blkngoldUofI
Well-Known Member
Would you guys/gals have any problem taking him back on the team if you were his teammate?
Anthony Tucker Returning to Practice
- Thread starter JDavis11
- Start date
jparmley3
Well-Known Member
Todd Lickliter quote in reference to Anthony Tucker being allowed to practice again:
He has not completed everything he needs to take care of, but everything is set in motion to be completed and he has completed everything he could complete up to this point
Could that be anymore redundant and confusing?
Doubtful.
He has not completed everything he needs to take care of, but everything is set in motion to be completed and he has completed everything he could complete up to this point
Could that be anymore redundant and confusing?
Doubtful.
FreddyBrown
Moderator
If the decision were left up to teammates, Pierre Pierce might not have missed a game. The wishes of teammates might be a consideration, particularly if they strongly disapprove of allowing someone back, but this is a decision for the adults to make.
I wouldn't let him back on the team if it were up to me, which it obviously is not. I'm still waiting to hear what, if any, additional discipline will be imposed by Lickliter. I think it would be wise for him to let the public know what it is in this instance. If all he does is require Tucker to pay the fine and comply with University requirements, I would be extremely disappointed in that decision. Unfortunately, I can't say I'd be surprised if that's what he does.
I also won't be surprised if Tucker does not finish his career at Iowa. No one should have needed a clearer wake-up call than he got in his first year at Iowa, but he did it again. Hell he tattooed himself in effect to announce to the world that he wouldn't do it again, and then he went out and did it again. I see no reason to believe he won't do it again this time.
I don't wish anything but the best for the kid, and I hope he straightens up. But I don't think the risk of taking him back was worthwhile. A point that seems to get lost in these discussions is that all we're really talking about is the privilege of playing basketball in an Iowa uniform. Taking that away is not an "end of life" decision. On the other hand, the cost to the program of keeping him (rather than giving that privilege to someone else who might value it more) if and when he does it again could be significant--as it was last year, and as it was again this year.
I'm not talking about abandoning the kid. I would have kept him on scholarship for the rest of the season, required him to get intensive help throughout that period, but not allowed him to play--and would have sent him on his way thereafter. I'm sure he could find another place that would give him a scholarship to play basketball. There are coaches out there who will do anything to win.
We'll see how the approach Lick has taken works out for the Iowa program.
I wouldn't let him back on the team if it were up to me, which it obviously is not. I'm still waiting to hear what, if any, additional discipline will be imposed by Lickliter. I think it would be wise for him to let the public know what it is in this instance. If all he does is require Tucker to pay the fine and comply with University requirements, I would be extremely disappointed in that decision. Unfortunately, I can't say I'd be surprised if that's what he does.
I also won't be surprised if Tucker does not finish his career at Iowa. No one should have needed a clearer wake-up call than he got in his first year at Iowa, but he did it again. Hell he tattooed himself in effect to announce to the world that he wouldn't do it again, and then he went out and did it again. I see no reason to believe he won't do it again this time.
I don't wish anything but the best for the kid, and I hope he straightens up. But I don't think the risk of taking him back was worthwhile. A point that seems to get lost in these discussions is that all we're really talking about is the privilege of playing basketball in an Iowa uniform. Taking that away is not an "end of life" decision. On the other hand, the cost to the program of keeping him (rather than giving that privilege to someone else who might value it more) if and when he does it again could be significant--as it was last year, and as it was again this year.
I'm not talking about abandoning the kid. I would have kept him on scholarship for the rest of the season, required him to get intensive help throughout that period, but not allowed him to play--and would have sent him on his way thereafter. I'm sure he could find another place that would give him a scholarship to play basketball. There are coaches out there who will do anything to win.
We'll see how the approach Lick has taken works out for the Iowa program.
Last edited:
hawkeye12345
Well-Known Member
Some of you shouldn't throw rocks in your glass houses.
If the kid performs his responsibilities as set by the administration (and the law) AND genuinely can express remorse and gratitude to the team then he should be allowed back on the team and playing in no time. It's really not rocket science here people.
Did he let the team down, sure.
Did he let himself and his family down, sure.
