It's almost like they set it up to look so good - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

It's almost like they set it up to look so good

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
zombie_babies
Dec 20, 2012 15:06:00 Link

And you thought college was about education. It's big business, silly!

EDIT: And look at the differences. Wide lattitude in suspension decisions at Alabama, first time offense is immediate boot at North Carolina, at Duke you're suspended for a year, at Maryland you have to have counseling but the coaches are not allowed to discipline you - which sounds bad until you look at Bowling Green where testing is voluntary. Wow.
#2
homicidal_squirrel
Dec 20, 2012 15:18:07
Link

And you thought college was about education. It's big business, silly!

EDIT: And look at the differences. Wide lattitude in suspension decisions at Alabama, first time offense is immediate boot at North Carolina, at Duke you're suspended for a year, at Maryland you have to have counseling but the coaches are not allowed to discipline you - which sounds bad until you look at Bowling Green where testing is voluntary. Wow.

How does this surprise you? Next thing you're going to tell me is that UM's footbll pogram is totally clean, right?

#3
zombie_babies
Dec 20, 2012 15:30:56 It's not really surprising that it's there, it's somewhat surprising how some of the schools deal with it. And, you know, that the NCAA announces 'random' drug tests.
#4
homicidal_squirrel
Dec 20, 2012 15:40:36 Why does that surprice you?
#5
zombie_babies
Dec 20, 2012 15:44:06 Meh, I at least figured that the schools would say they had tough policies and then just not enforce them.
#6
homicidal_squirrel
Dec 20, 2012 15:46:14
Meh, I at least figured that the schools would say they had tough policies and then just not enforce them.

They generally do, just not against athletes who bring in money.

#7
zombie_babies
Dec 20, 2012 16:10:52 That's what the article showed - that some of them don't. Hell, at Maryland it's against policy to punish first time offenders. That's pretty lax. UCLA requires three failed tests before discipline. Hardly a tough stance.
#8
homicidal_squirrel
Dec 20, 2012 16:14:37
That's what the article showed - that some of them don't. Hell, at Maryland it's against policy to punish first time offenders. That's pretty lax. UCLA requires three failed tests before discipline. Hardly a tough stance.

Well, Like I said, those rules aren't impossed on players who bring in money. How much you want to be that the women's badmington team has the player hit in the face with a bat if they even so much as say the word "drug?"

#9
Cpt_Micha
Dec 21, 2012 18:36:10 Well when you have college guys that are bigger than some of the bigger NFL guys... you would think questions would be asked at some point.
#10
homicidal_squirrel
Dec 21, 2012 19:11:17 Why? It's not like the players are going to lose money for using drugs. It's the universities and the NCAA that would lose money if the better performing athletes don't play.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombie_babies Dec 20, 2012 15:06:00	Link And you thought college was about education. It's big business, silly! EDIT: And look at the differences. Wide lattitude in suspension decisions at Alabama, first time offense is immediate boot at North Carolina, at Duke you're suspended for a year, at Maryland you have to have counseling but the coaches are not allowed to discipline you - which sounds bad until you look at Bowling Green where testing is voluntary. Wow.
#2 homicidal_squirrel Dec 20, 2012 15:18:07	Link And you thought college was about education. It's big business, silly! EDIT: And look at the differences. Wide lattitude in suspension decisions at Alabama, first time offense is immediate boot at North Carolina, at Duke you're suspended for a year, at Maryland you have to have counseling but the coaches are not allowed to discipline you - which sounds bad until you look at Bowling Green where testing is voluntary. Wow. How does this surprise you? Next thing you're going to tell me is that UM's footbll pogram is totally clean, right?
#3 zombie_babies Dec 20, 2012 15:30:56	It's not really surprising that it's there, it's somewhat surprising how some of the schools deal with it. And, you know, that the NCAA announces 'random' drug tests.
#4 homicidal_squirrel Dec 20, 2012 15:40:36	Why does that surprice you?
#5 zombie_babies Dec 20, 2012 15:44:06	Meh, I at least figured that the schools would say they had tough policies and then just not enforce them.
#6 homicidal_squirrel Dec 20, 2012 15:46:14	Meh, I at least figured that the schools would say they had tough policies and then just not enforce them. They generally do, just not against athletes who bring in money.
#7 zombie_babies Dec 20, 2012 16:10:52	That's what the article showed - that some of them don't. Hell, at Maryland it's against policy to punish first time offenders. That's pretty lax. UCLA requires three failed tests before discipline. Hardly a tough stance.
#8 homicidal_squirrel Dec 20, 2012 16:14:37	That's what the article showed - that some of them don't. Hell, at Maryland it's against policy to punish first time offenders. That's pretty lax. UCLA requires three failed tests before discipline. Hardly a tough stance. Well, Like I said, those rules aren't impossed on players who bring in money. How much you want to be that the women's badmington team has the player hit in the face with a bat if they even so much as say the word "drug?"
#9 Cpt_Micha Dec 21, 2012 18:36:10	Well when you have college guys that are bigger than some of the bigger NFL guys... you would think questions would be asked at some point.
#10 homicidal_squirrel Dec 21, 2012 19:11:17	Why? It's not like the players are going to lose money for using drugs. It's the universities and the NCAA that would lose money if the better performing athletes don't play.