RedDenver

I've said it before but I'll say it again: the university/coaches are not the same as a court of law. The university can make a decision based on the evidence that they have, which is exactly what they just did with the indefinite suspensions of two players. But most of my issue with the 1st half suspension is that the university hasn't made a statement to clarify the situation, so now everyone is left to draw their own conclusions. Someone called it ham-fisted, which I agree with. As for the judgement I'd pass, it depends on what Mo told the university. If he's disputing that he sent the video, then I'm all for letting the investigation play out before passing judgment, but the university needs to come out and say that the facts in the case are disputed and they're waiting for all the evidence before passing judgment. However, if Mo says he sent the video, then the university can and should punish him for that. I think that's worth at least a 6 game suspension and up to dismissal from the university depending on the evidence, so I'd have given Mo a 6 game suspension along with a statement that further punishment was possible depending on if new evidence was discovered. I'm sure others will disagree.

Just playing devil's advocate, but didn't Urban Meyer more or less get forced out?

If that's the case, then the university can come out and say the facts of the case are in dispute, so they're waiting for all the evidence to come out before making a decision. That's not an unreasonable stance for the university, but it requires the statement to show some transparency in their decision-making.

Who are you talking to?

I agree. I'm just asking if it's any better under any of those possibilities. That he sent the video is what I think he deserves punishment for doing by the university.

Maybe there's some legal nuance to "prosecuting" that I'm unaware of, but the state has brought charges against Mo and continues to pursue them, which is what I mean.

If Mo didn't have the video, isn't it worse that he went out and found it to send to her?

An interesting piece of this case is that there was police (court?) order for everyone that had that video to delete it. Part of the prosecution and why CA is prosecuting is whether Mo knew that he was supposed to delete that video. I have no idea of any of that, but your post reminded me of that detail.

That's an excellent reason why the university failing to make a statement about the suspension is ham-fisted.

I disagree about it not being logical to make presumptions. I agree Mo's situation is different, but I'm pointing out that it's logical to look at the no punishment for the others and come to the logical conclusion that Mo would get the same no punishment. Given there's no other logical reason for the 1st half suspension, I come to the logical conclusion that it's related to the CA case. Yes, it true that I can't say that it's proof, but I also know that there's rarely anything in life that can be proven conclusively, so we have to make judgments based on the evidence. All of that is exactly why the university choosing not to issue a statement is such a ham-fisted handling of the situation. Choosing not to give a reason is essentially telling us to draw our own conclusions.

I see now. I think the discussion has several facets that are kind of running together. There's the 1st half suspension what/why, how the university handled the suspension, whether the university/coaches can make a decision without waiting out the trial, what Mo's punishment should/shouldn't be while awaiting the trial results, and probably more. I disagree that it's an uninformed opinion. There's evidence for me to make an informed opinion on the matter. The university choosing not to help me make a more informed opinion does not mean that I simply have to throw up my hands and say I can conclude nothing.

No, the flaw is that there's no explanation for the punishment, which means it's fair game to make educated guesses about what it was for. Considering that no other players were suspended for drug-related incidents and there are no other incidents involving Mo, the only logical conclusion is that Mo's suspension was for the CA case.

Maybe you meant something different, but that's what it seemed like you were saying. Here's the sequence of posts:

Paid leave would be about the same as suspended but keeping his scholarship wouldn't it?

Which is why the suspension for only a half makes no sense.

Wut? You're both claiming the university might have come out with a press release and that they don't have press releases for punishments. Either there's a press release or there isn't.

Your employer should conduct an investigation and then determine if you and/or the fellow employee should be fired.

Then why did you say they might have? Not having a press release or press conference to explain the punishment is part of why this is ham-fisted. They've left the interpretation of what and why to the press and public, so now they're going to be subjected to all sorts of guesses as to the what and why. I'm guessing that they'll end up needing to come out and make a statement about it anyway.

What is Bill even talking about? The whole state of Colorado has never been behind the Buffs. They can't even sellout their games.

Maybe I missed it. Can you point me to the press release about Mo's punishment?

Or the coaches/university could decide on a punishment based on Mo sending a sex video to humiliate someone regardless of the legal ramifications. And then the coaches/university make a clear statement about the punishment.

Because the kids were not adults under the law, but Mo was an adult when he sent the video. I'm not saying that's right, but it's why it's different.

Except the coaches and university already indefinitely suspended players that haven't even been charged with anything. Clearly they don't need the trial result to decide on a punishment. Except that the coaches and university aren't part of the legal system. See above. But that's a big part of the problem with suspending Mo for a half without an explanation. Nobody knows why he was suspended, so now people just have to make an educated guess. Ham-fisted is the correct description of how this is being handled.

You're trying too hard. Your shtick is better when it's short and biting.

Is it just me, or is sitting Mo for a half the worst of all possible options? It's neither enough to fit what he did nor is it nothing while they wait for the court date. I'm baffled by this decision.