 |
|
Details:
Posted on: February 1, 2017 at 12:02:07 CT
FIJItiger MU
Posts:
141942
Member For:
21.30 yrs
Level:
Moderator
M.O.B. Votes:
0
In his book Stormin Back published in 1991 he had the following to say:
Page 141
The wording in the Infractions Report is a bit harsh and misleading. There is reason to suspect that the university's attorneys, Mike Slive and Mike Glazier, negotiated with the NCAA on the particular wording. The language in many cases is more lenient regarding the university administration than the coaching staff. Some people were telling me the chancellor wanted to fire me, and Slive and Glazier's work did little to disprove that.
Page 173
The NCAA said the nature and scope of the allegations demonstrated a lack of control in the administration of the basketball program by the institution and the head coach. If you read the article in the NCAA Manual, you'll find that there is no mention of a coach's being responsible for controlling the administration of the basketball program. I suspect that Slive and Glazier were involved with the wording of this violation which put me and not the administration on the firing line. Remember, these men did not work for me, yet they were the ones with direct contact to the NCAA.
Page 177
The University attorney's Slive and Glazier interviewed Mrs. Mays (about an alleged pair of basketball shoes her son received improperly). None of them asked her a very simple question: Where are the shoes? When my attorney Steve Owens came aboard he inquired "Where are the shoes? What kind are they?" There were no shoes.
Page 202
Perhaps the biggest error was hiring Slive and Glazier to defend the University.
Page 141
The wording in the Infractions Report is a bit harsh and misleading. There is reason to suspect that the university's attorneys, Mike Slive and Mike Glazier, negotiated with the NCAA on the particular wording. The language in many cases is more lenient regarding the university administration than the coaching staff. Some people were telling me the chancellor wanted to fire me, and Slive and Glazier's work did little to disprove that.
Page 173
The NCAA said the nature and scope of the allegations demonstrated a lack of control in the administration of the basketball program by the institution and the head coach. If you read the article in the NCAA Manual, you'll find that there is no mention of a coach's being responsible for controlling the administration of the basketball program. I suspect that Slive and Glazier were involved with the wording of this violation which put me and not the administration on the firing line. Remember, these men did not work for me, yet they were the ones with direct contact to the NCAA.
Page 177
The University attorney's Slive and Glazier interviewed Mrs. Mays (about an alleged pair of basketball shoes her son received improperly). None of them asked her a very simple question: Where are the shoes? When my attorney Steve Owens came aboard he inquired "Where are the shoes? What kind are they?" There were no shoes.
Page 202
Perhaps the biggest error was hiring Slive and Glazier to defend the University.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Details: - FIJItiger MU - 2/1 12:02:07