Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,494 Excellent

About JoshAllenHasBigHands

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

611 profile views
  1. I do. That doesnt mean its ok. But I also dont think he should be regarded as acting with the same kind of malice as someone who uses drugs or prostitutes. Nor do i think GMs and coaches will.
  2. Heres the thing. The majority of that stems from binge drinking. That is obviously super dangerous. That said, hazing is used to justify prohibiting a much longer list of types of actions. Things that might look like bullying are a great example. That seems a bit far.
  3. Why do you keep trying to make this personal? Im talking about a real social phenomenon and how people perceive it. Im not even saying its ok.
  4. Have you guys really never heard of this? This isnt even close to the worst kind of hazing.
  5. I mean, you can pretend its not a thing if you like. That it isn’t something dudes have done for literally generations as a prank. Sure, its different in todays social culture, but that wasnt the case as recently as ten years ago.
  6. You never hears of teabagging? Sure, it sounds crazy out of context, but ive seen that in multiple places-high school, hockey, the frat. Also, remember the movie Waiting? The ball sack game? That falls under the heading of hazing now. Its just horseplay.
  7. I've been a part of a frat that was suspended for hazing. The problem is they using the umbrella term "hazing" to encompass any number of activities that universities deem problematic to eliminate behavior that doesn't conform to the new socially just model of modern universities.
  8. Yeah, I just wasn't paying attention to what I was doing. I meant Gross-Matos.
  9. And yet the DA said charges would not be filed. I think you are missing the point by focusing on the fact that hazing is illegal. Its about what the coaching staff's perception of hazing is. If you think they only care that its illegal, you are being super naive. "Named" or "identified." Doesn't really matter. I was just trying to educate a little. If you want to misunderstand the significance between the two because a sports writer that doesn't understand the law wrote the same headline, feel free.
  10. No. Syracuse. But I'm a SU Law alum, so that's why. I barely care about college football. Also, this is a civil suit, not a criminal complaint. Very different. Lastly, hazing is very different from drugs and prostitution, particularly in the manner in which people/coaches perceive it.
  11. My bad, switch that. I meant Gross-Matos. Franklin was the one named. I didn't proof my response. Also, super random to call my a Penn St. fan. I don't really know what to do with that. I just think the anti-hazing movement is silly.
  12. Overwhelming odds are that every guy on the Bills staff with any collegiate or professional sports background were themselves hazed, and then hazed people below them afterwards. Hazing did not become taboo until the last 10 to 15 years. Before that, hazing was often tradition. I have a hard time believing anyone in the organization would consider it a disqualifying event. Also, and this is a minor point, but Franklin wasn't named in the suit. He may have been identified as a participant, but "named" implies that he is a defendant. He is not.
  13. My hot take: WR in round 1; RB in round 2. I shouldn't want a RB that high, but I can't help myself...
  14. Also, to be clear, I'd pull the trigger. Now is the time to spend (my view on this has changed a bit over time).
  • Create New...