If Cockett gets the boot?

This forum is for Football related topics only. Other topics will be moved to the appropriate forum.
cval
Posts: 1025
Joined: December 10th, 2010, 1:32 pm
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by cval » December 16th, 2020, 9:48 am

I am wondering who gets to tell the faculty of a Research Extensive University that their next President is coming from a small regional liberal arts school with no research 🧐



bpd
Posts: 1150
Joined: November 4th, 2010, 10:12 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 163 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by bpd » December 16th, 2020, 9:57 am

I'm not trying to piss anybody off in here, but as somebody who is not Mormon, Utah State needs A LOT more religious diversity on campus. I know it is Utah and all but there could be more of an effort to get more religious diversity.
These users thanked the author bpd for the post:
NavyBlue



User avatar
USU78
Pick'em Champ - '16 Weekly
Posts: 9237
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 6:43 am
Location: Sandy
Has thanked: 2395 times
Been thanked: 752 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by USU78 » December 16th, 2020, 10:00 am

Das Boot? Nein!
These users thanked the author USU78 for the post:
flying_scotsman2.0


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

User avatar
USU78
Pick'em Champ - '16 Weekly
Posts: 9237
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 6:43 am
Location: Sandy
Has thanked: 2395 times
Been thanked: 752 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by USU78 » December 16th, 2020, 10:03 am

bpd wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 9:57 am
I'm not trying to piss anybody off in here, but as somebody who is not Mormon, Utah State needs A LOT more religious diversity on campus. I know it is Utah and all but there could be more of an effort to get more religious diversity.
When Salt Lake County college age flakes work up the gumption to leave their mommies' warm basements and face the cold and The Bull, they'll be most welcome.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

User avatar
El Sapo
Posts: 1237
Joined: November 27th, 2017, 1:32 pm
Has thanked: 193 times
Been thanked: 117 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by El Sapo » December 16th, 2020, 10:09 am

bpd wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 9:57 am
I'm not trying to piss anybody off in here, but as somebody who is not Mormon, Utah State needs A LOT more religious diversity on campus. I know it is Utah and all but there could be more of an effort to get more religious diversity.
True :cheers:

But, you know that's exactly the opposite of the players complaint.

Frank was discriminated against by Cockett/Hartwell/USU because he is LDS.


“Information is just bits of data. Knowledge is putting them together. Wisdom is transcending them.” ― Ram Dass

User avatar
USU78
Pick'em Champ - '16 Weekly
Posts: 9237
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 6:43 am
Location: Sandy
Has thanked: 2395 times
Been thanked: 752 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by USU78 » December 16th, 2020, 10:13 am

El Sapo wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 10:09 am
bpd wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 9:57 am
I'm not trying to piss anybody off in here, but as somebody who is not Mormon, Utah State needs A LOT more religious diversity on campus. I know it is Utah and all but there could be more of an effort to get more religious diversity.
True :cheers:

But, you know that's exactly the opposite of the players complaint.

Frank was discriminated against by Cockett/Hartwell/USU because he is LDS.
Pretty big implicit "if" in that last sentence.
These users thanked the author USU78 for the post:
El Sapo


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yossarian
Posts: 4477
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 11:56 pm
Has thanked: 71 times
Been thanked: 780 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by Yossarian » December 16th, 2020, 10:31 am

Cockett and Hartwell were just trying to shake the image of USU being BYU's little brother. BYU has a Polynesian Mormon head coach. They wanted to do something different to shake the little brother reputation. (Said in jest, of course)



User avatar
El Sapo
Posts: 1237
Joined: November 27th, 2017, 1:32 pm
Has thanked: 193 times
Been thanked: 117 times

Re: Players need workplace discrimination training

Post by El Sapo » December 16th, 2020, 10:36 am

USU78 wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 10:13 am
El Sapo wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 10:09 am
bpd wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 9:57 am
I'm not trying to piss anybody off in here, but as somebody who is not Mormon, Utah State needs A LOT more religious diversity on campus. I know it is Utah and all but there could be more of an effort to get more religious diversity.
True :cheers:

But, you know that's exactly the opposite of the players complaint.

Frank was discriminated against by Cockett/Hartwell/USU because he is LDS.
Pretty big implicit "if" in that last sentence.
Exactly.
These users thanked the author El Sapo for the post:
USU78


“Information is just bits of data. Knowledge is putting them together. Wisdom is transcending them.” ― Ram Dass

User avatar
brownjeans
Flatulent
Posts: 15519
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:21 am
Has thanked: 419 times
Been thanked: 832 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by brownjeans » December 16th, 2020, 10:51 am

WannabeAgAlum wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 7:46 am
brownjeans wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 7:04 am
WannabeAgAlum wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 6:59 am
brownjeans wrote:
December 15th, 2020, 10:44 pm
I hope Crockett stays. People should get a chance to recover when mistakes are made.
She could turn around and make a concerted effort at increasing diversity at USU. That would be really great for USU and Cache Valley
I agree.

Do you mean racial diversity? Cultural diversity? Religious diversity? If religious, then does that mean LDS or non-LDS?

She probably thought she was increasing religious and cultural (whatever that means) diversity with the hire.
By diversity I mean differences of all kinds. It's hard for a people to learn about and be understanding of people who are different when all their friends are the same as them.

I don't suppose to know her thoughts. As far as I know she could have thought most the players were Protestant or evangelical and she was trying to hire someone the same, not different.

Purposely hiring or admitting students with race and or religion as a factor is a dangerous thing. I think the best thing to do is reach out to diverse people groups and be welcoming and inviting.
A agree with the overall sentiment. Trying to reconcile your last sentence with your second-to-last sentence.
First sentence was just saying I don't think it's wise to purposely target race or religion as criteria for hiring or admissions. Maybe not even legal - however many laws allow such discrimination so long as it favors the minority, but I think it still invites risk. There's a guy out there (Edward Blum) who basically searches for legal cases to take down any laws that use diversity identifiers (gender, preference, race, religion) whether they favor minorities or not. He takes them to SCOTUS to eliminate all such laws. I would like to keep USU away from either side of such battles.
Last sentence means you find special interest groups, invite them to campus for discussions with students and faculty. Maybe have USU representatives go out and meet with others. An outreach campaign, rather than a deliberate hiring or admission criteria.



bluegrouse
Posts: 3360
Joined: November 9th, 2010, 5:04 pm
Has thanked: 438 times
Been thanked: 636 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by bluegrouse » December 16th, 2020, 10:53 am

I keep seeing phrase “this is the world we live in” as an excuse for injustice in the pursuit of justice. It’s the world we live in only for however long everyone accepts that this is the world we live in. How about having the courage to stand up to the vigilantes with pitchforks and ropes on the internet and not accept that we have to execute anyone and everyone that is convicted by the mob without even a semblance of a trial? Only when people decide that they will not accept this bull———— anymore do we have a chance to change “the world we live in”. As long as everyone just accepts there is nothing we can do about it then everyone will be right.



User avatar
CaptainChaos
Posts: 945
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 11:58 am
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by CaptainChaos » December 16th, 2020, 11:04 am

Texasaggie1 wrote:Did anyone else see this from KUTV news, I don't think it was posted in another thread but I could be wrong

The two, whose identities have not been made public, agreed this was the tenor of her statement: "What do we say to outside people who ask us about hiring an LDS person from Utah? We tried that, and it didn’t work."

That doesn't sound bad at all to me and I am of that faith. They should have just stated they had a more qualified candidate but I don't find anything too alarming by that statement.
This is exactly my thought as well... when you have candidates that are clearly more qualified- “what do you say to folks when they ask why you hired the LDS guy from Utah?” I have not seen anything attributed to Crockett about racial bias, but her statement in this type of context appears to be in support a more religious diversity. Besides that and more importantly supporting the most qualified applicant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
These users thanked the author CaptainChaos for the post:
USUGrad01



coolag
Posts: 1387
Joined: November 5th, 2010, 10:10 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 134 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by coolag » December 16th, 2020, 11:27 am

Aggie formerly in Hawaii wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 9:47 am
GUS wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 8:58 am
If Cocket is forced to leave then the University has become too woke for me.
We still don't fully know what she said, but if she said she wouldn't hire someone because they are Polynesian or Mormon, woke or not woke enough for you, she shouldn't be president of a major university.

To be fair, we still don't fully know the facts and should of course wait until the investigation is complete.
Come on man. We choose truth over facts.



User avatar
brownjeans
Flatulent
Posts: 15519
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:21 am
Has thanked: 419 times
Been thanked: 832 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by brownjeans » December 16th, 2020, 11:27 am

Intermeddler wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 9:10 am
AgMac wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 8:53 am
Intermeddler wrote:
December 15th, 2020, 11:08 pm
I was initially skeptical that she said what she was accused of but I’ve since had conversations with a couple people on the call or well connected with the program and she’s in a bad spot.
Cool, then tell us what she said. Otherwise, I'm not sure why you and oleblue111 come on here beating your chests about all the knowledge of the situation you have but refusing to disclose. Let's have it.
Did it ever occur to you there are numerous reasons I might not give you all details of what I’ve been told? My initial post was hardly beating my chest. I give hints when I can because I think people might like to hear what people close to this are saying. If it offends your sensibilities that I don’t give you a transcript of what was said, that’s your issue not mine. Like the guy who started this thread you omitted from your list of offenders, things aren’t looking good for her based on what she said on the call. Ignore me if this post doesn’t meet your criteria.
Yes. Why do people think they're entitled to all information about things - especially things that aren't directly about them? Take the hiring process for a new coach for example. Some were really upset that more information wasn't provided. Then the President and AD meet with the team and provide some information and look how well that went. Maybe people should stop thinking they deserve to know things that aren't directly about them. People used to mind their own business.

SMH
These users thanked the author brownjeans for the post:
USUGrad01



usufan1
Posts: 576
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 9:09 pm
Has thanked: 295 times
Been thanked: 78 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by usufan1 » December 16th, 2020, 11:37 am

aggies22 wrote:
garyismyhomeboy wrote:
December 15th, 2020, 10:55 pm
I’ve heard from a few that the former county attorney guy who was at snow and now at Southern U as president. Cache valley guy. Wyatt I think is his name.
Scott Wyatt.
Who knows what the investigation will find about the alleged comments made by President Cockett.

If a change was to be made it will be interesting to see what direction the university goes.

Scott Wyatt checks the same boxes as Frank Maile -

From Utah = Image
LDS = Image

When President Cockett was hired he was mentioned as a potential candidate, until he made it clear he was not interested in the job.

He seems to be very happy at SUU and it may take a bit to persuade him to head North.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk




USUaggienation
Posts: 45
Joined: January 17th, 2013, 8:29 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by USUaggienation » December 16th, 2020, 12:14 pm

Religious and cultural discrimination is bad and I’m opposed to that. Glad I got that out of the way.

But what really concerns me is now I question her ability to know what makes a good football coach.

Let’s use an extreme but unlikely example to illustrate my point. Let’s say a guy who doesn’t speak English was a finalist for the job ... but she was concerned about his ability to communicate with the players because he didn’t speak English. Technically that is discrimination against non-English speakers ... but I would have seen her point and saw that she understands how important it is for a coach to communicate in a rapid manner with his players without the need of a translator.

But we already know there are countless LDS and Polynesian and LDS Polynesian coaches that have been very successful. Even if there weren’t, there still wouldn’t be any reason there couldn’t be.

I’m not going to comment on whether she should be fired. But I would prefer she had little input on any further coaching searches (which I know is unlikely).



User avatar
ViAggie
Posts: 11366
Joined: June 16th, 2011, 6:49 pm
Location: Temecula, California
Has thanked: 703 times
Been thanked: 476 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by ViAggie » December 16th, 2020, 12:18 pm

Well I for one am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, lets see where the investigation goes and what comes of it.
These users thanked the author ViAggie for the post (total 2):
USUGrad01NavyBlue


Just another day in the (Aggie) Brotherhood

hickaggie
Posts: 3289
Joined: November 15th, 2010, 10:13 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 268 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by hickaggie » December 16th, 2020, 12:19 pm

USUaggienation wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 12:14 pm
Religious and cultural discrimination is bad and I’m opposed to that. Glad I got that out of the way.

But what really concerns me is now I question her ability to know what makes a good football coach.

Let’s use an extreme but unlikely example to illustrate my point. Let’s say a guy who doesn’t speak English was a finalist for the job ... but she was concerned about his ability to communicate with the players because he didn’t speak English. Technically that is discrimination against non-English speakers ... but I would have seen her point and saw that she understands how important it is for a coach to communicate in a rapid manner with his players without the need of a translator.

But we already know there are countless LDS and Polynesian and LDS Polynesian coaches that have been very successful. Even if there weren’t, there still wouldn’t be any reason there couldn’t be.

I’m not going to comment on whether she should be fired. But I would prefer she had little input on any further coaching searches (which I know is unlikely).
The football coach is the highest paid position at the University by a long shot. The top assistants are right there too. The football coach is also the most visible and recognizable employee and much of what a large segment of the public at large thinks about a particular school is limited with the exception of the reputation of their football and basketball programs.

The president is always going to be the one signing off or vetoing a potential hire, like it or not.
These users thanked the author hickaggie for the post:
ViAggie



User avatar
ViAggie
Posts: 11366
Joined: June 16th, 2011, 6:49 pm
Location: Temecula, California
Has thanked: 703 times
Been thanked: 476 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by ViAggie » December 16th, 2020, 12:21 pm

hickaggie wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 12:19 pm
USUaggienation wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 12:14 pm
Religious and cultural discrimination is bad and I’m opposed to that. Glad I got that out of the way.

But what really concerns me is now I question her ability to know what makes a good football coach.

Let’s use an extreme but unlikely example to illustrate my point. Let’s say a guy who doesn’t speak English was a finalist for the job ... but she was concerned about his ability to communicate with the players because he didn’t speak English. Technically that is discrimination against non-English speakers ... but I would have seen her point and saw that she understands how important it is for a coach to communicate in a rapid manner with his players without the need of a translator.

But we already know there are countless LDS and Polynesian and LDS Polynesian coaches that have been very successful. Even if there weren’t, there still wouldn’t be any reason there couldn’t be.

I’m not going to comment on whether she should be fired. But I would prefer she had little input on any further coaching searches (which I know is unlikely).
The football coach is the highest paid position at the University by a long shot. The top assistants are right there too. The football coach is also the most visible and recognizable employee and much of what a large segment of the public at large thinks about a particular school is limited with the exception of the reputation of their football and basketball programs.

The president is always going to be the one signing off or vetoing a potential hire, like it or not.
Good point! Funny to think that you are hiring someone who's going to be making even more money than you are. Imagine having an employee who you hired, making more money than you? That's too funny. I've seen it happen before, but it's not common.


Just another day in the (Aggie) Brotherhood

garyismyhomeboy
Posts: 112
Joined: December 17th, 2018, 4:50 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by garyismyhomeboy » December 16th, 2020, 12:22 pm

usufan1 wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 11:37 am
aggies22 wrote:
garyismyhomeboy wrote:
December 15th, 2020, 10:55 pm
I’ve heard from a few that the former county attorney guy who was at snow and now at Southern U as president. Cache valley guy. Wyatt I think is his name.
Scott Wyatt.
Who knows what the investigation will find about the alleged comments made by President Cockett.

If a change was to be made it will be interesting to see what direction the university goes.

Scott Wyatt checks the same boxes as Frank Maile -

From Utah = Image
LDS = Image

When President Cockett was hired he was mentioned as a potential candidate, until he made it clear he was not interested in the job.

He seems to be very happy at SUU and it may take a bit to persuade him to head North.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Which means they’d probably hire the opposite of what is rumored to be said. Pay check would be much bigger here.

New president as an outside hire usually brings major turnover to athletics in general. Bring in their own peeps.



User avatar
brownjeans
Flatulent
Posts: 15519
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:21 am
Has thanked: 419 times
Been thanked: 832 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by brownjeans » December 16th, 2020, 12:34 pm

LarryTheAggie wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 8:42 am
If I remember right people thought Cockett would be anti athletics too. It seemed like she did not care about athletics until after she became president.
I wonder if she's anti athletics now?



LarryTheAggie
Posts: 502
Joined: July 4th, 2013, 12:04 pm
Location: Washington DC
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by LarryTheAggie » December 16th, 2020, 12:35 pm

brownjeans wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 12:34 pm
LarryTheAggie wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 8:42 am
If I remember right people thought Cockett would be anti athletics too. It seemed like she did not care about athletics until after she became president.
I wonder if she's anti athletics now?
Well we all know she hates Utah! :lol:
These users thanked the author LarryTheAggie for the post:
brownjeans



AggieUprising50
Posts: 798
Joined: January 31st, 2015, 4:31 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 212 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by AggieUprising50 » December 16th, 2020, 12:39 pm

Yossarian wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 10:31 am
Cockett and Hartwell were just trying to shake the image of USU being BYU's little brother. BYU has a Polynesian Mormon head coach. They wanted to do something different to shake the little brother reputation. (Said in jest, of course)
Are we really byu’s little brother though? They feel more like the awkward neighbor down the street.

I feel like our rivalry with the U feels more like “Big brother vs Little brother” than our rivalry with the zoobs.

Let’s say that our admin does in fact feel that way with Byu. Then you don’t shed the “little brother” label by trying to be different. You shed the label by beating them.



User avatar
AgMac
Posts: 2889
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:29 am
Has thanked: 155 times
Been thanked: 317 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by AgMac » December 16th, 2020, 2:12 pm

brownjeans wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 11:27 am
Intermeddler wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 9:10 am
AgMac wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 8:53 am
Intermeddler wrote:
December 15th, 2020, 11:08 pm
I was initially skeptical that she said what she was accused of but I’ve since had conversations with a couple people on the call or well connected with the program and she’s in a bad spot.
Cool, then tell us what she said. Otherwise, I'm not sure why you and oleblue111 come on here beating your chests about all the knowledge of the situation you have but refusing to disclose. Let's have it.
Did it ever occur to you there are numerous reasons I might not give you all details of what I’ve been told? My initial post was hardly beating my chest. I give hints when I can because I think people might like to hear what people close to this are saying. If it offends your sensibilities that I don’t give you a transcript of what was said, that’s your issue not mine. Like the guy who started this thread you omitted from your list of offenders, things aren’t looking good for her based on what she said on the call. Ignore me if this post doesn’t meet your criteria.
Yes. Why do people think they're entitled to all information about things - especially things that aren't directly about them? Take the hiring process for a new coach for example. Some were really upset that more information wasn't provided. Then the President and AD meet with the team and provide some information and look how well that went. Maybe people should stop thinking they deserve to know things that aren't directly about them. People used to mind their own business.

SMH
Don't strain your neck with all that head shaking. I'm not sure why it's such a difficult concept to grasp. We're all affiliated with, connection to, and have an interest in USU. I would say the majority of us contribute monetarily to the school. So when serious accusations are levied against USU (and its representatives) of course we're entitled to information about those accusations. Just because accusations aren't "directly" about you, doesn't mean you shouldn't be entitled to more information. Let me give you some examples, and you tell me where you draw the "entitled to more information" line:

1. Someone tells you that your kid has been walking around school making the most abhorrent and racial statements. Do you feel entitled to know what your kid supposedly said?
2. Someone tells you that the leader of your church, to which you contribute funds, has recently made prejudicial and bigoted statements. Do you feel entitled to know what the leader supposedly said?
3. Someone tells you that your boss has made discriminatory statements about other employees that may have an unknown detrimental effect on your company. Do you feel entitled to know what your boss supposedly said?

None of the foregoing are "directly" about you, but I'm guessing in at least one or more of those scenarios, you feel like you're entitled to more information.
Last edited by AgMac on December 16th, 2020, 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.



rAggie
Posts: 551
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:52 am
Location: Logan, UT
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 194 times
Contact:

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by rAggie » December 16th, 2020, 2:18 pm

aggies22 wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 9:45 am
garyismyhomeboy wrote:
December 15th, 2020, 10:55 pm
I’ve heard from a few that the former county attorney guy who was at snow and now at Southern U as president. Cache valley guy. Wyatt I think is his name.
Scott Wyatt.
I like Scott Wyatt. He is a great person and a great human. He will not and should not be the president of USU. He has no background in research, I don't even think he has a PhD. Southern Utah is not even in the same universe academically as Utah State is, and the university president needs to be someone with a certain set of credentials.
These users thanked the author rAggie for the post (total 5):
cvalaggies22ViAggieChowderAggieAGinNEIowa



Imakeitrain
Posts: 7534
Joined: March 11th, 2011, 9:12 pm
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 421 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by Imakeitrain » December 16th, 2020, 2:25 pm

Intermeddler wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 9:10 am
AgMac wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 8:53 am
Intermeddler wrote:
December 15th, 2020, 11:08 pm
I was initially skeptical that she said what she was accused of but I’ve since had conversations with a couple people on the call or well connected with the program and she’s in a bad spot.
Cool, then tell us what she said. Otherwise, I'm not sure why you and oleblue111 come on here beating your chests about all the knowledge of the situation you have but refusing to disclose. Let's have it.
Did it ever occur to you there are numerous reasons I might not give you all details of what I’ve been told? My initial post was hardly beating my chest. I give hints when I can because I think people might like to hear what people close to this are saying. If it offends your sensibilities that I don’t give you a transcript of what was said, that’s your issue not mine. Like the guy who started this thread you omitted from your list of offenders, things aren’t looking good for her based on what she said on the call. Ignore me if this post doesn’t meet your criteria.
Then say nothing. By not disclosing something you are confident of you are making it worse for her- and aren’t protecting anyone’s reputation or privacy.

I know things about several former players- as they were my peers and friends. Some did unethical things, some did things that aren’t wrong but personal.

And I kept my mouth shut. Because speculation is worse than actual discussion. It’s the worst of both worlds.


“If at first you don’t succeed, do not try skydiving”

User avatar
brownjeans
Flatulent
Posts: 15519
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:21 am
Has thanked: 419 times
Been thanked: 832 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by brownjeans » December 16th, 2020, 3:14 pm

AgMac wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 2:12 pm
brownjeans wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 11:27 am
Intermeddler wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 9:10 am
AgMac wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 8:53 am
Intermeddler wrote:
December 15th, 2020, 11:08 pm
I was initially skeptical that she said what she was accused of but I’ve since had conversations with a couple people on the call or well connected with the program and she’s in a bad spot.
Cool, then tell us what she said. Otherwise, I'm not sure why you and oleblue111 come on here beating your chests about all the knowledge of the situation you have but refusing to disclose. Let's have it.
Did it ever occur to you there are numerous reasons I might not give you all details of what I’ve been told? My initial post was hardly beating my chest. I give hints when I can because I think people might like to hear what people close to this are saying. If it offends your sensibilities that I don’t give you a transcript of what was said, that’s your issue not mine. Like the guy who started this thread you omitted from your list of offenders, things aren’t looking good for her based on what she said on the call. Ignore me if this post doesn’t meet your criteria.
Yes. Why do people think they're entitled to all information about things - especially things that aren't directly about them? Take the hiring process for a new coach for example. Some were really upset that more information wasn't provided. Then the President and AD meet with the team and provide some information and look how well that went. Maybe people should stop thinking they deserve to know things that aren't directly about them. People used to mind their own business.

SMH
Don't strain your neck with all that head shaking. I'm not sure why it's such a difficult concept to grasp. We're all affiliated with, connection to, and have an interest in USU. I would say the majority of us contribute monetarily to the school. So when seriously accusations are levied against USU (and its representatives) of course we're entitled to information about those accusations. Just because accusations aren't "directly" about you, doesn't mean you shouldn't be entitled to more information. Let me give you some examples, and you tell me where you draw the "entitled to more information" line:

1. Someone tells you that your kid has been walking around school making the most abhorrent and racial statements. Do you feel entitled to know what your kid supposedly said?
2. Someone tells you that the leader of your church, to which you contribute funds, has recently made prejudicial and bigoted statements. Do you feel entitled to know what the leader supposedly said?
3. Someone tells you that your boss has made discriminatory statements about other employees that may have an unknown detrimental effect on your company. Do you feel entitled to know what your boss supposedly said?

None of the foregoing are "directly" about you, but I'm guessing in at least one or more of those scenarios, you feel like you're entitled to more information.
We're not entitled to anything. When you contribute or give something. It's no longer yours. You have no hold on it or the person you gave it to. If the person, entity, that you gave it to wants more money from you in the future, they may submit to provide you with what you think you're entitled to, but you'd have to give A LOT to be in such a position of power over USU.

Your examples:
1. It's YOUR kid. That's pretty directly about you since things your kid might do can put you in trouble with the law.
2. Nope, I don't. My money didn't buy me anything. I contributed it as a gift. No strings.
3. This is directly about me - but only if my employment is at risk. Otherwise, I don't care.
Last edited by brownjeans on December 16th, 2020, 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Intermeddler
Posts: 2190
Joined: January 20th, 2011, 7:35 pm
Location: North Salt Lake
Has thanked: 286 times
Been thanked: 304 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by Intermeddler » December 16th, 2020, 3:23 pm

Imakeitrain wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 2:25 pm
Intermeddler wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 9:10 am
AgMac wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 8:53 am
Intermeddler wrote:
December 15th, 2020, 11:08 pm
I was initially skeptical that she said what she was accused of but I’ve since had conversations with a couple people on the call or well connected with the program and she’s in a bad spot.
Cool, then tell us what she said. Otherwise, I'm not sure why you and oleblue111 come on here beating your chests about all the knowledge of the situation you have but refusing to disclose. Let's have it.
Did it ever occur to you there are numerous reasons I might not give you all details of what I’ve been told? My initial post was hardly beating my chest. I give hints when I can because I think people might like to hear what people close to this are saying. If it offends your sensibilities that I don’t give you a transcript of what was said, that’s your issue not mine. Like the guy who started this thread you omitted from your list of offenders, things aren’t looking good for her based on what she said on the call. Ignore me if this post doesn’t meet your criteria.
Then say nothing. By not disclosing something you are confident of you are making it worse for her- and aren’t protecting anyone’s reputation or privacy.

I know things about several former players- as they were my peers and friends. Some did unethical things, some did things that aren’t wrong but personal.

And I kept my mouth shut. Because speculation is worse than actual discussion. It’s the worst of both worlds.
Nonsense. Nothing I post on here will impact her status at all. She is a public figure. Your comparison is to your friends. I posted what I am confident about. She is in a bad spot.



User avatar
AgMac
Posts: 2889
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:29 am
Has thanked: 155 times
Been thanked: 317 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by AgMac » December 16th, 2020, 3:41 pm

brownjeans wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 3:14 pm
Your examples:
1. It's YOUR kid. That's pretty directly about you since things your kid might do can put you in trouble with the law.
2. Nope, I don't. My money didn't buy me anything. I contributed it as a gift. No strings.
3. This is directly about me - but only if my employment is at risk. Otherwise, I don't care.
Things your kid might do? My example was specific. The accusation was that your kid was making abhorrent and racial statements. Is there some law I don't know about that would get a parent in trouble for that (assuming your kid wasn't threatening anyone)? How about if the accusation was about your wife? Still not entitled to more information? Of course you would feel entitled, even though it wasn't "directly" about you. You would also feel entitled to more information if the accusation was against your church leader, even if you say you wouldn't. That's my point. We all have relationships that make us feel entitled to information about the other people/organizations. Where that line is drawn is subjective, and you're certainly not the arbiter of the matter.



User avatar
ineptimusprime
Posts: 3326
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 83 times
Been thanked: 919 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by ineptimusprime » December 16th, 2020, 4:33 pm

Texasaggie1 wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 9:39 am
Did anyone else see this from KUTV news, I don't think it was posted in another thread but I could be wrong

The two, whose identities have not been made public, agreed this was the tenor of her statement: "What do we say to outside people who ask us about hiring an LDS person from Utah? We tried that, and it didn’t work."

That doesn't sound bad at all to me and I am of that faith. They should have just stated they had a more qualified candidate but I don't find anything too alarming by that statement.
I have to think Cockett must have wrongly assumed GA was LDS. Either that, or an LDS person was offered the job and said "no?"

I can't make any sense of that quote.



User avatar
BLUERUFiO
Posts: 2645
Joined: August 30th, 2011, 1:22 pm
Location: Smithfield
Has thanked: 1487 times
Been thanked: 169 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by BLUERUFiO » December 16th, 2020, 4:36 pm

ineptimusprime wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 4:33 pm
Texasaggie1 wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 9:39 am
Did anyone else see this from KUTV news, I don't think it was posted in another thread but I could be wrong

The two, whose identities have not been made public, agreed this was the tenor of her statement: "What do we say to outside people who ask us about hiring an LDS person from Utah? We tried that, and it didn’t work."

