Maybe The Problem Was You, Iowa State
Nice headline, with not one mention of Iowa State in the actual article.
Nice headline, with not one mention of Iowa State in the actual article.
Deadspin: Maybe the problem was you, Iowa State
- Thread starter jtd9046
- Start date
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,160
- 29,435
- 113
If you haven't connected the dots, my title to the thread is reposting the Deadspin headline.
Thought CF might be interested in seeing this jab. If you're not, move along. Good day, sir.
I have yet to see anyone actually give credit to Chizik. This was a funny read on an SEC board. I only read the first page of it.
Be honest about Chizik. - SEC Football - TigerDroppings.com
Be honest about Chizik. - SEC Football - TigerDroppings.com
I think his point is they did it to get attention. Just like you posting it in your thread title got attention.
Not a shot, just the truth.
I love this quote:
What has he done besides win a bowl game, beat Texas for the first time ever, and beat Nebraska?
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Lot of love for Paul Rhoads on that page :yes:
I enjoyed the response to the guy that said nobody would be successful at ISU, when the Tennessee fan threw in this question:
What has he done besides win a bowl game, beat Texas for the first time ever, and beat Nebraska?
I think people are noticing this guy, so that's nice (in one way).
Taking the source into consideration...maybe the problem was that Chiz hired a bunch of nobody besties to be his coaches? Or maybe, he always knew the Auburn job was in his hip pocket and he wasn't concerned with doing what was best for ISU as much as he was preparing and planning for the Auburn job? (Wild speculation, I know, but the thought has entered my mind).
That kind of surprises me, as I would have figured most people confuse us with the Squawks outside of the state of Iowa. Glad to see that there is some recognition out there from followers of the game that we have a coach worth keeping in Ames!
The more I think about it, the more I think that the headline is probably the truth. ISU, afterall, was not willing to play the pay for play game. Maybe ISU was the problem...
What he would say to all the people that doubted him:
"I've been asked that question several times and I'm not in a place where I want to say I told you so or look at me. That's not what we do at Auburn.
Say what Gene?
We've learned to watch what you do at Auburn, and not what you say.
http://blog.al.com/goldmine/2009/04/auburn_recruiting_hits_birming.html
"I've been asked that question several times and I'm not in a place where I want to say I told you so or look at me. That's not what we do at Auburn.
Say what Gene?
We've learned to watch what you do at Auburn, and not what you say.
http://blog.al.com/goldmine/2009/04/auburn_recruiting_hits_birming.html
What he would say to all the people that doubted him:
"I've been asked that question several times and I'm not in a place where I want to say I told you so or look at me. That's not what we do at Auburn.
Say what Gene?
We've learned to watch what you do at Auburn, and not what you say.
Auburn's Tiger Prowl tour a hit in Birmingham | al.com
By saying he wasn't going to say it he just said it...:skeptical:
I was interested and saw the pasting of the article title. In fact, I immediately read the article. I was going to comment about the article not really fitting the title, but then I saw that you had already done so.
Still, I think it might have been good for the thread heading could to have included notification that the article really doesn't deliver what its title proclaims.
No big deal, other than the fact that this thread and article didn't really amount to as much as I hoped it would. The prospect of having an article to rant about was appealing, but didn't come to fruition, so maybe I was channeling some of that latent GC dislike toward you and your thread title since I couldn't channel it toward the article itself.
At any rate, it was interesting to see that title used. Perhaps the editor was from EIU. Yeah, let's go after them and GC in the same thread. That editor had something in mind. And perhaps the copy editor cut out content after the general editor gave it the headline. It would make sense that an early version of this article had something in it that justified the title. Or maybe it was just intended to be inflammatory in itself. I'm overthinking it, I know.
