- Joined
- Jan 5, 2016
- Messages
- 1,903
- Likes
- 4,258
Muffett Speaks the Truth
- Thread starter bobkitten
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2016
- Messages
- 1,903
- Likes
- 4,258
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2016
- Messages
- 22
- Likes
- 36
I have been coming to Volnation for 15 years and have a member for 6. I posted 3 times in the first 6 years because I know that fan sites are not known for objective thinking. I would never try to convince die hard fans of a program that their thinking is incorrect, even if it is not objective. I come here to get outside perspectives on programs that I might otherwise not look objectively
My points are still valid.
1. Secondary violations are common and minor, as evidenced by how many ALL schools get - including Tennessee. Some are ridiculous in nature. (Provided an article explaining this)
2. The hatred for all things UConn makes any objective thinking impossible on this board - which I fully understand.
3. The secondary violation was just that - and FACTS still show there was no recruiting advantage (as per the NCAA) and the tour WAS open to anyone at time time. You can hate the facts all you want - they are still facts.
4. I never mentioned the other ten (ridiculous) accusations made by Tennessee which were thrown out by the NCAA although one was mentioned in the article. (Two former UConn players drove the recruit around when it turns out that they were not even in the country at the time). Pretty bad research, but the ONLY point of my original comment was just to say that for anyone who is still harping on that phone call to ESPN for a tour, that could have been made if the recruit, or her mom, picked up the phone herself instead of an office worker, it is a weak rationale for the vitriol hatred. Find more legitimate reasons.
You can spin it, argue it, try to analyze it all you wish. The fact is the NCAA felt that it was nothing. That is not from me, that is from the NCAA and well, everyone outside of Tennessee.
My points are still valid.
1. Secondary violations are common and minor, as evidenced by how many ALL schools get - including Tennessee. Some are ridiculous in nature. (Provided an article explaining this)
2. The hatred for all things UConn makes any objective thinking impossible on this board - which I fully understand.
3. The secondary violation was just that - and FACTS still show there was no recruiting advantage (as per the NCAA) and the tour WAS open to anyone at time time. You can hate the facts all you want - they are still facts.
4. I never mentioned the other ten (ridiculous) accusations made by Tennessee which were thrown out by the NCAA although one was mentioned in the article. (Two former UConn players drove the recruit around when it turns out that they were not even in the country at the time). Pretty bad research, but the ONLY point of my original comment was just to say that for anyone who is still harping on that phone call to ESPN for a tour, that could have been made if the recruit, or her mom, picked up the phone herself instead of an office worker, it is a weak rationale for the vitriol hatred. Find more legitimate reasons.
You can spin it, argue it, try to analyze it all you wish. The fact is the NCAA felt that it was nothing. That is not from me, that is from the NCAA and well, everyone outside of Tennessee.
Likes:
glv98
You need to be objective. You are no different you are interpreting the NCAA findings per the facts just as some us are. I addressed some of your previous posts and you advent replied ( not that you have to but I think I am being objective or close to it. The difference is I went right to NCAA.ORG
Likes:
xtpsrh08123
My points are still valid.
1. Secondary violations are common and minor, as evidenced by how many ALL schools get - including Tennessee. Some are ridiculous in nature. (Provided an article explaining this - I agree as far as almost all schools will commit a violation to some degree. They are minor but can turn into major infractions so they do matter - SEE BELOW
2. The hatred for all things UConn makes any objective thinking impossible on this board - which I fully understand. As an objective person two people can look at the facts and see them differently it doesn't make one wrong and one right. You are trying to shove your conclusion down people's throats
3. The secondary violation was just that - and FACTS still show there was no recruiting advantage (as per the NCAA) and the tour WAS open to anyone at time time. You can hate the facts all you want - they are still facts. Really? From the NCAA which contradicts your statement - Secondary violations are isolated or inadvertent and provide only minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantages. They do not include significant impermissible benefits. If an institution commits several secondary violations, the violations may be collectively considered a major infraction. Unless you can show me that the NCAA stated it was only an inadvertent violation ?? - As you can see per the NCAA they say a secondary violation provides minimal recruiting , competitive and other advantages.
1. Secondary violations are common and minor, as evidenced by how many ALL schools get - including Tennessee. Some are ridiculous in nature. (Provided an article explaining this - I agree as far as almost all schools will commit a violation to some degree. They are minor but can turn into major infractions so they do matter - SEE BELOW
2. The hatred for all things UConn makes any objective thinking impossible on this board - which I fully understand. As an objective person two people can look at the facts and see them differently it doesn't make one wrong and one right. You are trying to shove your conclusion down people's throats
3. The secondary violation was just that - and FACTS still show there was no recruiting advantage (as per the NCAA) and the tour WAS open to anyone at time time. You can hate the facts all you want - they are still facts. Really? From the NCAA which contradicts your statement - Secondary violations are isolated or inadvertent and provide only minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantages. They do not include significant impermissible benefits. If an institution commits several secondary violations, the violations may be collectively considered a major infraction. Unless you can show me that the NCAA stated it was only an inadvertent violation ?? - As you can see per the NCAA they say a secondary violation provides minimal recruiting , competitive and other advantages.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2020
- Messages
- 5,399
- Likes
- 15,984
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2014
- Messages
- 4,926
- Likes
- 12,880
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2016
- Messages
- 22
- Likes
- 36
NO, that is not the definition of a fact. Just because I want to believe that the earth is flat does not make it so. It either is or it isn't. I believe what you are thinking of is an opinion.
