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

Actually, this is the fifth year in a row Minnesota has gone to a bowl game (for those who were saying they didn't know).


Minnesota has actually won more national championships than Texas has in football, too.


They're a power waiting to break out!!!!!


I'm sure this is to set up Saban going there, too....

After Duke lacrosse on one hand and Baylor on the other......I'm with CA on scholarship pulling BUT....I don't think it's right you suspend someone without giving a reason, either.

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.

crimsonaudio said:

I don't know the whole story, but unless something is MASSIVELY wrong, were I the coach / AD, I'd pull the scholarship of every player who chose to boycott.

Click to expand...

The flip side: You will self-impose a death penalty on your program for the foreseeable future.

Consider

crimsonaudio said:

I don't know the whole story, but unless something is MASSIVELY wrong, were I the coach / AD, I'd pull the scholarship of every player who chose to boycott.

Click to expand...

selmaborntidefan said:

After Duke lacrosse on one hand and Baylor on the other......I'm with CA on scholarship pulling BUT....I don't think it's right you suspend someone without giving a reason, either.

Click to expand...

Indeed the whole thing is a mess at this point. It really makes you appreciate having a strong coach like CNS, doesn't it? I can't imagine something getting to this point at Alabama. Either the administration would have Saban on board with the whole thing at the outset or else he would be standing on someone's desk, stomping his feet and peeing his pants until somebody gave him an explanation. There would be no need for "player boycotts" because CNS would be all over it and he would be the one speaking for the team one way or the other. What this whole situation really says is that either the Minnesota admins and the coach are not on the same page at all or the coach is simply too weak to keep control of the situation and demand answers for his team. To say the least, neither one is an indicator of a healthy program.

I would boycott their scholarships.

selmaborntidefan said:

After Duke lacrosse on one hand and Baylor on the other......I'm with CA on scholarship pulling BUT....I don't think it's right you suspend someone without giving a reason, either.

Click to expand...

A speedy hearing with due process could resolve the issue, but this seems untimely (not just because of the bowl game) and due process in these types of hearings is whole other ballgame.

So the police didn't charge the players, this is really just a PR stunt by the University of Minnesota? If so, I get the players argument. I'm not sure of all the facts here but I don't think the players would be sticking up for a likely guilty group of players.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the way this case has went:

Girl alleges two athletes raped her

Video is produced showing she was lucid and active while the sexual contact took place

Police is not charging/has not charged anyone

School suspends all the players that were around while this not-enough-to-prosecute-for-rape sexual contact happened


Is this basically the story's high points?

CrimsonEyeshade said:

The flip side: You will self-impose a death penalty on your program for the foreseeable future.

Consider

Click to expand...

I guess things really have changed.

When I received scholarship after scholarship when I was in college (way way back in the Stone Age - the late 80s and early 90s - there were EXPECTATIONS you had to meet, places you had to be to fulfill that scholarship).


When I was part of a singing troupe that brought no money into the school whatsoever, I had to be certain places at certain times. If I wasn't - they revoked the scholarship (and yes, they kept attendance).


I don't see why this is a problem. As far as the claim it's a self-imposed death penalty, no it isn't - because most of them have no choice but to back down.

Bill, if the players boycott the bowl game, what happens next? The coach has been exposed. The school will be branded in the eyes of many recruits as, at the very least, anti-player or at worse, racist. Who will come to play there?

That's exactly what happened at Wyoming 40 years ago. The coach suspended most of the team's black players for raising concerns about playing BYU. The football program, a traditional Western powerhouse up to then, has never recovered.

If UM bends to the players' demands, there are also ramifications. Look at what happened at Mizzou. Boosters withheld money. The coach suddenly retired. The top administrators lost their jobs. Conservative legislators threatened to target the school. I believe I read somewhere that enrollment declined.

I don't know enough to say which side is right. But it seems obvious that college athletes appear much less willing to shut up and play, given the economic clout the whole world knows they have. So yeah, times are changing, and quickly.

selmaborntidefan said:

I guess things really have changed.

