OT Brian Kelly: Floyd will play all games or none this season
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-20101217-nd-story,0,564519…
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0419-haugh-notre-da…
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.
I disagree that BYU did the right thing.
However, the contrast you point out survives my disagreement.
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.
I'm not sure that you need my permission for a break, but now you have it.
My problem with BYU was not that they stood by an honor code. I applaud them for that for the reasons you pointed out (so we agree on that much; though I will say it's not the university's business - but they set the rule and the player had notice, as you point out). To the extent that they stood by their honor code to their detriment, Tater's point of contrast with Notre Dame (who appears to do the opposite on occasion) holds up, as I pointed out (this alone should have tipped you off that there was more to my post than you realized/responded to).
My problem is with the public nature of their process. They could have very easily said "suspended for violation of team rules." But they went into unncessary detail to expose a college student. Perhaps to try express their presumed moral superiority (a pretense IMHE). Either way - don't expose college kids.
It's probably best to get clarification from someone before you judge what he or she says.
Also, I'm going to mark your post as "Insightful." I make it a point never to downvote anyone merely because I happen to disagree with his/her opinion.
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"
Stonum will be lucky to avoid jail, 2 dui's and 2 probation violations ( 1 from not followin up on his probation 2 from catching a charge while on probation). I don't know what his origanal suspended sentence was but i'd assume he atleast gets that.
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?
<br>
<br>You honestly think that is best for the future of that individual?
<br>
<br>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.