Penn St. 2.0?

[The_Douger]

Your goal is to have the best group doing it regardless of their alma mater. You are a fool to have certain prerequisites in mind that don't start and stop with the who is the best hire for the job that is required. In a word, the U doesn't give a rats ass to appearance. They have hired the outside firm that they feel will do the job well. And FTR, the U didn't choose Sullivan.

Some of you guys can't stop thinking like fans. As a professional, these gentlemen are being paid to do a thorough job. Their credibility takes a hit in their profession if they do a sham investigation to help the school.

I don't really think I'm thinking about this like a fan. I don't have any background in law, so it just seemed weird to me that the investigator would be someone who attended school there. Wasn't he on the BoT as well? The guy they listed in an article yesterday was also a UU grad, so I must have misread it because I thought those were the 2 guys investigating this, so apologies for that mistake.

If an independent firm were investigating my clinic, I wouldn't expect to see someone who had served on the board of our clinic previously as one of the investigators. Obviously it's not an apples to apples comparison. I would recuse myself if I had to investigate a family member or something like that, and I guess that's how I kind of thought of the case from his perspective.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I don't really think I'm thinking about this like a fan. I don't have any background in law, so it just seemed weird to me that the investigator would be someone who attended school there. Wasn't he on the BoT as well? The guy they listed in an article yesterday was also a UU grad, so I must have misread it because I thought those were the 2 guys investigating this, so apologies for that mistake.

If an independent firm were investigating my clinic, I wouldn't expect to see someone who had served on the board of our clinic previously as one of the investigators. Obviously it's not an apples to apples comparison. I would recuse myself if I had to investigate a family member or something like that, and I guess that's how I kind of thought of the case from his perspective.

No. He was on the College of Law Alumni Board

http://www.swlaw.com/attorneys/alan_sullivan

University of Utah College of Law Alumni, Board of Trustees (2006-2011)

[myboynoah]

What do you mean? Are you saying that Hill should just come out and say everything he knows and when he knew it?

If that's what you're saying then, no offense, you don't really understand how these things work. I'm sure Hill isn't allowed to discuss that, even if he wanted to.

I appreciate your concern for my feelings. Not offended at all.

Yes, I am saying that the good doctor could clear some things up concerning his invovlement fairly quickly by being transparent and simply noting what he knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it. That really isn't that unreasonable. Saying that he can't discuss it and forcing you to FOIA the information makes it appear that he and the university are hiding something. Hiring an outside team to investigate this? Really? Why? This all seems like a fairly straightforward personnel matter: reports are received of employee acting badly, manager investigates reports, manager takes action.

Why is he required to answer these questions for you? At this point, any statement that he would make is dismissed by the masses as self serving. Why waste the time/effort?

As an employee of the state he is required to answer these questions. I don't know what he would say so it is impossible to predict how it would be received.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I appreciate your concern for my feelings. Not offended at all.

Yes, I am saying that the good doctor could clear some things up concerning his invovlement fairly quickly by being transparent and simply noting what he knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it. That really isn't that unreasonable. Saying that he can't discuss it and forcing you to FOIA the information makes it appear that he and the university are hiding something. Hiring an outside team to investigate this? Really? Why? This all seems like a fairly straightforward personnel matter: reports are received of employee acting badly, manager investigates reports, manager takes action.



As an employee of the state he is required to answer these questions. I don't know what he would say so it is impossible to predict how it would be received.

You can already see how it would be received. He has answered some questions, such as when did he know about about the sexual abuse by Winslow(the Arizona case). He said that his office only become aware of them recently. At which point Winslow was removed from his coaching position. Yet, no one believes him.

When asked if he was aware of all of the allegations of Winslow's bizarre behavior, he said he had heard about some of the things said in the Yahoo articles, but not all of them. Yet, no one believes him.

So why speak further. The investigation will reveal most if not all the answers to these questions. And by coming from the mouth of someone else, maybe they will be believed.

Honestly, Hill can't win with several groups right now.

Group one is Utah fans who have been calling for his head for awhile. Some of them are pounding this issue hoping that he will be removed as result. They have already assumed the worst because they know that will result in Hill's removal.(not all fans who want Hill gone fit this group)

Group two is the local media, who really need something to talk about so they want the controversy to brew as long as possible. This group simply want something to talk about and really don't care what Hill says, they just want him to say something so they can talk about it.

Group three, fans of other local teams who want to see this end as poorly as possible for Utah(the most vocal person I have discussed this with IRL is a Utah State fan). This group has already assumed the worst.

