ESPN: Holly Warlick says Geno Auriemma's criticism of Lady Vols 'not fair'

[TheFarmFan]

Viewed from Auriemma's eyes, the reason they should have supported it is the Golden Rule. Auriemma supports the waivers of his players. . . . Auriemma doesn't usually ask for waivers.

Can you tell me who all are the outgoing transfer players from UConn who have sought waivers, and how we know Geno has supported them? I ask, because almost every player I know of who's left UConn in recent years sat out a year: EDD, Ekmark, Edwards, Boykins, Coombs. And I looked but couldn't find a single instance of them seeking a waiver, being denied, and having publicly stated UConn supported the waiver. The only one I know of is Coombs, and again, she went back home, so there was an easy way to support it.

 

[UConnCat]

Uh, she basically called for her coach to be fired. How would you feel if Coombs had done that to Geno 48 hours before entering the transfer portal?


Please tell me what programs have done that where there hasn't been allegations of abuse issues or the desire for the player to return closer to home. I have yet to hear a comparable case.

She did not trash the program. She had a microphone shoved in front of her face after a tough tournament loss. There already was talk of Holly needing to be fired. She said maybe changes needed to be made. That is not trashing the program.

You have no idea what Espinoza said about what happened to her at UConn but her desire to play was supported by UConn. Had Tennessee supported Evina there wouldn't be an admission of anything. This isn't litigation. No one is being found guilty or liable. It's about a kid wanting to get in a better environment and play basketball, period. Tennessee could have put the interests of the kid first but they chose to be petty and cruel.

 

[TheFarmFan]

You have no idea what Espinoza said about what happened to her at UConn but her desire to play was supported by UConn.

Dude, come on. Geno went on camera and said that he told MEH to run off. Literally:



So how could UConn not support a waiver on the basis that "a student-athlete no longer has the opportunity to participate at his or her previous school." That's a pretty easy case because Geno was willing to cop that he essentially sent her packing. Westbrook's case is totally different, because TN wanted Westbrook to stay. Westbrook could not make the argument that she was run off, and there is no reason for TN to support that argument.

 

[BroadwayVa]

yeah mimi was a player who really wanted holly to stay and came to TN for holly. maryland got a great player. i really wish she had stayed.

Objectivity works all ways. Since the only ones that know factually are UTenn and Evina we can only speak from HISTORY and that inferred by Geno. We members on this board are dyed in the wool UCONN WOMEN'S FANS>
For most of this process I have been positive towards U Tenn, I spend a lot of time in the Knoxville area, but I trust Geno. I've never caught him in a LIE. His underlying message has been: EVINA IN THE LAST YEAR LIVED IN A HOSTILE ATMOSPHERE WITH U TENN AND FANS. That is not acceptable to me for any kid on any team anywhere.
Then too the medical condition with Evina's knees should have been fixed "in season", when necessary Geno does that--Uconn kids come first the game second.
Right now my objectivity went out the window when Holly's was trampled into the earth. She only made a terrible situation worst by taking Geno to task openly when she should have discussed this privately with him. He'll answer the phone--hell even lowly me gets calls answered. Be professional discuss this coach to coach University to University --You could resolve many issues before they begin.

It is personal to Tony and some others, Broadway: it's personal, because in the FBI complaint - yes, FBI - filed by Tennessee, complaining about UConn, certain Boneyard posters were mentioned, BY NAME. So, yeah, if the Almighty Lady Vol Program names you in a complaint with the FBI, you kinda take that personally. I may be off on some of the details, as this incident goes back many years now, but, that's how I recall it going down.

What in the blue blazes did the FBI have to do with Women's basketball. Point shaving, throwing games, maybe the FBI but for a RECRUIT? What kind of idiocy, mental collapse happened. I know Pat did but the TOTAL UNIVERSITY OF TENN COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MENTALLY DISTURBED TO CALL IN THE FBI ON A KID BEING RECRUITED??
I ask: Why would GENO or UConn as an institution EVER EVER consider to play that school again once the FBI is called in to investigate FAN's. WhY???

 

[diggerfoot]

"TheFarmFan, post: 3330472, member: 9403"]
Can you tell me who all are the outgoing transfer players from UConn who have sought waivers, and how we know Geno has supported them? I ask, because almost every player I know of who's left UConn in recent years sat out a year: EDD, Ekmark, Edwards, Boykins, Coombs. And I looked but couldn't find a single instance of them seeking a waiver, being denied, and having publicly stated UConn supported the waiver. The only one I know of is Coombs, and again, she went back home, so there was an easy way to support it.

The first instance of this policy being brought to light that I am aware was Kia Wright, who transferred to St. John's before the season began. The coach at the time (who I think is coach at Arizona now?), praised Auriemma for being so gracious and accommodating. Also, Auriemma publicly stated that he supports waivers because "If they do not want to play here why should I stop them from playing somewhere else." That answers your question with inferential evidence, and you could assume Auriemma is not telling it straight, but the type of evidence you request is something fans are not normally privy to .... which perhaps was your intent.

 

[BroadwayVa]

She did not trash the program. She had a microphone shoved in front of her face after a tough tournament loss. There already was talk of Holly needing to be fired. She said maybe changes needed to be made. That is not trashing the program.

You have no idea what Espinoza said about what happened to her at UConn but her desire to play was supported by UConn. Had Tennessee supported Evina there wouldn't be an admission of anything. This isn't litigation. No one is being found guilty or liable. It's about a kid wanting to get in a better environment and play basketball, period. Tennessee could have put the interests of the kid first but they chose to be petty and cruel.

Three Cheers. How to state it. Interesting to how changes to the program became ---she said the coach should be fired??

 

[TheFarmFan]

the type of evidence you request is something fans are not normally privy to .... which perhaps was your intent.

The type of evidence I want is the type of evidence UConn fans are claiming to which they have proof - that UConn supports every transfer waiver, regardless of the reasons stated in the waiver, and that all UConn outgoing transfers have sought them with unconditional UConn support, regardless of reason.

What I do know is that almost all UConn transfers sit out a year (again, true of EDD, Ekmark, Edwards, and Boykins), so either they (a) didn't seek a transfer waiver, or (b) even with UConn's support, apparently they didn't get one anyway.

The two you've provided, MEH and Coombs, both clearly fell within a category where UConn doesn't have to admit to bad conduct to support the waiver: "no further opportunity to play" (in MEH's case), and "needs to return closer to home" (Coombs's case).

And it's generally easy for UConn to support waivers for players who aren't going to get playing time at UConn, and for whom Geno is quite happy to concede that there's "no opportunity to play here." That is not the story with Westbrook and Evina, which means the only option left is "egregious conduct." And again, why would TN agree that they subjected Evina to egregious conduct if they didn't think they did?

 

[Plebe]

Here's the language from the NCAA on the prior school's role:

Given that Evina can't claim the "return to home" reasons, she presumably either had to argue she was "run off" (quote 1) or that she was the victim of egregious behavior (quote 2). Both require the previous school to substantiate the student-athlete's claims for his/her transfer and whether the school agrees with them. Again, unless and until I hear otherwise, I don't see why TN should be expected to agree to either of those options

It's interesting to see the official verbiage on the prior school's role in the transfer waiver request. To me it's completely asinine that the prior school gets to effectively exert veto power over the waiver request, but whatever.

So I'll split the difference with you and agree that their hypocrisy was laughable. But here's where I disagree: given the NCAA's stated procedures, I don't see why either waiver should have been granted. My view is that no information has been made publicly available to support either waiver on the merits, and so both programs are just advocating out of self-interest, not actual due process.

Okay, so ... in the absence of publicly available information, you "don't see why either waiver should have been granted," but then you also must acknowledge you don't know why they should be denied either.

Would it have been more politic to refrain from calling out Tennessee in the media? Maybe. But this isn't about PR; it's about who we're more inclined to believe in the absence of verifiable data: The guy who's known for being blunt and honest, even sometimes to a fault? Or the program that has a track record of pursuing fabricated allegations against a rival and hiding behind cowardly innuendo? How about an AD who staged a palace coup driven by a cynical smear campaign against an unpopular football hire? He's the one I'm supposed to believe?

 

[TheFarmFan]

Okay, so ... in the absence of publicly available information, you "don't see why either waiver should have been granted," but then you also must acknowledge you don't know why they should be denied either.

The default position is no waiver, absent a substantiated case to support the waiver. Boneyard allegations are that TN was "cruel" and "petty" in refusing to support the waiver. But unless and until I know of good arguments under the "egregious conduct" category, I don't know why they should.

I honestly don't care about Geno and Tennessee's history - I have no dog in that fight, and I don't think the NCAA does either. All I care about is that rules are followed fairly across cases. I have yet to hear any reason to think the Westbrook waiver application and appeal denial were unusual. Indeed, from everything I've read about their rules and the arguments for a waiver, it seems like the outcome was not unreasonable in light of publicly available information. (And to be honest, I feel like most Boneyarders haven't even taken 5 minutes to read about the process, and so are mostly speaking from feelings rather than facts.)

And look, I don't object to the earnest desire for her to get a waiver, I object to the umbrage everyone is taking that TN should have been expected to endorse that they put Westbrook through egregious conduct absent evidence of egregious conduct.

 

[UConnCat]

For TN to support the waiver, they would effectively be agreeing with Geno's assertion that their program was "not normal" and should be "shut down." Geno's quote: "A lot of campuses should shut down their programs if that’s normal." Why in the world would TN support a waiver when that is how Geno's classifying the institution in the media?

Tennesee's failure to support Evina came first.

Dude, come on. Geno went on camera and said that he told MEH to run off. Literally:



So how could UConn not support a waiver on the basis that "a student-athlete no longer has the opportunity to participate at his or her previous school." That's a pretty easy case because Geno was willing to cop that he essentially sent her packing. Westbrook's case is totally different, because TN wanted Westbrook to stay. Westbrook could not make the argument that she was run off, and there is no reason for TN to support that argument.

Hey yo, I'm not a Dude. Okay? It's not cute.

Geno didn't go on camera. He said some things at a private event that a UConn fan filmed on his phone and posted on Youtube. It wasn't in front of the media. There were no media present. No cameras. You have no idea what went on there. AEH played a big role in her own departure. UConn could have just said "we don't oppose."

Also, the support of the outgoing school doesn't make a waiver case. It can help a waiver case, perhaps even make the difference. UConn's support of Coombs didn't make a difference because she had no case.

 

[TheFarmFan]

Hey yo, I'm not a Dude. Okay? It's not cute.

I wasn't seeking to be cute, I was speaking rhetorically, but apologies regardless.

Geno didn't go on camera. He said some things at a private event that a UConn fan filmed on his phone and posted on Youtube. It wasn't in front of the media. There were no media present. No cameras. You have no idea what went on there. AEH played a big role in her own departure. UConn could have just said "we don't oppose."

Also, the support of the outgoing school doesn't make a waiver case. It can help a waiver case, perhaps even make the difference. UConn's support of Coombs didn't make a difference because she had no case.

I'm not even sure what we disagree about. We both agree that Geno was happy to admit he sent AEH packing. We both agree that Coombs "went home" to play. In neither case did UConn or Geno have to support a waiver application that claimed "egregious conduct" by UConn and Geno. Unless and until I hear they did, we're talking apples and oranges.

 

[UConnCat]

Can you tell me who all are the outgoing transfer players from UConn who have sought waivers, and how we know Geno has supported them?

Because Geno said he has supported all waiver requests. Do you not believe him?

 

[Carnac]

What a classless, crude, mean-spirited, tone-deaf bunch of nonsense from Holly Warlick. Truly shocking.

Warlick claims: ""I hate for it to come to this, but nobody except the NCAA made the decision," Warlick said Friday.."

Actually, Tennessee, by refusing to back the transfer and refusing to admit to the conditions that motivated Westbrook to leave, actively participated in the effort to block Westbrook from being able to play from day one. So it's not "nobody except" the NCAA that was responsible for the decision. A mean-spirited Tennessee had a lot to do with it.

Warlick: "To say it's a bad program is not fair." It's a miserable program that underperformed for years, whose players headed to the exit with regularity, and whose coach was let go in the midst of rancor and upheaval among the athletes. To say it was a lousy program is fair and accurate.

Warlick: "But there are so many more layers than what I think Geno knows." Perhaps. But Westbrook knows full well all of the "layers", and that's why two years into her tenure at Tennessee she just had to get out. Westbrook knows Warlick, and knows that the rot in the program went far deeper than just one coach. And for Warlick to defend punishing a kid for telling the truth about the failed head coach and the toxic program by refusing to back her bid to transfer and get on the court immediately just demonstrates for the entire world how mean-spirited, vindictive, and rotten the entire Tennessee system really is.

Coach Geno states that he's had kids transfer in whose motivations were based on, "reasons that have nothing to do with the environment." But, he continues, "This one was different. This one was 110,000 times different. For the NCAA to not see that was very disappointing." And for Tennessee to pretend that it was anything but 110,000 times different than for the average transfer is shameful.

110,000 times different. Yet Warlick being Warlick, and the toxic Tennessee being the toxic Tennessee, are all about punishing a young kid for wanting out of toxic Tennessee.

Now we will all vividly recall the nasty and dishonest campaign by Warlick and the previous head coach to slander Coach Geno over his successful recruitment of Maya Moore. Lies and nastiness.

That leopard won't change its spots. Ever.

A tip of the turban to you Fairfield. A very well written and thought out observation. It was Pat Summitt that canceled further games with UConn. It was Summitt that pointed the finger and made all of the accusations. Holly, the AD, the university president, the board of regents, and of course Vol Nation all backed her play.

Don’t pee on me and tell me it’s raining. The last official word we heard from Vol Nation was in 2007. Those words were full of vitriol, hate and contempt. They have never issued anything that would remotely resemble a statement of, or an air of contrition. 12 years later, what has changed? Their fan base still feels the same way it did then.

UConn moved on from that incident to have unparalleled success going forward, winning 6 national championships, while VN Anyone can answer this question: what does UConn have to gain by the resumption of games between the two programs?

There are just as many long time hard core LV fans that don’t want to see games with UConn resumed. It is what it is. You know the old saying that says: people may not remember what you say or what you do (in this case we do), but they will always remember how you make them feel. THAT dynamic is true and very real.Vol Nation disrespected us then, they disrespect us now. The only thing that has changed during this time is the date on our calendars. Neither side has softened their stance on this issue.

Sadly, I think this mindset, and hard core stance amongst the two factions won’t die until all of the people that experienced and lived through that do. Time does not heal all wounds. Fans on both sides have been “dug in” since 2007, and remain so.

 

[TheFarmFan]

Because Geno said he has supported all waiver requests. Do you not believe him?

I have yet to see a transfer-out who couldn't make at least a colorable argument either for "can't play" or "returning home." Almost every transfer-out from UConn wasn't going to get playing time (Ekmark, Edwards, Boykin) and/or wanted to return home (EDD, Coombs), or was effectively kicked off the team (AEH). None of those required Geno to acknowledge "egregious conduct." And for all we know, the only two WE KNOW OF who sought waivers were Coombs (return to home) and AEH (kicked off the team).

So it's easy to say this as a UConn fan because all of UConn's transfers aren't getting enough playing time, and for most, we have no knowledge if they even sought a waiver.

I very much doubt Geno would support a waiver based on "egregious conduct" allegations against him and UConn. That's what we're talking about with the Westbrook waiver. Unless you guys think Geno would support such a waiver, let's cut the "high road" arguments.

 

[UConnCat]

I wasn't seeking to be cute, I was speaking rhetorically, but apologies regardless.


I'm not even sure what we disagree about. We both agree that Geno was happy to admit he sent AEH packing. We both agree that Coombs "went home" to play. In neither case did UConn or Geno have to support a waiver application that claimed "egregious conduct" by UConn and Geno. Unless and until I hear they did, we're talking apples and oranges.

Because you keep ignoring the fact that Tennessee could have supported Evina's desire to play without admitting anything. This is a process in front of the NCAA about a kid's desire to play basketball without sitting out a year. That's it. It's about the student-athlete. You keep making this about Tennessee's interest when that's not the point of the process. Tennessee's program wasn't on trial. Where's the harm to Tennessee in supporting her in the first instance before things became escalated?

 

[diggerfoot]

I object to the umbrage everyone is taking that TN should have been expected to endorse that they put Westbrook through egregious conduct absent evidence of egregious conduct.

This is a different concern than the one in which you wanted a reason why Tennessee should support the waiver. That reason, once again, is the Golden Rule. If Fulmer expects others to support his perceived justifiable waiver request, going so far as to express public disappointment about it, then he should be willing to support the perceived justifiable waiver requests of others. Granted, that may not be an "ends justifies the means" kind of behavior, but it is a justifiable one.

It is easy for you to move the goalposts, of course, because on a fan board you are going to get a wide range of opinions, including unreasonable ones. Fertile ground for you to pick and choose your concern, and to change it as you see necessary. For the record, I don't expect TN to endorse the waiver for "egregious conduct absent evidence of egregious conduct." For that matter I don't expect TN to endorse in the absence of any requirement to practice the Golden Rule. TN in general has not practiced the Golden Rule, so why should I expect them to now? It is a justifiable reason nonetheless.