Webster's Full Definition of fact
1a: something that has actual existence. b: an actual occurrence.
2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality.
3: the quality of being actual.
Therefore the facts are still, and have always been the same:
1. It was a secondary violation which the NCAA determines are minor. (from the Boston Globe). The NCAA defines a secondary violation as one that is inadvertent or doesn't represent a significant competitive advantage. Penalties are usually minor, and can include a letter in the school's file. School officials said yesterday UConn and the NCAA "now consider this matter closed." Jennifer Kearns, a spokeswoman for the NCAA, says the association does not comment on secondary violations.
2. At the time, the tour was open to anyone for free.
You can continue to try and make this issue out to something that it is not now, nor has it ever been, BUT it does not make it so. From John Adams, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." The NCAA closed the case. The fact is that it was not a series of secondary infractions and therefore by the NCAA's own definition NOT major.
Trust me, I get it. The success of UConn's program over the past few years would make some people bitter. As a life-long Red Sox fan, I hated everything Yankees and was equally irrational for a long time. Winning makes the pain go away. However, my single and sole point was that if THAT is the argument that you are hanging your hat on - it is weak and sad. Secondary violation. Inadvertent. No competitive advantage. Over. Done. Finished. Move on. Build your program back up and maybe you will not be so (I hate to use the word, but nothing else fits as well) petty. What has it been, sixteen or seventeen years?
Webster's Full Definition of fact
1a: something that has actual existence. b: an actual occurrence.
2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality.
3: the quality of being actual.
Therefore the facts are still, and have always been the same:
1. It was a secondary violation which the NCAA determines are minor. (from the Boston Globe). The NCAA defines a secondary violation as one that is inadvertent or doesn't represent a significant competitive advantage. Penalties are usually minor, and can include a letter in the school's file. School officials said yesterday UConn and the NCAA "now consider this matter closed." Jennifer Kearns, a spokeswoman for the NCAA, says the association does not comment on secondary violations.
2. At the time, the tour was open to anyone for free.
You can continue to try and make this issue out to something that it is not now, nor has it ever been, BUT it does not make it so. From John Adams, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." The NCAA closed the case. The fact is that it was not a series of secondary infractions and therefore by the NCAA's own definition NOT major.
Trust me, I get it. The success of UConn's program over the past few years would make some people bitter. As a life-long Red Sox fan, I hated everything Yankees and was equally irrational for a long time. Winning makes the pain go away. However, my single and sole point was that if THAT is the argument that you are hanging your hat on - it is weak and sad. Secondary violation. Inadvertent. No competitive advantage. Over. Done. Finished. Move on. Build your program back up and maybe you will not be so (I hate to use the word, but nothing else fits as well) petty. What has it been, sixteen or seventeen years?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2012
- Messages
- 952
- Likes
- 2,022
I almost hate to keep responding to your assertions because the fact is that this is ancient history at this point, but I am bothered by someone who comes on a Tennessee board and accuses us of not knowing or accepting the facts and having a vitriolic hatred of an opposing coach not supported by the facts. Now, if the facts were truly as you have stated, I might even agree with you. Unfortunately, your "facts" are all derived from a very pro UConn source and are, in reality, more accurately characterized as opinion and are not even an accurate example of the allegations made. For example, your reference to "(Two former UConn players drove the recruit around when it turns out that they were not even in the country at the time)", is inaccurate. The incident you refer to involved only Diana Taurasi and was a complaint made by the Georgia AD. The only report involving two former UConn players is actually a reference to an incident involving Caroline Doty (the recruit), Sue Bird, and Diana Taurasi where Ms Doty was quoted by four different reporters on the UConn beat as having described an encounter with the two former players in Coach Auriemma's office while on an official visit, in which they brought in burgers and ate together. She then went on to describe how it was during this conversation that she realized she could see herself at UConn. It was only when responding to the NCAA and after having consulted with the athletic department that Ms Doty stated that she had been misunderstood! I don't know about you, but I find it interesting that four pro-UConn reporters all "misunderstood" in the exact same way.
As to your statement that the violation related to the ESPN tour was a secondary violation and that secondary violations are minor in nature and common, I would agree. Personally, I never found the ESPN tour to be of much importance. I would point out, however, that unlike the Tennessee violations you reference, where Tennessee self-reported, UConn apparently felt no need to "self-report" until the matter was brought to the attention of the NCAA by another school.
