For any HOF, it should be your accomplishments on the field that get you in, not what you did off the field. Regardless, Eddie Sutton wasn't never implicated...just like Cal (twice).
Eddie Sutton HOF Candidacy - Open Letter
- Thread starter Bkocats
- Start date
Lol . What a shock. The guy that thinks the "Unforgettables" jerseys don't belong in the rafters, thinks the coach that almost got us the death penalty, belongs in the HOF. What a class guy.
LOL, I was reading this thread. It's not my fault you posted in it. Or that you also support Sutton.
Yet you felt the need to take a shot at me again, in a different thread, on a post I made days ago. I am not classless nor am I a troll. If you read my post history, you will see that.
But you support Sutton to the HOF and you do not support the "Unforgettables" in the rafters. Just seems curious.
I never said I did not support the Unforgettables. NEVER! Had you read all of my posts, you would've seen that.
Sutton deserves to be in the HOF based on his total accomplishments. Not saying I support him either. Just made a statement based on the facts.
Sutton deserves to be in the HOF based on his total accomplishments. Not saying I support him either. Just made a statement based on the facts.
JMHO of course but UK never stood a chance when the NCAA came calling after the Emery envelope incident. The NCAA was highly pizzed that UK stonewall their last investigation after the Herald Leader investigation. All of the ex players denied the statements attributed to them by the HL so when this came up the blood was in the water.
The NCAA standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" it is, or at least was, "what a reasonable person would conclude" so we were toast. The admin folded like we paper and that was that. It may have all come out for the best but I wouldn't tell Eric Manuel that
The NCAA standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" it is, or at least was, "what a reasonable person would conclude" so we were toast. The admin folded like we paper and that was that. It may have all come out for the best but I wouldn't tell Eric Manuel that
My line of thinking is do you judge people receiving these honors based on their character or just their accomplishments in the sport? I don't like Sutton or Rose, but you set a precedent for making character judgements, which is a slippery slope.
I don't dislike either, I just can't see anyone voting for them for Hall of Fame if they broke the rules to get there. They made their own nest so they can sleep in it. jmho
I think he should be in the HOF, he was a very good basketball coach, didn't do much for UK, but was good in other places, he would have made it 7/10 years at UK if the envelope hadn't happened probably.
I repeat an earlier question: What exactly did he do to deserve to be in the HOF? Yeah, he won a bunch of games but, looking over his career, I don't see anything all that outstanding.
The main criteria, as I understand it, is to have made a significant contribution to the game. I think some of those coaches got in for doing that even if their W-L records were not stellar. It isn't based solely on what happened on the court.
