A source familiar with the situation says #Hokies quarterback Josh Jackson's academic matter is resolved and he remains a member of the team.— Andy Bitter (@AndyBitterVT) June 19, 2018
Although I have to say I was disappointed in many fan reactions to potential of JJ about being on the team.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
You beat me to it!! Yay!!
What condiment will this thread spiral off to?
I got you fam
There can't be any arguments here, except for French...this is something so delicious that French probably hates it.
My sauce power rankings:
1) Chick Fil A Sauce
2) A-1
3) Cattlemans BBQ Sauce
Umm what are you putting A-1 on? If you say fresh steak your going to need to leave.
Ever put A-1 on a mushroom and swiss burger...its life changing. Agree on the steak though.
A-1 goes well with just plain ol sauteed mushrooms as well, either as a small dipping sauce, or at the tail end of the saute
It's good on a cookout burger
Burgers and ground meats or reheated or overdone steak is fine for A-1.
Oh I don't sauce steak at all (except for Ketchup on steak.... /s) I barely even marinade steaks - prefer just salt and pepper.
Burgers mainly. Meatloaf is great with A-1. Makes for a good chicken marinade too.
Coarse salt, freshly cracked pepper, garlic powder, and a squirt of Italian dressing on both sides. Let it come to room temp, get your grill as hot as the seventh circle of hell. A minute per side per half inch of thickness. Heaven.
You lost me at Italian dressing. I use roasted garlic from a jar, instead of powdered.
I don't always use steak sauce but when I do, I use Peter Luger.
And I buy it by the crate. Must have for pork chops, etc.
Not my favorite, but I like it just fine.
Hmm, this begs the question: What's your favorite?
Sauce/dressing or ChickFilA condiment specifically?
Sauce / dressing... better yet, what are your Top 3 Sauce or Dressings?
This list changes daily:
Yum Yum Sauce/Shrimp Sauce like you get at Japanese steak houses. I would bathe in it if I could get enough.
Poppyseed (I wish I knew the brand, but it comes in a distinctive small glass bottle and has a black plastic lid.)
Sweet Baby Ray's Honey BBQ
You should try 'death by wasabi', will open up your sinuses for weeks!
Brianna's?
That stuff be good!
Chick-Fil-A is good but grossly over rated and that sauce doesn't help.
The day I found out you could buy party trays of their nuggets on your meal plan at Hokie Grill was a top 3 moment for me
Hillbilly!
CFA is best fast food restaurant. Period.
Only joint worth paying employees $15/hr.
Ask for the honey roasted bbq sauce, even better. Comes in old school ketchup style packets but basically Chick-fil-A sauce with spices. All time fav sauce. #sauces
I was hoping for an Onion Rings, Curly Fries, or Wedge Fries debate.
Easy. Championships = Rings
EDIT: Waffle fries are also an acceptable answer.
Straight cut and waffle fries are better than anything on your list.
this is the only correct fries take
Buffalo Chips
Fries ranking:
1. Curly
2. Waffle
3. Other fries
47. Wedges
Onion rings are a separate entity and should be consumed along with fries, not in place of.
Someone went through and downvoted any reference to curly fries...they should be ashamed of themselves.
Where do these go on that list?
On a different list below Funions.
That looks like rhubarb pie. I always thought humble pie was supposed to made out of crows?
i can hear the dry heaves already
Expiration date checks out.
That is horrifying.
The end of a French cheese tradition.
Never heard of French cheese before.
Well, you definitely pass the the "You're not a Hoo" test. You may enter. Sit anywhere you like, and we'll be with you shortly.
We had like 600 comments freaking out about it, leading us to a second thread debating mayonnaise, then a third thread (that to be honest I haven't touched), all for it to be resolved and Jackson stays with the team.
Helluva summer boys!
I guess it is still to be determined as to what resolution has been reached.
the third thread was about hot sauce, you're welcome
edited as well
lesson learned, the only reliable sauces are condiments
how about we stop this sub-thread here and just enjoy the news.
Everyone was pushing sources and trying to inform others on TKP. If we persecute everyone that gets things wrong then nobody will offer anything up. If he said anything disparaging then go back and downvote those posts.
Keep it classy TKP.
edited in the interests of community self-moderation
You couldn't have just taken Fernely's advice?< 2 minutes between the comments, it didn't show til after I replied. I edited it out.
would be great if you stopped too bud.
everyone is editing comments out. let it go. enjoy the news
Edited - stopping this sub-thread here and just enjoying the news
legs to everyone editing out their comments
IMO, we are all so over invested in supporting this team that we check this, and likely other, fansite many times a day. We are looking for information. Any information. So much so that we'll talk about mayonnaise for 100+ comments in effort to bide the time until new info comes. Hell, we even entertain a suspicious guy that hates cheese. HATES CHEESE!?
The point being, we are all seeking some insider take that we ourselves don't have. Sometimes that knowledge is gonna be wrong. Sometimes a hottake is gonna miss the mark. But unless someone is outright insulting and disparaging we need to take things at face value, which is exactly what my own comment is: an anonymous post on the internet. In no way should any unverified comment here ever form your opinion 100%.
Appreciate people offering their sauces, right or wrong. Make fun of them if they're wrong. Leg them if they're right.
Best Hot Take on TKP all offseason.
I agree, mostly.
But sometimes people are a bit anxious to report unverified information. It's better to be right than right now on negative rumors.
The media gets this, which is why they were slower to report this than the coconut telegraph.
Or don't!
Don't care what you're stance on Jackson at starting qb is, this only strengthens the team. Even IF he doesn't end up starting (doubt it) Fuente needs the depth.
It says a lot about how badly we need him when we all lose our shit when faced with the possibility of not having him.
Edit: Lol this gets downvoted? Guess I offended one of the guys who lost his shit.
The actual original post got downvotes. So someone is pissed off about this news.
Well downvote this: We've beaten you sad losers 14 years in a row.
Spot on. Jackson, when he wasn't beaten to shit last year, was pretty good for a freshman. A year of experience under him, health, the weight room and more experienced young receivers, he is set for an improvement. If he ends up getting beaten out for the job(unlikely), that is only a statement to the guy who beats him out. Having him available is huge news.
Some of you better get to work on your hand written apologies.
Sadly, based on about a handful of responses to Bitter's tweet, I see people doubling down instead of apologizing. I hope every last one of them eats crow this season and J.J. leads us to an ACC title.
Like the guy saying even the appearance of a negative headline should mean JJ should get kicked off the team! Jesus these people.
And the guy saying "Well there goes our season" and the one saying Bitter's sauce is his bookie. And everyone who is acting like this was swept under the rug on Teel's Twitter account.
Hmm... seems like the support staff was doing their job.
This is news that the O-line can block for!
Glad he didn't mess up his college career.
Also thank god we were all just kidding in that other thread.
I wasn't. Mayonnaise is gross.
You've learned NOTHING from this.
This gif made me lmao because of it's MANY applications. Thanks.
So, I am going to hedge my bets here.
1) I can say that having an experienced starting quarterback on the roster can only be a good thing.
2) I can say that if Justin Fuente truly was trying to drive a culture change, and whatever Jackson was accused of doing runs counter to that ethos or the program somehow managed to gain him preferential treatment (and I note that I have no clue what he was accused of, how serious it was, or if the program brought pressure to bear to keep him eligible), that is potentially destructive long term.
Honestly, I have no insight to what is really happening with this situation, and so I don't know which of those two options to side. However, I could defend anyone arguing either point of view. My feeling is that whoever walks on to the field, that is who I will assess. If they aren't contributing to the team, their off the field decisions are decisions (and consequences) that they have to deal with, not me. So, I am going to leave it alone.
On point #2 - this was a university decision, not athletic dept or Fuente. While we will never know what truly happened, Fuente surely does and I would expect him to handle as he sees fit. Whether that means playing time or some other consequence, we won't know until the FSU game, since Fuente is super secretive about most things the public doesn't get to see.
I can't see Fuente handing out a suspension or something to a kid who was cleared by the university. This really seemed like an all-or-nothing situation that happily appears to have landed in the "nothing" category. Fingers crossed this is the end of it.
I actually would have mad respect for Fuente if he did suspend JJ for a game, but I'm not going to be upset or judgmental if he doesn't.
With no more details than I have, I can't get on board with that.
Seems to me the torture and uncertainty over the past two weeks had to have taught any lesson that needed to be taught.
Or it taught no lesson at all and suspension wouldn't make a difference either. Not to pile on AA or Branden Ore, but both are good examples of "the lesson wasn't learned".
that mess was his own doing, not a punishment from Fuente. Any "torture" felt by it was by his own hand. A one game suspension would be character building.
This assumes he did anything wrong. He could be completely innocent. I think when Fred Jackson confirmed that there was an investigation, we all assumed JJ had done something wrong.
But maybe his dad knew Josh had been accused and we took it and ran with it. Maybe he didn't adamantly defend his son because his son is an adult and he wanted to let him handle it on his own. JJ was probably told not to make a public comment, and Fred might've thought, "how would it look if his former-coach father made a statement and fought his battles for him?"
I'm not assuming anything. He very well could have done nothing wrong, but whatever happened to set off these weeks of "torture" wasn't done by Fuente it was ultimately done by JJ whether outright, by association or could be by simple carelessness. IF he did in fact do something wrong I think Fuente handing out some punishment would be a good thing.
Then what would be the point of a one-game suspension?
Do you know exactly what happened?
Because I don't.
If the last two weeks didn't teach him anything, handing out a one game suspension wouldn't really be "character building", it would me more of a public relations move.
And most of this assumes that he did something wrong. Generally, if the process acquits you, you're acquitted.
that's correct. neither of us know. therefore we can both have an opinion, and those opinons may differ.
acquitted? this isn't a court of law. And as per the article it says the situation has been "resolved" per a source. Nothing official has been stated, or may ever be stated. so chillax dude. you have your opinion, I have mine.
I'm sorry. I was responding to this:
I was pointing out that it's making an assumption.
If you're going to predicate it on "If he did something wrong", then we don't need to get it down to the "what the meaning of if is"
My whole point was that we can't get on board with punishment because we don't know the details.
Yeah there's no arguing that this is an assumption.
I'll argue it, as per my statement below. You can disagree but I typically find people are responsible for their own actions.
You're saying JJ's own actions brought this investigation. But is that based on fact, or are you assuming he did something wrong? If you know something I don't, please share. Otherwise it is, by definition, an assumption.
so you believe someone else was suspected of cheating and that caused a review of JJ's actions?
Since when do we punish people we suspect did something?
That's why we have processes in place.
We have a presumption of innocence, not a presumption of guilt. You're thinking of the Italian legal system, where if the judge thinks you did something, they punish you.
I'm thinking of no legal system actually. Because this was not a court of law.
read more. never said this.
As I said above, whatever happened to cause this time for him is ultimately his responsibility. You can agree with that yes? No matter the circumstance he ultimately made the choice to put himself in a situation that caused this review to happen. So it was by his own doing.
I do think that a one game suspension would be character building. That statement would seem to suggest that would only be in the case that he had in fact done something wrong, because I think I am fairly level headed enough to not ask to punish players that have done nothing wrong. I didn't feel it would be necessary to make that distinction as it seemed obvious to me.
I find it ironic that the voice of reason who initially suggested we just enjoy the good news is now advocating for a one game suspension for "character building" based on the assumption that Jackson did something wrong.
not sure if you are just not reading my comments, or just don't understand them.
I will try to politely make them more clear.
I have never in my history on TKP ever advocated for punishing a player that has done nothing wrong. So my statement about a punishment is predicated on the scenario that something wrong HAD in fact been done. I felt that line of thinking, and still do, is completely logical and so I didn't feel the need to make the distinction by adding an "IF".
But if the missing "IF" in my original statement is what is causing you problems then I do apologize.
I understand your comments. What I don't understand is how you think saying things like "this mess is his own doing" based on nothing but speculation is not making an assumption.
IF he did anything wrong, yes, this mess is his own doing. But to say you haven't assumed anything is objectively wrong.
I'm not sure how you think these types of reviews get started. Generally, the one suspected of doing something is involved in the reason the review is made. Therefore I don't think it is out of bounds to suggest that JJ is ultimately responsible for his own actions and decisions that led him to this situation whereby there was an inquiry. that is a separate instance than the ultimate decision/findings of the inquiry which none of us know.
So that's not speculation or making assumptions. It's just logically how these things come about.
I responded to French for the same kind of thought process below, but is it not just as viable an assumption that he got cleared so quickly because he was the wrong person accused or someone accused him falsely? Therefore nothing he did started the inquiry and he did nothing wrong. It's obviously a huge homer take, but it wouldn't be the first time.
(responded to your comment to French)
Sounds like you're making the assumption that everyone who gets accused is guilty.
So ultimately, no matter how the process works out, they should be punished, because it's their fault they were accused.
never said anything near this. read again.
And I never said this either. read my comment above where I politely apologized for not adding the distinctive "IF" in my original comment, whilst explaining the logical unnecessary addition of it.
not sure if your purposely trying to be obtuse about this but I have made myself clear several times. I'm sorry you can't understand it but seems pointless to respond to you further.
I think the entire thread stands on it's own, as written.
You're right, nothing needs to be added to it.
This will be the last comment I make on this. I'm not arguing that he didn't do anything wrong at all. All I'm saying is that your statements, which lack any concrete proof, are making an assumption. You just admitted it in so many words by explaining this is how these things "generally" work. The fact of the matter is neither one of us know what happened. Therefore everything at this point is speculation/an assumption. People get wrongly accused of things all the time. It's not insane to think there's a possibility he was accused of something he didn't do.
I'm not even saying there's anything wrong with speculating or assuming. But, unless you have proof (which you don't), it's all speculation.
I appreciate your comments.
While at VT I had experience with all of the various review boards. I worked for the university and was "lucky" to be in that position. As I posted below, to my knowledge, it would be very difficult to cause an inquiry to open by simply accusing another student of cheating. The accuser would need substantial proof of some wrong doing, real or fabricated, for that to happen. If anyone has knowledge counter to that I would welcome their experienced comments.
all of our comments, including yours, lack concrete proof. So sure, everybody here making a comment is assuming something. So you are right about that. Is that what you want me to say?
correct. So again, as per my original comment regarding a suspension by Fuente it is predicated on the scenario that something wrong had been done.
Every comment here is. Yours, mine, French's, everyone's. Is that your point? Would editing my original comment to say "Speculating that he had done something wrong a one game suspension would be warranted" be more appealing to you? You just said "unless there is proof it's all speculation" so clearly my comment is based on speculation as is everyone else's including yours.
Yes lol I first used the word "assumes" like 30 comments ago and you said you never assumed anything. That was the disconnect. My whole point was not that JJ had never done anything wrong, but that in the absence of facts, we are all assuming almost everything about this situation.
But seriously this is my last comment debating the definition of assumption. Thank god for the 'collapse thread' feature I guess.
No worries. I understand your point. Everything is assumed so I must also have assumed. I'll roll with it. leg for the convo
A one game suspension would be the exact opposite of the correct thing to do here. It would imply that he did something wrong, got away with it, but we are admitting he did something wrong and should get some sort of punishment even if it is a half measure. Either he did it and deserves full punishment or he didn't and deserves nothing. There's no half guilt or half measures and it makes it look like Tech has something to hide, and he got preferential treatment by getting a half punishment
Oh... Fuente could definitely still be handing out a suspension. I AM ONLY SPECULATING HERE... but it could be a case that the university is letting him off, knowing that Fuente is going to deal out some punishment.
Kind of like when I was in the principal's office in Jr High, and after he spoke with my dad, he decided not to punish me because he knew my dad was going to make my life pretty miserable anyway.
I. Really. Hope. This. Is. Not. The. Case.
Yeah, I prefer to think they did their job to the best of their abilities, and that no further sanctions are necessary.
expert level
Yep. So I am going to rest easy, and hope that whoever starts each game at QB truly reflects the player who reflects the best path to achieving the goals of the program. And if they play awesome, I will say why they played awesome. And if they didn't, I will identify to the best of my ability where there is room for improvement.
But this off the field stuff just makes me feel icky.
To point 2, why even bring in the wild speculation about the health of the program and Fuente's culture change after the fact when you admit you have no insight. From the very beginning, all parties appeared to say that this would get cleared up and not be an issue. That doesn't sound like Fuente was bending over to get this hushed up or special treatment, rather that it was actually a non-issue.
We also have no insight to any internal dealings of how it will be handled, if at all, for potentially putting himself in a bad position even if innocent.
I completely agree with point 1 though.
because academic corruption in college football is rife. Right or wrong, it's a general perception, if not expectation that schools favor athletes. French calling it out is just a word of warning that perhaps we should not simply take news as given because you never know if you're playing with a decepticon or not.
Because, right or wrong, the media reported the academic issue. And in some cases, pre-maturely reported a possible suspension. These guys are reporting what they hear from trusted sources. So, imo, there was plenty of smoke on this one.
If it's resolved now with no issue and no explanation, then great for the team, but tbh, it looks like something we'd see from a shady SEC school.
Not nearly as much when you know that AA was kicked off, for academic issues. He's arguably a bigger loss, given that they knew that Webb is also out for the season, than losing JJ would be.
AA wasn't kicked off by the coaches for academic issues. He was ruled ineligible by NCAA standards. Big difference there.
Perhaps that I'm wrong, but I read the comments to imply that the AD/coaches or whomever in the athletics side of things, stepped in an covered up transgressions for JJ. If that's not what was meant, then I have no idea how to interpret the original comment.
From that perspective, if they had the power, they could have done similar to keep AA eligible.
I wasn't trying to imply any wrongdoing on the school's part. What I feel is the key point is that there's been no explanation so far. You can say that the media pre-maturely reported on this issue, but once the reports are out there, the cat's out of the bag. To simply say "it's resolved" is going to lead to a perception that it's being swept under the rug. I'd rather hear that he was accused of x and found innocent...or he was accused of y, found guilt, but it's minor and not worthy of punishment...or something. No information leads to speculation and speculation leads to a bad look for VT.
I may have read too much into the "looks SECesque" reference.
They can't comment on the situation or release information because of Federal Law. The only way anything about it comes out is if JJ shares it.
In other words, talking about it would be a violation of federal law.
It would be nice if the program could clear the air on this one, but obviously this is a good rule, so I guess we'll have to live with the uncertainty. So far, in every bit of information that I have consumed about our program over the past few years, Fuente and Babcock have shown themselves to be class acts. I think until there is evidence to the contrary, its safe to assume that they approached this situation with the same high standards.
But to throw out speculation or any insinuation that Fuente is or could be covering for him over media reports of academic misconduct, without any idea of what the situation was is just as bad as those who speculated over the character of players from stories that have made their way around message boards.
For any of us with 0 insight to the program or situations to start talking about serious issues that "could be happening" in the program just seems reckless.
Hmm, seems that you had the same read on the comment that I did. Now I'm not sure what you were getting at, in responding to my AA comment.
Just that the coaches had 0 control over AA's situation. His grades were too low and was ruled ineligible by NCAA standards. His situation would be very different than academic misconduct. (cheating, honor code, etc) The thought by others that Fuente could have swayed someone for Jackson couldn't be applied to AA. No ill intent in that comment, just pointing out the differences.
I actually have a sauce on this one. Says JJ is a smart kid and with a 3.4 grade average, and a pretty decent kid at that. That's all I've got.
And all you've got should be plenty enough for everyone.
Thanks for sharing.
I get your point, but in the context of his comments, it's kind of an 'elephant in the room'. Personally, I'd prefer that French make the statement, but I can certainly see the other side being valid too.
Because he did something to initiate the inquiry, which is troubling from a program culture perspective. Rightly or wrongly, quarterback is the public face of the program, so the level of scrutiny and the impact of perception is greater. Internally, the quarterback has to be the leader and coach on the field. If he hasn't comported himself as a leader (again, we don't know but there was enough for an inquiry) that is worrisome.
