Dave in Green

Parties involved in contracts do not set legal precedent. Judges do that when they decide cases and case law is established. Hey, I watch Law & Order. You can't tell me anything I don't know about the legal system. I said that Kennedy's comments to Pluto suggest a legal precedent may have been involved. That is, no one in the past chose to dispute similar contract buyout agreements between Can't and its coaches. If their attorneys thought legal precedent favored them, they would have been foolish to throw away hundreds of thousands of dollars in buyout money that they weren't legally obligated to pay. Of course it's possible that there are differences this time around that could swing things the other way. We long-range observers can only guess at details to which we don't have access. I only note from the information available to date that, whether or not technical legal precedent was involved, actual precedent is that previous contractual buyout situations at Can't all went in their favor without having to go to court. In the absence of further information, I give the advantage to Can't this time around.

Hilltopper nailed it when he pointed out that Kennedy's description to Pluto about the previous coaching payoffs to Can't suggest a legal precedent. The previous coaches signed legal, binding contracts with Can't similar to the one signed by Ford. Those previous contracts were strong enough that multi-hundred-thousand-dollar payoffs were generated in all cases. If there was any chance of the other coaches/schools getting out of paying those hundreds of thousands of dollars to Can't, they would have at least tried. The attorneys representing Bradley and Ford will have to be pretty clever fellows to reverse that precedent.

I congratulate President Obama for following through on his campaign promise to go into Pakistan if necessary to bring justice to Bin Laden. I would have congratulated President Bush if he had accomplished the same thing. I do not believe in the concept of "my political party, right or wrong."

Interesting development in Alabama. The head of the Alabama State Senate has pushed back against the Governor of Alabama, freezing the process of appointing a new board of directors for Auburn University and calling for reopening nominations later this year. While he says it's not about any individual but rather the process, there has been much anguish in Alabama about Bobby Lowder being reappointed. Governor Bentley had allowed only one week for nominations to be submitted, the committee received more than 200 nominations, and the committee made its recommendations just 10 days after the nomination deadline without conducting any interviews. It was also noted that Lowder's wife contributed $25,000 to Governor Bentley's election campaign. Del Marsh: Reopen nominations for Auburn board of trustees

The NCAA had a little show and tell with reporters to educate them on how the "bad guys" are weeded out and punished while the "not so bad guys" are allowed to skate: 'Transparent' NCAA shows how enforcement sausage is made

Thanks, Zach. You convinced me to go back and try again. This time the opening commercial was shorter, there was no pop-up ad, and I was able to stop and backup the video. It sure was a hot mess the first time I tried to view it. I have no idea why my computer and that video were not making nice the first time. Anyway, upon closer examination, the wording for the arena section was: Main/Canal District: A world-class multipurpose arena. Also, I was able to see more clearly this time that the arena pops up not on the north side of Canal Park, but on the east side toward the UA campus, immediately across Main Street from the baseball field. Looking at an aerial view of that area, there are currently surface parking lots and a couple of small buildings on the proposed site. So it's about 3 blocks from campus, and well connected by the enclosed walkway over the railroad tracks just south of University Ave.

Too bad it's such a pain in the rump video to watch. First you have to sit through a long commercial. Then you have to fight off a pop-up commercial in the middle of the video. The worst part is not being able to click back to an earlier point and watch the few seconds on the arena more than once. By the time I got through with all this, I had forgotten what they called it and wasn't about to sit through a whole rerun. The only thing that stuck with me was that the arena magically popped up right next to Canal Park, immediately adjacent to the north side of the baseball field. If you blinked, you missed it.

If we can't use current success as one of the determining factors in facility improvements, what do we use? It seems to me that current success is one of a number of determining factors. It may not be the only factor, but I don't think you just totally ignore it. Anytime you're at a really low point, it's easy to say that you overplanned your facility improvements, and anytime you're at a really high point, it's easy to say that you underplanned your facility improvements. In other words, no matter what you do, it's practically guaranteed there will be times that your future planning looks smart and times when it looks dumb.

It's all attorney legalese from here on out. But my non-legal interpretation tells me that Bradley seems to be focused on the fact that they got permission to interview Ford and thus did nothing wrong, while Can't is focused on the precise wording of their contract with Ford beyond merely interviewing for another job. From what Can't is saying now, their contract with Ford is pretty explicit in terms of buyout. It seems to me that it's irrelevant that Bradley got permission to interview Ford if they followed that up by immediately hiring him without concern for the wording in Ford's contract with Can't. It may be that Bradley and Ford thought they could work out a compromise with Can't, while Can't apparently wants to go by the letter of the contract. It seems as if that would be fairly easy for a judge to work out depending on the precise wording of the contract, and if there are any other signed documents that might mitigate portions of the contract.

I don't care what anyone at OSU thinks. I care about seeing UA get more credit from the media and the public for being able to compete on anything close to even terms with OSU in anything, and come away a winner more often than a loser. No one thinks there's a UA-OSU football rivalry because everyone assumes OSU will slaughter the Zips, so no one pays much attention whenever they play. No one thinks there's a UA-OSU basketball rivalry because everyone assumes OSU would slaughter the Zips if they played, so no one would pay much attention if they played. If no one thinks there's a UA-OSU soccer rivalry, no one will pay much attention when they play. People do pay attention to rivalries. The media pays attention to rivalries because the people the media cater to pay attention. So I'd say that any UA-OSU rivalry in any sport would pay dividends. It would focus public and media attention on UA playing OSU, and would result in more attention and more credit to UA when the Zips beat OSU. So count my vote in favor of encouraging a UA-OSU rivalry in soccer. It's the only way I see where Ohio citizens and Ohio media, who usually consider OSU to be invincible and UA to be a gnat, will briefly focus their attention on an event where the gnat regularly wins. Over time, it could begin to convince people that OSU is not invincible and UA is not a gnat. But it only works if Ohio citizens and Ohio media are even aware of UA playing OSU in soccer, and that awareness would be greatly enhanced if there were a genuine rivalry to grab their attention.

Very disappointing. I probably had higher hopes for Euton than most on this forum. I spent a lot of time researching him on the internet, and thought that playing a tough schedule against a number of nationally ranked teams on a powerhouse Kentucky HS team would have him well prepared to contribute to the Zips. In retrospect, it may be that his many high-performing HS teammates covered some of his weaknesses. The biggest criticism against Euton on the Kentucky HS forums was that he was not quick and athletic enough to perform at a high level in DI, and that may be what did him in with the Zips. In the end Euton turned out to be a lot like Swiech. I wish Euton well, same as I did Swiech when he left. The way KD is recruiting these days, there's less likelihood in the future of seeing players like Euton and Swiech at UA.

I understand you completely, CK. I have the same feeling about ZN.O whenever an inflated forum member makes an explosive post that showers everyone with nasty stuff. Unpleasant as that is, for whatever reason I keep coming back here.

Can't believe this thread has been dormant for a whole month. Too much material to work with for that long a break. Here's the latest: LeBron calls a reporter's question 'retarded'

My favorite part of the story is that the car salesman who made all those car sales to OSU players and family members and got free tickets to attend a bunch of games claims that he's not an OSU football fan. Maybe he thinks openly associating with OSU football could damage a car salesman's good reputation.

Thanks, ump.

Could be some more players on the sidelines by game time: Ohio State to investigate players' car deals

It's a pretty black and white choice between stepping up to the plate and taking multiple good rips at the ball vs. watching the game from a couch or standing in a batter's box, bat glued to the shoulder, hoping and praying for a walk. Fortunately, there are shades of gray in the world, and other options than those. For example, there's the option of standing there with the bat glued to the shoulder on bad pitches and taking good rips at good pitches. Some might even argue that's the most intelligent way to play baseball, and consider those who flail away at anything that moves to be something less than great. The key to any productive discussion is diversity. When everyone thinks the same way and posts the same way, it's boring. When you have diversity of opinion, things start to get interesting. Different people state their opinions in different ways, challenges are made, more data is presented, and we're all better off for having expanded our vision. But it does require that everyone respect the fact that diversity is good, that others with different opinions and styles are not worthless, and that none of us is so great that we have all the answers to every issue. Some people have a hard time admitting that great truth because it requires keeping one's ego in check, and an unchecked ego can be intoxicating. I think some people may be put off when certain "chosen ones" on ZN.O are perceived to be elevated to the status of deity and those who differ labeled irrelevant. That brings back the childhood memory of seeing the Wizard of Oz at the local theater, and I'm reminded of the fire and thunder of the Great Wizard of Oz trying to intimidate poor little Dorothy and friends. What a revelation when we learned that the Great Wizard of Oz was just a little man hiding behind a curtain pulling levers to make all the fire and thunder. As it turns out, once out from behind the curtain, the Great Wizard of Oz proved to be a pretty nice guy who tried to help Dorothy get back to Kansas. There's a good lesson there. People and things aren't always what they appear to be. I've found that even the posters on ZN.O who I personally find to be the most annoying also post words of wisdom, though they're not always the words those posters push the hardest as being absolute truth. So, on balance, I like ZN.O, the people who run it, and those who post here. I may not always agree with everything everyone says. But I respect the fact that at any random moment, even those I appreciate least may teach me something new that I might never have learned if I hadn't listened.

Dr Z has seen the light.

The top six Zips players last season averaged 155 minutes PT per game played, and the next four averaged 55 minutes per game played.

Critics deserve to be judged by the same standards they use to criticize. Intelligent, analytical criticism invites productive discussion. Endless bashing is not conducive to productive discussion and deserves to be ignored. It's the difference between listening to the intelligent analysis of a thoughtful observer and the annoying wails of a little kid throwing an emotional hissy fit. Making noise will gain attention briefly until thoughtful people recognize there's no message to be heard and simply tune out the annoying noise. To be taken seriously requires earning the respect of others by the quality of what we choose to say and how we say it.

Anyone know any good reasons why UA couldn't work out a schedule that would allow them to use Canal Park? It's a nice facility within walking distance of campus. The Aeros don't play there every day. Using a facility like that as a home field might even help recruiting. What am I missing?

I give you credit for creating such a fancy way of saying "wild guess." But you might want to give a little more thought to what Nitro accomplished as a starter last season, and what he might bring to the party as a starting senior this season. For sure, as GoZips points out, KD is going to start the season with Nitro as a starter based on his performance last season and the fact that he's a senior. Whether Q replaces Nitro as a starter after the start of this season depends on how both players are performing in the early going. I'm totally neutral on who starts and who comes off the bench. I have no cousins or favorite sons among the Zips players. I like them all. My only interest is in having every player used in a way that provides the best team results. Whether that means starting or providing a spark off the bench is irrelevant to me as long as it produces the best chances for team wins. One thing that we as fans don't know is how the individual players would adjust to different roles. For example, starting may be critical to one player's ego, and not starting might result in reduced performance. Coming off the bench might be no different than starting for another player, and he might do just as well coming off the bench as starting. The coaching staff would know more about that than we would, so I defer to their judgment on matters like that. Anyway, that's my informed, thought-provoking opinion, er, wild guess on the matter.

How about declaring war on conspiracy theories.

Thanks for the support, CK and Hilltopper. I take it you both agree with my assessment, inasmuch as you both failed to post your own bold predictions on Q as a starter or sixth man.

I think we all agree that Q is a talented player who's going to get lots of PT this season. But it's still too early to tell if Q will be at his best as a starter or as the first player off the bench (sixth man). Some players actually like watching the flow of the game from the bench, and then coming in and doing damage. Others respond better to being part of the starting five. The starting lineup and sub lineups will depend on how the various players work together as a team under different conditions at different times throughout the game. The Zips have a number of players who we haven't even seen play yet, so there's no way to predict where they'll all end up. I think we'll see many different lineups in the early part of the season. After the coaching staff evaluates how the various players work together, they'll settle on a starting lineup that may include Q or may have him as the sixth man.