What Is SLU Hiding?

[aj_arete]

I am disturbed that they refused Vahe's request to look through their records. While legally, this is certainly is their right, it doesn't appear to be ethical to me. Why should the Illini and Mizzou be held to a higher standard to SLU since both are equal members of the NCAA?

AD Doug Woolard refused the request based on the advice of legal counsel. That's understandable, however it may make the public wonder what is SLU trying to hide. They also refused to state whether or not any violations have occurred.

Here's the link to the article where Vahe provides a thorough, in-depth look at the NCAA and its handling of rules violations:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/st...0honor%20system

Specifically, here's the reference to SLU as written by Vahe,

"Because it is a private school, St. Louis University is not subject to open-records requests for its NCAA violations.

Asked to provide self-reports to lend context to this story, SLU athletics director Doug Woolard said he had been advised not to by SLU legal counsel and referred specific questions to Ross. Citing his imminent departure for the NCAA, Jones declined to be interviewed for this story.

Asked if he would characterize SLU's recent men's basketball violations or discuss the number, Ross said he had been asked not to by Woolard."

With the high moral and ethical standards demanded by many of the Billiken faithful here of SLU's basketball program, I am sure that many of the posters here will demand that SLU open up their records to Vahe and the Post-Dispatch.

[kshoe]

While I certainly found it to be an intersting article, the overriding theme behind it was the pure stupidy of many of the rules.

The Illini had to report violations as dumb as giving a kid $7 for a lunch instead of the allowed $6.50. Pretty much all of their 20 violations were of this variety. Clearly minor.

SLU chose not to report, which is within their rights as a private university. As Thicks pointed out on Tigerboard, one possible example of a violation would be Justin Tatum playing in the uncensored all-star game a couple years ago. Technically that may have been a violation but really who cares. Just thinking out-loud here but could IO's 8 games suspension technically be considered a violation. Remember it was a suspension after all.

The article did point out, however, that you shouldn't be concerned with the raw number of violations but really should look at each on a separate basis. For example, not a single one of Illinois' looked as bad as some of the Mizzou ones such as the Paulding/Johnson flight, the Clemmons multiple phone calls, or the Conley early calls. Two of those three resulted in some sort of slap on the wrist and Conley may yet (the jury is still out on that one).

IMO, the NCAA should create a third category for violations that border between major and minor (maybe distinguished by some sort of punishment). I have a feeling Mizzou would lead the nation in that category, while the Illini and SLU would have their fair share in the truley minor category. I also love how Mizzou "self-reports" violations only after the post does an article about the violations. Thats real good of ole Mizzou.

Another thing Thicks pointed out on the Tigerboard that with 2000 violations last year, half of which for basketball that means there have probably been around 4,000 minor basketball violations accross the country since Spoon left. If SLU had 0 of 4,000 that would shock me.

Obviously, none of SLU's violations have been significant or we would have heard about it. I personally, have no problem with SLU using its right as a private university to not give out those numbers.

[aj_arete]

If there were some minor violations such as Ohannon's suspension or the one involving Tatum's participation in an All-Star game, then we could all dismiss it. Why not disclose all of the violations to Vahe and let the public decide whether they're truly minor or not.

As for Illinois' violations, some were more minor than others. It's funny how you would like to dismiss all twenty of them as inconsequential.

[kshoe]

any of them were as sever as the three Mizzou ones I described?

Would Mizzou or Illinois have discolsed all of their violations if they didn't have to because they were a state school. I doubt it.

[aj_arete]

that many of the SLU boosters expect from their esteemed institution. I'm not questioning whether SLU's recruiting tactics are less sleasy than Mizzou's. I am surprised that SLU refused to disclose their self-reports to Vahe.

Just because the Illini or Mizzou probably wouldn't have disclosed their records to Vahe if they didn't have to, doesn't absolve SLU from the moral integrity of abiding by Vahe's request in my book.

[kshoe]

unethical to refuse a request that you don't have to fulfill.

[aj_arete]

We'll see online who agrees with you.

[kshoe]

and I will let this die although I'm sure others won't.

