so what you are saying, it was the school that dealt the punishement to Katoa (an sipilli too correct?) and not coach Hawkins and the football program. hmmmm interesting quite interesting.
so my question is what is Coach Hawkins asking of Sipilli above and beyond of what the school levied, or what is Sipilli taken upon himself above and beyond what the school levied to be able to return to CU football program?
As I stated this before, Sipilli's actions that caused the suspension are much the same of Dusty Dvoracek that Bob Stoops, not the school, removed from the football squad. And bear in mind it was Dvoracek's senior season he was suspended. So he had to apply to the NCAA for a 6th year of eligibility and one reason it was granted, one big reason, is Dvoracek showed he suffered from the disease of alcholism, in addition to attending anger and alcohol management clases on his own.
This addresses a good point. What is the responsibility of the athletic department to represent the university, and at what point do--shall we say--less-biased decision-makers intervene when that image could potentiall be tarnished?
As a coach, Dan Hawkins susended Sipili and Katoa. In the case of Sipili, the suspension was for three games. Just before he played (fourth game of the season), the Judicial Affairs Committee took the next step, and wrestled the matter away from the athletic department. For Katoa, I don't believe the suspension was lifted before his fate was sealed due to inadequate credits to play ball in the Fall.
My frustration with Sipili's situation was the lack of communication between the athletic department and the other involved members. I felt the player was left high and dry (rock on Joe Elliot). If
WE (tip o' the hat to the missus) all believe that the college athletic business is as much about building solid citizens as it is entertainment, community relations etc... then CU undermined its own objectives. If it wasn't for Coach Cabral, Michael Sipili might have become a disenchanted social casualty. It worked out okay, but in my opinion it could have been handled a lot better. To answer your question, yes, Coach Hawkins DID impose a penalty.
While dealing Katoa's situation, I feel the Judicial Affairs Committee and Athletic Department demonstrated better coordination. Again, Coach Hawkins suspended the player and then the school took the matter into its own hands.
Geer's case remains outstanding, but he is nonetheless suspended until it is resolved (somebody correct me if my facts our out of date--but I believe he pleaded "not guilty" to felony assault charges). But, just like Coach Stoops, Hawk does have a responsibility to advocate the student-athlete through the legal proceedings, unless irrefutable evidence emerges (this is my opinion, by the way) to suggest that the student was flat-out doing the wrong thing. It's also the Coach's responsibility to maintain standards (a coordinated system of "sticks" and "carrots" as we like to say in the strategy business). I believe Coach Hawkins will await the legal proceedings and then figure out a suspension if necessary OR the school will do it for him. Either way, the football team's responsibility to represent the institution will be addressed.
In all three cases, Coach Hawkins took action.
I'm not saying that Coach Stoops did anything illegal, I just feel he didn't represent his team and university as well as he could have (and I strongly suspect that if he was going to suspend the player, he would have made that decision and announced it prior to his press response--I don't buy into the "you don't know if he did or didn't" rhetoric).
Now, nothing necessarily HAS to be done. But maybe, the school feels that this very visible entity that represents them should reflect them more positively sometimes. Do other school organizations and policy-makers have a right to take action. At CU they did. But again, we're talking about a school who's president writes letters to the NCAA on behalf of the football team.
Does OU have an image problem that Coach Stoops perpetuated? A limited sampling of college football fans (just me, actually) answers that question with a resounding "yes". My perception of OU as "the evil empire of college football" dates back to my high school days in the mid-1980s. Nor does it have anything to do with a Big VIII affiliation...I actually grew up in PAC 10 territory. Am I right? Is OU's program dirtier than others? I don't know, I'm not informed enough one way or another, but my perception remains over 20 years later (okay, maybe that part can be blamed on a CU bias).
This entire strand has probably made a mountain out of the proverbial molehill. My personal, and irrelevant opinion is that Coach Stoops could have handled it better. It's not a big deal.
