Couple points. As many of you know, I was a scholarship football player a billion years ago, have coached a bit and have a son playing football in college now. I also happen to know a current football player at Minnesota pretty well. First, playing football for a college is not a right but a privilege, and I think a college can put whatever strictures it wants on behavioral standards, etc for its student athletes. So I disagree, in a legalistic sense, with the due proces argument. Second, the argument that “what woman would consent to this” is ludicruos on its face. As someone mentioned up the thread, lots of people do lots of things I personally would not voluntarily engage in. But my personal opinion is not evidence of anything, one way or the other. Third, the players themselves have exactly the same rights as the players at Mizzou last year, or Grambling a few years ago, to state that they will not participate under the conditions as imposed by the university. I object strongly to the mindset that one set of athletes is laudable while the other is despicable based on an individual’s own predispositions. Fourth, I think it is wrong to castigate an entire class of individuals, in this case football players, as somehow lesser or not really students. Most of you would rightly object to castigating other discrete groups in that way, and I do not understand why it is somehow acceptable to do so in this instance. Lastly, those of you saying it is just a game and what is the big deal quite clearly know nothing about competitive athletics. For many of these kids, including some of the suspended ones, this would have been the very last time they could participate in an activity to which they have devoted thousands and thousands of hours and a large part of their lives. Does that mean that players should be excused of assault? Of course not. But it is as equally wrong to say that suspending the players, or others voluntarily deciding not to participate, is no big deal.