ADVERTISEMENT

Floyd, Missouri, Ronst300 aka tortuga

Not Surprised.

Even though Floyd has contacted Missouri about their opening, I doubt he's a candidate at this stage of his career and with his track record.
 
There's too many younger up and coming coaches to choose from so I don't think we need to worry.
 
Yes, this was last year. It's for Ronst300 who said he wanted proof that this happened, in a previous thread
 
So, because a newspaper is claiming Floyd reached out to Mizzou you are sure he did? UM ok. I'm sure the El Paso Times always is correct too. How many coaches are reportedly interested in the UTEP job when we need a coach? Do we know that they have contacted UTEP? Or is just names a media source came up with? Did Richardson ever reach out to UTEP or was it only the hopes of Minerland he did? A question.....when a coach is interested in a job, doesn't his agent do the contacting for him to see if there is interest? I thought that's how it usually went....

That isn't proof he wanted to leave. We will never have proof unless he announces he is leaving. It's all speculation.

Let's speculate even further just for fun. "IF" he did reach out to Mizzou, couldn't he be trying to get his assistants a look at a head coaching gig? Or is that too far fetched? Seeing that he has several experienced coaches on staff, I could see him trying to help out. But, it's just speculation on my part.

I know we live in fear here at UTEP of losing our coaches because it happened several times already. I don't believe everything I hear or read. When it gets legs and is of substance, then I pay more attention to it.
I think the USC and Mizzou stories are flat out crap. That's MY opinion. While Tim may leave at some point (I doubt), I won't believe every single rumor that is out there.

Still no proof. Your opinion is different than mine....I'm not going to be able to change your mind and vice versa.

Thanks for the discussion! :D
 
Missouri is just the second half of it...USC was the first attempt at "building a long term program at UTEP." By TF's own account, he sat down with Pat Haydn for 3 hours while Haydn was conducting a coach search for USC. TF claimed this was not an interview and that he was not a candidiate because "I did not get an offer." And TF says he called the Hamiltons to "warn them that this will show up in the media". Since when do innoucous conversations just "show up in the media." Missouri, USC...he went after both but got no offers. I'd cut TF more slack right now if he in fact had come to build a long term program, but he didn't. And I still hold Issac Hamilton's leaving was his own doing. He had the makings of a great team with Hunter and Hamilton....but he's a USC man (or a Missouri man?) at heart.

And right now he's in a real hole...no big conference schoool will take him as his performance here has been marginal at best, despite his previous success elsewhere. Sine Stull gaev him a 5 year contract extension and he cannot afford to fire him, we get to see, whether we like it or not, whether or not TF can dig himself of the hole he's currently in.

This post was edited on 3/21 12:18 PM by Orange County Miner

This post was edited on 3/21 12:19 PM by Orange County Miner
 
Originally posted by Ronstr300:
So, because a newspaper is claiming Floyd reached out to Mizzou you are sure he did? UM ok. I'm sure the El Paso Times always is correct too. How many coaches are reportedly interested in the UTEP job when we need a coach? Do we know that they have contacted UTEP? Or is just names a media source came up with? Did Richardson ever reach out to UTEP or was it only the hopes of Minerland he did? A question.....when a coach is interested in a job, doesn't his agent do the contacting for him to see if there is interest? I thought that's how it usually went....

That isn't proof he wanted to leave. We will never have proof unless he announces he is leaving. It's all
Click to expand...
Richardson was upset that Mike Anderson was passed over for Jason Rabedeux when Rab left before the 02-03 season, Nolan's name was floated around and he said "I like winning too much" if he would be interested in the job.

It proves my point that a lot of assistants turn out to be good head coaches. Jaime Dixon and Mike Anderson interviewed here and have made it at other schools. So when people ask "Who are we gonna replace him with?", its a stupid question.

Floyd reached out to Missouri, not sure why you're so butt hurt over it. Couldn't a newspaper be sued for libel if they're printing up wrong info? If it was totally untrue, wouldn't have Floyd contacted them and then they would have made a retraction?
 
