📡 Big Sky bans athletes with convictions for violent crimes

[RTB X Bot]

 

[JoseyWalesTheOutlaw]

They better be careful or the SJW at ESPN will be on their case........

 

[Tidestalker]

I can respect it... Don't know if I agree with it but I respect it.

 

[planomateo]

SEC did something similar.

 

[TUSKtimes]

When the SEC put that in writing it was a relief. Saving us from ourselves sort of thing. If the conviction is there the privilege is gone.

 

[50+yeartidefan]

Playing is a privilege....agree @TUSKtimes

 

[TerryP]

When the SEC put that in writing it was a relief. Saving us from ourselves sort of thing. If the conviction is there the privilege is gone.

I can respect it... Don't know if I agree with it but I respect it.

I don't like it for one reason.

Juvenile crimes are often not held against adults in society. But, conferences feel they should establish rules stronger than that of society.

It's akin to the NFL putting itself up as some sort of morality police ruling before the courts of law.

Remember how quickly some were distancing themselves from Foster?

I fear context won't be taken into account at times.

 

[Tidestalker]

When the SEC put that in writing it was a relief. Saving us from ourselves sort of thing. If the conviction is there the privilege is gone.

I can respect it... Don't know if I agree with it but I respect it.

I don't like it for one reason.

Juvenile crimes are often not held against adults in society. But, conferences feel they should establish rules stronger than that of society.

It's akin to the NFL putting itself up as some sort of morality police ruling before the courts of law.

Remember how quickly some were distancing themselves from Foster?

I fear context won't be taken into account at times.

That's why I don't know that I agree with it.... But then again, we're going to blame the conference to holding themselves to a high standard??? I can't hate on that.

 

[PhillyGirl]

"The Serious Misconduct Rule is defined as any act of sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual exploitation or any assault that employs the use of a deadly weapon or causes serious bodily injury. The rule will go into effect in the 2019-20 academic year."

As long as they focus on CONVICTED over accused/alleged (like the SEC appears to be doing) .. that's alright. I 100% agree with the above posters who state that playing is a privilege and I appreciate the effort to maintain high standards. (*cough* Luke Heimlich and Oregon State)

Time for some Devil's Advocate though.

For one, different states report and classify crimes in different ways. Context is also super important. Wasn't there an SEC player in the last few years who had a domestic violence conviction or something but he was fighting his abusive dad?

In addition, I certainly don't think folks with serious misconduct issues should be taken lightly (perhaps they could be on some sort of 'double secret probation' ) but I do think such a rule could prevent young people who come from shitty backgrounds from actually turning things around. If the kid was convicted and has served their time and keeps their nose clean, why should they be barred from the sport and what message are we sending them? Obviously they can turn their lives around without the use of sport, and to play at all is purely a privilege, but should we be barring them outright? (I don't presume to know and obviously this is a case-by-case situation; see the aforementioned Luke Heimlich after they found out what he did)

Lastly (whew), why is this a conference thing? Why is the Big Sky dictating how individual schools conduct their business? I understand that they want to promote conference-wide excellence and that one blemish can make the whole group look bad but shouldn't this be on a university by university basis? If one school wants to take the risk of fallout re: student safety, accreditation, bad press, etc. by giving a kid with a conviction a shot, that's on them. At the end of the day no one remembers the conference; they remember the individual school who fucked up. See: Penn State, SMU, Michigan State, etc. It's them who suffer the consequences, not the conference.

Like, I respect the effort on behalf of the Big Sky to address a major concern in CFB and I think that striving for excellence is important, but at the same time, I wonder if this particular thing will hurt more than help.

 

[BamaFan334]

When the SEC put that in writing it was a relief. Saving us from ourselves sort of thing. If the conviction is there the privilege is gone.

I can respect it... Don't know if I agree with it but I respect it.

I don't like it for one reason.

Juvenile crimes are often not held against adults in society. But, conferences feel they should establish rules stronger than that of society.

It's akin to the NFL putting itself up as some sort of morality police ruling before the courts of law.

Remember how quickly some were distancing themselves from Foster?

I fear context won't be taken into account at times.

A violent felony crime is serious stuff. I think that, no matter what age, should disqualify the convicted. I knew at twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen not to take a gun out and point it at someone and try to intimidate or steal from them. I knew not to touch a girl if she said no. I knew not to hurt other people unless I was threatened. Juveniles in these cases know better. Now a high school boy and girl getting in trouble for fooling around is a little different than a violent crime. Look at the case of that football team in Alabama that is being sued due to that video of hazing where they beat the shit out of that one kid and were clearly trying to hurt him. Hazing is shaving someone's head or taping them to the goal post or basketball pole for an hour, not shoving things up someone's ass or beating them and breaking their bones. I say you ban those assholes and make them pursue a career with their educational qualities instead of allowing them to skate by on their athletic ability.

 

[TUSKtimes]

I don't like it for one reason.

Juvenile crimes are often not held against adults in society. But, conferences feel they should establish rules stronger than that of society.

It's akin to the NFL putting itself up as some sort of morality police ruling before the courts of law.

Remember how quickly some were distancing themselves from Foster?

I fear context won't be taken into account at times.

In this case, the SEC is respecting and abiding by the laws of society. You can't do away with the law because someone circumvents it or because a law has been known to get it wrong. Most of all I don't see anyone associated with the universities that are in a better situation to get it right than the court system.

And that's the NFL to me. They don't get it right all the time, but it still creates a deterrent to the kind of behavior that left unchecked would destroy what you're trying to build. There are a lot of hard feelings going around these days when the subject of discipline is brought up. But the truth is, yes doesn't mean a whole lot without a no. I can't think off-hand of a privilege worth having that it doesn't take some kind of merit to get it. Usually the harder it is to achieve, the fewer qualify, and the more we covet it. That's the part of the NFL that has been dead on from the beginning.