keyser soze Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 So if it's true that one of the accusers is hell bent on justice, whatever that means, then this will go on for the rest of the season and then some.... Then if the outcome is in favor of the players, they lose the season.... So they then have to appeal to the NC2A and there is case precedent to grant a year of eligibility back.. What a cluster..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 Just now, keyser soze said: So if it's true that one of the accusers is hell bent on justice, whatever that means, then this will go on for the rest of the season and then some.... Then if the outcome is in favor of the players, they lose the season.... So they then have to appeal to the NC2A and there is case precedent to grant a year of eligibility back.. What a cluster..... At this point the 2 best scenarios are as follows the ruling is in favor of the women. The punishment is time served. The boys play. the ruling is in favor of the guys the women tie the matter up in appeals the players play next season regaining eligibility through appeals to NCAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 21 minutes ago, Pistol said: Stu also tweeted this: -I wonder when these meetings are taking place? if this week, not all of my faith in the U is lost, just most of it 1 minute ago, keyser soze said: So if it's true that one of the accusers is hell bent on justice, whatever that means, then this will go on for the rest of the season and then some.... Then if the outcome is in favor of the players, they lose the season.... So they then have to appeal to the NC2A and there is case precedent to grant a year of eligibility back.. What a cluster..... -if one party in this can cause such a delay then it seems the "process" DrP mentioned last week that is so important to follow is really not one on which to hang your hat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills73 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 4 minutes ago, keyser soze said: So if it's true that one of the accusers is hell bent on justice, whatever that means, then this will go on for the rest of the season and then some.... Then if the outcome is in favor of the players, they lose the season.... So they then have to appeal to the NC2A and there is case precedent to grant a year of eligibility back.. What a cluster..... Why go on for rest of season. As I see it and as I recall reading somewhere, there will be around 1 week of meetings with hearing officer (both sides), that will begin next Tuesday, then Decision. Then a week or so on appeals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 This is a particularly strange situation, because all three involved just took redshirt year. I still have no idea what their options are. Could they sit out the remainder of this year and not lose a year of eligibility if they came back next season with us? If they transfer to another D1 school, do they have to sit out another year before playing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 I think the initial ruling is good for the players and that the other party is trying to bleed this out as long as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billboy1 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 The delay rests entirely with the school and they deserve any financial consequences that will result. 2018 is too little too late! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 29 minutes ago, Billboy1 said: The delay rests entirely with the school and they deserve any financial consequences that will result. 2018 is too little too late! Financial consequences come in many fashions, but I can tell you that I'd have been somebody that gave serious consideration to early donations in order to beat the new tax law. As it stands now I can't stomach giving any money to this school until this is resolved and there is sufficient water under the bridge. I'm small time for sure, and it has no impact on the snails pace Fred's team is moving, but it makes me feel better... MattyMo213, Slu let the dogs out?, TFord and TRavs and 2 others like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMM28 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 3 minutes ago, kshoe said: Financial consequences come in many fashions, but I can tell you that I'd have been somebody that gave serious consideration to early donations in order to beat the new tax law. As it stands now I can't stomach giving any money to this school until this is resolved and there is sufficient water under the bridge. I'm small time for sure, and it has no impact on the snails pace Fred's team is moving, but it makes me feel better... I would second that notion. I think I posted many pages ago that this is my first year minus student loans. I was planning on contributing to the school still, but have directed that money towards Bradley. I will continue to do that until SLU finds a new president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoop Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 Pretty sure this has been the plan all along. Time served. Play ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 7 hours ago, billikenfan05 said: At this point the 2 best scenarios are as follows the ruling is in favor of the women. The punishment is time served. The boys play. the ruling is in favor of the guys the women tie the matter up in appeals the players play next season regaining eligibility through appeals to NCAA No. If the ruling is in favor of the guys, the boys would certainly be able to play. No way would they remain out while the girl(s) appeal. At the same time, it appears quite obvious that the boys violated one or more codes of conduct. The question, though, remains "what's the punishment"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old guy Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 The answer to your question Clock is that short of expulsion or a longer suspension time, we will probably never know what the sanctions against the players will be even after the whole process is finished and the kids receive whatever sanctions they are going to receive. I think there is no way they are going to make public any conditional or probation sanctions that may come out of this process and I believe nobody will be expelled or kept suspended beyond this year either. That said I think the appeals process will continue at its own pace, which is very slow, until it is done. I do not think the kids will get to play this year. Again this is my opinion based upon the way the process has been progressing so far, which is very slowly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMM28 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Metzinger Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 8 minutes ago, JMM28 said: Typical Lawyer-speak. He can't show his hand, even if it's a winner. He's not giving anyone anything of substance to chew on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 Someone at SLU (Kratky) had to make an initial determination that a violation occurred, that initial/temporary suspension’s were warranted and that an outside title IX counsel should be brought in hear this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 Here's hoping Mrs Krafty ends up stocking shelves at a Hobby Lobby. Spoon-Balls likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLU_Nick Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 So there was no decision right? That lawyer reveal didn’t reveal what the report said did he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
615Billiken Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 49 minutes ago, JMM28 said: This doesn't give me hope. I read is as the decision was negative, and they are mulling what to do. Had the decision been a good one for the players, a simple 'no' would not have been problematic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, 615Billiken said: This doesn't give me hope. I read is as the decision was negative, and they are mulling what to do. Had the decision been a good one for the players, a simple 'no' would not have been problematic. Interesting. I took it as "what can I say to shut this dumbass reporter up as soon as possible?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 30 minutes ago, 615Billiken said: This doesn't give me hope. I read is as the decision was negative, and they are mulling what to do. Had the decision been a good one for the players, a simple 'no' would not have been problematic. What did you want the lawyer to say - we lost or won whatever and at this time we are not thinking about it anymore. All he said is he reviewing the findings and will keep all his options open. Means nothing one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgstl Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 1 minute ago, cheeseman said: What did you want the lawyer to say - we lost or won whatever and at this time we are not thinking about it anymore. All he said is he reviewing the findings and will keep all his options open. Means nothing one way or the other. this is how i looked at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilkowsky Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 On December 26, 2017 at 9:35 AM, NextYearBill said: where in SLU bylaws does it state alumni must donate money and attend basketball games?... quid pro quo It doesn't. Donating money and going to basketball games are totallyvoluntary. Agree 100 percent. If you want to donate money then do it. If you don't. Don't. If you want to go to the games. Go. If you don't want to attend then don't. Just understand the games will still go on even if you don't donate or attend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills_06 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 I am confused by what Stu has been tweeting. The final report, is that the report that is given to the hearing officer? If so, why would they be considering an appeal before the hearing officer makes a decision? Or is he referring to the final report including the determination of the hearing officer because that would require an appeal then but the players should also know the punishment then too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyser soze Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 My guess is there will be a final, final, final, FiNaL, then the FINAL REPORT....this will be preceded by "important" people sitting around a mahogany conference table in sport coats with elbow patches debating the meaning of FINAL.... kshoe and rgbilliken like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Metzinger Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 13 minutes ago, Bills_06 said: I am confused by what Stu has been tweeting. The final report, is that the report that is given to the hearing officer? If so, why would they be considering an appeal before the hearing officer makes a decision? Or is he referring to the final report including the determination of the hearing officer because that would require an appeal then but the players should also know the punishment then too. Stu went to the store, bought some worms, put them on a hook and sent Scott an email. As any good fisherman would tell you, the dumb fish are already in the boat. The smart fish are still in the water. Scott Rosenblum is probably a really smart fish . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts