Omahan
Posts:3693
 |
| 02/25/2008 11:21 AM |
 Alert
|
| All of this is old news. The loss of the scholarship is between IU and the NCAA. The bonus is between IU and Sampson. Separate but related. |
|
|
|
|
egami
Posts:5392
|
| 02/25/2008 11:22 AM |
Alert
|
You're playing semantical games. Most people view breaking the rules as cheating.
Truth is...you don't LIKE the rules and that's how you've justified it, in your mind, so far on these boards. |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
Omahan
Posts:3693
|
| 02/25/2008 11:26 AM |
Alert
|
There you go again talking for everyone. Stop doing that.
Most Americans are liberated from such chains just by being Americans. Challenging the foundation is as American as hot dogs. I have read much and talked much with many that think along the same lines that I type here.
There is a huge difference between cheating and breaking the rules. period. |
|
|
|
|
Omahan
Posts:3693
|
| 02/25/2008 11:33 AM |
Alert
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/sports/ncaabasketball/18rhoden.html?_r=1&ref=ncaabasketball&oref=slogin
I would even go as far to state that I believe Bob Knight dismissal and the details of why, loomed much larger than what Sampson has done. Knight flung chairs accross the floor with camera's rolling, choked and slapped his own players and constantly verbally attacked the media. He was a sheer embarrassment to the establishment that he represented, but (BIG BUT) he won. So he lasted for decades.
Sampson merely made phone calls. Was speed dial freak or Cellvin Sampson as some are referring to him as now. Three Way Sampson if you will. He never disgraced the university or any individuals with his actions. Only himself. |
|
|
|
|
egami
Posts:5392
|
| 02/25/2008 11:43 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By Omahan on 02/25/2008 11:26 AM
There you go again talking for everyone. Stop doing that.
Most Americans are liberated from such chains just by being Americans. Challenging the foundation is as American as hot dogs. I have read much and talked much with many that think along the same lines that I type here.
There is a huge difference between cheating and breaking the rules. period.
I am not talking for everyone. I made a simple, straight-forward statement that you just don't like.
You can reiterate that statement all you want, but until you demonstrate exactly how it differs you're losing the battle.
It's a stupid semantical distinction you're trying to make that is pointless.
He broke rules. Breaking rules is wrong. Breaking rules in punishable. I don't care if you view it as 'cheating' or not.
|
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
Omahan
Posts:3693
|
| 02/25/2008 12:10 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By egami on 02/25/2008 11:22 AM
Most people view breaking the rules as cheating.
Posted By egami on 02/25/2008 11:43 AM
He broke rules. Breaking rules is wrong. Breaking rules in punishable. I don't care if you view it as 'cheating' or not.
Either you don't care or you do...which is it? Or do you have any idea what the hell you are arguing?
I'll answer the latter for you - No.
Cheat to Win: The Honest Way to Break All the Dishonest Rules in Business (Hardcover)
by Robert W. MacDonald
|
|
|
|
|
egami
Posts:5392
|
| 02/25/2008 12:21 PM |
Alert
|
I know EXACTLY what I am arguing.
I am arguing that your "perception" of whether him breaking the rules is cheating is completely irrelevant to reality.
You have no basis for a legit argument.
Fact remains: What he did was against the rules. Breaking the rules is punishable.
Doesn't matter if he was cheating in your book or not. |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
Omahan
Posts:3693
|
| 02/25/2008 12:25 PM |
Alert
|
It is the very foundation of thousands that feel Coach Sampson was railroaded. No one has ever stood up and said he has been wronged because he is punished for breaking the rules.
The question is: Does the punishment fit the crime?
I'm not the only bloke that sez it does not. Very valid arguement.
It's alright with me that you do not agree with that. Just understand that it is you arguing semantics. I have an opinion and am willing to hang it out there. You want your opinion to be the gospel. I've got news...it isn't and never will be. |
|
|
|
|
egami
Posts:5392
|
| 02/25/2008 12:32 PM |
Alert
|
You're ever-changing stance is hard to get a grasp on...
You started out saying that you disagreed with my stance that he got fired for breaking rules.
Then you backed off that into the stupid semantical argument trying to make a distinction between cheating and breaking rules.
Now you're admitting that he broke the rules, but you just don't think it's fair and a couple people out in cyberspace agree with you.
Meanwhile, my stance and argument has never changed. I say now what I've said all along...he broke recruiting rules, he is paying the price,
Now we're back to the very element of the debate that you failed to be able to substantiate at the beginning of this thread....if YOU personally feel he was wronged then you have to demonstrate WHY you feel that making phone calls under the rules shouldn't be punishable.
I asked you this last week...for you to validate your stance the onus is on you to demonstrate why the current NCAA rules are unfair. Personally, I don't have a problem with them, but you do...you just fail to logically demonstrate WHY you disagree with them and we WE should consider your opinion.
|
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
Omahan
Posts:3693
|
| 02/25/2008 12:34 PM |
Alert
|
The majority of people break rules and cut corners for what they see as good reasons - often to get the job done.
Distinguishing people into either Sheep or Wolves is one way of looking at people breaking the rules. Sheep are guardians of high standards who dislike having to break the rules. Wolves have fewer problems with violation, feel in control of situations and exploit opportunities when they arise. Organizations need both Sheep and Wolves to operate successfully. Nevertheless it is most often problems associated with the procedures, rather than the attitudes of individuals, that form the major reason for rule-breaking. These problems affect the ability of people to adhere to the rules or procedures, and may create a culture in which rule-breaking becomes accepted.
Clearly I am of the Wolf persuasion and you would align yourself with the Sheep. Indiana University needs both to get the Eric Gordons' of the world to attend there and play ball there. Kelvin Sampson was also a wolf.
Is being a wolf reason enough to merit termination of his job?
|
|
|
|
|
egami
Posts:5392
|
| 02/25/2008 12:40 PM |
Alert
|
And, technically you're wrong about cheating...
cheat /tʃit/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[cheet] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
–verb (used without object)
4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal. to be sexually unfaithful (often fol. by on): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.
–noun
8. a person who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds: He is a cheat and a liar.
9. a fraud; swindle; deception: The game was a cheat.
10. Law. the fraudulent obtaining of another's property by a pretense or trick.
11. an impostor: The man who passed as an earl was a cheat.
According to the DICTIONARY...he cheated. |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2483
|
| 02/25/2008 12:42 PM |
Alert
|
Let me try to settle this. A man was charged with manslaughter, but somehow, the judge felt that he would have to live with the repercussions the rest of his life, so he sentenced the man to probation. The judge admonished the man and said, I hereby sentence you to 5 years probation. If you so much as get a speeding ticket in those 5 years, you will spend the next 10 years in prison.
Several months down the road, the man gets picked up for speeding, which was a violation of his probation.....he gets thown in prison for 10 years for a speeding ticket?
|
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5392
|
| 02/25/2008 12:46 PM |
Alert
|
It's not merely the fact he broke the rules...it's the blatant deliberate nature and the sheer cavalier attitude in which he did.
Manslaughter? I mean, I would view one of the other coached violations as MAYBE that bad. What Sampson did in comparison would be more like mass murder in comparison to manslaughter. |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2483
|
| 02/25/2008 12:53 PM |
Alert
|
I wasn't really attempting to equate his violations with manslaughter. I was trying to show to Omahan how a very small minute violation could equate to large repercussions, if it is a repeat violation while on probation.
|
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
Omahan
Posts:3693
|
| 02/25/2008 12:57 PM |
Alert
|
I get your intent Crit40. Where I get lost is in equating "phone calls" with "termination."
There's something in the water there...it's like I'm in Mexico or something. Don't drink the water they said but I still did. |
|
|
|
|
egami
Posts:5392
|
| 02/25/2008 12:59 PM |
Alert
|
| The whole point is that it's not equating phone calls with termination. You are equating it that way. The NCAA, Indiana and others are equating "breaking the rules" with "termination". |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
Omahan
Posts:3693
|
| 02/25/2008 1:06 PM |
Alert
|
Phone Calls is the action he is being punished for.
Here's another angle many have taken, according to many college basketball pundits, however, Sampson had virtually no chance of keeping his job once the allegations broke.
* Sports Illustrated college basketball columnist Seth Davis implied that Indiana officials had already decided Sampson was guilty, based on the fact that its internal investigation would only last a week. The NCAA had given Indiana 90 days to respond to the notice.
* ESPN's Mark Schlabach suggested that Indiana wanted to look for a reason not to pay the remaining money he was owed on his contract, and also wanted to eliminate any chance of being sued. He also said that the only reason Sampson was allowed to continue coaching was because his contract didn't allow the school to suspend him immediately.
* ESPN's Pat Forde said that Sampson's departure was "preordained" the moment the NCAA sent out its notice of allegations, and that it is very unlikely Sampson will ever coach again in Division I.
All of this points to what I've been saying all along. Kelvin Sampson is the poster boy for this violation in college basketball. |
|
|
|
|
egami
Posts:5392
|
| 02/25/2008 1:09 PM |
Alert
|
You're still making no case for your position.
I don't care if he got fired because he stuck gum under a table. If that's against the rules you shouldn't be doing it. You subsequently shouldn't be doing it just to spite the rules and then lying about it makes it all that much worse. |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
Omahan
Posts:3693
|
| 02/25/2008 1:14 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By egami on 02/25/2008 1:09 PM
I don't care if he got fired because he stuck gum under a table. If that's against the rules you shouldn't be doing it.
Crime: Sticking gum under the table.
Level: To be determined by the NCAA/Nazi regime.
Punishment: Whatever the NCAA/Nazi regime decides.
Thank you egami for making that point for me.
If sticking gum under the table had become a rule under NCAA - would you believe termination would be a fair punishment for 2nd offense?
Or would suspension with no pay and public humiliation be enough to alter this behavior?
Be honest and don't posture.
I say suspension for one year without pay is suitable punishment for 2nd offense of the NCAA phone call rule.
|
|
|
|
|
egami
Posts:5392
|
| 02/25/2008 1:29 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Omahan on 02/25/2008 1:14 PM Posted By egami on 02/25/2008 1:09 PM
I don't care if he got fired because he stuck gum under a table. If that's against the rules you shouldn't be doing it. Crime: Sticking gum under the table. Level: To be determined by the NCAA/Nazi regime. Punishment: Whatever the NCAA/Nazi regime decides. Thank you egami for making that point for me. If sticking gum under the table had become a rule under NCAA - would you believe termination would be a fair punishment for 2nd offense? Or would suspension with no pay and public humiliation be enough to alter this behavior? Be honest and don't posture. I say suspension for one year without pay is suitable punishment for 2nd offense of the NCAA phone call rule.
I don't have to posture because if that demonstrates your point it shows what a weak point you indeed have.
Here's the problem...rules vary in severity. I used a deliberately dumbed down example of sticking gum under a table.
To make your case you are having to play semantical games to make your case seem plausible.
Omahan-
He got fired for making phone calls.
Reality-
He got fired for making hundred of phone calls that were recruiting violations. Violations which put his respective schools at a distinct advantage over every other school.
The whole POINT of the rules is to level the playing field. There is an entire handbook given to them on how to follow the rules to keep the playing field fair and equal for all schools.
Yet, Sampson chose to deliberately ignore those rules giving his schools an incredibly unfair advantage.
And, YES, it IS cheating as demonstrated by definition of the word from a non-biased source.
Lastly, he was never once fired for phone calls. You keep repeating it and it's incorrect. His only punishment from the NCAA has been in regards to making phone calls. A completely fair, parallel reprimand.
However, the universities, for sake of principle and ethics, have choose to shed themselves from Sampson because what he did isn't altruistic no matter how you try and reword it. |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|