West Virginia Football Trouble

[crazycat]

To answer your question about the "requirement" that you can't even begin to verbalize because you don't know what it is (or whether one even exists), let's go back to this comment I made many, many post ago:

I am not certain that either of us is qualified to discuss the legal merits of the case, as I'm pretty sure neither of us has ever seen the contract. You can debate the merits of the case if you'd like, but I don't think it would be very fruitful considering that we don't have the information or the technical legal knowledge to sort out whether or not MSU jumped through all of the proper technical hoops in firing Mr. Kramer.

The technical part of the conversation should have ended right there.

Instead, everybody who read this thread witnessed how true my statement really was.

Based on that I should never make a post on this board, because I'm not qualified to discuss the merits of football or much of anything for that matter. You'd render this board inoperable.

As I've stated I'm basing my comments on what Bleedin said a while back and on conversations I've had with state employees who say there is a procedure that must be followed when employees aren't performing up to expectations. I've heard them say, "They can't just fire you for nothing and they have to give you a chance to fix whatever you're doing wrong before they fire you." That's what I think the case is about. But, you're right, I don't know for sure. Yes, the contract would spell out if Kramer was held to those same State rules/procedures. If so, then the procedure would say just what MSU was required to do. The link below is to the Montana Operations Manual and I think somewhere it it are details about how an employee that is not meeting expectations is dealt with. Maybe. I've looked with no luck.



http://hr.mt.gov/

[SonomaCat]

It's kinda like opining on a football game without having seen or heard anything about the game, to extend your analogy.

Without seeing the contract and hearing Edwards specific arguments, we are all entirely clueless as whether it has merit or whether it is just posturing.

As to the not-yet-supported theory that all state employees require time to remediate their problems, can you explain to me how that would fit with the child rape analogy ... or even with a theoretical situation where a coach simply loses a lot of football games by making awful decisions and recruiting awful players? Would the school be required to give them another season to turn it around, or would they be allowed to fire them?

I have a hard time believing that coaches can't be fired without a remediation period if they are losing football games ... that would be a very novel and unique situation indeed. I have to believe that an AD can simply say, "He was losing football games by making awful coaching decisions and doing a bad job in that facet of his employment, so he was fired." I'm pretty sure the school wouldn't be required to suffer another awful season and another year of awful recruiting (and another year of building a bad reputation) in order to give him a chance to turn it around before he was fired.

Do you?

[crazycat]

It's kinda like opining on a football game without having seen or heard anything about the game, to extend your analogy.

Without seeing the contract and hearing Edwards specific arguments, we are all entirely clueless as whether it has merit or whether it is just posturing.

As to the not-yet-supported theory that all state employees require time to remediate their problems, can you explain to me how that would fit with the child rape analogy ... or even with a theoretical situation where a coach simply loses a lot of football games by making awful decisions and recruiting awful players? Would the school be required to give them another season to turn it around, or would they be allowed to fire them?

I have a hard time believing that coaches can't be fired without a remediation period if they are losing football games ... that would be a very novel and unique situation indeed. I have to believe that an AD can simply say, "He was losing football games by making awful coaching decisions and doing a bad job in that facet of his employment, so he was fired." I'm pretty sure the school wouldn't be required to suffer another awful season and another year of awful recruiting (and another year of building a bad reputation) in order to give him a chance to turn it around before he was fired.

Do you?

As for paragraph two: Exactly, that's why I've taken an open, wait-n-see approach.

As for the rest: Same thing, maybe you're correct. But there's no way in knowing until the dust settles, so you need to take your own advice, which has been my advice, and just wait-n-see. If the school/state sees fit to pay a large settlement, then it would be saying that it should've been doing some of the things you seem to be scoffing at. If that's the case, then we'll just have to take the school's/state's own word for it....they screwed up.

How many times do we have to talk around in circles? All I'm saying is that this has to go through a process and "maybe" (it could be kept secret) we'll see if Kramer was wronged. I think all you're saying is that Kramer deserved to be canned, regardless of the way it was done. So I'm certainly not making any bold statements beyond that, merely a bunch of ifs/maybes, however, you must admit that your comment is much more pointed. I say that you're unfair to do that, you say, who cares? I'm not saying Kramer was or wasn't wronged, I'm just saying the settlement is a good indicator. You apparently don't think so.

You're way off target whenever you make a post that says anything about where I'm coming from. These worthless analogies/examples seem to simply be trying to get me to commit to something that isn't relevent to what my bottom line is. They may be right, but --- as I keep saying --- we won't be able to (short of reading the evidence (contract/state policy) on our own) judge that until the outcome is known. Even if we read the contract/state policy it won't mean much without knowing what Edwards/Kramer contend and what the State contends. Yes, I know, OJ got away with murder (just trying to head off your next example here), so Kramer could win a big settlement even though he doesn't deserve it, but I tend to believe unfortunate things like that are the exception not the norm.

[SonomaCat]

As for the rest: Same thing, maybe you're correct. But there's no way in knowing until the dust settles, so you need to take your own advice, which has been my advice, and just wait-n-see. If the school/state sees fit to pay a large settlement, then it would be saying that it should've been doing some of the things you seem to be scoffing at. If that's the case, then we'll just have to take the school's/state's own word for it....they screwed up.

How many times do we have to talk around in circles?

I guess the circle continues until either I get tired of repeating myself or you realize that the following two points are perfectly true:

1. I have not taken a position on the validity of the theoretical lawsuit against MSU, I have merely opined that I don't think it is a good thing for Kramer to do, and I think it would be a shame if he was awarded $1M. I have taken my own advice this entire thread ... by at no point in this thread taking a position on the case ... it was you who kept trying to argue the merits of the case when I clearly stated over and over and over that I didn't think it was worthwhile to do so.

As an aside: You kept lecturing me about what the [theoretical] case was about and why it was valid and why I should talk about that instead of voicing my [fluffy, as you called them] statements about my own feelings that it would be a shame if Kramer was awarded $1M ... and I refused to get into a debate about the merits of the case because, as I noted many, many times in the thread ... we don't have even the slightest clue what the basis of such a [theoretical] lawsuit would be, and we have no way of knowing that. Despite that, you kept speaking in favor of it, and went so far as to state your (mis)understanding of the applicable law (sans research of any kind) and how it favored Kramer's [theoretical] case.

2. Paying a settlement in a case is not necessarily an admission of fault or of screwing up. It's often just cheaper to pay a settlement than to defend against a lawsuit.

As soon as you can acknowledge that that both points 1 and 2 are true, which I had kind of assumed were self-evident through this whole thread, then the "circle" will be broken, and we will be able to agree to disagree on this one solitary point:

I don't think a lawsuit is a good idea or is justified in the spirit of being compensated for actual "damages" done to Kramer, and you do.

[crazycat]

As for the rest: Same thing, maybe you're correct. But there's no way in knowing until the dust settles, so you need to take your own advice, which has been my advice, and just wait-n-see. If the school/state sees fit to pay a large settlement, then it would be saying that it should've been doing some of the things you seem to be scoffing at. If that's the case, then we'll just have to take the school's/state's own word for it....they screwed up.

How many times do we have to talk around in circles?

I guess the circle continues until either I get tired of repeating myself or you realize that the following two points are perfectly true:

1. I have not taken a position on the validity of the theoretical lawsuit against MSU, I have merely opined that I don't think it is a good thing for Kramer to do, and I think it would be a shame if he was awarded $1M. I have taken my own advice this entire thread ... by at no point in this thread taking a position on the case ... it was you who kept trying to argue the merits of the case when I clearly stated over and over and over that I didn't think it was worthwhile to do so.

2. Paying a settlement in a case is not necessarily an admission of fault or of screwing up. It's often just cheaper to pay a settlement than to defend against a lawsuit.

As soon as you can acknowledge that that both points 1 and 2 are true, which I had kind of assumed were self-evident through this whole thread, then the "circle" will be broken, and we will be able to agree to disagree on this one solitary point:

I don't think a lawsuit is a good idea or is justified in the spirit of being compensated for actual "damages" done to Kramer, and you do.

I never said I think it is or isn't a good idea. I just said that there are grounds for this and based on that, then there MAY BE justification.

I feel like I'm talking to a little kid (and if so I'm a little kid, too). "Are, too. Am not. Are, too....." Anyway I haven't argued any points firmly, just been saying "IF" a lot, because I feel like you think Kramer has no right to make a claim (OK, not a good idea). You may be right (I know you think you are right), but 'maybe' he is justified and if so deserves some sort of settlement. That...is...all.

[SonomaCat]

Little kid ... cute.

To clarify this one more time ... I have never said that Kramer doesn't have the "right" to do anything. I fully acknowledge that anybody has the right to sue anybody they want to.

I have said many, many time that I don't think he should, AND ... it would be a shame if he was awarded $1M. Those are my opinions, and are not, by definition, able to be proven right or wrong.

[crazycat]

Little kid ... cute.

To clarify this one more time ... I have never said that Kramer doesn't have the "right" to do anything. I fully acknowledge that anybody has the right to sue anybody they want to.

I have said many, many time that I don't think he should, AND ... it would be a shame if he was awarded $1M. Those are my opinions, and are not, by definition, able to be proven right or wrong.

If you don't think he should, does that mean you think he could find comparable work coaching or salary-wise or do you think that's just the way the sod crumbles or do you think he doesn't have a legit case? Other? All? You've probably said it before, but I need a reminder.

But I still don't get it with you. You acknowledge there's a rule out there of some kind and that the contract may stipulate it must be followed, but when/if it isn't you decide to blow it off, because Kramer shouldn't do this.

[SonomaCat]

Little kid ... cute.

To clarify this one more time ... I have never said that Kramer doesn't have the "right" to do anything. I fully acknowledge that anybody has the right to sue anybody they want to.

I have said many, many time that I don't think he should, AND ... it would be a shame if he was awarded $1M. Those are my opinions, and are not, by definition, able to be proven right or wrong.

If you don't think he should, does that mean you think he could find comparable work coaching or salary-wise or do you think that's just the way the sod crumbles or do you think he doesn't have a legit case? Other? All? You've probably said it before, but I need a reminder.

But I still don't get it with you. You acknowledge there's a rule out there of some kind and that the contract may stipulate it must be followed, but when/if it isn't you decide to blow it off, because Kramer shouldn't do this.

Let's go through this one more time (as my forehead bleeds).

1. There is NO "RULE" that you keep talking about. It doesn't exist. Nada. Nothing. Why don't you do at least a little research before you repeat than mantra about fifty times? I have NOT "acknowledged" any such rule, because you haven't even been able to articulate any such "rule" so far ... outside of your statements about laws that absolutely do NOT exist that you apparently thought existed based on your misunderstanding of somebody else's post. Before you want to hang your hat on some "rule" when making an argument, it's generally best to actually know what the rules/laws actually are. When you can't even say what the rule/law is accruately, you certainly can't expect anyone to take your argument seriously.

2. If there was a lawsuit, it would be based on the terms of the contract (not a rule, as you keep saying), and we don't know what the contract says, so it's pointless for us to debate it (as I have stated repeatedly).

3. I don't think that people should sue when they haven't actually suffered any legitimate harm largely due to the actions of the other party (meaning that the person's own actions were the largest actual cause of the end result). If Kramer did things that justified his firing (the word "if" included because this sentence is constructed as a logical if/then statement, and is not intended to express my opinion on the if portion of the argument), then I don't care if there are some semantics in the contract with which he could try to manufacture a lawsuit ... I think he should take the high road and walk away. That's my opinion. You are free to disagree with that opinion, but you cannot "disprove" that opinion.

These are my opinions, these have been my opinions, and these will always be my opinions. Just because somebody CAN sue doesn't mean they SHOULD sue. I'm sure if I listed a countless number of on-point examples of where people could sue but common sense tells us that they don't deserve to sue, I'm sure you would agree with me on that opinion.

Here's one:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball ... suit_N.htm

Do you support this lawsuit? He has the right to file the lawsuit, so do you think it is a good lawsuit for him to file? And you know what? He just might win. Does that make him "right" as you keep saying? Would you be willing to carry on a straw man debate for several pages of posts to defend this guy's "right" to sue against somebody who says that it is their opinion that the guy shouldn't sue?

And yes ... this is the same exact concept I am talking about ... apples to apples--just like the other examples I have provided that you have ignored that exposed the flaws in your statements.

It is my opinion that Kramer shouldn't sue. What happened was the result of his own actions (and/or a set of incredibly unfortunate coincidences that will always be, fairly or not, sourced to the coach in that profession), and he doesn't deserve $1M for it (unless he sues his own former players -- I might support that case). That's my opinion.

How much wood would woochuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

[crazycat]

Little kid ... cute.

To clarify this one more time ... I have never said that Kramer doesn't have the "right" to do anything. I fully acknowledge that anybody has the right to sue anybody they want to.

I have said many, many time that I don't think he should, AND ... it would be a shame if he was awarded $1M. Those are my opinions, and are not, by definition, able to be proven right or wrong.

If you don't think he should, does that mean you think he could find comparable work coaching or salary-wise or do you think that's just the way the sod crumbles or do you think he doesn't have a legit case? Other? All? You've probably said it before, but I need a reminder.

But I still don't get it with you. You acknowledge there's a rule out there of some kind and that the contract may stipulate it must be followed, but when/if it isn't you decide to blow it off, because Kramer shouldn't do this.

Let's go through this one more time (as my forehead bleeds).

1. There is NO "RULE" that you keep talking about. It doesn't exist. Nada. Nothing. Why don't you do at least a little research before you repeat than mantra about fifty times? I have NOT "acknowledged" any such rule, because you haven't even been able to articulate any such "rule" so far ... outside of your statements about laws that absolutely do NOT exist that you apparently thought existed based on your misunderstanding of somebody else's post. Before you want to hang your hat on some "rule" when making an argument, it's generally best to actually know what the rules/laws actually are. When you can't even say what the rule/law is accruately, you certainly can't expect anyone to take your argument seriously.

2. If there was a lawsuit, it would be based on the terms of the contract (not a rule, as you keep saying), and we don't know what the contract says, so it's pointless for us to debate it (as I have stated repeatedly).

3. I don't think that people should sue when they haven't actually suffered any legitimate harm largely due to the actions of the other party (meaning that the person's own actions were the largest actual cause of the end result). If Kramer did things that justified his firing (the word "if" included because this sentence is constructed as a logical if/then statement, and is not intended to express my opinion on the if portion of the argument), then I don't care if there are some semantics in the contract with which he could try to manufacture a lawsuit ... I think he should take the high road and walk away. That's my opinion. You are free to disagree with that opinion, but you cannot "disprove" that opinion.

These are my opinions, these have been my opinions, and these will always be my opinions. Just because somebody CAN sue doesn't mean they SHOULD sue. I'm sure if I listed a countless number of on-point examples of where people could sue but common sense tells us that they don't deserve to sue, I'm sure you would agree with me on that opinion.

Here's one:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball ... suit_N.htm

Do you support this lawsuit? He has the right to file the lawsuit, so do you think it is a good lawsuit for him to file? And you know what? He just might win. Does that make him "right" as you keep saying? Would you be willing to carry on a straw man debate for several pages of posts to defend this guy's "right" to sue against somebody who says that it is their opinion that the guy shouldn't sue?

And yes ... this is the same exact concept I am talking about ... apples to apples--just like the other examples I have provided that you have ignored that exposed the flaws in your statements.

It is my opinion that Kramer shouldn't sue. What happened was the result of his own actions (and/or a set of incredibly unfortunate coincidences that will always be, fairly or not, sourced to the coach in that profession), and he doesn't deserve $1M for it (unless he sues his own former players -- I might support that case). That's my opinion.

How much wood would woochuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

1. OK, so you called it a requirement, not a rule. What is the point in spliting that hair again, you know what I meant. There IS some kind of procedure for firing people at the State level....MSU/Fields might not have followed it. The contract may not say they even have to.

2. I never said their was or would be a lawsuit....there IS a settlement that is being sought. If they have a lawsuit, I'll opine on that when the time comes. The settlement will be based on HOW (the State procedure and how it was/wasn't followed) at which Kramer was fired.

3. I understand the word "IF" as you're using it, you seem to be ignoring that I'm using it the same way. I find that unfair in this conversation.

I've never said Kramer would for sure be in the right if he wins a hefty settlement, I said that if the settelment goes his way that's a good indication that he is. That's my opinion, nothing more.

Your other examples were flawed by your own admission. The "rape" example, give me a break.

You have no idea of what's going on as you've admitted over and over, yet you have this opinion that he shouldn't sue. If you admit you don't know what's going on why have an opinion? I admit the same and have stated clearly I think we should wait and see before forming an opinion. My opinion will be that if the State gives Kramer a crock of dough, then Kramer is probably (PROBABLY) in the right. That will be my opinion AFTER all is done based on the result. If he gets nothing, then I'll say he was probably in the wrong to even look for a settlement. It isn't my opinion right now. I only seem to have an opinion to you because I offer a counter argument to yours, because your opinion seems unfair at this point. Wait until some kind of information comes out.

[SonomaCat]

My opinion that Kramer shouldn't sue and that he doesn't deserve $1M is perfectly fair.

Let it go.

[crazycat]

My opinion that Kramer shouldn't sue and that he doesn't deserve $1M is perfectly fair.

Let it go.

I'll do that when you admit that there are guidelines (rules, requirements, whatever they are called) at the State and MSU may have (per the contract) had to follow them in regards to the Kramer firing.

This is a steal of a deal for you.

[SonomaCat]

I'll do that when you admit that there may be guidelines MSU may have (per the contract) had to follow them in regards to the Kramer firing.

Are you just trying to be funny at this point?

I'm the one who told you about the whole "contract" thing in this thread, remember? You were droning on and on about some fictional rules applying to Kramer about all state employees having mandatory time to fix their mistakes or else they could sue.

See my edits to your statement above.

Is there anything else you'd like me to "admit" that I actually taught you in the first place?

Can you just let this go, or is there a record of sort sort that you're trying to break?

And may I say one more time, just in case you missed it the first 100 times ... my opinions are COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY INDEPENDENT OF ANY DISCUSSION OF THE TECHNICAL LEGAL MERITS OF A POTENTIAL LAWSUIT.

I STILL hold the opinion that Kramer shouldn't sue, and I don't think that Kramer deserves $1M. No amount of good or awful legal analysis changes those opinions that I hold.

[Cledus]

Watching you two bicker is almost like watching the Jews and Arabs trying to come to a meeting of the minds.

[SonomaCat]

Watching you two bicker is almost like watching the Jews and Arabs trying to come to a meeting of the minds.

No argument on that from me. This has been one of the more frustratingly pointless discussions I have ever been a part of (and that's quite a statement, given my history).

[crazycat]

I'll do that when you admit that there may be guidelines MSU may have (per the contract) had to follow them in regards to the Kramer firing.

Are you just trying to be funny at this point?

I'm the one who told you about the whole "contract" thing in this thread, remember? You were droning on and on about some fictional rules applying to Kramer about all state employees having mandatory time to fix their mistakes or else they could sue.

See my edits to your statement above.

Is there anything else you'd like me to "admit" that I actually taught you in the first place?

Can you just let this go, or is there a record of sort sort that you're trying to break?

And may I say one more time, just in case you missed it the first 100 times ... my opinions are COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY INDEPENDENT OF ANY DISCUSSION OF THE TECHNICAL LEGAL MERITS OF A POTENTIAL LAWSUIT.

I STILL hold the opinion that Kramer shouldn't sue, and I don't think that Kramer deserves $1M. No amount of good or awful legal analysis changes those opinions that I hold.

Oh my! So YOU told me Kramer had a contract with MSU and it is relevent in this matter? Get real that pretty much goes without saying, doesn't it? Don't you feel like you might be insulting someone's intelligence when you make a statement like that. Now that's truly funny.

I've acknowledged your opinion all along, what you don't get is that I'm trying to broaden by saying I think there are possibly some things yet to be known that show your opinion to be off. What they are, I don't know and I don't know if they'll ever be revealed unless this goes to court and we get to hear them.

Your opinion is more like a religion. The religion of MSU? You just have faith that you're opinion is on track and contend it can't be changed, so like those of the book no evidence of any kind will ever change that.

[crazycat]

Watching you two bicker is almost like watching the Jews and Arabs trying to come to a meeting of the minds.

No argument on that from me. This has been one of the more frustratingly pointless discussions I have ever been a part of (and that's quite a statement, given my history).

So this has happened to you before.

Hey, I'll be the first to admit that you're much better at making an understandable point than I am what with your skills as a writer and being able to use the proper words, etc. However, you're ability to snatch the olive branch when it's waving in front of you is in question.