Coley had a spot held for him. And Grace had a spot open for him.

Anyhow, the staff isn't going to address any of this so it's speculation, but I'd rather give the staff the benefit of a logical explanation than assume they botched things for no purpose whatsoever.

 

[BigCaneAl]

It's quite obviously logically consistent. If you have a better explanation, by all means, let's hear it. It's pretty clear the U backtracked and got caught up in the Ice/BTW/DK situation.

Kirkland knew about deadline of Feb 1 at least as far back as Jan 20.
Kirkland did not have papers to sign on Feb 6
Brooks committed to Baylor on Feb 5

From that information we how is it logical to conclude that Brooks eminent commitment on Jan 31 caused DK to get offer pulled? Furthermore how can you conclude that DKs re-offer cause Brooks to go to Baylor when DK did not have papers to sign the next morning. I'll assume you are unaware of the details...

If you want to play stupid, be my guest. It's not hard to infer a few things that we also know. We were willing to take DK's commitment on the 1st. When he didn't provide it, we told him we pulled the offer. That led to a ****-storm that led to a meeting back at UM, and according to several people, renewed willingness to take his commitment. Whether he got faxed papers on Wed. is really not relevant. He may have told us he's not coming on Tuesday for all you know. Probably even likely. Would explain why if might not have had papers, if that's even true. But if we had a hard cap on spots -- which Golden says we did -- then it's quite easy to see how the DK side-show may have cost us Brooks.

And again, I'll note you haven't come up with any other theory here. If DK didn't play into the Brooks situation (note Brooks delaying his announcement also) -- then why did we pull DK's spot on Friday? Or do you think the whole thing was made up?

You are reaching... badly....if DK told the staff on Tuesday that he was not coming, then why would Brooks not have a spot on Tuesday night at 9:30pm?

Also, I wasn't offering a theory, simply pointing out the flaws in the theory you defended as being 100% consistent which is clearly not the case.

The information presented in support was not complete. I gave you an out, you should take it.

Perhaps because Brooks had moved on by that point.

Anyhow, LMAO @ you 'giving an out.' You offer nothing but whining and quibbling here. Provide your theory or quit with your 'outs.'

So Brooks may have moved on..then he didn't cost us DK...right? It was't the either or presented in the theory...right? Ok, thank you, i'll go ahead and take that as your acquiescence. I don't expect you to admit you are wrong as I am sure you are incapable of such things.

Whining and quibbling? I'm the only one here that's actually presented anything other than conjecture. Sorry if that information didn't work out for this theory you've decided to dig in on.

 

[Ethnicsands]

Kirkland knew about deadline of Feb 1 at least as far back as Jan 20.
Kirkland did not have papers to sign on Feb 6
Brooks committed to Baylor on Feb 5

From that information we how is it logical to conclude that Brooks eminent commitment on Jan 31 caused DK to get offer pulled? Furthermore how can you conclude that DKs re-offer cause Brooks to go to Baylor when DK did not have papers to sign the next morning. I'll assume you are unaware of the details...

If you want to play stupid, be my guest. It's not hard to infer a few things that we also know. We were willing to take DK's commitment on the 1st. When he didn't provide it, we told him we pulled the offer. That led to a ****-storm that led to a meeting back at UM, and according to several people, renewed willingness to take his commitment. Whether he got faxed papers on Wed. is really not relevant. He may have told us he's not coming on Tuesday for all you know. Probably even likely. Would explain why if might not have had papers, if that's even true. But if we had a hard cap on spots -- which Golden says we did -- then it's quite easy to see how the DK side-show may have cost us Brooks.

And again, I'll note you haven't come up with any other theory here. If DK didn't play into the Brooks situation (note Brooks delaying his announcement also) -- then why did we pull DK's spot on Friday? Or do you think the whole thing was made up?

You are reaching... badly....if DK told the staff on Tuesday that he was not coming, then why would Brooks not have a spot on Tuesday night at 9:30pm?

Also, I wasn't offering a theory, simply pointing out the flaws in the theory you defended as being 100% consistent which is clearly not the case.

The information presented in support was not complete. I gave you an out, you should take it.

