In partnership with CBSSports.com
The place to talk about the Texas Longhorns
The place for off topic discussion on Hookem
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Can anyone name any other situation in which the school's internal compliance department has ratted on its own player not for violating a rule, but for changing his story during the investigation? I've certainly never heard of such a thing. How is that possibly their role?
Those that choose to ignore/excuse UT compliance seems to be of the view that there can only be one wrong party in a situation, which is, of course, ridiculous. Myck was wrong for lying to UT compliance and UT compliance was wrong for thinking it was their role to report anything other than the results of their investigation. It stinks of an out of control bureaucrat with a tiny little piece of turf where he/she is king and felt it necessary to unnecessarily damage an athlete/program to prove how powerful he/she is.
I find it equally ridiculous to dismiss the unfair situation of Myck having to proceed without counsel when admin/coaches in the same situation receive that benefit. Once again, it is a simple minded view of the world to dismiss everything else around just because there is a "but-for" way the situation could have been avoided. Sure, "but-for" Myck's lying, UT Compliance wouldn't have been in a position to overstep its role. However, "but-for," Myck not being provided counsel beforehand explaining what is right and wrong and the importance of being clear from the beginning, this wouldn't have been an issue.
And as a final point, now that the facts have come out -- there was a lie to UT Compliance early-on, but Myck told the truth to the NCAA and there was no violation, what possibly could have taken as long as it did to decide? The answer is nothing. Just as many on here said, it was the NCAA purposely taking its time so it could impose a de-facto punishment without actually ruling.
Don't be afraid to ride the lightning.
There are no depths to which NCAA bureaucracy has failed to plumb. And I'm uniformly disappointed.
DLev, it's even money whether UT teaches NCAA about red tape, or the other way around.
“Kansas may wind up number one in these polls, but that would be so unfair to Texas...” -- Len Elmore, 2/13/11
How? I can see $, not $$$%.
Disciplina praesidium civitatis
Regarding your first statement above...I have no clue what you're asking
As to the financial issue & your second statement, the difference between Texas making the NIT or NCAA is significant when it comes to revenue for the school...both tournament & TV $$$
Kabongo is a difference-maker on this team that could be the difference between Texas making the NIT or NCAA...the financial exposure between this issue & Cleve Bryant's could be relatively similar
However, that's not the overall point...as I've repeatedly posted, Cleve Bryant was afforded representation from the school during his problems that he created for the school...UT still had to payout a financial settlement based on the problems Bryant caused
Kabongo created his own problems as well...but was not given the option to have representation from the school during his ordeal, which will cost the university $$$ as well now that Kabongo has been guilty
I thought conference schools share the combined revenue generated by all schools? Us making or not making the tournament affects the prestige of the program, but not that much in terms of real revenue.
It is my understanding the school gets 50% and the conference splits the remaining 50%.................so it is an impact. Texas basketball is a money maker for the athletic department and always ranked in the top 15 schools. A large part is the NCAA revenue............
"Leadership is wisdom, courage and great carelessness of self"
Thanks. I'd buy that. I thought it was equal distribution.
In any case, back to the original discussion of why UT is backing Bryant but not Kabongo. Another angle is that Bryant is an employee of UT, and Kabongo is not. He's just a student and is a member of the NCAA, so it's up to UT to cooperate with the NCAA, not to fight it. At least in theory anyway...
In any case, it's hard for me to blame UT or the basketball program for this. We all know the NCAA is the most hypocritical organization there is, so this really isn't anything out of the ordinary.
Tex............I agree we should cooperate with the NCAA but we also should give the student athlete the best representation possible..............the othe diiference for me is Bryant is about 65 making 250,000 per year............Myck is 20 years old.
Plus, IIRC, NCAA rules prevent UT from supplying a lawyer to a student-athlete.
This post was edited by Bob in Houston 19 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports