Soxbadger

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 12:10 PM) It is unfair...and extreme. I know it won't happen, but just think of the ramifications. If the league really wanted to do away with hits like that...boarding, targeting the head...this would be an incredibly extreme method, but probably pretty damn effective in the long run. Or starting having teams forfeit games. I guarantee that players would think twice if the result of their actions is a loss.

QUOTE (Rex Hudler @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 12:53 AM) Is this Uthoff kid any good? Why is it such a big deal? Hell, if he's not great, just replace him and move on. If he's very good, why haven't I heard of him until now? Rex, He was Mr. Basketball in Iowa 2 years ago and red shirted for Wisconsin this year. Why is it a big deal? Because Uthoff has been complaining about it in the press. Restrictions are so common that they almost never go reported. Here is another player who is allegedly restricted to 3 DI schools. http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com...or-some-school/

I think the 4-4 was worse.

I guess Frolik found that female prisoner.

You have to imagine that the refs get a call during this break because this game is about to get out of control. Even Kane is trying to fight.

Damn I thought that went in.

Not really, I just think that the constitutional rights were given because there is always a chance, hence innocent until proven guilty. And its opinion so its not worth arguing.

If NHL doesnt do something about this you have to wonder where the sport goes because it seems the smartest thing to do is just play dirty.

I disagree with that premise. I think there is something like a .0001% chance that Sandusky is innocent. Its not likely, in fact its almost statistically insignificant, but there is a chance. If you dont think there is a chance, then there is no use for a trial. Why parade all the people up there, why waste everyones time? My reasoning is to get rid of that .0001%, to make sure to the best of my abilities that the right decision is being made. The only way to be absolutely sure is to hear the evidence and make a decision then. /shrugs We obviously have a fundamental difference of opinion.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 09:10 PM) Yes, that's what I argued... Where, in the preceding posts, do you see anyone arguing that? Are you drunk? What are you arguing? You said its impossible that Sandusky is innocent. If its impossible than shouldnt Sandusky go to jail on directed verdict? Why have a trial if its impossible? I dont think you should have a trial just to waste everyones time. So if there really is absolutely no chance Sandusky is innocent, why waste the money?

Its safer to believe that everyone in the world is lying until proven otherwise.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 09:02 PM) Needless to say they're all like 12 years old, too. Children cant lie? Are you seriously arguing that Sandusky should be convicted without a trial? Because what is the point of a trial if its impossible hes innocent?

SS2k, What are you talking about? The Sandusky trial has not even started, what are you talking about with burdens of proof etc. The question was about media sensationalism. The sensationalism surrounding Sandusky occurred after a Grand Jury and an indictment. I seriously have no clue what you are talking about, because none of this has anything to do with whether or not at trial someone will be found innocent or guilty, it has everything to do with how you interpret unproven hearsay facts. You are taking the ones in Sandusky's case as proven, when they are not yet. Iamshack, Have you heard one witness testify? Because how can you determine their credibility? Im asking this honestly, because there is a very famous case involving the Triangle Shirt Factory where witness coaching supposedly came into play. I just dont know how anyone can make these sweeping claims without actually hearing the testimony.

Farmteam, If he listed the entire ACC, I guarantee you he has a legitimate reason Since his time in Wisconsin, I have never read, seen or even heard a rumor of any player of Ryan disliking the way Ryan treated him, that Ryan screwed him etc. In the same time, I have never heard of another coach saying Ryan cheats at recruiting, lies or does anything dishonest. Yet now, the first player ever comes out and no one even goes, "Hey that doesnt sound like Bo Ryan". Instead they just all run the story. When it first started the rumor was Bo Ryan wouldnt let him go to any Big 12 school, it turned out it was just ISU. Now the rumor is, Bo Ryan wont let him go to any ACC school, maybe that once again is not true. The problem I have here, is that Uthoff can go to any school, he just cant get a scholarship if he isnt released. A scholarship is not a right, its a privilege. As Ive consistently said, there has to be something else going on here. This is just so beyond anything that anyone has ever accused Ryan of, that its either 1) Ryan lost it or 2) there is much more to this story and Wisconsin just isnt going to bury Uthoff. My guess is the latter. The reason being, Uthoff can go to over 200 other programs, many of them far better than Wisconsin. Yet his beef is about a very select few. If he truly just wanted to be closer to home and at a program that runs up tempo, why would he want to transfer to the ACC? Wouldnt that mean he lied about his reasons for wanting to transfer? Something is up here.

What does that have to do with anything? The comment was were people outraged about the media coverage, your answer was that it was impossible to believe Sandusky may be innocent, I said that its not impossible, you then relate it to emptying the jails? If you want to arrest everyone, why not Zimmerman?

Farmteam, There is no evidence that it is actually true or came from Bo Ryan. As of now Wisconsin has not commented on the situation. Here is the latest: http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/147804675.html Now the important thing to note here is that Uthoff claimed he filed an appeal, but actually did not. So if hes not telling the truth about that, what can we believe about the rest? Wisconsin has not commented at all.

lol I dont care what Cowherd says, hes a joke and doesnt understand college basketball. This is commonplace, just most recruits dont go to the press and lie about it. So keep on keeping on, bad press for the Badgers, thats your perspective. Some people believe that any press is good press. Wisconsin and Bo Ryan have an amazing reputation with players, 1 kid complaining isnt going to change that. In a week when Uthoff transfers to UNI or Creighton, no one will remember this story.

Would not be the first time that victims colluded to create a story. As I said, not probable, but definitely possible.

QUOTE (Brian @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 07:32 PM) I never understood how a coach can go from school to school in the middle of contracts while kids have all these restrictions if they want to transfer. Coaches are employees their contracts are governed by contract law. The contract could put in a non-compete, etc, but no coach would agree to sign in the first place. The problem is the NCAA does not want students to be employees, they are specifically not considered employees. Therefore employment law does not apply. Furthermore, this is the NCAA's rule. The NCAA does not allow a scholarship player to transfer to another school and receive a scholarship, unless they are released. So what you get is a bad situation. Wisconsin spends 30k-40k on Uthoff this year and they get nothing for it. In an employment situation or any contract, if Uthoff breached hed be required to pay back the money. Since you cant ask him to pay back the money, the only thing you can do is restrict his ability to go to your competitors. The ACC rumor is that Wisconsin cant be guaranteed who they will play in the ACC/Big10 challenge and thus Wisconsin doesnt want him to go to a team that they will play. Its a little unreasonable, but at the same time, Uthoff got a free year of school from Wisconsin and can go anywhere but a few schools. Ive read from places some schools have lists of 20 or schools that they never allow a transfer to under any circumstances. Just in general most players do not complain about the restriction, because everyone understands. Uthoff wants to be released from a contract and he wants to give nothing up, that just isnt how the world works. He can go to any school he wants, he just cant get a scholarship. At some point there has to be some consequence, otherwise youll have kids going to small schools and then transferring to UNC, Kansas, UK whenever they get good. I dont know what the best solution is, I just am pretty sure there is more going on here than what is being said. Personally I think Bo Ryan is not pleased Uthoff decided to fight this out in public because if Uthoff wasnt happy with his options, he could have stayed with Wisconsin. He agreed to the terms of the release, then he went and complained. I dont really know, no one can get the facts as Wisconsin is saying nothing. Also its important to read exactly what Uthoff said: So its actually unclear whether its Bo Ryan doing this. Its obviously the most likely scenario, but there is a possibility that for whatever reason Alvarez is pulling the strings here.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 07:55 PM) The big difference is it is about impossible to turn Sandusky into a victim here. There is at least a scenario (however you view the odds of it being true) where you can feel sorry for Zimmerman. Sandusky is still a f***ing child molester. There is zero debate about that. That is the lowest of low in the court of public opinion. I love this post. There is absolutely no way that the victims lied about Sandusky? It may be improbable, but its possible. Or what about Paterno, no possible way that what he was told was misconstrued or that he really didnt know what was going on? Lost, As for media coverage, you cant trust the media when it comes to legal issues. They purposefully misconstrue the information because sensationalism sells. No one wants to watch a news program that says "Well right now its entirely speculation, so lets wait for the facts." Its always better to sensationalize the story, who cares about the truth.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 05:36 PM) If you don't know, then why are you taking him to task for it? That is exactly what guys were doing with Ryan. It is the exact same thing. About oversigning or alleged Creaning? Because Crean admits he tries to oversign every class (I cant find the article right now). The pushing players out the door, as I said, I cant be 100% sure, and Ive said that many many times.

SS2k, Show me where I have taken anything about Crean as fact. I believe I stated "according to people", which clearly shows I have no first hand knowledge and only reporting the facts as best as I know them. I also said that if someone had better information than me, I obviously could be wrong, as I have no direct information.

Where did I meltdown? I stated my opinion on the subject, Im not sure that posting a response in a thread is a "meltdown". Its sad that people are reporting non-facts and acting as if they are true. Bo Ryan has put no restrictions on the Big 10, the Big 10 already has a rule in place that prevents an athlete from receiving financial aid. That is the only type of restriction Bo Ryan can place, he can prevent scholarship aid. So if Uthoff wanted to pay his way, he could transfer to Iowa, the same way Chambliss transferred from PSU to Wisconsin. But no one in Wisconsin had a hissy fit about why did PSU restrict the transfer, they simply knew what the Big 10 rule was. So that leaves us with Bo Ryan restricting Uthoff from receiving a scholarship to ISU and Marquette, plus the rumor of the entire ACC. I just was annoyed with he gawn, who stated that Bo Ryan was going to force Uthoff into DII. That is an absolute fallacy, even if you were to take all the rumors as true. I guess I am tired of the blatant misrepresentation about the situation. That isnt a meltdown, its just annoyance with people who want to make up facts to discredit Bo Ryan.

And let me add, I dont personally think that restricting transfers for the sake of restriction is good or fair. But I am willing to give Bo Ryan the benefit of waiting for the facts, instead of piecing together what is being said in the news. If it turns out Ryan was being vindictive, I would hope that the University would speak with him and tell him that is not how the University of Wisconsin wants to be perceived.

So if you ever have a problem with any rule, you then arent allowed to defend an entirely, unrelated rule? I didnt realize that. Rock, This is the first time this has happened at Wisconsin. No one knows what is going on, there are a ton of rumors, but no one is sure. Wisconsin has never had this issue with another player, its not like this happens often. This is an unique situation and no one knows what is going on. So far the facts are, at first Marquette and ISU were restricted (big 10 is restricted by rule, you cant transfer and get a scholly). No one knows why ISU (they are a competitor of Iowa so it doesnt make much sense), but there is a lot of speculation. Then the rumor is that Ryan all of a sudden added the entire ACC. This no one understands, but I dont have any facts. There is a lot of speculation, but no one knows. I guess my problem with it, is that Bo Ryan has never been accused of anything before. And the first time a player starts complaining everyone jumps on Ryan, instead of trying to figure out what the hell is going on. Its not like Ryan is notorious for doing this, I cant even remember 1 time it happened.