The CardBoard
Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation (/thread-13223.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - TrumpCard - 12-19-2016

So, in sum, during the last 19 seasons, the band was widely criticized for TWO field shows. The first was a political joke during an election season aimed at a group that heavily supported a particular political candidate.  The second was an overreaction by fans who didn't like losing. For heaven's sake, why didn't they ban the band sooner. Why didn't they think of the children?

Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - TrumpCard - 12-19-2016

So, in sum, during the last 19 seasons, the band was widely criticized for TWO field shows. The first was a political joke during an election season aimed at a group that heavily supported a particular political candidate.  The second was an overreaction by fans who didn't like losing. For heaven's sake, why didn't they ban the band sooner. Why didn't they think of the children?

Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - CTcard - 12-20-2016

(12-19-2016, 09:26 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:So, in sum, during the last 19 seasons, the band was widely criticized for TWO field shows. The first was a political joke during an election season aimed at a group that heavily supported a particular political candidate.  The second was an overreaction by fans who didn't like losing. For heaven's sake, why didn't they ban the band sooner. Why didn't they think of the children?

As stated, the banning of the band is not related to field shows or that sort of thing. While it is impossible to delve into the minds of those making these decisions, that seems to be roughly true as far as I can tell. For example, the statement from the university in response to the Rose Bowl/Iowa whining was basically a brush-off. In this sense, what is happening seems quite different from the events a decade plus ago at UVa.

I see no reason to doubt that the folks banning the band genuinely see it's internal interactions and traditions as a threat to women. At the same time, given the massive, considered, and down-right eloquent response from women who were in the band, I also see no reason to believe that those folks really understand what goes on with the band and the complexities of human behaviour.


There are some issues. I have no doubt that there really were complaints from people in the band about things that happened back in 2011-12. Part of that may be that some things got a little carried away. The far more complicated situation is that the same things that many viewed as "positive, healing, uplifting, enriching, empowering — and fun" [quotation from the Chronicle Op Ed piece by Kelly Black Windsor and Denise Gallardo Doyen] may be viewed by a few as hostile and intimidating - particularly when just joining.
So, how much does one restrict the many to protect the few?


And, if you want a bright side ...
The stated end goal, the band reinstated under the guidance of a paid director, is both what was about to happen anyway and what has been the situation for most of the past 50 years. Obviously the intent of those instituting the ban is far broader than that, but the actual wording is helpful in that it provides for the possible resolution where the Title IX and OCB folks can claim victory with the band reconsituted under a new director but the LSJUMB to continue on unchanged in its key elements.
[Please pardon me for my moments of excessive optimism.]

Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - CTcard - 12-20-2016

(12-19-2016, 09:26 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:So, in sum, during the last 19 seasons, the band was widely criticized for TWO field shows. The first was a political joke during an election season aimed at a group that heavily supported a particular political candidate.  The second was an overreaction by fans who didn't like losing. For heaven's sake, why didn't they ban the band sooner. Why didn't they think of the children?

As stated, the banning of the band is not related to field shows or that sort of thing. While it is impossible to delve into the minds of those making these decisions, that seems to be roughly true as far as I can tell. For example, the statement from the university in response to the Rose Bowl/Iowa whining was basically a brush-off. In this sense, what is happening seems quite different from the events a decade plus ago at UVa.

I see no reason to doubt that the folks banning the band genuinely see it's internal interactions and traditions as a threat to women. At the same time, given the massive, considered, and down-right eloquent response from women who were in the band, I also see no reason to believe that those folks really understand what goes on with the band and the complexities of human behaviour.


There are some issues. I have no doubt that there really were complaints from people in the band about things that happened back in 2011-12. Part of that may be that some things got a little carried away. The far more complicated situation is that the same things that many viewed as "positive, healing, uplifting, enriching, empowering — and fun" [quotation from the Chronicle Op Ed piece by Kelly Black Windsor and Denise Gallardo Doyen] may be viewed by a few as hostile and intimidating - particularly when just joining.
So, how much does one restrict the many to protect the few?


And, if you want a bright side ...
The stated end goal, the band reinstated under the guidance of a paid director, is both what was about to happen anyway and what has been the situation for most of the past 50 years. Obviously the intent of those instituting the ban is far broader than that, but the actual wording is helpful in that it provides for the possible resolution where the Title IX and OCB folks can claim victory with the band reconsituted under a new director but the LSJUMB to continue on unchanged in its key elements.
[Please pardon me for my moments of excessive optimism.]

Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - TrumpCard - 12-20-2016

Yeah, right. If this were about sexual assault or harassment, there would be no ban or any ban would have been issued 5 years ago. The recent events that led to the ban were a violation of a travel ban and a violation of the alcohol ban.  The admin added references to off color jokes like using the word "sexion" instead of "section" and street signs with innuendo, but when challenged, the admin said it wasn't about those kinds of jokes. So we're left with some alcohol use by (of age) band members and a trip to Tahoe. Sounds like a pretext to me.

Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - TrumpCard - 12-20-2016

Yeah, right. If this were about sexual assault or harassment, there would be no ban or any ban would have been issued 5 years ago. The recent events that led to the ban were a violation of a travel ban and a violation of the alcohol ban.  The admin added references to off color jokes like using the word "sexion" instead of "section" and street signs with innuendo, but when challenged, the admin said it wasn't about those kinds of jokes. So we're left with some alcohol use by (of age) band members and a trip to Tahoe. Sounds like a pretext to me.

Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - CTcard - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 03:46 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:Yeah, right. If this were about sexual assault or harassment, there would be no ban or any ban would have been issued 5 years ago. The recent events that led to the ban were a violation of a travel ban and a violation of the alcohol ban. 

Except the alcohol ban and the travel ban were in place as a response to the complaints 4-5 years ago.

As a concept it is pretty easy to understand a course of events where a problem occurred; the group is told you must do X, Y and Z to fix this situation; a later review finds the group has made no real effort to follow through on X, Y, and Z; this brings on a harsher penalty. From everything I have heard, read, and heard from band friends I think this is how folks like Greg Boardman view the situation.

Of course being reasonable in concept and reasonable in reality are far different things. I think it is incumbent upon the band in their appeal to Etchemendy to emphasize that to some extent X, Y, and Z were unreasonable (they were), and more importantly that outside of some technical issues the band has pretty much fulfilled them anyway (it appears as if they did). And more important than the details of the suspension is that when the band comes back, it comes back as recognizably the LSJUMB.



Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - CTcard - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 03:46 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:Yeah, right. If this were about sexual assault or harassment, there would be no ban or any ban would have been issued 5 years ago. The recent events that led to the ban were a violation of a travel ban and a violation of the alcohol ban. 

Except the alcohol ban and the travel ban were in place as a response to the complaints 4-5 years ago.

As a concept it is pretty easy to understand a course of events where a problem occurred; the group is told you must do X, Y and Z to fix this situation; a later review finds the group has made no real effort to follow through on X, Y, and Z; this brings on a harsher penalty. From everything I have heard, read, and heard from band friends I think this is how folks like Greg Boardman view the situation.

Of course being reasonable in concept and reasonable in reality are far different things. I think it is incumbent upon the band in their appeal to Etchemendy to emphasize that to some extent X, Y, and Z were unreasonable (they were), and more importantly that outside of some technical issues the band has pretty much fulfilled them anyway (it appears as if they did). And more important than the details of the suspension is that when the band comes back, it comes back as recognizably the LSJUMB.



Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - teejers1 - 12-20-2016

I'm with you in believing that the 2011-12 harassment complaints were legit (although I don't know that for a fact, but assume it is true).  The Admin investigates and places various demands to ensure nothing like that happens again.  We know part of the Admin's demands over the years include confiscating double-entendre signs and seeking to have terminology excised from LSJUMB lexicon.  There are myriad other demands re: "show us the plan for various other band activities."

Flash forward to end of 2016 and the Amin decides to suspend band for failing to implement all of the University's demands re: "cleaning up its act" (my terminology).  Does it strike anyone as odd that the Admin is suspending the LSJUMB even though there reportedly have been no further complaints regarding the underlying activity that gave rise to the Admin's investigation in the first place?  In other words:  harassment bad; you must stop; do these things ===> no harassment; but band still suspended because not all these remedial things designed to stomp out harassment were done.

That strikes me as so out of whack, and leads me to conclude that Dean Wormer is alive and well and living in the 94305.



Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - teejers1 - 12-20-2016

I'm with you in believing that the 2011-12 harassment complaints were legit (although I don't know that for a fact, but assume it is true).  The Admin investigates and places various demands to ensure nothing like that happens again.  We know part of the Admin's demands over the years include confiscating double-entendre signs and seeking to have terminology excised from LSJUMB lexicon.  There are myriad other demands re: "show us the plan for various other band activities."

Flash forward to end of 2016 and the Amin decides to suspend band for failing to implement all of the University's demands re: "cleaning up its act" (my terminology).  Does it strike anyone as odd that the Admin is suspending the LSJUMB even though there reportedly have been no further complaints regarding the underlying activity that gave rise to the Admin's investigation in the first place?  In other words:  harassment bad; you must stop; do these things ===> no harassment; but band still suspended because not all these remedial things designed to stomp out harassment were done.

That strikes me as so out of whack, and leads me to conclude that Dean Wormer is alive and well and living in the 94305.



Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - CTcard - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 04:15 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:In other words:  harassment bad; you must stop; do these things ===> no harassment; but band still suspended because not all these remedial things designed to stomp out harassment were done.

That strikes me as so out of whack, and leads me to conclude that Dean Wormer is alive and well and living in the 94305.

Roughly speaking that seems like the most logical assessment to me, complete with Dean Wormer I am afraid.

It's pretty easy to imagine the shading that leads to the different version of the same events from the two sides. And it's useful to figure out the views of the other side, particularly if you want to contest them in an appeal.

Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - CTcard - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 04:15 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:In other words:  harassment bad; you must stop; do these things ===> no harassment; but band still suspended because not all these remedial things designed to stomp out harassment were done.

That strikes me as so out of whack, and leads me to conclude that Dean Wormer is alive and well and living in the 94305.

Roughly speaking that seems like the most logical assessment to me, complete with Dean Wormer I am afraid.

It's pretty easy to imagine the shading that leads to the different version of the same events from the two sides. And it's useful to figure out the views of the other side, particularly if you want to contest them in an appeal.

Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - 76lsjumb - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 07:30 AM)CTcard link Wrote:And, if you want a bright side ...
The stated end goal, the band reinstated under the guidance of a paid director, is both what was about to happen anyway and what has been the situation for most of the past 50 years. Obviously the intent of those instituting the ban is far broader than that, but the actual wording is helpful in that it provides for the possible resolution where the Title IX and OCB folks can claim victory with the band reconsituted under a new director but the LSJUMB to continue on unchanged in its key elements.
[Please pardon me for my moments of excessive optimism.]

Actually, IMHO this is a fairly accurate description of where things stand now and how they are reasonably likely to work out in the longer term.  In other words, I think this is reasonably, not excessively, optimistic.  Of course, I also thought that CMAC was serious when he said on 12/07 that he didn't want to create a distraction but, instead, wanted to focus on winning the Sun Bowl, and that hasn't quite turned out as expected, so, who knows...

As for how the LSJUMB situation got to where it is, my original view of the University as monolithically evil in all of this has changed somewhat based on the statements that have come out.  I do believe there are constituencies/offices within the University that want to see the Band [at least in the form in which it has existed since 1963] destroyed, and they have acted very much as Dean Wormers in all of this.  Then, there are other constituencies/offices who more or less support the Band, don't particularly want to see it destroyed, but are basically deferential to that first group, for organizational reasons.  Their actions have struck me as malignantly neglectful, but not intentionally so.  Finally, there are constituencies/offices who haven't really been paying attention to things, have been basically accepting at face value and relying upon what the first and second groups have been saying for the past few years, actually are fairly supportive of the Band, were caught by surprise when the whole thing blew up as badly as it has, now [hopefully] realize that the current Band has, in fact, done quite a bit to eliminate the issues that gave rise to the latest brouhaha, and really do want an outcome that preserves the Band as everyone knows it [minus the stuff that might actually create liability and with a new emphasis on raising the quality of the music/sound -- which is something the Band itself has been working on for a while].  I would put the most important current decision-maker [Etchemendy] in that last group.

Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - 76lsjumb - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 07:30 AM)CTcard link Wrote:And, if you want a bright side ...
The stated end goal, the band reinstated under the guidance of a paid director, is both what was about to happen anyway and what has been the situation for most of the past 50 years. Obviously the intent of those instituting the ban is far broader than that, but the actual wording is helpful in that it provides for the possible resolution where the Title IX and OCB folks can claim victory with the band reconsituted under a new director but the LSJUMB to continue on unchanged in its key elements.
[Please pardon me for my moments of excessive optimism.]

Actually, IMHO this is a fairly accurate description of where things stand now and how they are reasonably likely to work out in the longer term.  In other words, I think this is reasonably, not excessively, optimistic.  Of course, I also thought that CMAC was serious when he said on 12/07 that he didn't want to create a distraction but, instead, wanted to focus on winning the Sun Bowl, and that hasn't quite turned out as expected, so, who knows...

As for how the LSJUMB situation got to where it is, my original view of the University as monolithically evil in all of this has changed somewhat based on the statements that have come out.  I do believe there are constituencies/offices within the University that want to see the Band [at least in the form in which it has existed since 1963] destroyed, and they have acted very much as Dean Wormers in all of this.  Then, there are other constituencies/offices who more or less support the Band, don't particularly want to see it destroyed, but are basically deferential to that first group, for organizational reasons.  Their actions have struck me as malignantly neglectful, but not intentionally so.  Finally, there are constituencies/offices who haven't really been paying attention to things, have been basically accepting at face value and relying upon what the first and second groups have been saying for the past few years, actually are fairly supportive of the Band, were caught by surprise when the whole thing blew up as badly as it has, now [hopefully] realize that the current Band has, in fact, done quite a bit to eliminate the issues that gave rise to the latest brouhaha, and really do want an outcome that preserves the Band as everyone knows it [minus the stuff that might actually create liability and with a new emphasis on raising the quality of the music/sound -- which is something the Band itself has been working on for a while].  I would put the most important current decision-maker [Etchemendy] in that last group.

Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - Griffins78 - 12-27-2016

(12-17-2016, 02:56 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:It's possible that they didn't know the rationale and were protesting that, and when they found out the evidence they changed their minds. It's really hard to know what's going on in these situations, but based on what I saw when the protest was initially reported it wasn't unreasonable for the players to think that at least some of the suspended players were being punished unfairly (ie "They were just in the same building"). The subsequent evidence released made that seem a lot less likely.
This is an interesting article : http://host.madison.com/wsj/sports/college/football/college-football-deal-to-avoid-bowl-game-boycott-over-sex/article_d0c98184-dd0a-5057-bc65-8aceb89d729a.html

It says that the Administration - the President and AD - handled this poorly and almost caused the players to reverse their decision to play. The players themselves reached out to the Regents and that all night discussion, sans Administration, led to their decision. Bad feelings remain.

Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - Griffins78 - 12-27-2016

(12-17-2016, 02:56 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:It's possible that they didn't know the rationale and were protesting that, and when they found out the evidence they changed their minds. It's really hard to know what's going on in these situations, but based on what I saw when the protest was initially reported it wasn't unreasonable for the players to think that at least some of the suspended players were being punished unfairly (ie "They were just in the same building"). The subsequent evidence released made that seem a lot less likely.
This is an interesting article : http://host.madison.com/wsj/sports/college/football/college-football-deal-to-avoid-bowl-game-boycott-over-sex/article_d0c98184-dd0a-5057-bc65-8aceb89d729a.html

It says that the Administration - the President and AD - handled this poorly and almost caused the players to reverse their decision to play. The players themselves reached out to the Regents and that all night discussion, sans Administration, led to their decision. Bad feelings remain.

Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - Farm93 - 12-27-2016

In the end, the Ugly situation remains in Minnesota.  That whole scene is awful.

However, in San Diego on Dec 27th the real nightmare was Wazzu's awful showing.  Losing to a lower BigTen seed is never ideal, but losing to a lower BigTen seed... without 10 players...Ugh.

Hard to feel good for Minnesota given how they lost their 10 players, but I still liked their ability to rally a carry the day.  No excuses about missing 10 players or whatever.

FWIW - It was hard to understand how Minnesota, down 10 players, could hold Wazzu's O down. I hope the Stanford staff can review that film and take notes for next year. 

Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - Farm93 - 12-27-2016

In the end, the Ugly situation remains in Minnesota.  That whole scene is awful.

However, in San Diego on Dec 27th the real nightmare was Wazzu's awful showing.  Losing to a lower BigTen seed is never ideal, but losing to a lower BigTen seed... without 10 players...Ugh.

Hard to feel good for Minnesota given how they lost their 10 players, but I still liked their ability to rally a carry the day.  No excuses about missing 10 players or whatever.

FWIW - It was hard to understand how Minnesota, down 10 players, could hold Wazzu's O down. I hope the Stanford staff can review that film and take notes for next year. 

Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - fullmetal - 12-27-2016

You can hold Wazzu's offense down by having the #1b Cougar WR tear his ACL a month earlier :(

River Cracraft torched Stanford for 7 catches, 130 yds and a TD.  His yardage total against us was more than the next three WSU receivers' combined yardage (incl. Gabe Marks).

WSU has lost every game since losing Cracraft for the season.

Re: Ugly Holiday Bowl situation - fullmetal - 12-27-2016

You can hold Wazzu's offense down by having the #1b Cougar WR tear his ACL a month earlier :(

River Cracraft torched Stanford for 7 catches, 130 yds and a TD.  His yardage total against us was more than the next three WSU receivers' combined yardage (incl. Gabe Marks).

WSU has lost every game since losing Cracraft for the season.