Is it possible that ISU had Armadi on the line for the scholarship if Bubu lost his, but they thought the process would be concluded earlier? Just thinking out loud because this summer has been a unique one.
Bubu kicked off team??!!
- Thread starter nj829
- Start date
- Status
This smells like total ******** to me. I have to think that CFH is steaming ****** right now.
Makes me glad he signed the extension when he did. I'm not saying he would have walked if this had happened earlier, but it would have given him something to think about.
Makes me glad he signed the extension when he did. I'm not saying he would have walked if this had happened earlier, but it would have given him something to think about.
Last edited by a moderator:
It had to **** him off greatly. It makes me wonder if he knew this was happening when he went on KXNO last week and said Bubu would probably start at PG ans was our best backcourt defender and best ball handler. Was he setting up public opinion to be more upset at this stupid decision?
If not, the only other explanation is that it came as a total shock to him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah I'm sure a scholarship offer of "Hey we have player that got acquitted, but there is an appeal, could you sign just in case he gets kicked off after the appeal for a violation of the code of conduct? If it doesn't happen we are going to pull your schollie." would be really appealing for someone.
This really sucks though. The worst part is I have to eplain, for the second season in a row explain to my 6 year old who's favorite player is Bubu what sexual harassment means.
That and I saw him at camp this summer and he looked really good.
The burden of proof in student conduct violations involving sexual misconduct under Title IX violation is preponderance of evidence. In a criminal case, the burden is beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest burden of proof there is. That is why O.J. Can be found not guilty in a criminal case, but can lose in a civil case. The Feds. Have been issuing heavy fines lately for Title IX sex misconduct violations, which may be why the university reversed its decision. All guesswork at this,point, but likely what happened here.
This makes sense but you would think if there was a preponderance of evidence the police would have taken the case to court rather than dropping the charges completely.
Police don't choose, county attorney chooses to prosecute.
Preponderance of evidence means if 51/100 people thought he did it, they could charge or take action (university) where a court would be 100/100...if that makes sense.
Well said, good explanation of policy.
sometimes we forget the criminal system is not the same as the university system.
This is pure speculation on my part...but I wonder if the Pierre Pierce case and the way the U of I so totally botched that had something to do with this policy. I vaguely recall the Regent universities being ordered to examine their policies after that. I could be 100% wrong though.
On some level it seems a bit unfair that someone who wasn't even charged (or more accurately, had charges dropped) could be punished like this. On the other hand, I know there's more going on here than we know about and I'm glad ISU is trying to do the right thing.
On some level it seems a bit unfair that someone who wasn't even charged (or more accurately, had charges dropped) could be punished like this. On the other hand, I know there's more going on here than we know about and I'm glad ISU is trying to do the right thing.
I have seen it said a couple of times that Bubu was "acquitted", which means found not guilty. That is not the case. Rather, his case was not finally tried as the prosecuters chose not to go forward with charges. That can mean they no longer thought him actually guilty based on new evidence, but from what I have read, it sounds like they didn't feel their evidence was enough to convict so they did not push the case.
Lots of questions on who appealed, but it looks like it had to be one of the original complaintants...can't be too many that fit that description.
Last edited:
I agree with the sane people on this thread who understand that double jeopardy doesn't apply here, and shouldn't even be near this thread. Federal law is COMPLETELY different than a student conduct policy, and by no means should a university be required to follow the same restrictions, since the ultimate consequence is either prison or not playing on a basketball team, respectively.
Also, it is not a surprise that the semester begins and the judiciary committee comes back together for the fall to make their recommendations to the president. The timing of the press release was deliberate, but the timing of the decision is not an indication of something "fishy".
Also, it is not a surprise that the semester begins and the judiciary committee comes back together for the fall to make their recommendations to the president. The timing of the press release was deliberate, but the timing of the decision is not an indication of something "fishy".
- Status
