False Accusations vs. Sean Miller

[Sonoma Muskie]

Once a person’s reputation is damaged by a falsehood it can never be fully repaired. Kinda like trying to unbreak a classic work of art.(Ask Steve Wynn)
I will not believe the accusations against Sean Miller unless I hear an actual recording of the alleged conversation, recognize his voice & a team voice analysis experts, FBI, CIA, British MI-6 etc., with accompanying technical evidence, take solemn oaths testifying that it is Miller. A man’s reputation deserves that much respect.

[Sonoma Muskie]

Tacitus, what an eagle eye. Great nit-picking.

[Pierre Dracot]

Miller's refutation was very weak, amounting to nothing more than plausible deniability. It was filled with "I never" this, and "I never knowingly" that. There was no mention of Book Richardson and what he, Miller, knew about Richardson's dealings.

And the statement: "The one time I was asked to pay a player money, I didn't agree" was a beauty, a smart tactic, given that there's an ongoing investigation of U of A recruiting.

[MOSQUETERO]

How do you know the accusations are false?-- You're in for a rude awakening. (Clue: Miller isn't coaching the team and isn't attending practices.)

I believe Miller will coach tonight and Allonzo Trier will play as well.

[Anti-Homer]

Once a person’s reputation is damaged by a falsehood it can never be fully repaired. Kinda like trying to unbreak a classic work of art.(Ask Steve Wynn)
I will not believe the accusations against Sean Miller unless I hear an actual recording of the alleged conversation, recognize his voice & a team voice analysis experts, FBI, CIA, British MI-6 etc., with accompanying technical evidence, take solemn oaths testifying that it is Miller. A man’s reputation deserves that much respect.

I hope your gloating is justified, and SM is completely innocent, and if so, there will be egg on a lot of people's faces on this board including myself. I'll be the happiest person on the board to be wrong as well. However, a denial hardly equates to vindication. I also agree that irreparable damage has already been done to SM's reputation, and if proven innocent, I'd love nothing more than that arrogant, self-entitled corporation to be renamed MILLESPN.

[tacitus]

Sonoma, based on some of the people you cite to support your arguments, I find it very hard to believe that you demand the same standard of proof for everyone...

I think that Miller told the truth and I think that AU looked at the ESPN report, looked at the actual evidence at their disposal (almost nothing), listened to Miller's lawyer-crafted statements, and considered the fact that whatever evidence the FBI has about Miller may very well never see the light of day. Firing him might have sent a clear message of zero tolerance. The message might have also been received as an admission of guilt and Miller probably would have sued like Pitino. There decision is not risk-free, because who knows what is on the recording...

As pointed out above, while there are some inconsistencies in the ESPN report, there are also some gaping holes in Miller's vindication speech.

Between the lines, he seems to be implying that he did speak with Dawkins about paying a kid to come to AU, but that it was a different kid and the plans fell through or he changed his mind. Some people now think that all the confusion on ESPN's part is that the recording was about Brian Bowen, whom AU was targeting, whose recruitment coincides with the original (and now re-confirmed) timeframe of the ESPN report, who was being "sold" by Dawkins, and for whom Louisville reportedly ultimately purchased for $100,000.

If Miller even negotiated with Dawkins for Bowen, then it would likely be a violation of NCAA rules and would be a federal crime (conspiracy), though one the FBI normally would not pursue.

[tacitus]

But let me stress that I really do hope that Miller is squeaky clean. Not for his or AU's sake, but for ours. He brought Book in at X as a shady recruiter with AAU ties. I hope that Book did not doing this stuff until he went to AU, and I hope that Miller had no clue about what Book was doing at AU. I mean... Miller should have known what he was getting himself into with an AAU coach on the staff, but I hope it wasn't just a blind eye, but actual ignorance of what was going on. Because if Book started this stuff at X, then we could be facing retroactive penalties. And if it was going on at X and Miller knew about it, then it is almost certain that Mack knew about it, and that would be devastating for me....

[Pierre Dracot]

ESPN stands by the story. For my part, I trust ESPN, which will pay a tremendous price if the reporting is wrong, whereas for both Miller and the University of Arizona, it makes sense to go all in (since they have nothing more to lose, guilty being guilty).

[Anti-Homer]

ESPN stands by the story. For my part, I trust ESPN, which will pay a tremendous price if the reporting is wrong, whereas for both Miller and the University of Arizona, it makes sense to go all in (since they have nothing more to lose, guilty being guilty).

Doesn't it cut both ways? Even if ESPN feels vulnerable about their position, why would they make it easy for AZ by crying "Uncle" before getting their arm twisted? Also, they have a lot more to lose than a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Their viewership is dwindling, they've laid off a lot of people, and have been getting scooped by lesser rivals. They are Nike twenty years ago before Adidas, Under Armour, and other manufacturers started taking some of their market share.

If nothing else, I think U of AZ vetted all the info. at their disposal, and I don't believe for one second they'd let SM coach if they felt there was credible evidence against him. I'm not assuming that he is innocent, but it also makes U of A vulnerable to SM if they part ways, and he claims they essentially suspended him without cause.

[Pierre Dracot]

ESPN stands by the story. For my part, I trust ESPN, which will pay a tremendous price if the reporting is wrong, whereas for both Miller and the University of Arizona, it makes sense to go all in (since they have nothing more to lose, guilty being guilty).

Doesn't it cut both ways? Even if ESPN feels vulnerable about their position, why would they make it easy for AZ by crying "Uncle" before getting their arm twisted? Also, they have a lot more to lose than a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Their viewership is dwindling, they've laid off a lot of people, and have been getting scooped by lesser rivals. They are Nike twenty years ago before Adidas, Under Armour, and other manufacturers started taking some of their market share.

If nothing else, I think U of AZ vetted all the info. at their disposal, and I don't believe for one second they'd let SM coach if they felt there was credible evidence against him. I'm not assuming that he is innocent, but it also makes U of A vulnerable to SM if they part ways, and he claims they essentially suspended him without cause.

It cuts both ways. It will be very interesting to see how it unforlds, won't it.