J
jonnylingoddawg. I have no personal relationship to these players. i am just a loser fan that gets too involved. also a tbs subscriber. lots of good recruiting info there. they do a GREAT job at that.
Archived Topic
Can we please refrain from villainizing the schwenkes
by jonnylingo · 1/29/2010
Sponsored Advertisementad content
B
bengelIt was good that you requested we refrain from villainizing the Schwenkes. However, if you had any expectation your request would be honored, you are borderline delusional. Honoring your request would make this board as "boring" as the one many now on this board fled.
I
imuakahukusnoscythe wrote:BYU even treats the trip as a vacation else how do you explain the snow mobile trip, the bball game, and all the other visits to attractions in the Provo area. Just about all the other schools do the same as well. So if a school knows you are already committed, but agrees to fly you out with next to no chance of you signing, you are dishonest or a fraud if you take them up on it? Do you think the school cares about the expense? If they did don't you think they would go after kids they had a much better chance at landing? They write it off as "doing business" and let it go.
Beginning this year, BYU's recruiting weekend is only for recruits who have committed...to BYU. Even going back a couple of years, can you name one recruit BYU has flown into Provo for an official visit after they verballed to another school? I can't.
How about if I show you where it happens at other schools? And what about those that have not commited to any school but still attend? Didn't Harvey Unga verbal to Utah before chosing BYU? Point about this is that the trip is not strictly "business" for the recruit unlike for the recruiter that sees it strictly as business.
My point is that I feel that the trip was just to "get off the rock" and they were just saying the "right things" for ND since they were getting the free trip. I think they could have waited to see if he signed, if he did good, if he didn't then they could give the scholie to one of the other players that they have promised would get one when one became available. Remember they admitted to giving too many offers and now having to figure out how to manage them. Again, I think he just wanted to fly out for the sheer experience of it and nothing more. I can imagine that he just wanted to go on a trip. He gets 5 trips per NCAA rules and ND decides to offer it to him at this time. He sees it as an opportunity to visit two friends and get off the island. That is what I think about the whole situation. I wish BYU would have just done as was suggested and told him good to the 100% commitment and that they really expected to see his letter come accross their fax machine. Especially since they would lose nothing if they waited. If the offer is not given and the scholie is freed up I would bet my house that it goes to someone who was already promised one before this whole thing blew up.
BTW the NCAA does not "allow" students to drink, have premarital sex, or anything else that may be against the HC. They just don't prohibit it and allow schools to enforce their own policies concerning students, including those that participate in behavior that is illegal such as underage drinking, assault, etc. Small point but huge difference. I imagine the lawyers on this board see the difference.
S
snoscytheimuakahuku wrote:imuakahuku wrote:
BYU even treats the trip as a vacation else how do you explain the snow mobile trip, the bball game, and all the other visits to attractions in the Provo area. Just about all the other schools do the same as well. So if a school knows you are already committed, but agrees to fly you out with next to no chance of you signing, you are dishonest or a fraud if you take them up on it? Do you think the school cares about the expense? If they did don't you think they would go after kids they had a much better chance at landing? They write it off as "doing business" and let it go.
Beginning this year, BYU's recruiting weekend is only for recruits who have committed...to BYU. Even going back a couple of years, can you name one recruit BYU has flown into Provo for an official visit after they verballed to another school? I can't.
How about if I show you where it happens at other schools? And what about those that have not commited to any school but still attend? Didn't Harvey Unga verbal to Utah before chosing BYU? Point about this is that the trip is not strictly "business" for the recruit unlike for the recruiter that sees it strictly as business.
Nice. You had to go back five years to find one example. Except you are wrong. Harvey visited BYU 12/10/04, before he verballed to Utah on 12/16....six days after his visit. When he came to BYU, he was uncommitted.
The fact is that BYU doesn't use the recruiting weekend as a vacation to lure players away from other schools as you have insinuated. They previously used it to try and convince the uncommitted, but the Teo drinking fiasco last year led to the change this year--from here on out, recruiting weekends are used to let those who have already committed to BYU come and get to know each other for the upcoming season. If you haven't verballed to BYU, you don't come on the recruiting weekend you just described.
My point is that I feel that the trip was just to "get off the rock" and they were just saying the "right things" for ND since they were getting the free trip. I think they could have waited to see if he signed, if he did good, if he didn't then they could give the scholie to one of the other players that they have promised would get one when one became available. Remember they admitted to giving too many offers and now having to figure out how to manage them. Again, I think he just wanted to fly out for the sheer experience of it and nothing more. I can imagine that he just wanted to go on a trip. He gets 5 trips per NCAA rules and ND decides to offer it to him at this time. He sees it as an opportunity to visit two friends and get off the island. That is what I think about the whole situation. I wish BYU would have just done as was suggested and told him good to the 100% commitment and that they really expected to see his letter come accross their fax machine. Especially since they would lose nothing if they waited. If the offer is not given and the scholie is freed up I would bet my house that it goes to someone who was already promised one before this whole thing blew up.
If he was really going just to get off the rock, he and his family are pretty deceptive. If they were "just saying the right things" to make sure Notre Dame still paid for the trip---isn't that dishonest? To make representations you know the other party is going to interpret in a certain way that isn't what you really mean? Gee....why might Bronco have a hard time believing someone who says, in effect, "No no no----I am totally being honest with you---you can trust me---I'm just leading on these other jokers in Indiana." Yeah. I'd really buy that one.
Yes, the NCAA allows him 5 trips. But before he got on that plane, he knew Bronco allowed him 0 trips. Yeah, the scholarship might be used on someone who was already promised one, but if Schwenke would have been straight with everyone involved (BYU, Notre Dame, the media) it could have been used on either him or someone else Bronco had to tell "no thanks, all of our scholarships are spoken for," believing Schwenke was coming.
BTW the NCAA does not "allow" students to drink, have premarital sex, or anything else that may be against the HC. They just don't prohibit it and allow schools to enforce their own policies concerning students, including those that participate in behavior that is illegal such as underage drinking, assault, etc. Small point but huge difference. I imagine the lawyers on this board see the difference.
To allow doesn't just mean to give explicit permission. In the legal sense, it means to permit by neglect or oversight. If you don't do anything to stop something, you allow it to happen. The NCAA allows pornography, extramarital sex, and drinking.
D
DdawgMars wrote:It's not so black & white. It's mostly shades gray. It's not a god thing to offend to the point that current & future recruits are given "pause" because of the way fans may react. I would suggest - our initial reaction (though very disappointed) should have been guarded, tempered with caution & hope - till signing day. If & when Kona did sign his LOI with another school - there is plenty of time for anger & recrimination. Look - Kona was committed to BYU - did either Notre Dame or UW fans burn any bridges by attacking him? Nope - doors remain open & bridges intact. You just never know. You never know - now & in the future!! IMHO.
I know that your hope springs eternal Dawg, but Kona no longer holds a scholarship offer from BYU, and we are entering the dead period before signing day where no more contact can be made. It's over with now, end of story. Whether or not the kid is offended by the truth about his actions, I don't care. Like Jamora and Matangi, he simply isn't BYU's problem to worry about anymore.
You're right Mars - I do keep hoping. I hope a kid like Kona - a really gifted athlete - from a good family - can wake up & see that the BIG opportunuty he's looking @ from Notre Dame isn't so big. It's hollow - and in the end - will not work out as well for him. In the end - he will see he should have gone to BYU. I sincerely believe that. I'm pretty invested in theis BYU Football stuff - too much. My wife & family think I'm crazy. But, I breathe & eat this stuff. I hate to see the Cougs lose a kid that owuld benefit both the Y & himself by making a bad decision. There is still some time left - perhaps he will see the light & beg Bronco for his Scholarship back. Most likely not - I just hope.
:crazy:
Sponsored Advertisementad content
S
SchmoeDdawg wrote:Ddawg wrote:
It's not so black & white. It's mostly shades gray. It's not a god thing to offend to the point that current & future recruits are given "pause" because of the way fans may react. I would suggest - our initial reaction (though very disappointed) should have been guarded, tempered with caution & hope - till signing day. If & when Kona did sign his LOI with another school - there is plenty of time for anger & recrimination. Look - Kona was committed to BYU - did either Notre Dame or UW fans burn any bridges by attacking him? Nope - doors remain open & bridges intact. You just never know. You never know - now & in the future!! IMHO.
I know that your hope springs eternal Dawg, but Kona no longer holds a scholarship offer from BYU, and we are entering the dead period before signing day where no more contact can be made. It's over with now, end of story. Whether or not the kid is offended by the truth about his actions, I don't care. Like Jamora and Matangi, he simply isn't BYU's problem to worry about anymore.
You're right Mars - I do keep hoping. I hope a kid like Kona - a really gifted athlete - from a good family - can wake up & see that the BIG opportunuty he's looking @ from Notre Dame isn't so big. It's hollow - and in the end - will not work out as well for him. I the end - he will see he should have gone to BYU. I sincerely believe that. I'm pretty invested in theis BYU Football stuff - too much. My wife & family think I'm crazy. But, I breathe & eat this stuff. I hate to see the Cougs lose a kid that owuld benefit both the Y & himself by making a bad decision. There is still some time left - perhaps he will see the light & beg Bronco for his Scholarship back. Most likely not - I just hope.
:crazy:
I think we all hope that he still does, otherwise it wouldn't bother us so much. I don't mind if he decides to decommit and go somewhere else, just don't try to put it on Bronco's (or anyone else's) shoulders. Just take responsibility for it.
C
craigoscarsonCan we please refrain from villainizing the schwenkes'
You mean while the Schwenkes (and Teos) can't refrain from villainizing BYU and Bronco?
At least Bronco was honest with them.
I'm appalled by the lack of integrity and responsibility by those families.
BYU is not the bad guy here and never was.
They went as far to say that Kona prayed and got personal revelation that BYU was the place for him, yet when Bronco lays out the consequences.... he totally disregards that for a trip to go see "some friends?" and somehow it's BYU that's being ugly?
M
MarsDdawg wrote:
You're right Mars - I do keep hoping. I hope a kid like Kona - a really gifted athlete - from a good family - can wake up & see that the BIG opportunuty he's looking @ from Notre Dame isn't so big. It's hollow - and in the end - will not work out as well for him. I the end - he will see he should have gone to BYU. I sincerely believe that. I'm pretty invested in theis BYU Football stuff - too much. My wife & family think I'm crazy. But, I breathe & eat this stuff. I hate to see the Cougs lose a kid that owuld benefit both the Y & himself by making a bad decision. There is still some time left - perhaps he will see the light & beg Bronco for his Scholarship back. Most likely not - I just hope. :crazy:
I would love for Kona to fax in his LOI on signing day Wednesday morning, thus giving Bronco a new but good problem to deal with... it's not going to happen though.
G
gmj81jonnylingo wrote:snoscythe wrote:
gmj81--quit villanizing the Scwhankas!!!!!
;)
I'm sorry, I'm just a villainizer. But what can I say, I do enjoy villainizing. I mean really, what else is better in life than to villainize? I just love to get my kicks out of making villains out of other folks.
If you are struggling to understand what my request was, this response in regards to Heimuli is a perfect example of it:gmj81 His latest reaction to be left out in the cold makes it obvious he's been looking for a long time for evidence to provide his family that BYU is evil and not where he should be.
There are some that just take things too far anytime someone chooses not to go to byu. This is a perfect example of what i am talking about. I mean seriously? Is it really that obvious that Heimuli was obviously trying to prove to his family that byu is 'evil.' seriously? Wow.
This is the kind of crap that some of us get tired of when people don't choose byu.
What's your take from these comments by Heimuli?
One school believed to be in the running with Heimuli, BYU, fell off the final list after he was told there wasn't any more room left.
"They told me that they ran out of scholarships," said Heimuli. "They're trying to say that if I wanted to go to BYU then I would have to go on a mission first. I could care less now."
http://utah.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1043972
Heimuliâs father, Okusitino Heimuli, said that Ricky has taken BYU off his list, a list that now includes Utah, USC, Washington, Oregon and UCLA.
From Mr. Heimuliâs account, it sounds like BYU bungled it on this one, telling one of the top defensive tackles in the country that it doesnât have a scholarship available for him right now and wants him to go on his mission first.
The other schools have all told him they will hold one for him right up through signing day; Ricky has said he wants to make his decision and announcement on signing day. Heâs also said he will go on a church mission, but isnât sure whether he wants to play a year and then go, or go immediately.
http://blogs.sltrib.com/byu/index.php?paged=8
So Heimuli has had an offer for over a year now from BYU but is ticked off (I think that's a fair and non-"villainizing" statement given the quotes) that BYU no longer has an available scholarship for him for 2010.
Now I know it's tough to connect the dots but follow me on this. Heimuli has a cousin that clearly had a problem with BYU last year. Neither of them ever took the time to show BYU they were interested. They rarely even bothered returning phone calls to the TBS writers for articles. Ricky attended BYU's junior day, and though not injured, decided he was just going to watch from the sidelines and not participate. BYU has made it known to Ricky all along that they would hold a scholie for him as long as one was available but that they were quickly running out.
Now, all of a sudden Ricky is acting surprised that BYU doesn't have a scholarship for him but that they want him to serve a mission first. And he's put out by that saying BYU "bungled it on this one" and "I could care less now" even though he says himself that "he isnât sure whether he wants to play a year and then go, or go immediately." Uh, those statements don't exactly mesh. And again, these kids are badmouthing BYU when BYU was nothing but honest and upfront with them all along. It seems pretty obvious to me that Ricky hadsn't eliminated BYU altogether this year because someone in his family or circle of friends wants him to go there but he doesn't want to have to tell them he doesn't want to go to BYU. So maybe a good plan is to knowingly wait for all the BYU offers to dry up and then get bent out of shape because they don't have any more room for you for the coming season even though they have still given you the option (and showed how much they want you) to play after your mission, which you have been adamant that you are going to serve. So unless his 'mission plans' are just lipservice to keep more family and friends off his back why react so negatively to BYU's honest and forthright response?
But you know what, I couldn't care less about Ricky because by his actions I've known he wasn't ever going to come to BYU. The Schwenke business though, that stings a little. I thought he was solid and was willing to 'give him the benefit of the doubt' despite all the rumors flying about him prior to this week. But every camel has a straw that breaks their back. And the latest news of the ND trip was mine. None of the conclusions that I've drawn these past few days have been far-fetched or "villainizing" in my opinion and are simply just character judgments that have mostly been proven true by the information that keeps coming out all the time. People have to make character judgments all the time in this world in order to run businesses, choose their friends, etc. Bronco had to do it to decide if Kona was fit to be a Cougar or not. It doesn't mean that we are judging people like at the 'judgment bar' and that our judgments will decide where they spend eternity.
