Buzz, Self, Barnes, Pearl, etc all withdraw from Double Pump brothers event...

[Dr. Blackheart]

On your other question, too many things have changed since I was there.  At IU, Knight didn't even recruit, he left it to his assistants and only became involved to close the deal if it was even needed.  The AAU scene was much different than it is today. At KU, I was only an intern, no exposure to that part of the business.  ON the MU front, again, AAU was a lot different and many of these groups (Pump Bros, etc) didn't have the power then that they do today.  

I will say this, some of the things we are doing now we (the department) blasted other schools for 10-15 years ago.  So there is definitely some hypocrisy going on in terms of how we've changed.  Now, some will say "good, we're a lot better now than 10-15 years ago"....they would be right.  But everything comes at a price.  There are a lot of ways to win in college hoops and I would have preferred the path with fewer landmines that can bite us in the ass, but it is what it is.

I think you are romanticizing a bit.  Earl Smith, street agent in Hoop Dreams?  Al had the New York pipeline sewed up.  ABA agents swarming all over Milwaukee for Chones, Lucas, Lackey mid-season. Crean had the Hurley's in for Elite camps.  Is it more sophisticated and more $$ involved today?  Yes...but that is because of modern day media which ESPN, DTV, CBS feed as well.  Instant glory of high school games on tv.Throughout it, the NCAA sits by as a co-conspirator.

Thanks 1104 for the references.  

[Pakuni]

You and Lenny should open up a comedy club.  You could call it "Moral Equivalencies"  and stand up all day making absurd comparisons.  I'll bet it would be a hoot.

Great comeback. Based on this witty retort, Lenny and I will be sure to make you headliner when we open our club.

I'll assume that by avoiding the question and responding ad hominem, you're admitting that your moral outrage over the sanctity of a commitment surfaces only when it furthers your agenda.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think you are romanticizing a bit.  Earl Smith, street agent in Hoop Dreams?  Al had the New York pipeline sewed up.  ABA agents swarming all over Milwaukee for Chones, Lucas, Lackey mid-season. Crean had the Hurley's in for Elite camps.  Is it more sophisticated and more $$ involved today?  Yes...but that is because of modern day media which ESPN, DTV, CBS feed as well.  Instant glory of high school games on tv.Throughout it, the NCAA sits by as a co-conspirator.

Thanks 1104 for the references.  

No question it existed then, what I'm saying is where I was in that point in time it was a minor factor in comparison to today.  IU and Knight had their way of doing things that were largely old school and didn't often deal with the underside of college hoops.  Deane wasn't exactly the elite recruiter, certainly not having the connections that McGuire did in New York.  A lot of interesting things happened in the days of Wooden, Rupp, McGuire, etc before the NCAA rulebooks were changed.

What I find interesting is that things that our university and athletic department were upset about that was going on at places like, UWM under Pearl, we have no problem today doing those same things. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Great comeback. Based on this witty retort, Lenny and I will be sure to make you headliner when we open our club.

I'll assume that by avoiding the question and responding ad hominem, you're admitting that your moral outrage over the sanctity of a commitment surfaces only when it furthers your agenda.

Pakuni....I find your comparisons ridiculous, just as I find Lenny's preposterous.  But if I must spell it out for you, I will.

I have no problem with oral contracts, and have said so here on many occasions.  I do handshake deals all the time that involve a lot of money and somehow both sides honor their commitments.

So, no, I don't value one over the other.  

You are comparing not attending an event that the NCAA has said NOT TO ATTEND in the same context as not honoring a NLI?  Please....why should I answer you when your logic is so failed it doesn't justify one.  You might as well ask someone why they like the taste of tangerines over the the taste of mucus.  Technically, they are both edible and beyond that, a foolish comparison on all levels....just like yours.

[Pakuni]

You are comparing not attending an event that the NCAA has said NOT TO ATTEND in the same context as not honoring a NLI?  Please....why should I answer you when your logic is so failed it doesn't justify one.  You might as well ask someone why they like the taste of tangerines over the the taste of mucus.  Technically, they are both edible and beyond that, a foolish comparison on all levels....just like yours.

Nice try, but I made no comparisons of any sort.
I'm merely pointing out how fickle your sanctimony over the importance of upholding commitments is.
Backing out of an oral deal to make an appearance? OK.
Pulling a job offer because of someone's sexual preference? OK.
Pulling a NLI because of arbitrary and capricious "academic standards"? OK.
Asking out of a deficient national letter of intent? EVIL!

Sorry, but your outrage and firm belief in the sanctity of one's commitment is spotty, at best. If it angers you when such inconsistency is pointed out, try not to be so inconsistent. Or better yet, try not to litter the board with so many holier-than-thou absolutes about honoring commitments.

[Lennys Tap]

No question it existed then, what I'm saying is where I was in that point in time it was a minor factor in comparison to today.  IU and Knight had their way of doing things that were largely old school and didn't often deal with the underside of college hoops.  Deane wasn't exactly the elite recruiter, certainly not having the connections that McGuire did in New York.  A lot of interesting things happened in the days of Wooden, Rupp, McGuire, etc before the NCAA rulebooks were changed.

What I find interesting is that things that our university and athletic department were upset about that was going on at places like, UWM under Pearl, we have no problem today doing those same things.  

Honest question. No sarcasm. When MU went to the final 4 led by a superstar prop 48 and a transfer from intellectually and ethically challenged Mississippi State (by way of the lowly Milwaukee public school system) were you ashamed? Did it make you want to take a bath? If you answer no (as I do) I think you're hypocritical bemoaning the current state of the program.

[avid1010]

Interesting choice of words from this article:

"They also ran a search firm -- ChampSearch -- for universities conducting athletic director and basketball coach searches, until the NCAA determined last year it was illegal for schools to use their service, David Pump said."

Maybe some of our posters were a bit misplaced in their argument that using the word illegal to describe actions banned by the NCAA is "without merit."

Maybe its more common than they want to admit.

Maybe because you used it in reference to what Buzz did, which was not even close to illegal.  Then you were put in your place by another poster, yet can't seem to stomach that you have no idea what you're talking about.  When you say illegal, I now think of something less offensive than an illegal forward pass, rather than an NCAA infraction.

[avid1010]

What I find interesting is that things that our university and athletic department were upset about that was going on at places like, UWM under Pearl, we have no problem today doing those same things. 

I'd appreciate some examples.  It doesn't seem like things should have changed so fast at MU.

[Pakuni]

Honest question. No sarcasm. When MU went to the final 4 led by a superstar prop 48 and a transfer from intellectually and ethically challenged Mississippi State (by way of the lowly Milwaukee public school system) were you ashamed? Did it make you want to take a bath? If you answer no (as I do) I think you're hypocritical bemoaning the current state of the program.

Not to mention a couple of key contrubutors whose high school academics were so lacking they had to attend prep school for a year.
Thank God they didn't go to a junior college for a year instead.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'd appreciate some examples.  It doesn't seem like things should have changed so fast at MU.

Privately, I'm happy to send you, but not publicly.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Nice try, but I made no comparisons of any sort.

Yes you did

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21250.msg228414#msg228414


This is why it's impossible to talk to you.  You made a comparison that one sort of commitment was ok with me (paper) and another one wasn't (oral)...and now a mere few hours later you deny it.  Christ, and you wonder why I don't like responding to you.  The goalposts move every play with you.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Honest question. No sarcasm. When MU went to the final 4 led by a superstar prop 48 and a transfer from intellectually and ethically challenged Mississippi State (by way of the lowly Milwaukee public school system) were you ashamed? Did it make you want to take a bath? If you answer no (as I do) I think you're hypocritical bemoaning the current state of the program.

No, I didn't feel ashamed.  I was quite thrilled and felt great for the kids and the university.

But what I'm "bemoaning" that has changed hasn't even been addressed publicly in any of these posts so you really don't know what I'm bemoaning, do you?  It's not the JUCO stuff, it's not the Newbill stuff (though that is crap).  Is it legal...yup.  Is it stuff we used to do, nope and we complained a ton about it, too. 

[Pakuni]

Yes you did

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21250.msg228414#msg228414


This is why it's impossible to talk to you.  You made a comparison that one sore of commitment was ok with me and another one wasn't...and now a mere few hours later you deny it.  Christ, and you wonder why I don't like responding to you.  The goalposts move every play with you.

Are you serious?
I asked a question, to wit: whether you were fine with breaking one kind of commitment, but not another.
A question is not a comparison. In fact, by its very nature the question implied a difference between the two situations.
Again, nice try.

And I love the whole "I know super secret stuff that the rest of you don't" routine.
Give us a break, Mr. Insider.

[Marquette84]

Maybe because you used it in reference to what Buzz did, which was not even close to illegal.  Then you were put in your place by another poster, yet can't seem to stomach that you have no idea what you're talking about.  When you say illegal, I now think of something less offensive than an illegal forward pass, rather than an NCAA infraction.

First, I didn't say Buzz made an illegal side deal--others made that allegation.  I merely pointed out that such deals are now illegal under new NCAA rules.

Second, that other poster doesn't know what he's talking about.  He made the same mistake you did.  You and he both apparently don't know that there are multiple definitions of the term Illegal:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegal–adjective
1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.

In the bizzaro world that this site has become, I cite up an alleged side deal which is now contrary to or forbidden by the official rules, which makes it by defintion illegal, and your protest is that such a deal "was not even close to illegal."

Hell, not only is is it close--its dead on the bullseye.

In MUCam's argument, he starts out with "In the law, we always look to the plain meaning of the statute"   Note which of the two definitions above include the words "law" and "statute."   Not only did he not "put me in my place", he basically set up his own Emily Litella moment by basing his entire argument on the WRONG definition of the word illegal. 

All that's left is for him to say "Never mind".

But if you STILL think I was so terribly wrong to use the word illegal in the context of a possible rule violation, why is it that when you search for NCAA illegal recruiting on google, you get over 1.8 MILLION hits? 
http://bit.ly/anMhPJ

Isn't that enough to prove to you that the word "illegal" is commonly used when describing things that potentially violate NCAA rules--including the NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Sports Illustrated, etc.--and most recently the Pump Brothers article linked in this thread. 

If I'm wrong, then they're all wrong as well.  And so is Webster's dictionary.

All I can say is that it is obvious your protests are misplaced.  You're the one who can't stomach being put in your place.  The term "illegal" is by definition a perfectly appropriate word in the context of discussing things that are contrary to the official rules.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Thank God we have another thread like this going since the other is locked.

 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Are you serious?
I asked a question, to wit: whether you were fine with breaking one kind of commitment, but not another.
A question is not a comparison. In fact, by its very nature the question implied a difference between the

Are you serious?  Go back and read what you said the very next line after your "question"...it was an assertion "Glad to know your moral outrage over such things only extends to agreements involving ink and dead tree matter.".....yeah, tell me again how it was simply a question and the immediate following sentence wasn't a comparison.   Turnip trucks must be rampant in your area, but not mine.  This is why I don't enjoy talking to you, because of your constant changing of the rules, goal posts and then your outright denial of reality.