🏈 Charles Barkeys statement!!

Big_Fan said:
Optimus said:
ElephantStomp said:
To a degree I agree with him. Chizik does have the worse resume. I thought I had read on here that Gill had turned the job down?

IDK if Gill was offered the job or not, but I'd much rather have him than a 5-19 coach. However on the other side of the coin GIZ aka Chiz was at barn when they went unbeating back in 04 I think that was the year, and has good ties with the AU.

Personally if Gill is that good of a coach it want be long before he gets his shot. I think time will show how good Ghiz really is lol! 5-19 !!!



The other side of this coin?

gene.jpg




Hard to believe that actually minted a coin for him...and then he left.

Give you .01$ for it big :wink:
 
While I am glad that Auburn has decided to hire a coach with a poor record(as a head coach) I feel that I have to say a few things about this topic and my perception.
I know some about football and a lot more about human attitudes and behaviors. Charles Barkley is a loudmouth and attention seeking, however he does make a valid point. While most will focus on the race aspect of his statement they will tend to forget that he did state that his primary gripe was that they hired a less qualified(white) person over Turner Gill. I understand that race is a sensitive topic in this area and that instinctivly will will attack anyone who accuses us of racism. The problem with this is the fact that sometimes this sensitivity can lead to blindness. This apoligetic demeanor can lead to such terms as "playing the race card", this notion always makes me suspect. I have the same emotion when anyone begins a statement with" I'm not a racist,but". Sure, there are many factors that led to the hiring of this moron, but to believe that race is not one of those factors makes you deluded, delusional, or unwilling to pay attention
 
Crimsonblood82 said:
Gill's record at Buffalo is 15-22..not much better than Chizik's record at Iowa State. So what's the big deal?
You cannot hire people just because they ARE black or just because they ARE NOT black. If you do that, you're gonna get what MSU got with Sylvester Croom....a really bad head coach. At the end of a season, color doesn't matter but wins and losses mean everything...so hire the BEST candidate, based solely on their coaching abilities and their character as a human being, nothing else.

Sorry y'all, it totally irritates me...we're in a world where white people still discriminate...yes, that's true unfortunately....but it's also true that SOME black people...notice i said SOME BLACK PEOPLE, NOT ALL OF THEM...use their color as a crutch to get positions based on their skin color, rather than their ability.

u lose all credibility after saying that.
 
I just find it hard to believe that anyone in the SEC would NOT hire a guy just because he was black, Auburn or not.

I am not defending Auburn but I think they care more about winning than the color of someones skin.
 
Swamptick said:
I just find it hard to believe that anyone in the SEC would NOT hire a guy just because he was black, Auburn or not.

I am not defending Auburn but I think they care more about winning than the color of someones skin.

i really dont think thats the issue either. I think it has MUCH more to do with getting someone in there who will do what Dye and his cronies want. If they interviewed Gill, they probably figured out he was not that type of guy. The #1 qualification for that job was that he was "an Auburn man" i.e. a Dye/Lowder man.

Thats what i hear from the Aubs i talk to anyway. Dye's letter lends credence to that.
 
I wonder just how much of this conversation would have gone on if Chizik had stayed at Texas and accepted the Auburn job after being DC at Texas for four years. The barners might have beem whining about no head coaching experience, but the race issue had never come up.

FWIW Gill's record at Buffalo before this season is 6-16, essentially the same as Chizik's at Iowa State.
 
cjaytch said:
Swamptick said:
I just find it hard to believe that anyone in the SEC would NOT hire a guy just because he was black, Auburn or not.

I am not defending Auburn but I think they care more about winning than the color of someones skin.

i really dont think thats the issue either. I think it has MUCH more to do with getting someone in there who will do what Dye and his cronies want. If they interviewed Gill, they probably figured out he was not that type of guy. The #1 qualification for that job was that he was "an Auburn man" i.e. a Dye/Lowder man.

Thats what i hear from the Aubs i talk to anyway. Dye's letter lends credence to that.

I have to agree with that as well. This (IMHO) has a lot more to do with power and control than it does with color. I do think that Auburn probably preferred to hire a white coach and I do think that color had some part to play in it, but in the end, this is about control. Dye and Lowder want a lap dog that they could control. Chizik was probably viewed as that guy, while Turner Gill was not "a good fit".
 
They might as well give it to Dye since he his throwing out names of former players for CHEEZ-IT to add to his staff. Bham News had Dye saying that he had nothing to do with the hire and that he was just offering encouragement to Jacobs.
 
uagrad93 said:
They might as well give it to Dye since he his throwing out names of former players for CHEEZ-IT to add to his staff. Bham News had Dye saying that he had nothing to do with the hire and that he was just offering encouragement to Jacobs.

I don't believe that, for a second.

If you look at it, the whole picture, how is it that Dye can explain what has happened with every aspect of this search when questioned about it, but then he says, "I had nothing to do with the selection process."

In the spirit of the gratuitous use of emoticons:

^^BSFLA
 
Back
Top Bottom