Tennessee recruit has rape conviction at age of 13

Tennessee's Lane Kiffin recently signed a recruit who, at the age of 13 ,was convicted of raping his 14-year-old cousin. Not accused, convicted. Con-vic-ted. The details of the story are grisly. Very grisly. They'll pretty much make your stomach turn.

There's a lot to be said for rehabilitation and a person turning a life around. AA, for instance, helps people accomplish that every single day, and it does great work. So what is the line drawn between second chances and just saying no to giving a kid a scholarship because he can help a football team?

"If (kids) make a mistake, (the system) is set up to rehabilitate them, not punish them," the recruit's father said. "There's a lot of difference between the juvenile and adult system. … Anyone who is successful, especially if they've had something (negative) in their life, are able to turn it around and grow from that. There's a few dissenters out there, they want to see people fail. They don't want to see people do good. But he's paid his dues, he's done everything he's been asked to do."

But where does winning take precedence over principles?

Playing football at an institution of higher education is not a right, it's a privilege. This is something Roger Goodell has effectively instilled in the NFL. Shouldn't at least the same thought process apply to college? Is it that complicated to say: A rape conviction as a juvenile eliminates a recruit from receiving a scholarship.

A few years back, a player on an NFL team was arrested for assaulting his girlfriend. Innocent until proven guilty applied, but the story was ugly, what with little children watching this woman being hit. Turns out the player had done the same thing a year earlier, and the team had gotten him counseling. And he'd been arrested in the past. No suspensions. Nothing. He was just ushered along in the football system. One civic leader asked: "What would have happened if he had hit men?"

Me, if I'm running a University and somebody wants to give a scholarship to an individual convicted of raping a 14-year-old when he was 13 … well … the discussion is short.

And it ends with a brief word: No.

Nobody can stop this young man from walking on.  But I'm sure not having the state pay for him to go to college sends the correct signals. If he wants a scholarship he can seek it somewhere else. The University I run would try to compete with some semblance of pride and standards that do not include that kind of conviction.

It'd be nice to think that scholarship could go to  a kid who needs the money whose goal is to finish college so he can get a job and help his family and be a productive member of society, not to so a kid who wants to attend college so he can play a sport.

It'd be nice.

But it's not realistic.

Not with scholarships and free rides and athletic dorms and athletic training tables going to a kid with that record.

Good old Rocky Top.