Did a search this morning. Nothing. Hopeful something will be announced before tonight's game but don't expect it.

I hope the NCAA gets absolutely railed by the media and the public after this one. ****ing ridiculous, racist pieces of ****, ruining sports and ruining lives. **** them all to hell, even if this is resolved before the opening tip, all of them will burn in hell for this.

" ridiculous, racist pieces of ****, ruining sports and ruining lives"

mostly ridiculous diatribe ??

can you show why it is racist or are you one of those that when you have no arguments just throw out insults

too bad there are rules that ruin lives/sports ... anarchy would be so much better (sadly there are those that believe that anarchy would be better)

southseasbear said:

---

Oakbear said:

---

" ridiculous, racist pieces of ****, ruining sports and ruining lives"

mostly ridiculous diatribe ??

can you show why it is racist or are you one of those that when you have no arguments just throw out insults

too bad there are rules that ruin lives/sports ... anarchy would be so much better (sadly there are those that believe that anarchy would be better)

---

Sure, there is nothing racist about an old white male coach telling an African American player to be his "slave."

---

What a stupid post

bearsandgiants said:

---

I hope the NCAA gets absolutely railed by the media and the public after this one. ****ing ridiculous, racist pieces of ****, ruining sports and ruining lives. **** them all to hell, even if this is resolved before the opening tip, all of them will burn in hell for this.

---

Do you have a link to evidence that denying the waiver was motivated by racism? I am a little out of the loop here it seems.

oskidunker said:

---

JimSox said:

---

His cousin was in the stands near me tonight and she told me they haven't heard anything yet but hope to by next weekend.

---

Madsen says by Friday at the latest

---

He said that was his guess not a guarantee.

Haven't any of you ever visited the south, or middle america, or pretty much, america?

I'd rather be in Philadelphia.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

I hope the NCAA gets absolutely railed by the media and the public after this one. ****ing ridiculous, racist pieces of ****, ruining sports and ruining lives. **** them all to hell, even if this is resolved before the opening tip, all of them will burn in hell for this.

---

Do you have a link to evidence that denying the waiver was motivated by racism? I am a little out of the loop here it seems.

---

It is acknowledged fact by everyone, including the coach, that the coach told the players they are the slaves and he is their master and that the coach spat on a player and told the player he can spit on him any time he wants to. It appears that the appeal is saying that he was directly targeted for the slaves/masters comment.

I think if "racist" is too charged a word to use for you, we should be able to agree that the decision is racially insensitive. They should not be requiring a player stay at a school where that happened to him.

---

Insensitive would make sense. Saying the NCAA is racist because they did not grant the waiver does not make sense, unless you or someone could provide information that indicates otherwise. That is all I am asking for.

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

I hope the NCAA gets absolutely railed by the media and the public after this one. ****ing ridiculous, racist pieces of ****, ruining sports and ruining lives. **** them all to hell, even if this is resolved before the opening tip, all of them will burn in hell for this.

---

Do you have a link to evidence that denying the waiver was motivated by racism? I am a little out of the loop here it seems.

---

It is acknowledged fact by everyone, including the coach, that the coach told the players they are the slaves and he is their master and that the coach spat on a player and told the player he can spit on him any time he wants to. It appears that the appeal is saying that he was directly targeted for the slaves/masters comment.

I think if "racist" is too charged a word to use for you, we should be able to agree that the decision is racially insensitive. They should not be requiring a player stay at a school where that happened to him.

---

Insensitive would make sense. Saying the NCAA is racist because they did not grant the waiver does not make sense, unless you or someone could provide information that indicates otherwise. That is all I am asking for.

---

If some coach calls a white player a slave owner and that player gets a waiver approved then denying Tyson's would be racist. That probably won't come up but I personally think a denial would go beyond insensitive anyway.

stu said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

I hope the NCAA gets absolutely railed by the media and the public after this one. ****ing ridiculous, racist pieces of ****, ruining sports and ruining lives. **** them all to hell, even if this is resolved before the opening tip, all of them will burn in hell for this.

---

Do you have a link to evidence that denying the waiver was motivated by racism? I am a little out of the loop here it seems.

---

It is acknowledged fact by everyone, including the coach, that the coach told the players they are the slaves and he is their master and that the coach spat on a player and told the player he can spit on him any time he wants to. It appears that the appeal is saying that he was directly targeted for the slaves/masters comment.

I think if "racist" is too charged a word to use for you, we should be able to agree that the decision is racially insensitive. They should not be requiring a player stay at a school where that happened to him.

---

Insensitive would make sense. Saying the NCAA is racist because they did not grant the waiver does not make sense, unless you or someone could provide information that indicates otherwise. That is all I am asking for.

---

If some coach calls a white player a slave owner and that player gets a waiver approved then denying Tyson's would be racist. That probably won't come up but I personally think a denial would go beyond insensitive anyway.

---

I don't understand your first sentence. Please clarify.

oski003 said:

---

stu said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

I hope the NCAA gets absolutely railed by the media and the public after this one. ****ing ridiculous, racist pieces of ****, ruining sports and ruining lives. **** them all to hell, even if this is resolved before the opening tip, all of them will burn in hell for this.

---

Do you have a link to evidence that denying the waiver was motivated by racism? I am a little out of the loop here it seems.

---

It is acknowledged fact by everyone, including the coach, that the coach told the players they are the slaves and he is their master and that the coach spat on a player and told the player he can spit on him any time he wants to. It appears that the appeal is saying that he was directly targeted for the slaves/masters comment.

I think if "racist" is too charged a word to use for you, we should be able to agree that the decision is racially insensitive. They should not be requiring a player stay at a school where that happened to him.

---

Insensitive would make sense. Saying the NCAA is racist because they did not grant the waiver does not make sense, unless you or someone could provide information that indicates otherwise. That is all I am asking for.

---

If some coach calls a white player a slave owner and that player gets a waiver approved then denying Tyson's would be racist. That probably won't come up but I personally think a denial would go beyond insensitive anyway.

---

I don't understand your first sentence. Please clarify.

---

A coach calling a white player a "slave owner" is the closest thing to a coach calling a black player a "slave" I could think of. Not equivalent as the latter is worse but I'm neither a social scientist nor a writer. Maybe I should have stayed out of this discussion.

stu said:

---

oski003 said:

---

stu said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

I hope the NCAA gets absolutely railed by the media and the public after this one. ****ing ridiculous, racist pieces of ****, ruining sports and ruining lives. **** them all to hell, even if this is resolved before the opening tip, all of them will burn in hell for this.

---

Do you have a link to evidence that denying the waiver was motivated by racism? I am a little out of the loop here it seems.

---

It is acknowledged fact by everyone, including the coach, that the coach told the players they are the slaves and he is their master and that the coach spat on a player and told the player he can spit on him any time he wants to. It appears that the appeal is saying that he was directly targeted for the slaves/masters comment.

I think if "racist" is too charged a word to use for you, we should be able to agree that the decision is racially insensitive. They should not be requiring a player stay at a school where that happened to him.

---

Insensitive would make sense. Saying the NCAA is racist because they did not grant the waiver does not make sense, unless you or someone could provide information that indicates otherwise. That is all I am asking for.

---

If some coach calls a white player a slave owner and that player gets a waiver approved then denying Tyson's would be racist. That probably won't come up but I personally think a denial would go beyond insensitive anyway.

---

I don't understand your first sentence. Please clarify.

---

A coach calling a white player a "slave owner" is the closest thing to a coach calling a black player a "slave" I could think of. Not equivalent as the latter is worse but I'm neither a social scientist nor a writer. Maybe I should have stayed out of this discussion.

---

I agree that Tyson played in a racist environment. I just don't believe that we've seen any evidence of the NCAA initially denying his second transfer waiver as being motivated by racism, as was alleged above.

stu said:

---

I'd rather be in Philadelphia.

---

No, better here than Philadelphia.

I'd take Philadelphia over all of the choices mentioned and to honor W.C. Fields. Of course I'd take Berkeley over Philadelphia and over any other place I've spent significant time, though I'd also consider Vancouver BC, Wellington NZ, and Auckland NZ. I loved visiting Amsterdam, Zurich, and Innsbruck but I'm not sure about living there.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

I hope the NCAA gets absolutely railed by the media and the public after this one. ****ing ridiculous, racist pieces of ****, ruining sports and ruining lives. **** them all to hell, even if this is resolved before the opening tip, all of them will burn in hell for this.

---

Do you have a link to evidence that denying the waiver was motivated by racism? I am a little out of the loop here it seems.

---

It is acknowledged fact by everyone, including the coach, that the coach told the players they are the slaves and he is their master and that the coach spat on a player and told the player he can spit on him any time he wants to. It appears that the appeal is saying that he was directly targeted for the slaves/masters comment.

I think if "racist" is too charged a word to use for you, we should be able to agree that the decision is racially insensitive. They should not be requiring a player stay at a school where that happened to him.

---

Insensitive would make sense. Saying the NCAA is racist because they did not grant the waiver does not make sense, unless you or someone could provide information that indicates otherwise. That is all I am asking for.

---

Well, personally, I think forcing a kid back into a program where that level of racism took place would be a decision that is racist as hell. It would make them complicit in the mistreatment and is a level of ignorance and insensitivity toward the plight of an individual Black player that I'm going to call it. You gotta be racist to make that decision.

But, I'm aware that other people may have different definitions of racist and how that can be a loaded term for them so I offered up "racially insensitive" to get through the point because I think we should all be able to agree that such a decision would be egregious and that clearly the racial component is largely what makes it egregious.

I'm essentially doing the same thing I do when a minority claims minorities can't be racist based on a definition they have adopted and I'll just say, fine, can we agree on "prejudiced asshat".

It's all semantics

---

Nobody is forcing him to stay there. Also, if someone initially denied an athlete a second transfer not sit out waiver (while denying every other request) at USC where athletes were sexually assaulted by staff, would that make them pro-rape?

.. said:

---

..I'd also consider Vancouver BC, Wellington NZ, and Auckland NZ.

---

nah, too windy.

smh said:

---

.. said:

---

..I'd also consider Vancouver BC, Wellington NZ, and Auckland NZ.

---

nah, too windy.

---

Wellington has a reputation for being windy but I've stayed there 6 times and never noticed it. But one day while I was crossing the bridge to Waitangi (way up north) I almost got blown to Australia.

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

I hope the NCAA gets absolutely railed by the media and the public after this one. ****ing ridiculous, racist pieces of ****, ruining sports and ruining lives. **** them all to hell, even if this is resolved before the opening tip, all of them will burn in hell for this.

---

Do you have a link to evidence that denying the waiver was motivated by racism? I am a little out of the loop here it seems.

---

It is acknowledged fact by everyone, including the coach, that the coach told the players they are the slaves and he is their master and that the coach spat on a player and told the player he can spit on him any time he wants to. It appears that the appeal is saying that he was directly targeted for the slaves/masters comment.

I think if "racist" is too charged a word to use for you, we should be able to agree that the decision is racially insensitive. They should not be requiring a player stay at a school where that happened to him.

---

Insensitive would make sense. Saying the NCAA is racist because they did not grant the waiver does not make sense, unless you or someone could provide information that indicates otherwise. That is all I am asking for.

---

Well, personally, I think forcing a kid back into a program where that level of racism took place would be a decision that is racist as hell. It would make them complicit in the mistreatment and is a level of ignorance and insensitivity toward the plight of an individual Black player that I'm going to call it. You gotta be racist to make that decision.

But, I'm aware that other people may have different definitions of racist and how that can be a loaded term for them so I offered up "racially insensitive" to get through the point because I think we should all be able to agree that such a decision would be egregious and that clearly the racial component is largely what makes it egregious.

I'm essentially doing the same thing I do when a minority claims minorities can't be racist based on a definition they have adopted and I'll just say, fine, can we agree on "prejudiced asshat".

It's all semantics

---

Nobody is forcing him to stay there. Also, if someone initially denied an athlete a second transfer not sit out waiver (while denying every other request) at USC where athletes were sexually assaulted by staff, would that make them pro-rape?

---

Supporting victims of rape who report it and punishing rapists is anti-rape. Agreed?

If you instead punished the victim who reported without punishing the perpetrator it would be a "pro-rape" policy.

---

Exactly.

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

I hope the NCAA gets absolutely railed by the media and the public after this one. ****ing ridiculous, racist pieces of ****, ruining sports and ruining lives. **** them all to hell, even if this is resolved before the opening tip, all of them will burn in hell for this.

---

Do you have a link to evidence that denying the waiver was motivated by racism? I am a little out of the loop here it seems.

---

It is acknowledged fact by everyone, including the coach, that the coach told the players they are the slaves and he is their master and that the coach spat on a player and told the player he can spit on him any time he wants to. It appears that the appeal is saying that he was directly targeted for the slaves/masters comment.

I think if "racist" is too charged a word to use for you, we should be able to agree that the decision is racially insensitive. They should not be requiring a player stay at a school where that happened to him.

---

Insensitive would make sense. Saying the NCAA is racist because they did not grant the waiver does not make sense, unless you or someone could provide information that indicates otherwise. That is all I am asking for.

---

Well, personally, I think forcing a kid back into a program where that level of racism took place would be a decision that is racist as hell. It would make them complicit in the mistreatment and is a level of ignorance and insensitivity toward the plight of an individual Black player that I'm going to call it. You gotta be racist to make that decision.

But, I'm aware that other people may have different definitions of racist and how that can be a loaded term for them so I offered up "racially insensitive" to get through the point because I think we should all be able to agree that such a decision would be egregious and that clearly the racial component is largely what makes it egregious.

I'm essentially doing the same thing I do when a minority claims minorities can't be racist based on a definition they have adopted and I'll just say, fine, can we agree on "prejudiced asshat".

It's all semantics

---

Nobody is forcing him to stay there. Also, if someone initially denied an athlete a second transfer not sit out waiver (while denying every other request) at USC where athletes were sexually assaulted by staff, would that make them pro-rape?

---

If they deny his appeal they are punishing him for leaving. Yeah, he can leave and be forced to sit out a year.

It was specifically his coach and his team that was the issue and he was the direct victim. It isn't like someone, somewhere in the university said something racist about somebody else and he decided in a university of thousands, he wants to leave.

First of all, if someone was raped by athletic staff and they requested a waiver, there is zero chance they wouldn't get it. I don't even know how to characterize the situation because no one would do it. Pro-rape might not be wrong because if someone looks at someone and says "I don't care if you have been raped, stay there or be punisehd for leaving", they obviously do not care at all about victims of rape and if you show that level of indifference, yeah, I wonder about your inclinations. But nobody would, so the analogy is false.

The analogy is also false because there is no nuance to the definition of rape as there is to the definition of racism. Rape is a specific act. Racism is not. It is entirely possible that somebody would not approve of the coach's actions so not for THAT type of racism. But their actions in requiring a player to stay at that school or be punished would be a different type of racism. I would argue that requiring a player stay at a school where he was called a slave by his coach or make him sit out a year, putting a large obstacle in the progress of his athletic career, is racist. I would argue that putting the thumb on the scale for the school who hired a coach who did that to potentially get the benefit of the player's career instead of paying some price for their actions is enabling racism by having minimal consequences.

The appropriate analogy would be if the NCAA did not allow a woman who was raped by staff to transfer without sitting out (again, wouldn't happen), and I called them sexist and misogynist. And yes, I would call them that all day long as well as a few other choice words that will only show up here as asterisks.

Again, can we just agree on the middle ground that they would be racially insensitive asshats? I thought I gave you that and that was something for the purposes of a sports board we can move on with. Frankly, I find turning these types of situations into arguments about the semantic definition of racism is just deflecting from the issue of what we all (should) agree is horrible behavior, and it is done enough that it starts to feel intentionally driven to do just that whether it is excusing this type of behavior or it is excusing egregious behavior on that part of certain social groups because "they can't be racist". I don't see that the academic exercise of parsing the definition of racism is that interesting to anybody that they should put it ahead of speaking out against awful behavior.

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

I hope the NCAA gets absolutely railed by the media and the public after this one. ****ing ridiculous, racist pieces of ****, ruining sports and ruining lives. **** them all to hell, even if this is resolved before the opening tip, all of them will burn in hell for this.

---

Do you have a link to evidence that denying the waiver was motivated by racism? I am a little out of the loop here it seems.

---

It is acknowledged fact by everyone, including the coach, that the coach told the players they are the slaves and he is their master and that the coach spat on a player and told the player he can spit on him any time he wants to. It appears that the appeal is saying that he was directly targeted for the slaves/masters comment.

I think if "racist" is too charged a word to use for you, we should be able to agree that the decision is racially insensitive. They should not be requiring a player stay at a school where that happened to him.

---

Insensitive would make sense. Saying the NCAA is racist because they did not grant the waiver does not make sense, unless you or someone could provide information that indicates otherwise. That is all I am asking for.

---

Well, personally, I think forcing a kid back into a program where that level of racism took place would be a decision that is racist as hell. It would make them complicit in the mistreatment and is a level of ignorance and insensitivity toward the plight of an individual Black player that I'm going to call it. You gotta be racist to make that decision.

But, I'm aware that other people may have different definitions of racist and how that can be a loaded term for them so I offered up "racially insensitive" to get through the point because I think we should all be able to agree that such a decision would be egregious and that clearly the racial component is largely what makes it egregious.

I'm essentially doing the same thing I do when a minority claims minorities can't be racist based on a definition they have adopted and I'll just say, fine, can we agree on "prejudiced asshat".

It's all semantics

---

Nobody is forcing him to stay there. Also, if someone initially denied an athlete a second transfer not sit out waiver (while denying every other request) at USC where athletes were sexually assaulted by staff, would that make them pro-rape?

---

And here's another analogy for you. If I set fire to your house, I'm not forcing you to stay there. If you burn up, that is your fault, not mine.

You are intentionally simplifying the issue beyond reality. They aren't forcing him to stay. They are enforcing significant, serious consequences if he does not. That is like saying to a woman who needs a job or she can't support her family that her employer is not responsible for her being constantly subjected to sexual harassment because no one was forcing her to stay there.

stu said:

---

Wellington has a reputation for being windy but I've stayed there 6 times and never noticed it. But one day while I was crossing the bridge to Waitangi (way up north) I almost got blown to Australia.

---

once upon a time my better half's 3 foot braid flew 90 degrees sideways, standing at a overlook thereabouts. so, yeah, weather varies. good luck stu.