| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
 Posted: 07/04/15 8:13 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| NoDakSt wrote: |
Do they make that decision now? Do they go another season, and let the coach go because of W/L record? What if somehow improbably, they have a great season? Do they settle The suit out of court?
Honestly, this has gone far enough where Inthink the AD needs to be worried about his job. Who is going to want to coach in this fiasco. |
I honestly don't know. The longer this goes, the more damage this is going to do to their program. There will be more and more conversations amongst people as this goes on, especially with July being such a huge travel month for AAU teams. Coaches talk to each, both high school as well as club.
However, on the flip side, if they fire the staff now, they are obviously presuming guilt as opposed to innocence. They really are in a tough situation from all sorts of perspectives.
One of the HS coaches (who happens to be a black female) made the comment that even if half of what is in the suit is true, it's horrible and despicable in this day and age. |
Finish the investigation, and if it shows that there's anything to the suit, fire him for cause and settle the suit. That's the course that contains the damage the best. Let him sue for whatever's left on his contract if he really thinks that's smart (which it wouldn't be - you could even make having the players testify in any suit he filed a condition of the settlement, for instance).
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7817
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/04/15 9:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/13190071/parents-illinois-fighting-illini-players-believe-allegations-coach
Well, of course the parents of the incoming player don't believe it. It would be inconvenient to do so at this point in the year, for one thing, and anyway, it won't concern their precious snowflake, because of course she's special (and maybe, just maybe, because she's white?). Anyway, they wouldn't have seen anything because coaches always put their best masks on when outsiders are present, and those people can't go into the locker room.
Am I cynical? You bet.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
bullsky
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 20310
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/07/15 11:21 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| NoDakSt wrote: |
Do they make that decision now? Do they go another season, and let the coach go because of W/L record? What if somehow improbably, they have a great season? Do they settle The suit out of court?
Honestly, this has gone far enough where Inthink the AD needs to be worried about his job. Who is going to want to coach in this fiasco. |
I honestly don't know. The longer this goes, the more damage this is going to do to their program. There will be more and more conversations amongst people as this goes on, especially with July being such a huge travel month for AAU teams. Coaches talk to each, both high school as well as club.
However, on the flip side, if they fire the staff now, they are obviously presuming guilt as opposed to innocence. They really are in a tough situation from all sorts of perspectives.
One of the HS coaches (who happens to be a black female) made the comment that even if half of what is in the suit is true, it's horrible and despicable in this day and age. |
I feel like they already did this though, in getting rid of the assistant. Sure, Mike "left on his own." But this has force out written all over it. I think they were hoping if they got rid of him it would go away but it hasn't and for good reason.
At this point, you've got to get rid of Bollant. I don't think Illinois cares too terribly much about their WBB program but if they do at all, they just need to clean house. I really doubt that 8 players would all conspire to make things up.
At the center of this controversy though will be the two assistant coaches, Lakale Malone and Tianna Kirkland, both black females. It will be interesting to see what part they play in the investigation.
_________________
"Don't do something until you get it right, do it until you can't do it wrong."
- Geno Auriemma
|
|
bullsky
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 20310
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/07/15 11:27 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| summertime blues wrote: |
http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/13190071/parents-illinois-fighting-illini-players-believe-allegations-coach
Well, of course the parents of the incoming player don't believe it. It would be inconvenient to do so at this point in the year, for one thing, and anyway, it won't concern their precious snowflake, because of course she's special (and maybe, just maybe, because she's white?). Anyway, they wouldn't have seen anything because coaches always put their best masks on when outsiders are present, and those people can't go into the locker room.
Am I cynical? You bet. |
This is getting more interested. Chatrice is close with some of the players in the lawsuit, particularly Jacqui Grant. I'm interested in that dynamic.
Isn't Kirkpatrick biracial? Either way, the argument doesn't make sense.
Amarah Coleman and Taylor Tuck were pretty major contributors. I understand working with your starters and bench separately, but if it was divided by race, that makes no sense at all.
Also, Brooke Kissinger, a white freshman, missed what felt like 1,000 three pointers to start the season this past season, yet Bollant continued to play her because she is "a sharpshooter who is in a slump."
It all just feels dirty to me.
_________________
"Don't do something until you get it right, do it until you can't do it wrong."
- Geno Auriemma
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7817
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/07/15 3:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| bullsky wrote: |
| summertime blues wrote: |
http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/13190071/parents-illinois-fighting-illini-players-believe-allegations-coach
Well, of course the parents of the incoming player don't believe it. It would be inconvenient to do so at this point in the year, for one thing, and anyway, it won't concern their precious snowflake, because of course she's special (and maybe, just maybe, because she's white?). Anyway, they wouldn't have seen anything because coaches always put their best masks on when outsiders are present, and those people can't go into the locker room.
Am I cynical? You bet. |
This is getting more interested. Chatrice is close with some of the players in the lawsuit, particularly Jacqui Grant. I'm interested in that dynamic.
Isn't Kirkpatrick biracial? Either way, the argument doesn't make sense.
Amarah Coleman and Taylor Tuck were pretty major contributors. I understand working with your starters and bench separately, but if it was divided by race, that makes no sense at all.
Also, Brooke Kissinger, a white freshman, missed what felt like 1,000 three pointers to start the season this past season, yet Bollant continued to play her because she is "a sharpshooter who is in a slump."
It all just feels dirty to me. |
Just remember, biracial=black to an awful lot of people.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
bullsky
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 20310
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/08/15 11:17 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| summertime blues wrote: |
| bullsky wrote: |
| summertime blues wrote: |
http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/13190071/parents-illinois-fighting-illini-players-believe-allegations-coach
Well, of course the parents of the incoming player don't believe it. It would be inconvenient to do so at this point in the year, for one thing, and anyway, it won't concern their precious snowflake, because of course she's special (and maybe, just maybe, because she's white?). Anyway, they wouldn't have seen anything because coaches always put their best masks on when outsiders are present, and those people can't go into the locker room.
Am I cynical? You bet. |
This is getting more interested. Chatrice is close with some of the players in the lawsuit, particularly Jacqui Grant. I'm interested in that dynamic.
Isn't Kirkpatrick biracial? Either way, the argument doesn't make sense.
Amarah Coleman and Taylor Tuck were pretty major contributors. I understand working with your starters and bench separately, but if it was divided by race, that makes no sense at all.
Also, Brooke Kissinger, a white freshman, missed what felt like 1,000 three pointers to start the season this past season, yet Bollant continued to play her because she is "a sharpshooter who is in a slump."
It all just feels dirty to me. |
Just remember, biracial=black to an awful lot of people. |
Right, I was just pointing that out because I feel like you may have insinuated that the two people who voiced support for the coaching staff were both white when that's not the case. I still smell bullshit, though.
Either way, this is a hot mess.
_________________
"Don't do something until you get it right, do it until you can't do it wrong."
- Geno Auriemma
|
|
NoDakSt
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 4929
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/08/15 12:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
It's a fluster-cluck, to be sure. And now the university is going to open a secondary investigation?!? And they're disappointed that these lawsuits were generated before the second investigation concluded?!?
This is going to cost a lot of people their jobs. And it probably should.
|
|
Durantula
Joined: 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 5223
Back to top |
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/03/15 4:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Hmm. I always find a report that says nothing was wrong, but here are things we need to fix to be, ah, interesting.
Also, I don't know all of the subtleties of the NCAA's rules on practices, but if there were extra practices for some players, isn't there some chance that the total amount of practice exceeded the NCAA's limits?
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9604
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/03/15 6:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
Hmm. I always find a report that says nothing was wrong, but here are things we need to fix to be, ah, interesting.
|
They didn't say nothing was wrong. They said the specific charges were unfounded.
| Quote: |
The report stated that Divilbiss "treated players harshly in a number of incidents and more harshly overall than other coaches," but found "no evidence that he criticized players differently or more frequently because of their race." |
For this particular issue, the charge was that black players and white players who associated with them got treated worse than white players. They are saying that wasn't true, while apparently saying that the coach (or coaches) treated the players too harshly. Had one of the charges been that the coaches treated the players too harshly, it sounds like they would have said that that charge was right.
|
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18028
Location: Queens
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/03/15 6:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Gosh, there's a real shocker. I'm already popping the popcorn for the fallout.
_________________
Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/03/15 9:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
Hmm. I always find a report that says nothing was wrong, but here are things we need to fix to be, ah, interesting.
|
They didn't say nothing was wrong. They said the specific charges were unfounded.
| Quote: |
The report stated that Divilbiss "treated players harshly in a number of incidents and more harshly overall than other coaches," but found "no evidence that he criticized players differently or more frequently because of their race." |
For this particular issue, the charge was that black players and white players who associated with them got treated worse than white players. They are saying that wasn't true, while apparently saying that the coach (or coaches) treated the players too harshly. Had one of the charges been that the coaches treated the players too harshly, it sounds like they would have said that that charge was right. |
Pardon my skepticism, but I suspect that if the charge had been that the players were treated too harshly, the conclusion would have been that they weren't.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9604
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/04/15 7:22 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
Pardon my skepticism, but I suspect that if the charge had been that the players were treated too harshly, the conclusion would have been that they weren't. |
I would agree with that. A law firm is approached to do a study for money. Their client tells them they have already done their own study - of themselves - and found no fault and now they want them do a similar study - and your study could provide legal support for a lawsuit we are facing. That law firm can both please their client and establish themselves as the type of firm other entities want to hire to make similar studies when they are being sued.
|
|
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3510
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/04/15 3:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Some of the accusations should be pretty easy to prove/disprove, like hotel assignments if files still exist with that info. And if dated practice videos exist, they can be compared against PT in preceding games. The undertones of racial bias are much harder to evaluate in the absence of videos of every single coach-player interaction.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/04/15 9:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
Pardon my skepticism, but I suspect that if the charge had been that the players were treated too harshly, the conclusion would have been that they weren't. |
I would agree with that. A law firm is approached to do a study for money. Their client tells them they have already done their own study - of themselves - and found no fault and now they want them do a similar study - and your study could provide legal support for a lawsuit we are facing. That law firm can both please their client and establish themselves as the type of firm other entities want to hire to make similar studies when they are being sued. |
Yeah in the Area 51 believers world I'm sure that's the assumption.
In the real world it typically doesn't work that way.
Doing a half ass phony job is not career or business enhancing. Maintaining reputation and credibility is far more important to most lawyers, and a far better road to a succesful practice.
To start with, the lawyer's credibility with the prosecutors or other government agencies who will be reviewing that report is critical. Do one half assed report or coverup, lose your credibility, and you are of no use to any future client. Not worth it.
BTW, that's not to say it never happens, and some reports just aren't very good without any nefarious motive. But the notion that all such investigations are biased whitewashes is an urban legend.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9604
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/05/15 1:08 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
Pardon my skepticism, but I suspect that if the charge had been that the players were treated too harshly, the conclusion would have been that they weren't. |
I would agree with that. A law firm is approached to do a study for money. Their client tells them they have already done their own study - of themselves - and found no fault and now they want them do a similar study - and your study could provide legal support for a lawsuit we are facing. That law firm can both please their client and establish themselves as the type of firm other entities want to hire to make similar studies when they are being sued. |
Yeah in the Area 51 believers world I'm sure that's the assumption.
In the real world it typically doesn't work that way.
Doing a half ass phony job is not career or business enhancing. Maintaining reputation and credibility is far more important to most lawyers, and a far better road to a succesful practice.
