[Cracked Sidewalks] - MU & Self-Reporting

[Pakuni]

I find it comical that we now have some in our fanbase/this message board who are practically sensationalizing the minor, minor events of transfers, a recruit having been given a T-Shirt by a departed assistant, a dance after the WVU game that national media/recruits largely loved, into a holy sh$t we have a major problem on our hands at MU. 

Could you point out where anyone here said, suggested or implied that any of these things constituted "a major problem?"
I know straw men are easy to knock down, but still ...

Whether you choose to admit it or not, the totality of these incidents (both serious and minor) reveals, as one person suggested, "some rough edges" around the program.
Why is the thought of smoothing those rough edges so repellent to you? Do you believe board of trustees, president and athletic director should be so afraid of offending Buzz Williams that these matters cannot and should not be addressed?

[Spotcheck Billy]

what was this exchange with McIlvaine people are referring to?

[bilsu]

what was this exchange with McIlvaine people are referring to?

I do not remember the exact thing Buzz said. However, it was on the MU postgame show with MacIlvanie. I think Buzz was trying to be funny, but it came out making him look like he was attacking or putting MacIlvanie down. MacIlvanie handled it very well, but it made Buzz look bad.

[Pakuni]

I do not remember the exact thing Buzz said. However, it was on the MU postgame show with MacIlvanie. I think Buzz was trying to be funny, but it came out making him look like he was attacking or putting MacIlvanie down. MacIlvanie handled it very well, but it made Buzz look bad.

Buzz wasn't trying to be funny. Mac asked a completely reasonable and harmless question, and Buzz jumped all over him and questioned his loyalty to Marquette. It was bizarre, and I think Buzz just got caught up in some postgame stress/adrenaline.
Much to his credit, Buzz went on air with Mac a couple of days later and apologized.

Here's a recap.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Buzz-Williams-goes-on-weird-rant-says-sorry-?urn=ncaab,138654

[Rubie Q]

Buzz wasn't trying to be funny. Mac asked a completely reasonable and harmless question, and Buzz jumped all over him and questioned his loyalty to Marquette. It was bizarre, and I think Buzz just got caught up in some postgame stress/adrenaline.
Much to his credit, Buzz went on air with Mac a couple of days later and apologized.

Here's a recap.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Buzz-Williams-goes-on-weird-rant-says-sorry-?urn=ncaab,138654

That whole thing was just bizarre. I still have no idea what kind of shot Buzz thought Mac was taking at the program or the kids.

[Lennys Tap]

Believe it or not, the exchange with McIlvaine is the only item on this list that makes me wonder about Buzz.  That was just very bizarre.

When you list all of those things one by one it seems bad, but I'm guessing that we're just a lot worse at keeping stuff in house than other schools are.  The sexual assault possibility is the only truly disturbing item on that list, IMO.

Agree. The Buzz/Mac exchange was bizzare. I assume that Buzz misunderstood where Mac was heading and took offense at something totally unnecessarily. He apologized, Mac accepted and they seem all good now, but it was definitely a head scratcher.

As for the other stuff, also agree that others (and formerly MU) are much better at keeping those things in house or covering them up, depending on your POV.

[NersEllenson]

Could you point out where anyone here said, suggested or implied that any of these things constituted "a major problem?"
I know straw men are easy to knock down, but still ...

Whether you choose to admit it or not, the totality of these incidents (both serious and minor) reveals, as one person suggested, "some rough edges" around the program.
Why is the thought of smoothing those rough edges so repellent to you? Do you believe board of trustees, president and athletic director should be so afraid of offending Buzz Williams that these matters cannot and should not be addressed?

If smoothing the "rough edges" results in the Number 1 asset in the Athletic Department, and quite possibly the whole university, leaving - that repulses me.    Did Pat Richter go to the Wisconsin State Journal or another media outlet and dis Barry Alvarez over Brent Moss's cocaine bust, the Shoe Box improper benefits scandal, etc.?  You don't publicly air your dirty laundry.  I'm fine with LW the BOT addressing issues with Buzz, but you don't bring it to the attention of the local media.  

