Michael Floyd's punishment

Submitted by Irish on

Is over? apparently.

Surprised to say the least, apparently he wont be missing any games for his DUI arrest, although its not official yet.

I always thought ND was more likely to end up in the Big East but this is making me think SEC is more likely.  

dosleches

April 8th, 2011 at 5:29 PM ^

Wow... if it were MSU I wouldn't blink, but Notre Dame?  Don't you get thrown out of school for being in the women's dorm past 11 pm?

mrider

April 8th, 2011 at 5:31 PM ^

I guess Kelly is bringing high morals to South Bend. Irish I like your style of starting the topic to avoid one of us ruthlessly chirping Kelly and ND in the OP.

bluebyyou

April 8th, 2011 at 6:48 PM ^

Irish, as you know, we have to hate ND football but I always respected the school and the program.  I find this very disturbing and I will be curious as to what other ND alums feel.

At OSU, there are many alums, in fact almost all I have talked to, who are totally disgusted with Tressel and would like to see him gone.  This win at all costs menatality, regardless of the institution, is disturbing.

Irish

April 8th, 2011 at 7:01 PM ^

Still too surprised by the news to give you an honest answer.  If this is the last I ever have to hear Floyd and arrested in the same sentence then I would be content with him learning his lesson.  If this makes him think can still do whatever he wants because the punishment was so light, I will be very unhappy

Irish

April 8th, 2011 at 7:36 PM ^

Reslife hands down the school punishment, Kelly will hand down a team punishment but the chance of that being public and severe to the point of missing games would seem to be really slim.  He still has to go to court, and pay the legal consequences of his actions.  

JimLahey

April 8th, 2011 at 5:45 PM ^

Sorry for my ignorance, but was this his second DUI? Or was their something particularly bad about this one (not that a DUI is acceptable, it certainly is not). I'm just asking because Daryl Stonum had a pretty bad one where he passed out at the wheel and he was only suspended one game, and the fans weren't even informed until after.

Irish

April 8th, 2011 at 5:53 PM ^

It wasn't his first alcohol related incident.  This was by far the worst situation he put himself into though.  No one one was expecting this outcome, the sunny expectation was maybe getting him back midseason.  

Reslife has certainly changed over the past couple seasons, Hopefully Floyd understands how quickly everything can change for him with one stupid decision.

Captain

April 8th, 2011 at 5:55 PM ^

I recall these boards aflutter with predictions that despite the disciplinary history of Notre Dame as an institution (and Floyd's particular history), he would still return for the season opener this fall. 

So at least one group (rival fans who are terrified of 6'3'' receivers with hands made out of whatever that adhesive is that affixes price tags to glassware) was expecting his return.

LumberJack

April 8th, 2011 at 6:07 PM ^

Goofing on Mormons = +1 in my book.  (For that matter, goofing on any religion = +1.)  I lived with a Mormon girl for a while, and she told me that the church recommends that its members eat an apple to perk them up if they're tired.  The church actually said that an apple would provide you with just as much of an energy boost as a cup of coffee.  It never ceases to amaze me what some people will believe when it's cloaked in the "authority" of religion...

BigBlue02

April 8th, 2011 at 8:17 PM ^

Apparently you don't like science too much, do you? Depending on your body, apples can actually give you a boost that will be similar to what a cup of coffee will give you. It is a different kind of boost, but I am guessing you don't really care to look at any of this, you just hate religion.

LumberJack

April 8th, 2011 at 8:32 PM ^

Which is why Starbucks has made billions selling energy-boosting apples, right Joseph Smith?  Errr.  Wait.  Don't be an idiot.  If people felt the same boost from apples as they did from coffee, people would be consuming Granny Smiths and Red Deliciouses in the same quantity they consumed giant mugs of Pike Place and venti mocha lattes.

BigBlue02

April 8th, 2011 at 8:40 PM ^

You are pretty ignorant. Maybe if you actually read up on the subject, you would understand the difference between a boost from eating an apple and the boost from consuming caffiene. Also, living in Utah and working with plenty of Mormons, I am pretty sure whoever you talked to misunderstood what they heard. Mormons don't think apples give you as big of a boost as caffiene, but since caffiene is forbidden by the religion, they are told that a good replacement is eating an apple. As I have said, it all depends on many different factors (when you eat the apple, what you have to eat before, etc...)

marlon

April 8th, 2011 at 11:01 PM ^

Durr durr durr.  Total fail, dude.  The fact that "in weigh[t] per person, more apples are consumed annually in the USA than coffee" does not mean apples give you as much energy as coffee.  Titty-fucking christ.  Should we start a "Friday Night: What hard drugs are you on?" thread for you?  That "logic" you displayed is beyond ridiculous.

BlueDontBoo

April 9th, 2011 at 5:42 AM ^

His response was in response to "If people felt the same boost from apples as they did from coffee, people would be consuming Granny Smiths and Red Deliciouses in the same quantity they consumed giant mugs of Pike Place and venti mocha lattes". So actually his "logic", as you felt the need to ignorantly point out, is accurate. Next time try a little reading comprehension before jumping the gun and looking stupid.

Mitch Cumstein

April 9th, 2011 at 8:07 AM ^

Was clearly a response to the "logic" presented here.
If people felt the same boost from apples as they did from coffee, people would be consuming Granny Smiths and Red Deliciouses in the same quantity they consumed giant mugs of Pike Place and venti mocha lattes.
I never said that apples give you as much energy as coffee. Also, if you want to argue semantics, more energy is actually stored in an apple (in calories) than a cup of coffee. Obviously not the case when milk and cream and what not is added, but your use of the word "energy" isn't quite correct either.

marlon

April 8th, 2011 at 8:15 PM ^

I believe the mormon church prohibits caffeine.  Ergo, coffee is a no-no, and apples are okely-dokely.  But let's face it, if you're dumb enough to believe that some invisible entity doesn't want you to consume caffeine, does it really matter why you can do one and not the other?  Jews and muslims "can't" eat pork, catholics "can't" eat meat on Fridays, it's all bullshit, but nobody who believes that crap bothers to question why.

Blueto

April 8th, 2011 at 9:45 PM ^

Peoples' politics and relegion are two things that should never be dissed on a civilized board.

The only relegion that should be discussed is that of college football. To paraphrase ufer "Saturday is a holy day of obligation and Michigan Stadium is its cathederal."

 

 

marlon

April 8th, 2011 at 10:56 PM ^

Let me put this logically, in a way that is not "bashing" religion.

Religions are mutually exclusive.  If mormonism is right about caffeine, then catholicism, judaism, islam, hinduism, scientology, and all other major religions are wrong, since they declare that their sky man has no problem with human consumption of caffeinated substances.  In other words, all non-mormon religions would have been feeding their followers bullshit.  The same argument obviously works in reverse: if the catholics et. al. are right about caffeine, then the mormons are wrong and have been fed a crock of bullshit by their leaders.  Furthermore, this argument extends to almost every other religious prohibition.  If the jews are right about pork, then catholics, christians, hindus, scientologists, etc. are all horrible, bacon-eating sinners who've been told a bunch of bullshit that wasn't true.

Extending this point even farther, note that no single religion commands the adherence of anywhere near half the world's religious population.  (Christianity claims the most followers, with around 2 billion.)   Since, at most, only one religion can be true, more than half the worlds religious people are being fed bullshit by their "holy" men.  Therefore, it stands to reason that calling all religious prohibitions bullshit isn't entirely fair, since, after all, one of those religions could be right.  However, speaking in a general manner, calling religious prohibitions bullshit is appropriate, as the majority of (if not all of) religious prohibition are undeniably just that: bullshit.  That's not bashing religion, but merely pointing out the logical implications of mutual exlcusivity.

Now, tell me again what you were saying to that poster above about ignorance?

Wolverine Gator

April 9th, 2011 at 5:35 AM ^

As a Christian myself, I get tired of many of these "prohibitions are bullshit" arguments.

Many of the religious prohibitions are historical artifacts created to keep the ancient people safe. If all religious prohibitions are "bullshit" then what are the Ten Commandments? If you ask me, its simple: don't steal... many cultures stealing meant getting your hand cut off; don't commit murder... Hammurabi's Code said an Avenger would be sent to kill you; don't commit adultery... ancient form of protection against STD's (one virgin + one virgin = greatly decreased risk of STD spread).

Other uses of religious prohibitions such as Catholics can't eat meat on Fridays or Mormons can't drink caffeine are the same as the Christian Lent 40 days of fasting. Its meant as a sacrifice so that every time you are tempted to eat a nice greasy burger on Friday or grab that morning cup of coffee you think about it, say a prayer to your preferred deity and therefore use it to live your life to better glorify your God.

If you disagree with me, that's fine, we're all entitled to our opinions on religion and I'm not here to convert you. I'm just asking everyone keep an open mind to other people's view, stop the name calling (and, in the bigger picture, the religious motivated violence) and get back to the point of this blog: football.

marlon

April 8th, 2011 at 11:06 PM ^

People care because religious nuts like you try to push your fatuous beliefs on others.  Abortion, prayer in schools, gay marriage, and on and on and on.  These issues "don't affect" me?  YOU = TOTAL FAIL.

BlueTimesTwo

April 9th, 2011 at 12:47 AM ^

Are you trying to get banned?  Religion and politics make for fascinating conversations, but they are not appropriate for this board.  Maybe someone needs to start an MGoVent board for such conversations among Michigan faithful, but if you enjoy participation on this board then it is probably best to leave religion and politics out of it.

M-Wolverine

April 9th, 2011 at 1:36 AM ^

A gay wannabe housewife who was denied an abortion because you were forced to pray in school?
<br>
<br>Just ban this guy already...

Mitch Cumstein

April 9th, 2011 at 8:09 AM ^

And you have been complaining in this entire thread about followers not being able to drink coffee.  You are also incredibly negative.  Any objective observer can see religious institutions do a lot of good in the community as well.

blueblood70

April 8th, 2011 at 5:49 PM ^

its really no surprise that nothing is going to happen, if its ok to rape and show no remorse for a death, then a dui surely isnt going to warrant a suspension. maybe floyd will pull a tressel and  self-suspend himself for the oct 15th bye week because its the hororable thing to do