what happened to jmay??

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[GGGG]

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.)

[Lennys Tap]

.

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.

[wyzgy]

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

[🏀]

Maymon is cleared to play against Charlotte.

[Brewtown Andy]

Maymon is cleared to play against Charlotte.

And they just threw their top scorer off the team.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

I fully grasp your argument.  I just think it's wrong and stupid.

Stay classy, Sultan.

[Hards Alumni]

Stay classy, Sultan.

Just so we're clear here, disagreeing with your argument makes him not a classy guy.

Okay.

[Lennys Tap]

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?

[GGGG]

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?

[Hards Alumni]

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?

[d6]

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'.....

[Lennys Tap]

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?

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[Skatastrophy]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.  

[Lennys Tap]

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.