Your reading comprehension is off. Also please stop making straw men arguments attributable to others. I wrote a sentence that opened with piling onto damage (a pile is a collection of $ hit) and mentioned in this pile things like controlling info and having clout - meaning effective at enforcing consequences if there is a breach. This isn't limited to punishment that has a negative impact as in your narrow scenario, its along same vein of a program that has alumni connections, fan support etc.. that helps things happen (i.e. Louisville donors support Pitino = he keeps his job) in contrast Wake has little support/power. Nonetheless the overall point is clear that the ENTIRE PILE is going to have a negative effect on recruiting.
The recruit takeaway is pretty simple, negative recruiting versus Wake = tell recruits be careful you might not get to compete on level playing field, their coaches are so disorganized this happened for 2 years before it got caught, they must have done something awful for someone to take revenge like that, they couldn't protect their players (who would send their son there after hearing the QB's Dad's comments?), etc.. (etc means there is more, not spelling every bit out for ya). Then you even said; 'WTF is going on at Wake' - that's indicative you may understand about the pile too and a negative perception is out there. So far this seems to be one individual with an axe to grind, but who knows if there is more and who knows if he ever tells his side of the story he exposes or accuses Wake of more.
My comprehension is off? Strawman?
Wow, $25K isn't even a slap on the wrist. I don't see how they don't void their wins v Wake this year. That trivializes what happened to players at Wake - what do they get for being embarrassed, practicing to no avail and competing despite disadvantages? In the end this is piles onto damage for Wake, they look ineffectual at controlling info and affecting punishment - might hurt recruiting.
This paragraph is a mess. The typos make it difficult to understand to begin with. But far worse, the grammatical structure makes your nuanced argument difficult to follow. It's unclear what the phrase
"might hurt recruiting" refers to exactly, it could be a number of things.
Does it refer to
"this" at the beginning of the sentence? That doesn't help clear up much anyway, because we don't know what
"this" refers to. It could refer to a number of things.
Your reading comprehension is off. Also please stop making straw men arguments attributable to others. I wrote a sentence that opened with piling onto damage (a pile is a collection of $ hit) and mentioned in this pile things like controlling info and having clout - meaning effective at enforcing consequences if there is a breach.
You wrote a post that opened with a complaint about the amount of the fine, then a complaint that the ACC didn't void wins. Then argued that the players weren't getting justice, and finished with
"this is piles (sic)
onto damage..." Which of those things does
"this" refer to? It can't be all three.
It's a poorly written mess. Instead of challenging the comprehension of others, take a step back and consider whether or not your post is clear. Your explanation makes sense, but nobody made a strawman. Whether you were saying the punishment could directly, or indirectly, impact recruiting; your point is it could impact recruiting. In that respect, I still disagree.
Yes, I agree the entire pile is obviously a bad look for Wake and will harm the program and recruiting. But I disagree with your argument that the ACC's chosen punishment would have any impact on recruiting. It won't do anything to make a bad situation for Wake worse. That's not a strawman, that's your opinion, and I just happen disagree with it, life goes on.
