- How The Grinch Stole the Rivalry
- 9-Line Prediction: BYU v. UMass
- 9-Line Prediction: BYU v. UNLV
- 9-Line Prediction: BYU v. Fresno St.
- 9-Line Prediction: BYU v. SJSU
- 9-Line Prediction: BYU v. ECU
- 9-Line Prediction: BYU v. Mississippi State
- 9-Line Prediction: BYU v. Boise State
- 9-Line Prediction: BYU at Utah State
- 9-Line Prediction: BYU v. Wisconsin
- How BYU’s offense & defense have stacked up since 2005
- 9-Line Prediction: BYU v. Utah
- 9-Line Prediction: BYU v. LSU
- 9-Line Prediction: BYU v. Portland State
- By the Numbers: 2017 Season Preview
Editorial: Gordon Monson sees bad people
- Updated: October 1, 2013
Gordon Monson has been at it again. Over the weekend, he went on the warpath against BYU for… well… it’s not entirely clear to me what grievous sin BYU committed, but I think it has something to do with hurting Monson’s feelings over journalist access to the football team and for not giving him full explanations of why some honor code violations are announced publicly and others aren’t.
See Monson’s editorial here. He and/or his editors decided it would be a super neato idea to title the piece, “BYU, sadly, makes the monkey dance for national attention.” No, I’m not kidding — they really titled it that. I suppose inflammatory language is a way to drive readers.
Here are some excerpts from the piece.
School spokesperson Carri Jenkins announced the five-game suspension last week and that Hadley had, in fact, broken the honor code. Question: Why would a school that claims to have the best interests of its students in mind make such an announcement? Why wouldn’t it simply say the student-athlete broke team rules and leave it at that? Issuing a statement that Hadley had run afoul of the honor code makes his personal transgression public in too specific a manner.
Seems like a fair enough question on its face. Why would BYU decide to publicly announce this honor code suspension? Monson could and should have spent some time vetting possible answers. Instead of doing that, he simply assumed that BYU absolutely must have been motivated by the most self-serving and cruelly thoughtless of intentions. Apparently in Monson’s mind, BYU leaders evilly grinned and rubbed their hands together like Mr. Burns as they saw a wonderful chance to exploit a suffering student for their nefarious public relations trickery. What else could it POSSIBLY be?
Well, it could be a lot of other things. One does not have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce (and sources inside the BYU HC department have confirmed) that in some high profile cases where there is virtually no chance of keeping the player’s transgressions quiet, BYU chooses to get out in front of the situation as much as possible by announcing that they are aware of a situation and have already addressed it.
What kind of cases? Well, cases where someone calling themselves Darren Lucy is sending incriminating photos and serious accusations to all sorts of media outlets might fit that bill. Breaking the news first is like pulling the band-aid off quickly. It avoids prolonging the pain. In the vast majority of cases, BYU doesn’t have to do such damage control at all. As we saw this weekend, BYU is more than happy to go with a simple “violation of team rules” announcement at game time when there are no embarrassing photos being sent to every rag in town.
Monson then goes on to complain about Mr. Benedict being granted deeper access to the football team than other journalists:
Next, BYU, a notoriously uncooperative outfit when it comes to the media, gives one writer access to Hadley and the team bus and the prison visit that no other writer is given.
This one is amusing. Gordon apparently hasn’t yet discovered the universal truth that trust is a byproduct of trustworthiness. Benedict has been deeply embedded with the BYU team for more than a year as he was writing his book. He earned the trust of the Bronco and the team. They knew they could be unguarded around him and not be crucified for it in the press. Is Gordon so far removed from that kind of trustworthiness with BYU he does not even comprehend it?
Next, Monson’s intense disdain for BYU makes an appearance:
The whole setup smacks of a public-relations bonanza.
So when an embedded reporter is lucky enough to witness an unscripted beautiful moment with the BYU team, Monson simply can’t believe it actually happened as witnesses, and Benedict, described. I suppose reading about the real good that happens from BYU’s acts of service would create cognitive dissonance for someone who might be convinced BYU is really some nefarious sham. But that sheer incredulity from the likes of Monson in this article, his Tribune colleague Tony Jones on Twitter (etc), and various anti-BYU jihadists on the internet says more about the anti-BYU goggles they are wearing than about the credibility of the account in the SI article.
There were scores of witnesses who saw the whole thing at the prison with their own eyes, after all. Accounts of the event began surfacing online via Twitter and message boards before Benedict’s article was published. It helps to keep in mind, too, that Benedict had asked to join the team in the prison before he or most of the team knew Hadley would be joining them.
Monson then starts using words like “hypocritical:”
Doesn’t anyone see any of that as self-serving and hypocritical?
As Greg Welch, my fellow blogger here at LC pointed out, the irony a Trib writer making accusations of hypocrisy is rich. This is the same paper that led the charge in digging for dirt and salacious details when Brandon Davies was suspended. BYU surely did not reveal the reasons for Davies’ suspension.
Last, Monson throws this gem out:
Using a student-athlete to glorify a school’s standards, to make those standards look grander and loftier in public this way, is shrewd, manipulative and wrong.
Apparently, Monson wanted Benedict to keep that whole lovely, uplifting story to himself. Why? I have no idea. But if Monson had his way, even though Hadley had already been publicly humiliated by his published mistakes, his moving contribution during this team fireside was supposed to stay secret. Monson’s logic here is nonsense. By the time the prison visit had happened, Deadspin had already published the pictures. The whole world knew about the error. The beautiful events that transpired in that prison meeting were spontaneous and unscripted. It was serendipity that Benedict was there to witness it. How are any of those thing manipulative or wrong? Answer: They aren’t.
As a friend of ours has written, “In Monson’s world, it’s ok for the media to profit from Hadley’s transgression but not for BYU to express Hadley’s desire for redemption.” Even then, Benedict had asked to be there without any foreknowledge of Hadley’s presence, let alone that he would speak unplanned. So BYU isn’t even doing the expressing here.
Monson is, of course, free to say whatever he wants. If writing inflammatory columns keeps his mortgage paid, he can knock himself out as a professional cynic, I suppose. No doubt he gets lots of clicks from bombastic writings. That doesn’t make his attacks legitimately substantive.
It seems he could benefit from the BYUtv slogan: See the good in the world.
49 Comments
About Geoff Johnston
Scott
October 1, 2013 at 8:23 am
Well stated, according to Tony Jones, Monson shouldn’t have written this article since he is Mormon and obviously has a biased opinion.Where was Jones outrage over Monson’s article? Funny how it didn’t exist
Jeff
October 1, 2013 at 8:33 am
Good read….. Been out of town so I have missed the whole thing, but then again I have chosen to ignore Monson and 1280 am long ago because of his/their self serving opinions
Mike
October 1, 2013 at 8:52 am
Also useful, according to this (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865587051/Deseret-News-exclusive-intro-to-SI-feature-on-Spencer-Hadley-suspension.html?pg=all) the author did not work alone on the story. He says that Armen Keteyian and other writers at SI (all of whom are not LDS) helped, which would potentially ameliorate some bias as well as diffuse BYU’s influence on pushing a particular narrative.
Jason
October 1, 2013 at 3:16 pm
Actually it says nothing of the sort. The book he wrote was coauthored by Armen Keteyian but not the article on Hadley. But without Armen Keteyian it makes no sense that he would put his credibility and reputation on the line to fabricate a story to help BYU’s supossed media campaign. He has no connection to BYU!
Mike
October 2, 2013 at 7:34 am
From the article: “By Monday, I was at the Sports Illustrated offices. I was joined there by my co-author Armen Keteyian and my colleagues at SI. For the next two days, we worked on this remarkable story about redemption.”
Craig
October 1, 2013 at 9:14 am
Good, insightful article exposing Monson for exactly who he is. Gordon pretends to be “objective” by occasionally saying something nice about BYU, but the truth is, he’s a 24-hour BYU hater.
Kurtis Larson (@kwlarson)
October 1, 2013 at 9:18 am
Great read Geoff! The one thing I decided to do a long time ago was ignore Gordon Monson. He writes his stuff to get page views. He’ll tear down people to pad his wallet. Talk about self-serving.
