Eight Boise State players to miss all of spring football; Kaiserman's career over due to concussions

By Brian Murphy

• Eight Boise State football players will miss all of spring football because of injuries, coach Chris Petersen said Friday.

Petersen said tight end Chandler Koch, wide receiver Mitch Burroughs, nickel Jonathan Brown, safety Cedric Febis, linebacker Aaron Tevis, defensive end Kharyee Marshall, linebacker Byron Hout and running back D.J. Harper will not participate in spring practice, which begins Monday.

Petersen said wide receiver Matt Miller will be limited, but is able to participate.

• Running back Matt Kaiserman will not play again due to multiple concussions. Kaiserman, a high school star at Skyview High in Nampa, played two injury-plagued seasons for the Broncos, rushing 72 times for 290 yards and two touchdowns.

He rushed 23 times for 122 yards and one touchdown against Hawaii in 2009.

Without Kaiserman and Harper in the spring, Drew Wright, Raphiel Lambert and Carlo Audagnotti will get carries behind starting running back Doug Martin.

• Backup quarterback Mike Tamburo will transfer from the program. Petersen said Tamburo has not decided what school he will attend.

• Wide receiver Anthony Clarke will practice with the team during the spring. Clarke, a walk on, faces criminal charges stemming from his alleged role in a Blackfoot High hazing case.

• In a wide-ranging press conference before the start of spring football, Petersen discussed the recent reports about Boise State players and crime and previewed spring practice. Listen here to Petersen's press conference.

1299286965 Eight Boise State players to miss all of spring football; Kaiserman's career over due to concussions Idaho Statesman Copyright 2014 Idaho Statesman . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

A 'hazing' case?

Uhhh, it's a little more than that:


More like: False Imprisonment and Battery.

Geesh, talk about 'spin' by Coach Pete. That guy could sell snow cones to the Eskimoes.

Imagine the sh!t storm that would be going on now if Coach Akey allowed this kid to practice with the Vandals.

BSU must be weak at Wide Receiver and desperate to fill Young's and Pettis's shoes, to let this kid back on the team, during a time the kid is fighting serious criminal charges and has a restraining order against him, is what I deduce from this whole bifugulty.


The article is correct

The charges are surrounding a case of Hazing. I'm sure if the kid will be punished, but right now he has just been charged and he hasn't been proven guilty by a court of law (as of the last update I heard). Again, if any of this changes, I'm sure his status will as well. Coach Pete is very good at discipline. As is Akey (the only time I questioned him was the Keo incident).

cptstubing - No it is not

The charges are misdemeanor charges - two counts of Battery and three counts of False Imprisonment - not hazing (the original felony charge of Sexual Penetration has been dropped). The Prosecutor is just trying to make a point and save face, at this time:


However, from what I have gleaned so far, it appears to me as though the evidence is weak (victim's testimony is soft and scattered). I look to see these charges dropped in the near future. It appears, as though there was much church and community drama and politics involved with the decision to prosecute the case(s), to begin with. Not surprising for Eastern Idaho. I still would not let him be part of the team at Spring Ptractice, until it is sorted out and the charges are dropped or he is acquitted. There is always a chance he will get convicted of these charges - Then Coach Pete has more egg on his face. Just keep the kid off the team until it all shakes out, would be my recommendation - just like placing a full time employee on Administrative Leave of sorts.

One thing that is spurious with the SI article is that it included charged offenses (misdemeanors AND infractions/citations) and not convictions. It should have included convictions only. I shudder to think how Idaho would have fared, if the Vandals had been studied.

I agree, Coach Pete is good overall at discipline and so is Coach Akey; however they are both human and make mistakes and poor decisions sometime(s). Because, they live in a fish bowl and are under constant public scruitny, their mistakes are somewhat magnified and blown out of proportion. None of us are perfect. The key is to learn from our mistakes and not make the same mistake twice. I think both, Coach Pete and Coach Akey have learned quite a bit in the past year about this 'perception of criminal activity' stuff.


PS - I too, was kinda disgusted with Coach Akey per the Keo incident, but he is much better than the DIK (whom I can never mention his name).

PPS - Hazing = http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH9SECT18-917.htm

PPPS - Battery = http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH9SECT18-903.htm

PPPPS - False Imprisonment = http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH29SECT18-2901.htm


This was sent to me, cannot attest to it being factual, but have no reason to think it's not

U of I

3 - Battery
12- Minor In Possession
1- Possession of a Controlled Substance
1- Drug Paraphernalia with intent to use
3 - DUI
1 - Petit Theft


I am thinkng it is kinda 'light', actually (the paraphenalia, specifically).

Also, was that for Idaho only, or did it include Washington (Pullman - 8 miles away) as well. A true pic of the situation would have included Washington, as well (for that matter, all states should be considered for a truley accurate pic, as players go home from time to time, and might get in trouble in those states, I am guessing).

Were the stats based on arrests and charges, as was for BSU per SI article?


PS - The Bottom Line is the SI article was based on a study that is not statistically significant and spurious, at best. Any graduate level social scientist attuned to using SPSS, would laugh his/her azz off if he/she studied the way the SI article was conducted.

My understanding

is it is from Idaho only.

Couldn't agree more on your PS. For us to get a true picture, stats should be run prior to, during, school punishment, etc etc.

tfunky - more stats

Just got this off the GoVandals.net site:

11- Minors in possession of alcohol
2- DUI's
1- Aggravated Assault
1- Trespass
1- Petit Theft

14- MIP's
5- Battery/Assault
5- Petit Theft
4- DUI's
1- Possesion of Controlled Substance and Paraphernalia

It is apparently the work of some enterprising soul (Bronco, I think) that took the 2010 rosters of both teams and cross referenced it with the Idaho Repository.

Looks about right, to me.


Probably close

I know Acky got my respect when he got rid of those Erickson recruits knowing he would take a scholarship hit.




You must be lucky to be in the state I was born in!

We will miss you Matt!

Sorry to hear that Kaiserman will not be able to continue his playing career. I'm sure it was a tough decision but as the saying goes "it's better to be safe than sorry." We'll always have Hawaii '09.

Tough luck Wood.

Loved to watch you on the field, worked as hard as anybody out there, could cut on a dime, and a class act. Best wishes to you.

Matt joined BSU, ended up at Welby State. They all did.

The WWE is safer than some college football and definitely the NFL.

WHY? Does somebody die before the beeotchslap of reason intervenes?


Mehr Aufgabe! Hast! Schreiben Sie MEHR!


yes i know is good

College sports are having a rough time of it this week

Ducks under NCAA scrutiny for recruiting
WSU's Thompson suspended after marijuana charge

Forward the 600...or something


You must be lucky to be in the state I was born in!

I listened to Coach Pete's presser (main thread article link)

A couple things I find curious:

1. Coach Pete affirms that he uses a recruiting service to help find high school football talent, but doesn't really know how much it costs - just that it isn't a whole lot. If he knows it isn't a whole lot, then the logic follows that he knows how much it really costs. Why didn't Coach Pete just say how much it is and be done with it. Unless of course, it is a significant amount and he doesn't want anybody digging any deeper and finding out how much it actually is or to whom the money goes - especially considering what is currently going on with an investigation into the spending of $25,000 by the University of Oregon for their football high school recruiting service?

2. If it is true that he doesn't know how much it really costs, then it does not say much about his mature and responsible management of BSU athletic department dollars, that are entrusted in his care for budget execution. I don't think the basketball or swimming coach hired a football recruiting service to find the football players.

In essence, Coach Pete is saying he obligated BSU Athletic Department monies, without even knowing how much the total amount of the obligation was. it is beyond credible belief that Coach Pete does not know how much the total amount is.

Come on, Coach Pete. You are better than this. Just tell us the truth. You really know what the truth is. Why play games - just be honest and tell us. Somebody is gonna dig deeper and you are gonna look like a fool if you just don't come out and clear this up.

Just a thought.


PS - Murphy - maybe you want to do a follow up about what recruiting service Coach Pete hires and how much it costs BSU; and report about it? It would seem like a timely 'piece' following on the heels of the similar University of Oregon story.

Yes, Let's have a full blown

investigation.....Coach probably doesn't know how much BSU spends in shoulder-pads either, so let's investigate that as well. And why stop there, I doubt he can say off hand how much money is spent on Gatorade! Let's put two or three reporters on that alone!

Yes, and certainly on the heals of the Oregon soon to be scandal, let's have a full blown special investigation on how BSU has been able to attract all those TWO-STAR recruits all these years. I mean come on, if an Oregon 5-star recruit is worth $25,000, there is no telling what a BSU 2-star recruit is worth.

Your rants are getting pretty lame..........

tfunk - you are flipping out, Dude

No rants on my part.

All I have done is asked some questions.

The ranting is on your part.

Why is that?

I never called for any investigation. I merely suggested Murphy do a piece on what recruiting service Coach Pete uses and how much it really costs.

And you flipped out.

Why is that?

Now I am curious.


PS - In almost three years on this board, I have never seen you flip out like this. What is the reason? Assuming, it is not much money Coach Pete spends for the recruiting service, wouldn't you want a full disclosure of that, at this time when the NCAA is looking at this stuff? Isn't it the best thing to be able to verify, factually, that BSU is not spending large amounts of money for recruiting services? A piece by Murphy, one way or the other, would put that doubt to bed. Can you not see that?

Reread your post VNDL

Like the following questions.

"Unless of course, it is a significant amount and he doesn't want anybody......"

"Come on, Coach Pete. You are better than this. Just tell us the truth. You really know what the truth is. Why play games - just be honest and tell us. Somebody is gonna dig deeper and you are gonna look like a fool if you just don't come out and clear this up."

"Coach Pete to have condoned underage drinking."

Look, your posts have been silly, really.

Let's have Murph do a follow up story on how BSU gets those 2-star recruits, seriously.

Like I said, you are doing everything you can to drum up something when it's quite obvious you are just reaching to get back at BroncoBob

tfunky - yes lets have . . .

. . . a complete, well researched piece by Murphy regardng football recruiting, en toto, by BSU.

I like your idea to have Murphy do a followup story on how BSU gets those 2-star recruits.

Why not look at BSU recruiting in general, from all aspects. I don't know if Murphy is up to it, as he is busy covring the Legislature these days, but maybe he could take a stab at it.

As a reader and consumer of Bronco information, I would like to learn how BSU recruits. I would like to learn how much it costs BSU per recruit landed per LOI.
I would like to learn the obligations and resonsibilities BSU has to recruits that are invited to campus to watch games. I would like to learn about your quesion about the 2 star recruits versus the four star recruits.

What I find interesting is how BSU can turn walk-ons and 2 star recruits into NFL draftable talents. That is truley a huge success story in and of itself.

When I ask tough questions you get all defensive and assume things that are way out in left field (that is a pun as I know you played college basebal and won a natty).

I would think you would embrace my idea for Murphy to find out about what recruiting service BSU uses and how much it costs, as I embrace your idea for a piece on how BSU gets those 2-star recruits. Maybe Murphy could get into other stuff, too - you know - like 'a typical day in the life of a college fotball coach/recruiter', how many miles per year are flown by BSU for recruiting, how many miles driven, how many states visited, what is the ratio of recruits initially looked at to how many are discarded along the line and how many are actually given a schollie, what ratio of walk-ons become starters at BSU versus recruited schollie kids. You know things like that. It could be an interesting research piece by Murphy.


PS - The situation with the Texas kid and the underage drinking does appear that Coach Pete condones it. Even you have to admit there is an appearance of it.

PPS - Coach Pete could have said, "look I don't really know the exact amount, it is not a ton, but I will get those figures to you." It could have been as simple as that. Do you consider that as an unreasonable response?

Get your Gatorade at Grocery Outlet.


You must be lucky to be in the state I was born in!

espn reported that recruit services range from 3k-5k

that's why oregon's 25k is raising red flags.

The Cost of going to a BCS Bowl is high - $1.8M Fiesta Bowl

Is it even worth it going to a BCS Bowl? :


I am curious how much the team made from its share of the regular season conference split to offset the Fiesta Bowl costs?

Did the season even pencil out even for them, after all was said and done?


The Big Least

TV dollars come from both basketball and football. The current take is around $7M per team. The current contracts ends after 2013. Looks for the basketball deal to take a hit and the football contract to cash in. My bet is around $10-11M per school

Of course, that's assuming the Big Least still exists in 2013.

tfunky - question for you

As a continuation of the collegial discussion we had a couple weeks ago, re; BSU getting into an AQ conference to make Big Bucks to improve academics: I got a question for you:

How much money would/could BSU be getting for our split of a conference share? In other words, how big is Big Bucks? (Of course, assuming that different conferences provide different shares - but just a ball park guess on your part, would be good).

