CL Letter re Raines - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: May 12, 2005

CL Letter re Raines

Date: May 12, 2005

Excellent letter, one of the better letters published concerning the USM debacle(on any subject).

I have missed precious few HOME USM football games since 1969(even though I stopped buying season tickets during Roland Dale's tenure). I am a supporter of USM athletics.

This Raines situation is a very unique combination of the state of college football today and the morally and ethically bankrupt Thames adminstration. When the Raines scholarship offer was pulled by Kansas State, my guess is the adminstration stepped in to balance the situation. At USM we have and adminstration who apparently decided to give a second chance in lieu of another student athlete's first chance(thank you Mr Harvey).

Date: May 12, 2005

i read local kansas reports on the Raines situation at K State. I don't think K State handled the situation very well at all. The coaching staff there hoped to keep his signing quiet. In fact, the staff claimed at first they did not know of his past, but later had to admit they knew. When his signing became known it was a PR nightmare, but not so much for the reasons you might imagine. K State already had another PR nightmare when their star quarterback was charged with rape after the Fiesta Bowl. It was the combination of the two that led to problems at K State. It looked like K State was becoming a rogue program.

Date: May 12, 2005

are you suggesting that if the qb rape charges had been settle(or never happened) that ksu would have signed raines?

Date: May 12, 2005

from what i read in the local papers--yes.

Date: May 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: water boy
"are you suggesting that if the qb rape charges had been settle(or never happened) that ksu would have signed raines?"

Without a doubt. Factor in that K-State has an 18% graduation rate and has had many highly reported in resent years, Snyder was forced to pull the offer.

Please, if do not compair USM to K-State in this respect. If you disagree with the Raines signing, you are disagreeing with Bower not Thames. Had Bower not wanted to sign Raines, Thames would have never been asked about it.

Many of you have taken up for Bower before, now because of one decision you don't agree with you are throwing the entire program to the wolves, and are blaming Thames for it.

Just dosen't makes sense to me.

Date: May 12, 2005

Using the logic here, USM signed a student athlete that was rejected by a school with a 18% graudation rate (KSU). KSU did not sign Raines because of his past, so not to further tarnish their already "rogue program" reputation.

I still go with the C/L letter writer's comment...giving Raines a second chance prevented another student athlete from his first chance. Did USM in this signing class sign any other convicted felons or for that matter has USM ever signed a conviced felon(I dont recall the outcome of a couple of other signees that were charge with crimes). I know we have had student athletes that were convicted of crimes while on scholarship and charged with crimes after signing scholarships

Date: May 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Kudzu King
"

Without a doubt. Factor in that K-State has an 18% graduation rate and has had many highly reported in resent years, Snyder was forced to pull the offer.

Please, if do not compair USM to K-State in this respect. If you disagree with the Raines signing, you are disagreeing with Bower not Thames. Had Bower not wanted to sign Raines, Thames would have never been asked about it.

Many of you have taken up for Bower before, now because of one decision you don't agree with you are throwing the entire program to the wolves, and are blaming Thames for it.

Just dosen't makes sense to me."

KK, do you believe, or have reason to believe, that Coach Bower independently found this player and made this hire? This is a real question, not arguing with you.

Date: May 12, 2005

I couldn't agree more with the writer of the CL letter.

Date: May 12, 2005

Yep...that's pretty much the bottom line for me...someone without a felony conviction, with comparable athleltic skills, may have been denied a first chance...is there anyway to determine who was next in line for a scholarship? who is the individual who was denied a scholarship because of raines?

Date: May 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Outside Observer
"Yep...that's pretty much the bottom line for me...someone without a felony conviction, with comparable athleltic skills, may have been denied a first chance...is there anyway to determine who was next in line for a scholarship? who is the individual who was denied a scholarship because of raines?"

Excellent questions.

Date: May 12, 2005

The letter writer is (formerly on) EagleTalk's HarvardEagle. Here's what he posted there today:

Harvard Eagle
user profile
A Fortress on the South Jersey Shore
All Conference
Post #1154

Well, he was.
Reply

I am, obviously, Brett Harvey.

I know I said I was leaving. And I am, in more ways than one. But I figured you guys might have something to say about the above referenced letter, so I decided to stop in one last time. Plus, I've enjoyed posting here for several years, so I thought it appropriate to provide a short explanation of my decision.

If you read my posts on the Raines issue, you know the substantive arguments. I won't rehash them here. This is just to give you an understanding of what I've actually decided to do about it and why.

First, I'm not necessarily "turning my back" on USM in its entirety. I had to heavily edit the Clarion Ledger letter for space, thus necessitating the "former USM supporter" line. I still recognize the importance of USM as an engine for growth and development in South Mississippi. Supporting it in that capacity -- i.e., as an academic institution -- is still a priority for me.

That said, I am indeed handing in my USM sports fan card. It might be permanent, or it might be until I'm convinced that the administration has taken significant affirmative steps to place athletics in its proper context. I can't say for certain what that would entail, but it probably means I won't be back so long as the trio responsible for the Raines scholarship -- Bower, Giannini, and Thames -- continue to stand behind that decision.

Why am I doing this? Is it because, as I see some have already suggested, I'm an easily-offended self-important puritan with no sense of perspective, (who at any rate, was never really a fan to begin with)? I don't think that's what it is, but by all means, feel free to continue with the invective.

I think it's this: I chose to be a fan of Southern Miss. It's not my alma mater: my dad went there, my mom went to MSU, and my granddad went to UM. I had my pick, so to speak. I chose not to support the latter two because I'm not really all that into sports, per se. And they're just two more nondescript college athletics programs, in which I had no real interest.

I wanted a more compelling narrative. I chose USM because I wanted to pull for an underdog fighting an uphill battle, and doing it honestly and with integrity. I mean, that's sort of the archetype for heroes in American popular culture, isn't it? It's Rocky, Rudy, Abe Lincoln, Horatio Alger, and so on ad infinitum. To make a long story short, when USM made what I think is a transparent decision to place a marginal improvment on the playing field ahead of basic moral responsibility (please don't bother arguing the substance; we've been through this), it stopped fitting that archetype.

So I'm not walking away in a huff, trying to get my way. I'm walking away because this isn't what I signed up for. The product has changed, and it's no longer one I want to buy. Maybe if enough folks vote with their feet, USM will get the message. But I'm not holding my breath.

In any event, for the sake of finality, I won't be responding to replies. To the smart, reasonable posters -- I think you know who you are -- it's been great. Thanks, and happy trails. To everybody else: here's your chance. Flame away unopposed.