LordGrantham

September 19th, 2014 at 11:40 PM ^

I actually thought one half was appropriate.  The guy stood up and yelled an obscenity, and now he has to miss one of the biggest games of the season?

Either way, FSU should have stuck with the original punishment becuase now it looks like they're just caving to public pressure.

LordGrantham

September 20th, 2014 at 12:30 AM ^

Don't get me wrong, I think Winston has escaped what should have been severe punishments for a variety of trasngressions over the course of his career. I'm just saying that for this particular incident, viewed in a vacuum, extending the suspension makes FSU look spineless.

GoBLUinTX

September 20th, 2014 at 1:38 AM ^

Why can't it be viewed as part of Winston's known totality, much of which includes being a misongynist with an entitlement attitude?

Just a harmless prank some say.  I wonder how harmless that prank would be if the pronoun "Her" was substituted by the name of a wife, daughter, sister, or mother?

NuckyT

September 20th, 2014 at 8:28 AM ^

Winston's behavior in this instance is not a continuation of the pattern of behavior alleged in connection with the rape.  

Rape is a felony.  If someone commits rape, that should disqualify him from participating in any activity that is a privilege (playing in a football game), at least for a time.

The other act isjust goofy ass behavior.  I could see myself doing something like that during college given the right amount of alcohol.  If anything, it shows that Winston does not realize or does not care the extent to which everything that he does is magnified.  That will be one of many factors that NFL teams will consider when deciding whether to draft him, but I don't think that it warrants a suspension.

Logan88

September 20th, 2014 at 10:21 AM ^

I agree. I don't think this "incident" warranted any suspension whatsoever. Are we really going to start supsending players for saying stupid sh*t in public? If so, get used to seeing lots of 3rd stringers on the field for teams across the country.

The alleged sexual misconduct surrounding Winston has no bearing on this issue. If he is guilty of whatever he is accused of, then I hope he rots in prison for a long time.

MGoBrewMom

September 20th, 2014 at 1:51 AM ^

This reactionary crap is... Crap...

But bigger crap is the previous "look the other way" mentality, and now, for some reason, grown ups are finally saying there needs to be meaningful punishment so the "kids" start thinking about their actions. Just like what most people try to teach their kids before they're adults.

Winston keeps doing dumb stuff. He is entitled because he has been entitled over his short life. So why would he change his behavior? The people along the way who could have helped him learn, have failed, and now here we are. It's time to learn, even if the grown ups have gotten it wrong up until now.

Red is Blue

September 20th, 2014 at 10:16 AM ^

Normally, your take is interesting, but this one seemed a stretch. "her" is a pronoun that could replace a specific woman's name "bug" and "million people" don't have the same relationship. Isn't it possible that Winston was referring to a specific woman, but didn't use her name? That seems more egregious and threatening than just some random, albeit odd, declaration. That was the point I took away from the comment to which you replied.

turd ferguson

September 20th, 2014 at 2:39 PM ^

I should have been clearer. It seems like Winston was following the meme to be funny. If he had named a particular person, it would be a completely different deal in my mind -- not just acting out a meme but sexually harassing someone. To say that he almost did that here, though, is to completely rewrite what actually happened.



My view on his punishment is basically this: in isolation (for this incident only), this is a shockingly harsh penalty; in the context of the other stuff he's done, it seems like they need to get his sense of entitlement and invincibility under control. I'm undecided on whether they should be punishing just one incident here or sending a message.

stephenrjking

September 19th, 2014 at 11:51 PM ^

I don't really care whether Winston plays--I'm pretty ambivalent about him given the sexual assault allegations. I think wha he said this week is reprehensible, but that it's also exceedingly common amongst people of his age group. So, whatever.

But I am getting uncomfortable with giving the mob veto power over all questions of discipline and justice. Public opinion is important, but it can be skewed or misguided, and it seems that in the past couple of weeks the level of public outrage toward athletes has reached a crescendo that can sweep far less clear-cut situations into its wake.

Yeah, it's easy to say we don't care now, because initially its just abusers getting the treatment. But what happens when the mob shifts focus? It hasn't always been right, you know. Some parts of the mob wanted, for example, Hank Aaron to stop playing before he he could break Babe Ruth's record.

If public outrage is permitted to become the litmus for all matters of discipline, sooner or later it's going to start rendering some seriously unjust verdicts.

4godkingandwol…

September 20th, 2014 at 12:08 AM ^

... The NCAA and schools and the NFL are so incompetent in self policing, that they brought on this public firestorm. I wish the mob would demand more institutional changes to stop the enabling of athletes. It is sad what we are willing to brush under the rug simply because a person can throw a ball well. Ray Rice, Winston, Jerry Sandusky are just a few examples of our horribly misplaced values.

stephenrjking

September 20th, 2014 at 12:31 AM ^

The public firestorm is awfully selective. The mob tends to focus on one or two really public controversies and ignore mountains of other problems. For example, Adrian Peterson is in deep water for injuring two of his children... But he has seven by five mothers. Not even his considerable fortune can fully mitigate the additional challenges those kids face in not having their dad residing permanently in the picture.

So the abuse scandals are the current cause célèbre, and the media outlets fall over themselves to open the thesaurus of outrage, and significant issues are whitewashed.

What offenses should result in the total destruction of one's athletic career? Yeah, nobody is going to weep for Ray Rice if he never plays again after what he did. But do we want to make domestic violence an automatic lifetime ban? What about what AP did? People seem perfectly fine with the idea of him not playing again this year, even many fans in Minnesota. But is that the default penalty? Even for someone who hasn't been convicted of anything?

If that's going to be the standard, fine. But let's put it in writing. Ask the player's union how they like it. Right now people are making things up as they go along, thirsty for blood justice. It's "obvious" that AP should be suspended, but no one seems to have supplied so much as a suggestion of how long. A year? Life? Nobody is taking about this. It's just a litany of anger.

Walter Sobchak

September 20th, 2014 at 7:16 AM ^

Thank god someone said it. Illegitimacy is an epidemic amoung pro athletes. Screwing kids up in slow motion may not be as dramatic as a picture showing welts, but it does more harm to everyone long term. But, we stopped shaming illegitimacy a long time ago for some reason.

nowayman

September 20th, 2014 at 12:23 AM ^

and then shouted out the meme he did.  That alone warrants his suspension.  Viewed in isolation yelling out what he did is not a reprehensible act.  It sure as heck is, however, when you're accused of rape.

This isn't, or shouldn't be, about mob justice.  It's about Winson being a moron.  

If the actual mob that was close to Winston was given any power, Winston wouldn't be sitting for a second of the game tomorrow.  

stephenrjking

September 20th, 2014 at 12:41 AM ^

I think it's repugnant whether one is accused of rape or not. Pretty neatly sexually objectifies women (some of whom doubtlessly in earshot) while removing their own agency from the equation.

The issue is that FSU and other institutions appear to be making judgments in these matters based mostly upon public opinion. Your small portion of that opinion suggests that Winston should sit; that's fine, and I said pretty clearly that I don't care about him playing. I'm not troubled by the punishment, but by the process which brought it about.

The thing is, you're not addressing my point--the point is that we've crossed a pretty serious line when the careers of people are determined not by inquiry or justice, but by the collective anger of a mob. Because, while you may have this issue right, you could get the next issue wrong.

nowayman

September 20th, 2014 at 12:45 AM ^

the point is that we've crossed a pretty serious line when the careers of people are determined not by inquiry or justice, but by the collective anger of a mob. Because, while you may have this issue right, you could get the next issue wrong.

I simply think someone 'up top' understands (or abides by, at least) Kantian ethics.

stephenrjking

September 20th, 2014 at 12:54 AM ^

My Kant is rusty, but I'm not seeing where this applies to what Winston said or how he has even disciplined. Indeed, you yourself suggested that Winston's actions were only a problem because of his previous sexual assault allegation, which seems to contradict the principle of universalizability.

LordGrantham

September 20th, 2014 at 12:53 AM ^

"the point is that we've crossed a pretty serious line when the careers of people are determined not by inquiry or justice, but by the collective anger of a mob."

Can you provide another example?  It seems to me that punishments are still, for the most part, guided by financial and competitive considerations.  If anything, the gap between what the public thinks is appropriate and what is actually doled out is wider than ever.  See: NFL. 

Also, how do you do that nifty yellow block quote?

Jon06

September 20th, 2014 at 9:18 AM ^

Can you provide another example?

The University of Illinois is currently subject to a boycott by thousands of professors, and about to be on the losing end of a lawsuit for firing an incoming professor over political speech on Twitter following pressure from off campus political activists.

On a more directly relevant note, I don't think anybody to this point on the thread, as far down as I've read, has understood the real issue. Accused rapist Jameis Winston shouting what he shouted in University buildings is liable to create a seriously hostile environment for female students. I'd assume the decision to extend the suspension came down from FSU's legal team. Depending on where the existing investigation into the rape allegations stands, JW may now be on a somewhat faster track to expulsion.

GoBLUinTX

September 20th, 2014 at 2:07 AM ^

 the mob that dictates what if any punishment the respective league or team hands out.  Professional players have morality clauses for a reason, the teams and league respect what potential righteous indignation the mob might have for a particular immoral act.  If you take the mob out of the equation few if any off field issues would ever be addressed by teams and leagues unless said actions influenced on field play.

The mob is the customer, and when the customer is dissatified with the business and there is a loss of goodwill, the smart business owner does what it takes to make the customer satisfied.  If that means tossing a few players out of the league for their immoral actions, so be it.  If that means Winston has to sit an entire game, so be it.

vertiGoBlue

September 20th, 2014 at 8:08 AM ^

Well, it's not public opinion that is *directly* moving the needle in such cases, but, rather, money (of which public opinion certainly plays a significant role). The NFL and NCAA have no legal authority here, and, only invoke "ethical/moral authority" when it is their business interest to do so. Specifically, when they do their calculations and determine that doing nothing or continuing to advocate for their star players will either (a) result in significant net revenue loss from sponsors, consumers, etc. and/or (b) open the league/team/university up to significant legal liability that's when they take their ethical/righteous stand.

<side note>

(As an aside, if one is to believe the OTL report from last night on the Rice/Ravens situation, the Ravens front office comes off looking *really* bad (John Harbaugh excepted). And, perhaps, have opened themselves up to obstruction of justice legal issues with regard to their potential interference with the handling of the case by Atlantic City police/prosecution.)

</side note>

The events of the recent weeks have put all this under the microscope, but, I expect it has always been this way (specifically, teams/leagues/universities doing the money calculations and basing such decisions on that). I think what is different about the current climate is the common existence of video and cell phone/text message evidence made available to the general public. Thus, it is much more difficult for commissioners, university presidents, etc. to sweep these things under the rug and make them go away.

Take away lesson to be learned for the athletes in a big money sport, more so now than ever, is that you need to stay out of trouble. Fair or not, not doing so can have a major, permanent impact on your career.

JamieH

September 19th, 2014 at 11:57 PM ^

Yeah, I'm all for the public actually holiding people accountable and all that, but the reality is, people are, in general, never going to be satisfied with the discipline that is handed out unless it is quite heavy handed.

 

This seems like it was actually handled relatively appropriately by FSU to begin with and I don't see why they are changing course due to people complaining.

 

Personally I think the kid is a ticking time-bomb, and maybe if it were my team I would have suspended him for longer to begin with, but I don't think you hand out team suspensions via a Twitter or Facebook vote.