Wendelprof

If the dancing is part of the theater program, it is permitted. Weekend dancing, casual dancing, fun dancing, is not. And if one came back to campus drunk I think that would not be permitted to happen too often. The school doesn't take kindly to students who try to skirt the rules. And if you don't mind paying $100 for a t-shirt, there's great shopping in the trendy shops in Malibu, or $20 for a burger at Dukes or Paradise Cove. I know I couldn't have afforded that lifestyle when I was a student. Not much fun being so close to all that and knowing that it is beyond my resources. I do agree that there are great hiking and beach options close to school (the "free" options), but you have to have a car. No one walks in LA - or Malibu. Pepperdine's campus is as close to an on-land "island" as one can get. You have to pass guard gates to get on and off. It isn't like the rest of southern California, nor does it want to be.

Good for Sekou, but Pepperdine doesn't share all the fun of Southern California. As a Church of Christ institution, there's no drinking or dancing permitted on campus, and they strictly enforce it (yes, they expel students who break the rules). And Malibu is about 25 minutes up the coast from Santa Monica. There's quite a bit of night life in Santa Monica, there's almost none in Malibu. Great views of the ocean, but not much else from a college student's perspective. Romar is a great guy, so at least he'll be playing for one of the good guys.

It is hard being a Billiken fan. One step forward, two steps backwards. I hope we get there, but there's no doubt this will put the program back into damage control mode to some degree.

I'm not sure I'd agree that abnormally strict guidelines are a good thing. The Pac 12 initially canceled football last fall because they had abnormally strict guidelines. When the rest of the country showed that they could play football under reasonably safe protocols, the Pac 12 had a difficult time recruiting players all of a sudden. Players don't want to go to schools that will not let them play when other schools will. I agree it is a very difficult balance, but "abnormally" strict guidelines are not always good.

The issue that SLU needs to determine is how much it wants to disclose. Based on all the speculation and the school's statement, this does not involve any person's individual health which would be confidential information and cannot be publicly disclosed. If the issue is truly about the University of Richmond's protocols, there is no legal reason why SLU cannot disclose it. Now comes the interesting part. If SLU ends up deciding that its medical personnel made a bad call, then maybe you don't disclose it so as not to embarrass the person in question. The person no doubt made his best call under the circumstances, but we all make mistakes at some point. On the other hand, if the person made the right call, why not disclose the basis? Because it would embarrass the University of Richmond? I have a hard time understanding why SLU would risk hurting SLU's reputation to protect the University of Richmond. Either the Conference steps in and makes a statement that protects both schools and gives cover to both schools or it seems to me SLU should be looking out for its best interests. I'll be disappointed in the A10 if the A10 doesn't get involved.

SLU, UR, and the Conference need to get on the phone ASAP and resolve whatever the claimed issue was. Whether it ever goes public or not, the Conference needs to get involved and resolve the claimed issue before the tournament begins. The conference should issue a vague statement giving both sides cover that the apparent issue has been resolved and all is well - and that needs to be true. All parties need to pull back and take the long view. What happened today is water under the bridge, but this cannot happen again this season.

I follow the Billikens for basketball and Notre Dame for football (because SLU doesn't have a football team). ND has a fan website just like this one for Billiken fans. The ND website though has several forums. One is for the football program. Another is the "Open Forum" for fans who want to talk about other, non-football topics. The moderators of that website (and those who post) do a great job of keeping the topics separate. You want to talk politics or make a political comment - take it to the Open Forum. Billikens.com would be well served to create separate forums for Billikens sports discussion and for "open" discussions topics. But I'm not the moderator, so just sharing one approach.

I have an extended family member who is a nurse is nursing home for the elderly in St. Louis. She's scheduled to get her shot on January 11th I think she said. Out here in CA they are already vaccinating the elderly in local nursing homes. My wife's boss was there delivering some goods on Wednesday and they had an extra shot from the vial so they gave it to her as an essential worker (someone serving the elderly on a regular basis). The vaccination process has begun, but it does appear to be going too slowly. Having said all that, I would assume early vaccination of basketball players is not going to happen unless someone at SLU can get them in a trial.

I assume you were joking when you hit the "all caps" button (or you must be a millennial). Easy Ed McCauley (of the Basketball Hall of Fame) and his teammates from the 1948 team may disagree with you. They won the National Championship that year. This is a great team, and I like your passion, but I question whether this is the BEST Billiken team in history. As one of the other threads discussed, there's even reason to debate whether this is the best Billiken team in recent history. Too early to tell. Let's let the season play out.

Agree, but at some point I hope SLU gets good enough, and gets enough local talent, that at some point that door really does close if they pick another school. So long as players think they can always come back to SLU there's little downside to trying another school. At some point that needs to end. SLU needs to turn some of these "transfers back home" down to send the message that these kids need to realize their only chance of playing for SLU is if they pick SLU right out of high school.

Might it be that Nesbitt fancies himself as a "one and done" player. Maybe he doesn't think SLU and the A-10 can provide the platform he needs to get that done but Memphis can.

In reply to Roy's comments about academic scholarships, one needs to remember that most schools take diversity and overcoming economic and social hardship into account when awarding academic scholarships. It isn't simply a question of numbers (i.e., gpa and SAT/ACT scores). And yes, that is legal, particularly if you are a private school. I don't know his ACT or SAT score (and don't want to, that's his private information), but his gpa is impressive when one factors into it everything he has done and overcome. He should be congratulated on having the ability to pull that off with everything else he does and has had to deal with. No doubt the NCAA scrutinizes walk-on scholarships carefully, as they should, but just because he is a walk-on on the basketball team, he should not be held to a different standard than any other diversity student when comes to being considered for academic scholarships. Whether he received an academic scholarship or not, I applaud his academic achievements to date and wish him the best as a Billiken - on and off the court.

I got no dog in this fight, but is this 2 or 3 things? "he will only do 2 things in my book: defend and slash to basket/rebound." I think you might want to clarify how you see that as only 2 things when it sure looks like 3 to a neutral reader. Just a friendly suggestion. Heading out soon for tonight's game. It will be the only one I'll catch this year. I hope it is a W! Go Bills!

I didn't see the game, but my best guess is we just didn't match up well with Fordham. Happens in all sports. Sometimes one team just doesn't match up well against another team and you get an "unexpected result." My guess is Kalish would also be the first to say the last two games were a failure. But that doesn't make the whole season a failure. That's a spur of the moment emotional over-reaction. Kalish has turned the program around, has started to generate excitement again for the program, and appears to have recruits lined up to keep the momentum going. Vent about the day, the week, but not the season or the coach.

Disappointing to hear that they lost today, but completely disagreee with your second sentence. Kalish has the team and the program heading in the right direction. Give him time. The recruiting is going well and the future looks better than it has in years.

Went to the Chicago reception for SLU tonight. Dr Pestello, AD May, Coach Ford and the whole team turned out. Great evening. Coach Ford spoke about what a great group of kids this year's team has. He acknowledged that he can't say that about every team he has coached; that this is one of the teams that he's enjoyed coaching the most (also admitted that it will be interesting to see if he can still say that at the end of the season after the usual challenges a season brings). He talked again about playing up-tempo. I think it is more than coach speak. I think he really means it, he really wants to play up-tempo and thinks this team is built to do so (whether they can remains to be seen, but I think he's going to give them every opportunity to show they can do it). He was very positive about the players, the program, and the school. He seems like a coach who is genuinely happy with the immediate - and potentially long term - future at SLU. It was a great opportunity to meet the players. I met a handful of them (before coach took them away to watch film before tomorrow's scrimmage), and they all appeared to be impressive young men whom it will be easy to support. I live too far out of town (California, I just happened to be in Chicago so I crashed the evening) to get to many of the games, but I encourage everyone who can to catch as many games as they can. Win or lose, this will be fun group of players to support.

