Here is why Coyle is delaying a decision.

Donate To GopherHole


Jack jones said:
Just think how good we would become if we had a top notch S and C program. I have absolutely no confidence in Klein. Maybe I will be proven wrong. If so, we will be traveling to a New Years bowl game.
Click to expand...

So we are turning these unheralded recruits into big ten caliber players without a good strength and conditioning coach...that is amazing coaching.
 


leadpipegopher said:
So we are turning these unheralded recruits into big ten caliber players without a good strength and conditioning coach...that is amazing coaching.
Click to expand...

The only place we have seemed out physical'd (if you know what I mean) is the Oline. I'm not sure that is the S&C coaches fault.
 


diehard said:
No, not only. If you want to be considered a successful coach you better have a winning record in conference.
Click to expand...

Agreed, which is why he was fired. We were 5-4 in conference this year. I'd call that successful for a first year coach.
 

husker70 said:
Kaler and Coyle should be seen as being dragged around by a committee report, and expecting the Head Coach would go along. When he didn't and sided with the players it was a support for the idea of due process. Just what does that mean at the U. Did the committee seek any of the 10 to respond to the charges, with or without a lawyer? Was their testimony included in the report? That is the sticky little problem. Their due process rights were denied and that was the basis of the boycott. They should have stood together and boycotted the bowl, if these rights were important. It would seem the dollars drove the bus. Possibly a deal was in place if they ended the boycott.

If Coyle does not have a candidate for every position at the U Athletics he is not doing his job. It has been an awful year. He needs to find a Wrestling Coach, The Hockey team is just middling around, but the Football Coach is job one. Winning is the only thing. Yes, I said it. The team won 9 games, and was in the mix to win the west. If you make the change, it should be clear you will accept nothing less than a Conference Championship, and win the Big 10. Anything less, is change for the sake of change.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with your last point. Unless you have someone lined up who you firmly believe can do the job better, then firing a coach doesn't accomplish anything. This particular situation might be a little different with the recent off-field issue, but I totally agree from a strictly football perspective. And I do believe the off-field issue can die down with most fans if the athletic department can somehow come to a resolution where the players don't feel completely screwed (go ahead and make a joke) and the university still looks strong. It won't be perfect and a group of people will be upset either way, but the key is going to be better communication so that they are all on the same page.

Just to clarify your first paragraph...the players were all interviewed for the EOAA report. So all of them did have a chance to tell their story. Now, I'm not going to get into the merits of the EOAA report or the level of bias in it (think we can all agree some bias existed, but it's really hard to determine the level of bias and we all know there are plenty of opinions on that), but I'm just pointing out that the players did have a chance to tell their side of the story.
 

bottlebass said:
The only place we have seemed out physical'd (if you know what I mean) is the Oline. I'm not sure that is the S&C coaches fault.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I've actually been pretty impressed with the improvement in physicality during Kill/Claeys era. E.g. the Gophers made the Wazzou players look like pipsqueaks in many cases. As for the O-Line, I don't know if it's a case of being "out physical'd" as much as choosing to recruit and play naturally gigantic men who simply can't keep up with the speedy freak defensive ends and linebackers being used more and more by many defenses.
 

Blaming the S&C coach who has a long track record of success is weak. Isn't there a saying about a good carpenter doesn't blame his tools....?
 



I’ve had concerns whether Claeys can be successful as the Gopher’s head coach. Clearly, he was a very good defensive coordinator, and I thought he did a good job when he was pressed into service as a stand-in for Kill. But standing in and running a Power 5 program are two different things. Yet I thought it was the right thing to do, while we were still looking for an AD, to give him a short-term contact as the head coach with a modest buy out. It helped bring closure to a good recruiting class and preserved the ability of the ultimate AD to choose, after evaluating Claeys, his own coach.
I, for one, was not impressed by our regular season. While we were competitive in the games that we lost, we basically failed to get any signature wins. And I still have reservations about Claeys ability to recruit. But the Holiday Bowl Game convinced me that Claeys has the ability to coach – or at least Jay Sawvel does. To lose 4 of your top 6 secondary players and still shut down one of the most prolific passing offenses in the country is stunning. It’s a feat that should help Claeys’ ability to recruit.
But there is still the elephant in the room. The September 2 incident. As one who practiced law for 40 years, I am deeply concerned with the preponderance of the evidence standard, the inability of an accused to cross-examine an accuser, and the inability to conduct discovery, in EOAA sexual assault proceedings. I’m also concern with the redefinition of sexual assault by such devices as the affirmative consent requirement.
The issue in this case, however, is not, in my opinion, about sexual assault. It’s about privileged athletes bringing discredit upon the University and its football program. I think consent in this instance is, an important, but not a controlling issue. The fact that at some point there may have been a lack of consent is an aggravating factor, or even more so if there was no consent at the outset, but the specter of Gopher football players inviting their friends to have sex with the participation of a 17-year-old recruit is deeply disturbing and the latter a clear violation of NCAA recruiting regulations. This alone more than justifies the suspension of at least some of the players without regard to the sexual assault allegations.
Where I begin to have problems with the administration’s handling of those suspensions is their association of those suspensions with the September 2 incident. The 10 individuals were all identified as potential, or even likely, sexual predators. I’ve not read the EOAA’s 82-page report, but based on a summary thereof, there seems to be questions as to the actual involvement of some of the suspended players and one apparently contends that he wasn’t even there. Yet the EOAA report resolves all of these questions in favor of the accuser, despite her admitted recollection problems, in part because of her assumed psychological state, without any opportunity to test the reliability of that assumption.
I can appreciate the reaction of the football team to the sudden expansion of the number of accused of sexual assault named by the EOAA. As I recall only 4 were investigated by the police and they were all reinstated after Hennepin County refused to prosecute. The accuser then sought a protective order against initially 4 or 5 and voluntarily dropped one. After a court hearing she and the accused reached an agreement as to the scope of the order, and she declared her satisfaction with the result. Then the EOAA came out with its list of 10, and the University - citing confidential requirements - refused to explain why. That resulted in the team’s boycott. It was in this context that Claeys made his twit in support of his team. Somehow the EOAA report was made public, which helped to defuse the situation, but in the opinion of many, Claeys and the football team were standing up for egregious sexual predators.
To begin with, I am extremely disappointed that Kaler and Coyle claimed that it was Claeys who suspended the players. Dishonesty is never a virtue. But secondly, I think it was egregious to identify the suspended 10 as possible sexual predators, before they had an opportunity to contest the allegations against them. They could have been suspended, more simply, for violations of team rules. Branding them as potential sexual predators without an opportunity to respond to those allegations was simply wrong. Whether those allegations are fair or not, given the realities of the internet, they will have to live with those allegations the rest of their lives.
The September 2 incident, though, is matter that needs to be addressed, including Claeys support of the player boycott. Much depends upon it. I believe that the general perception among the general public is that Claeys and the football team are insensitive to sexual assault. The potential damage to the Gopher sports and the University is immense. The University needs to allay the concerns of donors, especially in the middle an important capital campaign.
I believe that Claeys’ support of the team under the circumstances is understandable, and that needs to be made clear. I also believe that he has demonstrated that he has the potential to lead Gopher football to a more competitive level. I also believe, though, that it is appropriate for Coyle to make a demonstration that the University expects the football program, and all of its athletic programs, to conduct themselves in a manner that brings credit to the University. A little time to permit fans to celebrate the Holiday Bowel win seems appropriate, so I don’t fault him for buying a little time before he has this conversation. And In regard to bringing credit to the football program, I think Claeys deserves credit for improving the academic performance of the football team. But it must be made clear that the University in no way condones the kind of disgusting behavior that occurred on September 2.
 

The issue in this case, however, is not, in my opinion, about sexual assault. It’s about privileged athletes bringing discredit upon the University and its football program. I think consent in this instance is, an important, but not a controlling issue. The fact that at some point there may have been a lack of consent is an aggravating factor, or even more so if there was no consent at the outset, but the specter of Gopher football players inviting their friends to have sex with the participation of a 17-year-old recruit is deeply disturbing and the latter a clear violation of NCAA recruiting regulations. This alone more than justifies the suspension of at least some of the players without regard to the sexual assault allegations.

To save a few bytes, I won't copy vagopher's entire post, but I have copied the portion that has been largely overlooked in the whole discussion. His whole post sums up my feelings very well. I think Claeys and Sawvel can "X and O" with the best of them, but in the modern era, that's not at the top of the Head Coach's responsibilities. Claeys has to prove he can run the program to the expectations of the University both on and off the field. I think where Coyle has fallen short is that he has failed to lay out those expectations clearly, but I will give both Coyle and Claeys a bit of a break seeing they are both relatively new to their positions and ascended to them due to unorthodox situations. I think Coyle wants to keep Claeys, but needs to let the dust settle.

Let's all remember how Dick Tressel got ran out at tOSU over memorabilia sales by his players and favors granted to players by a tattoo parlor. Tressel's dishonesty is what did him in and while handling the situation somewhat clumsily, Claeys at least has been up front in this whole mess.
 

vagopher said:
I’ve had concerns whether Claeys can be successful as the Gopher’s head coach. Clearly, he was a very good defensive coordinator, and I thought he did a good job when he was pressed into service as a stand-in for Kill. But standing in and running a Power 5 program are two different things. Yet I thought it was the right thing to do, while we were still looking for an AD, to give him a short-term contact as the head coach with a modest buy out. It helped bring closure to a good recruiting class and preserved the ability of the ultimate AD to choose, after evaluating Claeys, his own coach.
I, for one, was not impressed by our regular season. While we were competitive in the games that we lost, we basically failed to get any signature wins. And I still have reservations about Claeys ability to recruit. But the Holiday Bowl Game convinced me that Claeys has the ability to coach – or at least Jay Sawvel does. To lose 4 of your top 6 secondary players and still shut down one of the most prolific passing offenses in the country is stunning. It’s a feat that should help Claeys’ ability to recruit.
But there is still the elephant in the room. The September 2 incident. As one who practiced law for 40 years, I am deeply concerned with the preponderance of the evidence standard, the inability of an accused to cross-examine an accuser, and the inability to conduct discovery, in EOAA sexual assault proceedings. I’m also concern with the redefinition of sexual assault by such devices as the affirmative consent requirement.
The issue in this case, however, is not, in my opinion, about sexual assault. It’s about privileged athletes bringing discredit upon the University and its football program. I think consent in this instance is, an important, but not a controlling issue. The fact that at some point there may have been a lack of consent is an aggravating factor, or even more so if there was no consent at the outset, but the specter of Gopher football players inviting their friends to have sex with the participation of a 17-year-old recruit is deeply disturbing and the latter a clear violation of NCAA recruiting regulations. This alone more than justifies the suspension of at least some of the players without regard to the sexual assault allegations.
Where I begin to have problems with the administration’s handling of those suspensions is their association of those suspensions with the September 2 incident. The 10 individuals were all identified as potential, or even likely, sexual predators. I’ve not read the EOAA’s 82-page report, but based on a summary thereof, there seems to be questions as to the actual involvement of some of the suspended players and one apparently contends that he wasn’t even there. Yet the EOAA report resolves all of these questions in favor of the accuser, despite her admitted recollection problems, in part because of her assumed psychological state, without any opportunity to test the reliability of that assumption.
I can appreciate the reaction of the football team to the sudden expansion of the number of accused of sexual assault named by the EOAA. As I recall only 4 were investigated by the police and they were all reinstated after Hennepin County refused to prosecute. The accuser then sought a protective order against initially 4 or 5 and voluntarily dropped one. After a court hearing she and the accused reached an agreement as to the scope of the order, and she declared her satisfaction with the result. Then the EOAA came out with its list of 10, and the University - citing confidential requirements - refused to explain why. That resulted in the team’s boycott. It was in this context that Claeys made his twit in support of his team. Somehow the EOAA report was made public, which helped to defuse the situation, but in the opinion of many, Claeys and the football team were standing up for egregious sexual predators.
To begin with, I am extremely disappointed that Kaler and Coyle claimed that it was Claeys who suspended the players. Dishonesty is never a virtue. But secondly, I think it was egregious to identify the suspended 10 as possible sexual predators, before they had an opportunity to contest the allegations against them. They could have been suspended, more simply, for violations of team rules. Branding them as potential sexual predators without an opportunity to respond to those allegations was simply wrong. Whether those allegations are fair or not, given the realities of the internet, they will have to live with those allegations the rest of their lives.
The September 2 incident, though, is matter that needs to be addressed, including Claeys support of the player boycott. Much depends upon it. I believe that the general perception among the general public is that Claeys and the football team are insensitive to sexual assault. The potential damage to the Gopher sports and the University is immense. The University needs to allay the concerns of donors, especially in the middle an important capital campaign.
I believe that Claeys’ support of the team under the circumstances is understandable, and that needs to be made clear. I also believe that he has demonstrated that he has the potential to lead Gopher football to a more competitive level. I also believe, though, that it is appropriate for Coyle to make a demonstration that the University expects the football program, and all of its athletic programs, to conduct themselves in a manner that brings credit to the University. A little time to permit fans to celebrate the Holiday Bowel win seems appropriate, so I don’t fault him for buying a little time before he has this conversation. And In regard to bringing credit to the football program, I think Claeys deserves credit for improving the academic performance of the football team. But it must be made clear that the University in no way condones the kind of disgusting behavior that occurred on September 2.
Click to expand...

The following snippet from your post is a HUGE problem....anyone labeling the 4-10 players as an, "egregious sexual predator".

Have any of these 4-10 players EVER had a brush with the law in the past where the history could have been taken into account as far as recruiting or necessary additional oversight?

Had they EVER given any reason once they were on accepted into the university or on the team that would have signaled ANY need for additional oversight?

Given the above, is Tracy Claeys supposed to have been a clairvoyant?

What is the EOAA's professional backing to allow them to make these presumptions regarding credibility of the female participants "testimony": "despite her admitted recollection problems, in part because of her assumed psychological state" ?

I've no doubts that Claeys does not personally condone the activities of 9/2/16 in any way, shape or form, nor would he in REALITY, need to be admonished or educated on the perceived moral rights and wrongs of the matter.

To make Claeys the scapegoat in this matter would be pure folly and he should retained. My valueless two cents would say to give him a modest extension, and for no purpose other than to appease the Puritans who are following this matter, publicize an "line in the sand" regarding any future off field matters. I have firm believe that team leaders will be policing off field activity themselves very closely from here forward.
 

50PoundHead said:
The issue in this case, however, is not, in my opinion, about sexual assault. It’s about privileged athletes bringing discredit upon the University and its football program. I think consent in this instance is, an important, but not a controlling issue. The fact that at some point there may have been a lack of consent is an aggravating factor, or even more so if there was no consent at the outset, but the specter of Gopher football players inviting their friends to have sex with the participation of a 17-year-old recruit is deeply disturbing and the latter a clear violation of NCAA recruiting regulations. This alone more than justifies the suspension of at least some of the players without regard to the sexual assault allegations.

To save a few bytes, I won't copy vagopher's entire post, but I have copied the portion that has been largely overlooked in the whole discussion. His whole post sums up my feelings very well. I think Claeys and Sawvel can "X and O" with the best of them, but in the modern era, that's not at the top of the Head Coach's responsibilities. Claeys has to prove he can run the program to the expectations of the University both on and off the field. I think where Coyle has fallen short is that he has failed to lay out those expectations clearly, but I will give both Coyle and Claeys a bit of a break seeing they are both relatively new to their positions and ascended to them due to unorthodox situations. I think Coyle wants to keep Claeys, but needs to let the dust settle.

Let's all remember how Dick Tressel got ran out at tOSU over memorabilia sales by his players and favors granted to players by a tattoo parlor. Tressel's dishonesty is what did him in and while handling the situation somewhat clumsily, Claeys at least has been up front in this whole mess.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that in the NCAA as a whole, it has become a standard to let athletes get away with questionable behavior. It factors into where recruits end up choosing. If the Gophers decide they are going to be strict and punish anyone who is ever involved with anything shady, they're going to miss out on some recruits as well as not have all of their best players on the field. That should be Coyle's call. Coyle should be looking over the team rules and team disciplinary decisions. He should lay out exactly how Claeys should punish players for doing bad or potentially bad things. If Claeys can't follow rules that they've set out that's one thing, but part of the problem is that Coyle never tried to change any team rules (as far as we know), and Claeys felt that his players never violated the current rules. The solution is Coyle making more clear rules so that Claeys would have punished the players way before the EOAA got involved and even if it wasn't legally sexual assault.

In terms of on the field coaching, of the 9 coaches who have been here since the Gophers last won a national championship, only 1 has had a winning record over their career. Claeys is at a winning record now even though he started in the middle of the season and missed out on the easy wins against Kent State, OU, and Purdue in 2015. He may not be good enough to take us to the conference championship game but compared to what we've had, he's a good coach. It would be silly to fire him unless they had a better coach lined up.
 



50PoundHead said:
The issue in this case, however, is not, in my opinion, about sexual assault. It’s about privileged athletes bringing discredit upon the University and its football program. I think consent in this instance is, an important, but not a controlling issue. The fact that at some point there may have been a lack of consent is an aggravating factor, or even more so if there was no consent at the outset, but the specter of Gopher football players inviting their friends to have sex with the participation of a 17-year-old recruit is deeply disturbing and the latter a clear violation of NCAA recruiting regulations. This alone more than justifies the suspension of at least some of the players without regard to the sexual assault allegations.

To save a few bytes, I won't copy vagopher's entire post, but I have copied the portion that has been largely overlooked in the whole discussion. His whole post sums up my feelings very well. I think Claeys and Sawvel can "X and O" with the best of them, but in the modern era, that's not at the top of the Head Coach's responsibilities. Claeys has to prove he can run the program to the expectations of the University both on and off the field. I think where Coyle has fallen short is that he has failed to lay out those expectations clearly, but I will give both Coyle and Claeys a bit of a break seeing they are both relatively new to their positions and ascended to them due to unorthodox situations. I think Coyle wants to keep Claeys, but needs to let the dust settle.

Let's all remember how Dick Tressel got ran out at tOSU over memorabilia sales by his players and favors granted to players by a tattoo parlor. Tressel's dishonesty is what did him in and while handling the situation somewhat clumsily, Claeys at least has been up front in this whole mess.
Click to expand...

If you're agreeing that consent isn't controlling?
Claeys and Coyle should not have an opinion on consensual sexual activities. It would actually be Unconstitutional for Claeys and Coyle to make rules regarding a player's personal sexual inclinations (consensual).

It's ALL about consent. If you wanted to cheer for a school that could pick and choose the sexual activities that their players engage, you'd have much better luck going the private school route (even that would be debatable).

As far as the comparison to Tressel, yeah, that's a discussion about the NCAA. However, IF everything was consensual that night, Claeys did not break a rule. You're comparing Tressel, who broke an NCAA rule with Claeys, whose players engaged in a type of sex you think is icky.

You have to see that the only thing that matters here is consent.
 

GoGophersUMN said:
Part of the problem is that in the NCAA as a whole, it has become a standard to let athletes get away with questionable behavior. It factors into where recruits end up choosing. If the Gophers decide they are going to be strict and punish anyone who is ever involved with anything shady, they're going to miss out on some recruits as well as not have all of their best players on the field. That should be Coyle's call. Coyle should be looking over the team rules and team disciplinary decisions. He should lay out exactly how Claeys should punish players for doing bad or potentially bad things. If Claeys can't follow rules that they've set out that's one thing, but part of the problem is that Coyle never tried to change any team rules (as far as we know), and Claeys felt that his players never violated the current rules. The solution is Coyle making more clear rules so that Claeys would have punished the players way before the EOAA got involved and even if it wasn't legally sexual assault.

In terms of on the field coaching, of the 9 coaches who have been here since the Gophers last won a national championship, only 1 has had a winning record over their career. Claeys is at a winning record now even though he started in the middle of the season and missed out on the easy wins against Kent State, OU, and Purdue in 2015. He may not be good enough to take us to the conference championship game but compared to what we've had, he's a good coach. It would be silly to fire him unless they had a better coach lined up.
Click to expand...

Correct about the NCAA as well as missing out on recruits. The playing field is not level and you have pointed it out very well.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
If you're agreeing that consent isn't controlling?
Claeys and Coyle should not have an opinion on consensual sexual activities. It would actually be Unconstitutional for Claeys and Coyle to make rules regarding a player's personal sexual inclinations (consensual).

It's ALL about consent. If you wanted to cheer for a school that could pick and choose the sexual activities that their players engage, you'd have much better luck going the private school route (even that would be debatable).

As far as the comparison to Tressel, yeah, that's a discussion about the NCAA. However, IF everything was consensual that night, Claeys did not break a rule. You're comparing Tressel, who broke an NCAA rule with Claeys, whose players engaged in a type of sex you think is icky.

You have to see that the only thing that matters here is consent.
Click to expand...

And we're just going to disagree about that. Claeys and Coyle have a right to set certain expectations of players. In some sense, they are not ordinary citizens. There's no unlimited right to free speech in schools. That's been established by a lot of cases and while most of those decisions affect K-12 education and aren't completely applicable here, there is a code of student conduct that limits what students can do and Claeys could go beyond that for the football team. I'm no prude, but consent or not, that was one ugly event and if there was alcohol involved and some of the participants were less than 21, there's another law that was broken (and the U and Claeys could have a higher standard in that case as well).

As for the Tressel comparison, my point is that he got run off for something relatively minor in the whole scheme of things.

PS--Was the tweeting or instagramming of the event (or whatever happened) consensual by all parties? I don't care what they do in the bedroom, but that's the egregious part of the equation for me.
 

50PoundHead said:
And we're just going to disagree about that. Claeys and Coyle have a right to set certain expectations of players. In some sense, they are not ordinary citizens. There's no unlimited right to free speech in schools. That's been established by a lot of cases and while most of those decisions affect K-12 education and aren't completely applicable here, there is a code of student conduct that limits what students can do and Claeys could go beyond that for the football team. I'm no prude, but consent or not, that was one ugly event and if there was alcohol involved and some of the participants were less than 21, there's another law that was broken (and the U and Claeys could have a higher standard in that case as well).

As for the Tressel comparison, my point is that he got run off for something relatively minor in the whole scheme of things.

PS--Was the tweeting or instagramming of the event (or whatever happened) consensual by all parties? I don't care what they do in the bedroom, but that's the egregious part of the equation for me.
Click to expand...

Tressel got ran-off for the cover-up. Which you noted in your first post. Tie it in with how some of their fans and donors had been grumbling about him for awhile and off he went. There were rumors of a big donation coming in for the Athletic Fund. If that donor demands T.C. firing before making it that might tie the two instances together more closely.
 

50PoundHead said:
And we're just going to disagree about that. Claeys and Coyle have a right to set certain expectations of players. In some sense, they are not ordinary citizens. There's no unlimited right to free speech in schools. That's been established by a lot of cases and while most of those decisions affect K-12 education and aren't completely applicable here, there is a code of student conduct that limits what students can do and Claeys could go beyond that for the football team. I'm no prude, but consent or not, that was one ugly event and if there was alcohol involved and some of the participants were less than 21, there's another law that was broken (and the U and Claeys could have a higher standard in that case as well).

As for the Tressel comparison, my point is that he got run off for something relatively minor in the whole scheme of things.

PS--Was the tweeting or instagramming of the event (or whatever happened) consensual by all parties? I don't care what they do in the bedroom, but that's the egregious part of the equation for me.
Click to expand...

Claeys and Coyle do not have a right to set an expectation of the kind of consensual sex that people in engage in. It is Unconstitutional.

The Constitution applies, 100%, in this case. The student code of conduct CANNOT violate the U.S. Constitution. It simply cannot.
There is not unlimited free speech anywhere, but it is an absolute open and shut case that the University of MN cannot pass rules on the kind of consensual sex that is permitted for their students or student athletes. What you are arguing for would be the equivalent of a school passing a rule that outlaws interracial sex or sex between two women. I know you're a reasonable person, but you could imagine some schools having a problem with those activities. It is absolutely forbidden by the U.S. Constitution and a school cannot pass rules that violate the Constitution.

The K-12 cases are considerably different because they aren't adults. However, a public high school could not pass a rule outlawing certain consensual sexual activites.

As far as drinking. . . you're right. The school and the team could pass a rule that requires expulsion for underage drinking. They obviously could not pass it retroactively, and I think we all agree that would seem pretty harsh. However, the team (and school) could pass a rule that kicks people out of the school for drinking. It's a different scenario (no one has a Constitutional right to drink, especially someone under 21).

As far as the tweeting or instagramming of the event (I'm not real up-to-date on the stuff either, so I am sure we will be corrected on our terms), I don't see anything non-consensual about it. From all accounts, she knew she was being filmed and the film was not made public. It was only turned over as part of an investigation. There could be some questions of consent if the film was passed between people, but that is a REALLY complicated case (it's a difficult situation if someone gives consent to filming (she appeared to) and the film was never made public, who "owns" that film?).

As far as the discussion of the event, there is nothing illegal about that. People can talk about what just happened. I can send a text to a friend that says "I just kissed Lucy". That's not a consent thing. Maybe guys should be a little more tactful with what they have to say, but that's happened forever (guys bragging about conquests). The U couldn't pass a rule outlawing discussion of sexual conquests, but even if they could, doesn't that feel like a government actor is going way too far?

As far as Tressel, yes, I agree. I think that entire situation illustrates the craziness of the NCAA. However, it was a rule that was broken. It was a rule that is Constitutional. So while I personally don't agree with the rule, it's a different scenario.

Keep in mind, no one has ever argued Claeys knew more and was witholding information or anything. I can't see how Claeys was a bad actor in this. You might not like the tweet, I get it, but he didn't lie to the NCAA, University or the police. He was 100% cooperative. Tressel was not.
 

Back to the original point of the thread - why Coyle is delaying before acting.

This is pure speculation on my part - but my take on Coyle is that he likes to stay out of the spotlight, and doesn't like to rock the boat. So, (if I am correct), I suspect he will try to find a solution that will tick off the fewest number of people.

As a result, here is my prediction - nothing. No firing, no extension. If he fires Claeys, some people will be upset. If he gives Claeys an extension (and presumably a raise), other people will be upset. So, to avoid making waves, I say Coyle will simply let Claeys coach next year on his current contract. We'll get a self-serving press release that talks about having time to "evaluate" the program and "monitor" athlete behavior.

But, what it all really means is Coyle will kick the can down the road.

I may be dead wrong - but it's my best guess.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Back to the original point of the thread - why Coyle is delaying before acting.

This is pure speculation on my part - but my take on Coyle is that he likes to stay out of the spotlight, and doesn't like to rock the boat. So, (if I am correct), I suspect he will try to find a solution that will tick off the fewest number of people.

As a result, here is my prediction - nothing. No firing, no extension. If he fires Claeys, some people will be upset. If he gives Claeys an extension (and presumably a raise), other people will be upset. So, to avoid making waves, I say Coyle will simply let Claeys coach next year on his current contract. We'll get a self-serving press release that talks about having time to "evaluate" the program and "monitor" athlete behavior.

But, what it all really means is Coyle will kick the can down the road.

I may be dead wrong - but it's my best guess.
Click to expand...

Gotta agree with you on this one SON. Coyle seems particularly deft at navigating the beauracratic ocean. We wont see any action with this until after next season, but if there are no butts in the seats again i think a move is made. Plus, if we have a decent season, I beleive the job will look plenty attractive to some folks, with new facilities and all. It all remains to be seen. fun times in gopher land
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
If you're agreeing that consent isn't controlling?
Claeys and Coyle should not have an opinion on consensual sexual activities. It would actually be Unconstitutional for Claeys and Coyle to make rules regarding a player's personal sexual inclinations (consensual).

It's ALL about consent. If you wanted to cheer for a school that could pick and choose the sexual activities that their players engage, you'd have much better luck going the private school route (even that would be debatable).

As far as the comparison to Tressel, yeah, that's a discussion about the NCAA. However, IF everything was consensual that night, Claeys did not break a rule. You're comparing Tressel, who broke an NCAA rule with Claeys, whose players engaged in a type of sex you think is icky.

You have to see that the only thing that matters here is consent.
Click to expand...

I don’t think the law is as clear as you suggest. See http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/gayrights.htm The sodomy cases have largely turned on the “right of privacy”, which typically involves sex in private between two consenting adults. The Supreme Court as currently composed might well extend that right to instances of group sex, but that composition is likely to change and there is a minority of conservative justices who would probably rule differently. But in any event, participating in college sports is a privilege; not a right. And I doubt that the courts would deny colleges the ability to set higher standards of conduct designed to promote the success of their sports programs. It might be problematic if those standards discriminated on the basis of sexual preference or some other invidious basis, but that's not involved here.
 

t-docious said:
Gotta agree with you on this one SON. Coyle seems particularly deft at navigating the beauracratic ocean. We wont see any action with this until after next season, but if there are no butts in the seats again i think a move is made. Plus, if we have a decent season, I beleive the job will look plenty attractive to some folks, with new facilities and all. It all remains to be seen. fun times in gopher land
Click to expand...
Agree that this is likely UNLESS he had already made a decision to fire Claeys and has lined up a coach that he would like to take over this year. If it is someone like PJ Fleck we'll likely hear something right after their Cotton Bowl appearance with a firing and announcement. If nothing happens shortly after the Cotton Bowl, agree that Claeys will be back and will be on a bit of a hot seat next year if the program doesn't begin to generate some enthusiasm amongst the fan base.
 

vagopher said:
I don’t think the law is as clear as you suggest. See http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/gayrights.htm The sodomy cases have largely turned on the “right of privacy”, which typically involves sex in private between two consenting adults. The Supreme Court as currently composed might well extend that right to instances of group sex, but that composition is likely to change and there is a minority of conservative justices who would probably rule differently. But in any event, participating in college sports is a privilege; not a right. And I doubt that the courts would deny colleges the ability to set higher standards of conduct designed to promote the success of their sports programs. It might be problematic if those standards discriminated on the basis of sexual preference or some other invidious basis, but that's not involved here.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely clear cut.

The only situations where it is not clear cut are with private actors (Boy Scouts, etc.).

Are you really arguing that Lawrence v Texas is not absolute precedent? Seriously? You think the U of MN could pass a rule where it makes certain consensual activities crimes? Seriously?

To quote Lawrence v. Texas, the case that set precedent (and will absolutely NOT be overturned and even if you think it will, it was not the law at the time): "Public distaste and moral condemnation are not sufficient to justify regulation." Read it again.

As far as your last point, it absolutely does NOT matter. I have no idea why some of you armchair attorneys over the past couple of days keep bringing this up. Was it in a Tom Powers column or that piece from Soucheray?

Your RIGHT is to be treated fairly (Equal Protection Clause). For example, you do not have a Constitutional right to swim. However, a municipal pool that does not allow lesbians would be Unconstitutional. It isn't about the "right to swim". That argument is putrid. Stop repeating it.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
It is absolutely clear cut.

The only situations where it is not clear cut are with private actors (Boy Scouts, etc.).

Are you really arguing that Lawrence v Texas is not absolute precedent? Seriously? You think the U of MN could pass a rule where it makes certain consensual activities crimes? Seriously?

To quote Lawrence v. Texas, the case that set precedent (and will absolutely NOT be overturned and even if you think it will, it was not the law at the time): "Public distaste and moral condemnation are not sufficient to justify regulation." Read it again.

As far as your last point, it absolutely does NOT matter. I have no idea why some of you armchair attorneys over the past couple of days keep bringing this up. Was it in a Tom Powers column or that piece from Soucheray?

Your RIGHT is to be treated fairly (Equal Protection Clause). For example, you do not have a Constitutional right to swim. However, a municipal pool that does not allow lesbians would be Unconstitutional. It isn't about the "right to swim". That argument is putrid. Stop repeating it.
Click to expand...

Your post is irrelevant to whether or not the U will be able to discipline the players because most of violations of the Student Code of Conduct have nothing to do with the actual sexual assault of the alleged victim At a minimum, there will be multiple grounds to kick players pff the football team even if they were never in the same room as the alleged victim. It is all in the EOAA report. I recommend you read it. You should concentrate your effort on the portions of the which detail the conspiracy of the players to obstruct the EOAA investigation and the outright lies they told about where they were and what they were doing during the gang bang. And, of course, that doesn't even get into the issue of players supplying a 17-year old high school recruit with alcohol and procuring sex for him with the alleged victim.

\\
 

I agree an express guideline saying group sex is a ground for discipline would probably run into constitutional problems. I also can't envision such a regulation being enacted.

What I can imagine is a coach hearing what went on on 9/2 (assume everything was consensual), and saying "players dumb enough to involve a a 17-year-old in group sex on a recruiting visit are going to get us in trouble at some point, and I'm kicking them off the team." This would in effect be disciplining them for consensual sexual activity;if it's a team sanction, not a university sanction, that seems well within their authority, and I find the likelihood of a player bringing a suit challenging his dismissal on constitutional grounds pretty slim. So maybe in theory no consensual sexual activity could be a grounds for punishment, but it's not hard to envision a real-world scenario in which that could occur.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
Your post is irrelevant to whether or not the U will be able to discipline the players because most of violations of the Student Code of Conduct have nothing to do with the actual sexual assault of the alleged victim At a minimum, there will be multiple grounds to kick players pff the football team even if they were never in the same room as the alleged victim. It is all in the EOAA report. I recommend you read it. You should concentrate your effort on the portions of the which detail the conspiracy of the players to obstruct the EOAA investigation and the outright they told about where they were and what they were doing during the gang band..

\\
Click to expand...

I actually addressed those earlier.

If the U wants to kick the players out of the school for drinking violations, they can. They would really open themselves up to lawsuits there if we found that they are not applying the student code universally.

You're responding to a post of mine where another poster thinks that the government can regulate consensual sexual activity. You can't jump into the middle of a debate and say "your post is irrelevant". You keep doing this. I don't know if you're incapable of having a discussion or if you're trolling.

So now, since you've given up that argument and want to jump to this argument, do you want to talk about the "conspiracy to obstruct the EoAA investigation".

Here is EoAA report that I've seen, here are the reasons for Expulsion:

" Subd. 6. Harm to Person. Harm to person means engaging in conduct that endangers or threatens to endanger the
physical and/or mental health, safety, or welfare of another person, including, but not limited to, threatening,
stalking, harassing, intimidating, or assaulting behavior.
Subd. 8. Sexual Misconduct. Sexual misconduct means any non-?consensual behavior of a sexual nature that is
committed by force or intimidation, or that is otherwise unwelcome. Sexual misconduct includes the following
behaviors: sexual assault, relationship violence, stalking, and sexual or gender-based harassment.
Subd. 19. Violation of University Rules. Violation of University rules means engaging in conduct that violates
University, collegiate, or deparimental regulations that have been posted or publicized, including provisions
contained in University contracts with students. Specifically you were found to have violated the following:
Administrative Policv· Sexual Harassment
Administrative Policy: Sexyal Assault Stalkin~ and Relationship Violence
Subd. 21. Persistent Violations. Persistent Violations means engaging in repeated conduct or action in violation of
this Code.
As a result of these violations, you are being offered the following sanctions to resolve this matter informally:
EXPULSION: Effective immediately your University of Minnesota studentship will be ended with resultant loss of
all student rights and privileges. A disciplinary hold will be placed on your record. The hold will prevent you from
registering at the University and from obtaining your records through routine channels."

It's on the first page. I think it's the only one made public. We can talk about the "conspiracy" if you'd like though. The EoAA didn't site it as a reason for expulsion.
 

xyz1 said:
I agree an express guideline saying group sex is a ground for discipline would probably run into constitutional problems. I also can't envision such a regulation being enacted.

What I can imagine is a coach hearing what went on on 9/2 (assume everything was consensual), and saying "players dumb enough to involve a a 17-year-old in group sex on a recruiting visit are going to get us in trouble at some point, and I'm kicking them off the team." This would in effect be disciplining them for consensual sexual activity;if it's a team sanction, not a university sanction, that seems well within their authority, and I find the likelihood of a player bringing a suit challenging his dismissal on constitutional grounds pretty slim. So maybe in theory no consensual sexual activity could be a grounds for punishment, but it's not hard to envision a real-world scenario in which that could occur.
Click to expand...

If that were the case, our spineless AD should have enacted long-term suspensions or kicked these players off the team once he was made aware of the actions that occurred during the criminal investigation. He didn't need the EOAA report details to do that.
 

xyz1 said:
I agree an express guideline saying group sex is a ground for discipline would probably run into constitutional problems. I also can't envision such a regulation being enacted.

What I can imagine is a coach hearing what went on on 9/2 (assume everything was consensual), and saying "players dumb enough to involve a a 17-year-old in group sex on a recruiting visit are going to get us in trouble at some point, and I'm kicking them off the team." This would in effect be disciplining them for consensual sexual activity;if it's a team sanction, not a university sanction, that seems well within their authority, and I find the likelihood of a player bringing a suit challenging his dismissal on constitutional grounds pretty slim. So maybe in theory no consensual sexual activity could be a grounds for punishment, but it's not hard to envision a real-world scenario in which that could occur.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

I can definitely see players getting into trouble for something to do with the recruit but then the U of MN would not be regulating consensual sexual activity. But it would have nothing to do with the girl.

You would also have to do some digging around regarding how the act went down. If a recruit, above the age of consent, meets a girl during his visit. . .do you really want to say it is the players' responsibility to make sure he doesn't have sex?

This would be a way to sidestep the constitutionality arguments, however, it would leave the U wide open for litigation. It is clear as day that this would be a rule that they are acting like they are enforcing because they want to enforce something Unconstitutional. You're going to expel someone from school because 1 consenting person had sex with another consenting person on their trip to visit the school? How often does this happen?
 

GopherBulldog said:
If that were the case, our spineless AD should have enacted long-term suspensions or kicked these players off the team once he was made aware of the actions that occurred during the criminal investigation. He didn't need the EOAA report details to do that.
Click to expand...

If they would have kicked the players off right away, they might be able to do do this because of the recruit. However, now, it is as clear as day WHY they would be kicking them out.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
If they would have kicked the players off right away, they might be able to do do this because of the recruit. However, now, it is as clear as day WHY they would be kicking them out.
Click to expand...

Yes. Absolutely. I'm not saying that would have been the right and just thing to do, but would have at least shown that they had a position on the issue. Instead, they have complicated any logical resolution to this mess. The lack of leadership has been staggering. And it's going to be interesting to see how they can now take any decisive action without looking like bigger fools.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom