Awful Commentary

[slufanskip]

You quote a Rick Reilly article for your support??? Great! Like Majerus doesn't have buddies in the media world. We don't have to debate anymore. I answered your question and said that if it was a one-time incident, then it's no big deal. However when a pattern is noted, that is when the NCAA gets involved.

By the way, Majerus is unapologetic, even though the rules were drafted by college presidents and not the NCAA. It is his duty to follow them. That would be the ethical and right thing to do.

Without looking at the NCAA findings, which I have been unable to find, you can only go by second-hand accounts. I trust the NCAA and the job that they do.

Here's another perspective on the Majerus-era violations:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,600110100,00.html

Those items were wrong and he should have gotten reprimnded. I also said he didn't pay enough attention to detail. But, many of the things he was hit for were things he'd have been wrong not to do imo.

The debate wasn't was RM perfect or did he have violations, it was about the fact you were grouping his violations as being the same as MU's. They aren't .... they aren't even close. You tried to make the argument that it didn't matter that any violations make you a immorral hire and all violations should be treated the same. You then admit you have no problem with 1 of the violations ... and I would bet if you were being honest (because though we frequently disagree, I get the impression you're a good guy) there are a few other violations that you yourself would have comitted even if you had known they were violations. They were just the right thing to do .... and sometimes you have to follow your conscious regardless of the rules. (Not all rules are fair or just) Also, remember RM lives in a hotel, he doesn't have a house to host team parties (which is legal to a certain level). What he should have done was lease the house for $100. bucks a month ... it would have then been his.

You think the NCAA is fair? How is Duke allowed to hire players relatives at 3-4 times their previous earnings and pay them 3-4 times the pay of the last person in the position though they have no experience for the job? How come KS is continually allowed to hire players parents or "handlers" as coaches and then dismiss them when the kid is gone? More than once after the kid has verbaled to another school. You don't hear a peep from the NCAA. You can just imagine how bad IU's violations had to have been to get punished. How often do the NCAA's cash cows get nailed? You think maybe the big boys didn't like Utah playing at their party? How come Yahoo had to uncover the UConn mess .... though the connections were so obvious you'd have to just not care to miss them?

[GOSLU68]

You quote a Rick Reilly article for your support??? Great! Like Majerus doesn't have buddies in the media world. We don't have to debate anymore. I answered your question and said that if it was a one-time incident, then it's no big deal. However when a pattern is noted, that is when the NCAA gets involved.

By the way, Majerus is unapologetic, even though the rules were drafted by college presidents and not the NCAA. It is his duty to follow them. That would be the ethical and right thing to do.

Without looking at the NCAA findings, which I have been unable to find, you can only go by second-hand accounts. I trust the NCAA and the job that they do.

Here's another perspective on the Majerus-era violations:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,600110100,00.html

I was just looking up SLU recruits and for some reason this info on Mizzou violations appeard as about the fifth choice; since you couldn't find it I thought you might like it. I am sure it is a synopsis and you could find more detail if you cared to. Probably there are articles re: Norm Stewart, Rich Daly, possibly even Sunvold who I believe was an assistant about the same time as Daly but must work as an announcer now. I am not a Mizzou fan so this is just recollection and I am sure some on their board would fill you in especially the guys who troll here. "NCAA News Release

University Of Missouri, Columbia Penalized For Violations In The Men's Basketball Program

Embargoed Until

3 p.m. Eastern time Wednesday, November 3, 2004

Contact(s)

Erik Christianson

Director for Public and Media Relations

317/917-6115

Email this page

Print this page

Link to this page

Related Links:

» Report by the Committee on Infractions

INDIANAPOLIS—The University of Missouri, Columbia has been placed on probation for three years and will face limits on recruiting, scholarships and official visits for violations in the men's basketball program, the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions announced today.

This case involved numerous recruiting violations, impermissible extra benefits and a charge of failure by the institution and the head men's basketball coach to adequately monitor the men's basketball program for rules compliance.

The university stressed that the majority of violations were isolated or inadvertent, a claim the committee rejected.

The committee pointed out that the university already had an experienced and knowledgeable compliance staff in place when the head coach and his new staff began working at the institution in April 1999.

"The men's basketball staff had the benefit of extensive rules education and proper compliance procedures," the committee said. "Nevertheless, the men's basketball staff took risks and pushed the limits with respect to recruiting legislation, particularly while recruiting top prospects. In too many cases, the limits on permissible recruiting activity were exceeded.

Viewed individually, the violations were not egregious, but when viewed in the aggregate, the violations were significant and represented an attempt to gain unfair recruiting advantages."

The committee made particular mention of how the Missouri men's basketball staff "took risks" in recruiting a certain young man at the center of this case. The young man, who was referenced in the infractions report as "the two-year college prospect," was recruited from a junior college and had a "troubled past," the committee said. While attending Missouri, the young man was arrested and convicted of battering his friend. After being removed from the team, he made several "highly-publicized" allegations of NCAA rules violations against the university's men’s basketball staff, according to the committee.

The University of Missouri System president referenced the risk involved in recruiting this particular student-athlete at the infractions hearing in August, the committee noted in its report. Specifically, the president said: "There is no doubt that considerable risk was taken in the recruitment of (the two-year college prospect). It was a risk that was not worth taking and will not be taken again."

In its public report, the committee outlined its findings in this case, including several recruiting violations from the 1999-00 to 2002-03 academic years. The committee also found that the former associate head coach violated NCAA principles of honesty when he did not provide complete information on expense vouchers regarding the affiliation of many individuals.

The former associate head coach was found to have purchased meals for 10 individuals affiliated with Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) and other non-scholastic basketball teams on approximately 38 occasions from 1999-02. These individuals were involved in teaching or directing Missouri prospects on these teams. Total cost of these meals for these individuals and the former associate head coach was $5,241.15.

The committee noted that if the individuals had been correctly identified on the expense vouchers, "the compliance staff would have immediately recognized that there was a violation and the practice could have been stopped." The committee also noted that "although the case is very close," the evidence did not support a finding of unethical conduct against the former associate head coach.

Recruiting violations by the former associate head coach involved providing transportation for two prospects and their coach to visit campus in June 2001; impermissible contact with a recruit’s father at the AAU Super Showcase in Orlando, Florida, in July 2002; impermissible contact with a prospect in summer 1999 following an AAU event; and impermissible contact with two prospective student-athletes after he attended one of their practices and was introduced to them by their head coach.

Other violations in this case involved multiple impermissible telephone contacts by the men’s basketball staff from 1999 to 2003. These contacts involved calls to a prospect attending another four-year institution by the head coach, a former assistant coach ("former assistant coach A") and the director of basketball operations, even though they had not received permission from the institution to contact the recruit. Calls also were made to six other prospects by the men's basketball staff, including the former associate head coach. The university asserted that the violations were inadvertent mistakes caused by lack of communication. The committee disagreed, saying the calls "were part of a pattern of recruiting violations."

The committee mentioned in its public report that numerous violations of NCAA recruiting legislation took place at Missouri specifically during the recruitment of the two-year college prospect.

Former assistant coach A visited the prospect at the College of Southern Idaho and attended one of his practices during 2000-01, even though the visit was not allowable because the recruit was an NCAA nonqualifier and in his first year at the two-year institution. Former assistant coach A also called the prospect more than once between January and April 2002, and he arranged for the prospect to stay with a men’s basketball student-athlete at no cost for approximately two weeks in Columbia, Missouri. The head coach also violated NCAA guidelines by visiting with the two-year college prospect following a College of Southern Idaho game in St. George, Utah, in February 2002.

Other violations of NCAA bylaws in the Missouri case involved men’s basketball and institutional staff members providing impermissible extra benefits to the two-year college prospect after he enrolled at the university. Specifically:

* In fall 2002, the head coach gave the two-year college prospect a pair of Oakley cross-training shoes, a pair of Oakley flip flops and two pairs of Oakley pants. In February 2003, the head coach’s wife gave the prospect a belated Christmas gift including a Nike winter coat and Nike book bag. Total value of the items was approximately $485. In addition, in the 2002-03 academic year and with the head coach’s approval, the head coach’s wife provided the two-year college prospect food items in their home on various occasions, in violation of the occasional-meal legislation.

* After the two-year college prospect was arrested for battery, the director of basketball operations facilitated the payment of the prospect’s $1,000 bail bond by collecting money from men's basketball student-athletes and delivering it to the bail bondsman.

* In July 2003, former assistant coach A let the close friend of the two-year college prospect stay at his home overnight at no charge while the friend was in Columbia, Missouri, to visit the prospect in the Boone County Jail. The former assistant coach provided transportation for the friend between his home, the Hearnes Center and the Boone County Jail. The men's basketball manager, meanwhile, provided the friend transportation between the St. Louis International Airport and Columbia

* In 2002-03, an athletics department tutor/mentor provided the two-year prospect transportation in excess of the local transportation legislation, which involved about 20 trips between Reality House and campus while the prospect was serving probation.

* Multiple men's basketball student-athletes, including the two-year college prospect, received meals at restaurants as part of a prospective student-athlete's official paid visit, even though the student-athletes were not the designated host.

An allegation that the former associate head coach provided $250 to the two-year college prospect in fall 2002 was not found by the committee after a review of the evidence.

The committee determined that the university "demonstrated a failure to adequately monitor" for NCAA rules compliance in the men’s basketball program when the head coach "failed at times" to maintain rules compliance among his staff. Specifically, the head coach failed to adequately monitor for impermissible telephone calls, impermissible contacts with recruits, meals for student-athletes during official visits and improper lodging arrangements for a prospective student-athlete.

In its public report, the committee noted the head coach's comments during the infractions hearing about his responsibilities to monitor his program: "… And I was not as hands-on as I think I need to be. I also think, and I don't offer these as excuses, but by way of explanation, I think that is what the question was, do I think it is an aspect of my job that, one, I don't know if I realized how big it was. I think I realized it was important. I didn't realize the magnitude and the level of attention to detail and the emphasis that I needed to place on it as a head coach, to assure that everything is getting tied down, and that there isn't a disconnect …."

The committee considered the institution's self-imposed penalties and corrective actions and has imposed the following penalties:

* The University of Missouri, Columbia, shall be publicly reprimanded and censured.

* The university is placed on probation for three years starting November 3, 2004, and ending November 2, 2007, (the university placed the men's basketball program on a two-year probation that began July 1, 2004).

* All men's basketball coaching staff members are prohibited from engaging in any off-campus recruiting activities for one year starting November 3, 2004, and ending November 2, 2005. This prohibition applies to all off-campus appearances where prospects may be in attendance, including exceptions provided in NCAA Bylaw 13.1.9. (The university prohibited the head coach from off-campus recruiting for seven days during the July 2004 evaluation.)

* The university reduced the number of available scholarships in men's basketball from 13 to 12 for 2005-06 and further stipulated that no more than two initial scholarships could be awarded for that academic year. Additional penalties imposed by the committee include reducing scholarships from 13 to 11 for 2006-07. The university may decide to reduce the number of scholarships by two in 2005-06 rather than 2006-07, which would allow it to reduce scholarships by one (from 13 to 12) in 2006-07.

* The university must reduce the number of official expense-paid visits in men's basketball from 12 to nine for 2004-05 and 12 to nine in 2005-06. The university has the option of delaying this penalty by one year and imposing the reductions in 2005-06 and 2006-07.

* The university issued two letters of admonition, a letter of reprimand and a public letter of reprimand to the head coach for his involvement in this case. The university has also stated that the head coach's employment contract will not be renegotiated, amended or extended during a two-year period that began July 1, 2004, and ending June 30, 2006. The head coach's base salary has been frozen for that two-year period. The head coach was restricted from all recruiting for a three-week period in February and March 2003, and he was restricted from off-campus recruiting for seven consecutive days from July 16-26, 2004. In addition, the head coach made a formal, public apology May 11, 2004.

* The university issued a letter of admonishment to the former associate head coach July 2, 2003, and he was placed on paid administrative leave as of May 11, 2004. He resigned effective June 25, 2004.

* The university issued two letters of admonishment to former assistant coach A in March and July 2003. He was placed on paid administrative leave as of May 11, 2004, and resigned effective May 26, 2004.

* The university issued a letter of admonishment to the director of basketball operations on July 2, 2003, and a letter of reprimand August 2, 2004.

* The university issued a letter of admonishment to a financial aid compliance coordinator March 4, 2004.

During the period of probation, the university shall do the following:

* Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation, including seminars and testing, to instruct the coaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department personnel and all university staff members with responsibility for the certification of student-athletes for admission, retention, financial aid or competition.

* Submit a preliminary report to the office of the NCAA Committee on Infractions by January 15, 2005, setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program; and

* File with the office of the Committee on Infractions annual compliance reports indicating progress made with this program by August 15, of each year during the probationary period.

* Particular emphasis should be placed on adherence to NCAA recruiting legislation, particularly recruiting contacts, as well as legislation relating to extra benefits. The reports must also include documentation of the university’s compliance with the penalties (adopted and) imposed by the committee.

* At the conclusion of the probationary period, the university’s chancellor shall provide a letter to the committee affirming that the university’s current athletics policies and practices conform to all NCAA regulations.

As required for any institution involved in a major infractions case, the University of Missouri, Columbia, is subject to the repeat violator bylaw for a five-year period beginning November 3, 2004, the effective date of the penalties in this case.

The members of the NCAA Committee on Infractions who heard this case are Thomas E. Yeager, committee chair and commissioner of the Colonial Athletic Association; Paul T. Dee, director of athletics, University of Miami (Florida); Alfred J. Lechner Jr., attorney, Princeton, New Jersey; Gene A. March, law professor, University of Alabama; Andrea L. Myers, director of athletics, Indiana State University; James Park Jr., attorney, Lexington, Kentucky, and Eugene D. Smith, director of athletics, Arizona State University."

[aj_arete]

Those items were wrong and he should have gotten reprimnded. I also said he didn't pay enough attention to detail. But, many of the things he was hit for were things he'd have been wrong not to do imo.

The debate wasn't was RM perfect or did he have violations, it was about the fact you were grouping his violations as being the same as MU's. They aren't .... they aren't even close. You tried to make the argument that it didn't matter that any violations make you a immorral hire and all violations should be treated the same. You then admit you have no problem with 1 of the violations ... and I would bet if you were being honest (because though we frequently disagree, I get the impression you're a good guy) there are a few other violations that you yourself would have comitted even if you had known they were violations. They were just the right thing to do .... and sometimes you have to follow your conscious regardless of the rules. (Not all rules are fair or just) Also, remember RM lives in a hotel, he doesn't have a house to host team parties (which is legal to a certain level). What he should have done was lease the house for $100. bucks a month ... it would have then been his.

You think the NCAA is fair? How is Duke allowed to hire players relatives at 3-4 times their previous earnings and pay them 3-4 times the pay of the last person in the position though they have no experience for the job? How come KS is continually allowed to hire players parents or "handlers" as coaches and then dismiss them when the kid is gone? More than once after the kid has verbaled to another school. You don't hear a peep from the NCAA. You can just imagine how bad IU's violations had to have been to get punished. How often do the NCAA's cash cows get nailed? You think maybe the big boys didn't like Utah playing at their party? How come Yahoo had to uncover the UConn mess .... though the connections were so obvious you'd have to just not care to miss them?

You talk about me twisting things for my benefit, but look at you. You state that I said that what Majerus did was the same as Mizzou. I said no such thing. That is fantasy. I said that SLU's moral compass changed after the firing of Soderberg and that SLU fans can no longer claim moral superiority with the hiring of Majerus. As I stated before, I have not seen the NCAA findings, but that article from the Desert News is quite different from the Rick Reilly article. Don't you agree?

Did you see mention of ONE item mentioned by Reilly?

Doesn't that concern you that the reporter from Utah had to resort to Open Records law to basically refute the contentions made by Majerus that the violations were silly?

If these violations were so minor, why couldn't Majerus come clean with the public with the true story of using a booster's house to entertain athletes?

Were any of Mizzou's violations considered major or were they all considered minor?

After reading this story, it has given me more clarification on the issues and I must admit that Majerus' actions were worse than I thought. Of course, I always trusted that the NCAA did the right thing anyway.

[slufanskip]

You talk about me twisting things for my benefit, but look at you. You state that I said that what Majerus did was the same as Mizzou. I said no such thing. That is fantasy. I said that SLU's moral compass changed after the firing of Soderberg and that SLU fans can no longer claim moral superiority with the hiring of Majerus. As I stated before, I have not seen the NCAA findings, but that article from the Desert News is quite different from the Rick Reilly article. Don't you agree?

Did you see mention of ONE item mentioned by Reilly?

Doesn't that concern you that the reporter from Utah had to resort to Open Records law to basically refute the contentions made by Majerus that the violations were silly?

If these violations were so minor, why couldn't Majerus come clean with the public with the true story of using a booster's house to entertain athletes?

Were any of Mizzou's violations considered major or were they all considered minor?

After reading this story, it has given me more clarification on the issues and I must admit that Majerus' actions were worse than I thought. Of course, I always trusted that the NCAA did the right thing anyway.

Well then I misundertood the gist of your statement. My bad. You do then agree that RM's violations were no where near as bad as Mizzou's then correct?

I never stated RM was 100% correct in what he did. I do however feel that your assertion that SLU's moral compass is damaged by the hiring of RM. is violations were all minor. I get the impression he didn't feel using the house was wrong. If had and was intentionally breaking the rule, he could have just worked out a sweetheart deal to lease the house .... He should have been more aware of the NCAA rules and he shouldn't have had what appears to have been a careless attitude towards the rules.

However aren't you saying that SLU's moral compass was damaged by the hiring of RM. But somehow you've defended MA's handling of the Butterfield

situation and don't seem to feel that has made him less moral. How is that so? Or are you saying the same guidelines you've set for SLU also apply to MA and he in fact is a less moral person for continuing on with Butterfield and others.

[slufanskip]

You talk about me twisting things for my benefit, but look at you. You state that I said that what Majerus did was the same as Mizzou. I said no such thing. That is fantasy. I said that SLU's moral compass changed after the firing of Soderberg and that SLU fans can no longer claim moral superiority with the hiring of Majerus. As I stated before, I have not seen the NCAA findings, but that article from the Desert News is quite different from the Rick Reilly article. Don't you agree?

Did you see mention of ONE item mentioned by Reilly?

Doesn't that concern you that the reporter from Utah had to resort to Open Records law to basically refute the contentions made by Majerus that the violations were silly?

If these violations were so minor, why couldn't Majerus come clean with the public with the true story of using a booster's house to entertain athletes?

Were any of Mizzou's violations considered major or were they all considered minor?

After reading this story, it has given me more clarification on the issues and I must admit that Majerus' actions were worse than I thought. Of course, I always trusted that the NCAA did the right thing anyway.

One more thing?

Have you ever broken a law? If so .... how dare you criticize SLU's hiring of RM, you have no right ...

Now of course if you never have .... then so be it, criticize away.

Seems ridiculous doesn't it. Because SLU hired RM who was cited for minor violations, their fans can no longer comment on or criticize a school who has committed major violations, clearly intentionally. I'm sorry, I just don't agree with that. And ... like I said, I have no criticim of MA. Dealing with young kids from some of the backgrounds they come from is tough. I'm not sure any of them were kids MA brought in. They were already there, he stepped into a mess. Imo he did right by erring on the side of giving the kid or kids additional chances. I think he's done a fantastic job and would feel the same if he finished the year ranked 50. He's paid to win and as long as he was on the way to doing that and bringing in good kids himself .... I'm good with that.

[GOSLU68]

One more thing?

Have you ever broken a law? If so .... how dare you criticize SLU's hiring of RM, you have no right ...

Now of course if you never have .... then so be it, criticize away.

Seems ridiculous doesn't it. Because SLU hired RM who was cited for minor violations, their fans can no longer comment on or criticize a school who has committed major violations, clearly intentionally. I'm sorry, I just don't agree with that. And ... like I said, I have no criticim of MA. Dealing with young kids from some of the backgrounds they come from is tough. I'm not sure any of them were kids MA brought in. They were already there, he stepped into a mess. Imo he did right by erring on the side of giving the kid or kids additional chances. I think he's done a fantastic job and would feel the same if he finished the year ranked 50. He's paid to win and as long as he was on the way to doing that and bringing in good kids himself .... I'm good with that.

For those of us who live in Missouri; Anderson is a very good coach who will probably not cost the University more than

his salary. What was the real cost of Quin? Law suits, paying off coaches and administrators to get out of their contracts

and more. The less we hear about Mizzou in St. Louis the happier I am.

[aj_arete]

Well then I misundertood the gist of your statement. My bad. You do then agree that RM's violations were no where near as bad as Mizzou's then correct?

I never stated RM was 100% correct in what he did. I do however feel that your assertion that SLU's moral compass is damaged by the hiring of RM. is violations were all minor. I get the impression he didn't feel using the house was wrong. If had and was intentionally breaking the rule, he could have just worked out a sweetheart deal to lease the house .... He should have been more aware of the NCAA rules and he shouldn't have had what appears to have been a careless attitude towards the rules.

However aren't you saying that SLU's moral compass was damaged by the hiring of RM. But somehow you've defended MA's handling of the Butterfield

situation and don't seem to feel that has made him less moral. How is that so? Or are you saying the same guidelines you've set for SLU also apply to MA and he in fact is a less moral person for continuing on with Butterfield and others.

Given what I heard from the media and general knowledge, I thought Majerus' violations weren't close to Mizzou. However given the information from the Desert News and comparing punishments, they're more comparable that I originally thought. Did Mizzou's probation exceed three years? Did they lose materially more scholarships than Utah? From my memory, the penalties seem similar, but GOSLU68 and others can prove my recollections wrong and my knowledge will be enhanced.

As for Mike Anderson's actions, I stated that I needed more information. I do not consider an instructor, parent, or coach providing grace for a person's bad actions being immoral necessarily. Here are the circumstances that would lead me to change my perception of Mike Anderson's character:

When Mike Anderson stated that that he would give zero tolerance for bad behavior, did he specifically say that any player committing a specific infraction would be kicked off the team? (Note: I realize that was my initial interpretation, but I'm not sure if that was explicitly stated by Mike Anderson. If you have proof that was the case, then that could change my opinion of Mike Anderson. That would be going against his word, which I would consider immoral.)

As I originally stated, I didn't agree with Mike Anderson's actions last year. Now here's the reason. I thought that he was lax and that he would lose the respect of his team. The team's conduct would be the same as Quin. However looking at this team's conduct, their behavior improved and team displayed selflessness and togetherness last year.

Could my opinion of Mike Anderson change? Of course. If Mike Anderson is shown to be a cheater or not a man of his word, then my perception would change. My perception of Quin changed, so this is no different.

Now that I've answered your questions. Here is mine. Do you think that comparing the stories that Majerus told the media (i.e. Reilly) seem forthright after reading accounts of paying players for extra money for winning road games, gaining competitive advantages by using resources from a booster's house? I never thought that the NCAA would punish Majerus if he paid for a bagel and shame on anyone who thought the NCAA would be so petty.

