5 in 9 years - 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: 5 in 9 years (/thread-15206.html)
+- 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: 5 in 9 years (/thread-15206.html)
Pages:
1
2
Re: 5 in 9 years - cardcrimson - 12-11-2017
(12-10-2017, 06:06 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:This and the year Cam won are the two years I understand Stanford athletes not winning it.
The H voters have certainly shown the character aspects don't matter much. Only an open assault case would probably disqualify someone in today's climate.
Disagree regarding Cam, he shouldn't have even been playing. His father violated SEC rules regarding a family member soliciting funds on a players behalf. Mike Slive, SEC commissioner, elected not to enforce the rule, because the rule had never been invoked before. Ridiculous.
Re: 5 in 9 years - CardinalSagehen - 12-11-2017
First off, thank you to teejers for making this forum less Groupthink-y than it otherwise would be.Â
Yes, as BC said, we are primarily mocking the hypocrisy of the award, not trying to belittle the individual. But I'll admit to belittling Mayfield a bit. It wasn't my goal, but yeah, I'll own that, and I'll do a bit more of it right here because I get more annoyed the more I think about this...
First off, he's 22, not 18. Now let's review:
1) Resists arrest in the off-season. Attempts to take off at a full sprint and needs to be gang-tackled by the cops.
2) Plants the flag in Columbus. (As you may recall, T.O. was suspended for one game and fined one week's pay for celebrating over the star at midfield in Dallas. Nothing like that here.)
3) Grabs his crotch, etc., at Kansas. Misses one series the following week, IIRC.
Throughout it all, he was not suspended and discipline was "handled internally". So he basically kept doing stupid, embarrassing, impulsive and unsportsmanlike things, serially, all season long. Mayfield certainly would have received much greater discipline and consequences in the NFL than he received in CFB. Instead, he had his ass kissed and was put on a pedestal by the AP and H.eisman voters.Â
It bothers me, and if that makes me sanctimonious, then so be it! Let him get on with his life. Give him every opportunity not to be stupid going forward. But don't reward chronic stupidity.
Re: 5 in 9 years - Goose - 12-11-2017
I can live with Mayfield doing "stupid things", like grabbing his crotch, planting the flag etc. That doesn't make him a likeable person. It doesn't make him worthy of emulating. But, while it is gross and unsportsmanlike, it isn't criminal. When he crossed over into criminal, that is where he ran out of slack IMHO. Somebody who is attending a University certainly knows that resisting arrest is a crime. No excuse is possible. Should he have been tossed out of school? I think it should have been considered. Should he have been cut from the football team? Absolutely. Getting drunk is one thing. Resisting arrest and attempted flight is another.
Re: 5 in 9 years - washingtonismoney - 12-11-2017
Even if Stanford fans were belittling Mayfield personally, that doesn't exactly make them unusual. Plenty of fans play the "our guys are white knights, theirs are mercenaries" game. It's kind of a classic genre in college sports. Here, randomly, I have found several fans saying RUDE THINGS about Mayfield:
https://twitter.com/truckerjim72/status/940336367107796992
https://twitter.com/shanejblair/status/939677276995817472 & https://twitter.com/shanejblair/status/940333638880845824
https://twitter.com/PSUCommRadio/status/940327836153466880
Anyway, could find a lot more if I cared. Which I don't. It's possible Stanford fans would be singled out for special opprobrium because of people's preexisting preconceptions about us, but, well, who cares, really.
That said, I think Mayfield was the deserving winner and don't really have a problem with the award.Â
Re: 5 in 9 years - Mick - 12-11-2017
(12-11-2017, 01:16 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:We are being sanctimonious about the friggin award, not about the recipient. If the award criteria were not "the most outstanding player in college football in the United States whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity." and rather were "the best QB or RB from a Power-5 team with fewer than 4 losses" then we'd have no basis for complaining.
Listen, kids make mistakes, an it's not like David Parry didn't make a mistake very similar to Mayfield's. Nobody here is suggesting that he is an evil person. But pointing out the discrepancy between the prize's stated criteria and the players chosen for it is not sanctimony.
BC
Always wondered by Parry didn't win the Hiesman...
Re: 5 in 9 years - BostonCard - 12-11-2017
(12-11-2017, 04:02 PM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18333.msg217929#msg217929 date=1513023360]
We are being sanctimonious about the friggin award, not about the recipient. If the award criteria were not "the most outstanding player in college football in the United States whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity." and rather were "the best QB or RB from a Power-5 team with fewer than 4 losses" then we'd have no basis for complaining.
