Mr. Doyel,
I know your editorial requirements force you to fill space on your website on a regular basis and this sometimes translates into less than stellar comments. This is one of them.
Sure, its an easy target to pick on kids who've had brushes with the law, but your comments are full of bias and yes, prejudice. No I'm not going to pull the race card, I'm pulling the "non-BCS" card. More and more, those in the national media are perpetuating a prejudice between the haves and havenots of the NCAA. BCS schools, the "elite", are shown to be intrinsically better than the "mid-majors". Their kids, schools, fans and opportunities are perceived by you as being better and hence more worthy of praise and forgiveness. This is bunk. Look at all professional sports for verification of the equality of athletes regardless of school attended.
But in your zeal to add to the cyberspace junk circling this earth, you condone the sophomoric idea that its okay for BCS schools to pick up and use these "defective" kids, but when they get in trouble its also acceptable to dump them as left overs. Further, you coveniently condemn a "lesser" school which picks them up giving them a second chance (and give the school a fighting effort to overcome the NCAA sanctioned obscenely extravagant recruiting powers of the BC$ schools).
How convenient for you to split hairs so blindly: bad kids are only in non-BCS schools.
The billions of TV dollars showered on the BCS schools allow them to cherry pick what are initially perceived as the "best" student athletes in the nation. The perception is that non-BCS schools are relegated to grabbing the crumbs which fall from the BCS table. Obvious to everyone outside of the national media, this is patently not true.
Ironically, if you look you'll find the best amateur athletic venues, fans, players and schools are not solely BCS blessed. Non-BCS schools are too often overlooked by you in the main media because its so convenient for you to only follow a couple of dozen or so BCS money behemoths rather than to try to cover the rest of the nation's schools as well.
Too bad you're missing out on what the rest of the nation enjoys: true amateur athletics. Because of TV revenue, the BCS has created a new, disparate class of professional sports. True amateur sports are found elsewhere, warts and all, in the non-BCS schools.
Shame on you for taking the easy road of prejudice. Try doing real reporting and take an honest look at the plight and successes of the "lesser" (read: non-BCS) schools which make up the richest of the fabric which we call NCAA athletics.
Oh yeah, as to Southall at UL: The BCS used him until he was of no use. Obviously he is a troubled kid, but that is not moral justification for a school to throw him away because he is expendable. Life is tough, yes, but the NCAA claims to pride itself in bettering its student athletics. Its certainly admirable for UL to not only give him a second chance, but to support him when he is in trouble instead of dump him again. Obviously, that's not the BCS way, but it is the right way. How many chances are enough? Who knows, he may make it into the NBA or not, but either way, if he becomes a productive citizen, that is the ultimate goal of college anyway. I say you're opined examples are actually not of failures but of what is right in college (non-BCS) athletics. Too bad you probably don't see that.
Money, championships and big schools shouldn't be the only, or main, reason for college athletics. Look at the non-BCS schools and their successes against the BCS odds. Many people are fond of playing the race card in today's society, but in college athletics the main prejudice is about the monopoly of the "elite" members of BCS: the haves versus the havenots. Why don't you write about that?