From my standpoint, I think lying or misleading the public is more unethical than giving grace to another player. Now I can certainly understand people, who find both actions unethical. If that is the case, then you should be ashamed of both SLU and Mizzou.

[moytoy12]

You talk about me twisting things for my benefit, but look at you. You state that I said that what Majerus did was the same as Mizzou. I said no such thing. That is fantasy. I said that SLU's moral compass changed after the firing of Soderberg and that SLU fans can no longer claim moral superiority with the hiring of Majerus. As I stated before, I have not seen the NCAA findings, but that article from the Desert News is quite different from the Rick Reilly article. Don't you agree?

If we can't claim moral superiority isn't that saying what Majerus and Missouri did was the same?

Didn't you say a sin is a sin?

SLU hasn't, that i'm aware of, been cited by the NCAA. Why can't we compare institutions?

[slufanskip]

Given what I heard from the media and general knowledge, I thought Majerus' violations weren't close to Mizzou. However given the information from the Desert News and comparing punishments, they're more comparable that I originally thought. Did Mizzou's probation exceed three years? Did they lose materially more scholarships than Utah? From my memory, the penalties seem similar, but GOSLU68 and others can prove my recollections wrong and my knowledge will be enhanced.

As for Mike Anderson's actions, I stated that I needed more information. I do not consider an instructor, parent, or coach providing grace for a person's bad actions being immoral necessarily. Here are the circumstances that would lead me to change my perception of Mike Anderson's character:

When Mike Anderson stated that that he would give zero tolerance for bad behavior, did he specifically say that any player committing a specific infraction would be kicked off the team? (Note: I realize that was my initial interpretation, but I'm not sure if that was explicitly stated by Mike Anderson. If you have proof that was the case, then that could change my opinion of Mike Anderson. That would be going against his word, which I would consider immoral.)

As I originally stated, I didn't agree with Mike Anderson's actions last year. Now here's the reason. I thought that he was lax and that he would lose the respect of his team. The team's conduct would be the same as Quin. However looking at this team's conduct, their behavior improved and team displayed selflessness and togetherness last year.

Could my opinion of Mike Anderson change? Of course. If Mike Anderson is shown to be a cheater or not a man of his word, then my perception would change. My perception of Quin changed, so this is no different.

Now that I've answered your questions. Here is mine. Do you think that comparing the stories that Majerus told the media (i.e. Reilly) seem forthright after reading accounts of paying players for extra money for winning road games, gaining competitive advantages by using resources from a booster's house? I never thought that the NCAA would punish Majerus if he paid for a bagel and shame on anyone who thought the NCAA would be so petty.

From my standpoint, I think lying or misleading the public is more unethical than giving grace to another player. Now I can certainly understand people, who find both actions unethical. If that is the case, then you should be ashamed of both SLU and Mizzou.

I don't think RM told Reilly or the media what the infractions were. I'm sure he commented on some, the ones he felt were trivial. If you look the amounts for winning road games were pretty minimal .... about $10. if I recall correctly. He was wrong, being wrong doesn't neccesarily make you immoral. I believe he believed the house was ok, as he doesn't live in a house and doesn't get the advantage other schools get. He was wrong, and he should have known.

I don't think RM is an immoral person. He's made some mistakes. If you think RM's infractions are anywhere near Mizzou's were under Quinn .... you're just wrong .... don't ask for a link, do some research.

Regardless of what MA actually said, I don't think changing your mind and deciding to be more lenient is the same as breaking your word. You live in a strange world, I'd hate to have you as my judge and jury.

[slufanskip]

Given what I heard from the media and general knowledge, I thought Majerus' violations weren't close to Mizzou. However given the information from the Desert News and comparing punishments, they're more comparable that I originally thought. Did Mizzou's probation exceed three years? Did they lose materially more scholarships than Utah? From my memory, the penalties seem similar, but GOSLU68 and others can prove my recollections wrong and my knowledge will be enhanced.

As for Mike Anderson's actions, I stated that I needed more information. I do not consider an instructor, parent, or coach providing grace for a person's bad actions being immoral necessarily. Here are the circumstances that would lead me to change my perception of Mike Anderson's character:

When Mike Anderson stated that that he would give zero tolerance for bad behavior, did he specifically say that any player committing a specific infraction would be kicked off the team? (Note: I realize that was my initial interpretation, but I'm not sure if that was explicitly stated by Mike Anderson. If you have proof that was the case, then that could change my opinion of Mike Anderson. That would be going against his word, which I would consider immoral.)

As I originally stated, I didn't agree with Mike Anderson's actions last year. Now here's the reason. I thought that he was lax and that he would lose the respect of his team. The team's conduct would be the same as Quin. However looking at this team's conduct, their behavior improved and team displayed selflessness and togetherness last year.

Could my opinion of Mike Anderson change? Of course. If Mike Anderson is shown to be a cheater or not a man of his word, then my perception would change. My perception of Quin changed, so this is no different.

Now that I've answered your questions. Here is mine. Do you think that comparing the stories that Majerus told the media (i.e. Reilly) seem forthright after reading accounts of paying players for extra money for winning road games, gaining competitive advantages by using resources from a booster's house? I never thought that the NCAA would punish Majerus if he paid for a bagel and shame on anyone who thought the NCAA would be so petty.

From my standpoint, I think lying or misleading the public is more unethical than giving grace to another player. Now I can certainly understand people, who find both actions unethical. If that is the case, then you should be ashamed of both SLU and Mizzou.

Who then in your world is not immoral? Please name me one person.

[moytoy12]

Who then in your world is not immoral? Please name me one person.

Besides you?

[billiken_roy]

Besides you?

i too only thought of skip when the question was asked.

[aj_arete]

If we can't claim moral superiority isn't that saying what Majerus and Missouri did was the same?

Didn't you say a sin is a sin?

SLU hasn't, that i'm aware of, been cited by the NCAA. Why can't we compare institutions?

If I was a follower of West Virginia and I went on the board talking about rogue programs, then I would never advocate the hiring of Bob Huggins. I would be upset that West Virginia might risk tarnishing their image with a known NCAA violator. This is what started my comment. As for me, I have never commented about KU's potential violations before as a Mizzou fan or ever posted about rogue programs on this message board. Therefore, this standard would not apply to me.

I was noting the hypocrisy, which alarmed many of you who always claim how better SLU is than Mizzou and other programs when it comes to ethics. Proving hypocrisy does not mean having to equate the two sins. I think SLU fans, who strongly value a clean program and possess a strict standard of ethics, should be disappointed in Majerus actions because he has not been clear with his past. Just like Kelvin Sampson when Majerus was cited by the NCAA, he soon left Utah in the lurch. Then when this Desert News article proved embarrassing to Majerus, it was implied that it is possible that caused Majerus to renege on the USC job.

As for Slufanskip, that isn't directed to you. I don't remember you trashing Mizzou program to a great degree. However, there were others that have, yet they dismiss or rationalize the past actions of Majerus. That is what my focus is on.

It is my opinion that SLU would have never hired Majerus before the arena because maintaining a strong image was more important than winning. Certainly, the cynical part of me knew that would change when confronted with that choice.

[aj_arete]

One more thing?

Have you ever broken a law? If so .... how dare you criticize SLU's hiring of RM, you have no right ...

Let's make one thing clear, I'm not as critical of SLU's hiring of Majerus as I am of people, who criticize rogue programs, but then support and rationalize the Majerus hiring. This is specifically aimed at ACE and others like him.

[drkelsey55]

Does any coach now all the rules? Why does the NCAA make rules that conflict with common sense. I firmly believe that if you want to find violations at any school you can. Schools now have to fund entire departments just to interput the rules. Oh, and they change all the time. The only thing worse that the NCAA rule book is the US tax code.

[aj_arete]

Does any coach now all the rules? Why does the NCAA make rules that conflict with common sense. I firmly believe that if you want to find violations at any school you can. Schools now have to fund entire departments just to interput the rules. Oh, and they change all the time. The only thing worse that the NCAA rule book is the US tax code.

After reading the Desert News article, you really approve of Majerus' actions???

[kshoe]

After reading the Desert News article, you really approve of Majerus' actions???

AJ, it appears you didn't really know what RM's violations were at Utah until you found that article. Did you really post 30-40 times in this thread with the conviction that you did and not know the details of the violations? If so, wow.

Since this whole thread has really been little more then speculation by a lot of people that don't know all the details, it seems there is one major possibility hasn't been discussed that would completely shut down AJ's argument that SLU sold its soul when it hired RM:

What if, during the week that Biondi and RM talked about the job, Biondi made it perfectly clear to RM that SLU is clean and wants to remain clean and that his past oversights at Utah would not be tolerated or OK while at SLU? What if at that time RM agreed that he had made some past minor mistakes but he would do everything in his power to make sure those same oversights didn't happen again? If those conversations did happen, and I tend to think its quite likely something like that did happen, did SLU still sell its soul by hiring what AJ would call a "sinner."

[ACE]

AJ is trying to say that SLU should have hired a coach who "saves lives" I guess they should have found somebody out of the theology department or the medical school.

[GOSLU68]

AJ, it appears you didn't really know what RM's violations were at Utah until you found that article. Did you really post 30-40 times in this thread with the conviction that you did and not know the details of the violations? If so, wow.

Since this whole thread has really been little more then speculation by a lot of people that don't know all the details, it seems there is one major possibility hasn't been discussed that would completely shut down AJ's argument that SLU sold its soul when it hired RM:

What if, during the week that Biondi and RM talked about the job, Biondi made it perfectly clear to RM that SLU is clean and wants to remain clean and that his past oversights at Utah would not be tolerated or OK while at SLU? What if at that time RM agreed that he had made some past minor mistakes but he would do everything in his power to make sure those same oversights didn't happen again? If those conversations did happen, and I tend to think its quite likely something like that did happen, did SLU still sell its soul by hiring what AJ would call a "sinner."

No? Really? You are implying that when SLU gave Majerus $1,000,000 there was a possibilty that they had no expectations-

Even Majerus must have to live up to some standard.

Some SLU fans would have hired Bob Huggins if he was interested. Are they Alumni? Do they get it? I think many of us are fans, alumni or not and get it. SLU wants a clean program. When Oral Roberts was being investigated by NCAA they dropped out of Diiv I

for several years to avoid censure. I don't think SLU would ever want a renegade to run a sports program anymore than the student

newspaper. Would they put a gag order on RM ? It is far more likely that Joe Biden and Rich Majerus are going to say things and get

in trouble than actually do anything that would be a violation. Come to think of it Majerus may have been flip with the media or the

investigators in his answers and if he was it is amazing they did not burn him for it.

[drkelsey55]

After reading the Desert News article, you really approve of Majerus' actions???

I failed to see any thing in my post refering to RM. Or any other specific coach. I was only stating the idea that you could find problems almost any where when the rules get out of control.

[aj_arete]

AJ, it appears you didn't really know what RM's violations were at Utah until you found that article. Did you really post 30-40 times in this thread with the conviction that you did and not know the details of the violations? If so, wow.

Since this whole thread has really been little more then speculation by a lot of people that don't know all the details, it seems there is one major possibility hasn't been discussed that would completely shut down AJ's argument that SLU sold its soul when it hired RM:

What if, during the week that Biondi and RM talked about the job, Biondi made it perfectly clear to RM that SLU is clean and wants to remain clean and that his past oversights at Utah would not be tolerated or OK while at SLU? What if at that time RM agreed that he had made some past minor mistakes but he would do everything in his power to make sure those same oversights didn't happen again? If those conversations did happen, and I tend to think its quite likely something like that did happen, did SLU still sell its soul by hiring what AJ would call a "sinner."

Never said that I knew Majerus' violations and you can't find a post stating otherwise. What I did say was that I trusted the NCAA and their rulings. The only speculation going on was SLU posters trying to minimize indiscretions of Majerus with Mizzou.

When Indiana hired Kelvin Sampson, don't you think Sampson told Indiana officials that he would remain clean? I think your scenario of the conversation between Father Biondi and Majerus is probable, but here's my question to you:

After learning more about Majerus, is his word enough for you?

[kshoe]

After learning more about Majerus, is his word enough for you?

Yes.

Guy coaches for 30 years and the best AJ and the NCAA can come up with is misuse of a house he treated as his own, some $10 "bets" with players, a free meal or two in unique circumstances. If someone tells me they've learned from those mistakes and will do their best to not repeat them then yes I would believe that person.

I'd take that person over one that doesn't graduate any of his players, or plans to bring in a bunch of jucos that need to earn 24 credit hours in one summer or guys that have run-ins with the law.

For the 2nd time this thread, I'm done posting.

Maybe after AJ posts another 20 times, often conflicting himself, I'll rejoin.

Go get him Skip, Ace, etc.

[ACE]

Yes.

Guy coaches for 30 years and the best AJ and the NCAA can come up with is misuse of a house he treated as his own, some $10 "bets" with players, a free meal or two in unique circumstances. If someone tells me they've learned from those mistakes and will do their best to not repeat them then yes I would believe that person.

I'd take that person over one that doesn't graduate any of his players, or plans to bring in a bunch of jucos that need to earn 24 credit hours in one summer or guys that have run-ins with the law.

For the 2nd time this thread, I'm done posting.

Maybe after AJ posts another 20 times, often conflicting himself, I'll rejoin.

Go get him Skip, Ace, etc.

Come on kshoe. Don't give up the fight. There are basketball coaches out there "saving lives" yet we are stuck with a guy who just coaches basketball.

[moytoy12]

Come on kshoe. Don't give up the fight. There are basketball coaches out there "saving lives" yet we are stuck with a guy who just coaches basketball.

and only cares about winning.

I heard Majerus sacrificed a couple of Saintsations before the Dayton game.