Why should college athletes be held to higher standards than others?

[fanofzoo]

One more time PR I agree with you.

Rules of Life
1) Life ain't fair
2) See no. 1

 

[PlayerRep]

I can't understand how anyone wouldn't agree with this unless they have a systemic and long-term agenda to mitigate the criminal behavior of student athletes for no other reason than because they are members of a football team.

Character matters.

Worst thread of the year/POTY

The question in the thread is WHY? Not WHETHER? What is the reason and rationale? I don't think anyone would disagree that college athletes, especially football players and to a lesser extent basketball players (and I would say anyone who represents the university), should be subject to a code that promotes and requires good behavior, at least in this day and age.

I find it hypocritical and unfair that college football players are actually held to an even higher standards, get their mistakes publicized and often put on the front page, and get crucified by some on the internet.

I'm sorry but I just don't think a normal dui, by a player who has not been a problem or gotten into a lot of trouble, should disqualify the player from playing for the program or result in a huge suspension. A normal dui is a misdemeanor. Some citations end up getting pled down or being dropped. Some don't. There are many worse things that could happen. Murder, sexual assault, robbery, burglary, felony assault, and most anything that is a felony (except maybe have one illegal pill at a party).

I find it incredibly hypocritical that texting/driving and extreme speeding don't get the same attention or result as a dui, even though, depending on the study, it is at least as dangerous and probably more dangerous. This is not just in college athletics, but everywhere. My impression is that many on this forum would not look upon a texting/driving, or big speeding ticket, as as harshly as they do with dui.

I'm fine with following the athletic code of conduct, and of allowing the coach to take separate action. People put considerable work into putting the code together.

No one is trying to promote or support criminal behavior in college athletics. What a BS comment, by a poster who recently makes BS comments and doesn't know what he is talking about. However, some people do believe in fundamental fairness and general consistency.

Of course, character matters. However, it is not possible to judge or know the character of someone like Strahm by reading that he was cited for a dui. Character is much much more than making a single mistake. The coaches know whether a senior, and senior starter, has character. While I don't know, I would guess that the coaches would rate Strahm fairly high on the character scale.

My view is that a lot of people, including some of you, take pleasure in seeing certain people or higher profile people, get into trouble. To me, that shows lack of character, and as you said, character matters.

I had to laugh at some of the rationales and comments. A dui hurts the "brand". Sure, a dui results in some bad press, but really, the brand doesn't suffer anymore than perhaps a tiny tiny bit. And then 75 points out how Engstrom has almost killed the brand (and ruined the school). And the Dean. And people like Everett give them a pass, and even used to cheer lead for them, but want to clobber a kid who goofs up and get cited for a dui. Where's the prospective?

And on privilege, I just don't agree that it is some huge "privilege" to play college sports. To me, that is just some cliche. Sure, it is a small privilege or honor, and people will say that, but at least some people like me, who did play college sports, didn't see it as some big privilege. But in this day and age of all the neutral stuff that athletes say to the press, they often just spew player-speak, just like coaches learned coach-speak.

And I stand by my observations that posters like Ursa never played the game, at least at any higher level. I can see it in their posts.

So receiving a discount or maybe full discount ( I dont know your scholly status when you played there) to go to school at Dartmouth, which is a very expensive school, isn't a privilege?

If you receive a scholly and have to pay less or sometimes nothing for your athletic ability it is your REWARD for being good at something that most people aren't as good at.

If you mess up, or make the place look bad that gives you the reward, you should expect that place to take your reward away.

I dont understand the your questioning this process. Unless it is your opinion that once given a REWARD you can mess up as much as possible, get into as much trouble as you'd like all while being able to keep your REWARD?

To me, receiving a scholarship is not the same thing as what I view "privilege" is.

The Ivy League doesn't have athletic scholarships. I didn't receive any money from Dartmouth for playing football or lacrosse, other than 2 years of free training table during the season for several years.

At UM, lots of players are walk-ons or receive very small schoolies, like books. The athletic code covers them too, and the press and crucification generally "applies" to them too. So, there goes your funding article.

Whether at UM or Dartmouth, the football team brings in a lot of money, for games, tv, and merchandise. Also, raises the profile of the school. When I played, we often had sell outs at home, and played in front of up to 61,000 at Yale, and crowds of about 40,000 at Harvard, Penn and Princeton. Plus ABC tv every year, including the main ABC game of the weekend my senior year against Cornell and Ed Marinaro. Football must have had considerable income then. It was a privilege for Dartmouth to have us playing for them and for the fans to watch us. Ha. Just kidding.

 

[EverettGriz]

I'll close with this:

The next time there's an eGrizBotany board with 10,000,000 posts on it, or the next time 27,000 people stand and scream their lungs out when Pete Jones (5' 9", 171 lb sophomore) runs through the door of his Econ 111 class, I would expect that their indiscretions would make the newspaper too. Until then....

 

[Ursa Major]

I can't understand how anyone wouldn't agree with this unless they have a systemic and long-term agenda to mitigate the criminal behavior of student athletes for no other reason than because they are members of a football team.

Character matters.

Worst thread of the year/POTY

The question in the thread is WHY? Not WHETHER? What is the reason and rationale? I don't think anyone would disagree that college athletes, especially football players and to a lesser extent basketball players (and I would say anyone who represents the university), should be subject to a code that promotes and requires good behavior, at least in this day and age.

I find it hypocritical and unfair that college football players are actually held to an even higher standards, get their mistakes publicized and often put on the front page, and get crucified by some on the internet.

I'm sorry but I just don't think a normal dui, by a player who has not been a problem or gotten into a lot of trouble, should disqualify the player from playing for the program or result in a huge suspension. A normal dui is a misdemeanor. Some citations end up getting pled down or being dropped. Some don't. There are many worse things that could happen. Murder, sexual assault, robbery, burglary, felony assault, and most anything that is a felony (except maybe have one illegal pill at a party).

I find it incredibly hypocritical that texting/driving and extreme speeding don't get the same attention or result as a dui, even though, depending on the study, it is at least as dangerous and probably more dangerous. This is not just in college athletics, but everywhere. My impression is that many on this forum would not look upon a texting/driving, or big speeding ticket, as as harshly as they do with dui.

I'm fine with following the athletic code of conduct, and of allowing the coach to take separate action. People put considerable work into putting the code together.

No one is trying to promote or support criminal behavior in college athletics. What a BS comment, by a poster who recently makes BS comments and doesn't know what he is talking about. However, some people do believe in fundamental fairness and general consistency.

Of course, character matters. However, it is not possible to judge or know the character of someone like Strahm by reading that he was cited for a dui. Character is much much more than making a single mistake. The coaches know whether a senior, and senior starter, has character. While I don't know, I would guess that the coaches would rate Strahm fairly high on the character scale.

My view is that a lot of people, including some of you, take pleasure in seeing certain people or higher profile people, get into trouble. To me, that shows lack of character, and as you said, character matters.

I had to laugh at some of the rationales and comments. A dui hurts the "brand". Sure, a dui results in some bad press, but really, the brand doesn't suffer anymore than perhaps a tiny tiny bit. And then 75 points out how Engstrom has almost killed the brand (and ruined the school). And the Dean. And people like Everett give them a pass, and even used to cheer lead for them, but want to clobber a kid who goofs up and get cited for a dui. Where's the prospective?

And on privilege, I just don't agree that it is some huge "privilege" to play college sports. To me, that is just some cliche. Sure, it is a small privilege or honor, and people will say that, but at least some people like me, who did play college sports, didn't see it as some big privilege. But in this day and age of all the neutral stuff that athletes say to the press, they often just spew player-speak, just like coaches learned coach-speak.

And I stand by my observations that posters like Ursa never played the game, at least at any higher level. I can see it in their posts.

That's just the chronic traumatic encephalopathy talkin'.