You keep coming around to the Regents policy. It was not violated in any fashion, and the DMR story says as much.
All three Athletics Council members that were quoted in the story didn't take issue with it.
Iowa State - NCAA Violations
- Thread starter Jay_Clone
- Start date
You keep coming around to the Regents policy. It was not violated in any fashion, and the DMR story says as much.
All three Athletics Council members that were quoted in the story didn't take issue with it.
The Athletics Advisory Council is made up of various professors and students the Rag states. I'd like to know how significant an organization this even is.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
So the Register story clearly says that the Council members weren't concerned. Why is anyone arguing over this?
Register is just doing standard follow-up here. There's nothing sensational in the story. It's simply a case of "here's the story. What should have happened next? Did it happen?" I've read it 3 times, and I have no idea what anyone's problem can reasonably be with their reporting of this.
Register is just doing standard follow-up here. There's nothing sensational in the story. It's simply a case of "here's the story. What should have happened next? Did it happen?" I've read it 3 times, and I have no idea what anyone's problem can reasonably be with their reporting of this.
The DMReg, has it often does with the universities, is making a big deal out of this and making it sound very negative. Front page. Editorial page. Transparency. The open records policy gives the DMReg a basis to say it wants access to everything. So when they don't get what they want, right away, kind of like little kids who want all the candy when they go through the checkout line, they then start crying about it, printing more negative slants, raising transparency issues, etc. It appears that policies have been followed and that no one with oversight thinks there has been any breach of protocol. In fact, it looks like ISU has acted very responsibly in the scope of what it reviewed, and could be portrayed very positively if the DMReg wanted to be equally responsible in its reporting.
You are looking for something that is not there- simply put. You do not like the fact that the info is being presented this way. I get that. Not saying it is the best either. I will take exception to the opinion that information has not been shared- it has and this has been proven. We can agree to disagree on the rest. I have better things to worry about then whether or not someone from the Grants Office or some prof. who sits on a committee is not getting their 15 minutes of fame by getting inside info on an athletic issue of importance. You can take the issue up w/ Pres. Leath or his guy Miles
If the regents really care, they need to make their other 2 state university's do the same process that ISU has completed. Otherwise, they show there aren't concerned about the process or hearing something down the road that will embarrass them since they didn't put their foot down and make sure the other schools are on the up and up.
The sheer volume of phone calls made should be enough to convince them that another school likely has the same issues.
The sheer volume of phone calls made should be enough to convince them that another school likely has the same issues.
Since the Athletic Department department is required to notify the Regents of self-reported violations, they should have. And they should have publicly named the sports and the coaches involved. Not that I think these are earth-shattering charges, nor because I care who it was - I don't. But knowing that the Register will stop at nothing to sensationalize a story and obtain public records (e.q. Nancy Sebring) to get the facts, whether significant or not, Pollard should have been up-front in the beginning.
No recruits will leave if put "on probation." Being on probation and having sanctions against your school are two different things. Probation means don't do anything bad during the next (insert time period here) or your in trouble. Doesn't really effect anyone.
Sanctions, like losing the right to appear in the post season, scholarships, etc would absolutely have an impact.
Because the two often go together people (myself included) hear probation and fear the worst.
Sanctions, like losing the right to appear in the post season, scholarships, etc would absolutely have an impact.
Because the two often go together people (myself included) hear probation and fear the worst.
Off season, what do you expect. Without the impending doom of ISU because of conference realignment to report on or talk about, people have to find something. If this would have shown up a month ago, the thread would probably be buried right now. Compound the lack of anything to talk about, the little brother syndrom and the belief that ISU is cursed, it opens this thread to wild speculation.
Dude- post of the week for sure. Maybe post of the year.
I don't understand how we have fans who are more worked up on this than those the department is accountable to. (NCAA, Pres. Office and Regents) Those folks are all satisfied with how things have been handled thus far.
Some Cyclone fans- not so much. Not much faith in the leadership of the department or school, I guess.
Here's Keith Murphy's take. Supposedly unbiased? MURPHY’S LAW: Championship Thursday, Three McGee, ISU Transparency | WHOTV.com
Yeah, his bias is as a member of the media he wants more information. Real shocker there. There is a pretty glaring omission on ISU's part as to what program(s) are responsible for the violations. They are acting like they have something to hide.
Yeah, I think he's unbiased...simply asking why ISU hasn't named the coaches or sports involved is a legitimate question. I'm wondering the same thing...
With the idiocy of the Register and the childish wizzing match here - I can't tell what really happened. Someone without a corncob up their *** want to shed some factual light?
Approximately 2 impermissible phone calls per month for 3 years, out of 750,000 total.
