Tater
f.k.a. "Tubtastic"
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2008
- Messages
- 1,144
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 38
With "d-day" fast approaching for Maturi's decision on Trevor, I thought I toss out a discussion topic:
What would you do if you were the U's AD? There's no right or wrong answer -- just interested in ideas on how and why you'd address a very difficult decision.
By way of background, here's the limited info that's been reported at the moment:
(1) Trevor is charged with felony assault for which he's pleaded not guilty;
(2) According to the Miami Dade website, it looks like his trial is currently scheduled for 12/14/09;
(3) The media has reported that Trevor's attorney might try to push trial to a later date after the basketball season has ended; and
(4) There have been reports that Trevor has multiple alibi witnesses who place him away from the scene of the alleged assault.
If I were AD, based on this limited info and the fact that Trevor has an absolute defense--that is, he supposedly claims no involvement at all--and that Trevor has multiple alibis, I think I'd initially clear him to play the non-conference schedule pending the result of his trial in December, provided the trial goes forward in December. This decision
(1) gives Trevor the benefit of the doubt;
(2) is easily distinguishable from a situation such as the one involving the football players (where the players, even before they were on trial, were undeniably involved in a very negative situation with the victim that very negatively reflected on the U);
(3) allows Trevor to play non-conference games that, for the most part, won't be nationally televised and won't lead to repeated negative exposures for the U, Trevor, and the basketball program; and
(4) allows the U to justify its position after December depending on how the trial turns out. If Trevor is found not guilty, the U is vindicated for allowing him to play. If Trevor is found guilty, the U can say it was giving him the benefit of the doubt (which it would have been doing) and still have the ability remove him from the team prior to Big Ten play and increased national exposure.
Should the trial get rescheduled to the end of the year, I think I might tell Tubby to red-shirt him and not allow him to play the conference schedule. I'd let both Tubby and Trevor know that this was my plan at the outset of the season.
My heart says to let him play but I also know how tiresome and negative the constant exposure would likely become--especially when the team hits conference play in January (against rival teams and nastier fans) and when national media exposure increases as the team moves up the rankings.
What would be your decision?
What would you do if you were the U's AD? There's no right or wrong answer -- just interested in ideas on how and why you'd address a very difficult decision.
By way of background, here's the limited info that's been reported at the moment:
(1) Trevor is charged with felony assault for which he's pleaded not guilty;
(2) According to the Miami Dade website, it looks like his trial is currently scheduled for 12/14/09;
(3) The media has reported that Trevor's attorney might try to push trial to a later date after the basketball season has ended; and
(4) There have been reports that Trevor has multiple alibi witnesses who place him away from the scene of the alleged assault.
If I were AD, based on this limited info and the fact that Trevor has an absolute defense--that is, he supposedly claims no involvement at all--and that Trevor has multiple alibis, I think I'd initially clear him to play the non-conference schedule pending the result of his trial in December, provided the trial goes forward in December. This decision
(1) gives Trevor the benefit of the doubt;
(2) is easily distinguishable from a situation such as the one involving the football players (where the players, even before they were on trial, were undeniably involved in a very negative situation with the victim that very negatively reflected on the U);
(3) allows Trevor to play non-conference games that, for the most part, won't be nationally televised and won't lead to repeated negative exposures for the U, Trevor, and the basketball program; and
(4) allows the U to justify its position after December depending on how the trial turns out. If Trevor is found not guilty, the U is vindicated for allowing him to play. If Trevor is found guilty, the U can say it was giving him the benefit of the doubt (which it would have been doing) and still have the ability remove him from the team prior to Big Ten play and increased national exposure.
Should the trial get rescheduled to the end of the year, I think I might tell Tubby to red-shirt him and not allow him to play the conference schedule. I'd let both Tubby and Trevor know that this was my plan at the outset of the season.
My heart says to let him play but I also know how tiresome and negative the constant exposure would likely become--especially when the team hits conference play in January (against rival teams and nastier fans) and when national media exposure increases as the team moves up the rankings.
What would be your decision?
