Herman taking it on the chops along with Rutgers

[Icebear]

On ESPN's The Sports Reporters. Lupica is very blunt calling the whole process a fraud and a sham along with Howard Bryant and Israel Gutierrez. It is on now. Hermann flat out being called a serial liar.

 

[Kibitzer]

Strike one. The letter by the players on the Tennessee volleyball team.

Strike two. Law suits, one settled for $150,000 and one now on appeal.

Strike three. Selective amnesia and outright lies.

Julie Hermann, YER OUT!

 

[John Glass]

I think Chris Chistie is getting involved, when he throws his weight around watch out.............Herman is done

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Strike one. The letter by the players on the Tennessee volleyball team.

Strike two. Law suits, one settled for $150,000 and one now on appeal.

Strike three. Selective amnesia and outright lies.

Julie Hermann, YER OUT!

I have consistently agreed with strike 3.

I agree with strike 1 only to the extent that (first) RU needed a squeaky clean hire to repair the image and (second) its relation to strike 3. I don't actually think her behavior as a coach 15 years ago is otherwise relevant - and would the press be having the field day if she had said "Yes, I behaved very badly as a coach and the experience made me realize that coaching was not a good profession for me so I learned from the experience and moved into administration?" (with a few sorry's thrown in)? I could actually support her if that was the case.

On strike 2, I only agree, again, as to its relation to strike 3. The lawsuit on appeal is not against her, it is against her boss and the university, she is named as a witness. The plaintiff specifically praises her for her initial support, but claims she withdrew that support when the plaintiff went to HR. I find that fact more disturbing than the lawsuit, as I think she would have been named as dendant specifically if the plaintiff thought she directly made the decision. Having seen the other video, I have to say that it is a bit of a gray area, she could have been joking, but that is a totally inappropriate subject to joke about.

So my issue is really strike 3.

I still argue that the general public and media frenzy against RU in the first place was very manufactured. RU never hid what Rice did, punished Rice, and put in place a procedure so that he could not continue to do it. All this absent any player complaints. While a view of the video confirmed that this was argueably light punishment - where does it say that the punishment had to satisfy the general public and media? Most oddly, it was widly known among RU folks that the school wanted Rice out, and it is confounding to us that they did not take advantage of the open opportunity the video presented when they received it. I suspect financial considerations were the culprit.

 

[msf22b]

Rutgers lawyer: Blame the Victim.
From an old Danny Kaye Song that I love to quote.
"It wasn't my fault mommy, It was Alvin's fault."

http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2013/06/blame_the_accusers_rutgers_str.html

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Rutgers lawyer: Blame the Victim.
From an old Danny Kaye Song that I love to quote.
"It wasn't my fault mommy, It was Alvin's fault."

http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2013/06/blame_the_accusers_rutgers_str.html

He must have read my post.

Rutgers seems to consistently hire morons to speak for it.

That said, even when correct, one can have bias. According to one piece he did, he won't write about recent FB recruiting success because "now is not the time for positive articles".