Ten Gophers football players indefinately suspended

Donate To GopherHole

oldauggie said:
It's not up to this young lady to determine if this was OK or if it is over. The U of M needs to decide if these guys should be allowed the privilege of attending school at the University of Minnesota. Just so you know Buford was one of my favorite freshmen. The guy looked very good on the field but he and others made a horrible decision and frankly I am relieved the school is playing this tough. Set the tone University of Minnesota. Well done and keep it up.
Click to expand...

By that logic if this was in fact consensual, the young lady should be expelled as well, no? For consenting to behavior that is inconsistent with University of Minnesota values?
 


Does anyone think that it isn't appropriate to get in line to take turns screwing a drunk woman? Isn't it off-putting to video it? Does anyone besides me think that that's a bit disturbing? I know I am old and old-fashioned but what ever happened to dating? I don't think anyone would argue that women and men have the same experience/feelings about sex and that perhaps the hook-up culture doesn't feel as awesome for women when they sober up as it might for men. These differences are probably the root of the argument that there's a "rape culture" as viewed by many women and "pc police" who are "ultra-feminists" as viewed by many men. I would credit these opposing views of the same incidents as two sexes experiencing the same sex in very different ways. The fact that the guys videoed it is evidence that they didn't think they were raping anyone. The fact that filed charges suggests that she felt she was raped. But ultimately, the players are representatives of the university. Schools spend about $500K on a d1 power 5 football player during their career. Does a guy standing in line to screw a drunk woman when his buddy films it represent the University's values? If not, then perhaps the system is working. If it does, then there are those of us who might have a problem supporting the football program in the future.
 

tato2001 said:
By that logic if this was in fact consensual, the young lady should be expelled as well, no? For consenting to behavior that is inconsistent with University of Minnesota values?
Click to expand...
That is not for me or you to decide but yeah I agree if the U feels like she was in violation of multiple school policies equaling Buford's level of bad decisions then of course she should also be expelled.
 


CoMn said:
Does anyone think that it isn't appropriate to get in line to take turns screwing a drunk woman? Isn't it off-putting to video it?
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in policing other people's bedroom behavior. So that alone doesn't concern me.

This could have been one dude and one girl and we still end up in this mess.
 

CentralGopher said:
If that is the case then i guess due process is out the window
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm getting caught up on lunch break with this so I am a little behind on things...so maybe it's been addressed but I thought that they could NOT expel the student? In that letter provided it clearly shows they are.
 

Too bad Doogie has blocked me on twitter so I can't see the statement or whatever it is from Kaler. Didn't get it emailed to me either so I must not be a big enough "donor". Oh well.
 

NotAFanOfBecky said:
Sorry, I'm getting caught up on lunch break with this so I am a little behind on things...so maybe it's been addressed but I thought that they could NOT expel the student? In that letter provided it clearly shows they are.
Click to expand...

The University can most definitely expel a student for violating the conduct code (see Section V, subd. 11)
 



CoMn said:
Does anyone think that it isn't appropriate to get in line to take turns screwing a drunk woman? Isn't it off-putting to video it? Does anyone besides me think that that's a bit disturbing? I know I am old and old-fashioned but what ever happened to dating? I don't think anyone would argue that women and men have the same experience/feelings about sex and that perhaps the hook-up culture doesn't feel as awesome for women when they sober up as it might for men. These differences are probably the root of the argument that there's a "rape culture" as viewed by many women and "pc police" who are "ultra-feminists" as viewed by many men. I would credit these opposing views of the same incidents as two sexes experiencing the same sex in very different ways. The fact that the guys videoed it is evidence that they didn't think they were raping anyone. The fact that filed charges suggests that she felt she was raped. But ultimately, the players are representatives of the university. Schools spend about $500K on a d1 power 5 football player during their career. Does a guy standing in line to screw a drunk woman when his buddy films it represent the University's values? If not, then perhaps the system is working. If it does, then there are those of us who might have a problem supporting the football program in the future.
Click to expand...

I bet you were the bee's knees at the last box social or hootenanny.
 

What I don't understand is that this letter from Kaler went out to individuals today. Why wasn't this a formal press release? Get it out there. It states that Coyle and Claeys were part of decision. That is what people have been asking for. Simple details, but details that means something.
 

This whole thing makes me sad and frustrated. On many levels.
 

Gopher07 said:
The University can most definitely expel a student for violating the conduct code (see Section V, subd. 11)
Click to expand...

