forums

UM Compliance Director leaves

Advertisement
Apparently we've garnered the commitment of a young man that has stellar quarterbacking skills from Danville, CA.
 
Hopefully he saw it as his job to guide us through some of this mess and is leaving because that job is over.
 
So the convicted lying conman wanted to "punch Reed in the face" for imposing rules that kept thugs like him away from the players? Reed also investigated Shapiro because he understood he was a scumbag? That doesn't sound like lack of institutional control to me. That sounds like Miami had a pulse on their rogue booster and were trying to keep him away the best they could. The NCAA has rules that coaches can only be with the coaches for so much time. The University can only do so much. Just another witch hunt from the NCAA...
 
Advertisement
Not sure why so many people are always surprised about such departures. Big state schools pay much, much better than Miami can and does. Remember, we aren't talking only football here. Kansas has a huge program when you add in basketball.
 
Picksix said:
So the convicted lying conman wanted to "punch Reed in the face" for imposing rules that kept thugs like him away from the players? Reed also investigated Shapiro because he understood he was a scumbag? That doesn't sound like lack of institutional control to me. That sounds like Miami had a pulse on their rogue booster and were trying to keep him away the best they could. The NCAA has rules that coaches can only be with the coaches for so much time. The University can only do so much. Just another witch hunt from the NCAA...
Click to expand...

Or (playing devil's advocate here), Reed did those things, but the University ignored them. I hope it's more along the lines of your reasoning.
 
Advertisement
Shogungts said:
Picksix said:
So the convicted lying conman wanted to "punch Reed in the face" for imposing rules that kept thugs like him away from the players? Reed also investigated Shapiro because he understood he was a scumbag? That doesn't sound like lack of institutional control to me. That sounds like Miami had a pulse on their rogue booster and were trying to keep him away the best they could. The NCAA has rules that coaches can only be with the coaches for so much time. The University can only do so much. Just another witch hunt from the NCAA...
Click to expand...

Or (playing devil's advocate here), Reed did those things, but the University ignored them. I hope it's more along the lines of your reasoning.
Click to expand...

He was the Athletic Director for Compliance. I think he would be the decision maker in this situation. And he took action.

Is there anyone outside of Reed who could have done anything different?
 
CANE said:
Shogungts said:
Picksix said:
So the convicted lying conman wanted to "punch Reed in the face" for imposing rules that kept thugs like him away from the players? Reed also investigated Shapiro because he understood he was a scumbag? That doesn't sound like lack of institutional control to me. That sounds like Miami had a pulse on their rogue booster and were trying to keep him away the best they could. The NCAA has rules that coaches can only be with the coaches for so much time. The University can only do so much. Just another witch hunt from the NCAA...
Click to expand...

Or (playing devil's advocate here), Reed did those things, but the University ignored them. I hope it's more along the lines of your reasoning.
Click to expand...

He was the Athletic Director for Compliance. I think he would be the decision maker in this situation. And he took action.

Is there anyone outside of Reed who could have done anything different?
Click to expand...

If the dude is getting in shouting matches with a booster in a football box at a game and both are allowed to stay around afterwards, one might question if someone above Reed told him to back off. IF (and that is a big IF) that is the case, it would be very bad. My reasoning/hope that isn't the case is one would think Reed would have left a while ago if his position was being undermined.

All I am saying is that for something like this where we dont get all of the information, it can really go one of three ways for us and the investigation; good, indifferent/neutral, or bad. In almost every case most of the posters on here assume it's good. I am not saying which one of the three this is, but rather I think we dont have enough to know from the info we have. We can debate it of course (that is what the board is for), but I like to look at it from all angles.

*Edit added the 2nd paragraph
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Back
Top