Joker to Hawaii?? [Archive] - Wildcat Nation Forums - Kentucky Wildcat Discussion and News

surveyor

01-07-2008, 04:16 PM

Joker'd be a fool to even consider the Hawaii job.

Recruiting is surely a logistic nightmare. Also scheduling games has to be a chore as well. Not many teams want the added expense of round trip travel to Hawaii if a lucrative game can be scheduled elsewhere.
Hawaii's weak schedule is largely attributable to finding willing teams.

Also, from what I've read and heard Hawaii has poor facilities. June Jones had been pushing for years to upgrade what they've got.

Matt Dillon

01-07-2008, 04:22 PM

On vacation would be the only way I'd say.

pjquirk

01-07-2008, 04:35 PM

On vacation would be the only way I'd say.

Joker is considering going to Hawaii, but not until November 2010. He is awaiting the scheduling of the UT game that year to decide for sure if he can go to the Maui Invitational.

UKBOO

01-07-2008, 04:38 PM

Where do people come up with this crap? Some people just like to see how many different reactions they will get..And there are enough gullible UK fans out there that will worry about this for weeks...gracious sakes..

I do not post "crap" for the sake of reactions. I asked a question. If you didn't have a response to the question, then no "reaction" is perfectly fine with me.

If no one knows of anything, I'll BEG the mods to lock the thread. I'll state right now that I do not appreciate your "reaction" in the least. I am all about respectful posting, but I will not stand by to the likes of your post to me. And if he IS considered for the job, I assume I can expect an apology?

BigBlue75

01-07-2008, 04:40 PM

I don't blame you for posting this but there is no way I can believe it. Joker will end up being a HC one day but the only thing he would gain from going to Hawaii is he would be living in a tropical paradise. Besides, Hawaii is in what, the WAC? It would actually be a step DOWN for him rather than up.

TrueblueCATfan

01-07-2008, 04:45 PM

Plus they sucked big time in their bowl game..........had no business being in a bowl...IMO

UKBOO

01-07-2008, 04:45 PM

^^
I've thought about the facts that its out of his "area" and the conference. But they had a great year this year. If it was something to build on, it would be an awesome opportunity. Heck, I want all the coaches right where they are. Give him what he wants to stay!!

surveyor

01-07-2008, 04:51 PM

Plus they sucked big time in their bowl game..........had no business being in a bowl...IMO

ROFL
Sorry, I can't let this pass.

A 12-0 team doesn't deserve to be in a bowl? 64 teams of 119 deserved to go to a bowl over Hawaii? :shock:

Nonsense. :beer:

TrueblueCATfan

01-07-2008, 04:53 PM

ROFL
Sorry, I can't let this pass.

A 12-0 team doesn't deserve to be in a bowl? 64 teams of 119 deserved to go to a bowl over Hawaii? :shock:

Nonsense. :beer:

of course they are 12-0 look who they played.....they could not compete with their opponant in the bowl game.....I said it was MY opinion

surveyor

01-07-2008, 05:01 PM

of course they are 12-0 look who they played.....they could not compete with the opponant in the bowl game.....I said it was MY opinion

I think it goes without saying that what we post hereon is more or less our opinions. :thumbup:

I merely disagree with the opinion that says that a 12-0 D1 school has no business playing in one of 32 bowl games.
Perhaps that speaks to the fact that there are too dabbed many bowl games to begin with. If the bowl games available were cut in half or even to a third, it would change the picture quite abit, eh? Perhaps 8-4 would be the limit instead of 7-5?

Regardless of who they played, they beat `em all. Hawaii has a difficult time scheduling quality opponents - some of who drop them because they don't want to risk a loss.
Frankly, I'm impressed with what Jones has done with limited resources in facilities and recruiting.

Certainly Hawaii deserved A bowl bid.
It's also certainly appropriate to question whether they should've been playing Georgia. Had they NOT played, we'd not known for sure how overmatched they were.
But they did, and we found out for sure.

