OT: - Jim Calhoun's response | The Boneyard

OT: Jim Calhoun's response

CL82

NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions - Again!
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
56,846
Reaction Score
208,194
The first thread was, appropriately, locked until there was more news. Here's Calhoun's response:

Typical feisty Jim:

“I am angry and hurt that the reputation that I’ve worked so hard to achieve for over 50 years — actually, for more than 77 years — was so easily dismissed and thrown aside in return for headlines or eyeballs or whatever the appropriate term is here,” Calhoun said in his statement. “And I’m especially angry that my career and my name are being used for legal grandstanding instead of in support of the victims of discrimination.”

This answer is exactly was I suspected was case. It seemed like a reach in the complaint:

“I’m not sure when asking a colleague if they would mind opening the door because my hands were full became discrimination or when self-deprecation for being an aging, clumsy husband became an insult,” Calhoun said directly in response to the allegations.

Likewise "hot" seemed generationally unlikely:

“And call me old-fashioned in this regard ... I use the word ‘hot’ to describe the weather and the temperature of my morning coffee,” he continued. “And the only woman I openly compliment is my wife of 53 years and frankly, I call her ‘beautiful’ or ‘pretty’...because she is.”

For those who were quick to assume the accusations were accurate, consider these answers and think about which seem more likely.

Link to article.
 

EricLA

Cronus
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
14,985
Reaction Score
81,486
Thx for posting that. JC was old school with his players and in their faces a lot, but he won 3 NC's and his results speak for themselves. I was sad to see those allegations levied against him and was shocked that he would actually do something like that after never been accused of it in his previous 53 years of coaching, etc. I'm very glad he made the comments he did.
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
2,094
Reaction Score
5,166
I do feel bad for him. Jim was a great Coach at UCONN... and he could be very gruff.... but the problem I have is someone makes a statement and people believe them.... And I am not saying we should attack a person who is making the statement, nor should we make a "victim" feel like they are not going to be listened to.... but after all that has happened in the past couple of years with people accusing people ...... those people accused have been treated as Guilty until proven otherwise and the great thing about our society is that you are supposed to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Really having mixed emotions on all this.... and reading JC's response I want to believe him.... Can't imagine him being like "oh you're hot" Oh "Pat will pick this up at home".... Just too many odd things with this complaint.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
11,335
Reaction Score
25,045
Thx for posting that. JC was old school with his players and in their faces a lot, but he won 3 NC's and his results speak for themselves. I was sad to see those allegations levied against him and was shocked that he would actually do something like that after never been accused of it in his previous 53 years of coaching, etc. I'm very glad he made the comments he did.
JC was "old school" long before it became old school. What is not "new school" is compassion, caring and individual respect some thing I personally held against his approach to player.
As has been stated and actual; The final word on this has not been recorded. While it is uncommon today it is best to wait for the final verdict before we hang anyone.\\
Let all protect the VICTIM---whomever that may be the accused or the accuser. All complaints are not false nor are they all true. We have seen in recent year many complaints first thought false because the figure was public only to find them true.
Rational thinking tends to say---WAIT for all facts to arrive. A few years back at St Joseph I followed a young woman int to their inner circle was --immediately suspect. I was visiting an Aunt who was widely known in the St Joeseph organization and had just returned from a stint with the order MOTHER sUPERIOR.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
11,335
Reaction Score
25,045
We always get a through history of the defendant. Sometimes I would like to see some type of history of the complainant.
tHE complaint was legal and therefore public. Part of making the big bucks is the target on your back. Public figures don't have to like it but thats part of the what the high salaries bring with them. How often is a guy making 4000 per year sued, arrested certainly, sued rarely.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
1,653
Reaction Score
6,934
tHE complaint was legal and therefore public. Part of making the big bucks is the target on your back. Public figures don't have to like it but thats part of the what the high salaries bring with them. How often is a guy making 4000 per year sued, arrested certainly, sued rarely.
So if you are making "big bucks" you should not be entitled to the same rights as any other individual. Too many people use our court systems to facilitate their own perceived grievances. All I am saying is that if you are going to start slinging mud at me I should have the right to know who you are and why you are doing it and if your reasons are not within the constraints of the legal system then it is you who should pay a penalty.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
11,335
Reaction Score
25,045
So if you are making "big bucks" you should not be entitled to the same rights as any other individual. Too many people use our court systems to facilitate their own perceived grievances. All I am saying is that if you are going to start slinging mud at me I should have the right to know who you are and why you are doing it and if your reasons are not within the constraints of the legal system then it is you who should pay a penalty.
There are AT LEAST 2 sides to your coin. Public personalities are owed little privacy--that's why I am not one. One of the many side is: The accuser, if truly abused, is owed more privacy than the public figure.
As one who believe in the WORD of law everyone has the right to face and know their accuser and the finite details of the complaint. We now protect whistle blowers, sexual act accusers, because, assumedly, we want all to come forth to protect those that may be so abused in the future. It rarely works that way.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
11,335
Reaction Score
25,045
By law and usage PUBLIC FIGURES give up some rights simply because of their visibility. If I were one would I like it? He---NO. One has to assume some comfort comes from the many million of dollars paid and hopefully invested wisely. Again by being a public figure you DO have a target on your back. But my premise IS written "with in the constraints of the legal system". You may wonder why those politicians who are "slandered" don't sue? This is part of the Constitution vs written rules/laws all are not hand in hand. Think freedom of speech !
 

CL82

NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions - Again!
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
56,846
Reaction Score
208,194
By law and usage PUBLIC FIGURES give up some rights simply because of their visibility. If I were one would I like it? He---NO. One has to assume some comfort comes from the many million of dollars paid and hopefully invested wisely. Again by being a public figure you DO have a target on your back. But my premise IS written "with in the constraints of the legal system". You may wonder why those politicians who are "slandered" don't sue? This is part of the Constitution vs written rules/laws all are not hand in hand. Think freedom of speech !
Mmm, sort of. If you are thinking defamation (slander/libel) of public figures it is a civil law rather than a constitutional law matter.
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2018
Messages
1,983
Reaction Score
13,047
There are AT LEAST 2 sides to your coin. Public personalities are owed little privacy--that's why I am not one. One of the many side is: The accuser, if truly abused, is owed more privacy than the public figure.
As one who believe in the WORD of law everyone has the right to face and know their accuser and the finite details of the complaint. We now protect whistle blowers, sexual act accusers, because, assumedly, we want all to come forth to protect those that may be so abused in the future. It rarely works that way.

Wow. You mixed together and bunch or unrelated legal principles and ended up with a confusing stew. The filing of a claim has little to do with whether one is a public personality or not (although it does have a lot to do with subsequent publicity and reporting). And the fact that there is a "whistle blower" involved (and this is not such a case) does not eliminate one's right to due process. The two concepts can and do exist side by side.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,990
Reaction Score
7,294
For heaven sake no one touched her. I’m sorry but women are so threatened by the word “hot”. How ridiculous.
This makes a mockery of gals especially young girls that have been sexually. Abused. Being called hot or sexy doesn’t even approach the ugliness of the gymnast scandals.
Besides Calhoun is a gentleman of the old school.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
1,653
Reaction Score
6,934
For heaven sake no one touched her. I’m sorry but women are so threatened by the word “hot”. How ridiculous.
This makes a mockery of gals especially young girls that have been sexually. Abused. Being called hot or sexy doesn’t even approach the ugliness of the gymnast scandals.
Besides Calhoun is a gentleman of the old school.
Thank you for injecting a large dose of common sense into the argument.
 

Online statistics

Members online
647
Guests online
3,126
Total visitors
3,773

Forum statistics

Threads
156,863
Messages
4,067,657
Members
9,948
Latest member
ahserve34


Top Bottom