The fact we are even having this discussion on this board is evidence enough that some (you included) are making this into a major deal....a mountain out of a molehill.  Do you expect perfection?  The "totality of these incidents?"  Really?  And lastly, so the eff what if there are a few rough edges around the program - with transfers, Buzz dancing, a recruit given a T-shirt, 1 radio interview that was maybe bizarre, .  Overreact much??  This is a bunch of chicken littles crap.  

[Rubie Q]

If smoothing the "rough edges" results in the Number 1 asset in the Athletic Department, and quite possibly the whole university, leaving - that repulses me.    Did Pat Richter go to the Wisconsin State Journal or another media outlet and dis Barry Alvarez over Brent Moss's cocaine bust, the Shoe Box improper benefits scandal, etc.?  You don't publicly air your dirty laundry.  I'm fine with LW the BOT addressing issues with Buzz, but you don't bring it to the attention of the local media.  

The fact we are even having this discussion on this board is evidence enough that some (you included) are making this into a major deal....a mountain out of a molehill.  Do you expect perfection?  The "totality of these incidents?"  Really?  And lastly, so the eff what if there are a few rough edges around the program - with transfers, Buzz dancing, a recruit given a T-shirt, 1 radio interview that was maybe bizarre, .  Overreact much??  This is a bunch of chicken littles crap.  

You can't omit the sexual assault allegations (whether you feel they have merit or not) from this discussion. The University was lambasted on the front page of the Chicago Tribune twice last year. Fair or not, the BOT is going to take action when things like that happen.

[mu03eng]

Could you point out where anyone here said, suggested or implied that any of these things constituted "a major problem?"
I know straw men are easy to knock down, but still ...

Whether you choose to admit it or not, the totality of these incidents (both serious and minor) reveals, as one person suggested, "some rough edges" around the program.
Why is the thought of smoothing those rough edges so repellent to you? Do you believe board of trustees, president and athletic director should be so afraid of offending Buzz Williams that these matters cannot and should not be addressed?

Pakuni, I agree with you that there appears to be rough edges around the program right now, but in comparison to what?  If you are comparing them to Crean, I know for a fact(I was there for one) some things happened under the Crean administration that we're on the level of the 720 non-escapades but were never reported in the press that I ever saw.  So I think these rough edges are visible because of one of two things, increased media attention thanks to the sexual assault stories or the new administration has taken to airing dirty laundry more often/quickly.

I think Buzz has no more or no fewer "issues" than Crean, Crean just did a better job of or had more help "rounding" the edges.  IMHO, this administration has decided they are going to put things out there a lot more in the hopes that they can create a squeaky clean image and I think that is rubbing Buzz the wrong way.  I also think the administration is wrong, but I don't see anything yet that's got me calling for pitchforks.

[Pakuni]

Pakuni, I agree with you that there appears to be rough edges around the program right now, but in comparison to what?  If you are comparing them to Crean, I know for a fact(I was there for one) some things happened under the Crean administration that we're on the level of the 720 non-escapades but were never reported in the press that I ever saw.  So I think these rough edges are visible because of one of two things, increased media attention thanks to the sexual assault stories or the new administration has taken to airing dirty laundry more often/quickly.

I think Buzz has no more or no fewer "issues" than Crean, Crean just did a better job of or had more help "rounding" the edges.  IMHO, this administration has decided they are going to put things out there a lot more in the hopes that they can create a squeaky clean image and I think that is rubbing Buzz the wrong way.  I also think the administration is wrong, but I don't see anything yet that's got me calling for pitchforks.

I don't disagree or doubt that some  of these things may have occurred during prior regimes, but to suggest we're hearing about them now because of the new administration is the kind of conspiratorial nonsense that drives me nuts.
Some (if not a majority) of the incidents mentioned - including Vander's scrap and the sex assault claims, along with its fallout - occurred and were revealed long before Larry Williams was hired and Scott Pilarz became president.
The bar fight was revealed months after it occurred - hardly a sign of an administration eager to put this stuff out there - when the players' names started showing up in police reports. How's that the administration's doing?

The only thing the administration "has put out there" is the self-reporting of a violation, and doing that is entirely routine.

[mu03eng]

I don't disagree or doubt that some  of these things may have occurred during prior regimes, but to suggest we're hearing about them now because of the new administration is the kind of conspiratorial nonsense that drives me nuts.
Some (if not a majority) of the incidents mentioned - including Vander's scrap and the sex assault claims, along with its fallout - occurred and were revealed long before Larry Williams was hired and Scott Pilarz became president.
The bar fight was revealed months after it occurred - hardly a sign of an administration eager to put this stuff out there - when the players' names started showing up in police reports. How's that the administration's doing?

The only thing the administration "has put out there" is the self-reporting of a violation, and doing that is entirely routine.

I don't think is a conspiracy, I just think the administration has decided they aren't going to sit on things or try and obfuscate in any way.  The 2 recruiting violations and the 720 incident were both handled by LW and Pilarz just as an FYI. 

[NersEllenson]

You can't omit the sexual assault allegations (whether you feel they have merit or not) from this discussion. The University was lambasted on the front page of the Chicago Tribune twice last year. Fair or not, the BOT is going to take action when things like that happen.

Agree that the sex assault allegations are far and away the most serious of the events in discussion.  However, MU had the exact same policy for handling alleged sex assaults for the past decade...for ALL students.  There wasn't special treatment due to the fact there were athletes involved.  The reality is, is that because there were athletes involved, it elevated the nature/profile, and reporters took a deep dive into MU's standard operating procedure with regard to sex assault.  The policy was flawed long before Buzz Williams ever stepped foot on MU's campus - and the policy was one that was crafted I assume by the administration and or BOT at some point in time in MU's history...

[Pakuni]

I don't think is a conspiracy, I just think the administration has decided they aren't going to sit on things or try and obfuscate in any way.  The 2 recruiting violations and the 720 incident were both handled by LW and Pilarz just as an FYI.  

Define "handled."
And why would we want the administration to sit on or obfuscate things? Obviously nothing MU has done is remotely comparable to the Penn State situation, but if there's one common lesson for all universities out of that, it's that you should not sit on/obfuscate things on behalf of an athletic program.

[RJax55]

I don't think is a conspiracy, I just think the administration has decided they aren't going to sit on things or try and obfuscate in any way.  The 2 recruiting violations and the 720 incident were both handled by LW and Pilarz just as an FYI. 

In terms of the 720 incident, that's not true.... The administration did sit on it.

It only came to light, when JS received their standard Freedom of Information Act report. Some staffer recognized the MU players names in one of the citation reports and boom, Don Walker writes up his story. A story which came out over six weeks after the tickets were issued.

If administration was looking to be 100% transparent, they could have release a statement regarding the tickets well before the JS ever received that report.

[mu03eng]

Define "handled."
And why would we want the administration to sit on or obfuscate things? Obviously nothing MU is doing is remotely comparable to the Penn State situation, but if there's one common lesson for all universities out of that, it's that you should sit on/obfuscate things on behalf of an athletic program.

I disagree here.  I think as the administration, they need to decide what is relevant in the current media circus and what isn't.  Just throwing all cards out there and letting them fall where they may is silly.  I think the Penn State story delineates between doing nothing and something when its important but also that the university like anyone else needs to control the message otherwise untrue things become fact, i.e not clarifying that a secondary violation is in fact very minor.

[Rubie Q]

Agree that the sex assault allegations are far and away the most serious of the events in discussion.  However, MU had the exact same policy for handling alleged sex assaults for the past decade...for ALL students.  There wasn't special treatment due to the fact there were athletes involved.  The reality is, is that because there were athletes involved, it elevated the nature/profile, and reporters took a deep dive into MU's standard operating procedure with regard to sex assault.  The policy was flawed long before Buzz Williams ever stepped foot on MU's campus - and the policy was one that was crafted I assume by the administration and or BOT at some point in time in MU's history...

If I remember correctly, the women who made the sexual assault allegations said in the Tribune articles that they felt pressured not to report their allegations to MPD because there were athletes involved. The Trib looked at the standard operating procedures for all sex assault allegations, for sure, but I think they were focused specifically on the allegations in the context of big-time college athletics. The stories were part of that series that included reporting on the young lady who made the rape allegations against a Notre Dame football player and later committed suicide, weren't they?

[bilsu]

I do not think the University does itself any favors by issuing incomplete reports. When the players were suspended for the West Virginia game they should say why, so there is not speculation. It made me angry when the TV announcers during the West Virginia game were questioning why they were suspended and wondered why they were not suspended for the whole game. Every year you see starters at various universities told they will not start the game, but they come in a few minutes into the game. MU should tell the whole story and let the fans decide if the punishment fits the crime. The same thing with Cadougan and DJO being suspended for games. It should not be open for speculation what it was for. When a player did something wrong during Al McGuire's tenure he did not suspend players. He made them get on the microphone before the start of the game and apologise to the fans. To me this was an effective punishment. When they reported this supposed secondary violation they should of said what it was for. I see no reason to hide what happen, since they have disclosed it the the NCAA. The ambiguity of the report is probably more damaging than the actual infraction. They also should of said why Mayo was suspended. Maybe he was the one that got the free t-shirt.

[The Equalizer]

IMHO, this administration has decided they are going to put things out there a lot more in the hopes that they can create a squeaky clean image and I think that is rubbing Buzz the wrong way.  I also think the administration is wrong, but I don't see anything yet that's got me calling for pitchforks.

The question is why Buzz seems so ticked off by MU's desire for a clean image?

We're less than a year out from Juan Anderson sitting out three games for an NCAA suspension because he took an improper benefit.

The first time someting like this happens, you can forgive the combniation of a young coach, a lame duck AD, and an incoming freshman who didn't know the rules and mistakenly accepted a ticket to a ballgame.

But you could also argue that Buzz should have used that incident as a teaching opportunity and made damn sure that every coach and every player in the program from that day forward knew the NCAA rules on improprer benefits.

Less than a year later, we have a similar violation.

At this point, does it really matter what the specifics were?  It's been rumored here that the issue was over a $7 t-shirt.  But in this case, the probem isn't "just" a T-shirt given to a recruit. Its the culture in which the lessons of Juan's suspension have apparently not changed behavior.

[mu03eng]

The question is why Buzz seems so ticked off by MU's desire for a clean image?

We're less than a year out from Juan Anderson sitting out three games for an NCAA suspension because he took an improper benefit.

The first time someting like this happens, you can forgive the combniation of a young coach, a lame duck AD, and an incoming freshman who didn't know the rules and mistakenly accepted a ticket to a ballgame.

But you could also argue that Buzz should have used that incident as a teaching opportunity and made damn sure that every coach and every player in the program from that day forward knew the NCAA rules on improprer benefits.

Less than a year later, we have a similar violation.

At this point, does it really matter what the specifics were?  It's been rumored here that the issue was over a $7 t-shirt.  But in this case, the probem isn't "just" a T-shirt given to a recruit. Its the culture in which the lessons of Juan's suspension have apparently not changed behavior.

But the point is these types of violations literally happen all of the time.  The NCAA has so many rules and there is no way to eliminate secondary violations.  I'm willing to bet there were secondary violations under Crean as well, we just didn't seem them in the press.

Either the administration goes out and puts everything out there in CONTEXT or don't put it out there.  If Walker dug this up, fine, but make sure the message is how nothing this is.  If Don didn't dig it up on his own, then no need to put it out there.

[Pakuni]

The question is why Buzz seems so ticked off by MU's desire for a clean image?

I don't think there's any evidence out there that Buzz is ticked off by MU's desire for a clean image. I'm not sure there's evidence he's ticked off about anything. Well, evidence beyond his emails to certain fans, I suppose.

The most cited "evidence" that Buzz is ticked off is that he took SMU's phone call when they came at him with a big money offer. Many, maybe most, coaches would do the same, especially if it's a school from their neck of the woods. Didn't Bill Self almost leave Kansas - Kansas! - for Oklahoma State because T. Boone Pickens brought him a wheelbarrow full of cash?

None of us have the first clue whether Buzz is ticked off or not.

[Lennys Tap]

The question is why Buzz seems so ticked off by MU's desire for a clean image?

We're less than a year out from Juan Anderson sitting out three games for an NCAA suspension because he took an improper benefit.

