Touissant enters portal
- Thread starter MountaineerWV
- Start date
Touissaint likely headed to NYC if he doesn't decide to stay. Keep seeing posts about Beilien returning, and that's pretty much a dead deal. Friend of mine who runs the Michigan 247 board indicated they were talking but JB wanted a multi-year deal, as well as setting up his son as a replacement once he retires. Was going to have his son be assistant HC, according to Sam W.
That would be correct information on JB. Wanted guarantees that his son be head coach. Thank God Wren told him to take a hike.
Where does Huggins fit in as the one who dumped kerosene onto the city and struck a match? All he had to do was not get wasted behind the wheel by drinking from a cooler, blacking out for 7 hours, driving dozens and dozens of miles in this state, and winding up lost in a place 180 miles from where you think you are. Something just about every single one of us manages to accomplish every day.
Should’ve just offered him an out with rehab, we are dealing with a coach who is one of our own and has lined up a great roster for one last run. Trying to hire a “permanent” coach at this stage of the game is a sure fire way to follow Pitt’s path to irrelevance post-Dixon.
It’s a DUI, no one was hurt. The virtue signalers on this board and in sports can all suck it. Worse crap has been swept under the rug, we just saw Alabama continue to trot out Brandon Miller in the middle of a homicide investigation FFS.
Had Huggins killed a family in a car accident in his state that night and was able to somehow still able to coach WVU despite criminal charges, would you be okay with your rehab plan?
Last edited:
But. He. Didn’t. The guy did more for WVU basketball than anyone in the history of the program and we gave him 30 minutes to resign or be fired with cause after being so much more than just a coach for 15 years. All because Gee, who is likely to be gone or dead within the next few years, doesn’t like him. Think our fanbase is pumped to invest in NIL, facilities, and coaches contracts after that!?
Rehab could've been an answer if this was just an isolated incident. It wasn't. Coming on the heels of his remarks on that radio program, with Gee already wanting him gone but just not having a reason, Huggins needed to be walking the straight and narrow, dotting his I and crossing his T, but couldn't do it.
We've seen players get into some kind of trouble and Huggins hold them to an equitable standard in order to get out of his doghouse. Had to do this and that, behave and act a certain way, in order to get back into the good graces and see the court. Some could, some didn't. When Huggins had the same rules applied to him, he didn't.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue of drunk driving, or the punishment(s) that come with it, of how one feels about WVU's administration and their views on the issues he had, of rehab or not, Huggins was on thin ice and he knew it. The choices he made afterward were his and he has to own up to the consequences.
We've seen players get into some kind of trouble and Huggins hold them to an equitable standard in order to get out of his doghouse. Had to do this and that, behave and act a certain way, in order to get back into the good graces and see the court. Some could, some didn't. When Huggins had the same rules applied to him, he didn't.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue of drunk driving, or the punishment(s) that come with it, of how one feels about WVU's administration and their views on the issues he had, of rehab or not, Huggins was on thin ice and he knew it. The choices he made afterward were his and he has to own up to the consequences.
The administration cut off its nose to spite its face. If they wanted Huggins gone so bad, wait until the opportune moment. Suspend him for the non conference schedule, make him go to rehab, whatever you have to do, but don’t leave the ship rudderless in the middle of the ocean in an era when any player can transfer out at any moment they like. Wren has basically all but ensured his reign as an AD will be a failure trying to find a coach for one of his revenue sports 3 months after the NCAA tournament. The new coach is going to have to accept that year 1 will be a failure, can’t wait to see who we get to sign up for that.
JT had some really good games and some..ahh..when it was late in the game I was..don't foul, don't foul, he fkn fouled..
Hilarious coming from the biggest ***** boy quitter who actively roots for his school to lose. Have never come across a bigger ***** in my life.
You didn't answer my question. Would you still hold this stance had he killed someone with this DUI? If not, how is it for any other reason than dumb luck that you hold 2 different standards.
Had he been involved in a fatal DUI at 0.9 driving home from a local restaurant, I'd be more sanguine about his actions. Because in that hypothetical, his actions are not nearly as obscenely stupid and reckless as the reality. In that case he'd would be more unlucky in causing a death. In reality he is very lucky to NOT have killed someone.
Legal and moral are 2 different things. A coach goes to jail for slugging some **** talking idiot in a bar, I give zero fvcks about it in a professional or moral setting. It's not a good look, but morally I think men in certain situations can be aggressive with one another and not be egregiously in the wrong for fighting. I also think there are things, not political things, but personal things men can say to one another that it is morally worthy of a slug in mouth. Legal definitions be damned.
I fail to see how it is not hypocrisy to hold 2 different moral and professional standards for Huggins actions based upon how lucky he was. Same for having a different standard for Joe Blow with a previous DUI doing something so incredibly stupid just because he is not an accomplished ball coach.
Read first sentence. No. Didn’t read the rest, and he didn’t kill anyone. He participated in a mistake millions of Americans participate in each year. Worse **** has been glossed over for the sake of winning, stop being a ***** about it.
Would the people in your family look at you differently if you took a big **** up the ***? I assume you haven't, but I don't know.
If you are going to start calling names, you can stop being a hypocritical piece of **** willing to let someone walk just because you want your team to win. Bet if this were a politician you disagreed with getting the kid glove treatment you want for Huggs, you'd be bitching about how it's a two tiered justice system. You act as though Gee and Baker are the primary problems rather than Huggins. And you are either stupid or being intentionally disingenuous if you believe what Huggins did is a typical DUI millions partake in. Exceedingly few people drive around with coolers full of beer they drink while driving.
I apologize. You are right. You were speaking of hypotheticals and what I said was true about you. Again, I apologize.
That still doesn't answer the question. What is the point you are trying to make? Mine is clear. Your actions, be it intentional malice or reckless stupidity, should carry the same moral judgement regardless of outcome. I try to give examples because too many fail to understand this simple concept. Hence...
If I try to kill someone without just cause and fail, for whatever reason, I should still be judged morally as a murderer. Even if by criminal standards I cannot be charged as a murderer. Agree? Yes or no?
If yes, it woud then follow that if I do something far beyond the average in terms of reckless stupidity and avoid killing someone, I should still be judged morally as someone who commits manslaughter or negligent homicide.
At least you admitted to taking it up the ***. Clears it up for a lot of people.
Even Bell knows you are a full blown moron.
Every time you post, you clear that up for us.
So you disagree then. Attempted murders who fail should not be held in the same contempt as an attempted murderer who succeeds? You are an absolutely immoral and stupid piece of **** then. Had Huggins pulled a Sandusky, you'd defend him against me just like you are now then. There is no way to slice it, you just said it yourself. You degenerate moral relativist.
Umm.......attempted murderers who "succeed" committed murder. Those that do not are not sentenced to the same term length as those that "succeeded". That's why there's two different statutes. They both committed a crime, but there are different levels of punishment depending on murder or attempted. What Huggs did was a single car incident, no other car was involved. If he had hit another car, then I may actually agree with your argument.
I've not defended Huggins the first time. Do yourself a favor, and KNOW what you are talking about before spewing off. You can look at the dozens of posts I've made where I said that the university had to dismiss Huggs.
Last edited:
So had he hit another car, your moral judgment of his actions would be different? I am not talking about legal judgment, I am talking about moral. If someone tries to murder someone, but the potential victim escapes or a bystander stops the ******* mid attempt, I would hold that person as morally contemptable as if they actually had successfully killed their victim(s). Same goes if some Sandusky tries to diddle a kid. My moral judgment against that person is the same even if the kid manages to run away and avoid being assaulted. Do you agree or would you just say all is well that ends well since no one was actually harmed?
How can someone believe Huggins should have been fired had his drunken stupor resulted in harm to someone else, but should be given a third professional chance just because other people avoided harm by his reckless stupidity? HIs actions were still the same in either case.
Lastly, I was engaged with people trying to say just because Huggins didn't harm anyone that he should be given much different treatment by the University and public opinion than he should otherwise. You are the one who entered the conversation with asinine gay jokes and attacks against me. If you do not disagree with me, why are you chiming in?
Because you are trying to write a narrative of Huggins and this event that isn’t accurate. You are trying to put a loaded gun in his hand. What he did was dangerous, but what you are leaving out is the intent. Someone who seeks to kill someone is intending to do it. A drunk who gets behind the wheel isn’t intending or seeking out a victim.
And before you misunderstand, I think DUIs are serious offenses. I do not drink, never had. So what would you have to say if I say anyone who drinks or smokes are “morally wrong”?
No where do I say Huggins was trying to harm someone. I am making comparisons and allegories to point out the inconsistency in the idea that Huggins should face vastly different professional outcomes based upon how lucky he is to avoid the serious outcomes of his action. If you think Huggins should be fired in the event he killed or maimed someone in the state he was in during this DUI, you cannot expect him to receive a significantly different outcome just because by sheer luck he avoided killing someone. In the simplest terms, if someone drives onto the side walk while texting on their phone, that action is the same regardless of whether there is a person on the side walk that is able to jump out of the way or if there is a person unable to do so that gets killed. Why should we think more or less of the action just because factors completely outside of the person in question affected the outcome?