Quality Is Job 1 Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 I sent e-mail to Doug McIlhagga and Stu Durando asking for confirmation or denial of Reggie Bryant's three-game suspension and Ian Vouyoukas's 10-game suspension. To: Doug McIlhagga, Stu Durando From: Terrance Hicks Subject: Game penalties for recruits? Gentlemen, I have read on a message board that Reggie Bryant will have to sit out three games this season for misdeeds that occurred at Villanova and that Ian Vouyoukas will be docked 10 games this season for the games he played with or against professionals on his club team in Greece. Can you confirm or deny these suspensions and their duration? Thank you, Terrance Hicks ______________________________ To: Terrance Hicks Subject: Re: Game penalties for recruits? Terrance, At this point, I can't confirm or deny either because we haven't received the rulings yet. We will have an announcement on both situations eventually, hopefully soon. Thanks, Doug McIlhagga Sports Information Director Saint Louis University _________________________ I'm not willing to ASSUME that Vouyoukas will miss 10 games until SLU makes that announcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NashvilleBilliken Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 Well, that is potentially good news. Out of curiosity, why did we assume Reggie would get three game and Ian 10 game suspension? Did somebody read that somewhere or just base it on past rulings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted August 29, 2003 Author Share Posted August 29, 2003 http://tinyurl.com/llfq The preceding post (in the link) was made by tsuegnekillib, and he related comments by Ramsey, though Rammer apparently did get it officially (on the record) from SLU. Either that, or SLU just doesn't want it out there until they release it. Then again, perhaps the NCAA really hasn't ruled yet and Rammer is just speculating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted August 29, 2003 Author Share Posted August 29, 2003 "I'm still looking to get an official ruling. I'll check it out today and see if there is something to report." Does Ramsey have inside info, or did he jump the gun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basketbill Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 ruled that some nova players who had less than 100$ billed on the code were not subject to the penalty. Lets hope that excludes Reggie too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gister Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 They also listed each player's name and Reggie was not listed. It's possible that they were only listing current Villanova players and Reggie was on a separate list somewhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted August 29, 2003 Author Share Posted August 29, 2003 Someone please provide a link to the NCAA list. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gister Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 Here it is. I didn't think I could find it. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/men...spensions_x.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted August 29, 2003 Author Share Posted August 29, 2003 ...occurred. The investigation and initial punishments didn't begin until Reggie Bryant had been away from Villanova for nearly a year. How long was the investigation? Those things seem to take a while. If Bryant was involved, as is assumed, I hope it wasn't so much as to warrant the eight-game penalty that some 'Nova players got. The thing I find interesting is that exhibitions don't seem to count towards the suspension. That must be a change in the rules from how it was years back. I remember that in 1990 or 1991 Doug Smith and Jamall Coleman were suspended for three games for a similar infraction, but their games included the two exhibitions and just one regular season game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeSmetBilliken Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 I posted over at the Villanova board to see if I could get any input on this situation from their fans. One interesting thing that I discoverd from reading their board is that of the two guys that got 8 game suspensions, one was from Germany and the other was from New Jersey. I can understand the guy from Germany logging up a high bill with a calling card, but the guy that called New Jersey must have made a ton of calls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basketbill Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 ought to have just imprisoned his girlfriend rather than have the long distance relationship. Then he would have only recieved a one game suspension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted August 29, 2003 Author Share Posted August 29, 2003 The NCAA deems the improper use of a coach's calling card an improper benefit (cheating), thus the organization metes punishment The fact that Ricky Clemons assaulted his girlfriend has nothing to do with the NCAA and is a criminal/legal matter. The NCAA would not step in at all. The university decided to allow the judicial process to complete itself. Clemons claimed that he didn't assault the girl, so how wrong would Missouri have been to suspend him for 10 games (or whatever) for something he said he didn't do and then find out that the charges had not merit? They would have been denying Clemons his right of due process. Now, if Clemons had immediately owned up to the deed, then he should have be dismissed immediately (and I don't know why he wasn't dismissed when he pled guilty, essentially thumbing his nose in Quin Snyder's and Mike Alden's faces). But up until the time Clemons pled guilty, I think Missouri handled it correctly, despite the Bunge family's feelings on the matter. Due Process is in the Bill of Rights. I understand your sense of the apparent injustice of the two infractions side-by-side, but it's really comparing apples and oranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerluke Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 i couldn't agree more, but i think where mizzou could have handled it better would have been to not go after ju-co transfers. i realize that there are talented players there, but i just don't like the idea of building up your team with ju-co kids. i love mizzou, but i don't want to see them turn into k-state football. sure, they're good every year, but the revolving door of ju-co transfers that stocks their sidelines sickens me. mizzou could do itself better to not go after ju-co transfers, they have enough recruiting prowess (even with the alleged infractions) to just get their recriuts straight out of high school. it's just a more reliable formula all around. needless to say i'm glad clemons is out (he was too out of control anyway) and i think mizzou will be even stronger without him this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 to be a scholarshiped athlete at a division I university is not a "right" it is a priviledge. thus dont give me the "bill of rights" song and dance. clemons should have been booted at minimum the moment he plead guilty if not sooner (sooner in as the moment they knew clemons was a lying scum) if missouri had an ounce of "the right thing" in their thinking. to claim they were trying to help ricky and continue to let him be a scholarshiped missouri athlete and student, was a slam on not only ms bunge, but women everywhere. there is no denying that to keep clemons around continued to sap state funds to subsidize and support felon ricky clemons that could have been used on another deserving missouri student. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted August 30, 2003 Author Share Posted August 30, 2003 I said that I felt Missouri handled the matter correctly UP UNTIL the time Clemons pled guilty to the assault. After that the athletic department was wrong in keeping Clemons on scholarship, particularly when Quin Snyder had said earlier that if Clemons pled down he would be gone. I'm still under the impression that Snyder may have made good on his promise when Clemons pled guilty but new Prez Elson Floyd stepped in and suggested a different tactic for his fellow North Carolinian. But for Missouri to boot Clemons while he maintained his innocence would have been wrong, and they would have looked foolish, and even liable, if they had dismissed him only to find out that he was innocent. And for you to get all indignant, calling Clemons a felon, just shows how bitter you are, as if it were your daughter that were assaulted. By no means was Clemons's behavior right, but for you to use Clemons's assault of Jessica Bunge to feed your festering hatred of Mizzou because of the perceived mistreatment and disrespect of a few fans is improper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted August 30, 2003 Author Share Posted August 30, 2003 I edited it to include a thought I had initially intended to include but forgot (for a few hours?!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basketbill Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 Certainly not comparable crimes, however it is Ironic. I would disagree with you that mizzou handled it apropriately up until he plead guilty. I think they dropped the ball and hid behind "presumed innocent until proven guilty". They did not have to, they appeared to spend 40 minutes (length of game) investigating the situation, and then realize they were toast without Clemons. I doubt they investigated it much at all, and they should have because Bunge was a student at mizzou. Pinkel clearly would have handled it differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted August 30, 2003 Author Share Posted August 30, 2003 Basketbill, at the time it was a he-said/she-said matter. Snyder's gut move was to suspend Clemons upon the allegation. After a meeting among Alden, Snyder, and Clemons, with RC's claiming innocence, they decided to reinstate him. Now, if it ever comes out that he wasn't convincing and that Snyder and Alden reinstated him (with a gag order) in order to compete better, then I'll be calling for their heads. It wouldn't surprise me, though. Other than that, hindsight is 20/20, and it sure is easy for wannabe judges to sit here after Clemons has confessed and say what the university should have done back then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 clemons is a felon. i didnt exagerate a thing. and his felony is a physical crime against a woman. i would feel the same if he was or wasnt a student at missouri or if the woman is ms bunge, my daughter or a complete stranger. there is no acceptable excuse for his crime in my opinion. my hatred of missouri has nothing to do with my feelings towards clemons. however, my hatred for missouri is even more intense because of the revolting manner the whole situation was handled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 actually if you think about it, none of the clemons disaster would have incurred had snyder and odom not conspired to falsify clemons accademic records and performance by his sham 24 credit hours in 6 weeks. i.e. if they had not bent the rules to get him in, none of that would have ever happened, so there "handling" was an error from day one of ricky clemons being a tiger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 imo, in hindsight the correct action would be to have suspended clemons from the basketball team until the trial, but allow him to still be a missouri student. if found innocent, he rejoins the team, if not, then he is immediately booted out of the school as well. afterall, isnt the academic scholarship the real reason he was supposed to be at missouri anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basketbill Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 I am not sure what you mean by the title, but I apparently struck a nerve....but I just do not see it as if Mizzou handled it correctly. After a meeting among Alden, Snyder, and >Clemons, with RC's claiming innocence, they decided to >reinstate him. and Clemons Lawyer.... while the investigation was still going on. (not all the info was in) Now we know about Clemons' past incident with the law..... Essentially he was not suspended, because if you recall he missed the team bus or plane to turn himself in and he was in jail at the time. I do not think that Snyder, Alden who both have a financial stake in how well the basketball team does should have been the ones to reinstate him. So yes I think it was handled poorly, long before the guilty plea. > >Other than that, hindsight is 20/20, and it sure is easy for >wannabe judges to sit here after Clemons has confessed and >say what the university should have done back then. Sorry but i think many people on this board spoke out back then. Many mizzou students also felt the suspesion was too short. Not just the apparently closed minded people like myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basketbill Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 Thicks wrote..... Now, if Clemons had immediately owned up to the deed, then he should have be dismissed immediately (and I don't know why he wasn't dismissed when he pled guilty, essentially thumbing his nose in Quin Snyder's and Mike Alden's faces). But up until the time Clemons pled guilty, I think Missouri handled it correctly, despite the Bunge family's feelings on the matter. Due Process is in the Bill of Rights. Ricky has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. (or had the right) that means he cannot be incarcerated etc... Playing basketball is a privledge he does not have the right to this. Lets say Ricky was a priest.....and was accused of sexual assault......he would have the right to be free until proven guilty, but his parish may very well suspend him until the matter is settled. Police officers are often suspended while a questionable action is being investigated. IN the eyes of the law he is prsumed innocent, but his actions have consequences.......or at least they should have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.