Time to start facing some hard truths

[pfister1]

it's JB's fault for not wanting to follow the procedures. There would have been no drug issues if JB had, as policy dictated, contacted the players' parents/guardians after the first positive test. JB didn't want to, asked Daryl to allow him to skip it, and now he is out 108 wins and his team will likely be out of the running for another Final Four for the remainder of his tenure.

it was such an easy procedure to follow. a complete self-inflicted blow. JB gets 90% of the blame on that, the other 10 goes to Gross for not having the sack to make Jim do his job.

Disagree with this. Top Administrator gets 90% of the blame. JB's job is to run the basketball program not make, interpret and enforce athletic department (drug) policy. Could he have been smarter about it? sure. But this is happening at a time when (i) the only reason they have the policy is to head off positive tests at NCAA events when the NCAA does its testing, (ii) no one is required to do the testing, (iii) there are no strict requirements for what, if any, action must be taken in the face of a positive test, so why not decide on the fly how to implement (or ignore) portions of the policy, and (iv) no one has yet made a big deal about whether you do or don't follow your own internal policies.

In retrospect its easy to say they should have done this or that, looking at it at the time that it was going on it doesn't seem like an unreasonable decision to me in light of all of the circumstances.

 

[Briancuse]

I am trying to figure out what we are blaming JB for in the Fab Melo case. He was suspended twice during that season, if we ran a dirty program, we could have overlooked everything and not suspended him at all.

 

[pfister1]

I am trying to figure out what we are blaming JB for in the Fab Melo case. He was suspended twice during that season, if we ran a dirty program, we could have overlooked everything and not suspended him at all.

Maybe because the Director of Basketball Operations and a basketball secretary were involved in the writing of the paper that temporarily restored his eligibility. Reasonable minds can differ on whether they think JB knew or should have known this is what went down.

 

[moqui]

Disagree with this. Top Administrator gets 90% of the blame. JB's job is to run the basketball program not make, interpret and enforce athletic department (drug) policy. Could he have been smarter about it? sure. But this is happening at a time when (i) the only reason they have the policy is to head off positive tests at NCAA events when the NCAA does its testing, (ii) no one is required to do the testing, (iii) there are no strict requirements for what, if any, action must be taken in the face of a positive test, so why not decide on the fly how to implement (or ignore) portions of the policy, and (iv) no one has yet made a big deal about whether you do or don't follow your own internal policies.

In retrospect its easy to say they should have done this or that, looking at it at the time that it was going on it doesn't seem like an unreasonable decision to me in light of all of the circumstances.

sorry, Pfister, but every point you make is a non sequitor. Regardless of whether it was required by the NCAA or not, the fact is that the school implemented a drug policy - once that was done, none of the other points matter. And it was written in such a way that JB had specific responsibilities. Once that was done, it was on him to follow the policy. He knew what he had to do, but didn't want to do it, and so here we are. Maybe if Gross had been strong enough to stand up to the HOFer and insist that he do perform his required functions it could have been avoided, but that's like asking a cat to be a dog, so I only put 10% on him. Boeheim is the author of this.

The drug thing is really the killer, because it allows the NCAA to point to a multi-year, consistent period of lax enforcement covering multiple athletes. If you take that away, then the Fab Melo & YMCA stuff look like one-off episodes that wouldn't get much punishment. The failure to follow drug policy is the mortar that holds the entire case together.

 

[Madbiker]

sorry, Pfister, but every point you make is a non sequitor. Regardless of whether it was required by the NCAA or not, the fact is that the school implemented a drug policy - once that was done, none of the other points matter. And it was written in such a way that JB had specific responsibilities. Once that was done, it was on him to follow the policy. He knew what he had to do, but didn't want to do it, and so here we are. Maybe if Gross had been strong enough to stand up to the HOFer and insist that he do perform his required functions it could have been avoided, but that's like asking a cat to be a dog, so I only put 10% on him. Boeheim is the author of this.

The drug thing is really the killer, because it allows the NCAA to point to a multi-year, consistent period of lax enforcement covering multiple athletes. If you take that away, then the Fab Melo & YMCA stuff look like one-off episodes that wouldn't get much punishment. The failure to follow drug policy is the mortar that holds the entire case together.

