Florida Felons

[JOEY'S ALL VOL !!!]

Originally Posted by kptvol

Anyone remember Vincent McClure? He was a big tight end we had a couple of years ago. Anyway, he beat up his girlfriend and then only got suspended for like one game. That really rubbed me the wrong way. Then, when Fulmer drops the hammer on a couple of guys in 2006 for doing basically nothing it seems pretty hypocritical.

uh, that would be Victor McClure

[jakez4ut]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

Actually, no. I was trying to be a-political and non-controversial in referencing the fact that some of these players, who often come from very bad upbringings and poor conditions, would never be college students but for football.

The college game at this level is not interested in the scholar-athlete. They are interested in the athlete, regardless of circumstances. I'm not in any way excusing criminalk behavior. I'm just saying its the way it is right now, and that's true everywhere.

You want to field a team of middle and upper class kids with two-parent homes and no gangs, good grades, etc.? You'll have the team with the highest GPA, sure, but you'll go 0-8 in the SEC every year.

can't really disagree with that, but at the same time, and we've been guilty of this too, as have many schools, a lot of these kids that do get in to trouble while in college, also have track records prior to getting there, so it's not "new information" as to the character of these individuals when they arrive on campus. many of the coaches know they may be taking a chance on a kid and "hoping for the best".

[jakez4ut]

Originally Posted by rexvol

come'on Law, what you're saying is that it's ok for a kid to wild out, if he comes from a sketchy background? give me a freakin' break. Guys like Meyer will patty-cake these players right into an early grave. Actually Im suprised Meyer suspended him for the whole WCU game. I really thought he would only make him sit out the coin toss. (that's from my boy Cowherd)

i know what you're saying and i don't disagree with it, but they didn't name it the "fulmer cup" for his strict vince lombardilike disciplinary action.......

the student athelete shares as much responsibility, if not more, than the coach. the coach cannot baby sit these guys 24 hrs a day.

truth is that all coaches take chances on kids that they already know to be "troubled". hoping that the college experience, and the opportunity to get a degree or maybe have a football career and be exposed to the "college experience" may be enough to deter or discontinue the behavior they have displayed because of some of the circumstances they were brought up in.

sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.........

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by jakez4ut

i know what you're saying and i don't disagree with it, but they didn't name it the "fulmer cup" for his strict vince lombardilike disciplinary action.......

the student athelete shares as much responsibility, if not more, than the coach. the coach cannot baby sit these guys 24 hrs a day.

truth is that all coaches take chances on kids that they already know to be "troubled". hoping that the college experience, and the opportunity to get a degree or maybe have a football career and be exposed to the "college experience" may be enough to deter or discontinue the behavior they have displayed because of some of the circumstances they were brought up in.

sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.........

the player bears the responsibility for the action, but the coach shoulders the responsibility of properly responding to said action. My gripe is the coaches turning a blind eye, or effectively condoning poor behavior.

[Cole4Aubie]

nice

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

the player bears the responsibility for the action, but the coach shoulders the responsibility of properly responding to said action. My gripe is the coaches turning a blind eye, or effectively condoning poor behavior.

I agree with this post. I'm just convinced that, if the solution is in some fashion or another to weed out the potential troublemakers, or to react harshly to initial transgressions, then you aren;t going to have much of a team left.

And to make it even more difficult, there are the occassional success stories -- the kid who was given a second or even third chance, rather than thrown on the trash bin -- and who then blossoms into a successful adult, a good role model, and a fine example of the kid given a chance ot get out of a cycle of pretty bad things for his family.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

I agree with this post. I'm just convinced that, if the solution is in some fashion or another to weed out the potential troublemakers, or to react harshly to initial transgressions, then you aren;t going to have much of a team left.

And to make it even more difficult, there are the occassional success stories -- the kid who was given a second or even third chance, rather than thrown on the trash bin -- and who then blossoms into a successful adult, a good role model, and a fine example of the kid given a chance ot get out of a cycle of pretty bad things for his family.

I don't buy that we can't find enough players who will simply abide by the rules / law. Just is not true. One does not have to be a criminal to be talented.

I understand the story of him given umpteen chances finally getting it sorted out. That argument doesn't support a coach allowing a player the privilege of playing NCAA ball on scholarship after committing a crime. This arguments supports the fact that people can be rehabilitated (if only temporarily, which is most often the case) or can mature. Removal of the privilege to play could likely be cited the same way. I just think the real threat of losing playing privileges would have a significant impact on player attitudes.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

I don't buy that we can't find enough players who will simply abide by the rules / law. Just is not true. One does not have to be a criminal to be talented.

