Been avoiding this but finally spilling my thoughts.

[Yoda]

You should try being honest. Kettle calling the pot black. Its so obvious you questioned it. You asked where I was getting the information and not only me but another poster responded. Then you even questioned the credibility of the media source so I had to find it in the actual lawsuit. Good day. Can't deal with your misdirection BS trying to be right.

It's worse than I thought...'practice player' is not a team member. Even the complaint makes a distinction. I simply asked where you got the information that the 'practice player' entered the room, because well, no one had ever said that before, including in the allegations of the complaint. I even put it in quotes to help you out.

The question to the other poster had diddly to do with who entered the room, but instead why the poster thought the "system wasn't followed".

There is no misdirection, and I know realize why you cannot answer simple questions or understand simple language.

 

[Cornhuskers7]

What was to investigate as to the hotel hijinks? Contrary to misinformation being put forth by another poster, is there really anything to investigate? What harm was caused to Scoggins for the failure to investigate this? Seriously, what was there to investigate and why is this important? What additional information could have been discovered from an investigation conducted a day or more after the incident, after the 2 team members went to the coach with the video?

Keep in mind, that a few days after the hotel room hijinks, and with her parents at a meeting with at least Trev and Williams, Scoggins continued to deny any type of illicit relationship with Love. At this point, she has maintained a lie after the initial even in Pennsylvania, and apparently to her parents too.

Timeline: Hotel room hijinks. Scoggins and Love deny anything sexual. Scoggins suspended form team (maybe kicked off or quits within a few days. Love is placed on paid admin leave. Day or a few later, Scoggins continues to deny any illicit behavior. Scoggins finally makes a Title IV complaint on March 11, approximately 1 month later.

Gathering form Scoggins complaint, at no point prior to March 11 is there an allegation or statement that Scoggins even admitted to the relationship. March 11 based on the complaint appears to be the first time issues of power and control are raised. This is after she is either voluntarily or involuntarily removed from the team, and after she lost certain perks that came from being a scholarship player. Of course once the Title IX complaint is made, there has to be action taken related to that complaint.

However, there's no allegation as to whether any other investigation had been taken place, and even if it had, whether Scoggins had any right to that investigative material at that time. There's approximately a 1 month time period where Scoggins herself is at best interfering with an investigation, and at worst preventing it by lying about the nature of her relationship with Love.

I'd like to hear what exactly the University should have been investigating in this time period.

The fact that there was potential impropriety and both parties were denying it happening should have be more reason to investigate, not less. If you are going to potentially fire someone, you better ensure the reason you are suspending/terminating them holds water.

The fact that one person (the coach) was in a position of authority, also means that you need to be able to ensure that the relationship wasn't something that was forced/caused by manipulation. The reason? You can get sued, which is exactly what is happening. Investigating and doing your due diligence helps cover yourself from a liability standpoint.

I am not saying that I believe or don't believe the account Scoggins gives in the lawsuit. Frankly, my opinion on that doesn't matter. What does matter is the University has to protect itself and ensure proper actions are taken. If they did that, great! If they didn't, it's going to bite them in the tail.

 

[NU_Alum]

What was to investigate as to the hotel hijinks? Contrary to misinformation being put forth by another poster, is there really anything to investigate? What harm was caused to Scoggins for the failure to investigate this? Seriously, what was there to investigate and why is this important? What additional information could have been discovered from an investigation conducted a day or more after the incident, after the 2 team members went to the coach with the video?

Keep in mind, that a few days after the hotel room hijinks, and with her parents at a meeting with at least Trev and Williams, Scoggins continued to deny any type of illicit relationship with Love. At this point, she has maintained a lie after the initial even in Pennsylvania, and apparently to her parents too.

Timeline: Hotel room hijinks. Scoggins and Love deny anything sexual. Scoggins suspended form team (maybe kicked off or quits within a few days. Love is placed on paid admin leave. Day or a few later, Scoggins continues to deny any illicit behavior. Scoggins finally makes a Title IV complaint on March 11, approximately 1 month later.

Gathering form Scoggins complaint, at no point prior to March 11 is there an allegation or statement that Scoggins even admitted to the relationship. March 11 based on the complaint appears to be the first time issues of power and control are raised. This is after she is either voluntarily or involuntarily removed from the team, and after she lost certain perks that came from being a scholarship player. Of course once the Title IX complaint is made, there has to be action taken related to that complaint.

However, there's no allegation as to whether any other investigation had been taken place, and even if it had, whether Scoggins had any right to that investigative material at that time. There's approximately a 1 month time period where Scoggins herself is at best interfering with an investigation, and at worst preventing it by lying about the nature of her relationship with Love.

I'd like to hear what exactly the University should have been investigating in this time period.

I didn't realize she denied having a relationship. That makes the OP even dumber.

I would consider the meeting with Trev to be an investigation or at least fact gathering and if she denied any relationship, there isn't much more to do. She's not a minor. I'm sure Love was questioned as well. Maybe he admitted to the relationship and Scroggins was suspended for lying about it? That would make sense.

Regardless, there isn't anything remotely close to a need to "call the cops" here.

 

[Yoda]

There isn't a good explanation for a female player to be alone in a male coach's hotel room, or for them to be in that room alone together. Coach of the same sex could also be an issue, but there are certain lines you can't allowed to be crossed if you are a male coach.

Speaking as a male who has coached females, you have to go out of your way to get nowhere near lines that could be potentially misconstrued. Having a female player in your hotel room is well over that line.

When you start dealing with investigations, it is generally best for it to be something a third party or someone with at least legal knowledge handles or supervises the handling of.

I don't disagree as it relates to instances when the player is a minor. Legally, it gets squishy when both are adults...keeping in mind that individual policy of an institution is not what determines the legality of meeting behind closed doors. I imagine that meeting with players on road trips takes a lot more logistical work if we are worried about same sex or opposite sex meetings in private rooms, whether sleeping or otherwise. I'm guessing that such meetings happen at a regular occurrence.

That's what Title IX departments are for. I assure you, the Pennsylvania police have zero interest or qualifications to investigate Title IX matters.

 

[Yoda]

The fact that there was potential impropriety and both parties were denying it happening should have be more reason to investigate, not less. If you are going to potentially fire someone, you better ensure the reason you are suspending/terminating them holds water.

The fact that one person (the coach) was in a position of authority, also means that you need to be able to ensure that the relationship wasn't something that was forced/caused by manipulation. The reason? You can get sued, which is exactly what is happening. Investigating and doing your due diligence helps cover yourself from a liability standpoint.

I am not saying that I believe or don't believe the account Scoggins gives in the lawsuit. Frankly, my opinion on that doesn't matter. What does matter is the University has to protect itself and ensure proper actions are taken. If they did that, great! If they didn't, it's going to bite them in the tail.

Are you relying on the complaint to believe that absolutely no investigation was taking place? I'm spitballing here, and if I were a betting man, I'm all in on an investigation having been started shortly after the hotel hijinks became known to those in a position to start said investigation, and continued for quite some time.

Yep, gotta ensure that. Really hard to do when both parties are lying about it. It's like prosecuting folks that beat their spouses when the spouse lies about what happened. Absent cooperation, the investigation goes nowhere, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one.

I agree the university has to do certain things and if they didn't, then it or them individually may be on a hook, and have never said otherwise. Asking for verification of factual statements (and facts are really important in these types of cases) or discussing certain claims that really don't matter or make sense should not be construed by anyone with an elementary understanding of the English language as anything other than that.

 

[Yoda]

I didn't realize she denied having a relationship. That makes the OP even dumber.

I would consider the meeting with Trev to be an investigation or at least fact gathering and if she denied any relationship, there isn't much more to do. She's not a minor. I'm sure Love was questioned as well. Maybe he admitted to the relationship and Scroggins was suspended for lying about it? That would make sense.

Regardless, there isn't anything remotely close to a need to "call the cops" here.

I got that from the complaint itself. It's being couched in the "I was too intimidated" to say anything before vein. Understandable at the team meeting, especially if Love was there. Less so with the parents present without Love.

I'm spitballing again, Trev and Williams were not the only university officials present or monitoring this little sit down. If they were, then they were stupid.

 

[NU_Alum]

I got that from the complaint itself. It's being couched in the "I was too intimidated" to say anything before vein. Understandable at the team meeting, especially if Love was there. Less so with the parents present without Love.

I'm spitballing again, Trev and Williams were not the only university officials present or monitoring this little sit down. If they were, then they were stupid.

That's basically what I guessed happened in a prior post. There was a meeting/investigation of some sort and HR was involved. If both are denying anything happened, I don't know what you do from there. It's not illegal even if they are bumping uglies. I'm going to guess that part of her punishment, maybe all of it, stems from lying during the investigation/fact gathering. Going to be an uphill battle for her to overcome that.

 

[Yoda]

That's basically what I guessed happened in a prior post. There was a meeting/investigation of some sort and HR was involved. If both are denying anything happened, I don't know what you do from there. It's not illegal even if they are bumping uglies. I'm going to guess that part of her punishment, maybe all of it, stems from lying during the investigation/fact gathering. Going to be an uphill battle for her to overcome that.

I got no idea how it's all going to play out. But if Mauren finds another 7 rubes like the OP...well the university is going bankrupt.

Edit: I think there's still some obligation to try to dig further into what happened/is going on. The hotel room hijinks doesn't even register.

What I think will be a really important piece of evidence is what was documented related to Scoggins separation from the team, and how it was documented.

