seriously. didn't want to start a whole topic on this, but he was supposed to be elgible for last saturdays game. don't tell me his bowling class got in the way. wow!! so much for an attempt at scholar-athlete honors
The University will not let him play because they are still within the period when professors can change his grades. He supposedly has passed everything.
thank you sultan guy!!
it's actually kinda weird...maymon is not happy about it. He has letters from all of his professors stating his grades won't change, but tennessee still won't let him play. his grades have posted and he did fine in all of his classes. I would guess tennessee, with everything going on with pearl, is just being overly cautious:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20101211/SPORTS0601/12110312/Vols+forward+ruled+ineligible+for+now (http://www.tennessean.com/article/20101211/SPORTS0601/12110312/Vols+forward+ruled+ineligible+for+now)
The Vols could have used the help tonight. Ouch.
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on December 14, 2010, 08:27:47 PM
it's actually kinda weird...maymon is not happy about it. He has letters from all of his professors stating his grades won't change, but tennessee still won't let him play. his grades have posted and he did fine in all of his classes. I would guess tennessee, with everything going on with pearl, is just being overly cautious:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20101211/SPORTS0601/12110312/Vols+forward+ruled+ineligible+for+now (http://www.tennessean.com/article/20101211/SPORTS0601/12110312/Vols+forward+ruled+ineligible+for+now)
Sounds like they're pulling an "Indiana", pretending to be extra above reproach while the cops are still on campus. Won't last long. Never does.
He's dead.
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on December 14, 2010, 08:27:47 PM
it's actually kinda weird...maymon is not happy about it. He has letters from all of his professors stating his grades won't change, but tennessee still won't let him play. his grades have posted and he did fine in all of his classes. I would guess tennessee, with everything going on with pearl, is just being overly cautious:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20101211/SPORTS0601/12110312/Vols+forward+ruled+ineligible+for+now (http://www.tennessean.com/article/20101211/SPORTS0601/12110312/Vols+forward+ruled+ineligible+for+now)
Best line from that article:
The Vols moved Steven Pearl from power forward to the wing over the past two weeks in preparation for Maymon's entry into the rotation at power forward.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 14, 2010, 08:32:29 PM
Sounds like they're pulling an "Indiana", pretending to be extra above reproach while the cops are still on campus. Won't last long. Never does.
Really? IU has been busted once in it's history over violations and you're comparing it to Tennessee who makes cheating part of it's every day diet.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 14, 2010, 10:13:58 PM
Really? IU has been busted once in it's history over violations and you're comparing it to Tennessee who makes cheating part of it's every day diet.
Cheating is cheating.
Quote from: warthog-driver on December 14, 2010, 10:45:55 PM
Cheating is cheating.
So you would say Northwestern's football program who was busted once is the same as SMU?
Sorry, but I disagree. IU had a rogue coach who did some really bad things. Some of these schools have institutional corruption and cheating is a way of life for them. They are not the same. Cheating is cheating sounds cute, but it's far from reality when comparing once athletic department to another.
I'm sure Tim Maymon somewhere is cursing Tennessee and how they could've beaten Oakland by double digits if his son had been playing........ and if he had been coaching.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 14, 2010, 10:59:51 PM
So you would say Northwestern's football program who was busted once is the same as SMU?
Sorry, but I disagree. IU had a rogue coach who did some really bad things. Some of these schools have institutional corruption and cheating is a way of life for them. They are not the same. Cheating is cheating sounds cute, but it's far from reality when comparing once athletic department to another.
Perhaps you were raised with different values. As Fr Davitt said, the world consists of absolutes. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Did Auschwitz happen or was it the sole repsonsibility of that rogue man Himmler. Bad Nazi. Bad, bad Nazi!
if Indiana only knew that Sampson was a scumbag before they hired him (turn teal off now). Indiana deserved what they got by hiring Sampson. They hired a coach who was happy to ignore NCAA rules. What did they really think would happen?
Quote from: Fullodds on December 14, 2010, 11:19:27 PM
if Indiana only knew that Sampson was a scumbag before they hired him (turn teal off now). Indiana deserved what they got by hiring Sampson. They hired a coach who was happy to ignore NCAA rules. What did they really think would happen?
Just think how much nicer the Third Reich would have been had not Der Fuhrer hired that awful man Himmler! Or if Clinton had not brought an intern into the Oval Office...
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 14, 2010, 10:59:51 PM
So you would say Northwestern's football program who was busted once is the same as SMU?
Sorry, but I disagree. IU had a rogue coach who did some really bad things. Some of these schools have institutional corruption and cheating is a way of life for them. They are not the same. Cheating is cheating sounds cute, but it's far from reality when comparing once athletic department to another.
The article is from 2009, but interesting nonetheless, especially Ohio State
http://www.thestate.com/2009/07/09/857481/are-all-ncaa-rule-breaks-mistakes.html
As stated before, Oakland would dismantle us.
Quote from: mugrad2006 on December 14, 2010, 09:24:44 PM
Best line from that article:
The Vols moved Steven Pearl from power forward to the wing over the past two weeks in preparation for Maymon's entry into the rotation at power forward.
Huh? I thought Tim said he left here because he was being used as a 4 or 5! Now he's going to play inside for the Vols? Karma.
Quote from: ATWizJr on December 15, 2010, 07:38:19 AM
Huh? I thought Tim said he left here because he was being used as a 4 or 5! Now he's going to play inside for the Vols? Karma.
ya never know-jmay could become the ncaa's first 6'7 260lb. playmakin #2. can you imagine the nasty pick and rolls set up top. kind of like havin the fridge on the floor openning up holes to the hoop yowsa!! tim will be boning out
Quote from: wyzgy on December 15, 2010, 07:49:54 AM
ya never know-jmay could become the ncaa's first 6'7 260lb. playmakin #2. can you imagine the nasty pick and rolls set up top. kind of like havin the fridge on the floor openning up holes to the hoop yowsa!! tim will be boning out
Maybe he just fashions himself a new age Magic Johnson?
Why are people wasting time on this guy? He slid out with his dad. Let it go.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 14, 2010, 10:13:58 PM
Really? IU has been busted once in it's history over violations and you're comparing it to Tennessee who makes cheating part of it's every day diet.
Really. I don't care about what went on at IU when Branch McCracken or Bobby Knight were running things. I'm talking about the guys that hired a known/convicted cheater to win at all costs. Once it's safe (looks like it may be already) the anything to win culture will re-emerge. Firing a coach or an AD gets headlines but doesn't eliminate the cancer.
Lennys...IU's issue wasn't a systemic issue throughout the organization. You weren't talking about dirty boosters like what you saw at SMU. They took a chance on a good coach who made too many phone calls. They fired him immediately and I believe the AD is gone now too. Why do you think there is a "win at all costs" culture down there now?
Quote from: warthog-driver on December 14, 2010, 11:22:17 PM
Just think how much nicer the Third Reich would have been had not Der Fuhrer hired that awful man Himmler! Or if Clinton had not brought an intern into the Oval Office...
...or McChrystal hadn't blabbed to ROLLING STONE? Just what exactly are you talking about?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 15, 2010, 12:00:18 PM
Lennys...IU's issue wasn't a systemic issue throughout the organization. You weren't talking about dirty boosters like what you saw at SMU. They took a chance on a good coach who made too many phone calls. They fired him immediately and I believe the AD is gone now too. Why do you think there is a "win at all costs" culture down there now?
Indiana had for many years enjoyed the reputation of a squeeky clean program due in large part to the fact that Bobby Knight wouldn't have it any other way. When he was canned the university got rid of a lot of headaches but also lost their moral compass. That became clear when they hired a guy that the cops had run out of that bastion of higher learning and ethics in Norman, OK. Look at his resume'. Coaches at a school with little or no academic standards for athletes? Check. Has his team facing sanctions for his cheating? Check. Wins basketball games? Checkmate - he's our man. Sorry, but known quantities like Sampson or Calipari don't get hired unless the culture has become win and we don't care how. Goes much deeper than a coach and an AD. There's still alot of people who were knee deep in it calling the shots down there.
OK...but then they fired the guy immediately and hired another one with a completely clean resume.
Honestly, I have no idea where you are coming from with this. Yeah, Sampson was a mistake, but it was one they corrected. You have no evidence that it is deeper in the culture than that.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 15, 2010, 01:54:28 PM
OK...but then they fired the guy immediately and hired another one with a completely clean resume.
Honestly, I have no idea where you are coming from with this. Yeah, Sampson was a mistake, but it was one they corrected. You have no evidence that it is deeper in the culture than that.
You could make the argument that Sampson was a "mistake" for Oklahoma or that Calapari was a "mistake" for UMASS. There was no mistaking what they were when IU and Memphis hired them - and it speaks volumes about the culture at both schools. IU hired a guy with a clean resume because they had to. And they'll put up with the losing as long as they're under the NCAA's microscope. But most of the guys who signed off on the "just win, baby" philosophy are still around. TC will get with the program or be gone.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 15, 2010, 02:14:26 PM
You could make the argument that Sampson was a "mistake" for Oklahoma or that Calapari was a "mistake" for UMASS. There was no mistaking what they were when IU and Memphis hired them - and it speaks volumes about the culture at both schools.
No it doesn't. In IU's case, since they really have never had systemic problems with the NCAA, it speaks to making a bad hiring decision. If they had a history of repeated compliance issues, then yeah, I would agree with you that it "speaks volumes about the culture."
But they don't. It simply speaks to making a mistake.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 15, 2010, 02:54:39 PM
No it doesn't. In IU's case, since they really have never had systemic problems with the NCAA, it speaks to making a bad hiring decision. If they had a history of repeated compliance issues, then yeah, I would agree with you that it "speaks volumes about the culture."
But they don't. It simply speaks to making a mistake.
Sorry, but there are very few programs who will hire known cheaters. Indiana BECAME one of those few when they hired Sampson. To me that's not a "mistake". It's a premeditated act that screams to anyone willing to listen, "As of today (the day of his hiring) we're in a whatever it takes to win mode". An AD can't make that decision without approval from the higher ups, most of whom are still at IU.
Again, if you hire someone you don't know is a cheater but turns out that way it's a mistake. If you hire one you know is a cheater it's policy.
But of course when IU goes out and hires Crean it isn't a premeditated act that screams to anyone willing to listen, "As of today we're in 'a win within the bounds of the rules mode.'" ::) Or can this only go in one direction?
Lennys, I'm just going to exit this debate by stating your opinion is silly. It would be like you labelling the guy who normally doesn't drink much, an alcoholic after he goes out and gets smashed once.
(And of course, we all know that this is just another way for you to dig at Chicos...I just wanted to see how ludicrous your arguments would become.)
.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 15, 2010, 03:45:03 PM
But of course when IU goes out and hires Crean it isn't a premeditated act that screams to anyone willing to listen, "As of today we're in 'a win within the bounds of the rules mode.'" ::) Or can this only go in one direction?
Lennys, I'm just going to exit this debate by stating your opinion is silly. It would be like you labelling the guy who normally doesn't drink much, an alcoholic after he goes out and gets smashed once.
(And of course, we all know that this is just another way for you to dig at Chicos...I just wanted to see how ludicrous your arguments would become.)
Just because your unable to grasp my argument doesn't make it silly. Your comparing the hierarchy of a university who knowingly and willfully pursue an acknowledged cheater to run their basketball program to a guy who gets drunk once is extremely weak cheese. Here's a better analogy:
The board of directors at a proud company with an impeccable reputation (due mostly to their irascable but stringently honest CEO) decides the CEO has outlived his usefulness. To appease the the departing CEO's many backers they initially hire from within and say it will be business as usual - honest and above board - without the headaches. Unfortunately sales fall and the stock tumbles. In a panic, the board turns to the CEO of, say, Enron, who is under indictment but has a history of improving share prices. The stock price temporarily rises until the new CEO is "found out" once again, at which point the stock becomes almost worthless. The board acts surprised, shocked and appalled and fires the CEO and a few more fall guys. To get the feds off their backs they bring in guy with a good reputation to clean things up, at least for a while.
To you, the "board" is like a guy who got drunk once. I think you're naive. These are bad guys who are using Tom Crean and his good reputation to try to salvage their own tarnished ones.
And trust me, my opinion on this has absolutely nothing to do with Chicos.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 15, 2010, 09:59:47 AM
Why are people wasting time on this guy? He slid out with his dad. Let it go.
willie, don't get all wet over this. i was just expecting to see jmay in the box scores after saturdays game. all i heard previously was he was waiting on bowling and musicology grades. i hope he had extra tutoring for that load. probably discouraged a bunch of d-1 hopefulls from transferring to tennesse ;D
Maymon is cleared to play against Charlotte.
Quote from: marqptm on December 15, 2010, 10:15:54 PM
Maymon is cleared to play against Charlotte.
And they just threw their top scorer off the team.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 15, 2010, 07:13:18 PM
To get the feds off their backs they bring in guy with a good reputation to clean things up, at least for a while.
The highlighted text is the heart of this debate. You're assuming that it is temporary and that they'll resume to being dirty in due time. And Sultan is assuming that they've learned their lesson and returned to the straight and narrow.
You guys can debate all you want, but unless someone has more information, only time will tell which of you is right.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 15, 2010, 07:13:18 PM
Just because your unable to grasp my argument doesn't make it silly.
I fully grasp your argument. I just think it's wrong and stupid.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on December 16, 2010, 07:58:01 AM
The highlighted text is the heart of this debate. You're assuming that it is temporary and that they'll resume to being dirty in due time. And Sultan is assuming that they've learned their lesson and returned to the straight and narrow.
You guys can debate all you want, but unless someone has more information, only time will tell which of you is right.
Good point. I hope that they've learned their lesson as I'm a big believer in redemption, rehabilitation and the power to change. However, for every time real change occurs we see many more examples of the self serving and temporary kind. Let's hope IU turns out to be an example of the former.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 16, 2010, 08:57:04 AM
I fully grasp your argument. I just think it's wrong and stupid.
Stay classy, Sultan.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 16, 2010, 09:11:13 AM
Stay classy, Sultan.
Just so we're clear here, disagreeing with your argument makes him not a classy guy.
Okay. ::)
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on December 16, 2010, 09:26:30 AM
Just so we're clear here, disagreeing with your argument makes him not a classy guy.
Okay. ::)
Just so we're clear here, disagreeing with my argument is fine. Calling it (and me by extension) stupid is the classless part. Hope that's not too complex.
Okay?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 16, 2010, 09:36:19 AM
Just so we're clear here, disagreeing with my argument is fine. Calling it (and me by extension) stupid is the classless part. Hope that's not too complex.
Dude...you're the one who claimed I was "unable to grasp your argument." If you are going to claim that I don't have the intelligence to grasp your argument, I'm going to be a little more blunt with my adjectives.
Okay?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 16, 2010, 09:36:19 AM
Just so we're clear here, disagreeing with my argument is fine. Calling it (and me by extension) stupid is the classless part. Hope that's not too complex.
Okay?
I always thought what was good for the goose is what was good for the gander.
Guess I'm wrong, huh?
Just to be clear, I have no horse in this race, as the old saying goes. Just pointing out that calling somebody's argument stupid is not an ad hominem attack on the person. We all make stupid arguments. Having our arguments challenged shouldn't be misconstrued as an attack on our being. I'm just sayin'.....
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 16, 2010, 09:51:20 AM
Dude...you're the one who claimed I was "unable to grasp your argument." If you are going to claim that I don't have the intelligence to grasp your argument, I'm going to be a little more blunt with my adjectives.
Okay?
Just to set the record straight for you and Hards. We were having a civilized discussion, sharing differing opinions of of what went down at Indiana. You decided to "exit", calling my thoughts silly and ludicrous (i.e., stupid) on your way out the door. And when I suggested that your insult might arise from your inability or unwillingness to grasp my argument (providing a detailed and cogent analogy), you change "silly" and "ludicrous" to "wrong" and "stupid".
So I replied to your insult (mildly) in kind. Your response was yet another insult. And somehow there's confusion as to who the goose and gander are?
Quote from: d6 on December 16, 2010, 10:37:06 AM
Just to be clear, I have no horse in this race, as the old saying goes. Just pointing out that calling somebody's argument stupid is not an ad hominem attack on the person. We all make stupid arguments. Having our arguments challenged shouldn't be misconstrued as an attack on our being. I'm just sayin'.....
I agree totally. Just don't think calling someone's opinion or argument stupid really challenges the opinion/argument. It merely insults it.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 16, 2010, 11:13:34 AM
Just to set the record straight for you and Hards. We were having a civilized discussion, sharing differing opinions of of what went down at Indiana. You decided to "exit", calling my thoughts silly and ludicrous (i.e., stupid) on your way out the door. And when I suggested that your insult might arise from your inability or unwillingness to grasp my argument (providing a detailed and cogent analogy), you change "silly" and "ludicrous" to "wrong" and "stupid".
And I stand by each of the adjectives I used. If you are insulted by that, so be it.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 16, 2010, 11:16:49 AM
I agree totally. Just don't think calling someone's opinion or argument stupid really challenges the opinion/argument. It merely insults it.
You completely misunderstood the post you quoted. He's saying that if Person A was to make a stupid argument and Person B was to call that argument stupid it wouldn't be an attack on Person A. It's just calling the argument stupid.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 16, 2010, 08:57:04 AM
I fully grasp your argument. I just think it's wrong and stupid.
+1
Everyone involved in the hiring of Sampson is gone from IU...the AD, the President, the coach and his staff, as well a a few other key players. If you know anything about Adam Herbert, IU's former president, you'll know why Kelvin Sampson was hired in the first place. I'll leave it at that, but plenty of people know the internal politics of why Sampson was hired and Herbert's push that it be done.
This is also why they didn't go for a quick fix at IU and why they put handcuffs on what type of player could be recruited early on in the process. Lenny has taken a few swipes at this claim, but he's just absolutely not in the know on this. When TC was told who he could go after and what was in store for the rebuilding process, he demanded 10 years and got because the quick fix (i.e. what Memphis, Kentucky, etc) did was not going to fly.
IU is a proud institution that has been off the NCAA blotter for most of their history. They were deeply wounded by the Sampson hire. The people responsible for the hire are all gone. That's why the comment "Once a Cheater, Always a Cheater" is pure nonsense. That term is used for individuals, typically those that cheat on their spouse or gambling, etc. That phrase cannot be used for an institution (company, university, etc) since people come and go that are in power. There have been many companies that have had bad CEOs or whatever but are totally different now and don't operate in a way that their past CEOs have. No different than SMU....are they the same today as they were under the Pony Express? Of course not.
There is a clear reason why Lenny is doing it and it's easy to pinpoint.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on December 16, 2010, 11:40:44 AM
You completely misunderstood the post you quoted. He's saying that if Person A was to make a stupid argument and Person B was to call that argument stupid it wouldn't be an attack on Person A. It's just calling the argument stupid.
I absolutely understand the distinction between an ad hominem attack ("you are stupid") and an attack on someone's argument ("what you said was stupid"). One insults who the person is, the other what the person believes or thinks. Often there's a fine line between the two and it says infinitely more about the insulter than the insulted.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 16, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Often there's a fine line between the two and it says infinitely more about the insulter than the insulted.
Inferring what someone *actually* meant from a post on the internet is a fool's errand. I, personally, have taken the tack of assuming the best of people's statements. Otherwise I end up wasting entire days being offended over an incident where no personal offense was meant.
Unless you're just bored. If that's the case, carry on :)
I think Lenny is trying to say that the stain left on Indiana by the Sampson situation will never be removed. You can fire the AD, remove the coaching staff, get rid of the players, but it's still there. Just as Chicos continues to cite transgressions in Madison, people will not forget that it was Indiana University that hired Kelvin Sampson and looked the other way when he was violating rules. When people think Indiana now, they think scandal. They no longer think of the farmboy militia that Bobby Knight molded into Big Ten contenders year after year. Similarly, if Kentucky hired Coach K, people wouldn't forget the filth that is there now. Same way with Tennessee. If they went and hired Tom Izzo, people wouldn't think they'd cleaned up their act, they'd think Izzo had gone over to the dark side.
I used to love Indiana basketball. Obviously, that's no longer the case.
One more thing, and it may pain some people to hear it, but Wisconsin basketball has become what Indiana once was. What should irritate Indiana people is they hired somebody to try to make them Michigan State. Imagine that! Indiana trying to be Michigan State? Sacrilege!
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on December 16, 2010, 12:50:15 PM
I think Lenny is trying to say that the stain left on Indiana by the Sampson situation will never be removed.
I know what he's trying to say...and he's wrong.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 16, 2010, 01:20:06 PM
I know what he's trying to say...and he's wrong.
So who pissed the longest?
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on December 16, 2010, 12:50:15 PM
I think Lenny is trying to say that the stain left on Indiana by the Sampson situation will never be removed. You can fire the AD, remove the coaching staff, get rid of the players, but it's still there. Just as Chicos continues to cite transgressions in Madison, people will not forget that it was Indiana University that hired Kelvin Sampson and looked the other way when he was violating rules. When people think Indiana now, they think scandal. They no longer think of the farmboy militia that Bobby Knight molded into Big Ten contenders year after year. Similarly, if Kentucky hired Coach K, people wouldn't forget the filth that is there now. Same way with Tennessee. If they went and hired Tom Izzo, people wouldn't think they'd cleaned up their act, they'd think Izzo had gone over to the dark side.
I used to love Indiana basketball. Obviously, that's no longer the case.
Thanks for making my argument much better than I evidently made it myself. I too used to love Indiana basketball. My parents both graduated from IU and my Grandmother used to work for the university. She gave me a basketball signed by the 1960 team that I still cherish. Archie Dees, Walt Bellamy, Jimmy Rayl, etc. were heroes growing up. When I went to MU, Indiana dropped to my second favorite team, a spot they retained until this whole Sampson business. And they didn't lose me when Sampson got caught (the point at which most of their fandom became outraged). They lost me the day he was hired. It showed me that the institution had totally lost their moral compass. You don't even think about hiring a Kelvin Sampson unless there's a widespread culture of corruption. And by the way, President Herbert was neither fired nor did he resign in disgrace over the Sampson matter. He retired in July of 2007 as he had announced he would in January of 2006. His exit was not part of any clean up by Indiana.
I know he was kind of a head case but I still kind of felt bad for JMay being stuck dealing with a dad like that and now a coach like Pearl.
So I saw the title of this thread and was curious what had been happening with him.....
Turns out the thread wasn't about JMay after all.
Is there any way the moderators of MUScoop can put a huge asterisk next to any thread topic when it's officially jumped the shark and been hijacked into an exhausting and never-ending discussion about Crean, Indiana, and blah blah blah. That way I and many others can be sure not to read all these same arguments over and over, and you won't waste everyone else's time who is trying to read about and discuss.........
MARQUETTE BASKETBALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: wyzgy on December 15, 2010, 07:49:54 AM
ya never know-jmay could become the ncaa's first 6'7 260lb. playmakin #2. can you imagine the nasty pick and rolls set up top. kind of like havin the fridge on the floor openning up holes to the hoop yowsa!! tim will be boning out
Or he could become the first Division I player to take a gun out onto to court and shoot an official.
(psssst neither or these are EVER gonna happen, so why speculate about either of them?)
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on December 16, 2010, 12:50:15 PM
I think Lenny is trying to say that the stain left on Indiana by the Sampson situation will never be removed. You can fire the AD, remove the coaching staff, get rid of the players, but it's still there. Just as Chicos continues to cite transgressions in Madison, people will not forget that it was Indiana University that hired Kelvin Sampson and looked the other way when he was violating rules. When people think Indiana now, they think scandal. They no longer think of the farmboy militia that Bobby Knight molded into Big Ten contenders year after year. Similarly, if Kentucky hired Coach K, people wouldn't forget the filth that is there now. Same way with Tennessee. If they went and hired Tom Izzo, people wouldn't think they'd cleaned up their act, they'd think Izzo had gone over to the dark side.
I used to love Indiana basketball. Obviously, that's no longer the case.
The difference is the transgressions at Wisconsin are multiple...3rd highest in NCAA history....repeat violations time and time and time and time again.
That's not the case at IU, not even close.
And just as UW has moved farther and farther away from those penalties, people start to forget about them. No one thinks Bo Ryan is cheating, but many people knew Stu was cheating when he was there. Therein lies the difference.
99% of people in this country do not think of IU as some kind of cheating school. They may think of IU as a school that had a cheater, that's quite a difference. Yet many people in this country think of Memphis, Kentucky, Alabama, etc as cheating schools because of the frequency of such occurrences. Also, in many cases those found guilty have not been reprimanded and removed, but allowed to continue in power.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 16, 2010, 11:16:49 AM
It merely insults it.
Whoa! It (the comment) merely insults it (the argument). That's a really silly argument.
I think I've heard it all now as I didn't know that "comments" and "arguments" were so sensitive.
WWJGA - What would Josh Gasser Argue??
I think Gasser would argue Indiana sucks, Chicos sucks too for being a Badger Hater...and thereby....Lenny wins.
Quote from: d6 on December 16, 2010, 04:40:52 PM
Whoa! It (the comment) merely insults it (the argument). That's a really silly argument.
I think I've heard it all now as I didn't know that "comments" and "arguments" were so sensitive.
Context, please. Again, the point is that you don't "challenge" someone's argument by calling it stupid. You challenge it by making a better argument.
To be completely honest, I don't care about either argument. However, it is fallacious and spurious to suggest that because someone said that your argument was stupid that they implied that you were stupid. Reading it that way may be a sign that you're thin-skinned, but that's it. This is basic Philosophy 101.
For instance, if someone says my argument is stupid and I infer that to mean that I'm stupid, that's my problem, not theirs.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 16, 2010, 04:22:59 PM
many people knew Stu was cheating when he was there.
If many people knew Stu Jackson was cheating at Wisconsin, that's bad. But EVERYONE knew Kelvin Sampson was a cheat BEFORE he was hired at Indiana. That's the kind of thing reserved for the Kentuckys of the world - and it's infinitly worse.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 16, 2010, 01:39:06 PM
It showed me that the institution had totally lost their moral compass. You don't even think about hiring a Kelvin Sampson unless there's a widespread culture of corruption.
Or, it might be that IU thought that Sampson was repentant--that he had made a mistake, paid the price and learned his lesson and would not transgress again. Especially with the threat of the end of his career hanging over him.
Would you actually have any evidence to suggest that this is
not what IU thought at the time?
I'm also curious to see if you have any moral consistency. Jay Wright was caught cheating at Villanova
http://www.collegesportsscholarships.com/villanova-recruiting-violations.htm (http://www.collegesportsscholarships.com/villanova-recruiting-violations.htm)
VU later renewed Wright's contract. Do you feel that VU's willingness to (re)hire Jay Wright to also be a sign of "a widespread culture of corruption" and sign that VU as an institution had "totally lost their moral compass?"
Or is your moral outrage selective?
I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you. Nyaahhhh.
Let's play hypothetical...
After this season, Buzz leaves to coach the Bucks (and removes Kelvin Sampson from the staff ;)). Marquette then hires Quin Snyder/Jim Harrick/Todd Bozeman/Dave Bliss/take-your-pick-of-a-shady-coach. This new coach turns MU into legit national title contenders only to be let go after year 3 because the university and the NCAA learned he was cheating. MU then brings in Coach Squeaky Clean who runs a clean and competitive, but unspectacular, program.
Do you chalk up the hiring of the shady coach as a one-time offense and move on, especially with a clean coach and program now in place? Or do you lose a lot of respect for the MU basketball program and university because they hired a win-at-all-costs coach even if they have now righted that wrong? Or a little of both? Also, will it be awkward for Maymon to play for Buzz when the Bucks draft him #1 in the 2011 NBA Draft?
who's on first?? ;D
Quote from: wyzgy on December 17, 2010, 07:43:44 AM
who's on first?? ;D
I do not think MU would hire a known cheater. That is why Indiana deserves what happen to them.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on December 16, 2010, 09:49:50 PM
Let's play hypothetical...
After this season, Buzz leaves to coach the Bucks (and removes Kelvin Sampson from the staff ;)). Marquette then hires Quin Snyder/Jim Harrick/Todd Bozeman/Dave Bliss/take-your-pick-of-a-shady-coach. This new coach turns MU into legit national title contenders only to be let go after year 3 because the university and the NCAA learned he was cheating. MU then brings in Coach Squeaky Clean who runs a clean and competitive, but unspectacular, program.
Do you chalk up the hiring of the shady coach as a one-time offense and move on, especially with a clean coach and program now in place? Or do you lose a lot of respect for the MU basketball program and university because they hired a win-at-all-costs coach even if they have now righted that wrong? Or a little of both? Also, will it be awkward for Maymon to play for Buzz when the Bucks draft him #1 in the 2011 NBA Draft?
Why use such extreme examples? The coaches you cite didn't merely wind up with probation for their teams and kept their jobs--many of your examples wound up with coaching bans from the NCAA (a "show-cause" order, in the NCAA's vernacular). We couldn't hire them if we wanted.
Instead, lets use your hypothetical setup, but let's say MU hires someone who violated a rule one time, but didn't rise to the level of being banned by the NCAA, fired or forced to leave his school, or resulted in forfeiture of wins.
Since I brought him up earlier, I suggest we use Jay Wright as an example. After all, he is a "known cheat"--got Villanova on two years NCAA probation. Or we could use Rick Majerus, who got Utah 3 years probation for violations. As with Sampson, neither Wright nor Majerus were banned by the NCAA or fired for getting their teams placed on probation. Take your pick. Or find a similar example.
So lets' say we hired Jay Wright or Rick Majerus as a replacement for Buzz.
I VERY seriously doubt anyone would lose respect for MU based on that hire. And if Wright or Majerus later repeated the violations, I absolutely would chalk it up to a one time hiring mistake given MU's long history of running a clean program--and the fact that neither Majerus or Wright had a history of repeated violations--just a one time occurrence.
So what do you say? You were very good at setting up a straw man argument using non-comparable coaches. Lets see if you're willing to engage in a discussion using with a more equivalent situation.