Only in the SEC...

• enigmaax

  dat dude;390791 wrote: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?"

  
  Um, no. I don't have an opinion on whether it was the right decision or not. I don't know because I don't know all the facts and I don't have to make those kinds of decisions. Now, if my child happened to play a sport and got a DUI, that child would likely not be playing that sport as part of the punishment. But aside from that, I don't run a big time athletics program so in general I won't say that a coach should or shouldn't have punished a particular person differently. See the difference?
• dat dude

  But you disagree with my assessment of the situation and appropriate punishment, correct? Wouldn't that be holding an opinion? Or are you just sitting on the side, pointing at everyone and calling them "retarded" as you have referenced a few times already?
• enigmaax

  No, I don't know if it is right or wrong. I find two things "retarded" - might as well stick with the theme: 1) that you seemingly place fault on the disciplinarian for essentially ruining someone's life with a punishment (as I stated previously, I feel you were overdramatic and/or misplaced the "blame" for a life "tailspin") and 2) that it seems no coach's decision is ever "right", especially to fans of other teams. That is it. That simple.
• lhslep134

  

  LJ;390785 wrote: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

  
  The point I'm trying to make though is that with a zero tolerance policy in place, rather than a policy that allows you to mess up, the young adults will make mistakes MUCH less often.
  
  If you KNOW you're going to get kicked off the team and lose your scholarship and then have to deal with a parent(s) afterwards, I would assume you're much less likely to commit the offense than under the current system where if you commit any offense that's not extremely serious (i.e. armed robbery, felonious assault, etc.) you're given a second chance.
• LJ

  

  lhslep134;390848 wrote:The point I'm trying to make though is that with a zero tolerance policy in place, rather than a policy that allows you to mess up, the young adults will make mistakes MUCH less often.
  
  If you KNOW you're going to get kicked off the team and lose your scholarship and then have to deal with a parent(s) afterwards, I would assume you're much less likely to commit the offense than under the current system where if you commit any offense that's not extremely serious (i.e. armed robbery, felonious assault, etc.) you're given a second chance.

  
  There are no studies that fully back your statement. Everything I have read about zero tolerance in an academic setting say that results are mixed, at best.
  
  one such study, #1 result on Google btw
  http://www.principalspartnership.com/zerotolerance.pdf
• LJ

  

  enigmaax;390796 wrote: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.

  
  How is that a cop out? A judge doesn't treat anyone the same and would never tell anyone to do any such thing. Why would I believe that is a good method of dealing with issues? Do you follow a manual to your life? Do you have a specific plan of action already laid out for any situation that comes your way, be it a complete match to what you planned for or a 10% match? That's just a stupid way to go about life.
• lhslep134

  

  Okay LJ, so this is basically what you're saying by disagreeing with me that a zero tolerance policy isn't the best deterrence of stupidity.
  
  No zero tolerance policy in place:
  Oh, I think I'll go drink then drive because I won't get kicked off the team.
  
  Zero tolerance policy in place:
  Oh, I think I'll go drink then drive, why not? If I get kicked off the team and lose my scholarship EH so what.
  
  
  
  That's pretty much what you're saying by telling me that there are no studies to back up my assumption that people are much less likely to do something if they KNOW the punishment in advance.
  
  No shit there's no studies about it, because it's common sense. If you know you're going to get fired from your job for a DUI, why the fuck would you go drink and drive unless you didn't value your job. But if your co-workers have been caught with DUI's before and not been fired and thus a precedent has been set, why wouldn't you drink and drive knowing that there aren't serious ramifications (STRICTLY FROM A JOB LOSING PERSPECTIVE).
• LJ

  

  lhslep134;390952 wrote:Okay LJ, so this is basically what you're saying by disagreeing with me that a zero tolerance policy isn't the best deterrence of stupidity.
  
  No zero tolerance policy in place:
  Oh, I think I'll go drink then drive because I won't get kicked off the team.
  
  Zero tolerance policy in place:
  Oh, I think I'll go drink then drive, why not? If I get kicked off the team and lose my scholarship EH so what.
  
  
  
  That's EXACTLY what you're saying by telling me that there are no studies to back up my assumption that people are much less likely to do something if they KNOW the punishment in advance.
  
  No shit there's no studies about it, because it's common sense. If you know you're going to get fired from your job for a DUI, why the fuck would you go drink and drive unless you didn't value your job. But if your co-workers have been caught with DUI's before and not been fired and thus a precedent has been set, why wouldn't you drink and drive knowing that there aren't serious ramifications (STRICTLY FROM A JOB LOSING PERSPECTIVE).

  
  lol. There are no studies backing your claim meaning that all the studies say the opposite, glad you read the 1 of many studies that I posted.
• lhslep134

  

  Like I said, the only thing I'm trying to say is that IMO, a NCAA-wide zero tolerance policy will lead to much lower arrest rates. Kids generally play college football for 2 reasons: free education, and the chance to play in the NFL someday. I'm saying if it's known in advance that you're going to lose both of those by doing something stupid, then a REASONABLE person wouldn't risk that.
  
  
  
  However, in your defense, we all know that some college football players aren't exactly the brightest, or even half-brightest crayon in the box, so those are the ones that would be screwed in a zero tolerance policy.
• lhslep134

  

  And LJ, this isn't a zero tolerance policy in academia, this is a zero tolerance bad behavior policy for the football team.
• LJ

  

  lhslep134;390963 wrote:Like I said, the only thing I'm trying to say is that IMO, a NCAA-wide zero tolerance policy will lead to much lower arrest rates. Kids generally play college football for 2 reasons: free education, and the chance to play in the NFL someday. I'm saying if it's known in advance that you're going to lose both of those by doing something stupid, then a REASONABLE person wouldn't risk that.
  
  
  
  However, in your defense, we all know that some college football players aren't exactly the brightest, or even half-brightest crayon in the box, so those are the ones that would be screwed in a zero tolerance policy.

  
  Actually a reasonable person doesn't treat every situation the same.
• lhslep134

  

  LJ;390976 wrote:Actually a reasonable person doesn't treat every situation the same.

  
  So you're saying a reasonable person would intentionally commit an act that is known to violate the zero tolerance policy? I'd love to meet such an imaginary person. They must be the most interesting person in the world.
• LJ

  

  lhslep134;390987 wrote:So you're saying a reasonable person would intentionally commit an act that is known to violate the zero tolerance policy? I'd love to meet such an imaginary person. They must be the most interesting person in the world.

  
  Where did I say that? How about you don't put words in my mouth. Adolescent minds are not always reasonable, that is why the coaches and administration need to be the voices of reason. Treating every single situation the same is not the voice of reason.
• Speedofsand

  

  Ackerman removed the twitter about the dismissal. Zero tolerance was my suspicion if in fact he is bounced. The team would know about a zero tolerance or any other policy up front. Many jobs have zero tolerance for drug testing...you could be a great employee, piss positive once and you are out of a job. You know it up front. You don't have to get arrested. You don't even have to make a minor mistake on the job. Randomly piss positive and you are gone. What if he crashed and injured or killed someone ? Thats what drunk drivers are known for. There is no excuse for driving drunk. My mom was almost killed when a drunk driver hit us. My dad, my brother, and I were only slightly injured. Thankfully Hammond didn't crash, but there will be a penalty and lesson to learn. The fact that it happened on campus means academic discipline regardless of what Meyer does. If this happens to a student on academic sholly, guess what...it can be lost just like that. One lady on a Gator board said her roomie got a dui on campus 8 years ago and school policy dictated she either forfeit the semester and withdraw or take a 1 semester leave of absence the next semester. Maybe Hammond will miss the season with a chance to return in 2011. 'No news' today indicates Meyer is not jumping to any conclusions.
  There was an emergency team meeting Monday and the coaches took turns lambasting the team, and the entire team ran stadiums under the strength coach Monday evening.
• lhslep134

  

  LJ;391002 wrote:Treating every single situation the same is not the voice of reason.

  
  It ABSOLUTELY is when there is a zero tolerance policy in place.
  
  So since you seem to be so adamantly against a zero tolerance policy, please explain a hypothetical situation where two kids both break different rules but a zero tolerance policy is a bad thing.
  
  I'd love to hear this
  
  
  I'm for a zero tolerance policy not because of anything to do with coaches or administration, but because it's bullshit that these young adults act like the rules don't apply to them, otherwise they wouldn't be doing the stupid shit that they do, such as drinking and driving.
• LJ

  

  lhslep134;391122 wrote:It ABSOLUTELY is when there is a zero tolerance policy in place.
  
  So since you seem to be so adamantly against a zero tolerance policy, please explain a hypothetical situation where two kids both break different rules but a zero tolerance policy is a bad thing.
  
  I'd love to hear this
  
  
  I'm for a zero tolerance policy not because of anything to do with coaches or administration, but because it's bullshit that these young adults act like the rules don't apply to them, otherwise they wouldn't be doing the stupid shit that they do, such as drinking and driving.

  
  1 kid who steals a pack of gum and has never done anything wrong in his life, has a 3.8 GPA, volunteers, etc.
  vs
  1 kid who steals a pack of gum, multiple thefts on his record, 2.5 GPA, and has had previous gang affiliation.
  
  
  The judge wouldn't treat either of them the same and neither should you.
• dat dude

  enigmaax;390826 wrote:No, I don't know if it is right or wrong. I find two things "retarded" - might as well stick with the theme: 1) that you seemingly place fault on the disciplinarian for essentially ruining someone's life with a punishment (as I stated previously, I feel you were overdramatic and/or misplaced the "blame" for a life "tailspin") and 2) that it seems no coach's decision is ever "right", especially to fans of other teams. That is it. That simple.

  
  1. I've never stated that I place fault with a coach for their decision. In fact, I said Meyer's earlier decision was justified. I would never place blame on a coach for causing an ex-player's tailspin, I just cited that those sort of things can (and did) happen to players who are kicked off the team.
  
  2. Of course no coach's decision is ever going to be right with everybody. People have different opinions. Different life experiences play into two people looking at the same set of facts differently. Do you expect everyone to agree on a subjective decision? That's not "retarded," thats common sense.
• lhslep134

  

  LJ;391130 wrote:1 kid who steals a pack of gum and has never done anything wrong in his life, has a 3.8 GPA, volunteers, etc.
  vs
  1 kid who steals a pack of gum, multiple thefts on his record, 2.5 GPA, and has had previous gang affiliation.
  
  
  The judge wouldn't treat either of them the same and neither should you.

  
  
  
  Okay, and my counter to that is with a zero tolerance policy in place, BOTH of them are equally stupid for breaking it, so both of them deserve to be kicked off the team.
  
  It's not about the crime, it's about the concept of committing anything that violates a zero tolerance policy if the person committing the offense knew about the consequences.
  
  
  In your example, you talk about a judge looking at cases subjectively based on previous information, whereas a zero tolerance policy doesn't care whether you're a 4.0 student or a 2.0 student, if you break the policy you're kicked off. If you don't think that's fair, then don't commit a damn crime, it's really not hard to do.
• FatHobbit

  

  lhslep134;391240 wrote:Okay, and my counter to that is with a zero tolerance policy in place, BOTH of them are equally stupid for breaking it, so both of them deserve to be kicked off the team.
  
  It's not about the crime, it's about the concept of committing anything that violates a zero tolerance policy if the person committing the offense knew about the consequences.
  
  
  In your example, you talk about a judge looking at cases subjectively based on previous information, whereas a zero tolerance policy doesn't care whether you're a 4.0 student or a 2.0 student, if you break the policy you're kicked off. If you don't think that's fair, then don't commit a damn crime, it's really not hard to do.

  
  In LJ's example one of the kids made a simple mistake. There is a possibility that he can learn from it and go on to be a productive member of society. The other kid shows a pattern of making bad decisions and deserves a harsher punishment. Zero tolerance is a bad idea in that case. Have you never made a mistake? People (kids especially) make them all the time.
• lhslep134

  

  FatHobbit;391272 wrote:In LJ's example one of the kids made a simple mistake. There is a possibility that he can learn from it and go on to be a productive member of society. The other kid shows a pattern of making bad decisions and deserves a harsher punishment. Zero tolerance is a bad idea in that case. Have you never made a mistake? People (kids especially) make them all the time.

  
  I've made mistakes but I've never committed a crime.
  
  Committing a crime is not a mistake, it's a bad decision that should go punished. If a zero tolerance policy is in place I think it's pretty much safe to assume those young adults wouldn't be doing something at stupid and petty as stealing gum to jeopardize both their spot on the team and their scholarship.
  
  It's one thing to make mistakes, it's a whole other thing to do something stupid like stealing gum if you know you're going to get kicked off the team for it.
  
  
  The entire purpose of a zero tolerance policy isn't to fuck kids over, it's to deter them from committing the crime in the first place because at it stands, there's NOTHING in place to deter kids now. If you don't believe me look at the giant rap sheets of almost every major college football team.
• FatHobbit

  

  lhslep134;391285 wrote:I've made mistakes but I've never committed a crime.

  
  Have you ever driven over the speed limit?
• enigmaax

  FatHobbit;391290 wrote:Have you ever driven over the speed limit?

  
  I know you are referring to his direct quote about committing a crime, but that example is a good point of reference. When you speed, you are essentially saying that the gain from speeding is worth the risk of receiving the penalty. You know that if you get caught, you are going to have to pay and if you are okay with those consequences that is your decision.
  
  In the same regard in the examples discussed here, a player knows that there is a zero tolerance policy on certain things. Whether it is drunk driving or stealing...whatever. The person who chooses to do those things is making a statement through actions that the gain from the crime is worth the risk of consequences. So when those consequences come down, it is a direct result of a conscious decision....not a "mistake".
• lhslep134

  

  enigmaax;391406 wrote:I know you are referring to his direct quote about committing a crime, but that example is a good point of reference. When you speed, you are essentially saying that the gain from speeding is worth the risk of receiving the penalty. You know that if you get caught, you are going to have to pay and if you are okay with those consequences that is your decision.
  
  In the same regard in the examples discussed here, a player knows that there is a zero tolerance policy on certain things. Whether it is drunk driving or stealing...whatever. The person who chooses to do those things is making a statement through actions that the gain from the crime is worth the risk of consequences. So when those consequences come down, it is a direct result of a conscious decision....not a "mistake".

  
  Exactlyyyyyyy
  
  Thank you enigmaax for being wise and understanding my point.
• LJ

  

  enigmaax;391406 wrote:I know you are referring to his direct quote about committing a crime, but that example is a good point of reference. When you speed, you are essentially saying that the gain from speeding is worth the risk of receiving the penalty. You know that if you get caught, you are going to have to pay and if you are okay with those consequences that is your decision.
  
  In the same regard in the examples discussed here, a player knows that there is a zero tolerance policy on certain things. Whether it is drunk driving or stealing...whatever. The person who chooses to do those things is making a statement through actions that the gain from the crime is worth the risk of consequences. So when those consequences come down, it is a direct result of a conscious decision....not a "mistake".

  
  Cops are not zero tolerance with speeding. A cop can decide whether or not to give you a ticket, a written warning or a verbal warning. Bad comeback IMO.
• FatHobbit

  

  enigmaax;391406 wrote:I know you are referring to his direct quote about committing a crime, but that example is a good point of reference. When you speed, you are essentially saying that the gain from speeding is worth the risk of receiving the penalty. You know that if you get caught, you are going to have to pay and if you are okay with those consequences that is your decision.
  
  In the same regard in the examples discussed here, a player knows that there is a zero tolerance policy on certain things. Whether it is drunk driving or stealing...whatever. The person who chooses to do those things is making a statement through actions that the gain from the crime is worth the risk of consequences. So when those consequences come down, it is a direct result of a conscious decision....not a "mistake".

  
  I can agree that speeding is a conscious choice. (I guess you could accidentally speed.) But I think it's fairly obvious that zero tolerance is a ridiculous policy when applied to speeding. There are different levels of crimes and different levels of punishment. For some people they get a ticket and decide they never want to do that again. One warning was enough. Others think that the risk of getting a ticket is not so bad, so they need to be punished a little harder next time. I don't think anyone would argue that a murderer deserves the same penalty as someone who got their first speeding ticket. Different crimes (and patterns of bad decisions) deserve different punishments.