Because of an almost nomadic existence since his freshman year in high school, Clark has had plenty of questions swirling around him.
He began at Milwaukee King and then transferred to Milwaukee Pius, apparently never playing a full season at either stop. Clark ultimately graduated from Milwaukee Edison in 2007, then spent half a year at Ware Academy, a prep school in Atlanta before ultimately winding up at Hill late last summer.
Clark, with whom I spoke in late March, didn't want to go into specifics about his path to Hill.
"That kind of stuff right there, I don't want to go back on my past," he said. "I just want to move on, go forward. Right now I just want to stay focused toward doing something good."
Trenkle, though, was more than happy to expound on what's he's learned about Clark since welcoming him into the fold.
"I think a lot of times he didn't get a chance because he did bounce around so much. I'm guilty of the same thing – I had questions before I took him," he said. "He had been to so many different schools. But you know what I did? I talked to him on the phone 40 times, 50 times. I started recruiting him last December when he left prep school. Then I flew out and saw him twice. I went into his home. I knew that kid wasn't a bad kid. He was a little misdirected at times, kind of out on his own at times. But I think for the most part he had a good heart, and he was a respectful kid – which are the two things I really look for."
Trenkle believes Clark's past has led people to believe he's a bad character, which he said couldn't be further from the truth.
"You know, I think Monterale's gotten a little bit of a bad rap, I really do," he said. "I've had people tell me, 'Oh, he's a questionable kid.' Monterale has no questionable kid in him whatsoever. Monterale is a nice kid who took a lot of advice from people around him that wasn't always the best thing. 'Hey, you don't like the coach you're playing for now, well, come play for me.' No big deal, just a big, old, nice kid. I think Monterale was a product of when things got tough, he was always willing to look at somebody who had an easier route for him. That was a 14-, 15-, 16-year-old kid.
"And I think because of him never being in one place for too long, never finishing a full season since his freshman year at one place, I think that all has a tendency for people on the outside looking in to say, 'Oh, bad kid.' The kid has not been in trouble one time since he's been here. Him and I butt heads, but we butt heads because he's a competitive kid and I'm a competitive coach. Never disrespected me, never in any way. When he first got here he didn't have the hardest work ethic – that was part of his knock, too – but that's true about a LOT of freshmen.
"This level's a lot harder than high school. It's just not the same thing. And I think the kids that have the great work ethics are already obviously at the Big East level coming out of high school, because they know how to get it done in their classes, pass the SAT and be good enough players at that time to be in the Big East. I think the work ethic has grown tremendously. He still has a ways to go. As far as I'm concerned, I want to push the kid as high as I can take him. Obviously those guys at Marquette want him pushed as high as he can be, too. I honestly think that Monterale got a little bit of a bad rap, because he has never been a bad person or a bad kid.
"Lazy at times, yes. Never disrespectful. He's just a big, old, nice kid. Everybody loves him."
Quote from: Knight Commission on September 16, 2009, 08:42:35 PM
Because of an almost nomadic existence since his freshman year in high school, Clark has had plenty of questions swirling around him.
He began at Milwaukee King and then transferred to Milwaukee Pius, apparently never playing a full season at either stop. Clark ultimately graduated from Milwaukee Edison in 2007, then spent half a year at Ware Academy, a prep school in Atlanta before ultimately winding up at Hill late last summer.
Clark, with whom I spoke in late March, didn't want to go into specifics about his path to Hill.
"That kind of stuff right there, I don't want to go back on my past," he said. "I just want to move on, go forward. Right now I just want to stay focused toward doing something good."
Trenkle, though, was more than happy to expound on what's he's learned about Clark since welcoming him into the fold.
"I think a lot of times he didn't get a chance because he did bounce around so much. I'm guilty of the same thing – I had questions before I took him," he said. "He had been to so many different schools. But you know what I did? I talked to him on the phone 40 times, 50 times. I started recruiting him last December when he left prep school. Then I flew out and saw him twice. I went into his home. I knew that kid wasn't a bad kid. He was a little misdirected at times, kind of out on his own at times. But I think for the most part he had a good heart, and he was a respectful kid – which are the two things I really look for."
Trenkle believes Clark's past has led people to believe he's a bad character, which he said couldn't be further from the truth.