 

[Hville]

It's worse than I thought...'practice player' is not a team member. Even the complaint makes a distinction. I simply asked where you got the information that the 'practice player' entered the room, because well, no one had ever said that before, including in the allegations of the complaint. I even put it in quotes to help you out.

The question to the other poster had diddly to do with who entered the room, but instead why the poster thought the "system wasn't followed".

There is no misdirection, and I know realize why you cannot answer simple questions or understand simple language.

Only you would serve up a whole thread of mis direction on the difference between a practice player and a regular player entering the room. Evidently you think one or the other makes a difference in how NU handled it.

 

[Yoda]

Only you would serve up a whole thread of mis direction on the difference between a practice player and a regular player entering the room. Evidently you think one or the other makes a difference in how NU handled it.

If only you had just said it was a misstatement when asked...Really, why was it so hard to simply say: "Well it may not have been the "practice player" who obtained the key (and was presumably a male) who entered the room with the others?

And there you are again...being dishonest.

 

[Nehunter88]

If only you had just said it was a misstatement when asked...Really, why was it so hard to simply say: "Well it may not have been the "practice player" who obtained the key (and was presumably a male) who entered the room with the others?

And there you are again...being dishonest.

There was nothing to investigate the day it happened. Do you call the police if a husband is found in a motel room with an adult woman that wasn't his wife? No you don't.

But if we add in the element of coach and player, then yes once everyone is home it is investigated by the university. It's really that simple.

Did Trev not do that? No one knows for sure, at least no one posting here.

 

[Cornhuskers7]

I don't disagree as it relates to instances when the player is a minor. Legally, it gets squishy when both are adults...keeping in mind that individual policy of an institution is not what determines the legality of meeting behind closed doors. I imagine that meeting with players on road trips takes a lot more logistical work if we are worried about same sex or opposite sex meetings in private rooms, whether sleeping or otherwise. I'm guessing that such meetings happen at a regular occurrence.

That's what Title IX departments are for. I assure you, the Pennsylvania police have zero interest or qualifications to investigate Title IX matters.

You're arguing with the wrong person, because again, I'm not one that said the police should have been involved about any of this.

Just because something isn't criminal, doesn't mean it isn't still wrong. A player-coach relationship shouldn't be happening, period.

 

[Hville]

If only you had just said it was a misstatement when asked...Really, why was it so hard to simply say: "Well it may not have been the "practice player" who obtained the key (and was presumably a male) who entered the room with the others?

And there you are again...being dishonest.

Seriously? You are going to hang your denial hat on the difference between a practice player and a player? Calling me dishonest for reporting what I heard when you have been in nothing but a deny mode the whole thread and have had to back peddle by using the practice player versus regular player excuse. Wow.

Maybe what you should have concentrated on is the overall view of the rumors and whether you believe it is plausible that Trev and the BOR were in similar agreement for a change. After all......that was the important part. Not whether it was a practice player or player that entered the room without permission using false misrepresentation to do so. I guess taking an entire thread down the crapper to prove there was no evidence to support it being a practice player that entered the room with the regular players was worth it to you.

 

[Cornhuskers7]

Are you relying on the complaint to believe that absolutely no investigation was taking place? I'm spitballing here, and if I were a betting man, I'm all in on an investigation having been started shortly after the hotel hijinks became known to those in a position to start said investigation, and continued for quite some time.

Yep, gotta ensure that. Really hard to do when both parties are lying about it. It's like prosecuting folks that beat their spouses when the spouse lies about what happened. Absent cooperation, the investigation goes nowhere, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one.

I agree the university has to do certain things and if they didn't, then it or them individually may be on a hook, and have never said otherwise. Asking for verification of factual statements (and facts are really important in these types of cases) or discussing certain claims that really don't matter or make sense should not be construed by anyone with an elementary understanding of the English language as anything other than that.

I'm saying IF no investigation took place, as was stated in the lawsuit, the University put itself in a bad situation. I struggle to believe that an institution of Nebraska's size wouldn't, which is why I question the validity of other parts of the lawsuit, as presented. That isn't to say the University/coaches handled everything properly, even if they did open an investigation, but I would be stunned to believe they didn't do anything.

 

[Hville]

There was nothing to investigate the day it happened. Do you call the police if a husband is found in a motel room with an adult woman that wasn't his wife? No you don't.

But if we add in the element of coach and player, then yes once everyone is home it is investigated by the university. It's really that simple.

Did Trev not do that? No one knows for sure, at least no one posting here.

What is wrong with people still arguing that the police don't need to be called for a coach/player relationship? Its not about the sexual relationship. Its about players breaking the law to catch them. The university was aware that they broke the law. I agree that had they notified the Pennsylvania police its likely they would have done little. They might have done something and they might have done a lot. But at least it can't be used in the lawsuit as something the University turned their back on as a coverup. You just don't let your players commit crimes and not notify anyone. Its bad optics when you are then named in a lawsuit for how you handled the situation and your response.