ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

[jackmd]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

I would have to agree with 1st Row---this has not looked good.  This violation was not minor--it's a felony.  

The kid had something like 14 lbs of pot...not a joint he got at a party or that someone left in his car...aka Randy Moss.  He knew what he was doing.  My guess is that other fb players are also involed, i.e. buying it, smoking it.  This is NOT good for the SDSU football program.

Here is a case of getting an athlete getting special treatment..If this was a non-athlete in the dorms of SDSU--they would have probably been kicked out no questions asked.  

This was not a case of him getting caught having a few beers at a house party.

Just my thoughts and opinions

In my mind, these accusations/assumptions jeopardize your credibility as a member on this site. A retraction would be most appropriate or you can dig yourself a bigger hole by trying to explain what you are implying.

Mr. Robinson, alone, is responsible for his actions. It appears he is willing to accept the consequences. In the meantime he needs and deserves whatever support those who wish to offer it can give. I'm not sure I would adopt the position Coach Stig or SDSU is adopting but I also won't criticize them for it as I am not actively involved. Lets see how things play out. Criticism is just that. The high profile DI move with its associated emotions of fear, envy and enthusiasm from all those involved often allows for things like this to get blown out proportion. We can deal with it.

[Jacks99]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

There were the former BB players charged with theft. Not sure how SDSU could have made that better, but it sure isn't good when it was on the news and the two are associated. :-/

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

Catch Em All
The STudent Code applies to ALL students, and since I wasn't sure what it said, I went and looked it up. Section 1:10:09:04 states that manufacture, distribution or possession with intent to distrubute marijuana or controlled substances is a violation with the penalty suspension to expulsion.
So again it comes down to when SDSU determnes the legal process has run its course. I didn't spend enough time looking to determine whether that is defined anywhere.

I don't know if this goes beyond Mr. Robinson, that is for the police to determine.

However, SDSU has a football player on its team that has plead guilty to felony distribution charges and is awaiting sentencing. It seem pretty apparent that he remains on the team at the discretion of SDSU. That does not look good for the program, and that can be used against SDSU when recruiting new athletes.

[CatchEmAll_Guy]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

1stRow - good research. For the members of the board I'll post the entire section.

01:10:09 Marijuana, Controlled Substances and Drug Paraphernalia. The
manufacture, distribution, possession and consumption of marijuana, and controlled
substances is prohibited on any property controlled by the Board of Regents and in
connection with any institutionally sponsored activity; except where specifically
authorized by Board policy. (Censure - Expulsion).
01:10:09:01 The possession of any drug paraphernalia as defined by South
Dakota law is prohibited on any property controlled by the Board of Regents and
in connection with any institutionally sponsored activity. (Censure - Suspension).
01:10:09:02 Use or possession of marijuana (Disciplinary Probation -
Suspension).
01:10:09:03 Use or possession of controlled substances (Disciplinary Probation -
Expulsion).
01:10:09:04 Manufacture, distribution or possession with intent to distribute
marijuana or controlled substances (Suspension - Expulsion).
01:10:09:05 Second offenses of 01:10:09:01 while enrolled within the system at
any time will result in a minimum sanction of Disciplinary Probation and fine of
$100.
01:10:09:06 Third offenses of 01:10:09:01 or second offenses of 01:10:09:02 or
01:10:09:03 will result in a minimum sanction of Suspension for one semester, or,
in compelling circumstances, Probation and participation in an approved
substance abuse treatment program at the student’s expense.
01:10:09:07 The foregoing sanctions are minimum sanctions. References to
them do not preclude more severe sanctions, including Expulsion, where the
circumstances warrant such action.
01:10:09:08 Violations of this section (01:10:09) may be referred to local law
enforcement and will be referred when the facts suggest a felony offense has
occurred.

The fact remains that there will be disagreements as to how this was and is handled.

[IowaBison]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

it's too bad i won't be able to make the game in Brookings, it would be fun to show up the game dressed as a giant joint

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

Ha Ha Ha

[89rabbit]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

My personal opinion is that everyone needs to slow down and take a deep breath on this subject.  We seem to be creating a mountain out of a mole hill.  I think everyone should limit their speculation to the know facts.

