This just in: Colorado and Oklahoma are not the same school

[unbiasedtruth]

IThe CU situation with Katoa is quite different, so claiming situational ethics is inappropriate. Katoa was already here, already on scholarship, and had to go through the judicial system and then deal with the University disciplinary process. At the end of the day, Katoa was suspended for what amounts to a year. If anything, Katoa got a much stiffer penalty.

so what you are saying, it was the school that dealt the punishement to Katoa (an sipilli too correct?) and not coach Hawkins and the football program. hmmmm interesting quite interesting.

so my question is what is Coach Hawkins asking of Sipilli above and beyond of what the school levied, or what is Sipilli taken upon himself above and beyond what the school levied to be able to return to CU football program?

As I stated this before, Sipilli's actions that caused the suspension are much the same of Dusty Dvoracek that Bob Stoops, not the school, removed from the football squad. And bear in mind it was Dvoracek's senior season he was suspended. So he had to apply to the NCAA for a 6th year of eligibility and one reason it was granted, one big reason, is Dvoracek showed he suffered from the disease of alcholism, in addition to attending anger and alcohol management clases on his own.

 

[unbiasedtruth]

You don't see any difference between high school kids and college kids? Because I certainly do.

young men between the ages of 18 and 21, naw not much differences at all when it comes to making stupid decisions at these ages. just some grow out of this quicker than others. on the flip side, we still have men well into their 40's 50's 60' and older making stupid decisions too. its all part of life. last time I checked no one person is perfect are they?

 

[unbiasedtruth]

I wouldn't want a displayed gun in a parking lot either... But to equate a gun in the back of your pickup truck with a concealed weapon is a bit of stretch.

why? both were on a high school campus. both were easily accessible.

 

[unbiasedtruth]

Leave the bunny and other critter loving to the fuskers, mmkay??

But when your hubby starts accusing me of saying things I never said (such as Katoa, Geer and Sipili being unfairly treated) then you are relieved of your wifely obligations to him, as he can go take on such duties himself, so far as I care. That is the distortion to which I refer, both when directed at me and others buff fans here who were accused of being hypocrites for suggesting that the punishment given the CU players would be equally appropriate at OU.

Like Syko, I am also done...

might ought to go back and read my post, I never pointed or called you out by name as being one, but used the term "most of the people on this board" (poor choice of words??) Now go back and read all the threads about Katoa and you will see a contingency of posters upset, not only upset with Katoa's actions, but speculation, that turned out for the most part to be true, of what his punishment should be. in addition there was quite a bit of sour grapes about the Boulder police not doing anything (apprehending) the fire starters who did the original taser thing to "another CU football(?) player"

 

[buff4bcs1985]

hey ubt you don't think there is anything wrong with someone with a gun on a high school campus is a positive contributor to any campus... i'm just asking not comparing and yes someone deserves a second chance... however people who have done less at other institutions have been released or expelled thats all im getting at

now im going to sleep peace oot all

 

[Darth Snow]

I count 4 posts in a row. What is the record/

 

[The Guest]

so what you are saying, it was the school that dealt the punishement to Katoa (an sipilli too correct?) and not coach Hawkins and the football program. hmmmm interesting quite interesting.

so my question is what is Coach Hawkins asking of Sipilli above and beyond of what the school levied, or what is Sipilli taken upon himself above and beyond what the school levied to be able to return to CU football program?

As I stated this before, Sipilli's actions that caused the suspension are much the same of Dusty Dvoracek that Bob Stoops, not the school, removed from the football squad. And bear in mind it was Dvoracek's senior season he was suspended. So he had to apply to the NCAA for a 6th year of eligibility and one reason it was granted, one big reason, is Dvoracek showed he suffered from the disease of alcholism, in addition to attending anger and alcohol management clases on his own.

This addresses a good point. What is the responsibility of the athletic department to represent the university, and at what point do--shall we say--less-biased decision-makers intervene when that image could potentiall be tarnished?

