[Knucklehead]

Wait now I'm really confused as my eye was drawn to the disclaimer at the bottom of the screen.

Disclaimer: FlameFans.com is an independent site and is not affiliated with the Liberty University Athletic Department. Opinions expressed herein do not reflect the opinion of FlameFans, Liberty University or any of our sponsors, affiliates, partners or users.

Can we please take some of the hall monitor approach out of things and treat this like a message board?

[paradox]

Last year Rashad put up huge numbers against the weakest teams and really struggled against some of the better defenses. So, in a way, he won't be able to pad his stats against a couple of softies. His numbers this season should be more reflective of what he can actually do against the tougher opponents. Hopefully, he rises to the challenge.


...

Pair-of-sox,

Yeah, I think you are right, 186 yards against Bill and Mary in less that 3 quarters before he got hurt. Sounds pretty weak to me. How is the intramural tiddly winks tournament going?

W&M had a horrible defense last year. Towson had a decent defense last year and they completley shut Jennings down. Last year against the better defenses his yards per carry averages were: 1.5 Towson, 1.8 Wake, 2.5 Gardner Webb, and 2.9 Western Carolina.

His big 150-200+ yard games were against soft defenses such as Glenville, St. Paul's, Savanaah, and W&M.

Nice try, FLAMES-SHAW, but you must have been watching a different football team other than LU last year. Or maybe you just don't know the difference between D1 & D2

We could have had a Karcher-like season last year, if Zach Terrell hadn't come to our rescue


..

[Chris Lang]

Knucklehead: Good point ... speculation is all good.

I just wouldn't expect anyone who knows Rashad (and I'm sure several of the board members do) to break his confidence and post the reasons. Trust me, I looked for the exact violation. But Liberty isn't required to tell me what it was, Rashad wasn't talking, and the NCAA isn't allowed to release information on secondary infractions. All dead ends. It would be a lot easier if I was dealing with a public school and could just send out a FOIA request, but such is life. All parties want to move on, but it's well within your rights to speculate on what happened. It's part of college sports.

[flameshaw]

Sox,

No doubt he had big numbers against D2 schools, I never questined or disputed that, I was just pointing out he had a big game against Bill and Mary, who was not a D2 pushover. Also, after he was hurt, he was never 100% and one would therefore expect lower output against the teams played later in the year ie. Coastal, GW, Western C etc. or whoever we played. I just don't think Rashaad is under any pressure to prove himself, especially when you consider he rushed for 700+ yards at Pitt as a freeshman, and I am sure that was not against D2 schools.

Have a good one my friend.

[RagingTireFire]

I think there are too many folks on here whose salaries depend on the mother ship.

So, they should leave the board. Then, it'll be just me, Knuckle and Paradox speculating wildly about what every one else is doing with all their free time. Can't wait. Can I start banning people now?

[LUconn]

Knucklehead: Good point ... speculation is all good.

I just wouldn't expect anyone who knows Rashad (and I'm sure several of the board members do) to break his confidence and post the reasons. Trust me, I looked for the exact violation. But Liberty isn't required to tell me what it was, Rashad wasn't talking, and the NCAA isn't allowed to release information on secondary infractions. All dead ends. It would be a lot easier if I was dealing with a public school and could just send out a FOIA request, but such is life. All parties want to move on, but it's well within your rights to speculate on what happened. It's part of college sports.

If you saw it posted here, would you print it? Under the cover of "anonymous sources say"

[bigsmooth]

guys, we all know that speculation is a part of a messageboard, but this issue is really a dead one. the powers that be in the athletic dept. did not find it necessary to air the laundry on this. that is their right as well as your to speculate and to shuk my apologies. but speculation here will cause more harm than good. have jeff barber, danny rocco, or rashad given anyone reason to stir up rumors that lead to unnecessary conversation? it was simply a minor deal that LU reported and rashad has to serve a two game suspension. simple as that. so speculate away... have fun with it. as far as knuckle's comment about people's paychecks being controlled by LU?? ridiculous. just another attempt to stir up controversy.

[flameshaw]

I agree smoothie, the less said the better. Sometimes things get blown way out of proportion and does no one any good. Hey, a mistake was evidently made, reported, let's move on. Only 11 more day to kickoff. Go Flames.

[El Scorcho]

This board has a group of Police who are quite often involved in censorship.

It's not censorship if we ask.

I think there are too many folks on here whose salaries depend on the mother ship.

So what are you saying? What's the alternative?

Some of you folks need to keep in mind that Liberty isn't exactly like other schools. We often ask people to refrain from certain discussions in order to keep our board accessible at LU. Many many LU message boards have come and gone because once the conversation gets out of control, the site gets blocked on campus. That probably wouldn't be a problem for some of you, but as someone with access to our traffic logs believe me when I say that this board would go downhill in a hurry if we were to be blocked. We've done very well to make nice with the school so far, and to avoid the filter. Some of us would just rather not push it.

[Chris Lang]

Knucklehead: Good point ... speculation is all good.

I just wouldn't expect anyone who knows Rashad (and I'm sure several of the board members do) to break his confidence and post the reasons. Trust me, I looked for the exact violation. But Liberty isn't required to tell me what it was, Rashad wasn't talking, and the NCAA isn't allowed to release information on secondary infractions. All dead ends. It would be a lot easier if I was dealing with a public school and could just send out a FOIA request, but such is life. All parties want to move on, but it's well within your rights to speculate on what happened. It's part of college sports.

If you saw it posted here, would you print it? Under the cover of "anonymous sources say"

No way in Hades.

Media General does not allow the use of anonymous sources.

And there are tremendous pitfalls involved in the use of anonymous sources. You can get burned really easily. You better be sure that source is right or you could end up looking like a total idiot.

[Knucklehead]

I'm sorry that some see me as someone on here that wants to stir up trouble or cause issues. I think that is ridiculous. I just have a problem with folks coming out the minute a semi-negative or inquisitive post (not mine in this case) is written and saying "stop it". What was actually said is that what chris reported is all the facts, so end of story. That's like saying we can't talk about it amongst ourselves. I just think why have a message board where we are told that certain topics are a no no. Look, I really like Rashad. I think he is a very talented kid. I met him 2 times and feel strongly that he is a good kid too. That is beside the point in this discussion. The question is are there topics that we are not supposed to talk about or not?
Look, if you want, I'll go the way of Libertine. I love this board, but just don't get some of the issues.

[flameshaw]

I'm sorry that some see me as someone on here that wants to stir up trouble or cause issues. I think that is ridiculous. I just have a problem with folks coming out the minute a semi-negative or inquisitive post (not mine in this case) is written and saying "stop it". What was actually said is that what chris reported is all the facts, so end of story. That's like saying we can't talk about it amongst ourselves. I just think why have a message board where we are told that certain topics are a no no. Look, I really like Rashad. I think he is a very talented kid. I met him 2 times and feel strongly that he is a good kid too. That is beside the point in this discussion. The question is are there topics that we are not supposed to talk about or not?
Look, if you want, I'll go the way of Libertine. I love this board, but just don't get some of the issues.

I don't think anyone is telling you, you can't talk about certain issues/topics, just discouraging posters from doing so. If it was amongst ourselves and that is all, that would be fine, but I know of many people who are not "us" who lurk on this board. I can't speak for anyone else, I just view it a s a baseball locker room, handle things internally, no reason to spread the family matters outside the family. Kinda like the commercial "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. Maybe not a good analogy, but it fits from where I sit.

[SuperJon]

My opinion on the situation:

You guys can talk about it all you want. What people don't want is for things like what shuk said to be thrown out because people read that, take it out of context, and start saying that's what happened.

In my opinion, speculate all you want, but keep it clean. That's your job as a fan.

With all that being said, just remember, there are some that can't comment on the situation. The people with no ties to the school, have at it.

[ATrain]

Knucklehead: Good point ... speculation is all good.

I just wouldn't expect anyone who knows Rashad (and I'm sure several of the board members do) to break his confidence and post the reasons. Trust me, I looked for the exact violation. But Liberty isn't required to tell me what it was, Rashad wasn't talking, and the NCAA isn't allowed to release information on secondary infractions. All dead ends. It would be a lot easier if I was dealing with a public school and could just send out a FOIA request, but such is life. All parties want to move on, but it's well within your rights to speculate on what happened. It's part of college sports.

If you saw it posted here, would you print it? Under the cover of "anonymous sources say"

No way in Hades.

Media General does not allow the use of anonymous sources.

And there are tremendous pitfalls involved in the use of anonymous sources. You can get burned really easily. You better be sure that source is right or you could end up looking like a total idiot.

Yep...anonymous sources are not good to use and should be avoided at all costs. The Liberty Champion also had a policy against using them, as does USA Today.

[Knucklehead]

This tread proves the definition of fan is true FANATIC!
Anyway I think it was my fault because the post that caused the furor was my 666th.

[JK37]

I don't think its ridiculous at all to feel it is unnecessary, and possibly outright wrong, for employees of Liberty to post on here. In any arena where they have access to informaiton regarding student-athletes in anyway, to comment on it in specifics on a public forum is teetering on the very edge of within the rules. The anonymity of a message board does give people the false notion they are safe.

In my opinion, no direct employee of the University's athletic department should be an aggressively active member of a message board such as this one. I felt it was wrong when we actually had coaches posting more than just information on here, and I still do, but that's subsided a lot. That doesn't mean I find it negative in the least that a coach is willing to meet any fan or program supporter at any time and talk to them, in person. I respect that highly! A message board just isn't the place.

In short, employees are better off, I believe, to stay away from posting.But, that doesn't mean its wrong to read what we all say, as I know they do. And, they also have backchannels to say what needs to be said.

[JK37]

Also, anything goes on a message board. To try to censor what is said here is taking away from the purpose of the board. Each individual may be their own censor. Beyond that, who are we kidding trying to be polite or discretionary about what others post?

[Knucklehead]

Also, anything goes on a message board. To try to censor what is said here is taking away from the purpose of the board. Each individual may be their own censor. Beyond that, who are we kidding trying to be polite or discretionary about what others post?

WOW and AMEN!

[JDUB]

i think that basically what was trying to be said was.. it's probably best if you know what actually happened to not post it, because they obviously don't want it known. obviously speculation will happen, you can't stop that

[jcmanson]

I hope this is an isolated incident, and not something that will show its head again later down the road. If it is an isolated incident, then fine. Serve your time and get on the field. We need you Rashad. This will give some others some carries in the first two games. I hate to see one of our players get suspeneded though. I wonder if it was something that was overlooked, or was it a known violation? Seems as if we will never know.

[Sly Fox]

I had to go to Dallas on business yesterday and then teach this morning. So I come back this afternoon to this interesting discussion.

As a journalist I can tell you that I don't make known to the public everything I know. There is the matter of discretion that factors into the journalistic process. If I want to maintain certain channels of information I go out of my way to protect those sources' best interests.

As for the board, I approach this place with the same dose of restraint. I'm all for speculation and rumor ... but I also feel there is certain matters that are not productive for discussion. Its perfectly within the rights of members of our community to present their guesses. But is that really going to change anything? And who would it profit?

If Rashad or the school choose to make the facts public then I am sure they will. But since this appears to be a case of the school catching its own mistake then I personally would prefer if we move on.

My primary concerns now are in regard to how we run the ball int his first two games without Rashad and how he handles being thrown into the fire in Game 3. Those first two games are nice tune-ups and its a shame he won't be able to develop a game rhythm until we face the Tribe.

[JDUB]

news and advance has an article today saying he unintentionally committed an ncaa housing violation and will be suspended for the team's first 2 games. no details on what is the housing violation was stated.

so... jc i would say judging by that it was "isolated" and won't "show it's head later down the road".

My primary concerns now are in regard to how we run the ball int his first two games without Rashad and how he handles being thrown into the fire in Game 3.

we run with zach, just like last year when rashad was hurt. zach is freaking awesome, he's had some great moves in practice, and we will be fine with him carrying the ball for us

[paradox]

Sox,

No doubt he had big numbers against D2 schools, I never questined or disputed that, I was just pointing out he had a big game against Bill and Mary, who was not a D2 pushover. Also, after he was hurt, he was never 100% and one would therefore expect lower output against the teams played later in the year ie. Coastal, GW, Western C etc. or whoever we played. I just don't think Rashaad is under any pressure to prove himself, especially when you consider he rushed for 700+ yards at Pitt as a freeshman, and I am sure that was not against D2 schools.

Have a good one my friend.

Again, William & Mary was a bad team with a horrible defense last year.

At Pitt, he played in a pass oriented offense with an NFL-caliber quarterback in Tyler Palko. In fact, Palko is currently a rookie with the New Orleans Saints. When Rashad played at Pitt, the defenses were designed to stop Palko, not the running game.

You're starting to look like a real jerk, claiming that others are out of touch when you in fact don't seem to have a clue

....

[shukcb04]

Sox,

No doubt he had big numbers against D2 schools, I never questined or disputed that, I was just pointing out he had a big game against Bill and Mary, who was not a D2 pushover. Also, after he was hurt, he was never 100% and one would therefore expect lower output against the teams played later in the year ie. Coastal, GW, Western C etc. or whoever we played. I just don't think Rashaad is under any pressure to prove himself, especially when you consider he rushed for 700+ yards at Pitt as a freeshman, and I am sure that was not against D2 schools.

Have a good one my friend.

Again, William & Mary was a bad team with a horrible defense last year.

At Pitt, he played in a pass oriented offense with an NFL-caliber quarterback in Tyler Palko. In fact, Palko is currently a rookie with the New Orleans Saints. When Rashad played at Pitt, the defenses were designed to stop Palko, not the running game.

You're starting to look like a real jerk, claiming that others are out of touch when you in fact don't seem to have a clue

....

yeah, a 4th string QB. might as well be on the practice squad.

[RagingTireFire]

When Rashad played at Pitt, the defenses were designed to stop Palko, not the running game.

....

I'm no football expert but wouldn't a good defense be one that was designed to stop the whole team?

Seems crazy, I know.