I personally would have let him go when he pled guilty.  Seems to me that the court system has run its course.  There will be no appeal.  So why wait until he is sentenced?  Again, just my opinion.

Everyone needs to keep in mind that the person in question was a back up running back and a student.  That is his only connection to our University.  The crime he pled guilty to was his individule act.  It had no ties to SDSU.  The same is true for our former basketball player who also plead guilty to a felony.

I get a little fired up when Mike_H implies that SDSU has a control issue (by the way welcome back Mike).  These incidents are nothing like say, the Colorado sex/ recruiting scandal that CU needed and did take responsibility for.  That was a case where the misdeeds had a direct conection to the University and it's football program.  This is a case of a former athlete and a current athlete acting on their own behalf in their own interests.  Now they are paying the price.  Would KWSN have any special responsibility if a member of the on air staff, that they brought to Sioux Falls, did the same things?

This is nothing more then two individuals making poor decisions that will effect the rest of their lives.  SDSU gave both of them an opportunity and they choose to throw that opportunity away.  It does reflect badly on the institution that gave them a chance, however SDSU had no greater responsibility to “control” these individuals in their personal lives then any other organization.  These incidents while unfortunate for SDSU are truly devastating to the young men involved.  Let us all hope that they learn from their mistakes and can get their lives back in order.

That being said I hope you all agree with me that it is time to put these issues to rest.  We as fans of the State's only D-I University and have bigger issues to discuss.

Go State!  ;D 

[Mike_H]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

jack 79: My bad. I meant to say months.

89: Be responsible for? No. Reflect badly on? You better believe it! Again, please read carefully. I am not insiutating this. Several folks at work are, including our KELO-AM afternoon host, who spent a half hour taking calls on the air from folks that agreed with him.

Again, I do not think this is a control issue as some folks do. I do however, think it is a public relations issue, and when it has come to public relations, SDSU has taken some considerable hits the last few months.

[89rabbit]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

Again, please read carefully. I am not insiutating this. Several folks at work are. . .

Mike I did read you post carefully, and I knew you were going to say this. You constantly are sharing on this board what "other people" are saying. Especially if you perceive that it is something negative about SDSU's move to D-I. :

Go State! ;D

[Mike_H]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

And this time I credited the source because he is a public figure who uses his real name and shares his views openly. Would you like a list of the other people I work with? If you want to know what I think, read my posts, and go back to the first post on this subject since apparently SDSUFAN listened to the show. If you do not want to hear what anyone else is saying, fine. That seems to be the approach SDSU is taking as well.

By the way, you guys wanted more coverage from the Argus Leader. Looks like you got it.

[jackmd]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

And this time I credited the source because he is a public figure who uses his real name and shares his views openly. Would you like a list of the other people I work with?  If you want to know what I think, read my posts, and go back to the first post on this subject since apparently SDSUFAN listened to the show. If you do not want to hear what anyone else is saying, fine. That seems to be the approach SDSU is taking as well.

By the way, you guys wanted more coverage from the Argus Leader. Looks like you got it.

My sentiments exactly.  With the good you take/expect the bad.  By nature humans make mistakes.  The age when most people go to college (young adulthood or late adolescents in some cases) is an age where many bad decisions are made.  Some of us get away with our indiscretions, others get caught.

At face value I tend to favor having let Athony R go.  SDSU and Coach Stig must have felt a strong desire to assist him regardless of the consequences.  I refuse to believe its on the basis of his FB talent and potential to help the team on the field.  Instead, I think its more likely a fatherly role to assist him in getting his life back on the right course.  I certainly hope my family and co-workers/teammates would stand beside/behind me if I made a mistake like this.  Abandonment may be the best political stance but I for one expect more from SDSU.

I do agree that a reply from SDSU admin is in order.  Increased exposure means increased involvement.  An explanation for their decision to support Anthony should be made public.  In the end SDSU will come out on top, as we always do.  Mike_H will just hate that.

[89rabbit]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

Mike,

I have no problem hearing what you have to say. I think many have asked you point blank what you think on a variety of issues, including an exchange where JackMD said he was calling you out and wanted to know what you thought of our move to D-I, if I recall correctly. What frustrates me is that you bring up what other "people" are saying and when challenged your response is "that is what they are saying".

Maybe it would be better if you told us what you think and you could invite those with differing views to post, so that we might have a first had dialogue with them.

Chris Solari and I talk occasionally and one of the things that we have talked about is that with additional coverage comes additional scrutiny, I have no problem with that. I was simply trying to remind eveyone that these young men's actions were their own and not an institutional breakdown.

Let me wrap up by saying that I do not want a list of people from your office who agree with the "KELO Afternoon Host". I want the KELO afternoon host and these "people" to register and post themselves. They don't have to be as brave as you and use their real names. Let them come to the board and tell us what they think, and you can tell us what you think and we can all talk about it.

Go State! ;D

[Mike_H]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

I have told you what I think. Whether you choose to believe it, not believe it, agree, or disagree, that is what I think.

I can understand your frustration. I know this is not a topic anybody in Kansas City cares about other than you. Your only outlet to talk about these things is on this chatboard that has 200 people, mostly like thinking. Here in South Dakota, we do care about it. There are people that talk about it in the break room. There are people that call radio talk shows. This subject was talked about on two non-sports talk shows yesterday in Sioux Falls and I am guessing it was talked about on other radio stations across the state. It was talked about at coffee shops this morning and bars last night. It will probably be brought up at football games tonight. Is it dominating the conversation? Probably not. But the point is, WE ARE all talking about it, you just aren't involved in those conversations. I choose to aknowledge the fact that there are people, other than the 200 that are now registered on this board, that also have opinions that are viable and worthwhile. I also recognize that there are several other outlets to express those opinions other than this board. This board is reserved for the people that are passionatly for the Jacks, for the most part. Why would I invite someone else to come here?

Have a good weekend!

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

I can't believe I'm going to do this, but I'm going to come to Mike's defense. I thought it was clear from his posts that he thought that Stig made the decision to keep Mr. Robinson around to try and help him out during a difficult time. He then went on to say what he has been hearing at his place of work. Which, by the way, is exactly what I have been hearing at my work. Several people said he is still helping the team by what he does in practices.

This is an issue of importance because how it is handled is going to reflect on every sport at SDSU, whether it should or not. I have stated on other threads that I believe that for the first two or three years, won-loss record is not that important for our sports, but the programs have to put themselves in positions to recruit the type of athletes so SDSU is competitive from that point forward (it should go without saying that I would prefer winning records to losing ones in these first years).

Mishandling this situation hurts the Jacks and the university as a whole. My guess is that at least one recruiter/alumni from all the area schools has a copy of that editorial filed away for future use.

I went back and did some further checking in the Student Code, court action is ended at the point of pleading guilty. Upon this, the facts in the criminal case are automatically to be considered true in the school disciplinary case. Mr. Robinson's felony conviction violates the section of the code that calls for the minimum of suspension up to expulsion. With a suspension, a student is not to have any contact with extracurricular activities sponsored by SDSU.

I didn't post all the different Student Code sections verbatim because it would be to long and I can't get that to work, but you can find them on SDSU's website.

He needs to be off the team.

[Jacks99]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

I went back and did some further checking in the Student Code, court action is ended at the point of pleading guilty. Upon this, the facts in the criminal case are automatically to be considered true in the school disciplinary case. Mr. Robinson's felony conviction violates the section of the code that calls for the minimum of suspension up to expulsion. With a suspension, a student is not to have any contact with extracurricular activities sponsored by SDSU.

I didn't post all the different Student Code sections verbatim because it would be to long and I can't get that to work, but you can find them on SDSU's website.

He needs to be off the team.

If this is the case, it seems it's black and white and the SDSU admin. is paying for the risk they took.