Re: Sean Miller
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:57 pm
Vegas had us 8 to 1 when I got my yearly ticket two weekends ago. Just behind Duke and UK.
This. Everyone lost except for O'Bannon et al's attorneys, and the fans got it the worst.prh wrote:I think the golden goose analogy is very apt, it's the exact same thing that happened with football and the EA Sports games. I hope all those players are happy they got $20 for their likenesses and killed it for 1) all the players who thought being in a game was cool and 2) everyone else who enjoyed playing the games.gumby wrote:There is no answer that preserves both. So we choose sides. My view is if we keep going down the player-centered path, it will kill the golden goose. I know that each of these changes diminishes the appeal of college hoops for me.
Dope.Main Event wrote:
Are there pictures of him in surgery and then no surgery required?azcat49 wrote:Just an FYI, supposedly there are pics of Rawle in the hospital followed by Rawle in a boot and then the next day he is out of the boot. Just leading to more scrutiny about whether he is "that" guy?
What? Seriously? Oh, goddamnit.Longhorned wrote:The moon landings were faked, too.
2 words: Capricorn One.Puerco wrote:What? Seriously? Oh, goddamnit.Longhorned wrote:The moon landings were faked, too.
Where is there pictures or talk that he was out of the boot? Last I saw and knew, he was in a walking boot as of earlier this week.azcat49 wrote:Just an FYI, supposedly there are pics of Rawle in the hospital followed by Rawle in a boot and then the next day he is out of the boot. Just leading to more scrutiny about whether he is "that" guy?
Time?YoDeFoe wrote:Dope.Main Event wrote:
2:30 PM MST.HiCat wrote:Time?YoDeFoe wrote:Dope.Main Event wrote:
Statfreak77 wrote:2:30 PM MST.HiCat wrote:Time?YoDeFoe wrote:Dope.Main Event wrote:
Here you go (36 mins)Jefe wrote:missed the presser, waiting for a full vid
Jefe wrote:I missed it, waiting on the full vid. Assuming it was under 10 mins long
Guys on the radio we're saying he didnt look good. Needs a vacation
Yeah I was wondering if there is more grey hair...but considering that Book set the recruiting momentum back to "Kevin-Crusty-the-clown-coach-O'Neil" days I'm kinda surprised he didn't look more like a crack whore on Sunday morning...Jefe wrote:I missed it, waiting on the full vid. Assuming it was under 10 mins long
Guys on the radio we're saying he didnt look good. Needs a vacation
Get no audio on that, weird.NYCat wrote:Here you go (36 mins)Jefe wrote:missed the presser, waiting for a full vid
Ah audio format issue. Can't use stereo. Just unplug your earphones if you are having the same issue.threenumberones wrote:Get no audio on that, weird.NYCat wrote:Here you go (36 mins)Jefe wrote:missed the presser, waiting for a full vid
One thing I HATE about the UA pressers is the atrocious way the audio is done, mic's are disproportionate, like yesterday it was only the left channel (I looked at the stream)..its terrible.threenumberones wrote:Ah audio format issue. Can't use stereo. Just unplug your earphones if you are having the same issue.threenumberones wrote:Get no audio on that, weird.NYCat wrote:Here you go (36 mins)Jefe wrote:missed the presser, waiting for a full vid
HiCat wrote:University of Arizona's statements suggest school will defend Sean Miller from potential NCAA investigation
Bruce Pascoe, tucson.com Published 8:34 p.m. MT Oct. 9, 2017
Months, or even years, might pass before the FBI's investigation into college basketball translates into potential NCAA violations.
But Arizona has already begun stating its case.
The claims last week by Arizona coach Sean Miller, athletic director Dave Heeke and president Robert Robbins that Miller has acknowledged his responsibility to foster compliance — and statements by Miller and Heeke that the UA coach has long been doing so — demonstrate the university is prepared to defend Miller under an NCAA rule that can penalize head coaches even if they aren't aware of violations involving their programs.
Miller was not implicated in the federal complaint that resulted in the Sept. 26 arrest of UA assistant coach Book Richardson and nine other college basketball figures, but NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1. states that head coaches are responsible for the actions of their direct or indirect reports unless they can "rebut the presumption of responsibility."
That rebuttal possibility, which is not mentioned in the NCAA manual but is in a supplemental guide for head coaches, can take head coaches off the hook.
FBI investigation: University of Arizona to conduct probe
Instituted in 2013, Bylaw 11.1.1.1 essentially eliminates plausible deniability and puts head coaches under a guilty-until-proven-innocent standard. In order to rebut the presumption of responsibility, head coaches must prove they have fostered an atmosphere of compliance and have actively monitored their direct and indirect reports.
“They’re making sure the coaches are engaged, so they can’t turn a blind eye to it,” said Christian Dennie, a Texas-based attorney who specializes in working with schools on NCAA issues. “If they can make sure the coach is doing the right thing, they’ll probably be OK.”
So even if the NCAA finds Richardson was guilty of taking $20,000 in bribes as alleged in the federal complaint, Arizona and Miller might not be punished if the school can prove Richardson acted on his own and repeatedly misled Miller when asked repeatedly about compliance. (There are, of course, other allegations Arizona could face as a result of the complaint.)
http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/n ... 748816001/" target="_blank
I think you're conflating the difference between proving the negative and the actual exculpatory evidence in this case. The truly exculpatory thing is not Miller being aware of Book's potential actions and discouraging him. It's a lack of knowledge.Hank of sb wrote:HiCat wrote:University of Arizona's statements suggest school will defend Sean Miller from potential NCAA investigation
Bruce Pascoe, tucson.com Published 8:34 p.m. MT Oct. 9, 2017
Months, or even years, might pass before the FBI's investigation into college basketball translates into potential NCAA violations.
But Arizona has already begun stating its case.
The claims last week by Arizona coach Sean Miller, athletic director Dave Heeke and president Robert Robbins that Miller has acknowledged his responsibility to foster compliance — and statements by Miller and Heeke that the UA coach has long been doing so — demonstrate the university is prepared to defend Miller under an NCAA rule that can penalize head coaches even if they aren't aware of violations involving their programs.
Miller was not implicated in the federal complaint that resulted in the Sept. 26 arrest of UA assistant coach Book Richardson and nine other college basketball figures, but NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1. states that head coaches are responsible for the actions of their direct or indirect reports unless they can "rebut the presumption of responsibility."
That rebuttal possibility, which is not mentioned in the NCAA manual but is in a supplemental guide for head coaches, can take head coaches off the hook.
FBI investigation: University of Arizona to conduct probe
Instituted in 2013, Bylaw 11.1.1.1 essentially eliminates plausible deniability and puts head coaches under a guilty-until-proven-innocent standard. In order to rebut the presumption of responsibility, head coaches must prove they have fostered an atmosphere of compliance and have actively monitored their direct and indirect reports.
“They’re making sure the coaches are engaged, so they can’t turn a blind eye to it,” said Christian Dennie, a Texas-based attorney who specializes in working with schools on NCAA issues. “If they can make sure the coach is doing the right thing, they’ll probably be OK.”
So even if the NCAA finds Richardson was guilty of taking $20,000 in bribes as alleged in the federal complaint, Arizona and Miller might not be punished if the school can prove Richardson acted on his own and repeatedly misled Miller when asked repeatedly about compliance. (There are, of course, other allegations Arizona could face as a result of the complaint.)
http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/n ... 748816001/" target="_blank
Can't see how there might be an email chain where Miller might find the exculpatory nugget.
Book: "I think I got Quinerly on the hook. You want him, right?"
Miller: "Make sure you are doing this right."
Besides, ALL emails will be subpoenaed. There will be no cherry picking. I could just as easily imagine Miller saying:
"Whatever it takes."
Indeed, Miller could say the above and have no coded agenda in his statement whatsoever. Just go back to our own missives and reread them knowing now the FBI is now looking for bad intent.
Regardless, "Arizona and Miller might be punished........" Ya think? How the NCAA can do otherwise, i.e. not punish, I can't see. Indeed, given NCAA's ongoing feckless record, they will be practically forced to punish the 6 schools involved this go around-- just to for their own heads.
The overhang with the NCAA has started; it's a mini death penalty in itself unless the school addresses it.
I am hoping an impartial university report helps the school expedite this matter no matter what the recommendation.
You are right.Spaceman Spiff wrote:
I think you're conflating the difference between proving the negative and the actual exculpatory evidence in this case. The truly exculpatory thing is not Miller being aware of Book's potential actions and discouraging him. It's a lack of knowledge.
By its nature, that will not leave a trail of proof, but a trail of the absence of the same.
Hank of sb wrote:
(There are, of course, other allegations Arizona could face as a result of the complaint.)
Like fucking what?
http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/n ... 748816001/" target="_blank
They hired an OUTSIDE legal firm I'm sure your hopes will be realised...but down that road the general tone of what you think seems to contradict with what you hope, you are a person divided within himself...Besides, ALL emails will be subpoenaed. There will be no cherry picking. I could just as easily imagine Miller saying:
"Whatever it takes."
Indeed, Miller could say the above and have no coded agenda in his statement whatsoever. Just go back to our own missives and reread them knowing now the FBI is now looking for bad intent.
Regardless, "Arizona and Miller might be punished........" Ya think? How the NCAA can do otherwise, i.e. not punish, I can't see. Indeed, given NCAA's ongoing feckless record, they will be practically forced to punish the 6 schools involved this go around-- just to for their own heads.
The overhang with the NCAA has started; it's a mini death penalty in itself unless the school addresses it.
I am hoping an impartial university report helps the school expedite this matter no matter what the recommendation.
I agree we will likely be punished for Book's actions even without an implication of anyone else. If that is the case, I think there will be sanctions, but not severe. What Book is accused of, without more, is something that does not directly invoke the major concerns that trigger the NCAA dropping the heavy hammer.Hank of sb wrote:You are right.Spaceman Spiff wrote:
I think you're conflating the difference between proving the negative and the actual exculpatory evidence in this case. The truly exculpatory thing is not Miller being aware of Book's potential actions and discouraging him. It's a lack of knowledge.
By its nature, that will not leave a trail of proof, but a trail of the absence of the same.
Let's say all that is known now is all that will ever be known--the investigation is now over, we just don't know it.
That leaves the matter at hand: Book.
As there will be a consensus to do so, the NCAA will (most likely) come down on this.
You would do better by addressing this question to the person that originally wrote it.CatFanOneMil wrote:Hank of sb wrote:
(There are, of course, other allegations Arizona could face as a result of the complaint.)
Like fucking what?
Yes. Best case this is a wrap. Right now.Spaceman Spiff wrote:I agree we will likely be punished for Book's actions even without an implication of anyone else. If that is the case, I think there will be sanctions, but not severe. What Book is accused of, without more, is something that does not directly invoke the major concerns that trigger the NCAA dropping the heavy hammer.Hank of sb wrote:You are right.Spaceman Spiff wrote:
I think you're conflating the difference between proving the negative and the actual exculpatory evidence in this case. The truly exculpatory thing is not Miller being aware of Book's potential actions and discouraging him. It's a lack of knowledge.
By its nature, that will not leave a trail of proof, but a trail of the absence of the same.
Let's say all that is known now is all that will ever be known--the investigation is now over, we just don't know it.
That leaves the matter at hand: Book.
As there will be a consensus to do so, the NCAA will (most likely) come down on this.
Now, if the NCAA goes further and says Book did what he did because Arizona did not emphasize a climate of compliance, then things get harsher. This is the muddy middle ground. The climate arguments are always more fungible.
The final possibility is direct involvement of others. This is where we'd get a bigger hammer. This is obviously early, but I don't think things are heading this route, given Arizona's public rhetoric so far.
UAEebs86 wrote:ChooChooCat wrote:Vegas tourneys aren't until July.Jefe wrote:Vegas tourney this week? Or just a hub for another destination? Bol Bol?
Both of them going must mean its a big time recruit
I honestly don't know of any big recruits currently in Vegas or at least any that we're currently on.
Maybe they're getting on a connected flight out of LV or maybe they found Ajay Thakore's "dead body" and really felt the urge to take a piss on it?
Having a burger with the Maryland AD?
YoDeFoe wrote:I don't get it...?
YoDeFoe wrote:I don't get it...?
Jefe wrote:Who are the reporters he can't stand again? Its always the guy to Millers far left
To his credit, he did mention the "play 2 games in 3 days" so he was sort of, kind of right.Jefe wrote:Someone tell Coach we play Sunday not Monday
I'm confident we won't forfeit by showing on the wrong day. Although that would be interesting.Jefe wrote:Someone tell Coach we play Sunday not Monday