dat dude;390791 wrote:Aren't you doing the same? Are you saying having a discussion on the punishment of collegiate athletes is "retarded?" Is my opinion "uniformed" while yours is somehow "informed?"

LJ;390785 wrote:disagree, it allows administrators and coaches to dish out a punishment without having to actually deal with the problem. This goes for any zero tolerence program. Many places I have worked would help you get counsoling if you got a DUI

lhslep134;390848 wrote:The point I'm trying to make though is that with a zero tolerance policy in place, rather than a policy that allows you to mess up, the young adults will make mistakes MUCH less often.

If you KNOW you're going to get kicked off the team and lose your scholarship and then have to deal with a parent(s) afterwards, I would assume you're much less likely to commit the offense than under the current system where if you commit any offense that's not extremely serious (i.e. armed robbery, felonious assault, etc.) you're given a second chance.

enigmaax;390796 wrote:I really don't care if there's a zero tolerance policy or not. Or, in fact, I actually tend to agree that most things should be evaluated as their own cases. DUI, I'm not sure about. I mean, what possible mitigating circumstance could there be? If he was driving someone to the hospital, maybe? There just isn't a lot of room around that one, so again, I don't know how excusable that should ever be. Whatever, my point isn't even about zero tolerance. I'm just saying, it seems like every time a player screws up, fans from other schools (yeah, it goes both ways) bitch about how poorly the coach handled the discipline. I just find that silly. I mean, I'd really enjoy reading the book on how a coach should appropriately arrive at his decision in these cases. Oh but, you'll probably say it isn't possible to write the book because it all depends on the circumstance. Which is a cop out of your own that is basically saying, I don't know about every case, but this one is wrong.

lhslep134;390952 wrote:Okay LJ, so this is basically what you're saying by disagreeing with me that a zero tolerance policy isn't the best deterrence of stupidity.

No zero tolerance policy in place:
Oh, I think I'll go drink then drive because I won't get kicked off the team.

Zero tolerance policy in place:
Oh, I think I'll go drink then drive, why not? If I get kicked off the team and lose my scholarship EH so what.



That's EXACTLY what you're saying by telling me that there are no studies to back up my assumption that people are much less likely to do something if they KNOW the punishment in advance.

No shit there's no studies about it, because it's common sense. If you know you're going to get fired from your job for a DUI, why the fuck would you go drink and drive unless you didn't value your job. But if your co-workers have been caught with DUI's before and not been fired and thus a precedent has been set, why wouldn't you drink and drive knowing that there aren't serious ramifications (STRICTLY FROM A JOB LOSING PERSPECTIVE).

lhslep134;390963 wrote:Like I said, the only thing I'm trying to say is that IMO, a NCAA-wide zero tolerance policy will lead to much lower arrest rates. Kids generally play college football for 2 reasons: free education, and the chance to play in the NFL someday. I'm saying if it's known in advance that you're going to lose both of those by doing something stupid, then a REASONABLE person wouldn't risk that.



However, in your defense, we all know that some college football players aren't exactly the brightest, or even half-brightest crayon in the box, so those are the ones that would be screwed in a zero tolerance policy.

LJ;390976 wrote:Actually a reasonable person doesn't treat every situation the same.

lhslep134;390987 wrote:So you're saying a reasonable person would intentionally commit an act that is known to violate the zero tolerance policy? I'd love to meet such an imaginary person. They must be the most interesting person in the world.

LJ;391002 wrote:Treating every single situation the same is not the voice of reason.

lhslep134;391122 wrote:It ABSOLUTELY is when there is a zero tolerance policy in place.

So since you seem to be so adamantly against a zero tolerance policy, please explain a hypothetical situation where two kids both break different rules but a zero tolerance policy is a bad thing.

I'd love to hear this


I'm for a zero tolerance policy not because of anything to do with coaches or administration, but because it's bullshit that these young adults act like the rules don't apply to them, otherwise they wouldn't be doing the stupid shit that they do, such as drinking and driving.

enigmaax;390826 wrote:No, I don't know if it is right or wrong. I find two things "retarded" - might as well stick with the theme: 1) that you seemingly place fault on the disciplinarian for essentially ruining someone's life with a punishment (as I stated previously, I feel you were overdramatic and/or misplaced the "blame" for a life "tailspin") and 2) that it seems no coach's decision is ever "right", especially to fans of other teams. That is it. That simple.

LJ;391130 wrote:1 kid who steals a pack of gum and has never done anything wrong in his life, has a 3.8 GPA, volunteers, etc.
vs
1 kid who steals a pack of gum, multiple thefts on his record, 2.5 GPA, and has had previous gang affiliation.


The judge wouldn't treat either of them the same and neither should you.

lhslep134;391240 wrote:Okay, and my counter to that is with a zero tolerance policy in place, BOTH of them are equally stupid for breaking it, so both of them deserve to be kicked off the team.

It's not about the crime, it's about the concept of committing anything that violates a zero tolerance policy if the person committing the offense knew about the consequences.


In your example, you talk about a judge looking at cases subjectively based on previous information, whereas a zero tolerance policy doesn't care whether you're a 4.0 student or a 2.0 student, if you break the policy you're kicked off. If you don't think that's fair, then don't commit a damn crime, it's really not hard to do.

FatHobbit;391272 wrote:In LJ's example one of the kids made a simple mistake. There is a possibility that he can learn from it and go on to be a productive member of society. The other kid shows a pattern of making bad decisions and deserves a harsher punishment. Zero tolerance is a bad idea in that case. Have you never made a mistake? People (kids especially) make them all the time.

lhslep134;391285 wrote:I've made mistakes but I've never committed a crime.

FatHobbit;391290 wrote:Have you ever driven over the speed limit?

enigmaax;391406 wrote:I know you are referring to his direct quote about committing a crime, but that example is a good point of reference. When you speed, you are essentially saying that the gain from speeding is worth the risk of receiving the penalty. You know that if you get caught, you are going to have to pay and if you are okay with those consequences that is your decision.

In the same regard in the examples discussed here, a player knows that there is a zero tolerance policy on certain things. Whether it is drunk driving or stealing...whatever. The person who chooses to do those things is making a statement through actions that the gain from the crime is worth the risk of consequences. So when those consequences come down, it is a direct result of a conscious decision....not a "mistake".

enigmaax;391406 wrote:I know you are referring to his direct quote about committing a crime, but that example is a good point of reference. When you speed, you are essentially saying that the gain from speeding is worth the risk of receiving the penalty. You know that if you get caught, you are going to have to pay and if you are okay with those consequences that is your decision.

In the same regard in the examples discussed here, a player knows that there is a zero tolerance policy on certain things. Whether it is drunk driving or stealing...whatever. The person who chooses to do those things is making a statement through actions that the gain from the crime is worth the risk of consequences. So when those consequences come down, it is a direct result of a conscious decision....not a "mistake".

enigmaax;391406 wrote:I know you are referring to his direct quote about committing a crime, but that example is a good point of reference. When you speed, you are essentially saying that the gain from speeding is worth the risk of receiving the penalty. You know that if you get caught, you are going to have to pay and if you are okay with those consequences that is your decision.

In the same regard in the examples discussed here, a player knows that there is a zero tolerance policy on certain things. Whether it is drunk driving or stealing...whatever. The person who chooses to do those things is making a statement through actions that the gain from the crime is worth the risk of consequences. So when those consequences come down, it is a direct result of a conscious decision....not a "mistake".