... by telling them they are on a "short leash" for the remainder of the summer.
Sorry, but this sounds to me like something Touchdown Charlie would have said.
... by telling them they are on a "short leash" for the remainder of the summer.
Sorry, but this sounds to me like something Touchdown Charlie would have said.
If it is not a big deal, he should have said so. Or said nothing. But to say he told them they were on a short leash like that is supposed to mean something?
Of course, because it is BK (media darling right now) and ND, no one will call him out on it. Can you imagine if RR said this about a group of arrested players? FWIW, the summer has about 5 weeks left.
but it will get play all over the media. A new sheriff in town. Brian Kelly means business! Kelly is a salesman and a politician, he knows exactly what he is doing. One of these kids will take a false step and get tossed and tough guy Kelly's legend will grow.
That is exactly what this reminds me of, when politicians react to some crisis or respond to some issue and claim that something will be done but everyone (including the politicians themselves) know these are meaningless statements and nothing will be done as always.
if the kid can contribute to the team. In which case he will get a very stern talking to.
BK is already being credited with turning around CW's apparently subpar recruiting:
"Coach Kelly and the entire Notre Dame staff has been very aggressive in recruiting," said Mike Frank, the publisher of IrishSportsDaily.com. "They are getting the offers quickly out the door. They are organized and they grind it and work very hard. This staff is much more aggressive than the previous one."
Its the truth. Kelly has gotten more offers out the door to quality players in a much shorter time span than it would have taken the previous staff. There were over 100 official offers by April from Kelly, Charlie's staff never put out more than 100 offers in an entire recruiting year.
As for the agressiveness of the staff, ND hasn't had an Oline class like this for 6-7 years at least. Thats both quantity and quality and was basically completed by the end of april, thats a whole 5 months after kelly accepted the job. If you need a more, read a few of DeVaris Daniels's interviews, he was a recruit for both staffs and he says the same things your quote does.
Weis was a pretty good recruiter. Regardless of how many offers he threw around, he landed a lot of big names.
yeah he definitely was, but as good as the staff was at recruiting they still had short comings, which cost them more than a few players
Don't bother Irish with minor details like that. BK gets his letters out faster so he must be better.
Weis' recruiting track record actually is a little more complex than most people assume it to be. He did have some great success getting guys like Clausen, Floyd, Te'o, Ethan Johnson, Rudolph, and the other guys we know about. He also had some major misses and basically struck out at positions often.
His entire 2006 recruiting class was in large part a disappointment especially the defense. Between 2007-2009 he only recruited 3 corners and 7 DBs total. He missed on taking a QB in 2009 and we are a Dayne Crist injury away from this season being a disaster as a result. He underrecruited the defensive line and got burned a number of times with d-linemen switching their "commitments" (see Gerald McCoy, Justin Trattou, Omar Hunter, Chris Martin...). He missed out on DEs in the 2009 recruiting class forcing Kelly to take a guy with no other D-1 offers (Heggie) last year.
Overall he improved the quality of the program from a talent perspective (although that isn't saying much considering the mess Ty left him). However, his recruiting misses did hurt him in the end and are an obstacle for Kelly to overcome (especially DB recruiting).
What type of punishment would you expect for underage drinking? I am no fan of ND or Kelly to be sure, but this is just not a big issue.
It's a shame there isn't a South Bend Free Press to shit all over that school over some BS...
its called espn
Which employs Lou Holtz. Come on, you're smarter than that.
an umbrella in a hurricane
The sad thing about this post is that you appear actually to be serious. Vintage ND fan: so convinced that everyone should spend all their time worshipping them that a network that only spends 95% of it's ND-related time in worship is described as a "hurricane."
nope, don't need any worship, ND has enough band wagon fans as it is. Would like reporters/editors to be fair about what they write, no matter the circumstances. That always seems to be hard when it comes to ND whether its espn or some podunk town in Nevada.
most teams fans always think that the news is harder on them than others... We UM fans are no different.
not give it a blumpkin.
