Xavier v. Cincinnati Fight - School-Imposed Punishments

by TheBigE on Dec 11, 2011 6:27 PM CST

Xavier and Cincinnati head coaches have handed down their self-imposed punishments following the fight that ended the game on Saturday:

Cincinnati:

Yancy Gates: 6 games
Cheikh Mbodj: 6 games
Octavious Ellis: 6 games
Ge'Lawn Guyn: 1 game

Close. While I give Mick Cronin credit for handing out some hefty punishment, as well as force his guys to apologize in front of the camera prior to playing again, it's not enough. Mbodj stomped on a guy. Yancy Gates threw at least four punches, connecting with two, and tried to pick fistfights with other players. The Mbodj suspension should be 8-10 games, and Gates should be done for the year. I still believe Cronin should be suspended himself for three games for not having control of his team.

Xavier:

Tu Holloway: 1 game
Dez Wells: 4 games
Landen Amos: 4 games
Mark Lyons: 2 games

Pathetic. Head Coach Chris Mack is essentially saying that "yeah, we got into a fight, but it wasn't our fault." He's also saying that preserving a Top-10 ranking is more important than sending the right message. Bullshit. Your guys were running their mouths the whole game, and that STARTED the damn fight. Mack says Tu gets one game because of his comments he made afterward. He also says Wells and Amos will go with the team to Honolulu, they just won't play. So Holloway was completely not at fault for the confrontation that started the fight in the second half? Really? Because video footage doesn't show him walking away.

I still stand by the assessment that Holloway should be done for the year. If he doesn't run his mouth at the end of the game, nothing happens. He's a senior, he should know better. Wells and Amos should get 5 games minimum. Lyons should get at least 8: 5 for the end of the game fight, 2 for the spat at the end of the first half, and 1 for his "tweedle-dumb, tweedle-dumber" post-game presser with Holloway. Mack himself should be absent for three games for the same reason as Cronin.

These guys perform criminal acts of assault at a school-sponsored event, but I'm the one that is in debt for my college education? What a waste. What a travesty.

All comments, FanPosts and FanShots reflect only the view of the user creating them.

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Not surprising but dissapointing.

The time for calm and rational discourse is past, now is the time for senseless bickering -Anonymous the Younger
BOTC - Read the Adventures of the BigXII if you doubt our serious attitude towards sports.

by Anon_the_younger on Dec 11, 2011 9:54 PM CST reply actions

So, you think Halloway should be suspended for the entire year

because he made some stupid comments at the end of the game? Really?

Listen, I’m not condoning the smack talk, I think it is childish and counter-productive. But it’s just that, talk. Nobody forced anybody to start a brawl.

I’ll agree that maybe 1 game is not enough, but a whole season? I think that is out of line.

Saying somebody “started” a fight by talking smack is shifting the blame. The person who made the first contact started the fight. Period. End of discussion. That would be Dez Wells who started this fight, not Halloway.

Halloway’s smack talk should not be encouraged, but it should not merit equal or worse punishment than the guy who actually initiated contact. That is the FAR greater sin.

I mean, you yourself are calling for only an 8-10 game suspension for a guy who STOMPED on a player, but you want suspend a player for the entire year because he was talking smack that “started” the fight. You also say that Wells should only be suspended 5 games, even though he was the one who actually started the fight by initiating contact.

I just think that you are be wildly inconsistent and unfair in determination of what an appropriate punishment would be. Halloway’s actions, while not exemplary, are a far cry worse than many of the player’s for whom you only call for a multi-game suspension. I happen to think Halloway should get 3 games probably, and the other guys should get more, but in relation to what Wells and Amos received I think that Halloway’s punishment was proportionally appropriate.

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Dec 11, 2011 10:32 PM CST reply actions

The point isn't necessarily what's fair, per se. The point is to make an example of it.

I think he should be suspended as much as those that were active in the fight for his confrontation with 9.4 seconds left. If he keeps his mouth shut and walks away, the fight never happens. I don’t care if he threw a punch or not – he is absolutely as guilty as anyone from Cincinnati for the fact that it started in the first place. It is not shifting the blame – it is including in the blame. I think Gates should be done for the year. Tu Holloway is every bit as guilty in my mind as Dez Wells, who, if you want to get down to the nitty-gritty, was just protecting his player (Holloway), who got shoved in the face before Wells stepped in. This is just how I see it. I believe that we spend too much time focusing on what happened, instead of why it happened. Holloway walks away, like an experienced senior should, and the fight never happens.

If you read my previous post about this, you’d also understand that the feeling for the “excessive” suspension does not hinge solely on the fact that his jawing is what started it. It also takes into account the fact that he jumps up on the scorer’s table after the fight and eggs the crowd on. Then he makes the comments that he did in the press conference afterward, referring to Xavier as “gangsters” and wanting to “zip them up”. Completely out of line. This is clearly a person who has no concept of the ramifications of his words. I simply do not agree that just because he didn’t throw a punch he’s not just as guilty.

So, maybe the rest of the season is excessive for Holloway. I could live with Gates OUT, Mbodj 8-10, Ellis 6, Wells 8-10, Holloway 6, and Amos 6. Lyons suspension of 2 seems appropriate, since he really didn’t get mixed up in the fight at the end of the game.

I really think Cronin tried to do the right thing with the suspensions he handed down. Mack just didn’t get there, for one reason or another. Either he thinks his guys aren’t to blame (as much), or he’s underhandedly trying to keep his Top-10 ranking. Regardless, it takes two to tango – Cincinnati did not act alone.

A good question for you: Do you think the referees are partially to blame? Do you think the coaches are partially to blame?

The overwhelming point though, however, you completely missed. It’s not so much exactly who gets what games – that was just a quick attempt by myself to explain the gravity of the situation. Its that an example HAS to be made of this, and under no circumstances will behavior such as this be tolerated in any fashion. To do that takes a heavy hand – a hand heavier than has been levied by these two coaches so far.

Oh, come on now. That's just stupid.
Twitter - @BigE_29er

by TheBigE on Dec 11, 2011 11:29 PM CST up reply actions

I will also point out what I said in my other post regarding "comparative suspensions"...

Jake Pullen got 3 games (10% of the season) for getting <$100 in clothing discounts. Curt got 5 for marginally more dollar value.

What everyone did in that fight – whether it be by fists, or feet, or yes, words – is orders of magnitude worse than what Pullen or Kelly did.

If someone can get a 5 game suspension for being gifted a couple of pairs of jeans and a sweater, then you better believe that those culpable for one of the worst fights in recent memory in NCAA basketball should get the book thrown at them.

Oh, come on now. That's just stupid.
Twitter - @BigE_29er

by TheBigE on Dec 11, 2011 11:36 PM CST up reply actions

I guess that's where we disagree.

Words are just words. I don’t care if Halloway said the most offensive thing you can think of, that gives nobody the right to start throwing punches. Giving Halloway a one game suspension, as short as it may be, is including him in the blame.

I couldn’t make out who actually initiated contact. To me it looked like Halloway and the Cincy guy were in each other’s faces, and then Wells came over and pushed the Cincy guy. Regardless, my point was that Halloway didn’t initiate contact, and therefore didn’t start the fight.

And I completely disagree with the concept of “making an example” out of them. You give them a fair punishment for what they did, not some sort of extreme punishment to make an example out of them.

Halloway’s actions were out of line and deserve punishment. I even said in my original comment that I thought he should get more games. My “comparative suspensions” comment wasn’t in regards to Pullen and Kelly, it was in relation to what Wells and others did and the amount of time they were missing.

I like your revised suspension model much better. The reason I didn’t comment on your other post was because I was less informed of the topic at the time. I did think your punishments seemed harsh at the time, but I wasn’t going to disagree with you when I didn’t really know much about what happened. Also, I was trying to limit my comment to what you wrote in this post; I didn’t want to make any assumptions about your current (and possibly changed) opinions on the matter.

So, basically, I think you are giving undue attention to Halloway. The fact of the matter is ALL of the punishments fall short of the mark. Should he have been talking smack, or egging the crowd on, or saying stupid things at the press conference? Absolutely not. But let’s say he did all of those thing, but no fight happened. What punishment does he deserve then?

As for your question about the refs, the truthful answer is I don’t know. I know little to less about officiating a game and have given little thought as to how to handle that kind of situation. I’ve seen/heard many people who get mad when refs interfere too much and want them to just “let them play the game” (the WVU game comes to mind), but on the other hand you obviously don’t want to let things get to this point. So I’ll defer that argument (if there is one) to anybody else.

As for the coaches? Yes, they do have institutional blame, in that since they are the official leaders of the team, they deserve part of the blame for breeding or allowing a culture to be bred that would culminate in a situation like this. So yeah, they need to be punished too. I think the Xavier coach probably needs a larger suspension than the Cincy coach due to his handling of the situation post-fight (the relative length of suspensions and allowing his players to speak to the media afterwards). 2 and 4 games sounds good to me.

Halloway does not deserve that same treatment, because he is not an “official” leader. (by that I mean someone who is officially responsibly for the people under his command) Should we expect more out of him, because he is a senior? To an extent, yes, because generally we expect older people to act more mature. But don’t forget, he can’t be much older than 22, which is still a ripe age for hot-headed actions. Add in the fact that he obviously is part of an institutional environment that seems to be permissive of this kind of behavior, and it shouldn’t be too surprising that he acted this way. Finally, just because we expect him to act better doesn’t mean that he deserves a more punitive punishment than his actual actions justify.

To illustrate that point, imagine that a 40 year old starts a bar fight and gets arrested. Now imagine that somewhere else, a 22 year old does basically the same thing. Assuming this is the first offense for both parties, should that 40 year old get a harsher punishment because he is older and therefore should “know better”? No. They deserve equal punishment.

So then, would you be making the same argument if Halloway had been a freshman?

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Dec 12, 2011 5:47 AM CST up reply actions

Ah, fair enough.

Spirited debate, no? Guess that’s because we care.

At the end of the day, you’re probably closer to reality than I am on this issue. Call it getting wrapped up in it, call it “throwing it all on the wall and see what sticks”. Whatever it may be.

Actually stayed up past midnight last night trying to sort this out in my head. I probably am making Holloway shoulder too much of the blame. Your last illustration is well taken…they do deserve equal punishment.

I feel it is a complete moral breakdown if “fair” for Holloway’s involvement is viewed – in a quantity of games suspended – as “less severe” than a couple of jeans and a sweater. In my mind, I guess, what I see as “fair punishment” for the deeds could (and most likely is) viewed as “making an example”. So, calling a spade a spade, I’d like to see the authorities “make an example”.

The problem here is there is no real memorable precedent in NCAA basketball. Nothing to go back to and say “if X, then Y”. Effectively, this may create the precedent. These are just my opinions – and opinions are like noses. No hard feelings, just a debate.

Oh, come on now. That's just stupid.
Twitter - @BigE_29er

by TheBigE on Dec 12, 2011 8:28 AM CST up reply actions

We should pool these comments together and publish a novel.

You’re right about the precedent though. These needs to be thoroughly contemplated and the punishments need to be exacting, because it will set the standard. If you are too lax in the punishment, then you have less of an argument for handing out more sever punishments in the future if something like this were ever to occur again.

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Dec 12, 2011 8:37 AM CST up reply actions

*These = This

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Dec 12, 2011 8:38 AM CST up reply actions

I guess my issue with Holloway being punished for his initial involvement is this

Sports competition at all levels, be it beer league softball, Div 1 basketball, NFL, or sandlot football, all involves trash talk. Is it right? Not necessarily. Is it part of what goes on? Most certainly.

Did Holloway take it too far? Probably. But you and I don’t know exactly what was said. Maybe he said “your momma was a snowblower”…maybe he said “I’m gonna gut you like a pig when this game’s over”.

All that being said, what resulted from his trash talking is far worse (IMO) than a couple pairs of jeans and some sweaters. And I do feel he should be punished. But as Chris P said, had it ended with the trash talking, and a brawl had not ensued, would we (and you, BigE) be calling for multiple game suspension for Tu?

First to identify a TEWWT (so what if it was unintentional)

by Jeremy Sharp on Dec 12, 2011 5:32 PM CST up reply actions

Argh. I don't want to debate it any more, but I just can't help myself.

After all, I’ve got 5 minutes to kill here at work.

I agree that there is talking in sports competition, at any level. But there’s a difference between jawing back and forth, and getting in someone’s grill to the point where it provokes a reaction.

To answer your question, does Holloway deserve a multiple game suspension if the fight doesn’t start? Nope. He should have received a T, but not a suspension. But then the fight doesn’t happen, his post game antics egging the crowd on never occur, and the moronic (given the circumstances) appearance at the presser don’t happen in the same fashion.

It’s safe to assume that he didn’t stand toe-to-toe with a player from Cincinnati and discuss what he had for breakfast, but that doesn’t matter, either. The fact is that he said something that was enough to provoke the Cincinnati player into pushing him in the face, which is where Dez Wells steps in and the whole scenario ensues. Other camera angles apparently show Tu raising his right hand in response – to push, or punch; who knows – but doesn’t get a chance to actually follow through with that action because of Wells involvement at that point. Just what I’ve heard, and its just food for thought. He didn’t throw a punch or shove anyone, so that little tidbit is irrelevant for the time being.

I don’t think that someone should skate because they “just said something”, but whatever they said was enough to cause a flashpoint that created the whole mess. Which is why the punishment should be based not on absolute, but on context.

As an illustration, if I were to do 85 in a 75 with very few cars around, I might get a warning. If I do 85 in a 75, but my speeding causes an accident, I’m going to get the speeding ticket, maybe more. Context. I get to slide if it didn’t hurt anyone, but not if it did.

So no. Holloway, in my mind, wouldn’t receive a suspension if nothing else happened. But that’s not reality. Reality is that his verbal altercation was instrumental and a root cause of the fight. Furthermore, based on his actions and words after the fight was broken up, he clearly did not understand the ramifications of the words coming out of his mouth. Given the context, I believe a multiple game suspension is warranted.

Oh, come on now. That's just stupid.
Twitter - @BigE_29er

by TheBigE on Dec 12, 2011 6:14 PM CST up reply actions

Now, I totally agree, that POST altercation

he definitely did not handle things appropriately. And I think THAT falls on Chris Mack. What kind of tard lets players who have just been involved in an altercation such as this participate in a post game interview.

Yeah, his words did incite a brawl, but like I said, talk happens at every game, at every level of competition. And if Cincy had been winning the game, I doubt this would have happened (meaning that smack talk wouldn’t have meant shit to the Cincy player if all he had to do was say “scoreboard bitch”).

I guess, aside from the players actually throwing punches (and kicking guys in the head while on the floor), the guy I am most upset with is Mack. As you said, it definitely appears he is more concerned with the team being able to maintain their ranking, and compete at the level they have been competing at. I haven’t even seen anything he has said in response to this altercation.

First to identify a TEWWT (so what if it was unintentional)

by Jeremy Sharp on Dec 12, 2011 6:42 PM CST up reply actions

I just wanna know...

Why were any of the players even involved with the press conference after they had been FIGHTING during the game? It’s not like LeGarret Blount did interviews after the Boise State incident. Honestly these suspensions fall short of the mark but I think Mbodj, Gates, and Lyons should have all received indefinite suspensions like Blount did and gone through the same process. Blount missed most of the season and did come back at the end, but he never got any meaningful playing time. That is how this should’ve been handled.

Bobby Hill: What's a meat examination team?
Hank Hill: It's like a debate team, only instead of doing something useless you get to grade the cut and quality of meat!

by MeatGeek on Dec 12, 2011 6:18 AM CST reply actions 2 recs

+1

Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.

by mystman995 on Dec 12, 2011 8:27 AM CST up reply actions

I mentioned this before on another thread...

but if someone from KSU had done something like this you can bet that NO players would have been allowed to speak at the presser. That was beyond ludicrous for Xavier to allow. The only people that needed to have any words were both coaches and perhaps the Xavier AD. Epic fail.

The difference between a successful person and others is not a lack of strength, not a lack of knowledge, but rather in a lack of will. - Vince Lombardi

by Catbacker98 on Dec 12, 2011 11:48 AM CST up reply actions