Man, the Big Ten truly is the best conference teaching life lessons

[NavinRJohnson]

I can understand why Tubby might conclude that no further punishment is warranted.

 

Me too. He wanted to beat Purdue.

The kid is a bad seed, and I am very glad he's no longer at MU.

[Mayor McCheese]

Good call, again you cannot read. All of ESPN and there team of analysts and writers I said had no problem with him playing. Im not talking Minnesota people. So, if people with real knowledge have no problem I think its fine Tubby plays him after suspending player after player as it is with transfer after transfer to discipline.

ESPN also had no problem with the crock that was the ruling for the Ohio St football players (not suspending for the Sugar Bowl).

The problem is there are violations, yet NCAA doesn't want their profits down, so they don't do what is best, and of course ESPN is going to stick by the NCAA, NCAA is a major product of ESPN, or vice versa, depending on how you look at it.

There's something wrong in America when a man is arrested for BREAKING THE LAW.  And that somehow doesn't constitute breaking the team rules in some minds.

[GGGG]

Try, the fact that they cover the situation and do follow ups that you dont do from your couch big guy. Try the fact that all of them at 1 point either played or coached in college basketball so if they have no problems with the fact hes playing it means most of the league more than likely doesnt have a problem with it. So yeah, the knowledge matters.

The fact that all of them played or coached means they have a bias toward letting him play and/or don't want to piss off Tubby by stating their opinion.  Of course they are going to come down on the side of the team here. 

You are giving ESPN way more credit than they deserve.

[GGGG]

Lots of winners on this board.

In life, when I am on the 5% side of an opinion while others are on the 95% side, I don't find it real smart to insult the majority...it makes you look really stupid.

[tower912]

I actually thought the Tubby got this one right.   Poor decision by TM?   Yup.   And I expect that Buzz would have handled it differently, which would have been OK with me, too.   I just don't think the action is that big of a deal.   

[brewcity77]

What amazes me is that someone is actually defending Mbakwe's actions. It was the girl's fault? Really?

Okay, first of all, they don't need to be friends on FaceBook for him to send her a message. Anyone on FaceBook can send anyone else on FaceBook a message. It's like email. Two years ago, I discovered an old box of pictures when I was moving that didn't belong to me but to a prior resident of the same rented house. Using the name on the picture envelopes, I found the person on FaceBook, messaged them, got their info, and sent them their pictures. We are not friends on FB, never have been, and didn't need to be for me to make contact and her to respond.

Second, do you even comprehend the meaning of a no-contact order? It means the court is telling you that you are prohibited from making contact with this person. If you show up at their work and wait for them in the parking lot, you are violating that order. If you text message or call that person on their phone, you are violating that order. If you email them or contact them on FB, you are violating that order. But what you are saying is that it's her fault for not blocking Mbakwe on FB? So what, should she get a new job and move so he can't find her? Should she change her phone number so he can't call her from a friend's phone? Should she take herself off the Internet so he can't message her?

The answer to all of those questions is obviously no, and obviously ridiculous. However by saying that it's her fault, that is what you are insinuating. Quite simply, she took legal action and obtained a court order that he not contact her. By doing so, she has done everything she needs to do to prevent contact. She doesn't have to relocate, get a new phone number, and change her online accounts to prevent temptation. The court order should be more than enough to prevent temptation. All he has to do is not contact her. If he attempts to do so, he is instantly the one violating a court order, and is instantly the one in the wrong.

What you are saying is pretty much the same as saying that a girl who got raped is to blame because she wore a sexy dress to the bar. She should have dressed in a frumpy potato sack so she wouldn't tempt men to want to have intercourse with her. Of course that's ludicrous. As is your argument.

Mbakwe is to blame. Maybe he wrote the message with the best of intentions, maybe the message itself wasn't a big deal, but obviously it was a big enough deal that the girl felt she had to pull it out to show that he was violating the court ordered no-contact. Frankly, he is a complete moron for not knowing better, and should have been suspended purely on a basis of utter stupidity, if nothing else. Personally, I feel that violating a court order should warrant a suspension. I don't see how any upstanding program would say otherwise. But I guess beating Purdue was more important.

[StillAWarrior]

I actually thought the Tubby got this one right.   Poor decision by TM?   Yup.   And I expect that Buzz would have handled it differently, which would have been OK with me, too.   I just don't think the action is that big of a deal.  

Here's the thing (for me at least):  I don't know what happened to lead to the restraining order.