The bottom line is with a little information and a few quotes, and the record of their "actions" it's not hard to read these kids. They may say something different but their actions will lead you to the truth.
So get off it already. Nothing I've said is overly critical about these individuals that hasn't originated from something they presented to the media themselves. And in fact they are villainizing BYU and Bronco so they are no different.
B
bigbluepumaimuakahuku wrote:
[
BTW the NCAA does not "allow" students to drink, have premarital sex, or anything else that may be against the HC. They just don't prohibit it and allow schools to enforce their own policies concerning students, including those that participate in behavior that is illegal such as underage drinking, assault, etc. Small point but huge difference. I imagine the lawyers on this board see the difference.
Not prohibiting is tacetly allowing. There may be a technical dofference in court, but no difference at all in reality. Unfortunately for the Schwenkes, they are dealing in a world of reality, whether they want to accept it or not, and the reality is that Bronco told them not to go, or accept the consequences. He didn't do that just for this situation alone, but for the times each year in the future when the same thing might happen. He may or may not have lost Kona (very good chance that he would), but he has lost recruits before at the last minute, and who knows what recruits this might save for him in the future. You have sat before smooth, high pressure sales men before, and know how persuasive they can be. How much more persuasive might they be to a star struck family who hasn't had the opportunity to leave the islands before. And you are aware that Bronco would not have the opportunity to rebuff. His only rebuttle was to tell them not to go.
All of these many arguements against what Bronco did have varying degrees of merit, but don't, stand up to real logic.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
D
DdawgMars wrote:You're right Mars - I do keep hoping. I hope a kid like Kona - a really gifted athlete - from a good family - can wake up & see that the BIG opportunuty he's looking @ from Notre Dame isn't so big. It's hollow - and in the end - will not work out as well for him. I the end - he will see he should have gone to BYU. I sincerely believe that. I'm pretty invested in theis BYU Football stuff - too much. My wife & family think I'm crazy. But, I breathe & eat this stuff. I hate to see the Cougs lose a kid that owuld benefit both the Y & himself by making a bad decision. There is still some time left - perhaps he will see the light & beg Bronco for his Scholarship back. Most likely not - I just hope. :crazy:
I would love for Kona to fax in his LOI on signing day Wednesday morning, thus giving Bronco a new but good problem to deal with... it's not going to happen though.
You're right Brutha!! I just keep my fingers crossed (toss salt over my shoulder, jump over cracks in the sidewalk, toss pennies in the fountain, avoid black cats & hang garlic around my house). I'm dopey like that.
I just have one final thing to say about this whole Schwenke mess - then I'll wait for LOI day & hope for a big surprise - Schwenke or someone (Heimuli??) else.
CRAP!!!!!
:crazy:
I
imuakahukusnoscythe wrote:BTW the NCAA does not "allow" students to drink, have premarital sex, or anything else that may be against the HC. They just don't prohibit it and allow schools to enforce their own policies concerning students, including those that participate in behavior that is illegal such as underage drinking, assault, etc. Small point but huge difference. I imagine the lawyers on this board see the difference.
To allow doesn't just mean to give explicit permission. In the legal sense, it means to permit by neglect or oversight. If you don't do anything to stop something, you allow it to happen. The NCAA allows pornography, extramarital sex, and drinking.
bigbluepuma wrote:[
BTW the NCAA does not "allow" students to drink, have premarital sex, or anything else that may be against the HC. They just don't prohibit it and allow schools to enforce their own policies concerning students, including those that participate in behavior that is illegal such as underage drinking, assault, etc. Small point but huge difference. I imagine the lawyers on this board see the difference.
Not prohibiting is tacetly allowing. There may be a technical dofference in court, but no difference at all in reality. Unfortunately for the Schwenkes, they are dealing in a world of reality, whether they want to accept it or not, and the reality is that Bronco told them not to go, or accept the consequences. He didn't do that just for this situation alone, but for the times each year in the future when the same thing might happen. He may or may not have lost Kona (very good chance that he would), but he has lost recruits before at the last minute, and who knows what recruits this might save for him in the future. You have sat before smooth, high pressure sales men before, and know how persuasive they can be. How much more persuasive might they be to a star struck family who hasn't had the opportunity to leave the islands before. And you are aware that Bronco would not have the opportunity to rebuff. His only rebuttle was to tell them not to go.
All of these many arguements against what Bronco did have varying degrees of merit, but don't, stand up to real logic.
I have to respectfully disagree with both arguments. What is being suggested is that the NCAA has some sort of "duty" to the student athletes regarding the moral behavior of those students even though the cities, counties, states, federal government, individual universities, and conferences already have mandates, laws, regulations, and rules in place to govern those behaviors. The suggestion is quite a blanket statement and opens a very large can of worms. What is suggested would basically mean that Shiloh, Ah You, and anyone else who loses an athletic scholarship can sue the NCAA because they didn't tell them they couldn't behave in said manner and lost their scholarship because of it. And I would love to see an example of where a state has recently passed a law making premarital sex between consenting adults illegal. So should the NCAA then make a rule against it? If that is the case then should they adopt the Honor Code from BYU as well as from every member institution? So every student athlete registered with the NCAA would have to take B of M classes, attend weekly devotional, attend weekly mass, and every other stipulation that the different schools required of their students? I think this responds to both in court and in reality. What is being suggested is impossible and just flat out bad "law". In my opinnion it would be akin to the federal government legislating that abortion is legal in all states or that marriage can be between a man and a goat (and too bad for state's rights).
In conclusion...yada yada yada... the NCAA has no reason to "step on the toes" nor make unneccessary rules when they are already in place and just because they decide it unneccessary doesn't mean they condone nor encourage those activities that are otherwise already regulated or that are not regulated by any high governing bodies such as local or state governments.
I
imuakahukuI wanted to appologize to Bengal insinuating a comparason to Zeezrom in an earlier post. I shouldn't take shots like that and to compare or even insinuate comparason of one of our brethern to someone of that ilk was uncalled for and wrong in my opinion. We all have disagreements and some have lots of them with some others but I think I stepped out of line and I appologize for it. I usually try to keep my comments based on facts or on my personal opinion and try not to make accusations nor insinuations but I see I need to do better.
S
snoscytheimuakahuku wrote:BTW the NCAA does not "allow" students to drink, have premarital sex, or anything else that may be against the HC. They just don't prohibit it and allow schools to enforce their own policies concerning students, including those that participate in behavior that is illegal such as underage drinking, assault, etc. Small point but huge difference. I imagine the lawyers on this board see the difference.
To allow doesn't just mean to give explicit permission. In the legal sense, it means to permit by neglect or oversight. If you don't do anything to stop something, you allow it to happen. The NCAA allows pornography, extramarital sex, and drinking.bigbluepuma wrote:[
BTW the NCAA does not "allow" students to drink, have premarital sex, or anything else that may be against the HC. They just don't prohibit it and allow schools to enforce their own policies concerning students, including those that participate in behavior that is illegal such as underage drinking, assault, etc. Small point but huge difference. I imagine the lawyers on this board see the difference.
Not prohibiting is tacetly allowing. There may be a technical dofference in court, but no difference at all in reality. Unfortunately for the Schwenkes, they are dealing in a world of reality, whether they want to accept it or not, and the reality is that Bronco told them not to go, or accept the consequences. He didn't do that just for this situation alone, but for the times each year in the future when the same thing might happen. He may or may not have lost Kona (very good chance that he would), but he has lost recruits before at the last minute, and who knows what recruits this might save for him in the future. You have sat before smooth, high pressure sales men before, and know how persuasive they can be. How much more persuasive might they be to a star struck family who hasn't had the opportunity to leave the islands before. And you are aware that Bronco would not have the opportunity to rebuff. His only rebuttle was to tell them not to go.
All of these many arguements against what Bronco did have varying degrees of merit, but don't, stand up to real logic.
I have to respectfully disagree with both arguments. What is being suggested is that the NCAA has some sort of "duty" to the student athletes regarding the moral behavior of those students even though the cities, counties, states, federal government, individual universities, and conferences already have mandates, laws, regulations, and rules in place to govern those behaviors. The suggestion is quite a blanket statement and opens a very large can of worms. What is suggested would basically mean that Shiloh, Ah You, and anyone else who loses an athletic scholarship can sue the NCAA because they didn't tell them they couldn't behave in said manner and lost their scholarship because of it. And I would love to see an example of where a state has recently passed a law making premarital sex between consenting adults illegal. So should the NCAA then make a rule against it? If that is the case then should they adopt the Honor Code from BYU as well as from every member institution? So every student athlete registered with the NCAA would have to take B of M classes, attend weekly devotional, attend weekly mass, and every other stipulation that the different schools required of their students? I think this responds to both in court and in reality. What is being suggested is impossible and just flat out bad "law". In my opinnion it would be akin to the federal government legislating that abortion is legal in all states or that marriage can be between a man and a goat (and too bad for state's rights).
In conclusion...yada yada yada... the NCAA has no reason to "step on the toes" nor make unneccessary rules when they are already in place and just because they decide it unneccessary doesn't mean they condone nor encourage those activities that are otherwise already regulated or that are not regulated by any high governing bodies such as local or state governments.
I never said nor suggested that the NCAA had a duty to do anything of the sort. I have no clue how you got to that point. I simply said they allow it....which they do. The point was that there are a lot of things you can get away with under the general strictures of the NCAA that are not allowed (i.e. prohibited) at BYU. I don't see how you take that and interpret it as an indictment of the NCAA for not being proactive in religion and morality.
You were arguing that because Kona didn't do anything wrong under NCAA regulations, BYU should have let him be. I was merely illustrating that the NCAA and BYU draw very different circles. How you read it they way you did is completely beyond me.
I
imuakahukusnoscythe wrote:snoscythe wrote:BTW the NCAA does not "allow" students to drink, have premarital sex, or anything else that may be against the HC. They just don't prohibit it and allow schools to enforce their own policies concerning students, including those that participate in behavior that is illegal such as underage drinking, assault, etc. Small point but huge difference. I imagine the lawyers on this board see the difference.
To allow doesn't just mean to give explicit permission. In the legal sense, it means to permit by neglect or oversight. If you don't do anything to stop something, you allow it to happen. The NCAA allows pornography, extramarital sex, and drinking.bigbluepuma wrote:[
BTW the NCAA does not "allow" students to drink, have premarital sex, or anything else that may be against the HC. They just don't prohibit it and allow schools to enforce their own policies concerning students, including those that participate in behavior that is illegal such as underage drinking, assault, etc. Small point but huge difference. I imagine the lawyers on this board see the difference.
Not prohibiting is tacetly allowing. There may be a technical dofference in court, but no difference at all in reality. Unfortunately for the Schwenkes, they are dealing in a world of reality, whether they want to accept it or not, and the reality is that Bronco told them not to go, or accept the consequences. He didn't do that just for this situation alone, but for the times each year in the future when the same thing might happen. He may or may not have lost Kona (very good chance that he would), but he has lost recruits before at the last minute, and who knows what recruits this might save for him in the future. You have sat before smooth, high pressure sales men before, and know how persuasive they can be. How much more persuasive might they be to a star struck family who hasn't had the opportunity to leave the islands before. And you are aware that Bronco would not have the opportunity to rebuff. His only rebuttle was to tell them not to go.
All of these many arguements against what Bronco did have varying degrees of merit, but don't, stand up to real logic.
I have to respectfully disagree with both arguments. What is being suggested is that the NCAA has some sort of "duty" to the student athletes regarding the moral behavior of those students even though the cities, counties, states, federal government, individual universities, and conferences already have mandates, laws, regulations, and rules in place to govern those behaviors. The suggestion is quite a blanket statement and opens a very large can of worms. What is suggested would basically mean that Shiloh, Ah You, and anyone else who loses an athletic scholarship can sue the NCAA because they didn't tell them they couldn't behave in said manner and lost their scholarship because of it. And I would love to see an example of where a state has recently passed a law making premarital sex between consenting adults illegal. So should the NCAA then make a rule against it? If that is the case then should they adopt the Honor Code from BYU as well as from every member institution? So every student athlete registered with the NCAA would have to take B of M classes, attend weekly devotional, attend weekly mass, and every other stipulation that the different schools required of their students? I think this responds to both in court and in reality. What is being suggested is impossible and just flat out bad "law". In my opinnion it would be akin to the federal government legislating that abortion is legal in all states or that marriage can be between a man and a goat (and too bad for state's rights).
In conclusion...yada yada yada... the NCAA has no reason to "step on the toes" nor make unneccessary rules when they are already in place and just because they decide it unneccessary doesn't mean they condone nor encourage those activities that are otherwise already regulated or that are not regulated by any high governing bodies such as local or state governments.
I never said nor suggested that the NCAA had a duty to do anything of the sort. I have no clue how you got to that point. I simply said they allow it....which they do. The point was that there are a lot of things you can get away with under the general strictures of the NCAA that are not allowed (i.e. prohibited) at BYU. I don't see how you take that and interpret it as an indictment of the NCAA for not being proactive in religion and morality.
You were arguing that because Kona didn't do anything wrong under NCAA regulations, BYU should have let him be. I was merely illustrating that the NCAA and BYU draw very different circles. How you read it they way you did is completely beyond me.
To say that the NCAA "allows" a behavior implies that they are in a position of authority or power or both. And when in that position it is easy to see that a duty to those subordinate to that power or authority exists. We know that they do have a duty to ensure that a fair playing field exists throughout the leagues (of which they really blow it in respect to the BCS). Regie Bush and USC is a great example of this duty. They have however transferred the duty that could be theirs concerning many of the moral and legal issues to the conferences and universities. If they did have rules concerning those behaviors then they would need to take action every single time a rule was broken. Why am I explaining this? Just sit back and think about it and you will see the point I am making. It is not vague as you suggest just common sense and logic. You cannot have power and/or authority without there being a duty to wield it in a just and fair manner.
And I wasn't arguing that because he didn't do anything wrong, I pointed out that he didn't do anything wrong. I stated that if I were in Bronco's shoes I would not have pulled it and that is regardless of what school he went to. Bronco is not hurting for recruits and is therefore in a position that if Kona were to accept ND's offer which I clearly do not believe he would have, they would not have been in any worse a situation due to the fact that they already had a replacement. If however, it would put them into a scramble to get a replacement then I probably would have threatened to pull it too for the sheer fact that I need to find a replacement in one or two days. But I also would have either been on a plane or had the recruiter on a plane to discuss this in their living room. From the sounds of it, all the discussing was done over the phone. I don't know if anyone did go over but if I truly wanted him as much as I want him to want BYU then I would go the extra mile too. Bronco may not have been in that position, may have gotten counsel not to go or who knows. I just know that I would probably have handled it differently based on the information that I have concerning this which is not much.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
S
snoscytheImua- The NCAA is a private organization, and could make any rule they wanted about morality. The power is there, they just choose not to wield it. You said it yourself--"they have transferred the duty that could be theirs" to the conferences and universities. By the act of abdication, they allow. If you don't agree, we simply disagree as to the meaning of allow. By my definition the NCAA allows those activities by choosing not to regulate when they could regulate.
As far as what you would have done with Kona, it makes me glad Bronco is making those decisions. Could we have used Kona? Yeah. But that doesn't mean the coaches should be beholden to his every whim. The new, post-Crowton BYU wants football players who come to BYU because they want to be here. We don't need the players who we persuade and convince to come to BYU despite their inner misgivings. We've seen the results of that recruiting in the past. We want recruits who come to BYU because they want to be here as standard bearers. It is not Bronco's job to sell the university to the athlete. It is his job to scout talent and offer those he believes will fit, and part of that fit is the desire to be part of a program founded upon personal responsibility and dedication.
Kona gave Bronco his word he was 100% committed to BYU when he verballed--Bronco makes sure they know what he expects of them when they verbal. Then, Kona proceeded to visit Arizona "in case BYU doesn't work out" and to make plans to visit Notre Dame, gushing to the media about his excitement to go. These trips and statements put Kona in a position where he was either deceiving BYU or deceiving the media--either way, he was less than honest. Given the fact that Kona was either deceiving him or someone else, Bronco gave Kona a chance to prove his dedication--if you are 100% committed to BYU, stay off the plane. Despite supposedly having received personal revelation that BYU was the right place, Kona got on the plane.
Now, you say that waiting it out wouldn't hurt BYU. I can't agree with that. Bronco had already pulled a scholarship offer from another verballed recruit just weeks prior--to make and exception for Schwenke would have set a confusing double-standard. Does BYU really want players who can't be taken at their word, who deceive, and who advertise personal revelation only to act in an opposite manner? I don't think we do. I especially don't think BYU should be using donor money to fly to Hawaii to convince such kids to come. While Kona wasn't the first to have his scholarship yanked for taking visits elsewhere, hopefully the publicity he has generated will make him the last. Now there is a well-known precedent for recruits to ponder before they half-heartedly verbal in the future. If we lose one four-star prima-donna but it saves us from signing day heart-ache in the future, it's a cost well worth bearing. BYU's done pretty well on defense without four-star d-linemen under Bronco, so no need to sell out for one kid who never learned what it means to commit.
Keep in mind this--Bronco only pulled the scholarship offer. From what I understand, he never told Kona he wasn't welcome at BYU. If the kid wants to prove he was still 100% committed, and if he still wants to follow his personal revelation, I'm pretty sure Bronco would take him on a pay-as-you go basis. If the kid is/was 100% committed, he can prove it by putting his money where his mouth is like Kaveinga has done--it's called living with the consequences of your poor decisions.
As far as what you would have done with Kona, it makes me glad Bronco is making those decisions. Could we have used Kona? Yeah. But that doesn't mean the coaches should be beholden to his every whim. The new, post-Crowton BYU wants football players who come to BYU because they want to be here. We don't need the players who we persuade and convince to come to BYU despite their inner misgivings. We've seen the results of that recruiting in the past. We want recruits who come to BYU because they want to be here as standard bearers. It is not Bronco's job to sell the university to the athlete. It is his job to scout talent and offer those he believes will fit, and part of that fit is the desire to be part of a program founded upon personal responsibility and dedication.
Kona gave Bronco his word he was 100% committed to BYU when he verballed--Bronco makes sure they know what he expects of them when they verbal. Then, Kona proceeded to visit Arizona "in case BYU doesn't work out" and to make plans to visit Notre Dame, gushing to the media about his excitement to go. These trips and statements put Kona in a position where he was either deceiving BYU or deceiving the media--either way, he was less than honest. Given the fact that Kona was either deceiving him or someone else, Bronco gave Kona a chance to prove his dedication--if you are 100% committed to BYU, stay off the plane. Despite supposedly having received personal revelation that BYU was the right place, Kona got on the plane.
Now, you say that waiting it out wouldn't hurt BYU. I can't agree with that. Bronco had already pulled a scholarship offer from another verballed recruit just weeks prior--to make and exception for Schwenke would have set a confusing double-standard. Does BYU really want players who can't be taken at their word, who deceive, and who advertise personal revelation only to act in an opposite manner? I don't think we do. I especially don't think BYU should be using donor money to fly to Hawaii to convince such kids to come. While Kona wasn't the first to have his scholarship yanked for taking visits elsewhere, hopefully the publicity he has generated will make him the last. Now there is a well-known precedent for recruits to ponder before they half-heartedly verbal in the future. If we lose one four-star prima-donna but it saves us from signing day heart-ache in the future, it's a cost well worth bearing. BYU's done pretty well on defense without four-star d-linemen under Bronco, so no need to sell out for one kid who never learned what it means to commit.
Keep in mind this--Bronco only pulled the scholarship offer. From what I understand, he never told Kona he wasn't welcome at BYU. If the kid wants to prove he was still 100% committed, and if he still wants to follow his personal revelation, I'm pretty sure Bronco would take him on a pay-as-you go basis. If the kid is/was 100% committed, he can prove it by putting his money where his mouth is like Kaveinga has done--it's called living with the consequences of your poor decisions.
B
bigbluepumaimuakahuku wrote:
[
To say that the NCAA "allows" a behavior implies that they are in a position of authority or power or both. And when in that position it is easy to see that a duty to those subordinate to that power or authority exists. We know that they do have a duty to ensure that a fair playing field exists throughout the leagues (of which they really blow it in respect to the BCS). Regie Bush and USC is a great example of this duty. They have however transferred the duty that could be theirs concerning many of the moral and legal issues to the conferences and universities. If they did have rules concerning those behaviors then they would need to take action every single time a rule was broken. Why am I explaining this? Just sit back and think about it and you will see the point I am making. It is not vague as you suggest just common sense and logic. You cannot have power and/or authority without there being a duty to wield it in a just and fair manner.
And I wasn't arguing that because he didn't do anything wrong, I pointed out that he didn't do anything wrong. I stated that if I were in Bronco's shoes I would not have pulled it and that is regardless of what school he went to. Bronco is not hurting for recruits and is therefore in a position that if Kona were to accept ND's offer which I clearly do not believe he would have, they would not have been in any worse a situation due to the fact that they already had a replacement. If however, it would put them into a scramble to get a replacement then I probably would have threatened to pull it too for the sheer fact that I need to find a replacement in one or two days. But I also would have either been on a plane or had the recruiter on a plane to discuss this in their living room. From the sounds of it, all the discussing was done over the phone. I don't know if anyone did go over but if I truly wanted him as much as I want him to want BYU then I would go the extra mile too. Bronco may not have been in that position, may have gotten counsel not to go or who knows. I just know that I would probably have handled it differently based on the information that I have concerning this which is not much.
Wow! :bug: You are the only one to have brought legalities into this discussion. Not me, not Sno. I get your point, but really, aren't we now down to quibbling over symantics, and isn't this totally irrelevent to the subject? Sno really answered your question. Just because the NCAA doesn't have a rule (not allowing, not prohibiting), does that mean that BYU can't, or shouldn't?
I really do feel badly for Schwenke and his family and I do wish for him to be at BYU. I don't know what is in his heart, and I do wish to beleive that it was all totally innocent, but the statements that I have read from him and his family don't suggest that. If this situation existed in a vacuum, I wish that Bronco hadn't delivered the ultimatem, but it does not. Bronco wants to discourage this from happening in the future. There comes a time that, if you want to change behaviour, you have to take a stance. He didn't do it before, and he got the same behaviour again (we know how it had turned out before).
What I have really been arguing for on this whole subject, is for people to stop villanizing Bronco for doing what he felt was the right thing to do at the time. I understand, and in many respects agreee with the other side's arguement, but at the end of the day, Bronco was in the right, and his program will be the better for him taking a stand for what he believes in.
C
craigoscarsonSo there are now questions of whether or not Kona Schwenke and family ever bothered making trips to Provo when invited, yet jumped at the chance to visit other schools....
I went from confused, to bugged, to straight out angry now. The schwenke name is now right next to the teo name on my s**t list.
if you want to go somewhere else, go somewhere else, don't blame it on BYU, when you were never 100% honest with BYU...
I went from confused, to bugged, to straight out angry now. The schwenke name is now right next to the teo name on my s**t list.
if you want to go somewhere else, go somewhere else, don't blame it on BYU, when you were never 100% honest with BYU...
J
jonnylingocraigoscarson wrote:
So there are now questions of whether or not Kona Schwenke and family ever bothered making trips to Provo when invited, yet jumped at the chance to visit other schools....
I went from confused, to bugged, to straight out angry now. The schwenke name is now right next to the teo name on my s**t list.
if you want to go somewhere else, go somewhere else, don't blame it on BYU, when you were never 100% honest with BYU...
I personally don't believe that statement that the schwenkes still don't want to go to byu. while its true they were obviously not 100 percent committed, i still think that byu had the best shot at signing day if they didn't pull his offer. I understand on principle however why bronco pulled it. I dont blame him. i still think this whole thing became a way bigger deal than it had to when bronco compared his committment to play to his commitment or ability to keep the honor code. comparing the temptation of notre dame with the temptation to drink or something. that is just stupid.
L
LawboyI just want to point at that come Feb. 3, I will be ready to move on from this, and move forward with the guys who send in the LOI's. I follow Cougar Football, not ND, UW or any other school. If BYU recruits go elsewhere, good luck to them, but I could care little about them, and will not comment about them anymore as they are not Cougars.
GO BYU!!!!!
GO BYU!!!!!
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.