http://www.startribune.com/u-professors-criticize-bowl-boycott-threat-and-gopher-coach/407636856/

If this is the attitude of the 4 professors, I'm sure most of the others feel about the same way. They just don't get it. That it wasn't so much about the suspensions as it was about the way it was handled. And two of them are pleased with how Kaler handled it. But what the hell does a Horticulture professor know about FB? They probably have better things to do then stick their nose into this.

The link below is on the Dinkytown XIX portion of this board, and it's not about the Gophers, but it is about humanity and caring about others in the wise words of @Vifan

There have been a lot of negative thoughts and nasty comments on this board lately, and I'm guilty of it myself at times. If you want to counteract that and refill yourself with good-hearted thoughtfulness check it out...

https://minnesota.forums.rivals.com...ho-have-lost-loved-ones-this-past-year.26253/

Link: Gophers in the Pros: Week 15

I didn't want to start another thread on this topic, but couldn't figure out which one to include this in. Please bear with me and help me to understand a few things.

1. The sexual behavior of the original five, and the cheerleader, is abhorrent to me. Nevertheless, there is nothing illegal about this so long as it's between consenting adults. So why are the players looked upon as animals and poor sweet little Miss Anne as an innocent victim? She was "lucid and playful". The only complaint heard was re the length of the line. When someone said he was the last one, there is no recorded evidence that she protested. Perhaps she said "no mas" but we'll never know. So not only do we fall short of the standard of reasonable doubt, but the preponderance of evidence argument turns into a "he said, she said" type of situation. How can EEOC proceed with any charges based on this??

2. Having grown up around several members of the Minneapolis Police Department, I can tell you that msot do not place helping young Black Men avoid prosecution high on their list of priorities. Most of the same Cops you see passing out coats and gifts to young Black Kids on TV will have an entirely different narrative when gathered with their buddies knocking down a few beers. So when MPD and the Hennepin Co Attorney's Office decline to prosecute, it tells me that they went over the evidence with a fine tooth comb, found nothing prosecute, and it wasn't even close. Had it been close, the players would have been charged without question. Even though there is a different standard for EEOC cases, how can they charge anyone for anything except bad taste and abhorrent behavior?

3. If the original five are believed to have committed sexual misconduct of some kind, for what appears to be strictly voluntary behavior, how is it the little princess is not also charged for her behavior? Plus she gave head to a 17 year old visiting recruit. Knowing he was a recruit she should have considered that he might be underage and asked for ID. That's Statutory Rape to me, or can only one gender commit said offense?

4. I'm not clear on what the role of the Secondary Five is? Apparently, they had no part in the train pulling episode. So why are they facing suspensions/probation? Is it because they didn't leave? What if they had departed and the so called victim did holler "no mas"? Maybe they woud have been available to dissuade their teammates from continuing on. Then again, maybe not. But what was expected of them? Where did they come up short?

If I seem harsh on poor little Miss Anne, know that I have 3 daughters and have always said that if someone sexually assaulted them I would never call the Police. I would kill the Bastard(s) myself. That was true when they were kids and remains true today, even though they are all married and have kids of their own. Having said that, if the woman involved in this incident were my child, how could I retaliate against anyone? To me, she bears every bit as much guilt as the original five and is ever bit as disgusting as they are. without additional evidence or testimony this process is an absolute joke.

Here is a summary of the 82-page EOAA report. The report leaves out the names of players and recruits, and I'm not going to suggest who they likely are based off past reports, as well to keep the players' and the female's privacy. The report has been released and is on Twitter, message boards, etc., so I read it and put together this summary. Obviously I don't mean to pick sides. The bulletpoints indicate what the report says, not my personal opinion. I'm just summarizing the info that others are summarizing that will be on the news, elsewhere on the internet, etc. I understand this is sensitive and don't mean to cause any harm to the program, accused players, alleged victim, etc.

• The female took 4-5 shoots of 100 proof vodka. She left her apartment at 12:30 am to the Venue (an apartment in Dinkytown) and then returned to the Radius (an apartment near Bierman where much of the football team lives) around 2:00 am. She went to three different rooms in the Radius, but the alleged assault was in just one of them.
• She was on her period at the time and did not plan on having sex that night.
• Initially, it was just her, the player, and a recruit. She didn't realize until after sex that the recruit was not on the team.
• One of the accused she had met on Tinder before and trusted him, although she alleges that he was part of a forceful tag team that she did not want to participate in.
• She did not want to participate in any of the sexual acts, which she sometimes voiced and other times did feeling as if she had to.
• The player whose bedroom it was asked her after the alleged assault if she was okay, and she said she didn't know. He asked her if she would tell anyone and she said she would not.
• She didn't report that she had been sexually assaulted until September 23 (the alleged assault occurred September 2). The written account she gave the police was fairly consistent with what she reported to the EOAA.
• Many of the players were identified by her recognizing their pictures, and for a couple she does not recall whether she saw them or whether they engaged in sexual activity with her.
  
• She took notes after she returned to her apartment, which were later provided to the police and EOAA.
• She drove to the hospital for a forensic exam by a sexual assault nurse examiner. Minor injuries were that were not significant and may not have occurred as a result of the alleged assault.
• She DM'd the player whose apartment it occurred in about what happened because she thought he seemed like the most trustworthy. He said that he and the recruit had sex with her but did not respond how many people were there and said he did not know.
• The witnesses accounts were fairly consistent with hers. The witnesses are worded as if they are her friends.
• When she spoke to the police the day after the alleged assault occurred, she reported that three players plus the recruit and other men had sex with her. In her second interview with the police three days later, the police offer believed her memory of the incident remained sparse. She added an additional man who may have had sex with her, and said that the sexual contact with her and the player whose apartment it was may have been consensual. She said the sexual contact with the three others was not consensual.
• She reported to the police that the sex with the recruit was consensual because she never said no, but reported to the EOAA that she never consented to sex with the recruit and felt pressured and scared and needed to do so to make the player whose room it was to leave.
• She believes her inability to clearly remember all the events in the bedroom was largely because of shock and fear rather than intoxication.
• Eight of the 12 accused students are in the Empire group text. The EOAA obtained several messages from the group text about them having sexual encounters, including that three of them having sex with one female at a time, that a player and the recruit were going to double team a female, and to invite women to a party.
• The EOAA believes that there was somewhat of an attempt to delete evidence, as eight of the students received relevant texts from the Empire group text but those texts were not retained on their phones. One football player who is not being accused also reported (presumably to the EOAA) that he had encouraged team members to delete messages in the group text. The EOAA was also told by one of the players that he "wish(es) she didn't remember my damn name."
• All but one accused student denied taking part in or witnessing a crowd of onlookers near the bedroom door.
• The EOAA found some things that may appear contrary to how one might expect a sexual assault victim to behave but did not find that the behaviors indicated that she did not experience the sexual misconduct that she described. Rather, the EOAA concluded it resulted from shock and confusion.
• The female still has significant gaps in her memory of the events in the bedroom. The EOAA says that those gaps ultimately prevent them from making policy violation findings in some instances.
• The EOAA says they found her account to generally be credible but that there were also times where they could not definitively determine whether her account or one of the accused students' accounts was likely more accurate.
• The EOAA reviewed an eight second video and her voice and posture do not convey fear. She is smiling and the recruit appeared to be unzipping her bodysuit. She appeared to be holding his hand possibly to intervene with him trying to take off her clothes. Then the recruit used both hands to try and unzip the body suit and the video swerved to not show her or the recruit. She can be heard saying no.
• The EOAA was unable to obtain the 90-second video taken by the player whose bedroom it was. Lee Hutton offered to provide the video to the EOAA with the female's written consent but she refused to consent because she hasn't seen the video and fears it would be too painful to watch. According to the police description, the video shows the player whose room it was, the female, and the recruit naked. She did not appear to upset by the sexual activity or indicate that shed it to stop. The police concluded it appeared entirely consensual.
• The recruit reported to the police that the two were flirting and that she was able to care for herself and did not appear in distress, and that she was kissing and feeling him.
• The players reported to the police that the sex was consensual and that she was willing to have sex in a row with many of them. One player reported that some players left because it didn't feel right, and that she may have said "don't send more people in" to which the player whose bedroom it was said "this is the last one."
• The accounts of the female and the player whose bedroom it was are very different, and the EOAA says it is not possible to reconcile all of the discrepancies given the available evidence. However, they generally found her account to be more credible.
• The EOAA concluded that they find it more likely than not that a reasonable person in the circumstances would have believed that the female provided affirmative consent to the reported instances of contact with the player whose bedroom it was.
• The EOAA found that the player whose room it was and the recruited exerted pressure on her to engage in sexual contact but they do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that this pressure rose to the level of intimidation or coercion required to violate University policy.
• The EOAA found that the player whose bedroom it was report that he was surprised when the men began entering his apartment to have sex with her was not credible.
• The EOAA found that the evidence indicates that the player whose room it was bears significant responsibility for many man entering the bedroom where she was unclothed and in some cases having nonconsensual sexual conduct with her in violation of the student conduct code.
• The EOAA found that the 90-second video was made without her permission and that him acknowledging the videotaping without her permission to be in violation of the sexual harassment policy.
• The EOAA found a freshman player's comments to them consistent with what he told the police. He reported that six players were in the apartment when she left, and that she had consensual sex with the player whose room it was and the recruit. He reported a few other players who had sex with her and named three players who never entered the apartment that night but later said one of the players was there after the EOAA investigator stated there was strong evidence they were there. The freshman said they were worried about the female: "We were worried whether she was okay or not or whether she was tripping. Obviously, we didn't want her to overreact. She made it seem like it was okay." The EOAA said that the account of the female and the freshman were inconsistent and that the freshman's account was inconsistent with his own account at other times and from credible reports from other accused students. The EOAA finds it more likely than no that she did not provide affirmative consent to have sexual contact with him.
• The EOAA found that another freshman's account varied from what he told the police. However, they did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that he had sexual contact with the female, and do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that he violated any University policies.
• A second-year member of the team reported to the EOAA that the female started to make moves on him and began giving oral sex to him but that he left after a couple minutes because he was involved with another woman and felt guilty. The EOAA says the statement they received from him differs from the account he gave the police. The EOAA found that the female's account was more credible than his and that at times his was inconsistent with credible reports from other accused students and witnesses. The EOAA finds it more likely than not that this player and two other shad sexual contact with the female at the same time and that the second-year member forced her to have sexual contact. They found this to be in violation of University policy.
• Another first-year player involved had inconsistencies with other accused students reports. The EOAA believes he may have provided this inaccurate information because he was in charge of the recruit and feared personal consequences for his lack of supervision of the recruit. He reported to the EOAA that he gathered around other accused students while another player was having sex with her. The EOAA found that to be in violation of University policy.
• Another first-year player that lives with the aforementioned first-year player did not recall having seen the female or many of the teammates in the apartment that night. Most accused students denied seeing him in the apartment, as well. The female reported that he introduced himself to her in the player in the bedroom, but she does not recall if they had any sexual contact. The EOAA does not have sufficient evidence to conclude that he violated any University policies.
• Another first-year player denied having been at the apartment. The EOAA found portions of his account to not be credible because at times he was inconsistent with own account and credible reports from other accused students. The female does not recall having any sexual contact with him. The EOAA found that the evidence indicates that he crowded around the door to watch her engage in sexual contact and for that to be in violation of University policy.
• Another first-year player told the EOAA he went to bed before everything happened. Several accused players reported seeing him at multiple times in the bedroom where the alleged assault occurred, while other accused players reported they did not see him. The EOAA generally finds the female's account to be more credible than the first-year player's because his account was at times inconsistent with what he had said before and with credible reports from other accused students. The female does not remember having any sexual conduct with him. The EOAA finds it more likely than not that he crowded around the bedroom door with other accused students and therefore is in violation of University policy.
• Another first-year player reported not having sexual contact with the female and she did not recall having sexual contact with him as well. Like several others, the EOAA found it more likely than not that he crowded around a door to watch her engage in sexual conduct and for that to be in violation of University policy. The EOAA found this player's account to conflict with others.
• Another first-year freshman reported not being there, but other accused players do report him being there. The female could not recall whether she had any sexual contact with him but based on memory of his first name and viewing pictures of him afterwards believes he was present in the apartment that night. The EOAA says they have insufficient evidence to support a sexual harassment finding on him. However, they believe they have sufficient evidence that he willfully provided University officials with false and misleading information.

