Oh no..ouch

cowboyjoe · Post by **cowboyjoe** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:53 pm

I have heard from a reliable source that both Nate Miller and Chris Knight will not make the trip to Minnesota for the 3 game tourney next weekend for "team rules violations." I have no idea if they will play this weekend in the exhibition opener. We'll see how this plays out. I know at the tip off dinner Orr had said he and Miller had had some differences of opinions starting last summer. Knight being involved is a little bit of a shock considering he had no known run-ins with Orr last year.

renorvis · Post by **renorvis** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:19 pm

I heard about it as well. Maybe this will make those two more hungry to win when they get back on the court. Those two are our as catalyst and can get us to the Big Dance!!!!

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:42 pm

SOB! Sure, why not?!!! Let's just start off the season on the wrong foot because our offseason has gone so well!!! This is very disappointing news, specially because these two are both starters and arguably our two best players.

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:56 pm

2 thoughts

1) Isnt this how the football season started?

2) This gives us a chance for other guys to step up as leaders. That tourney should be a great opportunity for the younger guys to get some minutes.

BGfootballfan · Post by **BGfootballfan** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:58 am

cowboyjoe wrote:I have heard from a reliable source that both Nate Miller and Chris Knight will not make the trip to Minnesota for the 3 game tourney next weekend for "team rules violations." I have no idea if they will play this weekend in the exhibition opener. We'll see how this plays out. I know at the tip off dinner Orr had said he and Miller had had some differences of opinions starting last summer. Knight being involved is a little bit of a shock considering he had no known run-ins with Orr last year.

From what I have heard from inside sources the Miller thing comes as no suprise. Nate, if you would like to act like an idiot, please do not bring down any of your teammates with you. I see a Steven Wright situation coming. Play out you senior year and be a man.

BleedOrange · Post by **BleedOrange** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:11 am

What the hell does it take for a kid to stay focused and finish a college career with dignity? Really, what could be so disagreeable about coach Orr that Miller couldn't find a way to stay on track just one more year?

JWEIII · Post by **JWEIII** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:04 am

Wow. I hate to speculate, but this has to be serious. I could see not starting a game or two or siting a game , but this equates to two three-game suspensions - for two starters. Whatever it is, it's not a "difference of opinion" punishment. Hmmmm.

So the Tourney starters 1) Joe Jak, 2) Clements, 3) Thomas, 4) Marschall and 5) Larson? Or do you think it depends on the Ashland "game"?

Crap!

BGfootballfan · Post by **BGfootballfan** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:05 am

BleedOrange wrote:What the hell does it take for a kid to stay focused and finish a college career with dignity? Really, what could be so disagreeable about coach Orr that Miller couldn't find a way to stay on track just one more year?

agreed, go to class, behave and act like a normal person, play hoops. Only Through March!! major sacrifice here Mr. Miller.

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:14 pm

Damn....unreal. I hate to hear that but Coach Orr is doing the right thing. If they broke team rules, they must pay the price.

For the love of Harold Anderson....

tiznow · Post by **tiznow** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:42 pm

If true, then our FT% should be better those games. In all seriousness, I echo the sentiments of everyone. I twill give the younger players more minutes. I would have liked to see how we would have done in the tourney at full strength. Some schools would have suspended the players for the meaningless exhibition games. They have to get on board with Coach Orr.

Post by **ZiggyZoomba** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:27 pm

I think this might stem from an older "over-the-summer" type of infraction and NOT anything new. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think it to be the case. I'm under the impression that Nate and Knight are on board fully with the program and will be for the duration.

BleedOrange · Post by **BleedOrange** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:40 pm

ZiggyZoomba wrote:I think this might stem from an older "over-the-summer" type of infraction and NOT anything new. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think it to be the case. I'm under the impression that Nate and Knight are on board fully with the program and will be for the duration.

And here we are ranting on like a bunch of crazy old men.

Thanks for the info.

Post by **ZiggyZoomba** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:49 pm

BleedOrange wrote:
ZiggyZoomba wrote:I think this might stem from an older "over-the-summer" type of infraction and NOT anything new. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think it to be the case. I'm under the impression that Nate and Knight are on board fully with the program and will be for the duration.

And here we are ranting on like a bunch of crazy old men.

Thanks for the info.

I could be wrong though.... starting to look like maybe I am.

Add Cameron Madlock to that list of not going to Minnesota.... *sigh*

JimmyZ11381 · Post by **JimmyZ11381** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:50 pm

If they miss the tournament in Minnesota....so be it. Just be here for the stretch run. Anyone know anything yet, on Austin Calhoun's academic eligibility?

Post by **ZiggyZoomba** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:55 pm

JimmyZ11381 wrote:If they miss the tournament in Minnesota....so be it. Just be here for the stretch run. Anyone know anything yet, on Austin Calhoun's academic eligibility?

I know A'ustin isn't going on the road with the team at all this season. So I'm guessing he's either getting a red-shirt or isn't going to be eligible. Haven't heard for sure though.

Is Minnesota an "exempt" tourney? One of those multiple-game things that only count as one on your record? I heard the new UT coach talking about that on the radio the other day.

Oh no..ouch

Oh no..ouch

Re: Oh no..ouch