Professor Tweet causes buzz around SU hoops...

[RoysRunts]

Lol, because they don't have one!

Btw, I don't smoke pot because it's illegal, but I think it's ridiculous that it's illegal. If it were legal, it might find it's way into my rotation of recreational drugs, which currently consists of only alcohol.

at least you didn't break the law like the last 3 President's

 

[dollarbill44]

at least you didn't break the law like the last 3 President's

I didn't say I never smoked pot. I did try it, but I was ridiculously drunk already, so the result was not one that would have led me to take it up as a hobby. Then I went into the ROTC program and then the Army, who frowns on illegal drug use more than the NCAA.

 

[A Clockwork Orange]

I've never gone off on gottlieb, I've never gone off on anyone who questions syracuses' ability, because that can be proven or disproven. What I know, is this professor took to the world an opinion about a co-worker he should have kept to himself. If I make a comment my companies VP of finance ability to handle one of his employees on a media outlet, I can only assume m job would be in jeopardy. I am neither an internet tough guy nor Joseph McCarthy, I just think what the guy did was dumb, and could certainly suffer consequences in a real world work force. My opinion may make me an ass, but it is MY OPINION.

Re-read. What opinion of a co-worker did he put out there? He said "If YahooSports is correct(PatForde is a very solid reporter),Boeheim is done.MikeHopkins will be tainted & won't be next coach.AD could fall." What about that is opinion of a co-worker? It's an assertion based on the story that this is how it could play out. If Coach B. willfully ignored drug results under university guidelines he should be done. I don't think that will ever be proven, and I'm sure there are shades of gray here, but he didn't give his OPINION of a co-worker. That would be him saying "Boeheim is an idiot, and deserves to be fired." That's an opinion. Again, you get your panties in a bunch over this, when it's not wrong for him to say this. If the university wants to fire him over this (which they would never do because PR wise it would be the most idiotic thing on the planet to ever do) they can. He has the right to go on a public forum and say that though, and frankly what he said wasn't bad. You sound like a grumpy old man.

 

[A Clockwork Orange]

Being a nice, level headed, smart man does not give him a pass for posting an assinine comment about an ongoing university investigation into private student matters. You know what, I think he should be strung up too if they find out that 10 students that took his classes over the years smoked weed. If they did, he clearly failed in his efforts to be a solid role model and instructor of youth.

He should be blaming the university and not JB. It's their freaking policy. Why would JB not play a guy that was cleared to play?

This is wrong, since his students aren't held to the standards that the basketball team is. It's a university policy that JB has agreed to follow. If they had a similar rule in place for faculty and staff then I could see your argument. Fact of the matter is that you're claiming JB wouldn't be award of failed drug tests. If that's what you truly believe I have great waterfront property in Nebraska to sell you.

 

[pfister1]

This is wrong, since his students aren't held to the standards that the basketball team is. It's a university policy that JB has agreed to follow. If they had a similar rule in place for faculty and staff then I could see your argument. Fact of the matter is that you're claiming JB wouldn't be award of failed drug tests. If that's what you truly believe I have great waterfront property in Nebraska to sell you.

Well......apparently not.

 

[A Clockwork Orange]

Well......apparently not.

If that's the case, then something will (and should) be done. I think people are claiming JB didn't know about this, which is about as naive as you can get. He either knew, and there are shades of grey to why they let them play, or he knew and didn't care. I tend to think the former is probably correct.

 

[pfister1]

If that's the case, then something will (and should) be done. I think people are claiming JB didn't know about this, which is about as naive as you can get. He either knew, and there are shades of grey to why they let them play, or he knew and didn't care. I tend to think the former is probably correct.

I'm assuming that JB knew, the AD knew and most of the athletic department knew as well. I am assuming that there was no covert decision to ignore the policy, but rather a collective decision to do so. I am assuming that the collective group made a decision that under the circumstances whatever they were...they did not feel suspension was necessary/appropriate and they did not expect that the results of the tests would ever be leaked such that they would be second guessed.

I don't view this as some sort of conspiracy, cover up or other misdeed. Rather, I think the folks in power within the Athletic Department made a conscious decision not to heed their own internal policy (rule) and didn't think they needed to ask anyone's permission to modify the rule/policy they themselves had made. This happens all the time in the business world sometimes people get called on it, usually not. It usually results in the organization having difficult enforcing the policy later on after they've chosen to ignore it, not in some independent penalty for failing to enforce.

 

[A Clockwork Orange]

I'm assuming that JB knew, the AD knew and most of the athletic department knew as well. I am assuming that there was no covert decision to ignore the policy, but rather a collective decision to do so. I am assuming that the collective group made a decision that under the circumstances whatever they were...they did not feel suspension was necessary/appropriate and they did not expect that the results of the tests would ever be leaked such that they would be second guessed.

I don't view this as some sort of conspiracy, cover up or other misdeed. Rather, I think the folks in power within the Athletic Department made a conscious decision not to heed their own internal policy (rule) and didn't think they needed to ask anyone's permission to modify the rule/policy they themselves had made. This happens all the time in the business world sometimes people get called on it, usually not. It usually results in the organization having difficult enforcing the policy later on after they've chosen to ignore it, not in some independent penalty for failing to enforce.

Well since they self reported it before the story came out, they obviously knew it was an issue, and that points to the fact that the decision wasn't a departmental decision, but rather the decision of one, or a group of people that didn't include the compliance officer or potentially the AD.

With all of this said, I agree with most of what you said. I also hope that they were looking at mitigating circumstances, like the athlete was a good student, had never broken any rules, etc... and made a decision based off of that. While that would be great, they still broke a policy that they and the administration put in place. Breaking that policy knowingly is textbook "lack of institutional control." We can argue over how big a deal it really is, but you don't put a drug policy in place if you decide that it's not important to ever follow it. Especially when you know the NCAA can nick you on that policy if you don't follow it.

As I said in another thread, I think they should have changed or re-visited the policy if they didn't think it truly reflected the institution's feelings on smoking pot, etc...

 

[moqui]

I don't view this as some sort of conspiracy, cover up or other misdeed. Rather, I think the folks in power within the Athletic Department made a conscious decision not to heed their own internal policy (rule) and didn't think they needed to ask anyone's permission to modify the rule/policy they themselves had made. This happens all the time in the business world sometimes people get called on it, usually not. It usually results in the organization having difficult enforcing the policy later on after they've chosen to ignore it, not in some independent penalty for failing to enforce.

I agree, with one bit of concern. One allegation in the Yahoo story is that the AD purposely miscounted drug test positives. If that can be proven, then we do have a conspiracy that could do a lot of damage. And, if they supplied false numbers to the NCAA in their self-report, it could be doomsday.

Please note, I do not believe this to be the case, but that is possibly the most damaging allegation in the piece.

 

[OttoMets]

If that's the case, then something will (and should) be done. I think people are claiming JB didn't know about this, which is about as naive as you can get. He either knew, and there are shades of grey to why they let them play, or he knew and didn't care. I tend to think the former is probably correct.

This. Boeheim's stated that his job is to win games. For better or worse, he's going to put his teams in the best position to do so.

 

[BostonOrange]

What IF the problem was that the head coach was NOT notified and that is why a player who was suppose to be suspended, played? And even if JB did know, why does one have to conclude the Hopkins also knew. After all he is only an assistent coach.

First of all that seems kind of farfetched. But...if true, JB would look pretty out of touch. As for Hop I would like to think that all the coaches would be aware if players were failing drug tests. Best case, to me, is that they did know, and that we were following policy (ie there was some qualitative element to the policy - ad's discretion, counseling, whatever).