Started By
Message
re: Will Georgia's administration buy in like Alabama?
Posted on 1/24/16 at 10:36 am to dcbl
Posted on 1/24/16 at 10:36 am to dcbl
There is no reason to change the policy. And if UGA did, they would get ripped in the media. You can have the best players and them not do drugs.
The only wa this changes is if the conference passes a league wide restrictions, and my hope would be they mirror UGAs.
Kirby will enforce the law and the players will respond. UGAs failures has nothing to do with the drug policy, that's an excuse and an absurd one at that.
The take on TG3 is acceptable, I agree that the weak minded ADGM needs to have more cojones when dealing with the NCAA. The proof should be on them.
The only wa this changes is if the conference passes a league wide restrictions, and my hope would be they mirror UGAs.
Kirby will enforce the law and the players will respond. UGAs failures has nothing to do with the drug policy, that's an excuse and an absurd one at that.
The take on TG3 is acceptable, I agree that the weak minded ADGM needs to have more cojones when dealing with the NCAA. The proof should be on them.
2
Posted on 1/24/16 at 10:46 am to Crimson Legend
quote:
dealing with those people - that's really probably the biggest challenge a head coach faces at a major school.
This post should be in the CFB hall of fame
Posted on 1/24/16 at 11:18 am to 3rddownonthe8
quote:
UGAs failures has nothing to do with the drug policy, that's an excuse and an absurd one at that.
I did not say they did, I answered the question asked in the OP
We (UGA) are at a competitive disadvantage, even Kirby has acknowledged this
Weed ought to be legal, or at least decriminalized, our policies are overly harsh, I have felt this way for a long time
Posted on 1/24/16 at 11:35 am to dcbl
Even if weed was legalized in the state , it's still an infraction. Oregon, Washington, Colorado all have rules against it at their colleges , while it pertains to athletics. The players should not be high or anything else while competing.
That's ridiculous to think , make it legal and the players will be fine.
That's ridiculous to think , make it legal and the players will be fine.
Posted on 1/24/16 at 12:06 pm to 3rddownonthe8
While competing or during the season?
Posted on 1/24/16 at 12:22 pm to Porter Osborne Jr
Well they shouldn't be high at all. But I also think they shouldn't be drunk, stoned, high, or anything while playing a sport , much less one that you can get seriously hurt in.
But to your question, the schools have drug tests no matter state legality, so I would assume they shouldn't be high during the time of the year they are susceptible to testing.
But to your question, the schools have drug tests no matter state legality, so I would assume they shouldn't be high during the time of the year they are susceptible to testing.
Posted on 1/24/16 at 12:29 pm to 3rddownonthe8
As follow up, Oregons policy is 4 Strikes
1 & 2 "education"
3 is missed playing time
4 is dismissal
They follow federal law on Campus for all students.
1 & 2 "education"
3 is missed playing time
4 is dismissal
They follow federal law on Campus for all students.
Posted on 1/24/16 at 1:45 pm to genuineLSUtiger
quote:
Defensive coordinators as coaches don't work out nearly as often as former offensive coordinators. I think time will show that Saban was a huge reason for the success of Kirby Smart. He won't have close to the success that Richt had at Georgia over the long haul.
Can we see a link to support that first claim?
What has richt done over the past ten years that will be so difficult to at least replicate?
Posted on 1/24/16 at 1:47 pm to ironsides
quote:
Georgia fired a perennial 10 win/ season coach for an untested assistant. It's clear they had no plan other than to get rid of Richt.
The plan was Kirby from the moment they decided being unranked 4 times in 7 seasons isn't good enough. Surely an untested assistant trained by the best in the biz can at least finish ranked 4 times in 7 years.
Posted on 1/24/16 at 1:51 pm to 3rddownonthe8
quote:
There is no reason to change the policy. And if UGA did, they would get ripped in the media. You can have the best players and them not do drugs.
There is a reason and the media would not even know about such a policy change. It's not realistic to expect 85 kids to not smoke weed in college, and there is no good reason to sabatoge your success because some don't understand that. I think the rule is gonna change and we may not know it.
Posted on 1/24/16 at 2:11 pm to djsdawg
It is absolutley reasonable to expect 85 kids on scholarship, getting a top flight education and being trained and made sure they are physically at their best. So that they have a chance at achieving their dreams and changing theirs lives forever. To follow the rules. At some point you have to be held accountable. And I don't believe UGA will ever change the drug policy. And We shouldn't.
Posted on 1/24/16 at 2:30 pm to ironsides
quote:
It's clear they had no plan other than to get rid of Richt.
Well, at least they had a plan for getting rid of their HC...unlike a certain other member institution.
Posted on 1/24/16 at 2:50 pm to 3rddownonthe8
quote:
absolutley reasonable to expect 85 kids on scholarship, getting a top flight education and being trained and made sure they are physically at their best. So that they have a chance at achieving their dreams and changing theirs lives forever. To follow the rules. At some point you have to be held accountable. And I don't believe UGA will ever change the drug policy. And We shouldn't.
We changed our policy before 2012, and you never heard about it, so you are already wrong. Weed isn't the devil you think it is. To expect 85 (!) college (!) kids to not smoke weed is so out of this world, you might as well be on Mars.
Posted on 1/24/16 at 3:09 pm to 3rddownonthe8
quote:
Even if weed was legalized in the state , it's still an infraction. Oregon, Washington, Colorado all have rules against it at their colleges , while it pertains to athletics. The players should not be high or anything else while competing.
That's ridiculous to think , make it legal and the players will be fine.
They won't get arrested for it is the difference.
Posted on 1/24/16 at 4:43 pm to djsdawg
Whether it be weed, dui, theft, or being at practice on time. They should be held accountable. Your idiot if you don't think so.
You just don't change a policy because your tired of players getting caught for smoking weed. Maybe if too many rape girls , we should overlook that as well. I mean we need to make it as easy as possible I guess.
You get the great players and hold them accountable, it's ridiculous to think other wise.
You just don't change a policy because your tired of players getting caught for smoking weed. Maybe if too many rape girls , we should overlook that as well. I mean we need to make it as easy as possible I guess.
You get the great players and hold them accountable, it's ridiculous to think other wise.
Posted on 1/24/16 at 5:03 pm to 3rddownonthe8
quote:The difference here is that, unlike rape, smoking marijuana shouldn't actually be illegal because it doesn't involve harming another person or their property.
Maybe if rape too many girls, we should overlook that as well.
Posted on 1/24/16 at 5:05 pm to 3rddownonthe8
You can be held accountable without being suspended for your first infraction. Never heard of early morning stadium steps? Can't be fun.
If you aren't arrested and charged, you should get a mulligan. Testing should be known weeks in advance and happen rarely. You change the policy to more closely align with common sense, to be reasonable, and that's why we did it before 2012 (interesting you ignored that point).
Btw, Stooping to a rape comparison tells me how weak your argument is.
If you aren't arrested and charged, you should get a mulligan. Testing should be known weeks in advance and happen rarely. You change the policy to more closely align with common sense, to be reasonable, and that's why we did it before 2012 (interesting you ignored that point).
Btw, Stooping to a rape comparison tells me how weak your argument is.
This post was edited on 1/24/16 at 5:07 pm
Posted on 1/24/16 at 5:06 pm to Grovewater
One to consider here is that Kirby Smart is not Nick Saban.
Posted on 1/24/16 at 5:07 pm to Bama Eric
quote:
One to consider here is that Kirby Smart is not Nick Saban.
And saban Wasnt belechick, so are you sure this is a good point?
Posted on 1/24/16 at 5:22 pm to djsdawg
Saban was a proven head coach with a championship under his belt. He was also known as the best recruiter in the business. Kirby is a proven defensive coordinator and considered a very good recruiter. Big difference their boss man. Kirby should do fine when he settles in.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News