-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Interesting read... can you find a subtle clue about.......
- Thread starter mtgrizrule
- Start date
PlayerRep said:
some are to awkward to list. other than that there's hiring hauck and pflu, who precipitated the protracted series of crimes committed by football players. not understanding the rules regarding who can represent players and being able to inform his staff that they need to report rape charges, dismissed or not, up the ladder and that they can't provide extra benefits to players. but i know, i know you don't think those things are mistakes.
getgrizzy said:
You don't have anything specific; too awkward to list is just an excuse. Hauck and Pflu were terrific coaches and didn't tolerate any crime. Hauck is probably the biggest disciplinarian of any UM coach ever. It is the responsibility of the compliance department, not the AD, to learn, know and understand rules like that. Pro bono representation of college students generally, including athletes, was done for decades. Combining minor early criminal representation to evaluate and set up a contingency fee case would have been fine, if UM had properly educated on it and the attorneys had been more careful with the paperwork. At the time, UM had no policy in place to require a coach to report an alleged sexual assault that the police had declined to pursue. And UM admitted that. Had UM and Engstrom had valid reasons to terminate the two for cause, they should have stated the reasons. Instead, knowing that the reasons were weak, Engstrom was afraid to state the reasons. UM, the AD and the coach did not provide any extra benefits. In my view, the bail loan and the legal fees (in this circumstance) were not extra benefits, and a more aggressive position by UM and its counsel would have won out on those things. As for the couples who provided too many meals in their homes, they weren't even known the coach and the AD.
being a dicsplinarian doesn't mean you don't bring in players with criminal potential and it's quite obvious whatever discipline technique he was using doesn't work. it's also the a.d.'s responsibility to know those rules and work closely with compliance. anyone should know without being told that they report criminal claims to their superiors. most of you can't have an asst a.d. giving players extra benefits.PlayerRep said:
getgrizzy said:
Hauck didn't tolerate any significant criminal activity. Why would he bring in someone and give them a scholarship, if he believed the recruit had a likelihood to engage in unacceptable behavior and have to be sent on his way? Answer: he didn't and wouldn't do that. Please spare us with reference to a prior dui or marijuana incident. Those are very minor things, and I believe every kid deserves a second chance on something like that.
Also, note that the player charged with a felony for having a couple of pills, who came back to the team in time for the next season. Haslam, Delaney and Engstrom were in charge for all of that. It was a good decision, by the way.
No AD in America would have known that a parent can't loan another kid's family member a few hundred bucks for a week (as opposed to a day or two), to bail out the kid. And the compliance officer also knew about this, and didn't report it.
Where's the rule that says allegations of criminal behavior, which the police have decided not to pursue because they are bogus, have to be reported to superiors? I'd like to see what you're referring to specifically.
Yup, bad idea for a marketing person to give too many home-cooked meals to a kid and do some of his laundry, but not the crime of the century in my view. But the AD didn't know anything about that. It's impossible to police and stop things that you don't know anything about. Just like it was impossible to police and stop the 3 couples from inviting players over for too many home-cooked meals--when the athletic department (and coaches) didn't even know who the people were.
actually he did tolerate significant criminal activity. he allowed swink and t.j. back after very light punishment that basically said what they did was no big deal. he brought in coleman who ochestrsted a drug kidnapping/robbery in msla after having been arrested for assault and booted from the iowa state fb team.PlayerRep said:
does there really need to be a written rule that says you need to report felonies that have been reported to the police to your supervisor? that's just stupid.
its a mistake to hire someone to your staff that doesn't know they can't do that for a player. the person in question was on staff for around 20 years yet didn't have enough respect for the boss to not do something like that and risk n.c.a.a. penalties. so he either didn't take the time to train his staff appropriately or he didn't treat them in a way that would gain their respect. either way that's a huge managerial mistake.
getgrizzy said:
Swink/TJ were never charged with anything criminal in that incident. Yes, Coleman was brought in after the coaches at Iowa St and multiple other Big 10 head coaches vouched for him. Coleman was not kicked off the Iowa St team; he was in good standing when he came to UM. Giving someone a second chance, after due diligence, is not tolerating criminal activity. Coleman didn't orchestrate the incident. All of those guys were immediately kicked off the team. Someone on the staff for 20 years was certainly not hired by O'Day. It is the job of the compliance department to train the staff on ncaa rules and keep reminding them, not the AD.
