Jonas Mouton Suspended For Eastern

This guy has it nailed.

I don't like the precedent this sets at all.

As for the changes this means for tomorrow, at least this is one of our (hopefully) easier games.

Plus, I feel it undermines institutional discipline to have the conference making a power move like this. This decision should be up to the coach and the program. Maybe they should retroactively award us 100 holding penalties as well...

Also, can the Big Ten suspend players on Notre Dame?

I'm totally with you Stevie. From the moment I saw that video I thought RR should have sat him against Eastern. I know that game got chippy, and he was hardly alone, but RR's inaction is partly responsible for the Big Ten taking action. Now we are without Mouton for a game anyway, and we look like undisciplined goons.

I wouldn't say it's a huge strike, but I'm going to remember this if RR gets accused of discipline problems related to how his players act on the field.

Part of this transition, some have said, is that Michigan is in some ways becoming 'Da U'. There are some things about those teams, however, that will never be appropriate in college football. Guys can get aggressive within the context of the game, but extracurriculars draw penalties and scorn. The only upside could possibly being known as a tough team, but you can't get away with enough of this crap to establish that -- and if you do get known for it, the damage it will do in recruiting and in penalties and in unhappy alums cannot possibly offset the small rep effect.

That said, why is the Big Ten all of a sudden interested in coming down now? They've ignored so much of this crap forever, and now all of a sudden they're doling out punishments to individual players? As much as RR looks stupid for not handling it in-house (which would in the end have cost us nothing), the Big Ten looks even dumber for changing how they operate because Notre Dame's coach complains after the game.

Whom do we call about their guys head-hunting, or the shots to our guys? The NCAA?

once the Freep but a big flashing red arrow pointing to Mouton and then followed it up with a super slo-mo replay of the uppercut. Once that kind of stuff happens, the decision is out of RichRod's hands....he has to do something.

I love the guy but he is only hurting himself and giving his enemies more ammunition.

+1, he needs to be smarter about perceptions and step up his 'political' game.

So, every time the media creates a shit storm out of some meaningless incident, Rich Rod should do what they say because he's scared of bad PR?

What kind of pusspot with no integrity or values do you want for a coach? Man, oh man.

It's embarrassing that the B10 stepped in.... yeah, because it reveals the degree to which they are the media's puppets.

1) Exactly. ND is good for the BT and the BT knows it. It can't afford to lose ND in the schedules. This suspension was a small consolation for Charlie's adamant complaining about the refs.

[edit: coach Beilein imposed the suspension] they nailed Zack Novak with the same deal [10.01.1.A.1] http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/013009aaa.html

I guess it ain't over till the fat man sings

So leading with your head and hitting your opponent about the helmet (read: personal foul) shouldn't be a suspendable offense? The NFL fines and suspends people for this all the time and the Big Ten has stated they will start suspending people for this offense, whether it's flagged on the field or not.

http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2009/08/jay-valai-might-have-to-slow-down-...

Justifying Mouton's actions as not being suspendable because it's equal to the Reynolds suspension is bogus as well.

Fact of the matter is, it's a suspendable offense and it would have looked a lot better on Rich to have done it himself; hell, it's only EMU coming down the street anyway.

IMO, if RR came out right away and suspended Mouton when there was no real precedent for something like that, it would only help to support the perception that RR is not a players coach.

There is certainly precedent for a coach suspending a player punching an opponent. Also where do you get the idea that players will dislike it if their coach punishes a teammate when he punches an opponent? On any team I've ever been on my team would probably think the player got what he had coming. And seriously, tell me what recruit is going to look at this and say, "well maybe Rodriguez overworks his players, but he definitely lets them punch their opponents w/out reprisal. I guess he might be someone I'd like to play for after all." Do we even want this recruit on our team?

Who would we rather have not like RR, the media (like Jim Rome) or the players? I know what my answer is.

This is a false choice. What's with the assumption that either one or the other is destined to dislike us? I guess because what you said was popular (I don't understand how), I should brace for negbang.

I think for anyone who has watched RR since he got to Ann Arbor, the notion that he's not a players coach is simply ridiculous. I can't imagine any recruit really caring whether or not players get suspended for punching other guys during a game. They have all played high school ball, and know what's tolerated in football and what isn't. There's nothing that Mouton did with that hit that helps the team. If RR sits him for Eastern, the punishment is minimal, and recruits never hear about it.

The Freep article wasn't about him being bad to his players, but about catching Michigan in violations. That was the entire interest. Even before the tearful address, public perception never really imagined RR as a player-hater -- the outcries came from journalists trying to protect one of their one, and known RR haters who wanted to nail the sonofabitch, and Spartan fans who can't name more than two players on their own team because of their obsession with Michigan schadenfreude. That was it. Anyone with any football knowledge thought it was a joke to begin with, and a witch hunt after a few days.

RR doesn't need to prove himself a "player's coach" anymore than Lloyd has to prove himself a good man or Reagan a good public speaker. This is known.

He does need to prove to the crotchety old Michigan fan base that his football team will keep at least a semblance of the impeccable program that we have so haughtily lauded for so long.

I wouldn't read too much into there being "no precedent" for this kind of thing. How long has it been now that most fans can get high-resolution video for free of entire games? This has got to be the first season that any old Joe can get that stuff this easily. So now we are going to notice more, because more people have access to video after the game, and can share it quicker. We're in uncharted territory -- of course there's going to be some new precedents set!

I'm sick of it. It's like he also kicks puppies and pushes old ladies into puddles on his way to the big house on saturdays.

My god. This frankly wouldn't have happened before the level of obsession that the internet now allows fans. I'm sure a billion nd nation idiots sent the tape to the B10 and Weiss probably did to after getting emails about it.

You have all these people, who don't know shit about running a BCS contending football team, and in general have no idea how dirty of a game football can be pontificating from on high about how dirty RR is.

I'm mad as hell. I hope we wipe the floor with EMU and then do the same with all the rest of the schedule. I am taking a bunker mentality at this point.

Rather, it's evidence of the First Axiom of Self-Preservation, observed by nearly all bureaucrats at nearly every level:
Whatever else you may do, first and foremost try to make yourself look relevant and good.

The fact Tressel was able to sit Reynolds for only one game when he criminally attacked someone was ludacris. This pales in comparison, I agree there should be a punishment but the Big Ten has no business butting in, that's Rich Rod's job. He should handle it his own way.

Fitz, Leach and Smith will all play per RR on mgoblue site.

No it's not.
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/football/index.ssf/2008/09/michigan_note...

It's not a big deal, but if people find this irksome because it's unprecedented they are right.

the prevalence of torrents and an easy target?

The point is not whether he is punished or not, but who does the punishing and why.

The B10 comes down 1 day before the next game, after whining by Weis. What does this mean? Maybe the B10 refs missed other plays and was "biased" against ND, like Weis' other accusations. Moreover, what precedent does the B10 have in suspending players for non-calls on the field? Who decided 1 game? Why? Why was this brought out on a Twitter account?

This makes the B10 look much worse than Michigan.

They could have privately asked RR to sit Mouton for 1 game.