FanNation

Is this what it has come to?

A South Carolina player has been given (yet) another chance to play ball, contingent on passing some drug/alcohol tests, and fans of the Gamecocks are defending this supposed disciplinary measure. Are you kidding me? 

Are they myopic loyalists who make up excuses for a poor job of discipline and/or delinquent behavior, instead of looking at facts? I can't believe I actually read some SC fans say "it isn't in Spurrier's contract to dismiss players" and "he has no authority" to dismiss players.

Spurrier has complete authority to dismiss players from his team, and has done so in the past. The list of dismissed: Shea McKeen, Kerry Bonds, Kevin Mainord, Moe Thompson and more.

Garcia has been arrested twice (three times, depending on what sources you read) in a fifteen month span, resulting in multiple suspensions. After the car keying incident last Winter, Spurrier said Garcia could be in "dire straits" if he were arrested again. Garcia was then later cited for underage drinking with two other players.

According to TheState.com:

"Rather than discipline Garcia himself for the most recent incidents, Spurrier left the matter to university officials and athletics director Eric Hyman, who suspended Garcia until Aug. 15. Garcia, who is allowed to finish the semester at USC, must complete several stipulations, including drug testing and alcohol counseling, if he hopes to be readmitted to USC in August."

"Acknowledging that he could have dismissed Garcia, Spurrier said he stepped aside so as not to influence Hyman and the other decision-makers. Hyman said an athlete's pattern of behavior is one of three criteria he considers when handling disciplinary matters."

Now, isn't "stepping aside" another word for "chickening out"? Spurrier is known for micromanaging this team, so why would he choose this situation to let another decide the fate of Garcia?

Could it be the new academic standards set by the NCAA?

According to TheState.com, "teams lose a retention point by dismissing a player in the middle of the school year, and they could lose a scholarship if the player is academically ineligible at the time and the team is below the minimum threshold, as the Gamecocks are currently."

Read that last statement again. "...and they could lose a scholarship if the player is academically ineligible at the time and the team is below the minimum threshold, as the Gamecocks are currently."

His reasons, are now obvious. If he dismisses Garcia, then the team will be well below the NCAA minimum and as a result, loss of scholarship(s) may result. It's as plain as day.

Spurrier would rather have his team affected by a knucklehead than risk losing a scholarship. The fact that the team is already below the threshold is all you need to know about Spurrier's recruiting.

It has been reported that approximately 50% of his players were SPED admitted. 50 percent. While I am a huge proponent of special education, we all know too well how many athletes are specifically labeled SPED to get admission, when in reality, they have no learning disorders or special needs. They are high risk athletes who got passed on grade-to-grade in high school.

If Spurrier's recruiting of some of these "loophole athletes" (and again, not all are loopholes, many are legit SPED admits) is causing the team to perform under the NCAA's standards, then who is at fault here? The 'ol ball coach.

By using loopholes to get some superior athletes, but high-risk students, he has set the team up for failure. Discipline in the classroom usually points to a well-disciplined athlete. Athletics are good for kids because it demands a minimum GPA to play on the team. Their place on a team is a reward for their hard work in the classroom. But the fall-out from placing so many loopholes on the team punishes the entire team. They will lose scholarships, and be less competitive as a result.

Spurrier was at a crossroads. If he booted Garcia off the team, then the Gamecocks will have lost a retention point and a scholarship. If he had retained Garcia, and everything went swimmingly well, he may not have lost a scholarship, but his team would still have been below the threshold.

Why not let someone else, like an AD, make that no-win situation decision? If things go to hell-in-a-hand-basket, at least no one can point to Spurrier for making that fateful decision, correct?

What are the chances of Garcia staying out of trouble? Not good. He has set a pattern, a pattern that AD Hyman considers one of three criteria when dismissing a player.

Since Garcia has an obvious pattern, and one of three criteria for dismissing a player is a pattern of behavior, just what are the other criteria? Garcia flunked the first one, so because he hasn't been dismissed, what are the other two he must have passed?

Could it be the possibility of scholarship losses? Loss of future recruiting advantages? SEC championship hopes?

While Spurrier isn't the only coach playing cat-and-mouse with the NCAA, he is, at the moment, the most visible. Just look at the headlines or police blotters to see the ramifications of coaches recruiting knuckleheads and high-risk athletes. This a trend, and it's not just at South Carolina.

While many SC fans will come to Spurrier's defense, they will be hard-pressed to spin the coach's decisions on recruiting practices for the last few years. The school's reputation is on the line, and one has to wonder if these latest incidents are a prelude to a highly-respected coach getting caught trying to win at all costs.



sources: http://www.thestate.com/sports/story/362032.html