DaveinExile
- 53 comments
- 0 likes given
- 8 likes received
Bio not provided
Hill will get his walking papers - after the rest of the team understands that he gave LSU has no choice and on a day when the press release will earn little notice. That's how it's done these days. He's already going to lose his scholarship. No reason for LSU to grandstand on his mistake.
@DRays And perhaps you're not paying attention to things being said and argued from both extremes of the political spectrum. If you can see it easily from one side of the political spectrum but not the other, then you're likely sympathetic to that side of the political spectrum. Jarren's right. If it's acceptable when your side advocates it but wrong when the other side advocates it, it's not a principle you're after - it's an advantage.
Shouts from Row 34 have always been handled by on-site security. However, large signs (which can be policed at the door), announcements on the PA system, or things of that nature can be - and are - sanctioned. Alabama, for example, was sanctioned by the SEC for something they put onto the sound system relative to Cam during the 2010 Iron Bowl, weren't they?
I remember Steve Kerr was taunted at ASU by fans chanting "PLO PLO," a reference to the terrorist group that killed his father. It gave ASU a PR black eye, and that was probably the appropriate result. Do you think Emmert is referencing school-controlled media or fan behavior?
Two points, one to the article and one to the comments:
Why Auburn? Because enough people connected to the program are willing to talk. I doubt ESPN found that at LSU. Obviously, anyone with a tape recorder and some time on their hands can find a former Auburn player willing to say something and a second to corroborate it. HBO, then Roberts, now ESPN. Yes, the Auburn name is attractive as a ratings grabber. But so are Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and LSU, and that's just the SEC. People are digging there. Difference: no one's talking.
Auburn Perception: In addition to the proven major infractions cases, you have to add the accusations of Terry Bowden, the Tribulations of Lowder, and the entire Newton saga. Nothing was ever proven relative to those affairs, but the fact remains that Auburn has been in the headlines for the past 10 years mostly for all the wrong reasons. "It's the media's fault!" No, it's Auburn's. See point #1.
This isn't shoddy journalism. It's capitalist journalism with an advertiser-driven revenue model. Knowing that reality, why can't the "all-in" and "all about family" school keep it in the family?
It's easy to look at that "greatest hits" video and forget that those incidents happened over a period of years. In between those events, Rice was probably like most abusive personalities - charming at times, apparently normal. I'm betting Pernetti figured the behaviors were correctable with a few counseling sessions.
That said, I've seen high school coaches fired for way, way less. When a state places you in a position of authority over young people, the standards of behavior change considerably. If Pernetti can demonstrate that he had professional backing on his decision to suspend/counsel, then he's probably in good shape. If he made that decision without consulting some psychology experts, he's probably toast - and he should be, if that's the case.
She has players on tape making accusations. She needs publicity for
her web site. Mainstream media (ESPN, USA Today, etc.) has a writer who
worked for SI and the NY Times publishing a piece on Auburn football,
which allows them to sell the story without being accountable for the
content -- good for ratings, zero legal exposure. They are, after all,
all businesses and will stretch rules in order to keep money coming in.
Are Roberts and McNeil trustworthy? Doesn't matter. They are making accusations, and those accusations conform to an existing narrative established by other former players and coaches making similar accusations. You can disparage all of them as disgruntled, mistaken, or misquoted, but at some point the sheer weight of the accusations over the years leaves an indelible impression.
Emmert has made enemies, and those enemies include a lot of people in the media. Saban already had them. A story like this fits neatly into their agenda, and it's foolish to think they won't use it as fuel for their speculations.
Emmert was already a dead man walking before this story. Saban will growl, the B1G will pay anonymous bloggers to make wild accusations, and life will go on.
Vol, those are separate issues. Conflating them in the interests of "fairness" is how you end up with a lawsuit like this.
No one forces players to accept an athletic scholarship. They can market their athletic ability on the free market in any way they wish. If they choose to market it by accepting a free education, then that is their choice. If they show themselves to be an elite athlete, then they can translate that ability into a multi-million dollar payday - just like FGCU's coach did in the coaching market. If the free market were ready to accommodate a structure more "fair" than the "plantation" NCAA, then it would have done so. It hasn't. What does that tell you? That the ability of an 18 year old to play ball at a collegiate level is worth an education. If they want more than that, they can go overseas or switch to tennis or golf.
The system as currently constituted needs reform on so many levels - but all that frustration has somehow been funneled into the least productive issue on the table for all parties. If the O'Bannon lawsuit defines college athletics moving forward, then it will simply benefit revenue sports athletes at the expense of non-revenue athletes. If you consider that a "fair" outcome, go talk to Pat Summit about it. I'm betting she vehemently disagrees.
Could not agree more with the original article, just to be clear.
Could not agree more.
@Roggespierre And of course you're right. People do trade billions based on the available data, and as a result, billions change hands in unexpected ways. Industries do evolve over time, and consumer behaviors are not predictable. I just think Delany is making the same sort of qualitative assumptions about growth relative to subscriber cable that telecoms made about the demand for bandwidth, for example. Telecoms and energy companies were considered the safest of investments just before they went bust - but they went bust in part because they all went mad trying to secure future market share from other industry competitors, investing too much and expanding too rapidly.
People can find parallels in anything and everything. It's not that difficult. Maryland was the point for me where I stopped ignoring those parallels as random noise. It could be that the death of the ACC and Big East make these moves worth it for Delany regardless of where subscriber cable heads from here. Who knows? But I am betting against Delany on this one, and I think we'll see the results during his tenure as conference commissioner.
I think these new conferences are built on assumptions about consumer media behavior and media business models which are not going to be sustainable in the long term. I've backed down to an HDTV antenna and a wireless plan. I'm one of those people who horded Sports Illustrated magazines in boxes in the attics as a kid and kept an extra remote in the closet in case I broke one over a bad call. I have 2 kids who love nothing better than going to Chapel Hill for a weekend, especially if a game is involved. But we watch 4 or 5 games a year, football and basketball, on TV. I can afford Uverse's 500 channels - I just find it an exceptionally poor value for the money.
This is beginning to feel like the housing bubble to me. Spare me the lectures about classic economic definitions of market behaviors necessary to meet the discipline's formal criteria. When I see this many assumptions being made about future revenues, and the size of the decisions being driven by those assumptions, I call that a bubble. I'd love to figure out how to sell Delany short on this one.
March Madness is making basketball a tough proposition for middle-tier BCS schools. At this point, being Maryland, Alabama, Virginia, Tennessee, or Washington has proven to be a disadvantage relative to schools like Butler, Creighton, VCU, UNLV and Gonzaga. Doug McDermott would not be a 4 year automatic ticket to the NCAA tournament in Knoxville or Tuscaloosa. He is at a small school in Omaha. Sorry - that ain't right.
Everyone knows the rules, so you're right - no complaining about the lack of bids. Complaining about the system, however, is fine. Blow it up.
Can't wait for the football conferences to break away and take basketball with them. I am so sick of CBB turning into an argument over the relative merits of Creighton, St. Mary's and the 5th place team from the SEC, all for the right to see which one can best injure a key player on a team with an actual shot to win the tournament.
I appreciate what you're doing here. That frustration is entirely directed at the NCAA.
@j_scott_o Let's say we kick two off Day 1 and the other two off Day 10. Now you obviously have to explain the difference in your reasoning - and that becomes the gap where legal issues could take root one way or the other.
Versus: all 4 off on Day 10. No differences to explain. No multiplication (x2) of potential complications. Standard HR approach, actually.
Accelerating the timetable accomplishes nothing for the university, the players, or even the victims. It just makes some newsreaders happy. And you know what? They are entitled to their opinions, but those opinions should probably not be driving the bus.
UA handled this perfectly and professionally.
@j_scott_o Go back and read my post. I was evaluating the possible responses, which were: (A) can all 4 immediately, (B) can the Confessed 2 immediately and Non-Confessed 2 later via different criteria, or (C) can all 4 at the same time, but later. My point was that Saban was going to get criticized to some degree no matter which of those options he chose. I think that (C) minimized the risks to the university on all legal and PR fronts, and I know a number of PR and legal experts who agree.
I'm not sure how you see that argument as a "red herring." It goes straight to the core issues of this debate.
Better question: How many in the press would have demanded due process if Saban had canned all four immediately/ How many in the press would have accused Saban of splitting hairs if he had canned two immediately and left the other two to a different process? Saban was going to get criticized from some direction no matter what course of action he chose. The press is too large and too diverse to think otherwise. And if you want to be honest about it, so is the Alabama fan base. Some wanted players gone forthwith. Others saw merit in waiting two weeks. Both sides have merit.
We all like to think our own positions adhere to principles while other people with different opinions simply make convenient arguments to defend a preconceived bias or achieve an ulterior motive. The truth is that opinions vary for a simple reason - we all see different values at stake in the proceedings.
@John at MrSEC @AllTideUp @Brad_ATX In fairness, you did wonder aloud if some of the players would find their way back to active status. I think some people assumed that constituted a criticism of Saban's values/motives.
I guess my sarcasm wasn't over the top enough.
I was firmly in the camp that predicted all 4 would be dismissed at the same time, narrowing the potential PR issues by a factor of 10. Dismissing them piece-meal, or even 2x2, made no sense for the university at all. The idea that waiting two weeks here somehow communicated permissiveness is, to me, an obviously absurd assertion on its face. But I guess not.