Okay, allow me to clear this up a bit:

Posted on: August 10, 2016 at 17:34:04 CT

"If EE returns, it means either the violations were minor/non-existent, or the University wants people to think they were minor/non-existant".

Correct. I stand by that. In the easy scenario, they keep him because it turns out there was nothing there, or minor violations (cursing a bit too much, anger management issues, whatever, but like you said, nothing that amounts to a fireable offense). In that case, there's nothing to explain or release to the public about allegations or evidence -- maybe there's a few things Coach has to work on, but overall, in this case, it means things were blown way out of proportion by Mack Rhoades and crew.

If there were major violations and they keep him, the University likely doesn't want people to know that there were major violations. Otherwise, it would look to the public like they were valuing winning over the well being of their players. So I don't think they'd release the evidence.


In your initial response, you said, "If EE returns, it does not mean the allegations were "minor/non-existent", or that the university thinks they were."

So, my scenarios with EE returning were "little to no violations" or "major violations, but University makes it look like there were little to no violations." The way you responded makes it look like you thought the choices were "little to no violations" or "major violations, but the University believes there were little to no violations." So that's where I thought the misunderstanding came from.

When I responded to your response, I was unclear. I said, "If EE returns, it's not because the University thinks violations were minor, but that it wants people to think they were minor." I was addressing the perceived misunderstanding. I assume we're on the same page that, if there are little to no violations, EE returns without a question. I'm not discounting the possibility that the violations are minor, I just didn't mention it in the last post because I was addressing the other scenario in which there are potentially major violations but Earleywine stays.

Anyway, I hope that clears up my line of thought; apologies for the confusion.

As for the University's priorities: college sports is a business, and the department's job is to make money, which it does by fielding winning teams. If there are no federal laws violated here, it's very easy for the University to justify keeping Earleywine. Given his success, I think it's plausible that they want to keep him if they can.

Finally, on nasty comments: Fans have unprecedented access to players these days. Not just on Tigerboard, PowerMizzou, etc., but on Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, and even their Mizzou emails can be found online. I don't want to make it seem like there's a giant army with pitchforks attacking players, but there are a very select few directing anger at players and posting about them online. All it takes are one or two idiots (like we've seen on this board) to say extremely hurtful things about players. If I were in a complaining player's situation, I know I wouldn't say a single thing in public about my situation, lest I get some creeps sending me messages about how much of a quitter and a ***** I am.