 

[intlzncster]

I think she had to respond, right? Been at UT for decades and Geno says she created a unhealthy environment that the NCAA needs to look at. I am sorry folks. He needs to be careful with this. There are two sides to every story. He doesn't have any facts except the ones she has given him. This could end up hurting Evina more. This needs to just go away. She's not playing this year like many other transfers. Let's move on.

No he doesn't. It's Evina vs TN. And Evina/UConn/Geno provided all that documentation to the NCAA. I'm sure what they provided to the NCAA was backed up by something more useful that a list of 37 message board posts.

If Evina wants it public, she can make it so. Her side of the story is what it is.

 

[intlzncster]

if you want innuendo, Geno's comments over the last two weeks fit the definition perfectly. I have nothing but love for ALL WCBB fans but the LV program is not toxic and was not toxic last year. It was a horrible season with bad chemistry, a bad coach, and SEVERAL players like Evina who got away with breaking the rules. Thank GOD a new sheriff is in town. It is in the past and I am thankful for it.

that sounds toxic. the HC got fired for a reason.

 

[TheFarmFan]

Where's the harm to Tennessee in supporting her in the first instance before things became escalated?

Things became escalated when she (a) called for her coach to be fired; (b) immediately transferred and didn't even pull out of the portal when they were seeking a new coach; (c) transferred to TN's bitter, long-time rival; and (d) rubbed salt in the wound on social media when she did so. All of that took place before the transfer waiver process began. So tell me who escalated it?

 

[TheFarmFan]

It is easy for you to move the goalposts, of course, because on a fan board you are going to get a wide range of opinions, including unreasonable ones. Fertile ground for you to pick and choose your concern, and to change it as you see necessary.

Pardon me, but please don't accuse me of acting in bad faith. You can go back and read through all my posts - all along, I've stated that Westbrook's waiver had to have been based on either being "run off" from the team or on "egregious conduct" that contributed to the decline in her mental health and wellbeing. And I have consistently said that absent evidence, I don't see why TN should agree to either claim, since (a) they wanted her to return; and (b) I don't think anyone at TN thinks they engaged in egregious conduct.

I've said my 50+ cents here, so I'm done.

 

[JoePgh]

I hate this thread. Can we just stop?

 

[BroadwayVa]

Dude, come on. Geno went on camera and said that he told MEH to run off. Literally:



So how could UConn not support a waiver on the basis that "a student-athlete no longer has the opportunity to participate at his or her previous school." That's a pretty easy case because Geno was willing to cop that he essentially sent her packing. Westbrook's case is totally different, because TN wanted Westbrook to stay. Westbrook could not make the argument that she was run off, and there is no reason for TN to support that argument.

You missed the essence of the comment--Geno was urinated and unhappy a good player wouldn't follow rules and he hated the total situation. So , as Geno always does he took the bullet for the situation and blessed the transfer. Big difference, you are right.
Geno was gracious and fair. U Tenn was not in Efina's case.
If Evina stayed would her damaged knee been fixed?
If Evina Stayed would she have been able to play.
Would the fans and staff made her life miserable?
You make statement you are not capable of making factually.

 

[Steelerone]

Carnac makes a great point. I think that further discussion on the subject only serves to make Evina more uncomfortable. Whether one thinks it is fair or unfair the matter has been resolved and let the young lady concentrate on being a member of the team and assisting in whatever way possible.

 

[UConnCat]

Things became escalated when she (a) called for her coach to be fired; (b) immediately transferred and didn't even pull out of the portal when they were seeking a new coach; (c) transferred to TN's bitter, long-time rival; and (d) rubbed salt in the wound on social media when she did so. All of that took place before the transfer waiver process began. So tell me who escalated it?

None of what you describe rises to the level of the type of escalation I'm talking about but you know that.

Again, my final point on the topic, Tennessee could have supported Evina's waiver without admitting anything or harming its interests. The process allows for that.

 

[intlzncster]

BTW all of this

Carnac makes a great point. I think that further discussion on the subject only serves to make Evina more uncomfortable. Whether one thinks it is fair or unfair the matter has been resolved and let the young lady concentrate on being a member of the team and assisting in whatever way possible.

Eh, I'm of opposite opinion. Stir the pot. Let's get bad blood back in this rivalry. Make Conn/Tenn Great Again.