Perhaps because Brooks had moved on by that point.

Anyhow, LMAO @ you 'giving an out.' You offer nothing but whining and quibbling here. Provide your theory or quit with your 'outs.'

So Brooks may have moved on..then he didn't cost us DK...right? It was't the either or presented in the theory...right? Ok, thank you, i'll go ahead and take that as your acquiescence. I don't expect you to admit you are wrong as I am sure you are incapable of such things.

Whining and quibbling? I'm the only one here that's actually presented anything other than conjecture. Sorry if that information didn't work out for this theory you've decided to dig in on.

You have presented nothing. You're flailing around trying to show that the OP's theory isn't air tight, but have no theory of your own. And you haven't undermined his theory, either. It is entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that the DK dust up cost us Brooks. You certainly haven't shown it didn't. Nor have you explained anything about what went down with DK or Brooks that would lead to an alternate theory. You're just yapping to hear yourself yap here.

 

[DaveT]

I like debates, but the OP's theory is far from airtight and acting like it is isn't going to suddenly make it. Thinking it is is acting a bit blind and makes even trying to have a debate over what happened pointless. This thread is dumb in the end.

 

[Big Sky Cane]

I don't understand the push back on this one. It's probably the only thing I've read that actually makes sense about how the DK thing went down. It explains why they'd pull his scholarship when he didn't honor his deadline. It explains the Brooks timing and situation. And it effectively explains why they backtracked and kept the DK offer open until NSD. Anyone who thinks this doesn't make sense is effectively saying Golden is truly an idiot, because if he didn't have a hard cap there would have been no reason whatsoever to pull DK's scholarship on 2/1. And if there was no reason to do that, and he does it anyhow, then he's clueless.

How do you explain the 3 for 6 on signing day then. Either Keith or Kirk didn't have an offer on signing day. We know Thomas and Bostwick did (at least we can assume). Keith tweeted a picture of his Miami LOI, so that leaves out Kirk.

It's pretty easy to explain, if you're not trying to play possum here, which you are. Whether the kid got an LOI faxed to him on Wednesday has little to do with whether the weekend blow-up cost of Brooks. You're just ignoring the main point here. If Kirkland let us know, e.g., that he wasn't coming on Wed. after the follow-up meeting, then there would have been no reason to send him a LOI to sign. That doesn't mean, however, that we didn't lose Brooks as a result. Beyond that, the 3-6 comment itself came from AG. You don't know whether he meant 3 / 6 of the kids he expected. Saying he was making a technical point seems kinda dumb. He would have taken Robinson, too, but didn't count him on that list.

Again, tell us your theory. Why pull the scholarship from Kirkland on Friday?

I wasn't playing possum and I'm not disagreeing with the theory.....it was a simple question. I don't have a clue what went down and it's likely you don't either.

 

[Larry]

Weren't the initial reports saying that DK's parents (huge U fans) called the U first? Later reports didn't mention this, said it was the other way around, but maybe there was some truth to that. Because The U can't comment on that either in the end. And I, nor should anyone, would never expect DK's camp to publicly say they were the ones reaching out. Anyhow, maybe DK's parents talked to them and wanted to hear both sides of the story and the meeting was setup out of courtesy. We don't have a typical coaching stuff; I could see our staff taking a little time to clear up the air over something like this.

That may seem far-fetched, but I don't think as far-fetched as some may see it. And assuming that an re-offer occurred just because the meeting took place is guessing on its own itself and isn't truly any more credible.

Anyhow, I am trying to stop guessing. Because as I said, it's just gonna drive us crazy and not change ****!

Sure, we could have taken the meeting because the parents reached out. Nothing unusual about that, though the whole 'he's heartbroken' thing that Ice was trolling around seems like obvious BS.

But still, if they were ready to take his commitment on Friday, then (a) why pull the ship; and (b) who got the spot? Not Edwards -- he was a fall-back for Collins. Coley had a spot held for him. And Grace had a spot open for him.

Anyhow, the staff isn't going to address any of this so it's speculation, but I'd rather give the staff the benefit of a logical explanation than assume they botched things for no purpose whatsoever.