So old UConn is doing pretty darn good overall, even considering a $1.8M loss on the Fiesta Bowl, it appears.


Depends on the conference

and the "discount" points it takes to get in.

Say it's the PAC 2, their new deal will probably be around $14M per team. Boise State brings no market in the traditional sense, but BSU plays well to nation TV, so the contract won't be hart. I think the PAC 2 would probably give BSU a 75% share, which is still $10M (they will get about $1.3M this year).

I think BSU can look for a 75-80% share of any current AQ conference.


Looks like Ohio State is next


Maybe the SBOE could get off its azz and do something?

One of the problems with college athletes getting charged with any crime, is the fan base's perceived 'severity' of the crime(s).

Some Bronco fans believe Minor In Posession (MIP) is no big deal. The same with Vandal fans. And yet, there are those 'moralist fans' (both Vandals and Broncos, alike) that believe MIP is a sign of a character and ethical defect, of the player getting charged with it.

And, as the crimes 'escalate' in severity (posession of drugs, burglary, theft, rape, DUI, and etc.) the fan base's perceived 'severity' of the crime differs as well.

Most times the coaches are in a quandry. What is an appropriate punishment for a given criminal charge? What crime(s) merit a slap on the wrist, extra laps - gassers- stairs - dying co@kroaches, suspension for half a game, suspension for an entire game, multi-game suspension, and total suspension from the team. Differing quandries, for sure. Not to mention the media's portrayal of the coach's handling of the situation. The coach is dam#ed if he does and dam#ed if he doesn't. Just can't satisfy everybody in a given fan base - not to mention the fan bases of rival schools who are just waiting - even salivating - to have a 'gotcha' moment where criticism can be heaped on a coach for any perceived transgression of an 'enemy/rival' coach/program.

I believe there is one way to standardize the sanctions levied upon the 'criminals' - a Standardized Schedule of Punishments - to be determined by the Idaho State Board of Education for college athletes of Idaho's public colleges/universities.

For example, the SBOE could have a policy where the school has to implement a set sanction for a specific crime. The sanction process would start at the time of the initial arrest/charge. Of course, due process (the part where the old axiom of innocence is presumed until guilt is proven) would be adhered to. If the charges are dropped or an acquital is achieved, the sanction process would also stop. If a conviction is achieved the sanction process would be further applied, per the SBOE's policy guidelines.

This would take the decision-making of what to do and how to handle the potentially controversial situation, out of the coach's and school's hands. One fan base could no longer complain of any 'favoratism' by any coaches or schools pertaining to 'star' athletes.

I believe, if the players knew the sanctions were standardized and it was a very serious and publicly transparent process, they would think twice, about 'testing' the limits and putting themselves in situations where they may be arrested/charged with crimes. Basically, if you do the crime - you do the time; and they would know it without a doubt.

The SBOE could do this, if they had big enuff knuts.




And your reasons for your evaluation of 'Silly Post' are . . . ?

Just curious.

Care to elaborate?


Can do it with one word


Your actual comment was

"And, as the crimes 'escalate' in severity"

You have absolutely no evidence that anything is escalating.

Look up the definition of "escalate"

Again, I'll ask you, how many repeat offenders are there on that list?

Now, how many of these offenders have escalated to bigger crimes?

Go ahead, I'll wait..........

Now ask yourself how silly it is for you want to call the fire department because the stove is hot.

Silly post

Huh? Did you actually read the post?

The 'escalation' of severity was tied into the various 'perception' factors of the fan base. You know, what the fans perceive to be a bad crime or a not so bad crime.

Also, crimes do 'escalate' in severity, you know.

For example, an infraction is a Little Baby crime. A misedemanor is a little bit more severe. And a felony, is a Big Bad crime. See how they get bigger and more serious in nature. It is called 'escalating'. Kind of like there is high school football, college football, and professional football. Again the levels of footballl are 'escalating'.

I think you were trying to impart your negative bias of me, into your comprehension and interpretation, of what I actually wrote.

Maybe go back and reread it again.

Where do you come up with any relation to 'repeat offenders'. I never even said anything along those lines.