Here is a summary of the findings from the report:

I think the REALITY of the world is that its such an economic thought about a player's future to protect from injury to gain huge money in the draft.....That said, ON THE RECORD, I HATE HATE HATE HATE the fact that Christian McCaffrey and Leonard Fournette are skipping their team's bowl games to prepare for the next NFL draft... Yes, potential for injury and loss of draft stock.. I get it.. But how about acting out in a SELFISH manner, disregarding teammates and their sacrifice for that team. LSU may not need Fournette in their bowl game as that other RB they have may be just as good, But to me, this sets a bad precedent. Enjoy the college experience and not just use it as prep for the NFL. The bowl game is many things and among them is a CELEBRATION OF THE SEASON YOU HAD, AS A TEAM.. This, to me, is a different scenario than guys standing up for due process because this is an individual making a choice over a team. This is about "ME OVER TEAM".

Like I said, I understand the "REALITY OF ECONOMICS IN THE NFL" mindset, that I am opposing in this thread.. But with that logic, if you are rated high for the upcoming draft IN PRESEASON, why even play a game your last year of college?? Stay out so you don't risk injury, if that is your mindset...Gotta play the games and show sacrifice for the sake of your team.. That should be as good or EVEN BETTER PREPARATION for an NFL career.. I hope NFL teams take notice and let these players know that giving it all for their respective teams is something that they are looking for, in players, instead of a selfish attitude where the world is all about "ME".

I'm curious what will shake out today or tomorrow on this story. Is their efforts behind the scenes by Kaler or BOR to meet with some of the team? Has the university leaders essentially accepted the embarrassment and financial loss of the missed bowl game and what occurs next with this program? The university is in a tough box.

It's funny as the day before, I was just thinking how much I was looking forward to watching the bowl game and all the "football" aspects of the game. It's weird how I'm so accepting of the fact that it will likely not happen at this point and support the team.

It's compelling for me that the whole team, including players willing to sacrifice a bowl trip to San Diego and their last collegiate game, is unified in what they believe is an unjust and flawed process. If I thought for one moment that they supported a culture of loose morals and were indifferent to sexual assault issues, I would be in a much different spot. This team has a ton of high character leaders. The team APR is at a national high. The team GPA is very respectable. While not perfect, the last 3-4 years of off the field incidents has been very low except for this one that keeps rearing its head.

What really bothers me is my complete lack of trust of what was done and concluded by this group of individuals (edited to clarify the reference to the EOAA), and whether the president and AD did anything to critically examine their work. What took so long? Can it really be called an investigation if they didn't interview any of the individuals that had knowledge and evidence? How can that be considered a fair and impartial decision making authority? Was there any consideration as to the alleged victim who was satisfied with the TRO resolution and wanted to be done with this?

What do you think the odds are that they are back?

Per twitter, expected to be formally announced soon

Claeys will talk to the media today at 5:45 so expect an update then.

I am literally sick and tired of reading all the posts today about the 10 suspended football players so I wanted to bring something totally unrelated to the other board to discuss. I am a big fan of Chick-Fil-A fast food restaurant.. The chicken sandwiches aren't the cheapest but their customer service is 'A++'.. They overstaff each shift and everyone is trained to treat customers right... You should see it here in Toledo.. You could add up the customers at McDonalds, Wendys, and Burger King and together they do not add up to the lunch crowd at Chick-Fil-A. Would you pay a bigger price for food if the customer service is better?? I am not talking unreasonable prices but I would be willing to pay close to double the amount of a competitor in a food place if the service is that much better.. How do you see it??

names would have come out anyways.

Trial by media. Arguing amongst ourselves. Neighbor vs. neighbor. Powerful vs. less-powerful. Guilt by association. Other threats (like being fired). Political ideologies and social agendas. Playing favorites. Rumors, name-calling, smears, intimidation, leaks, spin....etc., etc.

This is not America. This is Communism. This is Fascism.

None of this would happen if we simply stuck to our ideals of innocent until proven guilty. Have a speedy hearing....in front of as much of a non-biased panel as you can get. Allow both sides to remove jurors/panelists they don't like. If it's not a real court, make it as much like a real court as possible.

I would accept the results. I wouldn't be angry. I'd be calm. We wouldn't need to argue.

On a certain other site there is a thread of Still using twitter and he needs to shut up.

Claeys has no control.

Good grief!

What a great weekend for Minnesota football fans:
1) The Gophers have a weekend from hell
2) The Vikings have a game from hell
So, the Vikings go another year without ever having won the Super Bowl and the Gophers are now at 55 years from ever having a trip to the Rose Bowl. Sad, so sad.

i am broken. For those that followed me on twitter, thanks. But I can't keep dealing with the ignorant, or the intentionally ignorant.

My account for the foreseeable future is in hibernation.

As I was counseled, I need to quit arguing with ignorant people, they just bring you down to their level. Further they get snarky and attack to cover their own myopic shortcomings. Better to focus time energy on the worthy. Y'all may see even more posts now.

Good night Gracie.

#skiumah and cheers.

See some of you in San Diego.

If those players think they've been missed treated they should leave and that's their choice.

I (hope) do not believe any will. I've learned it's better to stay and work through the problem then run and hide.

Because the issue will follow you the rest of your life. Stay and rebuild your reputation and become a leader.

Parents need to really think about pulling their kid out! Tell their Sons to ride the wave and show through action your not that type of person. Now's the time to grow and learn. That's really what a University is about. Growing young people and allowing them to work through the issues.

Don't run and don't hide! Just quietly go about your business and Lead by Example!

Your resume will be better for the experience!

Link: Vokolek talks Gopher offer, Kill connection

???

Claeys opened up that things now can start going in a positive direction in preparing for one of the better bowl games the team has been in. He said that he wants everyone to understand that he thought the team did a great job with their statement, and that in no way was the team supporting any type of sexual assault or misconduct in any way. Additionally, he wants fans to know that the kids were not trying to overthrow power by any means; that their frustration was with the due process and how the suspensions came about (reasoning).

On his relationship with the President and Athletic Director, Claeys said he understands why the decisions were made to suspend the players, and that he did read the report. He also said as a coach he has to be a parent to these kids, he had a long meeting with the kids for about an hour before the decision was made. The kids had a lot of time to sit and think about it. Claeys said it was easy to back up his kids on the due process aspect of the suspension. He thinks that each student deserves the same support in situations like this, and the team was hoping to bring light on that in other universities as well. He also said he understands that from the universities point of view, it is not easy to handle a Title IX situation how to investigate sexual assault cases with constitutional rights. He said he had many conversations with (Big Ten) Commissioner Delany, and that Delany preaches that these players are citizens of the United States first, and they do not give up those rights when they sign a scholarship. Claeys said he felt that he needed to support the players, and their cause of due process.

Claeys made it clear that this boycott was never in any way about supporting sexual assault or sexual misconduct.

The players agreed that those involved will get a fair hearing on their situations, and that they trust the administration that that will happen.

Claeys said he told the kids three things before the initial boycott: that they may lose their chance to play in the bowl game, that there would be a group that thought that the team was “pro-sexual assault” which they were not, and that there was a great chance that he may lose his job because of split between being a university employee, and also being a parent to the kids.

Tracy said he will donate $50,000 to donate towards sexual assault, and will use the bowl game to also provide a platform for that. The kids themselves decided they wanted to play in the bowl game, and that the kids will play very hard. They understand that they represent the University of Minnesota, and want to do that well.

He said they missed a couple practices, but that it isn’t anything that will keep them from being prepared for the game, except maybe on the conditioning aspect of it. He expects the team to play hard and be competitive with the players they have playing.

Dave brought up the story of a Lou Holtz coached team in the 1978 Orange Bowl at Arkansas that kicked three players off of the team that week, and went into the game a 24-point underdog, then went out and won 31-6. Tracy said that the power of a close team, it is amazing what they can accomplish. The kids will be ready to practice and ready to go, and continuing on their cause to bring awareness to sexual violence.

Claeys said this was the closest team he’s had since they’ve been here, and that that played a factor in the boycott. Again, he said that were not condoning sexual violence, but that they cared about their teammates’ right for a due process.

On his closing note, Claeys also said that anyone who supported the team thru this boycott to please make a donation to those affected by sexual assault.

He ended by thanking Dave, and hoping to see everyone in San Diego.

Link: JUCO All-American WR talks Gopher interest

Announces at 2 p.m. today. Hoping he's Golden. Any late prediction on this one mods?

This guy seems to be only listen to TC on the radio. UNREAL.

Man, the witch hunt has been intense.

I have literally NOT defended any of the 10 accused players--not once.

However, I have defended the 110 players who stuck up for their teammates. It is apparent that the 10 accused players were dishonest with their teammates about what transpired on that horrible night.

I have been called chauvinist (which is hilarious), told go 'go f*$%' myself by multiple people, called 'entitled, lying, rape lover' etc.

Again, all I have said through this whole thing is to caution against a rush to judgment, and to be clear that the 110 players are not responsible for the actions and lies of their teammates.

But apparently that makes me a horrible person----'cause once the lynch-mob comes out, facts don't matter anymore. It's amazing how people who claim to have the moral high ground can be so nasty, awful, vitriolic, and frankly, stupid about all of this.

Anybody else been called horrific names for talking about this stuff? Some of the stuff that's been said to me is just disgusting. I imagine many of you have had similar encounters.

I personally feel bad for Woli and the players. They were trying to stand up for their brothers, and those brothers (and the administration) put them in a terrible position.

Very confusing to say the least..

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...knights-name-jerry-kill-offensive-coordinator