Had this "reporter" or "columnist" (whatever title he wishes to attach) not emailed ThunderZone a response, I could have given the reporter/columnist the benefit of the doubt on what Pruett may or may not have been referring to with the quote cherry-picked for inclusion in this article. The reporter/columnist's email response to TZ grinds that "benefit of the doubt" into dust.
Why the "Benefit of the Doubt"?
The reader is not provided the context of the "conversation" between Pruett and the interviewer (Hanshaw, if I recall). It is often difficult to know whether the print report of a Q&A is sequential, and whether the "A's" were edited for column space.
In Pruett's twelve-paragraph response to the question, scholarship limitations due to NCAA sanctions is mentioned twice - the first time in the fifth paragraph, and was lumped in with injuries and academic casualties as probable causes to Marshall's fb struggles this season. The second and last instance occurs in the tenth paragraph relative to things that the team could not change - scholarship limitations.
Pruett's use of "rules and regulations" is likely tied to the investigation and punishment by the reporter/columnist b/c it was the "rules and regulations" that Marshall violated. Thus, the connection is not completely from left field.
However, there are at least two plausible interpretations (if not more) of the quoted statement - and that should have raised a flag for the reporter/columnist to perform a cursory investigation. By contacting either Hanshaw or Pruett, or both, the proper interpretation could have been determined, and the reporter/columnist could have been assured that his assertion, and his use of the Pruett quote as support for that assertion, were accurate.
Why the Email to ThunderZone Undermines Any Benefit of the Doubt?
The reporter/columnist wrote in the email:
In fact, before the quote I used, Coach Pruett was indeed talking about the scholarship limitations that came from the NCAA as a result of its very well publicized investigation into the program.
Further, the rest of the quote proves the point: "I think we got a ticket. Now we have to pay the ticket, like everybody else, to the point where it hurts."
Clearly, he's responding to the NCAA allegations of misconduct. Whether he's putting it on the players or himself, he's indicating that it's OK to break the rules until you get caught. That was my point.
The reporter/columnist is simply wrong - before the Coach Pruett quote, Pruett was discussing this:
Our football team reports on Monday, and when they do they need to be revitalized, rejuvenized. If we need to change some ways that we do things from a little thing about do we let them live off campus or stay in the dorm to our class attendance policies and policies off the field.
Pruett is discussing TEAM policy(ies), including living on/off campus, class attendance, and off the field activities (which most of us here and elsewhere have criticized to the nth degree). The "we" in the quote is the team and program, not the athletic department or the university.
This paragraph is followed by:
Rules and regulations are like the Interstate out here. The speed limit is 65 miles an hour. And it’s acceptable to go 90 until you get a speeding ticket. I think we got a speeding ticket. Now we have to pay the ticket, like everybody else, to the point where it hurts.
Pruett uses the phrase "[n]ow we
have to pay the ticket..." This clearly indicates a present and future payment, not a past payment. Why is this significant in my mind? Because, although the University is not off of NCAA probation until Dec. 21, 2005, the scholarship limitations had already expired. Why would Pruett state that we have to continue paying for a ticket that the football program has already completed payment upon?
"Clearly" (to borrow from the reporter/columnist) Pruett's quote is more accurately and plausibly connected to the preceding paragraph (preceding in time - recency), largely because the team's failures stem predominantly from a lack of leadership, which is evident from the lax policy allowing players to live off campus, with little oversight, a less stringent class attendance requirement (relaxed from the policy during Pennington's time at Marshall), and the off the field (read: bar) problems. The "rules and regulations" Pruett is discussing in that quoted portion are the team rules and regs, and that the team incurred a heavy fine (lack of success), and that to get that success back, more stringent policies must be implemented (restricted off campus living, strict class attendance requirements, bars off limits) that the players will view as "hurting" (cutting down on the fun).
Furthermore, the university (as far as I can tell) NEVER blamed the players for the NCAA issue - the university took responsibility relative to the players, alleging that the university misunderstood the rules on proposition players and the university's role in getting said players employment. It's difficult to understand why Pruett would even approach implicating the players as to blame for the NCAA problems. That was the university's screw up.
In sum, while plausible, the reporter/columnist's assertion is not reasonable based on the reasoning above. If the reporter/columnist decides to investigate and provides that evidence for the reader to view, and the evidence demonstrates the reporter/columnist was right, then I will apologize. Otherwise, in my opinion, the reporter/columnist brushes next to defamation for alleging that Pruett condones cheating until the cheater gets caught.
Someone should forward this information to Pruett, the AD and the President for investigation the plausibility of a defamation suit.
Home
Help
Members
View the memberlist
Search For Members
Login
Register