TexasCat

01-07-2008, 06:24 PM

Plus they sucked big time in their bowl game..........had no business being in a bowl...IMO

I'm going with the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you (and myself for that matter) think that Hawaii did deserve a bowl game, just not a BCS bowl game.

TrueblueCATfan

01-07-2008, 06:33 PM

I'm going with the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you (and myself for that matter) think that Hawaii did deserve a bowl game, just not a BCS bowl game.

well my point is there were so many other teams out there that did not get a bowl bid because of their record.....teams to me that were better than Hawaii..Hawaii got a bid becasuse they were 12-0. and won the WAC.....playing in any other conference they would not have been 12-0...

ukblue22

01-07-2008, 06:34 PM

Also scheduling games has to be a chore as well. Not many teams want the added expense of round trip travel to Hawaii if a lucrative game can be scheduled elsewhere.
Hawaii's weak schedule is largely attributable to finding willing teams.

I used to live in the WAC and was told that Hawaii has to pay for the visiting teams to come to their house. So paying for upgraded facilities has to be weighed against a double or triple expense budget.

Rockober

01-07-2008, 06:55 PM

Hawaii definately deserved a bowl bid. Its hard to say how good they are as Georgia may be playing the best football right now imo. For 3 quarters they made UK look pretty bad too.

This was a bad match up for Hawaii. I do think there were better teams than Hawaii that did not make the BCS, but Hawaii is a decent club and their quarterback is very good.

Georgia and USC may be playing the best ball from what I have seen so far.

Matt Dillon

01-07-2008, 07:34 PM

I do not post "crap" for the sake of reactions. I asked a question. If you didn't have a response to the question, then no "reaction" is perfectly fine with me.

If no one knows of anything, I'll BEG the mods to lock the thread. I'll state right now that I do not appreciate your "reaction" in the least. I am all about respectful posting, but I will not stand by to the likes of your post to me. And if he IS considered for the job, I assume I can expect an apology?

My only reaction is, in the future, you might want to consider the source. To me, something posted on another board by John Q. Average fan isn't very credible.

Mountain Cat

01-07-2008, 07:46 PM

Rockober

01-07-2008, 08:01 PM

South Carolina would have destroyed HI and they didn't get to go to a bowl.....so I kind of see truBCF's point. :shrug1:

Really?? I doubt it. Fresno State was third in the WAC and beat the crap out of Ga Tech in a bowl this year. Yes the SEC is 100 times tougher and Hawaii played a weak schedule.

Remember Boise State last year? Same conference. Like I said, Hawaii deserved a bowl bid. And I am not so sure about South Carolina being a lock on beating Hawaii. The Gamecocks looked pretty bad down the stretch.

surveyor

01-07-2008, 08:33 PM

South Carolina would have destroyed HI and they didn't get to go to a bowl.....so I kind of see truBCF's point. :shrug1:

ROFL

Hawaii would have fared well against the bottom third of the Bowl teams. Since we'll never know, I suppose that paper based supposition is as good as yours or anyone else's.

So what if SC didn't get into a bowl. A 12-0 D1 record counts for something, regardless of what SC did or didn't do.

UKBOO

01-07-2008, 10:19 PM

I just found out that the coach there has, in fact, left for SMU.

BigBlueManiac

01-07-2008, 10:21 PM

Plus they sucked big time in their bowl game..........had no business being in a bowl...IMO
Suck or not, coach parlayed it into a 2 MIL a year job with SMU.

UKBOO

01-07-2008, 10:27 PM

My only reaction is, in the future, you might want to consider the source. To me, something posted on another board by John Q. Average fan isn't very credible.

I have one question then. Does this site have someone that can track down FB leads, and find out if there is anything to it?
If so, who?
If not, thanks anyway.

And yes, I know that was two questions.. :icon_confused:

Wildcat Larry

01-07-2008, 10:27 PM

Suck or not, coach parlayed it into a 2 MIL a year job with SMU.
So will he have SMU doing that "pony" dance before the games like Hawaii did the Warrior dance? :shrug1:

Matt Dillon

01-08-2008, 06:25 AM

[QUOTE=UKBOO;376626]I have one question then. Does this site have someone that can track down FB leads, and find out if there is anything to it?

Not to my knowledge. It would be great if we did.

boomdaddy

01-08-2008, 07:40 AM

June Jones is the college version of Bill Parcells. It really doesn't matter what he does, the team can only get better and he comes out smelling like a rose. If he gets to .500, he will be a demi god at that school.

As for Joker leaving for Hawaii, I don't see it as a plus for him, because of the conference and their small budget. I fully expect Joker to leave for a HC position, because Brooks has stated that he will coach at least 5 more years. After next season, there will be better jobs open and Joker will be an even hotter commodity.

wildcatdon

01-08-2008, 08:29 AM

UKBOO

01-08-2008, 08:57 AM

UKBoo,I wasnt "getting after" you for posting that..Sorry you took it that way..You said you read it on another board which i dont doubt at all..That's why I said "some People" and didnt single you out..You were just passing on what you read and maybe I should have made my wording clearer....Sorry..Don

Ahh, I did take it wrong. I should have asked if you were referring to me. So I am right there myself.
So far, the only thing happening is the job did open up. Otherwise, I haven't found anything to validate this...

Thanks so much for helping clear the air and sorry to jump in on ya without getting more facts..

Mountain Cat

01-08-2008, 09:32 AM

ROFL

Hawaii would have fared well against the bottom third of the Bowl teams. Since we'll never know, I suppose that paper based supposition is as good as yours or anyone else's.

So what if SC didn't get into a bowl. A 12-0 D1 record counts for something, regardless of what SC did or didn't do.

SC beat UGA, UK and MS-St......all of whom were bowl winners.

HI only beat 2 teams with winning records (Fresno and Boise) this year and only one of those won thier bowl (fresno state).

HI was a paper tiger who pansied their way to a bowl.

surveyor

01-08-2008, 09:57 AM

HI was a paper tiger who pansied their way to a bowl.

Regardless of their strength of schedule, 12-0 D1 record counts for something.

What's the last D1 team with a 12-0 record that didn't get a bowl bid?

I agree that they weren't in the same league with Georgia, but that's far and away from saying a D1 12-0 team should NOT be in any of the 32 bowl games, period.

UKBOO

01-08-2008, 10:27 AM

^^
A bowl, yes. Not THAT bowl. They would have been a good Motor City bowl type team..

Mountain Cat

01-08-2008, 10:29 AM

Regardless of their strength of schedule, 12-0 D1 record counts for something.

What's the last D1 team with a 12-0 record that didn't get a bowl bid?

I agree that they weren't in the same league with Georgia, but that's far and away from saying a D1 12-0 team should NOT be in any of the 32 bowl games, period.

I would not deny them "a" bowl, just not a BCS bowl with that flimsy record of opposition.

FWIW, Sagarin has SC (6-6) ranked at #32 above HI (12-1) ranked at #35.......probably because of schedule strength.

surveyor

01-08-2008, 10:43 AM

I would not deny them "a" bowl, just not a BCS bowl with that flimsy record of opposition.

Well, duh.

That's what my original comment was in regard to TBCF's post, in which she opined they didn't deserve to go to A bowl game - meaning any of them.

FWIW, Sagarin has SC (6-6) ranked at #32 above HI (12-1) ranked at #35.......probably because of schedule strength.

Sure. I wonder what the Sagarins were prior to HI's loss in the bowl game? HI was likely higher than 35, but not by much?

Still bowl worthy, as 64 teams made it to bowls.

Mountain Cat

01-08-2008, 01:03 PM

Well, duh.

That's what my original comment was in regard to TBCF's post, in which she opined they didn't deserve to go to A bowl game - meaning any of them.

Sure. I wonder what the Sagarins were prior to HI's loss in the bowl game? HI was likely higher than 35, but not by much?

Still bowl worthy, as 64 teams made it to bowls.

I never said they should not go to "any" bowl game. That was someone else. Perhaps we were violently agreeing......:icon_lol:

surveyor

01-08-2008, 01:12 PM

I never said they should not go to "any" bowl game. That was someone else. Perhaps we were violently agreeing......:icon_lol:

I guess. But you commented that you could see where TBCF was coming from considering South Carolina didn't get a bowl bid.
The logical conclusion I got was that you agreed with TBCF that Hawaii didn't deserve to go to a bowl - especially by exampling South Carolina.:beer:

Mountain Cat

01-08-2008, 01:25 PM

I guess. But you commented that you could see where TBCF was coming from considering South Carolina didn't get a bowl bid.
The logical conclusion I got was that you agreed with TBCF that Hawaii didn't deserve to go to a bowl - especially by exampling South Carolina.:beer:

I can see where you could have inferred that. Part of the rationalle for my statement was based on my assumption that TBCF did not precisely mean what she typed and that her more likely assertion was that HI did not deserve a bowl anywhere close to the one in which they played. With that I agreed. :beer:

Buck_Naked

01-08-2008, 01:52 PM

I think it goes without saying that what we post hereon is more or less our opinions. :thumbup:

AMEN to that, and that's the way it should be, even if your opinion goes against the grain of this forum...respectfully and within reason, of course.

Perhaps that speaks to the fact that there are too dabbed many bowl games to begin with. If the bowl games available were cut in half or even to a third, it would change the picture quite abit, eh? Perhaps 8-4 would be the limit instead of 7-5?

AMEN again, and here's one of those "against the grain" opinions to which I referred:
With D1 schools playing 12 games now, I believe 8 wins should be the Bowls "measuring stick". Of course you'd still have to take level of competition into consideration (e.g. an 8-4 SEC team should get the nod over a 9-3 or even 10-2 WAC or MAC team).

To consider 6-6 teams is ludicrous IMHO. I mean, they lost half their games, for crying out loud! And 7-5 team isn't much better, as that percentage is an extremely non-descript .583 and most often includes 2 or 3 wins against the "schedule fillers" at the beginning of the season! To be brutally honest, I'll rarely watch a bowl game if both teams are 7-5 or worse, unless our Cats are playing. But let's face it, bowl games are as much or more about revenue these days than they are for rewarding schools for good seasons. While I agree that a reduction in bowl games is the way to go, I have a feeling we'll probably be seeing more in the future.

I can see one now; The Toilet Bowl, sponsored by Charmin, featuring a 6-6 team from C-USA vs. a 6-6 team from the Sun Belt Conference!!! :)

TrueblueCATfan

01-08-2008, 02:20 PM

I can see where you could have inferred that. Part of the rationalle for my statement was based on my assumption that TBCF did not precisely mean what she typed and that her more likely assertion was that HI did not deserve a bowl anywhere close to the one in which they played. With that I agreed. :beer:

thanks for agreeing with me.....I did say IMO that Hawaii did not deserve to go a bowl....they did not play anyone is why they were 12-0.....if they had played our schedule they would have been 0-12......they got a bowl bid because they won the WAC which I can agree too that made them bowl eligilbe...they had no business being on the same field in the Sugar Bowl with Georgia....please don't argue back and forth because I have a dumb opinion about something

TrueblueCATfan

01-08-2008, 02:35 PM

I also saw on ESPN today that Hawaii fired their AD..wonder if that has something to do with the coach leaving

kyjones

01-08-2008, 05:02 PM

I heard Jones say on a bowl interview he had a $50,000 recruiting budget. Why would anyone consider such a position????

surveyor

01-08-2008, 05:10 PM

I could understand the consideration of living in such a place as Hawaii.

Jones left the pressure cooker environment of the NFL to take the Hawaii job. I'd gather that at the time, that's what made the Hawaii job attractive because it was less stress and an outstanding living environment. Plus, Jones' NFL career wasn't that stellar and he began his coaching career as an assistant at Hawaii.