looks like Kiffin has signed a real jewel..(unbelievable)..

[tennisdawg.sixpack]

Kiffin signs a convicted rapist

This is just sad.

 

[tennisdawg.sixpack]

Kiffin signs a convicted rapist

This is just sad.

 

[tennisdawg.sixpack]

Kiffin signs a convicted rapist

This is just sad.

 

[hotdogface9]

He's a "therapist"</p>

 

[roengardner]

nt

 

[DynamicDawg]

I hope everybody does everything they can to beat this guy. I hope he loses every game. The sooner he's no longer coaching in the SEC, the better.

 

[tennisdawg.sixpack]

"good kids" and all that jazz, but even I would be embarrassed as an MSU fan (which takes alot at this point), if we signed a guy like this...

 

[KurtRambis4]

special ed

 

[thelaw]

According to court records, Hood and another teenager were charged in 2003 with assaulting a 14-year-old girl. <span style="font-weight: bold;">The victim's legs and wrists were tied and her eyes and mouth were covered with duct tape before she was raped at the Sullivan County home of Hood's father.</span>

This is absolute ********. Thugs are one thing, rapists shouldn't even be a question. This is truly despicable.

 

[Shmuley]

I'll take the Penis Mightier for $400.

 

[olemissbydamn]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4146057

I have a different take than most of you, but I'm already tired of debating it on another board.

REad the article linked. The victim even went to bat for him.</p>

 

[thelaw]

after she had been tied up with duct tape by both Sanico <span style="font-weight: bold;">and Hood</span>

I don't really want to get into a long discussion about this either. I'll just say that I would have a significant problem if state signed this guy.

 

[lawdawg02]

i'm surprised he turned that down to go to tennessee.</p>

 

[Shmuley]

and I suspect that you know that. See, the problem is that redemption has to look like something. That's true enough. The question, though, is whether redemption has to look like a full athletic scholarship to a D1 program. I fall into the category of hardasses that believes there are certain behaviors that, if you engage in them, you disqualify yourself permanently. Doesn't mean you can't live, earn a living, etc. Just means you don't get to be on TV every saturday and get held out as a role model.

 

[thelaw]

nt.

 

[DynamicDawg]

But, it doesn't change my opinion of Kiffin. I think the University of Tennessee and the SEC would be better off without him.

 

[FlabLoser]

[No message]

 

[jackobee]

Doesn't this mean he'll have to register as a "Sex Offender" for the rest of his life?

 

[RebelBruiser]

That's just because we're a bunch of nutbags that think that those who receive full athletic scholarships should be held to higher standards than those that receive academic scholarships.

I'm not defending his actions. That was wrong.

However, if this kid was making straight A's and pulled a 1500 on his SAT, no one would hear about him or his case if he chose to go to school to study business, and his past issue would not have prevented him from getting full academic scholarships to many schools.

I want someone to sell me on why a person that works hard enough and has enough natural talent to earn an athletic scholarship should be held to a different standard than someone that works hard enough and has enough natural intelligence to earn an academic scholarship. Seriously, I'm willing to listen to reasons and change my opinion. I just want to know why we should treat academic and athletic ability differently.

ETA: I had a classmate who fit the academic profile listed above. When he was about 16 or 17, he called in a bomb threat to his school and got caught, which got him in major trouble. Obviously, it's different than Hood's situation, but this kid was allowed to enter school with enough scholarship money that the school was actually paying him. He committed a crime when he was underage, and it had no effect on his scholarship status.

 

[ckDOG]

I want someone to sell me on why a person that works hard enough and has enough natural talent to earn an athletic scholarship should be held to a different standard than someone that works hard enough and has enough natural intelligence to earn an academic scholarship. Seriously, I'm willing to listen to reasons and change my opinion. I just want to know why we should treat academic and athletic ability differently.

I think you are wrong. He isn't being held to a different standard. He's just being scrutinized on a much larger scale. Don't even try to assume that his peers and administrators who evaluate him or have to study/work with him won't have the same reservations. They can and would. A documented rapist is going to be scrutinized top to bottom no matter how long its been since the rape happened or what good acts/behavior followed it.

 

[patdog]

You're really comparing calling in a prank bomb threat to tieing a girl up and raping her??? What your friend did was stupid. What this guy did is evil.

 

[RebelBruiser]

I want someone to sell me on why a person that works hard enough and
has enough natural talent to earn an athletic scholarship should be
held to a different
standard than someone that works hard enough and has enough natural
intelligence to earn an academic scholarship. Seriously, I'm willing to
listen to
reasons and change my opinion. I just want to know why we should treat
academic and athletic ability differently.

I think you are wrong. He isn't being held to a different standard. He's just being scrutinized on a much larger scale. Don't even try to assume that his peers and administrators who evaluate him or have to study/work with him won't have the same reservations. They can and would. A documented rapist is going to be scrutinized top to bottom no matter how long its been since the rape happened or what good acts/behavior followed it.

Here's the rub. This information about Hood shouldn't have ever been made public, because he was a minor. So, if he was an average student, the information likely never would've crossed the admissions desk at any school, so he'd have been treated as any other student.

The only reason this became an issue is because he plays football and was being recruited when the information leaked.

 

[Shmuley]

Would you let him babysit your 8 year old daughter?

If not, why not?

You mean you're going to hold him to a different standard than the 15 year old HS junior female across the street?

 

[Shmuley]

his crime predates passage of sex-offender registry laws, or there is an exception for juves.

 

[RebelBruiser]

You're really comparing calling in a prank bomb threat to tieing a girl up and raping her??? What your friend did was stupid. What this guy did is evil.

I'm not comparing the incidents, and as I said, what they did was wrong and sick. My point was that if a crime had occurred with a non-athlete student when he was a minor, it likely would not have ever been a consideration from those giving academic scholarships, just like the guy's bomb threat was never even considered by those that gave him an academic scholarship, because I don't think they knew about it or had any reason to know about it.

 

[RebelBruiser]

Would you let him babysit your 8 year old daughter?

If not, why not?

You mean you're going to hold him to a different standard than the 15 year old HS junior female across the street?

You completely misunderstood what I was saying. If the same person, committing the same act, was seeking a full academic scholarship, there is a good chance the incident never crosses the school's desk, and there is a good chance he gets his free ride if he has the scores.

So why should he be treated differently seeking an athletic scholarship than if he were seeking an academic scholarship? I'm comparing a person like Hood as an athlete to a person like Hood as a scholar, not to the 15 year old across the street. I hope that clears it up so you can understand my point.

Again, I'm not condoning what he did, and I think it's sick. I'm just playing devil's advocate by asking the question, what if he weren't a great football player, what if he were just a great student?

 

[VegasDawg13]

Are you saying that if you don't trust someone enough to babysit your daughter that they shouldn't be allowed in college?</p>

 

[jackobee]

his crime predates passage of sex-offender registry laws, or there is an exception for juves.

Just wondering about the logistics of reporting as a sex offender if you lived in athletic on-campus housing.

 

[RebelBruiser]

That's a good point, and for the record, I don't trust anyone outside of my family and my immediate circle of close friends to babysit my daughter, no matter how good of a person I think you might be. That has nothing to do with my question though.

I was just asking if Hood would be treated differently if he were seeking academic scholarship instead, and if so, why? I think he would be treated differently if seeking academic scholarship, and I was wondering if that's the case why it should be that way.

Again, in no way do I condone his acts, just asking a question.

 

[ckDOG]

You completely misunderstood what I was saying. If the same person, committing the same act, was seeking a full academic scholarship, there is a good chance the incident never crosses the school's desk, and there is a good chance he gets his free ride if he has the scores.

So, you are suggesting that we don't judge people based on information unbeknownst to us? That's a pretty far out concept there. I don't know if I can get by with such radical idea.

Your point was that there are two standards. There simply aren't. If the guy was going the academic route and the scholarship committee was privy to the same information, he would be held to the same standard. A standard is a standard.

Your point should be that people in the spotlight (athlete, politician, model, rich person, etc.) have a greater propensity to having the skeletons in their closets exposed. There are just simply more people exposed to their character flaws. Word gets out. An average joe can just hide it better. That, I can agree with.

 

[thunderclap]

I think it's utterly dispicable that this kid is being offered an SEC scholarship with so many other good kids out there. I hope Lane Kiffin loses every game he ever coaches.

 

[Shmuley]

m,

 

[Rebels7]

And no one is condoning what he did. It's despicable. But did you read the court docs? It seems from your comments that maybe you didn't.

 

[Shmuley]

Here's excerpts from a March 2007 Philadelphia Enquirer article on the subject:

Along with SAT scores and extra-curricular activities, college-bound students increasingly are being asked to divulge information that may not be so flattering: their arrest and discipline records. Since late summer, the Common Application, a form used by about 300 institutions, has asked students and guidance counselors whether the applicant has ever been convicted of a crime or disciplined at school. Kids with rocky pasts may not make it beyond 12th grade.

In an effort to weed out troublemakers before they hit campus, colleges with their own forms also are requiring prospective students to disclose behavioral black marks. More, including Temple, Rowan and Rutgers Universities, are contemplating it. The University of Pennsylvania put its admissions policy under review after the discovery in January that a 25-year-old child molester taking graduate courses was commuting from his Bucks County prison cell. Saint Joseph's University will ask about applicants' misdeeds beginning next year. "It's an issue that's exploding," said Timothy Mann, dean of student affairs at Babson College, who is writing his doctoral dissertation on the subject. The debate over whether to screen and for what is contentious. Opponents cite privacy issues and the risk of penalizing offenders twice. Education encourages rehabilitation, argues the United States Student Association, the nation's largest student group.</p>Though campus crime has not appreciably increased since 2003, according to the U.S. Department of Education, a few high-profile crimes committed by students with rap sheets have led institutions to reexamine their admissions process. The Common Application added its inquiries at the request of schools concerned about liability, executive director Rob Killion said. Students are warned not to omit information. If they're caught lying, they're disqualified. Administrators believe most comply.

A single after-school detention or graffiti incident isn't what schools look for, anyway. "We have 9,000 applications and there are eight counselors," said Matt Middleton, assistant director of admissions at the College of New Jersey in Ewing, where students are asked about suspensions and criminal convictions. (No one has copped to the latter.) "We're lucky if we can get more than five to 10 minutes with an application." <span style="font-weight: bold;">A "history of serious misbehavior" is what Villanova University looks for</span>, said Stephen R. Merritt, dean of enrollment. Several states have taken stricter measures. A new law criticized by privacy advocates forces Virginia colleges to reveal names and birth dates of incoming students so police can cross-check sex-offender lists. If there's a match, the school and local police are told and the offender has three days to register with authorities after moving to campus.</p>

 

[Shmuley]

There, is that better, you f'n gnat straining piece of ****?

 

[dawgstudent]

</p>

 

[Rebels7]

Why am I not shocked?

 

[Shmuley]

You think it's more forgivable that this piece of **** only taped the helpless girl to the bed. That makes it OK. I get it.

And I'm not shocked that there are people who's brains are so warped that they can look past this kind of **** when it comes to their Saturday football fix.

 

[RebelBruiser]

You completely misunderstood what I was saying. If the same person,
committing the same act, was seeking a full academic scholarship, there
is a good chance
the incident never crosses the school's desk, and there is a good
chance he gets his free ride if he has the scores.

So, you are suggesting that we don't judge people based on information unbeknownst to us? That's a pretty far out concept there. I don't know if I can get by with such radical idea.

Your point was that there are two standards. There simply aren't. If the guy was going the academic route and the scholarship committee was privy to the same information, he would be held to the same standard. A standard is a standard.

Your point should be that people in the spotlight (athlete, politician, model, rich person, etc.) have a greater propensity to having the skeletons in their closets exposed. There are just simply more people exposed to their character flaws. Word gets out. An average joe can just hide it better. That, I can agree with.

I agree with that, and that's a valid explanation and point.

 

[RebelBruiser]

I don't know that I've seen anyone agree with it. For me personally, I was just posing a question, and I got some solid answers.