"You know, I think Monterale's gotten a little bit of a bad rap, I really do," he said. "I've had people tell me, 'Oh, he's a questionable kid.' Monterale has no questionable kid in him whatsoever. Monterale is a nice kid who took a lot of advice from people around him that wasn't always the best thing. 'Hey, you don't like the coach you're playing for now, well, come play for me.' No big deal, just a big, old, nice kid. I think Monterale was a product of when things got tough, he was always willing to look at somebody who had an easier route for him. That was a 14-, 15-, 16-year-old kid.
"And I think because of him never being in one place for too long, never finishing a full season since his freshman year at one place, I think that all has a tendency for people on the outside looking in to say, 'Oh, bad kid.' The kid has not been in trouble one time since he's been here. Him and I butt heads, but we butt heads because he's a competitive kid and I'm a competitive coach. Never disrespected me, never in any way. When he first got here he didn't have the hardest work ethic – that was part of his knock, too – but that's true about a LOT of freshmen.
"This level's a lot harder than high school. It's just not the same thing. And I think the kids that have the great work ethics are already obviously at the Big East level coming out of high school, because they know how to get it done in their classes, pass the SAT and be good enough players at that time to be in the Big East. I think the work ethic has grown tremendously. He still has a ways to go. As far as I'm concerned, I want to push the kid as high as I can take him. Obviously those guys at Marquette want him pushed as high as he can be, too. I honestly think that Monterale got a little bit of a bad rap, because he has never been a bad person or a bad kid.
"Lazy at times, yes. Never disrespectful. He's just a big, old, nice kid. Everybody loves him."
This article indicates that the only real "red flags" in Clarke's past involved his work ethic. According to the source for the article "Monterale has no questionable kid in him whatsoever" and that "he's just a big, old, nice kid" and "everybody loves him". I don't know how anyone wouldn't have felt good about this kid after reading this.
"And I think the kids that have the great work ethics are already obviously at the Big East level coming out of high school, because they know how to get it done in their classes, pass the SAT and be good enough players at that time to be in the Big East. I think the work ethic has grown tremendously. He still has a ways to go."
Lenny, I think this would probably fall under the category of red flag. Granted, there is nothing in there that would ever indicate that the kid could be a potential rapist, but he obviously had some issues that kept him from going D1 out of high school, and those reasons had nothing to do with talent.
If you are using the coach speak from a hometown newspaper as the basis for your opinion, then you are being extremely naive or deliberately donning the rose or blue and gold colored glasses.
His coach says he's good a good kid so he must be a good kid. A lot of kids go to 3 different high schools.
going to a Milwaukee Public School should be a red flag.
I agree with Lenny....if people want to pile on Buzz they will find any reason. Buzz has to rely on the people that know a kid and in this articvle the coach seems to have nothing but good things to say about him. Do people know that Tom Crean is the one that started the Monterale Clark recruitment? Kid made a terrible mistake that he will pay for the rest of his life for, blame is on the kid not Buzz.
As far as the Jucos' Dwight Buycks is the only true JuCo on the team and it's becuase he faile dto take 1 core class. The others were eligible to go to college out of HS/prep school. Crean signed his share of Jucos as did Al. All of the Juco's in the past 10 or so years have been more than upstanding young men and I beleive every one of them has graduated. It is unfair to the kids to not give them a chance and label them bad people just becuase they are juco's. it's like saying all Irish are lazy, stupid drunks...simply not fair.
Buzz once told me he recruits kids to see if they are the type of kids he wants and whether they are right for him in the aspect of character and work ethic before all else. He siad he knows they are great players every coach and recruiting agency in the country will tell you we are recruiting great players. And when he goes and meets them and meets there coaches and their parents he is not trying to ascertain whether they are good enough players to offer but whether or not they are good enough people. How do they treat their parents, what do their teachers and principals and coaches say about them. etc. He siad if he is not absolutely convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are extremely high characater kids that will represent the school him and the team in the highest regard then he is out of there. having met ans spoken with jimmy butler and joe fulce ...what amazing kids.
I am in no way attempting to pile on Buzz. I just think we need to limit the number of JUCOs we recruit. Hayward, you can attack straw men all day long but I am not saying all JUCOs are bad. I'm saying that if you bring in too many, you run the risk of having them impact the program more than the program impacting them.