I understand the story of him given umpteen chances finally getting it sorted out. That argument doesn't support a coach allowing a player the privilege of playing NCAA ball on scholarship after committing a crime. This arguments supports the fact that people can be rehabilitated (if only temporarily, which is most often the case) or can mature. Removal of the privilege to play could likely be cited the same way. I just think the real threat of losing playing privileges would have a significant impact on player attitudes.

If everyone (meaning every school) agreed to a verifiable system of enforcement and an objective set of disciplinary criteria, of course you are right. But neither will happen. Its not a bad idea. Its just an impossible one.

[kptvol]

Originally Posted by JOEY'S ALL VOL !!!

uh, that would be Victor McClure

I'm not even mildly embarrassed that I forgot that women beater's name. He was a me-first guy that should have been kicked off the team.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

If everyone (meaning every school) agreed to a verifiable system of enforcement and an objective set of disciplinary criteria, of course you are right. But neither will happen. Its not a bad idea. Its just an impossible one.

If I may paraphrase: 2 wrongs make a right.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

If I may paraphrase: 2 wrongs make a right.

More like 3,000 wrongs make a reality.

[Vercingetorix]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

If everyone (meaning every school) agreed to a verifiable system of enforcement and an objective set of disciplinary criteria, of course you are right. But neither will happen. Its not a bad idea. Its just an impossible one.

It would be nice if discipline could be handled at the conference level; where once an infraction was detected (and that's the part that would never work), it was turned over to the conference to determine the appropriate punishment. It would at least let the coaches avoid the apparent conflict-of-interest that they have to go through now.

But yeah, if the SEC was the one handing down suspensions, all of a sudden teams in the conference would become wildly inconsistent in the violations that they reported. And I don't know any way around that.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by Vercingetorix

It would be nice if discipline could be handled at the conference level; where once an infraction was detected (and that's the part that would never work), it was turned over to the conference to determine the appropriate punishment. It would at least let the coaches avoid the apparent conflict-of-interest that they have to go through now.

But yeah, if the SEC was the one handing down suspensions, all of a sudden teams in the conference would become wildly inconsistent in the violations that they reported. And I don't know any way around that.

There isn't one. And if you tried that, there would have to be an appeals system, and there'd be lawsuits growing out of it, etc., etc.

I just think that once you accept that college football at this level is basically the minor league farm system for hte NFL, and stop deluding ourselves that it is a noble effort to educate true student-athletes, it makes it a whole lot easier to accept the hipocrisy of it all.

I'm not saying I don't flinch at some of the shennanigans or the weak reaction to same by the coaches or school in what appears to be an effort just to keep the talent on the field. And I have been quite vocal on my zero tolerance for gun-toting 20 year olds on the Gator roster.

But I don't get a vote. I don't even get to voice an opinion anywhere it matters.

[Vercingetorix]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

I just think that once you accept that college football at this level is basically the minor league farm system for hte NFL, and stop deluding ourselves that it is a noble effort to educate true student-athletes, it makes it a whole lot easier to accept the hipocrisy of it all.

I was enormously cynical about all of this when I was a student -- e.g., "A lot of these guys aren't even really our fellow students. They should just call them what they are, which is employees of the university; pay them a salary and offer them free tuition if they should choose to take classes." Etc. etc. etc. I guess I'm older and more resigned to it all now, but some of these situations still manage to be particularly appalling.

It's worse when it's your own school participating in these shenanigans. I would rather lose football games than have a girlfriend-beating jackass like the guy KPT mentioned play for my alma mater.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by Vercingetorix

I was enormously cynical about all of this when I was a student -- e.g., "A lot of these guys aren't even really our fellow students. They should just call them what they are, which is employees of the university; pay them a salary and offer them free tuition if they should choose to take classes." Etc. etc. etc. I guess I'm older and more resigned to it all now, but some of these situations still manage to be particularly appalling.

It's worse when it's your own school participating in these shenanigans. I would rather lose football games than have a girlfriend-beating jackass like the guy KPT mentioned play for my alma mater.

Sure, we can all signle out the worst offender and proclaim our outrage. I, for example, have no problem booting off the UF team the player who fired a gun into the air to "scare" someone he was arguing with.

Its the guys with a little bit of pot that test your resolve.