this is for you, brint

[garizzalies]

speaking of the board of regents, does anyone know how they will replace Angie McLean now that Bullock grabbed her for the Lieutenant Gov spot?

 

[PlayerRep]

William's arrogance during the Senate committee hearing was appalling. His actions leading up to that day and during were his downfall. Refreshing that because of pressure brought on the committee he was held accountable for his actions. I still believe that had he went in with a sincere and contrite attitude he still would be on the board of regents.

all he really needed to do was not act arrogant and explain that we had been recruiting thugs by bringing in russum, freeman, coleman, quinn, frank, middleton and montana, who all had prior legal run ins. he also should've noted that it was those players and players who had run ins after being recruited that he was referring to, not the entire football team.

Russum didn't have a run-in with the law. None of Freeman's issues were known to UM when he came to UM, because they were in confidential court documents then and Arizona or Arizona St didn't disclose them to UM. Coleman had publicized issues. Quinn had had a baby dui. Wow, what a run-in with the law that was. What did Frank have; don't recall. Did Middleton have anything with the law? If so, it was pot or alcohol possession. Run-in with the law, real funny. Montana has a baby dui from a house party. Hardly a run-in with the law. Only Coleman and Freeman had a true run-in with the law. Coleman came with high recommendations (not involving his talent) from multiple big-time head coaches.

You continue to spread such misinformation and sometimes downright lies. You must have little or no character yourself, to be such a dishonest person.

 

[BWahlberg]

Yes, you should, before you forget. I am thinking about writing down what happened earlier today.

Ha ha...

Well ok, maybe I'll write it down and get it all organized and publish it on here on the anniversary of the vote, April 4.

 

[griz4life]

William's arrogance during the Senate committee hearing was appalling. His actions leading up to that day and during were his downfall. Refreshing that because of pressure brought on the committee he was held accountable for his actions. I still believe that had he went in with a sincere and contrite attitude he still would be on the board of regents.

Williams wasn't going to be confirmed regardless of his demeanor ahead of the hearing. He wasn't rejected for his remarks about UM athletics. Go back and listen to Taylor Brown's thoughtful argument before the vote. There were enough no votes on that committee that had nothing to do with athletics.

Not true actually. He had initially secured a handful of votes from Senate republicans. If I remember correctly only one still voted in favor of him, all the others dropped their support. And it was over far more than just those comments towards athletes. At his hearing which I attended another issue of him speaking out of turn came up - something about making a generalized statement about the fiscal power of the higher education system which wasn't accurate.

I know you were at the hearing. But I stand by what I know. There were enough no votes that had nothing to do with Griz athletics on the committee.
Did any of the lawmakers you spoke with actually tell you they based their no vote on Williams' remarks about Griz athletes? I bet not.

 

[BWahlberg]

William's arrogance during the Senate committee hearing was appalling. His actions leading up to that day and during were his downfall. Refreshing that because of pressure brought on the committee he was held accountable for his actions. I still believe that had he went in with a sincere and contrite attitude he still would be on the board of regents.

Williams wasn't going to be confirmed regardless of his demeanor ahead of the hearing. He wasn't rejected for his remarks about UM athletics. Go back and listen to Taylor Brown's thoughtful argument before the vote. There were enough no votes on that committee that had nothing to do with athletics.

Not true actually. He had initially secured a handful of votes from Senate republicans. If I remember correctly only one still voted in favor of him, all the others dropped their support. And it was over far more than just those comments towards athletes. At his hearing which I attended another issue of him speaking out of turn came up - something about making a generalized statement about the fiscal power of the higher education system which wasn't accurate.

I know you were at the hearing. But I stand by what I know. There were enough no votes that had nothing to do with Griz athletics on the committee.
Did any of the lawmakers you spoke with actually tell you they based their no vote on Williams' remarks about Griz athletes? I bet not.

Gotcha, and my info was not direct so you may be right. Lewis didn't tell me anything direct but he did make public comments that the thug comments did it in for him. That was (as I recall) his statement when the vote was made.

Also I did get emails and texts from someone I know who was in the Williams camp that told me to "drop it" because there were agreements already made to give him enough votes.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Russum didn't have a run-in with the law.

“Russum and fellow redshirt freshman offensive lineman Jonathan Lehmann were booted off ASU’s team after they allegedly photographed a female student, without her permission, while she was nude.

An ASU public safety department spokesperson last week said limited details are being released because the case is under grand jury subpoena.”

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2005/may/28/russum-considering-idaho-ewu-and-montana/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[billgrizfan]

Brint, while you are at it also consider letting us know how many of your buddy Democrats you convinced to vote against Williams? I think the answer is zero, nada, zilch.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Of the many cases covered in the book, a common finding is that school officials – administrators as well as coaches and their staff – were exceptionally protective of their athletes. Judges often gave athletes special considerations in order for the athletes to participate in games. High-priced defense attorneys were frequently provided – but not paid for by the accused. All too often, the cases came down to “he said, she said.”

Except the University of Montana (and Pat Williams) reacted in EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE manner...guilty until (and even if) proven innocent...thug life.

The quote, from the guest editorial, is from a book written on Marquette in 1999. What does that have to do with UM?

The writer was implying that it applied to UM, when in fact UM administration reacted in exactly the opposite manner...heavy handed, guilty until proven innocent, broad (grossly inaccurate) generalizations about "players", and using incorrect and blatantly biased statistics to prove their points...

 

[PlayerRep]

Russum didn't have a run-in with the law.

“Russum and fellow redshirt freshman offensive lineman Jonathan Lehmann were booted off ASU’s team after they allegedly photographed a female student, without her permission, while she was nude.

An ASU public safety department spokesperson last week said limited details are being released because the case is under grand jury subpoena.”

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2005/may/28/russum-considering-idaho-ewu-and-montana/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nothing came of it. Never even charged. An subpoena or investigation isn't necessarily a run-in with the law. Some of you seem to think a false allegation is or should be a black mark on a kid. From the article: "After being dismissed from the team, Russum remained in school at Arizona State and left in good academic standing, Dougherty said." His former o-line coach later said this: "Meanwhile, Myers -- now the O-line coach at Louisville -- says he always believed Russum and Lehmann's side of the story. "I thought those kids looked me in the eye and told the truth." During his redshirt year, he started a "pretty common" relationship with another freshman. She was in a human sexuality class, and they quickly started experimenting sexually, Russum says. "One day in the spring they both agreed, he says, to make a sex tape. Russum's teammate, Jonathan Lehmann, also took part." The roommate videoed Russum and his girlfriend. Looks to me that the girl lied. Russum's a great guy. Never got into any trouble at UM.

 

[PlayerRep]

Of the many cases covered in the book, a common finding is that school officials – administrators as well as coaches and their staff – were exceptionally protective of their athletes. Judges often gave athletes special considerations in order for the athletes to participate in games. High-priced defense attorneys were frequently provided – but not paid for by the accused. All too often, the cases came down to “he said, she said.”

Except the University of Montana (and Pat Williams) reacted in EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE manner...guilty until (and even if) proven innocent...thug life.

The quote, from the guest editorial, is from a book written on Marquette in 1999. What does that have to do with UM?

Yup, the guest writer wrote a stupid article. When I saw it, I thought the guy must be an idiot.

The writer was implying that it applied to UM, when in fact UM administration reacted in exactly the opposite manner...heavy handed, guilty until proven innocent, broad (grossly inaccurate) generalizations about "players", and using incorrect and blatantly biased statistics to prove their points...

 

[getgrizzy]

William's arrogance during the Senate committee hearing was appalling. His actions leading up to that day and during were his downfall. Refreshing that because of pressure brought on the committee he was held accountable for his actions. I still believe that had he went in with a sincere and contrite attitude he still would be on the board of regents.

all he really needed to do was not act arrogant and explain that we had been recruiting thugs by bringing in russum, freeman, coleman, quinn, frank, middleton and montana, who all had prior legal run ins. he also should've noted that it was those players and players who had run ins after being recruited that he was referring to, not the entire football team.

Russum didn't have a run-in with the law. None of Freeman's issues were known to UM when he came to UM, because they were in confidential court documents then and Arizona or Arizona St didn't disclose them to UM. Coleman had publicized issues. Quinn had had a baby dui. Wow, what a run-in with the law that was. What did Frank have; don't recall. Did Middleton have anything with the law? If so, it was pot or alcohol possession. Run-in with the law, real funny. Montana has a baby dui from a house party. Hardly a run-in with the law. Only Coleman and Freeman had a true run-in with the law. Coleman came with high recommendations (not involving his talent) from multiple big-time head coaches.

You continue to spread such misinformation and sometimes downright lies. You must have little or no character yourself, to be such a dishonest person.

you don't recall? :lol:

by griz4life » Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:16 pm

PlayerRep wrote:
Again, why is it thought that the charges are still pending or were pled to something serious? Please bring more "facts" to our attention, or tell me where I missed it if already here.

griz4life: Kevin Frank pleaded guilty to third degree theft, a misdemeanor, in Whitman County District Court on Oct. 19, 2009. He was sentenced to 14 days in jail. Third degree theft in Washington State is a gross misdemeanor, by definition the value of what was stolen is not to exceed $750.
Although criminal law really isn't your bag, Jack, I think you'll understand that the reduced charge obtained through plea agreement doesn't actually represent the value of the recovered stolen items.

a run-in is a run-in. some are big, some are little. you can call them what you want.

 

[UMAlum]

Williams wasn't going to be confirmed regardless of his demeanor ahead of the hearing. He wasn't rejected for his remarks about UM athletics. Go back and listen to Taylor Brown's thoughtful argument before the vote. There were enough no votes on that committee that had nothing to do with athletics.

Not true actually. He had initially secured a handful of votes from Senate republicans. If I remember correctly only one still voted in favor of him, all the others dropped their support. And it was over far more than just those comments towards athletes. At his hearing which I attended another issue of him speaking out of turn came up - something about making a generalized statement about the fiscal power of the higher education system which wasn't accurate.

I know you were at the hearing. But I stand by what I know. There were enough no votes that had nothing to do with Griz athletics on the committee.
Did any of the lawmakers you spoke with actually tell you they based their no vote on Williams' remarks about Griz athletes? I bet not.

Gotcha, and my info was not direct so you may be right. Lewis didn't tell me anything direct but he did make public comments that the thug comments did it in for him. That was (as I recall) his statement when the vote was made.

Also I did get emails and texts from someone I know who was in the Williams camp that told me to "drop it" because there were agreements already made to give him enough votes.

Some personal history on this ...

As the Regent confirmation hearings unfolded, in my view it was Sen. Lewis that became the key member to work with. Originally, he leaned towards approval of Willimas ... therefore a few of us decided to try and persuade him to see why this was a mistake. Fortunately, one of us had a very long history of working with the Senator. Anyway, the day after we reached out to him ... we got an email from him that stated he would do whatever he could to see that Williams was not confirmed. Needless to say, I was pleased to see that he followed through on this.

 

[PlayerRep]

Not true actually. He had initially secured a handful of votes from Senate republicans. If I remember correctly only one still voted in favor of him, all the others dropped their support. And it was over far more than just those comments towards athletes. At his hearing which I attended another issue of him speaking out of turn came up - something about making a generalized statement about the fiscal power of the higher education system which wasn't accurate.

I know you were at the hearing. But I stand by what I know. There were enough no votes that had nothing to do with Griz athletics on the committee.
Did any of the lawmakers you spoke with actually tell you they based their no vote on Williams' remarks about Griz athletes? I bet not.

Gotcha, and my info was not direct so you may be right. Lewis didn't tell me anything direct but he did make public comments that the thug comments did it in for him. That was (as I recall) his statement when the vote was made.

Also I did get emails and texts from someone I know who was in the Williams camp that told me to "drop it" because there were agreements already made to give him enough votes.

Some personal history on this ...

As the Regent confirmation hearings unfolded, in my view it was Sen. Lewis that became the key member to work with. Originally, he leaned towards approval of Willimas ... therefore a few of us decided to try and persuade him to see why this was a mistake. Fortunately, one of us had a very long history of working with the Senator. Anyway, the day after we reached out to him ... we got an email from him that stated he would do whatever he could to see that Williams was not confirmed. Needless to say, I was pleased to see that he followed through on this.

I agree with your assessment of Lewis. I had similar communications with him. I contacted him because it looked like he might be a key person and had had met him a number of times over the years. I'm glad to he stepped up to do this. It was the right decision and had to be done.

 

[PlayerRep]

William's arrogance during the Senate committee hearing was appalling. His actions leading up to that day and during were his downfall. Refreshing that because of pressure brought on the committee he was held accountable for his actions. I still believe that had he went in with a sincere and contrite attitude he still would be on the board of regents.

all he really needed to do was not act arrogant and explain that we had been recruiting thugs by bringing in russum, freeman, coleman, quinn, frank, middleton and montana, who all had prior legal run ins. he also should've noted that it was those players and players who had run ins after being recruited that he was referring to, not the entire football team.

Russum didn't have a run-in with the law. None of Freeman's issues were known to UM when he came to UM, because they were in confidential court documents then and Arizona or Arizona St didn't disclose them to UM. Coleman had publicized issues. Quinn had had a baby dui. Wow, what a run-in with the law that was. What did Frank have; don't recall. Did Middleton have anything with the law? If so, it was pot or alcohol possession. Run-in with the law, real funny. Montana has a baby dui from a house party. Hardly a run-in with the law. Only Coleman and Freeman had a true run-in with the law. Coleman came with high recommendations (not involving his talent) from multiple big-time head coaches.

You continue to spread such misinformation and sometimes downright lies. You must have little or no character yourself, to be such a dishonest person.

you don't recall? :lol:

by griz4life » Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:16 pm

PlayerRep wrote:
Again, why is it thought that the charges are still pending or were pled to something serious? Please bring more "facts" to our attention, or tell me where I missed it if already here.

griz4life: Kevin Frank pleaded guilty to third degree theft, a misdemeanor, in Whitman County District Court on Oct. 19, 2009. He was sentenced to 14 days in jail. Third degree theft in Washington State is a gross misdemeanor, by definition the value of what was stolen is not to exceed $750.
Although criminal law really isn't your bag, Jack, I think you'll understand that the reduced charge obtained through plea agreement doesn't actually represent the value of the recovered stolen items.

a run-in is a run-in. some are big, some are little. you can call them what you want.

No, the whole point is that some little things are not "run-ins with the law". A run-in with is something bigger than the little things. For example, an MIP at a college party is not a run-in with the law, in my view. Some false allegations also aren't run-ins with the law, in my view. Do you consider a traffic violation stop a run-in with the law? A warning? A minor speeding ticket? How about a parking ticket?

 

[getgrizzy]

all he really needed to do was not act arrogant and explain that we had been recruiting thugs by bringing in russum, freeman, coleman, quinn, frank, middleton and montana, who all had prior legal run ins. he also should've noted that it was those players and players who had run ins after being recruited that he was referring to, not the entire football team.

Russum didn't have a run-in with the law. None of Freeman's issues were known to UM when he came to UM, because they were in confidential court documents then and Arizona or Arizona St didn't disclose them to UM. Coleman had publicized issues. Quinn had had a baby dui. Wow, what a run-in with the law that was. What did Frank have; don't recall. Did Middleton have anything with the law? If so, it was pot or alcohol possession. Run-in with the law, real funny. Montana has a baby dui from a house party. Hardly a run-in with the law. Only Coleman and Freeman had a true run-in with the law. Coleman came with high recommendations (not involving his talent) from multiple big-time head coaches.

You continue to spread such misinformation and sometimes downright lies. You must have little or no character yourself, to be such a dishonest person.

you don't recall? :lol:

by griz4life » Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:16 pm

PlayerRep wrote:
Again, why is it thought that the charges are still pending or were pled to something serious? Please bring more "facts" to our attention, or tell me where I missed it if already here.

griz4life: Kevin Frank pleaded guilty to third degree theft, a misdemeanor, in Whitman County District Court on Oct. 19, 2009. He was sentenced to 14 days in jail. Third degree theft in Washington State is a gross misdemeanor, by definition the value of what was stolen is not to exceed $750.
Although criminal law really isn't your bag, Jack, I think you'll understand that the reduced charge obtained through plea agreement doesn't actually represent the value of the recovered stolen items.

a run-in is a run-in. some are big, some are little. you can call them what you want.

No, the whole point is that some little things are not "run-ins with the law". A run-in with is something bigger than the little things. For example, an MIP at a college party is not a run-in with the law, in my view. Some false allegations also aren't run-ins with the law, in my view. Do you consider a traffic violation stop a run-in with the law? A warning? A minor speeding ticket? How about a parking ticket?

are you really this stupid? a "run-in" with anything is minor and doesn't necessarily imply that anyone was even charged with anything. i used it perfectly.

Noun 1. run-in - an angry dispute; "they had a quarrel"; "they had words"
dustup, quarrel, wrangle, row, words
difference of opinion, dispute, difference, conflict - a disagreement or argument about something important; "he had a dispute with his wife";

here's one with a more direct legal connotation.
http://www.americanidioms.net/have-a-run-in-with-(the-law%252fsomeone" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false/

you can call it whatever you want (dust up, brush with the law), but you can't minimize it into nothing. though you'll stop at nothing to do just that.

what's nice is the huge decline in players having run-ins/brushes with the law since delaney and haslam took over. people should be taking note of that instead of reliving (and trying to re-write) the past.