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

[willtalk]

Any simi knowledgeable women's basketball fan knew for years that the program at Tenn was in decline due mainly to Holly's incompetence and her denial of that fact. That existed long before Westbrook even committed to the program. Every recruit who committed more than likely made a mistake. The idea behind waivers is so that players have an opportunity to correct a situation that did not turn out as they had hoped. However, there has to be criteria set to govern what is an intolerable situation as opposed to an uncomfortable one.

One situation, that in the past, has been defined as a reason for transfer has been a coaching change. Coaching changes are something that most players have no hand or say in. It reflects a change in the situation that they signed on for. Now a coaching change did occur at Tenn. The question remains if that change was the reason for Westbrooks transfer.

Now even under ideal conditions players are still given the opportunity to transfer for greener pastures. However, in those cases the player has to sit out a year. So the question remains under which category Westbrook falls. The real problem here is that the NCAA opened a can of worms when they granted Shepard a waiver via a broad interpretation of the existing hardship rules. Had they not done that the issue with Westbrook would not be an issue.

It all relates to the question of if the coaching change was the reason for the transfer. In Westbrook's case, via public media, her decision to enter the portal was made prior to Hollys removal. The actual firm decision to transfer was not made or announced until after the new coach was hired. So that does throw in a wrench into the entire situation. If Westbrooks entered the transfer portal due to the situation at Tenn, which by her own words, were linked to the coaching staff, then the changing of that staff alters that situation. and removes the criteria for transfer based on a change of coach.

To put it simply. She was not transferring because they changed the coach. Rather she entered the transfer portal because of the coach. So when the coach was removed, the situation that is sited as creating the negative atmosphere was changed. The changing of the coach, therefore, does not support, but rather contradicts her stated reasons for it being a toxic environment. Now if held to the same standards that the Shepards situation was approved for, she would be granted a waiver.

The problem is that the NCAA is attempting to correct a really bad, opening a can of worms, situation that they created with the Shepard waiver. The reason that this ruling on Westbrook should be no surprise is that the NCAA announced very early that they would be using a stricter standard for granting waivers moving ahead. They basically moved the bar higher than the standard they used for Shepard. The injustice was not denying Westbrook, rather their approving Shepard.

I never felt that the people who run the NCAA were the sharpest tools in the shed. Still, I was amazed that they were so clueless that they couldn't recognize the problems that they were creating when they approved Shepard's waiver. I guess people who have long functioned under an umbrella of unaccountability, eventually will lose perspective. I also remember that I was among a minority who continued to push that issue long after most posters on the boneyard felt it was a dead issue. I suppose some people need to have their own Ox gored before they care enough to denounce injustice. That is the main reason that organizations like the NCAA are able to acquire the type of unaccountability they wield.

 

[mbr33ct]

 

[Fairfield Fan]

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.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

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.

This "could end hurting Evina more." That sounds like a threat. And Coach Geno "needs to be careful with this"? Really? This is the greatest coach in WCBB history. Bar none. This is the coach without scandal, despite Summit's and Warlick's smear campaign against him for landing Maya Moore. This is the coach that kept winning, while the toxic Tennessee program sank into the muck. But Coach Geno "needs to be careful with this"?

Think again.

 

[j66kicker]

TBH, I'm a big UConn fan and generally loathe Tennessee, but on this matter I do think the homerism has gotten out of control on the BY. I've yet to hear a single objective fact to establish a reasonable basis for why Westbrook should get a waiver, given NCAA criteria. Unless and until I do, I don't see why Tennessee should get blamed with unsubstantiated insinuations.

Because they're Tennessee. Dohhhhh!!!

 

[Tonyc]

Dont get me started on the LVs. I dont like the fact that we are playing them again because of all they put UConn through. You have no idea how bad it was and what everybody had to go through. Now Holly doesnt like what Geno said. Bull Step up to the plate Tenn and admit that the venom pouring out of the mouths of some fans is dispicable. No one should be treated like that let alone a young girl who got sick and tired of being sick and tried having to deal with what the fans were doing to her. She wanted out because of the environment she had to live and play in and she was not willing to tolerate it any longer. Bottom line imo by agreeing to play Tenn again is just going to resurrect the hatred in some fans not all Tenn fans that was there many years ago. Holly can try to defend Tenn all she wants but remember Holly it was Tenn who initciated the fabricated story that killed the rivalry that once was the premier game in WCBB.