Did he commit a crime so atrocious to himself or others that wouldn't warrant another chance? Hell no.
I'm sure he clearly understands what is expected of him and hopefully the kid (and others) can learn from his mistakes.
If the kid performs his responsibilities as set by the administration (and the law) AND genuinely can express remorse and gratitude to the team then he should be allowed back on the team and playing in no time. It's really not rocket science here people.
Did he let the team down, sure.
Did he let himself and his family down, sure.
Did he commit a crime so atrocious to himself or others that wouldn't warrant another chance? Hell no.
I'm sure he clearly understands what is expected of him and hopefully the kid (and others) can learn from his mistakes.
FreddyBrown
Moderator
I fixed part of that for you. I'm guessing you were also sure that Anthony would learn from his mistake the first time this happened.
My approach to this isn't that it's the nature of the "crime" alone that warrants parting ways with Anthony, it's that he let down everyone involved not once, but twice, in the same way and with very real and very predictable consequences to the program.
At some point the risk of a repeat has to shift away from the program, to Anthony. Many people think that risk should shift only after a third instance--some of you may not care how many times he does it, as long as it's not an "atrocious crime." I just think letting the program down the way he did, twice, is enough.
Just my opinion, of course.
Last edited:
Freddy I am right there with you. It really irks me that he is getting basically a fourth chance now to quit on his teammates. You made a good point about teammates most likely wouldn't ever want to lose a teammate, but that is where it is on the coach to do the right thing. This situation just alienated more of the fan base which not what Lick needed right now.
Last edited:
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
Freddy:
The University has a policy in place to govern situations like this so the coaches don't have to. The policy is in place to insure that all atheletes get treated the same regardless of sport. Tucker served the same penalty a field hockey player, swimmer, gymnast, cheerleader, etc... would have. Having the coach place additional punishments/conditions/whatevers on top of the kid defeats the purpose of having this policy in place. He fouled up, he served his time, he's going to come back and practice with the team, and once Lick is comfortable with him getting on the court he will.
Ohh and Lick nor the University have no business going public with the punishment he's served. That's a personal matter between player and the school. If AT wants to talk about it fine, if he doesn't fine. He doesn't owe you I or anyone else anything.
The University has a policy in place to govern situations like this so the coaches don't have to. The policy is in place to insure that all atheletes get treated the same regardless of sport. Tucker served the same penalty a field hockey player, swimmer, gymnast, cheerleader, etc... would have. Having the coach place additional punishments/conditions/whatevers on top of the kid defeats the purpose of having this policy in place. He fouled up, he served his time, he's going to come back and practice with the team, and once Lick is comfortable with him getting on the court he will.
Ohh and Lick nor the University have no business going public with the punishment he's served. That's a personal matter between player and the school. If AT wants to talk about it fine, if he doesn't fine. He doesn't owe you I or anyone else anything.
This is good news. Even coach Lickliter knows that his son shouldn't be playing significant minutes in the Big 10. I appreciate everything that lil lick has done and have nothing against him. Tucker will help this team. I can't believe people are worried about Tucker taking lil lick's minutes. I also don't want to ever hear the comparison of Payne and lil lick ever again. Lil lick looks to pass the ball first because he doesn't have many other options. I might have missed who posted that. Maybe it was Turnip? I may have missed the joke.
DYK88
Well-Known Member
Great post, Duffman...you make some good points.
FreddyBrown
Moderator
Lick has said repeatedly, as has Coach Ferentz in the past, that he has discretion to impose discipline above and beyond what the U. policy requires. That is very, very clear.
There are situations where an exception is warranted to the practice of keeping the nature of any discipline within the team. The more serious or repetitive the offense, the more merit there is in making it known what the consequences were. Among other things, it serves to help the people who support the program understand and buy into what the program stands for. I'm not equating Tucker's offenses with those of Pierre Pierce in terms of gravity, but do you think, for example, that the U. should have simply kept quiet about what Pierce's punishment (such as it was) would be?
Frankly I'd like to hear someone explain why it is that the "default rule" should be to keep discipline given by the team itself confidential when the discipline is given for a very public offense. If a kid screws up only on a team rule or in some other way internal to the team, that's one thing. If he does what Tucker has done twice, what is the harm of letting the public know whether and how any further dicpline is being imposed? It's simple public relations, and that's something this program needs to do a better job of in general. Are we afraid of embarrassing the kid? Why? You do the crime, you do the time.
Unless, of course, people within the program might be embarrassed at having to disclose that they really aren't administering any other discipline?
I agree with you 100% on all points Freddy. It is inevitable that Tucker is going to let his teammates down and embarass/hurt the program again. Also, the team has been playing a lot better in his absence, than they ever were, when he was around this year. He was bringing very little to the table.
Last edited:
storminspank
Justin VanLaere
It's not inevitable... that would make you an soothsayer, which I think is highly unlikely.
Could he let them down again? Absolutely. To say it's inevitable isn't true.
Tucker was 2nd in the team in scoring - that's bringing SOMETHING to the table.
Iowa is playing better, but that has more to do with a couple starting true freshmen getting more D1 experience and Fuller getting healed up. It's not because Tucker was gone - you have to look deeper than that.
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
Freddy:
Here is analagy to help you understand it.
The University is like AT's employer. As such they have no requirement to publicize the details of internal dicipline. In fact they have and obligation to repsect the privacy of thier employee.
The public intox itself was a public charge. AT plead guilty to that. The charge was a public charge. AT publicly plead guilty to it. His fine/sentence was made public immediately.
Outside of that AT, the coach, nor the school is, or should be, under any obligation to publicize additional dicipline involving this situation. Just because AT plays basketball on TV in front of the general public doesn't give the general public all out access to everything in his life.
Going public with the diciplinary actions taken against AT in this matter would be the equivilent of your boss sending out a letter to the public saying he had placed you on written warning for posting drivel on an internet website instead of doing your job.
Here is analagy to help you understand it.
The University is like AT's employer. As such they have no requirement to publicize the details of internal dicipline. In fact they have and obligation to repsect the privacy of thier employee.
The public intox itself was a public charge. AT plead guilty to that. The charge was a public charge. AT publicly plead guilty to it. His fine/sentence was made public immediately.
Outside of that AT, the coach, nor the school is, or should be, under any obligation to publicize additional dicipline involving this situation. Just because AT plays basketball on TV in front of the general public doesn't give the general public all out access to everything in his life.
Going public with the diciplinary actions taken against AT in this matter would be the equivilent of your boss sending out a letter to the public saying he had placed you on written warning for posting drivel on an internet website instead of doing your job.
Last edited:
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I gotta wonder if some of you would have the same opinion of this if Iowa was rolling along, we were going to make the dance, and he was the leading scorer on the team?
The university has a policy for this, Kirk has handled his situations like this also. I am also wondering if people are upset that he is drinking, or is it only bad that he has gotten caught drinking?
I know some people try to say this is his 3rd strike, but that is complete BS. Some kids struggle with school even when they don't have the added time requirement of being an athlete. I don't look at Shonn Greene or Amari Spievey as having let the team down when they struggled with grades, and I don't look at Tuckers struggles in the classroom that way either.
The university has a policy for this, Kirk has handled his situations like this also. I am also wondering if people are upset that he is drinking, or is it only bad that he has gotten caught drinking?
I know some people try to say this is his 3rd strike, but that is complete BS. Some kids struggle with school even when they don't have the added time requirement of being an athlete. I don't look at Shonn Greene or Amari Spievey as having let the team down when they struggled with grades, and I don't look at Tuckers struggles in the classroom that way either.
papathawki
Well-Known Member
The grammar king strikes again!! Some people just live to correct others. What a waste of everyone's time.
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
Neither of these things will happen. Kirk doesn't disclose what happens "internally" to his players when they get in trouble, and Lickliter should be no different. How he disciplines his players and what happens behind closed doors is really none of our business.
You would have kept him on scholarship through the rest of the semester and then kicked him off the team? Really? Please tell me that I'm mis-interpreting you somehow.
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
Those are the people who wrote the disciplinary policy for the school. If Anthony gets in trouble again, he's gone. Lickliter will have no say in it.
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
You did see that Stormin got a kick out of it, right? Chill.