To start with, the lawyer's credibility with the prosecutors or other government agencies who will be reviewing that report is critical. Do one half assed report or coverup, lose your credibility, and you are of no use to any future client. Not worth it.
BTW, that's not to say it never happens, and some reports just aren't very good without any nefarious motive. But the notion that all such investigations are biased whitewashes is an urban legend. |
There is a lot of room between an unbiased report and a "half ass phony job" or a "biased whitewash". A competent lawyer would be able to do a biased report that did not get to the point where it could be labeled so severely.
I don't believe that a prosecutor is involved in this case. If a government agency gets involved in this or a similar case, I assume they would do their own investigation and not rely on a report presented to them by a law firm hired by the defendant. The jury that sees the report won't have any opinion of the law firm's prior reports.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/05/15 6:44 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
Pardon my skepticism, but I suspect that if the charge had been that the players were treated too harshly, the conclusion would have been that they weren't. |
I would agree with that. A law firm is approached to do a study for money. Their client tells them they have already done their own study - of themselves - and found no fault and now they want them do a similar study - and your study could provide legal support for a lawsuit we are facing. That law firm can both please their client and establish themselves as the type of firm other entities want to hire to make similar studies when they are being sued. |
Yeah in the Area 51 believers world I'm sure that's the assumption.
In the real world it typically doesn't work that way.
Doing a half ass phony job is not career or business enhancing. Maintaining reputation and credibility is far more important to most lawyers, and a far better road to a succesful practice.
To start with, the lawyer's credibility with the prosecutors or other government agencies who will be reviewing that report is critical. Do one half assed report or coverup, lose your credibility, and you are of no use to any future client. Not worth it.
BTW, that's not to say it never happens, and some reports just aren't very good without any nefarious motive. But the notion that all such investigations are biased whitewashes is an urban legend. |
In the real world, clients often get what clients want, which isn't that hard to do if (a) you know what they want; and (b) there's any room for argument. Look at the Patriots football situation - the report itself says that the pressure gauges weren't calibrated *and* gave different results, but somehow it concludes that there's sufficient evidence that the balls were underinflated. And that report was prepared by a pretty famous lawyer.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/05/15 11:51 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
Pardon my skepticism, but I suspect that if the charge had been that the players were treated too harshly, the conclusion would have been that they weren't. |
I would agree with that. A law firm is approached to do a study for money. Their client tells them they have already done their own study - of themselves - and found no fault and now they want them do a similar study - and your study could provide legal support for a lawsuit we are facing. That law firm can both please their client and establish themselves as the type of firm other entities want to hire to make similar studies when they are being sued. |
Yeah in the Area 51 believers world I'm sure that's the assumption.
In the real world it typically doesn't work that way.
Doing a half ass phony job is not career or business enhancing. Maintaining reputation and credibility is far more important to most lawyers, and a far better road to a succesful practice.
To start with, the lawyer's credibility with the prosecutors or other government agencies who will be reviewing that report is critical. Do one half assed report or coverup, lose your credibility, and you are of no use to any future client. Not worth it.
BTW, that's not to say it never happens, and some reports just aren't very good without any nefarious motive. But the notion that all such investigations are biased whitewashes is an urban legend. |
In the real world, clients often get what clients want, which isn't that hard to do if (a) you know what they want; and (b) there's any room for argument. Look at the Patriots football situation - the report itself says that the pressure gauges weren't calibrated *and* gave different results, but somehow it concludes that there's sufficient evidence that the balls were underinflated. And that report was prepared by a pretty famous lawyer. |
Based on a lot of evidence and several expert reports and analyses concludes "it is more probable than not that Jim McNally and John Jastremski participated in a deliberate plan to circumvent the rules by releasing air from Patriots game balls after the examination of the footballs by NFL game officials at the AFC Championship Game." Maybe that's the correct conclusion, or certainly more accurate than the few tidbits you have chosen to take out of context from a 138 page report to try to draw some desired conclusion regarding the objectivity of the report.
