I don't think there is any doubt that he is guilty. But what do you do with the guilty party? That's the issue.
Mixon situation demonstrates the complete impotence of the NCAA
- Thread starter CAJUNEER
- Start date
I don't think there is any doubt that he is guilty. But what do you do with the guilty party? That's the issue.
Regarding the bold statement, crime violations do have minimum sentencing, fines and penalties. Whether it's 10 years in jail, or a $100 citation, ect.
However, you're correct that judges look at each case when rendering their judgments - because they have discretion. The public awards them this right.
IMO, I don't think a football coach should have that right. Not in matters as severe as what Mixon did. I'm not talking about sitting a player because he was late for a practice or broke team rules....but with hardcore violent offenses, a football coach shouldn't be the one deciding the minimum punishment...their success is tied to those players. It's a total conflict of interest - even for other school administrators.
That really is a can of worms.
Last edited:
This is a reasonable post. I certainly appreciate it after the way many of the things I have said appeared to be twisted.
I don't think that a coach should make that decision either .... at least not alone. If ... and I say IF ....a decision is made to create an opportunity for a serious, or violent, offender to have an opportunity to continue with the program there needs to be several layers of administration and accountability represented in a "committee" that decides the way forward. That arrangement should negate a conflict of interest that coach may have.
I think it would be a very good practice for a school to have a severe legal infractions committee that would work with a coach and decide the requirements for a student athlete in such situations, and that could include being dismissed from the program.
The real lesson in this situation may not be that Stoops is a bum as much as dealing with these very serious issues must be dealt with by several layers of school administration.
Maybe that happened with OU? Maybe it didn't?
Maybe that happened with OU? Maybe it didn't?
We know how this stuff works by now...don't we? .....look...I understand your points Hurdy, but I am also well aware how things seem to develop when the bottom line is a 5 star back can't be sat down or disciplined severely.
I understand completely. But until we know for sure .... we don't really know. That has really been my only point all along.
You have to wait until you know for sure before you completely unload.
The NFL barely punishes domestic violence offenders. Ray Rice was only a 2 game suspension, if he was good enough he'd be playing right now. That psychopath Greg Hardy is eligible to play at any moment. So possibly the biggest sports organization in the world (other than FIFA) doesn't take the issue seriously yet the half assed NCAA is supposed to be different?
Do not hold your breath looking for morality in sports. There is millions on the line and fielding a team of choir boys doesn't fill stadiums, get donations up, earn the coach an extension or new job offer. Outside of killing a person there doesn't seem to be a line that won't be crossed if a kid can play. Rapist? "That ho was asking for it". Thief? Drug dealer? Assault? "Boys will be boys, can't throw someone's life away". However the second that kid can't play anymore the coach and school will turn on the kid. Really screwed up sport in a lot of ways, I try not to get too emotionally involved with the off field stuff and try to just accept the games at face value and enjoy.
Do not hold your breath looking for morality in sports. There is millions on the line and fielding a team of choir boys doesn't fill stadiums, get donations up, earn the coach an extension or new job offer. Outside of killing a person there doesn't seem to be a line that won't be crossed if a kid can play. Rapist? "That ho was asking for it". Thief? Drug dealer? Assault? "Boys will be boys, can't throw someone's life away". However the second that kid can't play anymore the coach and school will turn on the kid. Really screwed up sport in a lot of ways, I try not to get too emotionally involved with the off field stuff and try to just accept the games at face value and enjoy.
What a refreshing point of view sadly lacking in America today and certainly on this topic.
I saw this mentioned by just one media member--and I can't remember where--but somebody pointed out that the only way to ensure Mixon was punished at all was by keeping him on the Oklahoma team. He did not face legal charges, so the only possible punishment was by his school. However, unlike a transfer situation, if Oklahoma had kicked Mixon off the squad he would've been eligible to play immediately at another university. Therefore, if the Sooners had booted Mixon he could've started right away for another institution and gotten off scott free for striking the girl in the process.
Yes he did. He pleaded guilty to assault and was given a lenient deal.
All true. There is no way, with video evidence and the damage it caused, that this was a misdemeanor. Any other student is in jail for felony assault and expelled from school.
Boomer Sooner Cronyism
I think when it all boils down the problem/discussion centers around OU giving Mixon a one year suspension, but then using the redshirt to cover it.
Sounds like most feel that Mixon should have been gone from OU instead of redshirted. And if he had been booted, I think he would have had to sit out a year before being eligible to play elsewhere. (He had already been on the field for OU at the time). A bigger punishment than he even got from the judicial system; loss of a playing year totally.
Sorry, you are right. I screwed up that detail in my retelling of the columnist's point. I should have said "additional" charges beyond the lenient plea deal. Still, the larger point remains a good one.
I don't see it. Was given a lenient plea deal and a lenient punishment from OU. One hand washing the other.
It ain't like we don't know the story line. Money is doing the talking............and the walking as well. You gotta play these 'young men' and overlook their morals. In other words.............you gotta give it up for the team...................errrr..............ca$h.
The "additional charges" came from the payday in the just settled civil suit filed by the young lady in question. Probably because the two-year statute of limitations was about to kick-in. If she could have waited another year to bring the suit the payday would have been bigger with a potential NFL contract weighing in.
I would argue that she could defer part of her payment until his NFL pay comes into question or demand a judgment now based on his projected NFL salary in 6 months or so. There is no law that says he could be found guilty now and defer the amount until a later court date.
Read the remark at the bottom of the page from Bob Stoops dated 8/4/16.
http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=130692&draftyear=2019&genpos=RB
And a new twist: http://www.tmz.com/2016/12/19/joe-mixon-evicted-oklahoma/
http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=130692&draftyear=2019&genpos=RB
And a new twist: http://www.tmz.com/2016/12/19/joe-mixon-evicted-oklahoma/
Agreed on the lenient plea deal, but you must not have understood the columnist's point I was relating. If Oklahoma had "punished" him more severely by kicking him off the team, then Mixon could've played immediately elsewhere and effectively not been punished at all. Keeping him there was the only way to stop him from playing for a year. Now if you want to argue they should've made it two years or something more, that's another matter.
True, but at least OU could have said that they are above having this kind of element on the team...which they obviously aren't above that element.
Mixon didn't instigate this situation, nor did he strike the woman until after he began walking away and she struck him twice in the chest and then slapped him hard, at which time he retaliated.
That what she did isn't even being discussed shows how far society has degraded.
Mixon may need some counseling, but the female in the incident needs it more than he does.
His life and/or career shouldn't be over as some of you seem to crave.
That what she did isn't even being discussed shows how far society has degraded.
Mixon may need some counseling, but the female in the incident needs it more than he does.
His life and/or career shouldn't be over as some of you seem to crave.
Your defense is that he was acting in self-defense.
I'll tell you where that would be valid. If this happened outside the restaurant where this all started and was unprovoked.
That's not what happened here.
If you watch the video, she went in without saying a word out the door to draw him in....but he comes in shortly thereafter all by himself. Does he have the right to do so? Of course...but if none of his friends are there then what was his motive?
She did wave him over ONLY AFTER HE CAME IN ON HIS OWN CHOICE. He obviously said something inflammatory to her friend (who apparently is gay and Mixon said a homophobic statement to that boy). After that she pushed him.
Isn't the defense of self-defense dependent on being unable to get away without physical conflict? I can think of 18 ways he could have avoided that conflict.
First link certainly makes it sound like Stoops did not make the decision alone.
Second link is not good. But there is no report of violence.
Watch it again closely. If you look closely it appears as if she waves him over to the table. She waves someone over and then Mixon arrives. Then .... whatever was said was said. She then pushed him. He feigned an attack and then it appears as if she grabbed his throat and he immediately decked her. Look closely .... she really appears to grab his throat and then he launches his punch.
I am defending nothing. I am only reporting what I saw. Please watch it carefully and tell me if you see it differently.
I think Mixon entered a plea of guilty but without fault .... or something like that. Anyone more familiar with the kind of plea he entered.?
Even if you're right about all that, what does it change?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing at all.
Keep trying Buck, I mean...er, Hurdy.
BTW, you are 100% defending him, just like you did with Baylor.
This is ridiculous. I ultimately said the Baylor situation was worse than PSU.
If it is true that she tried to choke him then I think that sheds some light on the nature of his plea. I asked for someone with knowledge the plea to explain it. I also asked for others to look again and report if they see her attempting to choke him.
Again .... you fabricate things .... and just when I thought you may have turned a corner.
She gave him a weak slap to his upper shoulder/trap..Hurdy/Buck says she grabs him by the throat.
By the end of the week, HurdyBuck will be saying she pulled a gun on him.
Whenever a football assaults a female student, like death and taxes, Hurdy will come running to their defense.
By the end of the week, HurdyBuck will be saying she pulled a gun on him.
Whenever a football assaults a female student, like death and taxes, Hurdy will come running to their defense.
I'd say she might have touched his neck. Along with his upper shoulder.
But so what? It changes nothing at all....what case are you trying to make for St. Mixon?
Keep trying HurdyBuck.....
I went back and watched it again. She grabbed his neck with her left hand and then slapped it with her right hand.
This is absolute BS. I'm just trying figure why someone enters the plea they entered. I made it very clear that I am asking for someone with knowledge of that type of plea to explain what it means.
Her left hand is on his right shoulder....and she gives a weak slap with her right PALM.
Again, so what?
I mean .... how does someone get away with entering a plea of guilty but not at fault ... if that is what he entered. Again ... someone familiar with this kind of plea and how it might relate to what we can see in the video.
So to gain that knowledge you make up lies that she was choking him?
LOL - HurdyBuck.
