Some will recognize that as a comment Tu Holloway made after the UC/X fight a few weeks ago and as a quote that upset people. I felt that quote was the reason Tu should have been suspended.

 

Now that we've had time to digest the entire situation I ask this: Is that quote that much worse, if at all, than other accepted sports quotes/cliches/analogies?

 

Assuming we all agree that Tu didn't truly mean to "end the opponents actual breathing and have a coroner put them in a body bag and then zip said body bag" are we overlooking other expressions that have the same meaning ?

 

Is "Step on their throat" really any better? Is "bury them" any different? Is "hit em when they're down" any better?

 

They're all saying the same thing, right? We don't take them literally, correct?

 

How do we punish one without the others being punished?

You don't. The only thing you do, as a coach, is tell your players to keep it in house. Not in a press conference that every sports fan in America is going to see.

I don't think the saying is that different, but I think you also have to look at the context that Tu was saying in it, after a fight.

You don't. The only thing you do, as a coach, is tell your players to keep it in house. Not in a press conference that every sports fan in America is going to see.

 

Obviously. My purpose of the thread is not to debate how things should have been handled or how long Tu should have been suspended.

 

I'm asking if we overreacted to a comment that has the exact same meaning as other accepted cliches/analogies.

I don't think the saying is that different, but I think you also have to look at the context that Tu was saying in it, after a fight.

 

Unless you think that the fight caused Tu to have a literal meaning of "zip em up" then I say the fight is irrelevant . We are all smart enough to know what he was saying.

Obviously. My purpose of the thread is not to debate how things should have been handled or how long Tu should have been suspended.

 

I'm asking if we overreacted to a comment that has the exact same meaning as other accepted cliches/analogies.

 

Obviously, yes.

Is that comment why he was suspended? I didn't think that comment was the reason. I think it is more about the "gangsta" comment than that one. Perhaps it was all these comments added to the on court talk and being one of the instigators of the fight but I doubt it was the "zip 'em up" comment. I didn't even connect "zip 'em up" to a threat. I thought he was saying shut them up from talking. I guess to answer the question posed, my view is anyone who reacted the way Clyde did to "zip 'em up" did overreact including XU's administration if that comment led to the suspension.

Is that comment why he was suspended? I didn't think that comment was the reason. I think it is more about the "gangsta" comment than that one. Perhaps it was all these comments added to the on court talk and being one of the instigators of the fight but I doubt it was the "zip 'em up" comment. I didn't even connect "zip 'em up" to a threat. I thought he was saying shut them up from talking.

 

OK. Do you really think he meant the Xavier players were involved in gang activities? Add that one to the list? Is it any more offensive than the others?

 

You are incorrect about your assumption about "talking." He told a reporter after the game that X put them in a body bag.

Unless you think that the fight caused Tu to have a literal meaning of "zip em up" then I say the fight is irrelevant . We are all smart enough to know what he was saying.

 

I might need to go back and watch his statements again. If there wasn't a fight during that game that they won by 20 he said it was their goal to "zip em up", then it probably wouldn't have been a huge deal. However, there was a fight, which is why it changes the context in my opinion.

I might need to go back and watch his statements again. If there wasn't a fight during that game that they won by 20 he said it was their goal to "zip em up", then it probably wouldn't have been a huge deal. However, there was a fight, which is why it changes the context in my opinion.

 

 

No question the fight caused the statements to be sensationalized. Not arguing that. People indicated on here and on Twitter that the "zip em up" comment was over the top. I'm simply asking if was just an overreaction by us since we never get offended by other similar comments.

No question the fight caused the statements to be sensationalized. Not arguing that. People indicated on here and on Twitter that the "zip em up" comment was over the top. I'm simply asking if was just an overreaction by us since we never get offended by other similar comments.

 

But I don't think you can say there was an overreation because of the context he used it. When he's talking about being gangsters and then references body bags, then no I don't think it was an overreaction.

 

Had he just menionted "zip em up" without all the other context, then I don't think you have the reaction from everyone.

 

So to answer your question, is it any different than the other sayings? No, it really isn't. But because of his other comments, it then becomes different.

But I don't think you can say there was an overreation because of the context he used it. When he's talking about being gangsters and then references body bags, then no I don't think it was an overreaction.

 

Had he just menionted "zip em up" without all the other context, then I don't think you have the reaction from everyone.

 

So to answer your question, is it any different than the other sayings? No, it really isn't. But because of his other comments, it then becomes different.

 

I'm not arguing with you about why there was the reaction there was. We agree.

 

You're saying "I know what he really meant but because there was a fight it was wrong." Really? If there was a fight and he said "we stepped on their throats when were up 20 late" you would have had the same reaction?

OK. Do you really think he meant the Xavier players were involved in gang activities? Add that one to the list? Is it any more offensive than the others?

 

You are incorrect about your assumption about "talking." He told a reporter after the game that X put them in a body bag.

 

OK. I had not heard about the body bag part of it. That definitely elevates the seriousness of the comment and makes it something that needs to be addressed. I still would say that comment by itself would not warrant a suspension. Perhaps some sort of punishment but not a suspension.

 

I believe it was the whole package of comments and actions that caused Holloway's suspension. Each of the comments and the inflamatory yacking on the court by themselves would not cause a suspension. Put them all together in one incident and add in the serious and media attention as a whole and they lead to the suspension.

OK. I had not heard about the body bag part of it. That definitely elevates the seriousness of the comment and makes it something that needs to be addressed. I still would say that comment by itself would not warrant a suspension. Perhaps some sort of punishment but not a suspension.

 

I believe it was the whole package of comments and actions that caused Holloway's suspension. Each of the comments and the inflamatory yacking on the court by themselves would not cause a suspension. Put them all together in one incident and add in the serious and media attention as a whole and they lead to the suspension.

 

Again, I'm not talking about the suspension. I'm talking about the immediate negative reaction to the "zip em up" comment.

Again, I'm not talking about the suspension. I'm talking about the immediate negative reaction to the "zip em up" comment.

 

Why do you care so much about the negative reaction? Are you saying we should have either formed a positive reaction, or we should have not been affected by the statement at all? I don't see what you're trying to prove with this. Of course people are going to react negatively to a comment like this when it comes in this context.