And the inevitable question arises...

Simple deductive reasoning . . .[/url


RC

This is a garbage article and I am ashamed for the LJW for letting this get by their editors. This is the stuff of blogs where standards are non-existent and any fool can bloviate to their ill-informed satisfaction. But for an actual media company with so-called journalistic standards...for shame.

Why am I so disgusted? Well to begin with, context is decisive. Framing the context of any communication sets the manner and source from which the reader derives meaning. The context of this article is rightfully stated early on; KU Student Body President Tiara Floyd said, “I definitely see a pattern of disciplinary problems happening.”

Oh really? In addition to context, for meaning to effectively and accurately be conveyed, there must be a common understanding of the definition of terms. She sees a "pattern". What is a pattern? A patter is "A series of events emanating from a common source related by a common cause" If you are claiming the many events we are all too familiar with and are cited seriatim in the article are from a common source related by a common cause, then you must be able to cite the common source and the common cause. No one will argue that there have been a series of events. I personally am quite disgusted with the frequency of various negative events surrounding KU basketball. It is wearisome to say the least. It diminishes my personal enjoyment of KU basketball.

Is it fair to ask if these events are related by a common source and cause? Absolutely! Not only fair, it is necessary. Is it reasonable to express an off the cuff opinion that there certainly is a possibility that "where their is smoke their must be fire"? Again, absolutely! But to make a propositional proclamation as strong as "I definitely see a pattern of disciplinary problems happening" is reckless and irresponsible. Perhaps she simply is not skilled in the concept of proper contextual framing and precise definitional usage. In fact, that may be the issue. But that is exactly why editors exist. Had she said, "there have been a series of events that certainly pose a perception that there could be a pattern" or something to that affect, fine. But when you say what she said, you are explicitly saying you have the information that allows you to draw a conclusion of a common source and cause. And when you make a proclamational statement, you necessarily need to cite the premises that under gird your conclusion. What is the source? What is the cause? Without answering those questions, you have thrown an unsupported proclamation out as red meat and leaving the reader to fill in the blanks by implication and assumption. In this particular case, it is almost red meat for the reader to say "there is a cancer on the presidency" meaning Coach Self and staff.

It is very possible that the seriatim events that have plagued KU basketball is simply luck of the draw and reflection of the current culture in elite college athletes. Without question, there needs to be a very serious self reflection and internal investigation into this possibility of a pattern. If there is not, Long and Girod should be removed for malpractice. But to jump all the way to proclaiming conclusions that can only come from informed understanding without citing the underlying information is simply garbage reporting.

I desperately want to get to the bottom of all the CRAP that has happened over the last 5 + years. And if that results in the conclusion that there is a "pattern" and the source is Self and the cause is corruption then so be it. We will deal with that. Whatever the results we can then deal effectively in an informed manner. But until then, articles like these only serve to provide inflammatory but truly meaningless input.

I admit, I tend toward the pollyanna viewpoint. I tend to (maybe wishfully) believe that the source is random and unrelated and the cause is the general culture among elite athletes. I am not saying I know that, I am only saying that is my general choice to believe until data indicates otherwise. In Self and KU I trust. But as Ronald Reagan said, "trust, but verify". One of my mantra's to my staff over the years has been "You can't make informed decisions without information." Often, my young staff were enthusiastic to aver their assessment under the misperception that it was actually a fully informed decision.

One other note. I completely appreciated Jay Bilas's article. I channel completely. I trust that KU, KSU and the Big 12 were sufficiently informed, properly motivated and capable of judging. Thus, I am completely satisfied with their decision. I could certainly nitpick this or that, but that would require a certain arrogance on my part to think my information and/or motives and/or my judgment was superior to their collective information, motives and judgment. I cannot muster that degree of arrogance, so I am very happy to submit to their decision. Not only that, I am extremely appreciative of their exigency and speed in getting to the decision. Time to move on.

At least for the fans,


--RC