Mr. Wizard, IIRC the story correctly, the "murderous adult thug" was a high school student at a drinking party. This is not to say that I disagree with the general premise that Raines should not have been given a scholarship to support his attendance at USM. I think it was ill-advised, reflects the win-at-any-cost mentality of the SFT/RG approach to athletic administration & casts the university in a negative light.

Stephen's overalla nalysis is quite good, though. And I trust Jeff Bower's ability to handle the situation that I fully believe was handed to him by his superiors.

Invictus:

Thanks for making a point I would have made about Mr. Wizard's "thug" comment.

I think in my writing on this issue I have tried to be very open about my own skeptism and doubts concerning the wisdom of this move and the ethical quandries it poses. It would be easier simply to not have to deal with the problem.

On the other hand, I am by temperment and experience opposed to overlegalistic applications of rules and even of laws -- while I think that makes it easier for those who tend to see the world in terms of black and white, I think it makes it also is a quick way to absolve ourselves of the responsibility for dealing with the people at the center of the issue and for sometimes taking the risk that in applying "law" without an eye to a specific set of circumstances and contexts we may be doing more damage than the application of the rules is intended to fix.

Is this one of the places? I think it clearly is a place where the circumstances and the individuals raise troubling questions on both sides of the matter. I do not think that any discussion will "solve" the problem -- I don't think this is the kind of problem that can be solved -- unlerss you are an absolutist about the application of punishment (a legitimate position, but one that I do not hold).

For "coastliner" -- I think this kind of issue is important, and falls easily within the purview of a board that has devoted itself to extended conversations about the nature of academia, the uneasy relationship between the university as an academic enterprise and the university as a business, and an number of other issues related to but not circumscribed by concerns about this administration.

For those of you who have inside information on the Raine's decision -- then you have more data on which to base your decisions about its correctness than I. All I have is my sense of a coach (albeit one under pressure) who is reputed to try to run an underfunded but ambitious program the right way and has done so for many years. In view of the fact that this is not a team populated by felons and students with altered transcipts and in view of his reputation as a straight guy who tends to be pretty reluctant to break his own rules, I'd say that even though I'm not crazy about this decision, I'm going to defer to his judgement and believe that there are many things weighing in this decision, some born of pragmatism, some born of compassion, and hope for the best. If it is a wrong decision -- I'm sure the athletic department will pay the price.

On the other hand, if the risk actually produces a good student, a good athlete and a good citizen . . . then that decision to take the risk will have been affirmed.

Of greater interest is whether this represents an isolated moment in time . . . or the beginning of a trend that might confirm that team standards are being eroded. On this issue I agree that we need to be watchful but we will only know if such practicies begin to become habitual rather than occasional.

In my mind, the 17/18 issue is a non-issue. He was old enough to know right from wrong. He and his friends beat and kicked another human being to death.

Again, from what I've heard, the recent disciplinary action was a move by Bower to show the community that he [Bower] is still has standards and discipline. These players happened to screw up at the wrong time.

Invictus wrote:

---

Doubting Thomas wrote: In my mind, the 17/18 issue is a non-issue. He was old enough to know right from wrong. He and his friends beat and kicked another human being to death. I agree that the distinction between 17 & 18 is immaterial to the morality of the act that Raines committed. I was simply reminding Mr. Wizard that Raines was not a legal adult at the time the incident happened. It doesn't take away one iota from what he did & I'm in full agreement with Stephen Judd on this -- USM shouldn't have given Raines a scholarship. Jeff Bower probably did not sit around thinking, "Now, the next players that get into police-type trouble off-campus are going to be kicked off the squad so I can telegraph a message to everybody about Raines." I don't doubt for a minute, though, that Raines (and all the other players) learned a lesson from the "High Hat 2000 incident." That is the message Coach Bower sent out -- break team rules & you're gone. And it's a message he's sent out pretty consistently for his entire coaching career.

---

If Jeff has to send continue to send the discipline message, maybe he is not the teacher/coach I thought he was for all these years.  If you have the reputation of enforcing your team rules, you better beleive all athletes know and understand(recruits as well) the rules.

I am suggesting Jeff took this opportunity to show who is boss and at the same time let the media know discipline is important at USM.  The Raines situation played a role in the script.

Another old coaching trick is to make some excuses before the season the season begins especially if things are looking that good.