Wow, Duke doesn't kid around when it comes to discipline
- Thread starter Eurocat
- Start date
It should be "criminal bad" for a university to issue a press release like this.....one that effectively condemns this young man and puts a black mark on job prospects for the rest of his life.
If it was not criminal behavior then there's a real problem with what Duke did to this 20 year old.
If it was not criminal behavior, suspend him indefinitely and say little to nothing.
This was done in the aftermath of a disappointing loss to ND. I hope that emotion did not influence the form this took.
I'm not suggesting that capricious, petulant and disruptive behavior be allowed or go unpunished. But the kid is in headlines from coast to coast.
If it was not criminal behavior then there's a real problem with what Duke did to this 20 year old.
If it was not criminal behavior, suspend him indefinitely and say little to nothing.
This was done in the aftermath of a disappointing loss to ND. I hope that emotion did not influence the form this took.
I'm not suggesting that capricious, petulant and disruptive behavior be allowed or go unpunished. But the kid is in headlines from coast to coast.
What was wrong with what Coach K said?
He was quoted as saying (and im paraphrasing...) that the player was suspended from the team. And when pressed, he added that it is a privilege to be in the program and that there are high standards. If one cannot meet those standards, then they will be suspended...
He was quoted as saying (and im paraphrasing...) that the player was suspended from the team. And when pressed, he added that it is a privilege to be in the program and that there are high standards. If one cannot meet those standards, then they will be suspended...
What Duke said was, "Rasheed has been unable to consistently live up to the standards required to be a member of our program." In a press release.
Right after they tossed him out of the program.
First time ever that Coach K has tossed a kid, as has been reported. Nationally.
Right after Duke lost a heartbreaker at ND in which the same kid played, albeit poorly.
The kid has demonstrated problematical behavior since the summer prior to his sophomore year. If he has been "unable consistently" why have him come back for his junior season?
Or, if an error was made allowing him to come back a third year and his behavior warranted separation from the team, why issue a press release that reads as Duke's does. Let the rumor mill and social media turn up the unfortunate facts. But the University should take the high road.
In no way am I defending the player's behavior or misbehavior and I accept that he deserved to be dismissed.
But the release took it too far.
Right after they tossed him out of the program.
First time ever that Coach K has tossed a kid, as has been reported. Nationally.
Right after Duke lost a heartbreaker at ND in which the same kid played, albeit poorly.
The kid has demonstrated problematical behavior since the summer prior to his sophomore year. If he has been "unable consistently" why have him come back for his junior season?
Or, if an error was made allowing him to come back a third year and his behavior warranted separation from the team, why issue a press release that reads as Duke's does. Let the rumor mill and social media turn up the unfortunate facts. But the University should take the high road.
In no way am I defending the player's behavior or misbehavior and I accept that he deserved to be dismissed.
But the release took it too far.
"Rasheed has been unable to consistently live up to the standards
required to be a member of our program," head coach Mike Krzyzewski said
in the release. "It is a privilege to represent Duke University and
with that privilege comes the responsibility to conduct oneself in a
certain manner.
"After Rasheed repeatedly struggled to meet the necessary
obligations, it became apparent that it was time to dismiss him from the
program."
Per the school, Sulaimon is expected to finish out the semester academically, and he is in good academic standing.
[sarcasm]Yeah, that'll lose him a bunch of jobs.[/sarcasm]
required to be a member of our program," head coach Mike Krzyzewski said
in the release. "It is a privilege to represent Duke University and
with that privilege comes the responsibility to conduct oneself in a
certain manner.
"After Rasheed repeatedly struggled to meet the necessary
obligations, it became apparent that it was time to dismiss him from the
program."
Per the school, Sulaimon is expected to finish out the semester academically, and he is in good academic standing.
[sarcasm]Yeah, that'll lose him a bunch of jobs.[/sarcasm]
I'm sure that in six months after he's graduated from Duke and is applying for jobs, the HR staff of the companies at which he applies won't do a perfunctory search of the internet. Especially when he's on a short list of candidates and they are looking to eliminate one or two names.
No, Duke's public statement won't cost his future job prospects.
Got to go with Medille 90 here. Suspend the kid and leave it at that. If he had been that bad, how was he allowed to play in that game? Just playing poorly should not be reason for suspension. I can see him mouthing off to the coaches or something like that but still not necessary to do anything other than suspend him.
I'm not sure the wording will cost him any more jobs than the traditional "violation of team rules." He would've still been thrown off. He would've still popped up in every news story. Violation of team rules gets construed as drugs a lot. From what Coach K said, I got the impression that he was an immature 20 year and Coach K got tired of dealing with him. I'd rather hire an immature 20 year old when he's 25-26 and has some things figured out rather than a drug addict.
I agree with this. I view Coach K's statement as pretty innocuous and less damning than the usual "violation of team rules," which is commonly construed as a euphemism for doing drugs. I don't understand why some in this thread are implying the dismissal might have had something to do with poor play on the court. Coach K has never before kicked a player off the team, despite the fact he has undoubtedly had many kids who played poorly over those many years. (Indeed, his m.o. in such situations appears to be to encourage a transfer between seasons.) This current situation is pretty clearly an issue of bad behavior. It had to be pretty darned bad for Coach K to pull the trigger for the very first time in his long career. I don't think anyone on this board knows enough about the situation to question Coach K's handling of it.
I hope that this turns out to be the case. It seems that he was a good high school student and has carried that into college.
I just can't imagine NU issuing a press release like that.
We speculated on this board about a player being suspended for a year and no real indication or confirmation was given by the university. One of the players who left the program after Collins took over had a lot of rumors surrounding his departure but the university was quiet about the matter.
I respect how NU has handled these issues, and specifically the head coaches in the revenue sports.
I think you're right that it had to be pretty darned bad which means the kid has some issues. The behavior issues of a 20 year old don't get fixed in a press release. Duke gained nothing by using the language they did. And about half of the Dukies seem to agree per their message board.
As an aside, there was a funny reply to a message that read, "Coach K is not THE God! He's A God!"
I just can't imagine NU issuing a press release like that.
We speculated on this board about a player being suspended for a year and no real indication or confirmation was given by the university. One of the players who left the program after Collins took over had a lot of rumors surrounding his departure but the university was quiet about the matter.
I respect how NU has handled these issues, and specifically the head coaches in the revenue sports.
I think you're right that it had to be pretty darned bad which means the kid has some issues. The behavior issues of a 20 year old don't get fixed in a press release. Duke gained nothing by using the language they did. And about half of the Dukies seem to agree per their message board.
As an aside, there was a funny reply to a message that read, "Coach K is not THE God! He's A God!"
So he's kicked off the team but he still remains a student of the university in good academic standing. If he's such a threat to young women around campus, why just remove him from the team and not the university? To protect the women, of course.
"Both students voiced allegations publicly, but neither filed a complaint through the Office of Student Conduct or took legal action through the Durham Police Department. The students declined to discuss their allegations with The Chronicle."
I have a bit of a problem with that. He's dismissed from the team on the basis of allegations that the sources are not willing to back up in any official manner. It seems to be about PR, not about protecting women or seeking justice. Duke strikes me as unprincipled here.
The Washing Post gets involved
It does sound like this is heading in the JoePa's direction....thankfully no minors are involved, afaak.
Will coach K have a similar fate???
===================================
We still don't know exactly what happened at Duke regarding sexual assault allegations against Rasheed Sulaimon, but we do know this: In matters concerning his basketball program, Mike Krzyzewski is accountable to no one at Duke University. Any superiors are superiors in title only. He may have an athletic director, but he has no boss. Duke basketball is a kingdom, and Krzyzewski, flanked by his 1,000 wins, four national title banners and two gold medals, sits upon the throne.
There should not be a rush to excoriate or exonerate Krzyzewski over the handling of sexual allegations against dismissed junior guard Rasheed Sulaimon, which were revealed Monday by The Chronicle, Duke's student newspaper. The Chronicle story played a crucial role in uncovering new information, but more information is needed before Krzyzewski can be fairly judged. When that information surfaces, though, the blame or credit for how Duke's athletic department handled the case will belong to Krzyzewski.
The Chronicle reported Krzyzewski learned of the allegations in March 2014, and that he kicked Sulaimon off the team - a first in his 35 years at Duke - nine months later....
Several key questions must be answered. How much did Krzyzewski know in March 2014, when he reportedly became aware that two female students claimed to have been sexually assaulted by Sulaimon? What actions did he take? Perhaps most important, what changed between March 2014 and Jan. 29, 2015, the day Duke kicked Sulaimon off the basketball team after he played in the season's first 20 games?.....
click link
WP gets involved
It does sound like this is heading in the JoePa's direction....thankfully no minors are involved, afaak.
Will coach K have a similar fate???
===================================
We still don't know exactly what happened at Duke regarding sexual assault allegations against Rasheed Sulaimon, but we do know this: In matters concerning his basketball program, Mike Krzyzewski is accountable to no one at Duke University. Any superiors are superiors in title only. He may have an athletic director, but he has no boss. Duke basketball is a kingdom, and Krzyzewski, flanked by his 1,000 wins, four national title banners and two gold medals, sits upon the throne.
There should not be a rush to excoriate or exonerate Krzyzewski over the handling of sexual allegations against dismissed junior guard Rasheed Sulaimon, which were revealed Monday by The Chronicle, Duke's student newspaper. The Chronicle story played a crucial role in uncovering new information, but more information is needed before Krzyzewski can be fairly judged. When that information surfaces, though, the blame or credit for how Duke's athletic department handled the case will belong to Krzyzewski.
The Chronicle reported Krzyzewski learned of the allegations in March 2014, and that he kicked Sulaimon off the team - a first in his 35 years at Duke - nine months later....
Several key questions must be answered. How much did Krzyzewski know in March 2014, when he reportedly became aware that two female students claimed to have been sexually assaulted by Sulaimon? What actions did he take? Perhaps most important, what changed between March 2014 and Jan. 29, 2015, the day Duke kicked Sulaimon off the basketball team after he played in the season's first 20 games?.....
click link
WP gets involved
Re: The Washing Post gets involved
I think that is what the issue is. Duke administration and basketball team and King Coach K knew about these allegations way before Sulaimon's removal from the team. But only after a lousy game was Sulaimon removed. The obvious conclusion is that Duke kept the allegations quiet until it appeared that Sulaimon was not helping Duke win basketball games.
I think that is what the issue is. Duke administration and basketball team and King Coach K knew about these allegations way before Sulaimon's removal from the team. But only after a lousy game was Sulaimon removed. The obvious conclusion is that Duke kept the allegations quiet until it appeared that Sulaimon was not helping Duke win basketball games.
+1000000
Great point. So the guy sexually assaults women, so you kick him off the team but let him stay on campus? WTFIT? Either he didn't assault women and is being kicked off for other reasons (in which case, this story is total BS) or he did and that's why he got kicked off, in which case it's mind blowing that he'd be allowed to stay. It's sort of one or the other if it's about assault. You either kick him out entirely or you don't. If you do, it's because he did it. If you don't, it's because you convinced yourself there's not enough smoke to deduce fire. But what you don't do it leave him around like Sandusky to stay a predator. That's wholly I excuseable. Let's home that's not the case or heads will roll - as well they should.
Great point. So the guy sexually assaults women, so you kick him off the team but let him stay on campus? WTFIT? Either he didn't assault women and is being kicked off for other reasons (in which case, this story is total BS) or he did and that's why he got kicked off, in which case it's mind blowing that he'd be allowed to stay. It's sort of one or the other if it's about assault. You either kick him out entirely or you don't. If you do, it's because he did it. If you don't, it's because you convinced yourself there's not enough smoke to deduce fire. But what you don't do it leave him around like Sandusky to stay a predator. That's wholly I excuseable. Let's home that's not the case or heads will roll - as well they should.
Huh? It's the fact that it was debunked that's exactly the point. They must be SURE because they wouldn't want to have that happen again, Artie. Got it now?
