(12-17-2016 01:31 AM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(12-16-2016 10:48 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  NIU will replace Minny if a decision is made.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...liday-bowl

Not that easy. NIU declined to say if they would. They stated that players already are home for break and many players and staffers have made holiday plans. Pretty much hinting that they would have a hard time rounding up everyone and getting practices going.

Well....then the easiest way is for SDSU to play in the Holiday Bowl. Being that they play today, it would give them enough time for another game and give WSU time to prep for them. It will be an unusual circumstance likely to not happen again.

If Minnesota players boycott a bowl game in the forest does anyone care ?

(12-17-2016 09:46 AM)FUB Wrote:  If Minnesota players boycott a bowl game in the forest does anyone care ?

I know if I was a Minnesota fan and spent hundreds of dollars on flights, my hotel, and tickets and suddenly they're for a game that no longer involves my team, I'd be pissed. Or if I was a Wazzu fan and paid higher prices expecting to see a decent Big Ten team, but then all the sudden you're playing a 5-7 team.

The standard for legal charges is higher than anything civil. The fact they didn't have enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, in court does not mean there was not evidence that what she said was real. Think OJ Simpson legal trial vs wrongful death case.

Players preparing to end their boycott?

http://m.startribune.com/gophers-players...ection=%2F

Here is the 80 page police report:


http://kstp.com/kstpImages/repository/cs...ed%203.pdf

The players ended their boycott, and looks like the 10 players are still suspended. They had egg on their faces this morning.

Players met with the president and the AD late into the night, last night, at the "urging" of the Governor of Minnesota Mark Dayton (ie, "get this s___ fixed ... don't make me fix it for you ..."), to negotiate the end of the boycott.

Can only imagine it went something like this:

Prez and AD: "There is no possible way we can let the suspended players play in the game. That would be suicide for the university."

Players: "Give us something."

Prez and AD: "We can't give you anything in writing, but all we can offer is that the school will disagree with the EOAA's recommendation only only give the 10 players probation. That's pretty much all we have to offer."

Players: "Done."

(12-16-2016 02:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-16-2016 02:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The University need only show that it is more likely than not that the players did not have consent for the entire series of acts to remove them.

Such a low standard is absurd and arbitrary. The players will see the university in court!

How is that standard absurd and arbitrary that is likely the burden of proof for the players were they to sue the school for violating their interest in being on the football team.
That is the standard for most civil proceedings.

(12-17-2016 10:38 AM)TerryD Wrote:  http://kstp.com/kstpImages/repository/cs...ed%203.pdf

Thanks. Glad this got leaked ... and not surprised at all that it did. It's redacted, so no names.

Boy ... it sure goes on and on and on ... in graphic detail ... under the allegations section. Of course, people will just assume that is the truth. Because that's what they want to believe. Because that's what people do.


Players are only going to get probation.

Victim already got what she wanted back in Sept. She didn't want this to come up again, ever. But the University couldn't help but ride in on its damn high horse.

(12-17-2016 11:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  That is the standard for most civil proceedings.

Red herring. Red herring. Red herring.

The discussion is not if the university should be allowed to have its own internal investigation, and it's not if the "preponderance of evidence" standard is valid for such an internal investigation.

The side who are against football, against football players, and want to punish these players on behalf of all victims of sexual abuse across the globe, have latched onto this red herring for dear life.


The arbitrary and absurd part is the part where the EOAA office simply decided, unfairly, that the standard had been met for warranting expulsion and suspension.


Those will be knocked down to probation, either as an "indirect" (wink, wink) result of the negotiation last night, or will be as a result of the out of court settlement.

(12-17-2016 12:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-17-2016 10:38 AM)TerryD Wrote:  http://kstp.com/kstpImages/repository/cs...ed%203.pdf

Thanks. Glad this got leaked ... and not surprised at all that it did. It's redacted, so no names.

Boy ... it sure goes on and on and on ... in graphic detail ... under the allegations section. Of course, people will just assume that is the truth. Because that's what they want to believe. Because that's what people do.


Players are only going to get probation.

Victim already got what she wanted back in Sept. She didn't want this to come up again, ever. But the University couldn't help but ride in on its damn high horse.

The police made a boo boo that the school picked up on. They got statements from other players that the law missed. Since this seemed to happened on campus? I presumed that the school did this to protect themselves after the Baylor situation;

I guess the players didn't want to miss out on the bowl game gift bags.

The DA should have brought charges - wonder if that mistake will be fixed. The players were complete idiots for boycotting when their teammates raped a woman. The college football swamp gets a bit deeper.

(12-17-2016 12:32 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  The DA should have brought charges

Why? There was no evidence.

(12-17-2016 12:32 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  when their teammates raped a woman.

No they didn't. Why would you say that?

(12-17-2016 12:32 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  when their teammates raped a woman.

No they didn't. Why would you say that?
[/quote]

Because I have read the reports and since I don't care about Minnesota, I am able to evaluate the situation honestly. The woman might have consented to 1 partner, but not 12+ partners. Lock em up.

(12-17-2016 12:53 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-17-2016 12:32 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  The DA should have brought charges

Why? There was no evidence.

(12-17-2016 12:32 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  when their teammates raped a woman.

No they didn't. Why would you say that?

How is it you know so much about what ACTUALLY happened ? If you don't mind could you pleased link the fifty page report you did on your own findings . You seem to be defending a lot of schools in these situations. Is this some sort of personal issue ?

So let me get this straight - there's video evidence of several team members doing a train ride on a female student, and the video was used to exonerate the players of any criminal charges. But the university suspends (and is about to expel) the players involved, and suspended some other players who were bystanders.

Is this what happened?

If it is, then it sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing for a school to do - if it is called Brigham Young University. But the University of Minnesota is a public institution that doesn't have a Code of Honor (that I know of). No matter how absurd and indecent the players' actions were (and I think they were VERY improper), a public school has no right to impose a sexual moral code on its students. So if charges have been dropped then that should be the end of it for normal students.

The football team, as representatives of the school, can have its own participation rules. But this isn't what's going on - it's being done at the university level.

(12-17-2016 01:06 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  I am able to evaluate the situation honestly

No, you're being dishonest. You want things to be a certain way, so you believe that even though there is no evidence to support it.

(12-17-2016 01:10 PM)FUB Wrote:  If you don't mind could you pleased link the fifty page report you did on your own findings

All I'm doing is pointing out that there is no evidence to support anything, only allegations.

(12-17-2016 02:59 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  there's video evidence of several team members doing a train ride on a female student, and the video was used to exonerate the players of any criminal charges.

No. There's video evidence that disputes the claim that the victim was not able to give consent and was coerced into alleged activities.

Hence why there was no crime, and why no charges were brought.


The university arbitrarily decided that the players violated conduct policies, which are purposefully written vague so as to allow the university to arbitrarily decide if something does or doesn't warrant punishment.

Grrrr, I wish people stop defending the actions of the players!!!!!! These players are nothing but animals. The school uncover more details that the police failed to do their job.