 

[ConnecticutBB]

Does anyone know what has become of the coaching staff from UT. Where is Holly? Where is Dean end up?

 

[BroadwayVa]

Dont get me started on the LVs. I dont like the fact that we are playing them again because of all they put UConn through. You have no idea how bad it was and what everybody had to go through. Now Holly doesnt like what Geno said. Bull Step up to the plate Tenn and admit that the venom pouring out of the mouths of some fans is dispicable. No one should be treated like that let alone a young girl who got sick and tired of being sick and tried having to deal with what the fans were doing to her. She wanted out because of the environment she had to live and play in and she was not willing to tolerate it any longer. Bottom line imo by agreeing to play Tenn again is just going to resurrect the hatred in some fans not all Tenn fans that was there many years ago. Holly can try to defend Tenn all she wants but remember Holly it was Tenn who initciated the fabricated story that killed the rivalry that once was the premier game in WCBB.

Sounds REALLY PERSONAL to you. I get it. I too think Evina could have should have been aided by a good word for the transfer by Tenn. Holding back good words is tacky, unprofessional, punitive and not something nice Southern (and I love em all) Ladies should be doing. It doesn't cost a dime to write 100 words of support for a kid that gave U Tenn 2 great years and lived 2000 miles or more from her home.

 

[TheFarmFan]

For what it’s worth, though, facts are facts. And Tennessee has made it clear that while it did not oppose Evina waiver, it did not support it either. Holding them accountable for that is reasonable.

So there is your single objective fact that the rest of us have all been discussing. Welcome to the conversation.

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?

Look - Geno is an amazing coach, gets the best from his players, and is a witty, charismatic spokesperson for basketball. 98% of the time, I love Geno. He, more than anything, is why I am a big UConn WCBB fan. But he doesn't always play well with others, and he occasionally sticks his foot squarely in his mouth. This is one such occasion.

Imagine a UConn player, after losing an NCAA tournament game, saying to the media that "coaching changes need to be made." And then entering the transfer portal a day later. Geno's head would explode, and I can assure you he'd handle that situation with far less grace than Holly did (and I am NO fan of Holly).

So put the shoe on the other foot, and ask yourself if Geno and UConn would support a waiver for Mikayla Coombs if she trashed Geno and her program on the way out the door, where the waiver effectively claims that the player was "run off" from an institution or that the institution caused her to have severe mental health issues (those are the main reasons for a waiver apart from personal circumstances like needing to move back home). I just don't think it's reasonable to expect that UConn would do that. TN didn't oppose it, but no one has provided a reason why they should fall on their own sword and support it.

UConn supported Coombs's waiver because she had the "go home" route available to her (and it didn't work, in large part because it was obvious her reason for transferring was more playing time elsewhere). Last time I checked, Storrs is even farther from Oregon than Knoxville, so Westbrook couldn't even try to make that argument. So if TN does not think they "ran her off" (which is a hard argument for any starting player), and they don't feel they contributed to severe mental health issues, there's no reason to support the waiver.

I've yet to hear one good merits-based argument for supporting it. And no: social media fan abuse isn't one, because let's face it, in 2019 that's true for basically every top program.

 

[UConnCat]

So put the shoe on the other foot, and ask yourself if Geno and UConn would support a waiver for Mikayla Coombs if she trashed Geno and her program on the way out the door. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect that. TN didn't oppose it, but no one has provided a reason why they should fall on their own sword and support it.

Evina didn't trash the program on the way out the door.

All Tennessee had to do was support the kid and her desire to play. If they had taken that simple step, a step taken by other programs, the situation would be different.

 

[TheFarmFan]

Evina didn't trash the program on the way out the door.

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?

All Tennessee had to do was support the kid and her desire to play. If they had taken that simple step, a step taken by other programs, the situation would be different.

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.

 

[Dokey]

Don't ever wonder why I dislike the news media. I've ALWAYS said, on a slow news days, if there's no news, the media will create some. THIS is one of creations. Warlick had stepped back into the shadows was minding her own business in retirement as she should have. Then a reporter contacted her and asked her opinion on the Westbrook transfer matter.

And here we go again. Stirring up the hornet's nest once more. You know the "Orange Patrol" is going to back EVERYTHING she says here. Adding fuel to the fire that was almost out after 12 years . "I hate for it to come to this, but nobody except the NCAA made the decision," Warlick said Friday when contacted by ESPN. "To throw us under the bus, I think it's kind of crazy." "Tennessee is still a great program. Even me, after being let go, I can sit here and say that," said Warlick, "To say it's a bad program is not fair.

Hey Holly, "fair" is a place where they judge pigs, home made pies and have carnival rides.

"There are a lot of things we had to deal with last year, but I'm not putting all that out there publicly. But there are so many more layers than what I think Geno knows. I don't want to stir things up, and go back and forth. But there are so many factors that went into last year." Too late.

"Auriemma said earlier this week that the situation at Tennessee was "not normal" and also told reporters, "If you knew what the environment was [at Tennessee] ... you would not want your kid in that environment."

"He was asked Friday about why UConn, which said it submitted more than 100 pages of documents supporting Westbrook's waiver, wasn't making specific details public."

"I don't feel like it's my place to do that," Auriemma said. "It's somebody else's. If Evina or anyone from her camp wants to, that's different."

Here’s why Geno Auriemma hasn’t revealed specifics about Evina Westbrook’s experience at Tennessee and how Tennessee has responded to claims of a toxic environment

It's over, we've moved on. Why is the media still trying to pump life in this corpse? After reading this article, I have one question, Who cares about Holly's take/opinion? Is there anyone here in the yard, or any UConn fan or booster anywhere that cares what she thinks?

She was out of the limelight, and off the radar scope, leave her there, and leave her alone.

Sorry, but follow ups like this are an important part of journalism. It’s part of the story. You might not like it where the story goes but that’s your problem. This kind of baseless criticism of the media really pisses me off.

 

[DaBball]

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?

Look - Geno is an amazing coach, gets the best from his players, and is a witty, charismatic spokesperson for basketball. 98% of the time, I love Geno. He, more than anything, is why I am a big UConn WCBB fan. But he doesn't always play well with others, and he occasionally sticks his foot squarely in his mouth. This is one such occasion.

Imagine a UConn player, after losing an NCAA tournament game, saying to the media that "coaching changes need to be made." And then entering the transfer portal a day later. Geno's head would explode, and I can assure you he'd handle that situation with far less grace than Holly did (and I am NO fan of Holly).

So put the shoe on the other foot, and ask yourself if Geno and UConn would support a waiver for Mikayla Coombs if she trashed Geno and her program on the way out the door, where the waiver effectively claims that the player was "run off" from an institution or that the institution caused her to have severe mental health issues (those are the main reasons for a waiver apart from personal circumstances like needing to move back home). I just don't think it's reasonable to expect that UConn would do that. TN didn't oppose it, but no one has provided a reason why they should fall on their own sword and support it.

UConn supported Coombs's waiver because she had the "go home" route available to her (and it didn't work, in large part because it was obvious her reason for transferring was more playing time elsewhere). Last time I checked, Storrs is even farther from Oregon than Knoxville, so Westbrook couldn't even try to make that argument. So if TN does not think they "ran her off" (which is a hard argument for any starting player), and they don't feel they contributed to severe mental health issues, there's no reason to support the waiver.

I've yet to hear one good merits-based argument for supporting it. And no: social media fan abuse isn't one, because let's face it, in 2019 that's true for basically every top program.

Well said. Agreed.

 

[JonathanXIV]

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?

Look - Geno is an amazing coach, gets the best from his players, and is a witty, charismatic spokesperson for basketball. 98% of the time, I love Geno. He, more than anything, is why I am a big UConn WCBB fan. But he doesn't always play well with others, and he occasionally sticks his foot squarely in his mouth. This is one such occasion.

Imagine a UConn player, after losing an NCAA tournament game, saying to the media that "coaching changes need to be made." And then entering the transfer portal a day later. Geno's head would explode, and I can assure you he'd handle that situation with far less grace than Holly did (and I am NO fan of Holly).

So put the shoe on the other foot, and ask yourself if Geno and UConn would support a waiver for Mikayla Coombs if she trashed Geno and her program on the way out the door, where the waiver effectively claims that the player was "run off" from an institution or that the institution caused her to have severe mental health issues (those are the main reasons for a waiver apart from personal circumstances like needing to move back home). I just don't think it's reasonable to expect that UConn would do that. TN didn't oppose it, but no one has provided a reason why they should fall on their own sword and support it.

UConn supported Coombs's waiver because she had the "go home" route available to her (and it didn't work, in large part because it was obvious her reason for transferring was more playing time elsewhere). Last time I checked, Storrs is even farther from Oregon than Knoxville, so Westbrook couldn't even try to make that argument. So if TN does not think they "ran her off" (which is a hard argument for any starting player), and they don't feel they contributed to severe mental health issues, there's no reason to support the waiver.

I've yet to hear one good merits-based argument for supporting it. And no: social media fan abuse isn't one, because let's face it, in 2019 that's true for basically every top program.

I don’t understand your logic that for Tennessee to support the transfer is an admission of wrong doing. UConn supports every transfer decision by its players. It has nothing to do with an admission of wrong doing. It has a lot to do with what a program stands for. That, coupled with UT’s blatant hypocrisy with its reaction to the denial of a waiver for a transfer to its men’s team, tells you all you need to know about the Vols.

 

[Sifaka]

Does anyone know what has become of the coaching staff from UT. Where is Holly? Where is Dean end up?

Dean Lockwood went to Michigan State.

Holly Warlick is at home, doing precisely what she did for the last six or eight years:

Not coaching.

 

[pinotbear]

Sounds REALLY PERSONAL to you. I get it. I too think Evina could have should have been aided by a good word for the transfer by Tenn. Holding back good words is tacky, unprofessional, punitive and not something nice Southern (and I love em all) Ladies should be doing. It doesn't cost a dime to write 100 words of support for a kid that gave U Tenn 2 great years and lived 2000 miles or more from her home.

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.

 

[TheFarmFan]

I don’t understand your logic that for Tennessee to support the transfer is an admission of wrong doing. UConn supports every transfer decision by its players. It has nothing to do with an admission of wrong doing. It has a lot to do with what a program stands for.

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

When a school requests a waiver because it asserts a student-athlete no longer has the opportunity to participate at his or her previous school, the new school must provide proof that the student-athlete is in good academic standing and meeting progress-toward-degree requirements at the new school and a statement from the previous school’s athletics director indicating whether the student could return to the team; whether the student was dismissed from the team and the date of dismissal; whether the student was in good academic standing at the time of departure; and the reasons the student gave the previous school for the transfer.

In cases in which the student-athlete transferred because he or she is the victim of egregious behavior directly impacting his or her health, safety or well-being, the new school must continue to provide objective documentation of the behavior and how it impacts the health, safety or well-being of the student-athlete. In addition, the new school also must now provide a statement from the previous school’s athletics director explaining why the student-athlete indicated he or she is transferring and proof that the student-athlete is in good academic standing and meeting progress-toward-degree standards at the new school.

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.

I don’t understand your logic that for Tennessee to support the transfer is an admission of wrong doing. UConn supports every transfer decision by its players. It has nothing to do with an admission of wrong doing. It has a lot to do with what a program stands for. That, coupled with UT’s blatant hypocrisy with its reaction to the denial of a waiver for a transfer to its men’s team, tells you all you need to know about the Vols.

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.

 

[reno tony]

Just off topic here, does anyone think that Geno will run up he score vs. TENN if he gets the chance or will he back off the gas? Assuming UCONN is good enough to beat TENN.

 

[diggerfoot]

TN didn't oppose it, but no one has provided a reason why they should fall on their own sword and support it.

Viewed from Auriemma's eyes, the reason they should have supported it is the Golden Rule. Auriemma supports the waivers of his players. Your hypothetical of why he might not is just that, a hypothetical, typically introduced when the actual evidence does not support an opinion. Hypothetically, if Coombs made similar complaints about the UConn program then, hypothetically, Auriemma is not the type of coach who supports the waiver of players. But he is that type of coach so the hypothetical, as are most hypotheticals used to conform opinions, is bogus.

There is another important aspect to why the Golden Rule applies:

Auriemma doesn't usually ask for waivers. He did this only because he felt it was justified. He may or may not have been acting on faulty information, but that is besides the point. Fulmer thought their MBB waiver request was justified. Whether HE was acting on faulty information or not the Golden Rule would dictate he would "support the perceived just waivers of others, just as he would have others support perceived just waivers of his."

We live in a society where "ends justify the means" or "greatest average utility" has usurped the practice of the Golden Rule, but it is still the most justifiable cause of all for human action.

 

[reno tony]

What would motivate a school to not actively support a student's transfer? I can't think of one other than spite.

 

[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.