That doesn't sound bad at all to me and I am of that faith. They should have just stated they had a more qualified candidate but I don't find anything too alarming by that statement.
I have to think Cockett must have wrongly assumed GA was LDS. Either that, or an LDS person was offered the job and said "no?"

I can't make any sense of that quote.
GA is a less active LDS member, I believe.


GO AGGIES! GO AGGIES! HEY! HEY! HEY!

User avatar
ineptimusprime
Posts: 3326
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 83 times
Been thanked: 919 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by ineptimusprime » December 16th, 2020, 4:41 pm

BLUERUFiO wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 4:36 pm
ineptimusprime wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 4:33 pm
Texasaggie1 wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 9:39 am
Did anyone else see this from KUTV news, I don't think it was posted in another thread but I could be wrong

The two, whose identities have not been made public, agreed this was the tenor of her statement: "What do we say to outside people who ask us about hiring an LDS person from Utah? We tried that, and it didn’t work."

That doesn't sound bad at all to me and I am of that faith. They should have just stated they had a more qualified candidate but I don't find anything too alarming by that statement.
I have to think Cockett must have wrongly assumed GA was LDS. Either that, or an LDS person was offered the job and said "no?"

I can't make any sense of that quote.
GA is a less active LDS member, I believe.
That would clear that part up. But, I still don't understand who these "outside people" are that USU is having to explain this all to in her hypothetical. :headscratch:

With the proper added context, I can see how this could be seen as a statement that we aren't considering Utah Mormons for this position because "it didn't work" previously. It's a pretty clumsy statement.

Is there a race angle that has not been published, or is that part just completely made up? The race angle would seem to be much worse for Cockett if there is any smoke there.

But given we hired Anderson, we better hope our track record with devout Baptists is better than it is with Utah Mormons....
Weren't there any good atheist options for head coach? :joking:
Last edited by ineptimusprime on December 16th, 2020, 4:47 pm, edited 4 times in total.



Imakeitrain
Posts: 7534
Joined: March 11th, 2011, 9:12 pm
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 421 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by Imakeitrain » December 16th, 2020, 4:43 pm

Intermeddler wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 3:23 pm
Imakeitrain wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 2:25 pm
Intermeddler wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 9:10 am
AgMac wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 8:53 am
Intermeddler wrote:
December 15th, 2020, 11:08 pm
I was initially skeptical that she said what she was accused of but I’ve since had conversations with a couple people on the call or well connected with the program and she’s in a bad spot.
Cool, then tell us what she said. Otherwise, I'm not sure why you and oleblue111 come on here beating your chests about all the knowledge of the situation you have but refusing to disclose. Let's have it.
Did it ever occur to you there are numerous reasons I might not give you all details of what I’ve been told? My initial post was hardly beating my chest. I give hints when I can because I think people might like to hear what people close to this are saying. If it offends your sensibilities that I don’t give you a transcript of what was said, that’s your issue not mine. Like the guy who started this thread you omitted from your list of offenders, things aren’t looking good for her based on what she said on the call. Ignore me if this post doesn’t meet your criteria.
Then say nothing. By not disclosing something you are confident of you are making it worse for her- and aren’t protecting anyone’s reputation or privacy.

I know things about several former players- as they were my peers and friends. Some did unethical things, some did things that aren’t wrong but personal.

And I kept my mouth shut. Because speculation is worse than actual discussion. It’s the worst of both worlds.
Nonsense. Nothing I post on here will impact her status at all. She is a public figure. Your comparison is to your friends. I posted what I am confident about. She is in a bad spot.
I did that because it was the right thing. Not all of them were my friends.

Do you see why one might think you’re beating your chest to “have sources”? I’m not against you not sharing. I just don’t think it’s as useful to share halfway. I think it’s the worst of both worlds.


“If at first you don’t succeed, do not try skydiving”

User avatar
brownjeans
Flatulent
Posts: 15519
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:21 am
Has thanked: 419 times
Been thanked: 832 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by brownjeans » December 16th, 2020, 5:03 pm

AgMac wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 3:41 pm
brownjeans wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 3:14 pm
Your examples:
1. It's YOUR kid. That's pretty directly about you since things your kid might do can put you in trouble with the law.
2. Nope, I don't. My money didn't buy me anything. I contributed it as a gift. No strings.
3. This is directly about me - but only if my employment is at risk. Otherwise, I don't care.
Things your kid might do? My example was specific. The accusation was that your kid was making abhorrent and racial statements. Is there some law I don't know about that would get a parent in trouble for that (assuming your kid wasn't threatening anyone)? How about if the accusation was about your wife? Still not entitled to more information? Of course you would feel entitled, even though it wasn't "directly" about you. You would also feel entitled to more information if the accusation was against your church leader, even if you say you wouldn't. That's my point. We all have relationships that make us feel entitled to information about the other people/organizations. Where that line is drawn is subjective, and you're certainly not the arbiter of the matter.
Your kid, your responsibility - directly your business.
Your wife also has direct relation to you. If there is some legal action it will affect your life, your bank accounts, your property - any and all things bound by law between you and your wife. Also, if I wanted to know something about it, I'd ask my wife directly and she'd either tell me or she wouldn't. I wouldn't go around trying to get information from ancillary sources like the internet.

