 |
|
FIJItiger - response to your questions
Posted on: March 27, 2017 at 07:29:21 CT
haeffb MU
Posts:
12874
Member For:
26.47 yrs
Level:
Moderator
M.O.B. Votes:
0
First, let's be clear that I don't take any pleasure from portraying MU basketball in a negative light. However, I strive to be honest and realistic in my assessments of the program. I don't take contrarian positions to frustrate you or anyone else - my goal is truth and I find many of your positions to be spin and hyperbole. You simply ignore facts that don't fit your agenda - for example, the fact that MU was notified and under investigation prior to Haith leaving for Tulsa.
To answer your three questions:
1. I do not believe MU basketball was a dirty entity; however, whether they were worthy of meaningful punishment is not for me to decide. The program made mistakes, those mistakes lead to an investigation that uncovered other mistakes that were deemed serious enough by the NCAA to lead to punishment.
2. The violations uncovered involved impermissible benefits to players and their families. Those are legitimately serious in nature. Whether they were done to give MU an improper advantage is irrelevant to the question of punishment.
3. The penalties were logical and completely in line with past precedent. Players who receive impermissible benefits are not eligible to compete. If they compete while ineligible, any wins are vacated (c.f. Jevon Crudup, Derrick Rose). Level I violations typically result in loss of scholarships and other recruiting restrictions. Forfeit of postseason play may have been a little extreme compared to other cases, but that team wasn't going to postseason anyhow.
And, again, this isn't about convincing you, or frustrating you, or whatever else you may think it has to do with you. This is about making sure spin, hyperbole, and misrepresentation of the facts do not become common wisdom here.
http://tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=14671633
To answer your three questions:
1. I do not believe MU basketball was a dirty entity; however, whether they were worthy of meaningful punishment is not for me to decide. The program made mistakes, those mistakes lead to an investigation that uncovered other mistakes that were deemed serious enough by the NCAA to lead to punishment.
2. The violations uncovered involved impermissible benefits to players and their families. Those are legitimately serious in nature. Whether they were done to give MU an improper advantage is irrelevant to the question of punishment.
3. The penalties were logical and completely in line with past precedent. Players who receive impermissible benefits are not eligible to compete. If they compete while ineligible, any wins are vacated (c.f. Jevon Crudup, Derrick Rose). Level I violations typically result in loss of scholarships and other recruiting restrictions. Forfeit of postseason play may have been a little extreme compared to other cases, but that team wasn't going to postseason anyhow.
And, again, this isn't about convincing you, or frustrating you, or whatever else you may think it has to do with you. This is about making sure spin, hyperbole, and misrepresentation of the facts do not become common wisdom here.
http://tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=14671633
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
FIJItiger - response to your questions - haeffb MU - 3/27 07:29:21