Marcus Vick was removed from his college team this week for his team-embarassing conduct at the Gator Bowl.  Since his removal, he has now been accused of brandishing a firearm.  Some NFL teams may gamble on Vick's talent and draft him - others will avoid him like he has the bird flu.

The quiet man in this drama has been the NCAA.  Certainly there are rules and regulations on how college teams handle students who are accused of crimes, however, there does not seem to be a uniform precedent on how to do that.  Each institution (and coach) should have the opportunity to decide whether to bench or remove a player.  The injustice comes when the institutions dole out unequal penalites.

For example, at Iowa State University a few years ago, two football players were accused of sexually assaulting a girl.  One was completely acquited at trial, and the charges were dismissed against the other.  Neither one was convicted of any crimes in relation to the incident.  Both were appropriately removed from the team while the charges were pursued.  Neither was reinstated to the team after they were exonerated.  Coach Dan McCarney offered to help them find new teams to play for, but would not accept either player back on the team despite a jury of their peers finding them not guilty of the charges.

Fast forward to approximately a year ago, Jason Berryman, another Iowa State football player, was accused of robbing another student.  He pled guilty to one felony and one misdemeanor.   Berryman had previously been convicted of misdemeanors, so the judge ordered him to serve approximately 1 year in the county jail.  Berryman was removed from the team at the time, but after he had served his sentence, he was allowed to practice with the team, and eventually earned his spot back on the roster.  He has had a rather successful year.

Two very different outcomes - innocent people removed from the team while an admitted thief allowed back on.  Apparently the standard for ISU football is a conviction is better than being found innocent.

Naturally, this is an absurd standard.  The reality is that the coach believes that Berryman is a better player than the other gentlemen were.  However, he would not say that.  It was easier to try to justify it in other ways, but deep down, that looks to be the only real justification for  this reasoning.

I doubt ISU is alone in pursuing this "standard".  Similar injustices are doled out around the college scene.  If you are a good player,  break the law - there are no consequences (or they will be minimal).  If you are a mediocre player, break the law at your own peril - the team doesn't have your back.

The NCAA apparently has no say in how these situations are handled or they have a rule that means nothing.  Misdemeanors are one thing.  Felonies are another.  Yes, people should be given second chances, but there needs to be a uniform standard as to what a second chance is.

If Berryman (or any other player ) paid his debt to society, let him play.  But don't make a player pay a debt that society judged he didn't owe.