Holton Hill out for the season

Htown77 said:
Is college football a job? Or is it an activity that students participate in? If college football is a "job" then college classes are a "job" and every student should be drug tested. Why JUST the football players?



Football coaches are not parents. It is not their job to develop young men. That is all baloney. Their job is to win football games, not be a parent or law enforcement. These are 18-23 year olds, not high schoolers or middle schoolers. Hell, as far as my high school coaches go, none of those guys were great mentors. They could mostly coach football though which was their job.



I will not vote to legalize weed. I have never had it, and have never been a drug user other than alcohol. I do not even want to see it legal However, I went to UT in the past 10 years and watched pretty much everyone else use weed and other drugs. The NFL is employer and if they want to drug test, I do not blame them. UT is not an employer for these students and UT is not a parent. It is not UT's job to parent or enforce the law. UT is there to provide an education. If students get in trouble with the LAW, then UT should suspend. Otherwise, if UT is not going to drug test all of the students, then it should stay out of drug testing the players.
Click to expand...

we totally disagree on all this.
1) the job point is that many people know the expectations and meet them.
2) of course coaches develop their players.
 
Our Best cover back, Hill, will miss WVU and TTU, two very tough offenses who will present a much greater threat to score than ku. Plus, both have better defenses than ku.

This being said, along with Hill being out, puts these game in a much more precarious place than I had them three weeks ago. Victory is in serious code Red doubt now; whereas it was moderate, Code yellow doubt before. :soapbox:
 
Joe Fan said:
And may never have
But I find his commentary on LHN usually more sensible than the other guys. Sometimes it seems like those other guys are the ones who are high
Click to expand...
Manny Acho has been refreshing. He will tell it like it is while tip toeing around to protect his job there.
 
1) the job point is that many people know the expectations and meet them.
Click to expand...

Hill knew the rules, he broke them.
Click to expand...

I have never said the players should ignore the rules the coaches set. I have been saying for 3 years the coaches should not set dumb rules. This is a strawman argument is no way refutes my pont that the coaches should not set unrealistic rules as the debate is over what rules coaches should set, not whether or not the players should follow them.

Coaches should leave weed enforcement to the police. If a player gets in legal trouble, then he should be suspended. The coaches are not employers (are the players legally student athletes or employees?) and should not set unrealistic expectaions for college kids.

If I said “the coaches should not require the players to hop on one foot to class”, you could argue the coaches should for whatever the reason, but no one is debating whether or not the players have to follow their coach’s instructions.

No one is arguing the coaches can set rules and the players have to follow them. All those arguments about a player failing to follow the rules are nothing but a huge strawman. Yes, players have to follow the rules. I am saying dumb rules should be changed. Saying the players “have to follow the rules” does not justify a single rule and is irrelevant to the merits of the rules.

If Herman said “every player on my team must use LSD”, would “a coach can set the rules and the players have to follow it” justify that rule? No.
 
Last edited:
Htown77 said:
I have never said the players should ignore the rules the coaches set. I have been saying for 3 years the coaches should not set dumb rules. This is a strawman argument is no way refutes my pont that the coaches should not set unrealistic rules as the debate is over what rules coaches should set, not whether or not the players should follow them.

Coaches should leave weed enforcement to the police. If a player gets in legal trouble, then he should be suspended. The coaches are not employers (are the players legally student athletes or employees?) and should not set unrealistic expectaions for college kids.

If I said “the coaches should not require the players to hop on one foot to class”, you could argue the coaches should for whatever the reason, but no one is debating whether or not the players have to follow their coach’s instructions.

No one is arguing the coaches can set rules and the players have to follow them. All those arguments about a player failing to follow the rules are nothing but a huge strawman. Yes, players have to follow the rules. I am saying dumb rules should be changed. Saying the players “have to follow the rules” does not justify a single rule and is irrelevant to the merits of the rules.

If Herman said “every player on my team must use LSD”, would “a coach can set the rules and the players have to follow it” justify that rule? No.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately possession of weed is a legal matter in Texas. If coaches (or anyone with direct knowledge of a crime) fail to take action and the user commits a crime then the person who knew is subject to civil action by the wrong party or the wrong party's estate.

In other words, until the law is changed in Texas, the school has to take some action upon discovering a "weed" issue or expose itself to possible legal action. (Legally this is the same as Baylor's issues with their assault cases - not saying they are on the same level - just the same legal rule.)
 
In other words, until the law is changed in Texas, the school has to take some action upon discovering a "weed" issue or exposeitself to possible legal action.
Click to expand...

I agree that if a player shows up in the locker room and starts smoking a joint, then yes, an action, probably a suspension, would have to be taken. However, we are talking about off campus, private activities by the players.

Option 1: Do not drug test.
Option 2: Set a more forgiving standard like 10 violations (see the Les Miles strategy).

Also, a great many students at UT smoke weed. I guess can sue UT for not drug testing all the students if I get into a car wreck with a high student? The answer is no, I cannot. No, UT is not liable of weed use by students.
 
i don't understand your points Htown. are you saying that sports should not drug test, or not test for drugs that aren't performance enhancing?

there's drug testing in athletics (not the gen pop) down to 9th grade and for the rest of any professional athletics life.

are you saying steroid testing is ok though? they wouldn't steroid test all students?
 
1. We did not drug test when I was in high school ten years ago.

2. I have no idea if they test for steroids or not at the college level, but that is actually relevant to the game.

3. Recreational drug use is not relevant to a college student playing college football. Nor is how much beer the student drinks. Nor is what girl or how many he is hooking up with. It is up to the police to enforce drug laws. That is not UT’s job. UT’s job is to provide an education. Herman’s job is to win football games, not enforce the law or be a parent. If a player gets in trouble with the law, by all means suspend. If a player is not in trouble with the law, his off campus activities are irrelevant. Players are not legally employees and should be treated like other students. Some said they get scholarships so they should be tested for illegal recreational drug use. If that is good and right, then the same standard should apply to all students that get scholarships, not just one group of students. Some said that they are role models. Well A. if they are not openly smoking weed publically, I am not sure what difference it makes and B. someone better drug test Ricky. He often shows up glassy eyed before appearing on LHN and he is actually getting paid.

Ricky Williams is my main point. He smoked weed and that did not affect his college play. Sure, it affected him in the NFL, but who cares? He was well old enough to know what he was doing at that point his life and suspending him in college would not have made a difference. It would just meant less NFL money, no heisman and screwed Texas over. These are 18-23 year olds, not children. It is too late to “parent them”. They are going to go to college and party. The vast majority of players have smoked weed in college without consequence. It makes 0 sense to have a coach additionally try to enforce this law. It does not do anyone any good and sets an unreasonable and unfair standard.

You cannot tell me it is reasonable to tell football players, who beat their bodies up, to avoid the wacky weed while the students around them they hang out with day to day can smoke it in front of them without consequence. It is an absurd policy. Let law enforcement enforce the law. Treat the students equally. Herman should not make a rule that tries to regulate his players private lives in college as that is not his job, hurts us from winning and hurts his players’ nfl chances.

No one is argung that Holton Hill broke the rules. I am saying Herman should change the rule and be more lenient on weed.
 
That's a truly scary post.
Click to expand...

Are we just going to pretend like there is not currently rampant drug use among students at UT? Adderall, weed, molly, etc.

I would say some posters are not aware, but I guarantee many partook themsleves.

The ironic thing is, I did not even use and am not even for legality. I am just living in reality. It is what most UT students do. Only having extra enforcement ouside of the police for the football team makes no sense, especially since they did just fine from 98-13 without suspending players left and right.
 
Htown77 said:
Are we just going to pretend like there is not currently rampant drug use among students at UT?
Click to expand...

(I'm tempted to not even engage this because the concept is so utterly ridiculous, but I guess I can't help myself.)

There's also cheating, skipping class, sexually harrassing co-eds, bullying, driving under the influence, and all kinds of other stuff. You seem to be saying that since other students are breaking laws (and apparently none of us think that's a bad thing) then we're being hypocritical for holding athletes to a higher standard.

I guess we could just have the attitude of "screw 'em. They may end up being garbage human beings, but as long as they can play football and give us three years or so before they either get arrested, flunked out of school, or run out of eligibility, then what's that to us?"

If you told any college coach in America that their job didn't include helping to kids grow up into mature productive adults, they'd either laugh at you, or shake their head in sadness. And frankly, I'd have a really hard time justifying collegiate athletics if we took your approach and didn't use it as a means to help kids mature and become better people.

I'm getting an image of your HS football days. Offensive lineman gives nerdy freshman a wedgie in the hallway. Counselor comes to the coach and says "we have a behavior problem." Coach says "no we don't - he pancaked three guys, didn't miss any blocks and we scored four touchdowns on four trips in the red zone. If you have a problem with him, you deal with it, but from my standpoint, he's doing great."
 
I'm getting an image of your HS football days. Offensive lineman gives nerdy freshman a wedgie in the hallway. Counselor comes to the coach and says "we have a behavior problem." Coach says "no we don't - he pancaked three guys, didn'tmiss any blocks and we scored four touchdowns on four trips in the red zone. If you have a problem with him, you deal withit, but from my standpoint, he's doing great."
Click to expand...

For starters, I went to high school in the late 2000s, so the time of football players giving freshmen wedgies had long since passed. Also, nope, our coaches did a character talk every day. The coaches themselves had very little character and I found it meaningless. That said, I am not opposed to it at the high school level as they are dealing with 14-18 year old KIDS. If the character talks helped someone, that is great.

If you told any college coach in America that their job didn't include helping to kids growup into mature productive adults,
Click to expand...

Here is the problem. 18-23 year olds are not KIDS. They are adults. They need to be treated like adults. What an adult does in his free time is his business, unless he gets in trouble with the law. I do not view high school and college the same. One of the biggest problems today is society trying to treat college like an extended high school. Sorry, but once someone turns 18 (and a little before that), it is too late to help them unless they want to be helped. Drug testing and suspending a group of 18-23 year olds while they are at college is not going to work if all their peers are not held to the same standard. It is a grand, pointless exercise that accomplishes nothing. Leave the high school parenting to the kids in high school. Treat college athletes like young adults.

Now I would be willing to make one compromise. I would be okay with drug testing 18 year old freshmen and having more stringent rules for them. A lot of people tend to go wild and make dumb mistakes when they are 18. It is a transitition age so I would be okay with that. Drug testing and trying to parent the 21 year old though? What a waste of time. Please do not tell me you think of people in their 20s as “kids”.
 
Also, the point of college football is the same point as minor league baseball or a business degree. A bunch of people are either playing football for fun or they are playing football to learn skills to get them a job in the NFL or as a coach somewhere. That is the point. Not to try and fix any 18-23 year olds that either were not raised right or were raised right but did not listen.

What makes college football superior to minor league baseball is the student athletes have an opportunity get a degree they can use to make something of their lives since the NFL or coaching dreams will not likely pan out for most. It is up to them, as adults, though to make their degree happen. It not their coach’s job to be their parent.

While I am sure almost all coaches develop relationships with some of their players and may often be good mentors, there is no way they are close to all 88+ players or significantly mentor them all. A drug test is not “parenting” to the players who are not close with the coaches anyway.

A coach is not going to be a father figure to more than a few players. In reality, you get a team of 80+, a coach is only going to barely know most of the players. Teams of 80+ are not the “family” the movies and coaches make them out to be.
 
I am old enough to remember DKR telling the team in the first fall meeting to deposit their "merchandise" in the receptacles at the door.

That said, we are neither Baylor, nor are we Nebraska. These young men sign a contract for a free education including room and board. They should then be held to standards consistent with that agreement. The same is true of those receiving academic financial assistance.

Unrelated, but this reminds me of the case of former Aggie RB George Woodard, who received a visit from the Pittsburgh Steelers head of player personnel. The man told Woodard that if he would lose 50 pounds, it would be worth $1 million to him. Three hours later the man walked back by to see Woodard sitting out front of his dorm with a spoon and a gallon of BlueBell. As Barry Switzer once told me, "Some people you just can't help".
 
They should then be held to standards consistent with that agreement. The same is true of those receiving academic financial assistance
Click to expand...

That is my point. If drug testing is the right thing to do, drug test everyone who receives a scholarship or financial assistance. It would not have affected me or my small academic scholarship either way. I just think only drug testing athletes for non steroid related things while the rest of the students are held to a lesser standard is not fair or reasonable.
 
Neither is not allowing athletes to have part time jobs out of season, when all other students can.

Then there is the issue of Hispanic students being allowed to take the SAT in Spanish, but not athletes. To quote the NCAA, "All their classes are in English".
 
These players have parents. The parents that raised these young men set their moral compass and values. Coaches may be able to alter bad behavior and habits, but for the most part, will not change values.

I have pondered this situation and cannot understand why a player is suspended on his third positive test. Why three ? If a positive test is not acceptable and against the rules, why does it take two more positive tests for a suspension ?
Why not 5 ? Why not 7? Why not 2?

Seems like three positive tests to suspend for 6 games is just an arbitrary number someone pulled out his ear. Same thing for a 6 game suspension. How was 6 games decided? Why not a 1 game suspension? If it takes 3 positive tests to get a suspension, not sure why there is a 6 game suspension. Seems like just another arbitrary number someone pulled out of his ear.

Maybe a 2 game suspension on the first positive test and a 4 game suspension on the second positive test would be a more effective progressive discipline.

A good read is "Meat on the Hoof" for coaching parenting.
 
IvanDiabloHorn said:
The parents that raised these young men set their moral compass and values. Coaches may be able to alter bad behavior and habits, but for the most part, will not change values.
Click to expand...
IDH, I see it differently. All of us come in contact with individuals in our lives that can make a difference, regardless of our age. That is particularly true of 18 year olds from backgrounds less fortunate than most of us on this board. While I don't know if that is the case (his background) with Hill, it wouldn't surprise me.

To suggest that a coach, a mentor, a teacher, or some role model cannot make a profound impact on us is a concept with which I would not agree. There are stories everywhere of players whose lives were turned around by a coach.
 
Young men can be influenced by a coach, but wont change values. If a young man sees no problem with smoking weed, a coach is not going to change his mind.
A coach may possibly alter the young man's behavior by random drug tests and suspensions, but will not change the young man's mind about weed.
As Htown stated in an earlier post, a coach may have an impact on a few, but not 85 players.

I opine there was an impact on the players by Hill's suspension, a negative one.

It would be interesting to know how many players have 1 or 2 positive results and could be suspended on the next two random tests.

A good move on Herman's part would be to reinstate Hill with a one game suspension.
Good gosh, if it takes three positive tests to get suspended, then a one game suspension would seem appropriate. Doesn't seem too serious if it takes three positive tests.
 
IvanDiabloHorn said:
Young men can be influenced by a coach, but wont change values. If a young man sees no problem with smoking weed, a coach is not going to change his mind.
A coach may possibly alter the young man's behavior by random drug tests and suspensions, but will not change the young man's mind about weed.
As Htown stated in an earlier post, a coach may have an impact on a few, but not 85 players.
Click to expand...
Again, I just don't agree. To suggest otherwise is to believe that all of our values and opinions are fixed at an early age and that those opinions and values will never change. That is simply not true for many if not most of us.
 
I don't believe I brought up opinions, but values are indeed learned at an early age.

85 players came out of 85 different home situations and values were instilled in each of them at an early age. Good values and other values.
 
But for the 3-4 players the coach will maybe impact out of 85+, does he need drug testing to be a mentor?
 
In my experience, you are mostly right that most values don't change significantly by the time people are 18.

But "drug user" isn't a value. Honesty is. Work ethic is. Determination is. Respect for authority is.

Sometimes the values are there, but very undeveloped. It's like having muscle, but never using it...it atrophies. This takes training, gaining understanding, developing habits, and hardwiring behaviors to those values. All of these things, if you've coached or managed organizations or parented, have the potential to be developed. There is actual research on this.

I'm fine with anyone who says the punishment for weed should be less than what Hill got. But saying that a coach shouldn't hold his/her players to a higher standard than the general popuation, but instead their standard expectations should be governed by the general population is not good leadership.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top