Suppose some woman (maybe an ex) was stalking you.  She was always showing up at places where you were; calling you at all hours; sitting in her car in front of your house; texting you; emailing you; posting on your FB page; etc.  During these contacts all she ever did was tell you how much she loved you; tell you she wants to marry you; beg you to leave your current girlfriend/wife; tell you she can't live without you; say that doesn't know what she might do if she can't have you; etc.  Maybe she's been violent, maybe not.  Suppose that this went on long enough that you felt that you needed a restraining order so that she would not come near you or contact you any more.  What would you do if she posted the following on your FB page:  "I know we haven't talked in forever and trust me I'm not trying to start any drama with nobody in your life or anything. I just wanted to wish u the best with everything and I hope all has been well with you and your family. I am still disappointed how everything played out and I do wish that in the future we could be cool again. Idk how u r going to take this msg hopefully its not bad but I just wanted to wish u a happy new year and send out a congrats for graduating. I've been well I'm finally playin bball again in everything down in miami finally got taken care of thank god. Well idk if u will respond or not but best wishes for 2011."

I'd think it was a big deal, and I know what I'd do.

Without more facts, it's pretty hard for me to decide how big of a deal it was.  I really only know two things:  1) a judge thought Trevor's earlier conduct was serious enough to warrant an order that he have no contact with this girl; and 2) Trevor violated the order.



Edited to add:  I obviously assumed that tower912 was a man.  If I'm wrong on that, I apologize.  The scenario holds true if the stalker is a man (and some would argue that it would present an even clearer case).

[NavinRJohnson]

Second, do you even comprehend the meaning of a no-contact order?

One should be able to comprehend the meaning simply by being literate.

[NavinRJohnson]

An interesting little detail from the SI.com story that I hadn't seen...

Mbakwe sent a message on Facebook to a former girlfriend on Sunday, and St. Paul city attorney Sara Grewing told the Pioneer Press on Wednesday that he has been charged with violating a harassment restraining order.

He also criticized his former girlfriend on Twitter on Tuesday afternoon. Both of those accounts have since been disabled.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/basketball/ncaa/01/11/minnesota.trevor.mbakwe.ap/index.html#ixzz1B1aiaO9m

Anyone know what he said? Seems to support what many here are saying...this was about him doing what he wanted to do, and when it went bad, he 'criticized' her for it, whatever that means.

Like I said, bad seed.

[warthog-driver]

One should be able to comprehend the meaning simply by being literate.

Trevor Mbakwe is one of those cautionary tales. Soon enough, he will be forever consigned to the scrap heap of history. His path will be tortured, littered with trouble, and fraught with brushes and scrapes with civil society. What is more disturbing is that Tubby Smith is derelict in his responsibility as a leader. He has the unique opportunity with authority to instruct this young man in what is acceptable behavior. I see this as an essential component of Smith's command obligation and yet he has shirked it in a manner both despicable and disturbing. My world demands accountability; Tubby Smith's should too.

[StillAWarrior]

Her problems? Idk maybe whatever they were that Trevor wrote to her making sure she was doing alright. Did you even read the message he wrote?

Did you?  Having re-read the message, I'll reiterate Lenny's question:  what problems?  The closest he seems to get to "making sure she was doing alright" was when he said, "I hope all has been well with you and your family."  Ummmmm...yeah...clearly she has a lot of problems.  Any semi-literate person would get that from Trevor's FB post.

[KipsBayEagle]

Anyone who thinks this same thing doesn't happen with schools in other conferences is dilusional.  See Syracuse and Dievendorf.  Coaches 99.5% of the time will find anyway they can to keep a kid playing unless their is action from the ncaa

[Dr. Blackheart]

Trevor has already been found guilty--thus the injunction.  Posting on Facebook is not illegal.  Violating a court order not to do so is.  A judge can throw him in the slam in 10 minutes.  Think of it this way:  A defendant is convicted of a DUI.  A judge says he will lessen the sentence if the defendant does not drink for a year.  The defendent goes into a bar, drinks and takes a cab home.  There is nothing illegal about going into a bar to grab a drink and then taking a cab home.  However, a cop sees him in the bar, takes a pciture of him drinking and sends it to the judge who rings him up for violating a court order. No trial will occur--just the judge following through on his origial order via a hearing.     

[StillAWarrior]

Trevor Mbakwe is one of those cautionary tales. Soon enough, he will be forever consigned to the scrap heap of history. His path will be tortured, littered with trouble, and fraught with brushes and scrapes with civil society. What is more disturbing is that Tubby Smith is derelict in his responsibility as a leader. He has the unique opportunity with authority to instruct this young man in what is acceptable behavior. I see this as an essential component of Smith's command obligation and yet he has shirked it in a manner both despicable and disturbing. My world demands accountability; Tubby Smith's should too.