As a coach, Dan Hawkins susended Sipili and Katoa. In the case of Sipili, the suspension was for three games. Just before he played (fourth game of the season), the Judicial Affairs Committee took the next step, and wrestled the matter away from the athletic department. For Katoa, I don't believe the suspension was lifted before his fate was sealed due to inadequate credits to play ball in the Fall.

My frustration with Sipili's situation was the lack of communication between the athletic department and the other involved members. I felt the player was left high and dry (rock on Joe Elliot). If WE (tip o' the hat to the missus) all believe that the college athletic business is as much about building solid citizens as it is entertainment, community relations etc... then CU undermined its own objectives. If it wasn't for Coach Cabral, Michael Sipili might have become a disenchanted social casualty. It worked out okay, but in my opinion it could have been handled a lot better. To answer your question, yes, Coach Hawkins DID impose a penalty.

While dealing Katoa's situation, I feel the Judicial Affairs Committee and Athletic Department demonstrated better coordination. Again, Coach Hawkins suspended the player and then the school took the matter into its own hands.

Geer's case remains outstanding, but he is nonetheless suspended until it is resolved (somebody correct me if my facts our out of date--but I believe he pleaded "not guilty" to felony assault charges). But, just like Coach Stoops, Hawk does have a responsibility to advocate the student-athlete through the legal proceedings, unless irrefutable evidence emerges (this is my opinion, by the way) to suggest that the student was flat-out doing the wrong thing. It's also the Coach's responsibility to maintain standards (a coordinated system of "sticks" and "carrots" as we like to say in the strategy business). I believe Coach Hawkins will await the legal proceedings and then figure out a suspension if necessary OR the school will do it for him. Either way, the football team's responsibility to represent the institution will be addressed.

In all three cases, Coach Hawkins took action.

I'm not saying that Coach Stoops did anything illegal, I just feel he didn't represent his team and university as well as he could have (and I strongly suspect that if he was going to suspend the player, he would have made that decision and announced it prior to his press response--I don't buy into the "you don't know if he did or didn't" rhetoric).

Now, nothing necessarily HAS to be done. But maybe, the school feels that this very visible entity that represents them should reflect them more positively sometimes. Do other school organizations and policy-makers have a right to take action. At CU they did. But again, we're talking about a school who's president writes letters to the NCAA on behalf of the football team.

Does OU have an image problem that Coach Stoops perpetuated? A limited sampling of college football fans (just me, actually) answers that question with a resounding "yes". My perception of OU as "the evil empire of college football" dates back to my high school days in the mid-1980s. Nor does it have anything to do with a Big VIII affiliation...I actually grew up in PAC 10 territory. Am I right? Is OU's program dirtier than others? I don't know, I'm not informed enough one way or another, but my perception remains over 20 years later (okay, maybe that part can be blamed on a CU bias).

This entire strand has probably made a mountain out of the proverbial molehill. My personal, and irrelevant opinion is that Coach Stoops could have handled it better. It's not a big deal.

 

[ladyblaise]

Try being less of an apologist for stoops m'kay?

how about a compromise? it is thus noted that when you jump the gun and cry about the possibility that a naughty boy gets to play at another school, it generates mental inconvience to point out that you could be living in a glass house.

But when your hubby starts accusing me of saying things I never said (such as Katoa, Geer and Sipili being unfairly treated) then you are relieved of your wifely obligations to him, as he can go take on such duties himself, so far as I care.

then perhaps you might avoid lumping my name with his in your response, as i said nothing about "unfairly treated". good day to you sir.

 

[ladyblaise]

I count 4 posts in a row. What is the record/

your point being? YOURS is the standard for adding to the conversation? don't tell me you feel the need to be smarmy and expect silence in return?

 

[unbiasedtruth]

hey ubt you don't think there is anything wrong with someone with a gun on a high school campus is a positive contributor to any campus... i'm just asking not comparing and yes someone deserves a second chance... however people who have done less at other institutions have been released or expelled thats all im getting at

now im going to sleep peace oot all

speaking from experience, no not at all. Hardly a day went by, especially the little over 1 semester I attended Norman High my senior year that there was not some type of firearm in my truck and there was never a problem with it (not to mention my float tube and fishing gear). maybe times have changed since I was in high school, no wait times have changed and there is a different mentality towards guns at institutions of higher learning due to recent events. I can tell you this, Norman was a town of 25K and the universitiy's enrollment about 12-13k (now at 125k and 25k respectively) when I speak of the above, and a place where a kid could ride his bike carying a .22 rifle to the S. Canadian River bottom for a day of "plinking" and no one batted an eyelash. Today can that be done in Norman, probably yes, but there would be some explaining to do to the local police.

As I still hunt in several states and most of this time is spent in rural areas, I still see young men of high school age, during hunting seasons, with guns in their vehicles. maybe not so much openedly displayed but there. Heck when I spend a 7-10 days in south central Nebraska hunting and harvesting corn in November and you look inside th cab of my truck, more than likely you will find a couple of shotguns, 2-3 high powered rifles, counless boxes of ammunition (with some shells scattered about) and it looks like we could start a small war.

So see I have a different minset about all the whole gun deal and this kid. I don't even know if it was his own gun, was it loaded, was he "showing off (i.e. poor decision process on the kids part) as young men like to do at this age, was he inside a school building? or out on the campus? Did he threaten anyone? or make any other actions or threats of violence? I still have lots of questions about the whole situation.

Now my mindset on physical violence is different too I believe. I strongly feel that if one person commits an act of violence against another, whether it is with a fist, rock, baseball bat, knife, firearm or any other object that there is a need for very strict punishment. If the answer to my last 2 quesions from above are answered yes, (threats involved with the use of the gun) then by all means I would want him gone from the school for good. If the answer is no to the threats and yes to "showing off" and poor judgement, and that seems to be the case here, I feel the punishment he has received so far is more than fair and I will take a wait and see approach and see what "requirements" Bob Stoops puts on this young man once he is on campus and actually participate with the football team. (see my comments about Dvoracek and the wide receiver getting caught stealing gas) both missed a year of playing football for Oklahoma. something that is very overlooked here in this situation. and there are others where Stoops has leied similiar punishment.

 

[unbiasedtruth]

observations on this thread, and please dont try to insert your name "here" as this is not meant directly at one person or individual. when the incident with sipilli occurred, and a big thanks to the walrus (rep sent) for his above post, and more recently with Katoa, there was an outcry of "injustices" towards CU football players for their actions from people posting about both individual's actions, the poor decisions and actions they (S&K) made or took, to the handling of both situations by the Boulder police and university and so on, not by all, but in Sipilli's case quite a few posters, not so many with Katoa recently. now what I am reading here is that, whether its the same posters or not it really isnt important, that CU took the "high road" and all other schools need to follow CU's handling of their student/athletes. (and trust me I know that this was said in the other threads too) Sorry thats never going to happen in todays CFB world. (I think Skid and LT already alluded to this) Think about it this way, just as people here talk about how CU handled both incidents, and their high moral ground, there somewhere in the CFB world is an incident similiar in nature to the recent incidents at CU that CU's actions pale in comparision to what actions this other school did to that student/athlete. Heck even right now it the point could be made to Dvoracek's problem at OU and say they were handled in a way that is far more serious than what Sipilli's were because it was after the season had started, he was booted from the team his senior year and it was going to adversely effect his position in the NFL draft and his future financial situation of earning a paycheck in the NFL. heck he may not have even been drafted. Sipilli was merely suspended origninally for 3-4 games until the university stepped in. will this be the same case with Sipilli in the NFL, who knows, if I did I would much rather spend my time knowing the future and picking those 6 winning numbers, or knowing what card is going to be turned next in a blackjack or poker game, but I do know what Stoops did kicking a sure 1st round pick DT off the team his senior year was pretty darn serious consequences for his actions. and like I stated before I am sure, out there in the CFB world, Stoops actions with Dvoracek pale in comparision to what another school and coach levied against one of their student/athletes.

 

[sackman]

That's why they are good at football.

A few months ago I was listening to ESPN radio. Colin Cowherd said it best: You can't win in sports when you have a bunch of do-goodies, liberal hippies running your campus. He specifically pointed out Cal and Colorado, who have the ability to to be great, but just aren't anymore... It's true, let's face it... A lot of great athletes do stupid !t from time to time, and CU just won't have any of it...

I'm THIS close to neg repping you for quoting Colin Cowherd.

Don't ever quote Colin Cowherd on this board ever again. He is dumber than Jim Rome, and that's saying something.

 

[absinthe]

I'm THIS close to neg repping you for quoting Colin Cowherd.

Don't ever quote Colin Cowherd on this board ever again. He is dumber than Jim Rome, and that's saying something.

I should neg rep you twice for once for not calling him colin cow-turd and once for a romey reference.

 

[RalphieMalph]

why? both were on a high school campus. both were easily accessible.

I don't know about the other folks on here, but to me it would seem logical that it would take SLIGHTLY longer to walk out to a parking lot and unlock a car to retrieve a rifle from it than it would take to reach into a backpack that a young man/woman is walking around with every second of the day and pull out a handgun.

Also, it should probably be noted that in the "gun in a truck" model the firearm wielding 16-18 year old would be standing outside of the school in the parking lot once he retrieved his weapon, whereas in the "gun in a backpack" scenario the kid would instantly be holding the gun in the middle of the school, quite probably surrounded by hundreds of teenagers.

 

[Mick Ronson]

given the situations we've had in schools--both high schools and universities--with guns and shootings in the last few years....i'd say it's a different situation that requires more careful attention from administrators and law enforcement.

i get the shotgun in the back of the truck thing. that's most of my family when i was growing up. but, sadly, it's a different situation today.

 

[Junction]

Hey its ok, I understand Junc, everything that happens to CU and their players is an injustice to not only the person, but the school, according to most here on this board. To all other schools and players it is also regarded here they, the players and schools had it coming and the penalties are not near severe enough.

might ought to go back and read my post, I never pointed or called you out by name as being one, but used the term "most of the people on this board" (poor choice of words??)

If you weren't calling me out by name, perhaps you shouldn't drop my name in between "I understand" and "everything that happens to CU and their players is an injustice". Most certainly the impression your post gave, and most certainly not what I said, although I do think there is an undeniable problem in Boulder in that the law enforcement and prosecutorial functions do seem to be all too ready to assign all blame and all responsibility to the football players. This does not mean they do not deserve the suspensions they receive, but that others also deserve to be punished. I think that is the biggest frustration CU fans have. Which is not in any way incompatible with saying that OU might want to take some action against somebody who has plead guilty to a crime, as CU has already done.

If I'm reading you wrong, and you were really calling out Juncman, Juncmark, Juncarino, JuncdemBuffs, Junc Pain (oooh, bad handle!), Junc Chairbanks, Junc Malph, Junc Ronson, Junchattan Beach Buff, Junc4bcs1985, JuncSkye, Juncthe, The Juncrus, Juncleash Hell or somebody else other than myself, then I apologize for misunderstanding your post... :lol:

 

[RalphieMalph]

Juncleash Hell... I like that one :lol:

 

[Junction]

AWESOME buff brothers! So what you are saying is that there should be two standards: one that we use for ourselves when our kids run afoul of the law, and another for everyone else. With the latter being held to a stronger moral compass. I applaud your ability to engage in situational ethics. :woot:

After all, it is FAR worse to pack heat and do absolutely nothing with it (except get caught) than to allegedly tresspass with a rock in hand. Or to smash someone else's face to a needed reconstruction. Right? Toting a gun is intrinsically FAR more violent.

then perhaps you might avoid lumping my name with his in your response, as i said nothing about "unfairly treated". good day to you sir.

I never said your particular excesses in terms of twisting the words of the buff fans here involved UBT's statement about most of us feeling the buffs are unfairly treated.

I'll tell you what, if you will identify for me who actually made the statements you presented in the first post quoted here, you may consider yourself unlumped, with my most profound apologies. Please accept my wishes for a most enchanted evening, ma'am...

 

[Junction]

Juncleash Hell... I like that one :lol:

It beats the hell out of Junc Pain. But then, what doesn't?? :wow:

 

[ladyblaise]

Oh who am I kidding? The administration at CU would have handled a situation like this EXACTLY the same as the fine folks in Norman did...

what a ****ing joke. Way to go OU !

I'll tell you what, if you will identify for me who actually made the statements you presented in the first post quoted here, you may consider yourself unlumped, with my most profound apologies. Please accept my wishes for a most enchanted evening, ma'am...

to me, that smacks of hypocrisy.

 

[87toInfinity]

last time I checked no one person is perfect are they?

:nod::wave:

 

[Junction]

to me, that smacks of hypocrisy.

And that whole first statement of yours was just about "smacking of hypocrisy"? Somehow, on the way to "smacks of hypocrisy", you had need to swing by "it is FAR worse to pack heat...than to trespass with a rock in hand. Or to smash someone else's face to a needed reconstruction.", not to mention "toting a gun is intrinsically FAR more violent" and "So what you are saying is that there should be two standards: one that we use for ourselves when our kids run afoul of the law, and another for everyone else." All that just to say "that smacks of hypocrisy??" Damn, and they say I can't get to the point.... :lol:

Leaving aside the fact that what Malph and Chippy said, in and of itself, is in NO way hypocritical, but is simply an expression of opinion with which you do not happen to agree, are you really sure that your response didn't distort what had been said by the buff fans just a teensy little bit???

 

[ladyblaise]

Leaving aside the fact that what Malph and Chippy said, in and of itself, is in NO way hypocritical, but is simply an expression of opinion with which you do not happen to agree, are you really sure that your response didn't distort what had been said by the buff fans just a teensy little bit???

no, junk, it is rather hypocritical. that is my opinion of which you do not have to agree.

my statement, by itself is not in itself a distortion. it is what actually happened on or near campus - or so the reports indicate. unless you can dazzle me with your wit to the contrary?

 

[Junction]

no, junk, it is rather hypocritical. that is my opinion of which you do not have to agree.

my statement, by itself is not in itself a distortion. it is what actually happened on or near campus - or so the reports indicate. unless you can dazzle me with your wit to the contrary?

I'm sorry. I guess I missed the report indicating that Allbuffs posters, on or near campus, actually said that carrying a gun was worse than those things. And I obviously am simply not able to detect the hypocrisy in the statement "What a ****ing joke. Way to go OU!" As always, I was a fool to question you. I guess my aversion to seeing buff players being portrayed in a negative light in order to defend players from other programs and to seeing buff fans being put down on a buff board caused my judgement to be temporarily impaired. I beg your forgiveness.

 

[ladyblaise]

I'm sorry. I guess I missed the report indicating that Allbuffs posters, on or near campus, actually said that carrying a gun was worse than those things. And I obviously am simply not able to detect the hypocrisy in the statement "What a ****ing joke. Way to go OU!" As always, I was a fool to question you. I guess my aversion to seeing buff players being portrayed in a negative light in order to defend players from other programs and to seeing buff fans being put down on a buff board caused my judgement to be temporarily impaired. I beg your forgiveness.

clearly, junk, you are not seeking forgiveness, but rather to have your lammiehole smooched.

i am disinclined to acquiesce to your wish. nor am i going to be cowed by your appeal to school loyalty in this. it is another pathetic attempt to cloud a very simple concept: we buff fans have no room whatsoever to act as if our program is devoid of wrongdoing. nor can we act as if Hawkins is the only one to have his hand in meting out punishments for our players who have made a mistake. the school clearly stepped in to help extend matters in one instance. we are in no position to chunk rocks, as we are not perfect.

to act otherwise is hypocritical - or not, if you want to sound fuskeresque. your choice.

 

[OUBuff]

one problem, this incident happened at his high school where he still attending high school, not in Norman at the university. He hadn't enrolled as a student at the university and wasn't attending football releated activities for the university at the time this incident occured. All Stoops has done was still honor the university's commitment to the young and his scholarship offer. The school is still taking a chance on him as a student and player.

This does not make me proud of my alma mater. I think it would have been in OU's best interest to cut its losses. A decision like this actually puts OU football at risk, CU fans should be happy OU made such a poor decision. Sure, let the kid come to school, but wait a year before honoring the scholarship... it that is even possible.

 

[chipwich]

to me, that smacks of hypocrisy.

Sorry but you are wrong. My statement was not hypocritical.

When I read that a kid is EXPELLED from high school it is hard for me to fathom that a scholorship would be waiting for said person (athletic or academic).

 

[The Monk]

agreed. i did not read anywhere in his quote that he got off scott-free. did you?

Yes, it reads pretty simply.

some may prefer to shoot the messenger first and ask questions later. some prefer to put the cart before the horse. some assume that OU owes them an explanation NOW.

If you make a statement on a situation that doesn't state that there will be a decision or action later, the words and actions of the original statement have the weight of an "explanation now." And simply, everything said, pointed to no repercussions and that he had as much chance as anyone for a position this fall. There's a chance Stoops is an incredibly horrible speaker, but can you find a corollary where stoops was so lenient with his words after the facts and verdicts were out and then punished his player contrarily to his words?

 

[Junction]

clearly, junk, you are not seeking forgiveness, but rather to have your lammiehole smooched.

i am disinclined to acquiesce to your wish. nor am i going to be cowed by your appeal to school loyalty in this. it is another pathetic attempt to cloud a very simple concept: we buff fans have no room whatsoever to act as if our program is devoid of wrongdoing. nor can we act as if Hawkins is the only one to have his hand in meting out punishments for our players who have made a mistake. the school clearly stepped in to help extend matters in one instance. we are in no position to chunk rocks, as we are not perfect.

to act otherwise is hypocritical - or not, if you want to sound fuskeresque. your choice.

You are more than welcome to smooch my buffhole, but I assure you that is not what I seek from you.

I agree with you that Buff fans have no room to act as if the CU program is devoid of wrongdoing. Just a hunch, but I think that is why nobody is acting in such a way.

I will not argue with you that the school extended the Sipili suspension from 3 or 4 games to a season. You would have a point in making that comparison if we were complaining that a 3 or 4 game suspension imposed by Stoops in this case were inadequate. However, unless

We expect to have Josh on our roster this fall

is Stoops' way of saying that he will not be playing this season, or

"We feel that he will be a positive contributor to our campus," Stoops said

is generally a harbinger of disciplinary action to come from him, I find it unlikely that the current situation will unfold in that matter. If it does, I will admit I am wrong. But I will also say that Stoops really needs to learn a better method of expressing his intent.

 

[ladyblaise]

Sorry but you are wrong. My statement was not hypocritical.

When I read that a kid is EXPELLED from high school it is hard for me to fathom that a scholorship would be waiting for said person (athletic or academic).

well chips, i recall a situation once where a 11 year old boy was expelled from a school where i worked for bringing a knife with a blade over a certain length to school.

he was not the genius behind the incident - he was the deliveryboy, out to impress another whose friendship he really wanted. kids make stupid mistakes. there was no room in the state rules to modify the punishment to a suspension.

this year i have seen mandatory placements for students at my program over similar situations.

chips, when you act as if nothing smelly has gone on in boulder to the point that you are going to be one of the first two to throw a stone; many would call that hypocritical. some on this board want to explain away the hypocricy. that is called engaging in situational ethics.

its wrong when we do it; its equally wrong when they do it. i am not going to be an ass and act like it is rosy when we do it, but an opportunity for mockery when others do it - THAT is my position.

I agree with you that Buff fans have no room to act as if the CU program is devoid of wrongdoing. Just a hunch, but I think that is why nobody is acting in such a way.

:lol: sure, whatever you say professor. they are mocking what happened on another campus out of altruism, right?