TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:I also find it curious why you would include this comment as part of your question considering some of the athletes that have been released committed crimes and he said the others have repeatedly broken team rules .

or if the coach just likes to throw his weight around - "Respect My Au-Thor-I-Tay."

Let's take the entire sentence, instead of the edited fragment:

HankB wrote:The media hasn't really given enough details for most people to make an informed decision as to whether or not the disciplined players (other than the ones with felony arrests) had it coming, or if the coach just likes to throw his weight around - "Respect My Au-Thor-I-Tay."

Players can be troublemakers (felony arrests are trouble), but I've known some coaches who are arrogant jerks, too, imposing ridiculous rules & requirements. I don't know that Strong fits this category - maybe the disciplined players indeed had it coming. But I can't just have a knee-jerk response that says "Players bad. Coach good. End of story."

If it offends you that in the absence of detailed information I allow for the possibility that some of the fault for the upheaval may lie with the coach, well, I can't do anything about that. (I also wonder about the dearth of details.)

I expect that as time goes on, more information will surface, and we'll find out what's really going on. Until then, I'm not going to condemn or absolve either the disciplined players or the coach. (The arrested players? They'll have their day in court.)

One final thought: If Strong's reported "not using guns" injunction only pertains to criminal acts (along with not stealing and not using drugs) . . . it makes me wonder why he didn't just say "Don't commit crimes."

mojo84 wrote: . . . I'm interested where the no guns at all including hunting and such came from. Is it documented somewhere or is it speculation and jumping to conclusions?

If you re-read earlier posts with a little care, you'll see that no conclusion has been drawn, a newspaper article prompted a question that begs an answer.

"Not using guns" can have a different meaning than "Not criminally misusing guns."

And I don't think anyone here excuses criminal acts by student athletes.

mojo84 wrote:How about a link to the article to which you are referring.

Here's the link - but right now it's only for subscibers, so it may not do you much good; I read the story in this morning's hardcopy of the paper. Link

mojo84 wrote: I say give the guy a chance and give him the benefit of the doubt. More info and context would be beneficial.

Agree - notice I didn't condemn either Strong or the players, and allowed as the media hasn't given enough details to make an informed decision.

Which is why I'm asking for someone who has an "in" with the UT program to enlighten us as to Strong's position on players and guns; if it's "Don't break the law" that's one thing, if it's "Don't use guns anytime, anywhere, for any reason" that's quite another . . . and right now, we just don't know.

As for the state of the UT football program . . . the Longhorns haven't won a national championship since the coach's pay went over $5,000,000, have they?

If you're in the Austin area and watch TV, listen to the radio, or read the newspaper, you probably know that UT's new football coach, Charlie Strong, has been getting rid of football players for various rules violations; a couple were thrown off the team because of felony sexual assault arrests, others were "released from their scholarships" last week, and still others were suspended. The media hasn't really given enough details for most people to make an informed decision as to whether or not the disciplined players (other than the ones with felony arrests) had it coming, or if the coach just likes to throw his weight around - "Respect My Au-Thor-I-Tay."

A story in today's Austin American-Statesman newspaper reported that some of the dismissed players were released because they violated one of the coach's five core values, which are:

1. Telling the truth
2. Treating women with respect
3. Avoiding drugs
4. Not stealing
5. Not using guns

Notice #5 - as reported in the paper, this doesn't seem to be limited to criminal misuse of guns, but all use of guns . . . target shooting . . . hunting . . . everything.

If anyone has an "in" to the UT football program, can you shed some light on this? Is Charlie Strong a firm "anti" imposing his values on legal & ethical conduct, or is it just sloppy reporting by the paper?

(Note to moderator: Though the coach isn't an elected official, UT is a state school, with plenty of politics swirling around it's funding and operation - and the football coach is a VERY high profile employee. Hence my post in this forum.)