#2 is what I did. It's not truly confidential but I respect the person who told me and said post it and identify me if you must to but I'd rather not deal with some of the "morons on that forum". His words, not mine. Maybe he's referring to me?
I'll take my own vacation from the board. Keep up the good work Filbert.
I understand both sides of this argument, and I feel Jack MD has earned my tryst in this dept. I get the boards rules and how they are enforced and if I don't like it leave. So I have no problem with that. But if there is somebody within the Ath. Dept that shares this info and does not want their name released I think that is why this stuff happens.
I do come here for inside info and scuttlebutt not just confirmation bias.
Perhaps the use of terms like Likely to vs will be gone are more acceptable? Sorry for this I guess it didn't really add much.
Closing this thread isn't the answer but getting back on topic is.
Which is exactly why JackMD needs to name his source, or admit he screwed up. If he was told this confidentially, then he made a mistake by posting the info. If he was told this on the record, there is no problem with naming his source, is there?
Let me be brutally clear here: JackMD made a mistake by posting what he did--he posted either 1) confidential or 2) incomplete information. HE needs to own that.
He can do it in one of three ways: 1) Name the source, 2) admit the mistake of posting off-the-record, confidential info, or 3) do neither and take an enforced vacation from this board.
If this somehow offends anyone's sensibilities, then they need to re-check their own priorities.
If you cite your source and it's legitimate, I will delete my post. You of all people should know better.
I understand both sides of this argument, and I feel Jack MD has earned my tryst in this dept. I get the boards rules and how they are enforced and if I don't like it leave. So I have no problem with that. But if there is somebody within the Ath. Dept that shares this info and does not want their name released I think that is why this stuff happens.
I do come here for inside info and scuttlebutt not just confirmation bias.
Perhaps the use of terms like Likely to vs will be gone are more acceptable? Sorry for this I guess it didn't really add much.
Closing this thread isn't the answer but getting back on topic is.
I agree with Filbert....cite your source if you're going to post things like this - regardless of what kind of rules are in place on this board. If you don't, than this is complete garbage and your post should be removed.
Wisconsin's big man (Ethan Happ) was first team all-big 10 last year. He's got 2 years of eligibility left. Yes, he could get drafted after this year but that doesn't sound like a recipe for Daum to auto-transfer before this season has even begun.
Complete garbage you say. Wow. Admin may delete my post. Just relaying info. Don't mean to create anxiety or anger. Have a great Tuesday people.
i do not think this is plausible...TC really stands to gain nothing by leaving to sit a year to play for a FBS squad. If he is wanting to move on I think Wentz has proven that FCS isn't a handicap like it has been in the past. Plus with 86 and 19 getting attention TC is already on tape for all the NFL teams anyhow. Pardon the irony but he's a Jack for life...
Only if he could grad transfer and be eligible right away. I agree he wouldn't go and sit out a year.
Leave a comment: