@JayHawkFanToo Seriously, where do people like you come from? You're all talk. I do work in the private sector. I own my own firm. And I do micromanage details. It's what's made me successful. When my career relies on my professional work product, I micromanage it. But of course, the idea of micromanagement might be too complicated for you.
Now, if you're someone who comes from a background of working on team projects, that would explain your perspective. And it makes sense in that dynamic. But when you're the leader, the CEO, the one in charge, things change a bit.
Micromanaging doesn't mean you don't take advice, or rely upon others. It means you attend to the important details yourself. And you control the details.
Bill Self, for sure, is a micromanager. That is obvious. Watch him during the game. Who calls the plays? Who runs the huddles? Heck, he can barely give his players freedom to run things outside of the offense. He's the king. Have you ever seen one of his practices? I have. He runs everything. This in contrast to some other coaches we see. And it's not a fault all the time. I am quite sure that Bill Self is well versed in compliance issues.
How about Bill Snyder? He's a famous micromanager, even ensuring that butter is heated to the right temperature so it will spread easily at team meals.
So, when Self's on his private plane hopping between recruiting destination, he has no time to be abreast of recruiting rules and regs? That is ridiculous. And it is ridiculous to suggest that Bill Self is too busy to deal with this stuff. Yes, I want my basketball coach to know the rules. I agree that you have to rely upon folks to help, of course. And you have to delegate many things. But when it comes to your livelihood, you better be the one that knows what he/she is doing. Because the buck stops with you. Some people have never had to deal with that in their professional life.
I question whether you are correct on this point -- you say that "the NCAA will not disapprove a class that was listed as approved on its site retroactively." You cited the portal that I had provided a few weeks back.
How do you know this? At Diallo's school, wasn't that all supposedly ok'd and now the NCAA is investigating if there were issues with the coursework? It doesn't make sense to me the that the NCAA would say "ok" and because the portal said heading in that year the class was ok, it is still ok. It looks like there are many reasons a course can be found to be inadequate.
And this site is a guide.
When you go to American Heritage's portal, it says this, "This program is under an extended evaluation period to determine if it meets the academic requirements for NCAA cleared status. During this evaluation period, the courses listed below may be subject to further review on a case-by-case basis, which will require additional academic documentation."
That means that all of the courses they say are ok are under review.
And then the site specifically says, "The list of NCAA courses, and courses contained within, are maintained as a guide for prospective student-athletes seeking NCAA initial-eligibility. The list of approved courses does not, nor is intended to, signify accreditation, certification, approval or endorsement of any high school or specific courses by the NCAA or NCAA Eligibility Center and is subject to change at any time and without notice.Core course information included on this Web site is provided for guidance purposes only and should not be solely relied on as an indication of NCAA initial-eligibility. Certification of a prospective student-athlete is case-specific, and the Eligibility Center has the authority to determine in its sole discretion whether the prospective student-athlete has met all criteria."
Clearly (except maybe to you) this is obvious. Please, tell me how you don't concede that you are wrong? Think hard. You said, "You posted a link to the NCAA site where every HS is listed and a list of approved and not approved classes at each school is readily available."
You posted this as the gospel. That it was that simple.
But you didn't read the fine print.
Further, the portal of Diallo's school only lists that the courses are good -- "ok" through 2011-12.
The course work is now under "review". And it would seem that review could spell possible eligibility problems after the fact, meaning after the time he took classes that appeared ok on this list. And the NCAA does not even represent that this portal approves coursework.
This is the exact point I made, the one you evaded. You think because a course is listed then it is approved and that decision can't be changed. That is silly. Again, the portal says through 2011-12. And it says it is a guide and NOT certification of any course. My point was that upon review, a course could be determined inadequate. That's exactly what the review is about, and why it is concerning.
To prove my point further, go to the portal. Click on "show all denied courses." You'll then hit the drop down that shows the "denied reasons code description." You'll see that there are courses now denied because 'the course is taught below the regular academic level." There are other items too, most all of which could have been entered after an academic review.
The point is that a kid really could be innocent in all of this. I realize you believe you were an extraordinary 17 year old. Some kids may not be to your extraordinary level. But even extraordinary kids can't place reliance on a portal that is a guide.
This is why I said a kid could be "innocent." Would Diallo be "innocent" under that scenario? If he thought everything was good, but then it wasn't?
And, again, if your argument here is correct, then you lose the "Bill Self knew or should have known" discussion. Because the info you cite in the would have been definitive.
On the release, of course, you didn't mention the release because "we both know (it) is an option." Sure. Whatever you say. And you argue just to argue now asking how many kids "thousands of miles away from home" get their parents input. Gotcha. I'm sure none. I'm sure they just shut their parents out, and their parents are disinterested. Give me a break.
It was you just a few weeks ago arguing that privacy laws prevented coaches from getting school info, and then you were enlightened on the release issue. You didn't even say thank you. Now it's old hat to you -- so much so, that we are to assume that you are considering that when you are ranting about how parents can't get information on their 18+ year old kid's schooling. I would dare say that an 18 year old kid denying his parents access to school info is the significant exception, rather than rule. But I'm sure you'll disagree with that too.