Another question is what is the role of the compliance director in this fiasco? There is supposed to be a compliance function that is charged with knowing and interpreting all of the NCAA's arcane rules and they are supposed to provide the guidance to the athletic staff and keep them on the straight and narrow. Who was that person at the time? The compliance director has to be someone forceful who can say, this is the rule and if you don't follow it you risk being hammered. Didn't happen. Seems like whoever was responsible for this was totally cowed by Gross and maybe JB. Who heads the current compliance function? Is it a strong person who has the backing of the Chancellor? It should be.

 

[ClamOtto]

The severity of sanctions does not match the severity of the violations in this case. But I think the school deserves to be sanctioned for a) having a policy when none was required and b) having such a dumb and possibly illegal policy that required calling adults' parents to inform them of drug test results. Who came up with that and who could have possibly thought it was a good idea?

 

[jordoo]

The severity of sanctions does not match the severity of the violations in this case. But I think the school deserves to be sanctioned for a) having a policy when none was required and b) having such a dumb and possibly illegal policy that required calling adults' parents to inform them of drug test results. Who came up with that and who could have possibly thought it was a good idea?

I have asked this question as well. It seems to me that the policy would not have been legal if implemented correctly. It was a poorly contrived policy which was not carried out correctly and SU deserves some sort of punishment for that undoubtedly. That said I also agree that the penalties far exceeded the crimes.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

From the NCAA Report:

At the hearing and in their interviews, both the head basketball coach and the director of athletics admitted that they did not strictly follow the written policy. Specifically, in his interview the head basketball coach acknowledged that he had student-athletes test positive and rather than call the student-athletes' parents, he brought the student-athletes in and talked to them. When questioned why he did not call the parents, the head basketball coach responded that the director of athletics did not require him to follow the policy and, in at least in some instances, "it would have been fruitless." At the hearing, the head basketball coach also admitted that he did not call the parents because his director of athletics told him he did not have to and he did not know that failing to follow the policy violated NCAA rules. Similarly, at the hearing the director of athletics defended the head basketball coach's decision not to call parents, claiming that the policy was confusing. The director of athletics indicated that there was an "unwritten policy" whereby it was known that coaches were not going to call parents.

I know how badly some people want to dump this in JB's lap, but this is on the athletic department.

If only someone in the AD's office put the new policy in writing, and forwarded a copy to the NCAA.

 

[AlaskaSU]

Another question is what is the role of the compliance director in this fiasco? There is supposed to be a compliance function that is charged with knowing and interpreting all of the NCAA's arcane rules and they are supposed to provide the guidance to the athletic staff and keep them on the straight and narrow. Who was that person at the time? The compliance director has to be someone forceful who can say, this is the rule and if you don't follow it you risk being hammered. Didn't happen. Seems like whoever was responsible for this was totally cowed by Gross and maybe JB. Who heads the current compliance function? Is it a strong person who has the backing of the Chancellor? It should be.

We had a complicit compliance officer and that was due to lack of institutional control. He participated in the Melo fiasco and has since been fired. With better institutional control he would have known not to cut corners. In short, compliance was not emphasized as an overriding directive. It was most likely a matter of neglect on JB's part, although certainly not excusable. However, there is no comparison between our sins of omission and planned cheating, sins of commission at N Carolina.

 

[Antiprodigy]

it's JB's fault for not wanting to follow the procedures. There would have been no drug issues if JB had, as policy dictated, contacted the players' parents/guardians after the first positive test. JB didn't want to, asked Daryl to allow him to skip it, and now he is out 108 wins and his team will likely be out of the running for another Final Four for the remainder of his tenure.

it was such an easy procedure to follow. a complete self-inflicted blow. JB gets 90% of the blame on that, the other 10 goes to Gross for not having the sack to make Jim do his job.

Not trying to soften the blow of the stick you're swinging, but I have an honest question\theory behind the seeming lack of desire to contact a players' parents/guardian?

I am wondering how realistic it is to think contacting a parent or guardian would be beneficial for many of these player's? I mean, wouldn't Fabs parent's be in Brazil? How effective would they be at reigning in their son? It would seem likely that JB would have had some interaction with his parent's at some point during the recruiting process. In fact, I seem to vaguely remember that he may have had an Assistant coach or something who became his guardian. Might JB's interaction have given him a clear indication that there was no control to be derived from that direction?

Anyway, after the age of 18, does it really matter? Aren't they legally adults and responsible for their own actions, thus making communication with parents, not only no longer necessary, but possibly not legal without the player's authorization?

It seems to me that in some cases, the connections between player's and parent's are nebulous at best.

As a manager, how much effort do you put into complying with company policy that you have no real ability to have changed, but adds little to no value to the process? I know the answer to that... Unless your boss feels strongly about that policy, you ignore it. It certainly feels like this was a case of previous activity establishing that a policy did not work. What seems to have been done, was to ignore that portion of the policy that had shown to provide no value (contacting parent/guardian).

I understand that the Basketball team lives under the NCAA compliance umbrella, so regardless of how you feel about a policy, you must do what the policy says, but I feel that your placement of blame is much higher on JB than reality. A large portion of the blame goes to whoever developed a policy that was at best inadequate, and at worst potentially put the university at conflict with the legal rights of a player.

P.S. If a policy isn't legal, does that not make the policy invalid? I am not a lawyer, but would love to hear from syracusefan.com's legal team on this.

 

[Dave85]

From the NCAA Report:

I know how badly some people want to dump this in JB's lap, but this is on the athletic department.

If only someone in the AD's office put the new policy in writing, and forwarded a copy to the NCAA.

I agree with this line of thinking. The NCAA regulations apply to all university sports not just basketball. NCAA compliance has to come under a department that reports directly to the AD. The department should have authority over all the other sport departments with regards to NCAA compliance requirements. And is therefore, the primary department responsible for any violations. JB is the basketball coach. He has plenty to do. NCAA compliance is really not his job in my opinion.

 

[moqui]

Not trying to soften the blow of the stick you're swinging, but I have an honest question\theory behind the seeming lack of desire to contact a players' parents/guardian?

I am wondering how realistic it is to think contacting a parent or guardian would be beneficial for many of these player's? I mean, wouldn't Fabs parent's be in Brazil? How effective would they be at reigning in their son? It would seem likely that JB would have had some interaction with his parent's at some point during the recruiting process. In fact, I seem to vaguely remember that he may have had an Assistant coach or something who became his guardian. Might JB's interaction have given him a clear indication that there was no control to be derived from that direction?

Anyway, after the age of 18, does it really matter? Aren't they legally adults and responsible for their own actions, thus making communication with parents, not only no longer necessary, but possibly not legal without the player's authorization?

It seems to me that in some cases, the connections between player's and parent's are nebulous at best.

As a manager, how much effort do you put into complying with company policy that you have no real ability to have changed, but adds little to no value to the process? I know the answer to that... Unless your boss feels strongly about that policy, you ignore it. It certainly feels like this was a case of previous activity establishing that a policy did not work. What seems to have been done, was to ignore that portion of the policy that had shown to provide no value (contacting parent/guardian).

I understand that the Basketball team lives under the NCAA compliance umbrella, so regardless of how you feel about a policy, you must do what the policy says, but I feel that your placement of blame is much higher on JB than reality. A large portion of the blame goes to whoever developed a policy that was at best inadequate, and at worst potentially put the university at conflict with the legal rights of a player.

P.S. If a policy isn't legal, does that not make the policy invalid? I am not a lawyer, but would love to hear from syracusefan.com's legal team on this.

do you honestly believe that JB didn't have input on that policy? if he didn't, he should have, and his opinion would have had powerful influence on the final policy.

Now, if you want to tell me that he showed the same laziness/indifference to the crafting of the policy as he did toward its implementation, then I find that plausible.

at the end of the day, regardless of how we try to spin it, there is a bottom line: he had a policy presented to him. he knew what it was. he knew what its requirements were. He didn't follow them.

 

[Antiprodigy]

do you honestly believe that JB didn't have input on that policy? if he didn't, he should have, and his opinion would have had powerful influence on the final policy.

Now, if you want to tell me that he showed the same laziness/indifference to the crafting of the policy as he did toward its implementation, then I find that plausible.

at the end of the day, regardless of how we try to spin it, there is a bottom line: he had a policy presented to him. he knew what it was. he knew what its requirements were. He didn't follow them.

Honestly, I would be very surprised if he had input on the policy. I would assume this was a policy written in a compliance department, that would be handed down to ALL head coaches of every sport SU had. I really don't see why you would have a head coach of a sport have any input at all on a drug policy? That makes no sense whatsoever!?! It is not their area of expertise. A policy on when practices and film, etc will be done? Sure. But a drug policy? No chance.

Now, I certainly could envision JB getting a copy of this policy, heading over to Gross, and saying:
JB: "I'm supposed to call these kids parent's? You have got to be kidding me!?! Half these kids don't have anything to do with their parent's, what good is that going to do? I've always just sat them down and read them the riot act. Told them to shape up or ship out."
Gross: "Jim, don't worry about it, just keep dealing with it the same way you always have."

 

[moqui]

Honestly, I would be very surprised if he had input on the policy. I would assume this was a policy written in a compliance department, that would be handed down to ALL head coaches of every sport SU had. I really don't see why you would have a head coach of a sport have any input at all on a drug policy? That makes no sense whatsoever!?! It is not their area of expertise. A policy on when practices and film, etc will be done? Sure. But a drug policy? No chance.

Now, I certainly could envision JB getting a copy of this policy, heading over to Gross, and saying:
JB: "I'm supposed to call these kids parent's? You have got to be kidding me!?! Half these kids don't have anything to do with their parent's, what good is that going to do? I've always just sat them down and read them the riot act. Told them to shape up or ship out."
Gross: "Jim, don't worry about it, just keep dealing with it the same way you always have."

first, it makes sense to solicit input from all impacted department heads

second, your vignette is pretty much what I think happened, and it's why 90% of the mess falls on JB's shoulders

 

[Briancuse]

Maybe because the Director of Basketball Operations and a basketball secretary were involved in the writing of the paper that temporarily restored his eligibility. Reasonable minds can differ on whether they think JB knew or should have known this is what went down.

So a Basketball coach is suppose to know who wrote a paper.

 

[jordoo]

So a Basketball coach is suppose to know who wrote a paper.

Yes they must know everything that goes on and be responsible for it but at the same time they absolutely cannot be involved in a players academics at all since they could tamper or influence members of the faculty on the academic side. That is how the NCAA views it at least.

 

[ClamOtto]

first, it makes sense to solicit input from all impacted department heads

It certainly does - that's how well-run organizations would do it. I think we have some pretty good evidence SU Athletics is not a well-run organization, so it's certainly plausible he wasn't consulted or was ignored.

 

[CuseHulk]

Bump OP.

 

[jekelish]

Bump OP.

Hi, I'd like to introduce you to my friend irony. It seems that you haven't met.

 

[CuseHulk]

Hi, I'd like to introduce you to my friend irony. It seems that you haven't met.

I always thought he was coming once he backed out Michigan. I was just very impatient waiting for him to make it known.

 

[Alsacs]

I always thought he was coming once he backed out Michigan. I was just very impatient waiting for him to make it known.

I guess you will not take back your Battle isn't Michael Jordan comment in this thread. Also, when can we expect your humble pie message to the board insiders? There is nothing wrong with being wrong but being consistent and owning it shows good character.

 

[Brooky03]

second, your vignette is pretty much what I think happened, and it's why 90% of the mess falls on JB's shoulders

I feel weird responding to such an old thread/post but this just irked me. There's speculation and then there's what was reported. I recall it being reported that the unwritten policy, in which coaches did not call parents, was pretty much the norm across all SU sports teams. To instead imply that the basketball team was the one rogue operation and Jim Boeheim's whining about the policy is the reason it wasn't followed seems off-base, in my opinion. The written policy was altered multiple times in a relatively short timeframe, if I remember correctly. This would lead me to believe multiple coaches were complaining about it, not just one.

Sorry, but I put the drug policy issues squarely on the Athletic Department and Compliance Department's shoulders. Jim B probably should have had at least some idea about Fab, but I'm not buying that he's responsible for this.

 

[pearl31]

Bump OP.

hi hulk! you're a real piece of work

 

[two3zone]

Listen, there is nothing wrong with this post. Was it doom and gloom? I don't think so but at the time things were not looking great. Our biggest recruit that was seemingly a lock went to IU (which is odd) because we were a "mess" or whatever he said.

I don't see why Hulk that it's fair that you would bump this and act like you're all high and mighty because at the time things were not looking good, but not for one second did anybody act like the basketball program was going to look like the football one.

If you'd like I'm sure we can all go back through your posts and critique them, then again I'm sure everybody has work to do today and can't afford to spend about 8 hours laughing and the gems you've thrown out there.

 

[SoBeCuse]

I was one of these maligned by Dasher doom and gloomers. I mean, unless you are a blind optimist like Hulk or apparently Dasher, I don't see how any sensible poster and fan could not be concerned with the current state of affairs at the time. We do live in a 'live in the moment society' as well. I'm not even getting into the basketball roster, offensive ineptitude, schemes, etc. Just more perception of the program. None of us were threatening jumping off a bridge or anything since this IS Syracuse basketball and it will recover, but, reason for concern then? Yes.