Tano and I talked about this after the Signing Day presser.

The numbers Al stated during the presser don't make sense...so a lot of this talk is just conjecture. My only guess is there was a cap, but they would obviously take more if it were the right players.

 

[wooshdogg]

I think we ve found Broward Cane...

 

[2livecru]

Ethnic and goldenshower are the only arguments that make logical sense in my opinion. The recruitment of defensive tackles (brooks) was linked to DK's recruitment - as was suggested in the original interview with ice where he indicates that UM had offered too many dtackles, necessitating a commitment from DK. You will never hear anything from the coaches about this issue, as far as explanations, because it will reveal an instance where they could have potentially over signed (huge disservice to UM, btw, airing this info publicly). I wouldnt be surprised if brooks ultimately felt undervalued himself playing the waiting game. I don't post at all, but it's a little frustrating that these guys (ethnic and showers) aren't given credit for a completely logical argument.

 

[BigCaneAl]

If you want to play stupid, be my guest. It's not hard to infer a few things that we also know. We were willing to take DK's commitment on the 1st. When he didn't provide it, we told him we pulled the offer. That led to a ****-storm that led to a meeting back at UM, and according to several people, renewed willingness to take his commitment. Whether he got faxed papers on Wed. is really not relevant. He may have told us he's not coming on Tuesday for all you know. Probably even likely. Would explain why if might not have had papers, if that's even true. But if we had a hard cap on spots -- which Golden says we did -- then it's quite easy to see how the DK side-show may have cost us Brooks.

And again, I'll note you haven't come up with any other theory here. If DK didn't play into the Brooks situation (note Brooks delaying his announcement also) -- then why did we pull DK's spot on Friday? Or do you think the whole thing was made up?

You are reaching... badly....if DK told the staff on Tuesday that he was not coming, then why would Brooks not have a spot on Tuesday night at 9:30pm?

Also, I wasn't offering a theory, simply pointing out the flaws in the theory you defended as being 100% consistent which is clearly not the case.

The information presented in support was not complete. I gave you an out, you should take it.

Perhaps because Brooks had moved on by that point.

Anyhow, LMAO @ you 'giving an out.' You offer nothing but whining and quibbling here. Provide your theory or quit with your 'outs.'

So Brooks may have moved on..then he didn't cost us DK...right? It was't the either or presented in the theory...right? Ok, thank you, i'll go ahead and take that as your acquiescence. I don't expect you to admit you are wrong as I am sure you are incapable of such things.

Whining and quibbling? I'm the only one here that's actually presented anything other than conjecture. Sorry if that information didn't work out for this theory you've decided to dig in on.

You have presented nothing. You're flailing around trying to show that the OP's theory isn't air tight, but have no theory of your own. And you haven't undermined his theory, either. It is entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that the DK dust up cost us Brooks. You certainly haven't shown it didn't. Nor have you explained anything about what went down with DK or Brooks that would lead to an alternate theory. You're just yapping to hear yourself yap here.

Presenting an alternate theory is the only way to challenge an existing hypothesis? Wow, congrats. You have single handily revolutionized peer review. If by flailing you mean presenting facts that directly contradict or at least severely confound the theory presented then sure...you are the only one flailing around here grasping at straws trying to support a theory that contradicts the few known facts.

Again, explain how you can draw a direct line to Brooks wanting to commit causing DK's offer to get pulled when DK spoke of having a deadline on Jan 20? Explain how providing DK an offer cost us Brooks, when DK didn't even get papers to sign on Wednesday? Papers btw, which insiders were saying he wouldn't get at least since Monday. At the very least these are GIANT holes that need clarification.

Explain that within the context of the original theory and fine, but you can't without just adding more conjecture. You stupidly dig in when you don't have reason or information on your side. The theory presented is not supported by the little information that we know to be accurate. For all we know it may very well have gone down that way, but there is no way to support that hypothesis with the current information. No matter how much you really really really really believe it.

Go ahead, chime in with some personal attack and tell me how I haven't provided an alternative...because that will somehow give you some sort of satisfaction. You're wrong...suck it up.