Tom Herman was exposed as wining and dining HS coaches at strip clubs, presumably to get them to funnel recruits to Texas. The media response to this was very muted, Finebaum went as far as to say it wasn't a big deal because everyone does it, and the other pundits agreed. On top of this weed will become legal in more and more states that are competing with NU, and presumably programs won't test for legal substances. Can Frost compete in an era where the "dirty" nature of college athletics is exposed, but accepted, especially when he is taking such a strong ethical approach? Would he be accepted if we found out he was taking Texas coaches to strip clubs to win recruits? Or that players were openly smoking weed on a campus and it was ignored?
Strippers and Weed
- Thread starter Solana Beach Husker
- Start date
Well crap. I thought the tooic was an advertisement.
I guess if a player doesn't have a mother, these enticements might work everywhere. Being that there are still good athletes with strong families, we'll be alright.
Nebraska boys from good families still get drunk before they are 21, it is part of the culture. Weed is just part of culture in many places in the country...can you imagine our husker teams in 90s if our coaches tested for alcohol? We might 3 players on Saturday. Weed is the new alcohol.
Alcohol is everywhere. Period.
Your thread title was strippers and weed. Not nearly as prevalent at this point. Is it a part of our cultures? Sure. But nowhere near the level of alcohol in my opinion.
Your thread title was strippers and weed. Not nearly as prevalent at this point. Is it a part of our cultures? Sure. But nowhere near the level of alcohol in my opinion.
Us baby boomers been smoking weed for along time now, nothing new to us we just indulge in both..
I think you may be over-blowing the impact of such "dirty" background politics. For one, weed is already an issue and has been for many years, but as long as it is banned by the NCAA everyone will be held to the same standard.
But yes, I do think Frost can succeed, because not every player, his family, or coach will be susceptible to dirty background politics.
But yes, I do think Frost can succeed, because not every player, his family, or coach will be susceptible to dirty background politics.
Frost will compete if he and his staff coach well. Kids want to work with winners.
Coaches institute their own drug testing programs. Bo instituted a pretty harsh policy but by the time Randy Gregory was here it had softened quite a bit. And lets say the big 10 forces a no-weed policy, coaches can still look the other way when tests are cheated like Bo did.
The idea that football recruits are attracted to states where marijuana is legal is nonsense. College football stars in Oregon or Colorado or wherever do not walk into retail dispensaries to buy marijuana. If they want marijuana, they will acquire it the same way they would in any other state.
And by the way, when exactly was the "clean" era of college athletics?
And by the way, when exactly was the "clean" era of college athletics?
"NCAA everyone will be held to the same standard. " The NCAA is not a legal body. They cannot hold everyone to the same standard. By nature they investigate in a limited and subjective manner, picking situations where they can make a point to dissuade that particular behavior...ie probation against a few programs while all programs do similar things. And never has the NCAA laid down probation for substance abuse alone. It is purely institutional discretion, and in places where weed is legal, that discretion is skewed.
I think it was the 1987 season that I sat in the row right behind the freshman team. It was like sitting behind a liquor store. Almost every guy had a bottle of hard liquor for every game.
Ok, I see what you mean. First, it is up to member schools to institute drug-testing programs, but the penalties for a positive test are not administered at the school's discretion (http://www.ncaa.org/sport-science-institute/topics/frequently-asked-questions-about-drug-testing). Secondly, I take it what you mean is that it is up to the school's discretion whether or not to report the violation (e.g. Bo's policy). So it is wrong to say that every school is held to the same standard, because a school has the discretion to (a) test its athletes and (b) report those tests publicly (though this is just an invitation to be investigated and sanctioned, cf: https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...homa-state-for-violating-drug-testing-policy/).
None of that means the NCAA is not a legal body. Of course it is a legal body--it has rules and the authority to enforce them, and every school that is part of the NCAA is subject to those rules. What you seem to be taking issue with is the lack of executive power and/or oversight the NCAA has. Yes, violations must be self-reported or come to light by other means (reporters, a criminal investigation). That does not mean the NCAA does not have rules and does not enforce compliance. (How else do you make sense of the fact that the NCAA imposes sanctions?).
Anyway, if the worry is that schools located in states where weed is legal will gain a competitive advantage, the solution is rather simple if you're a coach residing in a state where it's not: don't administer drug tests.
Perhaps there is a worry that drug-tests will be mandated by the school, or by the state provided that the school is a state entity? I guess that is a genuine worry, but as you've noted it is hasn't really been an issue up to this point because coaches seem to have no trouble instituting their own punishments without the findings becoming public knowledge (as Bo did with Gregory).
Lastly, I don't think most college coaches want their players smoking weed, and so it will only be a competitive advantage for those coaches who don't care or who look the other way. Is that any different than things are now?
Frost is choosing to put himself at a disadvantage in recruiting by refusing to participate in the things that the best programs use to bring in talent...on top of that we have been a very unattractive program for a while because of negative recruiting, having lazy or crazy coaches, being situated in a north region, and switching conferences and realigning our recruiting territories. I guess we'll see if continuity, toughness, intelligence, and coaching can overcome pure talent with great coaching in the best programs.
Sounds crazy, I know - but it seems a bit early to start boo-hooing on Scott Frost's behalf about how such a stand-up guy running a squeaky-clean program can't possibly be expected to compete with all these big meanie football factories who will do anything to win.
I like Frost, and I think he'll have success at NU. Not really interested in pre-making excuses at this point.
I like Frost, and I think he'll have success at NU. Not really interested in pre-making excuses at this point.
Still don't know how a grown man going to a strip club makes national news. And I guess if you want to call that dirty recruiting tactics, it doesn't seem to be helping these coaches all that much. They're still struggling playing against a bottom tier Big 10 team. People need to stop making that an excuse for our own coaching staff to suck though. Yes we should be able to compete even though some other schools are using questionable recruiting tactics.
These grown men are in charge of kids. Herman is making millions and has the lives of 105 kids in his hands...and he can't entice HS coaches any other way? I don't care if it is a release for them but to use it as a recruiting tool is not good optics.
Not just the nineties. I was in school right after Devaney's era ended. There were quite a few stories of Bob having to send the assistant coaches down to O Street on Friday afternoon before games to get some players out of the bars so they could all go out to East Campus to spend the night.
As far as Nebraska and drugs go my friends back in the old town have way more than any of my friends here in Washington and pot is legal here. (I am not just talking weed in the old town either. I have no idea where they get it, but they get it) All my friends and I spent most of our high school years driving to Kansas for beer. A favorite place was a dance place in Concordia, KS called DJ's.
To be honest, I don't see anything wrong with that. He is also human and sometimes wants to relax. It seems to me precisely because of this that the press reacted so calmly to this. Although it seems to me that if he just smoked cigarettes or something more banal, then no one would even notice. But in any case, if a person wants to smoke or drink, then why should he do it in a place where there are not so many people. Thus, you can avoid various articles in the newspapers, meetings with the press and many other useless problems. When I played in college, we had very strict controls on smoking weed, alcohol and other drugs. We caught only those who smoked in the toilet or on campus (I think this is really stupid). I used to host green malay kratom at home and I was never spotted.
Last edited:
Finebaum’s opinion varies by who it’s in reference to. He’d blow saban if asked for example even though he’s not into older men.
Bobs recreation in Belville ks was another good place plus it was closer and you could take the back roads home
Sorry, OP. The only reason we could still be debating this two years later is we simply don’t yet have enough information to form an option on this. Please post pictures of the strippers and send samples of the weed (or vise versa). Thanks
Last edited:
Anyone testing positive for a banned substance (which marijuana still is under NCAA rules) is immediately ineligible. The NCAA administers tests at and following championship events (plus football bowl games -- looking at you, Brian Bosworth). Anyone testing positive is immediately ineligible. The ineligibility is retroactive and the team loses any points scored by the offending individual. LSU women lost a national track title this way, as did Texas Tech. There have been others.
Institutions have the discretion to set up their own testing programs/sanctions for the regular season.
Finally, there have been programs placed on probation in part for drug offenses that occurred in the athletics program. Not solely for those offenses, but drug issues were part of the infractions case.
No ****, when are people going to realize the NCAA is not the law...the power is with the schools.
Yeah I don't see Alabama and Clemson struggling to attract recruits to states without permissive drug laws. It might actually matter far more that you put a winning team on the field and show success putting guys in the NFL. If you haven't noticed the players that involve themselves with weed the most tend to sidetrack their future potential and end up more often than not ruining their career. Im not for draconian laws (or pot laws at all), but I sure teach my kids that simple fact.
Heck I'd hire Switzer, line up a Piper and if wnts to show up for coaching from time to time so much the better.
He would hit the titty bar in Omaha Fridays before the game.
He would hit the titty bar in Omaha Fridays before the game.
Let everyone else get players on Weed except Nebraska, this will finally give us a true sustainable competitive advantage! Weed destroys your brain and reflexes. Parents don't want their kids getting addicted to Weed.
Weird that Texas has to resort to that kind of stuff to get recruits to sign with them. I thought they had their pick in a talent rich state.
Oh yeah...and Finebaum is still an F***ing Moron!
the laws and drug tests side track their futures.
Or they simply change the mind when it comes to their future
They don't become heroine junkies or in a junkie state, more like a mental awakening where your priorities change.