I was merely saying that if the SBOE had a policy of; if a player committed a certain type of crime, they would be levied a certain type of sanction, standardized for all public colleges and universities in Idaho, thereby makng it easier and less political and open to controversy, for coaches to enforce discipline among players on their team.

Maybe too deep for you?


Let's read it together

"And, as the crimes 'escalate' in severity (posession of drugs, burglary, theft, rape, DUI, and etc.) the fan base's perceived 'severity' of the crime differs as well."

One more time

And, as the crimes 'escalate' in severity (posession of drugs, burglary, theft, rape, DUI, and etc.) the fan base's perceived 'severity' of the crime differs as well.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but aren't you saying as the crimes 'escalate' in severity (posession of drugs, burglary, theft, rape, DUI, and etc.) the fan base's perceived 'severity' of the crime differs as well.

Or in short, as crimes escalate, so do the fan base's perception of the severity of those crimes....

I might add, having the SBOE become the campus drinking police is, frankly, a terrible idea.

tfunky - you have totally missed the point

It flew over your head at Mach 4.

I am saying that as a crime gets more serioius in the varying eyes of competing fan bases and their perceptions of what is a real bad crime or not, the fans perceived severity of the crime differs as well.

I will break it down for ya:

Some fans think MIP (an infraction) is no big deal - and is not a 'severe' crime and does not merit a 'severe punishment. Some fans think drinking beer is just what all college boys do - so no big deal. Some fans think it is a big deal, but their perception of a sanction is not all that radical.

A bigger level crime (an escalated crime), of let's say, misdemeanors, like shoplifting under $300.00 is petit theft. A little bigger crime than MIP in the perception of most fans, but yet there are those that don't believe it warrants tough punishment (their perception). These perceptions cause controversy and start ratcheting up 'smack' between competing fan bases and garner a little bit more media scrutiny than a Little Crime, thereby putting any coaches disciplinary decisions under a microscope more.

Then a real big crime, a felony, opens the floodgates of differing perceptions of fans regarding how a coach handles the situation and what punishment is applied. this results in greater pressure on the coaches to punish a player. No matter what punishment a coach gives, it is never good enuff for all fans. There is always a group that will second guess a coaches decision - pro or con. And lots and lots of 'smack' between competing fan bases.

I don't know how to dumb it down for you to understand, any more than I already did.

And I did not advocate the SBOE becoming the campus drinking police.

I advocated the SBOE decidng what sanctions should be applied to various crimes, as a matter of policy. The coaches and school administration should be the ones to police their own players. The SBOE merely is a neutral third party that has determined what punishments are merited for certain offenses.

Jes#s, you can't be that dense. You gotta just be pulling my leg that you don't get it. You know kinda like an early April Fools thingy?


Oh, and

Please show me a single player that has escalated his crime.........

Ω tfunk goes back-to back ...

... without interruption. That's practically a "de-escalation" ... a downward trend ... right "Otis"?

This is good.


I never said any player had escalated his crime.

You simply need to improve your reading comprehension skills.


Nope, but have ask you

To point out

Repeat offenders (a couple of days ago)

What escalation of crime as it pertains to BSU.

Again, show us where you see such a huge criminal problem, that the SBOE must get involved, that somehow coach Pete must condone underage drinking (which BTW using your logic means Ackey condones underage drug use), that somehow you have decided that coach has lost the team because of drinking.

I'll say it again. You are being silly

I'll say it again - you can't read worth chit !!!

Repeat offenders had absolutely nothing to do with my post.

I never said crime at BSU was escalating.

I never said there is a huge criminal problem requiring SBOE involvement, nor did I say that Coach Pete must condone underage drinking, nor did I say that Coach Pete lost the team because of drinking; in my seminal post, this thread. You are referring to fragments of previous posts (different topics - different threads) from several days ago. You are confusing yourself by mixing apples, oranges, and pears.

I said the SBOE should develop a predetermined schedule of punishments for crimes that Idaho's college and university coaches could utilize to assist them with making decisions regarding what punishments/sanctions to apply to their players, in the eventuality they ever commit crime(s). Kind of like a PERT, GANT, WOOF, chart, or a Decision Tree.

Possibly, you are too young to know what a PERT, GANT, WOOF chart, or a Decision Tree is. Maybe that is the problem. You are not understanding me because you and I are on different wavelengths and come from different generations. I dunno. You are so filled with animosity that you are not even trying to be objective or openminded when it comes to reading and comprehending simple English, is all I can come up with.


