CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Can we please refrain from villainizing the schwenkes

by jonnylingo · 1/29/2010

Sponsored Advertisementad content
J
jonnylingo
What kona did was worse in degree, but generally speaking both didn't keep their word. lawboy was fully aware of the distinction. He is just saying that the distinction is not that important in all the 'honor' arguments flying around. I mean can you really say that apo is honorable for breaking his word given how important most of you and bronco are saying giving your word to commit is?
S
snoscythe
jonnylingo wrote:
Lawboy wrote:
I guess I look at things too much like a lawyer then. To me, the core issue is identical. Now, how they went about it was different, but that is it.



The core was both made verbal commitments to another school. Kona to BYU, Apo to Texas. Both then backed out and changed schools commitments. Apo was less messy, but a decommit all the same. Had he verballed early to BYU, then changed in the summer to Texas, many would still be mad because it happened. As to Kona, he verballed, then backed up and ended up at Notre Dame. He talked out of both sides of his mouth in the process, and changed really late. But at the end of the day, it was the same result as Apo. And the same as Jamora, who did hte same thing, but it being left alone as well. An early commit and a change to another school. Period.



How they went about it was way different though, and that is what people are picking up on. Apo did it in the summer, was more precise with it, less messy. Was like a sniper shooting. As to Kona, his was more like a messy knife butcher job. Messier scene, got uglier. But at the end of the day, if we were to try the so called "crimes", they get charged with the same thing. Just different elements to discuss in court. And that is the issue people are attaching to, and that I will not. For reasons listed above.


False.



When did Kona "decommit" or back out????? Can you show me where he decommitted to BYU before his scholarship offer was withdrawn? He never did. He was insisting 100% commitment to the very end, even after Bronco pulled the scholarship. That's like saying you quit, but only after you've been fired. Apo read the writing on the wall and decommitted himself, showing honesty.



How can you say the core issue is the same when one person is acting (Apo decommitting) and the other is being acted upon (Schwenke having his scholarship pulled).



The lawyer in you needs to learn about distinctions.


Maybe there is a distinction, but is it a distinction that matters, I don't think so for the reasons I stated above. You are the one pimping "honoring your verbal commitment" and the honor code is about "honor". What is the difference between these two actions. They both "lied" by your definitions. Both verbally committed to play at one school. One flat our broke that promise, the other may have even kept it but was shopping around at the same time. both "lied" and didn't honor their commitments. One of them you think is okay because it came out in byu's favor, the other you don't because it didn't. If the honor code is about honor and honring your verbal commitment relates to that, then both of these are no different. While kona's was more decietful, i dont' think anybody disagress with that, the distinction is irrelevant inthe overall argument you are all making about honor and commitment.



What is really going on is that you are saying is that being dishonest is okay unless you are being dishonest to byu. Otherwise its excusable and honorable. Your trying to have your cake and eat it to. All this emphasis on 'honor' in relation to verbal commitments to play football before lio day is stupid. I wish people would just say it like it is. Apo came to byu so we think he great. kona screwed us so we dont.



kona was wrong becuase he tripped after his commitment. apo was wrong because he actually took the step so far that he decommited from the school he promised to go somewhere else. Some would argue that distinction makes his dishonesty even worse becuase kona may have still chosen byu.



I personally don't think apo did anything wrong. until his name is on the dotted line its all fair play. I think Kona should have said nd is a great opportunity, i want to at least check it out coach, but please dont' pull my schollie. i just don't want to think what if my whole life. I want to be sure that byu is right for me and to konw that i have to take this trip. that is what he should have done. at that point bronco could have at least taken him at his word or not.


See above. Apo did not lie, he only decommitted when it was apparent Texas wasn't exactly 100% committed. If anything Apo is Bronco in his story, and Mack Brown is Schwenke. Brown waffled, Apo rescinded. Hence the distinction that makes all the difference in the world.
K
kiwibacon
It must be the off season...is it September yet?....
S
snoscythe
jonnylingo wrote:
What kona did was worse in degree, but generally speaking both didn't keep their word. lawboy was fully aware of the distinction. He is just saying that the distinction is not that important in all the 'honor' arguments flying around. I mean can you really say that apo is honorable for breaking his word given how important most of you and bronco are saying giving your word to commit is?


Given the fact that Texas wasn't looking like they were going to hold up their end of the deal, I absolutely think his honor is intact. If BYU told Kona, "Gee, we might be a bit overcommitted, so what do you think about walking on?" I would not hold tripping against Kona. What I do hold against him is the lying.
B
bigbluepuma
Mars wrote:


You always have to give Bronco credit. He didn't recruit Apo AT ALL while the kid was committed to Texas. That's not Mendenhall's style in the slightest. Sark at UW and anyone at Notre Dame obviously can't say the same thing.



Apo felt lied to by Mack Brown at Texas. He believed they wanted him as THE WR, gave him a short deadline to commit, then all of a sudden Texas brought in 4 guys at the same position right after him. I don't blame him for being disillusioned. That's not a game Bronco plays with recruits either.



Jamora decommitted and committed elsewhere, pretty cut and dried. He never did a very good job explaining WHY, but it doesn't really matter in the end. He didn't go out and openly slander BYU or make up any stories.



Kona and his dad are both liars, and went about in the 11th hour in a very sneaky and dishonest way. No one can deny that anymore.



Those are 3 different situations, and anyone who says they are the same is either coming in with a strong anti-BYU slant or they just aren't paying attention.


Right on the point. Jamora is the only BYU defection that really has any direct comparison to the Apo defection. The reasons for the defection aren't the issue. The way it was done is the issue, and I find it hard to believe that the two would, in the end, hold up the same in court. Lawyers would want to argue them as the same, because that gives them the best chance of prevailing, but that doesn't make them the same. Further, any success a lawyer has in making them appear similar doesn't make them morally or ethically similar.



I didn't like seeing Jamora decommit, but I give him that right. Anyone can change his mind, and sometimes should. You haven't seen anyone, including Bronco, bring Jamora into this argument as one who lacked honor. It isn't what Schwenke did, but how he did it that showed Bronco and the rest of us that shortcoming, and to claim that he "acted' in the same sense that Apo or Jamora "acted," is just a bunch of crafty legal maneuvering. It is why most of the real world distrusts lawyers. The "act" that matters is making a change in the commitment status, not lying about the committment. Schwenke didn't make the act that matters, as Jamora and Apo did. He chose the latter act. Whenever a recruit or a player chooses that act,he changes the whole dynamics of his committment, OR of his schollership. He then forces Bronco to decide how he needs to act (see Shiloh Teo). The Teo incident is much more directly comparable to the Schwenke incident than either the Jamora or the Apo incident.



I know you lawyers are going to have some legal answer to this, but I can tell you in advance that you are wrong. We are talking about integrity here, not how a skilled lawyer can make two different things look the same. Apo and jamora didn't lack integrity. Schwenke lacked integrity. Bottom line.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
C
CougarPeasant
snoscythe wrote:
Apo absolutely honored his commitment. He only decommitted when Texas got verbals from two top-10 receivers and then told him they might not be able to hold up their end of the bargain. You tell me--when the school tells you, "Gee, we might not have a scholarship for you after all....you might have to walk-on" should the kid still be bound by his word to go to that school as a walk-on when his "verbal" was given in response to an offer of a scholarship? I don't think he is.



Kona lied to the media when he said he was 100% committed until BYU pulled his scholarship and then later told them he was having a tough time deciding between the two up until Bronco rescinded the offer. There was absolutely nothing honorable about how Schwenke dealt with things.


Let's not forget that Apo was under duress to decide within 48 hours of the offer or it likely would not be given again. Texas/Brown put a burden on Apo to make an early decision before he could evaluate other programs. By contrast, Bronco/BYU tells a recruit to take time to make sure that BYU really is their first choice. There is a distinction with a big difference.



It is understood at Texas that they lose kids from time to time because they over recruit AND make the recruit decide immediately, in a take it or leave scenario. The situation Apo was in was very different than that in which Schwenke was in.
B
bigbluepuma
CougarPeasant wrote:
Apo absolutely honored his commitment. He only decommitted when Texas got verbals from two top-10 receivers and then told him they might not be able to hold up their end of the bargain. You tell me--when the school tells you, "Gee, we might not have a scholarship for you after all....you might have to walk-on" should the kid still be bound by his word to go to that school as a walk-on when his "verbal" was given in response to an offer of a scholarship? I don't think he is.



Kona lied to the media when he said he was 100% committed until BYU pulled his scholarship and then later told them he was having a tough time deciding between the two up until Bronco rescinded the offer. There was absolutely nothing honorable about how Schwenke dealt with things.


Let's not forget that Apo was under duress to decide within 48 hours of the offer or it likely would not be given again. Texas/Brown put a burden on Apo to make an early decision before he could evaluate other programs. By contrast, Bronco/BYU tells a recruit to take time to make sure that BYU really is their first choice. There is a distinction with a big difference.





It is understood at Texas that they lose kids from time to time because they over recruit AND make the recruit decide immediately, in a take it or leave scenario. The situation Apo was in was very different than that in which Schwenke was in.


High pressure sales to an eighteen year old???? NNNNOOOOO!!!!! They wouldn't do that, would they? :skeptic:
B
bigbluepuma
jonnylingo wrote:
Lawboy wrote:
I guess I look at things too much like a lawyer then. To me, the core issue is identical. Now, how they went about it was different, but that is it.



The core was both made verbal commitments to another school. Kona to BYU, Apo to Texas. Both then backed out and changed schools commitments. Apo was less messy, but a decommit all the same. Had he verballed early to BYU, then changed in the summer to Texas, many would still be mad because it happened. As to Kona, he verballed, then backed up and ended up at Notre Dame. He talked out of both sides of his mouth in the process, and changed really late. But at the end of the day, it was the same result as Apo. And the same as Jamora, who did hte same thing, but it being left alone as well. An early commit and a change to another school. Period.



How they went about it was way different though, and that is what people are picking up on. Apo did it in the summer, was more precise with it, less messy. Was like a sniper shooting. As to Kona, his was more like a messy knife butcher job. Messier scene, got uglier. But at the end of the day, if we were to try the so called "crimes", they get charged with the same thing. Just different elements to discuss in court. And that is the issue people are attaching to, and that I will not. For reasons listed above.


False.



When did Kona "decommit" or back out????? Can you show me where he decommitted to BYU before his scholarship offer was withdrawn? He never did. He was insisting 100% commitment to the very end, even after Bronco pulled the scholarship. That's like saying you quit, but only after you've been fired. Apo read the writing on the wall and decommitted himself, showing honesty.



How can you say the core issue is the same when one person is acting (Apo decommitting) and the other is being acted upon (Schwenke having his scholarship pulled).



The lawyer in you needs to learn about distinctions.


Maybe there is a distinction, but is it a distinction that matters, I don't think so for the reasons I stated above. You are the one pimping "honoring your verbal commitment" and the honor code is about "honor". What is the difference between these two actions. They both "lied" by your definitions. Both verbally committed to play at one school. One flat our broke that promise, the other may have even kept it but was shopping around at the same time. both "lied" and didn't honor their commitments. One of them you think is okay because it came out in byu's favor, the other you don't because it didn't. If the honor code is about honor and honring your verbal commitment relates to that, then both of these are no different. While kona's was more decietful, i dont' think anybody disagress with that, the distinction is irrelevant inthe overall argument you are all making about honor and commitment.



What is really going on is that you are saying is that being dishonest is okay unless you are being dishonest to byu. Otherwise its excusable and honorable. Your trying to have your cake and eat it to. All this emphasis on 'honor' in relation to verbal commitments to play football before lio day is stupid. I wish people would just say it like it is. Apo came to byu so we think he great. kona screwed us so we dont.

kona was wrong becuase he tripped after his commitment. apo was wrong because he actually took the step so far that he decommited from the school he promised to go somewhere else. Some would argue that distinction makes his dishonesty even worse becuase kona may have still chosen byu.



I personally don't think apo did anything wrong. until his name is on the dotted line its all fair play. I think Kona should have said nd is a great opportunity, i want to at least check it out coach, but please dont' pull my schollie. i just don't want to think what if my whole life. I want to be sure that byu is right for me and to konw that i have to take this trip. that is what he should have done. at that point bronco could have at least taken him at his word or not.