My post was merely to state that, outside of the Maury Povich speculation on what he did (which I really dislike) the two primary reactions by fans to both the announcement of the academic status issue and the result are both defensible.
This is obviously the case for the vast majority. But because we do not know any details, could it not simply be the cause of wrong person accused? Therefore he wouldn't have done anything wrong and nothing he did started the inquiry. And yes, that's a very orange and maroon tinted view, but its just a viable assumption as anything else.
EDIT: this is not to single you out as I think most would make this assumption, but I think there could just be a misunderstanding around the whole thing.
(upvoted to offset the downvote)
Unless I am mistaken, which I could be, an accusation can not set off a academic review like this without substantial evidence that there was cheating.
That's fair, and I do not understand the rules fully. However, I still think if enough evidence is there to get to review but not enough to "convict" with everyone knowing the horror stories of that process... it could just be a big misunderstanding and he could have just been the wrong guy in the wrong seat.
sure. look, without knowing the actual circumstances ANYTHING could have happened, but it would be quite difficult to spawn an inquiry like this without real evidence. Guitarman would be able to attest to this more, but my understanding is that professors typically try to make sure there is a clear, warranted reason to send things for a review of this nature. So mistaken identity would be an uncommon occurrence at the review board I would imagine. Can't rule it out 100% though so you could be right on the money.
I just hope that whatever led to a resolution on this doesn't bite the program in the ass in the future.
You said this way better than I did. Thank you.
Something to keep in mind: after the abysmal '03 season, 3 Hokie starters got in legal trouble leading to 2 of them being suspended for the entire '04 season & one of them for the 1st half of the '04 season. That former Hokie's name, Mike Imoh. When he came back in, he lit shit up for the team in games against UNCheat & MD. JJ wasn't in legal trouble & he's a preseason All-ACC pick. If he does what Imoh did in a similar fashion (at the QB position of course), that will only be beneficial for everybody.
We're on a good news streak here...anyone who thought JJ not being on the team was a good thing is stupid regardless of what you think of his ceiling as a player. Hopefully he has a nice big chip on his shoulder this season. BOOM!
ok, i will celebrate by getting Popeye's chicken with some hot sauce
this is GREAT news!!!
I'm very happy to hear this. I'd rather have JJ under center over any of our other QBs. You can't overestimate the importance of a year of playing time and all the chemistry that comes with that. That said, next offseason, I'm all in on #TeamHooker (me and Pitino badumtsssss!)
Let's just focus on FSU from now on
and make fun of their previous quarterback issues
So is it the time of the year where we constantly over post "1-0"?
I believe we're 0-0.
for the record.... Winston's favorite condiment is melted butter
Hatin' on Winston:
Winston likes his melted butter without garlic
Bad look for Tech since the twittersphere already deemed him guilty...Tech should of just expelled him once twitter handed down their swift and informed ruling on the situation
/sss
Bunch of people around here are going to be like:
Looks like the support staff got it done. Good.
If this is true, I'm happy for him and the team, but this site dragged the kid hard over academics when the news broke. Not the best look for us, to be honest.
...and dragged the support staff...not the best look for us.
If that makes you sleep better at night after dragging the character of a kid on the internet, have at it.
Maybe we can afford to hire an additional support staff member now that we can cancel the internal audit.
You're one to talk
(meant to reply to above)
Hey yall. Busy morning at work fo sho. What did i miss?
In the parking lot today there was a circus! The copier did tricks on the high-wire... a lady tried to give away a baby that looked like a cat... there was a Dwight impersonator and a Jim impersonator... a strongman crushed a turtle... I laughed and I cried. Not bad for a day in the life of a dog food company.
haha I actually looked for this gif and couldn't find it. Nice pull.
We are definitely better off with JJ than without him. Beyond that, there's not much I'm certain of with this whole thing.
Part of the problem is that we were left to marinate in internet rumors for a couple of weeks.
Turns out all it that was required were a few mayonnaise gifs.
Bitter tweeted that there's no apparent threat of suspension over the incident.
Tweet
FSU, here we come!
Just don't read the replies...
I know i didn't.
Why is it that when someone tells me NOT to do it, I do?
Those comments...