On college football live they are reporting that Brian Kellys says Michael Floyd will play all 12 games or none at all. I was wondering about a 2 game suspension that way we dodge him, but I am sure they will let him play all.
OT Brian Kelly: Floyd will play all games or none this season
I really had hoped ND would hold themselves to a higher standard, but this just seems like a pre-cop out to me
It was a DUI. Totally different beast.
I feel like a one game suspension is usually pretty typical for a first offense. Isn't this Floyd's 3rd? Either way, a zero-game suspension seems a tad lenient.
Setting things up this way is a double-edged sword for Kelly, though. He'll look like a schmuck if Floyd gets into trouble again but Kelly lets him play in even a few games.
3rd since he's been on campus. Bodogblog posted this link to the story in the Diamond cancels Auburn trip thread
apparently kelly buys into the dantonio discipline philosophy. must be something they learn at cincinnati.
So in other words, he'll miss none this season. Don't even pretend like there's another option for ND.
saying he is going to play him. Tough choice on his part /s. I think Kelly is not doing anything here that doesn't serve himself...nothing new here.
If we didn't have a player going through a similar situation I am sure I would say he needs to be suspended. But im hoping Stonum doesn't miss any games either.
If that happens, then I won't be too upset. But if Michael Floyd plays in the UM-ND game and Stonum does not, I'll be furious.
Neither should be playing this early in the season. I will be upset if both play. It has nothing to do with the outcome of the game so much as getting a serious punishment for a serious crime.
... if Coach Hoke does the right thing. Regardless of what the douche in SB does.
No way, I will absolutely be upset if Hoke suspends Stonum and Kelly doesn't suspend Floyd.
That you hold yourself to a higher standard.
Having said that, maybe we should see what we actually do ourselves before we get on a high horse over ND.
If Stonum plays but Floyd doesn't, will everyone still be upset?
i hope hoke suspends stonum all year. if he minds his p's and q's he then could come back for a reshirt senior year. playing time should be a priveledge that is earned.
I'm not upset that I'm holding myself to a higher standard, I'm upset that the other guy isn't. If I'm running a race against you, and we agree to start at the count of 3, and you start at 2 and beat me because of it, I'm going to be upset. Sure, I played by the rules, but at the end of the day, I lost.
If we lost to ND because Michael Floyd played and Stonum didn't, I'm not going to feel any better knowing we did the right thing. I'm going to feel like shit because we lost, and even more pissed because it really wasn't fair.
Starting the race early is cheating. Kelly allowing Floyd to play is not. Maybe if Kelly somehow avoided an NCAA rule that mandated suspensions for DUIs I'd agree.
Fine - it's not a perfect analogy, but the point is that there is infair play going on. If we are punishing our players and they aren't, the playing field isn't even. There should absolutely be an NCAA rule about this, because in all instances where there isn't an actual rule, doing the right thing makes you less competitive. I don't like it when my opponent has the option to do the right thing or not, because when he chooses not to, I'm left with an unfair advantage.
Point is, you're left with two teams playing with two different sets of rules, and I don't like that.
Good point, if the NCAA wants to be a fair and balanced organization, they shouldn't be allowing these incidents (specifically criminal charges, not team violations) to be left in the coach/schools hands. It is an obvious conflict of interest.
Floyd and Stonum should both be suspended for the entrie season. We'll see which HC makes the correct decision
I'm not BRCE, but I'd count playing Crist in the second half of the Michigan game. The guy went out after taking a shot to the head that caused him to temporarily lose vision in one eye and his short term memory.
See: Ragone, Mike; Montana, Nate et al.; and now Floyd, Michael. Truth is Kelly has had many players get in trouble and has yet to make a single suspension..
The secret to coaching longevity is simple--win a lot of games. Everything else is secondary unless the coach does something monumentally stupid that gets him arrested.
... I'm going to resist commenting until Stonum's situation plays out. Nothing I hate more than hypocritic stances on morality caused by the blind pride of team affiliation.
haha so what is that up there?
.... a general swipe, nothing to do with this specific SNAFU. I'd be calling him a Douche regardless of the Floyd thing. I'd be more upset if both played than if Floyd played and Stonum didn't. Just me, though.
I had my high horse all mounted up and ready to go but Stonum kind of throws a wrench in my plans. So the score right now is Floyd-3 Stonum-2. If I were the coach I would give them equal amount of games suspended per offense with the oppurtunity of erasing 1 game with amazing behavior and conditioning drills. I would push them so hard that they should want to quit and if at the end they haven't, then they are back on the team with a reduced suspension.
That's some fine disciplinary gymnastics to keep Floyd out of week 2 and Stonum in. Except this is Stonum's 3rd run-in with the law, if you want to count him not fulfilling the terms of his probation from his first offense.
As head coach of this University, I would prefer not to. Nice catch by the way.
