cabiness42

Not disputing that. They were negligent and then they took responsibility for it. So what does that change?

I think he'd vote for Manti, because it's not who you hit, it's when you hit them.

It wasn't intended to be phrased in a way to make ND's failure to investigate seem OK. It was background given as to why she killed herself which in turn cut the investigation short because at that point prosecution was pretty much impossible. I also never said that she "deserved" anything because she was dancing with him and then invited him into her room alone, but the reality is those circumstances make a case very difficult to prosecute, and I think it's a very slippery slope to reach the point where we punish athletes for accusations that aren't the least bit provable. I also never said that it's OK for the police to wait a week to investigate, but that by itself in a single incident is not symptomatic of a university covering up for a football player nor does it rise anywhere near the level of Penn State's culpability. The text from the friend about not messing with ND football was turned over to the prosecutor's office. I don't know what else is supposed to happen with that. And yes, it is nitpicking to take a poor decision by the campus police department in one instance to generalize to an entire University covering up crimes to protect its reputation.

If Hawk knew how to use a computer or a smart phone, yes that's probably what he'd say.

That she had documented emotional/mental problems is a fact, not a character attack, and it was determined to be a factor in why she killed herself. Not saying that waiting a week to investigate was the right thing to do or the proper procedure, but there seems to be no perspective on the magnitude of this compared to everything else that goes on, such as Penn State. If you have to nitpick like this to find fault with ND's athletics program, then that's a pretty good sign.

If nothing else, signing him would help the Sox get more attention from ESPN.

Oh yeah, slow to investigate one incident by a week = slow to investigate a dozen incidents by several years. Again, you have to exaggerate a ton just to make a point. Oh, and who attacked the victim's character? Other than the player's defense attorney, and that's what defense attornies do.

Asking for any portion of your SSN is a red flag. I've interviewed for lots of jobs and never had that asked.

No, that was a response to the "ND winning is better for football" portion of the argument. I should have edited the quote.

ESPN is too busy to respond to that argument because they're busy counting all the extra cash they are making from commercial spots in a championship game featuring ND. What team's fans don't think college football is somehow better when their team is winning? Do Wisconsin fans sit around saying, "Hey, I'm glad we're winning but you know college football would be better if we weren't"?

Yes, you're using a case where the University didn't discipline a football player who may or may not have committed a crime to suggest that means Notre Dame somehow isn't the institution they claim to be. You've deliberately lied about the seriousness of the alleged crime in order to make your case. That's textbook obsession.

I didn't say it was OK because it wasn't a rape. I said that you're a liar because it wasn't a rape. You're beyond obsessed at this point.

Again, it wasn't rape, and it's a telling sign when you have to lie to make your point, so keep it up. She killed herself 10 days after the incident. The police are supposed to have the investigation wrapped up and decide whether or not to press charges in 10 days? You keep bringing up an incident where there is no proof of a crime. That's all you've got to come with.

Oh yeah, I forgot about all the anonymous quotes attributed to "top officials" at the university. That's always the first place to go for trustworthy information is anonymous sources.

Nobody is blaming the victim, but the reality is that the alleged victim took her own life before the case could be concluded and that prevented any further legal action. A crime was alleged, circumstances prevented law enforcement from proving guilt, so nothing can be done.

If they want to kick a guy off the team without even getting charged for something, that's their choice, but to me that's setting a dangerous precedent.

OK, in the linked article: A case from 2011 where the incident was not reported to the university or the police, so is ND supposed to take disciplinary action based on an internet story? A case from 2002 where the accused were expelled and one was convicted. What more was ND supposed to do here? Beyond that there is some stuff mentioned from the 1970s.

No, not again and again. There was one case where somebody should have been held responsible but wasn't. Yet that person is most likely the AD or an administrator and would not have significant impact on the performance of the team.

When were there other accusations of sexual assault by that or any other ND player? And those aren't "my excuses". They are the facts that determine how the legal case did or did not progress. Only at ND does everybody else expect players to be kicked off the team just for being accused of crimes that can't come close to being proven. Oh, well maybe at Duke as well.

You want ND fans (and alumni) to be less arrogant--then start by getting your facts straight. This isn't anything close to Paterno's case, and honestly you are trivializing Sandusky's victims by even thinking about mentioning both in the same sentence. You keep making up facts and ND fans aren't going to give a s*** about your opinion. I do agree about the scissor-lift incident. There should have been some more accountability at some level for that, though the AD and an administrator were at that practice so it's hard to justify saying the buck should have stopped with Brian Kelly.

She filed a police report. It was made public. The allegation was unwanted contact to her clothed breasts and genitals, but all the ND haters ignored that and started throwing around the word 'rape', because the ND haters are a bunch of sheep who believe everything they read that is the slightest bit negative about ND without looking it up themselves. EDIT: In the pursuit of accuracy, I went back and looked up the facts again and the report does not state that her breasts were clothed, though I don't know what that changes.

You want to sit from the cheap seats and take shots at something you're jealous of, go right ahead. But you look like an ass when you don't even bother to look up the facts. First of all, the alleged crime she reported was unwanted contact to her clothed breasts and genitals. A crime? Yes. Rape? Not even close. Secondly, there are no witnesses to the crime itself, but there are witnesses who saw her acting very "friendly" with him and heard her invite him into her room. That isn't to say a crime wasn't committed, but under those circumstances there is no chance she gets convicted even if she isn't dead. Thirdly, she had documented emotional/mental problems. It's not anybody else's fault that she chose to kill herself as a reaction to this situation, and once she did that, what small chance there was that any action would be taken against the player was gone.

There was no rape, so if you're going to be a smartass and take shots, you should probably bother to learn the details of the story, or at least fake living up to the standards of knowing something about what's going on.

I guess the radius extends out at least 50 miles.

You can make up lies, and still be admin of a message board.