Do you really not understand the difference between preferring the reporter compile all the facts before dragging a high school senior through the mud (Mitchell situation) and holding the player (and school that played him) responsible AFTER it was determined that he did have academic irregularities that should (and did, in Texas) result in his ineligibility (Arthur)?
I didn't follow the Arthur situation closely while it was all coming out. I don't know how the journalists approached the situation then. If they published small bits of incomplete information over a long period of time while painting the kid in a negative light... yeah, I'd have a problem with that. The fact that Arthur was at that point already two years removed from being a high school student, and I believe had already declared for the NBA, would impact my feelings (he was already on his way to making his millions, so the story could do no harm to his job prospects), but I still wouldn't approve.
I didn't say it was unfair or wrong to say anything negative about Mitchell. I said it's wrong to do so without having and fairly presenting all the facts before you do it.
Do you really not understand the difference between preferring the reporter compile all the facts before dragging a high school senior through the mud (Mitchell situation)
Sure, I do. But you're also still commenting on KU forfeitting games when all the final reports I heard about said Arthur's grade change didn't effect him getting a diploma. He'd have got the diploma with his old grade. It effected his eligibility that season to play basketball at his high school which is all his high school cared about. If the grade would not have been changed he just would have been ineligible from games that high school season until he got the grade up. It had no effect on his receiving a diploma. He then attained his ACT score. So by receiving a diploma and an ACT score he was eligible at KU. By all reports I've read Mitchell has yet to receive either is that correct?