2007 Basketball Recruits Malone and Sloan

by **BUS** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:26 am

I would guess, as with most businesses, when Orsini got the job he wanted his people to work with him. Given that JT got paid IN FULL, might be that there is not anything big that can be proved.

That is my take.

by **The Falcon** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:56 am

Actually what I said back in the Winter of 06 is that I hoped Sloan
had the flu when I watched him because maybe it would account for his poor play. He looked out of shape, unfocused, lazy, slow, and unaware of what was going on about him. At near 7 ft - I expected him to be dominating. He didn't box out on rebounds. He ran up the court with his back to the ball and got hit in the head by a pass. He picked up dumb fouls.

What can I say that's good. He is near 7 ft. He has some weight on him
(maybe not good) and he was only a junior when I saw him.

Like I said - I hope he had the flu because if he didn't I hope Doherty will not follow through on Sloan's verbal. I did not see Malone and have no
more current info on him.

by **jtstang** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:00 pm

BUS wrote:I would guess, as with most businesses, when Orsini got the job he wanted his people to work with him. Given that JT got paid IN FULL, might be that there is not anything big that can be proved.

That is my take.

See I could buy into that if our outgoing AD hadn't been quoted as saying he was fired for violations beyond "what's been reported in the paper" i.e., burgers and Cheer. Now, if you are correct, then that was an outright lie, and I think SMU supporters deserve to be told the truth by SMU. And despite the passage of time, we still do.

by PK » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:37 pm

If...and I mean if...he was trying to get a slush fund started, as someone posted, then I suspect the real reason for canning him would be gross stupidity. Remember, I said "if".

by **jtstang** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:56 pm

PK wrote:If...and I mean if...he was trying to get a slush fund started, as someone posted, then I suspect the real reason for canning him would be gross stupidity. Remember, I said "if".

Well, I agree, but why do we have to sit hear and qualify everything with "if"? Shouldn't the truth be told by SMU?

I mean it is truly sad that we fans have to get our "news" from the speculation of posters on this board, instead of the athletic department.

by **ponyboy** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:12 pm

Here's one thought (assuming of course the slush fund actually happened). I can't imagine publicly admitting a slush fund without the consequent announcement of severe NCAA penalties.

Are we getting smart by dropping the subject?

by **jtstang** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:17 pm

ponyboy wrote:Here's one thought (assuming of course the slush fund actually happened). I can't imagine publicly admitting a slush fund without the consequent announcement of severe NCAA penalties.

Are we getting smart by dropping the subject?

So you think, with our history, if we just drop the subject the NCAA won't investigate? Not sure I follow that logic.

by **ponyboy** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:37 pm

Let's put it this way. Say you get your wish and SMU does reveal something big enough to substantiate Tubbs' firing. It would HAVE to be followed up by major NCAA sanctions, no?

I'm preferring silence on this one.

by **jtstang** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:14 pm

ponyboy wrote:Let's put it this way. Say you get your wish and SMU does reveal something big enough to substantiate Tubbs' firing. It would HAVE to be followed up by major NCAA sanctions, no?

I'm preferring silence on this one.

Well, since Copeland already came out and said that he was fired for committing what SMU believes to be NCAA violations, do you not think the NCAA is investigating already, silence or not? I mean, I would think for the NCAA's purposes, the cat's already outta the bag.

by **DiamondM75** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:46 pm

jtstang wrote:
ponyboy wrote:Let's put it this way. Say you get your wish and SMU does reveal something big enough to substantiate Tubbs' firing. It would HAVE to be followed up by major NCAA sanctions, no?

I'm preferring silence on this one.

Well, since Copeland already came out and said that he was fired for committing what SMU believes to be NCAA violations, do you not think the NCAA is investigating already, silence or not? I mean, I would think for the NCAA's purposes, the cat's already outta the bag.

In a discussion with Steve Orsini, he told me directly to my face that we are under an NCAA investigation and the results should be out in late July.

by **jtstang** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:19 pm

DiamondM75 wrote:In a discussion with Steve Orsini, he told me directly to my face that we are under an NCAA investigation and the results should be out in late July.

Thanks for that update. Next time you see him, please ask him why fans need to go and talk with him to his face to find out what the hell is going on with the basketball program, when he has a perfectly good website at his disposal.

Just kidding. You needn't ask him that if you don't want to.

by **Buddha** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:01 am

jtstang wrote:Next time you see him, please ask him why fans need to go and talk with him to his face to find out what the hell is going on with the basketball program....

You don't need to go to him face to face .... the school's website reported that we hired a new coach a few months ago! Had stints in North Carolina and Kansas, among others -- I'm pretty sure he played in college, too. Signed a couple of assistant coaches, too. I bet if/when another assistant coach is hired, that will be announced, too.

by **jtstang** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:12 am

Buddha wrote:You don't need to go to him face to face .... the school's website reported that we hired a new coach a few months ago! Had stints in North Carolina and Kansas, among others -- I'm pretty sure he played in college, too. Signed a couple of assistant coaches, too. I bet if/when another assistant coach is hired, that will be announced, too.

Funny, though, that it never reported why we needed a new coach to begin with, i.e., what the violations were that got the old coach fired. I mean beyond the reported burgers and Cheer.

by **Buddha** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:19 am

Right. Nothing will be said until the NCAA releases its findings. Whether anything additional is said then, I don't know, and frankly I don't care.

Quick question (and I'm not trying to pick a fight with you at all -- this is genuine curiosity): I think we all know your stance that you'd like to hear an explanation from the school. However, how will hammering away on PonyFans.com help you get the information you seek? I highly doubt the Webguys are privy to those findings, so shouldn't your request/demand for more information be directed at the school?

by **jtstang** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:48 am

Well that's the difference between you and me. I do care about knowing the truth.

And to answer your question, this is my place to vent my frustrations among other SMU fans, and perhaps even to some who can wield true influence over the powers that be, something that sending e-mails to the AD has never seemed to accomplish. And I've tried it. Bottom line, this is a chat board for chatting about issues regarding SMU, and it's where I choose to chat. Nothing more, nothing less.

2007 Basketball Recruits Malone and Sloan

Correction to Icons Recollection

Who is online