BYU/St. Mary's

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SCalScoreKeeper

That is absolutely disgraceful! If I am a BYU administrator the entire student section is abolished for 5 home games to send a message unless the culprit comes forward.If the culprit comes forward he/she needs to be banned for the rest of the season and quite possibly expelled.

No, they are into banning players from teams because they had sexual intercourse with their girlfriend. They have bigger fish to fry.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No, they are into banning players from teams because they had sexual intercourse with their girlfriend. They have bigger fish to fry.

Peace

Or because they drank a cup of coffee.

[Kelvin green]

Be careful where this thread goes. I am not a BYU fan and many of their fans are nuts but dont attack beliefs.

You may not like hem but dont need to ridicule or make fun of them as that directly does attack some of us on the board

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

Be careful where this thread goes. I am not a BYU fan and many of their fans are nuts but dont attack beliefs.

You may not like hem but dont need to ridicule or make fun of them as that directly does attack some of us on the board

Don't be so sensitive. I am not attacking beliefs, but their policy. There are other religious institutions that hold another set of beliefs and they have not been known to suspend players for religious violations that other institutions seem to never penalize players for. That also being said BYU has been accused to be selective as to who they penalize. ESPN did a story on this last season and had many former players comment on the selectivity of those policy actions. This would be no different if another religious of another faith getting the same crap. The problem is maybe maybe there are some putting too much responsibility for their beliefs on one institution.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Don't be so sensitive. I am not attacking beliefs, but their policy. There are other religious institutions that hold another set of beliefs and they have not been known to suspend players for religious violations that other institutions seem to never penalize players for. That also being said BYU has been accused to be selective as to who they penalize. ESPN did a story on this last season and had many former players comment on the selectivity of those policy actions. This would be no different if another religious of another faith getting the same crap. The problem is maybe maybe there are some putting too much responsibility for their beliefs on one institution.

Peace

I'm with Rut here -- BYU has been hypocritical and selective on applying penalties for those beliefs and it's the institution I'm mocking, not the beliefs. I'm happy to let people have their beliefs and their rules, but then those rules should be applied across the board, not when they want to use them as an excuse to get rid of an "undesirable" player.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I'm with Rut here -- BYU has been hypocritical and selective on applying penalties for those beliefs and it's the institution I'm mocking, not the beliefs. I'm happy to let people have their beliefs and their rules, but then those rules should be applied across the board, not when they want to use them as an excuse to get rid of an "undesirable" player.

What in the world are you talking about? Davies wasn't an "undesirable" player. He was a significant part of the BYU defense last year. If BYU wanted to do what was best for the team, they would have found a way to skirt the issue.

The fact is that the rule of receiving a suspension for having sex with your girlfriend was applied the same as it is "across the board" in that case. I know plenty of people who have gone to BYU, and it's SOP to get at least a suspension for doing what Davies did.

So I'm not really sure where I see the inconsistency...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

What in the world are you talking about? Davies wasn't an "undesirable" player. He was a significant part of the BYU defense last year. If BYU wanted to do what was best for the team, they would have found a way to skirt the issue.

The fact is that the rule of receiving a suspension for having sex with your girlfriend was applied the same as it is "across the board" in that case. I know plenty of people who have gone to BYU, and it's SOP to get at least a suspension for doing what Davies did.

So I'm not really sure where I see the inconsistency...

You obviously did not see the ESPN Story on this topic as they did question the validity of the policy and the consistency of the policy. They even had claims of players not being penalized that were likely violating that policy. It was a little more than hearsay, there were people that were found out to have violated the policy and not suspended. I was not there or have no idea personally what was done or not done, but this was a little more than Deadspin making these claims.

Peace

[Adam]

Their policy is based on the conviction of their beliefs; so you'd feel better if they weren't so strict with their beliefs?

You can disagree with it, and you certainly have the right to ridicule it, but I think it's silly to do so. As a Hawkeye fan, I remember the Pierre Pierce debacle, so I found BYU's stance refreshing, even if I thought it was a bit heavy handed.

They not only have the right to enforce their policy, they have the right to consider whatever mitigating circumstances they choose to allow. Some expose by ESPN doesn't change that.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Their policy is based on the conviction of their beliefs; so you'd feel better if they weren't so strict with their beliefs?

You can disagree with it, and you certainly have the right to ridicule it, but I think it's silly to do so. As a Hawkeye fan, I remember the Pierre Pierce debacle, so I found BYU's stance refreshing, even if I thought it was a bit heavy handed.

They not only have the right to enforce their policy, they have the right to consider whatever mitigating circumstances they choose to allow. Some expose by ESPN doesn't change that.

Quite frankly, I have a problem with an honor code when it's pretty obvious to me that Brandon Davies probably wouldn't have been suspended had he not been an African American. Being a clean cut Caucasian must be a mitigating circumstance.

Yes, I'm quoting Deadspin. But the editorial written has some pretty appalling statistics.

Originally Posted by Deadspin

The reality isn't so appealing. While it's impossible to know how many students disobey BYU's honor code, which prohibits fornication and alcohol use, among other things, the honor code violations that come to light almost always involve student-athletes. And they almost always involve athletes of color. Since 1993, according to our research, at least 70 athletes have been suspended, dismissed, put on probation, or forced to withdraw from their teams or the school after running afoul of the honor code. Fifty-four of them, or nearly 80 percent, are minorities. Forty-one, or almost 60 percent, are black men. These are conservative numbers, compiled from media reports and interviews. In several cases, we could not confirm an honor code violation. In other cases, we could not establish the race or ethnicity of the athlete involved. We excluded those cases from our tally.

Clearly, though, something is amiss at BYU, where around 23 percent of the athletes are minorities, according to the university. Only .6 percent of the student body is black (176 out of the 32,947 students enrolled in 2010). Yet a majority of the honor code violations involve black athletes. Do these numbers mean these athletes "sin" more than everyone else? Hardly. Several former BYU football players told us that their white teammates routinely broke the honor code and got away with it, either because they didn't get caught or because their violations were covered up. (To a lesser extent, this holds true for Polynesian athletes, 14 of whom are included in our honor code tally. More on that later.) Mormon athletes can turn to bishops and church leaders from their own homogeneous communities — people who look like them and might even be related to them — to "repent" and avoid official punishment. Black athletes, who are typically non-Mormon, rarely have this option.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

when it's pretty obvious to me that Brandon Davies probably wouldn't have been suspended had he not been an African American. Being a clean cut Caucasian must be a mitigating circumstance.

Yes, I'm quoting Deadspin. But the editorial written has some pretty appalling statistics.

Yes, you're quoting Deadspin. Let's all remember that.

The question is, what basis does Deadspin have for saying "a majority of Honor Code violations involve black athletes"?

There's no way to know that, because BYU doesn't release that kind of information. It's not common practice for the school to publicly release who has or has not received an Honor Code violation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Their policy is based on the conviction of their beliefs; so you'd feel better if they weren't so strict with their beliefs?

You can disagree with it, and you certainly have the right to ridicule it, but I think it's silly to do so. As a Hawkeye fan, I remember the Pierre Pierce debacle, so I found BYU's stance refreshing, even if I thought it was a bit heavy handed.

They not only have the right to enforce their policy, they have the right to consider whatever mitigating circumstances they choose to allow. Some expose by ESPN doesn't change that.

I do not want to get too deep into this because this has many layers. But this not about a comparison with a guy that was accused of rape and a guy that was accused to having a situation with a person of the opposite sex. BTW, that Pierre Pierce situation was kind of close to home as that young man lived a town or two over and I know someone personally that played basketball on the girl's side at that school at the same time he was there. She new him personally and how dumb he was.

Let us keep this all in mind about BYU, a person like Jim Mcmahon was a star at that school and I do not know of him adhering to rules based on his own comments. And when you have former players saying they were penalized and others were not penalized, that is a problem. And based on the inference I would not know why anyone would want to go there in the first place. Remember there are other religious colleges that do not have these accusations or at least not with their athletes and in a public way. If you want to believe in something that is fine, but people can look at the institution's policies just like they do with other organizations and be critical. And I doubt seriously they are going kick out a person for throwing something on a court and acting out publicly as to me that would be worse than a personal interaction that unless you had cameras you would not always know took place.

Peace

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Their policy is based on the conviction of their beliefs; so you'd feel better if they weren't so strict with their beliefs?

You can disagree with it, and you certainly have the right to ridicule it, but I think it's silly to do so. As a Hawkeye fan, I remember the Pierre Pierce debacle, so I found BYU's stance refreshing, even if I thought it was a bit heavy handed.

They not only have the right to enforce their policy, they have the right to consider whatever mitigating circumstances they choose to allow. Some expose by ESPN doesn't change that.

I don't think it's silly in the least to criticize a policy that is enforced in a discirminatory manner, as appears to be the case at BYU. And that's based on more than "some expose by ESPN."

In fact, I don't even think it's silly to ridicule some of the beliefs of Mormonism or any other organized religion once one learns more about the true origins of them. And that is not an "attack" on anyone, rather a simple opinion. I'll leave it at that in recongition of time and place for that conversation.

What I do think is incredibly silly is alluding to a comparison between someone who was convicted of multiple felonies, including attempt to commit sexual abuse and another person who had consentual sex with their girlfriend. Beyond silly.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I don't think it's silly in the least to criticize a policy that is enforced in a discirminatory manner, as appears to be the case at BYU. And that's based on more than "some expose by ESPN."

In fact, I don't even think it's silly to ridicule some of the beliefs of Mormonism or any other organized religion once one learns more about the true origins of them. And that is not an "attack" on anyone, rather a simple opinion. I'll leave it at that in recongition of time and place for that conversation.

What I do think is incredibly silly is alluding to a comparison between someone who was convicted of multiple felonies, including attempt to commit sexual abuse and another person who had consentual sex with their girlfriend. Beyond silly.

I'll admit the comparison was a stretch, but my point still stands. One university standing up for their principles vs another that did not. I personally disagree with the BYU policy, and if their enforcement has been demonstrably sketchy, that's a different issue altogether.

And comparing the recent enforcement to McMahon 30 years ago is also not applicable, IMO, as there's just no way you can hold current administrators responsible for infractions ignored by the people running it 30 years ago.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I don't think it's silly in the least to criticize a policy that is enforced in a discirminatory manner, as appears to be the case at BYU. And that's based on more than "some expose by ESPN."

Just because there were people 25 years ago that didn't get suspended, when different people were in charge, doesn't mean it is discriminatory. All it means is that the current leaders are enforcing it and the old ones didn't. Inconsistent over time, sure...but not discriminatory.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

In fact, I don't even think it's silly to ridicule some of the beliefs of Mormonism or any other organized religion once one learns more about the true origins of them. And that is not an "attack" on anyone, rather a simple opinion. I'll leave it at that in recongition of time and place for that conversation.

I think mocking someone else's religious beliefs is silly, no matter how outlandish you may think they are. If you want to disagree with someone, that's just fine when you do it in a mature way.

But to ridicule (mock and deride) the beliefs that someone else has is immature and petty, and it only leads to becoming more insular and less accepting of people who don't share the same beliefs.

Do I always practice this? No. I'm not perfect. But I wish I was better at it, because I know I don't appreciate my beliefs being ridiculed, and I'm sure you don't either.