Public Universities have to report many things that private universities don't. Stuff like, salalries of their head coach, chancellor, president, etc. Profit/losses on the university as a whole and the Athletic department also fall in this category. I don't believe that SLU publishes stuff like this anywhere, which is their right. Does anybody out there know what Biondi makes, because I would find that very interesting, but I'm sure I could find Mizzou president's salary (minus expenses for ATVs) if I went and looked for it.

Is it unethical for SLU not to report these figures? Absolutely not. So why is it unethical for SLU to not report on the actions of its athletic department.

Mizzou being a public institution has many benefits over its private school counterparts (see the Mizzou basketball arena funding) but apparetnly this is one area where you are better off being a private school. Deal with it.

[Taj79]

Vahe asked; Woolard said no based on the advice of counsel. Case closed. Unless you happen to know what that advice was or where it was directed, you don't have a case. It might be that it involves some names that the University does not have the right to release. Could be privacy act things. Who knows.

You win some; you lose some. A state university can engage taxpayer dollars and build itself a bb palace. The private school has to go on a massive fundraising drive. Advantage: Public. A public school then becomes subject to Freedom of Information Act language. A private school is not. Advantage: Private.

How about this, tho, aj .... if all we have to show for our "violations" is Drew Diener, Chris Braun, Ross Varner, etc.... we suck at violations as well.

Maybe counsel is also saying that we don't want to play that "us versus them; SLU versus Mizzou" game in the local papers and in the court of recruiting violations.

As a public opinion professional, I would have weighed in on the side of cooperating with the PD at first blush and show we have nothing to hide. As a media professional, I also know that the media rarely is telling you what they really want when they make their request. So I would have advised no on that account. But I think the winner is the thought line that this is Mizzou's problem ... we stay out of it, comparison sake or not. Could also be seen as a "professional courtesy" item to boot. We don't come to their defense but we stay calmly quiet on the side. You might (or one, not just an aj) might interpret that as "hiding." Fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Bottom line: there's smoke at ol' Mizzou. It's their bed, let them make it by themselves. No help ---- either way ---- from anyone should be necessary.

Does Slu run a "squeaky clean" program? I don't know. But given the complexity of NCAA guidelines and bylaws, I sincerely doubt it. If 50 cents is a gray area, whew .... glad I don't have to interpret that every day.

[aj_arete]

but SLU's behavior falls below high ethical standards. Because of a loophole, they choose to not meet the standard of public universities in making records available to local media.

[3star_recruit]

"they choose to not meet the standard of public universities in making records available to local media."

Since when do private institutions make their business public? They're called private for a reason.

[aj_arete]

However, we can question the motives for why they're being uncooperative to Vahe. Who knows, maybe Cameron Dollar violated some rules at SLU? Maybe there were a series of minor violations similar to the Illini that would make SLU bad in comparison. Maybe there's nothing there at all. But by not cooperating, they leave questions unanswered.

[billiken_roy]

great post taj. my favorite line which i think would end any further questioning:

"How about this, tho, aj .... if all we have to show for our "violations" is Drew Diener, Chris Braun, Ross Varner, etc.... we suck at violations as well."

boy if that isnt the truth.

aj, there isnt much you can make out of this one. i agree with taj. plus, the fact remains, damn near the entire sports staff of the post is still made up of mizzou guys. i for one have been waiting for the post to try to tilt the focus away from the previous reports against the tigers. guess that didnt happen here though did it.

[billiken_roy]

the fact slu refused to say anything doesnt mean they are hiding anything. it just means they dont have to. why say anything positive or negative if they dont have to on this issue. it might come back to haunt them some other way. especially against a spin master like pretty q.

i encounter inequities such as this every day in my business. i deal with it. as a mortgage broker, i am subject to disclosing so much more information that a bank does not have to disclose. amazingly, i have never seen a bank say, "well morally, i really should tell you all of xyz because it does happen on every deal." instead, the tell what they have to and that is it. i have never believed it to be fair, but i deal with it. however do i even stay in business?

my guess is that pretty q will "stay in business" as well and still compete with slu on a regular basis.

