A philosophical question

Is it worse for a coach to be considered dirty or on the hot seat?

About these ads

9 Comments

Filed under College Football

9 responses to “A philosophical question

  1. Macallanlover

    If the claims of “dirty” are as poorly researched as some of the “on the hot seat” were, it would be a tie at “equally irrelevant”.

  2. Hogbody Spradlin

    Well, would it be worse to be on a dirty hot seat, or a hot dirty seat?

  3. When one is a construct in the minds (and writings) of lazy journalist and one is at least subjectively true based on real events, I’d go with it is worse to be dirty. Philosophically.

    Unless you work for Mike Hamilton.

  4. Derek

    It depends on your perspective. Bama fans would rather have a “dirty” coach than a coach who isn’t winning big, now. I don’t think that’s the case with our fans, at least it’s not the case with me.

  5. Mr. Georgia Football Returns

    Is it worse to be on the “hot seat” or be on the “hot seat” and not know it?…………and act like you don’t know it ………………… and be out of touch with what’s happening………..duh

  6. Brandon

    To fans of the subject team whether being “dirty” is good or bad is usually directly proportionate to whether the subject is a winner or not. If you win its okay, if you don’t its not. I’m not saying that’s how should be but its how it is.