Marquette has an undergrad program that admits kids with potential to MU from "rougher" areas that probably wouldn't normally get into a school like MU. This is an admirable and effective program but they limit the numbers and closely monitor their performance and behavior. Sometimes it works out sometimes it doesn't. That is how we need to treat JUCOs IMO. Limit the number and keep them on a short leash.
I think my point of view is reasonable.
BTW Hayward, you may have convinced yourself that Buzz's feces smells like roses and irish spring but the rest of us are going to live in the real world. Buzz made an honest mistake on this one guy. Hopefully he learns from it and moves forward.
Quote from: MUSF on September 16, 2009, 10:51:17 PM
I am in no way attempting to pile on Buzz. I just think we need to limit the number of JUCOs we recruit. Hayward, you can attack straw men all day long but I am not saying all JUCOs are bad. I'm saying that if you bring in too many, you run the risk of having them impact the program more than the program impacting them.
Marquette has an undergrad program that admits kids with potential to MU from "rougher" areas that probably wouldn't normally get into a school like MU. This is an admirable and effective program but they limit the numbers and closely monitor their performance and behavior. Sometimes it works out sometimes it doesn't. That is how we need to treat JUCOs IMO. Limit the number and keep them on a short leash.
I think my point of view is reasonable.
BTW Hayward, you may have convinced yourself that Buzz's feces smells like roses and irish spring but the rest of us are going to live in the real world. Buzz made an honest mistake on this one guy. Hopefully he learns from it and moves forward.
+1
Chicos and MUSF,
By your hypothesis we should limit the # of JUCO's because they are more likely to get in trouble with the law.
Prove it.
Like I said in the other thread - Clark was at JUCO because he couldn't keep from getting kicked out HS's. Not just transferring for academic reasons - but disciplinary ones. He should have never been recruited by Buzz because I know he has to have known what had happened at Pius. There were enough red flags there.
Quote from: MUSF on September 16, 2009, 10:51:17 PM
Marquette has an undergrad program that admits kids with potential to MU from "rougher" areas that probably wouldn't normally get into a school like MU. This is an admirable and effective program but they limit the numbers and closely monitor their performance and behavior. Sometimes it works out sometimes it doesn't. That is how we need to treat JUCOs IMO. Limit the number and keep them on a short leash.
We have an extremely strong academic support system for all student-athletes, and I would bet it's pretty damn similar to the ones Marquette has in place thru the Educational Opportunity Program or Freshman Frontier Program.
Again, I don't understand the assumption that a JUCO background automatically makes you a less than ideal student/person. Our academic support structure has resulted in degrees for Marcus Jackson, Jamil Lott, and Lawrence Blackledge (all 2 year JUCOs) over the past few years, and so far seems to be working exceptionally well for Fulce and Butler (1 year JUCOs). It also was extremely effective for a person like Ousmane Barro (with a GED).
If the academic support structure has a history of working, and Marquette has a pattern of bringing JUCOs thru the program that have academically succeeded, then why is it necessary to draw a line at how many can be enrolled at a given time so long as the academic support structure works?
Quote from: reinko on September 16, 2009, 11:07:27 PM
Chicos and MUSF,
By your hypothesis we should limit the # of JUCO's because they are more likely to get in trouble with the law.
Prove it.
Wrong.
As I stated in another thread, the fact that a kid went to a JC out of high school is just an indicator of a potential problem. Why would a kid with the talent to play in the BEast go to a JC instead of a D1 school out of high school? Late bloomer, maturity issues, academics, discipline case, over-looked, there are many reasons but any coach should ask the question why and do a little digging. I'm sure Buzz does this but I think it is safer to limit the number of JUCOs you bring in.
Quote from: reinko on September 16, 2009, 11:07:27 PM
Chicos and MUSF,
By your hypothesis we should limit the # of JUCO's because they are more likely to get in trouble with the law.
Prove it.
Actually Reinko, you should read the reasons why we should limit the number of Jucos....mostly due to continuity (4 years vs 2 years), maturity, and academically because not as many credits transfer over, they are typically enrolled with the bare minimum of eligible credits to maintain that class status (i.e. a Junior for example). That is why. Nothing to prove Reinko
Would you rather have 4 year players or 2 year players?
Would you rather have kids that were ready academically out of high school or had to continue to work at it for a few more years at a JC?
Would you rather have kids that go through the MU way of life and can progress over a multi-year period or kids that must pick up the athletic system and academics all in just 2 short years?
Would you rather have kids that have shown in their 4 years of high school that they can handle academics and athletics and are ready to make that next jump without an intermediary stop?
My answer is yes to all those questions.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN JUCOs are bad people. THIS DOES NOT MEAN JUCOS are not academically capable. THIS DOES NOT MEAN JUCOs are criminals. THIS DOES NOT MEAN JUCOs shouldn't be recruited.
But yes, I'd rather have 4 year kids that are with the program from day 1, academically qualified and generally mature. Yes, I'd prefer that. Crean recruits JUCOs and says he will continue to do so at IU. Buzz obviously isn't bashful at all about JUCOs. Louisville, Texas A&M, Fresno State, Cincinnati, USC, Oklahoma, Kansas State all recruit JUCOs.
Are they more likely to get in trouble with the law? I have no idea. Is there a real perception out there that JUCO players tend to have more issues (by percentage) than non JUCO players....you tell me Reinko.
Good Lord, wasn't the other thread already turned into the same debate?
Quote from: MUSF on September 16, 2009, 10:51:17 PM
I am in no way attempting to pile on Buzz. I just think we need to limit the number of JUCOs we recruit. Hayward, you can attack straw men all day long but I am not saying all JUCOs are bad. I'm saying that if you bring in too many, you run the risk of having them impact the program more than the program impacting them.
Marquette has an undergrad program that admits kids with potential to MU from "rougher" areas that probably wouldn't normally get into a school like MU. This is an admirable and effective program but they limit the numbers and closely monitor their performance and behavior. Sometimes it works out sometimes it doesn't. That is how we need to treat JUCOs IMO. Limit the number and keep them on a short leash.
What does "keeping them on a short leash" mean? Clark is an adult who isn't even on the MU campus yet.
There is nothing wrong with JUCOs. I'd rather have four year players, but a very talented two or three year player can be better for the program than a four year one.
Then i guess i will put the blame on tom crean as he is the one that initiated the recruitment of clark and Buzz only continued it and finalized it. I guess the Tom Crean lovers should feel better about them selves becuase we all know if he was still on the job we would have never gotten a commitment....considering he stands taller than 6'5"!!
Only fools hold someone responsible for someone else's actions....especially when they are 1000 miles away!
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on September 17, 2009, 07:15:58 AM
Then i guess i will put the blame on tom crean as he is the one that initiated the recruitment of clark and Buzz only continued it and finalized it. I guess the Tom Crean lovers should feel better about them selves becuase we all know if he was still on the job we would have never gotten a commitment....considering he stands taller than 6'5"!!
Only fools hold someone responsible for someone else's actions....especially when they are 1000 miles away!
Crean wanted him at II, II and Buzz wanted him at MU. They are both freaking idiots for ever wanting such a dumbass character risk.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on September 17, 2009, 07:15:58 AM
Then i guess i will put the blame on tom crean as he is the one that initiated the recruitment of clark and Buzz only continued it and finalized it. I guess the Tom Crean lovers should feel better about them selves becuase we all know if he was still on the job we would have never gotten a commitment....considering he stands taller than 6'5"!!
Only fools hold someone responsible for someone else's actions....especially when they are 1000 miles away!
You write that as if Buzz was "obligated" to complete the recruitment of Clark because of Crean. Buzz didn't follow Crean when it came to Jamil Wilson and Jeronne Maymon, so why did he follow Crean when it came to Clark?
As for being responsible, no, an average person wouldn't be responsible for another's actions. However, when discussing the Head Coach of the Men's Basketball program at Marquette and who he deems appropriate enough to be a member of said team there is some responsibility that must be taken for their actions as they are the conduit to the young man becoming a representative of our University on a large scale.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on September 17, 2009, 09:48:12 AM
You write that as if Buzz was "obligated" to complete the recruitment of Clark because of Crean. Buzz didn't follow Crean when it came to Jamil Wilson and Jeronne Maymon, so why did he follow Crean when it came to Clark?
As for being responsible, no, an average person wouldn't be responsible for another's actions. However, when discussing the Head Coach of the Men's Basketball program at Marquette and who he deems appropriate enough to be a member of said team there is some responsibility that must be taken for their actions as they are the conduit to the young man becoming a representative of our University on a large scale.
No i dont feel buzz was obligated to do anything...only threw that out there becuase someone as stupid as to blame Buzz for another grown man's action 1000 miles away is probably stupid enough to some how put the blame on Crean for recruitng him to.
This whole incident just reminds me how stupid the Buffalo bills were to draft OJ Simpson...I mean there were signs!!
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on September 17, 2009, 10:09:51 AM
No i dont feel buzz was obligated to do anything...only threw that out there becuase someone as stupid as to blame Buzz for another grown man's action 1000 miles away is probably stupid enough to some how put the blame on Crean for recruitng him to.
This whole incident just reminds me how stupid the Buffalo bills were to draft OJ Simpson...I mean there were signs!!
So a recent history of constant disciplinary issues doesn't strike you ass a reason NOT offer someone a scholarship? A kid that kicked out a few schools - including a private one? What the hell do you call those - not red flags I guess.
Good Lord by Buzz offering this scum a scholarship we have headlines that read "Marquette Recruit Faces Rape Charges". Last I checked that is a horrific thing to be associated with.
Is it safe to assume that the Athletic Dept., Buzz and Wild are all on the same page concerning this issue and it's importance? I'm hoping that they won't be needing pressure from Alumni to understand we don't need to be recruiting scum. Or am I making too big of an assumption?
Quote from: Chili on September 17, 2009, 11:15:02 AM
So a recent history of constant disciplinary issues doesn't strike you ass a reason NOT offer someone a scholarship? A kid that kicked out a few schools - including a private one? What the hell do you call those - not red flags I guess.
Good Lord by Buzz offering this scum a scholarship we have headlines that read "Marquette Recruit Faces Rape Charges". Last I checked that is a horrific thing to be associated with.
I completely agree that this is a horrific thing to be associated with. Rape, for me is as serious as a crime as murder, maybe a little less, because it has the potential to ruin a life.
I know you have had your reservations about Clark for some time, understandably so.
But I guess when you make it a Universal rule that I have to question the point.
Do you not recruit a player because of some controversy in his past? Maybe.
But where does that end? Do you never recruit a guy because somebody had a problem with his character?
Yes, Buzz mad a mistake recruiting him. But he didn't make a mistake recruiting kids like Butler, DJO or even Buycks from the JUCO ranks. What makes Clark different were his actions AFTER receiving an offer to MU. Perhaps Buzz should have gone to a fortune teller to see that Clark was going to do that before he offered the scholie.
You say recent history of character issues, but there is also recent history to prove that he had been making steps to improve until his recent actions. I remember there being videos of Buycks cussing and acting a fool, but then I see the video of his interview after being at MU for a few weeks and he seems to have progressed greatly.
To say the blame rests on Buzz because he took a chance on a kid with talent and questionable upbringing and thus red flags (I say questionable upbringing because I guarantee if there were positive presence in his life his actions would not have been tolerated while he was in high school) I think is going too far. Buzz took a chance on a kid that he must have seen positives in and that was working hard to better himself.
What if Clark never did that? What if Clark came in and did well at school and graduated from MU with an outstanding record? He would become a model citizen for overcoming past difficulties and allowing his unique abilities to help him succeed in life. Buzz would be applauded and the board would have said, "I congratulate Buzz for taking a chance on a kid like that. It shows the amazing power MU has to turn boys into good, hard working men."
But that didn't happen and now Buzz is getting railroaded with, "why didn't he do some digging? Why was a kid like this offered?"
I guess I just don't get it.
It would be ideal to get a clean cut 6'10" guy from a good home that scored 31 on ACT or 1440 on SAT and sings in the church choir while being all-state his sophomore and junior year. But that ain't the case. So Buzz went for a guy--he wasn't the only one--with a few problems, saw that he was working hard at getting back on track. It didn't work out.
The KID DID THE DEED, not Buzz.
probably wouldn't hurt to shoot off an email.
Quote from: pillardean on September 17, 2009, 01:13:29 PM
I completely agree that this is a horrific thing to be associated with. Rape, for me is as serious as a crime as murder, maybe a little less, because it has the potential to ruin a life.
I know you have had your reservations about Clark for some time, understandably so.
But I guess when you make it a Universal rule that I have to question the point.
Do you not recruit a player because of some controversy in his past? Maybe.
But where does that end? Do you never recruit a guy because somebody had a problem with his character?
Yes, Buzz mad a mistake recruiting him. But he didn't make a mistake recruiting kids like Butler, DJO or even Buycks from the JUCO ranks. What makes Clark different were his actions AFTER receiving an offer to MU. Perhaps Buzz should have gone to a fortune teller to see that Clark was going to do that before he offered the scholie.