These are three three groups who want answers and want them NOW. Yet many of them already have drawn the conclusions that they want. So why enter a discussion with folks who have already made up their minds?

[YOhio]

Group three, fans of other local teams who want to see this end as poorly as possible for Utah(the most vocal person I have discussed this with IRL is a Utah State fan). This group has already assumed the worst.

I don't think this is necessarily Utah/BYU/USU specific. Fans of college sports are pretty jaded when it comes to institutional behavior. It's pretty natural now to assume that if accusations are leveled against a large university athletic department then they're guilty until proven innocent.

[creekster]

You can already see how it would be received. He has answered some questions, such as when did he know about about the sexual abuse by Winslow(the Arizona case). He said that his office only become aware of them recently. At which point Winslow was removed from his coaching position. Yet, no one believes him.

When asked if he was aware of all of the allegations of Winslow's bizarre behavior, he said he had heard about some of the things said in the Yahoo articles, but not all of them. Yet, no one believes him.

So why speak further. The investigation will reveal most if not all the answers to these questions. And by coming from the mouth of someone else, maybe they will be believed.

Honestly, Hill can't win with several groups right now.

Group one is Utah fans who have been calling for his head for awhile. Some of them are pounding this issue hoping that he will be removed as result. They have already assumed the worst because they know that will result in Hill's removal.(not all fans who want Hill gone fit this group)

Group two is the local media, who really need something to talk about so they want the controversy to brew as long as possible. This group simply want something to talk about and really don't care what Hill says, they just want him to say something so they can talk about it.

Group three, fans of other local teams who want to see this end as poorly as possible for Utah(the most vocal person I have discussed this with IRL is a Utah State fan). This group has already assumed the worst.

These are three three groups who want answers and want them NOW. Yet many of them already have drawn the conclusions that they want. So why enter a discussion with folks who have already made up their minds?

Why bother? That's pretty weak. Lawyering up is the real reason and why not be straightforward about it? The school faces potential liability claims and Hill wants to save his job and reputation. The last thingcounsel wants is previewed discovery in the media. But let's be honest here.

[The_Douger]

You can already see how it would be received. He has answered some questions, such as when did he know about about the sexual abuse by Winslow(the Arizona case). He said that his office only become aware of them recently. At which point Winslow was removed from his coaching position. Yet, no one believes him.

When asked if he was aware of all of the allegations of Winslow's bizarre behavior, he said he had heard about some of the things said in the Yahoo articles, but not all of them. Yet, no one believes him.

So why speak further. The investigation will reveal most if not all the answers to these questions. And by coming from the mouth of someone else, maybe they will be believed.

Honestly, Hill can't win with several groups right now.

Group one is Utah fans who have been calling for his head for awhile. Some of them are pounding this issue hoping that he will be removed as result. They have already assumed the worst because they know that will result in Hill's removal.(not all fans who want Hill gone fit this group)

Group two is the local media, who really need something to talk about so they want the controversy to brew as long as possible. This group simply want something to talk about and really don't care what Hill says, they just want him to say something so they can talk about it.

Group three, fans of other local teams who want to see this end as poorly as possible for Utah(the most vocal person I have discussed this with IRL is a Utah State fan). This group has already assumed the worst.

These are three three groups who want answers and want them NOW. Yet many of them already have drawn the conclusions that they want. So why enter a discussion with folks who have already made up their minds?

I guess I'm surprised by that. Your school made unprecedented strides under him and gained entry to a prestigious league as a result. If I was a Utah fan, I'd be very unhappy about the potential fallout of this particular case, but the guy has done a masterful job overall.

[Scratch]

I appreciate your concern for my feelings. Not offended at all.

Yes, I am saying that the good doctor could clear some things up concerning his invovlement fairly quickly by being transparent and simply noting what he knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it. That really isn't that unreasonable. Saying that he can't discuss it and forcing you to FOIA the information makes it appear that he and the university are hiding something. Hiring an outside team to investigate this? Really? Why? This all seems like a fairly straightforward personnel matter: reports are received of employee acting badly, manager investigates reports, manager takes action.



As an employee of the state he is required to answer these questions. I don't know what he would say so it is impossible to predict how it would be received.

Jarid nailed most of this, and Creekster hit the most important point. I'm certain that the U's legal department, possibly with Pershing but certainly with Pershing's blessing, went over this with Hill and told him exactly what was the scope of what he could and could not say. It doesn't matter how innocent you might be, or how perfect of a story you have, when an institution is facing even the remote possibility of liability, you can't let your employees at any level go out and start talking facts in the media. There are just too many ways something could come out wrong or be misunderstood.

I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that as an employee of the state he is required to answer these questions. I don't think that's true, at least not when they are being asked by an ordinary citizen or radio station talking head.

[Scratch]

I guess I'm surprised by that. Your school made unprecedented strides under him and gained entry to a prestigious league as a result. If I was a Utah fan, I'd be very unhappy about the potential fallout of this particular case, but the guy has done a masterful job overall.

As with any school, Utah has it's share of idiotic fans.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I guess I'm surprised by that. Your school made unprecedented strides under him and gained entry to a prestigious league as a result. If I was a Utah fan, I'd be very unhappy about the potential fallout of this particular case, but the guy has done a masterful job overall.

Some of us are extremely upset with how he destroyed our basketball program. Before this situation, I thought it was time for Hill to retire.

[MartyFunkhouser]

As with any school, Utah has it's share of idiotic fans.

I don't think this is being an idiotic fan. The 2 biggest sports are football and basketball. Football has been doing fine, but on Hill's watch the basketball program has been destroyed. I cannot think of another program that has fallen this hard without major scandals to accompany it. He has 2 awful hires on the basketball program and his dealings with Majerus were terrible.

Yes, we got into the Pac-12 on his watch, but I highly doubt that it was primarily due to the efforts of Hill. It was more due to the fact that we were the best option to get to 12 when the Texas option fell through.

[Scratch]

I don't think this is being an idiotic fan. The 2 biggest sports are football and basketball. Football has been doing fine, but on Hill's watch the basketball program has been destroyed. I cannot think of another program that has fallen this hard without major scandals to accompany it. He has 2 awful hires on the basketball program and his dealings with Majerus were terrible.

Yes, we got into the Pac-12 on his watch, but I highly doubt that it was primarily due to the efforts of Hill. It was more due to the fact that we were the best option to get to 12 when the Texas option fell through.

I've hashed this out too many times elsewhere, so I don't want to do it too much here, but I would bet that you can't name another school that has had its overall athletic profile raised more than the U has during Hill's tenure. Regardless of who you want to attribute that to, you just can't fire the guy who was at the helm when that happened (short of a scandal or something like that). He's obviously made mistakes, but they are grossly outweighed by his successes.

[The_Douger]

I appreciate your concern for my feelings. Not offended at all.

Yes, I am saying that the good doctor could clear some things up concerning his invovlement fairly quickly by being transparent and simply noting what he knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it. That really isn't that unreasonable. Saying that he can't discuss it and forcing you to FOIA the information makes it appear that he and the university are hiding something. Hiring an outside team to investigate this? Really? Why? This all seems like a fairly straightforward personnel matter: reports are received of employee acting badly, manager investigates reports, manager takes action.



As an employee of the state he is required to answer these questions. I don't know what he would say so it is impossible to predict how it would be received.

I think it seems silly for him to say anything in a situation like this where the university could be responsible for financial liability. That's why he's being secretive. In medical cases you're not supposed to talk to anyone but your lawyer about the case.

[arizonaute]

[QUOTE=cougjunkie;963460] The CHURCH of Utah should shut down the entire school, it is an embarrassment to our great CHURCH and the sports program should be abolished. They clearly do not fit in to the mission of the CHURCH.
QUOTE]
As an tithe paying ALUF I feel the same way about BYU

[myboynoah]

Jarid nailed most of this, and Creekster hit the most important point. I'm certain that the U's legal department, possibly with Pershing but certainly with Pershing's blessing, went over this with Hill and told him exactly what was the scope of what he could and could not say. It doesn't matter how innocent you might be, or how perfect of a story you have, when an institution is facing even the remote possibility of liability, you can't let your employees at any level go out and start talking facts in the media. There are just too many ways something could come out wrong or be misunderstood.

I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that as an employee of the state he is required to answer these questions. I don't think that's true, at least not when they are being asked by an ordinary citizen or radio station talking head.

Many want to believe this is so complicated and that innocent things could be twisted, making the school, the good doctor, and others look bad unjustifiably. It's really not that complicated. This was a simple personnel issue, but is now involving lawyerly answers, a lack of transparency, and you are certain the UofUtah's legal department is coaching the good doctor "what he could and could not say."

It sounds like something is amiss and the university is circling the wagons until it can determine the extent of what happened and how it will respond. That's not a very good commentary on the good doctor's leadership.