[TheA_Bomb]

SLU could open up it's books to Vahe but they don't have to. Say no and they are done with the issue save for those like aj asking what they have to hide which will only last for a short time. They say no, stay out of the whole affair and they are no worse for it. We don't need to be associated with the issues that Boone County Vo-Tech are experiencing we should just stay out of it.

[Box and Won]

Nice attempt at sh_t disturbing though.

[ACE]

Mizzou is under the microscope for their shenanigans, yet AJ is trying to twist it around in a pathetic attempt to make SLU look bad. He failed miserably. This guy has done his share of sleazy things before, this is one of the worst. What a loser!

[SLU8592]

So now the Mizzou faithful think SLU should voluntarily let Vahe Gregorian of all people assess their NCAA compliance. Since when did Vahe become the NCAA watchdog? If there is suspicion that SLU is doing something in violation of the NCAA rules, perhaps the NCAA would deem it appropriate to ask SLU to voluntarily provide information. I find it rather foolish to suggest impropriety on SLU's part to refuse to let a journalist go through private files. Nice try, Vahe.

[billiken_roy]

actually the way i read the article, vahe did not try to imply the billikens were holding any vital information back or covering anything up. imo, there shouldnt be any animosity towards vahe at this point. the context of the article almost demanded he include slu in his story and he had to request the information. i dont see why we blame him for anything. now if he started pretending to be aj and tryig to make something out of the fact we refused to be a part of his story, well then that would be a different issue.

the only sad character(s) in this play is the likes of aj and other tiger fans that insist everyone should go down with leisure suit quin. their belief that if quin is caught cheating and about to be punished, then everyone should be punished for even thinking about it as well is just nuts.

[Taj79]

I have to admit that when I wrote my frist reply above, I had NOT read Vahe's entire story. Now that I have, this particular excerpt struck me:

"Since Quin Snyder took over at Missouri in April 1999, the MU men's basketball program has been the subject of 17 self-reports (15 to the NCAA, two to the Big 12 Conference). Snyder often has stated his intention to run a clean program and declined to be interviewed for this story."

The line didn't strike me in the least ... what bothered me, aj, was your failure to include this little tidbit in your opening thread. Why not take Quin to task for declining to be "ethical?" Why "ethical?" Because thats what you equate things to in your opening graph to the thread .... you wrote "While legal(ly), this is certainly is their right, it doesn't appear to be ethical to me." I did not know that you were an ethics expert or professor, but in any case, and as I said before, you are entitled to your opinion. But I doubt that you are qualified to offer an opinion on ethics. I know I'm not so don't get too upset at me for this statement.

Finally, you wrote this "Why should the Illini and Mizzou be held to a higher standard to SLU since both are equal members of the NCAA?" This uses warped logic to turn this into an ethical issue regarding standards. And the fact that they are three of 325 members of the NCAA in Division I basketball has absolutely nothing to do with it. Its not ethics and/or ethical .... its the FOIA issues prevalent under public versus private. Ethics had nothing to do with it. Yet you seem to believe it is.

Unlike others who may bash the Mizzou-lover in you, I enjoy your posts and acknowledge the debate over the other side of the issue. But what you did to start this thread is the quintessential "taking things out of context" defense that many misquoted folks use when they don't engage their brain before thinking to the press.

As I said, I have read Vahe's entire article now and I couldnt' agree more with broy when he disowns any blame from Gregorian. I think he did a very good job. SLU didn't hide, they spoke. While it may not have been Woolard and it was not to specifics, Professor Ross was quoted on several occasions. The topper is the subject of this thread and it sums up distinctly where you were going. "What is SLU hiding?" It would appear that your very intention was the disturbing that someone else has mentioned on here as well.

But ... whatever is your interpretation is your interpretation. Again, you'r eentitled to it ..... no matter how right or wrong it may be.

[aj_arete]

who has been so vigilant against schools who have broken NCAA rules. He's always asked for fair play and honesty in recruiting. He's repeatedly railed against the questionable tactics of Quin Snyder and the Mizzou staff. He's consistently complained that Mizzou has gained unfair advantages against their counterparts. Well, I ask you, Billiken Roy, why wouldn't you want to know how well SLU compares to Mizzou in this area? I find this hypocritical that you call for fair play in recruiting, but refuse to want to know how strong SLU is in recruiting compliance.

Here's my brief recap:

Unlike most Mizzou fans, I welcomed the expose done by Vahe Gregorian and thought it was an exceptional journalistic piece. I think he has indirectly done a great service to Mizzou and its fans because Quin's actions were veering out of a control. Hopefully, Alden will impose a similar system as the Illini, so that further embarassing episodes don't occur.

As a reader, I would like to get a true picture of Missouri's recruiting practices with their competitors, Illinois and SLU. As Taj humorously alluded to with his witty line, SLU couldn't have committed many violations because if they did, they got the short end of the stick. I would also make that assumption, however Cameron Dollar's impropriety at UW could lead one to question whether similar practices were conducted at SLU. However, SLU's Compliance Director was given a gag order to NOT EVEN discuss whether any violations occurred. Forget about granting Vahe any access to records. Therefore, those questions will remain unanswered and SLU maintains their pristine image which they may or may not deserve. (By the way, I'm not suggesting that SLU doesn't deserve that image. Just thought it would be nice to see support for it.)

That's the end of this discussion from my end. Just wanted to see Billiken Roy's stance in this matter and it's obvious that his stance on illegal recruiting is purely self-serving.

[billiken_roy]

IF the billikens truly had something to hide, your post here is right on. but i believe they do not and just chose to stay out of this issue. they have no reason to get in the middle of the tiger battle with vahe and the tiger faithful again instead of demanding that quin clean up his act, instead want justice served on everyone else around them however they can find it.

sorry, my opinion is that slu is as squeaky clean as it comes from a division I program. not chosing to get involved in a press battle shouldnt be held against them. my guess is had woolard shared the exact information, it would have p!ssed you off even more and you would have then been sayiung, "those arrogant billikens. they think they do no wrong."

AJ, come back on this when you have something solid. until then, i suggest you write a letter to someone at missouri that might be able to control the pirates running the ship in columbia. of course not sure who that would be as it appears the president is about as deep in the do-do as everyone else. if it stinks from the head down, you got a problem.

last, your comments about dollar are amusing. the fact is, he didnt know how to cheat. if he had, he wouldnt have gotten caught so blatantly. if there ever wasnt a better example of an honest man trying to join the pirate crew and not knowing what he was doing, dollar's actions last summer was it. dont even try to bring that back to slu. it plain and simple wasnt allowed.

[aj_arete]

I've consistently railed against Quin's practices on the Tigerboard. I was also aware that Quin refused to be interviewed for this article, which I thought was immature and childish. If you want me to question Quin's ethics, I'd have to say that I'm not impressed with them.

As for why I titled my post, "What is SLU Hiding", it was simple. Vahe needed one more piece to the puzzle to do a comparative analysis of NCAA recruiting compliance with the three major basketball schools in the area and SLU refused to provide that final piece.

[jwd789]

An Illinois booster paying 2,000 bucks to an AAU team full of Illinois recruits sounds worse than returning a phone call to

Conley's mother IMO.

[billiken_roy]

a couple of thoughts. first, did the $2,000 donation actually be the deciding factor in leading a player coming to illinois? if so, yes, that became a recruiting advantage. just like returning conley's mother's calls and having 5 minute conversations with her apparently gave missouri the edge in getting conley.

that all said, the article does not detail who the booster was and what his relationship was with any of the players. for example, let's not forget that mr grant, a ku booster gave the rush boys aau team anything they wanted. the ncaa deemed his prior relationship with the rush boys allowed him to benefit the team accordingly. originally, jaron was headed to ku until he and roy got into a disagreement that chased him to ucla. but all of grants donations were reluctantly agreed to by the ncaa.

the fact that illinois was not served with a penalty on this tells me either they did not sign any of those players thus it was deemed as an instance of no recruiting advantage being made by the gesture, or that there was deemed a previous relationship at some time between the booster and the aau team or one or more of the players concerned.

if not, then it is another example of the ncaa turning their head when they shouldnt have. by no means does this make conley's situation right. for the life of me, tampering with a signed player has to be about the lowest form of cheating on the coaching scale imo.