And since you evidently would like people to believe this was all just a phony set up job crafted to meet the NFL's desire to find the Patriots guilty, you might wonder why these "accommodating" lawyers from Paul Weis concluded "We do not believe that the evidence supports a conclusion that there was any deliberate effort by the Patriots to circumvent the NFL‟s Playing Rules with respect to the kicking balls used during the AFC Championship Game."
Maybe these people reported exactly what the evidence supported.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/05/15 12:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
And since you evidently would like people to believe this was all just a phony set up job crafted to meet the NFL's desire to find the Patriots guilty, you might wonder why these "accommodating" lawyers from Paul Weis concluded "We do not believe that the evidence supports a conclusion that there was any deliberate effort by the Patriots to circumvent the NFL‟s Playing Rules with respect to the kicking balls used during the AFC Championship Game."
Maybe these people reported exactly what the evidence supported. |
I thought the whole question was with the "throwing balls"?
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/05/15 1:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| In the real world, clients often get what clients want, which isn't that hard to do if (a) you know what they want; and (b) there's any room for argument. Look at the Patriots football situation - the report itself says that the pressure gauges weren't calibrated *and* gave different results, but somehow it concludes that there's sufficient evidence that the balls were underinflated. And that report was prepared by a pretty famous lawyer. |
Based on a lot of evidence and several expert reports and analyses concludes "it is more probable than not that Jim McNally and John Jastremski participated in a deliberate plan to circumvent the rules by releasing air from Patriots game balls after the examination of the footballs by NFL game officials at the AFC Championship Game." Maybe that's the correct conclusion, or certainly more accurate than the few tidbits you have chosen to take out of context from a 138 page report to try to draw some desired conclusion regarding the objectivity of the report.
And since you evidently would like people to believe this was all just a phony set up job crafted to meet the NFL's desire to find the Patriots guilty, you might wonder why these "accommodating" lawyers from Paul Weis concluded "We do not believe that the evidence supports a conclusion that there was any deliberate effort by the Patriots to circumvent the NFL‟s Playing Rules with respect to the kicking balls used during the AFC Championship Game."
Maybe these people reported exactly what the evidence supported. |
That's certainly possible. On the other hand, there's still the matter of explaining how you can reach any conclusions when there weren't reliable measurements of the inflation of the balls in the first place.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/05/15 1:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| In the real world, clients often get what clients want, which isn't that hard to do if (a) you know what they want; and (b) there's any room for argument. Look at the Patriots football situation - the report itself says that the pressure gauges weren't calibrated *and* gave different results, but somehow it concludes that there's sufficient evidence that the balls were underinflated. And that report was prepared by a pretty famous lawyer. |
Based on a lot of evidence and several expert reports and analyses concludes "it is more probable than not that Jim McNally and John Jastremski participated in a deliberate plan to circumvent the rules by releasing air from Patriots game balls after the examination of the footballs by NFL game officials at the AFC Championship Game." Maybe that's the correct conclusion, or certainly more accurate than the few tidbits you have chosen to take out of context from a 138 page report to try to draw some desired conclusion regarding the objectivity of the report.
And since you evidently would like people to believe this was all just a phony set up job crafted to meet the NFL's desire to find the Patriots guilty, you might wonder why these "accommodating" lawyers from Paul Weis concluded "We do not believe that the evidence supports a conclusion that there was any deliberate effort by the Patriots to circumvent the NFL‟s Playing Rules with respect to the kicking balls used during the AFC Championship Game."
Maybe these people reported exactly what the evidence supported. |
That's certainly possible. On the other hand, there's still the matter of explaining how you can reach any conclusions when there weren't reliable measurements of the inflation of the balls in the first place. |
There's a lengthy expert report on which Wells relied.
Are you saying the balls weren't ever underinflated? Where's that come from?
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/05/15 4:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| In the real world, clients often get what clients want, which isn't that hard to do if (a) you know what they want; and (b) there's any room for argument. Look at the Patriots football situation - the report itself says that the pressure gauges weren't calibrated *and* gave different results, but somehow it concludes that there's sufficient evidence that the balls were underinflated. And that report was prepared by a pretty famous lawyer. |
Based on a lot of evidence and several expert reports and analyses concludes "it is more probable than not that Jim McNally and John Jastremski participated in a deliberate plan to circumvent the rules by releasing air from Patriots game balls after the examination of the footballs by NFL game officials at the AFC Championship Game." Maybe that's the correct conclusion, or certainly more accurate than the few tidbits you have chosen to take out of context from a 138 page report to try to draw some desired conclusion regarding the objectivity of the report.
And since you evidently would like people to believe this was all just a phony set up job crafted to meet the NFL's desire to find the Patriots guilty, you might wonder why these "accommodating" lawyers from Paul Weis concluded "We do not believe that the evidence supports a conclusion that there was any deliberate effort by the Patriots to circumvent the NFL‟s Playing Rules with respect to the kicking balls used during the AFC Championship Game."
Maybe these people reported exactly what the evidence supported. |
That's certainly possible. On the other hand, there's still the matter of explaining how you can reach any conclusions when there weren't reliable measurements of the inflation of the balls in the first place. |
There's a lengthy expert report on which Wells relied.
Are you saying the balls weren't ever underinflated? Where's that come from? |
I'm saying that the balls were measured using two different gauges, neither of which was calibrated before they were used, and it appears that they each gave different readings. Also, the officials (unsurprisingly) did not recall which gauges they had used when and on which balls. If you read the report, you'll see that the explanation is, more or less, that the officials must have used the same gauge at halftime as before the game because, well, actually, because of nothing in particular. (The report says that the experts reached the conclusion that this was more likely than not, but never explains why they reached this conclusion, even while noting that the officials didn't remember which gauge was used. You can see this on the bottom of page 116.)
And this is a perfect example of the issue - once you know that there were different gauges that read differently and that the officials don't know which one they used when, things have gotten pretty fuzzy. Yet the report still concludes that it is more probable than not that an infraction occurred.
I, by the way, am not the only one to notice this: Just one example
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7817
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/07/15 12:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Could we take Brady and the Patriots out of this discussion, please, and keep it on topic?
I note that the chancellor of the U of I has resigned, effective Aug. 12. I gather there are several factors in play, one being the lawsuit by the basketball players.
http://news.yahoo.com/university-illinois-chancellor-wise-resigning-aug-12-203854923.html
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/07/15 2:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Sorry about the diversion.
U of I is having a lot of trouble lately, including losing round 1 of a lawsuit about a professor who they tried to unhire after they decided he'd said something offensive on Twitter. (It wasn't particularly offensive, as I recall.)
|
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5155
Location: Carson City
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/08/15 3:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
Sorry about the diversion.
U of I is having a lot of trouble lately, including losing round 1 of a lawsuit about a professor who they tried to unhire after they decided he'd said something offensive on Twitter. (It wasn't particularly offensive, as I recall.) |
Notwithstanding the Brady discussion, you initial point about the Wells Report is completely correct. The attorney's report to U of I is not totally independent nor is it a total whitewash. It is a new set of eyes looking at the situation. If their wasn't the threat of litigation perhaps the report could be more forthcoming, but under the circumstances it has to be careful about any statements that could be used against the school. Good attorneys know how to do this. Unless there are outright falsehoods or a total lack of objectivity this will not hurt the law firm. It is what they were hired to do, It is nearly impossible to get a truly independent report. The question will always be asked about who is paying for it and why.
Litigation may get us to a better understanding of what happened, but even then there will likely still be questions. Hopefully there will be some kind of settlement because this case isn't good for anyone; not Illinois, not the players and not Bollant.
|
|
|
|
