NoahZach
Freshman
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Messages
- 499
A more involved response to Linda due to the offensive nature of her opinion--
You can't possibly be serious.
"She should also be ready to reveal the charges against UM."
Because the media wants to see them? Why should UM encourage more media sensationalism surrounding matters when the first run at sensationalism by irresponsible Yahoo Sports proved to be so flawed and damaging.
"But her school, under her watch, has been accused of “lack of institutional control,” the Doomsday Switch of NCAA accusations. If that is unfair or unsubstantiated, then show why."
UM will do that in the proper forum. UM does not have to show that to you or prepare its opposition for the coming hearing. Pretty basic concept. Besides, it seems like you are asking for UM to release the NOA, which just contains allegations, not facts or UM's response to the allegations.
"The NCAA has been criticized as the “pot calling the kettle black” by botching its investigation of unethical behavior at UM with unethical behavior by its enforcement staff. UM can and should avoid similar criticism that it is being hypocritical in its reaction."
So because media and commentators use a pot/kettle analogy, UM now has an obligation to take action? UM isn't accusing the NCAA of anything. The NCAA admitted its own misconduct. The NCAA admits it is the pot. UM denies that it is the kettle. Clearly, you believe that it is--while complaining that you have not seen the evidence one way or the other.
"Shalala sees an opening. NCAA president Mark Emmert ordered an investigation of the investigation, and 20 percent of the evidence was discarded."
No, Emmert ordered a self-investigation (not an independent investigation) of only one aspect of the NCAA investigation. Maybe you should opine on that. Maybe you should ask the NCAA to be transparent and release all of the information generated during its "sort-of" investigation. Nah, easier to play the role of contrarian just for attention.
"Does UM deserve harsher penalties? Was banning itself from what would have been a marginal bowl game and an ACC title game it might have lost enough? Was Al Golden’s small but rapidly growing signing class enough?"
UM banned itself from two bowl games, not just one. Coach Golden has recruited under a cloud for years. You appear to be blind to the true impact of this matter.
"Keep in mind that USC got docked 30 scholarships for the actions of one athlete, Reggie Bush, and one rogue agent, and bitter Trojan fans maintain former UM athletic director and infractions committee chair Paul Dee was “out to get” USC."
There was a lot more involved there, including a substantial lack of cooperation from USC that motivated harsh sanctions to deter other programs from responding the same way--and that worked, given the manner in which UM responded, based on that example.
"Shapiro was greasing palms for a decade."
And you know this how? Have you examined all of the evidence and satisfied yourself of its accuracy?
"The guy was a con man, sure, who duped gullible, greedy people out of lots of their money. But he was also a walking, talking, blinking red-arrow sign."
Seriously? So now Shapiro's victims all are gullible and greedy? I'm amazed that you have the temerity to make that naked allegation concerning people victimized by a con man. No wonder UM does not want to share information, given the proof you provide of how the media will treat it. By the way, you've reported on UM for more years than Shapiro was around the program and you never saw this walking, talking, blinking red-arrow sign, right?
"Haith allegedly paid Shapiro not to rat on recruiting entertainments by his staff."
Using an unproven allegation to make a point? And you want UM to share other allegations with you?
"Despite the obvious smell oozing from Shapiro, UM named a players’ lounge after him. Shalala accepted a giant check from him at a bowling party, he was on team planes and game sidelines."
What is this obvious smell that you notice only in hindsight? The guy spent years presenting himself in the community as a successful businessman, so much so that people invested close to a billion dollars with him. Why do you refuse to accept the fact that he duped a lot of people, many of whom are very smart and honorable? Does your bias so blind you?
"An NCAA conspiracy against UM? No, just the same lack of oversight in Indianapolis as there was in Coral Gables."
Really? So, investigators intentionally circumventing direct orders from the legal department is just a lack of oversight? Investigators reportedly (because you accept allegations) failing to conduct interviews of key witnesses that may provide exculpatory or favorable information for the target of the investigation is just a lack of oversight?
"But if she wants the public to take her word for it, she should not use her NCAA jabs as a diversionary tactic to hide damaging information."
Who said that she wants the public to take her word for it? Who says that she is hiding damaging information? The NOA just contains allegations. It does not include the facts supporting the allegations. You don't want facts. You want accusations--and those already have been proven to be harmful and, in many case, flat wrong. Why should UM further harm itself to satisfy your curiosity? Who apologizes to or vindicates Dequan Jones and his family if, in fact, there is no substantial evidence to back up the accusation printed in the Yahoo Sports story? Have you done so or suggested that someone do so? What about Yahoo Sports?
"Shalala is the worthy foe the NCAA needs as it attempts reforms, again. She’s going to fight, but she ought to fight fair."
Because the NCAA has fought fair so far? Let me know how those interviews went with Paul Dee and the others that UM asked the NCAA to interview. Remind me again of the fairness in the NCAA conducting a self-investigation of only part of its admittedly unethical and botched investigation. Are you demanding that the NCAA open all of its information to the public?
