Post Reply to Rock's House
This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
If we get pantzed tomorrow.... by txndfan82
Is the right move really to allow Kelly to continue to run this program?
He will have lost every bowl where he faced an above average opponent(fSU, Bama, LSU) thus giving him have a losing record in bowl games.
In five years he will have only one season with 10+ wins and one could argue that season was the result of more luck than skill I.e. Pitt.
His 'Heisman' contender QB has spiraled out of control to the bench becoming a turnover machine on the downward slide.
There is no evidence that this program is trending in the right direction, so why after another indicator would Swarbrick continue to allow him to be the face and leader of this program.