And to add to his USC pursuit, we have the Andy Enfield saga:


The feud escalated when Enfield criticized Floyd in a Men's Journal article that was released last week."Tim Floyd shows up every day at work and realizes he lives in El Paso, Texas," Enfield told the publication. "And he's pissed off that he didn't get the USC job two months ago. I told him, 'Tim, if I could have all this power to somehow convince a family to do this, why the heck didn't the kid come last spring, when I first got the job?'"

Of course, he never interviewed for the USC job, he didn't pursue the USC job and and never suugested to IH that he might go to USC and that IH sgould come along. Enfield just made up that TF wanted the USC job to defend himself from the tampering accusation, right?

espn..Andy Enfield, Tim Floyd clash
 
Originally posted by Ronstr300:
So, because a newspaper is claiming Floyd reached out to Mizzou you are sure he did?
Click to expand...
That is called a fact. I am not saying you should be everything you read, but that is a reliable source and they have nothing to gain by saying Floyd was interested in the job and have no reason to lie about it.
 
Originally posted by allminer:
Chi...a fact? No wonder you worship a certain news (sic) channel.
Click to expand...
A fact is anything that can't be disputed. If you have proof that Floyd never wanted the Missouri job, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, it's a fact. I am starting to wonder whether you really know the difference between the definition of a fact and an opinion.

You can make fun of me for watching Fox News all you want. I don't care. There's a reason Fox News is the most watched cable news program by a longshot.

This post was edited on 3/21 2:09 PM by El Paso Chihuahuas

This post was edited on 3/21 2:13 PM by El Paso Chihuahuas
 
The statement The St. Louis whatever "has learned", does not make it a fact. Why do you think a direct source is never ever named whenevercoaches names are tossed in the bucket. I wont get in a journalism debate here, but you are not dealing with a "fact" by any stretch of the imagination here.
 
Originally posted by MusicBob:

Originally posted by Ronstr300:
So, because a newspaper is claiming Floyd reached out to Mizzou you are sure he did?
Click to expand...
That is called a fact. I am not saying you should be everything you read, but that is a reliable source and they have nothing to gain by saying Floyd was interested in the job and have no reason to lie about it.
Click to expand...
Agreed. One should be all that they can be but one definitely should not be everything they read.
 
Carlos, no a newspaper cannot be sued for libel for printing information that is not true.
 
Originally posted by allminer:
The statement The St. Louis whatever "has learned", does not make it a fact. Why do you think a direct source is never ever named whenevercoaches names are tossed in the bucket. I wont get in a journalism debate here, but you are not dealing with a "fact" by any stretch of the imagination here.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you aren't getting. It has never been proven that Floyd never wanted the Missouri fact. Answer this for me: What does a St. Louis newspaper have to gain by saying Floyd was interested in the job? What would make you think they would lie?

Please do get in a debate with me. You would lose.

Journalism 101: Anything reported in a newspaper is a fact (obviously unless it's an op-ed piece,etc). Sure, some newspapers have biases and you have to be smart enough to know what to believe and what not to believe. I have no reason not to believe a St. Louis newspaper reporting that Floyd was interested in the Missouri job.
 
Originally posted by El Paso Chihuahuas:

Originally posted by allminer:
The statement The St. Louis whatever "has learned", does not make it a fact. Why do you think a direct source is never ever named whenevercoaches names are tossed in the bucket. I wont get in a journalism debate here, but you are not dealing with a "fact" by any stretch of the imagination here.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you aren't getting. It has never been proven that Floyd never wanted the Missouri fact. Answer this for me: What does a St. Louis newspaper have to gain by saying Floyd was interested in the job? What would make you think they would lie?

Please do get in a debate with me. You would lose.

Journalism 101: Anything reported in a newspaper is a fact (obviously unless it's an op-ed piece,etc). Sure, some newspapers have biases and you have to be smart enough to know what to believe and what not to believe. I have no reason not to believe a St. Louis newspaper reporting that Floyd was interested in the Missouri job.
Click to expand...
It has never ben proven that Floyd turned down the Missouri job. I guess that is a fact too.
 
They have nothing to gain, nor to lose. You're right about debating you Chi...like I told the board, I was going to stop going back and forth with you, only for the good of the board. Even when you're wrong you're right. I won't be responsible for threads that go on and on trying to make the same point over and over. You always win. I don't mean this in a malicious manner, but if you notice, people on this board go back and forth with you less now. You're like that kid everyone tires of playing with because they always have to win. I finally recognized its who you are. So today you're the journalism expert, ok, you win. Oh, and Floyd is the devil and should be banished from UTEPIA now and forever, which is what you've been trying to get everyone to say with all this Floyd polls and questions.
 
Originally posted by MistaBinks:

Originally posted by El Paso Chihuahuas:

Originally posted by allminer:
The statement The St. Louis whatever "has learned", does not make it a fact. Why do you think a direct source is never ever named whenevercoaches names are tossed in the bucket. I wont get in a journalism debate here, but you are not dealing with a "fact" by any stretch of the imagination here.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you aren't getting. It has never been proven that Floyd never wanted the Missouri fact. Answer this for me: What does a St. Louis newspaper have to gain by saying Floyd was interested in the job? What would make you think they would lie?

Please do get in a debate with me. You would lose.

Journalism 101: Anything reported in a newspaper is a fact (obviously unless it's an op-ed piece,etc). Sure, some newspapers have biases and you have to be smart enough to know what to believe and what not to believe. I have no reason not to believe a St. Louis newspaper reporting that Floyd was interested in the Missouri job.
Click to expand...
It has never ben proven that Floyd turned down the Missouri job. I guess that is a fact too.
Click to expand...
Huh? What the heck are you talking about about? That's not the way it works.

When somebody writes something and claims it is a fact, it is a job of the other person to show proof if they think it is not a fact (not the other way around).

Think of life as a courtroom. The person being accused of murder doesn't have to prove that he/he didn't commit the crime (the prosecution does). You are accusing the St. Louis dispatch of lying. Show proof that they are wrong, otherwise stay quiet.
 
Originally posted by allminer:
Carlos, no a newspaper cannot be sued for libel for printing information that is not true.
Click to expand...
Really? So if on the EP Times front headline tomorrow, it read "allminer is a violent child rapist" and posted your picture and home address, you could not sue them for libel?

I don't think you know what libel is. Please click the link so you can be enlightened.

So back to original point, if it were untrue, Floyd could sue them for libel, since it hurts recruiting, etc.

Libel definition
 
Originally posted by allminer:
They have nothing to gain, nor to lose. You're right about debating you Chi...like I told the board, I was going to stop going back and forth with you, only for the good of the board. Even when you're wrong you're right. I won't be responsible for threads that go on and on trying to make the same point over and over. You always win. I don't mean this in a malicious manner, but if you notice, people on this board go back and forth with you less now. You're like that kid everyone tires of playing with because they always have to win. I finally recognized its who you are. So today you're the journalism expert, ok, you win. Oh, and Floyd is the devil and should be banished from UTEPIA now and forever, which is what you've been trying to get everyone to say with all this Floyd polls and questions.
Click to expand...
When I'm wrong I will admit. I have many times- like saying Old Dominion didn't get an automatic NIT bid. I didn't know about the new process, so I admitted I was wrong right about I learned the new information.

People go back and forth with be less now because they know they will lose. They realized they continued digging themselves a hole because either a.) they don't have the facts/opinion to back up their claims or b.) they start with the immaturity and name calling. Look at you now. You showed zero proof to proof the St. Louis dispatch is wrong or any other proof for that matter. Luckily you don't fit in with the "b" crowd.

The past few weeks, this board has turned into something great. Expect for a few characters that will hopefully soon go away, this board has turned into something where people post their opinions and people, for the most part, don't respond with immaturity and actually have intelligent things to say.

Floyd is the devil? Not sure where you got that from. I don't try to get people to say anything. Not sure why you would think that.
 
Originally posted by MusicBob:

Huh? What the heck are you talking about about? That's not the way it works.

When somebody writes something and claims it is a fact, it is a job of the other person to show proof if they think it is not a fact (not the other way around).

Think of life as a courtroom. The person being accused of murder doesn't have to prove that he/he didn't commit the crime (the prosecution does). You are accusing the St. Louis dispatch of lying. Show proof that they are wrong, otherwise stay quiet.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Bob, but you do not make the rules here. I will post as I see fit.

You claimed anything reported in a newspaper is fact. Therefor it has to be proven Coach Tim Floyd did not apply for the job.

I now claim anything posted in a message board is fact. Therefor I am reporting Coach Tim Floyd was offered and turned the Missouri job.

Neither statements have any validation or proof that they are true.
 
Originally posted by MistaBinks:

Originally posted by MusicBob:

Huh? What the heck are you talking about about? That's not the way it works.

When somebody writes something and claims it is a fact, it is a job of the other person to show proof if they think it is not a fact (not the other way around).

Think of life as a courtroom. The person being accused of murder doesn't have to prove that he/he didn't commit the crime (the prosecution does). You are accusing the St. Louis dispatch of lying. Show proof that they are wrong, otherwise stay quiet.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Bob, but you do not make the rules here. I will post as I see fit.

You claimed anything reported in a newspaper is fact. Therefor it has to be proven Coach Tim Floyd did not apply for the job.

I now claim anything posted in a message board is fact. Therefor I am reporting Coach Tim Floyd was offered and turned the Missouri job.

Neither statements have any validation or proof that they are true.
Click to expand...
Who's Bob? You seem to be so enamored with that name.

What do you mean it has to be proven that Floyd didn't apply for the job? I don't know where you are going with that.

I have no clue what you are talking about. If something is a fact, it is therefore something that can't be proved untrue. Nobody has even proven that Floyd never applied for the job, so therefore it is still and will always be a fact unless proven otherwise.

The claim does have validation. It was reported in a newspaper.
 
Now you're getting somewhere carlos. Its in the intent. Like I told Chi...all these names thrown around with no sources named during coaching searches are harmless. They know no coach is going to get upin arms over their name being mentioned. There's no possible way to prove malicious intent. Thats what you were getting at when you said wouldn'tsomeone sue for libel. Well no, not over that. Too add, Floyd would have to prove that one article caused him a specific recruit. Prove it hurt his reputation and caused monetary damage. No lawyeris gonna touch that .

This post was edited on 3/21 3:38 PM by allminer
 
Originally posted by allminer:
Now you're getting somewhere carlos. Its in the intent. Like I told Chi...all these names thrown around with no sources named during coaching searches are harmless. They know no coach is going to get upin arms over their name being mentioned. There's no possible way to prove malicious intent. Thats what you were getting at when you said wouldn'tsomeone sue for libel. Well no, not over that.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is the St. Louis Dispatch picked a name out of a hat and stated Floyd's name?

This post was edited on 3/21 3:33 PM by El Paso Chihuahuas

This post was edited on 3/21 3:38 PM by El Paso Chihuahuas
 
Originally posted by allminer:
Now you're getting somewhere carlos. Its in the intent. Like I told Chi...all these names thrown around with no sources named during coaching searches are harmless. They know no coach is going to get upin arms over their name being mentioned. There's no possible way to prove malicious intent. Thats what you were getting at when you said wouldn'tsomeone sue for libel. Well no, not over that. Too add, Floyd would have to prove that one article caused him a specific recruit. Prove it hurt his reputation and caused monetary damage. No lawyeris gonna touch that .

This post was edited on 3/21 3:38 PM by allminer
Click to expand...
You're the one that said newspapers couldn't be sued for libel, lmao.

This is the last thing I'm gonna say about the subject. The article clearly states that Floyd or representatives of him, reached out for interest in the Mizzou opening. According to the newspaper, that is fact and luckily for them, they did not hire him. If it were untrue, it wouldn't have been printed.

Saying someone reached out is way different than a writer saying : Joe Smith, Dean Smith, Coach K, Dave Busters could have interest in the job...... There definitely was interest from Floyd. Who cares? He didn't get it or the USC job.

This post was edited on 3/21 3:45 PM by STCarlosEP
 
They may well have Chi. Remember, they said a source said Floyd's camp reached out...during our past basketball and football searches, how many different names were thrown out there by local media? How many were attributed to a direct source? Its a fact St. Louis printed it, unless they're going to name a direct source, its not a fact it happened.
 
Originally posted by allminer:
They may well have Chi. Remember, they said a source said Floyd's camp reached out...during our past basketball and football searches, how many different names were thrown out there by local media? How many were attributed to a direct source? Its a fact St. Louis printed it, unless they're going to name a direct source, its not a fact it happened.
Click to expand...
Not true. It's a fact unless proven otherwise.

Newspapers can write anything they want to and normally have information to back up their claims, otherwise they aren't going to print it.

This post was edited on 3/21 3:50 PM by El Paso Chihuahuas
 
Like you said Chi..normally. When it comes to coaching searches, no harm, no foul in naming anyone.
 
Originally posted by allminer:
Like you said Chi..normally. When it comes to coaching searches, no harm, no foul in naming anyone.
Click to expand...
So again: Do you think they just named Floyd for no reason? Do really believe newspapers print names just to print them?
 
Yes carlos. I was talking in the context of that article, you took it to the extreme of course.
 
Whats the difference if the name is in print or broadcast media via local or ESPN? 99% of the time its via a source that is not specified. How does that make it fact?
 
Originally posted by allminer:
Whats the difference if the name is in print or broadcast media via local or ESPN? 99% of the time its via a source that is not specified. How does that make it fact?
Click to expand...
Again, you still don't the difference between a fact and an opinion. If it's printed, it's considered a fact. Nobody is disputing it, so it's a fact. The newspaper didn't say, in our opinion Tim Floyd is interested in the job.
 
Jeez, I answered that. No more a fact than if Louie Del Rio or ESPN says the same thing over the air...a source says, its a grey area no one has to admit or deny. When someone posts something about a coach, recruit or player here, do you take it as fact? No, we all want proof. Whats their connection? How can you prove this? I don't take "a source says" as a fact. We're gonna disagree on that apparently.
 
Originally posted by allminer:
Jeez, I answered that. No more a fact than if Louie Del Rio or ESPN says the same thing over the air...a source says, its a grey area no one has to admit or deny. When someone posts something about a coach, recruit or player here, do you take it as fact? No, we all want proof. Whats their connection? How can you prove this? I don't take "a source says" as a fact. We're gonna disagree on that apparently.
Click to expand...
If newspapers had to cite their sources for everything that they stated, then they wouldn't have room for much writing. The St. Louis-Dabatch said they learned that Floyd expressed interest in the job. I am sure they didn't pick the name out of thin air and didn't just write it for the heck of it.
 
I think it's fairly common knowledge he was interested in other jobs. He is still our coach. I hope things improve this season.
 
Originally posted by MusicBob:

Originally posted by allminer:
Whats the difference if the name is in print or broadcast media via local or ESPN? 99% of the time its via a source that is not specified. How does that make it fact?
Click to expand...
Again, you still don't the difference between a fact and an opinion. If it's printed, it's considered a fact. Nobody is disputing it, so it's a fact. The newspaper didn't say, in our opinion Tim Floyd is interested in the job.
Click to expand...
According to who, Mitch? If it's printed, that just means the author is presenting someone's story or statement. That doesn't make it fact. The author is simply reporting what he was told. It is a newspaper not an encyclopedia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

U

Peculiar Quote about Jevon Jackson

Replies
7
Views
1K
MinerDigs
utep2step
utep2step
M

Dimel's tenure, and how it might provide lessons learned for Walden

Replies
2
Views
981
MinerDigs
Dmanminer
D
P

3-3-5

Replies
7
Views
2K
MinerDigs
UTEPMiners8106
UTEPMiners8106
P

UTEP Defense

Replies
7
Views
1K
MinerDigs
FiliUTEP
FiliUTEP
unihorn

Dimel Doubles Down on Decision to go for it on Third and Fourth Down

Replies
30
Views
1K
MinerDigs
nattybry
N
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back