CaneHammer
Freshman
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 287
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ethnicsands again.
forums
We almost had Brooks
- Thread starter FullyERicht
- Start date
Advertisement
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 6,061
Kirkland never got his offer back....it was face saving for Kirkland. He did not get papers to sign = no offer. The thing people don't realize is that UM can't comment on the situation. The only real info we have is that he did not get papers. I suspect the meetings were to discuss alternative options. They didn't relent on the offer afaik.
Last edited:
Ethnicsands
All-American
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 22,724
First of all, you don't know if he got his offer back or not. Secondly, it doesn't really matter to the point being made here. Because once Brooks committed to Baylor, whether DK got papers became academic. And the only 'facts' we truly know (or seem to know) is that DK and his family met with UM at UM on Tuesday, which is when Brooks committed to Baylor.
Basically, the point is that the DK **** storm caused us to lose Brooks. Whether it's true or not, it's 100% logically consistent with the events that unfolded and anything AG has said re scholarships.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 6,061
How is it logically consistent? So Brooks commits to Baylor on Tuesday, and Kirkland STILL doesn't have papers to sign on Wednesday. As far as I know, those are the only facts we know. We know he did not get scholarship papers to sign, this was confirmed by BTW. Also, I haven't seen any report of a meeting on Tuesday. They met Saturday as far as I know and AG did not attend. In regards to scholarships and offers, actions speak louder than words.
Is it possible the initial mess was due to Brooks directly, sure I guess, but it's not 100% consistent. There are a lot of moving parts and its nearly impossible to infer what actually happened. It's certainly pretty silly to come post this is "how it went down" and then give out a theory that can easily be contradicted. We did not lose Brooks because of Kirkland's "offer", I'll grant you that we may have lost DK because of Brooks...although Kirkland knew about the Feb 1 deadline since at least Jan 20....
Last edited:
Advertisement
NDE
Sophomore
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,647
Correct. That is the word that has been floating around by various "Insiders" on various boards. The opposite opinions are Ice and Luke *** sniffers. Listen to the interview of coach Treon Harris from Miami Edison on the Dan SillyO show, go to #79 at around the 20 minute mark. The real Don of South Florida Football, Coach Harris from Edison, had a totally different take from what Luke and Ice Harris said. Told SillyO come over for lunch and I will tell you what "really went down".
Ethnicsands
All-American
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 22,724
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.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 6,061
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 have 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 caused 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...
The theory presented is not supported by known information.
Last edited:
Ethnicsands
All-American
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 22,724
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?
Advertisement
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 6,061
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.
Big Sky Cane
6th Year Senior
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 2,777
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.
TheMatador
All-ACC
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2012
- Messages
- 13,849
I've tried to tell you guys, but we were not as high on Kirkland as a lot of you on these boards like to think. Just because he was rated highly by the recruiting writers doesn't mean our coaching staff agreed.
This board has gotten much more immature than Grassy and DBC (who seems to have disappeared more or less, anyway.)
Like a bunch of old women who have nothing to do with themselves but complain and argue.
This board has gotten much more immature than Grassy and DBC (who seems to have disappeared more or less, anyway.)
Like a bunch of old women who have nothing to do with themselves but complain and argue.
I actually think the thread is informing in that it provides some theory as to how everything played out down the stretch. Outstanding offer numbers were not consistent with the hard cap scholarship numbers Golden referenced. This info tells me we had less ships available than most prognisticators were guessing.
I think the staff really wanted Brooks and felt he could be an immediate contributor or they wouldn't have given him the offer given our limited schollies. We despeately needed a guy with his skill set to help hold the fort down near term. Our defense needs toughness in the trenches and this kid is the kind of kid who does the dirty work to make every one around him look better. He is a far more than a JAG being described in this thread.
I think the staff really wanted Brooks and felt he could be an immediate contributor or they wouldn't have given him the offer given our limited schollies. We despeately needed a guy with his skill set to help hold the fort down near term. Our defense needs toughness in the trenches and this kid is the kind of kid who does the dirty work to make every one around him look better. He is a far more than a JAG being described in this thread.
Advertisement
Ethnicsands
All-American
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 22,724
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?
Just because no one has a better explanation doesn't mean this one is accurate. In the end, a couple people (Ice and DK?) said DK was re-offered. I hadn't heard it from anywhere else, other than people reporting Ice saying DK was back in the game at Miami.
Are we seriously going to take Ice's word on that one?
The instant the report of the meeting being setup were going down, someone from another board was ****ed this meeting was being done and said he knew it was all for spin -- and said DK was never going to be re-offered at the meeting, but they would still come out saying that The U re-offered, and DK said no to save face all knowing The U can't discuss or defend. Again, for spin. (trying to track down the post about this).
Come NSD, DK and BTW both pretty much said there was no re-offer. I didn't take it as him just getting papers, I took it as no offer ever being re-extended on that Saturday. The spin they wanted had been complete by then.
Everyone is guessing going by what we know publicly. I think it's clear there's more to this that we don't know. And guessing will just drive of us crazy without changing what happened.
Are we seriously going to take Ice's word on that one?
The instant the report of the meeting being setup were going down, someone from another board was ****ed this meeting was being done and said he knew it was all for spin -- and said DK was never going to be re-offered at the meeting, but they would still come out saying that The U re-offered, and DK said no to save face all knowing The U can't discuss or defend. Again, for spin. (trying to track down the post about this).
Come NSD, DK and BTW both pretty much said there was no re-offer. I didn't take it as him just getting papers, I took it as no offer ever being re-extended on that Saturday. The spin they wanted had been complete by then.
Everyone is guessing going by what we know publicly. I think it's clear there's more to this that we don't know. And guessing will just drive of us crazy without changing what happened.
Last edited:
Advertisement
Ethnicsands
All-American
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 22,724
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.'
Ethnicsands
All-American
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 22,724
Perhaps, but Brooks did push back his announcement also. And AG has said many times there was a hard cap issue that played in here.
And if the staff wasn't going to reconsider its decision to offer DK, then there would have been no reason for the weekend meeting. Better to stick to your position if your position is don't want the kid, then keep the **** storm going for a few extra days by wallowing around in it.
Anyhow, the OP's theory makes sense on the facts here. It's also possible, I guess, that we botched the DK communications for no particular reason and Brooks dissed us despite our massive DL need. I'm just trying to be a bit more charitable to AG than that.
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 ****!
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 ****!
Last edited:
FullyERicht
Thunderdome
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2013
- Messages
- 5,591
It still amazes me that people don't understand that the staff has a strict number of slots, and a recruiting board, and how it all works. Smh.
Advertisement