one year delayed, eh cap'n?

[sonofdaxjones]

There was plenty of reason for the denial and delay if the AD thought there was tampering taking place, which quite clearly he did.

Why is this so difficult to understand.  If you believe former staff members are shopping current players you don't allow transfers.   All of these idiotic comments about "cross half the world" etc. etc. are irrelevant throwaway arguments; you don't knowingly allow tampering to occur.   It's pretty apparent that both Currie and the Committee felt like there was something out-of-sorts with the situation.

[Dr Rick Daris]

also, lol at the athletic department trying to make the academic side do their dirty work while simultaneously and purposefully trying to make them look bad. the athletic dept could have released her whenever they wanted to. like, pick a day within the last two months. any day. boom! that's a day that the athletic dept could have released her. it's like magic.

Not when a final AD decision had been made, per the handbook.   

Also, I misspoke, Currie asked the Committee to reconvene.   However, it's quite clear that he thought there was tampering going on, then when he felt that the tampering issue had been resolved, he requested the committee to reconvene and grant the release.   The committee has been a component of the transfer process for quite some time, not always used or needed.

the committee can't, wouldn't and won't reconvene, dax. that's why it was stupid for him to ask them to. if the athletic dept felt that their initial decision to not release her was incorrect, then the proper course of action would have been for them to change their initial decision. the whole letter to pat bosco and then subsequent changing bylaws or whatever is smoke and mirrors so they don't have to say "well initially we said no but now we're saying yeah".

it looks like they have a blanket policy to discourage transfers and make students think they have to stay or accept the offer of "hey stay one year and give it a shot and if you don't like it then we'll release you". this backfired on them this time, more than likely because shalin or whoever else that got fired told leti "yeah don't buy any of that. if you wan't out, you can get out. we will help you."

then you have the athletic dept running around weeks after the fact trying to make a pat bosco committee of professors or whoever out to be the final say and the only people that could overturn this. give me a break. it's patently false and was shown to be when she was released to middle tennesee st due to a "clerical error".

[slimz]

Am I the only one who hears "too cool for school" every time it pops up on this blog?   

[Panjandrum]

No, but I will now.

[chum1]

Both the AD and the committe could have released her at any time.  Both sides hid behind policy and it was bullshit each time.  They can exercise discretion.

[Pete]

also, lol at the athletic department trying to make the academic side do their dirty work while simultaneously and purposefully trying to make them look bad. the athletic dept could have released her whenever they wanted to. like, pick a day within the last two months. any day. boom! that's a day that the athletic dept could have released her. it's like magic.

Not when a final AD decision had been made, per the handbook.   

Also, I misspoke, Currie asked the Committee to reconvene.   However, it's quite clear that he thought there was tampering going on, then when he felt that the tampering issue had been resolved, he requested the committee to reconvene and grant the release.   The committee has been a component of the transfer process for quite some time, not always used or needed.

the committee can't, wouldn't and won't reconvene, dax. that's why it was stupid for him to ask them to. if the athletic dept felt that their initial decision to not release her was incorrect, then the proper course of action would have been for them to change their initial decision. the whole letter to pat bosco and then subsequent changing bylaws or whatever is smoke and mirrors so they don't have to say "well initially we said no but now we're saying yeah".

it looks like they have a blanket policy to discourage transfers and make students think they have to stay or accept the offer of "hey stay one year and give it a shot and if you don't like it then we'll release you". this backfired on them this time, more than likely because shalin or whoever else that got fired told leti "yeah don't buy any of that. if you wan't out, you can get out. we will help you."

then you have the athletic dept running around weeks after the fact trying to make a pat bosco committee of professors or whoever out to be the final say and the only people that could overturn this. give me a break. it's patently false and was shown to be when she was released to middle tennesee st due to a "clerical error".

I see this situation similar to how Daris sees it, AND I also agree with Pan that under no circumstances is it ever excusable to garner national negative press for a non-revenue sport.

To chum's point of "what's the harm,". I respond by saying that I acknowledge that it is difficult to objectively identify specific damages from national negative press like we received, but add that it ain't a rough ridin' good thing and you know it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sonofdaxjones]

also, lol at the athletic department trying to make the academic side do their dirty work while simultaneously and purposefully trying to make them look bad. the athletic dept could have released her whenever they wanted to. like, pick a day within the last two months. any day. boom! that's a day that the athletic dept could have released her. it's like magic.

Not when a final AD decision had been made, per the handbook.   

Also, I misspoke, Currie asked the Committee to reconvene.   However, it's quite clear that he thought there was tampering going on, then when he felt that the tampering issue had been resolved, he requested the committee to reconvene and grant the release.   The committee has been a component of the transfer process for quite some time, not always used or needed.

the committee can't, wouldn't and won't reconvene, dax. that's why it was stupid for him to ask them to. if the athletic dept felt that their initial decision to not release her was incorrect, then the proper course of action would have been for them to change their initial decision. the whole letter to pat bosco and then subsequent changing bylaws or whatever is smoke and mirrors so they don't have to say "well initially we said no but now we're saying yeah".

it looks like they have a block policy to discourage transfers and make students think they have to stay or accept the offer of "hey stay one year and give it a shot and if you don't like it then we'll release you". this backfired on them this time, more than likely because shalin or whoever else that got fired told leti "yeah don't buy any of that. if you wan't out, you can get out. we will help you."

then you have the athletic dept running around weeks after the fact trying to make a pat bosco committee of professors or whoever out to be the final say and the only people that could overturn this. give me a break. it's patently false and was shown to be when she was released to middle tennesee st due to a "clerical error".

