I agree there is no right/wrong answer. I like the tie and OT in that situation Would have hated to see it all put on one play after the comeback effort that we had. We had all the momentum and the Cocks were rocked at that point. I was surprised, actually, that we didn't get the TD in OT. 

 

Yep.  I think that shows where we are as a program.  It shows a total lack of respect for them to go on 4th and 1 from their own 39. 

I suppose you could also assume that it shows confidence in your own abilities, but if there were any fear of consequences then you most likely punt that football.

With the offensive line play that we have, Dobbs is our best chance to be successful.  With average, maybe be even slightly below average O line play, Worley could have been much better and we would maybe be 5-3. We simply do not have anywhere near that quality play from our line.

Time after time last night, Dobbs turned what would have been sacks with Worley into positive yardage. His mobility put less pressure on the line and created more opportunities for the offense. He has issues with accuracy at times (while at other times making some really crisp and spot-on passes), but his ability to run eliminates the pin-your-ears back defensive mentality that we have seen from defenses so far this season.

In the future, defenses will prepare for this new aspect of our offensive scheme and we may see less productivity than against Bama (I hope it is the opposite), but defenses will have a completely different offensive dynamic to prepare for.  Dobbs can run the option, he can evade the rush, and he can make the throws (just needs to be a little more consistent).

Here's hoping we go 4-0 with him at QB!

EDIT:  Let's make that 5-0, counting the bowl game!!!

Volznut, I do not disagree with that.  Perceptions change, they are indeed shaped by the times.  I would guess that members of younger generations, in general, are less likely to use corporal punishment.  Whether that is right or wrong is an individual thing.

I will say that, as a member of one of the older generations, it looks like Peterson crossed the line.  That doesn't mean that I think using a switch, or using corporal punishment are necessarily criminal.

Do I think Peterson went too far?  Yes. 

I will say this: I have had marks similar to that from switchings.  I don't think I every actually bled from one of mom's switchings, though, and I know my wife nor I ever made our son bleed. 

To me, the number of lashings he has is even more a factor in it being abusive than is the small amount of blood.  It would appear that this child was struck more than 10 times.

I never gave, nor received, more than 3 lashings at a time (at least I can't remember ever getting more than that).  A little goes a long way!

You made a comparison of a legal act (taking out your own money) to an illegal one (abusing your kid) and made them out to be the same. I didn't make that up. I hate to repeat, but I am talking about abuse. I am not talking about you spanking your kid, I am talking about A Peterson hitting his kid so gard with a switch that is caused this :

It is not illegal to discipline your child through the use of corporal punishment.  Even with a switch.

Do I think using a switch could be abusive?  Yes.   Do I think using a belt/ruler/razor strap/paddle could be abusive?  Yes.

Are they always abusive?  No, not in my opinion.

Could a scolding be abusive?  Yes.

I actually agreed with you, to a degree, in the earlier post with the analogy.

Again, I clearly am talking about using a switch on a 4 year old, NOT spanking. There is a big difference

I got '"switchin's" as a 4 year old child.  Probably even as a 2 or 3 year old, though I can't remember that far back.  None were abusive or criminal.  They were given out of love.

I don't see it as criminal if done correctly.  I used a switch on my son when he was that old and I didn't abuse him.

There are folks who probably think it was abusive, and some of those probably see my actions as criminal.  I disagree with them.

Its all in how its administered, imo.

10EC, that's funny because I actually had the same thought originally.  I actually started typing that and stopped mid-sentence.  

What? That's a terrible analogy man. No I don't get your drift. You taking your own money out isn't a crime. You abusing your kid is. Sure you are responsible for your child's discipline, but you can't abuse him, that is a crime. So the question is, do you consider a grown ass 230 lb man beating a 4 year old with a switch so much that it bleeds and leaves marks abuse ? We're not talking about a slap on the butt here. Doesn't matter if it's his dad...it's abuse.

I guess its a terrible analogy to you because you disagree with it.  I think it is a pretty good parallel, because I don't abuse my child when I spank him.

If you had bothered to read my entire post above you would have seen this:
"Now, I will be the first to admit that corporal punishment can be criminal if not administered in the right way and for the right reasons.  There are those who abuse this.  I will add, though, that almost anything can be made into something negative if not used, administered, or handled correctly."

Actually, you probably did read that.  You probably ignored that part of the post because it didn't fit into your rebuttal, I guess.  

My dad, in my lifetime, has done MANY wonderful things for me.  He continues, through my mother, to do for me even today (he can't directly because he has dimentia).

He paid for my college education, he helped me buy my first car, he fed me, he clothed me, he taught me right from wrong.  So many wonderful things he taught me.

The best thing he ever did for me, though, was to 'wear me out' (spank my behind) for making a C in science when I was a sixth grader.  He also grounded me in addition to the spanking.  That spanking was the best thing he ever gave me.  You see, education was not important to me (it didn't involve a girl or a ball and so I wasn't that interested in it).  I would have been happy with C's - heck, I would have been OK with D's.

With that spanking, however, he taught me that only my best was good enough.  He knew that education was important, and he made it important to me.  He taught me that anything less than my best was not good enough.  I didn't make any more C's.  I got a great education, not because I really cared about it, but because I had to in order to satisfy my parents.  I was young and was not intelligent enough to know that education was important.

I was able to go to college and get a degree in electrical engineering because of that spanking.  If not for that, I would most likely have ended up working in the coal mines of southern West Virginia (where I was born and raised).  Had he let me get by with that first C, I would have tested the waters by making a couple of C's.  If a couple of C's had been allowed, I would have tried D's to see if they would fly.  Pretty soon, I would have been making all C's and D's (and I would have been perfectly OK with that).

Throughout my childhood I received many spankings, switchin's.  Many of them were very hurtful, at least in the short term.  Even though some were hurtful (and some of them even left a bruise, a stripe on the legs, etc) NONE of them were ever abusive.  Each and every one of them was helpful.  I am blessed to have received them!

If I went out, found some four year old and beat him with a switch, I'd be arrested for assault of a child and child abuse. People would hate me and I'd get a jail sentence. So why is it ok to do the same if it's your four year old? Abuse is abuse.

If I took money out of your bank account to pay off my house, it would be a crime.  So why is it OK for me to take money out of my account to do the same thing?  A crime is a crime?

Maybe not the greatest analogy, but you get my drift?

The difference is that I am responsible for discipline where my child is concerned.  You are not.  You have no right to discipline my child (unless you have been legally appointed to do so).

Now, I will be the first to admit that corporal punishment can be criminal if not administered in the right way and for the right reasons.  There are those who abuse this.  I will add, though, that almost anything can be made into something negative if not used, administered, or handled correctly.

We've all had different experiences that shape our views on this, but I don't think the two things you said are potayto/potahto at all. Fear and respect are two completely different concepts, and fear is never requisite and rarely helpful in a parent/child relationship, IMO. I think fearing one's parents is a pretty unhealthy thing, actually.

JMO.

Agree to disagree.  Proverbs tells us that "He that spareth his rod hateth his son."  While religion is probably for another forum, it is the basis for my beliefs.

I can tell you this, nobody loves their parents more than I love mine.  They definitely did not spare the rod with me, and I definitely feared the consequences (I suppose I could have stated my original post differently).  I did fear them so far as what would happen when I got out of line.  That did not, in any way, affect the love that I had/have for them. 

Of course, they never spanked me out of anger.  It was always done out of love.  I believe this.  They always sat me down and explained to me what I had done that warranted the punishment before administering it.  I didn't like it, but I understood it.  At the time, I was not of the mind that it was helpful to me, but looking back now I see that their discipline is what helped make me into a responsible adult.

I respect your view.  I am not attempting to be argumentative.  I am just expressing my view of things, and as you said, we all have different experiences that shaped us.

In my opinion, the Nike action is likely more an issue of wanting to stay on the "politically correct" side of the issue.  I could be wrong, though.

As for a switching now and again, I will have to agree with Hollerboy.  I got plenty of "switchin's", and more than one of em left their marks.  None of them ever did me any lasting damage, and they all probably helped make me a better individual.  They worked because they made me respect my mother/father's rules.  Or fear them (to me, its potAto/potato).

I would have rather been whipped three times with a belt than once with a switch.  The belt didn't work for me.

I tell people that my mother had an "all-herbal" cure for ADHD.  She cured mine with a good old-fashioned switch.

Yeah, its the chain. Supposed to be a chain of exactly 10 yd.

Well, that isn't fact. That is your belief. A fact has to have tangible proof to back it up.

 I can respect your belief, but I don't agree with you on that. I don't mean offense.

No offense taken.  Maybe would have been more agreeable to you if I had said "You seemed to mock the 'idea' that God would see one human as being relevant.."

I believe that God finds us all relevant.  That is my belief.

Volznut, I will accept that. Your original remark, however, seemed to mock the fact that God would see one human as being relevant.  I simply don't believe that is true.

Ok back to lurking! I apologize if I have been offensive to anyone here.

God has led me to make many decisions in my life.  I firmly believe that!  That statement is neither hypocritical nor egotistical, in my humble opinion. 

I think it is blatantly egotistical, obnoxious, and hypocritical for anyone to attempt to tell me otherwise - because they have no way of knowing whether it is true or not.

Granny nailed this one!

I wonder how gays feel about seeing a woman and man kissing. It's just funny I never hear them complain. Just an observation.

And if they did, it wouldn't make ESPN or any other news outlet's broadcast.

It makes perfect sense for Pac 12 coaches to want SEC football teams to play as many other SEC teams as possible. In fact, if I were a coach in any other conference, I would probably lobby for SEC teams to play 12 conference games each season.

Jarnell after the game when asked about NBA draft: "I don't want to go out like that."

Per tweet from Wes Rucker

And both teams can point to questionable calls. Just a few plays earlier a ball that came off the glass and clearly went off Maymon's hand was awarded to UT. 

I am as big a Vol fan as anyone, and I absolutely hated the call on Stokes, but if we don't miss so many layups, or if we make a few more FTs, or if we guard a little better on the perimeter we win in spite of that call.

All told, I am proud as hell of the effort this team gave and how they fought through adversity to finish the season strong.

 I didn't hear the interview, but a friend told me Martin said the play was for Stokes to draw a double-down from Jordan's defender and then kick to him for either a shot or drive.  Maymon was to crash boards from the weak side.

I went back and watched again and it does seem that Stokes is looking at Jordan to get him the ball - and the lane had an opening.  All a coach can do is draw up a play that gets the look for the player(s) he wants. Players gotta make plays.

If this was indeed the plan, it appears to me that the plan was solid.

When players are good free throw shooters miss late-game charity tosses it is likely not the result of instruction and practice.  More likely to be the result of performing under pressure, which is hard to develop in practice situations.

How many players have missed crucial end-of-game free throws, and in how many games? At what point does the coach bear some of the responsibility?

I don't disagree that when you view a game in isolation, you don't blame the coach when players make mistakes that result in a loss. But when the same subject is coming up game after game...yes, I'm serious.

So how would you suggest that a coach assure that his players make free throws at the end of close games?

There are absolutely things that coaches are responsible for.  When a coach puts his best players in a position to be successful, however, and they fail to do so it really falls more to the athlete than the staff.  At least that is how I see it.

I would bet that the Vols shoot free throws in practice under conditions where they are fatigued. If not, then that could be put on the coach. I am interested in what your thoughts are on how coaching can correct this - and I am not attempting to be argumentative, just trying to understand this reasoning.

Its not like he is putting the ball in the hands of poor free throw shooters (at least % wise).