VTTW Board Index

Mike Griffith/KNS is putting together something on this as well since Parrish is stirring the mud.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/15650956



G

I don't belive it is mud, Gregg. It is reality. This is why I have no warm fuzzies for Bruce Pearl.  When he lied about somethng that was a very minor issue to try and cover his own butt he hurt the people that had been most loyal to him and helped him to get where he was.  I just don't get the folks who are putting Pearl up on a pedestal. He hurt a lot of people who are paying the price for his arrogance. 

BS. Forbes and Shay had the same opportunities to tell the truth about the photo and they didn't. They were guilty of the same things Pearl was guilty of. Don't give me the line about how they couldn't be forthcoming because they would be blackballed for their disloyalty to their boss. Excuses are excuses, and their excuses for what they did are no better than Pearl's excuses for what he did.

Pearl did come out pretty good in the end. Because he was the head coach and they were the assistant coaches. Is he supposed to sell his home and go live in an apartment somewhere so that public perception is different? It is what it is: Pearl was fired because of what he did, and Shay and Forbes were fired because of what they did. Period. To suggest that Pearl is somehow responsible for the plight of Shay and Forbes is absolutely ridiculous.

They were all responsible and they all committed the same sin, and Bruce came out better for it because Bruce was the boss and the star. That happens every day in business and it's just the way it is. It doesn't make the former assistant's situations any more palatable, but that's life. He didn't throw his assistants under the bus and he took the fall for what he did. So did they. That's life.

No, there are major differences:  Shay and Forbes weren't written a check for a million dollars for their part in the sordid affair.  Have you forgotten the part about Pearl asking his assistants and the parents of at least one recruit not to tell the truth because it was a violation?  Pearl was "forgiven" because he is such a nice guy, and he has done so much for the University and for Knoxville, so were the excuses floated out there.   The hero worship thown at Pearl's feet is just plain sickening.

Yep, Shay and Forbes had the opportunity to come clean, but what would it have gotten them?  They would have been fired, just like they ended up being, and would be in the same position they are now.  The NCAA had the goods on Pearl from the get go. To blame them, when the issue was created and blown up to what it became by Bruce Pearl is just plain misguided.  

As the story says, Shay and Forbes are where they are because of Bruce Pearl's inability to accept responsiblity until he had no choice - when proof positive was shown to him.  

One thing that sort of bothers me is the implication that Bruce was gifted his job with Hackney. If he was, that's on Hackney. I suspect that they thought he would be a good hire. If Bruce gets offered a job like that and those guys can't, what's Bruce supposed to do... turn it down?

In the end, I don't blame the former assistants for being bitter, but virtually person in America would've taken the buyout, gotten away on vacation, and taken the Hackney job if they were in Bruce's shoes.

I'm sure this topic is going to get spirited.

I disagree with his throwing his assistants under the bus. When he asked them to be part of a conspiracy to cover the lie, he was putting them in the position to be thrown under the bus.  

No, if he did that then he was putting them in a position to be part of a conspiracy to cover the lie, and they chose to do that and that's why they are all deservedly in the position that they are in.

No big deal to me, I don't worship Bruce Pearl and knew he was probably going to be fired this time last year (or whenever the news broke). We just have differing opinions on blame. They all fizzleed up.

I agree with that, and I didn't mean to infer that you are a Pearl apologist and worshiper, but you'll have to admit that there are a whole lot of those out there. 

There are some.

I still like him and wish he were our coach. I'm not sure what label that sentiment deserves but yes . . . I'd say there are a fair number of us out there.

Oh, I agree. It's Parrish being Parrish. And I really do believe the guys would have been black-balled when I look back at what happened to Pearl years ago. I think it was a sleazy way for the NCAA handle their end. They didn't need the assistants when they had the goods on Pearl. And I think UT could have handle things better as well. I can certainly see the wives being upset (not that I agree, but I've been married twice).

G

Yeah, apparently I have. Because I don't remember anything coming out about Pearl asking his assistants to lie. I don't think it happened. But I've been wrong before.

Either way, who is "worshipping" Pearl? Who are these Pearl apologists you speak of? If you're implying that I'm a Pearl apologist because I disagree with you, you're wrong. I've never defended what he did, though I have said that the punishment exceeded the crime. But one isn't automatically a Pearl apologist or a Pearl worshipper for realizing that 99% of the people in America who were in Pearl's shoes would've taken the buyout and taken the Hackney job offer. (The other 1% are nuts.)

IIRC, Pearl asked the recruits/their families to keep it hush hush.  But it was an assistant who first said "I can't tell where that photo was taken".  I don't remember anything saying Bruce told his assistants to lie.

I'm hazy on it, but what was said to assistants after Pearl came out of questioning? I think it was in there where he alluded to keeping hush-hush to Tony Jones (whom I saw at Frank's Babershop yesterday in his new, blue H3). Either way, if 101 says it happened, then he knows something and I would have no reason whatsoever to doubt it.


G

According to this, Forbes was the first to be shown the photo..  he deflected the questioning and then said "no".  Forbes then ran into Shay and told him about the photo they were going to show.  Doesn't say anything about Pearl telling these guys to lie.  According to this, he didn't call a meeting with them until after they had all been interviewed.

http://www.govolsxtra.com/news/2011/jul/23/pearl-lied-because-i-panicked/

Forbes was the first to be interviewed. He questioned the quality of the photograph, which was sent anonymously via U.S. Mail to the NCAA.

"I mean it doesn't look like his house to me, but, that doesn't mean, I don't, I can't tell, no," Forbes said during his initial interview with Thompson.

Glazier followed up with a question to see if he could identify Jana Shay.

Forbes hesitated, then cursed.

"These days a photo shop..."

"OK," Glazier said.

"OK," Thompson said.

"You know," Forbes said, "it could be anything."

On his way out of the interview, Forbes met Shay, who was on his way in to be interviewed, at a water fountain in the hallway.

"You're gonna see that ... they're gonna show you a picture," Forbes, in his follow-up interview in August, recalled telling Shay. "That was it."

Forbes then walked back to the basketball offices and met with Jones and Pearl. He notified them both about the photograph.

Meanwhile, back in the interrogation room, Shay was not directly asked about his wife's presence in the photograph, and he didn't voluntarily offer up the information.

"Does the area look familiar? Maybe a place on campus or someone's home?" Thompson asked.

"Yeah, I don't recognize it," Shay said.

Jones identified Pearl and Craft in the photograph, but didn't explicitly deny that the photo was snapped in Pearl's home. He also could not confirm that the woman in the photo was Jana Shay.

Both Forbes and Shay eventually were charged with failing to protect the integrity of the investigation.

'A bad decision'

Earlier that day, Pearl committed a major NCAA violation when he attempted to contact Craft's father, John. John didn't answer, so Pearl left a voicemail.

The two spoke later in the day after Pearl's interview with Thompson. John Craft viewed the conversation as an attempt by Pearl to influence his statements to the NCAA. The NCAA viewed it as failing to protect the integrity of the investigation.

The Crafts interviewed with the NCAA twice in July 2010.

"I said, 'Well, coach, you know, if we're asked we will tell what is the best of our ability, you know, the recollection of what happened that afternoon, that day, that visit,'" John Craft said during an interview with Thompson. "He right away said 'Well, John, we,' his tone kinda changed and it was like, uh, 'Well, we — I've had a discussion with my staff and,' uh, 'we remember the visit and we remember telling you that we were going out for an informal cookout at my house and that it was illegal for you to be there.'

"And I said, 'Coach, if that's your story then,' you know, 'we're gonna have two.'"

Pearl said his reasons for contacting Craft were twofold. Along with his curiosity about where the photo came from, Pearl said he wanted to give Craft the "heads up" that NCAA investigators might contact him in the near future.

Pearl stressed that he was not instructing Craft to lie, but understood how others could imply the situation that way.

"Obviously," Pearl said in a follow-up interview with the NCAA, "I made a bad decision in calling John."

Having second thoughts

Second thoughts raced through Pearl's head immediately after his initial interview with the NCAA.

He called a meeting with his assistants later that day, something the NCAA also considered to be a compromise of the investigation's integrity. His questions focused solely on the photograph.

"...he, coach Pearl, came back and said that he recognized that it was his house," Shay said in his follow-up interview with the NCAA.

"OK," Thompson said, "and what was your, what was your reaction to that?"

"I mean I — if he said it was then I agreed with him."

Shay said he, Jones and Forbes each notified Pearl that they didn't recognize the photograph's setting.

It was then, Shay said, that Pearl decided he would contact the NCAA to say that "we've got additional information."

I have a completely different take on this.  An assistant made $200K a year for coaching a game?  Good for him!  He's making $60K a year now for being a head coach?  Good for him!  Unemployment is 9.1% and $60K a year is above the median salary in this country.  Be fortunate you have a job!  And the fact that you get paid so well for something that produces nothing of economic value, and is essentially just noise and color...entertainment in other words...should make that an even better deal for you.

It's a fizzleING GAME for chrissake.  Quit whining.  Did Bruce Pearl make even more than that?  Then what I say goes triple or double (or I suppose the right multiplier is $1 million/$60K?  Whatever.)  The fact that the top dog made so much more than them is just symptomatic of how our culture is at this point in time.  It's no different than the ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay, which has been going up for years (and I will stop there to avoid PolitVOL  :biggrin:).  But at least corporations (or at any rate most of them, lol), actually PRODUCES something.   

I think the sports entertainment industry is this country is WAY too overvalued.  And yes, I fully acknowledge that as a fan I am part of the problem.

But I also think they should be grateful they ever made close to those salaries, and the guy making $60k is actually making over the national median pay.

See there, I told you I was hazy on it.            :naughty:


G

sAll I will say is that there seem to be some really short memories on this one.   :rolleyes:

I'll be honest Dad, I don't remember any report of Pearl telling his assistants to lie beforehand either. I remember the stuff about Aaron Craft's dad but otherwise I remember it the way it was told above. Maybe I have it wrong.

They were certainly out there in terms of the situation including assistants and Craft's father and the other prospects who were there.  

Got a link?

You want a link? Go buy some Jimmy Deans. 

Too bad. I was hoping to see some evidence of the claims myself.

Oh goodness. Bill (101) is about as well connected as anyone you would ever want to know. This shouldn't be a pissing contest. And If I'm
wrong, than accept my apologies beforehand and I'll admit I'm wrong. It may not be the case.

I'm not taking sides, I'm just saying I've worked with 101 on some personal issues not involving sports and this guy is the real deal and if he told me it was raining, I'd believe him. And believe me when I say he really is just giving his input; he's not argumentative and is inserting some things he knows. It's no more than that. Hope that is good enough.


G    :powert:

This is a long ways from a pissing contest. I don't do pissing contests. (Not anymore. When I was younger I liked me a good pissing contest.) When I said I hoped to see some evidence that Pearl asked his assistants to lie on his behalf, I meant just that. I was hoping 101stDad would share the source of the information. Was my comment a little snarky? Yes. Because, IMO, if someone is going to make claims like 101stDad made and then follow a request for a link with a snarky comment of his own...well, let's just say that I'm not as trusting a fella as you. He made the statement that some folks have "short memories," a comment that was directed at least partially at me, which implies that evidence of Pearl asking his assistants to lie on his behalf was common knowledge. Then follows up with sarcasm when he's asked for a link. I'm not defending Pearl, but I also don't believe he asked his assistants to lie for him. And you vouching for 101stDad still doesn't make me believe it. Because I don't think it happened. Maybe that means I've got a "short memory." But if my memory is that bad I sure wish someone would give me a refresher on the matter.

As expected, however unfortunate.

When discussing opposing views, for me it takes a whole lot more than "trust me" for me to believe something happened that I don't think did.  And that goes for in-person social life.  On a message board?  Now that's just comical.

Mike Griffith's column from yesterday on this subject was much better than Parrish's column. Griffith took the time to get Pearl's perspective.

Parrish's column was garbage. It says a lot about his integrity that he included extensive conversation with Forbes and Shay but didn't include anything from Tony Jones...who just happens to be the lone assistant who stands by his former boss.

http://m.govolsxtra.com/news/2011/sep/28/bruce-pearls-business-deicisons-upset-former/

Griffith's column reiterates that Shay and Forbes were interviewed before Pearl. IMO, it's nothing more than a copout to try to shift the blame for their decisions and actions to Pearl.

(Griff must also have a short memory since he doesn't mention anything about Pearl telling them to lie on his behalf.)

FWIW, I vaguely recall something about Pearl asking the Assistants to not come clean.  But it's nothing but a vague memory.

And lest my previous post sounded harsh, I do sympathize with the impact to their families and I do think that the difference between what happened to them and what happened to Pearl is "unfair", but like one of my high school teachers used to say "life isn't fair!".    Which is something I definitely know from experience.   I don't have a link though.   :biggrin:

What a novel idea.. Getting both sides of the story.

Smacks of bitterness still.  Why in the world is Shay's wife still keeping tabs on the Pearls on facebook?

Not that Pearl is a Saint, but to insinuate that Shay and Forbes are tragic collateral damage in Pearl's grand scheme of lies is hilarious.

My question is.. How did he instruct them to initially lie if the assistants were the first to see the photo and fumble around on the explanation, which then required Pearl to call a meeting after they had all been interviewed to try and figure out who told what to the investigators?  If Pearl orchestrated the lie, wouldn't it have been a little more structured than that.  And further, if he did tell them to lie.. Why isn't it in any of the accounts of what happened?  You really think these bitter beans have the motivation to hold back that juicy tidbit when pouring their hearts out about their inhumane apartments that don't allow pets?   

ReVolver, feel up to creating a PearlitiVol board for ex-coach threads?  :dielaughing:

That is the best recommendation I have seen here in a LONG time.   :clap:

I've come close to posting the "beating a dead horse" pic a couple of times but then I remembered I was involved in the thread originally.  :dunno:

How can you be a "walk on" in your current condition?? :confused: :dunno: :dance:

Posted as an informational link and did think it would create some dicussion. But, I never thought a pissing contest would spew up.

My last thoughts: Four different coaches get interviewed about the same subject and same photo. They all basically say some version of the same thing. It was all a giant coincidence! Stranger things have happened.

That is all.


G    :naughty:

Every debate is not a pissing contest.

Of course you are correct. I actually felt a bit guilty about bringing the subject/article to light because of the to and fro. I don't like that stuff because I really like about everyone on this board. I'm unconfortable when the banter goes back and forth over stupid little stuff. I don't like it a bit. Life's too short. Believe me on that. This is really an extremly bad weekend for conflict for me. Piss on this lttle crap!


G

I would say he is more of a "CRIP on" than a "Walk On"   :naughty:

So what do you think about the Fulmer situation?  :tongue: :naughty: :dielaughing: