wouldnt chol have to sit out 2 years?
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Transfer that Boyle is targeting?
- Thread starter SECOBuffsFan
- Start date
Nope. This ain't the Big 12. The Pac-12 goes by the NCAA rules and does not impose an extra penalty for transferring within the conference.
(Last time I checked, anyway. Those were the Pac-10 bylaws.)
Sit out a year plus lose a year of eligibility plus no athletic financial aid during that year. http://compliance.pac-12.org/thetools/4yrtrans.pdf
Buffs1987
New Member
Here is a pretty good article on how he came to the US at age 6 as a war refugee from Sudan.
http://azstarnet.com/sports/basketb...cle_c5fba741-3139-5e7f-8c95-5c4e14375455.html
Wow. That does sound like the sort of situation that might get 9 votes from Pac-12 members to waive the penalty (if Arizona was supportive of that).
We shouldn't get hopes up here, though. I completely expect Chol to pick a school from another conference and it's highly doubtful we have room anyway.
We shouldn't get hopes up here, though. I completely expect Chol to pick a school from another conference and it's highly doubtful we have room anyway.
Buffs1987
New Member
After reading that article and some of the ones written when he announced that he's transferring it sounds like he will land at San Diego State.
Understatement of the year. :lol:
This is already a MONUMENTAL week for CU hoops - including the announced national game against Okie State at the MGM. Another big move this week might be more than my heart can take.
Maybe, maybe not.
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
Well if it's a '13 guy about the only guys left who would be considered "crazy" pick ups would be Wiggins or Allerik Freeman, or is it a '14 guy.
He's a shooter in this class. '13
This is kind of fun in May, isn't it? I'm just waiting for the last one to pop. It's hard to have too many big, athletic, inside-outside threats.
ZKobalt
Well-Known Member
Seems like he was kicked out cause of constant plagiarism. Doubt we were getting him before that so I doubt that matters.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
hsu
New Member
It sounds like it's Michael Dixon. Jason King at ESPN has an article on transfer season up today, and it includes the following blurb:
jwhite17
Member
I would definitely take Dixon for a one year rental even with his history because we could use some senior experience. He would provide Ski some excellent competition at the 2 guard spot, give us some much needed senior leadership(mills doesn't count), and he could even fill in at the point when Dinwiddie needs rest.
Ski would definitely have the head start on him, but if Ski starts shooting 25% from the field every game, I'd rather see him come off the bench and give us a spark. That might be his best role anyway. I thought he was much better as a frosh than a sophomore.
I hope we get Dixon, and he will help our freshmen come along without putting too much pressure on them to score.
It sounds like he has great "locker room character". By this, I mean he works hard, is a well-liked teammate, and is extremely focused on winning.
His character away from the court is what has been called into question. Two incidents that didn't result in even having to speak to police but got him dismissed from the program. Tad would need to fully vet him.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
:wtf:Complacent leadership and piss poor coaching hires brought down the football team.
Not sure how this is relevant. Completely different situation. I'll leave it up to Boyle and Bohn to determine if potential off court issues could be a problem.
Was not.
A very long post about the Dixon situation from a guy I know on another forum who's pretty close to the Missouri program:
(a link to the discussion that generated this post) t
http://tippingpitchers.com/showthread.php?t=82854&page=52&highlight=Michael+Dixon
triggercut, do you think Dixon is staying or going?
I honestly don't know.
I know this: it's a real mess, compounded.
The faculty on the Student Conduct Committee did Chancellor Deaton no favors whatsoever on this. None. He's got an almost unplayable hand in front of him now as regards his decision.
What I do know:
1. The Columbia police and Boone County prosecutor's office aren't much on special treatment of star Missouri athletes as regards matters of assault, sexual or otherwise, on women. Ask Ricky Clemons or Derrick Washington or Anthony Peeler. Those fellows all got charged. Derrick Washington--whose offense was similar to what Dixon did--got 5 years in jail (he did about 12 months plus time served plus probation) and now has to register as a sex offender. So...I'm guessing that Michael Dixon isn't going to get star treatment from the prosecutor's office. They declined to prosecute. The detectives working this case investigated and made two unsuccessful phone calls to talk to Dixon, but then dropped the matter and never spoke with him. I am not a lawyer, but if I were Mike Dixon's attorney, that would be significant to me.
2. I am reliably informed that Dixon escaped the Student Conduct Committee by the skin of his teeth during his sophomore year. Dixon was brought up on pretty cut-and-dried academic dishonesty charges, and by rights should have been dismissed from the University. Then-coach Mike Anderson went to bat and pulled strings and did all he could to keep Dixon in school. In the end, Dixon got all sorts of team punishments (including being suspended from games) and was allowed to stay in school...with a warning that he had to keep his nose clean and never do anything to be brought up in front of the committee again (insert Double Secret Probation joke). Dixon apparently got caught up in the fun of having two teammates and friends get drafted into the NBA this summer and missed classes, didn't make grades, and had his GPA drop below the level required to stay in the Business School at Mizzou, and he was dropped there. Dixon had to go through normal channels to get an appeal to get accepted into the Ag school (which is also restaurant/hospitality management and stuff like that). I'm told that no special provisions were made here--Dixon's grades were still good enough to get into Ag school, and he got accepted...but at any event, that further upset the academics who'd told him to mind his p's and q's when he'd been brought up on academic dishonesty charges. And so Dixon's accuser in this rape/not rape event brings that to the Student Conduct Committee, who hear her out, hear him out, and recommend his expulsion from school.
Not only Gabe, but someone connected to the school's academic circles described the situation in an email to a few of us as "Imagine your kid does something wrong and you let him off the hook too easy and know you let him off...and then he does something fairly minor and you read him the riot act way out of proportion for what he did the second time because you didn't get on his case enough the first time." That's a good analogy, and I think that's pretty much what the Student Conduct Committee did here. But....
3. IF that's what has happened here, I think Michael Dixon has some grounds to be very litigious here. Again, I am not a lawyer...but if I were and representing Dixon, I would point out a few things to the University of Missouri. I would point out that if they wanted to expel my client for academic dishonesty...they should have done so. I would point out that the Student Conduct Committee was expelling my client from school on charges so flimsy that the normally aggressive Columbia police and Boone County Prosecutor's office declined to charge and by their actions seemed to utterly dismiss within a day or two of taking the report from the victim. I would point out that expelling a student on an uncharged crime based upon a police report sets a very, very dangerous standard at the University, one that probably would interest a judge very much. I would finally point out that by taking my client's prior malfeasances into account and expelling him on the basis of this police report effectively amounts to the University of Missouri calling my client a sex offender and rapist, which carry a much greater stigma in society than being a guy who cheated on a test or plagiarized a paper or blew off classes. I think then that I'd hand the Provost a check and tell him or her to sign it, and that Mr. Dixon and I would fill out the amount for them.
4. On the other side of things, I can sure see the point of folks who would be exceptionally upset with the University for allowing Michael Dixon to continue to study or participate in athletics there. You read that report and there's no denying it: Michael Dixon is a dirtbag. The girl here said "No" pretty clearly. I don't know why she rolled over and actively participated in a sex act that she felt was rape. I don't know why she gave the guy a hand job at the end of something she perceived as rape. I don't know why she texted Michael Dixon moments after an event she perceived as rape and asked him to call her to go out on another date. She did those things. She also said "No."
It's all above my paygrade, frankly. I'm not smart enough to figure out the best answer here. I'm not sure anyone is.
(a link to the discussion that generated this post) t
http://tippingpitchers.com/showthread.php?t=82854&page=52&highlight=Michael+Dixon
triggercut, do you think Dixon is staying or going?
I honestly don't know.
I know this: it's a real mess, compounded.
The faculty on the Student Conduct Committee did Chancellor Deaton no favors whatsoever on this. None. He's got an almost unplayable hand in front of him now as regards his decision.
What I do know:
1. The Columbia police and Boone County prosecutor's office aren't much on special treatment of star Missouri athletes as regards matters of assault, sexual or otherwise, on women. Ask Ricky Clemons or Derrick Washington or Anthony Peeler. Those fellows all got charged. Derrick Washington--whose offense was similar to what Dixon did--got 5 years in jail (he did about 12 months plus time served plus probation) and now has to register as a sex offender. So...I'm guessing that Michael Dixon isn't going to get star treatment from the prosecutor's office. They declined to prosecute. The detectives working this case investigated and made two unsuccessful phone calls to talk to Dixon, but then dropped the matter and never spoke with him. I am not a lawyer, but if I were Mike Dixon's attorney, that would be significant to me.
2. I am reliably informed that Dixon escaped the Student Conduct Committee by the skin of his teeth during his sophomore year. Dixon was brought up on pretty cut-and-dried academic dishonesty charges, and by rights should have been dismissed from the University. Then-coach Mike Anderson went to bat and pulled strings and did all he could to keep Dixon in school. In the end, Dixon got all sorts of team punishments (including being suspended from games) and was allowed to stay in school...with a warning that he had to keep his nose clean and never do anything to be brought up in front of the committee again (insert Double Secret Probation joke). Dixon apparently got caught up in the fun of having two teammates and friends get drafted into the NBA this summer and missed classes, didn't make grades, and had his GPA drop below the level required to stay in the Business School at Mizzou, and he was dropped there. Dixon had to go through normal channels to get an appeal to get accepted into the Ag school (which is also restaurant/hospitality management and stuff like that). I'm told that no special provisions were made here--Dixon's grades were still good enough to get into Ag school, and he got accepted...but at any event, that further upset the academics who'd told him to mind his p's and q's when he'd been brought up on academic dishonesty charges. And so Dixon's accuser in this rape/not rape event brings that to the Student Conduct Committee, who hear her out, hear him out, and recommend his expulsion from school.
Not only Gabe, but someone connected to the school's academic circles described the situation in an email to a few of us as "Imagine your kid does something wrong and you let him off the hook too easy and know you let him off...and then he does something fairly minor and you read him the riot act way out of proportion for what he did the second time because you didn't get on his case enough the first time." That's a good analogy, and I think that's pretty much what the Student Conduct Committee did here. But....
3. IF that's what has happened here, I think Michael Dixon has some grounds to be very litigious here. Again, I am not a lawyer...but if I were and representing Dixon, I would point out a few things to the University of Missouri. I would point out that if they wanted to expel my client for academic dishonesty...they should have done so. I would point out that the Student Conduct Committee was expelling my client from school on charges so flimsy that the normally aggressive Columbia police and Boone County Prosecutor's office declined to charge and by their actions seemed to utterly dismiss within a day or two of taking the report from the victim. I would point out that expelling a student on an uncharged crime based upon a police report sets a very, very dangerous standard at the University, one that probably would interest a judge very much. I would finally point out that by taking my client's prior malfeasances into account and expelling him on the basis of this police report effectively amounts to the University of Missouri calling my client a sex offender and rapist, which carry a much greater stigma in society than being a guy who cheated on a test or plagiarized a paper or blew off classes. I think then that I'd hand the Provost a check and tell him or her to sign it, and that Mr. Dixon and I would fill out the amount for them.
4. On the other side of things, I can sure see the point of folks who would be exceptionally upset with the University for allowing Michael Dixon to continue to study or participate in athletics there. You read that report and there's no denying it: Michael Dixon is a dirtbag. The girl here said "No" pretty clearly. I don't know why she rolled over and actively participated in a sex act that she felt was rape. I don't know why she gave the guy a hand job at the end of something she perceived as rape. I don't know why she texted Michael Dixon moments after an event she perceived as rape and asked him to call her to go out on another date. She did those things. She also said "No."
It's all above my paygrade, frankly. I'm not smart enough to figure out the best answer here. I'm not sure anyone is.
Last edited: