M
Me2SouthBend
Guest
They can't keep up w Florida on or off the field. Urbs teams would laugh at these numbers. That looks like an academic, I mean calendar year for the Gators. Ahhh, the $EC.
More SEC arrests
- Thread starter kmoose
- Start date
They can't keep up w Florida on or off the field. Urbs teams would laugh at these numbers. That looks like an academic, I mean calendar year for the Gators. Ahhh, the $EC.
TheChosen1
New member
- Messages
- 2,754
- Reaction score
- 113
FLDomer
Polish Hammer
- Messages
- 3,227
- Reaction score
- 510
44 players (don't think that include most recent) have been arrested at UGA during Richts watch, 2011-Present. Now, Urban was able to rack up 31 arrest in half that time. Richt is thinking slow and steady wins the race apparently.
Last edited:
PANDFAN
Look Down
- Messages
- 16,770
- Reaction score
- 2,278
not arrested but suspended
not arrested but suspended
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Alabama's Brandon Ivory, Jarran Reed & Tim Williams have been suspended for "violation of team rules and policies." <a href="http://t.co/GrsyynpuFP">http://t.co/GrsyynpuFP</a></p>— ESPN CollegeFootball (@ESPNCFB) <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNCFB/statuses/495261996708036608">August 1, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
not arrested but suspended
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Alabama's Brandon Ivory, Jarran Reed & Tim Williams have been suspended for "violation of team rules and policies." <a href="http://t.co/GrsyynpuFP">http://t.co/GrsyynpuFP</a></p>— ESPN CollegeFootball (@ESPNCFB) <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNCFB/statuses/495261996708036608">August 1, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
PANDFAN
Look Down
- Messages
- 16,770
- Reaction score
- 2,278
SEC OF THE ACC
SEC OF THE ACC
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>RT <a href="https://twitter.com/AKuperstein">@AKuperstein</a>: Miami Hurricanes QB Kevin Olsen will be suspended for at least 1 game this season for failed drug test. No comment from UM</p>— Dan Wolken (@DanWolken) <a href="https://twitter.com/DanWolken/statuses/495263700454879234">August 1, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
SEC OF THE ACC
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>RT <a href="https://twitter.com/AKuperstein">@AKuperstein</a>: Miami Hurricanes QB Kevin Olsen will be suspended for at least 1 game this season for failed drug test. No comment from UM</p>— Dan Wolken (@DanWolken) <a href="https://twitter.com/DanWolken/statuses/495263700454879234">August 1, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
- Messages
- 44,573
- Reaction score
- 20,020
Probably for the first cream puff.
T Town Tommy
Alabama Bag Man
- Messages
- 6,278
- Reaction score
- 2,768
We will see. It isn't easy getting out of Saban's doghouse. Ask Drake and Geno Smith. Drake must like the practice squad. He spends a lot of time on it. Geno pops a DUI last summer and goes from projected starter to hardly seeing the field. Don't know what these three done, but if I find out anything I will post it out here.
MNIrishman
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,532
- Reaction score
- 481
I think that this kind of discipline is one reason for increasing the scholarship limit. 85 scholarship athletes can impose a functional limit on depth, helping to discourage the athletic justice system. If your job success was dependent on not disciplining your most talented athletes, would you be inclined to bench people proactively? Something something Alabama something oversigning something something, but I do think that the scholarship limit contributes to the overall football discipline problem.
T Town Tommy
Alabama Bag Man
- Messages
- 6,278
- Reaction score
- 2,768
Back in the 90's when they changed the limit to 85, this was one of the arguments used against that limit. I agree that it puts a coach in a serious dilemma when deciding on what to do with players that need to be disciplined. And with each schools different approach to how they handle their individual situations, it can seriously hurt schools that have a more active approach to discipline.
Also, this is the same argument used against a school offering a four year scholarship as oppossed to a one year scholarship. A couple of points here. It was argued that players under four year scholarships would be harder to push to improve their performance simply due to them knowing they had a scholarship no matter what. It was also argued that, back then at least, a lot of players simply quit their respective sport after a year or two but still maintained their scholarship. Don't know if that's true as I didn't research that myself. But if one looks at some of the statements made by teh NCAA in the past regarding one year vs four year scholarships, it seems that this was one of their biggest concerns. Again, don't know if that is valid or not, but it does make one think about the pros and cons of the years a scholarship is good for. I do think the NCAA is being forced to relook at this issue given the current environment that exists today.
Last edited:
T Town Tommy
Alabama Bag Man
- Messages
- 6,278
- Reaction score
- 2,768
Reed's suspension was for his DUI over the summer. Can't see him getting any meaningful snaps for a while. No word on Ivory and William's transgressions yet. Hopefully nothing major but if so, it is what it is.
irishog77
NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
- Messages
- 7,441
- Reaction score
- 2,206
I don't think expanding the scholarship allotment will all of a sudden cause coaches to be firm on discipline. It'd be like sending a gambling/coke/whore addict to Vegas for a weekend bender...but instead of giving him $10,000 to hopefully not blow...you give him $11,000 to not blow.
The ethics involved with a coach's discipline on his team is separate from the amount of players he has on his team. Or at least it should be.
The ethics involved with a coach's discipline on his team is separate from the amount of players he has on his team. Or at least it should be.
FearTheBeard
New member
- Messages
- 1,123
- Reaction score
- 36
Yeet yeet
MNIrishman
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,532
- Reaction score
- 481
Suppose you're CBK. Three of our Dlineman get caught smoking marijuana. Given our depth issues, how heavily would you punish them? How about the case where we have six extra competent Dlineman on the roster compared to now? I trust the coach to act fairly, but what about others? While I completely agree that the standard of punishment ought to be independent of roster, I don't think it is sensible to expect that this will always be the case in the real world, or that there is nothing to be gained from taking away some of the motivation to consider the roster in disciplinary situations. It wasn't too long ago that we had teams exceeding 100 students. What is wrong with giving out the extra scholarships and considering better motivation for fair discipline a solid ancillary benefit?
irishog77
NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
- Messages
- 7,441
- Reaction score
- 2,206
What if it's 5 DL? What if it's 10? What if it's the starting QB? What if it's the starting LT? What if it's the nickleback? What if it's the walk-on 3rd string LS? If you make the argument that 90 scholarships will stop coaches from being lax in their discipline of their players, couldn't you then argue that 91 scholarships would do a better job than 90? Then 92 would be better than 91? There are a million "what if's" one can ask.
The 85 scholarship limit has been in place for awhile now. So long, in fact, that most head coaches today were barely, or not even, assistant coaches when the rule was enacted. In other words, they're used to the hand that has been dealt to them, and, essentially, they don't know a world where more than 85 scholarships were given.
Show me some proof or some type of evidence (other than just the way you think things may unfold) that increasing the scholarship allotment will make coaches stricter on discipline, then I may get behind your argument. In the meantime, I'll go with the entire history of college football and the ncaa and the plentiful annual examples of fraud, cheating, and corruption.
MNIrishman
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,532
- Reaction score
- 481
I made no claim that increased scholarships would stop such practices, only that it would take away one element of the motivation to be inconsistent in punishment. Incidentally, Coach Holtz suspended two key players prior to the USC game in 1988, no doubt (correctly) believing in the depth afforded him by the 95 scholarships he was permitted. Every year, it seems we now have a position group that suffers from depth concerns, something that doesn't seem to afflict Bama or LSU. I am arguing for the general good that may come about from revisiting the scholarship limit. Incidentally, here's an interesting article that correlates the size of the limit with the success of various schools, including ND: The 85-scholarship era and Oregon’s rise to power
irishog77
NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
- Messages
- 7,441
- Reaction score
- 2,206
Teams like bama and lsu (and many others) will always be at whatever limit the scholarship number is because of things like gray shirting, oversigning, institutional pressure, fan pressure, booster pressure, and their general climate. Those schools will do whatever necessary, wether it be technically within ncaa guidelines...but ethically wrong or gray, to "compete" and to give themselves a competitive advantage (why do you think lsu play virtually all their home games at night?, while we're talking about this). les miles didn't suspend his starting RB last year not because of the 85-limit, but because he didn't want to lose a competitive advantage.
There may be good and valid reasons to increase the number of scholarships from 85, but team discipline isn't one of them. If the number is 185, many coaches will still do whatever they can (both legal and illegal, both clear and murky) to win. You think gus malzahn is really thinking, "ya know, if I had a few more scholarships, I'd probably legitimately discipline trey marshall...but since I only have 85, I just won't let him come to sec media days and not him let him start the opener instead?"
MNIrishman
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,532
- Reaction score
- 481
An unjust man will always be unjust, but a coach who otherwise would consider discipline by removing a player will be influenced by the fact that that player is indispensable. If Trey Marshall were one of several capable players at his position group, why wouldn't coach enhance his image by imposing strict discipline? If I give a leader a goal and a team of men to accomplish it, and give him the absolute minimum number of men, such that none can be removed and still accomplish the goal, it is obvious that his freedom to remove men from his team is limited, and that he will only consider it if the negative behavior is more detrimental than the removal. Since the removal is tantamount to failure, the motivation for justice is diminished.
- Messages
- 44,573
- Reaction score
- 20,020
What about global warming?
irishog77
NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
- Messages
- 7,441
- Reaction score
- 2,206
You sold me-- up the schollie limit to 612.
Again, show me some actual evidence that increasing the scholarship limit will cause coaches to impose stricter discipline upon his team. I'll continue to stick with the entire history of college football as evidence that this won't happen.
Bishop2b5
SEC Exchange Student
- Messages
- 8,927
- Reaction score
- 6,156
My opinion is that no player - regardless of how great he is or how indispensable he seems to your team's success - is worth the price you pay for letting him get away with bad behavior. You can let your star player get away with stuff because you think you can't win without him, but the breakdown in discipline of the team as a whole, especially when they see that the stars don't have to follow the rules, will cost you a lot more wins somewhere down the road.
B
Bogtrotter07
Guest
No, its good. Shows that you feel strongly about the issue!
MNIrishman
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,532
- Reaction score
- 481
This is utterly hyperbolic and I would challenge you to present evidence that coaches universally believe that a lack of redundancy is immaterial to their disciplinary decision-making. Of course, that challenge is as absurd as your challenge to me---the evidence just isn't out there, available to the public to research and present. Instead, what we have are anecdotal pieces of evidence, like Coach Holtz's suspension of Ricky Watters and Tony Brooks followed by a superb team performance, that indicate very little of the big picture. I am arguing from the standpoint of philosophy---that redundancy breeds freedom and that that freedom can be utilized by the coaches for discipline (or not)-----and we do not agree on this. That's fine. We don't have to.
irishog77
NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
- Messages
- 7,441
- Reaction score
- 2,206
There's very little evidence suggesting many coaches and schools care very little for the rules of the ncaa? There's very little evidence many suggesting coaches and administrators bend the rules on a consistent basis? There's very little evidence many schools have created a football culture completely inconsistent with the core belief of "student-athletes?" There's very little evidence many schools blatantly steer football players into specific majors to keep them academically eligible? There's very little evidence many schools do a piss poor job of graduating their football student athletes? There's very little evidence many coaches jump schools when a higher paying, easier to recruit at school/easier to win at school comes along with a job offer? There's very little evidence many schools specifically schedule teams and home games to boost their overall wins in a season? And I can go on and on.
Are all these things an absolute truth in the world of college football? No, not exactly. Are all these things way more prevalent than not? Are all these things the norm among coaches, administrators, players, fans, and boosters? Absolutely. ncaa football is a cesspool of corruption, fraud, and cheating.
You opined that boosting the scholarship limit from 85 to 90 MAY increase a coach's discipline upon his team. Ok, sure. It IS possible. But 5 is a random number you picked. I could just as easily say adding 6, 7, 8, 9....20...40...75 MAY increase this likelihood. So what is the best number to add on to the total scholarship tally?
Ultimately, I feel it's all for not though. The cesspool will remain. Adding 5 scholarships to aid a coach in being more ethical towards the discipline of his team won't all of a sudden change that. What I was getting at is that there is virtually no evidence to suggest the change will help; while the mere existence of college football teams and the ncaa offer plenty of proof (over their history and on a yearly basis) that adding scholarships will alter a coach's or a school's behavior.
I think of the old parable about the frog and scorpion. The scorpion asks the frog for a ride across the creek. The frog says, "I can't do that. You're a scorpion. You'll sting me. It's in your nature." To which the scorpion says, "No, no, no. I won't sting you. You're my means across this creek. Of course I won't sting you. That would be absurd." The frog thinks about it for a minute and ultimately agrees. He thinks, "Yeah, regardless of his nature, he won't sting me crossing the creek. We'd both die if he does that." So the frog picks the scorpion up in his mouth and begins his crossing. Halfway across the creek, he feels a sharp pain. He quickly realizes the scorpion stung him. He cries, "Why did you do that? You told me you wouldn't. Now we're both going to drown in this creek." The scorpion simply replies, "Because it's my nature."
Yes, we don't agree on this. And that is fine. I can't help but feel, though, in this discussion on a rule change though that you are the frog and the rule change you propose is the scorpion.
Are all these things an absolute truth in the world of college football? No, not exactly. Are all these things way more prevalent than not? Are all these things the norm among coaches, administrators, players, fans, and boosters? Absolutely. ncaa football is a cesspool of corruption, fraud, and cheating.
You opined that boosting the scholarship limit from 85 to 90 MAY increase a coach's discipline upon his team. Ok, sure. It IS possible. But 5 is a random number you picked. I could just as easily say adding 6, 7, 8, 9....20...40...75 MAY increase this likelihood. So what is the best number to add on to the total scholarship tally?
Ultimately, I feel it's all for not though. The cesspool will remain. Adding 5 scholarships to aid a coach in being more ethical towards the discipline of his team won't all of a sudden change that. What I was getting at is that there is virtually no evidence to suggest the change will help; while the mere existence of college football teams and the ncaa offer plenty of proof (over their history and on a yearly basis) that adding scholarships will alter a coach's or a school's behavior.
I think of the old parable about the frog and scorpion. The scorpion asks the frog for a ride across the creek. The frog says, "I can't do that. You're a scorpion. You'll sting me. It's in your nature." To which the scorpion says, "No, no, no. I won't sting you. You're my means across this creek. Of course I won't sting you. That would be absurd." The frog thinks about it for a minute and ultimately agrees. He thinks, "Yeah, regardless of his nature, he won't sting me crossing the creek. We'd both die if he does that." So the frog picks the scorpion up in his mouth and begins his crossing. Halfway across the creek, he feels a sharp pain. He quickly realizes the scorpion stung him. He cries, "Why did you do that? You told me you wouldn't. Now we're both going to drown in this creek." The scorpion simply replies, "Because it's my nature."
Yes, we don't agree on this. And that is fine. I can't help but feel, though, in this discussion on a rule change though that you are the frog and the rule change you propose is the scorpion.
MNIrishman
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,532
- Reaction score
- 481
I never proposed a value. You threw out 90 and have been strawmanning me with it. Personally, I think the limit should either be 4xN, where N is the annual permitted allotment, or an unlimited value to be determined by each individual school and their finances. That won't create parity, but eh. It would eliminate oversigning, which is nice.
Discipline, Depth, Scholarship Limits, Four Year Scholies
Discipline, Depth, Scholarship Limits, Four Year Scholies
Some points:
Costs
Ability to Compete/Depth
Rather than trying to adjust the system with adding scholarships to cope with potential future discipline issues, wouldn't it benefit a team to vet players out eliminating them from consideration prior to offering scholarships?
At 105 scholarship players, how many would the NCAA cut for violations to make an infraction sting?
Four Year Scholarships
A good article on the four year scholarships and recruiting impacts, which responds to some of the arguments said or unsaid - The Recruiting Impact of 4-Year Scholarships Is Overstated
Nick Saban (Feb, 2012) announced Alabama would be awarding four year scholarships (Hurt: Saban to offer four-year scholarships)
"We're going to offer four-year scholarships," Saban said. "Our whole conference is going to do it, all the schools, I think.
"And we're happy to do it."
Many schools do offer, in effect, four year scholarships. Stanford is currently at 84 scholarship players. Northwestern is at 85. But both have reached those totals with more fifth year players (13 at Stanford, 12 at Northwestern). Of note, Alabama signed 129 recruits in their last five classes. Stanford signed 93. Northwestern signed 91. Depth and competitiveness are not major issues at either of those schools nor is discipline. Attrition is minimal, too.
Discipline, Depth, Scholarship Limits, Four Year Scholies
Some points:
Costs
- Any increase in scholarship limits, for instance to 105, would increase costs so much that most mid-majors or those outside of the power conferences would not be able to compete
- Title IX would dictate adding an equivalent amount of female athletic scholarships - a hidden cost. Women's hockey is probably not that popular in the South, though.
Ability to Compete/Depth
- Many teams are able to compete now with rosters that approach 80 scholarship players. For example, by my figures, ND is at 80 scholarship players. LSU is at 79 scholarship players. S.Carolina is currently at 81. Alabama is at 84, but with four players currently suspended. USC is at 70 scholarship players.
- I could cut Bama's roster easily without affecting their ability to compete. Anthony Orr, Jabriel Washington, Dakota Ball or Bradley Bozeman have played minimally or not at all in their careers. Even subtracting the four suspended players plus these four (down to 76) no one would argue that Alabama will have difficulty competing this year.
- On the other hand, though these four may not have played so far, they should be the players who step into the disciplined player's spots. Increasing scholarships would only add fourth and fifth team players.
Rather than trying to adjust the system with adding scholarships to cope with potential future discipline issues, wouldn't it benefit a team to vet players out eliminating them from consideration prior to offering scholarships?
At 105 scholarship players, how many would the NCAA cut for violations to make an infraction sting?
Four Year Scholarships
A good article on the four year scholarships and recruiting impacts, which responds to some of the arguments said or unsaid - The Recruiting Impact of 4-Year Scholarships Is Overstated
Nick Saban (Feb, 2012) announced Alabama would be awarding four year scholarships (Hurt: Saban to offer four-year scholarships)
"We're going to offer four-year scholarships," Saban said. "Our whole conference is going to do it, all the schools, I think.
"And we're happy to do it."
Many schools do offer, in effect, four year scholarships. Stanford is currently at 84 scholarship players. Northwestern is at 85. But both have reached those totals with more fifth year players (13 at Stanford, 12 at Northwestern). Of note, Alabama signed 129 recruits in their last five classes. Stanford signed 93. Northwestern signed 91. Depth and competitiveness are not major issues at either of those schools nor is discipline. Attrition is minimal, too.
Last edited:
MNIrishman
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,532
- Reaction score
- 481
Nice post. I would not be bothered by the part in bold.
Last edited:
IndyIrishFan1
New member
- Messages
- 452
- Reaction score
- 32
IndyIrishFan1
New member
- Messages
- 452
- Reaction score
- 32
"Mills had been indefinitely suspended since June, when he was arrested for allegedly punching a woman and knocking her unconscious on May 4. Initially police said he could face a second-degree battery charge -- a felony -- but East Baton Rouge Parish district attorney Hillar Moore charged Mills with misdemeanor simple battery on Monday."
From Hillar Moore's website: "Graduate of LSU, Bachelor of Science, Criminal Justice"
B
Bogtrotter07
Guest
Bull shit!