Only in the SEC...

• LJ

  

  Speedofsand;389213 wrote:no more foolish than your reading comprehension, same as Prescott and ytown.
  FROM THE COMMENTS IN THE LINK
  the reader played softball with the Columbus cops.

  
  While it's in the comments, it's a stupid comment. I am friends with a bunch of younger CPD and I can tell you that most would LOVE to arrest an OSU player. If you knew many cops personally, you would know that comment is bullshit. Most cops treat things like a game and try to see who can get the most interesting arrest or citation.
• LJ

  

  Speedofsand;389963 wrote:vball you jarred some good times from my forgotten memories. Steele's, Easton, were "pro" teams, and local all stars (not me) played for Oyster Pub and Miller High Life. Shortly after Joe Carter won the world series for Toronto, his brother from Tampa was playing softball here. He had a damn nice Cadillac.
  
  anyways back to the subject, I'm hearing Meyer will dismiss Hammond from the team. 1st offense or not, he was over twice the legal limit. This spring Meyer told the team everyone is accountable for everyone. They will be running extra this week.

  I think it also needs to be noted that the Ohio State program has always been a program that has prided themselves on giving kids a second chance and being LIFE mentors, not just a football factory. Kicking a kid off of the team for getting a DUI is stupid and pushes them towards bitterness. We're talking about misdemeanor type stuff here.
• Speedofsand

  

  LJ, I wore the badge for 8 years, I know plenty of cops. Same goes for Gainesville PD, J. Jenkins and Cunningham are examples. What kind of cop arrests a guy for misdemeanor affray because he saw a punch thrown by a guy who was being jumped by 4 thugs who ran when the cop arrived ? Have you ever heard of anyone else being arrested for throwing some paper cups in Jimmy John's (sub shop) ? I said already I'm sure some of Tressel's players arrests were bogus too.
  
  His blood alcohol was .188 and .191 , still nothing official on being bounced. Brady Ackerman heard it last nite. If true, it could be that a dui zero tolerance policy was implemented by Meyer because of Dunlap. I'm not hearing of any previous problems from Hammond, he might get a chance to earn his spot back on the roster. Meyer knows about 2nd chances. Avery Atkins had a 2nd chance, failed and was bounced. He killed himself less than a year later and Meyer was pretty shook up about that.
• enigmaax

  Mostly a coach can't win with Joe Fan (especially of other teams) in these situations. Saying things like kicking him off the team could "send him into a tailspin" or "pushes him toward bitterness" is really overly dramatic. I mean, welcome to the real world.
  
  When Brandon Spikes stuck his hand in a facemask, Meyer went too lightly. He should've been kicked off the team and blah blah blah. There was no "life mentoring" going on in that situation, despite the fact that Spikes had never done anything wrong before. He needed to pay and Meyer was a weak ass for not dishing out something stronger.
  
  It is funny how everyone has all the answers and knows exactly how each one of these situations should be handled.
• dat dude

  enigmaax;390456 wrote:Mostly a coach can't win with Joe Fan (especially of other teams) in these situations. Saying things like kicking him off the team could "send him into a tailspin" or "pushes him toward bitterness" is really overly dramatic. I mean, welcome to the real world.

  
  Read up up the previously mentioned Avery Atkins. Many of kids came from nothing and football is all they have. Kicking them off the team takes away their scholarship, which in turn takes away their free education. I don't think it would be incorrect to assume that that would also mean taking away any chance they have at getting a college degree. Once that is all gone, they may go back to troublesome neighborhoods/friends and never get on the right path. Considering the Adkins story, it would not be "overly dramatic" to think this would occur because of an OVI.
  
  Wouldn't you agree that upon Adkins removal from the team that it sent his life into a tailspin? I mean, the guy was dead within a month.
  
  And don't assume me giving my opinion is me thinking I know more about the situation that any coach, blah blah blah. And further, what does the Spikes situation have to do with anything? Are you implying that I thought he needed kicked off the team?
• enigmaax

  dat dude - We all make choices in life. We all deal with consequences of those choices. You keep saying things like "taking away"....those things being taken away are not rights, but privileges. You are basically saying don't punish someone too hard because that punishment may *cause* more trouble for him. The trouble BEGINS with the person. Sad story about Atkins, but he lived and died based on his own decisions. Obviously he was troubled, but that NEVER meant (nor should it have) that he should get some breaks that others wouldn't.
  
  Seriously think about. I screw up. You discipline me. I then screw up worse.....and YOU are to blame for that? Nope. Not buying.
  
  As for Spikes, my only point is that no matter what discipline a coach hands out there's always going to be a retarded population talking about how it was the wrong decision.
• dat dude

  Fair enough, but I disagree. These are 18-21 year old kids, they are going to do dumb things. A zero tolerance policy is too strict for me. I guess it just goes to our beliefs regarding punishment/rehabilitation.
  
  And in no way do I blame Meyer for Adkins situation. He was totally justified in the dismissal. I was just referring to him to show that it CAN send a young adult into a tailspin (and did). But given the facts of the case at bar, I don't think Meyer would be justified in the dismissal.
• KnightRyder

  

  Frankie Hammond Jr. should have went to OSU, he would have gotten a buckeye on his helmet for that offense. well maybe 2
• enigmaax

  You mean 18-21 year old ADULTS who do dumb things? The fact that some young people make poor decisions doesn't make those mistakes excusable. At what point do you say enough is enough? I mean, let's say you excuse the behavior now...then ten years from now the person is still doing the same thing and who is to blame then? Someone else for never setting a better example? Someone else because "its all he's known his whole life"?
  
  You say that to some people, football is all they have. So, would a fitting punishment be...don't make them go to class? Obviously our views are different...and I'm not really that much of a hard ass when it comes to discipline. But to me, in so many cases there seems to be so much focus on everything EXCEPT for the fact that the person being punished DID SOMETHING WRONG. Make sense?
• LJ

  

  enigmaax;390708 wrote:dat dude - We all make choices in life. We all deal with consequences of those choices. You keep saying things like "taking away"....those things being taken away are not rights, but privileges. You are basically saying don't punish someone too hard because that punishment may *cause* more trouble for him. The trouble BEGINS with the person. Sad story about Atkins, but he lived and died based on his own decisions. Obviously he was troubled, but that NEVER meant (nor should it have) that he should get some breaks that others wouldn't.
  
  Seriously think about. I screw up. You discipline me. I then screw up worse.....and YOU are to blame for that? Nope. Not buying.
  
  As for Spikes, my only point is that no matter what discipline a coach hands out there's always going to be a retarded population talking about how it was the wrong decision.

  
  And i believe a college coach should be as much of a mentor as a coach. Having a zero tolerance policy just says "I don't care to deal with this". Not a mentor IMO. If someone who you and your parents entrust your future to just tosses you aside the first time you get into any trouble, that person is just as much to blame as the player.
• LJ

  

  enigmaax;390745 wrote:You mean 18-21 year old ADULTS who do dumb things? The fact that some young people make poor decisions doesn't make those mistakes excusable. At what point do you say enough is enough? I mean, let's say you excuse the behavior now...then ten years from now the person is still doing the same thing and who is to blame then? Someone else for never setting a better example? Someone else because "its all he's known his whole life"?
  
  You say that to some people, football is all they have. So, would a fitting punishment be...don't make them go to class? Obviously our views are different...and I'm not really that much of a hard ass when it comes to discipline. But to me, in so many cases there seems to be so much focus on everything EXCEPT for the fact that the person being punished DID SOMETHING WRONG. Make sense?

  
  Punishment isn't always so cut and dry as you want to make it. a judge doesn't deal the same sentence for the same crime between 2 totally different people. It's because the judge looks at every case individually and makes the punishment not only fit the crime, but the previous life of the person. Our judges are not "zero tolerance" and neither should coaches be.
• TheMightyGators

  dat dude;390569 wrote:
  Wouldn't you agree that upon Adkins removal from the team that it sent his life into a tailspin? I mean, the guy was dead within a month.
  

