I think we disagree because you're looking at this specific case and trying to come up with a policy to fit it, and I'm trying to figure out what sort of policy would be both fair and workable not just in this case but in all similar ones.
There's only one way I can see a university acting faster than legal proceedings. If the university judges that there's a sufficient violation of university conduct, regardless of formal legal proceedings, I can see a university dismissing a student prior to legal disposition. I just don't see the reverse happening. More realistically, the university might suspend a student for the short-term, pending the conclusion of legal proceedings. But the U is not going to get out in front. That just isn't happening.
As for collecting facts, I just don't see that, either. I'm not a defense attorney, but my gut tells me that if I were, and a university official contacted me to request that my client share information regarding the case for university purposes, I'd laugh him out of the office. And if he insisted, I'd tell him to . . . ahh . . . engage in auto-fornication. Any attempt to collect facts on a faster-than-legal timetable is just bound to be biased against the student-athlete.
As for charges, I'm not inclined to read too much into them. You could be entirely right. It's also possible that the DA's office screwed up by not going after him harder. It's also possible that both of those scenarios are wrong and the truth is somewhere in between. If the case were borderline, knowing how serious a felony conviction might be for someone in Lomberg's career path, it's conceivable that Lomberg leaving Orono for somewhere > 1000 miles away made it easier to decide to pursue lesser charges.
There are just way too many unknowns for me, so I'm focusing on policy. And a policy that instructs the A.D. to conduct a completely separate, parallel investigation on the assumption that the university might see fit to exonerate a player regardless of legal outcome . . . that ain't happening.
