Malek Harris suspended for the season

[ChicosBailBonds]

Maybe just wrong place at the wrong time.  Guilt by association, hanging with the wrong kids, who knows.  I don't think anyone does.  Could be overzealous administrators with an axe to grind, who knows.  It will sort itself out. I'd be more worried about the prep school part because way too often a kid that goes to a prep school doesn't end up going to where he committed to originally.

[Pakuni]

I don't believe there was any form of patronizing, just offering an explanation.  No different than you and others offering explanations of whether more than one suspension is now, somehow, not multiple, or opining about what exactly he was suspended for.  It's a message board.  I get the arguments on both sides, and merely offered what one, very plausible and logical argument could be....multiple suspensions, one so bad he is suspended for his senior season could (is) a red flag to some people.  For others, it is not.  For others, still, it isn't because he is a MU commit but if he was a commit somewhere else (UW, for example), then they would be piling on how the school would even consider taking a kid.  It's all conjecture and the spin and viewpoints change based on who said it, who did it, what school they will attend, etc.

The thing is, what little we know doesn't support the "he got suspended so it must be darn tootin' serious" argument.
It seems apparent Roy Schmidt from Bullseye knows what happened, and from little he's been able to reveal, we know this:
1. It wasn't the nature of the offense in particular, but that Harris was a repeat offender. This could be something as simple as missing class/skipping practice - neither particularly good things, but not dealbreakers either, IMO.

2. Whatever he did isn't so serious that Roy thinks it jeopardizes Harris' scholarship. Now, perhaps Roy doesn't have a very high opinion of Buzz and the kind of kid he's willing to take at MU. Or maybe it's just not a very serious offense but Sandburg's got a coach who thinks he needs to set a strong example/precedent.

[Archies Bat]

Dude I can smell your nursing home stench through my phone screen. Pretty sure we're around the same age but you sound like a septuagenarian in this thread. Not a good look.

PTM = Chico's?

Man, people can become vicious on these boards.

[ChicosBailBonds]

"I hope a 17 year old I've never met is not allowed to attend my alma mater based on incomplete information." Ludicrous.

Much better than your last statement.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The thing is, what little we know doesn't support the "he got suspended so it must be darn tootin' serious" argument.
It seems apparent Roy Schmidt from Bullseye knows what happened, and from little he's been able to reveal, we know this:
1. It wasn't the nature of the offense in particular, but that Harris was a repeat offender. This could be something as simple as missing class/skipping practice - neither particularly good things, but not dealbreakers either, IMO.

2. Whatever he did isn't so serious that Roy thinks it jeopardizes Harris' scholarship. Now, perhaps Roy doesn't have a very high opinion of Buzz and the kind of kid he's willing to take at MU. Or maybe it's just not a very serious offense but Sandburg's got a coach who thinks he needs to set a strong example/precedent.

Yup, all possible.  Stated that before your post.  Who knows.  I can see both sides of the argument. 

[keefe]

Marquette's caliber.

.223, .311, or .50?

Personally, our teams favored the M4A1 SOPMOD Block II which has introduced more Tangos to Allah than any other system in the AOR. Gawd Damm but America knows how to engineer some incredible machinery.

[94Warrior]

Steve Newhouse of We Are DePaul is saying the kid is suspended for smoking pot.

Does that change anybody's opinion? 

[hoyasincebirth]

Because we don't know what he did, the history before that or what the school really decided (if anything at all).  All we have is a Sun-Times story that said "according to multiple sources" he has been suspended for the season.  So you know for sure he has no way to atone and reduce this suspension to a few games or a semester?  We are all assuming he is gone for the season with no chance of returning because an often inaccurate bankrupt newspaper said if had "multiple sources."

I believe the "Trust Buzz" crowd is saying tell me what happened and until then I will withhold judgement.  Do not mistake that for trying to rationalize away problems with Harris because he is a good basketball player.  No one has suggested that.

The "kick him out" crowd is basing this on no information and acting irrationally.  Sure that might be the proper course to take but based on what we know now, it is not obvious that is what should be done.

In my mind the Kick'em out crowd is saying. Assuming he did something bad, I don't want him.

The Trust Buzz crowd is basically saying I hope I don't have to give an opinion on whether I would want to actually do anything if he actually did something and I'm hoping this all goes away and I don't have to say what I would do.

Basically the Trust Buzz crowd needs to read any post from the Kick'em out crowd with "If this is true and he really did something bad then ....." and fill in their post after that. No one is advocating he have his scholarship revoked with out getting confirmation of the facts. It's just easier to not say if this turns out to be true every single time. If it turns out to be nothing and he's playing 2 games into the season then of course no one wants to revoke his scholarship. The whole discussion is founded on the hypothetical that he did something seriously wrong. The Trust Buzz crowd just doesn't want to engage in meaningful discussion of the issue of bring a player with baggage into a program.

[dgies9156]

Steve Newhouse of We Are DePaul is saying the kid is suspended for smoking pot.

Does that change anybody's opinion? 

If that was the rule when I was at Marquette, half of McCormick would have been booted out. In fact, I won't name names, but there were a number of Al's players who were regularly getting the best weed on campus. Heck, half of McCormick used to want to walk by their room to get high on the fumes.

Sounds to me like there may be some local school board politics involved as well as some really obnoxious tinhorn dictatorial high school coach.

[Pakuni]

In my mind the Kick'em out crowd is saying. Assuming he did something bad, I don't want him.

The Trust Buzz crowd is basically saying I hope I don't have to give an opinion on whether I would want to actually do anything if he actually did something and I'm hoping this all goes away and I don't have to say what I would do.

Basically the Trust Buzz crowd needs to read any post from the Kick'em out crowd with "If this is true and he really did something bad then ....." and fill in their post after that. No one is advocating he have his scholarship revoked with out getting confirmation of the facts.

Actually, several people are saying just that.

And, while I'm not in the "Trust Buzz" crowd either, I think your armchair psychology on them is wrong.

[chapman]

Steve Newhouse of We Are DePaul is saying the kid is suspended for smoking pot.

Does that change anybody's opinion? 

Send him to a school in Colorado or Washington for the year, problem solved.  Though he's probably used up his strike so he can't get caught at MU and leave the team to "focus on academics" for a few months.

[StillWarriors]

Steve Newhouse of We Are DePaul is saying the kid is suspended for smoking pot.

Does that change anybody's opinion? 

That was last year.

[Lennys Tap]

Two suspensions would be multiple suspensions....correct?

And yes, one report said third strike.  Perhaps you didn't read it. 

This was his second suspension. A "strike" (if that ONE report is based on fact) doesn't mean a suspension. Referring to two suspensions as "multiple suspensions" or being "suspended over and over again" is over the top. It massages the facts and adds a level of negativity to what is known. You've been doing it for so long (April 8, 2008) it's automatic, part of your "schtick".

[🏀]

Never stop recruiting.

[🏀]

If it's pot, and this is his second or third time getting busted, move along.

Spare yourselves the outrage when if* gets busted while enrolled.

*Jerel and Mo never got busted, so maybe he doesn't.?

[77ncaachamps]

If it's pot, and this is his second or third time getting busted, move along.

Spare yourselves the outrage when if* gets busted while enrolled.

*Jerel and Mo never got busted, so maybe he doesn't.?

If it IS Mary Jane, does it impact his eligibility? Will he be able to transfer to another school and play?

I'm thinking that he may have to enroll into a Prep school.
Buzz "stashes" him there for safe keeping while he cleans up and gets straight.
Then back to MU: one year older and more importantly, one year wiser.

[Atticus]

If this kid was committed to any other program, there would be a bunch of comments about how lenient the program is. There would plenty of "oh that's just par for the course" type comments.

[Pakuni]

That was last year.

Maybe that's why it's being described as a repeat offense.

[Tugg Speedman]

Steve Newhouse of We Are DePaul is saying the kid is suspended for smoking pot.

Does that change anybody's opinion?  

Are we to conclude that he did not he didn't set some girl's hair in fire but rather her weed on fire?

Big difference

Added

Would not a multiple weed offense also lead to a suspension from school?  Or, the punishment for getting caught smoking weed multiple times is getting kicked out of extracurricular actives, not from school?  So, a debate team kid couldn't put the bong down would they just kick him off the debate team?

Seems to me he would have also been suspended from school and no one is saying that is the case.

[StillWarriors]

Are we to conclude that he did not he didn't set some girl's hair in fire but rather her weed on fire?

Big difference

No, you should not conclude that.

[🏀]

Are we to conclude that he did not he didn't set some girl's hair in fire but rather her weed on fire?

Big difference

Added

Would not a multiple weed offense also lead to a suspension from school?  Or, the punishment for getting caught smoking weed multiple times is getting kicked out of extracurricular actives, not from school?  So, a debate team kid couldn't put the bong down would they just kick him off the debate team?

Seems to me he would have also been suspended from school and no one is saying that is the case.

Weed is close to weave.

[forgetful]

Are we to conclude that he did not he didn't set some girl's hair in fire but rather her weed on fire?

Big difference

Maybe was filming a party at his house.  He came into a room with people were smoking weed (filming illegal stuff).  He was angry and slapped a lit pipe out of a guys hand, the embers flew into the girls hair and started it on fire (lit a girls hair on fire).

That way everyone can be telling the truth.

Seriously though, what does it matter.  Buzz knows the kid and the family and will make an informed decision about what is best for the program.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The Trust Buzz crowd is basically saying I hope I don't have to give an opinion on whether I would want to actually do anything if he actually did something and I'm hoping this all goes away and I don't have to say what I would do.

I'm in the "In Buzz We Trust" crowd, and i don't think this at all. If I become privy to exactly what Harris was suspended for, I would be happy to offer my opinion on whether or not that Malek should get the opportunity to play for us. Until then, I refuse to condemn a 17 year old kid for an unknown offense.

If you want my opinion on whether or not he should come it depends on the offense:
Weed/alcohol: give him another chance
set a girl's hair on fire (purposefully): no chance
set a girl's hair on fire (on accident): give him another chance
any sort of violent crime: no chance
academics: depends on the severity

Given that I have 0 idea on what Malek did, and it is likely that I will never know, I resort to trusting that Buzz will make the right call for our program.

[4everwarriors]

You're assuming it is bad ... And that is a reasonable assumption.  How do we know if it's some form of a zero tolerance rule? What I would consider a minor infraction blown out of proportion in today's hypersensitive society?  (I.e., he made a gun out of his fingers or a throat slash in the hall)? Would that be acceptable?

* What if he was caught cheating like Everett Golson at ND?  Is that "acceptable" for MU.  That was for ND.

* What if his grades were poor and he flunked a mid-term and the school took action?  That is a version of what Todd Mayo did and he is still on the team in good standing.  Is that acceptable?  

* What he he got into a fight like Vander at 1:30am?  Is that acceptable?

* What if he went into a bar and ordered a drink and was busted?  Half our team did that.  Is that acceptable?

The unwritten assumption here is he was busted (again) for drinking or weed.  If that was true, he would have been kicked out of school, not just thrown off the team.  He might have also been arrested.  No one is saying either if these happened.

Until we know what happened, it is irresponsible to say/demand Buzz not take him.  Yes, what he did might warrant that.  

Until then we have to trust Buzz.

Your examples and others who have posted similar scenarios all involve athlethes who have matriculated. At that point, a different punishment may be reasonable. However, if the student athlete has demonstrated devious behavior prior to becoming a member of your team, you may just want to walk any from a perceived trouble maker while it is relatively easy to do so. Again, Harris has merely verbally committed. No letter of intent has been signed by either party.

[ChicosBailBonds]

If that was the rule when I was at Marquette, half of McCormick would have been booted out. In fact, I won't name names, but there were a number of Al's players who were regularly getting the best weed on campus. Heck, half of McCormick used to want to walk by their room to get high on the fumes.

Sounds to me like there may be some local school board politics involved as well as some really obnoxious tinhorn dictatorial high school coach.

Not sure that justifies it.  Rumors of some players getting paid back in the day, etc....does that mean it should keep going on?  Much more relaxed rules of "she didn't really mean no" back then, so it is ok now?   Just throwing it out there, because someone did it in the past or a blind eye was turned, does that make it ok now?   For now, it's still a criminal offense, whether we agree or not on if it should be, it is today.