PonyFans.com

"TCU has booted 6x more players this year than LSU."

It was a joke in regards to GP's decision to not punish Casey Pachall......let's not take everything too seriously...

mrydel wrote:I believe he still needs to sit unless he transfers down.

That seems unfair... expected considering it is the NCAA. The kid screwed up (again), but the school said they don't want him. The school fired the kid. In a rational world he would be free to go wherever he wants.

Otto wrote:No, you don't punish him for being honest about the past. You punish him for doing drugs.

Maybe you can give him a cookie or a pat on the back or reduce his punishment because of his sudden honesty affliction, or even a big gold star on his next report card. The honest part is admirable. But the fact is that he broke the law, at least three times by his own admission. This isn't a school-bias thing, as I'm not foolish enough to think that it doesn't also go on at SMU, but for his sake, I really hope he has learned from this and doesn't do drugs anymore.

If I'd known that admitting my indiscretions meant I didn't have to face any consequences, I might have majored in bank robbery. I like the logic!

26.7% of college football players admitted in a voluntary study to the NCAA that they used marijuana in the last year. This study was done in 2009 and each time they do this study the percentage goes up. Also, that is a study indicating only those who voluntarily admitted they do it. So if you want to punish everyone by your standard, you are probably looking at punishing over 1/3 of all college football players.

The reality is that college football has a very permissive attitude towards recreational drugs and has for some time. The general public (and apparently the media with the way they covered the Pachall story) don't seem to know that many times the players that are suspended or kicked off the team for violating team rules are done so because of failed drug tests and this doesn't include all the other failed test for the first failed drug test that the general public doesn't know about because there is no suspension so nothing to report because of privacy rules. Really, the only time the media and general public know it is for drugs is when a player is arrested. In this case, Pachall wasn't even arrested or charged so the information should have never even become public information.

If you have been paying attention since February, you have witnessed a wide variety of possession arrests and failed drug tests on various teams across the country. This indicates that the so called problem at TCU is everywhere and probably even more pronounced in other colleges that have a far more permissive drug culture on their campus. The only difference is they aren't doing 6 month undercover drug investigations elsewhere. If you really are concerned about players being held accountable, you should be screaming bloody murder why TCU was the only school targeted when so many other fish (colleges) were allowed to escape the net.

ThisIsOurTime wrote:26.7% of college football players admitted in a voluntary study to the NCAA that they used marijuana in the last year.

76.32% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

I'm good with just TCU getting busted.

How could you have a more pervasive culture for drug use than TCU ? - they had dozens of kids dealing.

Its a big problem at TCU - bigger then most schools. They have a ton of work to do to get rid of the pot heads. They should start by maybe raising their admission standards.

stc9 wrote:

mrydel wrote:I believe he still needs to sit unless he transfers down.

That seems unfair... expected considering it is the NCAA. The kid screwed up (again), but the school said they don't want him. The school fired the kid. In a rational world he would be free to go wherever he wants.

If they kicked him out because he wasn't good enough (Happens quite a bit at schools like LSU that need room for new 5 star recruits. There are no seniors on the 3rd string), I would agree with you.

If you don't play by the rules, there has to be a punishment. If you allowed him to transfer to any school tomorrow, he might end up benefit from breaking the rules.

ojaipony wrote:

ThisIsOurTime wrote:26.7% of college football players admitted in a voluntary study to the NCAA that they used marijuana in the last year.

76.32% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Maybe that is what you do but people who want to be taken seriously have their statistics supported by facts. Like the stats I quoted was done by the NCAA. Here, is just one reference to it:

"NCAA statistics show a bump in the number of stoned athletes. In the NCAA's latest drug-use survey, conducted in 2009 and released in January, 22.6 percent of athletes admitted to using marijuana in the previous 12 months, a 1.4 percentage point increase over a similar 2005 study. Some 26.7 percent of football players surveyed fessed up, a higher percentage than in any other major sport. "

Article: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7819005/ncf-tcu-marijuana-problem-just-one-many-elite-college-programs-espn-magazine

You can also find the actual study by the NCAA on the web as well but this should do for now.

Digetydog wrote:

stc9 wrote:

mrydel wrote:I believe he still needs to sit unless he transfers down.

That seems unfair... expected considering it is the NCAA. The kid screwed up (again), but the school said they don't want him. The school fired the kid. In a rational world he would be free to go wherever he wants.

If they kicked him out because he wasn't good enough (Happens quite a bit at schools like LSU that need room for new 5 star recruits. There are no seniors on the 3rd string), I would agree with you.

If you don't play by the rules, there has to be a punishment. If you allowed him to transfer to any school tomorrow, he might end up benefit from breaking the rules.

Exactly. This was not his first offense. He defied the rules while on probation. That is the DP for a school by NCAA standards and that is essentially what he got. One year without football at a D1 school.

gostangs wrote:How could you have a more pervasive culture for drug use than TCU ? - they had dozens of kids dealing.

Its a big problem at TCU - bigger then most schools. They have a ton of work to do to get rid of the pot heads. They should start by maybe raising their admission standards.

You are a fool saying foolish things. They did an exhaustive 6 month investigation and out of 8,000+ students they arrested what 18 people. That is .002.

Even the word dealer is used in a very loose way here because the amounts found would not rise to the level the way the term is used with real drug dealers in the real world. They are only drug dealers because it is TCU and 6 months of detective work was done. Take a look at the total amount of drugs found and compare it to any regular drug bust in the real world and you would know why FW police detectives were laughing about this being a big joke. Just because it was sensationalized doesn't mean that is actually had a lot of substance.

But all that said, I don't have a problem with the players and students being arrested. What I have a problem with is that these investigations have only been done at TCU. You never hear about an investigation at UT, OU, Arkansas, etc despite plenty of evidence there should be. In those places, the most you will get are marijuana possession arrests and the police stop going any further. Feel free to look around, you won't find any 6 month investigations. The most I have ever heard of was a month and those were federal. The state and local PD know to not go after the Big State U football team. Of course, TCU doesn't have that same protection as the FWPD is not in their pocket.

If you are naive enough to believe that places like Austin, Berkeley, Fayettville, etc. don't have a more permissive drug culture and all those possession arrests don't show a serious problem; then, you better buckle up because life is going to be tough for you from here on out. If they were doing these 6 month drug sting investigations at other schools, you would know how ridiculous your position really is.

I'm not a criminal lawyer but I don't think a university would have the legal right to force a student to take an involuntary drug test without the players legal consent. So my understanding is that as part of the scholarship the student/athlete signs a written consent to submit to the school and NCAA policies and regulations on drug use which allows the school and sometimes the NCAA to conduct random drug tests that have to meet standards such as HIPAA privacy laws. Patterson doesn't talk about failed drug tests because its against the law. Whenever someone is punished the university never releases a statement that a kid failed a drug test. Instead they state that the punishment resulted from violations of team rules. Schools should follow school policy on drug use because that's the legal authority upon which the players agreed to waive their constitutional right not to be subject to random drug testing. Nobody has shown me TCU didn't.

Any chance we make a run for him?

ThisIsOurTime wrote:

ojaipony wrote:

ThisIsOurTime wrote:26.7% of college football players admitted in a voluntary study to the NCAA that they used marijuana in the last year.

76.32% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Maybe that is what you do but people who want to be taken seriously have their statistics supported by facts. Like the stats I quoted was done by the NCAA. Here, is just one reference to it:

"NCAA statistics show a bump in the number of stoned athletes. In the NCAA's latest drug-use survey, conducted in 2009 and released in January, 22.6 percent of athletes admitted to using marijuana in the previous 12 months, a 1.4 percentage point increase over a similar 2005 study. Some 26.7 percent of football players surveyed fessed up, a higher percentage than in any other major sport. "

Article: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7819005/ncf-tcu-marijuana-problem-just-one-many-elite-college-programs-espn-magazine

You can also find the actual study by the NCAA on the web as well but this should do for now.

And 82.1% of all statistics from NCAA surveys are inaccurate 22.41% of the time but only if done on a Sunday. If done any other day, they are 43.72% inaccurate.

Relax, dude. I'm just messin' with you.

ThisIsOurTime wrote:

Otto wrote:No, you don't punish him for being honest about the past. You punish him for doing drugs.

Maybe you can give him a cookie or a pat on the back or reduce his punishment because of his sudden honesty affliction, or even a big gold star on his next report card. The honest part is admirable. But the fact is that he broke the law, at least three times by his own admission. This isn't a school-bias thing, as I'm not foolish enough to think that it doesn't also go on at SMU, but for his sake, I really hope he has learned from this and doesn't do drugs anymore.

If I'd known that admitting my indiscretions meant I didn't have to face any consequences, I might have majored in bank robbery. I like the logic!

26.7% of college football players admitted in a voluntary study to the NCAA that they used marijuana in the last year. This study was done in 2009 and each time they do this study the percentage goes up. Also, that is a study indicating only those who voluntarily admitted they do it. So if you want to punish everyone by your standard, you are probably looking at punishing over 1/3 of all college football players.

The reality is that college football has a very permissive attitude towards recreational drugs and has for some time. The general public (and apparently the media with the way they covered the Pachall story) don't seem to know that many times the players that are suspended or kicked off the team for violating team rules are done so because of failed drug tests and this doesn't include all the other failed test for the first failed drug test that the general public doesn't know about because there is no suspension so nothing to report because of privacy rules. Really, the only time the media and general public know it is for drugs is when a player is arrested. In this case, Pachall wasn't even arrested or charged so the information should have never even become public information.

If you have been paying attention since February, you have witnessed a wide variety of possession arrests and failed drug tests on various teams across the country. This indicates that the so called problem at TCU is everywhere and probably even more pronounced in other colleges that have a far more permissive drug culture on their campus. The only difference is they aren't doing 6 month undercover drug investigations elsewhere. If you really are concerned about players being held accountable, you should be screaming bloody murder why TCU was the only school targeted when so many other fish (colleges) were allowed to escape the net.

I don't have a problem with the underlined at all. Let's fix the leniency. It should end now, and it should end by all schools taking harsher stances than there were at TCU.

CenTXpony wrote:"TCU has booted 6x more players this year than LSU."

It was a joke in regards to GP's decision to not punish Casey Pachall......let's not take everything too seriously...

wasn't taking too seriously. just statement of fact.