Minnesota Players to Boycott Holiday Bowl
- Thread starter mikemarc1
- Start date
Another POS, but he is in a no-win situation. He has to be on his players side. This is why decisions like this should be out of a coach's hands.
I edited my question. I heard the statement, but it only explains what their demands are. It doesn't say *why* they are demanding these things.
edit: Okay, never mind, that link at least brushes on what I was after. Thanks.
I don't understand why many feel that only certain people are allowed to stand up for themselves or close friends.
It seems simple enough.
Popular players were suspended (possibly for legal actions related to a sexual incident back after the first game)
The players say "tell us why".. possibly goaded by the lawyer who represents all 10 accused.. the admin says we cannot tell you.. it would breach privacy rights and it is an ongoing legal process..
And that's not good enough.
The administration should say.. Everyone who boycotts any element of the bowl game will be put on the first flight home and not play in the bowl game.
Simply put, the administration makes decisions like suspensions carefully.. and we cannot have a football program is the players choose to ignore the authority and responsibility of the administration. We regret that the players think this is their best option to support their fellow players who have been suspended. It is unfair to every other player on the team, as well as the coaching staff and support support staff and the fans who support the program.
What happens when these players are out in the working world and someone they like gets laid off or fired? Are they going to lead a boycott?
I don't get it.. at least some of these 10 players must have done something worthy of suspension.. right? No one is going to make the decision to suspend on a whim. That would be crazy and would have already been overturned if that were the case. The players actions that caused them to be suspended is a crime against the team as well.. I don't get why the team wants to go so far to protect those who earned a suspension.
Last edited:
For dopey ideas I'll see your Bowl boycott and raise you this idea.
Hammer and Rails blog
Big Ten All-Stars Replace Minnesota in the Holiday Bowl
I'll presume they are being ironic, but what a dumb notion. As if Fantasy football were really a thing in the real world.
I'd imagine most bowl games featuring a barely eligible P5 school versus whatever MAC team you chose, gets more interest than any of the actual all star games.
Hammer and Rails blog
Big Ten All-Stars Replace Minnesota in the Holiday Bowl
I'll presume they are being ironic, but what a dumb notion. As if Fantasy football were really a thing in the real world.
I'd imagine most bowl games featuring a barely eligible P5 school versus whatever MAC team you chose, gets more interest than any of the actual all star games.
The players were investigated early in the season the police found nothing to charge them with. Now months later these players are suspended and being raked through the coals by the administration and their teammates are pissed about it.
Unlike a regular joe employee who is mad at a friend being laid off, these football players have leverage. These players are willing to lose a lot by boycotting the bowl game, but the University stands to lose a lot in revenue. The players feel that it is worth it, so that is where they are at now. Regular joe pushing papers at Company ABC doesn't have that kind of leverage.
Note to self: Adjust my confidence ratings in the Scarlet Nation Bowl Pick'em Pool.
Fair question. Personally, I have an automatic knee-jerk reaction to sexual assault cases. I irrationally take the side of the woman as a default position 100% of the time. I usually try hard to be objective, fair and open-minded about things, but I struggle with that in situations like this.
I have a similar perspective, but the police investigated the incident months ago. Not saying investigations in such incidents are infallible, but I can understand why the players feel the need to make a statement.
1) it's San Diego
2) every B1G school has large alumni bases in Southern California. Do you actually think that 70,000 people from Wisconsin travel to the Rose Bowl? No.
3) saying "bottom tier of Big Ten travelling base" is a tad comical. This isn't exactly the AAC. We're talking about the co-best travelling conference in the nation. Being behind OSU, Mich, PSU, Wiscy, Nebraska, and Michigan State, doesn't exactly mean only 10K in San Diego.
I didn't say they'd have 50,000 fans there, either, but I'd bet dollars-to-donuts they'd travel a lot better than you think.
Last edited:
They didn't "make a statement." They're boycotting ALL activities related to football and The Holiday Bowl. There is a HUGE difference between the two.
The statement is the action of boycotting. Actions get results.
Yeah all the morons who protested and rioted, after Trump won, got tons of "results" lol!
The Mizzou players got results.
America is a free country. No one posting in this thread knows more than what's reported, which is very little. Maybe this is a UVA type situation with this girl? Or Duke Lacrosse? Will the posters whining come back and take it all back if true?
I'm always inclined to believe the woman, but I also believe in free speech. Their choice. The idea that they should be made to play is totally undemocratic and absurd. This isn't East Germany.
America is a free country. No one posting in this thread knows more than what's reported, which is very little. Maybe this is a UVA type situation with this girl? Or Duke Lacrosse? Will the posters whining come back and take it all back if true?
I'm always inclined to believe the woman, but I also believe in free speech. Their choice. The idea that they should be made to play is totally undemocratic and absurd. This isn't East Germany.
Clearly not, as everyone involved here said it happened. The issue is consent.
Did you see where I used the word "irrationally?" There is no "why" in irrational.
If this is accurate it's awful and disgusting and anyone involved should be suspended.
interesting angles by some, always thought having sex with a passed out girl was rape.
kids should be in jail, not suspended
Jesus people, wtf is wrong with you
kids should be in jail, not suspended
Jesus people, wtf is wrong with you
they just declined to press charges. "found not to have committed any crime" is not the same thing.
being suspended has nothing to do with "equal protection under the law". being dumb enough to take turns having sex with a drunk girl in someone's dorm room (and record it!) -> has consequences.
If the law says the school can't discuss information then the players shouldn't expect to be told anything and what they are doing should allow Minnesota to revoke their scholarships, if legally possible .
My course of action as the Gopher AD would be handing transfer papers to each and every player that is involved in the boycott.Also would advise those players if they disagreed with having scholarships taken away to seek legal help in order to find out their rights to contest this action.
My course of action as the Gopher AD would be handing transfer papers to each and every player that is involved in the boycott.Also would advise those players if they disagreed with having scholarships taken away to seek legal help in order to find out their rights to contest this action.
Really as in anybody that has watched three episodes of Law and Order knows a "Not Guilty" verdict is not the same thing as being innocent.
because if they violated a university policy or a standard it has nothing to do with being cleared by the cops...two seperate cases
Huskers, you should post this info in the thread about Kill interviewing for the OC position at RU. There are a lot over there that think his experience as a Head Coach since 1994 is a big plus for him to get the OC position here.
A lot of bad things were done because people thought they were doing the "right" thing. IMO, what is "right" is not a judgment. Maybe that's where I'm "wrong".
The people who protested Trump had no leverage. The players do.
Subtle difference I know...
The men and woman involved were of the same age. What picture are you trying to paint with your wording?
Brother Skinny laid it our best. Listen, do I condone this sort of behavior? Absolutely not. However, the police investigated, she seemed to have given consent to the point where the police couldn't do anything about it. There was video evidence, we obviously aren't going to see it, but the police did and they made their determination.
Interesting when the Duke Lacrosse team was getting railroaded, the majority view on this was board was they were getting screwed (and proven that was indeed the case). Now folks have a different perspective. Wonder what the difference is...
My guess is that this is actually a title IX issue. The University is required to investigate this under title IX, and the standards by which they make a determination are much lower than what is required in traditional courts. Just because the players aren't going to jail doesn't mean they are entitled to remain students at the school.
Why do you say "grown" men and "young" woman? Why not "young" men and "grown" woman? Your choice of words reveals your bias.
It's an assumption on your part that the girl was passed out. The girl is saying that. The recordings seem to say something different. A bunch of guys having sex with a really drunk or passed out girl is a crime. But what if, as also alleged, she was a willing participant who just wanted to have sex with lot of guys that night. What if the recordings show that? Sure, morally questionable behavior by all involved, but a crime has been committed by anybody.
This is from the article I linked earlier. People need to stop referring to this as a rape of or nonconsensual sex with a drunk woman. It might be a violation of university or team rules, but it was not a crime:
During an 8-second clip, the woman “appears lucid, alert, somewhat playful and fully conscious; she does not appear to be objecting to anything at this time,” Wente wrote in his report. After viewing two additional videos, he wrote “the sexual contact appears entirely consensual.”
Police later interviewed four other players, who each said the sex was consensual.
On Sept. 30, Wente sent the investigation to the Hennepin County Attorney’s office for possible prosecution. In it, he wrote about the videos, “at no time does she indicate that she is in distress or that the contact is unwelcome or nonconsensual.”
During an 8-second clip, the woman “appears lucid, alert, somewhat playful and fully conscious; she does not appear to be objecting to anything at this time,” Wente wrote in his report. After viewing two additional videos, he wrote “the sexual contact appears entirely consensual.”
Police later interviewed four other players, who each said the sex was consensual.
On Sept. 30, Wente sent the investigation to the Hennepin County Attorney’s office for possible prosecution. In it, he wrote about the videos, “at no time does she indicate that she is in distress or that the contact is unwelcome or nonconsensual.”
I don't know why some people can't get this through their head. Legal standards and university policy are two different things. You can do something that is legal, but still violates university policy. Therefore, a university can still suspend/expel you for something, even though it isn't a crime.