All you 'villainize bronco all you want, but be real nice to the Schwenkes' types seem to forget half the facts in every argument you make. We weren't the ones who asked the commits to honor their commitments, Bronco was, and he honors his. He also gives them plenty of opportunity to understand their commitment before making it. Even then, he doesn't make a big deal when a young man decides to decommit. He just moves on. This was a bigger deal, because the young man didn't decommit. He just started lying---at the last minute. Also, as noted before, Bronco isn't the only coach to have this type of expectation for them to honor their commitments. A number of other schools do this, (some of which probably still poach other schools' recruits, which Bronco doesn't do) and more will in the future. If you're going to argue how two situations are the same, maybe you should leave all the similarities in, and not take all the differences out.
L
Lawboy
I am not trying to paint Bronco as the villain. I think he handled it exactly right and how BYU ought to handle it. My only point for this is to say that we as BYU fans need to rise above the name calling, the garbage of it all--regardless of how Kona or his parents handled it. Turn the other cheek, so to speak, and just let it go, wish him well at ND and that is it. And understand that we get recruits that other schools and their fans get mad at for leaving(nelson, Poppinga, etc) and how BYU may have handled it, or from their de-committing as well. It goes both ways. Win some, lose some. Recruiting is a dirty business, and all schools have issues with this. BYU is not sqeaky clean in every case, not 100% of the time. We do not live in a glass house. And if the Schwenke's handled it poorly--and I think they did--so be it. We move on with the kids that will win games for the Blue and White.
B
bigbluepuma
Lawboy wrote:
I am not trying to paint Bronco as the villain. I think he handled it exactly right and how BYU ought to handle it. My only point for this is to say that we as BYU fans need to rise above the name calling, the garbage of it all--regardless of how Kona or his parents handled it. Turn the other cheek, so to speak, and just let it go, wish him well at ND and that is it. And understand that we get recruits that other schools and their fans get mad at for leaving(nelson, Poppinga, etc) and how BYU may have handled it, or from their de-committing as well. It goes both ways. Win some, lose some. Recruiting is a dirty business, and all schools have issues with this. BYU is not sqeaky clean in every case, not 100% of the time. We do not live in a glass house. And if the Schwenke's handled it poorly--and I think they did--so be it. We move on with the kids that will win games for the Blue and White.




I can go with you on that. I just don't want to be labeled (myself or the BYU community) as "have your cake and eat it too," when I see a huge difference in the two situations. Situations like Jamora and Apo are part of life, but I don't think that Schwenke's is a necessary part of life. I think I tend to villainize him much more than I want to when it comes to "which one is in the wrong."
Sponsored Advertisementad content
M
Mars
jonnylingo wrote:
What kona did was worse in degree, but generally speaking both didn't keep their word. lawboy was fully aware of the distinction. He is just saying that the distinction is not that important in all the 'honor' arguments flying around. I mean can you really say that apo is honorable for breaking his word given how important most of you and bronco are saying giving your word to commit is?

I can just imagine a lawyer getting caught by his wife making out with another woman. To which he replies, "Hey, you knew I used to make out with women besides you when I was younger before we met and you didn't have a problem with that, it's basically the same thing!" Lawyers.
M
Mars
Lawboy wrote:
I am not trying to paint Bronco as the villain. I think he handled it exactly right and how BYU ought to handle it... just let it go, wish him well at ND and that is it... if the Schwenke's handled it poorly--and I think they did--so be it. We move on with the kids that will win games for the Blue and White.

So you've written dozens of posts saying that Bronco screwed up, but now you say he handled it "exactly right"? Okay.



You don't want BYU fans to bad-mouth the Schwenkes and to move on, but you've written dozens of posts keeping the topic of the Schenkes at the top of the board? Okay.
B
blue42
I guess the only thing I have to say to all of this is I'm glad he didn't come to BYU. The reason is, I giggle every time I read or hear this name because of my lack of maturity, I always think of the nickname of a certain body part we all use in high school. I don't know if I could have taken 4 years of that. :bug:
A
AmmonCougar1
blue42 wrote:
I guess the only thing I have to say to all of this is I'm glad he didn't come to BYU. The reason is, I giggle every time I read or hear this name because of my lack of maturity, I always think of the nickname of a certain body part we all use in high school. I don't know if I could have taken 4 years of that. :bug:

I still use mine...even 18 years after high school! Sorry, I know what you meant but how I read it REALLY made me laugh! :lol:



Go Cougs!!!

J. Child

Ammon, ID
F
Florwood
I apologize for bringing this thread back to the top of the forum, but after all the talk about message boards negatively affecting where a recruit signs, I thought this sign was too good to ignore:



http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/teamwork.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
Page 7 of 7
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.