  I'm pretty sure it was well over a year that he left the Florida program before he was found dead. I think he actually played another football season at a smaller school too. At any rate his life was already in a tailspin before he left the Florida program. I say left, because I think it was mutual. I think he asked for his release and it was granted immediately.
• dat dude

  enigmaax;390745 wrote:You mean 18-21 year old ADULTS who do dumb things? The fact that some young people make poor decisions doesn't make those mistakes excusable. At what point do you say enough is enough? I mean, let's say you excuse the behavior now...then ten years from now the person is still doing the same thing and who is to blame then? Someone else for never setting a better example? Someone else because "its all he's known his whole life"?
  
  You say that to some people, football is all they have. So, would a fitting punishment be...don't make them go to class? Obviously our views are different...and I'm not really that much of a hard ass when it comes to discipline. But to me, in so many cases there seems to be so much focus on everything EXCEPT for the fact that the person being punished DID SOMETHING WRONG. Make sense?

  
  wtf are you talking about? Where am I saying the mistakes are "excusable?" I'm saying he needs to be punished, just not to the extreme level of a dismissal. And if he does it 10 years from now, then he is a 30 year old grown man. Big difference.
  
  The kid got a DUI. That's a misdemeanor offense, usually punished by a three day "class" held in some hotel. Within 15 days, the defendant is given driving privileges. Further, if it is the defendant's first offense, it can be expunged from their record, and he/she would thereafter be able to legally tell a future employer that they have no record. Is a DUI a serious offense? Absolutely. But to me, there are better ways to dish proper punishment.
• TheMightyGators

  LJ;390381 wrote:I think it also needs to be noted that the Ohio State program has always been a program that has prided themselves on giving kids a second chance and being LIFE mentors, not just a football factory. Kicking a kid off of the team for getting a DUI is stupid and pushes them towards bitterness. We're talking about misdemeanor type stuff here.

  
  I would agree with this, unless the players no upfront that there is a zero tolerance for a DUI. If they know this upfront and still choose to get behind the wheel while intoxicated, then they have no one to blame but themselves.
• LJ

  

  TheMightyGators;390763 wrote:I would agree with this, unless the players no upfront that there is a zero tolerance for a DUI. If they know this upfront and still choose to get behind the wheel while intoxicated, then they have no one to blame but themselves.

  
  i think zero tolerance is stupid and just a cop out for coaches, administrators etc to not have to deal with problems.
• TheMightyGators

  LJ;390765 wrote:i think zero tolerance is stupid and just a cop out for coaches, administrators etc to not have to deal with problems.

  I completely disagree.
• LJ

  

  TheMightyGators;390767 wrote:I completely disagree.

  
  Thanks for providing a counter point....
  
  It's a cop out because they treat situations like they are a constant, when they are not.
• lhslep134

  

  LJ;390765 wrote:i think zero tolerance is stupid and just a cop out for coaches, administrators etc to not have to deal with problems.

  
  I think not having zero tolerance is stupid and is just a cop out for coaches making excuses for THUGS who make stupid decisions.
  
  I get caught for a DUI, I lose my scholarship and possibly my job.
  
  But if I played football, I get caught for a DUI, I sit out maybe a game and run a ton of gassers, but keep my scholarship and my privileged life.
  
  
  These young adults have been given more than they can possibly comprehend, and to screw it up is seriously inexcusable.
  
  
  I'm all for a zero tolerance policy and abiding by it. THEN you will see kids screw up less because they see the REAL consequences, not some coach babying them giving them second chances.
• enigmaax

  dat dude;390761 wrote: But to me, there are better ways to dish proper punishment.

  
  Yeah, this is kind of my point. It is real easy to sit here and say, oh he should've punished him this way or that. I just find opinions on this particular type of topic to be retarded in general because until you have all the facts in front of you, know the person involved, know the coach, and are in a position in which you actually have to make decisions like this, you really have no idea what may or may not be "appropriate" punishment. There's always someone saying the punishment is wrong, but most of the time that someone is just spouting a completely uninformed opinion.
• TheMightyGators

  LJ;390775 wrote:Thanks for providing a counter point....
  
  It's a cop out because they treat situations like they are a constant, when they are not.

  
  I don't know if a zero tolerance penalty was in place or not, but if there was than the player knows this. They have no one to blame but themsevles. If you don't want to be kicked off the team for getting a DUI, then don't drink under the influence. It's that simple.
• LJ

  

  lhslep134;390776 wrote:I think not having zero tolerance is stupid and is just a cop out for coaches making excuses for THUGS who make stupid decisions.
  
  I get caught for a DUI, I lose my scholarship and possibly my job.
  
  But if I played football, I get caught for a DUI, I sit out maybe a game and run a ton of gassers, but keep my scholarship and my privileged life.
  
  
  These young adults have been given more than they can possibly comprehend, and to screw it up is seriously inexcusable.
  
  
  I'm all for a zero tolerance policy and abiding by it. THEN you will see kids screw up less because they see the REAL consequences, not some coach babying them giving them second chances.

  
  disagree, it allows administrators and coaches to dish out a punishment without having to actually deal with the problem. This goes for any zero tolerence program. Many places I have worked would help you get counsoling if you got a DUI
• LJ

  

  TheMightyGators;390780 wrote:I don't know if a zero tolerance penalty was in place or not, but if there was than the player knows this. They have no one to blame but themsevles. If you don't want to be kicked off the team for getting a DUI, then don't drink under the influence. It's that simple.

  
  What if the kid truly has a problem?
• TheMightyGators

  lhslep134;390776 wrote:I think not having zero tolerance is stupid and is just a cop out for coaches making excuses for THUGS who make stupid decisions.
  
  I get caught for a DUI, I lose my scholarship and possibly my job.
  
  But if I played football, I get caught for a DUI, I sit out maybe a game and run a ton of gassers, but keep my scholarship and my privileged life.
  
  
  These young adults have been given more than they can possibly comprehend, and to screw it up is seriously inexcusable.
  
  
  I'm all for a zero tolerance policy and abiding by it. THEN you will see kids screw up less because they see the REAL consequences, not some coach babying them giving them second chances.

  
  I completely agree with this.
• dat dude

  enigmaax;390779 wrote:Yeah, this is kind of my point. It is real easy to sit here and say, oh he should've punished him this way or that. I just find opinions on this particular type of topic to be retarded in general because until you have all the facts in front of you, know the person involved, know the coach, and are in a position in which you actually have to make decisions like this, you really have no idea what may or may not be "appropriate" punishment. There's always someone saying the punishment is wrong, but most of the time that someone is just spouting a completely uninformed opinion.

  
  Aren't you doing the same? Are you saying having a discussion on the punishment of collegiate athletes is "retarded?" Is my opinion "uniformed" while yours is somehow "informed?"
• enigmaax

  LJ;390752 wrote:Punishment isn't always so cut and dry as you want to make it. a judge doesn't deal the same sentence for the same crime between 2 totally different people. It's because the judge looks at every case individually and makes the punishment not only fit the crime, but the previous life of the person. Our judges are not "zero tolerance" and neither should coaches be.

  
  I really don't care if there's a zero tolerance policy or not. Or, in fact, I actually tend to agree that most things should be evaluated as their own cases. DUI, I'm not sure about. I mean, what possible mitigating circumstance could there be? If he was driving someone to the hospital, maybe? There just isn't a lot of room around that one, so again, I don't know how excusable that should ever be. Whatever, my point isn't even about zero tolerance. I'm just saying, it seems like every time a player screws up, fans from other schools (yeah, it goes both ways) bitch about how poorly the coach handled the discipline. I just find that silly. I mean, I'd really enjoy reading the book on how a coach should appropriately arrive at his decision in these cases. Oh but, you'll probably say it isn't possible to write the book because it all depends on the circumstance. Which is a cop out of your own that is basically saying, I don't know about every case, but this one is wrong.