I think he was just referring to the fact that Iowa's track record isn't the best in the Navy. Go fly some rubber dog poo out of Hong Kong. Have a nice day.
David Sims charged
- Thread starter mizouse87
- Start date
I think he was just referring to the fact that Iowa's track record isn't the best in the Navy. Go fly some rubber dog poo out of Hong Kong. Have a nice day.
The season hasn't started yet. They have been top 5 for the last several years.
For starters, in 2002...........starting tailback Fred Russell was injured and his backup going into the Penn State game Jermelle Lewis was arrested in the bar district for kicking in car doors less than a week before the game.
I WISH THOSE WHO THINK HE SHOULD BE PUNISHED MORE WOULD JUST NOT COMMENT OR WORRY ABOUT THE SITUATION! He's a first time offender, he has never been in trouble before there or neither here in Gainesville. Thats the problem with some people you worry about the wrong thing to much. If you dont like how this is going down how about you forget about it and leave D.Sims to himmself. Because believe it or not this only makes us go harder and makes us hungrier for success! Everyone makes big mistakes in life and everyone deserves a 2nd chance in life.
"Feb 2nd D-1 Commit 2011"
"Feb 2nd D-1 Commit 2011"
Homerhawkeye777 - i have to say ur about as good of a Hawk poster on this board as there is - but, i cannot agree on this at all....
Being that you brought up my favorite of all time Clint Huntrods...
Yes he was kicked off the team - for what...Public Urination
So answer this riddle - why is a player kicked off the team for an offense such as Public urination, which by the way, almost every male can attest to having done at some point in their lives. And then you have players such as James Ferentz, Zach Derby, Tyler Christiansen, Ricky Stanzi, Calloway, the list goes on with similar arrests allowed to stay on team.
Second riddle - why would a player, a starter, charged with assault, plead not guilt until the season is over and then change his plea?
But seriously - please don't point at Ferentz's past discipline record, its shaddy at best. Its simple, he is the highest paid state employee and he's paid to win. If i were in his shoes i would be walking that same slippery slope....he's not at USC or Texas, if one of his starters gets caught up in something, they ALWAYS do an internal investigation, evaluate the facts, and then assess if they can keep a player active or if they have to bite the bullet. Iowa don't have multiple Clayborns sittin on the bench...
As i stated in the other Sims thread, until the board of regents takes it out of the coaches hands, these coaches want to be tough on these kids and cant, they need them to earn their paycheck and keep their job!!!
I ask you this question in regards to the Clayborn case...and its a simple one...
If Iowa had a similar policy in place as ISU, any player charged with a crime is remove from participation in sports immediately until the case is resolved. How long would it have taken Clayborns attorney to get a plea done.
In my mind, that policy is the difference between Clayborn process and Sims process. Sims knew that as long as this case hung out there, he could not participate. Clayborn and UofI dont have a similar policy, he pleaded not guilty, participated, after the bowl game, he changed his plea....coincidence, i think not....
If fans and boosters want this crap to end, they need to take it out of the Coaches hands - PERIOD....until then, expect a double standard regardless of school....starters get preferred treatment, non-starters lose their schollies.....unless the charges are too extreme or evidence (ala the uofi rape case or berryman cell phone incident) are too great...
Last edited:
Don't worry, here it is.
2009-http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2009/09/03/fulmer-cup-2009-the-final-tally/
Fulmer Cup Dynasty - SAS Wiki
Now, the initial argument was wrong. You guys were in the top 5 last year but prior to that you had a 9th, 11th, and 24th so really it is not that bad
In the dynasty scoring you are only 7th. Keep working at it and you may be able to catch our neighbors to the east.
OK, one game for kicking in car doors. To me, vandalism is worse than stealing. At least with stealing the perp gets something out of it. All vandalism does is ruin someones else's things. I would also say that instance likely caused way more dollars in damage than $600.
You know what I think about all this Hawk comparison stuff though? If I were a Hawk fan, I would say "Guess what? I don't really care." You don't see Florida or Tennesee or FSU worrying all that much about criminal records. They don't care because they win. The reason ISU fans bring this stuff up is because, honestly, it's the only thing we have on you. To me, who cares about this criminal stuff in a general scope? The schools normally aren't punished for it, like say, cheating on exams or agent scandals and such. In the end, it really doesn't matter. Sure we can run around talking about how clean our guys are and how we stay out of a bunch of trouble but that will never get you to a bowl game. I'm in no way saying this stuff should go unpunished. I am strictly talking about the acts themselves. I can think of very few D-1 college basketball and football programs who have been greatly successful without having some of these issues. Bobby Knight is about the best we can do in that regard. Every college program is is going to have these problems. There isn't an exception except for perhaps BYU. I do believe there is a phenomenon that exists where to get the talent you have to take on some behavioral risk from year to year. I don't believe that is in any way prejudice. It is how it is.
First off, what happened to those charges? Secondly, in an instance like that, it was an alcohol related offense where nobody got hurt. Lastly, just as another poster indicated, you got your time-line screwed up.
Why would those charges necessarily merit more than a 1-game suspension?
So you wouldn't care if someone kicked in your car door because noone got hurt?
KMAC -
It's no riddle. The issue is that context is important. When a rash of bad decisions are being made all at once and the focus of the team isn't where it should be, harsher measures are necessarily called for. Ideally, such offenses should be treated contextually and on a case-by-case basis. Otherwise, once the frequency of stupid actions diminishes, things can go back to being treated on a case-by-case basis.
In the case of Huntrods, he was also originally charged with interferring too. Thus, given the nature of the charges along with the fact that he was an upperclassmen who was supposed to set a POSITIVE example ... he then was removed from the team. Again, there is not riddle there.
Similarly, as for Calloway's offense ... time had passed and the frequency of offenses had gone down. Thus, context was allowed to figure into the picture. It just so happened that Calloway had taken a cab earlier that night ... however, a teammates girlfriend basically kicked a number of guys out of the apartment Calloway was staying at (that was some time after he had been at the bars)... and he then proceeded to make his bad decision. However, it's worth noting that Calloway passed the on-site sobriety test issued by the police officer that took him aside. Unfortunately for Kyle, because he still had a stamp on his hand from the bar (from earlier in the night), the officer took him in for the breath test.
As for Clayborn's case, Ferentz took context into consideration. Ferentz was told that a racial slur prompted Clayborn's response. If Clayborn had ANY prior record of making bad decision at Iowa, Ferentz possibly wouldn't have given him the benefit of the doubt. However, Clayborn had worked hard to establish himself as a trusted team leader. Were that not enough, Shonn Greene also was a VERY trusted and respected team leader, and Greene supported the story that Clayborn told Ferentz. Thus, with 2 highly trusted and respected team leaders providing him with relevant details of what transpired, Ferentz made a judgement call. Quite frankly, I think that if most of us were in a similar situation, we'd make the same call that Ferentz made. As for Clayborn changing his plea ... that's simply how our law-system works. The vast majority of cases in our country end up resulting in plea-deals.
Unfortunately people who are intoxicated do all sorts of stupid crap. I'd much rather have my car door kicked in than my face kicked in.
Besides, in such a case where there is a clear-cut culprit, it's an easy matter of procuring funds to fix the car. When something like that happens and the culprit doesn't get caught ... that sucks. However, all the same, it still isn't that big of a deal. There's a reason why you have insurance.
the guy might have gotten his face kicked in too?? maybe he deserved it, who knows?
Now I understand the Clayborn issue so much better. I can totally see why it is ok to assault someone because of something that they said to you. In checking I was surprised to find a loophole in Iowa law stating that if someone says something to you that you don't like, it is perfectly legal to go ahead and assault them. Glad that is all cleared up now.
Huh? You'd better check again - he's pleading not guilty...
Looks like he might follow the Clayborn strategy. :wideeyed: Perhaps it is a ploy to get the prosecution to plea bargain. Standard procedure.
Now I understand the Clayborn issue so much better. I can totally see why it is ok to assault someone because of something that they said to you. In checking I was surprised to find a loophole in Iowa law stating that if someone says something to you that you don't like, it is perfectly legal to go ahead and assault them. Glad that is all cleared up now.
Good lord. I suppose you understand nothing about the power of symbols and loaded words. Many racial epithets are loaded with a lot of historical context that is interlaced with violence and hate.
If you have a child, I'm sure that you'd find it honky-dory if a sex-offender was saying obscene things to your child. From your response, I suppose that you'd find it terrible if a parent would punch a sex-offender in such an instance.
As for bringing up Iowa law. Do you honestly believe that a jury would convict?
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that Clayborn made the correct choice. However, the problem is that I probably would have shown less restraint that Clayborn. So I suppose that I can understand his reaction. Fortunately, when juries are advised to consider what a reasonable person would do ... many of them wouldn't find the actions of Clayborn (or I) all that unreasonable.
homerHawk, I see your location is Lincoln, Nebraska. I realize that Big Red and Big 10 are having a KUMBAYA moment, publically, over their upcoming marriage. Have you detected any 2nd thoughts fromn the locals as to what they are getting into? My perception here with the Nebbie fans in SWIa is that they expect to be on a level with Ohio St./Penn St./Mich. pretty much from the get go. Privately, they look at the rest of the Big 10 at a level below them. They are hoping that a Big 10 West divison eventually develops (Ia., Wisc. Minn. Ill. NW. Neb.?) that they would dominant very similarly like they did the Big 12 North. Around here with the Neb. fans it is all about finally getting away from Texas/Oklahoma. Essentially they think Mich. is weak, PennSt. has always been overrated and Ohio St. will be their only challenge. Otherwords trading two tough teams for one. What do you hear from them privately?
