Ummm, that's exactly my point. Investigations are hard to keep secret, lol.
This Day Was Coming
- Thread starter zappaa
- Start date
Remember, there were two separate sets of incidents here. There are the home invasions, which only involved one active player, Boggs, who should be playing football in jail for the next 20 years. The other incident is likely more of a he said, she said type one-time incident, who only the people there know what actually transpired, and what if any players may have acted in a criminal matter. Thus, outside of Boggs and the home invasion, it would have been tough for the police let alone Flood to know what went down in that April 25th incident.
Solid analysis here. We know nothing about the fight incident so hard to make assumptions at this point.
OK.....I typically stick to the basics, but common sense prevails, since most on here are not legal experts.
A) let's say Player A was DUI and didn't get caught, but was driving after drinking and the Head coach finds out......do you suspend him if he is not arrested or suspend him for "conduct detrimental to the team".
B) Let's say Player B is involved in a fight or whatever else is involved and the police complete or don't complete their investigation....do you suspend the player immediately from the program, without having all the facts involved??
Let's say you have 60% of the facts....if you suspended my son or daughter based on not having official charges filed, I'm in your office the next morning. Could RU suspend or kick off the team these players??
I think RU opens themselves up if they dumped the players without having any public information or formal charges being filed and the questions you would have would be "why is player XY not here".
At least the rationale in following other programs and reading about how other schools handled their problem kids is the same way RU did. Baylor didn't dismiss their sexual assault player transferred from Boise until the information was officially released.
What looks more shady is when you have a potential case looming and you are a Mike Riley and you leave Oregon State and take the Nebraska job and less than a few months later, Oregon State and Riley are charged in a multi million dollar law suit. Charging that Riley was in part responsible for creating a "culture of allowing whatever conduct led to a sexual assault by someone that was friends with a player in the program.....not an actual player for Riley, but a friend of a player of the program.
The Riley case was from a filed item in October of 1999.....the only problem was Riley left Oregon State in January of 1999 when he took the Chargers job....sooooo, if Riley wasn't there when the incident occurred, (Dennis Erickson took over for Riley in 1999 after getting fired by the Seahawks after the 1998 season), how does a lawsuit attach itself for an incident that happened when Riley was not even the coach at Oregon State??
I am not saying that the media is wrong, what I am saying that without looking at all the details, I would have thought Riley was directly involved or coach at Oregon State at that time. He wasn't.
What that means for RU is that you cannot (in my opinion) suspend players or kick them off a team, unless you have clear evidence that is filed with formal charges. So regardless of whether you believe Flood knew or didn't, this happens at every program across the country....probably 3% of the incidents get reported across all programs. Penn State has tons of this stuff as do all programs.
It's college sports culture right now, it's been that way for a while.
The biggest issue is college programs trying to use player misconduct or other loopholes thinking they can avoid paying coaches buyouts. The Illinois saga with Beckman is absurd, in that the player allegations, while likely true, cannot be pinned all on Beckman....are we saying Beckman performed the actual surgery on the player accusing him of removing is ligament in his knee.,.....?? We are saying that a medical doctor performed a procedure and it's at the total control of the Head Coach??/ really??
It's college sports folks and it's completely false to pin this on any head coach....all this is, is a new way for schools to try and avoid paying buyouts to change coaches. And it's not going to work for Illinois or any other school that made a bad hire and doesn't want to pay the buyout to get another coach.
A) let's say Player A was DUI and didn't get caught, but was driving after drinking and the Head coach finds out......do you suspend him if he is not arrested or suspend him for "conduct detrimental to the team".
B) Let's say Player B is involved in a fight or whatever else is involved and the police complete or don't complete their investigation....do you suspend the player immediately from the program, without having all the facts involved??
Let's say you have 60% of the facts....if you suspended my son or daughter based on not having official charges filed, I'm in your office the next morning. Could RU suspend or kick off the team these players??
I think RU opens themselves up if they dumped the players without having any public information or formal charges being filed and the questions you would have would be "why is player XY not here".
At least the rationale in following other programs and reading about how other schools handled their problem kids is the same way RU did. Baylor didn't dismiss their sexual assault player transferred from Boise until the information was officially released.
What looks more shady is when you have a potential case looming and you are a Mike Riley and you leave Oregon State and take the Nebraska job and less than a few months later, Oregon State and Riley are charged in a multi million dollar law suit. Charging that Riley was in part responsible for creating a "culture of allowing whatever conduct led to a sexual assault by someone that was friends with a player in the program.....not an actual player for Riley, but a friend of a player of the program.
The Riley case was from a filed item in October of 1999.....the only problem was Riley left Oregon State in January of 1999 when he took the Chargers job....sooooo, if Riley wasn't there when the incident occurred, (Dennis Erickson took over for Riley in 1999 after getting fired by the Seahawks after the 1998 season), how does a lawsuit attach itself for an incident that happened when Riley was not even the coach at Oregon State??
I am not saying that the media is wrong, what I am saying that without looking at all the details, I would have thought Riley was directly involved or coach at Oregon State at that time. He wasn't.
What that means for RU is that you cannot (in my opinion) suspend players or kick them off a team, unless you have clear evidence that is filed with formal charges. So regardless of whether you believe Flood knew or didn't, this happens at every program across the country....probably 3% of the incidents get reported across all programs. Penn State has tons of this stuff as do all programs.
It's college sports culture right now, it's been that way for a while.
The biggest issue is college programs trying to use player misconduct or other loopholes thinking they can avoid paying coaches buyouts. The Illinois saga with Beckman is absurd, in that the player allegations, while likely true, cannot be pinned all on Beckman....are we saying Beckman performed the actual surgery on the player accusing him of removing is ligament in his knee.,.....?? We are saying that a medical doctor performed a procedure and it's at the total control of the Head Coach??/ really??
It's college sports folks and it's completely false to pin this on any head coach....all this is, is a new way for schools to try and avoid paying buyouts to change coaches. And it's not going to work for Illinois or any other school that made a bad hire and doesn't want to pay the buyout to get another coach.
Hawk,
College coaches establish team rules that govern conduct do not need to meet a legal threshold for taking action such as suspensions. KF did not need more than knowing Caroo and others skipped curfew to take the action he did. He could have suspended these kids for conduct detrimental to the team based on the fight or robbery if he was aware. I don't agree that coaches are not responsible at all for this type of behavior in their program. The more you win the more rope you get at most schools, but i am not sure that is the case at at school like RU where the reputation risk due to an agressive media market is high. I would be surprised if there is not something along these lines written into their contracts. I dot't think it would cover isolated instances but if there is a pattern or practice there could be performance evaluation ramifications.
College coaches establish team rules that govern conduct do not need to meet a legal threshold for taking action such as suspensions. KF did not need more than knowing Caroo and others skipped curfew to take the action he did. He could have suspended these kids for conduct detrimental to the team based on the fight or robbery if he was aware. I don't agree that coaches are not responsible at all for this type of behavior in their program. The more you win the more rope you get at most schools, but i am not sure that is the case at at school like RU where the reputation risk due to an agressive media market is high. I would be surprised if there is not something along these lines written into their contracts. I dot't think it would cover isolated instances but if there is a pattern or practice there could be performance evaluation ramifications.
Zap,
First, let's separate the "fight" from the armed robberies.
Do I believe Flood had any knowledge that one of his players was party to an armed robbery? 100% NO.
Do I believe Flood had any knowledge that several of his players were involved in a "fight", where at least one Rutgers student was seriously injured, back in April? Let me put it this way. Wouldn't he have punished them? The man just suspended his maybe-starting QB for breaking curfew and using a fake id. I don't see Flood turning a blind eye to anything.
First, let's separate the "fight" from the armed robberies.
Do I believe Flood had any knowledge that one of his players was party to an armed robbery? 100% NO.
Do I believe Flood had any knowledge that several of his players were involved in a "fight", where at least one Rutgers student was seriously injured, back in April? Let me put it this way. Wouldn't he have punished them? The man just suspended his maybe-starting QB for breaking curfew and using a fake id. I don't see Flood turning a blind eye to anything.
Please give it a rest, Zappaa. Let your suspicions be proven in the coming days as the investigation plays out. Going on about your insights into team dynamics and coaching behavior are not relevant to the Rutgers situation and Flood's guilt or innocence, although they are interesting.
Coach Schiano would have dropped those players like a hot potato over a whiff of something as serious as what is being alleged. College players aren't guaranteed due process; the head coach can easily put you in his doghouse if he wishes. Flood isn't a guy to use tactics like this. Beware of coaches who are called "player's coaches" by their charges; they always seem to fail. Flood is one of those nice guys who is going to finish, well, not exactly in first.
The posts in this thread are way more intelligent than the crap Politi writes. Is the bar for "journalism" really that low? (Rhetorical Question - Answer = yes).
Back to the current discussion, which seems to favor Flood did not have whole picture, but now leads to so how much should he shoulder? I think it is unfair for him to bear it all absent him definitively knowing it happened or someone on the team telling him it happened.
Back to the current discussion, which seems to favor Flood did not have whole picture, but now leads to so how much should he shoulder? I think it is unfair for him to bear it all absent him definitively knowing it happened or someone on the team telling him it happened.
Just my opinion, but Coach Flood could easily have known about the fight and handled it in the manner he deemed appropriate at the time.
Fights are not uncommon on college campuses.
The police could have indicated they were investigating this particular fight, again not something that unusual and not necessarily indicating anything more serious to be concerned about.
He could well have interviewed the players involved and not involved and gotten their version of it, before deciding what he considered to be the appropriate punishment.
We don't have any idea of what went down at any point, so speculation is more about showing our particular biases than about knowing what really happened.
Fights are not uncommon on college campuses.
The police could have indicated they were investigating this particular fight, again not something that unusual and not necessarily indicating anything more serious to be concerned about.
He could well have interviewed the players involved and not involved and gotten their version of it, before deciding what he considered to be the appropriate punishment.
We don't have any idea of what went down at any point, so speculation is more about showing our particular biases than about knowing what really happened.
What did the head coach know and when did he know it?
Sound familiar?
Some of us are not so sanctimonious now.
Sound familiar?
Some of us are not so sanctimonious now.
Pretty much this. If he is suspending the best player on the team (Carroo) for missing curfew, I have a hard time imaging the scenario where he knew about this for months and did nothing. Maybe that did happen, but it's tough for me to reconcile those two actions.
Can we please stop calling it a "fight?"
You guys calling it a fight are doing exactly what we criticize every other fanbase for when one of their guys gets into trouble.
I don't expect pistols at dawn. But uneven odds and unprovoked sucker punches are not fights. They are chargeable assaults.
You guys calling it a fight are doing exactly what we criticize every other fanbase for when one of their guys gets into trouble.
I don't expect pistols at dawn. But uneven odds and unprovoked sucker punches are not fights. They are chargeable assaults.
What if the curfew violation suspensions came about BECAUSE Flood recognized he had been too lax (in light of the real troubles)?
Was it really unprovoked? I know the victims would insist on that... But was it? The answer only decides whether this was evil thuggery or just stupidity... Because these guys should be avoiding conflict everywhere but between the sidelines.
This is the only way it could have went down in my opinion that makes sense. No way Kyle has these players in the 2 deep with any knowledge of the storm clouds brewing overhead. His only fault to date is the email, and hoping there's nothing other than him asking if players could do extra credit.