Getting caught up
It's been a quiet summer for the most part for the Marquette Golden Eagles
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/128342073.html
I'm getting a little sick of hearing Buzz is a tough coach. If he was tough then why were there so many blips on the radar this past summer?
Because young adults do stupid stuff sometimes, even if they come from a two parent home and have a coach who is strict. It is the nature of young adults/late teens.
I'm going to have to watch the B10 network? Yikes..
Quote from: tower912 on August 24, 2011, 06:06:42 PM
Because young adults do stupid stuff sometimes, even if they come from a two parent home and have a coach who is strict. It is the nature of young adults/late teens.
I've got no problem with that. Crean just locked crap down and Buzz doesn't. I think Buzz is a tougher bball coach, Crean had reins on their social lives as well whereas Buzz lets it go.
I honestly think it'll get better if Crowder asserts himself this year. I'd contend that DJO is the problem.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on August 24, 2011, 09:44:50 PM
I've got no problem with that. Crean just locked crap down and Buzz doesn't. I think Buzz is a tougher bball coach, Crean had reins on their social lives as well whereas Buzz lets it go.
I honestly think it'll get better if Crowder asserts himself this year. I'd contend that DJO is the problem.
WWCD in the Vander situation?
"Locking crap down" is hardly an explanation for what Buzz doesn't do.
The kid has an altercation with another kid...near a college campus.
How often does that happen each college day? I'd say 2-3 times...an hour.
Crean locked crap down? None of his players had incidents?
Quote from: Skatastrophy on August 24, 2011, 09:44:50 PM
I've got no problem with that. Crean just locked crap down and Buzz doesn't. I think Buzz is a tougher bball coach, Crean had reins on their social lives as well whereas Buzz lets it go.
I honestly think it'll get better if Crowder asserts himself this year. I'd contend that DJO is the problem.
What situation exactly is DJO the problem?
Quote from: TallTitan34 on August 24, 2011, 10:28:07 PM
Crean locked crap down? None of his players had incidents?
Exactly. DJ got in several on-campus altercations while I was a student. Novak used to stumble around Jimmy John's drunk and obnoxious. Crean was no better at locking anything down. I will say, however, that he was DEFINITELY better at controlling the PR surrounding the program and keeping things from blowing up.
Quote from: Jam Chowder on August 24, 2011, 11:27:17 PM
Exactly. DJ got in several on-campus altercations while I was a student. Novak used to stumble around Jimmy John's drunk and obnoxious. Crean was no better at locking anything down. I will say, however, that he was DEFINITELY better at controlling the PR surrounding the program and keeping things from blowing up.
AND he had a more experienced AD who got his back.
Disappointed to see O'Neill pull the plug on the scrimmage. Hopefully Buzz will find someone else with an open slot that's willing, whether we do it here or there.
Quote from: Jam Chowder on August 24, 2011, 11:27:17 PM
Exactly. DJ got in several on-campus altercations while I was a student. Novak used to stumble around Jimmy John's drunk and obnoxious. Crean was no better at locking anything down. I will say, however, that he was DEFINITELY better at controlling the PR surrounding the program and keeping things from blowing up.
+1, controlling the situations that do arise is "locking crap down."
Quote from: buzzchiapet on August 24, 2011, 08:09:19 PM
I'm going to have to watch the B10 network? Yikes..
:-[
I just hope the Big
Ten Eleven Twelve Twenlven network is carried in my current HD package.
Quote from: Jam Chowder on August 24, 2011, 11:27:17 PM
Exactly. DJ got in several on-campus altercations while I was a student. Novak used to stumble around Jimmy John's drunk and obnoxious. Crean was no better at locking anything down. I will say, however, that he was DEFINITELY better at controlling the PR surrounding the program and keeping things from blowing up.
You contradicted yourself. He either locked $hit down or he didn't.
There have always been incidents for the MU program (especially drink-induced boorish behavior). There hasn't always been the fallout of being publicly admonished by the DA's office, seeing 1/4 of your team (as opposed to one problem child) involved in the $hit, and forcing your AD and EVP to resign because of the lack of control.
Listen, there was all sorts of behavior that went on under Crean that is not dissimilar to what has gone on under Buzz. The only difference is Crean hid everything and schmoozed all the media outlets to keep it on the DL.
Should these incidents have happened with Buzz, no, but I think he will redouble his efforts to control their behavior off the court. Additionally, this looks worse than it is because of the way it was handled. However, IMHO, Buzz controls the team at least as well as Crean if not better.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on August 25, 2011, 09:00:33 AM
You contradicted yourself. He either locked $hit down or he didn't.
The initial conversation was that Buzz has failed to "lock down" player behavior. I was simply making the case that player discipline was problem with Crean, as well. He was better at "locking down" the public facade of the program, but not the actual behavior of the players.
Quote from: Jam Chowder on August 25, 2011, 09:58:42 AM
The initial conversation was that Buzz has failed to "lock down" player behavior. I was simply making the case that player discipline was problem with Crean, as well. He was better at "locking down" the public facade of the program, but not the actual behavior of the players.
Mistakes are going to happen. You can't watch kids 24/7.
That being said, Crean had much stricter team rules about what the players were allowed to do when they were on campus. There's a reason that DWade did his partying at UWM instead of on MU's campus. There's also a reason that Blue feels it's okay to try to get into campus bars when everyone knows he's underage. Crean would have put the kibosh on that sort of stuff.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on August 25, 2011, 10:53:49 AM
Mistakes are going to happen. You can't watch kids 24/7.
That being said, Crean had much stricter team rules about what the players were allowed to do when they were on campus. There's a reason that DWade did his partying at UWM instead of on MU's campus. There's also a reason that Blue feels it's okay to try to get into campus bars when everyone knows he's underage. Crean would have put the kibosh on that sort of stuff.
When I was a student, I saw plenty of Crean's players in bars (including Wade) or at parties or drunk on campus when they were underclassmen.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on August 25, 2011, 11:06:39 AM
When I was a student, I saw plenty of Crean's players in bars (including Wade) or at parties or drunk on campus when they were underclassmen.
And how many times did Crean show up to pick them up, drive them back to Humphrey Hall and read them the riot act? Every time, from my experience (we must have been students around the same time).
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on August 25, 2011, 11:06:39 AM
When I was a student, I saw plenty of Crean's players in bars (including Wade) or at parties or drunk on campus when they were underclassmen.
Agreed.
And I don't recall Wade ever drinking all that much - at least he always turned us down when we offered to buy him a shot. Diener was the boozehound - on campus or Water St.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on August 25, 2011, 10:53:49 AM
There's a reason that DWade did his partying at UWM instead of on MU's campus.
Because there are way more hot chicks there?
Quote from: brewcity77 on August 25, 2011, 05:49:59 AM
Disappointed to see O'Neill pull the plug on the scrimmage. Hopefully Buzz will find someone else with an open slot that's willing, whether we do it here or there.
Agreed. I wonder why he changed his mind. The Trojans have suffered a few injuries, that could be part of it.
I can't believe all this discussion about the players behavior. They are kids in college. Most of us have done things in college that, upon reflection, were dumb. It has nothing do with coaches "controling" their players personal lives. college kids get drunk and do stupid things. Move on.
I was a bouncer at Caffrey's for a while and the basketball team was always in there, and this was while Crean was there. However, only some of them drank.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on August 25, 2011, 11:11:14 AM
And how many times did Crean show up to pick them up, drive them back to Humphrey Hall and read them the riot act? Every time, from my experience (we must have been students around the same time).
I never once saw Crean come pick them (doesn't mean it didn't happen a couple times though). In fact, a tipsy Olouma Nnamaka slept on our couch one night (we had mutual friends). There's no way that dude was comfortable on a 6-foot college apt couch.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on August 25, 2011, 01:12:11 PM
I never once saw Crean come pick them (doesn't mean it didn't happen a couple times though). In fact, a tipsy Olouma Nnamaka slept on our couch one night (we had mutual friends). There's no way that dude was comfortable on a 6-foot college apt couch.
haha, classic :)
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on August 25, 2011, 01:12:11 PM
I never once saw Crean come pick them (doesn't mean it didn't happen a couple times though). In fact, a tipsy Olouma Nnamaka slept on our couch one night (we had mutual friends). There's no way that dude was comfortable on a 6-foot college apt couch.
I'm sure his sleep pattern was very consistent. The man sweats consistency.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on August 25, 2011, 09:00:33 AM
You contradicted yourself. He either locked $hit down or he didn't.
There have always been incidents for the MU program (especially drink-induced boorish behavior). There hasn't always been the fallout of being publicly admonished by the DA's office, seeing 1/4 of your team (as opposed to one problem child) involved in the $hit, and forcing your AD and EVP to resign because of the lack of control.
Give it a rest for once - Go be an IU fan so you can keep up with your god. All you do is dog everything associated with Buzz and the MU program under him.
1 girl caused MU a ton of bad publicity...period. A girl who began an evening of consensual sex with a guy she'd had a previous sexual relationship with. WTF do you want Buzz to do about that? Think Buzz forced Cottingham and the EVP out?? No. Simply idiotic administration at MU who fail PR 101 with a big fat F. You stand up for your AD, coach, and even player - when the MPD failed to find any evidence to charge a player with any type of sexual assault. Take responsibility for the flawed policy (which was the same under your boy Crean), but reiterate the FACTS:
1) DPS didn't have reasonable cause to think an assault occurred.
2) DPS gave girl the option to take matter up with police if she felt their conclusion wasn't satisfactory.
3) Girl chose not to go to police for a long time.
4) Girl realizes player is never going to date her again, is bitter, and decides to wage war against player and university.
5) Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
Quote from: Ners on August 25, 2011, 02:25:35 PM
Give it a rest for once - Go be an IU fan so you can keep up with your god. All you do is dog everything associated with Buzz and the MU program under him.
1 girl caused MU a ton of bad publicity...period. A girl who began an evening of consensual sex with a guy she'd had a previous sexual relationship with. WTF do you want Buzz to do about that? Think Buzz forced Cottingham and the EVP out?? No. Simply idiotic administration at MU who fail PR 101 with a big fat F. You stand up for your AD, coach, and even player - when the MPD failed to find any evidence to charge a player with any type of sexual assault. Take responsibility for the flawed policy (which was the same under your boy Crean), but reiterate the FACTS:
1) DPS didn't have reasonable cause to think an assault occurred.
2) DPS gave girl the option to take matter up with police if she felt their conclusion wasn't satisfactory.
3) Girl chose not to go to police for a long time.
4) Girl realizes player is never going to date her again, is bitter, and decides to wage war against player and university.
5) Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
I don't think that #4 is necessarily a fact.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on August 25, 2011, 02:36:15 PM
I don't think that #4 is necessarily a fact.
Ners has been told this dozens of times, but he sticks by by it like was. Assert it's a fact often enough and it apparently becomes one in his eyes.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 25, 2011, 03:24:50 PM
Ners has been told this dozens of times, but he sticks by by it like was. Assert it's a fact often enough and it apparently becomes one in his eyes.
Hey I know plenty of people who act this way.
I won't say anymore.
Quote from: Jam Chowder on August 25, 2011, 09:58:42 AM
The initial conversation was that Buzz has failed to "lock down" player behavior. I was simply making the case that player discipline was problem with Crean, as well. He was better at "locking down" the public facade of the program, but not the actual behavior of the players.
Fair point on that parsing.
You wrote that Crean did a good job of keeping things from blowing up. To me, that's locking $hit down.
The reason why I look at it as locking $hit down is because every single college has these issues (some more serious then others) but it's just a smaller percentage of them who do a great job of keeping it quiet. Even smaller percentage when not in a college town that thrives and enlives with the State U.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on August 25, 2011, 02:36:15 PM
I don't think that #4 is necessarily a fact.
My understanding was that #3 wasn't necessarily true either for the incident Ners described. I thought the girl from the Feb. incident went to the police relatively soon, like the next day. It was the girl from the Oct. incident that waited several months before going to the police.
I'll vouch for #5 being a fact...
Quote from: Litehouse on August 25, 2011, 05:04:54 PM
My understanding was that #3 wasn't necessarily true either for the incident Ners described. I thought the girl from the Feb. incident went to the police relatively soon, like the next day. It was the girl from the Oct. incident that waited several months before going to the police.
I'm about 98% sure the girl in the "major" incident did not go to police within 24 hours. If she did, and they didn't think there was enough evidence to think a rape occurred, it further demonstrates her claims were bogus - if within 24 hours after being raped there was no evidence of a rape. But then again - I guess when you acknowledge that the "rape" in question began consensually - probably hard to determine what bodily evidence might indicate rape versus consensual sex. My guess is there was no bruising on her body that would indicate she was forced against her will, etc...
Regardless...it is a dead horse...much like Golden Avalanche's continued jabs/barbs at Buzz.
Quote from: Ners on August 25, 2011, 05:19:25 PM
I'm about 98% sure the girl in the "major" incident did not go to police within 24 hours. If she did, and they didn't think there was enough evidence to think a rape occurred, it further demonstrates her claims were bogus - if within 24 hours after being raped there was no evidence of a rape. But then again - I guess when you acknowledge that the "rape" in question began consensually - probably hard to determine what bodily evidence might indicate rape versus consensual sex. My guess is there was no bruising on her body that would indicate she was forced against her will, etc...
Regardless...it is a dead horse...much like Golden Avalanche's continued jabs/barbs at Buzz.
I'm just glad you don't make your money practicing law.
For your sake and your clients.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 25, 2011, 03:24:50 PM
Ners has been told this dozens of times, but he sticks by by it like was. Assert it's a fact often enough and it apparently becomes one in his eyes.
Well Sultan....the reality is I can put 2+2 together and get 4 - not 22. I believe they call it inference, intuition, connecting the dots, etc. Then again, so long in your eyes as it isn't me speculating, and someone else - they are perfectly right, within reason for doing so....but not in my case due to your personal bias toward me. Do we need to revisit the Crean and Buzz at D-Wade thread for a refresher course on a case in point example of the above? Please. Give it up, you make yourself look foolish.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on August 25, 2011, 05:24:52 PM
I'm just glad you don't make your money practicing law.
For your sake and your clients.
Ladies and gentleman, here for one night, and one night only....Hards Alumni!! Could you let me know when your next stand up comedy gig is? I'm sure it will sell out fast.
Par for the course Hards. If you can't attack the argument, attack the person.
And since we're on the topic of juvenile humor/insults: I'm just glad I have an extensive basketball background, and not wrestling background - particularly when commenting on a basketball message board.
Quote from: Litehouse on August 25, 2011, 05:04:54 PM
My understanding was that #3 wasn't necessarily true either for the incident Ners described. I thought the girl from the Feb. incident went to the police relatively soon, like the next day. It was the girl from the Oct. incident that waited several months before going to the police.
Nope. She went to MU DPS, not the police. Don't you recall all the hub bub about how MU mishandled all of that by not involving the police?
Quote from: Ners on August 25, 2011, 05:25:19 PM
Well Sultan....the reality is I can put 2+2 together and get 4 - not 22. I believe they call it inference, intuition, connecting the dots, etc. Then again, so long in your eyes as it isn't me speculating, and someone else - they are perfectly right, within reason for doing so....but not in my case due to your personal bias toward me. Do we need to revisit the Crean and Buzz at D-Wade thread for a refresher course on a case in point example of the above? Please. Give it up, you make yourself look foolish.
Before *I* look foolish? *You* called #4 a "FACT" (complete with capitalization). And now you are backtracking with all your "inference" talk. Inferences are NOT facts. They *may* be true, but neither you nor I are in a position to know as such.
So stop passing something off as a "FACT" that you have no idea if it is true or not.
You are unbelievable....making Chicos look rational.
Quote from: Ners on August 25, 2011, 05:30:55 PM
Ladies and gentleman, here for one night, and one night only....Hards Alumni!! Could you let me know when your next stand up comedy gig is? I'm sure it will sell out fast.
Par for the course Hards. If you can't attack the argument, attack the person.
And since we're on the topic of juvenile humor/insults: I'm just glad I have an extensive basketball background, and not wrestling background - particularly when commenting on a basketball message board.
I didn't think Hards was being funny or even trying to be funny. As a lawyer, I happen to agree with him, as well as with Sultan. Oh, for the logic of Chicos....
Quote from: Ners on August 25, 2011, 05:30:55 PM
Ladies and gentleman, here for one night, and one night only....Hards Alumni!! Could you let me know when your next stand up comedy gig is? I'm sure it will sell out fast.
Par for the course Hards. If you can't attack the argument, attack the person.
And since we're on the topic of juvenile humor/insults: I'm just glad I have an extensive basketball background, and not wrestling background - particularly when commenting on a basketball message board.
It wasn't a joke.
You don't understand anything about law, yet you make assumptions based on your non-knowledge of a situation just to defend MU basketball.
You call Sultan a fool?
That is truly the joke.
Quote from: MUMac on August 25, 2011, 06:51:32 PM
Nope. She went to MU DPS, not the police. Don't you recall all the hub bub about how MU mishandled all of that by not involving the police?
I went back and looked it up again, and I had it slightly mixed up. She had a medical exam at the hospital right away, but didn't go to police until a month later, after the Oct. story broke.
Quote from: Lighthouse 84 on August 25, 2011, 07:32:10 PM
I didn't think Hards was being funny or even trying to be funny. As a lawyer, I happen to agree with him, as well as with Sultan. Oh, for the logic of Chicos....
Okay 84 - then go ahead and attack my argument and its inference. Do attorney's not lay out plausible scenarios, connect the dots, day in and day out? So you have a case with 4 known facts, do you not ever take those 4 facts and draw a potential conclusion from them..that there might not be a specific piece of evidence to corroborate...but to anyone with a shred of common sense - the conclusion you reach is self evident??
Pretty sure this type of thing goes on day in and day out in your line of work - or are you more of an estate planning type of attorney?
The way this thread is going someone might get banned in a little bit...
Or, we could return to rational conversation?
Quote from: rocky_warrior on August 25, 2011, 10:03:40 PMThe way this thread is going someone might get banned in a little bit...
Or, we could return to rational conversation?
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/popcorn.gif)
Crean benefited from not having to look after the Trend Blackledges, Terry Sanders, Mike Kinsellas, Jamil Lotts, and Ryan Amorosos of the world.
But he lucked out: He left and didn't stay for Trevor. ;)
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on August 25, 2011, 08:16:58 PM
It wasn't a joke.
You don't understand anything about law, yet you make assumptions based on your non-knowledge of a situation just to defend MU basketball.
You call Sultan a fool?
That is truly the joke.
What I find comical is that you try to tear apart my case I've laid out, yet do nothing to rebut the content of the case I made? Please regal me with your legal expertise. Let's just hope it isn't of the variety of saying I call Sultan a fool - when what I said was his post content makes him LOOK foolish. Pretty big difference there Johnny Cochran - calling someone a fool, versus saying something makes someone look foolish. I'm shocked someone with your caliber of logical reasoning would make such an invalid argument/point.
Quote from: Ners on August 25, 2011, 10:00:41 PM
Okay 84 - then go ahead and attack my argument and its inference. Do attorney's not lay out plausible scenarios, connect the dots, day in and day out? So you have a case with 4 known facts, do you not ever take those 4 facts and draw a potential conclusion from them..that there might not be a specific piece of evidence to corroborate...but to anyone with a shred of common sense - the conclusion you reach is self evident??
Pretty sure this type of thing goes on day in and day out in your line of work - or are you more of an estate planning type of attorney?
Ners, if all we have is speculation, which is slanted due to a bias we may have, "facts" aren't suddenly created.
Sooooo...what are the odds of Buzz throwing a curve ball on Saturday? Anyone know how fast he can bring it?
Quote from: Lighthouse 84 on August 26, 2011, 07:39:00 AM
Ners, if all we have is speculation, which is slanted due to a bias we may have, "facts" aren't suddenly created.
Disagree.
I love MU and Buzz Williams (fact). Therefore, I know that the incident was not the player's fault (fact).
Boom. Facts. Easy.
Quote from: Ners on August 25, 2011, 10:26:41 PM
What I find comical is that you try to tear apart my case I've laid out, yet do nothing to rebut the content of the case I made? Please regal me with your legal expertise. Let's just hope it isn't of the variety of saying I call Sultan a fool - when what I said was his post content makes him LOOK foolish. Pretty big difference there Johnny Cochran - calling someone a fool, versus saying something makes someone look foolish. I'm shocked someone with your caliber of logical reasoning would make such an invalid argument/point.
Look kid, you don't get it and that is fine. You didn't make a case, you laid out a ton of assumptions and pushed them all as facts. The truth is you don't know more than most of the general public about what happened. I know how huffy you get when anyone questions what you say so I'm just going to drop the conversation. I did go to law school for a little while... while you were probably watching Law and Order. So now you've got a real lawyer, and a kid who attended more law school than you did calling you ignorant of the law.
Probably time to just let the whole thing go, don't you think?
Quote from: 2002MUalum on August 26, 2011, 08:13:11 AM
Disagree.
I love MU and Buzz Williams (fact). Therefore, I know that the incident was not the player's fault (fact).
Boom. Facts. Easy.
Facts really are easy. For example:
I believe that Clay Matthews is on steroids, HGH and/or whatever PEDs he can find. FACT! Another example:
I think that Vander Blue is going to be drafted into the NBA. FACT! Example #3:
I believe that this thread will be locked and/or someone will be suspended as a result of it. FACT!
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on August 26, 2011, 08:35:48 AM
Look kid, you don't get it and that is fine. You didn't make a case, you laid out a ton of assumptions and pushed them all as facts. The truth is you don't know more than most of the general public about what happened. I know how huffy you get when anyone questions what you say so I'm just going to drop the conversation. I did go to law school for a little while... while you were probably watching Law and Order. So now you've got a real lawyer, and a kid who attended more law school than you did calling you ignorant of the law.
Probably time to just let the whole thing go, don't you think?
4 out of the 5 points I mentioned are concrete facts. As I'd written, lawyers make a living off of laying out facts, and then drawing an inference or two from their facts to lead a jury to a conclusion.
Based on your above reply, I'm glad you decided to not pursue a career as a lawyer, as you'd get owned. I laid out a "ton of assumptions?" Please, 4 of the 5 are facts. It continues to be funny that you cannot attack the specific content of the argument I made, and specifically rebut what I purported.
Lastly, try this on for size: Neither prosecuting, nor defense attorneys are ever present at the alleged crimes they try/defend. Yet both sides make arguments based on the available facts, and draw plausible conclusions. So yes, I wasn't there, don't know specifically what happened - but in my mind given the 4 FACTS I laid out, I drew the 1 inference. Let's hear your take on how/why this case played out the way it did.
Quote from: Lighthouse 84 on August 26, 2011, 07:39:00 AM
Ners, if all we have is speculation, which is slanted due to a bias we may have, "facts" aren't suddenly created.
We don't just have "all speculation." We have 4 concrete facts..which I laid out...and drew the 1 inference in question. Could you please lay out your case as to why you think a girl (who DPS, nor MPD felt was sexually assaulted - and chose not to go to police immediately after the incident), one day wakes up and decides to go to the police 1 month later?? What is her motive at that point? Think potential bitterness or revenge could play a part? Lastly she had a medical exam right away after the "incident", and looking at that evidence months later the D.A., still didn't think there was grounds for prosecution?? Don't most immediate, post-rape medical exams yield significant evidence that points toward rape? Plus we know she began the alleged incident consensually and had a pre-existing sexual relationship with the guy....and an on and off relationship??
Seems some here are in that faction of society who take the "guilty until proven innocent" approach.
Quote from: Ners on August 26, 2011, 09:33:03 AM
4 out of the 5 points I mentioned are concrete facts. As I'd written, lawyers make a living off of laying out facts, and then drawing an inference or two from their facts to lead a jury to a conclusion.
Actually the first three are facts, the fourth is an inference, and the fifth is a colloquialism.
But I guess this is the closest you will get to admitting you were wrong in the first place about stating that they all were facts. That is all I, and everyone else here, have been saying.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 26, 2011, 10:20:18 AM
Actually the first three are facts, the fourth is an inference, and the fifth is a colloquialism.
But I guess this is the closest you will get to admitting you were wrong in the first place about stating that they all were facts. That is all I, and everyone else here, have been saying.
Yes Sultan - I was wrong in including my inference in my list of facts. You are right that point 4 was an inference, and I was wrong to refer to it as a fact. Also, thank you for the clarification as to the proper term for Point 5 being a colloquialism.
I took no offense to your correction of my post and referring to Point 4 as a fact....as you were right. However, the arguments that followed from Hards and Litehouse 84 were greatly lacking.
Quote from: Ners on August 26, 2011, 09:45:05 AM
We don't just have "all speculation." We have 4 concrete facts..which I laid out...and drew the 1 inference in question. Could you please lay out your case as to why you think a girl (who DPS, nor MPD felt was sexually assaulted - and chose not to go to police immediately after the incident), one day wakes up and decides to go to the police 1 month later?? What is her motive at that point? Think potential bitterness or revenge could play a part? Lastly she had a medical exam right away after the "incident", and looking at that evidence months later the D.A., still didn't think there was grounds for prosecution?? Don't most immediate, post-rape medical exams yield significant evidence that points toward rape? Plus we know she began the alleged incident consensually and had a pre-existing sexual relationship with the guy....and an on and off relationship??
Seems some here are in that faction of society who take the "guilty until proven innocent" approach.
Ners, there is a whole thread about this incident, so we can go back and re-read that if you want.
As far as speculating on the girl's actions, I think being sexually assaulted (allegedly) by somebody you know and trust can be a traumatic/dramatic experience. I give her and all alleged victims some leeway in reporting. It can't be an easy process. Shame, blame, judgment, etc. etc. It's a raw deal for both the alleged victim and the accused.
Put it this way, I know where you are headed, and you aren't necessarily wrong... however, it's probably best to just admit none of us know what happened nor do we know the motivations of the people involved. Let's not pretend like we do.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on August 26, 2011, 08:35:48 AM
Look kid, you don't get it and that is fine. You didn't make a case, you laid out a ton of assumptions and pushed them all as facts. The truth is you don't know more than most of the general public about what happened. I know how huffy you get when anyone questions what you say so I'm just going to drop the conversation. I did go to law school for a little while... while you were probably watching Law and Order. So now you've got a real lawyer, and a kid who attended more law school than you did calling you ignorant of the law.
Probably time to just let the whole thing go, don't you think?
+1
I didn't, and don't, see the need to rehash all that's been said in other threads about the issue. Move along please.
I'm thinking Buzz throws a knuckler. Anyone else?
Quote from: 2002MUalum on August 26, 2011, 11:02:01 AM
It's a raw deal for both the alleged victim and the accused.
Sex crimes are the rawest of deals for the one telling the truth. Much of what occured is stipulated by both parties. Whether there was a no that followed all the yesses is what's in dispute. Short of the accused admitting it or the accuser recanting we'll never know.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 26, 2011, 12:37:08 PM
Sex crimes are the rawest of deals for the one telling the truth. Much of what occured is stipulated by both parties. Whether there was a no that followed all the yesses is what's in dispute. Short of the accused admitting it or the accuser recanting we'll never know.
Agree.
Quote from: Lighthouse 84 on August 26, 2011, 11:40:55 AM
I didn't, and don't, see the need to rehash all that's been said in other threads about the issue. Move along please.
Fair enough. Glad to see you are moving along as well - as to rehash and state your case in this thread would result in you presenting a shoddy defense...based on your contributions thus far.
Quote from: Ners on August 26, 2011, 12:49:27 PM
Fair enough. Glad to see you are moving along as well - as to rehash and state your case in this thread would result in you presenting a shoddy defense...based on your contributions thus far.
Do you have a job? Who has the kind of time you have? Let it go.
Quote from: Lighthouse 84 on August 26, 2011, 02:33:56 PM
Do you have a job? Who has the kind of time you have? Let it go.
Ouch. This one stings. But to satisfy your curiosity - yes, I do have a job, and it offers me a great deal of flexibility with regard to schedule as I'm self employed/run a small business.
Quote from: Ners on August 26, 2011, 09:33:03 AM
4 out of the 5 points I mentioned are concrete facts. As I'd written, lawyers make a living off of laying out facts, and then drawing an inference or two from their facts to lead a jury to a conclusion.
Based on your above reply, I'm glad you decided to not pursue a career as a lawyer, as you'd get owned. I laid out a "ton of assumptions?" Please, 4 of the 5 are facts. It continues to be funny that you cannot attack the specific content of the argument I made, and specifically rebut what I purported.
Lastly, try this on for size: Neither prosecuting, nor defense attorneys are ever present at the alleged crimes they try/defend. Yet both sides make arguments based on the available facts, and draw plausible conclusions. So yes, I wasn't there, don't know specifically what happened - but in my mind given the 4 FACTS I laid out, I drew the 1 inference. Let's hear your take on how/why this case played out the way it did.
Just never mind.
I have never met a more thick skulled egomaniac.
And that includes your 'buddy' Chicos.
Quote from: Ners on August 26, 2011, 10:56:42 AM
Yes Sultan - I was wrong in including my inference in my list of facts. You are right that point 4 was an inference, and I was wrong to refer to it as a fact. Also, thank you for the clarification as to the proper term for Point 5 being a colloquialism.
I took no offense to your correction of my post and referring to Point 4 as a fact....as you were right. However, the arguments that followed from Hards and Litehouse 84 were greatly lacking.
Holy crap, you're saying I'm right?
I'm totally shocked.
I don't need an 'argument' aside from saying they aren't facts. You needed to show they were actually facts.
and then you fully admit that two of them aren't facts.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on August 26, 2011, 09:40:00 PM
I have never met a more thick skulled egomaniac.
Really? You've gotta get out more, Hards.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on August 26, 2011, 09:41:20 PM
Holy crap, you're saying I'm right?
I'm totally shocked.
I don't need an 'argument' aside from saying they aren't facts. You needed to show they were actually facts.
and then you fully admit that two of them aren't facts.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.
The first 3 points I mentioned were facts, which led me to the inference statement (4), which was followed by a long held, true, colloquialism.
Nonetheless, yes, I was wrong to include point 4 in a list of FACTS - but the first 3 Facts make it very plausible that inference 4 is in fact correct.
The season can't start soon enough for this board... ::)
I stopped coming to these boards about a year or so ago because of threads like this. Popped back in hoping things had changed. Unfortunately, I see my decision justified. You guys seriously ruin message boards with this crap.
Agreed. There are three or four guys that seem to sit on this board and take off on tangents. It ruins the board.
Quote from: MUfan2 on August 27, 2011, 09:03:37 AM
I stopped coming to these boards about a year or so ago because of threads like this. Popped back in hoping things had changed. Unfortunately, I see my decision justified. You guys seriously ruin message boards with this crap.
I'm sure you were missed.
Quote from: MUfan2 on August 27, 2011, 09:03:37 AMI stopped coming to these boards about a year or so ago because of threads like this. Popped back in hoping things had changed. Unfortunately, I see my decision justified. You guys seriously ruin message boards with this crap.
It all depends. So this thread may not be what you want, that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other worthwhile threads. If you click in and see something you don't like, the simple answer is to stop reading and check another thread. I think there's been some great discussion on 2012 and 2013 targets (though not all good news), good talk about Marquette's schedule, solid discussions about expectations for next season, and a nice snapshot of the hype we're getting across the country.
Looking at the first couple pages of Hangin', I see mostly threads that have a lot of value for the casual message board user. I see a minority of threads that would be the type to push people away. I guess the only question is do you care enough to invest the time to read the 85% of threads that are good value or are you so thin-skinned that a minority of threads are enough to offend you when they don't have anything to do with you in the first place?
I dont think this post has gotten off-track at all.
Discuss original post - check
Discuss sexual assault allegations - check
Discuss Crean vs. Buzz - up next
Quote from: muhs03 on August 28, 2011, 11:51:26 AM
I dont think this post has gotten off-track at all.
Discuss original post - check
Discuss sexual assault allegations - check
Discuss Crean vs. Buzz - up next
I think we got that portion covered with the discussion who has kept better control of the players and the PR. Actually, I think the first one is the biggest question mark on if has actually been discussed.
Quote from: muhs03 on August 28, 2011, 11:51:26 AM
I dont think this post has gotten off-track at all.
Discuss original post - check
Discuss sexual assault allegations - check
Discuss Crean vs. Buzz - up next
I think you forgot "Personal Attack" in between each of those.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on August 28, 2011, 01:21:31 PM
I think you forgot "Personal Attack" in between each of those.
And an accusation of an "agenda".
Quote from: 2002MUalum on August 28, 2011, 10:16:40 PM
And an accusation of an "agenda".
Good call. How's the saying go? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it probably is a duck?
And yes, you are right - I have accused some of having an agenda here - to deny otherwise would be the height of ignorance.
Getting in before the LOCK!
And since we're off-topic...
Enjoy the video with the hope you lighten up! ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVTFUBsAw2U
So.............anybody think that Buzz can teach these guys how to shoot free throws this year?
Quote from: 2002MUalum on August 28, 2011, 10:16:40 PM
And an accusation of an "agenda".
Then demand an apology.
Quote from: leever on August 29, 2011, 10:21:23 AM
So.............anybody think that Buzz can teach these guys how to shoot free throws this year?
Actually, MU's FT defense was good last year as MU held opponents to 66% from the line... :P
Mu was an average free throw shooting team last year and an above average one in Buzz's first 2 seasons.
As players come and go things change.
I would expect Crowder and Junior to be better but losing Jimmy(and all of his attempts) will hurt.
If i recall we also took alot more free throws than our opponents last season. hopefully this trend continues and we keep attacking the basket.
Quote from: southsidemuphan on August 29, 2011, 11:50:35 AM
If i recall we also took alot more free throws than our opponents last season. hopefully this trend continues and we keep attacking the basket.
There's always a chart for that.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/teams/marquette/team_stats?season=2010-2011&chart=ft_attempted&type=all#chart
Ranked 3rd nationally in attempts, 6th in made.
Defensively, 79th in made and 108th in attempts.
Pomeroy has us at 37 for Off FT rate, and 25th for Def FT Rate.
Quote from: T-Bone on August 29, 2011, 12:56:37 PM
There's always a chart for that.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/teams/marquette/team_stats?season=2010-2011&chart=ft_attempted&type=all#chart
Ranked 3rd nationally in attempts, 6th in made.
Defensively, 79th in made and 108th in attempts.
Pomeroy has us at 37 for Off FT rate, and 25th for Def FT Rate.
How could we have taken the 3rd most FTs in the nation but only rank 37 in Off FT rate according to Pomeroy? What else could possibly go into that stat?
Quote from: g0lden3agle on August 29, 2011, 02:39:35 PM
How could we have taken the 3rd most FTs in the nation but only rank 37 in Off FT rate according to Pomeroy? What else could possibly go into that stat?
Free thow rate = FTA/FGA. So while we shot the 3rd most FTs in the nation, we took more FGs and it dragged the rate down.
Ok for some reason when I read rate I thought something in terms of FT/min, along the lines of Off Eff. Thanks for the pro tip!