I don't get your take on the committee at all, because the committee wasn't conjured up just for this situation.   Maybe I misunderstand what you're trying to say. 

"shalin or whoever" . . . Welp, the "whoever" part is kind of important, because whoever (or is it whomever?) they are may have been the primary reason why the transfer request was denied.   Again, you don't green light transfers if you believe that players are being tampered with.   I know the resident worried little girls get all sphincter clinched if they think K-State looks bad, but I'll take looking bad if there's a possible tampering issue on the table.   What's not acceptable is the other relevant buffoonery like the clerical errors. 

Also, what is being completely left off the table is the possibility that Romero went to Currie the second time around and said all the right things in order to get Currie to change his mind.   

Since we don't know all the details we can only speculate.  But it appears more and more like this thing was too rushed from the start which lead administrators to believe there were things amiss and thus caused them to react in the way that they did.   Hopefully the amended policy will mitigate these kinds of situations, and hopefully our current coaching staffs won't need to be exited out of their jobs for performance reasons any time soon.   

[Mr Bread]

There was plenty of reason for the denial and delay if the AD thought there was tampering taking place, which quite clearly he did.

Why is this so difficult to understand.  If you believe former staff members are shopping current players you don't allow transfers.   All of these idiotic comments about "cross half the world" etc. etc. are irrelevant throwaway arguments; you don't knowingly allow tampering to occur.   It's pretty apparent that both Currie and the Committee felt like there was something out-of-sorts with the situation.

Then Leti bent Currie over and had her way with him in front of everybody. 

[sonofdaxjones]

There was plenty of reason for the denial and delay if the AD thought there was tampering taking place, which quite clearly he did.

Why is this so difficult to understand.  If you believe former staff members are shopping current players you don't allow transfers.   All of these idiotic comments about "cross half the world" etc. etc. are irrelevant throwaway arguments; you don't knowingly allow tampering to occur.   It's pretty apparent that both Currie and the Committee felt like there was something out-of-sorts with the situation.

Then Leti bent Currie over and had her way with him in front of everybody.

Okay, but I don't get why the Illini Fan even cares about this.

[Dugout DickStone]

Really a bad deal for Currie.

Doing his job in protecting the interests of the athletic department but not given any time by the player in question to fully ascertain the circumstances at hand and mitigate them before the player ran to the media.   Then tossed under the bus by the media regarding a situation that he legally could not publicly comment on.   

He then fully vetted the situation, recommended to the committee (part of the procedural process that could not be circumvented) that the player in question be allowed to transfer. 

The committee apparently led by gEmaw too cool for schooler favorite  Pat Bosco ignores Currie's recommendation and denies the transfer request.

Currie must then take more heat because the committee ignores his recommendation and he is still unable to publicly comment on the situation in any detail while working to amend the policy in place.   

Currie then gets the K-State Athletics Inc. to amend the in place policy, and the player in question is granted a full release, in the interim between board approval of the amendment and release, Currie must  contend with incompetence by compliance staff in the athletic department.

Why not fully vet the situation before denying the transfer?

[Rage Against the McKee]

The committee is there to listen to appeals from students. They shouldn't have to listen to appeals from the athletic department, especially after they just acted in the way the athletic department recommended. If Currie obtained some new information, he should have just told Leti to file a new request to transfer because the first request was denied and that case was closed.

[sonofdaxjones]

Really a bad deal for Currie.

Doing his job in protecting the interests of the athletic department but not given any time by the player in question to fully ascertain the circumstances at hand and mitigate them before the player ran to the media.   Then tossed under the bus by the media regarding a situation that he legally could not publicly comment on.   

He then fully vetted the situation, recommended to the committee (part of the procedural process that could not be circumvented) that the player in question be allowed to transfer. 

The committee apparently led by gEmaw too cool for schooler favorite  Pat Bosco ignores Currie's recommendation and denies the transfer request.

Currie must then take more heat because the committee ignores his recommendation and he is still unable to publicly comment on the situation in any detail while working to amend the policy in place.   

Currie then gets the K-State Athletics Inc. to amend the in place policy, and the player in question is granted a full release, in the interim between board approval of the amendment and release, Currie must  contend with incompetence by compliance staff in the athletic department.

Why not fully vet the situation before denying the transfer?

Good question.   Maybe Romero wanted an immediate answer??      Maybe her tone wasn't as conciliatory, or maybe she didn't tell Currie what he wanted to hear the first time around?     

[sonofdaxjones]

The committee is there to listen to appeals from students. They shouldn't have to listen to appeals from the athletic department, especially after they just acted in the way the athletic department recommended. If Currie obtained some new information, he should have just told Leti to file a new request to transfer because the first request was denied and that case was closed.

If that's what you think, then Leti clearly didn't make her case in front of the committee and/or they also thought something was amiss.   Well, unless you're buying the committee is just puppets of the athletic department conspiracy.  The Bosco clearly wasn't sold on her story.

[Pete]

Really a bad deal for Currie.

Doing his job in protecting the interests of the athletic department but not given any time by the player in question to fully ascertain the circumstances at hand and mitigate them before the player ran to the media.   Then tossed under the bus by the media regarding a situation that he legally could not publicly comment on.   

He then fully vetted the situation, recommended to the committee (part of the procedural process that could not be circumvented) that the player in question be allowed to transfer. 

The committee apparently led by gEmaw too cool for schooler favorite  Pat Bosco ignores Currie's recommendation and denies the transfer request.

Currie must then take more heat because the committee ignores his recommendation and he is still unable to publicly comment on the situation in any detail while working to amend the policy in place.   

Currie then gets the K-State Athletics Inc. to amend the in place policy, and the player in question is granted a full release, in the interim between board approval of the amendment and release, Currie must  contend with incompetence by compliance staff in the athletic department.

Why not fully vet the situation before denying the transfer?

Good question.   Maybe Romero wanted an immediate answer??      Maybe her tone wasn't as conciliatory, or maybe she didn't tell Currie what he wanted to hear the first time around?     

None of those excuse a failure to fully vet before denying, do they?

That would be EXACTLY what the national objections are in this case.  Deny first, then ask questions later, athletes be damned....that's what they are objecting to here, I believe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[slimz]

Dax can I get a Venn diagram of the different KSU cats groups? K thx

Everbody please mark down where you go on this diagram/map. (Mods, please move to master maps or 42 map project thread if needed. TIA.)

[Rage Against the McKee]

The committee is there to listen to appeals from students. They shouldn't have to listen to appeals from the athletic department, especially after they just acted in the way the athletic department recommended. If Currie obtained some new information, he should have just told Leti to file a new request to transfer because the first request was denied and that case was closed.

If that's what you think, then Leti clearly didn't make her case in front of the committee and/or they also thought something was amiss.   Well, unless you're buying the committee is just puppets of the athletic department conspiracy.  The Bosco clearly wasn't sold on her story.

Maybe they just trust the athletic director when he tells them that they shouldn't grant a transfer because of all the tampering.

[0.42]

cRustyville

[Mr Bread]

House TARGARYEN

[Tobias]

slimz

[sonofdaxjones]

Really a bad deal for Currie.

Doing his job in protecting the interests of the athletic department but not given any time by the player in question to fully ascertain the circumstances at hand and mitigate them before the player ran to the media.   Then tossed under the bus by the media regarding a situation that he legally could not publicly comment on.   

He then fully vetted the situation, recommended to the committee (part of the procedural process that could not be circumvented) that the player in question be allowed to transfer. 

The committee apparently led by gEmaw too cool for schooler favorite  Pat Bosco ignores Currie's recommendation and denies the transfer request.

Currie must then take more heat because the committee ignores his recommendation and he is still unable to publicly comment on the situation in any detail while working to amend the policy in place.   

Currie then gets the K-State Athletics Inc. to amend the in place policy, and the player in question is granted a full release, in the interim between board approval of the amendment and release, Currie must  contend with incompetence by compliance staff in the athletic department.

Why not fully vet the situation before denying the transfer?

Good question.   Maybe Romero wanted an immediate answer??      Maybe her tone wasn't as conciliatory, or maybe she didn't tell Currie what he wanted to hear the first time around?     

None of those excuse a failure to fully vet before denying, do they?

That would be EXACTLY what the national objections are in this case.  Deny first, then ask questions later, athletes be damned....that's what they are objecting to here, I believe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one on here knows all the details, so we're all just left to speculate.   

The story changing the second time around is every bit as plausible as the deny first scenario.   

The committee wasn't buying her story either (disregard if you believe the committee as puppets of Currie conspiracy) or maybe they were also in deny first mode.   Who knows?   

[Trim]

[slobber]

The levels of butthurt are pretty high. Tension continues to mount.
slimz to the rescue!

[michigancat]

Good question.   Maybe Romero wanted an immediate answer??      Maybe her tone wasn't as conciliatory, or maybe she didn't tell Currie what he wanted to hear the first time around?     

Yes, Leti is the one that has demonstrated a consistent pattern of difficulty communicating with other humans.

[sonofdaxjones]

Good question.   Maybe Romero wanted an immediate answer??      Maybe her tone wasn't as conciliatory, or maybe she didn't tell Currie what he wanted to hear the first time around?     

Yes, Leti is the one that has demonstrated a consistent pattern of difficulty communicating with other humans.

Yes, nothing says difficulty in communicating with other humans when you can get multi-millionaires and billionaires (you know those happy go lucky hardcore bankers, oil, industrial and big ag types)  to open up their checkbooks and write checks for large sums of money. 

Let me see, knowing you, your baseline for being able to communicate with other humans in John Currie's case begins and ends with Frank Martin.   Laughable to say the least.

[Tobias]