Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/29/15 at 2:08 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
So should those regular students not be allowed to enroll elsewhere?
You do realize the school isn't banning the players from enrolling as normal students, correct? They can enroll where ever they want, assuming their grades are sufficient, they're privilege of playing college football is all that is lost.
Just like everyone else, including the hypothetical "normal" students you keep bringing up, they would simply have to pay their own way from then on.
This post was edited on 5/29/15 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 5/29/15 at 2:09 pm to allin2010
quote:
Sexual assault, domestic violence, stalking, dating violence or other forms of physical violence would be considered serious misconduct.
Apart from the subjective nature of terms like other forms of physical violence, I'm just not sure how I feel about this.
On the surface, it's easy to respond with a knee-jerk, "Hell, yeah!"
But I feel as though some of these students may get a damn raw deal--from individuals who shouldn't be arbitrating justice or deciding their fates.
I have no evidence to back-up that statement; just a gut feeling.
Why not allow coaches/schools to make their own decisions?
(I should prob learn something about the rule before commenting ... I know nuthin').
Will be interesting to see responses when a coach/AD is arrested for a silly, non-serious crime like DUI.
Posted on 5/29/15 at 2:15 pm to RB10
But this is only a conference rule, correct? So the guy who grabs a woman's arse can still go play football somewhere else. It wreaks of sour grapes.
Posted on 5/29/15 at 2:16 pm to AU4real35
quote:
So mad that Gus can take a DB from Georgia
quote:
“serious misconduct” (DV, sexual assault)
Trying so hard to have a clever insult yet failing..
Posted on 5/29/15 at 2:19 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
But this is only a conference rule, correct?
The NCAA will eventually follow suit soon and make this a rule, especially with DV being the hot button issue that it has become. As I said though, it should be determined by actual convictions in a court of law, not the individual programs IMO.
Posted on 5/29/15 at 2:20 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
It wreaks of sour grapes.
yep. if richt really cared, he'd have proposed the rule to the ncaa. he's not concerned with holding players accountable. he's concerned with not having players he booted playing against him in the future
Posted on 5/29/15 at 2:21 pm to WG_Dawg
So is this rule only for a direct transfer?
Or does a year of JUCO basically clear it where he becomes just another recruit?
Or does a year of JUCO basically clear it where he becomes just another recruit?
Posted on 5/29/15 at 2:21 pm to RB10
quote:
The NCAA will eventually follow suit soon and make this a rule, especially with DV being the hot button issue that it has become. As I said though, it should be determined by actual convictions in a court of law, not the individual programs IMO.
but what will the rule be, though? if you commit a "serious crime" you can't play football in the ncaa anymore? i'm sure there would be no lawsuits filed over that...
Posted on 5/29/15 at 2:25 pm to lsufball19
quote:
but what will the rule be, though? if you commit a "serious crime" you can't play football in the ncaa anymore? i'm sure there would be no lawsuits filed over that...
I think it should be felonies only, but that's just me.
Posted on 5/29/15 at 2:26 pm to RB10
Right. So it's a rule for only certain teams with no clear parameters and no legal foundation. What could possibly go wrong? 
Posted on 5/29/15 at 2:26 pm to RB10
quote:
I think it should be felonies only, but that's just me.
i think it should be convictions only. and if you want to tackle the issue of DV, impose a mandatory suspension, not alienation.
Posted on 5/29/15 at 2:28 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Right. So it's a rule for only certain teams with no clear parameters and no legal foundation. What could possibly go wrong?
I never said it was going to work as is, only that it was a step in the right direction. Obviously, it needs to be more clearly defined and the NCAA will need to implement a similar rule for it to work over time.
This post was edited on 5/29/15 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 5/29/15 at 2:29 pm to lsufball19
quote:
i think it should be convictions only
Agreed. Convicted of a felony, you're done. No college athletics.
I also think a three strike rule should be implemented. If you're stupid enough to get convicted of a crime 3 times, whatever it may be, you should be done. It really isn't that hard not to get arrested.
Posted on 5/29/15 at 2:30 pm to RB10
I hear you. It just seems a teeny bit haphazard and not too well thought out. Also a bit discriminatory, but whatever.
Posted on 5/29/15 at 2:31 pm to lsufball19
quote:
regardless, pussy move by richt. guess he's tired of seeing all the heathen coaches winning with players he booted
The trashy QBs that were kicked out of UGA are 1-2 in their rematches with Richt.
Posted on 5/29/15 at 2:31 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
I hear you. It just seems a teeny bit haphazard and not too well thought out. Also a bit discriminatory, but whatever.
Does the SEC ever do anything right the first time? It's not all that surprising, to be honest.
Posted on 5/29/15 at 2:33 pm to allin2010
UGA giveth to the SEC, and UGA taketh away......
Posted on 5/29/15 at 2:35 pm to Dawg in Beaumont
quote:
The trashy QBs that were kicked out of UGA are 1-2 in their rematches with Richt.
If Mettenberger wasn't the QB on that LSU team, LSU gets absolutely torched in Athens. He threw for a career high in yards that game. Marshall took Auburn to a national title appearance. If you don't think Richt pushing the rule is self-serving, I'm not sure what to tell you. Why should he care where his players transfer if he doesn't want them anymore?
Posted on 5/29/15 at 2:35 pm to Dawg in Beaumont
quote:
The trashy QBs that were kicked out of UGA are 1-2 in their rematches with Richt.
and winless in sanford upon their homecoming.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News