Is it worse for a coach to be considered dirty or on the hot seat?
Is it worse for a coach to be considered dirty or on the hot seat?
Filed under College Football
“We remember the Sugar Bowl, I think it my junior year of high school, we let Alabama beat us twice,” Brinson said of a team that also lost to the Crimson Tide in the SEC Championship game. “We’re not letting Alabama beat us twice. In the Sugar Bowl in 2018, they… thought they should have been in the playoffs and lost to Texas.” -- AB-H, 12/27/23
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”.
LikeLike
Well, would it be worse to be on a dirty hot seat, or a hot dirty seat?
LikeLike
I didn’t know it was that kind of party.
LikeLike
Touche’
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Do what?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike