Terrence Shannon will likely play Sunday
- Thread starter Degaz-RU
- Start date
And Michigan gets Dug McDaniel back for their game against us. Rough life
Tomorrows headlines
Kendal Gil and Luther Head granted 1 addiotional year of eligibility. Will suit up Sunday vs RU
Kendal Gil and Luther Head granted 1 addiotional year of eligibility. Will suit up Sunday vs RU
One's rights when charged with rape now include the right to play basketball on national TV. Alrighty then.
Did you read the ruling at all? Pretty well-reasoned by the judge, regardless of what team you root for or how compelling you feel the evidence (or lack of evidence) is in Shannon's case.
He'll play, drop 25 on us amidst uproar nationally ... and then they'll suspend him
Cofi Cockburn too
The whole timing of this has been brutal for RU
Maybe he will be rusty?
Maybe he will be rusty?
Doesn’t mean Illinois has to agree to play him. Bad look for the university
I am not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that the judge considered the potential harm of denying Shannon his presumed evidence until he is proven guilty in a court of law and took into account two scenarios of "harm," so to speak (A and B below). It is also important to remember that this judge was really only considering Shannon's due process rights under Title IX (something I am DEFINITELY not an expert in!), and the specific detail of his rape charge were not part of this.
(A) Shannon is (effectively) assumed guilty by the U of I and kept suspended and is later proven innocent. However, the trial takes WAY longer than the basketball season (his last one as a senior), and it causes irreparable harm to his future financial prospects as a potential NBA player and/or his current financial prospects regarding NIL should he never make it in the NBA.
(B) Shannon eventually is proven guilty in a court of law, and the U of I suffers some type of reputational damage for having assumed his innocence (and therefore NOT suspended him) until that point.
Again, not a lawyer ... but my very novice understanding is that the judge deemed the severity of A significantly worse than B. In other words, Shannon being treated as guilty and proven innocent causes WAY more harm to Shannon than the University treating him innocent and it's later proven he's guilty.
More. He torched us last time. Has he still been practicing during this time? Praying for some rust.
There's a difference between presuming one's guilt and letting them represent your university on national television. I'm unfamiliar with any player taking the court with an unresolved rape charge against them.
It is certainly a complicated look for the University. I know many will say I am biased, and that's fine ... but I have seen players on plenty of teams I cheer for be charged with crimes over the years and favored their dismissal (or at least suspension) well before a guilty verdict. With that said, the details of this case look incredibly weak ... it's a literal he said-she said, and Shannon claims to not even know who this girl is. Zero video evidence, ZERO DNA evidence via the rape kit exam tying it back to Shannon and the assault was said to take place in a crowded bar for a duration of 10 seconds? And the DA bringing the charge is under investigation for her license, which includes testimony from the judge in this case where the judge testified against her qualifications and ethical standing to be a DA? I think it takes a pretty strong "guilty until proven innocent" inclination to not question this one.
There is the obvious possibility he is guilty and the possibility more damning evidence comes to light, but I find the DA's case almost shockingly weak so far.
Loved Kendall Gill
Lead the NBA in steals 98-99 (50 game strike season).
Went to many a Nets game that year as a kid.
And Illinois quite literally did NOT let him take the floor with active charges. I think that's the pretty big significance of the case ... the judge at least attempted to set a precedent that this (at least in one way) denies a player his due process.
Also he hasnt been practicing right...he may eligible but no guarantee to actually play
If one of our players was accused on this crime and it wasn't obviously false, I don't think I would feel comfortable with him suiting up to play for Rutgers before his case was heard.
This is bananas, though. So the judge is saying the university does not have a right to suspend a player. I'm sure the NBA scouts were not sure whether or not Shannon was good enough to be worth drafting, but his performance against Rutgers will help them make that determination.
This is going to be awkward for some in the Illinois AD for sure.
This is bananas, though. So the judge is saying the university does not have a right to suspend a player. I'm sure the NBA scouts were not sure whether or not Shannon was good enough to be worth drafting, but his performance against Rutgers will help them make that determination.
This is going to be awkward for some in the Illinois AD for sure.
Right, Shannon is not dropping in mock drafts (literally cited by the judge) because he hasn't been playing, he's dropping because he was charged with rape.
Appreciate you providing the details, you're one of the better visitors we have here.
That said, and I know you have your orange tinted glasses on, it potentially lasting only 10 seconds isn't relevant at all. Nor is where it happened.
I disagree – – the finding of “irreparable harm“ for a player losing 14 games after a nearly five year college career is just bad. The NBA teams know what he can do and what he can’t — notwithstanding the judges decision, the damage allegation is definitely “speculative.“ I see a lot of other problems, but that one jumped out at me.
How about innocent until proven guilty. He says he didn’t do it, and DNA evidence is not his.
The term rape is ugly. He is not accused of sexual intercourse. He’s accused of grabbing a woman by the p*ssy in a crowded bar. You know, what someone bragged about and is running for President with supporters who say he didn’t do it even though he bragged about it. Shannon denies doing it. So you can’t play basketball but you can be President? Lol
I wonder how the fans in Champaign will react to him if he plays. It is quite an awkward situation to say the least.
Do they cheer him like he’s a vindicated guy who was wrongly accused?
Or is there awkward grumbling that a guy with a pending sexual assault charge is on the court representing my university?
Different situations obviously, but I can’t help but remember the outrage many Rutgers fans felt with Mike Rice being raked over the coals and then fired as a result of videogate and Eric Murdock blowing the whistle on his behavior.
Do they cheer him like he’s a vindicated guy who was wrongly accused?
Or is there awkward grumbling that a guy with a pending sexual assault charge is on the court representing my university?
Different situations obviously, but I can’t help but remember the outrage many Rutgers fans felt with Mike Rice being raked over the coals and then fired as a result of videogate and Eric Murdock blowing the whistle on his behavior.
Trying to stay out of the political side here...
You can run for president while being accused of awful things. Voters can then decide who will hold the office.
But here a judge is saying a school does not have the right to decide a player accused of terrible things is no longer allowed to play for that school until some legal process runs its course. He has a RIGHT to be on the team and allowed to play for Illinois unless he is found guilty by some legal review.
That doesn't sound wrong to you?
Meanwhile, Rutgers still can't get Jermaine Williams eligible to play, and all he did was place a few bets. 🤔
Last edited:
In one case the accused vehemently denies it and the evidence seems to back him up. In the other case he gleefully boasted about it on tape.
If at this point it’s a he said she said situation and if it’s his only alleged indiscretion seems hard to say he should be punished until proven guilty imo.
Similar threads
