Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Col. Bleep, post: 35271, member: 1023"]
OK...my bad.
No point being oblique...especially on a sports board where we're generally so straight up and passionate about
our feelings.
So I'll lay it out and this (thankfully, I know) will be my final post on the matter.

One of two things appears to be true.

1. The Chancellor's timeline is accurate.
Jim Boeheim - among others - was not consulted before the fact.
No one took extended time to hash out the implications.
And the University just rushed off in the night to join the ACC.
(I don't believe that for a second. But if it is true I really would feel sorry for Boeheim).

2. The Chancellor's timeline IS NOT accurate.
There's no outright lie anywhere.
But it is deceptive.
She picks her words to create an impression that Jim Boeheim was not involved until
after the fact.
WHY?
Why shouldn't everyone just be straight up?
I have no doubt discussions on this contingency have been ongoing.
Administrators and major sport coaches would be remiss if they weren't prepared.
So why is the Chancellor apparently trying to insulate Jim Boeheim (and, by omission, others as well) from this decision?
What is she afraid of?
Why does he have to be protected?
From what?
And why go out of her way to make SU look like Bob Irsay and the Baltimore Colts?
Nice example that sets.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?