Should Sean Miller be Fired for Yet Unproven Allegations?
So, given the current environment in College Sports and in many other aspects of current day life, should you fire someone because they were alleged to do something they shouldn't have?
It's a really good, deep question that now comes to the forefront in light of what is going on at Arizona and in College Basketball.
What do you do about Sean Miller?
Last week, the folks at ESPN came out with a scathing report saying Miller was a part of payments to players orchestrated through an agents middle-man.
The report, given by one of the 4-letter's best College Insiders, Mark Schlabach quoted multiple sources who've heard an FBI wiretap supposedly incriminating Miller.
But....the report did not have the actual audio and Miller has steadfastly denied it, going so far as to hold a News Conference to go on the attack against ESPN, who stands by Schlabach and the report, though Schlabach himself has struggled to stay consistent with the timeline of events he reported.
Which is not to say he was wrong...but.....
Miller was forced to sit out the Wildcats game on Saturday after the report came out and most everyone was immediately calling for his head.
But should they be?
The implication of such a "Thing" happening (the payoffs) is not shocking. I've talked at length about the seedy underworld of "Amateur" basketball and the big money involved. And the same FBI investigation Schlabach spoke of has been or is in the process of being exposed.
It's already claimed Rick Pitino, though Pitino's case was a little different in that he's had a long and sordid history of problems. And despite Pitino's half-hearted denials, the evidence was quite overwhelming against him.
Which leads me back to Miller.....
Should a coach be fired for unproven "Allegations"? Should anyone be immediately fired and branded for life due to "Allegations"? It seems to be de rigeur these days. The Entertainment industry is littered with careers ended in the past year due to sexual assault allegations. Some have been proven--some haven't. But if your name comes up in that business, you are done.
It's happened in other businesses too.
Miller has a legitimate case here. Whether he committed the acts he's accused of in the article or not, nothing has been proven and there's not concrete evidence at this point anything actually happened. Only the word of a handful of sources who spoke to a reporter.
And while that alone is enough to raise questions, it is not enough to convict. Even in this era of idiotic "Fake News" claims.
For those of you who don't like reporters---reporters do not "Make Up" stories. Yeah, sure, there have been maybe 5 or 6 incidents in the past 25-years where people plagiarized or just made stuff up, but it's not prevalent like Fearless Leader, Politicians and The Ministry of Propaganda would like you to believe.
Yeah, sure, Schlabach may end up being wrong. But a big part of investigative reporting is utilizing sources who you believe are telling you the truth. Be it someone who has helped you in the past, someone with a direct connection to what is happening or someone who knows about the things you are looking into, there's a trust factor involved.
Those sources are not always right. But if multiple people are telling you the same thing, there's a likelihood something is there. And if you trust or believe those sources aren't in cahoots, you report it.
Sometimes it turns out they are wrong. Reporting---despite what you may be lead to believe is NOT an exact science. Like every other job in existence, there's nobody who reports for a living with a career 1000% accuracy rate. And sometimes, when you are on TV, you say something that mis-state's what you said in a report. But it's live TV and you can't take it back even if you just had a tongue slip or something else on your mind at the time. You don't get do-overs....
So let this investigation play itself out. If it is proven by audio that Miller did what he's accused of, he should and likely will get what is coming to him. If Schlabach is proven to be wrong--he was mislead by his sources. That doesn't make him vindictive, evil or someone with an agenda. It just makes him someone trying to do his job by reporting something that multiple people tell him is happening and something he was at least able to get some corroborating evidence may actually be happening.
Don't shoot the messenger and don't hang the target---let things play out, things like this have a way of taking care of themselves....