Political Correctness And Player Discipline

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

Again, strictly on slapping Miller (because there is zero evidence of a choke), what is the actual physical harm?

You don't think there is harm when 104 of your friends and coworkers see you getting bitch slapped?

You are taking a strict definition of the the word harm -- meaning physical damage.

I can't believe this is a real response. I don't even know where to start -- since obviously even a "well thought out" response is off the mark.

[UNT90]

You don't think there is harm when 104 of your friends and coworkers see you getting bitch slapped?

You are taking a strict definition of the the word harm -- meaning physical damage.

Finally! Someone willing to admit that, yes, hurting someone's feelings in a coach/player relationship is cause for termination.

Thank You for your honesty, we just disagree.

It is a legal definition of harm, not mine that is the problem.

Edited October 27, 2010 by UNT90

[UNT90]

What actual harm was incurred? How do you define harm? Was he physically injured? I don't really know, but I doubt it. Did it emabarass, humiliate or hurt his feelings? Probably, but that isn't what defines the issue.

If there is no harm, this is exactly what defines the issue. It goes to this society putting more emphasis on a person's feelings than a person's physical well being.

This from a group of people who are fine having students risk injury for their personal enjoyment.

As an example, look at 2 stories that recently dominated the local news from both sides of the political spectrum. A trans-gendered student who wanted to run for homecoming queen and a group of war veterans not being allowed to dine in a dallas restaurant because they didn't meet the published, posted dress code.

What was the harm (Hell, or even news, for that matter) incurred by either of these parties? There freaking feelings were hurt.

Too bad. It happens. Move on. Grow a pair.

[VideoEagle]

Too bad. It happens. Move on. Grow a pair.

Good luck with that. Hope you have a time machine that can take you back before the Renaissance since that is when hurting feelings first started to be considered abuse!

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

Finally! Someone willing to admit that, yes, hurting someone's feelings in a coach/player relationship is cause for termination.

Thank You for your honesty, we just disagree.

It is a legal definition of harm, not mine that is the problem.

I will slap you when I see you, since we disagree. That is how adults act when they disagree.

BTW -- that isn't the "legal definition" of harm. I think you know that. You are just sticking to your illogical guns.

Edited October 27, 2010 by SteaminWillieBeamin

[UNT90]

I will slap you when I see you, since we disagree. That is how adults act when they disagree.

BTW -- that isn't the "legal definition" of harm. I think you know that. You are just sticking to your illogical guns.

Please tell me that you are a good looking, late 30s blond female? If I'm gonna get slapped, I want to enjoy it.

Oh, and by the way, you are not my coach, I am not your player, and it's isn't done as a matter of discipline in a coach/player relationship, so it is a little different. Even so, I promise that I won't try to get you fired from your job and threaten to sue you.

Now, I may slap you back. Unless you are a the above mentioned blond.

[UNT90]

Good luck with that. Hope you have a time machine that can take you back before the Renaissance since that is when hurting feelings first started to be considered abuse!

Really?

It isn't considered criminal abuse today.

[Shuke-D]

And there it is.

[UNT90]

And there it is.

Actually, you are about 3 pages too late.

[FirefightnRick]

The two dozen or so witnesses who say it did happen were in the room.

TWO DOZEN? You mean TWO, right?

Per your own link to the Leavitt Documents, page 13:

The Student Athletes whose names were provided by Student Athlete A (Student

Athletes B, C, D, E, and H) were interviewed. Two of the five Student Athletes, Student

Athletes B and C, had seen the entire event and described it as involving Coach Leavitt grabbing

Student Athlete A by the throat with one hand and “slapping” or “striking” Student Athlete A’s

face with his other hand.

There may be however TWO DOZEN who say it didn't happen that way or that they didn't see it at all.

There are so many twists and turns in the original players story it's almost sad. Per the report:

In his second interview, Student Athlete A was almost combative and very agitated. Told

of the testimony of other Student Athletes with whom he spoke about the incident, he denied telling them what they reported to the reviewers, saying that in fact it was these other Student Athletes who were telling Student Athlete A what he should feel.

Rick

Edited October 27, 2010 by FirefightnRick

[UNTLifer]

If there is no harm, this is exactly what defines the issue. It goes to this society putting more emphasis on a person's feelings than a person's physical well being.

This from a group of people who are fine having students risk injury for their personal enjoyment.

As an example, look at 2 stories that recently dominated the local news from both sides of the political spectrum. A trans-gendered student who wanted to run for homecoming queen and a group of war veterans not being allowed to dine in a dallas restaurant because they didn't meet the published, posted dress code.

What was the harm (Hell, or even news, for that matter) incurred by either of these parties? There freaking feelings were hurt.

Too bad. It happens. Move on. Grow a pair.

What defines this issue is, as a person in a position of authority (coach), Levitt crossed the line when he grabbed a person in a position beneath him (player) by the neck and slapped him. That is crossing the line and is not acceptable. Did it cause physical harm? I don't know, but that is not the point. The point is the action he allegedly chose to take in dealing with this player is unacceptable.

Again, the player assumes the risk of personal injury by playing the game when he decides to pursue football. That is different from being grabbed by the neck and slapped by a coach. This arguement of your's doesn't hold water.

[UNT90]

What defines this issue is, as a person in a position of authority (coach), Levitt crossed the line when he grabbed a person in a position beneath him (player) by the neck and slapped him. That is crossing the line and is not acceptable. Did it cause physical harm? I don't know, but that is not the point. The point is the action he allegedly chose to take in dealing with this player is unacceptable.

Again, the player assumes the risk of personal injury by playing the game when he decides to pursue football. That is different from being grabbed by the neck and slapped by a coach. This arguement of your's doesn't hold water.

Because you don't want it to, otherwise you would be partially responsible for sending these kids out there to get injured. Which, in the end, is more dangerous to a college football player: a slap to the face or taking the football field to compete in a game. Hell, which is more painful, a slap to the face or a hard, clean tackle? But lord forbid the feelings of the player get hurt, right?

As far as the whole "position of authority." They are in a position of authority in a violent game where players are encouraged to be as physical as possible with the other players. Again, I got my but busted in school if I got sent to the principles office. This still goes on in some school districts today. Is that assault? No.

[UNTLifer]

Didn't say it was assault. My point all along is that Levitt's alleged actions are inappropriate of a coach.

How am are partially responsible for a kid choosing to play football? Again, this part of your statement doesn't hold water regardless of if I want it to or not.

[wardly]

Just keep in mind that even though it's fun to go back and forth with him your also arguing with someone that doesn't give a rats ass about North Texas, doesn't go to games, doesn't buy season tickets, doesn't donate to the stadium and more than likely won't ever do any of the above. If Leavitt comes and does great, then good the Fake may bless us with his presence on the board a few more times. If Tommy Tuberville LIGHT, aka Jeff Bower comes and gets eaten alive in recruiting by June Jones and Gary Patterson, then that will be fine also.

Rick

i would like to think that we recruit the same level of players as tcu, or even smu, but the truth is we don't. outside of running back, i don't know of any position that our starters could get playing time. truth is that we havn't recruited at their level in recent memory, and regardless of who new coach is, i don't see any inroads being made into tcu's back yard, and probably not much into smu as well. we need to start by getting best of the rest, and then moving up the food chain. just an opinion.

[FirefightnRick]

truth is that we havn't recruited at their level in recent memory, .

Wow,you can't remember from 5 to 8 years back?

So Fitzgerald or Chapman or Vizza or Riley to name a few couldn't play for Tcu? Amazing!

Rick

Edited October 27, 2010 by FirefightnRick

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

TWO DOZEN? You mean TWO, right?

No, I mean about two dozen. The report specifically lists 20 players and mentions a 21st. The non-student athlete witness list includes nine others, including five coaches...both Leavitt and Mike Canales were interviewed.

And, each of the 21 student athletes, plus the nine coaches and others, will be be called to testify if Leavitt's attorney keeps pushing. It will be a mistake to do so; but, plaintiffs attorneys rarely let common sense stand in the way of making a buck.

He could have had Leavitt out of the situation already. He doesn't.

It's too bad he choked and hit the kid, too, with all of the current and soon-to-be job openings. If his attorney had settled and gotten him out, he'd be up for many of them.

[greenminer]

This forum has become ridiculous. Run, don't walk, to the basketball forum for enjoyable debate and inner peace.

There is a soccer team doing quite well, too.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Didn't say it was assault. My point all along is that Levitt's alleged actions are inappropriate of a coach.

How am are partially responsible for a kid choosing to play football? Again, this part of your statement doesn't hold water regardless of if I want it to or not.

It was an assault. And, his actions were inappropriate. In fact, if before the statute of limitation runs Miller decides to pursue the case criminally, the charge of battery would also be included. There is no scenario under which either are acceptable.

If our only two choices in the world were player-choking and hitting Jim Leavitt and Todd Dodge, I'd hope we'd choose Todd Dodge again.

Not only has Jim Leavitt shown that he cannot control his temper around kids thirty-five of so years younger than himself, he's also shown that he doesn't have the grace to admit his wrongdoing, man up, and move on.

Leavitt will be 54 years old in December. He's old enough to know right from wrong; he simply uses a plaintiffs attorney to sidestep doing what's right.

Fortunately for us, the universe of potential head coaches contains more bodies than just Leavitt and Dodge. Therefore, we can hire a coach who can control his emotions and win football games.

Edited October 27, 2010 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[UNT90]

How am are partially responsible for a kid choosing to play football? Again, this part of your statement doesn't hold water regardless of if I want it to or not.

Well, you are a member of the MGC, right? So you fund the players scholarship. Right? And a lot of these players are of a lesser social class that couldn't afford college without a scholarship, right? So you ( and I, by the way) are telling these young men that they have to risk their health for our pleasure if they wish a higher education, no?

A decision these kids make at the ripe old wise age of 18.

But Lord are we offended by a slap in the face.

[wardly]

Wow,you can't remember from 5 to 8 years back?

So Fitzgerald or Chapman or Vizza or Riley to name a few couldn't play for Tcu? Amazing!

Rick

rick,love you,but if you can name them then there aren't enough to talk about. rilley couldn't stay healthy enough to play in the belt, vizza's teams won 2 or 3 games. point is i don't remember the last time we got a recruite that either of them wanted. i appreciate your passion for our football program, but feel that sometimes smoke gets in you eyes [pun intented] when it comes to evaluating our team and talent. we are the worst of the worst, and what a new stadium does is level the recruiting playing field.hopefully our new coach, whoever he is ,will be able to make inroads into the area's rich recruiting market, and you will be able to say "i told you so". until then, i hope we can agree that our new head coach will have his work cut out for him, and wish him well.

[TIgreen01]

rick,love you,but if you can name them then there aren't enough to talk about. rilley couldn't stay healthy enough to play in the belt, vizza's teams won 2 or 3 games. point is i don't remember the last time we got a recruite that either of them wanted. i appreciate your passion for our football program, but feel that sometimes smoke gets in you eyes [pun intented] when it comes to evaluating our team and talent. we are the worst of the worst, and what a new stadium does is level the recruiting playing field.hopefully our new coach, whoever he is ,will be able to make inroads into the area's rich recruiting market, and you will be able to say "i told you so". until then, i hope we can agree that our new head coach will have his work cut out for him, and wish him well.

I'd agree with this, but I don't see the new stadium completely leveling the playing field. We're simply taking a perennial negative out of the equation...so that June Jones and Gary Patterson can't just point at Fouts and mock us.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

rick,love you,but if you can name them then there aren't enough to talk about. rilley couldn't stay healthy enough to play in the belt, vizza's teams won 2 or 3 games. point is i don't remember the last time we got a recruite that either of them wanted. i appreciate your passion for our football program, but feel that sometimes smoke gets in you eyes [pun intented] when it comes to evaluating our team and talent. we are the worst of the worst, and what a new stadium does is level the recruiting playing field.hopefully our new coach, whoever he is ,will be able to make inroads into the area's rich recruiting market, and you will be able to say "i told you so". until then, i hope we can agree that our new head coach will have his work cut out for him, and wish him well.

I thought TCU was in on DaWaylon Cook.

[UNTLifer]

Well, you are a member of the MGC, right? So you fund the players scholarship. Right? And a lot of these players are of a lesser social class that couldn't afford college without a scholarship, right? So you ( and I, by the way) are telling these young men that they have to risk their health for our pleasure if they wish a higher education, no?

A decision these kids make at the ripe old wise age of 18.

But Lord are we offended by a slap in the face.

You're a politician, right? This is the most twisted sense of logic I've seen in a long time. Let me get this straight. By funding scholarships we "are telling these young men that they have to risk their health for our pleasure if they wish a higher education, no?" No, we are not telling them that at all. By funding scholarships, the MGC provides the athletic department with the funds to offset the cost of scholarships. These scholarships are offered to these young men and women, who in turn, decide on their own whether they want to accept it or not. These scholarships are not forced upon these young men and women.

Making the comparison between a coach violating university policy and physically grabbing a player by the neck and slapping and a player accepting a scholarship to play the sport of their choice is comical at best.

Well just have to agree to disagree.

Go Rangers.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

You know this whole thing is twisted up when Lifer and I are agreeing on every post.

Good Lord...no one has to "risk their health for our pleasure" no matter who pays for the education.

[forevereagle]