How Come MU...

[4everwarriors]

has come forward with all the info on Trevor's injury, and not hiding it behind privacy laws, when they wouldn't divulge McNeal's hand surgery last spring?

[MarquetteFan94]

Isn't it up to the individual what is shared publicly?

Also, I'm guessing....but I'm sure MU didn't want to divulge that much on McNeal because it would have an impact on our seeding... pretty sure the selection committee takes injuries to key players into consideration.

I can't remember, but was McNeal cleared to play or not right before the MSU game?

[MUDPT]

I think it's a double standard.  Brandon Bell was taking a leave of abscense for "medical reasons" that Crean couldn't reveal because of HIPPA.  I think it's a HIPPA violation for even revealing that Bell had a "medical reason."  Plus Crean and MU for that matter, are not medical personnel.  So maybe HIPPA doesn't apply to them.

[bilsu]

If you have a release from the person, it is not a hippa infraction. When you do not want the situation released you hide behind the hippa rules

[mu_hilltopper]

I side with 4ever on this one.  There is no doubt that privacy/hippa laws are clearly used as an excuse when it is beneficial to obfuscate. 

It's to a point, where, if a school rolls out the privacy claim, it's a huge red flag.

[Coobeys Oil Depot]

I side with 4ever on this one.  There is no doubt that privacy/hippa laws are clearly used as an excuse when it is beneficial to obfuscate. 

It's to a point, where, if a school rolls out the privacy claim, it's a huge red flag.

What, you mean like with UW and Michael Flowers?

[Pardner]

I side with 4ever on this one.  There is no doubt that privacy/hippa laws are clearly used as an excuse when it is beneficial to obfuscate. 

It's to a point, where, if a school rolls out the privacy claim, it's a huge red flag.

What, you mean like with UW and Michael Flowers?

A bit OT--This could be a can of worms for the NCAA...considering there is considerable betting around college sports.  Pro sports, the NFL in particular, are very strict about injury disclosures to avoid any semblance of shadiness.  Yet, these are college kids and HIPPA should apply as they are not pros. 

For MU, this is where a lack of AD is a concern for me--not that there was anything untoward here.  I think we need to be consistent with a policy across all our sports to avoid these types of situations.

[mu_hilltopper]

I wouldn't worry about that.  Our current AD, Cottingham, is/was MU's Senior VP - associate general counsel.  I imagine he knows more about HIPPA than .. well, probably everyone here.

http://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/men_s_basketball/steve_cottingham

[Pardner]

I wouldn't worry about that.  Our current AD, Cottingham, is/was MU's Senior VP - associate general counsel.  I imagine he knows more about HIPPA than .. well, probably everyone here.

http://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/men_s_basketball/steve_cottingham

Let me clarify.  I have no doubt Cottingham knows HIPPA (and I am sure he knows it better than most AD's since he is a lawyer).  And, I am am not saying there was anything wrong here on the player's behalf.

But, most AD's would consistently communicate to the public on these major injuries.  McNeal's thumb injury was handled in secrecy which only masked the obvious, hurt credibility, caused web speculation and apparently didn't help us with the NCAA selection committee (see our seed).  We were given full details of Trevor's knee problem in Rosiak's blog.  Inconsistent.  I think consistent language like the NFL (i.e., doubtful-thumb or Medical Redshirt-knee or questionable-hamstring) should be adopted like the NFL by the NCAA, which would be masked enough to protect the players' confidentiality, but give the public (including Las Vegas) what they need.

Ok--dead horse...sorry.  Time to get our hoops on.

[mu_hilltopper]

We definitely agree that Marquette has been inconsistent.  I don't think it matters who currently (and in the past) controls the release, whether it's Cords, Crean, or Cottingham.  The program is often not forthcoming on bad news releases to the public, which leads to internet speculation that is far worse than the truth.

Whether that's smart PR, or not, is up to interpretation.

[Marquette84]

The program is often not forthcoming on bad news releases to the public, which leads to internet speculation that is far worse than the truth.

Which is why we're sitting here expecting to see Mbwakwe suit up tonight and tomorrow will speculate as to why he wasn't in uniform.  Becasue MU wasn't forthcoming with the bad news about his injury.

Look for a Press Release next Thursday.  Then we'll know what happened.

Oh, wait.  The release is already posted.  The annoucement was already made.

Looks like MU can't even win when they DO share the information.   

[mu_hilltopper]

Perhaps you didn't read carefully enough.  "The program is OFTEN not forthcoming" .. Notice the word OFTEN?   Perhaps you confused the word "often" with "always".  Then your diatribe might make sense. 

[Marquette84]

Perhaps you didn't read carefully enough.  "The program is OFTEN not forthcoming" .. Notice the word OFTEN?   

Yes, I noticed the word "OFTEN".  I could debate the appropriateness of "OFTEN" since the number of times such bad news hasn't been release can be counted on one hand. 

Nonetheless, reading this thread (including your post), one got the distinct impression that Mbakwe's injury actually was one of those situtations where MU was holding back on information.

It wasn't. 

MU was fully forthcoming.  Even if you DO think that MU has a primary obligation to keep you fully informed (ahead of, say, a player's own HIPPA rights or the coaching staff's opinion on competitive advantage), you've chosen a funny time to criticize them seeing as how they just behaved exactly as you would want them to. 

Or did I miss your props to Crean and the staff for getting you this information in a timely manner?

When MU doesn't release information on a timetable you find acceptable--you criticize them.
When MU does release information on a timetable you find acceptable--you criticize them.

As I said, MU can't win.   


Apparently, the coaching staff can't make decisions based on the good of theam becasue fans think their right to know overrides the best interest of the team.   So what if the coaching staff feels that limiting information on McNeal's thumb would help them in seeding?  Some fans feel that their right to know overrides what the coaching staff thought would help the team.

So what if a player has a legal right to keep his medical information information private.  If they attempt to execrcise that right, it must mean the school is trying to "obfuscate".

If a player today has a mental health or addicition issue and he wishes to keep that private--should his decision be dismissed as "an excuse because it's beneficial to obfuscate"?   Is it really your view that the schools should pressure players agree to release conditions like depression, alcoholism or HIV simply to avoid criticism that the school is trying to "obfuscate"?

I don't think MU is purposefully trying to hold back information soley in order to obfuscate.

I strongly believe their priority, in order, is
1) follow the will of the player
2) do what the coaching staff think is best for the team
and 3) provide updates for fans. 

I obviously have a different perspetive than most here, who seem to think #3 is the most important and if MU is lying or intentionally trying to harm fans if they say that #1 or #2 guides their decision.

Finally, releasing information for the needs of gamblers is so far beneath the list of priorities I can't believe anybody would even mention it.

[mu_hilltopper]

Twist, twist, twist.

Your first post was a sarcastic hit job, based on ignoring a word, "often" and twisting to make your "point".

Your second is based on you having "the distinct impression that Mbakwe's injury actually was one of those situtations where MU was holding back on information"  -- a distinct impression that is completely false, twisting what's said into something for your argument .. perhaps you missed the very FIRST sentence of the thread?  "..MU has come forward with all the info on Trevor's injury ..." or later "We were given full details of Trevor's knee problem" .. to which, everyone would agree.

Not to mention, twisting "beneficial to obfuscate" into your "soley in order to obfuscate".

And of course, to add to these issues, you need to suggest everyone else is beneath you, to wit:  "I obviously have a different perspetive (sic) than most here, who seem to think [fan information] is the most important"   Sorry, but I, and everyone here, would firmly agree with the priorities you suggest, athlete, team, public, in that order.   But you need to suggest that we wouldn't, to go on lecturing us.   

[Marquette84]

***"the distinct impression that Mbakwe's injury actually was one of those situtations where MU was holding back on information"  -- a distinct impression that is completely false, twisting what's said into something for your argument .. perhaps you missed the very FIRST sentence of the thread?"

I would suggest that you're guilty of the same type of selective quoting that you accuse me of doing.

My entire statement was that based on "reading this thread (including your post) [emphasis added], one got the distinct impression that Mbakwe's injury actually was one of those situtations where MU was holding back on information."

Your response is to single out half of one post and suggest that it represents the thread as a whole.  Yes I read the first sentance where 4ever started out stating that MU "has come forward with all the info on Trevor's injury"  I won't argue with that.

The problem is that statement was followed by no fewer than eight specific criticisms (and zero complements)!

To wit:
1.  "and not hiding it behind privacy laws, when they wouldn't divulge McNeal's hand surgery last spring?"

2.  "I think it's a double standard."

3.  "laws are clearly used as an excuse when it is beneficial to obfuscate."

4.  "if a school rolls out the privacy claim, it's a huge red flag."

5.  "this is where a lack of AD is a concern for me"

6.  "But, most AD's would consistently communicate to the public on these major injuries. "

7.  "McNeal's thumb injury was handled in secrecy which only masked the obvious, hurt credibility, caused web speculation"

8.  "The program is often not forthcoming on bad news releases to the public"

Let me clarify for you: reading those eight critical comments (against zero complements), one would get the impression that this was one of those situations where MU failed to share information. 

Here's the test:  If you skipped the first post and read the rest of the thread with the eight criticisms, can you see how one might think that this was one of those situations where MU held back releasing information?  THAT was my point.

****Sorry, but I, and everyone here, would firmly agree with the priorities you suggest, athlete, team, public, in that order.

I have a hard time reconciling that that statement with this one (which may or may not be yours):
-"if a school rolls out the privacy claim, it's a huge red flag."
Why should a kid be given the choice of keeping his information private or seeing his school placed under a "huge red flag"?   

Similarly, Crean has stated that he held back on the details of McNeal's injury out of concern over NCAA seeding--in other words, putting the good of the team ahead of the public's right to know. 

Can you please explain how someone can criticize that specific decision without putting their need for information above the good of the team? 

Can you give any other examples of "bad news" that MU was slow to release?  There should be quite a list, since according to you, they do it "often."

***And of course, to add to these issues, you need to suggest everyone else is beneath you,

No.  I said my perspective was different.  You said that yours was beneath mine. 

[Pardner]

84--
Like most here, we are here to enjoy MU hoops for the love of the game.   In that light, I would normally agree with most of your points on the topic--less the wordsmithing back and forth.  However, the hypocrisy of the situation of NCAA sports calls for consistency.  Whether you care about betting or not, it is there in a HUGE way.  It is the money engine that also drives college revenue sports--from TV, the hype in all media with ratings and point spreads, to the scouting services even.  Why is betting even allowed on amateur sports?  Money rules, is why.

Let's not kid ourselves, though, this is like Wall Street for a big group of folks.  The NBA ref scandal should be a wake up call.  Betters want the inside edge.  They troll sites like this looking for insider info.  When TC holds his tongue like on McNeal (which I would have done as the coach) to try to get a better seed, it causes the rumor mill to grind.  You could have read on any of the internet fan sites that he had surgery and wasn't going to play.  That is a treacherous slope.  AD's know to be consistent in the public messaging--that is their job.  I think the NFL classification system would cover it--simple with a time reference.  If it is personal like with Flowers or Lute--just say "Unable to Play/Coach Indefinitely--Personal".  Like you say, you cannot win in any situation, but this system would make it consistent from school to school and discourage the riff raff from trying to influence (but let's not be totally naive that this would fully work either).

[Big Papi]

I don't see whats the problem with how MU shares or doesn't share its information.  Each situation is different and frankly it is none of our business unless the university and the player want to share the information.

With the injuries to McNeal and Diener our tournament hopes and seedings were at issue so I don't blame the university for not being upfront and vocal on the injuries at hand.  Both injuries happened towards the latter stages of the year and its no different than NFL or NHL teams fudging injury information if it is viewed that sharing the information to the public is a detriment to the team or organization. 

In regards to Bell, well he left the university so I am thinking that he wanted no part in sharing his problem with the public. 

Mbakwe is going to be here a long time and the injury happened before the season started and will affect his entire year so they came out and said what the problem was.  So I guess I just don't see the problem with why anyone would care how or why the university handles these situations.  Yes we all want to know every little detail about everything but its no big deal if we don't.

Huge red flag?  I guess I am not quite sure what that means but I really don't think its a big deal one way or another as I don't see how it affects the university, the team and/or the coaches in a negative way.   

[mu_hilltopper]

I would suggest that you're guilty of the same type of selective quoting that you accuse me of doing. .. Let me clarify for you: reading those eight critical comments (against zero complements), one would get the impression that this was one of those situations where MU failed to share information.

And that suggestion would be wrong. I searched and quoted each and every (all two of them) comment about Mbakwe's injury.  On the other hand, you've "intrepreted" commentary, and did so in a way to foster your idea that anyone is unhappy with the way MU handled the TM situation.  I'm not. No one is.  Just stop.  Those 8 "criticisms" .. are incredible.

If you can intrepret "..a lack of an AD is a concern for me" as criticism, one can certainly assert "MU has come forward with all the info on Trevor's injury" is a compliment.  (Of course, how pointless of me to bring that up, since you're not really interested in what people actually write.  It's so much more fun to interpret to your advantage!)

If that doesn't fulfil your compliment quota, I'll write a new one:  The information MU gave on Trevor was super.  I'm sure given some time, you'll twist that into something negative too.  Have fun. 

[Marquette84]

On the other hand, you've "intrepreted" commentary, and did so in a way to foster your idea that anyone is unhappy with the way MU handled the TM situation.  I'm not. No one is. 

One more time:

I am NOT saying that you or anyone else is criticizing MU because of MU's annoucement on Trevor.
I am saying that you and other are critical DESPITE their annoucement on Trevor.

since you're not really interested in what people actually write.  It's so much more fun to interpret to your advantage!)

Ironic you say this, since you don't seem really interested in what I actually wrote.

I did not say that you critiziced MU because of their announcement on Trevor.
I called you (and others) out for criticizing MU DESPITE their timely annoucment on Trevor.

Get the difference yet?  Not BECAUSE of the announcement.  DESPITE the annoucement.


I fully accept your statement that you are pleased with the way that MU handled Trevor's situation.   

I just don't understand why you felt that MU's annoucement on Trevor is the appropriate time to argue that  MU "is often not forthcoming on bad news releases to the public."  Or that "laws are clearly used as an excuse when it is beneficial to obfuscate"   

[mu_hilltopper]

Ah, so now it's the timing that's disturbing you.

"How come MU has come forward with all the info on Trevor's injury, and not hiding it behind privacy laws, when they wouldn't divulge McNeal's hand surgery last spring?"  That's the premise and first sentence of this thread. 

That's how it's an appropriate time.  MU has just fully disclosed all the gory details of a player's injury.  This is in complete contrast with McNeal's injury last March, which displays inconsistency. .. Discuss.

I just don't understand why you felt that MU's annoucement on Trevor is the appropriate time.."

Sure you understand.  What you imply is "this isn't an appropriate time."  From your writing now and in the past, I'd suggest you believe there's never an appropriate time to raise any questions.

[Marquette84]

This is in complete contrast with McNeal's injury last March, which displays inconsistency. .. Discuss

The situation with McNeal was completely different. 

When McNeal was injured, we were just a few days away from the NCAA finalizing seedings in the tournament--in fact based on the committee timeline they had already been meeting.  The committee is known to knock teams down in the seedings if they feel there is a game-affecting injury on a team.  As Crean has already reported, MU held back on making a statement on the extent of McNeal's injury in an effort to preserve a higher seed. Finally, McNeal wasn't necessarily out for the year.  His future status was unknown.  In fact he was cleared for the MSU game. 

In other words, the information was held for the good of the team's seed in the NCAA tournament.   

But, you already knew that answer.  4ever already knew that.  Everyone on this board already knew that.  So suggesting that there is a need to "raise any questions" is a bit disingenuous.


Fast forward six months.  There is no NCAA seed on the table in the next week.  No committee is currently meeting.  Mbwake has not been recognized as one of the two best players on the team.  There is no body of work that is now called into question because it was primarilly or even partially the result of Mbwake's play. Furthermore, there is no chance Mbawke will come back in a week or two or even three. He's not game-to-game.  Because of the nature of his injury, his recovery is going to take longer than the entire season.


So you're damn right I question the timing of this criticism.  Just as I question your need to speculate that MU is guilty of "obfuscation," or deserves "huge red flags" or is guilty of "inconsistency."

As far as I can tell, MU is 100% consistent with releasing information quickly subject to the following sequence:
a) the player's HIPPA rights
b) the good of the team with respect to NCAA seeding and
c) the fans' right to know.

Even YOU claim to agree with this sequence.

The ONLY times that MU has NOT quickly released information is either due to a player exercising his HIPPA rights or in the case of McNeal, because the team thought it would help in seeding.   Can you come up with an example where a) or b) didn't apply and MU still held back the information?  I don't think so.

If you believe a player's rights come first, but turn around and accuse him of a "huge red flag" if he exercises them, well, I don't think you truly support the player right's coming first.

I think your criticism is unwarranted.  MU has been completely consistent with releasing information subject to the player's HIPPA rights and the good of the team. 

[Mayor McCheese]

maybe we came out with Mbakwe's injury clearly since it is the beginning of the season, and we can still redshirt him, or at the very least medically redshirt him

[mu_hilltopper]

First off, I want to say I agree with your analysis of both situations.  They were different situations handled differently.  The common threads were a hurt player, and information release, which lead us to this discussion.

We agree on the priorities, Player, Team, then public.  We agree that MU has followed those priorities.

We don't agree on what is criticism. 

I see hippa declarations as "red flags" not as a criticism.  It's a statement of how the world works, or how people think.  How do you see it?  When you personally hear of any organization uttering "this info is withheld" whether it's HIPPA or just because they want to withhold it .. what goes through your mind?  Do you think it's a signal that everything is just great, situation normal?  Do you flush it out of your brain, and not think about it?  Or do you think, huh, this probably isn't a hang-nail.  Probably not a splinter.  This is probably something big enough or embarassing enough to keep private.    And if you think it's a warning signal of some sort, are you being critical of them?  Or are you just describing the situation?

And of course, we agree that a player (or anyone) has a right to privacy.  Does that quell *respectful* curiosity?  Not for humans, no.

I see the McNeal situation .. well, exactly as you do.  Some info was withheld.  Further, we agree that the info that was released therefore wasn't "complete".  We agree that the lack of accuracy had an intent behind it.  That intent was to perserve a NCAA seed.  What do you call the process of withholding information with intent to get something you wouldn't normally be awarded if full information was known?  If it's not obfuscation, can you give me another vocabulary word that describes it that somehow passes your "critcism" test?   Bamboozlement?  Was it cunning? or how about Trumpery?  You give me a word or phrase, and I'll use it from now on.  Deal?

And further, how do you think the other 63 NCAA teams would view this?  Do you think they have any right to be validly critical?

[Marquette84]

First off, I want to say I agree with your analysis of both situations.  They were different situations handled differently.  The common threads were a hurt player, and information release, which lead us to this discussion.

We agree on the priorities, Player, Team, then public.  We agree that MU has followed those priorities.

We don't agree on what is criticism. 

I see hippa declarations as "red flags" not as a criticism.  It's a statement of how the world works, or how people think.  How do you see it?  When you personally hear of any organization uttering "this info is withheld" whether it's HIPPA or just because they want to withhold it .. what goes through your mind?  Do you think it's a signal that everything is just great, situation normal?  Do you flush it out of your brain, and not think about it?  Or do you think, huh, this probably isn't a hang-nail.  Probably not a splinter.  This is probably something big enough or embarassing enough to keep private.    And if you think it's a warning signal of some sort, are you being critical of them?  Or are you just describing the situation?

And of course, we agree that a player (or anyone) has a right to privacy.  Does that quell *respectful* curiosity?  Not for humans, no.

I see the McNeal situation .. well, exactly as you do.  Some info was withheld.  Further, we agree that the info that was released therefore wasn't "complete".  We agree that the lack of accuracy had an intent behind it.  That intent was to perserve a NCAA seed.  What do you call the process of withholding information with intent to get something you wouldn't normally be awarded if full information was known?  If it's not obfuscation, can you give me another vocabulary word that describes it that somehow passes your "critcism" test?   Bamboozlement?  Was it cunning? or how about Trumpery?  You give me a word or phrase, and I'll use it from now on.  Deal?

And further, how do you think the other 63 NCAA teams would view this?  Do you think they have any right to be validly critical?

I accept your explanataions, and I'm sorry if I got too bothered by your (and others) comments.  I still think "red flag" and "obfuscate" have negative connotations, but I'll accept that you didn't mean them in a negative fashion.

Frankly, for my part I don't care how the other 63 NCAA teams view MU.  I would expect that they would try to do the same with respect to players injured going into the last week of the season for NCAA seeding purposes.  Just part of the coaching game.

And while I might be curious about about a player who keeps his situation private, I respect his right to do so.   

Finally, I think each case merits it's own analysis.  MU seems to be forthcoming with information when they can.  I accept that sometimes players (and even coaches) don't want information released.  Sometimes the competitive game is such that I'm not going to know everything I want. 

[NYWarrior]

Marquette_84 - -check your hotmail account