Wow...I'm sure the players guilty are shaking in the boots at the thought of being on a short leash.
Most of these players are not even going to play the first game anyway and it would have been a perfect chance to set the tone for BK's program by suspending them all for one game. I am glad he didn't. Looks like BK is not a tough disciplinarian and that is fine with me.
really? because about 12 mins ago you started a topic which the entire point seemed to be a running complaint about what did or didn't happen to the players.
Sorry if you misunderstood my original post. I wasn't complaining, I was mocking. I was mocking ND for, well, pretty standard ND stuff. In this case, for saying this is a serious matter and that it is being handled accordingly when, in fact, ND does not believe that and has not disciplined these guys at all. I have to say that I am looking forward to the BK era more with each passing day!
well I still disagree with your first points but the last one we agree on
I guess I don't understand why this is that big of an issue. Do you think Brian Kelly should have suspended them for a game? They were drinking alcohol. 99.9% of the adult population drank alcohol before they were 21.
The season can't get here soon enough.
No, he has handled it perfectly. If I were a ND supporter, I would feel so much better that BK came out and told the media that these athletes have been put on a short leash for the next month.
For starters, they weren't JUST drinking. They were drinking underage at a party that, so the police reports say, had gotten way out of control. I'm inclined to believe this if they felt it necessary to arrest all of them.
And regardless of whether or not 99.9% of people do it, its still illegal and its still not something that, as a coach, you want all your underclassmen doing. Why? Because they might do something stupid at a party and get themselves in either really deep trouble or seriously hurt, depending on how stupid they were.
I think its a farce that he didn't suspend them. Obviously there wasn't a realistic chance that they'd miss their date with us, but considering their first opponent is Purdue, I think a one-game would have been apporpriate. Then again, who knows. Even I have to admit I'm a bit scared of what Kelly is capable of, but he's also trying to do EXACTLY what we did in 2008. They might just need all the help they can get, even against a Purdue team that, last I recall, is replacing a lot of people this year.
Regardless of whether it was the right thing to do to arrest all the people at the party, it is classic doublespeak. ND is playing it both ways. BK said how disappointed he is with this sort of conduct and that it was not up to ND standards and suggests that they have taken action. But what action did they take? No, seriously, what? Please, someone tell me? Wtf is a short leash?
Are you just as concerned about what is happening to Stonum? Has RR even commented on that at all? ND is a private school you should feel privlieged Kelly said anything at all. He was at a fundraiser for his charity, what did you want a special on courtTV? a press conference denouncing these players as heathens?
you should feel privlieged Kelly said anything at all
Yikes man, that quote embodies everything Michigan fans (and the nation in general) hate about Notre Dame
I think Carr had Arrington sit out 5 plays when he was busted for this..then played him sparingly for the rest of 1 game. BK is doing the right think IMO. But as far as us being "privlieged" he said anything, thats just..dumb(sorry I dont have a better word for it) When positive things are reported are we "privlieged" to be able to read about them? If that's the way the school feels, maybe they should not be signing national tv deals with NBC.
yeah it was a poor choice of words
Stonum actually was suspended for his DUI. He missed the Illinois game last year. This latest incident is a matter of probation that we know very few of the details on, but either way that isn't as significant as the infraction that got him the probation in the first place. A suspension for the DUI was appropriate, just as stadium steps and a good old fashion chewing out is appropriate for this latest incident.
...you are setting a pretty high standard for punishment of more serious offenses. To my mind, this "short leash" is perfectly appropriate. We shouldn't get all worked into a froth just 'cause this is a rival.
Alcohol offenses previously removed the student from the school for an entire semester. I agree thats an inappropriate punishment.
I'll give you this Irish: Kelly says "short leash" but does not say he isn't disciplining them. (He must have done something.)
I am wondering if Montana and crew now know exactly how many steps are in the stadium at Notre Dame just (like Adrian Arrington or Brian Greise do for Michigan Stadium). Do they have their own little breakfast club?
I may be the only person out there, but I have always thought 21 is too old, and it causes young adults learning to live on their own to break laws rather than learn to responsibly follow them.
I am sure they have had their workouts with longo, the strength coach, modified for the remaining 2 weeks till 2-a-days start, and doubt it will be getting any easier from there.
Tsk, tsk ... disciplining players in the offseason through the use of extra workouts would be an NCAA violation.
They're not being disciplined for missing class, its an off the field, off campus violation of team rules. If thats a violation I am not aware of it.
You cannot exceed the mandatory practice time allowed per day in the off-season -- period. That includes disciplinary actions involving workouts. It has nothing to do with whether the discipline is for on or off the field issues. UofM was specifically held to have violated this stupid NCAA rule:
“It is alleged that from January 2008 through at least September 2009, the institution’s football program violated NCAA legislation governing playing and practice season when it ... required football student-athletes to participate in summer conditioning activities for disciplinary purposes, and exceeded time limits for countable athletically related activities during and outside of the playing season.”
of course they can't add workout time, but having them run suicides instead of just laps or replacing those runs with stadium steps instead will get the point across, and its well within the NCAA rules.
When Bo and Carr had guys running stadium bleachers at 6am as discipline it was not as a substitute for their regular workouts.
Yes, but it is the offseason. 6am workouts are violations in the offseason. Substitutes for regular workouts are not.
Suicides might be less pleasant than laps, but it is not exactly what most people think of when they hear a player has been disciplined. It is like going to the gym and having to do legs instead of arms. I hate working legs, but it is not exactly a punishment.
I think you are wrong there. First, lets say the coaches set aside 30min- 1 hour of running (I just picked that number out of the air, but indulge me). Most of the team spends that time running laps while the "disciplined" are running steps......in the Big House.....and you don't think that is discipline? Have you ever run steps before? I can tell you it is not like working legs instead of arms, that is a minor inconvenience, steps are definitely discipline.
My second point is, for getting caught underage drinking, I think that and a short leash are absolutely appropriate. You can't let them get away with it, but it is hardly worth a suspension if it is a first offense.
I guess I don't understand why this is that big of an issue.
NDs imposition of the dreaded "short leash" punishment pretty much ensures that no one on the ND football team does either.
ND lost a five star recruit because of underage drinking and this is how BK handles the situation.
Irish- Stonum was punished for the offense when it happened. Is there really a need for RR to speak publicly about him not following through on the requirements of his probation? I would think the steps at the Big House may be calling his name (if that is not a practice time violation). FWIW, I don't recall RR making a public statement after Grady's probation violation either.
those are the exact points I was eluding to. I agree with you, I don't think its necessary at all
there is no need for a comment on the probation violation. ND's case is totally different as this is the original infraction.
Alluding, you didn't actually go to ND, did you?
The situations with Stonum and Grady are not the same, but the fact is both were suspended and had to meet specific requirement to have their suspensions lifted. I am not saying what the ND players did deserved a suspension (and I am not saying it didn't), but I do not understand how you can throw around these as examples of Michigan handling similar situations poorly.
In contrast, BK came out and made a self-righteous statement about the current ND situation and specifically said that ND took it very "seriously". He then announced that he had put his players on a "short leash" for the remainder of the summer, presumably to make certain nothing like this ever happens again. He should have just kept quiet and said it was being taken care of internally.
Damn. I was hoping for some 2 game suspensions if you know what i mean...
Sort of makes Urban Meyer look like an iron fist. Even he at least gives out 1/2 game suspensions.
Hey what happened to Kevin Grady after he spent those 7 days in jail after violating his probation on a DUI last summer, he just kind of showed up ready to play on day one. Meyer just kicked a player for a DUI, well that and he had to find somewhere to put his new 5 star LB.
You're right, except there were a number of press reports about obligations Grady had to do to be able to show up on day one, including his dad saying he was getting them done.
Besides, the NCAA says you can't discipline these guys in the summer or breaking team rules nowadays ... (I'm guessing you can set "voluntary" activities.)
As stated in the last post discussing this, i think underage drinking itself is an awful awful law and i feel absolutly no shame if i break it ...
I also feel that at a public school or a non honor code school that players should literally only have to run stairs, wind sprints, etc. and that really is only for getting caught. Also, there is no reason the coach has to make these public
However, at honor code schools it is a different deal. Trust me, i realize that certain standards are different for athletes than the student body at all schools (see admisions requirments) and i am ok with that because they EXCEL in the area they are looking to have a job in. However, when it comes to student punishment, athletes should be treated just like another student and as posted above, nd is famous for being amazingly hard on kids for their first offense and this is well known and expected by all who apply there. Furthermore, if i decided to go to the umich-nd and get caught drinking underage, there is a real chance i get banned from the campus for life. I have no problem with how BK dealt with the situation, I do have a real problem with how Notre Dame's student punishment (whoever runs it) seems to be dealing with it.
How would it work to get 'banned from campus for life?' Does ND actually attempt to do such a thing? How would they enforce it? What would the punishment be for breaking such a ban? Seriously, I am actually curious.
As far as this supposed scandal, it is an early black eye for Kelly. Nothing else. I am not personally scandalized and don't care how the players are punished. I was interested to see how ND would handle it because they tend to go above and beyond for this type of thing. Maybe it's just the Parietals that they take uber seriously.
None of the 42 students arrested for underage drinking have been dismissed from school or faced anything more than the athletes who were arrested with them. And actually, athletes have received stronger penalties than the rest of the student body because a random non-scholarship student isn't in the public eye, but a ND athlete is. The tendency of reslife has been the exact opposite of what you're saying.
Went through an immense amount of work for the rest of offseason in order to get back onto the team in the first place. Furthermore, he was nothing more than a situational and backup RB for the rest of his career. That DUI cost him more than you know.
Which is really too bad. I don't think the kid quite deserved his fate, considering the effort he put forth and the highway robbery he got on that fumble a good 5 seconds after the play should have been blown dead.
(know somebody who is a UM athlete) that Grady went through HELL to be able to stay on the team. Workouts that nobody would want to do.
I had no doubt he received punishment from the coaching staff, and I had no doubt the UM staff took his probation violation seriously. It actually wasn't of any concern to me at all.
Only Detroit media would support trashing local teams. ND is just moving on and handling this internally .... probably more to the story but not for public viewing.
not unexpected. Not everybody's the perfect person in the world. I mean everyone kills people, attends house parties, drinks underage, murders people, steals from you, steals from me, whatever.
... if he were at UofM. First, he is clearly not all that bright. I am not trying to take a cheap shot at him or OSU, but TP is exactly the kind of person who would do something that violates NCAA rules (of which there are a million, including many that don't even seem to make sense) without realizing the significance of his actions. Second, he is very TP focused. I could easily see him taking money or signing with an agent a week before a bowl game because at heart he is more focused on TP than his school or even his teammates.
When he announced he was going to OSU, he called it the University of Ohio State for God's sake. He didn't grow up a die hard OSU fan and he has no heartfelt loyalty to OSU. This is just a business transaction to him on his way to bigger and better things (a la Lebron in some ways).
I agree. We may have experienced more pain the past two years, but I think TP choosing OSU was a blessing in diguise.
Isn't herpes the gift that keeps on giving?
Honestly, I'd be disappointed if he really hammered them. I don't feel like underage drinking is a serious issue. It's not like they were driving around campus on a moped or stormed a frat house.
... is, in a way, what got them into trouble in the first place!
I think Kelly will handle this "in house," and it's the right decision. It's college; kids drink. Also, IIRC, this was in a house, which was a semi-controlled environment. If they were a menace to fellow students, committing violent acts in public, I would want to see more done to them. But, from all accounts, this was a "crime" that had no victims and really didn't need police involvement.
Do these kids deserve to run a lot of stadium steps until their teammates and coaches are satisfied that they understand the realities of being a student-athlete under a microscope? Yes. Do they deserve further punishment? Not in my book.
I want to see them all present, accounted for, and ready to take a severe thrashing against Michigan. That should be "punishment" enough.
BK should have said just that, i.e. that it was being handled within the program or the AD. He didn't. He said he was very disappointed and had placed the kids on the double secret short leash as if that means something. Lou Holtz would never say that. JoePa or Bo wouldn't either. Bobby Knight? It's silly.
...that advertisement made me lose my concentration. Carry on.
You did read the article right?
Irish is just trying to accumulate points by posting alot under 1 topic.
A comedian, (it may have been Robin Williams, IIRC) once did a bit about the bobbies in London, who don't carry fire arms. "What are they going to do? Say, 'Stop! Or I'll say stop again!'"
This one thing is not going to make or break BK, but the effect is subtle. What do the other players think, the ones who have not gotten themselves into trouble and embarrassed the school? And what do the ones that got arrested think? I bet they all were snickering together afterwards in one of their dorm rooms because even they know it's a joke.
Edit: You know who would say something like this? Dantonio.
College kids? Drinking? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell ya!
This just baffles me. It wasn't just college kids drinking. 11 kids were arrested. Do you know the shitstorm RichRod would have had to endure if 11 football players were arrested at the same time and he came out and said "I told them they were wrong, what more do you want?" Underage drinking happens all the time on college campuses, but I went to U of M for 4 years and I didn't attend a single party where 43 people were arrested. I don't care if the Police were ridiculously harsh with these kids, we have to stop acting like 43 kids getting arrested is an everyday occurance, especially at a school like Notre Dame. If Notre Dame and their fans are going to act like their shit don't stink, they better not have a large chunk of football players get arrested and then say "the punishment is the same as if they show up late to church." Fuck Notre Dame.
So you're fine with people underage drinking, but if several of them get caught and arrested, then you have a problem? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Don't put words in my mouth. I am not "fine" with underage drinking. I was stating a fact - that underage drinking happens at every campus in America. Whether or not I am "fine" with it has absolutely no relevance to my post. 11 football players and 32 other students getting arrested does not happen at every campus. This isn't just "ho hum, half of our freshmen recruiting class was arrested last night." Drinking underage becomes a much larger problem when kids on scholarship who are representing the school are all arrested at the same time.
Why? How is an action percieved worse if someone does it with other people and gets caught? If all my siblings get caught stealing today, how is that worse than if they each got caught stealing separately? Or if they all stole but didn't get caught. They all still stole and are dumbasses. The problem should be rooted in the action, not any consequence. And in this case, there isn't much of a problem since under age drinking isn't a big deal.
The fact you don't even focus on the underage drinking part is weird in itself, since you admit to being not "fine" with it. But hey, if they get caught with their peers doing it, then that's big trouble! That makes no sense
If you don't think Stonum getting a DUI is perceived differently than 11 kids getting arrested at the same time for an alcohol related offense, I don't know what to tell you. It is the same reason 1 kid getting in a fight at UM would be perceived differently than the gang beatdown at MSU. This is why I mentioned that you would have to go back at least 5 or 6 years to find 11 UM football players arrested. And I still don't know why you keep relating how I feel about underage drinking...I was talking about for ND's team and BK. This is a much bigger deal than the slap on the wrist BK gave them simply because of the perception that I talked about earlier. As much as you or I or anyone thinks about underage drinking or getting in a fight, numerous kids getting arrested for alcohol or fighting that all just happen to be going to college for free and representing that school is a big deal.
First of all, the argument I'm bringing up isn't in quantity of offenses, it's the fact you keep emphasizing "the same time." Duh, one guy at UM getting into a fight isn't as big a deal as 10 guys at MSU, but that's not what you keep emphasizing. If those 11 underage drinking offense were spread out over a course of a month, would it look as bad? Semantics I know, but it's what you keep saying.
And I'm bringing up how you feel because everything you state is an expression of your opinion. I bring in my views to counter yours. That's an argument. Everything you have said is your own take on things, nothing is factual especially "11 kids arrested for something everyone does is a big deal." Do you not see how hypocritical it is to say it's a big deal for ND for those players to be arrested, but not the action itself?
A proper analogy would be jaywalking. Everyone does it. If a crapload of players got arrested for jaywalking today would it be a big deal? I would say of course not, but going by your thinking it would matter only because they got arrested. You don't even go back to the action itself. Again, makes no sense.
IMHE one guy drunk driving (whether he gets caught or not) is way worse than 11 guys drinking underage (again, whether they get caught or not). Your arguements just don't make a lot of sense.
What you are saying is because they got arrested it makes this a big deal, nevermind what they did to get arrested. So in other words, if they simply do it without getting caught by police, no harm done.
I am of the opinion that underage drinking isn't a big deal, so whether they got arrested or not, I think a few stadium steps and a short leash is fine for this offense.
Generally for the police to actually arrest people for underage drinking they need to be doing something that indicates the situation is about to get violent, destructive, or dangerous in some way. So 43 people arrested means the football players were at a party that was out of hand, not a typical house party with underage kids at it. That means its worse than underage drinking even if that's all they got arrested for.
what type of house parties did you go to that weren't out of hand in the eyes of the police? Sometimes there just aren't enough cops to break up every party that goes on on a Friday night, it doesn't mean they are any more or less out of hand because one got broken up.
I agree that typically you don't get arrested for simple drinking underage, but the fact that it was a big party with lots of underage drinking could have been the reason for the arrests. They often do this in an attempt to get word around that underage drinking isn't tolerated. It doesn't make the offense any worse simply because an arrest was made.
I guess you won't really be able to understand until the state of michigan has their own excise police then.
Which we never will, because we are civilized. Unlike blue-law central, Indiana. Despite the crap I'm contractually obligated to dish out, I actually really love Notre Dame (the University, not the teams - those I hate) and am grateful to have studied here. Indiana, however, I will not miss one bit. :)
I understand fully
This is absolutely a non-issue. If this happened at Michigan this is exactly what we would expect to be done.
I am pretty sure you would have to go back at least 5 or 6 years to find 11 UM football players arrested. I still don't understand how a chunk of kids getting arrested is a non-issue. One kid here or there....sure, not as big of a deal and you handle it accordingly. 11 kids is not a non-issue.
Mostly because people get arrested for stupid stuff all the time. If all the kids were doing was drinking at a party, I think being put on notice for the rest of the summer is probably a pretty decent punishment.
Why is it you keep throwing out the number of people committing the offense as a reason for the offense being a big deal? It doesn't make the offense any more or less serious if multiple people commit it.
If some a kid knocked off a bubblegum machine is it a big deal? How about if 20 kids did it? Does it make the offense any worse or is it still just kids getting into trouble and stealing? If no one ever committed murder in the history of the world, would it be less of a crime for one person to do it? This reasoning is just nonsense.
I agree that numbers make some sense in this thing. Here's another example for you. Let's say 1 football player beat up some people in a dorm, big deal?
How about 1/4 of the football team? Bigger deal?
Wow! I can't believe all of the pathetic responses on this one. Irish is 100% right and we have our own crap to deal with. College kids who are on the football team went to a party and drank and were arrested for underaged drinking. Yikes! All you complainers need to get a life.
As a GVSU alum, this does not surprise me at all. GVSU was a thug machine when BK was there -- half of the football team would be out on weekends punching holes in bar walls.