Your examples should have some relation to the situation, don't you think?

You telling me I'd feel entitled doesn't make it so. YOU may feel entitled to that info, not me. Projecting your feelings on others doesn't make them feel the way you think/want.
Your point that the line is subjective is true, and I'm not the arbiter, feeling your entitled doesn't give people the right have information and neither does giving money. You pay taxes and the government uses those funds to collect a lot of information that you're not entitled to have.
Last edited by brownjeans on December 16th, 2020, 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.



User avatar
AgMac
Posts: 2889
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:29 am
Has thanked: 155 times
Been thanked: 317 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by AgMac » December 16th, 2020, 5:18 pm

brownjeans wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 5:03 pm
AgMac wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 3:41 pm
brownjeans wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 3:14 pm
Your examples:
1. It's YOUR kid. That's pretty directly about you since things your kid might do can put you in trouble with the law.
2. Nope, I don't. My money didn't buy me anything. I contributed it as a gift. No strings.
3. This is directly about me - but only if my employment is at risk. Otherwise, I don't care.
Things your kid might do? My example was specific. The accusation was that your kid was making abhorrent and racial statements. Is there some law I don't know about that would get a parent in trouble for that (assuming your kid wasn't threatening anyone)? How about if the accusation was about your wife? Still not entitled to more information? Of course you would feel entitled, even though it wasn't "directly" about you. You would also feel entitled to more information if the accusation was against your church leader, even if you say you wouldn't. That's my point. We all have relationships that make us feel entitled to information about the other people/organizations. Where that line is drawn is subjective, and you're certainly not the arbiter of the matter.
Your kid, your responsibility - directly your business.
Your wife also has direct relation to you as if there is some legal action it will hit your life, your bank accounts, your property - any and all things bound by law between you and your wife. Also, if I wanted to know something about it, I'd ask my wife directly and she'd either tell me or she wouldn't. I wouldn't go around trying to get information from ancillary sources like the internet.

Your examples should have some relation to the situation, don't you think?
My examples were presented to illustrate that everyone has a subjective benchmark where they believe to be "directly" affected and thus entitled to additional information. You have yours. Your answers have given an indication where that benchmark lies for you. It is different for others. So what makes you the omniscient judge of what is and what is not an appropriate benchmark?



User avatar
brownjeans
Flatulent
Posts: 15519
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:21 am
Has thanked: 419 times
Been thanked: 832 times

Re: If Cockett gets the boot?

Post by brownjeans » December 16th, 2020, 5:24 pm

AgMac wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 5:18 pm
brownjeans wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 5:03 pm
AgMac wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 3:41 pm
brownjeans wrote:
December 16th, 2020, 3:14 pm
Your examples:
1. It's YOUR kid. That's pretty directly about you since things your kid might do can put you in trouble with the law.
2. Nope, I don't. My money didn't buy me anything. I contributed it as a gift. No strings.
3. This is directly about me - but only if my employment is at risk. Otherwise, I don't care.
Things your kid might do? My example was specific. The accusation was that your kid was making abhorrent and racial statements. Is there some law I don't know about that would get a parent in trouble for that (assuming your kid wasn't threatening anyone)? How about if the accusation was about your wife? Still not entitled to more information? Of course you would feel entitled, even though it wasn't "directly" about you. You would also feel entitled to more information if the accusation was against your church leader, even if you say you wouldn't. That's my point. We all have relationships that make us feel entitled to information about the other people/organizations. Where that line is drawn is subjective, and you're certainly not the arbiter of the matter.
Your kid, your responsibility - directly your business.
Your wife also has direct relation to you as if there is some legal action it will hit your life, your bank accounts, your property - any and all things bound by law between you and your wife. Also, if I wanted to know something about it, I'd ask my wife directly and she'd either tell me or she wouldn't. I wouldn't go around trying to get information from ancillary sources like the internet.

Your examples should have some relation to the situation, don't you think?
My examples were presented to illustrate that everyone has a subjective benchmark where they believe to be "directly" affected and thus entitled to additional information. You have yours. Your answers have given an indication where that benchmark lies for you. It is different for others. So what makes you the omniscient judge of what is and what is not an appropriate benchmark?
Your point that the line is subjective is true, and I'm not the arbiter, feeling your entitled doesn't give people the right have information and neither does giving money. You pay taxes and the government uses those funds to collect a lot of information that you're not entitled to have. Even freedom-of-information laws have limits.

Why do you think you're entitled to this information? Does NOT having the information put you personally at risk in any way shape or form? Are you entitled to it because you really, really want it?



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic