Wrigley win may save Zook's job

Yeah... Cuz you know... Being perpetually stuck in the middle of the pack of the Big Ten is TOTALLY progress.

Not sure why we needed this article. We were told yesterday by a poster in another thread that Zook was coming back regardless of what happened in this game.

Guess losing to Minnesota is okay.

Whoever thought playing a game in a venue where one end zone was deemed unusable should damn sure lose his/her job.

QUOTE(#5):

Originally posted 11:25 AM ET  11.21 by Otis B. Driftwood

Whoever thought playing a game in a venue where one end zone was deemed unusable should damn sure lose his/her job.

Or get a job in government?

I can hardly remember ANY year where Ron Zook wasn't described as being on the hot seat. Seriously.

Next week's thread: Will loss to Fresno St cost Zook his job?

QUOTE(#12):

Originally posted 01:03 PM ET  11.21 by Joe Kidd #1

I can hardly remember ANY year where Ron Zook wasn't described as being on the hot seat. Seriously.

Zook is a "hot seat" kind of a coach. His results are not impressive, but better then some (like Brewster @ Minnesota). I just find it hard to warm up to him as he struts the sideline, chin up in the air with his fingers over his mouth....just doesn't work for me.

QUOTE(#12):

Originally posted 01:03 PM ET  11.21 by Joe Kidd #1

I can hardly remember ANY year where Ron Zook wasn't described as being on the hot seat. Seriously.

And yet, he continues to be employed as a HC at a BCS institution... Go figure.

QUOTE(#11):

Originally posted 01:03 PM ET  11.21 by Flea Biscuit

Did you ever notice that the only people whining and sniveling are the ones you were not involved in the game or even there. You know they call T&R a peanut gallery for a reason.

Not whining or complaining but more than just T&R criticized this.


I would name off some names, but then you would just call those people a few names as well and we would be right back at the start, eh eh.

QUOTE(#21):

Originally posted 05:22 PM ET  11.21 by Flea Biscuit

I am afraid it does make it so. The players and coaches just loved the atmosphere. And college students weren't the only ones drinking and having a great time. Old and young alike were having a ball the entire morning through evening. The only ones not having a good time were the know it all losers who were not even there and not qualified to make a judgement. So just because a pile of dogsh*t such as yourself claims it was not a success does not make it so.

You're making me want to up-chuck!

QUOTE(#21):

Originally posted 05:22 PM ET  11.21 by Flea Biscuit

I am afraid it does make it so. The players and coaches just loved the atmosphere. And college students weren't the only ones drinking and having a great time. Old and young alike were having a ball the entire morning through evening. The only ones not having a good time were the know it all losers who were not even there and not qualified to make a judgement. So just because a pile of dogsh*t such as yourself claims it was not a success does not make it so.

It was a bad idea and you're a homerific duushbag.

QUOTE(#19):

Originally posted 02:50 PM ET  11.21 by Flea Biscuit

It was a one game experiment. All it was designed to do was to show the fans and both organizations a good time. To which it was a rousing success indeed. No one ever said they had to play there on a yearly basis, which they won't, any more than they will be playing hockey there every year. But many people just do not get this.

Rock on, then, if you liked it. I was just pointing out it was more than people here who were a little underwhelmed.