🏈 How far should colleges go to screen recruits? Criminal background checks could become norm:

[RTB X Bot]

 

[XXL TideFan]

Should have already been the norm.

 

[Che Boludo]

I think UT has been going too far in attempting to probe into the backgrounds of some of their students and staff members

 

[Sid Youngleman]

I think UT has been going too far in attempting to probe into the backgrounds of some of their students and staff members

Backgrounds or backsides?

 

[Che Boludo]

Backgrounds or backsides?

It's all the same end

 

[OldPlayer]

Would require prospects to divulge their SSN. Opens up a whole new set of problems on privacy.

 

[rueben]

Would require prospects to divulge their SSN. Opens up a whole new set of problems on privacy.

1. Not necessarily. There are other ways. ( DL numbers work just as well.)

2. Criminal background checks are B.S. anyway. Unless its PD running warrant checks. I've seen them miss obvious felons before.

3. Even if they were asked, they don't have to comply...they don't have to play football either. Life's full of choices.

 

[TerryP]

Would require prospects to divulge their SSN.

I strongly suspect they already do. It's part of the FAFSA.

Considering so few Internet sites employ copy editors (often the individuals responsible for article titles) it's not an off the wall assumption Scarborough / Rittenberg chose this title, "how far SHOULD colleges go ..."

It seems to be it would be better put, "what colleges CAN do ..."

They touch on it a few times in the article without making it a point of emphasis in my opinion. Most colleges CAN'T do this research due to the age of the players—juvenile records.
____________

I appreciate the article in the point it is thought provoking. However, I'm also led to think, "barner going to barn."

As example:

"And much of it hinges on the struggle over whether a recruit is talented enough to overlook off-field behavior. Alabama signed former Georgia defensive lineman Jonathan Taylor, who was awaiting trial on domestic violence charges, and then kicked him off the team less than a month later when he was arrested in a separate matter."

If you didn't know better, one would read that paragraph as "UA chose to overlook Taylor's behavior." That's just a lie. And, it's something Alex knows. He (Taylor) went through a very intensive background and vetting process before being allowed on campus. Hence, the "one strike you're gone."

On the other hand:

"Dalvin Cook, who has faced legal issues while at Florida State, was arrested several times before ever arriving in Tallahassee. Florida law makes some juvenile arrests accessible to the public, but documents obtained by ESPN showed that no college formally requested copies of Cook's arrest records from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement prior to offering him a scholarship."

Are these cited examples even comparable?
Isn't this one of those "symbolism over substance" kind of arguments?