You better have some rough ridin' answers, Currie.

[Dugout DickStone]

Question for the Resume Builder tucks:

What Big time program would want to hire an AD who sole claims to fame are hording millions of dollars and being a compliance Nazi?

I'll bite. 

He is doing the compliance to establish a reputation.  He wouldn't do it at his dream job.  He would just use his reputation as a compliance nazi to get the job who would mutually be using that reputation to burnish a tarnished reputation.

The profit just shows he can raise a bunch of money, balance the books and control costs.  That doesn't look good?

["storm"nut]

Question for the Resume Builder tucks:

What Big time program would want to hire an AD who sole claims to fame are hording millions of dollars and being a compliance Nazi?

I'll bite. 

He is doing the compliance to establish a reputation.  He wouldn't do it at his dream job.  He would just use his reputation as a compliance nazi to get the job who would mutually be using that reputation to burnish a tarnished reputation.

The profit just shows he can raise a bunch of money, balance the books and control costs.  That doesn't look good?

I guess if I was a big time school looking for a new add, I would rather hire one that makes no waves (positive or negative) as far as compliance than one that is a compliance nazi.

[Trim]

Goal Three: "INTEGRITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN MATTERS OF ETHICS, FINANCE, AND NCAA COMPLIANCE"

So long as there's a "Captain Crap" and goEMAW.com Q&A sessions, consider goal #3 as MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.  Warm up the dogtag t-shirts, motherfuckers.

[michigancat]

If it looks good on a resume, it is good for K-State.

The Jamar incident does not look good on a resume, and I'm not sure why so many otherwise intelligent people think it would in any way, shape, or form.

[CNS]

If it looks good on a resume, it is good for K-State.

The Jamar incident does not look good on a resume, and I'm not sure why so many otherwise intelligent people think it would in any way, shape, or form.

It doesn't look bad on an AD level resume for any school who wants to project an outward appearance and reputation that would deflect a certain level of scrutiny.  A kid took $200 and got absolutely squashed for it as a Senior immediately before his last game of his career on the day of a second round NCAA game.  It makes Straight Arrow Generro look like the wild and loose type. 

[michigancat]

If it looks good on a resume, it is good for K-State.

The Jamar incident does not look good on a resume, and I'm not sure why so many otherwise intelligent people think it would in any way, shape, or form.

It doesn't look bad on an AD level resume for any school who wants to project an outward appearance and reputation that would deflect a certain level of scrutiny.  A kid took $200 and got absolutely squashed for it as a Senior immediately before his last game of his career on the day of a second round NCAA game.  It makes Straight Arrow Generro look like the wild and loose type. 

I've addressed it with several posts, but it was from a known agent runner with a known association to multiple players in the university and it took place the week of the most important game of the year. The fact that it even took place looks FAR worse than any reaction could look good.

[Gooch]

Yeah I was wrong on a lot of things. Sorry, Currie. 

Meh. A wise man once said "I don't like Currie".

[mocat]

If it looks good on a resume, it is good for K-State.

The Jamar incident does not look good on a resume, and I'm not sure why so many otherwise intelligent people think it would in any way, shape, or form.

It doesn't look bad on an AD level resume for any school who wants to project an outward appearance and reputation that would deflect a certain level of scrutiny.  A kid took $200 and got absolutely squashed for it as a Senior immediately before his last game of his career on the day of a second round NCAA game.  It makes Straight Arrow Generro look like the wild and loose type.

Man, when you lay it out like that, it really makes you sad. So sad for Jamar.

[MakeItRain]

If it looks good on a resume, it is good for K-State.

The Jamar incident does not look good on a resume, and I'm not sure why so many otherwise intelligent people think it would in any way, shape, or form.

I haven't ascribed to this theory but to play devils advocate here:

The "Jamar incident" has no relevance to his resume.  The swift and thorough reaction to it through Currie and his compliance office is a positive mark on his resume.  He nor compliance has any control over Malone sending money and Jamar accepting it.  They do however have total control over what they do when they find out.  The talking point that "everybody cheats" is complete BS.  University Presidents and Boards of Regents want a guy who has control over their athletic departments and won't give the university a black eye by covering up or being lazy.

[Trim]

If it looks good on a resume, it is good for K-State.

The Jamar incident does not look good on a resume, and I'm not sure why so many otherwise intelligent people think it would in any way, shape, or form.

It doesn't look bad on an AD level resume for any school who wants to project an outward appearance and reputation that would deflect a certain level of scrutiny.  A kid took $200 and got absolutely squashed for it as a Senior immediately before his last game of his career on the day of a second round NCAA game.  It makes Straight Arrow Generro look like the wild and loose type. 

Of course, this hypothetical university might be concerned with why an athletic director hadn't long ago squashed any possibility that student-athletes could think it was OK to get $200 from their former AAU coach and father figure simultaneously embroiled in a lawsuit with the GKSUBB'rOAT, when apparently it takes a day or less for the NCAA to say it's not alright.

[michigancat]

If it looks good on a resume, it is good for K-State.

The Jamar incident does not look good on a resume, and I'm not sure why so many otherwise intelligent people think it would in any way, shape, or form.

I haven't ascribed to this theory but to play devils advocate here:

The "Jamar incident" has no relevance to his resume.  The swift and thorough reaction to it through Currie and his compliance office is a positive mark on his resume.  He nor compliance has any control over Malone sending money and Jamar accepting it.  They do however have total control over what they do when they find out.  The talking point that "everybody cheats" is complete BS.  University Presidents and Boards of Regents want a guy who has control over their athletic departments and won't give the university a black eye by covering up or being lazy.

That's fair, but you can't have the reaction without the incident, and Currie deserves a shitload of responsibility for the incident. He oversees compliance training and making sure athletes have the resources to succeed. (Not starving is part of success, IMO)

Even still, if you believe what captain is saying, a "swift reaction" is what was best for KSU.

[Trim]

He nor compliance has any control over Malone sending money and Jamar accepting it. 

If Jamar getting money from Curtis Malone is a violation, I think anybody with more than a passing interest in KSU hoops over the last 5 years would know that administration should make it abundantly clear to Jamar and Rodney not to be getting money from Curtis Malone.

[CNS]

If it looks good on a resume, it is good for K-State.

The Jamar incident does not look good on a resume, and I'm not sure why so many otherwise intelligent people think it would in any way, shape, or form.

It doesn't look bad on an AD level resume for any school who wants to project an outward appearance and reputation that would deflect a certain level of scrutiny.  A kid took $200 and got absolutely squashed for it as a Senior immediately before his last game of his career on the day of a second round NCAA game.  It makes Straight Arrow Generro look like the wild and loose type. 

Of course, this hypothetical university might be concerned with why an athletic director hadn't long ago squashed any possibility that student-athletes could think it was OK to get $200 from their former AAU coach and father figure simultaneously embroiled in a lawsuit with the GKSUBB'rOAT, when apparently it takes a day or less for the NCAA to say it's not alright.

I DNR the first 20+ pages of this.

Currie could mention that a really f'ed up guy named Krouse had the job before him when the team had active ties to Malone.  Currie could mention that his time came after the ties were severed in an all but complete way.  Currie could go on to say that he had a discussion with Rodney and Jamar about Malone and warned them of such swift action as what took place Sat with Jamar.

[Trim]

Currie could go on to say that he had a discussion with Rodney and Jamar about Malone and warned them of such swift action as what took place Sat with Jamar.

Well yeah, he could say whatever he wants in an interview. 

[LickNeckey]

I saw Jamar in Dillons at customer service last Tuesday.

[Kat Kid]

So just the NCAA then huh?  Welp, goEMAW gunna goEMAW.

[_33]

I saw Jamar in Dillons at customer service last Tuesday.

Who else saw him? Who were you with?

[Cartierfor3]

Meh.  Still don't like Currie.  Still think Frank don't like Currie neither. 

["storm"nut]

I saw Jamar in Dillons at customer service last Tuesday.

[captaincrap]

I would just remind everybody again that this happens a lot. It happened last year with Perry Jones at Baylor, he was suspended the day before the Big12 Tourney for improper benefits and had to miss several games (which carried over to this year). Difference is with Jamar it happened to be his senior season and we lost, so he's done. But exactly the same situation as Perry jones, Durand Scott, Cam Newton, Josh Selby, etc etc etc. Kids get caught taking money or trips or clothes or rides from "friends" all the time, and the NCAA doesn't always agree that they are "friends". So kids get ruled ineligible, the school apples for reinstatement, it gets ruled on, punishment is given if any.

To make the ruling about Currie in any way is missing the point. If you want to complain about how JC handled the publicity or media afterwards, that's probably fair.

[Trim]

Meh.  Still don't like Currie.  Still think Frank don't like Currie neither. 

You're very astute, CartierFor3, no matter how much you love cancer.

["storm"nut]

I would just remind everybody again that this happens a lot. It happened last year with Perry Jones at Baylor, he was suspended the day before the Big12 Tourney for improper benefits and had to miss several games (which carried over to this year). Difference is with Jamar it happened to be his senior season and we lost, so he's done. But exactly the same situation as Perry jones, Durand Scott, Cam Newton, Josh Selby, etc etc etc. Kids get caught taking money or trips or clothes or rides from "friends" all the time, and the NCAA doesn't always agree that they are "friends". So kids get ruled ineligible, the school apples for reinstatement, it gets ruled on, punishment is given if any.

To make the ruling about Currie in any way is missing the point. If you want to complain about how JC handled the publicity or media afterwards, that's probably fair.

How many games did Cam miss? It goes back to the double standard things. If I remember correctly. The NCAA ruled Cam ineligible and in less than 24 hours He was ruled okay to play and practice after Auburn appealed. Seems they worked at a different speed for the Newton situation.

[Cartierfor3]

Meh.  Still don't like Currie.  Still think Frank don't like Currie neither. 

You're very astute, CartierFor3, no matter how much you love cancer.

 

[Pete]

Why couldn't Currie have just Ohio Stated this thing and worked out a deal where Jamar gets suspended from future games that he has zero chance of playing in while staying free to play in all the post season play this year?

He's a senior, no upcoming games to suspend him for.

so what's the consequence if you just play him? Did the NCAA make that call, or Currie?

The same thing happened to Miami FL with Durand Scott -- when a player receives improper benefits, he is immediately ineligible and has to be withheld from play until the NCAA reinstatement committee rules on what needs to happen for him to return. The reinstatement committee is who K-State was working with on game day and even during play. If you play an ineligible player you will end up vacating the win, forfeit any revenue from the game, and risk probation. If the NCAA finds out you knew about the player being ineligible and played him anyway, that's how you end up with jobs lost, postseason bans and scholarship reductions.

I can recall no situation where this has EVER happened with an issue as small as the case at hand.  Do you know of one? 

OR, is it as we suspect, where other institutions are more "resourceful" in how they characterize accusations...e.g. "I don't believe we have a violation, so we will play the kid" then, after some additional review, maybe submit the accusation later, "just in case."

I am guessing we are one the most conservative side of the spectrum on this....like the very end of the right-hand side of the spectrum.

[captaincrap]

I would just remind everybody again that this happens a lot. It happened last year with Perry Jones at Baylor, he was suspended the day before the Big12 Tourney for improper benefits and had to miss several games (which carried over to this year). Difference is with Jamar it happened to be his senior season and we lost, so he's done. But exactly the same situation as Perry jones, Durand Scott, Cam Newton, Josh Selby, etc etc etc. Kids get caught taking money or trips or clothes or rides from "friends" all the time, and the NCAA doesn't always agree that they are "friends". So kids get ruled ineligible, the school apples for reinstatement, it gets ruled on, punishment is given if any.

To make the ruling about Currie in any way is missing the point. If you want to complain about how JC handled the publicity or media afterwards, that's probably fair.

How many games did Cam miss? It goes back to the double standard things. If I remember correctly. The NCAA ruled Cam ineligible and in less than 24 hours He was ruled okay to play and practice after Auburn appealed. Seems they worked at a different speed for the Newton situation.

It took them a day or so for Cam. K-State had like 12 hours.