Just looked through the conduct code and the key word is CONSENSUAL. It shouldn't matter where people's moral compass points. In order to suspend or expel someone there should need to be clear evidence that this wasn't consensual. There are no paragraphs about 3 some, 4 some, 5 some, videos, etc. violating this conduct code.
 



citywok said:
Special shout out number two to supadupafly for their contributions to the ultra hot chili, brain-dead takes in the last few pages of this thread.

There was otherwise a lot of good discussion in there. Schools aren't equipped to handle this stuff well right now. I wonder how it will be 5-10 years from now. I have a few more points I want to make.

-Some people need a reality check, that EOAA and U officials fully realize how serious it is to suspend a group of 10 football players right now. There is no way in hell that they would go through with this, and leave themselves open to a ton of really serious financial and institutional repercussions, if there wasn't some sort of absolutely ironclad violation of the code of conduct, or at least that they are following a transparent and documented precedent for how to proceed with something like this.

I don't know what you do for a living, but in my experience people really are this stupid. You cannot assume competence in anything

-Until we hear that Coyle Charlie Brown Footballed this entire thing. But, you have to assume that isn't the case until it becomes obvious that it is.

-THIS isn't some sort of "PC charade" that is being carried out, you Eisenhower Warriors. A different argument is that the code of conduct as a whole contains "PC charades" and you are entitled to argue that... but this is on file and most importantly everybody affected by this is aware of it and has agreed to abide by it, for years and years at this point. There are no surprises, deal with it.

There are all kinds of problems with the OCRs mandates. Read up on it. Left, right, and center-minded people agree on this. You are on an island.

-To whoever said something like "this will hurt recruiting, why would you want your child to go to school in such a PC fantasy world like this?" I would say, worse is an institution where Baylor-like incidents are handled in that manner by those in charge. Right now there are 2 ways. This, or that. Until a third way becomes clear, figure out which side of the fence you will decide to stand on and deal with it, destroyed Nickel Package and all. I bet most side with this way of handling things rather than the Baylor method.

I would bet you are wrong once they are made aware of the actual process and mandates since 2011.

-People are creating group-think false realities about what this incident was. Nobody really knows, and we do not know the details of what actually was in violation of the code of conduct. Comment and think appropriately until then.

Yes, on both sides of this issue
Click to expand...
.
 

tmvander said:
Just looked through the conduct code and the key word is CONSENSUAL. It shouldn't matter where people's moral compass points. In order to suspend or expel someone there should need to be clear evidence that this wasn't consensual. There are no paragraphs about 3 some, 4 some, 5 some, videos, etc. violating this conduct code.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. The EOAA must have felt there was issue of consent or it being "unwelcome" to bring Section IV, Subd. 8 into it. The hearing and appeals process should bring to light whether or not there is enough evidence to satisfy the claim in the University's eyes.
 

What is flabbergasting me is that every comment over the last hour has focused on the sexytime act. And NOT on the fact that Buford's dismissal letter says he was expelled for harassment, intimidation, etc. NOT for a sex act. Do you really think that this 10 person issue is because of a train? Or because of what happened after that night?
Why aren't you all connecting those dots? They are there for you.
Or am I missing something?
 

citywok said:
What is flabbergasting me is that every comment over the last hour has focused on the sexytime act. And NOT on the fact that Buford's dismissal letter says he was expelled for harassment, intimidation, etc. NOT for a sex act. Do you really think that this 10 person issue is because of a train? Or because of what happened after that night?
Why aren't you all connecting those dots? They are there for you.
Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

You're actually 100% right. However, the latest Star Trib article that was posted here even has "sexual assault" in the title. I don't think we've been given any other information other than there was a potential sexual assault situation.
 

citywok said:
What is flabbergasting me is that every comment over the last hour has focused on the sexytime act. And NOT on the fact that Buford's dismissal letter says he was expelled for harassment, intimidation, etc. NOT for a sex act. Do you really think that this 10 person issue is because of a train? Or because of what happened after that night?
Why aren't you all connecting those dots? They are there for you.
Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

The missing thing is that the whole process is opaque so nobody is sure of anything.

While I get the educational privacy aspect.... keeping everything secret just doesn't instil confidence and creates confusion.

I think this kinda leads to the idea that our actual legal system that is far more open lends itself to more trust than a super secret system.
 

Holy hell this WSU fan is sick for your program if these kids are booted by basically a combo of Stan Gable and the Omegas from Animal house.

We went through this crap with our Student Conducted Board with 4 Samoan players to start the year in 2 separate incidents. It has lead to a complete reform of said board as it turns our it for years had been a Kangaroo Court run by a Prof who thought they were, lawyer, judge, jury at the same time. If all this had not have happened WSU might not have not lost their 1st 2 games, we were an absolute mess from about July to late Sept because of it. This event has caused dismantling of the Student Conduct Board and now their is a group working to reform it as it was so bad. They don't talk about it in the article, but these kids don't use English as a first language and were not allowed lawyers at times of their hearings at this board. One of them had only been here 15 months and did not even hardly understand the questions. These 3 players were tossed from school while still under investigation by police and Leach went absolutely nuts as he has a law degree from Pepperdine and fought tooth and nail for them. 3 of them back in school one left but the 3 will start in the bowl game.


http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/nov/02/wsu-defensive-lineman-robert-barber-asks-judge-to-/



Read this article and tell me this is eerie.
 

wsufan99 said:
Holy hell this WSU fan is sick for your program if these kids are booted by basically a combo of Stan Gable and the Omegas from Animal house.

We went through this crap with our Student Conducted Board with 4 Samoan players to start the year in 2 separate incidents. It has lead to a complete reform of said board as it turns our it for years had been a Kangaroo Court run by a Prof who thought they were, lawyer, judge, jury at the same time. If all this had not have happened WSU might not have not lost their 1st 2 games, we were an absolute mess from about July to late Sept because of it. This event has caused dismantling of the Student Conduct Board and now their is a group working to reform it as it was so bad. They don't talk about it in the article, but these kids don't use English as a first language and were not allowed lawyers at times of their hearings at this board. One of them had only been here 15 months and did not even hardly understand the questions. These 3 players were tossed from school while still under investigation by police and Leach went absolutely nuts as he has a law degree from Pepperdine and fought tooth and nail for them. 3 of them back in school one left but the 3 will start in the bowl game.


http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/nov/02/wsu-defensive-lineman-robert-barber-asks-judge-to-/



Read this article and tell me this is eerie.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is ironic that our bowl opponent already went through a disciplinary process that raised all sorts of questions about how this stuff works.
 



Gopher07 said:
Completely agree. The EOAA must have felt there was issue of consent or it being "unwelcome" to bring Section IV, Subd. 8 into it. The hearing and appeals process should bring to light whether or not there is enough evidence to satisfy the claim in the University's eyes.
Click to expand...
Then why wasn't something done in Sept. or Oct. if the actions were so illegal? No the OEAA wouldn't have gotten the publicity they so desperately crave. Just another PC committee trying to justify their existence. Sad and shameful. And this is coming from a father of a college age girl. Obviously our President and AD don't want to make waves. And that's really sad. Why would any coach come to the U when neither will cover your back. You really don't believe that TC was supporting this action?
 

citywok said:
Do you really think that this 10 person issue is because of a train?
Click to expand...

can't speak for others but my brief comment only meant a little cheeky fun; I felt the tone needed a moment to lighten up

as far as the dating aspect, maybe trains and recording of such trains is the new norm for the mega-testosterone football student athlete, I have no idea as I only participated in intramurals at the U
 

Jack jones said:
Then why wasn't something done in Sept. or Oct. if the actions were so illegal? No the OEAA wouldn't have gotten the publicity they so desperately crave. Just another PC committee trying to justify their existence. Sad and shameful. And this is coming from a father of a college age girl. Obviously our President and AD don't want to make waves. And that's really sad. Why would any coach come to the U when neither will cover your back. You really don't believe that TC was supporting this action?
Click to expand...

Did you not see the letter shared earlier? Claeys and Could were both part of the decision....
 

Taji34 said:
Did you not see the letter shared earlier? Claeys and Could were both part of the decision....
Click to expand...

I don't know who to believe in this, but Lee Hutton tweeted 10 minutes ago.

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

4 is fine. 5 is too much. It's nice to see young people still have standards today.
 

Taji34 said:
Did you not see the letter shared earlier? Claeys and Could were both part of the decision....
Click to expand...

That makes zero sense since coaches have an obvious conflict of interest.

They're typically excluded from these kinds of decisions... because of the conflict of interest.
 

There's two weeks before the bowl game. Is there a chance they can get reinstated for the game? I don't understand Kaler dropping the second shoe and saying they're suspended before Hutton can get an appeal/ ruling.
 

ruppertflywheel said:
There's two weeks before the bowl game. Is there a chance they can get reinstated for the game? I don't understand Kaler dropping the second shoe and saying they're suspended before Hutton can get an appeal/ ruling.
Click to expand...

I think Kaler is just getting out there to get a statement out explaining what little he can. I'd rather he do that than keep quiet.

Really the only thing that they could do that would make folks possibly happy is spill the beans, but they can't.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom