WR Coach Keith Williams Arrested on Suspicion of DUI

[kchusker_chris]

 

Anyone notice this piece...

 

According to the Lincoln police, Williams Chevrolet Camaro rear-ended an Uber driver at the intersection of Ninth and N Streets early Sunday. Initially, the other driver merely wanted to exchange insurance information without calling the police neither the other driver, nor her passengers, sustained injuries but Williams told her his insurance was through Blue Cross Blue Shield, which provides health insurance. The police were then called.

 

I'm leaning towards him drinking till midnight - having a few glasses of water over the last couple hours and thinking he was fine...just completely underestimating his BAC. NO ONE is dumb enough to call the cops for a simple bump if they thought they were above the legal limit. They were called because of his decision. Seems odd - doesn't seem like a case where a guy went out, got drunk, chugged his final beer on his way out of the bar then got behind the wheel.

The uber driver called the police.

 

And either Williams is an idiot or he was intoxicated because nothing else explains confusing your health insurance with your car insurance.

 

 

Ahhh - I'm following now....

[Ratt Mhule]

 

 

I have absolutely no expertise in this area but it would seem to me that someone could have a "problem with alcohol" without being an "alcoholic." I would say someone who drinks in excess when they do drink but doesn't necessarily drink all the time could still be said to have a problem. And obviously someone who chooses to drive after they've had too much to drink has a problem with those choices.

 

And while it's all well and good to say that these *might* be the only times that he's driven drunk, that seems fairly naive to me. Yes, theoretically it's possible. But it seems so unlikely to as barely be worth mentioning.

 

Have there been any reports as to who else was with him (if anyone)?

I dont know of any actual reports, but I heard on 1620 he was out with Joseph Lewis coaches recruting.

So, if this is true, there's something I have been trying to hash out and grasp. If his duty was to go out and "recruit the coaches," which in many organizations is taking them out for drinks, is there a point where this falls on the university/organization for putting their employee in the middle of this? I'm not implying that the university controls his method of transportation or whether he gets behind the wheel and drives drunk, but focusing on the systemic nature of wooing coaches. I would have to think the university/organization/Riley takes a look at the position they put their employee in, knowing he had a past that includes abuse. Anybody have an experience or HR grasp on this?

 

 

That is a point the guys on 1620 were talking about also. I think their exact words were he was out busting his ass in recruiting for the university.

[cm husker]

Oh lord. If that's how the radio guys are going to spin it... People need to get a grip. Again, I don't even know if he should be fired, but that's an irrelevant factor.

 

In fact, if you want to consider it, then it cuts the other way, because he could have expensed his uber to the university.

 

By the way, we need to be careful about touting the wining and dining of coaches - are those benefits allowed by the NCAA? Probably. Because the NCAA is clueless. But it's still not a good look, especially if it comes back that the HS coaches helped pay for any of the recruit's T&E expenses. This is a prime example of how improper benefit rules really make no sense in practice. It takes almost nothing to get around them.

[Ratt Mhule]

Oh lord. If that's how the radio guys are going to spin it... People need to get a grip. Again, I don't even know if he should be fired, but that's an irrelevant factor.

 

In fact, if you want to consider it, then it cuts the other way, because he could have expensed his uber to the university.

 

By the way, we need to be careful about touting the wining and dining of coaches - are those benefits allowed by the NCAA? Probably. Because the NCAA is clueless. But it's still not a good look, especially if it comes back that the HS coaches helped pay for any of the recruit's T&E expenses. This is a prime example of how improper benefit rules really make no sense in practice. It takes almost nothing to get around them.

 

Why does it matter if the high school coaches paid for anything? That's not the way improper benefits works...

[cm husker]

 

Oh lord. If that's how the radio guys are going to spin it... People need to get a grip. Again, I don't even know if he should be fired, but that's an irrelevant factor.

 

In fact, if you want to consider it, then it cuts the other way, because he could have expensed his uber to the university.

 

By the way, we need to be careful about touting the wining and dining of coaches - are those benefits allowed by the NCAA? Probably. Because the NCAA is clueless. But it's still not a good look, especially if it comes back that the HS coaches helped pay for any of the recruit's T&E expenses. This is a prime example of how improper benefit rules really make no sense in practice. It takes almost nothing to get around them.

 

Why does it matter if the high school coaches paid for anything? That's not the way improper benefits works...

 

 

 

Actually, it's a delicate issue that has been playing out in the 7-7 leagues more than HS themselves. It's a matter of a HS coach becoming a "street agent" who is "representing the player" and therefore, if he receives benefits, he renders the player ineligible.

 

It's basically an unenforceable rule, but it's still an infraction - or would be considered one if the NCAA drew a quid pro quo line between benefits to HS coaches and the landing of HS recruits.

 

Again, the risk factor is very very low because the NCAA often can't even build a case in the event of direct benefits, but it's still a potential violation and should be dealt with delicately.

 

EDIT: I just realized you mean what if the HS coach paid for a recruit's travel. If the coach was then "paid back" in the form of food, drink and entertainment, that's a definite violation.

[Huskerzoo]

 

KW has 3 DUIs in the span of 12 years with the last one coming 8 years ago. I don't think that necessarily makes him an alcoholic, more like someone that has made piss poor decisions.

I may be wrong but once you are an alcoholic, you are always an alcoholic. Perhaps you are a recovering one. But still one just the same.

 

And with regards to the time span, it could be that he relapsed after 8 years. It does happen.

 

So your speculation is no more valid than someone who thinks he has a problem.

 

 

It depends on what model you subscribe to. The one most people look at is AA and in their model, once an addict, always an addict. Within psychology this isn't necessarily the case.

[Ratt Mhule]

 

 

Oh lord. If that's how the radio guys are going to spin it... People need to get a grip. Again, I don't even know if he should be fired, but that's an irrelevant factor.

 

In fact, if you want to consider it, then it cuts the other way, because he could have expensed his uber to the university.

 

By the way, we need to be careful about touting the wining and dining of coaches - are those benefits allowed by the NCAA? Probably. Because the NCAA is clueless. But it's still not a good look, especially if it comes back that the HS coaches helped pay for any of the recruit's T&E expenses. This is a prime example of how improper benefit rules really make no sense in practice. It takes almost nothing to get around them.

 

Why does it matter if the high school coaches paid for anything? That's not the way improper benefits works...

 

 

 

Actually, it's a delicate issue that has been playing out in the 7-7 leagues more than HS themselves. It's a matter of a HS coach becoming a "street agent" who is "representing the player" and therefore, if he receives benefits, he renders the player ineligible.

 

It's basically an unenforceable rule, but it's still an infraction - or would be considered one if the NCAA drew a quid pro quo line between benefits to HS coaches and the landing of HS recruits.

 

Again, the risk factor is very very low because the NCAA often can't even build a case in the event of direct benefits, but it's still a potential violation and should be dealt with delicately.

 

EDIT: I just realized you mean what if the HS coach paid for a recruit's travel. If the coach was then "paid back" in the form of food, drink and entertainment, that's a definite violation.

 

 

Yes, you are correct, it is. But you are speculating that KW was buying these coaches drinks/dinner, which we don't know if that was the case.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

KW has 3 DUIs in the span of 12 years with the last one coming 8 years ago. I don't think that necessarily makes him an alcoholic, more like someone that has made piss poor decisions.

I may be wrong but once you are an alcoholic, you are always an alcoholic. Perhaps you are a recovering one. But still one just the same.

 

And with regards to the time span, it could be that he relapsed after 8 years. It does happen.

 

So your speculation is no more valid than someone who thinks he has a problem.

 

 

It depends on what model you subscribe to. The one most people look at is AA and in their model, once an addict, always an addict. Within psychology this isn't necessarily the case.

 

Within who's psychology? Every psychologist?

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh lord. If that's how the radio guys are going to spin it... People need to get a grip. Again, I don't even know if he should be fired, but that's an irrelevant factor.

 

In fact, if you want to consider it, then it cuts the other way, because he could have expensed his uber to the university.

 

By the way, we need to be careful about touting the wining and dining of coaches - are those benefits allowed by the NCAA? Probably. Because the NCAA is clueless. But it's still not a good look, especially if it comes back that the HS coaches helped pay for any of the recruit's T&E expenses. This is a prime example of how improper benefit rules really make no sense in practice. It takes almost nothing to get around them.

Why does it matter if the high school coaches paid for anything? That's not the way improper benefits works...

 

Actually, it's a delicate issue that has been playing out in the 7-7 leagues more than HS themselves. It's a matter of a HS coach becoming a "street agent" who is "representing the player" and therefore, if he receives benefits, he renders the player ineligible.

 

It's basically an unenforceable rule, but it's still an infraction - or would be considered one if the NCAA drew a quid pro quo line between benefits to HS coaches and the landing of HS recruits.

 

Again, the risk factor is very very low because the NCAA often can't even build a case in the event of direct benefits, but it's still a potential violation and should be dealt with delicately.

 

EDIT: I just realized you mean what if the HS coach paid for a recruit's travel. If the coach was then "paid back" in the form of food, drink and entertainment, that's a definite violation.

Yes, you are correct, it is. But you are speculating that KW was buying these coaches drinks/dinner, which we don't know if that was the case.

Actually, it sounds like 1620 and some others have speculated that when talking about "out recruiting the HS coaches" and "entertaining them."

 

But you're right. We don't know. That's why I said we should be careful about touting his "recruiting of the coaches" on behalf of the program as a mitigating factor in this offense.

[Huskerzoo]

 

 

 

KW has 3 DUIs in the span of 12 years with the last one coming 8 years ago. I don't think that necessarily makes him an alcoholic, more like someone that has made piss poor decisions.

I may be wrong but once you are an alcoholic, you are always an alcoholic. Perhaps you are a recovering one. But still one just the same.

 

And with regards to the time span, it could be that he relapsed after 8 years. It does happen.

 

So your speculation is no more valid than someone who thinks he has a problem.

 

 

It depends on what model you subscribe to. The one most people look at is AA and in their model, once an addict, always an addict. Within psychology this isn't necessarily the case.

 

Within who's psychology? Every psychologist?

 

 

Nope, depends a bit on you theoretical orientation and how much you subscribe to the medical model. There's a lot of factors that go into genes related to alcohol use. Low levels of response to alcohol is implicated as being a higher risk factor. That low level of resistance combined with culture, attitudes, and stresses account for about 50% of the variance for heavy drinking and associated outcomes (Mayfield, Harris, & Shuckit, 2008). That said, 50% isn't great and would suggest other variables in play such as learning history etc.

 

So, yes, genes play a role, which is why people say "once an alcoholic always one" but it doesn't explain everything.

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

This very easily could be a drinking and driving problem and not a drinking problem.

[NM11046]

 

 

 

I have absolutely no expertise in this area but it would seem to me that someone could have a "problem with alcohol" without being an "alcoholic." I would say someone who drinks in excess when they do drink but doesn't necessarily drink all the time could still be said to have a problem. And obviously someone who chooses to drive after they've had too much to drink has a problem with those choices.

 

And while it's all well and good to say that these *might* be the only times that he's driven drunk, that seems fairly naive to me. Yes, theoretically it's possible. But it seems so unlikely to as barely be worth mentioning.

 

Have there been any reports as to who else was with him (if anyone)?

I dont know of any actual reports, but I heard on 1620 he was out with Joseph Lewis coaches recruting.

So, if this is true, there's something I have been trying to hash out and grasp. If his duty was to go out and "recruit the coaches," which in many organizations is taking them out for drinks, is there a point where this falls on the university/organization for putting their employee in the middle of this? I'm not implying that the university controls his method of transportation or whether he gets behind the wheel and drives drunk, but focusing on the systemic nature of wooing coaches. I would have to think the university/organization/Riley takes a look at the position they put their employee in, knowing he had a past that includes abuse. Anybody have an experience or HR grasp on this?

 

 

That is a point the guys on 1620 were talking about also. I think their exact words were he was out busting his ass in recruiting for the university.

 

 

 

 

Oh lord. If that's how the radio guys are going to spin it... People need to get a grip. Again, I don't even know if he should be fired, but that's an irrelevant factor.

 

In fact, if you want to consider it, then it cuts the other way, because he could have expensed his uber to the university.

 

By the way, we need to be careful about touting the wining and dining of coaches - are those benefits allowed by the NCAA? Probably. Because the NCAA is clueless. But it's still not a good look, especially if it comes back that the HS coaches helped pay for any of the recruit's T&E expenses. This is a prime example of how improper benefit rules really make no sense in practice. It takes almost nothing to get around them.

 

Why does it matter if the high school coaches paid for anything? That's not the way improper benefits works...

 

 

 

Actually, it's a delicate issue that has been playing out in the 7-7 leagues more than HS themselves. It's a matter of a HS coach becoming a "street agent" who is "representing the player" and therefore, if he receives benefits, he renders the player ineligible.

 

It's basically an unenforceable rule, but it's still an infraction - or would be considered one if the NCAA drew a quid pro quo line between benefits to HS coaches and the landing of HS recruits.

 

Again, the risk factor is very very low because the NCAA often can't even build a case in the event of direct benefits, but it's still a potential violation and should be dealt with delicately.

 

EDIT: I just realized you mean what if the HS coach paid for a recruit's travel. If the coach was then "paid back" in the form of food, drink and entertainment, that's a definite violation.

 

Speaking as an employee in an industry that is highly regulated, but where wining & dining is part of the gig, depending on guidelines (which I don't pretend to know for the NCAA) you could go out and do whatever (dinner, boozing etc) as long as each coach paid his own way. Just buddies hanging out, not someone trying to influence someone by wooing them with food and drink.

[Street Novelist]

Reading all of these responses, with so many defending the man and creating excuses for his behavior and utter recklessness, it makes me wonder if being a Nebraska fan is all that different from being a fan in the SEC. I'm seeing a lot of strange rationing and excuse-making that isn't normally associated with Nebraska. If this is the so-called "Nebraska way," I think everyone needs to re-examine what exactly the "Nebraska way" is.

[StPaulHusker]

Reading all of these responses, with so many defending the man and creating excuses for his behavior and utter recklessness, it makes me wonder if being a Nebraska fan is all that different from being a fan in the SEC. I'm seeing a lot of strange rationing and excuse-making that isn't normally associated with Nebraska. If this is the so-called "Nebraska way," I think everyone needs to re-examine what exactly the "Nebraska way" is.

No one is defending Williams. There hasn't been one post that i have read that says this was no big deal, or that it should be business as usual.

[husker_fan_from_sweden]

Reading all of these responses, with so many defending the man and creating excuses for his behavior and utter recklessness, it makes me wonder if being a Nebraska fan is all that different from being a fan in the SEC. I'm seeing a lot of strange rationing and excuse-making that isn't normally associated with Nebraska. If this is the so-called "Nebraska way," I think everyone needs to re-examine what exactly the "Nebraska way" is.

 

From Macroboy earlier "

6. There is nothing about keeping him that makes 'us' look bad as the decisions of the Nebraska Cornhuskers football team have nothing to do with my life, my integrity, my self-esteem, or my reputation. Yours either, knuckleheads."