Basketball Coaches (vindictive) Gone Wild Again...

Hello! Here is a key point. Two folks thought there was sufficient reason not to over-rule the status quo with a stroke of a pen. Did they do that because they are both St. Joe grads or Phil Martelli's second cousins? Did their votes constitute a blind belief that the power of the learning institutions need to be pertepuated at all costs? Perhaps. Or is it possible they were privy to information that was not included in the original SI piece?

Do not know yet - - but hopefully at some point we will know more.

Three key words for reporters to keep in mind here:


Duke ... Lacrosse ... Case ...

 

I can feel Martelli on this. Player was expected to commit and stay there. You sign a letter of intent. And he disregarded it and wants out. This happened to Kelenna Azuibuike's brother in high school. Google it.

 

FH, I don't know. I think there's room to suggest that some things we don't know might cast Martelli in a better light.

And I especially agree with jack's assertion that for a group that has to play things "by the book" on the job, i.e., not "convict" people before all the facts are on the table, we're awfully, awfully quick to jump on the accused with both feet in here. It's not this board's best shade.

 

Until the rule was just passed allowing multi-year scholarships, letters of intent (which the NCAA says isn't even a requirement, although they have rules regarding them) binded a player to a team for one year. It wasn't a four-year commitment. It took years of the NCAA getting embarrassed for them to change it.

Not to mention, especially in football, you had coaches oversigning recruits (some still do, some conferences finally cracked down after getting shamed into doing so), then not having enough scholarships and telling the recruits to take a hike. Or, they yanked scholarships from some other players. But that's OK, right? Players have to stick to the commitment, but schools and coaches can't, right?

NCAA big-time sports is a business, plain and simple, even though the NCAA tries to still cling to the amateur concept because they don't want to share the money. What's wrong with a player treating it like a business, just like the coaches and schools?

 

Two wrongs don't make a right rings a bell.

 

Well, when one side doesn't care about making it right, then there's no reason for the other side to show any loyalty to them.

 

I am comparing the two cases only in that this case and the Duke Lacrosse case drew initial reactions of the same kind of venomous anger towards one side of the "issue". And as we all learned more about the "issue" there in Durham NC, it became clear to just about everyone that the initial venomous reactions were completely WRONG.

Is that the case here? I do not know. And may I say ever so politely that you do not know either...

Ihave never met Phil Martelli; I did not attend St. Joe's (in fact, I attended one of St. Joe's rival schools). I have no personal agenda at work here other than to observe that - - with only one side of an emotionally charged story out there - - a lot of journalists have jumped to conclusions. The writers that did the same thing in the Duke Lacrosse case either pretended they never took a side in the matter or had to make some rather direct apologies for their rush to judgment. That might be a cautionary tale here...

On the other hand, maybe Todd O'Brien is totally correct and there are even more skeletons in the Martelli/St. Joe's closet... That should be the task of the investigative journalist now - - not drawing firm conclusions based on only one side of the story.

 

Except that it is pretty clear in this case that someone has been wronged. And that's O'Brien.
Simply because the rule is bullshit. Schools should have zero power over where a kid wants to go to school and participate in extracurricular activities.

 

Baron:

I can agree with you that the NCAA rules regarding eligibilities after a transfer are overly stacked against the athletes. My comments here are about the rush to judgement about Phil Martelli and St. Joseph's University's Athletic Department.

Saying the NCAA rule based solely on Todd O'Brien's recapituation of his situation needs changing is one thing. Saying that Phil Martelli is a slimeball - - or worse - - and that St. Joe's as an institution has some sinister and as yet undiscovered motive to single out Todd O' Brien for torture is something very different.

It seems to me that the majority of postings here have been of the latter variety and not the former.

 

Bump. Birmingham News' Kevin Scarbinsky reports O'Brien's final appeal is denied. Phil's buddies on the committee meet his wishes and continue to bully anyone who dares cross The Great Martelli.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/01/post_325.html

I sent an email to the NCAA asking for a response. NCAA spokesman Christopher Radford provided this reply: "It's extremely rare for an NCAA member to oppose a student-athlete transfer, and St. Joseph's opposition was an important factor in both the NCAA staff's and the independent Division I Subcommittee for Legislative Relief's review of this waiver request."

Cowardice at every level. You must protect the company!