OrediggerPoke
Well-known member
Impressive. Nailed it. Damn it sucks so bad to be a Wyoming fan.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!
Jay Sawvel named head coach
- Thread starter LanderPoke
- Start date
OrediggerPoke
Well-known member
Unfortunately there were yearly escalators and all guaranteed.Well I guess it was 900k. Look at the fanboys
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
The guarantees were to safeguard Junior, imo
If this stuff is true, could this be construed as "for cause" to get rid of Burman or Sawfull?
*edit*..I should say "if this stuff can be proved..."
Only way you could really prove it is if they were dumb enough to explicitly put the plan into writing in an email or text message.
It would be pretty easy to put in a FOI request asking to see all emails and text message related to the hiring of Jay Sawvel as UW football coach. Personal email addresses and personal cell phones are not exempt from these requests if they are used for official UW business - I always like to remind them of that when submitting a request.
Of course, FOI requests are not 100% effective as they rely on the university employees involved doing a thorough search for the requested information and turning over all the information that they do find. If they "accidently" leave something out or decide to do a half assed search, the requestor is unlikely to ever find this out.
Understood...but the question is not *if* you could...Let's assume we can. Could the University use that as cause to get out from under Sawful and Burman's contracts?
OrediggerPoke
Well-known member
1) I think this is complete speculative bullshit. Absolutely no facts to support the speculation.
2) If wild (and likely bs) speculation were true, absolutely no as far as Sawvel. A university can’t escape its contractual commitment just because the person in charge of the hiring gave terms based on conditions they should likely not have considered as part of their fiduciary obligation. Furthermore, it’s almost guaranteed the contract was run by and through the University’s general counsel and likely approved by President before signing. University can’t get out of contract just because the idiots running it gave a bad contract.
If Burman were to have been found to have engaged in acts in violation of his fiduciary duties, maybe could escape obligations to him.
Interesting...thx for the reply.
For the record, I agree that the focus on what did or did not happen around the time Sawful was hired largely misses the point (and is likely completely un-actionable)...but i'm open to hearing why that may not be the case.
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
Of course it's inactionable. I seriously doubt they wrote anything down. Even if they did, you'd have to have 1 of 2 things 1) a bot with the intestinal will to move forward or 2) an outraged public forcing #1. We have neither.
Some people want to keep their head in the sand but you know the old saying "man hears or sees what he wants to hear or see and disregards the rest".
Even if some “smoking gun” existed, it wouldn’t matter — nobody at UW has incentive to act on it. Chasing that kind of unprovable scandal just burns energy that ought to be spent on the only thing that actually matters: the results.
At this point, it seems pretty clear that the incentives and pressures facing the BoT and the President when it comes to athletics just aren’t what most of us thought they were. The idea that they’re all just clueless doesn’t really hold up — they’re responding to something else. Maybe it’s donor satisfaction, institutional image, or simply avoiding controversy. Whatever it is, winning games clearly isn’t at the top of that list.
And that’s the real issue. The problem isn’t whether someone wrote something dumb in an email — it’s that the programs themselves aren’t winning. That’s the scandal.
Until the people at the top start treating on-field success with the same urgency they treat fundraising and PR optics, we’ll keep spinning our wheels.
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
The programs aren't winning and have rarely (never) won because there is no pressure to win; i think most here recognize and agree.
The nepotistic clown show we have now is a symptom of that. There is literally nobody wasting energy chasing down a conspiracy. On here it is merely those that think it was driven by nepotism and some who think this group was a merit hire that missed. Nothing more than message board debate. Very similar to fans having an impact on a game's outcome--none.
Whatever is going on when Burman makes hiring decisions is definitely just a symptom of the larger problem. Even if you “fix” the symptom — whether that’s nepotism, bad luck, or poor evaluation — the root issue stays the same. There is a misalignment of goals between the BOT and those of us commenting here.
Honestly, the whole “nepotism vs. merit” debate is a complete waste of time. You can twist the facts to fit whichever story makes you feel right, but it doesn’t change a single thing on the field. It’s message-board busywork — a way to argue in circles while the scoreboard keeps saying the same thing every Saturday. There isn’t some secret formula for hiring successful college coaches. You identify who you think can win, you make the call, and then you live or die by the results (at least that is how it should work...this seem's to be not the case for Tom Burman). That’s the job. The rest is just noise. As long as the focus is anywhere else, losing programs won't create the pressure we think they should on administration.
At the time, it was all speculation anyway. I’ve just learned over the years to temper my expectations with Wyoming hires. Every time I’ve let myself believe “this one’s different,” I’ve ended up proven wrong.
In Sawvel’s case, my skepticism had less to do with evaluating his resume and more to do with knowing the system he was stepping into — one where every coach seems destined to struggle, no matter who they are.
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
Is there any other debate besides message board busywork on a message board or talk radio or
?I'm fairly certain incessant complaints of lack of winning and pontificating on all the external factors or lack of action by bot or the focus of bot or any other topic on here are messageboard busywork.
If the nepotism debate isn't one you want to debate, it's pretty easy to simply only comment on the busywork posts you find interesting.
Fair enoug... we’re all here killing time between games, so yeah, “message board busywork” is kind of the point. It’s entertainment, and honestly, that’s part of the fun.Is there any other debate besides message board busywork on a message board or talk radio or
I'm fairly certain incessant complaints of lack of winning and pontificating on all the external factors or lack of action by bot or the focus of bot or any other topic on here are messageboard busywork.
If the nepotism debate isn't one you want to debate, it's pretty easy to simply only comment on the busywork posts you find interesting.
I get where you’re coming from. Not every topic has to be deep...sometimes it’s just about venting or laughing through the pain. That said, some topics of discussions are better at getting at something interesting or nuanced....like how the university’s priorities, incentives, and leadership approach actually shape the results we see. Those conversations can be useful, even if nothing changes because of them.
Other topics, like this whole nepotism angle, just tend to shut things down. People pick a side, assume motives, and it goes nowhere. That’s all I meant...it’s not that anyone’s wrong to bring it up, it just doesn’t lead anywhere new.
At the end of the day, we’re all frustrated by the same thing: the lack of winning. If Sawful had actually built on Craig Bohl's winningest season and was doing well this season.....nobody cares why Burman did what he did...we would all be exitedly previewing upcoming opponents and looking forward to championships.