Taylor
October 1, 2013 at 10:08 am
I can’t stand reading Gordon’s articles. They are consistently negative, and he has displayed his lack of knowledge about key concepts like teamwork many times.
San Diego Coug
October 1, 2013 at 10:29 am
Gordon’a bias against BYU has been evident for years. I gave up listening to him and 1280 and reading the Trib for that reason. This latest ranting and raving against all things good about the LDS Church and BYU should surprise only those who are new to Utah or have been living under a rock.
WaveRider
October 1, 2013 at 10:34 am
How many football firesides has there been under Bronco? 50? 100? Almost all of these have been open to the public (I assume all except the state prison firesides). Monson has never reported on any of these, and has never said he attended any. He never said he requested to come to the State Prison fireside this year.
So, given that Monson has chosen to stay away from the devotionals, why is he complaining that another writer chose to go? Why is Monson complaining about access when there is a great deal of access at the devotionals?
Monson’s complaints seem to be stemming from his own incompetence. If he wants the scoop, he should be going to the firesides, not complaining about another writer that did go to a fireside.
Mike
October 1, 2013 at 11:19 am
Well GOMO….nice of you to show up!
Sanpete
October 1, 2013 at 11:31 am
Monson is getting more attention than he deserves here. It’s good to answer any legitimate point he raises, with due credit, and perhaps other points he raises that aren’t legitimate but that people might not understand. But the focus shouldn’t be so much on him, and most of what he says bears very little comment.
Good explanation of the BYU policy on when and why they announce what they do in regard to rule violations.
There probably wouldn’t have been such a strong and strongly paranoid reaction among Utah fans against Benedict had he not unfairly singled them out as dirty fans. That was a mistake.
Incidentally, the Benedict SI article smashed the SI website record for Facebook likes. Benedict said it had already broken the record at 33,000 likes. It’s up to 40,000 now.
Geoff Johnston
October 1, 2013 at 11:49 am
Benedict went on the radio with Monson last week and did a marvelous job of explaining his experiences and some of the editorial decisions about what was included in the SI piece. Listen to that interview here: http://1280thezone.com/index.php/audio/listen/the_big_show_college_football_jeff_benedict_sports_illustrated
One of the interesting things he talks about starts at about the 15 minute mark. Benedict describes how tame people were at LES compared to how abusive fans at RES were. Utah fans might not like that fact getting out, but Benedict just reported what he saw.
Sanpete
October 1, 2013 at 12:01 pm
Right, Benedict was just writing what he knows, based on very limited experience, but it should have occurred to him that the bad fan behavior probably wasn’t as one-sided as he made it appear, and that even if it was it wouldn’t be a smart thing to bring that up in that article. It detracted from the point, especially for Utah fans.
There’s a helpful comment to Monson’s article that lays out how Benedict had already answered him in that interview (after which Monson was oddly supportive of BYU, relatively speaking).
http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/56933093-219/hadley-byu-code-honor.html.csp#comment-1062871899
Geoff Johnston
October 1, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Sanpete: “it should have occurred to him that the bad fan behavior probably wasn’t as one-sided as he made it appear”
Why should that have occurred to him? Benedict went to games at both stadiums and saw the behavior with his own eyes.
But on the original point — it’s not even clear to me what specific part of the SI article you are objecting to regarding Utah fans. Can you give the specific quotes you found unfair?
Sanpete
October 1, 2013 at 12:45 pm
It should have occurred to him because he’s lived with human beings, including LDS, for a lot of years.
The part of the article that only mentions bad behavior on one side is the part I think you were referring to earlier:
“Heated rivalries are part of what makes college football so special, and the annual BYU-Utah clash has become one of the the nastiest, most personal rivalries in the nation. Last year while working on the book, The System: The Glory and Scandal of Big-Time College Football, I attended my first BYU-Utah game. At the time I had no intention of mentioning the game in the book, but the extreme profanity and vile abuse I witnessed that night caught me off guard. Utah fans spit on BYU players and taunted BYU fans by mocking the school’s honor code.”
If Benedict had seen the reaction of many BYU fans to the photo of Utah’s “core principles” earlier this year, or been in a different place at the game he went to, or read the many Utah fan complaint about how they and opposing players are treated by some BYU fans, he might have had a more balanced view. Sadly, fans aren’t that different from school to school, or at least there are more than plenty of bad examples to go around.
This was a small side point in the article. It only became a big point for some because it was one-sided, and fans are hypersensitive about that (and everything else!).
Geoff Johnston
October 1, 2013 at 1:02 pm
You seem to be making an apples to oranges comparison. Benedict was comparing behavior of fans in stands. Your example is of the online mocking/snarking some BYU fans did when that core Utah core values picture made the rounds.
Benedict said he went around to several places in LES to see how fans behaved and never saw anything like he saw at RES the previous year. There is no rule that says fans on both sides must behave the same. He reported what he saw and I see no reason to doubt it. Why should those facts be hidden?
Sanpete
October 1, 2013 at 1:20 pm
Mocking is mocking, whatever the setting, and some of it was very mean-spirited (and oddly short-sighted considering the problems some BYU players have had). Utah fans regularly complain that they receive nasty abuse at BYU games. The treatment of the U’s compliance officer by some fans was pretty poor too, including implied threats of violence (“snitches get stitches,” etc). (And referees may question which fans are better behaved after the throwing of objects at them after the Utah game, captured on video for all, including Benedict, to see.)
But even if comparatively speaking BYU fans are nicer, the article wasn’t about that. It was about redemption. Bringing that other issue up in the way he did derailed the article for a lot of readers, and helped create the backlash against it by Utah fans. Read the comments at the article and Utah fan boards for clear evidence of that. That’s why I say it was a mistake.
Kaysvillecougar
October 1, 2013 at 9:58 pm
It’s not a mistake to single out a fan base that does what he described. I’ve never been to a BYU event where fans spit on opposing players, dumped beer on and ridiculed family members of players and swore at them. I do think it was a shame how some fans threw garbage and ice at the refs after the last game. I also was at the Saint Mary’s game last year which was horribly officiated but fans did the same thing. It was totally uncalled for and was the only time I’ve been embarrassed to be a cougar fan. But those incidents pale in comparison to what happens at RES so Benedict had every right to call them out, just as I am calling out some of my fellow fans.
Dr. Nick
October 1, 2013 at 1:00 pm
Bravo Geoff! 1000 root beers to you!
Geoff Johnston
October 1, 2013 at 1:03 pm
Nice. I do like root beer.
Rick Robb
October 1, 2013 at 1:01 pm
Must be hard for a man to live with such a cynical mind. This was my last straw and have also turned him off.
Rich Beeker (@RichBeeker)
October 1, 2013 at 1:45 pm
The funny thing about the local media’s outrage about Benedict’s “access” is that the BYU Football team does multiple firesides every year. How many local media members have ever cared about covering or attending one of them? Did any of them ask to go cover the fireside at the prison? How do they know they would have been denied had they asked? They are such cry babies!
CBT
October 1, 2013 at 1:56 pm
Fair write up.
When Monson talks about BYU and the HC Office, he makes it seem like some shadowy, stealthy, quasi-governmental agency, not just an office that was put in place to oversee student issues related to the BYU Honor Code. An office overseen by the Board of Trustees that run the school, the people that can change the way that office operates anytime they desire to. And his assumption is that they are masochists, and enjoy causing pain to BYU students and embarrasses them publically for their own gain, and that is rather cynical. I’m sure the Board of Trustees, most of them located in SLC, would not agree with his premise at all.
Look, I can’t say I agree with every rule in the HC either, but it is what it is, and students agree to live by it. Also, student athletes at BYU are more high profile than average students are, much in the same way that professional athletes and entertainers are more high profile than average citizens. That high profile status can cut both ways at times.
Monson’s premise was dumb, smacked of sour grapes, and reminded me of when he and Jim Boylen sparred. Ute fans will probably remember that well also, and can find some common ground here with BYU fans on this because of how and why that happened. In both cases, Monson found a way to insert himself into a story where he didn’t belong.
