What he is saying is that if the player put the school in a bad light or there is a violation code of conduct rules they all sign then the player should be suspended until the legal system determines innocence or guilt. If the player was innicent, then reinstatement can be accomplished. If he is guilty, then the suspension stands and even further action with regard to standing in school can be determined. You don't wait to take action until the legal system takes it course.
-
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!
NCAA investigation ongoing
- Thread starter BWahlberg
- Start date
I see. What does it mean to "put the school in a bad light?" Is that different than breaking a law of breaking a rule or violating a policy? What if the issue has nothing to do with the legal system? Is the player still suspended? Pending what?
AllWeatherFan said:
Most coaches know their players pretty well and can quickly figure out what the hell happened. There are probably exceptions... but I think a general rule of thumb is that if you get arrested, you're gone. Ash does things that way, and it appears Brad does as well. For example - Kemp and TJ should have been gone after that incident. And before everyone bashes me... I think JJ may have gotten shafted and is probably a case where you need to wait and try to figure out what really happened.
So if you get arrested you're dismissed from the team, unless you're getting shafted and the school needs to actually find out the facts?
It's really not as complicated as you are trying to make it. Does every situation need to be evaluated on its own? Yes, of course it does. The main point is that the University should be controlling what happens with the student athlete in relation to athletic participation and enrollment in school independent of the legal process. The way that UM has been perceived in handling these things (warranted or not) is to let processes outside of University control decide what will happen. Hence "lack of institutional control".
Actually, it is complicated. Really complicated.
That's just one of the many complications.
I don't think its as complicated as you make it out to be. My Daughter went through the same "orientation" as the football players at KU. It was pretty simple there. "Your name gets in the paper, you are associated with the University and it isn't a GOOD thing, you are done until it gets solved. You get charged with something you are done (for a while anyway)
I am not saying that every situation requires a suspension from the team, but it does require discipline and that discipline should be announced. If it involves law enforcement, then at a minimum I believe a player should be suspended for at least a game, depending on the circumstances. In some cases it may involve permenant suspension, in others just a game. As I have said many times, the Kemp-Tru situation warranted a game suspension. If there were prior issues, then perhaps more. But one quarter was an absolute joke. Once the discipine is handed out, the team then has the ability to monitor the situation and act appropriately. But coming out immediately and say it will let the legal system run its course has proven to be a complete failure.
AllWeatherFan said:
+1
bigsky33 said:
You're*. Embarrassment".
ilovethecats
Well-known member
MrTitleist said:
careful. i did last last night and got labeled a "huge doucher".
ilovethecats said:MrTitleist said:
careful. i did last last night and got labeled a "huge doucher".
Yeah, like in my time as a moderator I haven't been called worse. :twocents:
doebrmn said:
I agree with you that the punishment for Kemp and Tru should have been a game. I have said so all along.
But I have to disagree that all punishment should be public. No program (including MSU's) operates that way. You'll recall when MSU had the kids who were destroying property and then broke into the Mayor's home, Ash specifically stated that the punishment would be handled internally, and it was not announced. Each case is different.
ilovethecats
Well-known member
MrTitleist said:ilovethecats said:MrTitleist said:
careful. i did last last night and got labeled a "huge doucher".
Yeah, like in my time as a moderator I haven't been called worse. :twocents:
:lol:
observation/statement of fact What are you going to do with your emoticon's tears? Let me guess, it was like 1 time in college...ilovethecats said:MrTitleist said:
careful. i did last last night and got labeled a "huge doucher".
grizcountry420
Well-known member
Pffffff!! Thats all i have to say 
Tokyogriz
Well-known member
Noches de Passion said:
Yes I did sir. He specifically asked me not to mention his name but he is a lawer here in missoula who works with the county attorney in an official capacity. In this context it means little without naming him I realize but he did request I not name him.
Take it for what you will. But I am very certain based on this mans testimony that calls were made to DC and questions asked by the county attorney why the fuck the DOJ is investigating the middle of bum fuck no were Montana. NYC, LA, Chicago have in the past and most likely still do have out of control police and DAs in many areas dealing drugs, abusing folks, some in direct contact with the Mob, etc.... its a very small minority Im sure but its there. And guess what the DOJ has NEVER done this before to any of those county attorneys in those large metro areas with NOTORIOUS CORRUPTION problems of MANY kinds.
UM called the DOJ in to deflect the criticism from Engstrom, and has been very effective in blaming the AD, Football departments as well for what is essentially a UM wide issue. Aronofsky was quoted as being the one who requested this DOJ investigation. The attorney I spoke with specifically said Arnonofsky called DC to get the DOJ to come here.
