2022-23 NCAA Men's Basketball Thread

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Respectfully, I'm not sure why your personal experiences are more determinative here than a study of 2,600 cases or, for that matter, my personal experiences. Could you explain?

1. I never said my personal experiences were more determinative than the study. I said that the study has limitations specifically that it is over a decade old and looks at data from a single city in California which is a significantly different landscape than Texas.
2. I'm assuming mine are more determinative than yours because I work with this topic area more than 99.9% of people. If you are in the 0.1%, I apologize.
3. It's not a study of 2,600 cases, it's a study of 904 cases. You missed the part were the 2,598 cases was whittled down to 904 due to "inappropriate victim-offender relationships or substantial missing case information"

Also, could you point out where you're getting this 10.2% figure? Because it seems a complete contradiction to what I quoted, and I'm not able to find it.
Thanks

It's all in Table 2 on page 9. The study looked at 904 investigations for DV. There was prosecution in 226 cases (25%). Of those 226 cases, 133 had willing complainants (14.7% of total investigations). Which leaves 93 cases with unwilling complainants (10.2% of total investigations).

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

If this is an argument about vocabulary, then I concede. If you want to say it's not out of the ordinary then go for it. It's not my definition but it seems like we agree that it is the prosecutor's decision whether or not to prosecute and that the majority of the time when there is not a willing complainant, prosecutor's will choose not to prosecute. Not necessarily because there isn't a willing a complainant but for any number of possible reasons including the lack of a willing complainant.

[cheebs09]

It's weird Texas hasn't said he's not coaching tonight. Even if he were 100% innocent, it would be weird to be coaching 4 hours after leaving jail.

[avid1010]

Without a willing complainant, none. Title IX only requires that a university offer a grievance process and that they follow it if it is engaged. If the complainant declines that grievance process, the university is no longer on the hook. The exception to this is if the university knew or should have known that the offender represented an ongoing danger to the campus community. A school wouldn't get dinged for that in a case like this.

A school can complete a title ix investigation without the complainants permission though?  Essentially, they become the complainant?

[mug644]

A school can complete a title ix investigation without the complainants permission though?  Essentially, they become the complainant?

To broaden the question, would a school investigate a staff member for a potential title IX infraction, if said accusation happened off campus and the alleged victim is not a member of that school community (ie, not staff, nor student), and the complainants is not interested in cooperating?

[pbiflyer]

It's weird Texas hasn't said he's not coaching tonight. Even if he were 100% innocent, it would be weird to be coaching 4 hours after leaving jail.

I've heard of people leading a freshmen GDL group 4 hours after being released from jail. I've heard. 

[tower912]

People post immediately after getting out of scoop jail.

[Pakuni]

1. I never said my personal experiences were more determinative than the study. I said that the study has limitations specifically that it is over a decade old and looks at data from a single city in California which is a significantly different landscape than Texas.
2. I'm assuming mine are more determinative than yours because I work with this topic area more than 99.9% of people. If you are in the 0.1%, I apologize.
3. It's not a study of 2,600 cases, it's a study of 904 cases. You missed the part were the 2,598 cases was whittled down to 904 due to "inappropriate victim-offender relationships or substantial missing case information"

It's all in Table 2 on page 9. The study looked at 904 investigations for DV. There was prosecution in 226 cases (25%). Of those 226 cases, 133 had willing complainants (14.7% of total investigations). Which leaves 93 cases with unwilling complainants (10.2% of total investigations).

1. Not sure why the age of the study matters in this case. Has something changed to make evidence-based prosecutions less (or more) likely since then? Is there some new technology at play? A change in law? Has the national perspective changed in a way to make DV prosecutions less likely today than at the time of the stidy?
If not, it seems you're using the age as a red herring.

2. Then you're using the 10.2% misleadingly. Here's what it shows ... in the 226 cases in which prosecution occurred, the victim didn't agree to the prosecution in 93 of them. That's 41% of the time. So, in 4 out of 10 cases in which a prosecutor believed there was evidence to convict, the victim's lack of cooperation wasn't an issue. That's a) hardly rare or unusual and b) strong evidence that the victim's cooperation isn't necessary to move forward with a case.

Anyhow, I think the paragraph I cited on page 14 is more relevant to this discussion, because it deals specifically with where we're at in the Beard case, i.e. the post-arrest follow up stage.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

A school can complete a title ix investigation without the complainants permission though?  Essentially, they become the complainant?

Correct. However, they would only be punished for not doing this in cases where they knew or should have known that the respondent was an ongoing threat to the campus community.

To broaden the question, would a school investigate a staff member for a potential title IX infraction, if said accusation happened off campus and the alleged victim is not a member of that school community (ie, not staff, nor student), and the complainants is not interested in cooperating?

They can. Would they is another question. I think most wouldn't but Pakuni brings up a good point about how high profile this case is. Does this prompt entities to go forward no matter what to avoid the perception of sweeping something under the rug? Or do they try to avoid getting anywhere near this mess? Probably depends on who's making the call.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

1. Not sure why the age of the study matters in this case. Has something changed to make evidence-based prosecutions less (or more) likely since then? Is there some new technology at play? A change in law? Has the national perspective changed in a way to make DV prosecutions less likely today than at the time of the stidy?
If not, it seems you're using the age as a red herring.

Yes, the law has changed in the past 12 years as have other factors that could potentially impact the results. Whether that makes it more or less likely I couldn't say. Again, not saying it's useless but it is a limitation.

2. Then you're using the 10.2% misleadingly. Here's what it shows ... in the 226 cases in which prosecution occurred, the victim didn't agree to the prosecution in 93 of them. That's 41% of the time. So, in 4 out of 10 cases in which a prosecutor believed there was evidence to convict, the victim's lack of cooperation wasn't an issue. That's a) hardly rare or unusual and b) strong evidence that the victim's cooperation isn't necessary to move forward with a case.

I'm not. We don't know why those 678 cases were dismissed. All we know is that only 25% of investigations result in prosecution and less then half of those include unwilling complainants.

Anyhow, I think the paragraph I cited on page 14 is more relevant to this discussion, because it deals specifically with where we're at in the Beard case, i.e. the post-arrest follow up stage.

It's not because the 70% refers to cases in prosecution. We aren't in prosecution yet. According to this study, 75% of cases don't make it past that barrier. I'm also not certain what they mean when they say that because the raw numbers in their study don't support that statement. Also this is from a few sentences earlier in the same paragraph "The victim's willingness to assist with prosecution at this point significantly increases the likelihood of prosecution—nearly five times. Previous research has found victim presence at complaint (Davis et al., 2003) or charging conference (Schmidt & Steury, 1989) and full cooperation with the prosecutor (Dawson & Dinovitzer, 2001) to increase the likelihood of pros-ecution." Increasing chance of prosecution by 500% seems relevant no?

[CountryRoads]

Incident report:

https://twitter.com/anwarrichardson/status/1602441327643594752?s=46&t=Cb8dnMzXyRL81qy4VfqL1A

Regardless of whether or not he's prosecuted, I can't see a way in which he coaches another game. The decision to terminate him is probably already made.

[Pakuni]

TAMU ...  I don't think we're going to find any middle ground here, so I'll drop it.
But maybe you'll find this interesting and/or relevant:

https://www.medlinfirm.com/blog/outlining-the-no-drop-policy-in-family-texas-assault-cases/

[pbiflyer]

Suspended and withholding pay until further notice.

[Its DJOver]

Teeth marks?  This POS had better be done.

[nyg]

Incident report:

https://twitter.com/anwarrichardson/status/1602441327643594752?s=46&t=Cb8dnMzXyRL81qy4VfqL1A

Regardless of whether or not he's prosecuted, I can't see a way in which he coaches another game. The decision to terminate him is probably already made.

Thanks.  Let the others argue about this case, etc.  If it does go to court, it will be at least a year anyway, let it play out.

The affidavit by charging officer is now public and the "optics" are going to be terrible for Beard and University of Texas.
Complaint confirms assault, admits it was Beard, did not tell responding officer she doesn't want to press charges and has numerous injuries as a result.  Injuries documented and photographed. Waiting for the release of injury photographs by TMZ. Have no idea about "the recording" Beard stated he had, but will be a defense issue I presume.

Bottomline, Beard probably be gone, guilty or innocent by future court proceedings.

[Jay Bee]

Biting, hitting, strangling.. yeah, don't see him coaching again for Texas

[nyg]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/horrific-allegations-emerge-around-chris-beard-arrest/ar-AA15bWe3?cvid=f5a956f5c522453a864b13fa8ab79278

Just another article listing possible sentence and the fact the State of Texas taking the crime very seriously.

[panda]

Incident report:

https://twitter.com/anwarrichardson/status/1602441327643594752?s=46&t=Cb8dnMzXyRL81qy4VfqL1A

Regardless of whether or not he's prosecuted, I can't see a way in which he coaches another game. The decision to terminate him is probably already made.

That's just called a Texas high five

[Dr. Blackheart]

That's just called a Texas high five

In Madison it's called the Wisconsin Handcuff

[lawdog77]

Makes sense. Let's hope lawdog gives us his take on this.

Teal?

[lawdog77]

1900 block of Vista Lane is a very middle class neighborhood. Are we sure it was his house? his family?

Looked on Zillow. Zillow estimate (Zestimate ®:) 3.6M
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1901-Vista-Ln-Austin-TX-78703/29333804_zpid/

[connie]

I am betting at this point the agent is trying to put together a story that possibly allows for a "next" job

[fjm]

This whole police report. Geeesus.

https://twitter.com/anwarrichardson/status/1602441327643594752?s=46&t=40i7JrxGSp3CYzdbkb0ocw

[MuggsyB]

This whole police report. Geeesus.

https://twitter.com/anwarrichardson/status/1602441327643594752?s=46&t=40i7JrxGSp3CYzdbkb0ocw

Uhhhh. ........holy hell.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

TAMU ...  I don't think we're going to find any middle ground here, so I'll drop it.
But maybe you'll find this interesting and/or relevant:

https://www.medlinfirm.com/blog/outlining-the-no-drop-policy-in-family-texas-assault-cases/

Again this is after a prosecutor has decided to  prosecute.

I'm really not sure what we disagree on other than the definition of "rare" and "not out of the ordinary" so I think middle ground has already been reached