True, but with the expanded playoff, there's also a little more wiggle room to lose a game or two.
agree
Thaaaaaaat's aaaaaaa threeee! Corey Bradford!
I'm with you but have wondered the past ten years about Nebraska. It has been nearly 30 years since Tom Osborne retired and, apart from his successor Solich and Bo Pellini I believe only one of their subsequent coaches have crested .500 and most haven't come near it. Like OU, success there seems as though it should be sustained with at most five-year lulls. They're now well into generational mediocrity,
The curse of Bo Pellini. They thought they were too good for his 9-4 seasons. Now, they'd kill just to have a winning record. I'm unconvinced they'll ever be close to what they once were. As @altgeld88 said, Tom Osborne and the Big 12 North schedule aren't walking through that door. Maybe they'll win 11 games again, but it's been 23 years and counting since they've done it. The fanbase can use their will all they want, but it sure as heck isn't working.
their season is lost .
I can't not see Oklahoma becoming Nebraska unless they have a Ron Guenther streak of AD incompetence. The programs have similar histories but their traditional recruiting grounds are very different. Nebraska has a traditional thinner natural recruiting ground where any combo of two of a decent Missouri, Kansas, and K-State really and have to recruit nationally with some pharmaceutical enhancement too. Oklahoma basically recruits like a Texas-based blueblood with a lot Oklahoma kids sprinkled in. Oklahoma will only run into problems if they are bad with Texas, A&M, and OK St become perennial playoff contenders plus at least three of Houston, SMU, TCU, Texas Tech, or Baylor becoming schools who often make the playoff too. The Houstonian slur of calling DFW "South Oklahoma" has some merit in recruiting.
One thing about these situations that irks me is that it takes two to tango. Many of the women involved in these affairs choose to involve themselves with married men. I understand some were professionally pressured. But others just enjoyed the ride. The men are criticized for being unfaithful or degenerate (rightfully so) while the women who make it possible get a pass.
The ONLY relevant behavior in a Football Coaching Carousel thread is that of the coach. Not the behavior of the anonymous 'partner'. The discussion is about HIS continued employment and not her possible role.
Another big factor can be quickly discerned from a look at the org chart. If you're in a position of authority, either directly or indirectly, you’re guilty and gone. No excuses either, since we’re all taught the basic principle. Want to get together? Somebody needs a job change first.
Ron Guenther was the master at this.
If she's also married, she deserves equal criticism for breaking a vow. If she's single, is it shady and immoral? Sure, but his marriage isn't her responsibility. It's his.
Commitment matters, not just as a matter of personal character, but especially so for a HC. Is he a man of his word? Can he be trusted?
From my understanding, that's pretty much the lone legally binding non-fraternization clause in a contract. If it specifically states you can't have a romantic or sexual relationship with your manager/direct employee without discussing with HR, or the more strict no romantic or sexual relationships between coworkers, those are two things that could possibly hold up in the court of law but only if the company actively enforces that policy for all employees.
Absolutely. A single person trying to get into a relationship with a married man or woman is in the moral and ethical wrong and should be karmically punished, but it's the sole responsibility of the married man or woman to not act on their advances and have an affair. That's the whole idea of marriage for most people. If you can't do that, you're the one responsible for the consequences. Saying she or he seduced me doesn't change anything. Even if they did, you need to walk away. The only exception in my opinion is if the married person was forced or coerced and was against their will. Other than that, it's on you.
My husband and I have had this conversation together and with friends and this is the consensus we came to. Some people like the challenge of "taking" something that belongs to someone else. I think others just like the idea of knowing someone is capable of commitment (or wanting to make it). The irony on the last one is that their idea of commitment is absolute trash if they think someone who could be persuaded to break their marriage vow has any real concept of the word.