You can't possibly be serious.
"She should also be ready to reveal the charges against UM."
Because the media wants to see them? Why should UM encourage more media sensationalism surrounding matters when the first run at sensationalism by irresponsible Yahoo Sports proved to be so flawed and damaging.
"But her school, under her watch, has been accused of “lack of institutional control,” the Doomsday Switch of NCAA accusations. If that is unfair or unsubstantiated, then show why."
UM will do that in the proper forum. UM does not have to show that to you or prepare its opposition for the coming hearing. Pretty basic concept. Besides, it seems like you are asking for UM to release the NOA, which just contains allegations, not facts or UM's response to the allegations.
"The NCAA has been criticized as the “pot calling the kettle black” by botching its investigation of unethical behavior at UM with unethical behavior by its enforcement staff. UM can and should avoid similar criticism that it is being hypocritical in its reaction."
So because media and commentators use a pot/kettle analogy, UM now has an obligation to take action? UM isn't accusing the NCAA of anything. The NCAA admitted its own misconduct. The NCAA admits it is the pot. UM denies that it is the kettle. Clearly, you believe that it is--while complaining that you have not seen the evidence one way or the other.
"Shalala sees an opening. NCAA president Mark Emmert ordered an investigation of the investigation, and 20 percent of the evidence was discarded."
No, Emmert ordered a self-investigation (not an independent investigation) of only one aspect of the NCAA investigation. Maybe you should opine on that. Maybe you should ask the NCAA to be transparent and release all of the information generated during its "sort-of" investigation. Nah, easier to play the role of contrarian just for attention.
"Does UM deserve harsher penalties? Was banning itself from what would have been a marginal bowl game and an ACC title game it might have lost enough? Was Al Golden’s small but rapidly growing signing class enough?"
UM banned itself from two bowl games, not just one. Coach Golden has recruited under a cloud for years. You appear to be blind to the true impact of this matter.
"Keep in mind that USC got docked 30 scholarships for the actions of one athlete, Reggie Bush, and one rogue agent, and bitter Trojan fans maintain former UM athletic director and infractions committee chair Paul Dee was “out to get” USC."
There was a lot more involved there, including a substantial lack of cooperation from USC that motivated harsh sanctions to deter other programs from responding the same way--and that worked, given the manner in which UM responded, based on that example.
"Shapiro was greasing palms for a decade."
And you know this how? Have you examined all of the evidence and satisfied yourself of its accuracy?
"The guy was a con man, sure, who duped gullible, greedy people out of lots of their money. But he was also a walking, talking, blinking red-arrow sign."
Seriously? So now Shapiro's victims all are gullible and greedy? I'm amazed that you have the temerity to make that naked allegation concerning people victimized by a con man. No wonder UM does not want to share information, given the proof you provide of how the media will treat it. By the way, you've reported on UM for more years than Shapiro was around the program and you never saw this walking, talking, blinking red-arrow sign, right?
"Haith allegedly paid Shapiro not to rat on recruiting entertainments by his staff."
Using an unproven allegation to make a point? And you want UM to share other allegations with you?
"Despite the obvious smell oozing from Shapiro, UM named a players’ lounge after him. Shalala accepted a giant check from him at a bowling party, he was on team planes and game sidelines."
What is this obvious smell that you notice only in hindsight? The guy spent years presenting himself in the community as a successful businessman, so much so that people invested close to a billion dollars with him. Why do you refuse to accept the fact that he duped a lot of people, many of whom are very smart and honorable? Does your bias so blind you?
"An NCAA conspiracy against UM? No, just the same lack of oversight in Indianapolis as there was in Coral Gables."
Really? So, investigators intentionally circumventing direct orders from the legal department is just a lack of oversight? Investigators reportedly (because you accept allegations) failing to conduct interviews of key witnesses that may provide exculpatory or favorable information for the target of the investigation is just a lack of oversight?
"But if she wants the public to take her word for it, she should not use her NCAA jabs as a diversionary tactic to hide damaging information."
Who said that she wants the public to take her word for it? Who says that she is hiding damaging information? The NOA just contains allegations. It does not include the facts supporting the allegations. You don't want facts. You want accusations--and those already have been proven to be harmful and, in many case, flat wrong. Why should UM further harm itself to satisfy your curiosity? Who apologizes to or vindicates Dequan Jones and his family if, in fact, there is no substantial evidence to back up the accusation printed in the Yahoo Sports story? Have you done so or suggested that someone do so? What about Yahoo Sports?
"Shalala is the worthy foe the NCAA needs as it attempts reforms, again. She’s going to fight, but she ought to fight fair."
Because the NCAA has fought fair so far? Let me know how those interviews went with Paul Dee and the others that UM asked the NCAA to interview. Remind me again of the fairness in the NCAA conducting a self-investigation of only part of its admittedly unethical and botched investigation. Are you demanding that the NCAA open all of its information to the public?