You say recent history of character issues, but there is also recent history to prove that he had been making steps to improve until his recent actions. I remember there being videos of Buycks cussing and acting a fool, but then I see the video of his interview after being at MU for a few weeks and he seems to have progressed greatly.
To say the blame rests on Buzz because he took a chance on a kid with talent and questionable upbringing and thus red flags (I say questionable upbringing because I guarantee if there were positive presence in his life his actions would not have been tolerated while he was in high school) I think is going too far. Buzz took a chance on a kid that he must have seen positives in and that was working hard to better himself.
What if Clark never did that? What if Clark came in and did well at school and graduated from MU with an outstanding record? He would become a model citizen for overcoming past difficulties and allowing his unique abilities to help him succeed in life. Buzz would be applauded and the board would have said, "I congratulate Buzz for taking a chance on a kid like that. It shows the amazing power MU has to turn boys into good, hard working men."
But that didn't happen and now Buzz is getting railroaded with, "why didn't he do some digging? Why was a kid like this offered?"
I guess I just don't get it.
It would be ideal to get a clean cut 6'10" guy from a good home that scored 31 on ACT or 1440 on SAT and sings in the church choir while being all-state his sophomore and junior year. But that ain't the case. So Buzz went for a guy--he wasn't the only one--with a few problems, saw that he was working hard at getting back on track. It didn't work out.
The KID DID THE DEED, not Buzz.
pillardean I 99% totally agree with what you say...the 1% i disagree with is the 1st sentence of the 4th paragraph. I have to disagree Buzz did not make a mistake....Clark made the mistake. That is akin to saying the architects of the World trade center made a mistake. Wrong.
well we can debate forever how much Buzz is to blame, but if an incident like this occurs again to a MU recruit who had known character issues I would say Buzz would be in danger of losing the support of alumni and the university. I don't want thugs coming to MU. You can talk all you want about Clark being the one who made the mistake, which is 100% true, but it was Buzz, who by offering a known thug a scholarship, put MU's reputation in harms way. He would have to be pretty dense or do a poor job of background checking not to be aware of Clark.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on September 17, 2009, 08:03:48 PM
pillardean I 99% totally agree with what you say...the 1% i disagree with is the 1st sentence of the 4th paragraph. I have to disagree Buzz did not make a mistake....Clark made the mistake. That is akin to saying the architects of the World trade center made a mistake. Wrong.
What an Fing cop out!!!! Hayward, it's thinking like this that has brought about a lot of serious problems in our society lately. ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY! Buzz is the head of this program and he has to accept responsibility for everything in the program to include what his kids do or fail to do. When a commander's ship runs a ground in the Navy, he is automatically relieved, regardless of the circumstances. I don't think Buzz should be fired or even disciplined in any way but he damn sure better take some ownership of this.
Look, I believe this was an honest, one time mistake but Buzz should own his mistake, learn from it, and move forward. I'm not looking to fry Buzz over this but if I were Fr. Wild, I would call him into my office and make sure he is doing everything he can to properly vet recruits, remind him about the importance of MUs reputation, then pat him on the butt and send him back to work.
when a commanders ship runs a he has control. You cannot hold someone resposible when they have no control. that is management and leadership 101. yes commanders get fired as they should, just like rapists go to prison.
Your analogy would be better if you said the commander of the ship did not get fired but an an admiral on the beach 10,000 miles away did. ::)
Maybe Buzz should go to jail too ::)
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on September 17, 2009, 08:35:14 PM
when a commanders ship runs a he has control. You cannot hold someone resposible when they have no control. that is management and leadership 101. yes commanders get fired as they should, just like rapists go to prison.
Your analogy would be better if you said the commander of the ship did not get fired but an an admiral on the beach 10,000 miles away did. ::)
Maybe Buzz should go to jail too ::)
Wow, clearly your grasp of day to day operations on a ship is exceptional.
not saying the captain has to have the wheel in his hands but he does have control...if that definition of control is too much for you then i feel bad for you and you probably should not have any children as you will only be bringing the World's IQ average to a lower level.
Quote from: MUSF on September 17, 2009, 08:23:49 PM
What an Fing cop out!!!! Hayward, it's thinking like this that has brought about a lot of serious problems in our society lately. ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY! Buzz is the head of this program and he has to accept responsibility for everything in the program to include what his kids do or fail to do. When a commander's ship runs a ground in the Navy, he is automatically relieved, regardless of the circumstances. I don't think Buzz should be fired or even disciplined in any way but he damn sure better take some ownership of this.
Look, I believe this was an honest, one time mistake but Buzz should own his mistake, learn from it, and move forward. I'm not looking to fry Buzz over this but if I were Fr. Wild, I would call him into my office and make sure he is doing everything he can to properly vet recruits, remind him about the importance of MUs reputation, then pat him on the butt and send him back to work.
My guess is that Buzz and Cottingham have already had this discussion...and that Cottingham and Fr. Wild have as well.
Hayward is completely off base here. The basketball program is Buzz's responsibility. When something goes wrong with it, it is a reflection on his leadership. If Junior Cadougan rescued a kid from a burning building, he would make national news. Buzz would be interviewed about what a great guy he is...we would be gushing on this Board about how wonderful it is that Buzz recruits such solid players. And he would deserve credit for doing so.
So no, Buzz shouldn't go to jail. But it does reflect poorly on the choices that he has made.
I don't think that JUCO's are inherenetly maladjusted people-----but I do think that there needs to be more
diligent due diligence involved. In most cases there is a reason why they are in a JUCO in the first place---some rehab themselves as students and citizens-----others don't.
I get together with a group of local former athletes and coach/teachers from the Milwaukee area every Tuesday night for a few beers/drinks. I asked one of the group who had taught & coached Clark what he thought of him-----I can't print his answer.
A few phone calls by our coaching staff would have prevented this embarrassment.
Quote from: Murffieus on September 18, 2009, 08:02:29 AM
I don't think that JUCO's are inherenetly maladjusted people-----but I do think that there needs to be more
diligent due diligence involved. In most cases there is a reason why they are in a JUCO in the first place---some rehab themselves as students and citizens-----others don't.
I get together with a group of local former athletes and coach/teachers from the Milwaukee area every Tuesday night for a few beers/drinks. I asked one of the group who had taught & coached Clark what he thought of him-----I can't print his answer.
A few phone calls by our coaching staff would have prevented this embarrassment.
Have to partially agree with Murf on this one. I would like to think it would not have taken just a few phone calls (that we were that lazy to investigate) but it appears due diligence was not performed correctly here. I hope this is not a trend.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on September 18, 2009, 08:16:17 AM
Have to partially agree with Murf on this one. I would like to think it would not have taken just a few phone calls (that we were that lazy to investigate) but it appears due diligence was not performed correctly here. I hope this is not a trend.
In a way I'm not sure this is the problem. It seems to me they weren't completely oblivious to Clark's situation. I think it's less of an issue of doing their homework and it really just seems that Buzz went a little overboard with trying to give kids a chance. Sometimes you have to stop trying to play miracle worker and take the kid at face value.
Sometimes, no matter how talented a kid is, you just need to steer clear. Our program is too good to ruin it with the actions of one kid.
I have a lot of friends in the prosecutors office here in Indy. Most of them said this is probably not a first time offense. Just the first time the girl pressed charges. Get a girl drunk, then have your way with her. The next morning the girl is too embarrassed to pursue it.
Quote from: indeelaw90 on September 18, 2009, 08:49:44 AM
Sometimes, no matter how talented a kid is, you just need to steer clear. Our program is too good to ruin it with the actions of one kid.
I have a lot of friends in the prosecutors office here in Indy. Most of them said this is probably not a first time offense. Just the first time the girl pressed charges. Get a girl drunk, then have your way with her. The next morning the girl is too embarrassed to pursue it.
A couple of things:
I'm not here to defend this kid, but this is ridiculous. Your friends in the prosecutor's office have absolutely no idea about this. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they never heard of Clark before. Look, what the kid did is bad enough without having to pile on with this other garbage. Maybe he's done it before, maybe not. Maybe there are people posting on this board who have gotten girls drunk and had their way with them. Who the hell knows. Not me, and not your friends in the prosecutor's office. I think this is just a ridiculous comment.
Also, I'd be willing to bet that Buzz did make a lot of phone calls about Clark. I strongly suspect that there's very little (if anything) in Clark's past that has been discussed here that Buzz wasn't aware of. I'm guessing that Buzz talked to the HS coaches, the prep school coaches and talked to the JC coaches. After all that, Buzz made a judgment that Clark had matured and would be a good addition. I personally think that Buzz made an error in judgment, but given how thorough Buzz is rumored to be, I really doubt it was because he failed to make phone calls.
Quote from: Murffieus on September 18, 2009, 08:02:29 AM
I don't think that JUCO's are inherenetly maladjusted people-----but I do think that there needs to be more
diligent due diligence involved. In most cases there is a reason why they are in a JUCO in the first place---some rehab themselves as students and citizens-----others don't.
I get together with a group of local former athletes and coach/teachers from the Milwaukee area every Tuesday night for a few beers/drinks. I asked one of the group who had taught & coached Clark what he thought of him-----I can't print his answer.
A few phone calls by our coaching staff would have prevented this embarrassment.
Murph is a 100% correct here. His former coaches in Milwaukee do not have good things to say about him. Buzz made the mistake of associating Marquette with someone of extremely questionable character which he needs to be held responsible for. He did not have to offer him a scholarship and never should have, but he did. And now Marquette is receiving the negative publicity. If Buzz never offers him the scholarship, yes Clark still commits a horrific crime, but the term Marquette recruit are never printed in any newspaper.
It is not Buzz's fault the Clark did what he did, but it Buzz's fault that he associated Marquette with Clark. You CANNOT dispute any way you want to spin it.
It's pretty common knowledge that studies have shown that in a majority of cases by the time sex offenders are caught, it's not their first time.
Quote from: indeelaw90 on September 18, 2009, 09:18:00 AM
It's pretty common knowledge that studies have shown that in a majority of cases by the time sex offenders are caught, it's not their first time.
So you're citing to "common knowledge" of undefined "studies?" That's what you're going with?
Even so, there are studies that say all sorts of things. My point is simple: I think it's ridiculous for people who know absolutely nothing about this specific case or this particular person to say it's probably not his first offense. As I said, what we know he did was bad enough, I don't understand what it adds to the conversation to come in and say, "some people who never heard of him before tell me it's probably not his first offense."
Quote from: StillAWarrior on September 18, 2009, 09:26:38 AM
So you're citing to "common knowledge" of undefined "studies?" That's what you're going with?
Even so, there are studies that say all sorts of things. My point is simple: I think it's ridiculous for people who know absolutely nothing about this specific case or this particular person to say it's probably not his first offense. As I said, what we know he did was bad enough, I don't understand what it adds to the conversation to come in and say, "some people who never heard of him before tell me it's probably not his first offense."
+1
The kid is not going to suit up for MU, and the law is going to deal with him.
No need to examine it anymore than that.
Its common knowledge that lawyers are corrupt scumbags that steal from little old ladies. its common knowledge that the only good lawyer is a dead lawyer. i mean common we all know that.
Indee law you are the idiot of the day maybe the year
What part of my post is not true? From the facts alleged in the affidavit, he's a freaking rapist and deserves to be put in jail for a long time.
Do you have a daughter?
Quote from: indeelaw90 on September 18, 2009, 02:37:17 PM
What part of my post is not true? From the facts alleged in the affidavit, he's a freaking rapist and deserves to be put in jail for a long time.
Do you have a daughter?
I don't think your post was directed at me, but I will answer both questions. The easier one first: yes, I have three daughters. I don't think that there was anything in your post that was not true (unless, perhaps "most" of your friends in the Indy prosecutor's office didn't really say that). My issue wasn't that you said anything untrue. My issue is that your friends in the prosecutor's office have absolutely no idea whatsoever if it is true that this isn't Clark's first offense.
Based upon what I read in the arrest affidavit, I'm perfectly willing to agree that Clark is a scumbag that I'd never want anywhere near my daughters. I'm not willing to go along with a statement that he's probably done this before.
Also, I would agree that Hayward's post was way over the top. First, because I'm a lawyer. Second, because I don't think you're an idiot. I just thought we had plenty of evidence that Clark is a scumbag without speculating on prior offenses.
This probably is not the forum to talk about sex offenders and prior acts. Just a touchy subject . My niece (my wife's sister's child) was raped by her step dad. During the trial evidence came out where he had done this to about a dozen other women/girls. Prosecutors there as well told me that when a sex offender is caught, you can bet it's not their first time.
Back to Clark, hopefully we never hear from him again.