Will Muschamp and the Gamecocks missed out on a big transfer this week, as it was reported Thursday night that former Florida defensive back J.C. Jackson would not be enrolling at South Carolina. Jackson was a member of Muschamp's 2014 recruiting class in Gainesville, and he was strongly considering reuniting with his former coach, but he will not come to Columbia because of "a ruling that's beyond South Carolina's control."
There has been no explanation as to what that actually means or even who made the ruling, but we can get a pretty good idea. This spring, the SEC bolstered its policy against allowing transfers who have been disciplined for misconduct such as domestic violence, sexual assault and other "serious misconduct." We can imagine that Jackson falls into the other category, as he was tried in November on armed robbery stemming from his April arrest.
This policy certainly makes sense, particularly after the mess at Baylor, where details of Sam Ukwuachu's history of domestic violence at Boise State have been made public. As most college football fans know, Ukwuachu sexually assaulted another student soon after coming to Waco, which is one of the incidents that lead to the firing of head football coach Art Briles. The SEC wants to avoid having players such as Ukwuachu come into the conference.
There is no denying that Jackson was present at the robbery in April, but his actions were limited to knocking on the door and making a fake phone call while other men carried out the robbery. He had nothing to do with the gun, or the actual seizing of property, though it's easy to assume he knew what was going on and he did assist in some form.
In the aforementioned November trial, Jackson was found not guilty on all counts, as the other men involved did not say anything to incriminate the former four-star recruit, and there was no forensic evidence on the firearm.
This may not be the most popular argument, but oh well. In the eyes of the law, J.C. Jackson is an innocent man. However, I completely understand Florida not wanting a player who faced armed robbery charges on their roster, particularly with the reputation of off-field issues for the Gators. That's up to coach Jim McElwain and athletic director Jeremy Foley, and if they would like to disassociate themselves from Jackson, that is their decision, and a respectable one.
Believe what you want, but Jackson stood trial in a court of law and was found innocent. If there is a team willing to take on his character issues, the NCAA (or specifically the SEC in this case) shouldn't be at liberty to stop that team from doing so. Jackson has not been convicted of a crime, and if he is innocent in the eyes of the law, why does the SEC get to tell him that he's guilty?
Let me clarify something. This opinion might seem contradictory to the one that I expressed earlier this week when discussing the charges against Alabama's Cam Robinson and Hootie Jones that were dropped. The difference here is simple. In the case of Robinson and Jones, the district attorney dropped the charges and then publicly said that the work the two had put in on the football field compelled him to do so. On the other hand, a jury, using evidence to determine the truth, ruled that Jackson is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of committing a crime. See the difference?
I don't condone Jackson's actions, as he clearly played some role in the robbery. However, if a jury says he is not guilty, he is not guilty, regardless of what we think. When discussing Robinson and Jones, I never said that they should be removed from the football program or anything like that. I simply said that they should have to go through the legal process as a consequence of their actions, as Jackson did. Robinson and Jones get to play SEC football next year, but Jackson does not.
Plenty of Gamecock fans have taken to Twitter to voice their collective displeasure with this vague ruling, primarily citing one example in particular of the conference allowing a player to join an SEC team despite legal troubles. That player would be Jeffrey Simmons. I'd like to clear up some confusion, as the policy that is keeping Jackson out of Columbia is not written in a way that would affect Simmons, though it likely should be.
Simmons, a five-star defensive lineman, was allowed to enroll at Mississippi State, because this policy only applies to transfers, for whatever reason. For those who don't know, Simmons is facing assault charges after striking a woman repeatedly while she is on the ground (there's a video, and it's horrifying). This is after a fight breaks out between the woman and another woman, and the 6-foot-4, 277-pound Simmons stands idly by rather than breaking it up. When he finally does, he gets a few shots in as well. But hey, as the Bulldogs' athletic director said, “Five seconds of a really poor choice shouldn’t preclude an individual from going to school.” Sure, because assaulting a woman doesn't mean someone's privilege of receiving an athletic scholarship should be taken away.
Just for the record, the decision to allow Simmons to enroll came 24 hours after the conference decided to crack down on the misconduct policy for transfers. Why is an incoming freshman able to play SEC football after committing an assault that is documented on video, but a transfer can't because he was tried for a crime and eventually acquitted?
If the SEC is going to pick and choose which players can be in the league, it's hard to justify blocking Jackson out but letting in Simmons. A jury decided that J.C. Jackson is not guilty, but a video shows that Jeffery Simmons is. You tell me if the league is cracking down on the right people.