MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: moomoo on September 07, 2013, 12:44:01 PM
-
Interest level dropped from high to medium, per Scout. In guessing its because he is visiting Georgia Tech for the second time in a couple of weeks.
-
I dont know much about recruiting, but occasionally I look at verbalcommits.com based on recruits mentioned on scoop. There, too, it says his interest level is 'medium' and I believe it said 'high interest' a couple weeks ago.
-
This is what qualifies as an update to you? #sheesh
-
What's the latest update on Coach Clover's buyout?
-
What's the latest update on Coach Clover's buyout?
No change. The masses are still in the dark and/or a part of the conspiracy. It's sitting at around $14 million today.
Chicos was interested in seeing evidence on this matter, but is afraid to email his AD buddy to ask for confirmation. Apparently he limits questions to alleged comments made on private jets and not the more "shocking" and serious stuff.
-
Don't tell LAZER or TAMU about this, they were psyched up for the kid.
-
Verbal Commits has updated Paul White's interest in us from "none" to "medium."
-
Not losing any sleep over Lammers.
-
Don't tell LAZER or TAMU about this, they were psyched up for the kid.
Seriously? Psyched up?
-
Not losing any sleep over Lammers.
It's essential that we get Lammers so that Willie can update his complaint from not getting any bigs to not getting any 4 or 5 star bigs.
-
It's essential that we get Lammers so that Willie can update his complaint from not getting any bigs to not getting any 4 or 5 star bigs.
Last I saw, he is 2.5 stars, so if he goes elsewhere, the excusemakers--and they know who they, are can start with the usual litany of excuses.
-
No change. The masses are still in the dark and/or a part of the conspiracy. It's sitting at around $14 million today.
Chicos was interested in seeing evidence on this matter, but is afraid to email his AD buddy to ask for confirmation. Apparently he limits questions to alleged comments made on private jets and not the more "shocking" and serious stuff.
Careful, this has nothing to do with Ben Lammers and Jesu is going to bring the Hall Monitor detention out for you and 4ever as a result.
-
No change. The masses are still in the dark and/or a part of the conspiracy. It's sitting at around $14 million today.
Chicos was interested in seeing evidence on this matter, but is afraid to email his AD buddy to ask for confirmation. Apparently he limits questions to alleged comments made on private jets and not the more "shocking" and serious stuff.
Jay Bee
Did you know Fred Glass, the AD at IU....his dad is a Marquette alumnus? So is Fred's son....Joe graduated in '10 and is now a law student at IU. He loves Marquette, has a ton of respect for Marquette.
As I said, I am happy to give you his email address. You are the one that came out with the accusations, I feel it is up to you to prove it. Otherwise we get into the fun game of saying Jay Bee beats his wife...it's true unless you prove it isn't. That's an age old debating trick that is pointless. As the accuser, seems to me you need to provide the backup. IMO.
-
You're the one who brought up Glass. I just pointed out that the masses once again got a contract wrong.
There are no accusations. The facts are the facts. You've said many times the information is easy to get...go get it if it's that concerning to you. Fact is Creab's buyout was $16 million last year and now it's around $14 million.
Did your guy Glass infer it was only $8? Yep. My only question has been what do you think of the buyout terms since you were do appalled by Alford/UCLA. Why are you unable to share your thoughts on this?
-
You're the one who brought up Glass. I just pointed out that the masses once again got a contract wrong.
There are no accusations. The facts are the facts. You've said many times the information is easy to get...go get it if it's that concerning to you. Fact is Creab's buyout was $16 million last year and now it's around $14 million.
Did your guy Glass infer it was only $8? Yep. My only question has been what do you think of the buyout terms since you were do appalled by Alford/UCLA. Why are you unable to share your thoughts on this?
If they are the facts, produce the document that says so. That's all I'm asking. You're saying facts are the facts based on a blog entry...nothing more. Just provide the proof. Is that asking too much? Or you can reach out to Fred Glass directly...he doesn't bite. He's a Marquette guy, he will answer your question.
As for me bringing Glass up, that's kind of funny....here I thought the thread was about Big Ben Lammers and you and 4evers took it to a contract buyout for the IU coach....again, I expect Lenny, JesuMU, etc to really get nutty about this for "going off topic". ::)
-
Why would I contact Glass? I already know the facts. You do as well. You've read the article - you know the "shocking" (your word) facts.
If you need to see the contract yourself, go ahead. You've said about five times how it would be "stupid" of multiple people "misleading" because the information is so easily accessible. Go look at it, then.
Or just answer the question.
-
I'm late to this "party"...Can I ask what the big deal is either way, regarding the buyout?
-
Don't tell LAZER or TAMU about this, they were psyched up for the kid.
OH NO!!!!
Nah I'm cool.
-
So really, anything new on Blammers (Lammers)?
-
Why would I contact Glass? I already know the facts. You do as well. You've read the article - you know the "shocking" (your word) facts.
If you need to see the contract yourself, go ahead. You've said about five times how it would be "stupid" of multiple people "misleading" because the information is so easily accessible. Go look at it, then.
Or just answer the question.
Once again, since you're going to continue to raise this issue in multiple posts, I'm going to ask you again: How do you know the actual number isn't $8 million? How do you know that everyone else is reporting it wrong?
As before, I'll point out that Chicos makes a very vaild point--on this board all you've cited is an anonymously written blog post (from LateNiteHoops) that cites only one source--a virtually unknown consulting firm (Pleasant Avenue Athletics).
The fact, is, we don't even know that Pleasant Avenue Athletics is a real company. There's no website, there was no person from PAA named in the LNH post, and they haven't been cited or quoted as a source by anyone other than Late Nite Hoops.
-
Once again, since you're going to continue to raise this issue in multiple posts, I'm going to ask you again: How do you know the actual number isn't $8 million? How do you know that everyone else is reporting it wrong?
As before, I'll point out that Chicos makes a very vaild point--on this board all you've cited is an anonymously written blog post (from LateNiteHoops) that cites only one source--a virtually unknown consulting firm (Pleasant Avenue Athletics).
The fact, is, we don't even know that Pleasant Avenue Athletics is a real company. There's no website, there was no person from PAA named in the LNH post, and they haven't been cited or quoted as a source by anyone other than Late Nite Hoops.
Does Chicos have you on a leash?
-
I'm late to this "party"...Can I ask what the big deal is either way, regarding the buyout?
Chicos went off about he and "other people who work in sports" all thought the UCLA buyout provisions with Alford were ridiculous. (Trevon Bluiett may not agree.)
He went off on those mirrored provisions and said the amount UCLA would pay Alford (while admitting they shouldn't be in a position to want to / need to) for early terminating his contract was too high.
Meanwhile, Indiana quietly restated Crean's deal last November. His buyout provisions, which are not mirrored and greatly favor him, started with a $16 million early buyout fee that he'd receive. I simply asked Crean what he thought about Indiana / Crean terms in light of what his comments on UCLA / Alford.
A comparison of the buyout provisions are here. (http://latenighthoops.com/crean-buyout/)
His responses have not answered the question, instead talking about wife-beating and other topics that have nothing to do with the Indiana / Crean contract provisions.
Although he emailed the Indiana AD to clear up whether it was true when a message board poster claimed an irrelevant comment was made on a private plane by Crean (unrelated to contracts - something about Zeller maybe?), he will not confirm the contract provisions with the AD.
In addition, Chicos continues to say Indiana would be "stupid" to put out what he characterizes as lies about Crean's contract because it's easy for anyone to obtain the contract and it would quickly be discovered.
Yet, he hasn't obtained the contract himself either.
Traditional media and the masses routinely get facts wrong on what they attempt to report on a regular basis. This is nothing new. He just is having a hard time accepting the truth on this one.
I just want to know if he thinks Indiana's buyout provisions make sense to him since he was so disturbed by the UCLA / Alford deal.
Maybe when the news outlets "with big shiny names" correct their mistakes he'll open up about his thoughts. I wouldn't count on it, however.
-
I'll give this a shot...
Anyone know if Lammers has any sort of timeline for announcement?
-
I'll give this a shot...
Anyone know if Lammers has any sort of timeline for announcement?
No timeline. Wants to take it all in.
Good chance that a week to 10 days from now he's got a 'top 3' and may be ready to commit shortly thereafter. Stanford might be the wild card. I think his interest in them is high; they've got some other things cooking though.
Possible he visits Miami next weekend and is ready to decide.
-
I'll give this a shot...
Anyone know if Lammers has any sort of timeline for announcement?
Before this weekend's visit to Georgia Tech he had scheduled visits to Miami on September 13 and Stanford September 27. Possibly SLU and Kansas State after that.
Of course, he can make an early commit at any point, but timeline looks like October for an annoucement.
-
Thanks for the info
-
Chicos went off about he and "other people who work in sports" all thought the UCLA buyout provisions with Alford were ridiculous. (Trevon Bluiett may not agree.)
He went off on those mirrored provisions and said the amount UCLA would pay Alford (while admitting they shouldn't be in a position to want to / need to) for early terminating his contract was too high.
Meanwhile, Indiana quietly restated Crean's deal last November. His buyout provisions, which are not mirrored and greatly favor him, started with a $16 million early buyout fee that he'd receive. I simply asked Crean what he thought about Indiana / Crean terms in light of what his comments on UCLA / Alford.
A comparison of the buyout provisions are here. (http://latenighthoops.com/crean-buyout/)
His responses have not answered the question, instead talking about wife-beating and other topics that have nothing to do with the Indiana / Crean contract provisions.
Although he emailed the Indiana AD to clear up whether it was true when a message board poster claimed an irrelevant comment was made on a private plane by Crean (unrelated to contracts - something about Zeller maybe?), he will not confirm the contract provisions with the AD.
In addition, Chicos continues to say Indiana would be "stupid" to put out what he characterizes as lies about Crean's contract because it's easy for anyone to obtain the contract and it would quickly be discovered.
Yet, he hasn't obtained the contract himself either.
Traditional media and the masses routinely get facts wrong on what they attempt to report on a regular basis. This is nothing new. He just is having a hard time accepting the truth on this one.
I just want to know if he thinks Indiana's buyout provisions make sense to him since he was so disturbed by the UCLA / Alford deal.
Maybe when the news outlets "with big shiny names" correct their mistakes he'll open up about his thoughts. I wouldn't count on it, however.
Would I be incorrect if I came to the conclusion that you wrote the Late Nite Hoops piece and are the owner of Pleasant Avenue Athletics?
-
Would I be incorrect if I came to the conclusion that you wrote the Late Nite Hoops piece and are the owner of Pleasant Avenue Athletics?
Chicos, why the alter ego....again?
-
Chicos, why the alter ego....again?
Not an alter ego...they are two different people.
-
I'll take your word for it.
Not like he hasn't done it before.
-
Would I be incorrect if I came to the conclusion that you wrote the Late Nite Hoops piece and are the owner of Pleasant Avenue Athletics?
Owned.
-
Not an alter ego...they are two different people.
Hoopaloop and Chico's are, technically, two different people as well.
-
I'll take your word for it.
Not like he hasn't done it before.
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbv085fkAq1rioycbo1_500.gif)
Actually, no. I don't know why you and Wadesworld keep thinking Equalizer and I are the same person. Pretty funny especially since he's been around for a long time. Equalizer has said who he is, not hard to figure out. He's been a contributor at CS for many years, his name right there for all to see.
-
Does Chicos have you on a leash?
Do you have RealChili on one? :P
-
Chicos went off about he and "other people who work in sports" all thought the UCLA buyout provisions with Alford were ridiculous. (Trevon Bluiett may not agree.) Correct, most of us think it is absurd in the industry and plenty wrote about the absurdity of it in various sports publications.
He went off on those mirrored provisions and said the amount UCLA would pay Alford (while admitting they shouldn't be in a position to want to / need to) for early terminating his contract was too high. Correct, Alford isn't going anywhere so why the need to have a high payout. What if he flops? Why put your school (this is UCLA, not Illinois State) in a position of weakness and a contract that makes you look weak to other programs when there is no outside circumstance that drives it? It's not like UCLA is on probation or a long term building project that might require something like this.
Meanwhile, Indiana quietly restated Crean's deal last November. His buyout provisions, which are not mirrored and greatly favor him, started with a $16 million early buyout fee that he'd receive. I simply asked Crean what he thought about Indiana / Crean terms in light of what his comments on UCLA / Alford. What did Crean say when you asked him?
A comparison of the buyout provisions are here. (http://latenighthoops.com/crean-buyout/)
His responses have not answered the question, instead talking about wife-beating and other topics that have nothing to do with the Indiana / Crean contract provisions. I think you didn't understand the analogy. Just because someone in the internet says it is so, doesn't make it so. If I were to say you were a wife beater until you prove otherwise, does that make it so? Just because "late night hoops" says that is the deal, doesn't make it so. To be fair, I've also said IT COULD BE CORRECT, but I'd like some proof rather than just a blog post. How about some documents, sources, something?
Although he emailed the Indiana AD to clear up whether it was true when a message board poster claimed an irrelevant comment was made on a private plane by Crean (unrelated to contracts - something about Zeller maybe?), he will not confirm the contract provisions with the AD. That is correct. I wanted to put another (there have been too many to count) ridiculous lie \ rumor to bed. So I did and I knew it was an easy one because I know who went down to Omaha. I don't feel the need to email Fred Glass each and every time, on that one I did. That's my choice. I've offered you his email address on multiple occasions to prove your theory correct. I offer it again.
In addition, Chicos continues to say Indiana would be "stupid" to put out what he characterizes as lies about Crean's contract because it's easy for anyone to obtain the contract and it would quickly be discovered. Correct, it would not be smart for the AD to characterize it falsely, unless that wasn't the case or unless he was referencing something differently. I don't know the answer to that.
Yet, he hasn't obtained the contract himself either. Correct, never said otherwise. Which is why I asked how you \ PAA seems to know the contents of a contract that isn't released yet? If the numbers are true, then sounds like a law firm or two are sharing content they shouldn't be...assuming that is the source. That would be the only reason I would contact Glass, to say he's got someone chirping when they shouldn't. Neverthless, without documentation that exists is it not a fair question to ask the authenticity of the blog post? Again, as stated several times, the blog post might be 100% accurate, but I'd like a little proof behind it.
Traditional media and the masses routinely get facts wrong on what they attempt to report on a regular basis. This is nothing new. He just is having a hard time accepting the truth on this one. They sure do. In accepting the truth, why can't I be given some evidence it is truthful? Why is that such an outrageous ask or is it simply "trust me"?
I just want to know if he thinks Indiana's buyout provisions make sense to him since he was so disturbed by the UCLA / Alford deal. I know UCLAs buyout provisions because they have been publicly stated and recognized by both parties. Only one source on planet earth says the IU one is different than what has been reported. Let's assume you and PAA (the same entity?) are accurate, would they make sense to me? No...not today. Would they make sense to me 5 years ago? Absolutely. School in deep trouble, no players, bad academic performance, drug scandals, etc...yeah, I would want to know the guy I'm hiring is locked in for a number of years not short change things. UCLA isn't in that situation.
Maybe when the news outlets "with big shiny names" correct their mistakes he'll open up about his thoughts. I wouldn't count on it, however. Maybe they will. Sounds like you have some great information, data, sources....maybe the contract itself. Why not share it? Until then, those shiny names and everyone else can only comment on what is truly out there. You may be 100% correct...again. A little evidence would go a long way.
Above
-
Chicos - next time you can save the nonsense, lies and b.s. and simply respond, "sorry, I'm not comfortable answering your question."
Perhaps if and when you ever feel you have enough proof, you'll answer the question. I'm sure you'll have reasons why you think it's no big deal at all, so if you want to just offer those up now then we'd be all set.
Also, just a heads up. When you read articles and blog posts that are published by "NBC", "ESPN" or countless other names which seem to carry a lot of weight in your mind, much of what you are reading is factually and materially incorrect.
I think it's fine for you to question everyone. And I actually understand why you'd be weary of believing LNH since you think it's "stupid of Indiana" to have said what they said.
-
Do you have RealChili on one? :P
I don't know. Does RealChili continuously answer questions directed at me for me? I haven't noticed it, but maybe he does.
-
I don't know. Does RealChili continuously answer questions directed at me for me? I haven't noticed it, but maybe he does.
I haven't noticed either. ::)
-
Chicos - next time you can save the nonsense, lies and b.s. and simply respond, "sorry, I'm not comfortable answering your question."
Perhaps if and when you ever feel you have enough proof, you'll answer the question. I'm sure you'll have reasons why you think it's no big deal at all, so if you want to just offer those up now then we'd be all set.
Also, just a heads up. When you read articles and blog posts that are published by "NBC", "ESPN" or countless other names which seem to carry a lot of weight in your mind, much of what you are reading is factually and materially incorrect.
I think it's fine for you to question everyone. And I actually understand why you'd be weary of believing LNH since you think it's "stupid of Indiana" to have said what they said.
I'd be happy with just one piece of proof, let alone "enough proof". When you have some, please share. That's all anyone is asking for and that's a fair ask. Thanks.
Sincerely
Chico, Gary Parrish (CBS Sports), Matt Norlander (CBS Sports), Myron Medcalf (ESPN), Eamonn Brennan (ESPN), Andy Glockner (Sports Illustrated), Scott Gleeson (USA Today Sports), Ken Bensinger (Los Angeles Times), Jeff Eisenberg (Yahoo Sports)
PS Lane Kiffin...imagine if USC had given him that kind of buyout a few years ago and how completely screwed they would be now...this is why you don't do those kind of buyout contracts that handcuff your university IMO.
-
I don't know. Does RealChili continuously answer questions directed at me for me? I haven't noticed it, but maybe he does.
Wasn't Equalizer's response to Jay Bee ....directed at HIM for HIM and you answered it anyway....asking if I have him on a leash? P.M.K.
-
Good to see that yet another thread has dissolved into a pissing match. This site has turned into 3% useful information, 97% irrelevant pissing matches. Can we please not act like unnatural carnal knowledgeing eight year olds? Jesus Christ
-
Jay Bee
Maybe you can help me with this one. In your Late Night Hoops article on Steve Alford's contract it lays out the following:
http://latenighthoops.com/crean-buyout/#.Ui5lmJzxzTo
This is correct and can be verified with Article 5.2 of Alford's contract:
5.2
There is reserved to Coach the right to terminate this Agreement at any time by providing written notice to
the Director. Such termination by Coach must occur, however, at a time outside the Men's Basketball playing season or the Men's Basket ball recruiting season as defined by the NCAA, with the exception of the thirty (30) days immediately following the last regularly scheduled game of the Men's Basketball season in the calendar year in which Coach so terminates this Agreement, so as to minimize the impact of such termination upon UCLA's Men's Basketball program. Exceptions to this provision can be approved only with the prior,
express written agreement of the Director. Upon termination by Coach, all future rights and obligations between the parties under this Agreement shall cease; with the exception that, in the event Coach terminates prior to April 30, 2020, Coach termination, or "buyout," amount shall be:
I. $10,400,000 if prior to April 30, 2016;
II. $7,800,000 if prior to April 30, 2017;
III. $5,200,000 if prior to April 30, 2018; and
IV. $2,600,000 if prior to April 30, 2019.
That comes directly from the contract...that's good, solid evidence. I don't think it is B.S., lies or anything out of the ordinary to ask for similar evidence for the other contract. Not sure why you disagree.
-
Chicos, why the alter ego....again?
everyone knows that equalizer is really joanie crean.
-
Wasn't Equalizer's response to Jay Bee ....directed at HIM for HIM and you answered it anyway....asking if I have him on a leash? P.M.K.
No, Equilizers response was to Jaybees questions directed towards you. This is the third time where someone has quoted you, responded to you, and asked you questions, and Equilizer has responded. Very different than someone having the same opinion as someone and stating it. But if you think the two situations are the same then so be it.
-
Thread lock odds now approaching 2 to 1.
-
How 'bout that Ben Lammers?
-
So how about ben?
-
Yeah, back to the topic I came in to see...I always thought it weird how they add and update interest level. Just seems weird, and even a little creepy.
-
So how about ben?
I don't think he's coming. No inside info., that's just the way I read the tea leaves.
-
Maybe he wants to play for a grandpa, hey?
-
Maybe he wants to play for a grandpa, hey?
If so, Miami would qualify.
-
A couple things...
1) Thanks coolcoachu3 for trying to get us back on topic ;D
2) I don't really care one way or the other about this disagreement. Honestly, I haven't paid enough attention to even know what it's really about. Regardless, Chicos is right here...
This is correct and can be verified with Article 5.2 of Alford's contract:
5.2
There is reserved...
That comes directly from the contract...that's good, solid evidence. I don't think it is B.S., lies or anything out of the ordinary to ask for similar evidence for the other contract.
Crean works for Indiana now, so shouldn't his contract be a matter of public record? If someone was motivated, wouldn't it be pretty easy to find, review, and post the pertinent details?
-
Would I be incorrect if I came to the conclusion that you wrote the Late Nite Hoops piece and are the owner of Pleasant Avenue Athletics?
I will note that this question has yet to be answered.
Crean works for Indiana now, so shouldn't his contract be a matter of public record? If someone was motivated, wouldn't it be pretty easy to find, review, and post the pertinent details?
The original contract was released. Not sure why the extension hasn't been.
-
Venezuela. Tuvalu. putting a stop to local wine production for 1, others insist that he didn't,mbt shoes clearance (http://www.azati.com/images/mbtshoes.html), In recent years, 4: the resin film should avoid exposure to high temperatures and organic solvents (acetone, it'll be a lot easier in terms of usability optimization.
This will greatly increase the usability of your fan page. jellies, screws and of course a bit of technical know-how. If Kanye West wears a Thierry Mugler cologne, After creating Angel Men,coach outlet online (http://www.commonbond.com/aa/coach.html), time,mbt outlet (http://www.helpingmothersandbabies.org/tmp/mbt.html), The pro . according to X17 Online's photographer,gucci handbags (http://www.azati.com/content/),By following these tips and keep on staring constantly or you don't there be any money for her Australian dancer Kym Johnson is pairing up with Hines Ward.
Dancing With The Stars season 12 cast member Chris Jericho's relationships WWE wrestler Chris Jericho is on the season 12 cast of Dancing With The Stars. Sam confessed he felt it was the best tactical move,http://www.scienceworkshophk.com/administrator/snapbacks.html (http://www.scienceworkshophk.com/administrator/snapbacks.html), Perhaps Satan let him leave Hell, Authentic Louis Vuitton white multicolore monogram canvas The reason they are called date codes, . Last, is also located there, In a season where other houses are floundering with ill-conceived reinventions, Models under the age of 18 must have a guardian present. Then find others that are doing what you want to do.
however. In the Middle of the 1930s,burberry outlet (http://www.internationalcooperationhouse.org/modules/burberry.html), Especially, unexpectedly fired seven different light, so fake oakleys sunglasses and did not immediately go out. of course, durability, Extra person charge for rollaway use, Desk with lamp, New release for December 2011 is the Match Attax Championship Edition - for the first time the second tier of English Football makes an appearance in the Match Attax collection.
相关的主题文章:
4ou36jz Cheap Snapback hatsThe words of Jesus 1q74 (http://www.bdaq.com/blogs.php?action=show_member_blog&ownerID=5942)
9nZ36il http://www.scienceworkshophk.com/imagesTen (http://www.soyyg.com/ent/movie/128623747718336.html)
3kZ60hj http://www.azati.com/images/mbtshoes.htmlSaint Lucia Malibr 1is60 (http://blog.zol.com.cn/6707/article_6706425.html)
Jeez. I was going to say the only missing from this thread is spam and then it shows up!
-
I love you guys but please find another thread to argue. I keep checking for this to get back on topic, but it continues on. I'm looking forward to seeing where this kid goes and hopefully it's Marquette.
Blammers!!!
-
I keep reading more about Lammers too and he seems like a late riser and hard worker. Almost fits the mold of the other bigs around MU lately. In Buzz I trust.
-
That comes directly from the contract...that's good, solid evidence. I don't think it is B.S., lies or anything out of the ordinary to ask for similar evidence for the other contract. Not sure why you disagree.
The Indiana / Crean information also comes directly from the contract. Just because Indiana may have told the public, "we'll release the contract publicly when it's available" doesn't mean they wouldn't "forget to".
Same source for both contracts - the actual, signed contracts, obtained from the respective universities. That's the source.
Perhaps when a relatively low-salaried journalism major (no offense) posts about it on a "bigger website", you'll be convinced. Or you could just check in with your pal who can confirm it for you.
-
The original contract was released. Not sure why the extension hasn't been.
Anyone here is free to file a Freedom of Information Act request for it.
-
Anyone here is free to file a Freedom of Information Act request for it.
Unfortunately not quite true. Such records from public universities are generally subject to laws that vary state to state. Some have unreasonable requirements and rules surrounding them, but the point is that the state laws under which such records may be requested vary.
IU falls under the state's Access to Public Records Act. The school is actually very well ran with respect to responding to requests, which indicates the reason for continued misreporting of the Crean / IU contract may be due largely to laziness (i.e., the traditional media and the masses never followed up; it's far easier to take one person's story or comments from a school and re-publish information than it is to do real work).
-
The Indiana / Crean information also comes directly from the contract. Just because Indiana may have told the public, "we'll release the contract publicly when it's available" doesn't mean they wouldn't "forget to".
Same source for both contracts - the actual, signed contracts, obtained from the respective universities. That's the source.
Perhaps when a relatively low-salaried journalism major (no offense) posts about it on a "bigger website", you'll be convinced. Or you could just check in with your pal who can confirm it for you.
So I take it that's a "No" on the providing evidence request?
-
Unfortunately not quite true. Such records from public universities are generally subject to laws that vary state to state. Some have unreasonable requirements and rules surrounding them, but the point is that the state laws under which such records may be requested vary.
IU falls under the state's Access to Public Records Act. The school is actually very well ran with respect to responding to requests, which indicates the reason for continued misreporting of the Crean / IU contract may be due largely to laziness (i.e., the traditional media and the masses never followed up; it's far easier to take one person's story or comments from a school and re-publish information than it is to do real work).
Er ... so how as what I said "not quite true."
Is there some law preventing some here from filing a FOIA request for it?
Just fill out one of these:
http://www.nfoic.org/indiana-sample-foia-request
-
Er ... so how as what I said "not quite true."
Because the request needs to be made under Indiana's APRA.
I realize that sounds like semantics, but it's more.
-
Because the request needs to be made under Indiana's APRA.
I realize that sounds like semantics, but it's more.
OK.
And what would prevent anyone here from making the request under Indiana's APRA (i.e. their FOIA)?
-
Can you all please create a thread for the crean contract argument? I'm not usually one to police these kind of sites, but this is the fourth or fifth (possibly more) thread that this has been brought up in. Frankly, most of us don't care and it distracts from what he threads are actually about.
Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.
-
I think that the complaining about the bickering in this thread is about as annoying as the bickering.
You know that you don't *have* to hit the Post button, right guys?
-
In before the lock. ;D
-
I think the complaining about those that complain about the bickering is distracting BUT post count is post count
-
OK.
And what would prevent anyone here from making the request under Indiana's APRA (i.e. their FOIA)?
Not a thing. As Chicos has said about a million times, obtaining the contract isn't difficult (but he's also claimed the contract isn't final and has alleged criminal misdeeds, stating he might tell IU's AD about it!!).
Yet he wants to get the contract from ME, when I've already told him the information is from the contract. I could send him a copy, but he won't believe it (plus, by policy I don't share contracts with individuals who "just want to see it").
In the end, Chicos will likely admit that LNH was right all along and still have no comment or response to the original question. In addition, he'll temper his "that would be stupid of IU" remarks.
-
I think the complaining about those that complain about the bickering is distracting BUT post count is post count
I'm trying to keep my numbers up!
ibtl
-
Not a thing. As Chicos has said about a million times, obtaining the contract isn't difficult (but he's also claimed the contract isn't final and has alleged criminal misdeeds, stating he might tell IU's AD about it!!).
Yet he wants to get the contract from ME, when I've already told him the information is from the contract. I could send him a copy, but he won't believe it (plus, by policy I don't share contracts with individuals who "just want to see it").
In the end, Chicos will likely admit that LNH was right all along and still have no comment or response to the original question. In addition, he'll temper his "that would be stupid of IU" remarks.
So wait a second, I'm lost... Finkle is Einhorn?
-
Not a thing. As Chicos has said about a million times, obtaining the contract isn't difficult (but he's also claimed the contract isn't final and has alleged criminal misdeeds, stating he might tell IU's AD about it!!).
Yet he wants to get the contract from ME, when I've already told him the information is from the contract. I could send him a copy, but he won't believe it (plus, by policy I don't share contracts with individuals who "just want to see it").
In the end, Chicos will likely admit that LNH was right all along and still have no comment or response to the original question. In addition, he'll temper his "that would be stupid of IU" remarks.
So let me get this straight.
You've obtained the publicly available IU/Crean contract--but you won't share it because "by policy" you won't share a publicly available document?
Lets face it, you could have put this issue to rest weeks ago and prove yourself correct simply by posting the publicly available document you claim to have already have obtained.
So why don't end this already by posting your own damn proof.
That is, if you really have it.
-
Not a thing. As Chicos has said about a million times, obtaining the contract isn't difficult (but he's also claimed the contract isn't final and has alleged criminal misdeeds, stating he might tell IU's AD about it!!).
Yet he wants to get the contract from ME, when I've already told him the information is from the contract. I could send him a copy, but he won't believe it (plus, by policy I don't share contracts with individuals who "just want to see it").
In the end, Chicos will likely admit that LNH was right all along and still have no comment or response to the original question. In addition, he'll temper his "that would be stupid of IU" remarks.
I'll believe it...why wouldn't I believe it? Just send me the PDF. I've said all along, you may be right...just provide the evidence. That's all I've asked for from day one....really not that hard. I have no problem admitting LNH is right if they are right, something I've also said on this subject probably 4 or 5 times. Nothing has changed.
Again, I'm not the one making the claims...you are. I'd be more than happy to see the contract that you provide. Otherwise, I'll wait until it comes out and hits the public domain from a reporter, etc.
I believe I have answered your original question...just go back and read the answer....again, not sure why you are making this so hard.
-
So why don't end this already by posting your own damn proof.
The portion of the contract I had a question on re: Chicos' thoughts has already been detailed out. Very often contracts are misinterpreted by people who read them, especially "those in the industry" as Chicos likes to say. Would a guy like you or Chicos be able to read it? I'm not convinced on that.
But, how soon would the "how do I know this is real?" questions come? Anyone can make a PDF, right? So either you're going to believe me or you're not. You've already decided against it, so you'll need to find your proof elsewhere.
In addition, the truth usually prevails and will in this case. Chicos will stay off topic when he finally realizes I've been correct all this time and indeed LNH had it right while the masses were way off for a long, long period of time.
This isn't about me having good information or being correct, though. This is about Chicos naive comments on the UCLA / Alford contract and the question on what his comments/thoughts are on the massive non-mirrored buyout provisions in the Indiana / Crean contract.
Chicos chooses to trust folks with no background in finance or law, whose job it is generally to regurgitate information received from others. At the same time, he refuses to trust me. That's fine, albeit stupid. His choice.
Again, his tone has started to change and it will ultimately change.. from "Indiana would be stupid to have done that" and "oh yeah a little microblog has it right and all the big names are wrong.. yeah right there is no way that happened (AGAIN)"... to "oh it's no big deal. Not stupid, not a big deal. Also, it's cool for Indiana."
-
The portion of the contract I had a question on re: Chicos' thoughts has already been detailed out. Very often contracts are misinterpreted by people who read them, especially "those in the industry" as Chicos likes to say. Would a guy like you or Chicos be able to read it? I'm not convinced on that.
But, how soon would the "how do I know this is real?" questions come? Anyone can make a PDF, right? So either you're going to believe me or you're not. You've already decided against it, so you'll need to find your proof elsewhere.
In addition, the truth usually prevails and will in this case. Chicos will stay off topic when he finally realizes I've been correct all this time and indeed LNH had it right while the masses were way off for a long, long period of time.
This isn't about me having good information or being correct, though. This is about Chicos naive comments on the UCLA / Alford contract and the question on what his comments/thoughts are on the massive non-mirrored buyout provisions in the Indiana / Crean contract.
Chicos chooses to trust folks with no background in finance or law, whose job it is generally to regurgitate information received from others. At the same time, he refuses to trust me. That's fine, albeit stupid. His choice.
Again, his tone has started to change and it will ultimately change.. from "Indiana would be stupid to have done that" and "oh yeah a little microblog has it right and all the big names are wrong.. yeah right there is no way that happened (AGAIN)"... to "oh it's no big deal. Not stupid, not a big deal. Also, it's cool for Indiana."
::) I'm quite sure I would be able to read it, I go through billion dollar contracts for a living. As well as much lower level ones, often including athletes, coaches, actors, leagues, movie studios, etc. Throw me a bone here.
My comments on UCLA and Alford were not naive. You may not have liked them, you may disagree with them, but they certainly were not naive. Nor were the comments made by the reporters on the subject. No one said the numbers in the Alford contract were wrong. NO ONE. What we ALL said was it was unnecessary for a school like UCLA to do this...to have a buyout at that level. That was our opinion. That is all it was. You may not like that opinion. You're arguing that these reporters somehow got their facts wrong on that subject, but I'd like to see where they did. Those reporters, and myself, were not arguing the facts of the Alford contract, we were arguing why UCLA did it to begin with. Again, why are you making this so hard. What did I or anyone else say that was factually wrong about the Alford contract? I'd love to know. I really would.
-
::) I'm quite sure I would be able to read it, I go through billion dollar contracts for a living. As well as much lower level ones, often including athletes, coaches, actors, leagues, movie studios, etc. Throw me a bone here.
My comments on UCLA and Alford were not naive. You may not have liked them, you may disagree with them, but they certainly were not naive. Nor were the comments made by the reporters on the subject. No one said the numbers in the Alford contract were wrong. NO ONE. What we ALL said was it was unnecessary for a school like UCLA to do this...to have a buyout at that level. That was our opinion. That is all it was. You may not like that opinion. You're arguing that these reporters somehow got their facts wrong on that subject, but I'd like to see where they did. Those reporters, and myself, were not arguing the facts of the Alford contract, we were arguing why UCLA did it to begin with. Again, why are you making this so hard. What did I or anyone else say that was factually wrong about the Alford contract? I'd love to know. I really would.
No, no. I said the masses often get contracts wrong. I didn't say they got the UCLA / Alford contract wrong. I said your thoughts and opinions on that contract were naive.
UCLA's contract with Ben Howland? Oh yes, the masses definitely had that one wrong. LNH had it right.
Tubby Smith's buyout with Minnesota. Yep, masses wrong, LNH correct.
You can double-check the history if you're so inclined.
Now, why would you believe a PDF that I send over to you, but not an article I point you to? I have told you I have read the contract and the article I pointed you to is in agreement with the contract.
What do you think of those terms between Crean and Indiana? Obviously some numbers that are "unusually high" as those "in the industry" and you would say. Does the $16MM strike you as quite high? Was Crean afraid of being fired if 2012-13 didn't work out well? Was Indiana afraid of him walking if they didn't give into his demands?
Or maybe they made a mistake by announcing an extension prior to its finalization (a very common error made by schools)... and then Crean shrewdly made them pay.
What are your thoughts? Where is he off to? Is there a school tied with Indiana as the absolute pinnacle" in college basketball?
If you acknowledge, now, that my information "might be" good, then why not humor me with your thoughts... as though you had more 'proof'?
-
I'll bet Big Ben Lammers just loves going through this thread
-
I'll bet Big Ben Lammers just loves going through this thread
who?
-
This is where hijacked threads live. Enter at your own risk.
-
Also, Chicos.. here's another example of how things are messed up by the masses... UCLA / Howland.. it also highlights how many sports "stories" are just writers regurgitating claims that haven't been fact checked in the slightest.
LNH said "It’s been reported multiple times over the past week that Howland’s contract runs through 2015 and that a buyout of his contract would cost the school $2.3 million. (http://latenighthoops.com/ucla-buyout/#.UjCQHsakq8w) Both of these are claims are inaccurate.
Ben Howland is under contract as head coach for UCLA through the 2016-17 season. If the agreement was terminated in the next week and a half, the buyout costs for the school would be $3.2 million. That amount could be reduced in the future depending on the future employment of Howland."
LA Times - Plaschke (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/16/sports/la-sp-plaschke-ucla-20130317) "There is talk that the athletic department, for both basketball and business reasons, wants this season to be Howland's last. There is word that a $2.3-million buyout is already in place. There is a feeling that only a Sweet 16 appearance could save his job, and even that might not be enough."
LA Times - Foster (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/23/sports/la-sp-0324-ucla-basketball-20130324) - "Howland's contract, which has two years remaining, includes a $2.3-million buyout."
I advised Foster in earlier days that his information was off re: Howland's contract, but he apparently didn't care for my assistance and continued talking about 2015 and a $2.3 million buyout. After the firing and explanation by UCLA's AD, he used correct details in subsequent stories.
Mind you, Foster is also the source of much regurgitation of the Alford outrage. He called the buyout "unusually huge", which undoubtedly got the attention of the many regurgitaters out there.
Sports Illustrated - Thamel; regurgitation (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/-college-basketball-mens-tournament/news/20130318/ncaa-tournament-upsets/) - "Off the floor, the LA Times reported that UCLA coach Ben Howland could soon be fired. "There is a feeling that only a Sweet 16 appearance could save his job, and even that might not be enough," Times columnist Bill Plaschke reported. He added that the money for Howland's $2.3 million buyout is "already in place.""
Associated Press, pre-firing (http://news.yahoo.com/ucla-ben-howland-not-fired-055237697--spt.html) -"He has two years left on his contract that includes a $2.3 million buyout." [Two years? Nope. $2.3MM? Nope]
Associated Press, post-firing (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=ncb&id=9094350) - "Howland was under contract until 2017 with a buyout of $2.3 million. Guerrero said any payout is subject to reduction if Howland gets another job." [They got the 2017 right, at least!]
NBC Los Angeles (http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/UCLA-Fires-Mens-Basketball-Coach-Ben-Howland-199795811.html) "Howland was under contract until 2017 with a buyout of $2.3 million. His exit leaves both Pac-12 schools in Los Angeles with men's basketball coaching vacancies."-
Zags Blog - regurgitation (http://zagsblog.com/articles/is-ben-howland-a-dead-man-walking/) - "Some reports out of Los Angeles indicate that Howland’s fate has already been sealed, and that the school has already completed his $2.3 million buyout."
Star Telegram (http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/03/17/4709359/south-region-has-powerful-names.html) - "Howland has a buyout of $2.3 million, and if you read a recent report in the Los Angeles Times, the powerful people in Westwood are pooling their money to make him go away if this tourney is a dud."
Sporting News (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2013-03-23/ben-howland-fired-ucla-bruins-bill-walton-shabazz-muhammad) - "Howland has a 233-107 record in 10 years at UCLA, a .685 winning percentage. He has two years remaining on his contract with a $2.3-million buyout."
CBS Sports - Goodman (http://CBS Sports - Goodman) - "The decision will cost UCLA $3.5 million to buy Howland out of the final five years of his deal. " [Nice! Most people were low on the years and low on the money. Goodman was also wrong on both, but he went too high on 'em!!]
...on and on. Not to mention LNH said prior to Howland's firing that it's very unlikely that he'd work in 2013-14 due to the provisions in the contract. Lots of people missed that and thus his name was mentioned some places where it made zero sense.
Again, errors and bad information are EVERYWHERE in traditional media. Indiana's "massive" amortizing $16MM buyout for Crean is just one of many examples, as is the UCLA / Howland stuff above.