Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread Part Deux

[candycanes99]

Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread Part Deux

Do you think we might see Hohmann between Gill and Connolly?

With Coyle gone to WJC, I'm thinking we might even see Connolly back at center. After that, maybe.

Edit: Hah, beat me JJ.

[Hokydad]

Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread Part Deux

Despite what many others have reiterated here, you just don't get it. .

Please stop with the patronizing, "you people don't get it". Yes, everyone does get it. The point has nothing to do with if he wanted help or not, nothing what so ever. It has to do with a school giving a kid a scholarship, knowing he has been in trouble 3 times to date, which means many more not caught, and allowing him to continue playing. That is insane talk. How can you have a kid who is only 21 now, which means the other times he was not only drinking but doing so illegaly and against the law.

Obviously you have to want to be helped to really be helped.

The point is simple, which you clearly don't get. It is a priviledge to play hockey at BU and to have the school give you a 200K + scholarship. With that comes responsibility.

You dont get to not go to team meetings, you dont get to skip off ice sessions, you can't say, "practices are not my thing"

If a kid, any kid, has a known issue as serious as this it should clearly be a condition of team participation. Not a , if you want to great, if not, dont. As we all know, drinking issues will almost always get worse over time, why hand it off to the next team?

I would also bet that most coaches thru the assistants captains, strength guys etc has more inside info and a better feeling than most parents do during those 4 years. It is a shame that it has gotten to this point and based upon the number of clear signals, it looks like it might have/couldhave been avoided.

[Nick Papagiorgio]

Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread Part Deux

Hokydad with a post 100% full of win.

[J.D.]

Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread Part Deux

I am a criminal defense attorney so it has been interesting to read some of your responses and reactions. For one thing, I hope J.D. never serves on a jury for a criminal matter after his "Trivino is not innocent" post. But I digress.

Listen punk, I couldn't care less what your occupation is. As I already stated, I don't think Trivino is guilty of all the charges against him. I don't think he'll be convicted of all those charges either. However, that does not make him innocent. He will be found guilty of SOMETHING. That is my opinion.

Despite what many others have reiterated here, you just don't get it. You CANNOT force someone to "get help." My wife was previously married to an alcoholic. For seven years she thought that she would be able to "help him." But after seven years of his walking through the door drunk at four in the morning, she gave up.

Just exactly what "punitive consequences" do you think should have been taken? You act as if you're SO concerned for his welfare. I see a trend here...this is an easy opportunity for the BU haters to get in another "shot" at anything BU. This is not about rivalries and which school is "better." This is about a person who would not accept responsibility for his actions. That's right - whatever happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?

Would Corey have had a better support system anywhere else? And why does this society always attempt to find a scapegoat for everything? Why do we always have to BLAME someone? It is not ANYONE ELSE'S reponsibility to "get help" for him. And, as was previously mentioned, it is CERTAINLY not MORE of a responsibility for his coach and teammates than it is for his parents/family.

I don't know what's so hard to grasp about this concept. You're right, Parker couldn't force Trivino to get help. However, he could have made it mandatory IF Trivino wanted to continue playing at BU. I hate BU as much as anyone, but as I've said, this is more of a statement on an individual than it is the university. The only thing I took exception to is people who say Parker handled Trivino "perfectly". I just don't agree with that. Perfectly is way too strong a word for me here. This was the fourth alcohol related incident. I would have booted him after the third. If people disagree with that, I have no problem with that opinion. It's not like I'm calling for Parker's head and I certainly respect him kicking Trivino off the team now, in the middle of a developing season. If this was SEC football, the player would have been allowed due process before severe punishment from his school. So, for that, I give Parker credit.

I have to say that although this is certainly a newsworthy event, I find all this speculation wildly irresponsible.

Corey clearly screwed up, to what extent only he and the woman involved now know.

Should he have been on the team considering past transgressions? I don't really know what those were so I can't say.

I think we should leave this to the system and leave the commentary to those of us who might actually know some facts.

I'm curious as to what specific speculation you're referring to. I know I've only gone off of what's been reported. As for my basis for saying I think Trivino should have been booted...I was under the impression he had three prior alcohol related offenses. If that's the case, I think he should have been gone on strike three. I can understand shooting down true speculation, but there shouldn't be any problems with people voicing opinions about what's been reported.

[limey]

Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread Part Deux

Please stop with the patronizing, "you people don't get it". Yes, everyone does get it. The point has nothing to do with if he wanted help or not, nothing what so ever. It has to do with a school giving a kid a scholarship, knowing he has been in trouble 3 times to date, which means many more not caught, and allowing him to continue playing. That is insane talk. How can you have a kid who is only 21 now, which means the other times he was not only drinking but doing so illegaly and against the law.

Obviously you have to want to be helped to really be helped.

The point is simple, which you clearly don't get. It is a priviledge to play hockey at BU and to have the school give you a 200K + scholarship. With that comes responsibility.

You dont get to not go to team meetings, you dont get to skip off ice sessions, you can't say, "practices are not my thing"

If a kid, any kid, has a known issue as serious as this it should clearly be a condition of team participation. Not a , if you want to great, if not, dont. As we all know, drinking issues will almost always get worse over time, why hand it off to the next team?

I would also bet that most coaches thru the assistants captains, strength guys etc has more inside info and a better feeling than most parents do during those 4 years. It is a shame that it has gotten to this point and based upon the number of clear signals, it looks like it might have/couldhave been avoided.

Although I don't disagree with your post in the general sense, I do disagree with it as applied here. You don't know the seriousness of the prior offenses, but all signs point to them being relatively minor issues (e.g., having a beer or two underage, being hungover for practice, or the like) rather than some sordid history of violent crime or assault. Assuming that these were all generally minor infractions, I don't see any reason why Trevino needed some sort of "go to counseling or you will, in effect, be kicked out of college" ultimatum. I think Parker giving Trevino the responsibility to shape up or ship out was totally within reason.

Also, I think the comparisons of Trevino to a raging alcoholic or a drug addict are hyperbole and overblown. I would guess that the majority of kids in college drink in excess more than a few times. Does that mean that every college student needs a "get treatment or you're expelled" type treatment?

[Hokydad]

Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread Part Deux

Although I don't disagree with your post in the general sense, I do disagree with it as applied here. You don't know the seriousness of the prior offenses, but all signs point to them being relatively minor issues (e.g., having a beer or two underage, being hungover for practice, or the like) rather than some sordid history of violent crime or assault. Assuming that these were all generally minor infractions, I don't see any reason why Trevino needed some sort of "go to counseling or you will, in effect, be kicked out of college" ultimatum. I think Parker giving Trevino the responsibility to shape up or ship out was totally within reason.

Also, I think the comparisons of Trevino to a raging alcoholic or a drug addict are hyperbole and overblown. I would guess that the majority of kids in college drink in excess more than a few times. Does that mean that every college student needs a "get treatment or you're expelled" type treatment?

good points.
In a phone interview with the Daily Free Press on Monday, Parker said this is the fourth alcohol-related incident the 21-year-old Trivino has been punished by the team for in his three-plus years at BU.

These incidents are due to what Parker believes is a serious drinking problem.

“There is no question in my mind it's an alcohol problem,” Parker said. “I did [ask him to get treatment], but he didn’t think it was for him.”

If there is no question in your mind that a kid on your team has a serious drinking problem, deal with it. Dont simply hope he doesnt get caught

"Parker said Trivino was watching the Patriots game earlier Sunday afternoon with some teammates. They were together for a while before a few of Trivino’s teammates put him to bed because he was so drunk, Parker said."

“The only thing you can do to help a kid with an alcohol problem is get him to stop drinking.”

"Trivino was in accordance with team rules Sunday night as far as consuming alcohol is concerned. Players 21 years or older are allowed to drink on Saturday nights or on other designated nights as chosen by the coaching staff.

Parker said Sunday night was one of those specified nights because the team had just returned from a three-day road trip to play the University of New Hampshire and the University of Maine. "


You say the only way to help him is to make him stop drinking but you than set up and designate which nights he can drink? And have his teammates put him to bed because he is so drunk? Seems weird to me

[chickod]

Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread Part Deux

The only thing I took exception to is people who say Parker handled Trivino "perfectly".

My only reason for the post was to rebut the people who insist on saying that the school (or Parker, or whomever) should have "gotten him help." Nobody can "get him help" if he doesn't acknowledge that he has a problem and refuses to be helped. The buck stops with HIM. I never meant to insinuate that Parker "handled it perfectly." My comments were CONFINED to my assertion that everyone wants to blame someone else (they should have done this...they should have done that). Well, "THEY" can't do anything - the person who is affected must be the one to take action. The issue of whether he still should have been on the team in the first place was not one that I was attempting to address, so if by "getting him help" you mean that he should have been kicked off the team earlier, I don't see how this directly addreses the alcohol problem (except that it just passes the buck to someone else by ridding the school of the student and therefore, by extension, the problem). I was only commenting on the futility of trying to "get help" for someone who doesn't want it. And all I can say to those who disagree is that you obviously have never encountered this type of situation.

[chickod]

Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread Part Deux

Please stop with the patronizing, "you people don't get it". Yes, everyone does get it. The point has nothing to do with if he wanted help or not, nothing what so ever. It has to do with a school giving a kid a scholarship, knowing he has been in trouble 3 times to date, which means many more not caught, and allowing him to continue playing. That is insane talk. How can you have a kid who is only 21 now, which means the other times he was not only drinking but doing so illegaly and against the law.

read the comment above...

Obviously you have to want to be helped to really be helped.

It's not that "obvious," which is why several people on here have related their experiences in that regard.

The point is simple, which you clearly don't get. It is a priviledge to play hockey at BU and to have the school give you a 200K + scholarship. With that comes responsibility.

As I said, I wasn't commenting on whether he should have been kicked out earlier; my comments were confined to the complaints that the school should have "gotten him help."

[Hokydad]

Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread Part Deux

As I said, I wasn't commenting on whether he should have been kicked out earlier; my comments were confined to the complaints that the school should have "gotten him help."[/QUOTE]

Good points but in hindsight they should have. If you simply read the interview it is almost crying out for help.

I agree that you need to want to be helped to be helped but it doesnt seem logical to give the person with the "disability" the right to determine treatment and it makes less sense to have designated nights they can get drunk and put to bed.

Sounds like his parents might have a beef here as well

Also, not trying to beat a dead horse and not talking about any specific player any more. for all anyone knows might have been clean for months and slipped up. All speculation

Talking big picture now

[limey]

Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread Part Deux

You're mixing apples with oranges here. The fact that the team (including Trivino) is permitted to drink has nothing to do with the ban on any more alcohol related "incidents" imposed on Trivino. I think Parker would be hard pressed to impose or enforce a "no drinking" policy on any 21+ year old player. And I don't read anything about a policy where hockey players are "allowed" (which suggests sanctioned or encouraged) to get drunk and get put to bed.

Moreover, you're taking what Parker is saying out of context. I don't read that to say that Trivino has a drinking problem (such as dependence) but instead that the root of the problems (e.g., missing practice) is alcohol, as opposed to, for example, laziness or incompetence.

I know you have an axe to grind with Parker, but let me ask this. Assume that you have a 19-year old son who commutes from home to college and lives with you. Generally, he is a nice kid, has no history of drinking, violent crime or drug use. Then assume he gets caught splitting a 6-pack of Bud Light with 2 of his buddies in the nearby public park by the police and they bring him home by the scruff of his neck. A year later, he is at a friend's house party on the school campus and the campus police break it up and give him a citation for drinking underage. Now assume, 3 months after his 21st birthday, he gets very drunk with his friends on a Thursday night after handing in a big mid-term assignment, takes a cab home, and misses a morning class.

Further assuming that he has no other "infraction" and is otherwise a good student, at which point in this scenario do you send your son to rehab?

[candycanes99]

Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread Part Deux

I agree that you need to want to be helped to be helped but it doesnt seem logical to give the person with the "disability" the right to determine treatment and it makes less sense to have designated nights they can get drunk and put to bed.

It's not the job of the coaching staff to babysit these guys 24/7. There is a designated night the players are allowed to drink, which is already a restriction. If it was banned at all times, you know what would happen; the rule would be broken all the time. You ban Trivino from drinking, he drinks anyway. Asking the team to watch out for him and do what they can to keep him in line is not the same as asking them to put him to bed when he gets drunk. However, they did just that because he was beyond their help. It's not their job to babysit him at that point either.

Maybe more could be done to prevent this, but I don't think anyone saw something of this severity coming.

[J.D.]

Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread Part Deux

My only reason for the post was to rebut the people who insist on saying that the school (or Parker, or whomever) should have "gotten him help." Nobody can "get him help" if he doesn't acknowledge that he has a problem and refuses to be helped. The buck stops with HIM. I never meant to insinuate that Parker "handled it perfectly." My comments were CONFINED to my assertion that everyone wants to blame someone else (they should have done this...they should have done that). Well, "THEY" can't do anything - the person who is affected must be the one to take action. The issue of whether he still should have been on the team in the first place was not one that I was attempting to address, so if by "getting him help" you mean that he should have been kicked off the team earlier, I don't see how this directly addreses the alcohol problem (except that it just passes the buck to someone else by ridding the school of the student and therefore, by extension, the problem). I was only commenting on the futility of trying to "get help" for someone who doesn't want it. And all I can say to those who disagree is that you obviously have never encountered this type of situation.

I'm not saying Parker could have forced him to get help. What I've said is he could have forced him to get help IF he wanted to continue playing at BU. This is not semantics. They are two entirely different scenarios. That's all I'm presenting. The second Trivino told Parker he didn't think he needed help, Parker could have said well you're not playing another game for me until you do.

[Terrier520]

Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread Part Deux

I'm not saying Parker could have forced him to get help. What I've said is he could have forced him to get help IF he wanted to continue playing at BU. This is not semantics. They are two entirely different scenarios. That's all I'm presenting. The second Trivino told Parker he didn't think he needed help, Parker could have said well you're not playing another game for me until you do.

Assume Trivino doesn't get help, and doesn't continue playing for BU. That doesn't prevent the incident, per se.

[pirate]

Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread Part Deux

FOR THE LAST TIME, I am not condoning drunk driving, I am fully aware that it is a terrible thing to do. What I am saying, is that you don't have to be a Psychopath to have driven drunk, while you certainly do need to be one to have committed rape. Who would you rather live next to, a guy that got drunk at his senior prom 30 years ago and killed someone driving drunk and hasn't had a drink since or a rapist?

Defkit said it better than I but let's be clear here, nobody was raped in the manner you are implying. He is charged with attempt and I don't know that any of us could say it couldn't be dropped to a lesser charge. I would need to see the police report to understand what groping means in this instance to determine what the likelihood is that the charge could be increased or decreased.

As I mentioned earlier, I have two teenage daughters, so I don't take this lightly at all but the comparison you are making is not consistent with the facts or charges as we know them.

[Humanoid]

Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread Part Deux

This still doesn't mean Parker couldn't have said either you get help or you don't play for me.



Did you even read any of the articles out there on this? If you did, it would answer a lot of your questions. Obviously nobody here "knows" what happened. We're all going on what was reported. I don't care what category of drunk you'd put Trivino in...it's irrelevant to what's actually being reported.

He didn't break down a locked door, but he also was not "allowed" into the room by the RA. Again, you'd know this if you read the info out there. The press/sports blogs you speak of have not/are not "lynching" Trivino. They just reported the allegations/arrest. Why is it you have no problem "speculating" to try and mitigate what might have happened?

Alright I've sat by and not said a word, but you, sir, are totally out of line.

First of all - name me one college student that DOESNT have an alcohol problem. How blind can you be? when you go to college, that's how it works. You drink. You make stupid decisions. You try not to make a dumb decision like what Trivino did. He made a hugely DUMB decision that'll affect him for the rest of his life. But to call him out for drinking - he's a HOCKEY PLAYER IN COLLEGE. He's honestly not drinking more than any other hockey player in college. And that's the facts. Whether or not we want to admit it or debate it - the facts are that hockey players are notorious for this reason, and we can't really hide from that fact. It is what it is.

Secondly - Jack Parker did nothing wrong. jack Parker has been around college kids long enough to know that kids get into trouble with alcohol. He knows that hockey players get into trouble with alcohol. As long as they're just getting it out of their system and partying on a Wednesday, as long as they're getting their work done, then who cares? Jack did NOTHING wrong. He spoke with Trivino and said "look kid...you got issues, one mroe and you're done." Trivino then made a hugely dumb decision that probably would've gotten him thrown out of school/off the team anyways. JP did absolutely nothing wrong in this situation; he gave the kid every opportunity to sow his oats, be a 20-something year old male, and make his decisions. He treated him like an adult, and there are 57 other Division I coaches who treat their students the same way.

Thirdly - We are talking about an ALLEGED incident. Do I think he's guilty? Personally? Yes. But, he deserves his day in court and he deserves his day to fight this. There have been false accusations before, and we don't know the details. You're being so sanctimonious about this; you probably still think Duke lacrosse is guilty.

Fourth - Let he without sin cast the first stone. You're such a perfect angel?

Fifth - It's easy to lob grenades at people anonymously from behind a forum. Would you do this if you had the chance to stand in front of Corey Trivino, Jack Parker, and BU administration? I highly doubt it sir. I odn't know you; I don't know anything about you. But you are way out of line.