You have not researched, investigated or examined the facts to form an opinion.
Yes I have. Here are some of my sources:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_n23_v221/ai_19503011/
http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1010875/index.htm
http://www.highbeam.com/The+Boston+Globe+(Boston,+MA)/publications.aspx
(which you'll have to pay for.)
http://www.courant.com/
(which you'll also have to pay for the relevant articles)
and that's just for the Camby situation plus people I talked to that I know. The opinion (like that of most any coach) is mixed. Some love him, some hate him but most won't talk about it on the record.
Of course you have no such problem with bias.
namely being a UK apologist that posts all over the interwebs (on sites not related to your team)
I've been more than fair in my assessments and been critical when I feel it has been warranted. I also don't "post all over the interwebs". This is actually the only forum I participate in mainly because of certain posters who I feel offer strong commentary.
defending the "honor" of a basketball program with a long history of cheating, has tainted your ability to reasonably form an opinion of Cal.
I'm not "defending" so much as discussing. Do I seek to counter some claims that I believe to be patently false when brought up in a discussion? Yes. Do I bring them up? Not at all.
I'm well aware of the history of Kentucky basketball and have furnished resources on that issue you're hammering on when prompted to. It's pretty out in the open and there is nothing to hide. We can discuss it further if you wish.
Crack open that textbook from UK and look up research bias, you've covered at least 3 different types.
Didn't actually attend UK. I was at Transy for a year and then transferred to Belmont University where I met my wife.
And I think what you claim I'm guilty of is cognitive bias. That I'm only able to accept evidence that supports my preconceived notions or opinions and dismiss evidence that doesn't support or is in conflict. I disagree with that and if you've read another of my posts you would note that I said Calipari should have watched his players better at UMass and he was at fault to an extent in that situation just not to the extent that people love to paint him with. The fact that he was cleared by the NCAA in the process fully supports my conclusion.
People without vested interests in the man or the current program he is tarnishing, concluded long ago that he is an ethical wasteland.
Who would those be? Everyone has detractors (and that doesn't automatically make their criticism less valid by the way) but they also have supporters. The key is to study those arguments (pro and con), the background of those making them and determining for yourself the merits of their position. You've obviously concluded this is a black and white issue with no room for debate.
I'm sure you were spouting your investigations *snicker* all over when Cal was at Memphis, right? What about UMass?
I actually have some connections to the Memphis program and I'll tell you the only two things I heard about Calipari were that they questioned the cars that some of the players drove and that FedEx's relationship with the Athletics Program in how summer internships were handled was questionable. I know one of those was investigated and the NCAA cleared it. Not sure which one though.
You can play the dissassociation game or claim plausible deniability all you want, it doesn't change his past.
A past with no NCAA violations on his record unlike some of his prominent peers. You can ignore that fact if you wish but as of this moment he is only guilty by reputation.
The facts are that Cal is a win-at-all costs coach who brings in very questionable players, both academically and ethically, to reach his ends. He has done it for over a decade.
What major program doesn't bring in questionable players at some point? Minnesota has and does. Are you naive enough to believe that most of the football and basketball teams are their for the academic experience? Does Al Nolen get into Minnesota if he's a normal student? Does Rodney Williams? Marquise Gray?
Yes, there are concerns with some prospects from rough backgrounds (and I've made those clear when asked) because it's a huge risk. But if you give a guy a shot and he succeeds, gets a degree, goes on to play Pro ball somewhere and improves his socioeconomic status aren't you doing something good? Of course the flipside is that it backfires and you take a PR hit or open yourself up to a host of other problems.
Then he just shrugs his shoulders, leaves before the program can be trashed by the NCAA, and claims no involvement.
Explain to me again how Calipari is 100% responsible for Rose's situation? A situation that is flimsy at best and the University of Memphis still offered more money than UK to keep the man?
To the Camby situation-I've said it before he does have some responsibility in that mess but how much is the question. Are you punishing him for taking a poor kid from Hartford who everybody saw as a meal ticket? Considering no evidence exists after a thorough investigation on UMass and the NCAA's part of him being guilty of anything more than not be as vigilant as he could be (which is a stretch)
If you want to discuss the Jeremy Hunt situation, The Shawne Taggert situation or anything else please cite those and we'll go from there. It's going to be hard to do anything though because you seem dead set on not offering any supporting evidence of similar situations involving other coaches.
It's always someone else's fault with people of Cal's "integrity", but he continues surrounding himself with those kinds of people to this day. Hopefully it finally catches up with him and UK gets to bear the brunt of it too.
What kind of "people" are those? WWW? So he's guilty by association because he knows people? Is Bobby Knight guilty because he and Jerry Tarkaninian are old friends? Is Tubby guilty because he and Kelvin Sampson are friends? Is FDR guilty because he and Stalin were pen pals?
