re: Does anyone think LSU BB is going to escape the Smart/Wade stuff unscathed?

quote:

---

LSU wanted to meet with Wade to talk to him about it, and Wade refused to do so for 5 weeks, including through the SEC Tournament and the NCAA tournament.

---

Interesting how you made the same argument that I said you would make and already disputed it.

quote:

---

If he didn't do anything, why would he accept that?

He forefeited $250k in bonus money. LOL. That was rightfully his.

---

Seems like it is you that needs to learn how to read. I, again, already addressed this argument in my previous post. If he refused to accept it and ended up being fired by LSU, how does that put him in a better position? He is still without the money and now without a job with his only course of action to be to sue LSU for wrongful termination. Would you have preferred that be the option to happen?

Regardless if he knew he didn't cheat or not, he knew, as any common sense person knew, that he never would have gotten a job immediately or in the next couple years till all of this was resolved b/c people like you and the court of public opinion already deemed him to be guilty and a cheater beyond a shadow of a doubt; so it didn't matter if he knew himself to be innocent or not.

quote:

---

Part of his bonus was for winning the SEC regular season. You should read his contract.

---

This statement right here proves that you selectively read and pick out what you want to respond to instead of looking at and understanding the argument as a whole. I already acknowledged that bonus was a part of his contract and one that LSU had no basis to deny him as he coached the requisite games necessary to achieve the bonus. So seems like you are the one that needs to read.

quote:

---

It's only repetitive because you(and everyone else) has no logical answer for it. You know I am right. The rest of your post tells that. You dont even know what the finer details of the matter are.

---

How is someone supposed to argue with a person who is basing his OPINION on an inference. You keep wanting to say, "well it's a fact that Wade didn't coach the postseason; and it's a fact that he chose to not take his bonuses; and it's a fact that Wade chose to allow LSU to make it easier to fire him." Well here is your logical answer: NO ONE DISPUTES THOSE FACTS! We dispute the conclusion you have reached b/c of those facts. You take those and infer that Wade is obviously guilty and that he acknowledges he is guilty b/c of those things, when that is NOT TRUE. It's a post hoc fallacy.

And I know the finer details just fine. You aren't some singular authority on the issue, even though you pretend to be.