I'm sick of ESPN's biased opinions

CajunCrimson said:

What exactly did CNS do wrong? He took a chance on a kid with who made a mistake. We did the same thing with DJ. But instead of beating up an innocent student, he beat up his girlfriend.....why is one ok and not the other? If you think a kid deserves a second chance....then why not Taylor? If we are going to have a standard of "giving second chances" we need to be consistent......

But, as you can see by some of our "faithful" and their comments from above -- there is a double standard......

Click to expand...

There should be a double standard -- for pending felony charges.

The double-standard is on the University end. If a normal student or non-blue chip athlete was previously a part of a violent assault on fellow students or had felony charges pending for a violent offense in another state, they would not be allowed back or accepted admission.

CrimsonEyeshade said:

There should be a double standard -- for pending felony charges.

Click to expand...

I don't know why people continue to overlook this fact that he still likely faced jail time in Georgia. He's not even legally owned up to his previous charges so how in the world is this his "second (third) chance".

I dont agree with OP on tis topic. First let me say I am So happy CNS is here and the job he has done. Taylor was a bad mistake. Guys like him will get second chances and second tier schools. No need for him to come here for that chance. WE can recruit 5 star atheletes who do not have those kind of issues. I thought that the moment he was offered.

I also would like everyone on this board who hammered Scam Newton and Auburn for taking him and how we don't do that.. Taylor is far worse as far as the accusations go and we are far less desperate than auburn is. He never should have been here.

I don't like the situation one bit, it's bad and it made me feel uneasy from the start. But the overreaction is ridiculous, there are college professors convicted of serious crimes, there are convicted bank robbers that went and got college degrees. The idea is that universities are places people can go to better their lives, not a place that excludes people who have made mistakes in their past.

Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of universities (Penn State and FSU comes to mind) that turned a blind eye towards horrible things. Nick Saban has never done that, his "crime" is at best that of poor judgement.

TheAccountant said:

The double-standard is on the University end. If a normal student or non-blue chip athlete was previously a part of a violent assault on fellow students or had felony charges pending for a violent offense in another state, they would not be allowed back or accepted admission.

Click to expand...

I don't think you've spent much time reading up on the subject. They might just make them professors...

KrAzY3 said:

I don't think you've spent much time reading up on the subject. They might just make them professors...

Click to expand...

So let's reword your little example...

If the University knowingly employed a professor who was part of a violent assault on students on that campus or hired one that had violent felony charges pending because that professor had some perceived value, but wouldn't do so with a normal instructor or GA, that would a policy double-standard on the University end. You realize that, right?

TheAccountant said:

You realize that, right?

Click to expand...

I realize that's not what happened. You seem to think they have crazy high standards, they don't... there are criminals all over the place at universities, as I said some in positions of power. You can argue against that mentality, against that sort of thing but that's how it goes. To pretend they only got into Alabama because of the football program is to completely ignore that colleges all over America have a history of letting in, and even putting people in positions of power that have committed all sorts of crimes.

KrAzY3 said:

I don't like the situation one bit, it's bad and it made me feel uneasy from the start. But the overreaction is ridiculous, there are college professors convicted of serious crimes, there are convicted bank robbers that went and got college degrees. The idea is that universities are places people can go to better their lives, not a place that excludes people who have made mistakes in their past.

Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of universities (Penn State and FSU comes to mind) that turned a blind eye towards horrible things. Nick Saban has never done that, his "crime" is at best that of poor judgement.


I don't think you've spent much time reading up on the subject. They might just make them professors...

Click to expand...

Krazy, can you cite an example of a professor committing a felony while employed by a school and keeping the job or being rehired? I suspect there's a policy against that at UA. I also suspect there will be a policy in place that blocks admission of prospective students and student/athletes until pending felony charges are settled.

This in no way compares to Penn State, and no one in this thread critical of our coach's decision has made that leap. This concerns how WE do business, and it's far more productive to internally debate the subject rather than luxuriate in the legal problems of our rivals.

CrimsonEyeshade said:

Krazy, can you cite an example of a professor committing a felony while employed by a school and keeping the job or being rehired? I suspect there's a policy against that at UA. I also suspect there will be a policy in place that blocks admission of prospective students and student/athletes until pending felony charges are settled.

This in no way compares to Penn State, and no one in this thread critical of our coach's decision has made that leap. This concerns how WE do business, and it's far more productive to internally debate the subject rather than luxuriate in the legal problems of our rivals.

Click to expand...

I don't think a professor would keep the same exact job after a conviction, but it's certainly possible. Look at the Weather Underground people, how many are employed at universities? That's just one example, but the truth is universities view criminals in a different manner than most of society. They do tend to lean a certain way, and they have no real issues with giving second chances. I don't know Alabama's exact policies, but I'm sure they didn't break them. I just think people have this naive notion, if you knew how many people on campus there had a conviction of some sort you'd probably be surprised.

In fact, it's the football team itself that tends to be the one with higher standards. You'll notice a player is usually kicked off the football team first, not kicked out by the university. I'm not even aware of university policies that automatically kick students out for crimes, I'm sure there are some but I'm also sure it's commonplace for someone to get convicted of a crime (while enrolled) and not be expelled. It was the same way for me in high school, I went to school with people who had pending charges, were on probation, etc... I didn't know of any that got expelled from school because of those. On the other hand, plenty got in violent altercations without being expelled as well. With the Pettway situation, he was expelled and brought back in, a bit odd, but hardly out of sorts either. I was expelled (for fighting with a teacher), another school let me in and let me quote what the principle said "I don't care what happened there".... so, to pretend this is academia behaving in some odd manner is off kilter.

I got admitted to South Alabama this semester, I didn't even graduate high school. I was surprised by how easy it was to get in (they really don't seem to look that hard), and while I don't have a conviction, my brother does and he went on to get a college degree and serve in the military (which by the way also doesn't mind giving second chances). I just don't think a lot of people understand how lenient universities are and how likely they are to give second chances. To pretend that they only do it for football players is a joke, because people who committed far, far worse crimes than the ones in question here have been treated far, far better.

KrAzY3 said:

I realize that's not what happened. You seem to think they have crazy high standards, they don't... there are criminals all over the place at universities, as I said some in positions of power. You can argue against that mentality, against that sort of thing but that's how it goes. To pretend they only got into Alabama because of the football program is to completely ignore that colleges all over America have a history of letting in, and even putting people in positions of power that have committed all sorts of crimes.

Click to expand...

If you think football wasn't the major reason those two were accepted into Alabama you have your head in the sand the same as the PSU & FSU fans do with their school.

But I'll try and make this easier for you...

-Yes, there are convicted criminals on college campuses who have served their time. I'm not denying that. Jonathan Taylor does not fit that criteria.
-What I am denying is that a run of the mill student who was arrested and part of a violent assault on multiple students would be readmitted back on campus after a year at a JUCO.
-I am also denying that a run of the mill student who had charges PENDING for felony DV and another set of charges for theft of University funds would be admitted for enrollment after only a semester off.

CrimsonEyeshade said:

This in no way compares to Penn State, and no one in this thread critical of our coach's decision has made that leap. This concerns how WE do business, and it's far more productive to internally debate the subject rather than luxuriate in the legal problems of our rivals.

Click to expand...

1000 % correct. At PSU it wasnt a known thing publicly until McCreary finally decided to be a man and come forward about a decade late.
Taylor on the other hand, is a publicly known incident since he has been charged with a felony. CNS's hands were tied.

Krazy's FSU refrence is a bit sketchy because until it can be 100% proven that Winston did or didnt rape that girl, we have to say "innocent until proven guilty" even though most of our gut feelings are that he did do it. If there isnt a felony attched, then Winston is more or less an immature college athlete with a huge ego.

TheAccountant said:

-I am also denying that a run of the mill student who had charges PENDING for felony DV and another set of charges for theft of University funds would be admitted for enrollment after only a semester off.

Click to expand...

And I am contending I don't think you, or a lot of people understand how lenient admissions can be. Here's a quote from a quick search, that gives you an idea of how ambiguous they can be:

"Admission may be withdrawn for students who in the judgment of the Dean and the Admissions Committee have been convicted of or have pending criminal charges that would not be acceptable to our clinical agencies."

What does that tell you? That tells you that you can be convicted or have pending crimes, and they might, if they judge it to be not acceptable withdraw your admissions. That's how academia works, to think that just pending charges, even serious ones, automatically bars entry is to entirely misunderstand how they view things. Now you can argue what those standards would be, but I'd point to people who did some really, really serious stuff that got admitted. I'm not defending the policy, but I'm saying Alabama admitting those two guys was nothing abnormal at all.

KrAzY3 said:

And I am contending I don't think you, or a lot of people understand how lenient admissions can be. Here's a quote from a quick search, that gives you an idea of how ambiguous they can be:

"Admission may be withdrawn for students who in the judgment of the Dean and the Admissions Committee have been convicted of or have pending criminal charges that would not be acceptable to our clinical agencies."

Click to expand...

So in this sensitive climate regarding DV and campus safety it is your contention that it Alabama admits applicants with felony DV charges pending on them? That the admissions board views this serious crime they same way they do with someone who's been arrested for drug possession?

TheAccountant said:

So in this sensitive climate regarding DV and campus safety it is your contention that it Alabama admits applicants with felony DV charges pending on them? That the admissions board views this serious crime they same way they do with someone who's been arrested for drug possession?

Click to expand...

I can assure you, there are people walking around on campus at Alabama, who are not athletes, who have pending domestic violence charges. I'm not arguing for it being a great system, but academia views itself as seperate from the judicial system, essentially if the legal system views them as free to participate in society, they are not inclined to prevent them from getting an education. And, while I do question how far that should go, I understand the mentality. If you cut off their path to education, what path are they being put on?

It does go too far, there's a reason that there are all these rules in place involving rape. Because, rapes were occurring, being reported, etc... and the student who raped another student wasn't even expelled. I can't defend that, but it happened! Not just to football players, to ordinary students. So, yes I agree it should be a priority, may be they should rethink how they approach some of these issues, but all I'm saying is people seem to overestimate how harsh universities usually are in regards to criminals.

If you look at the way a student gets expelled, it's hard to find automatic triggers. Even if a student commits a crime against another student, there's still this whole process. That process is not to be overlooked, because when they say an individual went through a process, it exists and is used all the time. I agree with questioning the process, I don't agree that only football players are admitted after crimes or with pending charges.

I'm out. You're intentionally trying to argue something ad nauseam that is only tangentially related to what I'm saying. Which is your MO.

TheAccountant said:

I'm out. You're intentionally trying to argue something ad nauseam that is only tangentially related to what I'm saying. Which is your MO.

Click to expand...

I primarily addressed the issues of admissions (if we are discussing MOs, you seem to be quick to take up a negative position in regards to Saban), your argument was that there's no way someone with pending felony DV charges would be admitted otherwise, and there's simply not one iota of proof of that.

"More and more colleges are choosing to run criminal background checks on applicants prior to accepting any students. According to a recent study, more than 60% of colleges currently consider criminal histories in decisions, but many of these schools do not have a formal system in place."

Ok, so 60% run background checks and of those schools many do not have a formal system in place. This is my point though, I don't think South Alabama even knows if I have a criminal record or not.

I then took a look at some recommendations, to see what direction universities are being pushed towards:
"a) Remove barriers to admission of individuals who are under some form of community supervision.
b) Avoid policies that impose blanket denials for particular crimes.
c) Provide an opportunity to document personal growth and rehabilitation.
d) Avoid requiring applicant to produce his “official” criminal history record information. "
...
b) Perform an assessment and multi-factor analysis to determine whether a past
criminal offense justifies rejection.
c) Failure to disclose should not be the grounds for automatic rescission of an
offer of admission or an expulsion.
...
a) Provide on-campus support services for students who have criminal records."

There is without a doubt a strong continegent at universities that do all in their power to give college students, pending charges or convicted, second chances. It's not just Nick Saban. That's not my opinion, it's backed up by the reality of criminals on college campuses all over America.

You conveniently try and lump all criminal offenses together - violent and nonviolent. You're delusional (and true to your name) if you think universities view applicants with recent violent offenses the same as someone busted with an 8-ball. Especially a University like Alabama with extremely high admission standards.

And with that said:

http://www.tidefans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244610&p=2604320&viewfull=1#post2604320

Big difference between admitting students and giving someone a scholarship.

KrAzY3 said:

And I am contending I don't think you, or a lot of people understand how lenient admissions can be. Here's a quote from a quick search, that gives you an idea of how ambiguous they can be:

"Admission may be withdrawn for students who in the judgment of the Dean and the Admissions Committee have been convicted of or have pending criminal charges that would not be acceptable to our clinical agencies."

What does that tell you? That tells you that you can be convicted or have pending crimes, and they might, if they judge it to be not acceptable withdraw your admissions. That's how academia works, to think that just pending charges, even serious ones, automatically bars entry is to entirely misunderstand how they view things. Now you can argue what those standards would be, but I'd point to people who did some really, really serious stuff that got admitted. I'm not defending the policy, but I'm saying Alabama admitting those two guys was nothing abnormal at all.

Click to expand...

wsims74 said:

Big difference between admitting students and giving someone a scholarship.

Click to expand...

I'd agree, but the argument being presented was that these students would not have been admitted if not for the fact that they are football players. In both cases, they had multiple scholarship offers for starters, they could have made it on many campuses, but my point was simply that they would get admitted to many schools as ordinary students, right or wrong. I'm not saying I support that system.

In terms of a football scholarships, Cam Newton (stole from a student) and Zach Mettenberger (sexual battery by the way) are two examples of high profiles second chances. Once again, I won't defend that, although in terms of Pettway, from what I understand he did not commit an act of violence and can understand his second chance. Taylor I was always hesitant about. That's a separate issue though, and I do think in the media and even here it's being blended into one.

One is the issue of college admissions, which is quite lenient, yes criminals, convicted or pending are all over the place. The other is should some people be given a second chance in the form of a football scholarship (the one major limitation to a criminal conviction is that it can prevent federal student aid)? I would lean towards yes in most scenarios, unless it's something like rape. If you don't give them a football scholarship, you are ending their education entirely.

But, does any of that mean Alabama shouldn't have higher standards? I tend to agree that the football program should have higher standards, should aspire to higher goals. I don't argue that, but I am irritated by the propaganda which suggests that these guys only got admitted because they were football players, and that Nick Saban was the only one who would stoop so low. That's simply false and driven by an agenda to disparage Alabama and Nick Saban. I suppose I've explained myself and the facts as well as I could though, so people who want to dislike Nick Saban will hold firm in their belief and continue to spread misinformation.