Professor Tweet causes buzz around SU hoops...

[SmilinBob]

I have no problem with him expressing an opinion and that's what we are suppose to be able to do. But, if we make a controversial statement you should expect some serious input from those involved from the university to fans and students.

Another thing, wasn't Jake in charge for some of this and not just Dr. Gross?

 

[Cusefan95]

responsible adults don't make stupid comments on a social media network. I don't deny he is a smart guy, but that right there, was dumb. I can only hope that students refuse to take his class, he gets fired, and moves on.

It would be really awesome if people didn't call for someone to be fired every time they do something foolish, or that we don't agree with. In general people are way to quick to reach for the trigger...I'm starting to feel like its another indicator that modern society has reduced any sense of social or communal bond so we're totally indifferent to most other people living in the same society. That is, historically, a really bad sign.

 

[SUfanNC]

I think him to be in a position at the university not to say anything at all until this investigation has run its course (I think this was dumb). I hope every student at the university has more of an affinity for Boeheim than this guy, if I was a student I would want no part of his class (that was dumb). This wouldn't damn all three of the players he mentioned and to say it was... is dumb.

This is obviously all my opinion but I really think it was stupid.

Honestly I really can't believe you would want this guy fired over this comment. If you do then you need to take a look at yourself because you make dumb comments on the internet all the time. It was his opinion something in which you know plenty about because you "use" hide behind it all the time. If everyone looked at this the same it would be pretty boring on this board.


For what it's worth that is my opinion in case you couldn't firgure that out.

 

[orangenirvana]

Although in the real world there are consequences about tweeting stuff publicly about a colleague. In academia, anything goes. That's why those of us in corporate America consider 90% of them buffoons

Yes, it's much less buffoon-like to have to constantly live in fear of being fired from your job for simply taking advantage of your first-amendment right by expressing your opinion. That's a much better world. (This coming from someone from corporate America).

I'm really disturbed by the growing thought-policing in this country.

"I don't like what he said - fire him!!!"

Calling for someone's job is the new-age lynching, with special-interest groups being the most common mobs. They can't kill the people they've been "offended" by, or put them in jail, so the next best thing is to ruin their livelihood.

More and more, we see people in this country having no problem giving up their freedoms. It's scary.

 

[SmilinBob]

It would be really awesome if people didn't call for someone to be fired every time they do something foolish, or that we don't agree with. In general people are way to quick to reach for the trigger...I'm starting to feel like its another indicator that modern society has reduced any sense of social or communal bond so we're totally indifferent to most other people living in the same society. That is, historically, a really bad sign.

I agree, especially with the typing your thoughts and then boom they are world wide in seconds... what you write may not be a though thought and based on misinformation or emotion. If we are able to discuss this rationally and without quick dismissal or using the burn the witch system we should be able to come to a logical conclusion or at worst a mature conversation.

 

[Ghost]

It would be really awesome if people didn't call for someone to be fired every time they do something foolish, or that we don't agree with. In general people are way to quick to reach for the trigger...I'm starting to feel like its another indicator that modern society has reduced any sense of social or communal bond so we're totally indifferent to most other people living in the same society. That is, historically, a really bad sign.

I call for Cusefan95 to be fired. Where do you work, sir?

 

[orangenirvana]

We test because the NCAA bans drugs, tests for drug use themselves and has determined in athletic events it is not fair if one player uses performance enhancing drugs while they also don't want athletes to use other drugs which could be deemed unsafe in the system during athletic competition.

I'm sure he was referring to recreational drugs, not testing for steroids. Isn't that what this whole thing is about - recreational drug use?

 

[BleedsOrange44]

Although in the real world there are consequences about tweeting stuff publicly about a colleague. In academia, anything goes. That's why those of us in corporate America consider 90% of them buffoons

There are always consequences to saying what you want. You're allowed to say them, which he is. But if there are consequences, you have to be able to accept them. I'm not sure there really should be any consequences here. I think his tweet was misguided and premature, but he has the right to say it. He also has to realize there may be some public backlash from it. And that's ok too. Part of the consequences for saying things sometimes.

 

[SBU72]

He is right. IF that article is true (i mean really true...as in systematically ignoring policy and playing ineligible players) all those thngs could happen. How could jb survive that and how could you hire Hopkins? If its all true. Big if.

What IF the problem was that the head coach was NOT notified and that is why a player who was suppose to be suspended, played? And even if JB did know, why does one have to conclude the Hopkins also knew. After all he is only an assistent coach.

 

[SBU72]

responsible adults don't make stupid comments on a social media network. I don't deny he is a smart guy, but that right there, was dumb. I can only hope that students refuse to take his class, he gets fired, and moves on.

The media and various groups were after JB's head when he made a "stupid" comment that he later appoligzed for. You would think that such a fresh incident would scream caution to a person in the trade.

 

[armory]

Did a little research. Doesn't seem like this is a guy anyone should consider relevant to the conversation. He has had a pretty successful career in sports broadcasting & tons of experience... but his responsibilities were limited to Major League Soccer, Horse Racing, tons of Tennis, Boxing, Bowling, and the National Spelling Bee. Not exactly an expert on college basketball.

 

[bnoro]

Did a little research. Doesn't seem like this is a guy anyone should consider relevant to the conversation. He has had a pretty successful career in sports broadcasting & tons of experience... but his responsibilities were limited to Major League Soccer, Horse Racing, tons of Tennis, Boxing, Bowling, and the National Spelling Bee. Not exactly an expert on college basketball.

That's what ESPN had him work on, but he is very knowledgeable in all fields of sports. You have to be in order to work at ESPN. I've seen the test they give you before you get a chance to be hired there, it has to be completed in 45 minutes and requires vast knowledge of players, teams, box scores, and sports. Knowing him personally, he knows his stuff.

 

[rrlbees]

I'm sure he was referring to recreational drugs, not testing for steroids. Isn't that what this whole thing is about - recreational drug use?

Yea, and I included that too. Don't get your response.

 

[OttoMets]

this sounds a bit pretentious any way you slice it.

Be that as it may, those who impugn academia as a whole are really some of the most ignorant people society has to offer.

This is why I don't look at the off-topic board; I like to read the basketball and football boards because there are a lot of people with great insights to offer. This is supposed to be a haven where we don't come into contact with the spun-off-of-this-Earth crazy people and morons.

 

[pfister1]

Yes, it's much less buffoon-like to have to constantly live in fear of being fired from your job for simply taking advantage of your first-amendment right by expressing your opinion. That's a much better world. (This coming from someone from corporate America).

I'm really disturbed by the growing thought-policing in this country.

"I don't like what he said - fire him!!!"

Calling for someone's job is the new-age lynching, with special-interest groups being the most common mobs. They can't kill the people they've been "offended" by, or put them in jail, so the next best thing is to ruin their livelihood.

More and more, we see people in this country having no problem giving up their freedoms. It's scary.

It isn't thought-policing. Everyone is free to have their opinion. They are even free to share their opinion. But, if you broadcast that opinion there can be consequences to doing so.....up to and including pissing off your employer to the point that they eliminate you.

As an employer I don't need my employees speaking to the media (unless that is their job function), offering negative public commentary on how we handle things within our business, or generally sharing any information that they have not been authorized to share.

When you do so orally at a cocktail party, the chances of it getting back to the boss or causing damage to the company (real or perceived) are pretty minimal, so your risk of consequences are minimal. When you decide to tweet it to the world, post it on your facebook page or feed it to a reporter your risk has increased exponentially and shows a pretty striking lack of good judgment. Unless you bring something to the table that is exceptionally unique or can't be found in a replacement, why should an employer tolerate that?

 

[edowd26]

Be that as it may, those who impugn academia as a whole are really some of the most ignorant people society has to offer.

This is why I don't look at the off-topic board; I like to read the basketball and football boards because there are a lot of people with great insights to offer. This is supposed to be a haven where we don't come into contact with the spun-off-of-this-Earth crazy people and morons.

It has nothing to do with academia.

 

[orangenirvana]

Yea, and I included that too. Don't get your response.

Ah, you're right bees, I misread your post.

It isn't thought-policing. Everyone is free to have their opinion. They are even free to share their opinion. But, if you broadcast that opinion there can be consequences to doing so.....up to and including pissing off your employer to the point that they eliminate you.

As an employer I don't need my employees speaking to the media (unless that is their job function), offering negative public commentary on how we handle things within our business, or generally sharing any information that they have not been authorized to share.

