FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference

[Birddawg79]

We went to Guilford yesterday and saw a great game and beautiful campus. W&L started off slow but once the offense started rolling GC couldn't stop them. We still have issues on defense, especially covering pass and/or a scrambling QB.
This was the closest to a full 4 quarter effort I've seen all year. The boys are fired up and ready for HSC next weekend.

On another note. The following is my opinion. The coaches and Administration at Guilford need to address and educate at least half the Guilford team on what the National Anthem stands for and why it's played. To look over and see half the Guilford team disrespecting this reverent and proud moment, by copying what they've seen on tv, is nothing but pure ignorance.

[HSCTiger fan]

We went to Guilford yesterday and saw a great game and beautiful campus. W&L started off slow but once the offense started rolling GC couldn't stop them. We still have issues on defense, especially covering pass and/or a scrambling QB.
This was the closest to a full 4 quarter effort I've seen all year. The boys are fired up and ready for HSC next weekend.

On another note. The following is my opinion. The coaches and Administration at Guilford need to address and educate at least half the Guilford team on what the National Anthem stands for and why it's played. To look over and see half the Guilford team disrespecting this reverent and proud moment, by copying what they've seen on tv, is nothing but pure ignorance.

Guilford has always been a very liberal school. Their administration looks at their "protest" as their freedom of expression.  They will do nothing.

[jknezek]

On another note. The following is my opinion. The coaches and Administration at Guilford need to address and educate at least half the Guilford team on what the National Anthem stands for and why it's played. To look over and see half the Guilford team disrespecting this reverent and proud moment, by copying what they've seen on tv, is nothing but pure ignorance.

I'm guessing there will be very few college administrators anywhere that have any desire to step in the middle of a non-violent, non-disruptive protest that is clearly protected free speech.  If protests didn't at the very least offend, they wouldn't be much of a protest. I don't agree with kneeling, sitting or disrespecting the flag or anthem, I find it irritating and as we have seen, counterproductive, as the message is lost in the medium, but I will disagree with anyone who thinks this country doesn't or shouldn't support the right to this kind of peaceable protest. It is enshrined in our very First Amendment, and peaceable protest follows in the path of several of our greatest Civil Rights leaders, without whom this would be very much a lesser nation.

[HSCTiger fan]

I agree too with the right of free speech.  Words and actions matter. Coaches have the ability to play and not play who they choose.  Just because you have the right to free speech does not mean you have the right to have no consequences for what you say or do. Players can protest and coaches don't have to play them.

[jknezek]

I agree too with the right of free speech.  Words and actions matter. Coaches have the ability to play and not play who they choose.  Just because you have the right to free speech does not mean you have the right to have no consequences for what you say or do. Players can protest and coaches don't have to play them.

Punishing them by restricting playing time I suspect is a violation of free speech and susceptible to a lawsuit. Universities are particularly susceptible to this since many rely so much on Federal money for tuition and grants. I think most coaches and universities are smart enough not to interfere with non-violent, non-disruptive free speech in an attempt to enforce some kind of moral patriotism that is neither enshrined in law nor required to play football.

Which action is worse as an American? Exercising your First Amendment Rights correctly, or being threatened into not doing so. I know where I stand, even if I do not like the shape and form of their exercise.

[HSCTiger fan]

I agree too with the right of free speech.  Words and actions matter. Coaches have the ability to play and not play who they choose.  Just because you have the right to free speech does not mean you have the right to have no consequences for what you say or do. Players can protest and coaches don't have to play them.

Punishing them by restricting playing time I suspect is a violation of free speech and susceptible to a lawsuit. Universities are particularly susceptible to this since many rely so much on Federal money for tuition and grants. I think most coaches and universities are smart enough not to interfere with non-violent, non-disruptive free speech in an attempt to enforce some kind of moral patriotism that is neither enshrined in law nor required to play football.

Which action is worse as an American? Exercising your First Amendment Rights correctly, or being threatened into not doing so. I know where I stand, even if I do not like the shape and form of their exercise.

So anything goes?  Why not allow taunting in a non-violent way?  How about excessive celebrations?  Football has rules why not coaches. Arruza does not allow garnet and gray at team meetings. Many coaches limit posts on social media and what to wear to team dinners.  Heck even NFL15 (mpawlowski) was making posts on this very board and defeated his account after voicing his opinions in a non-violent way.  Do you think his coach told him to delete it or do you think he did it on his own?  Coaches can and should have rules beyond the scope of football rules. I see this as not being much different. 

[jknezek]

The rules of the game are not designed to enforce some requirement of patriotism. They are designed to further the fair play of the game. This protest has nothing to do with football on the field, so it simply isn't a football matter unless it is causing team strife. Then i could see it becoming a coaching issue, but so long as everyone agrees to support, or politely disagree, it just isnt a team matter. All other things you mentioned are football related. Even garnet and grey rules, while stupid, are designed for some football purpose.

[HSCTiger fan]

The rules of the game are not designed to enforce some requirement of patriotism. They are designed to further the fair play of the game. This protest has nothing to do with football on the field, so it simply isn't a football matter unless it is causing team strife. Then i could see it becoming a coaching issue, but so long as everyone agrees to support, or politely disagree, it just isnt a team matter. All other things you mentioned are football related. Even garnet and grey rules, while stupid, are designed for some football purpose.

So unless it causes team strife a coach cannot or should not enforce rules?  I politely disagree.

[jknezek]

The rules of the game are not designed to enforce some requirement of patriotism. They are designed to further the fair play of the game. This protest has nothing to do with football on the field, so it simply isn't a football matter unless it is causing team strife. Then i could see it becoming a coaching issue, but so long as everyone agrees to support, or politely disagree, it just isnt a team matter. All other things you mentioned are football related. Even garnet and grey rules, while stupid, are designed for some football purpose.

So unless it causes team strife a coach cannot or should not enforce rules?  I politely disagree.

Umm... I never said that.  I do think you need a good reason to abridge non-violent, non-team related free speech. I don't think "because I don't like it" is a good enough reason. There is no football reason to force patriotism on someone. Just my opinion , but people who protest in the correct manner should be protected. That's the whole point of our First Amendment.

[HSCTiger fan]

The rules of the game are not designed to enforce some requirement of patriotism. They are designed to further the fair play of the game. This protest has nothing to do with football on the field, so it simply isn't a football matter unless it is causing team strife. Then i could see it becoming a coaching issue, but so long as everyone agrees to support, or politely disagree, it just isnt a team matter. All other things you mentioned are football related. Even garnet and grey rules, while stupid, are designed for some football purpose.

So unless it causes team strife a coach cannot or should not enforce rules?  I politely disagree.

Umm... I never said that.  I do think you need a good reason to abridge non-violent, non-team related free speech. I don't think "because I don't like it" is a good enough reason. There is no football reason to force patriotism on someone. Just my opinion , but people who protest in the correct manner should be protected. That's the whole point of our First Amendment.

You said "...so it simply isn't a football matter unless it is causing team strife. Then i could see it becoming a coaching issue..."

I read that as unless their protest is causing team strife then coaches should do nothing.  I disagree.  I respect the GC players rights to think about anything other than football.  I also respect boosters who decide not to donate.  It's a rediculous protest that has accomplished nothing.

Further you state it's a non-football matter. I totally disagree. If they are in uniform then it's football related regardless of their protest.

[jknezek]

The rules of the game are not designed to enforce some requirement of patriotism. They are designed to further the fair play of the game. This protest has nothing to do with football on the field, so it simply isn't a football matter unless it is causing team strife. Then i could see it becoming a coaching issue, but so long as everyone agrees to support, or politely disagree, it just isnt a team matter. All other things you mentioned are football related. Even garnet and grey rules, while stupid, are designed for some football purpose.

So unless it causes team strife a coach cannot or should not enforce rules?  I politely disagree.

Umm... I never said that.  I do think you need a good reason to abridge non-violent, non-team related free speech. I don't think "because I don't like it" is a good enough reason. There is no football reason to force patriotism on someone. Just my opinion , but people who protest in the correct manner should be protected. That's the whole point of our First Amendment.

You said "...so it simply isn't a football matter unless it is causing team strife. Then i could see it becoming a coaching issue..."

I read that as unless their protest is causing team strife then coaches should do nothing.  I disagree.  I respect the GC players rights to think about anything other than football.  I also respect boosters who decide not to donate.  It's a rediculous protest that has accomplished nothing.

Further you state it's a non-football matter. I totally disagree. If they are in uniform then it's football related regardless of their protest.

We will just have to agree to disagree. This was your quote, "So unless it causes team strife a coach cannot or should not enforce rules?  I politely disagree." Can you find a rule this is breaking? Nothing from the NCAA, nothing from the ODAC. Apparently nothing from the coach. Therefore no enforcement. The better question is, "Should there be a rule that they HAVE to stand for the national anthem." To which I will roundly say no. Again, you don't enforce patriotism, let alone if you have a player who isn't American. It's nice to be respectful, and it's a good thing to be respectful, but it is not required nationally or anywhere else. And since there is no law, there should be no abridging the protest simply because many of us don't like it.

That sentiment is not enough to win any argument against the Bill of Rights. If it did, there would be a lot fewer guns owned legally in this country. And there would be a lot fewer people able to vote. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it something that can or should be enforced.

So let them have their protest. I think it's become ineffective because the message has been lost in the argument over delivery. But I support their right to do it. It's a heck of a lot better and safer than other ways people have protested. All in all, it's absolutely benign to the population while still getting attention. It's just not getting the right attention. Regardless, it is pretty much the perfect definition of "peaceably assembling."

[HSCTiger fan]

Until Colin Kaepernick this year who would have thought a rule would have been required?   I mean coaches in July are not sitting around thinking up rules. If you wear the uniform you're a team member. If you are protesting while wearing that uniform, you are using the platform provided by the team to exercise your right to free speech. I doubt there a rule about dancing, talking, laughing, or sitting on the ground cross legged during the national anthem either. Coaches don't have rules for everything.  Most would expect "do the right thing" would apply. "Do the right thing" is certainly being respectful during the national anthem.  So that is the rule being broken.

[jknezek]

I would say stand up for those who can't speak for themselves is s good rule as well. The problem is one of perspective. I agree with yours, I respect their right to speak theirs. Especially since it doesn't hurt anyone or anything. And there is nothing stopping a coach from making a rule. I'd be shocked if some hadn't. I just think that enforcing it will rightly open a can of legal worms some coaches and schools know better than to open. All for the sake of stopping something that irritates but causes no harm.

[hscathletics]

Does anyone really want a school to be known as the school that is trying to squash protests of racism and inequality and punishing people that are protesting racism and inequality?

Guilford's class of 2020 is 49.9% "people of color" (that's how they phrased it). They promote this in the rotating headlines on their front page. It would be potentially catastrophic for the schools initiative of diversity to try to squash these protests.

Guilford's core values include community, diversity, equality, integrity, justice, and stewardship. One is also excellence, but that doesn't really apply in this case.

Guilford also states on their website that "Self-expression and communication are important pillars in a Guilford education."

Their mission statement is "To provide a transformative, practical and excellent liberal arts education that produces critical thinkers in an inclusive, diverse environment, guided by Quaker testimonies of community, equality, integrity, peace and simplicity and emphasizing the creative problem-solving skills, experience, enthusiasm and international perspectives necessary to promote positive change in the world."

At minimum, their mission statement is a legally binding contract. Very likely stating directly on their website that self-expression is a pillar of their education would be as well. They are required to provide an experience that that is in compliance with what is considered a legally binding contract. Not doing so is called bait and switch, which is obviously illegal.

Restricting or punishing peaceful, non-violent, and non-disruptive protests during the national anthem would very likely be considered a violation of their core values and mission statement. I'm no legal expert, but I would think doing such a thing would put Guilford in a very precarious legal predicament if a student-athlete were to sue the college and the parties responsible for the development and passing of said anti-anthem protest rules.

[Birddawg79]

I'm betting that "alot" of people need educating on the meaning and history of the National Anthem.
It's embarrassing, divisive and lacks ethical fortitude to make this one thing, this battle cry of this great nation, your platform of rebellion. This is the time we all stand to give thanks to the brave men and women who have served our great nation, even died protecting the very freedom you want to express, instead some feel entitled to disrespect them.
I'm just as sad that some think it's okay. If you want legal standing then look up United States Code, 36 U.S.C. § 301.

Thankfully we all here have a love of football. Peace to all.