When I received scholarship after scholarship when I was in college (way way back in the Stone Age - the late 80s and early 90s - there were EXPECTATIONS you had to meet, places you had to be to fulfill that scholarship).

When I was part of a singing troupe that brought no money into the school whatsoever, I had to be certain places at certain times. If I wasn't - they revoked the scholarship (and yes, they kept attendance).


I don't see why this is a problem. As far as the claim it's a self-imposed death penalty, no it isn't - because most of them have no choice but to back down.

Click to expand...

CrimsonEyeshade said:

Bill, if the players boycott the bowl game, what happens next? The coach has been exposed. The school will be branded in the eyes of many recruits as, at the very least, anti-player or at worse, racist. Who will come to play there?

That's exactly what happened at Wyoming 40 years ago. The coach suspended most of the team's black players for raising concerns about playing BYU. The football program, a traditional Western powerhouse up to then, has never recovered.

If UM bends to the players' demands, there are also ramifications. Look at what happened at Mizzou. Boosters withheld money. The coach suddenly retired. The top administrators lost their jobs. Conservative legislators threatened to target the school. I believe I read somewhere that enrollment declined.

I don't know enough to say which side is right. But it seems obvious that college athletes appear much less willing to shut up and play, given the economic clout the whole world knows they have. So yeah, times are changing, and quickly.

Click to expand...

Pinkel actually has a real health issue and had expressed wanting to retire before the Hunger strike.

B1GTide said:

As for this incident - for now I will trust that the players know more about this than I do and that they are doing this for a reason. I just hope that if that is true, that they will tell their story. Otherwise they will be painted with the same brush as the nitwits from Mizzou.

Click to expand...

This is one of the few times that I'll disagree with B1GTide. At this point, I trust more in the university's actions, rather than the friends of the accused and their tantrum to try and get their way.

So murky. Need more details and context...

CrimsonEyeshade said:

Bill, if the players boycott the bowl game, what happens next? The coach has been exposed. The school will be branded in the eyes of many recruits as, at the very least, anti-player or at worse, racist. Who will come to play there?

That's exactly what happened at Wyoming 40 years ago. The coach suspended most of the team's black players for raising concerns about playing BYU. The football program, a traditional Western powerhouse up to then, has never recovered.

If UM bends to the players' demands, there are also ramifications. Look at what happened at Mizzou. Boosters withheld money. The coach suddenly retired. The top administrators lost their jobs. Conservative legislators threatened to target the school. I believe I read somewhere that enrollment declined.

I don't know enough to say which side is right. But it seems obvious that college athletes appear much less willing to shut up and play, given the economic clout the whole world knows they have. So yeah, times are changing, and quickly.

Click to expand...

The difference here is I think the Mizzou protest hit on some political pain points that turned off the type of people who usually have money to give...


Without getting too NS Board, I think this is important to consider. There is a good chance the blowback here will be that many boosters may feel that their university is railroading innocent athletes.

rgw said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but the way this case has went:

Girl alleges two athletes raped her

Video is produced showing she was lucid and active while the sexual contact took place

Police is not charging/has not charged anyone

School suspends all the players that were around while this not-enough-to-prosecute-for-rape sexual contact happened


Is this basically the story's high points?

Click to expand...

I would add that
1. The woman has re-remembered the events, changing now how she characterized them then. (A piece of evidence in favor of the correctness of the charges is that she reported to police on 3 September that she had been sexually assaulted, probably 36 hours after the fact. The alleged attack was in the wee hours of 2 September.)
2. Title IX folks do not accord the same due process rights to the accused that law enforcement agencies do.
3. Universities are scared to death to two things: (a) running afoul of Title IX folks and (b) sweeping things under the rug like Baylor appears to have done.

I think those three go a long way to explaining UM's behavior.

At the same time, the players looking at it from a criminal justice perspective seem to have a justification in feeling that their university is crucifying them for show.

I think this is a very legitimate form of protest. As always with protest, you kinda have to own whatever negatives come your way by doing so but I don't fault the protest whatsoever.