Stiletto wrote:Certainly. Although he got kicked off Iowa States FB team for assaulting a police officer and then being a key member in the Missoula drug robbery/pistol whipping, he is generally a great guy!

According to the Missoulian Coleman was reinstated at Iowa State before transferring. Also, the incident that he was suspended for was not the assault on a police officer. Not defending Coleman, just figured I'd correct your statement

mtgrizrule - I was unaware that felonies fall off of your record after a certain amount of time in some states. For the time that it's still on his record, I imagine it will be pretty difficult for him to find a decent job. Some of the extensive background checks, tests, etc that are done for employment (even at places that have nothing to do with security, children, etc) are almost borderline ridiculous :P

Dexter X wrote:

Stiletto wrote:Certainly. Although he got kicked off Iowa States FB team for assaulting a police officer and then being a key member in the Missoula drug robbery/pistol whipping, he is generally a great guy!

According to the Missoulian Coleman was reinstated at Iowa State before transferring. Also, the incident that he was suspended for was not the assault on a police officer. Not defending Coleman, just figured I'd correct your statement

Whatever. Sugar coat it all you want but the fact remains he pled "guilty to committing interference with official acts causing injury and assault on a peace officer". He was later charged with assault after a bar brawl which led to his suspension and reinstatement after charges were dropped. Two serious run ins with the law, yet Bobby gives him a "clean slate" here? WTF? Bobby needs to be held personally responsible for bringing this thug here!

http://www.egriz.com/GrizBoard/topic17379.php

Stiletto wrote:

Dexter X wrote:

Stiletto wrote:Certainly. Although he got kicked off Iowa States FB team for assaulting a police officer and then being a key member in the Missoula drug robbery/pistol whipping, he is generally a great guy!

According to the Missoulian Coleman was reinstated at Iowa State before transferring. Also, the incident that he was suspended for was not the assault on a police officer. Not defending Coleman, just figured I'd correct your statement

Whatever. Sugar coat it all you want but the fact remains he pled "guilty to committing interference with official acts causing injury and assault on a peace officer". He was later charged with assault after a bar brawl which led to his suspension and reinstatement after charges were dropped. Two serious run ins with the law, yet Bobby gives him a "clean slate" here? WTF? Bobby needs to be held personally responsible for bringing this thug here!

http://www.egriz.com/GrizBoard/topic17379.php

Posters that bitch all the time about legal issues that they know nothing about should take time out to keep their mouth shut instead of speaking out and revealing how foolish they are. Unless you’re a practicing lawyer you don’t have a clue about what you are talking about.

You were not there and know nothing more than the rest of us. Professional people get paid a lot of money to deal with this kind of stuff, they don’t need a common working man telling them how to do their jobs. Your willingness to throw the thug moniker on our players that have had problems shows your racist tendencies and reveals your true agenda.

Support our players, coaches and team or keep your colorful thoughts to yourself. It does nothing but create problems within.

Coleman's assault incident was at the end of his junior year in high school. He ran from a party, and in the process caused a cop to separate or dislocate his shoulder. He served 30 days in jail. He lost his scholarship offers. He eventually got an offer back from Iowa St.

As Dexter stated, he was in good standing with the team and the law, when he came to UM. Earlier that spring he had been suspended briefly at Iowa St. after he was charged in connection with a minor incident at a bar/club. The incident involved allegations that he pushed a guy after the guy pushed him in the back, as they were waiting in line for the bathroom. The charge came, and he was suspended. The charge was dropped within days, and he was reinstated to the team.

Coleman decided to transfer to find greener pastures. The Iowa St coaches contacted UM. They recommended him. The UM coaches investigated. They talked to Tressel at Ohio St. and Ferenz at Iowa, and both recommended Coleman.

Coleman was generally liked at UM, and caused no problems. Who knows what he was thinking on the night in question.

What Stilletto/Hammer said above is completely wrong in substance, as well as factually wrong. Sometimes I wonder how people like Stilletto/Hammer and Savage Paw/djollie get through life. They have bad memories and/or they are dishonest.

C-19 wrote:

Stiletto wrote:

Dexter X wrote:

Stiletto wrote:Certainly. Although he got kicked off Iowa States FB team for assaulting a police officer and then being a key member in the Missoula drug robbery/pistol whipping, he is generally a great guy!

According to the Missoulian Coleman was reinstated at Iowa State before transferring. Also, the incident that he was suspended for was not the assault on a police officer. Not defending Coleman, just figured I'd correct your statement

Whatever. Sugar coat it all you want but the fact remains he pled "guilty to committing interference with official acts causing injury and assault on a peace officer". He was later charged with assault after a bar brawl which led to his suspension and reinstatement after charges were dropped. Two serious run ins with the law, yet Bobby gives him a "clean slate" here? WTF? Bobby needs to be held personally responsible for bringing this thug here!

http://www.egriz.com/GrizBoard/topic17379.php

Posters that bitch all the time about legal issues that they know nothing about should take time out to keep their mouth shut instead of speaking out and revealing how foolish they are. Unless you’re a practicing lawyer you don’t have a clue about what you are talking about.

You were not there and know nothing more than the rest of us. Professional people get paid a lot of money to deal with this kind of stuff, they don’t need a common working man telling them how to do their jobs. Your willingness to throw the thug moniker on our players that have had problems shows your racist tendencies and reveals your true agenda.

Support our players, coaches and team or keep your colorful thoughts to yourself. It does nothing but create problems within.

Stiletto/Hammer is just another tolerant liberal.

PlayerRep wrote:Coleman's assault incident was at the end of his junior year in high school. He ran from a party, and in the process caused a cop to separate or dislocate his shoulder. He served 30 days in jail. He lost his scholarship offers. He eventually got an offer back from Iowa St.

As Dexter stated, he was in good standing with the team and the law, when he came to UM. Earlier that spring he had been suspended briefly at Iowa St. after he was charged in connection with a minor incident at a bar/club. The incident involved allegations that he pushed a guy after the guy pushed him in the back, as they were waiting in line for the bathroom. The charge came, and he was suspended. The charge was dropped within days, and he was reinstated to the team.

Coleman decided to transfer to find greener pastures. The Iowa St coaches contacted UM. They recommended him. The UM coaches investigated. They talked to Tressel at Ohio St. and Ferenz at Iowa, and both recommended Coleman.

Coleman was generally liked at UM, and caused no problems. Who knows what he was thinking on the night in question.

What Stilletto/Hammer said above is completely wrong in substance, as well as factually wrong. Sometimes I wonder how people like Stilletto/Hammer and Savage Paw/djollie get through life. They have bad memories and/or they are dishonest.

I don't agree often with PR, but this is entirely consistent with everything I have heard, including comments from Iowa St. alumni that I know. It doesn't make anything he has done right; it does suggest he needn't be thrown out with the bathwater.

Question: How does one man "running" cause another man's arm to dislocate? They must have brought in an M.D. as an expert witness in that one.

Opinion: the 1 in 5 rule. I think that only about 1 in 5 schirmishes, fights, incidents, thefts, or drunk drivings actually end up being charged and made public. A handful of others go unnoticed, are swept under the rug, or don't have enough evidence. He may have "only" 3 incidents on his record that some may think are insignificant, but to think that these 3 incidents are his only "incidents" is a little naive.

I'm fine with giving a guy a second chance, but when Hauck's giving drop-down players third chances, he's asking for trouble. Coleman, Quinn, and possibly Freeman had as least 2 run ins with the law before signing with UM.

C-19 wrote:

Stiletto wrote:

Dexter X wrote:

Stiletto wrote:Certainly. Although he got kicked off Iowa States FB team for assaulting a police officer and then being a key member in the Missoula drug robbery/pistol whipping, he is generally a great guy!

According to the Missoulian Coleman was reinstated at Iowa State before transferring. Also, the incident that he was suspended for was not the assault on a police officer. Not defending Coleman, just figured I'd correct your statement

Whatever. Sugar coat it all you want but the fact remains he pled "guilty to committing interference with official acts causing injury and assault on a peace officer". He was later charged with assault after a bar brawl which led to his suspension and reinstatement after charges were dropped. Two serious run ins with the law, yet Bobby gives him a "clean slate" here? WTF? Bobby needs to be held personally responsible for bringing this thug here!

http://www.egriz.com/GrizBoard/topic17379.php

Posters that bitch all the time about legal issues that they know nothing about should take time out to keep their mouth shut instead of speaking out and revealing how foolish they are. Unless you’re a practicing lawyer you don’t have a clue about what you are talking about.

You were not there and know nothing more than the rest of us. Professional people get paid a lot of money to deal with this kind of stuff, they don’t need a common working man telling them how to do their jobs. Your willingness to throw the thug moniker on our players that have had problems shows your racist tendencies and reveals your true agenda.

Support our players, coaches and team or keep your colorful thoughts to yourself. It does nothing but create problems within.

First off, just shut up.

Secondly, people have as much right to post whatever they want in opposition to the obvious problems the program is having as you do to ridiculously sugarcoat everything the Griz football team does.

And finally, who says we naysayers don't support the players? Just because we don't support alleged DUIs, murder and assaults of all forms and sizes doesn't mean we don't support the players who, you know, actually represent the program and university in a positive way.

But if felonies are what you're into, then good for you. Go Griz!

Here are some comments on General's comment above and quoted below:

"I'm fine with giving a guy a second chance, but when Hauck's giving drop-down players third chances, he's asking for trouble. Coleman, Quinn, and possibly Freeman had as least 2 run ins with the law before signing with UM."

1. Hauck was not really giving Coleman a second chance. Coleman had had one run-in with the law-- a fairly bad one when he was a junior in high school. Since that time, Coleman had gotten a scholarhship to Iowa St. and played there for two years. To me, Iowa St. gave Coleman his second chance, not UM. Coleman was in good standing with Iowa St. when he transferred. I don't count being arrested/charged for pushing a guy back in a bar, and then having the charge almost immediately dropped, as a run-in with the law. That one was a bad arrest.

2. Quinn had had his ncaa violation, which is not a run-in with the law. An ncaa violation is a not legal violation. UM did, tho, give him a second chance, in my view--and Quinn had paid a big price for the ncaa violation in the form of a one-year suspension, which, to my knowledge, was an extremely long and harsh penalty. It appears that Quinn had had two arrests involving alcohol before coming to UM. One was a so-called "baby DUI", which I don't see as a big deal, altho some of you may disagree. The other one I looked at was not a DUI. I couldn't tell for sure whether he pled to these charges. He may have. I don't know what UM knew about these matters before he transferred. It's my understanding that President Dennison was involved in the decision to allow Quinn to come to UM, but I assume he was evaluating primarily the ncaa violation and publicity.

Quinn's only "run-ins with the law" were two alcohol-related arrests, to my knowledge. Personally, while alcholol-related things are relevant, I don't see them as "run-ins with the law".

To me, the ncaa violation and the alcohol charges are two separate things. I would analyze them separately. If, after due diligence, I thought Quinn was a good kid and would not be a big problem in the future, I would accept him. Some of you may disagree.

3. I believe Freeman had only one prior run-in with the law, I think some sort of assault, or even domestic assault, thing. UM was not aware of that when he came to UM. The Arizona St. coaches did not inform UM of this incident. Freeman had resolved this matter before he came to UM. However, he did not fulfill his obligations under the settlement, i.e. the counseling/community service or whatever it was, and two misdemeanor warrants were issued for him in Arizona. Those warrants came to light only when the Missoulian or someone found them after Freeman had been kicked off the team. While I don't know, my guess is that those warrants were not issued until sometime after Freeman came to UM.

To my knowledge, Freeman was not suspended from any football program at the time he came to UM. Thus, to my knowledge, UM was not aware of any of Freeman's legal problems, and UM was not giving him a second chance involving past legal or other issues.

4. I am not aware that Shelton had any legal issues before coming to UM. He had been suspended from football for spring ball, due to class/meeting attendance issues, and had left the program.

5. Wilson and Pate came to UM as freshmen. I am not aware that they had had any legal issues before coming to UM or at UM. According to the Missoulian, one police spokesman thought the police had never contacted UM about any of Wilson's behavior, and later the police chief said he had contacted UM in a routine call to say that Wilson had been disrespectful during a police stop. To my knowlege, Wilson had not been charged with anything while in Missoula.

6. In the prior 4.5 years of Hauck's tenure, there had been relatively few legal issues with team members, or at least publicized ones. Smith had been kicked off the team shortly after waiving a gun from a car. The driver of the car had been suspended for a game. Another player had been suspended for a game after a (bogus) domestic dispute arrest. A true frosh had been kicked off the team after being arrested while traveling with a Bobcat who was transporting marijuana. I believe this one was early in BH's tenure.

7. Here's some information on legal problems in Iowa's football program. I believe several players were charged this week with some serious things. This linked article, from mid-November, discusses 3 players being investigated for sexual assault, and says that 11 players have accounted for 15 arrests in the prior 7 months.

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/11 ... 060360.txt

You seem to have forgotten about Tim Parks, PlayerRep. Wasn't he charged with some felonies?

I don't for the life of me know what Iowa has to do with Montana, why was that point in there?

Parks was arrested for a domestic assault thing. There allegations of a weapon being involved, thus one charge was a felony. Both in the newspaper article and from posts, the situation looked a bit odd, as the woman apparently wasn't his girlfriend, and posters said the whole thing was BS and that there was certainly no weapon. Through the grapevine, I heard both that he would get out of this, and that he would plead guilty to it, or some of it. Haven't seen or heard anything on it since the fall. I believe Parks was a high school recruit, and I had never heard that he ever had any prior legal problems anywhere.

To my knowledge and recollection, the only felony charges involving players in the Missoula area in the past 5 years have been this one and the house break-in last fall. The other stuff involved misdemeanors, to my knowledge. The Wilson shooting was, of course, a felony.

So now we are justifying the legal troubles of athletes...

Frankly, I would rather be 7-4 without ANY convictions than be a playoff team with them.

The majority of Griz athletes go to class, excel at their sport, graduate and become model citizens. THOSE are the kids we should be talking about! Quit justifying the existence of kids who can't stay out of the police blotter. We aren't talking about kids who end up pushing and shoving in a bar. We are talking about kids who get arrested for serious offenses. Get rid of them, our program doesn't need them!

Who's justifying the felonies? Can you point that out to us, BozGriz? Let's see the specific wording justifying felonies.

How do you get rid of the felons before they commit the felony?

I'd be happy to see your methodology for getting rid of, in advance, those who have been charged with felonies while at UM. If you're not going to stick to the facts on this, don't bother to respond.

Jee, I don't know PR. Maybe I should just reference the hundreds of posts from the hundreds of threads on all the kids who have gotten into trouble in the past year or so...

How about we install a ZERO tolerance policy. That way, if kids know ahead of time that if they ride in a squad car in the back seat with handcuffs on, they will never play again...That way, we don't have to argue about whether or not an incident that may or may not have happened at Iowa State, Oklahoma, somewhere in Southern California or whatever, becomes a non-issue.

Seriously PR, do you really believe all the stuff you post? You insist on calling out posters who express even a hint of disdain for any problem at UM. Why?

In the Griz world, you believe BH is the Jim Jones of the university and that everyone should get in line and drink the red koolaid. Do you EVER question anything our leadership does???

Frankly, I like BH. That doesn't mean I agree with EVERY SINGLE THING he does...

I believe he should install a zero tolerance policy. If he doesn't, some stupid kid is going to get him fired...ask Mike Kramer-

BozGriz, I knew you wouldn't be able to provide any specifics on how these things could have been prevented. Regarding your one specific suggestion, here are my views.

There was an O'Day announced zero-tolerance policy of some sort as of a year ago--after the Wilson incident. It wasn't announced what was included in zero-tolerance, so it can't be known what it was intended to apply to.

Freeman apparently violated it, and he was kicked off the team. He won his trial for that incident, but he had two other later incidents. Let's assume that Freeman had not had any incidents, after the won he eventually won at trial. Do you think it would be the right policy, and fair, for a person in his situation (i.e. charged with a misdemeanor but acquitted) to not be able to be on the team?

Despite O'Day's zero-tolerance policy, Parks and then the 3 players (remaining on the team) in the house break-in did what they did. What good did the zero-tolerance policy do in preventing those things?

How about Hilliard? Would you have booted Lex off the team, because he was charged in a partner assault (bogus) thing?

How about a DUI arrest? If arrested, would you automatically boot them off the team?

How about Russum? Would you not allow him to come here, because he'd had a little legal matter in Arizona? Russum's a great guy, and to my knowlege, a good citizen.

How about the bar fight involving some players and McGillis and friends? Had they all been arrested that night, and handcuffed, would you have tossed all of them off the team, and not allowed McGillis to transfer here--even if no charges were brought?

Yes, I believe everything I say seriously on this board. Some of you don't get some of my attempts at humor, tho. If you want to quote something that you don't think I do or should believe, point it out and I'll consider responding.

Fair enough PR. I respect your opinion. I disagree with some of your positions with regards to players. I truly believe they should be BETTER citizens than the rest of the student body. They are paid (through scholarship) to represent the university and its fans, alums, and friends, and as such should be held to a higher standard. I would be much tougher on them than you would.

Is there any way to prevent this stuff? Yes. I believe you lay out the ground rules right up front. Stay out of the bars. Stay out of fights. Stay out of trouble. It can be done. I don't recall any articles in the paper with track and field or tennis team members breaking into any homes or fighting or getting DUIs. Why, then, should everyone spend time trying to work out deals for football players? Why are they so special?

I believe players, especially of high-profile sports, have to be more careful because they are going to attract more attention and some are going to try to hold them to a higher and even unrealistic standard. I also believe they should be good citizens. However, I don't believe that has, or should have, anything to do with receiving a scholarship. If that were the case, would you have different standards for scholarship and non-scholarship players? Just because many of the kids have a scholarship doesn't mean that the university, the state or the fans owns them.

Having a rule to stay out of bars is completely unrealistic. Much of the social life of colleges like UM is conducted in the bars. Such a rule would not work. It would be violated. It would hurt UM in recruiting. It would not last.

Staying out of fights. This is or would be a nice rule. However, how does someone stay out of fights, if someone comes up and provokes or punches you? If certain people knew athletes were not allowed to defend themselves, people would be provoking them all the time. Do you really believe that one punch should result in someone being kicked off of a team? I sure don't.

Staying out of trouble is probably already a policy. However, no team of over 100 college students is going to be successful in staying out of trouble. BH already imposes punishments and suspensions for those who get into trouble. The policy and punishment may prevent some problems, but it doesn't and won't stop all the problems.

If you advocate kicking players off teams for getting into trouble, this would be horribly unfair and out-of-step with what most other colleges do--at least for minor to medium issues. I don't think such a policy would be sustainable. Again, think of domestic dispute situations (where the guy often gets arrested), think of the driver of the car when Smith waived the gun, how about Dave DeCoite, what about all the lesser things that don't get in the paper or on the message board, how about the Bobcat frosh who got into trouble for egging and jumping through the mayor's basement window, what if the trouble occurs out of Missoula or out of state,

I don't know if there have been track and field and tennis team issues, but there have been issues in both basketball programs this year. My guess is that you would find other issues with the lesser known sports if you looked for them. The newspaper and people like El Griz probably don't even know the names of many in the lesser sports, so their arrest reports may not get noticed.

Like I said, football is high profile. It also involves well over 100 players, which is far more than any other sports. Football is a violent sport, where aggression is prized. People in aggressive sports are more prone to punch someone in the nose, if someone bothers them. It's just a fact of life.

You act like UM has players breaking into houses frequently. Has it ever happened before? All of the players were booted off the team. Have you heard anyone suggesting that they remain on the team?

PlayerRep wrote:I believe players, especially of high-profile sports, have to be more careful because they are going to attract more attention and some are going to try to hold them to a higher and even unrealistic standard. I also believe they should be good citizens. However, I don't believe that has, or should have, anything to do with receiving a scholarship. If that were the case, would you have different standards for scholarship and non-scholarship players? Just because many of the kids have a scholarship doesn't mean that the university, the state or the fans owns them.

I agree the University doesn't own them, but that doesn't mean there cannot be an expected level of conduct.

Having a rule to stay out of bars is completely unrealistic. Much of the social life of colleges like UM is conducted in the bars. Such a rule would not work. It would be violated. It would hurt UM in recruiting. It would not last.

Isn't there already a rule in place to stay out of bars, at least during FB season? I agree student athletes are going to drink, but for the better part of at least 2 seasons these student athletes are not even of age to drink in the bars.

Staying out of fights. This is or would be a nice rule. However, how does someone stay out of fights, if someone comes up and provokes or punches you? If certain people knew athletes were not allowed to defend themselves, people would be provoking them all the time. Do you really believe that one punch should result in someone being kicked off of a team? I sure don't.

I think it is safe to say there is a much higher probability they will be challenged to fight if they are in bars. It isn't anything new that alocohol = instant asshole in many cases. I agree they are targets, even more of a reason to stay the hell out of bars.

Staying out of trouble is probably already a policy. However, no team of over 100 college students is going to be successful in staying out of trouble. BH already imposes punishments and suspensions for those who get into trouble. The policy and punishment may prevent some problems, but it doesn't and won't stop all the problems.

I agree that it is impossible to police them 24/7/That being said, ground rules are not a bad thing imo.

If you advocate kicking players off teams for getting into trouble, this would be horribly unfair and out-of-step with what most other colleges do--at least for minor to medium issues. I don't think such a policy would be sustainable. Again, think of domestic dispute situations (where the guy often gets arrested), think of the driver of the car when Smith waived the gun, how about Dave DeCoite, what about all the lesser things that don't get in the paper or on the message board, how about the Bobcat frosh who got into trouble for egging and jumping through the mayor's basement window, what if the trouble occurs out of Missoula or out of state,

I don't know if there have been track and field and tennis team issues, but there have been issues in both basketball programs this year. My guess is that you would find other issues with the lesser known sports if you looked for them. The newspaper and people like El Griz probably don't even know the names of many in the lesser sports, so their arrest reports may not get noticed.

The names of each and every student athlete is readily available to the Missoulian reporters and anyone else. There is not a doubt in my mind that any Griz athlete, regardless of sport is going to get media attention if they get in trouble. I seem to recall reading about a LG basketball player who was charged with DUI.

Like I said, football is high profile. It also involves well over 100 players, which is far more than any other sports. Football is a violent sport, where aggression is prized. People in aggressive sports are more prone to punch someone in the nose, if someone bothers them. It's just a fact of life.

Please don't tell me basketball is a non aggresive, non contact sport.

You act like UM has players breaking into houses frequently. Has it ever happened before? All of the players were booted off the team. Have you heard anyone suggesting that they remain on the team?

There are instances in the past of some piss poor behaviour on the part of Griz athletes. Unfortunately it is going to happen again someday, regardless of what is done. I don't think it is a bad idea to take a look at the policies and procedures to see if the number of instances can be lessened. What could that hurt?

Yes, there already is an expected level of conduct. Yes, there already are policies. I believe at least the football policies have already been reviewed in the past year.

It is impossible to keep college kids, including athletes, out of bars. Yes, there's a rule, or unwritten rule, for football players to stay away from the downtown bars during the season. Lots of athletes work in bars during the off-season. Pretty hard to keep them away from their jobs. I believe athletes work in bars in many college towns. Underage kids go in bars. If they don't drink, I don't think it's even illegal. Of course, some drink.

I don't agree that the Missoulian or anyone else looks through the police reports for the names of all Griz athletes. Unless this was done via computer, it would be difficult to do. How many non-football and non-basketball players names can you name off the top of your head? Yes, a Lady Griz got picked up for DUI, and received a two-game suspension, during which she suited up and sat on the bench.

I agree that everything reasonable should be done to decrease the problems. I believe than most everything reasonable already is being done, but I don't know that for sure. I don't believe it would do any good to institute unreasonable and unworkable policies. I don't believe there can or should be a hair trigger for kicking athletes off teams. Situations need to be looked at, and all situations are not the same and should not be treated the same.

In my view, nothing UM could have prevented the Wilson incident, and we'll have to see what the facts turn out to be. I don't think anything could have been done to prevent the house break-in, other than not recruiting the players. While people can and will disagree on this, I don't see any significant mistakes made by the coaching in recruiting. While again some will disagree, I see nothing wrong with bringing in Coleman, as an example.

I can't see anything that could have been done to prevent the Parks incident (if it even occurred).

Freeman was kicked off the team prior to his next 3 incidents. Others have been kicked off the team previously.

We can all argue over Quinn and DUI's. However, a DUI is not a house break-in, a murder, a law violation with a weapon or a serious domestic or other assault.

Any who thinks Hauck doesn't have alot of rules and isn't a fairly tough disciplinarian, doesn't know what's he's talking about, in my view. Does Hauck administer the rules evenly, I don't know. Even is he doesn't, I don't see where that has or would impact any of this, other than possibly Quinn. On Quinn's latest, I don't believe it would be fair or right to kick him off the team if the facts are that he wasn't drinking much and was unlucky enough to have been charged when a blood test would have resulted in him not being charged. If Hauck thought he was over the limit and should have been charged, I think Q would be off the team.

PlayerRep wrote:On Quinn's latest, I don't believe it would be fair or right to kick him off the team if the facts are that he wasn't drinking much and was unlucky enough to have been charged when a blood test would have resulted in him not being charged.

wow, the greenie apologetic-genie machine(y) is working at full strength! too bad 'full strength' for greenie is still categorized as "flaccid" for the rest of us, but hey. i'm sure j.d. appreciates the ol' college try.

PlayerRep wrote:Yes, there already is an expected level of conduct. Yes, there already are policies. I believe at least the football policies have already been reviewed in the past year.

It is impossible to keep college kids, including athletes, out of bars. Yes, there's a rule, or unwritten rule, for football players to stay away from the downtown bars during the season. Lots of athletes work in bars during the off-season. Pretty hard to keep them away from their jobs. I believe athletes work in bars in many college towns. Underage kids go in bars. If they don't drink, I don't think it's even illegal. Of course, some drink.

I don't agree that the Missoulian or anyone else looks through the police reports for the names of all Griz athletes. Unless this was done via computer, it would be difficult to do. How many non-football and non-basketball players names can you name off the top of your head? Yes, a Lady Griz got picked up for DUI, and received a two-game suspension, during which she suited up and sat on the bench.

I agree that everything reasonable should be done to decrease the problems. I believe than most everything reasonable already is being done, but I don't know that for sure. I don't believe it would do any good to institute unreasonable and unworkable policies. I don't believe there can or should be a hair trigger for kicking athletes off teams. Situations need to be looked at, and all situations are not the same and should not be treated the same.

In my view, nothing UM could have prevented the Wilson incident, and we'll have to see what the facts turn out to be. I don't think anything could have been done to prevent the house break-in, other than not recruiting the players. While people can and will disagree on this, I don't see any significant mistakes made by the coaching in recruiting. While again some will disagree, I see nothing wrong with bringing in Coleman, as an example.

I can't see anything that could have been done to prevent the Parks incident (if it even occurred).

Freeman was kicked off the team prior to his next 3 incidents. Others have been kicked off the team previously.

We can all argue over Quinn and DUI's. However, a DUI is not a house break-in, a murder, a law violation with a weapon or a serious domestic or other assault.

Any who thinks Hauck doesn't have alot of rules and isn't a fairly tough disciplinarian, doesn't know what's he's talking about, in my view. Does Hauck administer the rules evenly, I don't know. Even is he doesn't, I don't see where that has or would impact any of this, other than possibly Quinn. On Quinn's latest, I don't believe it would be fair or right to kick him off the team if the facts are that he wasn't drinking much and was unlucky enough to have been charged when a blood test would have resulted in him not being charged. If Hauck thought he was over the limit and should have been charged, I think Q would be off the team.

I think The Missoulian does have all the Griz Athletes in a data base and cross references the names. Pretty easy thing to do actually. As for naming Griz athletes in other sports, I wrote down as many names of non FB players as I could and came up with 67. I can't name all the FB players so I think I am around 33% overall. Not nearly good enough for the Crime Desk at The Missoulian.

I also do not think the Missoulian cross-checks the arrests or releases. If they do, they miss quite a few. Two recently that I know of.

I am actually starting to think they only cross-reference EGRIZ.

Just curious, PlayerRep, are any Griz athletes ever "guilty?"

Tanker, all the ones who are convicted or plead guilty are guilty. The ones who are charged, and have pending cases, are innocent until proven guilty. This is a concept that our legal system is built on. I believe in our system of laws, including the Constitution.

The coaches are free to have their own policies, and they do, and I support what they do because I know they are closer to the situation than any of the rest of us.

Tanker, do you believe people are guilty when they are arrested or charged? Do you believe you can predict or access guilt without knowing anymore facts than what is published in a newspaper?

PlayerRep wrote:Tanker, all the ones who are convicted or plead guilty are guilty. The ones who are charged, and have pending cases, are innocent until proven guilty. This is a concept that our legal system is built on. I believe in our system of laws, including the Constitution.

The coaches are free to have their own policies, and they do, and I support what they do because I know they are closer to the situation than any of the rest of us.

Tanker, do you believe people are guilty when they are arrested or charged? Do you believe you can predict or access guilt without knowing anymore facts than what is published in a newspaper?

WOW playerrep, I wish you could be this short, simple, and understanding on all your posts. In my opinion your best post to date without stirring anything more up. These are the kind of posts I look forward to by anyone.