Adman, I applaud you for taking time to stop and read the SLU process (something I admit I haven't bother to do). I agree with almost all of your comments and concerns. The problem at this point is the university can't just make a decision, it has to follow its process. Once an institution adopts a process, it essentially makes a public declaration that it thinks this is the best and fairest process. Obviously when the university adopts a process, it does its best to take into consideration how it might apply to different types of students, but once adopted, it must be applied the same way to all students or the school immediately opens itself up to a easy claim of unfair/unequal treatment if it tries to accelerate the process for certain students. The only thing that can be done now to accelerate the process is if the HO is sensitive to the situation and decides quickly, and/or the attorney for the players submits his or her documents in a manner that minimizes the time associated with that step. I agree with you that the whole process is particularly unfair to athletes for a number of reasons, particularly if the de facto result is the player(s) loses a year of eligibility (particularly when he may have already lost one for whatever reason - transfer, injury, etc.). I have a vague recollection that the NCAA is starting to acknowledge the unfairness of that result by granting student-athletes in that situation an extra year of eligibility, but I agree that does not fully cure the problem. I sure hope if any of the players ends up losing a year of eligibility just because of the process, and not as part of any punishment, I sure hope SLU does everything it can to appeal to the NCAA to get that year back for the player. I assume that may be part of the athletic department's mentality of letting the players practice with the team and travel with the team. The athletic department is doing everything it can to send the message to the players that they are still a part of the team (at least until a decision indicates otherwise) and the athletic department is going to do whatever it can to keep them on the team (short term and long term). I think that approach probably helps to explain why the players haven't transferred yet. Whoever is responsible for that decision should also be applauded. The school is investing a lot of time and money trying to make sure that if the players can continue with the program that they will. Like any business or institution, after the situation is over I hope someone goes back and evaluates all the decisions that were made to see if the university can improve the process. Obviously one aspect of it that needs to be examined is why the students were not permitted to play while the process ran its course. I don't know the factual details or the details of SLU's policy on this point. Your comments and some of the other posts hint that it may be because one of the accusers may be involved in the athletic department/basketball operations. Can a better approach be developed for the interim period while the matter is under investigation and being decided? Your post notes the potential problems with letting both sides continue their actions as if nothing had happened. Another interesting question going back and evaluating how the situation was handled was the decision to out-source the investigation. Who made it? Why was it made? Hindsight is 20-20, but it sure seems to me someone should have thought about the time line of the process as it affects these particular student-athletes. Could a provision have been put in the contract with the outside investigator's contract that the investigation had to be done by a particular date? (Counter-argument, what outside investigator is going to agree to a timeline for completing the investigation when he or she doesn't really know the details of the matter?) Maybe a timeline provision was put in the contract, but what do you do when the investigator doesn't finish on time because she is so busy that she asks for additional time? Can't start all over again, that would run it out even longer. So all SLU can do at this point is learn from this situation. But who made that decision and what was in the contract? Seems to me that's when SLU lost control of the timeline. But at this point, all the school can do is let the process play itself out; it can't cut the process short just because the investigation took so long. Then it should go back and see if the process can be improved going forward, because it is likely that some future student-athlete will get him or herself in trouble again, and the points you raise that the current process as applied to student-athletes is not fair are legitimate.

My impression - but pure speculation - is that some of the people who post on the board have more inside information about the status of the matter than they are letting on but they are not in a position to publicly disclose it (keyser soze's quick response to my last post that yes, the players' attorney was in possession of the investigator's report is only one of several posts I'd point to). I'm fine with that, sometimes we have to keep information confidential. But based on a number of different posts my assumption is that what is frustrating some people is that it is probably one of the accusers (and/or her attorney) who is stringing out the process. A number of people have reported that one of the accusers is aggressively pursuing the matter. That makes me think that her attorney is doing likewise, asking for continuances to bring forth additional information and/or arguments. The school, in the interest of due process (and no doubt wanting to minimize the risk of any follow-up litigation) has decided to grant the attorney's requests. My guess is that's what's dragging the decision-making process out at this point - and because some people who post on the blog know it, it is contributing to their frustrations. If that's the case, is that fair? Tough call. From a legal perspective, requests for additional time are almost always granted the first time requested. After that, a judge typically becomes stinger about granting one. But if granting one means the players miss a few more games but it will increase significantly the likelihood that there will be no follow-up litigation, I'm in favor of that so long as the players are permitted to return to school and the team. If the likely outcome is the players are not permitted to return to school and the team, I stand by my earlier statement that the best thing to do would be to issue the decision in time for the players to transfer if they wish. If, however, the outcome is going to be a positive one for the players - the players are permitted to return to school and the team, if granting the accuser and her attorney a little more time in the interest of due process and closure, I'm OK with that even if it means the players miss another game or two. Pure speculation, but there are some posts that arguably support this view of the current situation. I'm sure many of you disagree with this post, but in ripping me, I'd be curious, do you disagree with my assessment of the situation or with my position that this is OK so long as the students are permitted to return to school and the team (and it doesn't extent too much longer into the new semester)? In addition, if this is why the matter is being strung out, I think some of the anger directed at the school has been unfair (again, I'm sure that will get some replies). It isn't really the school that is dragging it out, it is the lawyers (particularly, the lawyer for the accused). "The wheels of justice turn slowly" is an old, old saying - and this matter is but further evidence of that maxim. Interesting, with respect to situation 1, the school was ripped for not providing enough due process to the parties (lack of attorneys for the players). With respect to situation 2, the school is being ripped for providing too much due process to the parties (too much investigation; too much legal haggling by the attorneys for one of the parties). Can't win either way. Have at it. Just one view of the situation from afar ...

I did say that, and I still stand by it - but I assume the winter break is not over (again, I don't teach at SU and do not know the details of their academic calendar). I don't know of any school that has started classes back up yet, so I assume SLU is still within my window of acceptable timetable (but I agree, it is starting to push the limit - at least my limit). I haven't had time to go back and sweat the few details that we do know about the timeline, but it sure seems to me that matter should have been in the hands of the hearing officer (or whatever title that person has at SLU) by now and that an initial decision by the hearing officer should not take too long once all the evidence is in (though following that decision there is the appeal process). What would be interesting to know is what the respective parties know at this time. I assume the attorneys for both parties have seen the investigator's report and know the investigator's recommendation - though I admit that is pure speculation. But if my recollection of the process is correct (and the information on the board is correct), both parties saw the initial report and were given an opportunity to respond to it. That alone would give the parties' attorneys a sense of at least what the investigator was likely to recommend (at least where on the spectrum he or she was more likely to come down). I assume the attorneys are sharing that information with the respective parties. If so, the above comment from one of the players is encouraging. It MAY (I emphasize MAY) reflect his understanding of the investigator's report. I agree that it appears to indicate that he still considers himself a part of the team. One would have to think that means he thinks there is a good chance he will be back. Whether that turns out to be the case remains to be seen, but I take it as an encouraging sign for the basketball team. It is very interesting how closed mouthed everyone has been even though the investigator's report was made available to the parties. Sure seems like no one wants to chance rocking the boat as the matter heads down the stretch. All speculation, but I agree with those who are starting to see a more positive outcome for the basketball program. Who knows, we may even be in the appeals process already (again, something I think would have been conveyed to the respective parties by their attorneys).

Respectfully, that's not what I said. Fred P. is not going to punish or not punish the students because of what a handful of basketball fans say at a game. But if you go back and look at my post, it was after another poster suggested you get the student section to join in. If that many people start chanting it, that would different. As for comments about the on-going delay, whether or not the students deserve to be punished depends on the details of what was said and what happened that night, and none of us will ever know all the details. Based on what has been written on this board, I believe there is a good chance one or more of the players will be punished. If the punishment is to expel them or suspend them for another semester, if I'm the Hearing Officer, I might go ahead and let them enjoy Christmas and New Year to the extent that is possible, but then issue my ruling shortly after the first of the year so they have time to transfer if that is what they wish to do. (I understand many of you disagree with that last sentence, but I don't know many people who would want to suspend/expel a kid two days before Christmas when waiting until right after the first of the year makes little to no difference - if that's the outcome the kids aren't going to be playing in any games anyway and they won't start the transfer process until after the first of the year as all universities close for the week between the two holidays). If I were the Hearing Officer, and I thought the matter did not warrant any more punishment that what has already been imposed, I would probably push my decision up as quickly as possible. If, in fact, the decision is not issued until after the first of the year I think that increases the chances the board will not be happy with the Hearing Officer's recommended punishment (at least as applied to one of the players). Just trying to help read the tea leaves, though anything is possible.

Based on Stu's earlier post, I assume what happened was that the investigator filed a preliminary report last week. The parties then had 5 day comment period to respond to that preliminary report. Both sides probably did. They investigator then had to review those comments and create a final report that now includes a written recommendation, detailing whether there is or is not sufficient information alleged to support a finding that Prohibited Conduct occurred. This finalized report, including the written recommendation, was just given to the Hearing Officer today it sounds like. I assume that is what has been reported - that the final report, with recommendation, is now in the Hearing Officer's hands. I'm not surprised if the Hearing Officer decides to take the matter under advisement until school re-opens after the first of the year. It may be that the Hearing Officer has decided that (a) he or she doesn't want to give the impression of a rushed decision, and/or (b) in light of Christmas, the Hearing Officer has decided it is best to wait until after the holidays to issue his or her decision. I would, however, hope and expect a rather quick decision after school re-opens after the first of the year.

You can do as you wish, but the university has to bend over backwards to make it appear they are not being influenced by donors or public pressure. Chanting "free the three" at a game will probably only put more pressure on the school to punish the players to make it clear they were not subject to outside influences. Your call, but I'd advise against it if you really care about the players. You'll notice that their attorneys have been conspicuously silent throughout the process. They too realize that while the process is on-going, best to let it run its course without any appearance of outside influence or pressure. Once it is final, that's when voices can be expressed (and possibly litigation), but I'm not sure you'd be helping the cause to do it now.

I don't know if it is a matter of federal law or state law, but some universities take the position that if the Title IX complaint results in a finding of misconduct and punishment, a note that the student was disciplined for violating the student handbook is put on the student's transcript. You are correct, as a practical matter the university can't do anything to the student, but they can do something - and may be legally required to do something - to the student's SLU transcript.

I believe the university has to make a decision whether the students stay or transfer, but if the students transfer there will be less awareness of any decision. So your point is still valid. But the decision to hire arguably the best investigator out there makes me think the university assumed it would have to make a decision and defend it (or at least give the appearance of defending it since they technically can't comment on it). They've invested quite a bit of money in the investigation process. If their hope from the beginning was that the players would transfer I doubt they would have spent that much money on the investigation.

Just because classes end that is not the end of the semester administratively. The university administrative offices typically close down for the week between Christmas and New Year's Day but otherwise the university is open for business as usual administratively. I assume at this point the issue of how the situation should be handled is an administrative issue. I would assume and expect the process to continue over the semester break. And I agree with Cowboy's clarification of my comments. The university really should do everything possible to decide this matter in time for the players to transfer if that is what they decide to do after the matter is concluded. Once the investigation was completed, whatever the length and complexity of the matter, I would sure hope everything possible is being done to decide the matter in a timely manner so the players can move on/transfer if that is what they decide to do. There was the comment period following the filing of the investigator's report, and no doubt there will be an appeal period following the hearing officer's decision, but I would hope that all of that could be completed in a timely manner to permit the students to then make their own decision about what they want to do.