And just so you will know, all of my information comes from the total complaint (involving incidents reported by Tennessee and other schools) to which the NCAA requested UConn respond and the UConn response to that NCAA document, all of which was obtained through a FOIA request (although I will admit that the UConn response was heavily redacted). So, if you will stop posting your opinion, garnered from pro-UConn sources, (which themselves are heavily laced with opinion) which you describe as "facts", I will stop responding, and you can continue to believe what you want, because, as you said, "I would never try to convince die hard fans of a program that their thinking is incorrect, even if it is not objective."
Jim
As to your statement that the violation related to the ESPN tour was a secondary violation and that secondary violations are minor in nature and common, I would agree. Personally, I never found the ESPN tour to be of much importance. I would point out, however, that unlike the Tennessee violations you reference, where Tennessee self-reported, UConn apparently felt no need to "self-report" until the matter was brought to the attention of the NCAA by another school.
And just so you will know, all of my information comes from the total complaint (involving incidents reported by Tennessee and other schools) to which the NCAA requested UConn respond and the UConn response to that NCAA document, all of which was obtained through a FOIA request (although I will admit that the UConn response was heavily redacted). So, if you will stop posting your opinion, garnered from pro-UConn sources, (which themselves are heavily laced with opinion) which you describe as "facts", I will stop responding, and you can continue to believe what you want, because, as you said, "I would never try to convince die hard fans of a program that their thinking is incorrect, even if it is not objective."
Jim
You can keep saying I'm bitter or resentful lol I don't give a crap. I don't even think it's a big deal. The reason I replied was because you stated we aren't objective and don't care about facts... Ummmm project much, I am only letting you know your facts are not accurate. So you grabbed info from the Boston Globe to define a secondary violation rather than go straight to the source??? The NCAA LOL Seriously!
Most likely the globe asked her for a quote they didn't ask her to read the exact definition. So you're inaccurate information isn't fact. Secondary violations can become major violations (they do matter) and they do present an advantage,
Here you go! So I guess the Boston Globe knows more than the org that makes the rules...Take a look at the actual definition!!
NCAA.org - The Official Site of the NCAA
Secondary violations are isolated or inadvertent and provide only minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantages. They do not include significant impermissible benefits. If an institution commits several secondary violations, the violations may be collectively considered a major infraction. Secondary violations occur frequently, are usually resolved administratively and are not typically made public. Any violation that is not considered secondary is a major violation. Major violations usually provide an extensive recruiting or competitive advantage, are investigated by NCAA enforcement staff, and can lead to severe penalties against the school and involved individuals.
From your statement above the NCAA doesn't comment on secondary violations SOOOOOO - tell me how you know they did not deem it as an advantage??? You took some actual facts and some not so accurate facts and came to a conclusion. If you read the above per the NCAA any other person could come up with it was a competitive advantage.
So NCTEACHER88 who's facts are more accurate?? It says right in their rule book secondary violations provide an advantage lol Lastly you do realize some the articles you cited are opinion pieces for the most part.
Last edited:
Since the NCAA doesn't comment on secondary violations we are all guessing for the most part. I know what happened and agree with you as far as the facts of the tour goes. I also know from that point ESPN discontinued tours for recruits. I also know the NCAA's definition of secondary violation and how they can become major. These are all facts, right? Anyone not involved directly is only making conclusions after that. I could see it as ESPN stopped the tours because they knew they were wrong even if it was just a perception. From the NCAA definition of Secondary Violations it does represent a competitive advantage just less significant but an advantage all the same. From these facts I could conclude they committed a violation that gave them a competitive advantage no matter how small.
Your facts are similar with exception of the definition of a secondary violation. For this your facts come from either incomplete or inaccurate quotes by the newspapers and you conclude something else you said 3. "The secondary violation was just that - and FACTS still show there was no recruiting advantage (as per the NCAA) and the tour WAS open to anyone at time time. You can hate the facts all you want - they are still facts-" . As I said neither of us has inside information. per NCAA this was an advantage so your facts are not correct
Your facts are similar with exception of the definition of a secondary violation. For this your facts come from either incomplete or inaccurate quotes by the newspapers and you conclude something else you said 3. "The secondary violation was just that - and FACTS still show there was no recruiting advantage (as per the NCAA) and the tour WAS open to anyone at time time. You can hate the facts all you want - they are still facts-" . As I said neither of us has inside information. per NCAA this was an advantage so your facts are not correct
Likes:
chuckiepoo
You expect this person to explain that when they still can't figure out what a secondary violation is even when I provide a link and the definition...LOL this person tries to take bits and pieces from newspaper articles some of which are opinion pieces to come up with their own definition so it fits their argument there was no competitive advantage. lol What are they called "ALTERNATIVE FACTS" lol
If you get an answer this should be a doozy..
If you get an answer this should be a doozy..
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2021
- Messages
- 4,004
- Likes
- 10,069
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2016
- Messages
- 669
- Likes
- 880
VN Store