VNDL, you want me to read

some stuff but not other stuff


Above you wrote:
"nor did I say that Coach Pete must condone underage drinking"

From you two days ago:
"such as myself, can see it is wrong for Coach Pete to have condoned underage drinking."
"Coach Pete must condone underage drinking."

Above you wrote:
"nor did I say that Coach Pete lost the team because of drinking"

From you two days ago:
"Basically, the kid had Coach Pete's knuts in his hand at that point; and all because, a group of underage Bronco players didn't respect Coach Pete enuff to follow Coach Pete's rules. They just kinda stuck their thumbs in their noses and wriggled their fingers at Coach Pete, in essence."

As far as this lame SBOE idea, please tell us what evidence you have that the current standards set by each University are not working?. In BSU's case, what is wrong with the policy that a second offense is an automatic suspension of 20% of a season?

And do you not think that the lack of repeat offenders shows that whatever punishment is being welded out, that it's working?

Can you answer the questions or not?

tfunky - Usually posters respond to posts in sequential order

If you go back up a few posts, you will see a post of mine titled, "Maybe the SBOE could get off its azz and do something?" That is known as the seminal post to this discussion.

Most posters respond to posts in a sequntial order. They don't mix posts from other threds and other blogs and cherry pick to prove their points. They continue a debate or conversation based on the descending order of responses to posts.

Why do you mix parts of posts and resonses to posts, from other threads, into a response to a post on this thread?

It makes no sense.

Can't you limit your discussion to the seminal post, this thread, that I wrote?

Have you not read one of my posts from today, where I say Coach Pete and Coach Akey are doing an overall good job discipining their teams? In fact, I believe you responded to it, agreeing with me.

What gives, tfunk? You have your nose out of joint with me for some reason. You are doing poorly at disguising it, if you are trying. Is it the fact that I am not marching in lock step to your tune and agreeing 100% with your fixed beliefs that Coach Pete is perfect in every way and that I have the audacity to question things I believe are dysfunctional and potentialy deleterious. I do the same with Idaho and Coach Akey and sometimes President Nellis, Rob Spear, and the Vandal fans. I have news for you, tfunk, I am not a Blorange nor a Silver and Gold Puppet. I think for myself and call an ace and ace and a spade a spade. That does not make me less of a Vandal or a Bronco. In fact, some would say it makes me more of each, as I wish only success for both football programs. Success for the Vandals to me is for the Vandals to go back to the Big Sky and success for the Broncos to me is for the Broncos to win the BCS natty. Is that so very hard for you to grasp? It is not like this is the first time you have heard this from me on these boards.

If you want I will be more than happy to go back to the other threads and continue those discussions with you, further elaborating my premises at the time, in the context of those discussions on those threads. But, unfortunately, my seminal post this thread, had absolueley nothing to do with the other topics from other threads from days ago.

Dude, you are jumping all over the place. What gives?

Is it that hard for you to concentrate on responding to the instant topic without going back, in time, and dragging pieces parts of other topics into a current discussion?

Like I said the other day, you are kinda flipping out.


It's getting harder and

harder to follow you. First (today) you say the schools are doing a good job, then you post the the SBOE should get off it's azz and fix a problem you posted earlier in the day wasn't a problem.....

Will answer the following question (again I ask)

please tell us what evidence you have that the current standards set by each University are not working?
In BSU's case, what is wrong with the policy that a second offense is an automatic suspension of 20% of a season?
And do you not think that the lack of repeat offenders shows that whatever punishment is being welded out, that it's working?
If you believe the SBOE should police punishment for athletics, should they not also have have final say in whether recruits can be offered?

It might help us understand what it is you are after.

tfunk - response to your questions

Q # 1: please tell us what evidence you have that the current standards set by each University are not working

Answer # 1: I never said the current standards set by each University are not working. That was purely your conclusion, per my seminal post, this thread. How you arrived at that conclusion is waaaay beyond me.

Q # 2: In BSU's case, what is wrong with the policy that a second offense is an automatic suspension of 20% of a season?

Answer # 2: Nothing is wrong with it. Sounds like a sound policy to me. I would like to see that policy standardized for ISU and the UoI as well, to make it fair for all. The SBOE could make that happen to provide fair guidelines for standardization of discipline at all Idaho public colleges and universities. Standardization would preclude any appearances or perceptins of one school doing less than another school, thereby 'escalating' negative public/fan perceptions of favoratism of star athletes. Again, the SBOE would not be doing the sanctioning, the coaches and schools would. The SBOE merely providing standardized guidelines for the coaches and schools to refer to.

Q # 3: And do you not think that the lack of repeat offenders shows that whatever punishment is being welded out, that it's working?

Answer # 3: I have never addressed repeat offenders, one way or another. As I said earlier today, I think both Coach Akey and Coach Pete are doing overall good jobs with discipline with their players. I am not aware of any repeat 'criminal' offenders at either school. I am not considering violators of internal team rules into my discussions, as those are strictly between the players and the coaches and not germain to our discussion of charged criminal offenses.

Q # 4: If you believe the SBOE should police punishment for athletics, should they not also have have final say in whether recruits can be offered?

Answer # 4: I never said the SBOE should police punishment for athletics. In fact, go back and reread a post or so above. I specifically addressed your earlier claim that I had advocated 'policing' when I had not. This is the second time you are off on a Wild Goose Chase with the 'SBOE policing' claim. The involvement I see for the SBOE is to develop a set of policy guidelines for Idaho public college and university athletics team coaches and administrators to refer to, providing a standardized set of sanctions for set crimes (not violations of internal team rules, criminal charges per specific Idaho Code crimes). The idea here would be for BSU to give the same sanction for a first offense DUI as Idaho or ISU. That way, it could not be said by any fan base that the other team was letting one of their players off 'lighter' that should be or favoring a star athlete in order to win games. Again the SBOE policy would be guidelines for the schools to follow, with the SBOE specifically NOT policing. the policing part would be the sole responsibility of the coaches and the schools. In essence, it is no different than the Sentencing Guidelines the Idaho Legislature has established for judges to use when sentencing criinals for comitting crimes, so a sentence in Kootenai County is standardized with a sentence in Ada or Bear Lake counties. I do not think the SBOE should have any role in determining what recruits whould be offered scholarships. That is a management and operational decision of the schools.

My guess is that the schools and the coaches would like standardized sanctioning guidance, as it takes the off of any potential hotseat about accusations that they are being easier or harder on their players than another Idaho school. If I was Coach Pete or Coach Akey, I would welcome the shelter of SBOE standardized guidelines as a tool to use to implement sanctions against athletes charged with crimes in Idaho; as it would take any animosity or guess work out of determining what the sanctions were for the athletes. Again it is not the SBOE imposing the sanctions - the coaches and schools still would do that; the SBOE would just publish standard sanctions, per Idaho Code Title 18 specific crimes. You know, kinda like a menu of options/courses of action. If you get charged with an MIP this should happen to you. If you get charged with Petit Theft this should happen to you. So on and so forth. A matrix of options. That kind of stuff. This can't be that hard for you to follow, can it?


PS - The problem I referred to, that the SBOE could fix, was the problem of public perception, not any problems with the schools. Go back and reread my seminal post. Possibly, another F-18 flying over your head at 35,000 feet, again?

tfunky you may have BMS, don't try to balance in high places/


You must be lucky to be in the state I was born in!

If they visit the mall they escalate. NEXT


You must be lucky to be in the state I was born in!

One response

If it ain't broken don't fix it.

Glad we could get that over with.

Funny side note:

The name of officer that cited Young on his MIP


tfunky - time to hit the rack

Many years ago, the Idaho State Police had a Trooper in Northern Idaho named Jack Meoff (pronounced 'Meff'). No chit. True story.

I guess it is over with until we go at it again, on some future 'subject, still to be determined' discussion. It's innevitable, like the sun rising in the East.



Had one of those

There was a pitcher from eastern Idaho in the mid-seventies with the last name of Knoff.....and yes his parents named him Jack...

Until the next time

With all these injuries...

...I guess Coach Pete better head back to downtown Boise and recruit a few more Bloods and crips!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rack Me!!!!!

Was tightening you but the tensioner broke.


You must be lucky to be in the state I was born in!

BDuck's Motto: If luvin' you is wrong, I don't wanna be right

50% off sale at Victoria's Secrets. Don't forget, BDuck2009, Mother's Day, is just around the corner: