UL Coach (1957-73) Beryl Shipley

[USL1970]

I agree that Coach Shipley should have had access to the NCAA records sooner, and I admire his brother Tom on his quest to vindicate his brother.

However, the Slam Dunked book has so many factual errors, conclusions, and sensationalized events that the book does not do the subject as much justice as it should. For example, the Advertiser was the main source for some of the events, and its reporting tends to sensationalize rather than factualized as does the media/sportscaster writer to get readership. For example, the paper reported and the book included the comment from an anonymous source that "between four and five hundred students gathered at the president's house," to demonstrate at midnight.

I know this to be completely exagerrated and false. I know a student then who rode in a car with another that night as he was more curious than interested in protesting. He said less than 50 people were there and the president never came out of the house to talk to students.

And when you think about it logically, just imagine how many cars would be needed to transport 400 or 500 hundred people to a residential neighborhood to protest. If something that large would have happened, it would have been documented at least in some verifiable form. A lot of conclusions that were reached were based on false assumptions about people or events. There are examples of this throughout the book.

The best and most important part of the the book were the actual NCAA reports which were unfairly hidden for many years - that was very revealing and interesting. All the other stuff surrounding the NCAA report lacked verification and was just hypothesis.

[Boomer]

_ I agree that Coach Shipley should have had access to the NCAA records sooner, and I admire his brother Tom on his quest to vindicate his brother.

However, the Slam Dunked book has so many factual errors, conclusions, and sensationalized events that the book does not do the subject as much justice as it should. For example, the Advertiser was the main source for some of the events, and its reporting tends to sensationalize rather than factualized as does the media/sportscaster writer to get readership. For example, the paper reported and the book included the comment from an anonymous source that "between four and five hundred students gathered at the president's house," to demonstrate at midnight.

I know this to be completely exagerrated and false. I know a student then who rode in a car with another that night as he was more curious than interested in protesting. He said less than 50 people were there and the president never came out of the house to talk to students.

And when you think about it logically, just imagine how many cars would be needed to transport 400 or 500 hundred people to a residential neighborhood to protest. If something that large would have happened, it would have been documented at least in some verifiable form. A lot of conclusions that were reached were based on false assumptions about people or events. There are examples of this throughout the book.

The best and most important part of the the book were the actual NCAA reports which were unfairly hidden for many years - that was very revealing and interesting. All the other stuff surrounding the NCAA report lacked verification and was just hypothesis. _

As one that was present---I walked with the rest of the football team and a huge flow of dorm residents!!!! Kinda Panty raid atmosphere!!!! Typical UL in your face attitude!!!!

[RaginFan2]

_ As one that was present---I walked with the rest of the football team and a huge flow of dorm residents!!!! Kinda Panty raid atmosphere!!!! Typical UL in your face attitude!!!! _

So, what's your estimate of the number of people at the president's house that night? Is it closer to 50 or 500?

[Boomer]

_ So, what's your estimate of the number of people at the president's house that night? Is it closer to 50 or 500? _

I honestly don't know----All I remember is walking down to S. Colllege--to an area where he lived----Had no car or clue of Lafayette---45-50 years ago!!!! But it was a pretty large crowd----Were you there??? Does anybody on the board remember????

[SlappyCajun]

_ I agree that Coach Shipley should have had access to the NCAA records sooner, and I admire his brother Tom on his quest to vindicate his brother.

However, the Slam Dunked book has so many factual errors, conclusions, and sensationalized events that the book does not do the subject as much justice as it should. For example, the Advertiser was the main source for some of the events, and its reporting tends to sensationalize rather than factualized as does the media/sportscaster writer to get readership. For example, the paper reported and the book included the comment from an anonymous source that "between four and five hundred students gathered at the president's house," to demonstrate at midnight.

I know this to be completely exagerrated and false. I know a student then who rode in a car with another that night as he was more curious than interested in protesting. He said less than 50 people were there and the president never came out of the house to talk to students.

And when you think about it logically, just imagine how many cars would be needed to transport 400 or 500 hundred people to a residential neighborhood to protest. If something that large would have happened, it would have been documented at least in some verifiable form. A lot of conclusions that were reached were based on false assumptions about people or events. There are examples of this throughout the book.

The best and most important part of the the book were the actual NCAA reports which were unfairly hidden for many years - that was very revealing and interesting. All the other stuff surrounding the NCAA report lacked verification and was just hypothesis. _

Not agreeing or disagreeing with you. However, when you start from the premise that all of the outlets that were responsible for reporting at the time of incident were not telling the truth, then it is easier for you to make your point.

Basically, if we ignore everything that was reported at the time, then my point is the much more logical conclusion. I'm sure things were written from a one sided perspective, as any such account would be. However, you expect people to believe a hearsay account from a guy who drove by at one point of the protest, instead of what the newspapers and television reports said. Not a convincing argument.

[USL1970]

I am not saying all media accounts are not reliable and all reporters, just that there is a bias sometimes to gain readership. And that was the case in this book ... frequently and extremely. Here is another example of how the book takes a simple statement and comes to a far fetched implication or conclusion.

"Seeking the presidency, Rougeou asked for Beryl's assistance. He recognized Beryl's growing influence in the community as a result of his coaching successes and dynamic personality. Beryl contacted some friends and supporters on Dr. Rougeous's behalf. The State Board of Education soon appointed Clyde Rougeou as president of USL."

Absolutely ridiculous ... take a simple statement and then imply or reach that conclusion in 1965, and before Shipley had his great teams. Particularly with state board members all over the state, with the most powerful in north Louisiana. This goes on and on in the book. Like I said, the great part of the book is the posting of the actual NCAA findings which was due to the diligence and perserverance of Shipley's loyal and faithfull brother.

[Turbine]

I see the Rougeou comment more as a timeline of events rather than a he could not have done it without me claim.
igeaux.mobi

[zephyr]

_ I agree that Coach Shipley should have had access to the NCAA records sooner, and I admire his brother Tom on his quest to vindicate his brother.

However, the Slam Dunked book has so many factual errors, conclusions, and sensationalized events that the book does not do the subject as much justice as it should. For example, the Advertiser was the main source for some of the events, and its reporting tends to sensationalize rather than factualized as does the media/sportscaster writer to get readership. For example, the paper reported and the book included the comment from an anonymous source that "between four and five hundred students gathered at the president's house," to demonstrate at midnight.

I know this to be completely exagerrated and false. I know a student then who rode in a car with another that night as he was more curious than interested in protesting. He said less than 50 people were there and the president never came out of the house to talk to students.

And when you think about it logically, just imagine how many cars would be needed to transport 400 or 500 hundred people to a residential neighborhood to protest. If something that large would have happened, it would have been documented at least in some verifiable form. A lot of conclusions that were reached were based on false assumptions about people or events. There are examples of this throughout the book.

The best and most important part of the the book were the actual NCAA reports which were unfairly hidden for many years - that was very revealing and interesting. All the other stuff surrounding the NCAA report lacked verification and was just hypothesis. _

The book never stated that Rougeau came out of his home to address the crowd. As a matter of fact, he only cracked the door to speak with Dean Abyl when he approached the home ONLY after he decided to do so because the president would not address everyone. He addressed the crowd the next day at Martin Hall.

[douglas]

were are currently looking for informal fan interviews which will be posted weekly on www.lightsoutinblackham.com. all of you fit the bill, nothing fancy 5 questions tops, shouldn't take longer than a half hour. and your ragin pagin identities shall be sealed!!! send me a private message please kind sirs...or madams??

[cajun67]

_ He addressed the crowd the next day at Martin Hall. _

Was there for that one. The Prez was not a happy camper. But it felt good to show him that a significant part of the student body wanted the B-ball team to go to the tournament. O, to have been a fly on the wall of Stan Galloway's office when he learned we were going anyhow. A man after the Klan's heart.

[USL1970]

I was also surprised that the theme of the entire book was based mostly on racial predjudice. The Gulf States Conference was desegregated during the early 1970's, and it was not unusual throughout the nation to have mostly white teams. The great #2 Michigan State football team with Bubba Smith from Texas had a majority of its starters as black, and when they played #1 Notre Dame, it had only one black on the entire team.

The downfall of the program was based on NCAA "rules" violations and those usually revolve around lying and cheating - breaking rules - not race. And there was certainly a lot of lying and cheating going on which was initiated by the hero of the book. The people condemned in the book were probably far better than they were portrayed, and the hero was much less. The author chose to build the hero up by making all those around him little, and that should not have been necessary. However, there is no doubt we had good integrated basketball teams which excited the fans and brought some national attention attention to the university, first good, then really bad.

I hope Tom Shipley can get some attention with all his NCAA findings and bring us some results with much more balance and believeability with more focus getting to the truth on the rules violations.

[zephyr]

_ I was also surprised that the theme of the entire book was based mostly on racial predjudice. The Gulf States Conference was desegregated during the early 1970's, and it was not unusual throughout the nation to have mostly white teams. The great #2 Michigan State football team with Bubba Smith from Texas had a majority of its starters as black, and when they played #1 Notre Dame, it had only one black on the entire team.

The downfall of the program was based on NCAA "rules" violations and those usually revolve around lying and cheating - breaking rules - not race. And there was certainly a lot of lying and cheating going on which was initiated by the hero of the book. The people condemned in the book were probably far better than they were portrayed, and the hero was much less. The author chose to build the hero up by making all those around him little, and that should not have been necessary. However, there is no doubt we had good integrated basketball teams which excited the fans and brought some national attention attention to the university, first good, then really bad.

I hope Tom Shipley can get some attention with all his NCAA findings and bring us some results with much more balance and believeability with more focus getting to the truth on the rules violations. _

You have chosen to focus on the "bias' of the book rather than seeing past perception and looking at the whole picture. First, the book is somewhat of a reckoning for years of allegation and blame placed on individuals and the program without the ability to defend itself amid these allegations. Also, the book was written to hopefully inform many that while they were found "Guilty" by the NCAA, the purpose is to acknowledge that the program was never given due process in being able to defend itself to those allegations. So, technically, the purpose is to show that had they been able to do that and face their accusers, the number of infractions they were found "guilty" of would have been significantly less.

Lets not also forget that one of the biggest and first infractions was the FACT that Coach Shipley and the A.D. were ordered to hold an early practice by the GSC's commisssioner. This practice was ordered by a man who wanted to bring into question the program's integrity due to its recruiting of black players. How do you not make this about race? How do you explain the major target that was placed on UL's back in the middle of the civil rights movement because they were the only school in the deep south and certainly in the state of LA to recruit and play young black players? How do you explain the State's unwillingness to fund those scholarships for the young black players after unsuccessfully trying to rule them academically ineligible? Are you serious?

Is the book written from one point of view? Absolutely so I'm sure there is a degree of objectivity that is lost in the writings. However, it doesn't seem out of the ordinary to do so to try to explain and defend one's actions after the NCAA was unwilling to do so 30 years ago. Forgive me if I don't cry your tears of unfair criticism.