Because it allows them to take the moral high ground without any personal consequences.
Coach Narduzzi's media day comments on Bookser
- Thread starter RaleighPittFan
- Start date
Why should one have to have personal consequence sans offense? That makes no sense. Goes back to Hammurabi. Gee, why hammer this Bookster kid, just let him go to get drunk and drive on sidewalks as much as he wants to lest you be accused of taking the moral high ground. Wow, why I did not know that wanting Sandusky to hang from a tree meant that I was allowing myself to take the high ground without any personal consequences.
Won't the law handle this? But maybe you should also get to impose your punishment as well.
A lot also like to be "right" on internet message boards and they likely anticipate Pitt's administrators erring (key word) on the side of crushing self-sanctioning in these decisions (a pretty good bet given our history). So despite being self-immolation for absolutely no benefit (which it clearly is), no matter, because the poster gets the jollies of being "right" on an anonymous message.
Others have that bizarre fantasy that Pitt is some kind of public Ivy school and that sucking in sports somehow helps enhance that delusion. Meanwhile in the scheme of things in the eyes of the masses, Pitt is pretty much like Louisville or Memphis, an urban school known mostly for its participation in D1 sports. I've no doubt Pitt is "better" but all schools have some good and some bad departments and areas or strengths and weaknesses (even, gasp WVU).
In summary we have some really weird "fans".
And some have had friends killed and hospitalized because of drunk drivers and find it hard to root for their alma mater when they don't hold their players responsible for an action that could have easily resulted in the deaths of others.
This wasn't just a drink then a drive home, this involved attempting to evade police, speeding, reckless driving, and multiple accidents on a college campus where the vast majority of students get around on foot.
And in 99.99999999% of our peer schools he'd get one game for that. Maybe.
Pitt should work within the system for tougher uniform discipline and tough central governance in college football ... convince the vast majority of our fellow also-ran schools to force the agenda on the blue bloods. Or drop out of D1 sports all together.
But this retarded self sacrifice is pointless.
I guess I could find lots of reasons to not root for anyone ever.
Or I could say,"Man, I am a Pitt fan and I support these players. I want to see this kid get his life in order and become the awesome person that he should become. Maybe he needs something other than removing him from his opportunity to make a better life."
Or you could still go with,"crucify him!!!"
I understand you want him gone for a year.
My simple question to you was "what would that accomplish?".
It's a simple question. Maybe it's too complicated for you so let me break it down for you.
What
would
that
accomplish
? (This is a question mark. It's a punctuation mark used to identify a question).
Maybe it would help him focus on his sobriety, getting help, and realizing there are punishments for atrocious decisions.
Are you insinuating doing nothing would be better for him? Because, unless it is a real punishment (not missing the scrimmage vs YSU and running some stadiums) I would argue that is the absolute worst thing you could do for him, but mostly I care about Pitt football, so really I just want what is best for the program. I am not sure if that is a show of a hard line or saying "screw it" and fielding the best team in the moment, rather than worrying about the optics or team discipline. HCPN gets paid a lot of money to figure that out.
Last edited:
Punishment for being reckless and dangerous,
Get him some help with his attention off football.
Suspect you wouldn't get an answer (or a an unhelpful moralistic / angry one) so I'll try on his/her behalf (no need to thank me).
The answer would be "not much". In the immediate case it tries to make the guy feel more pain for what he did, exact some revenge to those who might have owned property he messed up in his actions etc. I certainly get those things. I'm big on exacting revenge when wronged.
But this poster's real intent is likely bigger picture, as in, punishing this Pitt player will act as deterrent to other players in the future from acting like knuckleheads.
That would be fine if true. Problem is, it's not true. Because precisely of my posts above, which remind that EVERY program would have to get on board with disciplining acts like these. As in, if a player for Ohio State, Penn State, UNC, Miami (on and on) commit similar acts, they too would get stiff punishment for it.
Which none do.
So all that Pitt accomplishes by being holier than thou is push away (more) prime athletes to other programs that are more forgiving.
The same thing occurred when Pitt tried to go all high-brow with academic standards in the 90s. All it did was (further) kill the program. The best players (sadly, typically also the least academically accomplished) didn't buckle down and study hard. It merely expedited their exodus to other programs. Same with the best coaches.
The same would ... DOES...happen here too with tougher discipline than the norm. Those inclined to be knuckleheads will merely gravitate to places where they won't be crucified for it. And like the correlation noted above (that the best players tend to be lesser students), the similar correlation between elite players and knuckleheadism exists.
Unfortunately the church ladies who go around continuously scolding Pitt to hang 'em high(er) never seem to understand this.
Kicking out a guy who acted like a punk may give these types a tingle in their chastity belts, and I'm not even denying it isn't the "right" thing to do for that matter.
But it doesn't accomplish much of anything, if everyone ... hell, ANYONE ... else in our peer group isn't also doing the same. Which they aren't.
All it does is condemn Pitt to an even more futile state.
Last edited:
Seems pretty draconian for a first time offense. The kid will face legal punishment from the Commonwealth, which is pretty severe. He could have hurt someone [or himself]...but he did not. He will make restitution for the property damage he did. My view is that it is in the best interest of the student to be privately disciplined while being an active member of the program and playing football--which is part of his job, in addition to being a student. Should other members of society who do similar things be forced to lose their job? Such nonsense. If someone was injured or this was not the first offense, perhaps a different punishment would be in order. Just my opinion, but throwing people in jail, or taking away their job does nothing in combating or solving the real problem and only increases societal costs for all of us. Hail to Pitt!
Well from a legal perspective he is not an employee, to that point I will agree [of course I never made that argument], so you win the straw man fantasy pool. However, if you actually believe that playing Division I football is not a job...then I suspect you have been taking a few too many pills. And whether it is a job or not...suspending a kid for an entire season for a lapse in judgment which resulted in no harm to any person--is pretty harsh. I will be comfortable with whatever Coach decides to mete out as punishment [and do not need to sit in judgment of another person to in some way make myself feel righteous]. Hail to Pitt!
If he's not an employee it's not a job.
Fairly simple .
You can't have it both ways.
Righteous has nothing to do with it .
Though the irony of your ad hominem is appreciated,but not surprising.
What he did was illegal. He'll have a hearing and a court date. And if justice is served, he'll receive the appropriate legal punishment.
Its not up to university to make sure he gets justly punished, its up to the court system. What the university does should be done in the best interests of the program and the university. I'm not going to venture into what I think that should be. Frankly, I have no idea.
Its not up to university to make sure he gets justly punished, its up to the court system. What the university does should be done in the best interests of the program and the university. I'm not going to venture into what I think that should be. Frankly, I have no idea.
Poor boy, sorry if you felt attacked. A "job" does not require payment or being an employee in order to constitute being a "job"...although of course he does receive a full scholarship worth tens of thousands of dollars for playing football for the University of Pittsburgh. Ultimately, your position that a first time offender be suspended for an entire year from playing the sport they are receiving a scholarship to play is draconian, not to mention stupid. Suspending a student for a year for an offense where nobody was hurt, and where the Commonwealth will have its say in real punishment, is totally unnecessary. Can you cite an example of any kids similarly situated that received the punishment you assert is appropriate? Should non-scholarship students also be suspended for a year for a similar offense? Your position is simply ludicrous. Hail to Pitt!
Pittlaw, is he a first time offender or is he a second time offender? I've seen you mention that he's a first timer a few times now. I read elsewhere that this is his second time. The first time being a couple years ago on a drunk and disorderly. Again, i read this elsewhere, not sure if its true.
So many on here are expecting a "one" game suspension. With our Admin, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if its more than one game.
So many on here are expecting a "one" game suspension. With our Admin, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if its more than one game.
" Can you cite an example of any kids similarly situated that received the punishment you assert is appropriate?"... believe it or not there does not seem to be a lot of data out there on punishment handed out to kids on campus eluding police at a high rate of speed and driving onto a sidewalk (at a similar high rate of speed) after a Venus Williams like stop sign drive through while very being intoxicated....
...but yeah, I guess a one game suspension against a 1AA opponent seems appropriate...
Like I said somewhere in the chain....I'll not lose any sleep and will be entirely satisfied with whatever punishment that Coach metes out, if any. It frankly is just plain strange that so many sit in judgment of a kid and pontificate on their moral and ethical views of what punishment is appropriate, etc. If this kid were not a student athlete...his offense would have never been discussed, and likely never even made the news. The Commonwealth will dish out whatever punishment is appropriate...end of story from my perspective. Hail to Pitt!
I think you should follow the national trend and organize a loud disruptive protest for our second home game. Cuz it's a pretty good likelihood he's gonna be playing in it.
RESIST!
How about kids receiving and being convicted of a DUI for the first time receiving a season long suspension? Any examples? I frankly do not understand the outrage at a kid doing something stupid where not a person or animal was harmed? Kids [and adults] do stupid things all the time. Hopefully a lesson is learned. Hail to Pitt!
so all duis are the same?..Had Tyler Boyd gotten behind the wheel after a beer or two it probably would have been a dui also considering the age.Same thing?.you did read the circumstances of what went on here did you not?
uh, I thought this was an opinion forum? That might explain expressions of outrage or not...I also do not realize that failure to maim or kill someone should warrant a slap on the wrist. Does not seem to go a long way in prevention future bad behavior. No sure how "Hopefully a lesson is learned" when no lesson is strongly enforced. Sorry, got a kid a Pitt. Could picture him on that sidewalk.
Last edited:
Again I can empathize and even agree the state punishment for these offenses should be stronger.
Or even that the school or team punishment should be stronger.
These were bad offenses no question. Ideally should not be shaken off. State or school or football program.
But the problem is that none of our peers we compete with do the same.
Or even that the school or team punishment should be stronger.
These were bad offenses no question. Ideally should not be shaken off. State or school or football program.
But the problem is that none of our peers we compete with do the same.
It would help if he didn't already get the local football player treatment. Whatever punishment the court hands down will already be minor compared to what most people would have received. Notice how they conveniently left out the violation that would have resulted in felony charges.
He failed to pull over when signaled and tried to evade police. Doing this while operating a vehicle under the influence is a felony.
People need to stop thinking this was just some DUI that was caught swerving or at a checkpoint. He hit multiple cars, including one with passengers inside it then he fled from the scene and police. The only reason that his vehicle stopped where it did is because he crashed into a building.
Tell your kid to take off his head phones and to stop texting while he is walking...and you have improved his chances of accidental death or injury...far more common than a pedestrian being hit by an impaired driver. The laws of the Commonwealth are what dictates the punishment its citizens receive in connection with impaired driving...luckily it is not your role. But sure, you have a right to express your opinion...just as others have a right to express their opinion of yours. Hail to Pitt!
Its a matter of public record, this is the second time he was arrested where alcohol was involved. He was arrested for public drunkenness on 2-22-15 by a University of Pittsburgh police officer. The charge was dismissed several months later.
Walking with headphones is not illegal.
Bookser was monumentally stupid .
Second offense- let him take a break from his "job" to get his act together.
His life is long, his football playing is short.
