Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Ricker, post: 3130400, member: 1245"] I'd agree if we were losing a bench player, BUT, we're not losing a bench player. We already have spots 11 & 12 & 13 on the team. We are losing the ability to recruit a rotation player or impact player at at least 1 position of need. Not having that additional player could impact whether we make post season play next year, or how far we could go in post season play if we do make it. Post season play equals money for us and the conference. Post season play also influences our perception as a recruiting destination, and winning puts fannies in the seats. We potentially self imposed a big additional financial penalty by picking this year to hurt ourselves, rather than deferring to when spot #13 was really the scholarship being lost. Why couldn't the adverse financial ramifications of meeting the situation head on, firing Ollie as the perpetrator, bearing legal expenses, reputational injury, etc, be argued in the future as a sufficient self imposed penalty of millions? Far more damage in money than the nominal infraction. Plus, there supposedly is the increased contractual emphasis in Hurley's deal to stress compliance, which addresses future remediation. I see those actions as easily argued as both proactive and sufficient, rather than as 'waiting to get slammed'. As far as working out for every team; As 1 example; Didn't Syracuse get their penalties increased far beyond what they self imposed? I'm not arguing that there is a right or wrong in this. I'm just stating my view that the athletic dept has hurt the program's ability to win next year, in a manner that wasn't necessary. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach