- I am not sure if you are trying to engage in a debate of semantics but if you are I would suggest you consult a dictionary. .
I'm not sure who you are addresing, 04. Your critique of what is said and what you take exception to is all over the place.
Seeing that the opening quote is mine, I'll respond accordingly.
I am not seeking a debate of semantics.
I do agree with some of your points, and disagree with others.
The substantive disagreement I have goes straight to the 'naive' comment.
"Naive: Lacking critical ability or analytical insight." That's straight from the dictionary.
My understanding of your principle arguement is that JS should be treated under some SOP. Your arguement is rooted in a belief that CU has an obligation to treat Josh no differently than Ballenger or Maiva. You argue that CU is out of bounds with this unprecedented release to only USC. Please keep me honest, and correct me if I got that wrong.
I believe that CU's decission would be just if there is tampering involved. I am open to agreeing with CU's decission if I knew all the facts, and those facts would lead a rational human being to understand why CU did what they did.
I reserve judgement about whether CU is being petty or bitter until more facts present themselves. Josh might spill the beans after he fugues out where he will be this fall. If he stays with CU, he's got the scholly and would be wise to keep a lid on it. If he bolts to USC or pays tuition to attend some other institution, he might spill the beans.
Until then, it's too early for me to side with JS, as you have done, or to side with the University. This is where we disagree.
You have been asked if you have any facts to bring to the table. If you have them, then share. Maybe you know for a fact that no tampering has taken place, or that no other factor was behind CU's decission. If that was the case, then the decission might indeed be discriminitory, overly punitive, petty and bitter.
But if the facts add up, and the ruling of Hawkins, Bohn and the appeal board find this action to be fair and balanced, then I whole heartedly support CU's authority to do what is right, even when doing so isn't easy.
We do agree that Josh was a playmaker and had lots of ability, and even more potential. He is a tough kid who played through injury. You never knew what was going to happen when he got his hands on the ball, and when he did, it was often exciting.
At the end of the day, this decission isn't about what Josh did on the playing field, though. This was about making decissions followed by taking action followed by living with the consequences. From my perspective, there is blame to spread around, and both Josh and CU have ended up in a lose-lose situation.