|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Jun 15, 2005 12:19:47 GMT -5
Possession of any narcotic-- even possession of alcohol for someone underage-- is certainly enough to yank a schollie. Whether it is the right decision or not probably varies from case to case. The coach should weigh the best interests of the school, the team, and the player. There is nothing wrong w/ holding student-athletes to high standards. That goes along w/ the FULL SCHOLARSHIP that they receive.
As members of the university community who are more in the public eye than the normal student, athletes should be expected to behave responsibly. It goes w/ the territory and is balanced by the many perks they receive. If some players don't like it, tough: they can either abide by the rules or give up their schollie to one of the many others who would be happy to take it.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jun 16, 2005 9:14:35 GMT -5
Possession of any narcotic-- even possession of alcohol for someone underage-- is certainly enough to yank a schollie. Whether it is the right decision or not probably varies from case to case. The coach should weigh the best interests of the school, the team, and the player. There is nothing wrong w/ holding student-athletes to high standards. That goes along w/ the FULL SCHOLARSHIP that they receive. As members of the university community who are more in the public eye than the normal student, athletes should be expected to behave responsibly. It goes w/ the territory and is balanced by the many perks they receive. If some players don't like it, tough: they can either abide by the rules or give up their schollie to one of the many others who would be happy to take it. Marijuana is not a narcotic...chemically/biologically speaking...despite what the federal government classifies it as. And possession of alcohol enough to yank a schollie...wow, well how many of us would have graduated if our financial aid was yanked for that? It's not that I disagree that student athletes or scholarship kids should be held to a high standard...but I have serious problems with the implication that it liberates those who can afford to attend college on their dime from any responsibility. It's a slippery slope to argue. Basically, what you are arguing is that those who have earned their education have to adhere to a higher set of rules...and those who happened to be born into their education don't. My point is, all students have to be held to the same standard. If the rich kid from Rye isn't kicked out of school for getting busted for possession, you can't boot the athlete for the same offense. Both represent the school. Consistency is the key.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Jun 16, 2005 9:37:04 GMT -5
I hear your point. At the same time, though, as I stated before, student-athletes often receive benefits not available to other students (even those on academic scholarship, i.e. free tutors, nice dorm rooms as a frosh, etc.). And if Jeff or even Sead gets stopped for a criminal offense, it probably makes the Post, whereas John Q. Student's transgression does not. I just feel that you take on a higher responsibility when you accept an athletic scholarship. If you don't want such a responsibility, don't take the schollie.
|
|
|
Post by FromTheBeginning on Jun 16, 2005 14:13:02 GMT -5
What matters are the set of rules set out by the basketball program for their athletes. Whether they relate to academics, off the court behavior, curfews, etc. does not matter. If you accept a position on the team - scholarship or not - you should be bound by the team's rules. JTII had many a phantom injury that really involved a poor grade in the classroom rather than a sprained ankle or a pulled groin. But those were the rules the kids bought into with their participation in the program.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Jun 16, 2005 15:36:30 GMT -5
Well said, FTB. No one forces these players to join the team, but when they do, they consent to all team rules.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Jun 16, 2005 16:59:35 GMT -5
How's the weather in victorian england, guys? If you start tossing kids for getting popped on underage drinking, you basically create an incredibly arbitrary system, because a sizable majority of the underage players on the team DO drink - just as a sizable majority of the underage students in the school overall drink. Would you support pulling need based scholarships for kids because of alcohol violations? That's just draconian. As for pot...I don't want to talk in specifics, but suffice to say that you wouldn't want to toss all the Hoyas who I've personally seen smoking. It's a trickier area, because of the legal ramifications. But again, any kind of one-strike-and-your-out policy on pot would be very unfair and arbitrarily enforced. I tend to agree with Cambridge's larger point about the ridiculousness of our nation's drug laws, but that's neither here nor there in this discussion.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 17, 2005 8:33:55 GMT -5
Actually, there was quite a bit of underage drinking and drug use in Victorian England. It was fairly widespread and generally accepted.
Probably why there are no good English basketball players to this day.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Jun 17, 2005 9:04:29 GMT -5
I agree that our drug laws our absurd. I actually advocate legalization of all narcotics, subject to government control.
However, in the context of this discussion, the important thing is for players to follow the rules and represent their school well. The fact (which I do not contest) that many Hoya players have smoked pot does not sanction such activity as right. And if you're unfortunate enough to get caught, I will shed no tears if JT III decides to show you the door.
|
|