There were no charges of felony or any other crime regarding the supposed sexual assault. The police concluded that nothing criminal occurred. People make false claims and false allegations all the time. They don't have to reported to supervisors and often aren't. This incident occurred in 2011. UM's policy regarding sexual assault didn't apply to off-campus matters until March 2012. UM's policy of reporting of sexual assault was updated and expanded at March 2012. I don't know why you feel that a coach should report an incident that the police have concluded will not result in any charges, and that occurred off campus (where the university policy didn't apply)--where the university did not have a policy to report any such thing. And the coach hadn't been told who the accuser was or that she was a student.
you report those things so your supervisors aren't caught off guard and to not cause them to be suspicious of what else you aren't keeping them informed of.
i realize you're immersed in the law when it fits your argument, but just because a crime isn't reported to the police doesn't mean someone didn't commit a crime. we all know what happened and we all know they got off easy.
so the only people on staff the boss is responsible for are people he hires? great! there are bosses the world over that are relieved to know they don't need to bother training the staff the just inherited be it refresher courses or new guidance.
i realize you're immersed in the law when it fits your argument, but just because a crime isn't reported to the police doesn't mean someone didn't commit a crime. we all know what happened and we all know they got off easy.
so the only people on staff the boss is responsible for are people he hires? great! there are bosses the world over that are relieved to know they don't need to bother training the staff the just inherited be it refresher courses or new guidance.
getgrizzy said:
One may or may not report certain things to supervisors. It depends on the facts and situation. It depends on the reporting procedure of the company/institution. Consensual sex, including BJ's, is not a crime. No, they didn't get off easy; there was no crime and nothing more than a bogus after-the-fact claim. The one impartial witness, the woman's friend, wouldn't support her on her apparently false claim.
Again, the athletic compliance group, not the AD, are responsible for training, overseeing and enforcing ncaa rules.
PlayerRep said:
I would think the main reason beyond the common sense getgrizzy mentioned is that sometimes it doesn't end with the police. sometimes it goes beyond say maybe to a newspaper who has been laying for the football program since a fraternity incident a few years previous where a coach told some student reporters to go pound sand for asking (that made the national press as you recall). Of course the coach is saying to himself "no big deal" and the people who can and should deal with it don't find out there is a shit storm brewing until its all over the local press, hits the national press, the DOJ, NCAA , DOE shows up and while the people in charge have hired and investigator who tells them yeah the coaches knew about it and didn't bother telling you. The people in charge say holy shit, they knew this thing could becoming a year and half ago and didn't think they needed to tell us??
I'm not saying that a simple "hey boss a gal accused a couple of my boys of passing out roofies and gang raping some gals. One of the gals was pretty pissed off I'm sure its nothing and will blow over" would have avoided much. But considering everybody who did know and said nothing either was fired, retired or "reassigned" it might have bee a good idea. Apparently the people in charge felt they should have been told (as did the DOE, DOJ etc etc....)
tnt said:
I agree with some of what you said. However, you are either making up or mixing stories. There were no roofies at the group BJ. Also, the non-reporting of that matter had nothing to do with the other things you mentioned. Other than going to police, the woman did not go to the university or anyplace else for over a year. Even if supervisors had been informed, there is nothing they could have done about the situation (including talking to the woman). Nor did the coach know that the woman was a student or her name.
Another matter, where possible roofies were mentioned, was immediatley reported to supervisors by the athletic department and then on up by the AD. The independent investigator did not find any evidence of roofies in any of these matters, or at least the ones involving athletes. The JJ matter was also immediatley reported up when the AD happened to learn of it.
PlayerRep said:
Lots of stories were swirling. There is an important lesson that all athletic departments and especially the UM athletic departments need to be reminded of (not to mention the "insider" booster clubs". They are not at the top of the pecking order EVER. Shit always rolls down hill. If they are not "covered" they are going to roll with it. Barz was NOT kind to the athletic department (or couture)
garizzalies
Well-known member
:shock: WOW. Way to take one for the team.PlayerRep said:
ilovethecats
Well-known member
:lol:
Geez, and with 4 guys too? Then man her jaw must've been sore....
EverettGriz said:
From Jezebel.com article. I know nothing about the facts except what's I've read, mostly in this article and on egriz.
"We talk for a while about the alleged football team gang-rape; she knows the details because she's "on and off" with one of the players who was involved and recorded the whole thing on his phone, "because guys are like that." She tells it like this: two best girlfriends got drunk with the team and took turns going around in a circle and giving the players blowjobs. One of the girls also had sex with one of the football players that night, and when her boyfriend caught wind of the affair, she said it was non-consensual. He convinced her to file a police report, but the County Attorney's Office decided not to prosecute, citing a lack of evidence. Tori thinks that's because her friend showed them the video, which depicted the girl excited and laughing. "In other words," Tori says, "She was into it."
http://jezebel.com/5908472/my-weekend-in-americas-so-called-rape-capital" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
PlayerRep said:
Clearly you missed the obvious double entendre.
