The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(06-28-2019 06:50 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  If every recruit who received a BJ and a nudie pic from one of their HS peers were not allowed to play CBB the sport would have to fold due to no eligible players. If we didn’t sign him, somebody dy else would have. If XU signed this kid Mo and DeCourcey would not have said squat, and Paul Daugherty would be writing about how Sister Rose was going to turn this kid into a
future Nobel Prize winner and the XU coaching staff would make him him a legend in the court.

Hell, Xavier was all set to take Jake Walter who is now a convicted sex offender and is facing additional felony charges for 2 counts of sodomy and one count of rape in the first (different act than the first conviction). What Harvey did was not in the same stratosphere as what Walter did.

(06-28-2019 07:58 AM)skylinecat Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:50 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  If every recruit who received a BJ and a nudie pic from one of their HS peers were not allowed to play CBB the sport would have to fold due to no eligible players. If we didn’t sign him, somebody dy else would have. If XU signed this kid Mo and DeCourcey would not have said squat, and Paul Daugherty would be writing about how Sister Rose was going to turn this kid into a
future Nobel Prize winner and the XU coaching staff would make him him a legend in the court.

Hell, Xavier was all set to take Jake Walter who is now a convicted sex offender and is facing additional felony charges for 2 counts of sodomy and one count of rape in the first (different act than the first conviction). What Harvey did was not in the same stratosphere as what Walter did.

They did take Jake Walter. They only kicked him off the team after he got busted for his second offense (he had one the year before he got there). I didn't hear a peep from the Cincinnati media about this-- all I heard was how excited they were to get Joe Walter's son and a Cov Cath kid.

(06-27-2019 07:42 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 07:19 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  Was it Decoursey who put out the un named sources piece that UC offered Mick a pay cut?

Yep! He's also the guy who didnt write articles when Mick signed a young man who threw his girlfriend down a staircase or let a kid come back who reportedly punched three people (including a woman) at a night club whole he was a player here.

You make an excellent point. Lance was an elite recruit who became available late in the recruiting cycle and certainly had baggage and Mick got a free pass in the local media on that one.

I like the way UC is handling this situation, especially with the statement released from Mike Bohn. Basically it sets the stage for any "next" incident to be the first and last for Harvey at UC. If he can meet that standard, he may become a great Bearcat. If not, neither he, nor our fans, can ever suggest he didn't know the expectation for personal behavior as a student athlete at UC.

I don't recall ever seeing a statement like that from the athletic director across town when their players broke the law or embarrassed their program and then returned to the court. Make no mistake about it though, there is a double standard with the local media and UC won't get a free pass when any student athlete makes a mistake.

(06-28-2019 06:12 AM)MickMack Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 06:51 PM)QSECOFR Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 06:43 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  One thing's for sure, if we did not land this kid there were plenty of other suitors that would've. This social media stuff involving "sexting" between MINORS is not uncommon. Doesn't make it right but it happens a lot. The kid didn't assault anyone, breaking and entering, theft, vandalism, selling weed, etc. He made a mistake and he's owned up to it. Move on and get it done on/off the court and in the classroom.

The original charges involved quite a bit more than what you indicate. It was alleged in the charges that he tried to coerce the young lady into performing sex acts.

Via the plea bargain, he was never convicted of that. To be sure, there was more than “you show me yours and I’ll show you mine” going on.

To be sure? Really? Where's your proof? Not sure what commie infested remote location you're posting from. But here, in America, you're innocent until proven guilty. If the original charges were so self-evident why did they take a plea deal?

1) A poster asked about the charges and I posted facts.

2) Some posters pretended the original felony charges didn't exist. I corrected that notion.

3) I am not, not have I ever, been associated any communist or socialist party. Moreover, I have been a resident of Hamilton County, Ohio for the entirety of my life.

4) I never said that he was guilty before a trial occurred and you know that to be true.

5) You are assuming that the prosecution is the party who first proffered a deal. Other than the two parties and their respective legal representatives, I am willing to bet that you don't know who first brought up a plea deal. Interestingly enough, that doesn't seem to be a problem for you to post "facts".

(06-28-2019 11:53 AM)QSECOFR Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:12 AM)MickMack Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 06:51 PM)QSECOFR Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 06:43 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  One thing's for sure, if we did not land this kid there were plenty of other suitors that would've. This social media stuff involving "sexting" between MINORS is not uncommon. Doesn't make it right but it happens a lot. The kid didn't assault anyone, breaking and entering, theft, vandalism, selling weed, etc. He made a mistake and he's owned up to it. Move on and get it done on/off the court and in the classroom.

The original charges involved quite a bit more than what you indicate. It was alleged in the charges that he tried to coerce the young lady into performing sex acts.

Via the plea bargain, he was never convicted of that. To be sure, there was more than “you show me yours and I’ll show you mine” going on.

To be sure? Really? Where's your proof? Not sure what commie infested remote location you're posting from. But here, in America, you're innocent until proven guilty. If the original charges were so self-evident why did they take a plea deal?

1) A poster asked about the charges and I posted facts.

2) Some posters pretended the original felony charges didn't exist. I corrected that notion.

3) I am not, not have I ever, been associated any communist or socialist party. Moreover, I have been a resident of Hamilton County, Ohio for the entirety of my life.

4) I never said that he was guilty before a trial occurred and you know that to be true.

5) You are assuming that the prosecution is the party who first proffered a deal. Other than the two parties and their respective legal representatives, I am willing to bet that you don't know who first brought up a plea deal. Interestingly enough, that doesn't seem to be a problem for you to post "facts".

As someone who does a lot of Juvenile cases, I will say at least 50% of my cases are overcharged from the beginning. I get a ton of reductions based on the fact that prosecutors can't possibly make the case that has been charged by officers. Even when prosecutors don't want to give a reduction, when you force their hand and set it for trial they often have to amend their complaint knowing as is they won't get it. I had a Inducing Panic Case charged as an F2 based on an enhancement that clearly wasn't warranted by the statute (normally it's an M1 charge in Ohio). The prosecutor acted like she was doing me a favor offering an F5 and even complained to the judge that we wouldn't plea to any Felony because I knew they couldn't make it.

The reporting I've read on this case seems to indicate everything that happened was consensual. I don't know the specific Kansas laws so I don't know if the felony or misdemeanor was the appropriate charge, but I think the important information (at least that's out there) was this was a 16 year old having inappropriate picture/video of a 15 year old in a consensual situation. UC is taking it seriously as they should, but I also don't think it's a reflection of a bad kid.

The MickPologists are fully triggered over this one. I love it.

(06-28-2019 12:02 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 11:53 AM)QSECOFR Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:12 AM)MickMack Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 06:51 PM)QSECOFR Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 06:43 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  One thing's for sure, if we did not land this kid there were plenty of other suitors that would've. This social media stuff involving "sexting" between MINORS is not uncommon. Doesn't make it right but it happens a lot. The kid didn't assault anyone, breaking and entering, theft, vandalism, selling weed, etc. He made a mistake and he's owned up to it. Move on and get it done on/off the court and in the classroom.

The original charges involved quite a bit more than what you indicate. It was alleged in the charges that he tried to coerce the young lady into performing sex acts.

Via the plea bargain, he was never convicted of that. To be sure, there was more than “you show me yours and I’ll show you mine” going on.

To be sure? Really? Where's your proof? Not sure what commie infested remote location you're posting from. But here, in America, you're innocent until proven guilty. If the original charges were so self-evident why did they take a plea deal?

1) A poster asked about the charges and I posted facts.

2) Some posters pretended the original felony charges didn't exist. I corrected that notion.

3) I am not, not have I ever, been associated any communist or socialist party. Moreover, I have been a resident of Hamilton County, Ohio for the entirety of my life.

4) I never said that he was guilty before a trial occurred and you know that to be true.

5) You are assuming that the prosecution is the party who first proffered a deal. Other than the two parties and their respective legal representatives, I am willing to bet that you don't know who first brought up a plea deal. Interestingly enough, that doesn't seem to be a problem for you to post "facts".

As someone who does a lot of Juvenile cases, I will say at least 50% of my cases are overcharged from the beginning. I get a ton of reductions based on the fact that prosecutors can't possibly make the case that has been charged by officers. Even when prosecutors don't want to give a reduction, when you force their hand and set it for trial they often have to amend their complaint knowing as is they won't get it. I had a Inducing Panic Case charged as an F2 based on an enhancement that clearly wasn't warranted by the statute (normally it's an M1 charge in Ohio). The prosecutor acted like she was doing me a favor offering an F5 and even complained to the judge that we wouldn't plea to any Felony because I knew they couldn't make it.

The reporting I've read on this case seems to indicate everything that happened was consensual. I don't know the specific Kansas laws so I don't know if the felony or misdemeanor was the appropriate charge, but I think the important information (at least that's out there) was this was a 16 year old having inappropriate picture/video of a 15 year old in a consensual situation. UC is taking it seriously as they should, but I also don't think it's a reflection of a bad kid.

Based on what I've seen on twitter, it seems like he has a very supportive family. His mom and grandmother, in particular, come across as strong women who want him to succeed will be keeping a close on eye him (in addition to the UC staff and the athletic department). I could be proven to be wrong over time, but I think we'll not regret signing this kid.

(06-28-2019 12:23 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 12:02 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 11:53 AM)QSECOFR Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:12 AM)MickMack Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 06:51 PM)QSECOFR Wrote:  The original charges involved quite a bit more than what you indicate. It was alleged in the charges that he tried to coerce the young lady into performing sex acts.

Via the plea bargain, he was never convicted of that. To be sure, there was more than “you show me yours and I’ll show you mine” going on.

To be sure? Really? Where's your proof? Not sure what commie infested remote location you're posting from. But here, in America, you're innocent until proven guilty. If the original charges were so self-evident why did they take a plea deal?

1) A poster asked about the charges and I posted facts.

2) Some posters pretended the original felony charges didn't exist. I corrected that notion.

3) I am not, not have I ever, been associated any communist or socialist party. Moreover, I have been a resident of Hamilton County, Ohio for the entirety of my life.

4) I never said that he was guilty before a trial occurred and you know that to be true.

5) You are assuming that the prosecution is the party who first proffered a deal. Other than the two parties and their respective legal representatives, I am willing to bet that you don't know who first brought up a plea deal. Interestingly enough, that doesn't seem to be a problem for you to post "facts".

As someone who does a lot of Juvenile cases, I will say at least 50% of my cases are overcharged from the beginning. I get a ton of reductions based on the fact that prosecutors can't possibly make the case that has been charged by officers. Even when prosecutors don't want to give a reduction, when you force their hand and set it for trial they often have to amend their complaint knowing as is they won't get it. I had a Inducing Panic Case charged as an F2 based on an enhancement that clearly wasn't warranted by the statute (normally it's an M1 charge in Ohio). The prosecutor acted like she was doing me a favor offering an F5 and even complained to the judge that we wouldn't plea to any Felony because I knew they couldn't make it.

The reporting I've read on this case seems to indicate everything that happened was consensual. I don't know the specific Kansas laws so I don't know if the felony or misdemeanor was the appropriate charge, but I think the important information (at least that's out there) was this was a 16 year old having inappropriate picture/video of a 15 year old in a consensual situation. UC is taking it seriously as they should, but I also don't think it's a reflection of a bad kid.

Based on what I've seen on twitter, it seems like he has a very supportive family. His mom and grandmother, in particular, come across as strong women who want him to succeed will be keeping a close on eye him (in addition to the UC staff and the athletic department). I could be proven to be wrong over time, but I think we'll not regret signing this kid.

My hope as well. He deserves the benefit of the doubt, as does CJB. If he messes it up CJB will have to own it.

I think everyone needs to chill. Sounds like he was 16 and she 15 at the time of the photo. She apparently consented.

Some might suggest the penalty of ending up in the AAC and not a P5 is punishment enough.

Look the Eggsaver guard exposed his shortcomings and the press largely ignored it.

(06-28-2019 12:02 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  As someone who does a lot of Juvenile cases, I will say at least 50% of my cases are overcharged from the beginning. I get a ton of reductions based on the fact that prosecutors can't possibly make the case that has been charged by officers. Even when prosecutors don't want to give a reduction, when you force their hand and set it for trial they often have to amend their complaint knowing as is they won't get it. I had a Inducing Panic Case charged as an F2 based on an enhancement that clearly wasn't warranted by the statute (normally it's an M1 charge in Ohio). The prosecutor acted like she was doing me a favor offering an F5 and even complained to the judge that we wouldn't plea to any Felony because I knew they couldn't make it.

The reporting I've read on this case seems to indicate everything that happened was consensual. I don't know the specific Kansas laws so I don't know if the felony or misdemeanor was the appropriate charge, but I think the important information (at least that's out there) was this was a 16 year old having inappropriate picture/video of a 15 year old in a consensual situation. UC is taking it seriously as they should, but I also don't think it's a reflection of a bad kid.

Great information Counselor. I'll trust your knowledge on this subject above anyone else's posting here. It would seem the punishment fit the crime in this case. Again, let the kid grow from it and move on unless he proves otherwise.

(06-28-2019 08:04 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 07:58 AM)skylinecat Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:50 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  If every recruit who received a BJ and a nudie pic from one of their HS peers were not allowed to play CBB the sport would have to fold due to no eligible players. If we didn’t sign him, somebody dy else would have. If XU signed this kid Mo and DeCourcey would not have said squat, and Paul Daugherty would be writing about how Sister Rose was going to turn this kid into a
future Nobel Prize winner and the XU coaching staff would make him him a legend in the court.

Hell, Xavier was all set to take Jake Walter who is now a convicted sex offender and is facing additional felony charges for 2 counts of sodomy and one count of rape in the first (different act than the first conviction). What Harvey did was not in the same stratosphere as what Walter did.

They did take Jake Walter. They only kicked him off the team after he got busted for his second offense (he had one the year before he got there). I didn't hear a peep from the Cincinnati media about this-- all I heard was how excited they were to get Joe Walter's son and a Cov Cath kid.

He’s still got X on his Twitter. Not that he’s twittering from jail.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jakewalter44?lang=en

The nice thing about Mick apologists is that they wont have nearly the same half life of Huggins apologists when Branen starts winning

There’s no reason to apologize for Coach Huggins. He’s the man.

(06-27-2019 04:03 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Mo Egger is one of UC's best pundits and biggest fans. He's asking a valid question. Stop it.

Okay Mo, you're drunk. Go home. No need to make fake screen names to boost your self esteem. If Mo Egger is one of Cincinnati's best pundits than that's an indictment on the entire city. Literally all he does is spew his same argument, in minimally different verbage, over the entire segment that has little basis, content, or originality.

That Rapien kid provided more insight and and information than Mo ever has.

(06-28-2019 09:27 PM)Sweetness Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 04:03 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Mo Egger is one of UC's best pundits and biggest fans. He's asking a valid question. Stop it.

Okay Mo, you're drunk. Go home. No need to make fake screen names to boost your self esteem. If Mo Egger is one of Cincinnati's best pundits than that's an indictment on the entire city. Literally all he does is spew his same argument, in minimally different verbage, over the entire segment that has little basis, content, or originality.

That Rapien kid provided more insight and and information than Mo ever has.

Mo has been pretty fair to UC. He's more apt to paint UC in a good light than any of the other local radio folk, or to even talk about them for that matter. Also is a regular on UC athletic event broadcasts.

(06-28-2019 08:52 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  There’s no reason to apologize for Coach Huggins. He’s the man.

Agreed. There's also no reason to apologize for Coach Cronin. Both took over our program when it was down and built it into a remarkably consistent winner over the long haul in solid conferences.

And finally, there's no reason to apologize for the job Coach Brannen has done so far. But let's win some games before we celebrate too much. He's taking over a better situation than either of those two, but the fact remains we'll be very lucky if he wins as many games over his career at UC as Huggins and Cronin did at UC.

He doesn't update his blog anymore because he writes for the Athletic now, but if you ever read some of Mo's personal stuff you'd understand he's just as much a bearcat fan as anyone on this board.

(06-29-2019 03:38 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  He doesn't update his blog anymore because he writes for the Athletic now, but if you ever read some of Mo's personal stuff you'd understand he's just as much a bearcat fan as anyone on this board.

I'm not saying he's not a fan or doesn't try to promote UC. I'm saying I think he's a poor communicator/talker and doesn't provide much insight or originality with his takes.

(06-28-2019 07:13 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  The nice thing about Mick apologists is that they wont have nearly the same half life of Huggins apologists when Branen starts winning

How about those that didn't believe there needed to be apologies for Huggins? There's a hell of a lot of us out here.

Most of the Mick apologists are Nancy fans. They are few in number comparitively.

I'm in that camp and extremely happy that Nancy's Coach is finally gone and the dark shadow has finally been lifted from MBB.

(06-28-2019 01:34 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Great information Counselor. I'll trust your knowledge on this subject above anyone else's posting here. It would seem the punishment fit the crime in this case. Again, let the kid grow from it and move on unless he proves otherwise.

Jeezus, I didn’t think ANYONE could have judgement that poor.