I'm somewhat with you on the latter part of your statement. When it comes to Stonum and his now 2nd slip up, I fully advocate the Lloyd Carr/Carson Butler approach in this and similar situations: Unconditionally and undeniably prove yourself to the team and more importantly the betterment of yourself to the point where any sort of game suspension is unnecessary or just don't try to come back at all.
He can start by pushing a 40-pound weight back and forth across a football field at 5 AM for awhile.
Should be suspended for the season, if not, both coaches made an awful decision. These men are being free rides to play football, be responsible men and show you deserve it.
I understand why you are upset but let me explain why I don't agree with you. These kids do represent the University, I get that, but they also make the University a lot of cash. Most students who get a DUI, have their parents pay for the lawyer as well as fines and reap the wrath that follows. These kids will get the same except their coaches will make life hell as well as the having their name on the front page of the paper, not in with the rest of offenders. These kids will pay for their mistakes far more than the average student by the time it is all said and done.
Given that Kelly et al took zero responsibility for putting a kid on a flimsy tower in a gale and there wasn't even a real investigation into an alleged rape by a player followed by the victim's suicide, I'm not holding my breath for a harsh penalty, or maybe even ANY penalty, in this matter.
The school took all the responsibility for that kid being up there changed their policies, installed remote cameras, put up a scholarship in Declans name, paid their fines. Yes it won't bring the kid back, but the parents were more than satisfied of what has come out of the accident. <Cue the "Lets sue them for all their worth" crowd>
There was an investigation by the SB Police into an alleged rape. There was no rape that occurred and the police were satisfied that all avenues were explored.
Kelly stated he was all in or all out, I took that to mean that if Floyd does what he is supposed to do he will be playing in the fall, he has been suspended since the incident. While I share your enthusiasm in regard to game suspensions, ResLife did not hand down anything football related. My other thought on this is that since it did happen this semester, why would it count to next semester? While the DUI is serious business, the other incidents were both drinking under age, off campus.
Appreciate any slams coming my way because I am a homer after all. Just know that I think atleast a couple of games are warranted.
Don't waste your time, they want to be mad so they're going to be mad.
I don't think I have ever agreed with a post of yours as much as this one. Well put
It's a silly trick. Make it sound like there are only two options, one of which seems much too harsh, then people will think you made the right decision when you pick the other.
I have to think that there are ND fans, a good number, in fact, who think a suspension of a couple of games is warranted. But that's not an option according to Kelly.
Two things, since most of this is debated throughout the thread. One is that it's fine to look at these incidents separately, but taken together they paint an unflattering portrait of a school that claims to hold itself to a higher standard.
The other is the statement "no rape occurred" is not something you can prove. If you want to say police didn't find enough evidence to charge anyone with rape, that's fine, but it's a BIG difference.
Great that's not avoiding responsibility. Mistakes were made. The passive voice is so powerful in taking responsibility. That's BS. Kelly made the choice to practice.
Swarbrick said unusual winds caused the incident. Kelly never took responsibility. The school took responsibility because they have the deep pockets and it is in their interest to get this to...wait for it...all blow over.
I appreciate correction on this because I like Kelly as a football coach. But the way Kelly and Swarbrick are handling that is pathetic.
Floyd's first two offenses were just drinking underage? Like, two MIPs? Oh.
Pfft, that's nothing. I mean, he should be punished for the DUI, absolutely, and the fact that he has two MIPs definitely doesn't help. But that's a lot different than three DUIs.
Not criticizing people's opinions. Just kind of marveling at my own ignorance.
Honestly, I appreciate your respectful disagreement.
So he's either suspended the whole season or none at all? Seems like two extremes. I don't think Floyd should miss the whole season - and if he does, that's dick-move by Brian Kelly considering Floyd could have left for the NFL (not that a DUI isn't a dick-move by Floyd). Just curious as to why the punishment will be so all-or-nothing?
It's pretty easy to understand. They need him to win games. Brian Kelley didn't want to look like a soft-on-crime coach so he made it appear that he is still punishing him...in reality the punishment is, he needs to "change his life" according to Kelley.
Echoing BRCE above, Kelly has very quickly developed a very nasty reputation at ND. I don't know what the fanbase thinks of him, so I don't know how much leeway he has, but his reputation has taken some massive hits (and I'd say deservedly so) in the past year.
I wouldn't be surprised if it really did boil down to Kelly trying to have his cake and eat it, too ("having his cake" being an attempt to repair his already tarnished reputation and "eating it, too" being winning football games).
Absurd. Neither Floyd nor Stonum should be playing in that game. It shouldn't even be a close call.
Too bad ND doesn't play BYU until next year. The media would have a field day with that one, especially in Utah. BYU's basketball team possibly cost themselves a trip to the Final Four doing the right thing over an honor code violation, while ND lets a three-time convicted criminal represent "Catholicism's national university" so they can win another game or two.
You can disagree with the fact that BYU has an honor code, but believing that standing by a code that exists and punishing the player accordingly is not the right thing is absurd to the highest degree.
That player chose to go to BYU knowing exactly what he was agreeing to when he signed his letter of ontent. This sin't something that got sprung on him once he enrolled. They have a policy you don't morally agree with (and that is your right), but them sticking to that policy to the detriment of their basketball program was definitely the right thing to do and something many universities could learn a lot from.
You said you didn't think BYU did the right thing, which I took to be suspend a guy for violation of the rules. I (nor anyone else) can really judge another persons moral standing, and if you believe it was wrong to handle the information they shared post suspension was wrong, that is your opinion and something I wouldn't argue with. My point was standing by your rules is a good thing, and from your retort I see we agree on that. Just a misunderstanding I guess. Oh...and thanks for the break, I needed that! Cheers.
I used to have some respect for Kelly back to his D-II days in GR. Did some really good things and was an impressive individual. However, if Floyd is let off with no games being missed that will greatly anger me, and really lowers my respect for the man.
I ALWAYS hated ND though.
Just my .02, but I don't think a DUI + violating probation + a second DUI (Stonum) is = 2 MIPs then a DUI (Floyd). I don't think a MIP is a big deal, but once you get a DUI, that should be the final warning.
I agree. I didn't realize Floyd's first two offenses were just MIPs. I hate to say it, but Stonum's situation is quite a bit worse than Floyd's, in my opinion.
I don't think a DUI (first, last or anywhere in between) should be a warning. That is a far more serious offense than many on this board acknowledge. One DUI i would be a suspendable offense if I were a HC.
I do agree with your original point though; When a guys first two offenses were drinking underage and only the third was a DUI I think that is far different than 2 dui's plus a probation violation.
What's the determining factor between the two extremes? If it's based purely on Kelly's whims, then Floyd's playing. If there's some objective measurable outside factor, such as meeting terms of probation, community service hours, AA meetings, whatever that Floyd has to complete, that's a different story. I can see letting him play if he cokmpletes certain punishment terms, but those terms should be clearly laid out. Otherwise everyone's just going tot think Kelly is a win-at-all-costs douche (not that he cares, especially if he wins).
Justice isn't blind in South Bend, IN.
Wouldn't you know First-Hand-Domer Brian Kelly brings out his Machiavelli Playbook for the offseason. Well done sir...
Those remarks will get you a high seat beside the crown and under "the bum" of the queen.
/S "in the highest order"
Setting aside football -- if that's possible -- don't universities discipline students convicted of serious offenses? In other words, can't M and ND kick Stonum and Floyd out of school simply because of their criminal records?
You honestly believe someone should be kicked out of school for a DUI offense?
You honestly think that is best for the future of that individual?
It's sad to think DUI offenders are being compared to criminals such as dealers who are thrown out of university.
You are 18 or 19 and in university. You obviously don't comprehend the seriousness of drunk driving. You act as though it isn't a big deal when thousands of people are killed in drunk driving accidents every year.
When a kid (or adult for that matter) gets behind the wheel of a car drunk they have no clue as to whether that drive will result in someones death. Playing russian roulette with yourself might not be illegal, but pointing a gun at someone else and playing russian roulette with them, without their consent is.
IMHE a guy selling a little weed on campus isn't nearly as bad as people driving drunk. The chances of someone actually getting seriously hurt or dying as a result of the offense is pretty lopside in one direction, and it isn't in the direction of the weed dealer.
i comend brady hoke's handeling of the stonum situation. hope je'ron stokes steps it up this year, we need him to
Kelly and Dantonio meet at mid-field for a pre-game discussion prior to the ND-MSU Game.
Dantonio: Brian, how the hell have you been? You sly dog you.
Kelly: Same old same old, just trying to make a dollar and a cent, you know?
Dantonio: Yeah...hey, hell of an idea regarding that all or none suspension...where the hell did you come up with that one?
Kelly: Well frankly, I wanted the boy to play all 12 games and didn't want his DUI to cost the team (AKA me) a few wins. And, well, I hired a spin doctor to come up with some pull the wool over their eyes bullshit and it looks like that dog might just hunt.
Dantonio: I actually learned from Tress to use the "handled internally" line, and most people ate it up last year, but I did catch a little flak from a few journals and some bloggers, but hey 11-1 is 11-1, right?
Kelly: True that...good luck man, don't go pulling any Little Giants or Mousetrap bullshit today...OK?
Dantonio: You got it, you strict disciplinarian, you...
Equal parts tinfoil hattery and Monty Python. Exquisite.
way of getting out of punishing your player. Obviously there will still be legal repercussions - as there should be. But when it comes to drinking I think the serious issue is getting behind the wheel. How many non-football players under 21 get MIPs? Is that really a big deal? What is a big deal though is when someone drinks, 21 or not, and gets behind the wheel. I wish there was more consistent punishment for this, because it really is a serious problem.