Sometimes if the herd is being led by a shepherd then the one that is not with the herd is given to the wolves.

Maybe next time before you make your little comment and smirk to yourself in your empty house filled with action figures and "Magick" cards you can actually take the time to read what my responce to you is...

But i guess details dont matter.

You are also correct that I misspoke when I used the word "know."  That should have been "have met."

When you make the comment that "[I] can do better than this," I can only say that I write opinions about what interests me.  I do not know for sure that Self was offered megabucks.  In fact, Holder and Self both explicitly deny that money was discussed, but it didn't have to be, did it?  Most observers have an idea of the ballpark of what it would take to lure a national championship coach away from a program like Kansas.  But nobody really knows for sure, so of course it is speculation.  But it is informed speculation.

I never said Pickens runs the athletic department, I said he "owns" it.  I mean that in the figurative sense, because Mike Holder is a close friend of his and owes his AD job to Pickens.  Does Pickens run the athletic department?  No.  Does he have veto power over major decision they make?  In my opinion, unquestionably.  Will he be consulted on every major decision?  Again, in my opinion, unquestionably.

It was out of Pickens' own mouth that he stated he "probably" would not have given the OSU $165 million dollars if they had not hired Holder.  For a man like him, who is reported by many reputable reporters to be deeply interested and involved in building that department, it is not a stretch to assume that Holder runs every major department decision by Pickens.  After all, Pickens put him there -- literally.  Just ask an OSU person in the know if you don't believe me.

As for the big donors at Arkansas, I have no idea about them, and they are not the subject.  The subject here is Pickens and Holder.

So when you say I am "making this stuff up," you are only partially right.  Most of what I have said is fact.  Connecting the dots is conjecture, but there is plenty of support for the picture I have drawn, and I would like to point out that you have offered no facts whatever in support of your counterargument, except for the claim (which I believe, by the way) that you have met Pickens.

The bottom line is that we are both speculating.  You are speculating the facts point to a different conclusion, but you have produced no real argument to support that.  Instead, you have variously accused me of a "silly argument," a "heard mentality," "unsubstantiated comments," called me "common" and "borish [sic]," accused me of "making stuff up" and suggested that I don't have the wit to see the obvious.  None of those is very nice, and the worst I have said to you is a suggestion that you are being naive in this case.

In other words, either make an argument, or leave it alone.  Assuring me that having stood in the presence of Pickens and perhaps shaken his hand and had a few words is sufficient for you to argue that I am profoundly wrong is not convincing to anyone.  Since you now assure me that you don't "know" Pickens, I can't see how having met him is even worthy of mention, and certainly lends no support whatever to your version of reality.