a Bowersian choice? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jul 31, 2005

a Bowersian choice?

Date: Jul 31, 2005

This is what I thought too. Major inconsistencies that the players themsleves don't understand and quite frankly as faculty I don't understand with USM's recent second chance for murder signee. This is not a cut and dried decision as some others have suggested.

Date: Jul 31, 2005

This is the real question. Glad someone got to it.

Date: Jul 31, 2005

As someone who leads a sort of team myself, I can say that when you establish the rules with your team members who know in advance what those rules are, this is a different issue than ging someone in from the outside and whom, for one reason or another, you elect to bring inside. Once inside, they become subject to the same set of rules.

Most of my students come from other schools. Whatever system or set of rles they operated under there I hope are going to be consistent with what I will ask of them. But that is not always true. So the issue is establishing a consistency within the "team" -- meaning everyone has the set set of rules and are treated the same subject only to differences in how individuals react within the team concept.

Therefore, although I'm still nervous about Raines, I don;t see it as inconsistent for Bower to apply the rules to his team (who were not, like Raines, subject to those rules BEFORE they came to USM).

The question will be, once Raines get here, will he be treated the same and asked to live by the same set of rules?

If so, enough said.

Date: Jul 31, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

The question will be, once Raines get here, will he be treated the same and asked to live by the same set of rules?

Excellent thoughts, Stephen, althought he lack of gratuitious spellling errors & hasty typing does raise a couple of red flags in what currently passes for my mind

Regarding your question above -- and this is only based on my experiences with Jeff Bower in the past -- you can bet your bottom dollar that Raines will have to abide by the same set of rules. As far as being treated the same, I suspect that kid has been told pretty emphatically that he's expected to exhibit a higher standard of behavior, because a lot of fans have their eyes on him. (And I'm not saying that the USM coaching staff told him this -- wouldn't be surprised if his juco coach told him.)

Date: Jul 31, 2005

Where could someone, anyone, come from that has rules not condemning Raines' actions. Come on man, we are talking about kicking someone off the team forever for coming in second in a barroom fight where he requires medical attention and his opponent is arrested, and welcoming someone to the team who kicks a helpless person in a bar and causes death. And you say it's because someone doesn't know the rules?

Date: Jul 31, 2005

Mad Max wrote:

Where could someone, anyone, come from that has rules not condemning Raines' actions. Come on man, we are talking about kicking someone off the team forever for coming in second in a barroom fight where he requires medical attention and his opponent is arrested, and welcoming someone to the team who kicks a helpless person in a bar and causes death. And you say it's because someone doesn't know the rules?

While I personally think Raines should not have been given a scholarship at USM, the logic here is that Raines committed his misdeed while he was not a player at USM. Had it occurred while he was subject to team rules, I'm sure he would've been kicked off the team.

That said, you need to get the Raines story straight. He didn't kick someone in a bar. He was at a private party. Small difference, perhaps, but those who will want to argue with you about Raines will pick up on any error in your story.

Date: Jul 31, 2005

Thanks Invictus, on the earlier reply. My question about Raines was rhetorical, incidently.

For Mad Max, my point isn't in comparing, on an objective basis, the acts of Raines vs. those whom Bowers dismissed. Although the obvious needs to be pointed out -- both incidents spring from kids who were some place they shouldn't have been; doing things they should not have been doing, and in getting into a fight. It is the result of the actions that differ.

I suspect that we accept high school players whose high school history involves breaking team rules. But if you accept those kids then you wipe the slate clean because they are about to come into your house and live by your rules - and the test will be whether they do or not. And if they do not -- they need to be dealt with pretty consistently according to the standard that they were to be measured by -- or you can kiss team effort and coherance good bye. You can also kiss giving any kid a second chance whether his violation before coming to college was small or large because if members of the team are not very clear that violations will result in penalties no matter what position they occupy on the team, then you cannot afford to take a chance with any one -- you will be limited to only accepting those who have never violated the rules. That leaves a pretty limited field of choice in an activity where the line between yourthful hi-jinks and criminal behavior can be awful thin -- often the luck of circumstance. I'll bet there are a number of folks out there who can point to moments in their youth when fate alone made the difference between staying on the right side of the line and the left side of the line. I can certainly think of at least three instacnes in my own life when luck more than ,my own goodness spared me.

There are certain professions and activities where the line between team player and loner; between being a law abider and a law breaker; between using violence under control and using violence with no control are not very far away on the continuum of human behavior. Police, soldiers, and football players come to mind.

My point is that, once having established a set of rules that can apply to the players who are directly under his authority, a coach, or any leader for that matter, has to strive for a difficult blend of consistency tempered by wisdom that is aware that not all cases are exactly the same. Bear in mind that none of us know what rules coach put down for his players.

I'm not defending bringing Raines in . . . if it were me I would not do it. But I also concede that I don't know the whole story, nor can I measure, from the outside, the complicated and undoubtedly paradoxical set of realtionships between the obvious (the need of the team to get the best players possible) with the unknown and maybe unknowable gamble ( the odds that a kid who made a serious mistake is redeemable). I'm not there in the position to make that decision, even if I have an opinion about it. However -- having made the decision, the issue is going to be will Raines live up to the standards he undoubtedly has been warned about.

Comparing his case and the case of the other players can only be done once Raines becomes a player. Up until this point, its apples and oranges.

Date: Jul 31, 2005

I understand your argument -- punishment is being imposed for a violation of team rules, not for fighting in an off-limit bar. Therefore, since the felony previously discussed occured at a time when the individual was not subject to team rules, this conduct can be ignored. I'm uncomfortable with this analysis as applied by Bower because it ignores one of the primary reasons for team rules -- don't bring direspect upon the team. By giving the death penalty to those accused of misdemeanors and scholarshipping convicted felons, I'm afraid the team leadership has violated its own rules. It sends a message that violation of laws can be excused, but not violation of rules. While that is a position that this administration can identify with ("I told them to stop that investigation") it's not the mark of a good education, and it's not the image I want for my university.

I'm probably being unfair to Bower. He's a credit to the university, he has an on the ground perspective of the situation that none of us have, and I really don't have an opinion as to whether he should have refused a scholarship to the linebacker, or acted as he did after the nightclub fight. But I do think that his actions were inconsistent, and thus difficult for players, alumni and fans to accept.

Date: Jul 31, 2005

Is there a double standard here . . . . one standard for being kicked off the team, but another standard for being kicked out of the university?

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Mad Max

"Therefore, since the felony previously discussed occured at a time when the individual was not subject to team rules, this conduct can be ignored."

Not ignored. Abrogated. It does not necessarily disrupt team discipline to bring someone from outside the discipline into the discipline if the chances of success and recovery seem high.

"I'm uncomfortable with this analysis as applied by Bower because it ignores one of the primary reasons for team rules -- don't bring direspect upon the team."

Again, I find the word ignore a problem. "Ignoring," as used here, seems to imply a kind of blithe and unconsidered action that violates one's own principles or rules. I don't know that I agree this was case here. I suspect that a great deal of thought went into this decision, at which point a decision was made (for what I suspect are very mixed reasons) to go ahead and bring Raines in. I assume that Bower is calculating that Raines can make a significant contribution to the team and will live up to the team rules he lays down. I also suspect, from what I have heard of Jeff. that he has also made a calculation that he has it in his power to give someone a second chance. It is true that the power to give such a chance uncomfortably coincides with the possibility the team and its coach will profit by getting an excellent player. On the other hand, such a nexus is exactly where this kind of decision happens. For my money, once again this is like comparing apples and oranges.

"Team rules." The team obviously doesn't have any rules about scollying felons. You can't violate a "rule" that doesn't exist -- even though you and I might think such a rule should exist. It apparently has rules about not going to certain nightclubs and athletes avoiding certain kinds of behavior that would bring "disrespect" to the team and the school. These student athletes seem to have violated that rule.

Bringing "disrespect" onto the team is difficult to measure. I don't have any way of knowing if the team feels disrespected. The bag is mixed on whether it is disprespected outside of the team itself. I suppose if Raines comes in, is successful, and goes on to become a model citizen . . . we will all have to agree that the risk was worthwhile. If not . . . then everyone who was involved in the decision was probably pay a price . . .

This issue here of of control: once an athlete joins the team, whatever his or her previous history, he/she passes into the sphere of influence controlled by the coach and the discipline of the team. It is a kind of contract -- team members agree to abide by the rules; coaches agree to not abuse the rules and to try to apply the rules fairly and judiciously for the good of the team. So the issue is always looking at a student athlete's history before they get to school and deciding if the history is worth the risk. I'm sure that there are other kinds of risks the coaches take that we don't see in less high profile situations: grades, other kinds of risky behaviors, atttitudes, etc. Some kids make the cut based on coach's judgements, some do not.

"Therefore, since the felony previously discussed occured at a time when the individual was not subject to team rules, this conduct can be ignored. It sends a message that violation of laws can be excused, but not violation of rules."

Three uses of "ignored" in one entry (a cogent entry, Mad Max, and I respect you for it). As per my previous entry, I don't think it was "ignored." I think that the behavior and risk were weighed and a measured decision was made to go ahead and take a risk. As in my passage above -- every student athlete represents some kind of risk. The risk here is of course, whether the qualities of the individual when weighed, lend enough confidence to the coaching staff to risk the significant respect of the team in the community and potentially some risk to team discipline. We'll see, I suppose.

I don't think it sends a message that a violation of the laws can be excused . . . I think it says there can be significant qualifying factors that may, in certain instances, lend good reasons for setting aside the normal concerns a coach might have for bringing in a student with this kind of history.

Let's remember the reason this is such an issue is because it is so unusual in the history of this team and coach (unusual, but not unprecedented). But it exactly this kind of coach who has the credibility to risk in these kinds of special instances -- and who has the most to lose if Raines doesn't work out.

The other thing is -- I wonder how much of our distrust is also because of our suspicion about the motivations and pressures from this administration to win, and our concern that it is not just Jeff making this decision, the pressure being exerted on him.

I suspect in different times we'd still be concerned about this decsion, but perhaps more apt to give coach the benefit of the doubt.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Stephen,

Quite an excellent discourse. Here is my concern, however. At what point do we stop identifying "privileges" as "rights"?

For instance, admission to the Bar (and schools of law) is contingent upon a clean record with respect to felonious acts. If you have a felony conviction on your record, you can't play (in a legal sense). That's the way it is in that arena.

In the case of Raines, USM's giving him a scholarship is a signal to young people that you can mess up really badly and that you'll be given a second chance at a privileged career. Suppose Raines is a standout linebacker at USM. He'll probably have a really good shot at getting drafted to play in the NFL. Once that happens, it is like he never took part in the criminal activity at all. Let Raines into USM, sure. Let Raines play on the football team, sure (but on his own nickel). Just don't reward bad behavior, whether past or present, with a privilege (scholarship athlete status), because it does send the message that a lifetime of good behavior doesn't carry the same weight it used to. Giving second chances is a good thing. Is Raines more deserving of that scholarship than the lifelong good guy that is currently a walk-on? Not in my opinion.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

Stephen, Quite an excellent discourse. Here is my concern, however. At what point do we stop identifying "privileges" as "rights"? For instance, admission to the Bar (and schools of law) is contingent upon a clean record with respect to felonious acts. If you have a felony conviction on your record, you can't play (in a legal sense). That's the way it is in that arena. In the case of Raines, USM's giving him a scholarship is a signal to young people that you can mess up really badly and that you'll be given a second chance at a privileged career. Suppose Raines is a standout linebacker at USM. He'll probably have a really good shot at getting drafted to play in the NFL. Once that happens, it is like he never took part in the criminal activity at all. Let Raines into USM, sure. Let Raines play on the football team, sure (but on his own nickel). Just don't reward bad behavior, whether past or present, with a privilege (scholarship athlete status), because it does send the message that a lifetime of good behavior doesn't carry the same weight it used to. Giving second chances is a good thing. Is Raines more deserving of that scholarship than the lifelong good guy that is currently a walk-on? Not in my opinion.

I don't think the "privileges" vs "rights" issue is germaine here. No one has asserted that Raines has a "right" to get a scholarship and come to school here.

Entrance to a university isn't comparable to entrance to an program that will culminate in the becoming a member of a profession pledged to uphold the law. Of course the issue of a sudent's history vis a vis the law is absolutely of legitimate concern because that history might serve to undermine the very profession and standards the student aspires to.

"Forgiveness", "redemption" , "second chnaces" do not mean "cleaning the slate "as though he never took part in any criminal activity at all." One gives the student a "second chance" in full cognizance of the risk and reward --

My mother would forgive me for wrongs I did . . but repeated violations always meant more severe prohibitions . . . to the point where the prohibitions became so severe I quite conceivably might never see the privilege again. The point of incremental punishment is that we can look down the long horizon of the future and see the point at which repeated vilations will mean the permanent loss of that which we cherish . . . we only need to be clear that the person disciplining us will carry that program of discipline out all the way to its inevitable end if we choose not to obey . . .

On the other hand, we can also look down that long horizon as an offender and see that there is also the possibility of learning from our acts and being a be to be restored to full participation in society . . .

If you kill the hope of restoration, you also kill much of the motivation for me fixing my behavior . . .

Giving someone a second chance isn't "rewarding" bad behavior IF the person who violated the rules has paid a penalty and has acknowleged fault and promised to change -- I don't know whether I feel that Raines penalty was severe enough . . . or that I believe his sincerity in his apology. But, since I cannot judge the state of people's hearts except by their actions, I can only choose to either take him at his word or not. If I take him at his word then I have to watch him as he is presented with new opportunities to see how he handles them. It seems to me (barring things we don't know) that Raines has led a pretty disciplined and trouble-free life since he got out of detention. He took a step -- went to a JC instead of a major school. He fared well. He took the next step -- applied to a major and, in fact, suffered the penalty of doubt since none of the majors picked him up (and the one who had accepted him turned him away). So I would not say there is no penalty - he carries the mark, like Cain, with him through his life. Is it as bad a penalty as that of the kid who died? Of course not. But I hardly see the benefit to society of permanently casting a kid who seems as though he is working to fix his life into a permanent prison without bars.

Punishment cannot be an end to itself -- it has to have an object. Punishment can be discipline -- teaching someone right from wrong. It can also act as a deterent. It can also be used to segregate those few who society regards as unrecoverable, in other words, for those whom the "risk" isn't worth the reward.

It seems to me that this young man has been punished . . . and is being punished still. Was it enough? Perhaps not. But the covenant that we have with our legal system is that once someone serves then the rest of us have to make an effort to accept and restore the offender back into society rather than ourselves continuing to inflict punishment and justice. This is, obviously, far more difficult to do with violent defenders . . . and is particularly problematic with repeat offenders. But it is also possible to bear in mind that we can make the conditions for someone's return to open society so unbearable, so full of reminders of what they have done, so full of unforgiveness that we can make recidivism not only possible, but inevitable.

I don't want to make this a defense of our criminal justice system -- I know it is way to complicated and I am not that much of a simpleton. But we are talking about a kid who made one huge terrible mistake that resulted in another human being's death. I think you either accept that at some point, that there is no coin of the realm that return the dead boy to life. I think you either accept that any reasonable human being who makes that kind of mistake lives with it forever -- and that itself is punishment that will never end. Or you believe that people -- and this person in particular, needs to be made to continually see his guilt over and over because we are incapable of reading whether or not he continues to carry it within. So the story then isn't about him -- it is about us.

And how do we know Raines -- or any other person in this position -- is a "reasonable human being?" We can't -- we can only watch as they move through life, watching the decisions they make, trying to discern from those decisions whether the impact of that action is something that has marked and chnaged them forever. And at every point when they make the right decision, the future should open up - not close down, just as it does for the rest of humanity.

Is Raines more deserving of a scholarship . . . this is impossible to answer since we don't know what theoretical "life long good guy" he was up against. Obviously, in the eyes of the coaching staff, the combination of talent, remorse, a recovered history, and the needs of the team coincided to make the risk seem worthwhile at the expense of that theoretical "good guy."

These kinds of choices are bloody . . . they are bloody because the sincerity of the effort to give a second chance are always undercut by the question of the "real" motivation . . . in truth, the motivations are mixed. But allowing the having of mixed motivations to cause a paralysis that preents action . . . or influences you into acting against your gut instinct because of some want to be able to act only out of "purity" is delusional. We live in too complex a world for that, and every significant decision we make on our own behalf or on the behalf of others is tinged not only with selflessness and selfishness.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

I am sure your football coach is a prince of a person and will tolerate nothing short of excellence on and off the field, in ethics and in life, but reading this thread has convinced me that college football in general is s a pain in the a$$ and has no business on a college campus. Otherwise, the rules for football players would not vary from the rules for the other students.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Let Raines have a few good games, five are six unassisted tackles in a game, and he will not be an issue. If he comes in and is not successful no one will remember his name.

This board should have more important things to discuss....or do we?

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Referee wrote:

I am sure your football coach is a prince of a person and will tolerate nothing short of excellence on and off the field, in ethics and in life, but reading this thread has convinced me that college football in general is s a pain in the a$$ and has no business on a college campus. Otherwise, the rules for football players would not vary from the rules for the other students.

Leaving aside the "college football is a P.I.T.A." for the moment, I shudder trying to imagine a college campus where football players are held to the same rules as for other students. More specifically, the general student body is not prohibited from frequenting nightspots known for gunfire & there are far more convicted (hopefully rehabilitated) felons per capita in the general student population than on sports teams.

Yes, we all know that Raines kicked another kid & allegedly cause that kid's death. What we don't know is if the kid in the third desk, second row, of any randomly-selected class did something similar.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

The Raines recruitment had more to do with RG and SFT, than it did with JB. I don't think Raines would ever have been high on Bower's list if the people behind the hiring of LE hadn't been strong arming that one.

On another note - I do so hope that D'Lo will be able to field a golf team.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Emma wrote:

On another note - I do so hope that D'Lo will be able to field a golf team.

Is it possible that you might recommend Doubting Thomas for the coaching position? I think he'd get along famously with W.J.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Emma wrote:

The Raines recruitment had more to do with RG and SFT, than it did with JB. I don't think Raines would ever have been high on Bower's list if the people behind the hiring of LE hadn't been strong arming that one.
On another note - I do so hope that D'Lo will be able to field a golf team.

Actually, Emma, I was going to post along these lines earlier but did not.

The story is that Raines mother mailed letters of interest and video to JB, RG, and SFT. It was RG and SFT that pressed the issue. Another case of micromanaging.

Of course, this latest disciplinary action may have been to quiet the "Bower is soft" grumbling that started when Raines got his scholly.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Invictus wrote:

Emma wrote:
On another note - I do so hope that D'Lo will be able to field a golf team.

Is it possible that you might recommend Doubting Thomas for the coaching position? I think he'd get along famously with W.J.

Invictus,

Ah, yes, another joke at my expense rather than responding to my questions and/or issues raised. Last time I'll respond to one of your snide remarks. Glad you feel the need to continue this tired line of action.

DT

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

Ah, yes, another joke at my expense rather than responding to my questions and/or issues raised. Last time I'll respond to one of your snide remarks. Glad you feel the need to continue this tired line of action.

I take it they surgically removed your sense of humor.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

raines on scholarship is an issue and will continue to be an issue for the balance of jeff's career.

1-did he not have the guts to stand up to shelby and giannai(sp)?

2-does he really want to give a player a second chance?

3-this business before team member/now a team member is pure double talk

a coach that really wants a disciplined team does kick players off for team violations and he does not give scholarships to convicted felons

i have know jeff for 30 years and he really is a decent guy, a bit arrogrant, but he went down in my view after this raines issue

(now about the graduation rate, my bird dog can pass some of the courses we teach at usm....didnt i see where Mississippi has the lowest ACT scores in the nation? real quick give me another Div I school that is in the academic boat as USM?)

Date: Aug 1, 2005

3 point land wrote:

didnt i see where Mississippi has the lowest ACT scores in the nation?

You may be right, but that would surprise me. Where did you see that information?

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Free Shot wrote:

3 point land wrote: didnt i see where Mississippi has the lowest ACT scores in the nation? You may be right, but that would surprise me. Where did you see that information?

Clairon Ledger 7/31 if not maybe C/L 7/30

I think the average Mississippi ACT was 18.8,

Date: Aug 1, 2005

I didn't see anything in the Clarion-Ledger on this message board about USM having the lowest ACT scores in the nation. Did anyone else see it?

Date: Aug 1, 2005

I will have to agree with DT on this one since I know that what was posited is true. DT - whoever you are - you've got a pulse on some of this. Use it to the academic part of the university's advantage. We're talking about a pretty screwed up university system when there are some good days to be remembered. As you well know, the faculty basically supports Mr. Jeff because the man has some major ethics. If they disdain the decisions of other people in his area, they basically know that Jeff Bower isn't a part of the sinking Titanic. Frankly JB ought to jump at other offers from higher places this year - he deserves it.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Emma,

I agree that Bower has qualities that I admire in folks who don't have to have them to keep a job like his, if that makes any sense. I don't think most people know just how screwed up the athletic department at USM really is or what might happen if the NCAA ever decided to visit and look real hard at what is going on. Thanks for your thoughts and for your post above.

DT

Date: Aug 1, 2005

reader wrote:

I didn't see anything in the Clarion-Ledger on this message board about USM having the lowest ACT scores in the nation. Did anyone else see it?

http://orig.clarionledger.com/news/0305/29/m03.html

this was may 29, but the same info was in 7/30 or 7/31 (3-5 days for google to post new info)

Date: Aug 1, 2005

The article talks about Mississippi having the lowest ACT scores in the nation, not USM in particular.

3 point land wrote:

reader wrote: I didn't see anything in the Clarion-Ledger on this message board about USM having the lowest ACT scores in the nation. Did anyone else see it? http://orig.clarionledger.com/news/0305/29/m03.html this was may 29, but the same info was in 7/30 or 7/31 (3-5 days for google to post new info)

Date: Aug 1, 2005

3 point land wrote:

my bird dog can pass some of the courses we teach at usm....didnt i see where Mississippi has the lowest ACT scores in the nation?

When you said that your bird dog can pass some of the courses we teach at usm, and then added the part about the lowest ACT scores in the nation, I mistakenly interpreted that to mean that usm had the lowest ACT scores in the nation. I now see what you meant. I don't doubt for a minute that, considering the scores of all students who take the ACT (college bound and non- college bound), Mississippi's scores as a group are the lowest.