Minnesota Players Boycotting All Football Activities After 10 Players Suspended...

The fact that players are standing up for other players adds very little credibility to their demands. We've seen tweets from our own players supporting teammates who committed highly questionable actions. In times of troubles, just about all groups adopt an 'us vs. them' mentality. That doesn't mean they're any better informed or have made anything more than an emotional decision.

What's fascinating here is the potential realignment of power. University presidents have every right to act in what they feel are the best interests of the university. Now, for the first time, college athletes, a source of extraordinary financial windfalls who are expected to play their sports and say thank you, are pushing back.

This is ground-breaking stuff.
The need to learn they can support teammates while expecting them to do the right thing at the same time. They do them no favor by not holding them accountable.
 
I agree that they don't have a right to know anything here, but a wise head coach would have called a team meeting before announcing this kind of thing and tried to explain things to the best of his ability.

Did he have to do that? No? Heck, for all I know he might have done that. But something just doesn't smell right here. These players didn't just decide that they don't want to play football. They are not stupid. They know that they are risking a lot by taking this stand.

You have to believe that the university and coaching staff handled this very poorly for it to end up here. And what happened before they decided to boycott the game? There were almost certainly events that came between the suspensions and the decision to boycott. How does something that seems so right on the surface (suspended players suspected of sexual assault) turn the whole team against the school?

There just has to be more to this than we have heard.

Timeline.
My reading is that the students are protesting the appearance of double jeopardy.
Law enforcement decides not to prosecute.
Title IX folks want their pound of flesh anyway.
 
Timeline.
My reading is that the students are protesting the appearance of double jeopardy.
Law enforcement decides not to prosecute.
Title IX folks want their pound of flesh anyway
.

In a case like sexual assault, I wonder what the school's investigation could find that would merit punishment by the school but not enough evidence for charges to be brought?
 
Sounds like the inmates are running the asylum.

From the Universities standpoint...
I suspect that there have been 'CODE OF CONDUCT VIOLATIONS' at the very least.
The Players choose a very bad way to protest. Where the heck is the coach. I gather he doesn't attempt to control or discipline his players.

From the players stand point...
What? Has Minnesota became another Berkley.
Some of these guys must have been easily led.

From my standpoint...
I am an Authoritarian... I would have told them they have the right to boycott, but I have the right to demand they turn in their uniforms. They would be voluntarily giving up their Scholarships. I would give them an 'I' for Incomplete for their grade.
Right or Wrong the players boycotting will ultimately be judged to be in the wrong.
 
The school is handcuffed by federal law from disclosing facts that would violate the students privacy.

If I were the university president, I think I'd withdraw from the bowl game. They (the school) are evidently privy to information about the suspended players which they can't disclose. I can understand the players incredulity, but it will have to be dealt with privately. I would not threaten the student/athletes with their scholarships at this time.
 
Timeline.
My reading is that the students are protesting the appearance of double jeopardy.
Law enforcement decides not to prosecute.
Title IX folks want their pound of flesh anyway.
Well, a whole lot happened in there. It is very odd that the team suspended players, then lifted suspensions, then other players couldn't play due to restraining orders, then everyone gets suspended after the season is over. Just very strange. Without more information, I can see why someone would not want to play football there any more.
 
If schools started punishing students for having weird sex-related situations - which at this juncture is all this event can be classified as: a communal sex situation where one of the parties involved came away with regret - then they wouldn't be able to keep students enrolled. This is all about appearances. "At Minnesota, we won't tolerate your daughter deciding to have regrettable group sex with our athletes."
 
The school is handcuffed by federal law from disclosing facts that would violate the students privacy.

If I were the university president, I think I'd withdraw from the bowl game. They (the school) are evidently privy to information about the suspended players which they can't disclose. I can understand the players incredulity, but it will have to be dealt with privately. I would not threaten the student/athletes with their scholarships at this time.
This sounds like the best way to go forward without further damaging relationships. Recognize their concerns, but let them know that they are just going to have to accept things as they are for reasons tied to privacy.

Ending the scholarships of every football player is not going to happen. The school would hurt itself, not the players. The players would all get scholarships elsewhere by the fall semester.
 
Timeline.
My reading is that the students are protesting the appearance of double jeopardy.
Law enforcement decides not to prosecute.
Title IX folks want their pound of flesh anyway.
Anyone else notice the result of the restraining orders?

  • Wednesday, Oct. 19: Carlton Djam, a player who wasn't originally suspended, and Tamarion Johnson are served with restraining orders from alleged Sept. 2 victim, preventing them from playing in home games at TCF Bank Stadium.
  • Friday, Oct. 21: Hardin, Buford, and Dior Johnson are served with restraining orders from alleged Sept. 2 victim, preventing them from playing in home games.
  • Saturday, Oct. 22: A sixth player, Kiondre Thomas, gets served a restraining order from alleged Sept. 2 victim. The six players don't play against Rutgers at TCF Bank Stadium.

Why would a restraining order prevent them playing home games?
 
Many college kids are idiots that whine and complain.

Many college administrators are idiots that trample due process and shut down dissent.

Not sure what's going on, but it's interesting to see people cling to a narrative with few facts to back them up.
 
Anyone else notice the result of the restraining orders?



Why would a restraining order prevent them playing home games?
I am assuming they would bring the players too close to the girl, who would be attending the games for some reason (maybe in the band?)
 
In a case like sexual assault, I wonder what the school's investigation could find that would merit punishment by the school but not enough evidence for charges to be brought?

Different rules of evidence and different burden of proof.
I've had a student deal with Title IX sexual assault allegations. With Title IX, the accused is guilty until proven innocent. In my student's case, there was no evidence whatsoever to indicate any sexual contact at all, much less sexual assault. It was he said, she said. My student was expelled from school.
 
Minnesota enacted an "affirmative consent policy" over the last year. This has likely been the weapon the school has used to punish these players in the name of PR.


Again, this is about making sure mommy and daddy of future student know 'Soda is looking after their little princess when she decides to do some kinky crap then regrets it.
 
Different rules of evidence and different burden of proof.
I've had a student deal with Title IX sexual assault allegations. With Title IX, the accused is guilty until proven innocent. In my student's case, there was no evidence whatsoever to indicate any sexual contact at all, much less sexual assault. It was he said, she said. My student was expelled from school.
If this happened to my son, I would sue the school and I am almost certain that I would win.
 
Anyone else notice the result of the restraining orders?

Why would a restraining order prevent them playing home games?
Eventually, the judge agreed to a more common sense "don't come within 20 feet" restraining order. What employee at a stadium comes into contact with the football players? If she worked in the front office of the stadium, in the VIP section, or in a concession stand, a football player on the field would never get close to her.
 
Eventually, the judge agreed to a more common sense "don't come within 20 feet" restraining order. What employee at a stadium comes into contact with the football players? If she worked in the front office of the stadium, in the VIP section, or in a concession stand, a football player on the field would never get close to her.
That's what I didn't understand. I get the blanket "can't go to her place of employment" in most cases, but this particular situation is pretty different. What are they going to do? Run from the locker room or sideline to find the suite she's working and talk to her?
 

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads