By the way, I don't separate basketball and football.  To me, to paraphrase Federal prosecutors when it comes to crimes, "A nick is as good as a cut".  When the football program broke the rules back in 1998/99 that wiped away our clean history between the Emory Express envelope and Claude Bassett.

We are now working on a clean athletic program for several years now, but not long enough for me to feel sanguine about taking the moral high ground.  To some extent, the fans of a program are tainted by the actions of their school.  In my mind, that's one of the things that makes them so egregious -- NCAA violations rub off on the fans, the school, the athletes, and everyone surrounding it, even though they had nothing directly to do with it, nor would ever support it.

Now, I understand not everyone will want to accept my argument that a fan's moral authority to scold other schools is somewhat tainted by the record of their own.  And to be sure, we should be outraged at the unfair advantage just like everyone else, but in my mind, that has to be tempered with the reality that the school who's honor we are defending hasn't had clean hands for very long.

It is essentially the principle that those who live in glass houses should leave the stone-throwing to others.

The fans aren't entitled to do any of that.  The school expressly forbids it in writing.  In fact, what they are doing is illegal as well as unethical, as it is trespassing in the legal sense.

I am sympathetic to the argument that we are a long-suffering bunch, and some irrational exuberance is understandable.  But if someone gets hurt or killed in such an incident, it will besmirch all our efforts, damage the credibility of our school and athletic programs, and ruin a perfectly wonderful season.  It would also open the school up to a huge liability lawsuit for failure to enforce their own rule and the rules of the conference designed to protect the fans and players from harm.

I think we've more than made up for our years of misery -- we've had two celebrations on the field in violation of rules.  I think it should stop immediately.

Ethics is a subset of law, not the reverse.  In other words, every single thing that is illegal is unethical, by definition.  Period.

Contrariwise, every thing that is unethical is not necessarily illegal.  In other words, ethics is entirely contained by the constraints of law, not the reverse.

Now that we've disposed of that, let me point out that violating UK's rights to control who is on the field is not good behavior.  It is, in fact, wrong.  It isn't wrong like stealing, or forgery, or bribery, etc., but it is still wrong.  The magnitude of the provocation is what is known as a "non-ethical consideration", which is defined as:

As far as donations go, Mitch Barnhart shouldn't have to collect money -- those involved should get out the checkbook and write checks.  They new it was wrong, and they did it anyway.  If I were to hit someone's car and damage it, but they never found out who I was, is it OK for me (or my insurance company) not to reimburse them for their loss?  Of course not.  Same principle applies.

Oh, yeah -- regarding "bluehairs" -- yours truly is one.  Be respectful, please. :-)  

(just kidding -- not about me being a bluehair, but you are certainly respectful enough)

I can live with the idea that we were putting pressure on Smith.  And we were, even his supporters -- fans are supposed to do that when coaches underachieve.  With all the love that I could muster, I was of the opinion that if Smith could not right the ship, he should move on, it was time.  He wasn't getting the job done, and he had to know that winning SEC championships and getting to the Sweet 16 year after year wasn't going to cut it.  Evidently, he either agreed with me, or for some other motivational reason, decided he was ready for a change.  He professes the latter, but I will always suspect the former.

Florida did run off Ron Zook, and in my opinion, you shouldn't be proud of it.  They didn't force him to leave, they put pressure on boosters who forced the administration to fire him, not force him out.  The way it was done was wrong, and all the national championships in the world can't excuse or undo the bad behavior associated with how that went down.  It wasn't so much that he was fired, it's that he was never really given a chance to begin with.  

I think firing any coach mid-season is an abomination unless he has done something illegal or unethical, and Zook did neither.  Florida's actions were unprincipled and reactionary, probably purely driven by big-money boosters without any regard for fair play or decorum.  That doesn't speak very highly of the university.  Florida didn't put pressure on Zook, they abandoned him almost immediately.  People were working to get him fired the day he took the job.

Not the finest hour of the Gator Nation, in this man's opinion.

"Demanding excellence", both in Florida, here in Kentucky, and elsewhere, is like professing to be doing things in the name of God.  It can and often is used to excuse all kinds of abusive, unethical and downright reprehensible behavior.  I am not proud of what some of our fans did in the name of "excellence", that's for sure.  My perception of how Zook's situation was handled is similar.

To the substance of your remarks:  I appreciate the fact that some people see rushing the field as a "time honored tradition", and in many ways, I agree.  Here is the problem:

The SEC has decided that they will no longer allow this behavior.  It isn't a matter of dictating morality to you or anyone else, it is a rule.  Very similar to the rule outlawing smoking in buildings, or rules that forbid throwing of objects, however benign, on the field or floor of play.  The university has agreed, as part of the conference, to enforce this rule.

As a condition of your attendance to games, you are required to observe the rules of decorum.  Failure to do so is an ethical breach, because when you buy your ticket, you implicitly agree to the conditions and restrictions attached thereto, whether or not you agree with them.  If you don't agree, you may ask for a refund and not attend the game -- that is your right.  But the university has the right to set the rules for behavior at athletic events, and attendees have neither the moral nor legal right to ignore those rules because they think them violative of a tradition or otherwise moot.

Suggesting that the university owes fans something is an unfortunate perception based on entitlement mentality.  The university raises money for the purpose of putting on athletic events.  The public pays money to attend and enters into a contract, known as "purchasing a ticket", which is sold contingent upon the holder obeying the rules and restrictions associated therewith.  There are no guarantees of outcome, or enjoyment, or pleasure -- you come at your own risk in that regard, and if you are disappointed or overjoyed at the outcome, you are required by your agreement to abide by the rules of the university.

The fans are getting, in each and every case, exactly what they contracted for -- the opportunity to see the game live, in person.  Being a long time purchaser of tickets doesn't entitle anyone to anything whatsoever.  An entitlement mentality is a problem for the one who has it, not the university -- unless, of course, they break the rules.

Rules are there for a reason.  When we break them, we are behaving badly, and unethically, especially when we agree not to do so.

I hope we beat the Gators, too.  It will be exciting if we do, and I'll celebrate the end of a long drought against them and get ever more excited about our season.  But I will be disappointed if those crowds rush the field, because they will be doing illegal and unethical things that continue to harm our university.  We can all feel great and celebrate without doing those things, and enjoy it just as much.

With all due respect, I am entitled to my high horse, and as they say in the blogosphere "this here is my damn blog and I'll pontificate if I want to".  I am and will continue to enjoy the moment, and do so within the rules.  Hopefully, you and other Kentucky fans will also.

Thanks again for the great comment.

In my benign benevolence, I actually allow people to suggest on this blog the utterly impossible and unthinkable possibility that my word might not be equivalent to that of the tablets Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai without smiting them with the Wrath of Tru.  I don't actually think of myself as God, but ... others may, if they wish.  (joke!)

:-)

As for being a lawyer, why would I want to do that?  Then, I wouldn't be able to tell lawyer jokes anymore, and everybody would hate me.  Much easier to be a businessperson -- nobody cares, and I can hate lawyers along with everyone else. (another joke!)

:-)

I accept your definition of "bluehair", and I assure you that even though what little hair I have is as gray as it is anything else, I never sit on my hands at Rupp.  It would be ... sacrilege.

It is important for every sports team to have dedicated fans, and the university understands this perfectly.  That's why they work so hard to nurture and support it.  But at the same time, they have to protect the people who come to games, even from themselves, and even the ones who don't want to be protected.  It is part of the legal responsibility of the university, and even if the attendees were willing to waive their right to that protection, the university isn't willing to permit attendance on that basis.

We all love the Cats, but as we have seen in life, we sometimes hurt the ones we love.  See what I'm saying?

However, your conclusion presumes facts not in evidence.  Yes, Smith was not well-beloved by the fans, particularly after two disappointing seasons and a long final-four drought.  He did, however, leave voluntarily and poo-poo's the idea the the fans drove him off.  In fact, although many fans were pressuring powerful boosters to pressurize Barnhart, he wasn't fired or forced out by the university (an important component of being run off).

Instead, he decided to leave rather than try to turn it around.  I think, given his trajectory over the last few years of his administration, it was wise to try to get a brand-new start elsewhere.  Was fan anger a factor?  I think it was, although he denies it.  But he left on his own, for his own reasons, and although fan anger may be one reason, it certainly wasn't the only one and maybe not even the most important one.

For example, it has long been rumored by people in the know that he and Mitch Barnhart did not get along well, and in fact did not like each other.  Not liking your boss is a strong motivator to find another job.

But the press keeps suggesting, essentially, that the blame lies solely with the fans.  I don't think there is sufficient evidence to support such a charge.  In fact, there is more than sufficient evidence to reject such a statement as inaccurate.

It is just another casualty of our litigious culture, in my opinion.  But we can't substitute our judgment for that of the people who own the property, or are empowered to administer it, just because we don't agree with their decisions.  Failure to follow rules almost always has some sort of consequence -- otherwise, why have the rule?

While watching the game I could not believe the officials did not see him strike the head of Woodson, after the original hands to the face.

Anyone who thinks that call was questionable needs to visit their favorite optometrist, or have the bias removed from their arse.

That also goes for Craig James.

I'm like, "Eh?".  Something tells me this is a song or a poem, but it didn't register as recognizable on my addled brain.

I must really be getting old.  You're going to have to explain it to me, I'm afraid.

:-)