Listen, kids make mistakes, an it's not like David Parry didn't make a mistake very similar to Mayfield's. Nobody here is suggesting that he is an evil person. But pointing out the discrepancy between the prize's stated criteria and the players chosen for it is not sanctimony.
BC
Always wondered by Parry didn't win the Hiesman...
[/quote]
Clearly it's because he waited until he was already in the NFL to get drunk and resist arrest.
BC
Re: 5 in 9 years - Beeg_Dawg - 12-11-2017
(12-11-2017, 04:02 PM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18333.msg217929#msg217929 date=1513023360]
We are being sanctimonious about the friggin award, not about the recipient. If the award criteria were not "the most outstanding player in college football in the United States whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity." and rather were "the best QB or RB from a Power-5 team with fewer than 4 losses" then we'd have no basis for complaining.
Listen, kids make mistakes, an it's not like David Parry didn't make a mistake very similar to Mayfield's. Nobody here is suggesting that he is an evil person. But pointing out the discrepancy between the prize's stated criteria and the players chosen for it is not sanctimony.
BC
Always wondered by Parry didn't win the Hiesman...
[/quote]
I thought Parry was suspended for having meals with the family he was renting from. Considered improper benefit......
Re: 5 in 9 years - BostonCard - 12-11-2017
(12-11-2017, 04:10 PM)BeegDawg link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=18333.msg217968#msg217968 date=1513033349]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18333.msg217929#msg217929 date=1513023360]
We are being sanctimonious about the friggin award, not about the recipient. If the award criteria were not "the most outstanding player in college football in the United States whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity." and rather were "the best QB or RB from a Power-5 team with fewer than 4 losses" then we'd have no basis for complaining.
Listen, kids make mistakes, an it's not like David Parry didn't make a mistake very similar to Mayfield's. Nobody here is suggesting that he is an evil person. But pointing out the discrepancy between the prize's stated criteria and the players chosen for it is not sanctimony.
BC
Always wondered by Parry didn't win the Hiesman...
[/quote]
I thought Parry was suspended for having meals with the family he was renting from. Considered improper benefit......
[/quote]
That was Cajuste.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp-stanford-ncaa-violations-20160915-snap-story.html
Quote:Receiver Devon Cajuste received benefits from his landlord in 2014 including about $400 in meals and movie tickets with the family and a loan of about $3,000 for a bicycle. Cajuste repaid the loan, donated money to charity and served a one-game suspension.
David Parry was arrested for driving a golf cart drunk and then resisting arrest, while he was a player for Indianapolis.
BC
Re: 5 in 9 years - 82lsju - 12-11-2017
(12-11-2017, 04:10 PM)BeegDawg link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=18333.msg217968#msg217968 date=1513033349]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18333.msg217929#msg217929 date=1513023360]
We are being sanctimonious about the friggin award, not about the recipient. If the award criteria were not "the most outstanding player in college football in the United States whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity." and rather were "the best QB or RB from a Power-5 team with fewer than 4 losses" then we'd have no basis for complaining.
Listen, kids make mistakes, an it's not like David Parry didn't make a mistake very similar to Mayfield's. Nobody here is suggesting that he is an evil person. But pointing out the discrepancy between the prize's stated criteria and the players chosen for it is not sanctimony.
BC
Always wondered by Parry didn't win the Hiesman...
[/quote]
I thought Parry was suspended for having meals with the family he was renting from. Considered improper benefit......
[/quote]
Maybe Devon Cajuste
The football violation pertains to impermissible benefits accrued by former Stanford wide receiver Devon Cajuste in the summer of 2014. The benefits totaled close to $3500, with about $3000 being loaned for Cajuste to purchase a bike and another near $400 of benefits coming from meals, movie tickets and the use of a vacation home all provided by a University-arranged landlord.
Although the bike loan had been repaid prior to the investigation by Stanford, Cajuste was deemed ineligible and suspended for one game. He was also required to donate the remaining value of benefits gained from the landlord to charity.
In a statement earlier today, Cajuste self-identified as the athlete in question and said he was unaware of the benefits illegal nature:
I unknowingly accepted impermissible benefits from my summer landlord. I look forward to moving on from this incident and to supporting my alma mater for many years to come. I will have no further comment on this matter.
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/09/15/stanford-athletics-admits-to-ncaa-violations-by-football-softball/
Re: 5 in 9 years - Treebound - 12-11-2017
The Cajuste Caper occurred while he was a home stay guest of a UCLA grad in the area....Boo! :P . A Bruin helped to cause our first "major" NCAA infraction!Â
It also was final straw and brought about the end of the homestay program, much to my youngest son's dismay. He really wanted us to host a player.