I hope you don't mind (not that it matters if you do), but I "hear" all your posts in Jack Nicholson's voice.

[Rubie Q]

Here's the thing (for me at least):  I don't know what happened to lead to the restraining order.

Suppose some woman (maybe an ex) was stalking you.  She was always showing up at places where you were; calling you at all hours; sitting in her car in front of your house; texting you; emailing you; posting on your FB page; etc.  During these contacts all she ever did was tell you how much she loved you; tell you she wants to marry you; beg you to leave your current girlfriend/wife; tell you she can't live without you; say that doesn't know what she might do if she can't have you; etc.  Maybe she's been violent, maybe not.  Suppose that this went on long enough that you felt that you needed a restraining order so that she would not come near you or contact you any more.  What would you do if she posted the following on your FB page:  "I know we haven't talked in forever and trust me I'm not trying to start any drama with nobody in your life or anything. I just wanted to wish u the best with everything and I hope all has been well with you and your family. I am still disappointed how everything played out and I do wish that in the future we could be cool again. Idk how u r going to take this msg hopefully its not bad but I just wanted to wish u a happy new year and send out a congrats for graduating. I've been well I'm finally playin bball again in everything down in miami finally got taken care of thank god. Well idk if u will respond or not but best wishes for 2011."

I'd think it was a big deal, and I know what I'd do.

I don't know the full background of their relationship, obviously, but the Star Tribune had a few more details about the restraining order:

Mbakwe, who sat out last season because of legal problems, agreed to cease contact with the woman in August 2009 when she sought a harassment restraining order, citing his alleged repeated, unwanted phone calls and communication with her. The woman, who said at the time that she had recently broken up with Mbakwe, told a Dakota County judge that she feared for her safety. Mbakwe was facing a felony assault charge at the time filed earlier that year while attending Miami Dade Community College.

Mbakwe denied the allegations of his ex-girlfriend, but agreed to stay away from her.

A day after the ex-girlfriend filed her request for a restraining order, Mbakwe sought a harassment restraining order against the 22-year-old woman, who did not respond to multiple interview requests Tuesday. He accused her of trailing him in a car and tracking him down at a relative's home, despite his desire to keep his distance from her.

"She threatened to leak false information to local newspapers and mutual friends after becoming mad about my relationship with my fiancée," Mbakwe's petition stated. A Hennepin County judge denied his request.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/113288344.html?elr=KArksUUUycaEacyU

[Jam Chowder]

Of course they're similar.  Both are zero-tolerance situations under the law, and both provide an opportunity for others to apply their own experience and judgement as to whether the actions warranted further sanctions.

No. They're not. You're not understanding my point. Of course the policies are similar. The differences like in the individuals' standing relative to the law. Whereas the aforementioned school girl acted in ignorance relative to the law, TM acted in defiance of it. Those are two very different scenarios.

So, guilty until proven innocent?  If there is even the slightest possibility that Trevor's intentions were not innocent, its wrong for Tubby to conclude that they were?

No, guilty because there is concrete evidence from his own Facebook account that he's guilty. There's not really a question. No one involved is asserting his innocence. He is NOT innocent. Regardless of his intentions, he knowingly acted in direct violation of law.

I'm merely saying that after reading the note myself, I can understand why Tubby might conclude that no further punishment is warranted.

Look, I get what you're saying. I'm not so dense as to lose the forest in the trees. I am just saying that were I a D1 head basketball coach, and one of my players acted in clear, deliberate disregard for the law, I would find it a serious enough offense to warrant discipline. That kind of behavior, however superficially harmless it may seem, still displays arrogance, stupidity, contempt for the law, or some unfortunate combination of the three.

[Lennys Tap]

Anyone who thinks this same thing doesn't happen with schools in other conferences is dilusional.  See Syracuse and Dievendorf.  Coaches 99.5% of the time will find anyway they can to keep a kid playing unless their is action from the ncaa

Agree that this isn't a "Big 10" problem and that many coaches would not have disciplined Mbakwe. Don't agree that the number is 99.5%.

[KipsBayEagle]

Agree that this isn't a "Big 10" problem and that many coaches would not have disciplined Mbakwe. Don't agree that the number is 99.5%.

yea 99.5 is a little strong.