Monson is a cynic. It is in his blood, it is a huge part of him, and it comes out in his writing. Being critical is one thing, being cynical another. Monson needs to work on that.
justin whiting
October 1, 2013 at 2:34 pm
I am glad I live in Indiana and don’t have to hear about all of this until after it happens. Go cougs!!
Mike
October 1, 2013 at 3:08 pm
Gordon Monson is the Jerry Springer of the Utah Media. Not the real pursuit of journalism– just marketing. He has visions of the Utah communities chanting, “Gor-don! Gor-don!” He is laughable.
SW
October 1, 2013 at 5:05 pm
I am probably a dissenting voice here. I seldom agree with Gordon Monson, but I have gone on record to say I agree with several of the points he made in this article. That said, you have some really reasonable counter points as well.
You say… “One does not have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce (and sources inside the BYU HC department have confirmed) that in some high profile cases where there is virtually no chance of keeping the player’s transgressions quiet, BYU chooses to get out in front of the situation as much as possible by announcing that they are aware of a situation and have already addressed it.”
My issue is in the way BYU confirms these high profile violations. While you are correct that in cases that become high profile BYU simply states that they are aware of the situation and have addressed it, they also often in these cases confirm that the violation is in fact an “HONOR CODE VIOLATION.” I believe even this small distinction is detrimental to firts and most importantly the athlete, but is also damaging to the athletic program and also to BYU as a whole.
Don’t get me wrong… I am fine with having high standards and an honor code. It is the arbitrary and heavy handed (and too often public) nature of how the mistakes are handled that I have issue with. First, BYU would be better off to not make public comment on any violation that is not criminal in nature. If that is not possible and if there is an honor code violation, (even if there is internet and/or other speculation/confirmation out there), they should NOT CONFIRM that it is honor code related. They should call it a violation of team rules… end of comment… PERIOD.
They have been LUCKY to have the Davies and Hadley incidents morph into mostly positive press nationally. That said, seeing the public humiliation, and the heavy handed nature of the HC penalties, etc, I can see how a “good LDS kid” (and equally good kids of other faiths) might choose to avoid even that possibility and go to a school, (like Utah) where the environment is decent and the risk for a very public mistake is minimized. I have spoken to several former BYU athletes on this subject and many (well known “True Blue”) athletes have confirmed that they would not sign with BYU under the current administration.
Geoff Johnston
October 1, 2013 at 5:17 pm
My sense is that the only time BYU announces an honor code violation is when the violation is pretty much certain to go public anyway. In the Hadley case they knew a picture of him holding a bottle of booze was circulating. In cases from years past there were pretty obvious things like pregnancies that made the issue basically impossible to keep quiet too. In all cases BYU gives no other details other than acknowledging the suspension is honor code related.
I don’t know of any better way to handle it for BYU. As Bronco has stated, HC suspensions are separate from team suspensions enacted by the coach. It is important for HC office to not show favoritism to any students, including star athletes, when it comes to the HC.
Sanpete
October 1, 2013 at 5:24 pm
Really, true blue former athletes find the current enforcement of the Honor Code too much to handle? That surprises me. It’s fortunate that those who have been recruited by Rose and Mendenhall seem to support the way it’s handled.
Kaysvillecougar
October 1, 2013 at 10:07 pm
The current administration(president) is a U of U grad. He is not heavy handed.
scott
October 1, 2013 at 5:38 pm
I’ve been Gordon free for a while. The article did not help me to accomplish that goal. I will not inflate his clicks. I hope they completely dry up.
SW
October 1, 2013 at 5:45 pm
Geoff, again very sound counter point… but again, in MY opinion, it would be better if they NOT CONFIRM that it is honor code related. Why do they need to confirm that even if it is in cases as you say? What is the benefit to the athlete or to BYU? They don’t do it in church… I see no benefit.
Regarding Sanpete’s comment. Yes, very fortunate but this is true only in so far as you know. Where did I say this was a Mendenhall or Rose issue? I know of several recruited by both that do not agree with HC Office policies but keep quiet for obvious reasons. There are several examples that have expressed dissenting views after graduation. Obvious and very public personalities like Jake Kuresa, Jordan Pendletion, Jan Jorgenson, Hans Olsen and others come to mind.
Best policy would be to to keep it private no matter what, unless it’s a criminal offense.
Geoff Johnston
October 1, 2013 at 6:46 pm
SW,
Your solution sounds fine in theory, but in practice I can’t see how it would make any difference at all. For instance, what if BYU simply announced Hadley had been suspended for 5 games but never mentioned the honor code. The Deadspin article with the picture of him partying would still have been published a day or two later so everyone would still have known it was an honor code thing for sure (rather than just assuming that). That would have been zero substantive difference to what happened already. I can’t see what the point of that change in approach would even be.
SW
October 1, 2013 at 7:26 pm
I guess from my perspective, the only change resulting in my suggested approach is provides the perception that the institution is keenly interested in keeping moral and personal issues private. These are offenses that are seen as mostly minor in the general public. Yes, in the high profile cases, the public would still figure it out, understood. But again, what is the benefit of giving confirmation? To me, IF there is any benefit, it is for BYU, not the athlete.
I guess I can turn it around and ask what would be the negatives if BYU refused to confirm?
Geoff Johnston
October 1, 2013 at 8:59 pm
Well my guess is the main benefit of the HC office getting out ahead of these cases where an HC violation of a high profile athlete has already gone public is to simply show that the HC office is involved and not turning a blind eye because the student is a star athlete. There is no downside in terms of publicity if the the news is already out and it at least shows consistency in enforcement of the HC.
SW
October 1, 2013 at 9:44 pm
I guess I fail to see your logic… How would the HC office appear to be turning a blind eye? “No comment” is not necessarily no action. In each of the high profile cases discussed, it would be clear that an action was taken, just no official confirmation of the nature of the offense. It is nobody’s business… period! I disagree that there is no downside otherwise as you say… and I have outlined many of them in my previous posts. I can see you are in full support of the status quo.
I do however appreciate your responses and as I have said previously, you have given me a different perspective. Your editorial and your comments are well thought out and well written. I can see how you might think I am splitting hairs and there is no substantive difference but I can agree to disagree.
SW
October 1, 2013 at 10:47 pm
Geoff, I might add, if in fact you are right, (and I think probably you are) that the main benefit of the HC office getting ahead of these cases is an effort to show that the HC office is involved and not turning a blind eye because of a star athletes status… the benefits are squarely in the best interest the institution and not the athlete. I personally have a problem with this and I think it is self serving.
That said, I do not agree that BYU orchestrated the prison event and/or subsequent story. The points you raised there are logical and I do not see BYU being that manipulative.
I will end however in 100% agreement with this… “But that doesn’t make this the ideal way, or a better way. It just makes it BYU’s way — at present. Dissenters can go ahead and quite faithfully believe it’s preferable for a religious institution and its football team to allow transgressors and church leaders to handle private matters of an intensely personal nature in private, between the sinner, his bishop and his God.”
Geoff Johnston
October 1, 2013 at 11:25 pm
I agree that BYU should not announce HC violations in 99.9% of cases. But in this specific case with Hadley I still contend that BYU did the right thing.
When the public already knows all about the transgression there is no negative impact on the athlete when the HC department comes out and frankly says what everyone already knows. As you know, my primary contention is it is good for the student because it just gets it over with. The fact that getting it over with and announcing it might benefit BYU in addition just makes it a win-win decision. Seems like calls for BYU to be coy and disingenuous after Deadspin has already published the pics make no sense.
But, again, I am with you to the degree that only in these very rare cases does it make any sense to just come out and say what everyone already knows. But I think history has shown BYU doesn’t announce except in these very rare exception cases where it makes more sense to announce than not.
Sanpete
October 1, 2013 at 7:02 pm
I’m not sure it’s better for the athlete if the school doesn’t give any reason for discipline that’s going to become public. Davies was expelled by the school and Hadley was indefinitely suspended by Mendenhall. I wonder if either of them would have preferred that the possibility be left open that it was a criminal matter or some serious team-related lapse (both possible in Hadley’s case)?
I don’t know what Honor Code Office practices the former players are objecting to so strongly that they wouldn’t come to BYU as a recruit, and why, so I don’t know what to say about that except that they may not have considered the reasons fully. Davies at least hasn’t publicly objected, and seems to still support the way it was handled for him. (Hadley and Hoffman are still in school, so we don’t know what they’ll say after they leave the program.)
SW
October 1, 2013 at 7:35 pm
As I said above, I have no issue with BYU confirming issues that are criminal in nature. BYUs non confirmation would be a clear signal that it is not criminal. In Hadley’s or Davies’ case, I would think they would appreciate the institution protecting their privacy even if it is going to come out otherwise.
Look, I realize it sounds like I am splitting hairs. It just seems to me that offenses of a moral nature, or personal nature should be handled in a private way, even at BYU. Many of them are… I think they should all be.
Sanpete
October 1, 2013 at 7:58 pm
It does seem what you’re suggesting might not have any practical advantage to the athlete, and might even disadvantage him or her. If the school not saying it’s criminal implies it’s honor code or team discipline, I suspect many, maybe most athletes would prefer it to be known it was honor code, that they weren’t being suspended for anything directly related to performance with the team. (O’Neill was suspended indefinitely for team-related reasons, for example.) Of the possible reasons for suspension, honor code violations may not be the most embarrassing in the eyes of the athlete.
Anyway, I understand the idea that honor code and private ought to go together as a rule. I think you’re right to follow Monson to the extent that it’s an issue that BYU might want to give further consideration to.
Sanpete
October 1, 2013 at 8:02 pm
Sorry, meant O’Neill Chambers. (It was a shame too!)
SW
October 1, 2013 at 8:23 pm
Sanpete – You nailed it on the head from my perspective. It is the idea that honor code and private ought to go together as a rule and it’s an issue that BYU might want to give further consideration to.
At any rate… you raise some great points. The Chambers example was absolutely a shame and I was sad to see him not make it all the way. In my experience, most athletes would prefer to keep the HC stuff out of the public eye regardless. That said, I see how some might see otherwise. My guess is though, most of those will likely already have a greater understanding of and support BYU’s mission overall.
Thank you for the healthy and respectful dialog.
Eggguy254
October 1, 2013 at 6:02 pm
Gordon can’t have it both ways. No doubt, as a supposed journalist, he was on the phone to every contact he has in the sports information office trying to get the inside scoop on Hadley,s transgression, but then exhibits outrage when they actually provide an answer. It was either: a. Sour grapes at him not getting the story, or b. Yellow journalism designed to sell papers. Which is it Gordo?
Robert
October 2, 2013 at 12:06 am
Atta boy Gordon, sling mud and lose ground! Monson claims enlightened assessment through journalistic professionalism but in reality exhibits opinionated ignorance marinated in cyniscism and garnished with hypocrisy. He really needs to change professions…he’s miserable at the one he’s stuck in.
Brett Hein
October 2, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Fantastic.
Trey
October 3, 2013 at 2:03 pm
Well I’m late but I have something to add. I think BYU had to come out and say it was honor code related due to the NCAA violation claims–as false as they were–made public about this case.
What is ironic is that Gordon Monson and the Trib especially contributed to this because of their coverage of the story. They were the first to bring out these potential allegations. Furthermore, they kept digging.
And I might add that it wasn’t a BYU announcement that said it was an honor code violation. In the first place, a Trib reporter contacted the Honor Code office, and they confirmed that it was an HC violation. Immediaterly thereafter, they go and publish this info to the world.
Geoff Johnston
October 3, 2013 at 2:51 pm
Good point. The mixing of the allegations about honor code violations and NCAA violations gave major added reason for BYU to clarify that the 5 games was for HC only when reporters asked.
Paul McHardy (@byubuckeyes)
October 8, 2013 at 6:14 pm
It’s really too bad that 1280 has force Gordon into drive-time with Spencer Checketts. He’s not always on point, but Spencer is at least entertaining. Gordon just sounds like an old buffoon and I don’t think Checketts even takes him seriously.
Monson knows the value of enflaming his audience, and that’s all he ever tries to do. His argument is the weak rant of a pouting child and when anyone calls him out on it, he makes even more apparent how shallow his arguments really are… his response to the criticism is to harp on the same point over and over again, no matter how good of an explanation is given.
Shallow drivel.