A Chaplain for the Iowa Football team?

[Cyclonesrule91]

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

Right, so you have no facts, you're just making parallels. It is my opinion that while these three Regents (to be named) may have let their displeasure be known to Sally Mason, as far as we can tell, they had no direct influence on the current progress made by the football team.

It's easy to say "Yeah, if something more happens, I promise you that it will be a result of pressure from the Regents."

In fact, it's easy to say that some time in the future, the sun will rise.

So, until there is actually proof that the Regents actually forced things to move forward, the progress can be credited to Ferentz, Barta, and others involved in the program. Again, no public records of the Regents forcing Ferentz to kick players off the team (remember, only Bowman was re-instated, and did not follow through with what was expected of him, and is now off the team), no public records of the Regents asking for a mentor to be hired for the team.

Also, I'd like to point out that three Regent members does not mean they are speaking for the majority. If in fact they did complain to Mason, they were speaking on behalf of themselves, and not the voice of the entire Board. If they were speaking on behalf of the Board, again, there would be record of it.

Man these posts remind me of a turd that just won't flush....

[ISUFan22]

SH - you started this flaming bag of poo by guaranteeing something you obviously couldn't guarantee. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you've coyly tried to back peddle.

Please sell crazy someplace else - we're all stocked up here.

[SouthernHawk]

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

SH - you started this flaming bag of poo by guaranteeing something you obviously couldn't guarantee. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you've coyly tried to back peddle.

Please sell crazy someplace else - we're all stocked up here.

I didn't mean to start any "flaming bag of poo", but was rather stating my opinion on the subject.

My opinion has, and always will be, that the Regents have not tried to take control of the football program, or the Iowa athletic department for that matter. I've said in this thread, and other threads that while several members of the Regents may have suggested to somebody at the U of I that they "clean up their act", it means next to nothing.

There have been plenty of people "suggesting" that the U of I do something about the issues, including Sally Mason herself. Until the Regents go on record through public meetings and go through protocol, they have done nothing to force anything.

My original point has been that the changes are done because Ferentz and Barta are finally trying to right the wrongs, and are going to take whatever steps necessary to accomplish this. I've asked for proof otherwise, and all I've gotten is attacks about how I am now a "typical Hawk fans who isn't interested in thinking rationally".

And finally, people want to know why I want proof. I want proof because the original poster is stating his opinion against the status quo (the Iowa athletic department controlling their own issues), and it is up to him, not the "negative" in this argument to provide facts. He has the burden of proof, and so far, has failed to provide any evidence that even the alleged conversations took place.

Anyways, obviously this has gotten a little heated, so I'll try to tone it down a little bit. I do apologize for anything that may have gotten out of control.

[SouthernHawk]

Originally Posted by Cyclonesrule91

Man these posts remind me of a turd that just won't flush....

Likewise...

[mverv]

Maybe the Regents should take one-half of the money they give ISU from the general fund and hire a "chaplain" for Iowa.

Just a thought.

mverv

[MontyBurns]

The "SouthernHawk guarantee"...

[hawkeye_t]

Originally Posted by ketelmeister

Since I first talked to the Regents who told me they were upset with the Iowa football program and were going to do something about it, these events have happened.
Ferentz kicks players off who he initially reinstated....
Ferentz kicks off a walkon for too much alcohol, though others are on the team with the same charge
Ferentz hired an asst. coach that who's main duty is player conduct
Ferentz now wants a Chaplin (life skills)
Quite frankly, no matter what anyone says, or who says it, some will find a way to dispel it.
I've said for sometime that the Iowa football program was reacting to pressure, (and yes, Regents put pressure on, they do not direct the program. The have the ultimate pressure, the power of the purse) and Iowa is reacting. There will be more to come.
(and don't forget the new and improved curfew for Hawkeye players. After doing nothing for years, now all this at once? It's not just a coincidence)

I don't want to get involved in the SH guarantee, but what you are saying above is a bit hyperbole at best. For starters, your examples are far from all at once. Iowa and Ferentz have had way too many run-ins. It is embarrising and it needs to stop. You trying to connect the dots between all of your examples above and the Regents takes a line long enough to go from DSM to Iowa City.

Ferentz kicked Anthony Bowman off the team because he did not meet the requirements of his reinstatement, not because he had a change of heart due to pressure. The simple solution would have been to never reinstate him to begin with.

Walk-on kicked off the team - If I remember right, this happened last fall. He was also a senior who was arrested on a Wednesday of game week during the early morning hours. I have seen this referenced many times on this board as some sort of injustice.

Hires assistant coach whose main duties are player conduct - This is just wrong. Iowa hired a new coach because another coach retired. It was widely believed before the begining of last season that Carl Jackson would retire at the end of the year. In your convaluted world the Regents would have had something to do with this which led to a new assistant that whose main duty was player conduct. You tried making this claim before and you were wrong then as well. He is a wide receiver coach, not a player conduct coach.

Iowa wants to hire a chaplin - If you want to say that the Regents may have had some influence in this decision, I would not be argue. This type of position, be it a chaplin or a life-skills advisor, is becoming more and more prevelant in programs today. The Regents may have had something to do with this or not. I don't know and I don't think you do either.

Quite frankly, Iowa is embarressed a hell of a lot more than they are being pressured by the Regents and is trying to do something about it.

[IsUaClone2]

Originally Posted by CYKOFAN

Ripvdub- Maybe the "freaky freak" liberals are religious but just believe in the separation of church and state. Isn't that one of the reasons many early Europeans came to America?

Actually most of the early colonists did not want a separation of church and state. They came to the colonies because they couldn't practice their faith in their home countries so they came here where they were allowed to start their own theocracies. In fact, the father of separation of church and state is Roger Williams who was banished from the early colonies because of his belief. However he was so faithful and honest it was agreed that he could have a wilderness (Rhode Island) to start his own colony. They also directed any other non-conforming religions (like Jews) to that area to get them out of Massachusettes and the other early colonies.

You might not know that there was a tax used to support each colony's state religion. As the number of religions present in the Americas grew and the new lands were opened, the people began to resent supporting a religion other than their own. Accordingly Roger Williams' ideas began to gain a foothold and our country's fathers began to champion the idea of freedom of religion not to be confused with freedom from religion. Generally most were very religious but they didn't want the government controlling their religion in any way.

Only the recent generations have began trying to take religion and faith out of the ethos of our country. Our country's founders would disagree heartily because they believed just the opposite. They wanted to take the government out of religion but not take religious values out of the government.