[Lennys Tap]

Trevor has already been found guilty--thus the injunction.  Posting on Facebook is not illegal.  Violating a court order not to do so is.  A judge can throw him in the slam in 10 minutes.  Think of it this way:  A defendant is convicted of a DUI.  A judge says he will lessen the sentence if the defendant does not drink for a year.  The defendent goes into a bar, drinks and takes a cab home.  There is nothing illegal about going into a bar to grab a drink and then taking a cab home.  However, a cop sees him in the bar, takes a pciture of him drinking and sends it to the judge who rings him up for violating a court order. No trial will occur--just the judge following through on his origial order via a hearing.     

Agree with this. Some may find the "conditions" placed on a defendant found guilty of a crime to be unfair. And some may find what Mbakwe said in his violation of court order to be tame. The fact remains that what he did constituted an arrestable offense. And Mr. Mbakwe and Tubby Smith were both aware that ANY contact with this woman, whether benign or threatening, was considered as such. Wonder why athletes have such a feeling of entitlement? Look no further than how Tubby handled this.

[mu03eng]

Agree with this. Some may find the "conditions" placed on a defendant found guilty of a crime to be unfair. And some may find what Mbakwe said in his violation of court order to be tame. The fact remains that what he did constituted an arrestable offense. And Mr. Mbakwe and Tubby Smith were both aware that ANY contact with this woman, whether benign or threatening, was considered as such. Wonder why athletes have such a feeling of entitlement? Look no further than how Tubby handled this.

This and the argument over words in the media may be the eulogy for personal responsibility as a concept.

[brewcity77]

One should be able to comprehend the meaning simply by being literate.

Yeah, you'd think. Though reading this thread, clearly it's not that simple 

[Marquette84]

No. They're not. You're not understanding my point. Of course the policies are similar. The differences like in the individuals' standing relative to the law. Whereas the aforementioned school girl acted in ignorance relative to the law, TM acted in defiance of it. Those are two very different scenarios.

They are similar for precisely the two reasons I stated--both are zero tolerance rules, and both provide the ability for one to apply their own sensiblities for further punishment.

Your attempt to cite a difference (defiance/ignorance) in no way precludes the similarities I stated. 

In fact, the very difference you cite (Mbakwe acted in defiance, the girl acted out of ignorance) is excluded as a mitigating factor in both cases. An assessment of defiance and/or ignorance is not allowed in either case. 

The school rule precluded bringing a knife on campus for any reason--regardless of whether you do so knowingly or accidentally.   

The law against violating the no contact order precludes communication for any reason--regardless of whether you do so defiantly or with good intentions.

My point is that under the law there is zero tolerance in both cases.  The school principal and the courts in Minnesota are equally bound by their respective rules.

No, guilty because there is concrete evidence from his own Facebook account that he's guilty. There's not really a question. No one involved is asserting his innocence. He is NOT innocent. Regardless of his intentions, he knowingly acted in direct violation of law.

Ditto with the paring knife case.  No one is asserting the girl's innocence.  She brought a knife to school. There's really not a question.  No matter what her intentions or knowledge, it was against the rules.

What people are saying after the fact is that the rule should not apply to her because of extenuating circumstances.

Tubby isn't even going that far--he's made no mention over whether Mbakwe should or should not have been hauled off to jail.  He's merely stating that he doesn't think additional punishment is warranted based on his interpretation of extenuating circumstances.

[StillAWarrior]

Tubby isn't even going that far--he's made no mention over whether Mbakwe should or should not have been hauled off to jail.  He's merely stating that he doesn't think additional punishment is warranted based on his interpretation of extenuating circumstances.

I have little interest in getting involved in the semantics debate that you and Jam Chowder are having, but I did note that Tubby stated in the press that the behavior would not be tolerated and that there were "other things we're going to do internally that [Mbakwe is] going to have to do."

Translation:  "yes, it's serious; yes, we're embarrassed; yes, additional punishment is warranted; hell no, he's not sitting out against Purdue."  (Here's where I'd insert the little winking thing if I didn't hate those little winking things.)

[chapman]

I suppose this doesn't seem like a big deal when a coach has recruited a half dozen criminals and headcases by his third year.  I think the reaction of most here is great.  If this were to happen at MU we wouldn't have it; we expect more of our players.  We don't have to try to play down the severity of their crimes or worry about whether players should be suspended or kicked off the team for getting arrested because our players don't get arrested.

[wildbillsb]

So a cop or lawyer is going to tell you if a man should be allowed to play a game of basketball? Rather than the guys who have been around the game there whole lives and seen what has and hasnt gotten people suspended throughout the years?

Lots of winners on this board.

Having a bad day, Bunkie?