Here's a blurb which appeared in The Youngstown Vindicator (a great name if not a great newspaper) a few days ago; I'd link for you but it's just one item in a long list of "local sports tidbits" and the entire thing reads as follows: Willis pursues pro soccer career YOUNGSTOWN — Ken "Kiki" Willis has decided to forgo the rest of his college eligibility and is pursuing a professional soccer career in the Major League Soccer. After playing two seasons at Elon University where he was twice an all-Southern Conference pick, Willis, 20, decided to turn pro. He had tryouts with the LA Galaxy and DC United and is awaiting contact from them. The MLS teams have their pre-season training camps in February. Willis, a forward/midfielder, is a graduate of Cardinal Mooney High School. Now of course we have to start with the fact that the writer has no Earthly idea how "the Major League Soccer" works, but if we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't just make this up out of thin air, what d you suppose it means, really? I'm just stumped. If Kiki has figured out how to drop out of school and get signed by an MLS side, it's earth-shattering news. And would mean a sea-change in the NCAAA/MLS relationship. Now in light of the rumors about his academic problems, I suppose it's possible tat he flunked out of Elon and has worked out some with a couple teams, and someone is blowing it all out of proportion. Beyond that, I believe MLS would have to conduct one of their infamous "lotteries" for him, which would seem really unlikely. Otherwise, I'm mystified. I wish the moderator hadn't chased off Sandon Mibut - he might have some info on this one.
If he was someone that MLS teams wanted signed Ga, then he can sign with the league and go into a weighted lottery. Like Arvizu or Bjora (IIRC), who signed after the draft. Depending when his troubles where academically, he could sit out a year and then sign with MLS. Or he could just sign with some other pro team anywhere and then down the line move to MLS as a discovery. Or you could be right and the kid and/or reporter has no idea what they are talking about. It's hard to know without more info.
I honestly don't want to stir up that pot. I shouldn't have even mentioned it. Since I did, however, I'll just say that SM was offended when the new Mod edited some of his posts and has sworn he won't ever post in this forum again.
Altho I don't often agree with him, SM's opinion is one of only a few bright spots on ALL of the boards, and his knowledge of the college game is greatly appreciated around here.
Agree. This is one of the more intelligent and objective forums in all BS, with a history of well conceived posts with plenty of research, and little tolerance for trolls and flamers. Frankly, the forum functioned just fine absent a moderator, and if I were able to choose either having a moderator, or Sandon as contributor, I'd choose the latter.
i'll throw my vote that way as well...i understand the need for a moderator but Sandon is without a doubt the most respected poster on here in terms of knowledge and time put into research and this forum will definitely drop in quality without his input. I doubt whatever was editted of his was so bad either, he will on occassion take a shot at someone but it is either in good humor or deserved.
I would hope that Sandon takes a peek at the respect being shown his way on this thread and re-considers. Sandon obviously enjoyed posting on these boards, and shouldn't give up something he enjoys over "Moderator-rage." Life is just too short. Let the rage go and come back Sandon.
I’m gonna break my moratorium on this board just to clarify a few things. First and foremost, thanks to everyone for your kinds words. It means a lot. Second, let me be clear in saying that the decision to stop participating in this forum was made by me; I wasn’t banished or forced away. That said, I chose to do so because the forum’s moderator deleted an exchange I had with a fellow poster that dealt with an issue that is sensitive in American society – race. I asked the mod to restore our (the other poster got his stuff deleted, too) posts in their entirety and he refused, saying he’d rather be “overzealous” and “err on the side of caution” and said my posts were potentially “libelous.” I’ll try and recap it as quickly as possible but in the posts in question, somehow we got talking about players of note who’d played college ball in Illinois. Steve Trittschuh’s name got brought up and I referred to him as a “documented racist.” For those that don’t know, during a game in the early years of MLS when Roy Lassiter was still with Tampa Bay, Trittschuh used the N-word towards Lassiter. He later admitted this to reporters (hence there’s no libel) and it was covered in Soccer America (and I think USA Today). IMO, using the N-word makes Trittschuh a racist, eve though he apologized. The other poster disagreed. (I’m not identifying the other poster because I’ll let him decide if he wants to be identified or not. For the record, I hold no grudge towards him in this issue. We disagreed on the issue but that doesn’t make him wrong and me right.) Whether you agree with me or not isn’t the point and I’m not going to debate the issue here. The point is that there was no harm in a debate about this issue and that a forum like this is all about an exchange of ideas and perspectives. Who knows, maybe in the course of the debate my mind would have been changed. Maybe I’d have changed some minds. But we weren’t allowed to find out or to exchange the ideas because a moderator made the conscientious choice to be “overzealous” and “err on the side of caution.” I told the moderator I didn’t want to participate in a forum where the moderator was overzealous and so quick to delete and edit an exchange of opinions and ideas. I did hear this week from a BS administrator who said in hindsight the posts shouldn’t have been deleted but at this point, the toothpaste is out of the tube as this all happened in early November. Look, I don’t run BigSoccer. The folks that do have the right to make up their own rules and policies and to allow whomever they wish to be moderators and enforce them. So, I’m not gonna argue with a representative of BigSoccer over whether a post should have been allowed to stay or not. But I’m also not gonna be a participant in a forum where ideas are deleted and edited because a moderator doesn't like them. This isn’t a me-or-him issue. I’m not trying to get the moderator removed from his duties (though I agree with others that there was never a pressing need for a mod on this forum as we always did a pretty good job policing ourselves) or banished to moderator probation, if such a thing exists. I wish the moderator no ill will. But, I damn sure don’t want to be party to a forum where my thoughts and the thoughts of others are edited by an admittedly “overzealous” moderator who would rather “err on the side of caution” than allow for a free and cordial exchange of thoughts and ideas. So that’s why I haven’t been posting on BS. It was a personal choice, albeit one influenced by the moderator here. Honestly, I think my absence from this board will be felt about as much as Adin Brown's absence from MLS is felt. Sure, a couple of the hard-core might care but the forum will go on as it always has. (Hopefully I'm less injury-prone than Adin!) Thanks again for everyone’s kind words. SM
I don't have much background on this situation, but I do have an opinion. (Isn't that one of the reasons we're all here?) It seems like a case of free expression versus sensitivity to potential issues. All parties appear to be operating with good intentions. It looks like free speech won the day, as it usually ultimately does. Perhaps some lessons were learned, as well. Maybe we can all proceed to participate in the (usually) civil discourse that takes place here. I would hope that would include Sandon, as well as everyone else involved.
Hey guys - This has blown up a lot more than I'm sure many of us would have liked. I just need to make a few points. I don't want to get in a war of words over this - I think Sandon knows my feeling that the best thing for this forum would for him to continue to contribute, because I think we all agree his contributions are invaluable. I'm not sure if it's possible to pursuade him to reconsider, but I hope we can figure something out. That said -- 1. I don't think it's fair to characterize the moderator as acting overzealously. Wildcat didn't immediately do anything - he was unsure what to do about the situation as a newbie mod and came to some of us for advice, which is not the act of someone who is being overzealous. 2. All of us who he asked were a little uncomfortable about what was said for various reason and agreed with his actions. I supported the actions Wildcat ended up taking so I don't think it's fair to put this all on him being overzealous. 3. As Sandon says, the details about the particular argument aren't all that important at this point, but just for the record, we weren't asking for complete censorship of what was being said. Some also wished we could find some kind of confirmation somewhere but we only found an interview where Roy Lassiter admitted there was an incident with someone (who was unnamed) and a BigSoccer thread where folks speculated who it was. 4. With the benefit of hindsight and knowing more about the way this forum works, I told Sandon I would have done things differently and think we could have let them hash things out, as he says above. I only wish we would be given the benefit of learning from the mistake because now we are faced with some tough choices (assuming there is something we can do that might change his decision). I think I apologized to Sandon via PM, but I'm also sorry to the regulars of this forum who end up losing because of all of this. I wish we had had the benefit of hindsight - we certainly didn't expect the ramifications to be this.
The entire issue that we have now spent discussing for 3 days comes down to one essential fact. This is a PUBLIC FORUM. The issue in question regarding Trittschuh is relevant in it's intrinsic value as an expression of opinion. Did it happen? Is that the point of all this? I have friends that play, did play, are coaches, were coaches in the MLS and they don't know if it happened. That doesn't mean it didn't. But with all of that said, it is still a public forum that allows for all types of discussion to take place regarding issues relevant to soccer. Even the endless David B. threads, the idiotic "what formation should the USMNT play", or "Keith Oberman's a moron". Was the Mod right in editing the posts? Probably not, just as an editor must trust their reporter when they tell them that their sources are real, a little judgement might have been in order regarding the source. SM has not garnered the reputation he has by being spurious in his retorts. That certainly does not give anyone the right to accuse, at random, anyone of anything. So it comes down to trust; do we trust SM's opinion to be, at least, a subject to be discussed? The answer, given history, is yes. Because this is a public forum, the truth of any matter is only realized thru an open discussion between participants. Maybe on the other forums it's okay to say things that one has no factual evidence to support; in my short experience in this forum I have found, and sometimes personally, that you'd best keep your mouth shut unless you've got a loaded gun sitting next to you. SM very seldom does not have that gun lying next to him. True argument is the essence of the college boards, if we take every controversial issue and pull it's teeth we will end up with a very Monty Python forum which seems to be pervasive on almost all the other forums in Big Soccer.
See how easy it is to get people pissed off........maybe we should talk about Steve Purdy till we vomit all over each other.
Libel issues I am genuinely interested in a couple of questions that the moderators could answer. 1) Do the moderators believe that BigSoccer could be sued for libel because of the posting of a third party on their site? 2) If so, how does "Keith Olbermann is a moron" differ from "Steve Trittschuh is a racist?"