When you do so orally at a cocktail party, the chances of it getting back to the boss or causing damage to the company (real or perceived) are pretty minimal, so your risk of consequences are minimal. When you decide to tweet it to the world, post it on your facebook page or feed it to a reporter your risk has increased exponentially and shows a pretty striking lack of good judgment. Unless you bring something to the table that is exceptionally unique or can't be found in a replacement, why should an employer tolerate that?

I understand. There's a huge difference between saying "He shouldn't express his opinion - he SHOULD be fired for his comments" and saying "If I were him, I'd beware of expressing that opinion - he COULD be fired for his comments."

As for this imagined employer you're using as an example - if he's firing a guy for his comments as opposed to his productivity and the employee's comments/opinion has no effect on the bottom line, then he needs thicker skin and he's not a very good employer.

Which leads to this question - are these twitter comments from this professor hurting SU in any way? I personally don't think so. Maybe this is where we disagree.

 

[dollarbill44]

Dennis is a class guy. Really nice, very helpful. He's a former ESPN VP (so he's definitely the devil). Seriously though, he's a good person who tweeted something silly. Worse things have happened. Judging someone's character on one stupid tweet is just about as judgmental and short sighted as coming to the conclusion that SU is a renegade program because some basketball players smoked pot.

Public (and media) figures get fired all the time over one ill-advised comment regardless of their histories.

Do you agree that there should be some rules regarding what an SU employee tweets/posts/says publicly about the University? How is it different than someone posting a derogatory remark about the company they work for, which has been upheld in courts as a valid reason for termination of employment (which I am not necessarily saying should happen in this case). I definitely think someone of authority at SU should at least rebuke the guy for doing this.

 

[dollarbill44]

We test because the NCAA bans drugs, tests for drug use themselves and has determined in athletic events it is not fair if one player uses performance enhancing drugs while they also don't want athletes to use other drugs which could be deemed unsafe in the system during athletic competition.

I would like to see the studies that show that marijuana in the system during athletic competition is unsafe.

 

[dollarbill44]

It would be really awesome if people didn't call for someone to be fired every time they do something foolish, or that we don't agree with. In general people are way to quick to reach for the trigger...I'm starting to feel like its another indicator that modern society has reduced any sense of social or communal bond so we're totally indifferent to most other people living in the same society. That is, historically, a really bad sign.

Perhaps, but one could also argue that the prof's tweet is also an indicator of what you have posited. After all, would you post something like he did if Boeheim, Hopkins, Gross, et al were part of your close social community? I think not.

 

[rrlbees]

I would like to see the studies that show that marijuana in the system during athletic competition is unsafe.

"Marijuana contains the active ingredient THC. Marijuana use is linked to anxiety and panic reactions, respiratory damage, short-term memory impairment and a decreased focus on goals and personal achievement. Marijuana use is BANNED by the NCAA and can result in loss of eligibility."

 

[dollarbill44]

"Marijuana contains the active ingredient THC. Marijuana use is linked to anxiety and panic reactions, respiratory damage, short-term memory impairment and a decreased focus on goals and personal achievement. Marijuana use is BANNED by the NCAA and can result in loss of eligibility."

This looks like the NCAA's statement on marijuana. I would like to see the studies that show that marijuana in the system is unsafe during athletic competition, because I don't think they exist. I'm also not sure that the effects cited above are "unsafe" in athletic competition. Smoke of any kind can cause respiratory damage, yet the NCAA doesn't test for s'mores in the bloodstream.

 

[rrlbees]

This looks like the NCAA's statement on marijuana. I would like to see the studies that show that marijuana in the system is unsafe during athletic competition, because I don't think they exist. I'm also not sure that the effects cited above are "unsafe" in athletic competition. Smoke of any kind can cause respiratory damage, yet the NCAA doesn't test for s'mores in the bloodstream.

I asked for the study but they wouldn't give it to me. :noidea:

 

[dollarbill44]

I asked for the study but they wouldn't give it to me. :noidea:

Lol, because they don't have one!

Btw, I don't smoke pot because it's illegal, but I think it's ridiculous that it's illegal. If it were legal, it might find it's way into my rotation of recreational drugs, which currently consists of only alcohol.

 

[RoysRunts]

We test because the NCAA bans drugs, tests for drug use themselves and has determined in athletic events it is not fair if one player uses performance enhancing drugs while they also don't want athletes to use other drugs which could be deemed unsafe in the system during athletic competition.[/quo

So let the NCAA Test them at Championship Time (Like they already do)