Cusefan95
All Conference
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,660
- Like
- 4,031
I've read that in several threads, I'm not sure people actually know what that means. Let's walk through the various stories that have broken this year:
1). Bernie Fine - Davis came to SU in 2005, told them his allegations (IIRC he also told them that the SOL prevented the police from doing anything). SU has their law firm investigate, didn't come up with anything, and filed the investigation report. 2011, On the heels on Penn State Davis gets a friend/relative/whatever the hell Lang is to back his story...and ESPN decided that 2 sources = run with story. One the tape gets played (which I've listened to and, while bizarre, a defense attorney would shred in court...), Fine was terminated.
What, exactly, should Syracuse University have done differently?
2) Drug cases. In 2010 Syracuse University found issues within the administration of their internal drug policy. Again as a result of the Fine case we've got "journalists" running around trying to find something, again they breathlessly report sketchy details in such a way that it sounds like they've investigated and found a major story..and here we are. Other than JB not running his mouth in press conferences, how exactly should Syrcause University have handled this differently?
3). Fab Melo. Jesus, it's not like we haven't lost players right before the NCAAs. BYU suspended a kid for violating their honor code and having sex with his girlfriend last year. Again, what exactly should Syracuse University have done differently?
I've never been to court, but I've been involved in numerous arbitration cases. It is absolutely amazing how facts can be stitched together to create a story that is completely the opposite of reality, and that paints an organization in an incredibly bad light. Most of what we have here is a university doing the right things, while the media (that up the story in the first place) has taken the role of opposing council. I guarantee you that this basic trashing of the university could happen at any university if the media became as dedicated to it as they have been in this case. It won't get better by feeding the beast and making wholesale changes, because all that does is lend credibility to the story and cause even more digging for "facts". This is a story that doesn't at all involve "lack of institutional control", it involves mainly lack of media control/ethics - and a gullible public willing to believe what the media is telling them without any critical analysis at all.
1). Bernie Fine - Davis came to SU in 2005, told them his allegations (IIRC he also told them that the SOL prevented the police from doing anything). SU has their law firm investigate, didn't come up with anything, and filed the investigation report. 2011, On the heels on Penn State Davis gets a friend/relative/whatever the hell Lang is to back his story...and ESPN decided that 2 sources = run with story. One the tape gets played (which I've listened to and, while bizarre, a defense attorney would shred in court...), Fine was terminated.
What, exactly, should Syracuse University have done differently?
2) Drug cases. In 2010 Syracuse University found issues within the administration of their internal drug policy. Again as a result of the Fine case we've got "journalists" running around trying to find something, again they breathlessly report sketchy details in such a way that it sounds like they've investigated and found a major story..and here we are. Other than JB not running his mouth in press conferences, how exactly should Syrcause University have handled this differently?
3). Fab Melo. Jesus, it's not like we haven't lost players right before the NCAAs. BYU suspended a kid for violating their honor code and having sex with his girlfriend last year. Again, what exactly should Syracuse University have done differently?
I've never been to court, but I've been involved in numerous arbitration cases. It is absolutely amazing how facts can be stitched together to create a story that is completely the opposite of reality, and that paints an organization in an incredibly bad light. Most of what we have here is a university doing the right things, while the media (that up the story in the first place) has taken the role of opposing council. I guarantee you that this basic trashing of the university could happen at any university if the media became as dedicated to it as they have been in this case. It won't get better by feeding the beast and making wholesale changes, because all that does is lend credibility to the story and cause even more digging for "facts". This is a story that doesn't at all involve "lack of institutional control", it involves mainly lack of media control/ethics - and a gullible public willing to believe what the media is telling them without any critical analysis at all.