Been avoiding this but finally spilling my thoughts.

[Squatchsker]

Not sure. It might have been brushed under the rug since the focus ended up on the inappropriate relationship. The players obviously should have brought their concerns to the head coach or someone else in the athletic department, rather than taking matters into their own hands. That said, that opens up a different can of worms: did they bring these concerns to someone else first and have those concerns dismissed? Did they feel like they couldn't bring those concerns to someone's attention without some sort of proof? Were there signs that other coaches willfully ignored until the situation was brought to light by the players and they had hard evidence?

Again, I feel like focusing the attention on the players who uncovered what was going on distracts from the true issue. It doesn't mean that they should get a pass for the way they handled things, but you expect more out of adults (coaches/admin) than you do the 18-22 year old's (athletes).

Not trying to diminish anything on the accountability side of the coaches/admins, just asking for clarification as to how things panned out.
I understand that the optics and politics of the whole thing required deft movements, but on the other hand I would have totally supported a scorched earth policy from Williams. Fire Love, suspend all of the players that played private eye, send it up to the Title IX folks and let them sort it out.

A team meeting? Maybe if it is players only. If the purpose was true visibility and accountability a private flogging within the program does nothing but make for salacious stories, hurt feelings, and lawsuits.

 

[Yoda]

In court

Scroggins lawyer. Mr Albert’s did you investigate the plaintiffs complaints of Mr loves sexual engagement with the client? Were you aware of the illegal actions of the players to obtain the video of them together? Did you address it or did you hope by not addressing it that it would go away?


This lawsuit is about the actions and how they handled it. Appearing to have just dismissed their actions will be at the heart of it. If you read the lawsuit it’s almost entirely about the universities inactions in its investigation. Trev should have notified the police and let them either do something or not. At least he can say he took action.

You should learn to ask better questions.

When did she complain about Love to Trev or anyone in the administration? (It doesn't appear until after the relationship was outed, and the complaint is vague about any actual "complaints" about the relationship).

Trev's not a lawyer, he has no foundation to answer the question, and that question likely never gets responded to in court for those and other reasons.

Address what? Well, we don't know what the universities position is on all of this do we.

You are way to hung up on the police and notifying them to investigate something that appears to not be in dispute (tho you will make up a dispute anyway) and a red herring issue.

Trev should have followed the advice of his counsel, and I'm spitballing he did exactly that. That's universally a better approach than following the whims of the ignorant.

 

[Hville]

There doesn't seem to be any doubt that the athletes doing the "investigating" was an issue. Ultimately, the question is whether she was a victim or willing participant. The other question is whether or not the school truly investigated the matter or just quickly got rid of them both in an effort to save face. The way in which her lawsuit is presented, it definitely seems as if Nebraska was in the wrong. That said, most lawsuits sound that way when you only get one side of the story.

I'll respond quoting you even though you aren't the one with lingering defense of the situation. There were many issues in the lawsuit. The Trev issue and the legality were just part of it. If some don't feel as strong regarding calling the police that is their right to feel that way about it. I'm just addressing how one BOR feel and added my opinion to it thinking the optics would have been better had he called police and let them drop the ball instead of appearing like we might have. If others feel different than no biggie.

 

[Yoda]

I'm not sure how the laws work specifically around these things. I would agree with some other posters that the person with the most legal right to get the police involved would have been the assistant coach, since his room was technically broken into/illegal entered. As for the video, the account I read made it seem like she was in his room alone, waiting on him and they videoed their interaction/interrogation of her. This was obviously still not the correct way for this to be handled, but I'm not sure what legal recourse there is around videoing the conversation.

There doesn't seem to be any doubt that the athletes doing the "investigating" was an issue. That said, that portion deflects from the main issue which was the inappropriate relationship. Ultimately, the question is whether she was a victim or willing participant. The other question is whether or not the school truly investigated the matter or just quickly got rid of them both in an effort to save face. The way in which her lawsuit is presented, it definitely seems as if Nebraska was in the wrong. That said, most lawsuits sound that way when you only get one side of the story.

I've heard the same thing. It runs contrary to the narrative that is posted in this thread by some, but reading the complaint, these rumors seem to have the most basis in likely reality. The absence of reference to certain things in the complaint and the vagueness related to whether Love was the room, no allegation as to when the videoing began, and no allegation of illegal videoing, speculatively line up better with this rumor than some of the stuff being presented in this thread.

 

[NU_Alum]

I've heard the same thing. It runs contrary to the narrative that is posted in this thread by some, but reading the complaint, these rumors seem to have the most basis in likely reality. The absence of reference to certain things in the complaint and the vagueness related to whether Love was the room, no allegation as to when the videoing began, and no allegation of illegal videoing, speculatively line up better with this rumor than some of the stuff being presented in this thread.

I applaud your patience once again. Hville routinely states things that either aren't true or he's pretending to know are true and then loses his mind when asked questions on it. He made some dumb statements about criminal law with literally no basis and instead of acknowledging it, he runs around assigning positions/statements to people that were never said and then attacks those strawmen (not even successfully, I might add).

He'll delete/lock this thread soon enough. I'm sure he's dm'd RR or Max to ask for assistance again in getting people kicked from threads.

 

[Hville]

You are way to hung up on the police and notifying them to investigate something that appears to not be in dispute (tho you will make up a dispute anyway) and a red herring issue.

Actually, you are the one hung up on it. I started a rumor in the rumor thread and you have been challenging the police part of it for about 5 pages now. You seem to think that this investigation of something "not in dispute" (the affair) is what the police contact would have been about. The police contact would have been about Trev covering their ass by contacting the police instead of looking the other way on criminal activity.

 

[Hville]

I applaud your patience once again. Hville routinely states things that either aren't true or he's pretending to know are true and then loses his mind when asked questions on it. He made some dumb statements about criminal law with literally no basis and instead of acknowledging it, he runs around assigning positions/statements to people that were never said and then attacks those strawmen (not even successfully, I might add).

He'll delete/lock this thread soon enough. I'm sure he's dm'd RR or Max to ask for assistance again in getting people kicked from threads.

Nice. You brought absolutely zero to the topic. This is why threads get locked.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

I've heard the same thing. It runs contrary to the narrative that is posted in this thread by some, but reading the complaint, these rumors seem to have the most basis in likely reality. The absence of reference to certain things in the complaint and the vagueness related to whether Love was the room, no allegation as to when the videoing began, and no allegation of illegal videoing, speculatively line up better with this rumor than some of the stuff being presented in this thread.

What she did places a wall between her and her teammates. Being caught in such an anti team transgression by her teammates was bad in how they gained access, not that it happened, nor that it shouldn't have happened in some way or form.
I'm trying to get to how Scroggins herself was harmed here without including the team. I see no responsibility on her part in these matters. Yet calls foul when it happened for good reason.
And if it only calls for how, she isn't a victim at all here.

She burned her bridges, should she now be rewarded? Like Squatchker pointed out, go all scorched earth and report it.
But a team is a team

 

[Yoda]

Actually, you are the one hung up on it. I started a rumor in the rumor thread and you have been challenging the police part of it for about 5 pages now. You seem to think that this investigation of something "not in dispute" (the affair) is what the police contact would have been about. The police contact would have been about Trev covering their ass by contacting the police instead of looking the other way on criminal activity.

Good GAWD! The challenge was to your assertion that Trev should have called the police first thing, and the basis for such a position. You don't even understand that the "not in dispute" is the 2 team members using subterfuge to gain access to Love's room. You are obviously part of the crowd who lacks an understanding of the how the system works, and simply runs with a narrative without bothering to wait for the rest of the story.

 

[Yoda]

What she did places a wall between her and her teammates. Being caught in such an anti team transgression by her teammates was bad in how they gained access, not that it happened, nor that it shouldn't have happened in some way or form.
I'm trying to get to how Scroggins herself was harmed here without including the team. I see no responsibility on her part in these matters. Yet calls foul when it happened for good reason.
And if it only calls for how, she isn't a victim at all here.

She burned her bridges, should she now be rewarded? Like Squatchker pointed out, go all scorched earth and report it.
But a team is a team

As to the room thing, there's likely little actionable harm to Scoggins, and virtually no damages.

The nut & bolts of the remainder of the suit will come down to what actions the University took or didn't, as well as what actions Scoggins did or did not take. Did Scoggins get booted from the team; or, did she voluntarily quit the team? Did she cooperate with the investigation; or, did she not cooperate? There's all sorts of issues, and the damages for the potetnial legal claims do not appear all that high at the moment. The real potential damages are related to claims pf punitive damages/misconduct, and whether her attorney gets her fees paid or not upon a successful claim.

 

[Hville]

I've heard the same thing. It runs contrary to the narrative that is posted in this thread by some, but reading the complaint, these rumors seem to have the most basis in likely reality. The absence of reference to certain things in the complaint and the vagueness related to whether Love was the room, no allegation as to when the videoing began, and no allegation of illegal videoing, speculatively line up better with this rumor than some of the stuff being presented in this thread.

Well considering you started your disagreement with the belief that there wasn't even players going into the room I'll recognize you have started to realize some part of the rumor might be accurate. As for the vagueness of the rest of your arguments I will admit. There is no evidence for or against what you are saying. Its a rumor based on what some people are saying that do have evidence to this vagueness you are referring too.

The whole point is its a small picture of one incident that was causing a fall out between Trev and Boosters/BOR. Just ONE part. I'm simply trying to pass on the Main Point that things weren't as rosy with Trev and the uppers as fans were with Trev.

The entire Trev leaving left fans wondering what the heck is going on with many fans hungry for some answers. Answers that might not ever be produced in an absolute. Just trying to help fans connect some dots. I'm done with the thread now that we have guys like @NU_Alum just wanting to post personnel things. You guys can have at it.

 

[Yoda]

Well considering you started your disagreement with the belief that there wasn't even players going into the room I'll recognize you have started to realize some part of the rumor might be accurate. As for the vagueness of the rest of your arguments I will admit. There is no evidence for or against what you are saying. Its a rumor based on what some people are saying that do have evidence to this vagueness you are referring too.

The whole point is its a small picture of one incident that was causing a fall out between Trev and Boosters/BOR. Just ONE part. I'm simply trying to pass on the Main Point that things weren't as rosy with Trev and the uppers as fans were with Trev.

The entire Trev leaving left fans wondering what the heck is going on with many fans hungry for some answers. Answers that might not ever be produced in an absolute. Just trying to help fans connect some dots. I'm done with the thread now that we have guys like @NU_Alum just wanting to post personnel things. You guys can have at it.

Please find any post where I said that my belief was that there wasn't even players going into the room. Why are you making things up? Why are you stating falsehoods? Are you intentionally misrepresenting what has been said; or, are you just unable to comprehend what has actually been stated?

This is why you have zero credibility. You either have no comprehension ability, or just make stuff up to fit whatever conversation it is you think you are having...maybe both, and you're just not able to figure it out. You're dishonest and misrepresent what people say.

I have no idea what this statement is supposed to mean:

As for the vagueness of the rest of your arguments I will admit. There is no evidence for or against what you are saying. Its a rumor based on what some people are saying that do have evidence to this vagueness you are referring too.

Breaking it down:

As for the vagueness of the rest of your arguments I will admit.

Huh?

There is no evidence for or against what you are saying.

Funny...there is no evidence for or against (well actually, the appearance is against) things you have said in this thread.

Its a rumor based on what some people are saying that do have evidence to this vagueness you are referring too.

I would ask you to describe what the vagueness is that you think I am referring to, but I'm sptiballing that you actually have absolutely no idea and are doing your best to try to sound informed.

If you really want fans to connect dots...you should at least attempt to provide the most accurate, realistic, and informed dots, rather than sounding like a group of old women at a coffee table that make stuff up as they go, and continually feed off and expand a narrative that isn't well thought out, is reactionary and otherwise ignorant. It's like connecting the dots to have people walk off a cliff...yep, you sure connected the dots...

 

[Cornhuskers7]

I've heard the same thing. It runs contrary to the narrative that is posted in this thread by some, but reading the complaint, these rumors seem to have the most basis in likely reality. The absence of reference to certain things in the complaint and the vagueness related to whether Love was the room, no allegation as to when the videoing began, and no allegation of illegal videoing, speculatively line up better with this rumor than some of the stuff being presented in this thread.

Entering the lawsuit, I'm not sure they are required to go into that great a depth of detail. My assumption is those details would be presented and combed through during a trial (if it ever makes it there). My understanding with civil suits is also that the University isn't "innocent until proven guilty", that they pretty much have to prove they handled things the correct way.

If there was indeed no investigation, the University is in a bad spot. In matters like this, you need to go above and beyond proving you handled things appropriately and have a paper trail to back that up.

 

[Cornhuskers7]

Not trying to diminish anything on the accountability side of the coaches/admins, just asking for clarification as to how things panned out.
I understand that the optics and politics of the whole thing required deft movements, but on the other hand I would have totally supported a scorched earth policy from Williams. Fire Love, suspend all of the players that played private eye, send it up to the Title IX folks and let them sort it out.

A team meeting? Maybe if it is players only. If the purpose was true visibility and accountability a private flogging within the program does nothing but make for salacious stories, hurt feelings, and lawsuits.

I put less blame on the players. I understand they are "adults", but again, I have a much lower expectation of them to handle a matter like this appropriately than I do the head coach or athletic department. When it made its way to Williams attention, she should have immediately gotten the athletic department involved, and in turn the school's lawyers.

Again, getting one side of this story, it is obviously going to paint the defendants in a negative light. It doesn't mean that what is said is untrue or that I side with the University, it just means I'd be interested to also hear the other side of the story before rushing to judgement.

 

[Yoda]

Entering the lawsuit, I'm not sure they are required to go into that great a depth of detail. My assumption is those details would be presented and combed through during a trial (if it ever makes it there). My understanding with civil suits is also that the University isn't "innocent until proven guilty", that they pretty much have to prove they handled things the correct way.

If there was indeed no investigation, the University is in a bad spot. In matters like this, you need to go above and beyond proving you handled things appropriately and have a paper trail to back that up.

There has to be enough factual allegations contained in the complaint to put a defendant on notice of what they are defending against, and those allegations have to state a valid cause of action. Neither are difficult to achieve. That said, a lot can be gleaned from the allegations of the a complaint, how they are styled, what information that is alleged, and holes in the information that can be indicators of certain facts. For example, we have fairly detailed factual allegations about how access was gained to the room, but absolutely no reference to who was in the room and when the filming began.

Your understanding is incorrect. Scoggins has the burden of demonstrating that the university, and/or any of the individual defendants did something wrong. It's not a guilt or innocence thing either.

You talking about no investigation at all? Yeah, that's not a good look, but it also doesn't sound like that is what happened. Are you talking about some sort of separate investigation of the room hijinks? Don't think that was needed at all assuming there was an investigation as it relates to the issue.