The first time someting like this happens, you can forgive the combniation of a young coach, a lame duck AD, and an incoming freshman who didn't know the rules and mistakenly accepted a ticket to a ballgame.

But you could also argue that Buzz should have used that incident as a teaching opportunity and made damn sure that every coach and every player in the program from that day forward knew the NCAA rules on improprer benefits.

Less than a year later, we have a similar violation.

At this point, does it really matter what the specifics were?  It's been rumored here that the issue was over a $7 t-shirt.  But in this case, the probem isn't "just" a T-shirt given to a recruit. Its the culture in which the lessons of Juan's suspension have apparently not changed behavior.

A "culture" in which someone gets a free ticket to a ballgame or a $7 t shirt? Are you serious? Congrats, you win the prize for the most ridiculous post in Scoop's storied history. Unreal, even considering the source.

[Goose]

The way I look at Buzz is that he definitely has rough edges and it is both appelaing and troublesome. He does things his own way and can see why he relates well with non traditional ballers of today. As a fan I find the potential of him exposing rough edges, WVU dance, as highly entertaining. However, I can fully understand that being his boss could be very difficult.

[wadesworld]

I do not think the University does itself any favors by issuing incomplete reports. When the players were suspended for the West Virginia game they should say why, so there is not speculation. It made me angry when the TV announcers during the West Virginia game were questioning why they were suspended and wondered why they were not suspended for the whole game. Every year you see starters at various universities told they will not start the game, but they come in a few minutes into the game. MU should tell the whole story and let the fans decide if the punishment fits the crime. The same thing with Cadougan and DJO being suspended for games. It should not be open for speculation what it was for. When a player did something wrong during Al McGuire's tenure he did not suspend players. He made them get on the microphone before the start of the game and apologise to the fans. To me this was an effective punishment. When they reported this supposed secondary violation they should of said what it was for. I see no reason to hide what happen, since they have disclosed it the the NCAA. The ambiguity of the report is probably more damaging than the actual infraction. They also should of said why Mayo was suspended. Maybe he was the one that got the free t-shirt.

Yeah, that's a good idea, let's let put every little mistake these 18-22 year old kids make throughout their college years into newspapers for everyone to see.  I'm sure that's something that will have recruits excited to be a part of!

[bilsu]

The question is why Buzz seems so ticked off by MU's desire for a clean image?

We're less than a year out from Juan Anderson sitting out three games for an NCAA suspension because he took an improper benefit.

The first time someting like this happens, you can forgive the combniation of a young coach, a lame duck AD, and an incoming freshman who didn't know the rules and mistakenly accepted a ticket to a ballgame.

But you could also argue that Buzz should have used that incident as a teaching opportunity and made damn sure that every coach and every player in the program from that day forward knew the NCAA rules on improprer benefits.

Less than a year later, we have a similar violation.

At this point, does it really matter what the specifics were?  It's been rumored here that the issue was over a $7 t-shirt.  But in this case, the probem isn't "just" a T-shirt given to a recruit. Its the culture in which the lessons of Juan's suspension have apparently not changed behavior.

First of all we do not know when the supposed t-shirt was given out. It could have very well occurred before Juan Anderson got a free ticket. Second of all the t-shirt was given by a coach, who should of known the rules. The ticket was given by a booster and I suspect Buzz did not know about it until after Anderson went to the game. As far as who is responsible MU has a compliance department to try to prevent these things. I believe every player meets with the compliance department to go over rules. When these things happen, unless Buzz did it, it is not his fault. Unless you want to believe he told the coach to hand out t-shirts or knew Juan got a free ticket before hand.

[cheebs09]

Honestly, these two violations (assuming the shirt is what happened) could be completely innocent. If I had to guess what happened with Juan, a kid from class who has a parent as a booster could have asked Juan if he wanted to tag along to the Brewer game since his dad had an extra ticket. It would have been in October, so enough time for it to be more of a friendship thing than it being due to his status on the team.

Who knows how innocent the t-shirt was? A kid could have been on a visit and got soaked in the rain or bumped into someone at lunch and spilled food all over his shirt. The coach may have just given him a clean shirt. I have no sources, but to act like there may be a culture problem of violating rules is as big of a leap as me going to the most harmless scenarios.