Mickey Joseph Arrested For Assault

Husker03 said:
While nobody would condone TO's role back in the day, the fact of the matter is that those were very different times and society and culture moved very differently. Our society has progressed in a number of very positive ways, which is good. At that time, domestic abuse was very often not taken seriously.  It wasn't even until RBG won the Oklahoma alcohol drinking age case in 1976 that women were even officially viewed as an actual person in the court of law, and even that was via a work around. At the same time, East Coast/West Coast culture with pervasive gang violence was at its peak.  All of this led to a downplaying of what was considered mild criminal activity at the time. You need only understand that the national media was on all of this like white on rice and still made no actual impact in meaningful changes at any major school, NU included. TO didn't "hang" for anything because the judge and juries of the time didn't consider him to be mishandling things in any sort of gregarious manner.
Click to expand...
Yes,  the way TO handled the situations were common ways those things were handled.  Look at all the other major programs around the country that had these issues or worse and they were handled in various ways the same.  Many times, the player was punished within the football program and the coaching staff would help the player through the legal issues.  Were there people ranting about how it was handled back then?  Sure.  But, still, it was just the way it was and that was the end of it.

Now days, public opinion as to how these things should be handled are very different.  Today, if Rhule would do that and Trev did not do anything about it, Trev and the University would be hung out to dry.

Nobody in this thread is claiming that anything the players did were minor infractions or down playing it.  They were very serious issues that they should have been punished for.  Some were, but some weren't.  Many times, TO would work with the legal system to move the court dates till after the season.  Was that wrong?  Maybe.  I believe that's how Christian Peter's issues were handled.  He ultimately, went through the legal process and was punished.  Was it as harsh of punishment as he should have had?  That's up to opinion.  Should he have played?  That's everyone's opinion too.

I'm not going to get all bent out of shape 30 years after the fact on how TO handled these issues.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Yes,  the way TO handled the situations were common ways those things were handled.  Look at all the other major programs around the country that had these issues or worse and they were handled in various ways the same.  Many times, the player was punished within the football program and the coaching staff would help the player through the legal issues.  Were there people ranting about how it was handled back then?  Sure.  But, still, it was just the way it was and that was the end of it.

Now days, public opinion as to how these things should be handled are very different.  Today, if Rhule would do that and Trev did not do anything about it, Trev and the University would be hung out to dry.

Nobody in this thread is claiming that anything the players did were minor infractions or down playing it.  They were very serious issues that they should have been punished for.  Some were, but some weren't.  Many times, TO would work with the legal system to move the court dates till after the season.  Was that wrong?  Maybe.  I believe that's how Christian Peter's issues were handled.  He ultimately, went through the legal process and was punished.  Was it as harsh of punishment as he should have had?  That's up to opinion.  Should he have played?  That's everyone's opinion too.

I'm not going to get all bent out of shape 30 years after the fact on how TO handled these issues.
Click to expand...


Well said.  I think it is ok to say what happened back then was terrible while at the same time allowing TO some forgiveness.  Problems were prominent throughout all levels of football.  The NFL all the way down to college really started to take a harder stance with zero tolerance policies in the early 2000s.  Some of the zero tolerance with domestic abuse came quite a bit later. 

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that TO really was trying to balance what was best for Nebraska and the troubled young men he was coaching.  That was ultimately accepted back then even though some in the media took serious issue with it- mainly because we were the headline team in college football.  I'll ask this, if Nebraska wasn't winning championships, would Sports Illustrated, or any other major publication, have even mentioned it?  They sure didn't at many other programs even though much of the same was happening and being handled very similarly.

Ultimately it is a black eye on our program but I believe it can be viewed in a positive light because of the positive changes that have and are taking place because of the past.       

 
Hilltop said:
Ultimately it is a black eye on our program but I believe it can be viewed in a positive light because of the positive changes that have and are taking place because of the past.       
Click to expand...


Well, not a black eye on our program for very long, or as perceived by very many people out there, except perhaps for Buffs and Mizzou fans who sported "get out of jail free" card posters at their home games against us for a few seasons.  I mean, Lawrence Philips was the peak of all that, I think.. not sure but it seems that way.  Dr. Tom didn't go all wordy on explaining himself because he didn't have to;  we know him, and the media was what the media is so it was out there, even with a TV special about that particular case. 

I think we Husker fans felt the black eye more than anyone else.

 
Husker03 said:
While nobody would condone TO's role back in the day, the fact of the matter is that those were very different times and society and culture moved very differently. Our society has progressed in a number of very positive ways, which is good. At that time, domestic abuse was very often not taken seriously.  It wasn't even until RBG won the Oklahoma alcohol drinking age case in 1976 that women were even officially viewed as an actual person in the court of law, and even that was via a work around. At the same time, East Coast/West Coast culture with pervasive gang violence was at its peak.  All of this led to a downplaying of what was considered mild criminal activity at the time. You need only understand that the national media was on all of this like white on rice and still made no actual impact in meaningful changes at any major school, NU included. TO didn't "hang" for anything because the judge and juries of the time didn't consider him to be mishandling things in any sort of gregarious manner.
Click to expand...


Yes and no. Standards have evolved but victim shaming hasn't exactly gone away. There was no deafening roar from social media back then demanding accountability, but there was a lot of public judgement and Tom Osborne most definitely took heat for mishandling the situation. 

Tom Osborne was never very gregarious, but I'm guessing you meant egregious. 

 
Hilltop said:
Well said.  I think it is ok to say what happened back then was terrible while at the same time allowing TO some forgiveness.  Problems were prominent throughout all levels of football.  The NFL all the way down to college really started to take a harder stance with zero tolerance policies in the early 2000s.
Click to expand...


The issue isn't so much that this stuff happened under his watch (I mean, that is still an issue, but not the one being focused on right now); it's moreso that TO perpetuated a myth that he and this place were different, and that we all happily ignored inconvenient truths to believe it. It's one thing to protect sexual assault felons and players charged with attempted manslaughter - it's another to from the same mouth espouse that we run an ethical, noble, stoic, Christian program without stain. "More Than Winning".

Hilltop said:
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that TO really was trying to balance what was best for Nebraska and the troubled young men he was coaching. 
Click to expand...




And what was best for himself to be successful and stay on top.

Hilltop said:
I'll ask this, if Nebraska wasn't winning championships, would Sports Illustrated, or any other major publication, have even mentioned it? 
Click to expand...




Would we have been winning championships at all if we weren't recruiting ethically dubious kids?

 
In 2022 there are still plenty of NFL teams giving second chances to domestic abusers and serial gropers. There is typically some fan protest and media heat on ownership, but as long as the players deliver on the field it all kinda fades away. 

 
Hagg said:
Well, not a black eye on our program for very long, or as perceived by very many people out there, except perhaps for Buffs and Mizzou fans who sported "get out of jail free" card posters at their home games against us for a few seasons.  I mean, Lawrence Philips was the peak of all that, I think.. not sure but it seems that way.  Dr. Tom didn't go all wordy on explaining himself because he didn't have to;  we know him, and the media was what the media is so it was out there, even with a TV special about that particular case. 

I think we Husker fans felt the black eye more than anyone else.
Click to expand...
Good points.   I do think we feel it more here. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top