Michael Floyd: Unlikely to miss any games

Submitted by 03 Blue 07 on June 15th, 2011 at 12:29 PM

In today's Chicago Tribune, there's an article wherein Brian Kelly is quoted as saying that, if Floyd continues on the track he's on, he doesn't think Floyd will miss any games.

Link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-notre-dames-kelly-very-optimistic-on-floyd-playing-20110614,0,6369022.story

Not to beat a dead horse, but doesn't this seem a tad...lenient? And although I'm sure Brady Hoke doesn't look to other programs for guidance on how to discipline his players, what would the MGoCommunity think if Hoke came out and said something like this about Stonum? Just curious, as it seems from the prior posts I've read that a lot of folks on here would be disappointed in Hoke if Stonum isn't suspended.

I searched the board but didn't find this posted. Apologies if this article was posted already, but it seems unlikely, as it came out today.



June 15th, 2011 at 12:32 PM ^

If they had a pushover in week 1, I'm sure he would be suspended. South Florida should be tough enough this year to where ND will actually need him. That's how I interpret it.


June 15th, 2011 at 1:47 PM ^

I can't believe I'm defending Dantonio, but at least he hasn't made any decisions that have directly resulted in a young man's death (at least not that we know about). Nor has he let a player return to the field who may or may not have had a concussion because the back ups just weren't getting it done.


June 15th, 2011 at 2:08 PM ^

Don't forget that an unidentified player was accused of sexual assault by a girl who later killed herself while he was never dismissed from the team or even suspended.

Kelly is pure slime and should not have survived the Declan incident. I can't believe his national reputation isn't worse than it is.

Blue in Yarmouth

June 15th, 2011 at 12:34 PM ^

You're right, some people have said they would be outraged if Hoke handed out the same punishment to Stonum that Floyd is getting. The problem is DS has had a DUI, probation violation, another DUI and now was just caught driving with a suspended licence.

Floyd has two drinking underage charges and 1 dui. There is a big difference between the two IMHE and if I was coaching two players that had the same records these two have I would come down much harder on the one with Stonums past then I would the one with Floyds..

03 Blue 07

June 15th, 2011 at 2:18 PM ^

Seriously, obviously, you can couch it as "3 alcohol-related offenses," which, if I were the "prosecution" in this court of public opinion, is the approach I would take. However, as Shirtless said, comparing an MIP to a DUI is ridiculous. One is breaking a somewhat arbitrary law that, at times in many on this board's lifetime, was different (the drinking age), and, at the very least, only endangering yourself conceivably (if you buy the concept that a 19 or 20 year old is "endangering themselves" by drinking). A DUI has the chance for disastrous consequences for not only yourself, but the rest of society. That's why it's a much, much bigger deal. And doing it twice in such a short amount of time especially, shows a mind-numbing lack of judgment and maturity.

oriental andrew

June 15th, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^

I don't know if rbgoblue was being facetious, but I'd consider them pretty comparable.  Floyd got caught driving drunk once, but combined with the 2 MIPs, that's a trend showing poor judgement.  And let's not use the excuse of "everyone in college does it."  Poor judgement is just that, regardless of how many others are doing it.  I showed it, too, back then.  I just wasn't caught.  


June 15th, 2011 at 2:54 PM ^

Do you know how many times I drank underage and never got 1 (let alone 2) minor in possessions? Either one is a horrible lack in judgement.

And just for my clarification, how many MIPs does it take to equal 1 DUI? Considering you seem to have down what can be counted as arbitrary and what actually matters in alcohol related offenses, I figured you would know a number of MIPs they equals a DUI.

03 Blue 07

June 15th, 2011 at 6:43 PM ^

BB02: 100. 100 MIP's. No, scratch that- 1,000,000 MIP's equals a DUI. What I was saying, and am saying, is that one is a crime against no one other than yourself, the other against society because it puts everyone else at risk.

I wasn't saying the MIP/DUI as a combo isn't awful; it is. I am saying that, frankly, that a DUI is a far, far more serious offense. . . which, apparently, the Michigan Penal Code agrees with. As does the Model Penal Code. As does common sense. Drinking alcohol, by itself, under an arbitrary age set by the government which is past adolescence, is in the minds of most rational people, I'd believe, a hell of a lot less egregious to society than endangering the lives of innocent fellow members of society by operating a dangerous instrument (a car) while impaired. And the reason they give DUI's for bicyclists is because, among other things, an erratic cyclist still has to share the road with people driving those dangerous instruments (cars, trucks, etc), and, in an attempt to avoid hitting said drunk cyclist, could be seriously hurt themselves.

Also: Congratulations for not getting an MIP. I never got one either. Being lucky doesn't give you moral high ground.


June 16th, 2011 at 12:32 AM ^

Thank you for proving my point. Apparently drinking at whatever age you want is completely fine because we know drunk 14 year olds don't cause any harm to anyone but themselves and are really responsible drunks but drinking and driving with a .08 is worth a million MIPs. Since you are setting all the rules and not, you know, the law, do you have an age that we should be able to drink and not get an MIP or should my 6th birthday party at Chucky Cheese have had a kegerator?

Also, my point by telling you I never got a DUI was in response to you saying getting 2 DUIs is horrible judgement. I would think after his first MIP, he might have used better judgement and not gotten a second MIP and then a DUI.  No one is arguing that 1 MIP is as serious as 1 DUI, but to think we can't compare Stonum to Floyd because 2 DUIs is infinitely worse than 1 DUI and 2 MIPs is just silly.


June 15th, 2011 at 12:43 PM ^

From Wikipedia:   

[Renault has ordered that Rick's close immediately]
Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.
Employee of Rick's: [hands Renault money] Your winnings, sir.
Renault: Oh, thank you, very much. Everybody out at once!





June 15th, 2011 at 12:40 PM ^

I just don't understand what good it does to for Young Man to kick him off the team.  I get it that you think the coach is keeping a player only because he has the opportunity to win games with him, but I don't see it that way.  Coaches are educators - most of them have an idyllic vision of the innocence of youth and the nuture vs. nature and all that. 

If the kid can follow the rules to redemption, let him play for God's sake.


June 15th, 2011 at 12:45 PM ^

happen.  No matter what drivel any coach says about discipline and teaching, they are paid to win.  If they don't win they are gone.  If they win, all is forgiven.

Kelly, Meyer, Saban, Miles etc will do whatever to get the wins they must have.  No one suspends a player aganist tough competition if they can get away with it.

If Hoke doesn't suspend stonum for at least 4 games, he's going light on the kid and it won't teach him anything, but since I'm not in the room I can't speak to Hoke's discipline.


June 15th, 2011 at 2:01 PM ^

I think our WR depth will take some pressure off of Hoke to play Stonum, whereas Floyd is a monster and ND's clear number 1 reciever. Not to say Stonum isn't a great reciever, but we have 2 WRs that are just as good and a slew of others that can contribute. But damn, Stonum would be great to have paired up with Roundtree and JH.

I agree with you though, I think at least 4 games is appropriate.

Blue in Yarmouth

June 15th, 2011 at 12:45 PM ^

I am not exactly sure when this DUI thing happened for Floyd, but it was a while ago. We are almost three months away from the first game and it is entirely possible that ever since he was charge/convicted of his DUI he has been endruing some disciplinary stuff. If that is the case, how much punishment do you expect a coach to dish out for a guys first DUI? Please someone enlighten me here. I hate the Irish and can't believe I am sticking up for this issue, but let's try and be rational here.


June 15th, 2011 at 12:51 PM ^

Well, there has to be some real punishment -- a suspension for a game or two. Otherwise, the kids don't learn anything and the team thinks "Ah, well, we can get away with shit." If the kids don't face real consequences, the team eventually breaks down. See, um, Columbus, Ohio.

Slippery Rock …

June 15th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^

This isn't a surprise for me.  It also won't be a surprise when Stonum suits up for UM again at some point.  It is easy for a rival fanbase to criticize a coach for foing easy on a kid that we have no connection to.  When a similar situation happens to one of our own, a kid that we all grew fond of and watched every Saturday, its a different story.  These things happen all the time, and I don't hold it against a coach/team for going to bat for a player that has given everything for the program for 3-4 years.  There are exceptions, of course, but I highly doubt there will be a huge thread protesting Stonum when he is allowed back on the field, ala the Floyd thread awhile back. I think there is a line to cross for these programs, and it exists somewhere between Harvey Unga and Chris L Rucker.

Blue in Yarmouth

June 15th, 2011 at 1:02 PM ^

In all honesty, with Stonum's history that I will be pissed if he plays a single snap for UM this year. I don't know that there will be a thread about it, but I will be pissed as hell if he gets to play this year after the multiple issues he's had. And Dui's don't happen all the time. What's more, a kid getting 2 DUI's, a probation violation, and then getting caught driving with a suspended licence don't happen all the time. Who are you Terrelle Pryor...everybody murders?

Slippery Rock …

June 15th, 2011 at 1:37 PM ^

2 for 1 DUI specials don't happen everyday, but NCAA players having run ins with the wrong side of the law are pretty common. 

"Sports Illustrated, with assistance from CBS News, ran criminal background checks on all of the college football players from its preseason top 25 teams. It found that 7 percent of the 2,837 players had run-ins with the law before or after entering school." http://www.suntimes.com/sports/morrissey/4103586-417/ncaa-example-win-and-forget-the-arrest.html


I'm not making excuses for these players, nor am I lobbying for them to play.  I'm simply stating that every team faces this dilemma, and its naive to judge the situation knowing only a few superficial details.  Making blanket statements about a coach and a program because of a decision that we know very little about, and that is very much in the gray area, is silly.  If you believe wholeheartedly that Michael Floyd should not be given another chance, then I think you should be equally as upset when Stonum suits up again (not directed towards you, Yarmouth, more towards the general public).

Rather be on BA

June 15th, 2011 at 6:02 PM ^

read what Brian posted, so I do not know if he took this into account, but the "general population" will be much older than college football players, thus having more time to commit crimes.  An accurate comparison would have to be college football players versus college students between the ages of 18 and 25 who are not football players.


June 15th, 2011 at 1:07 PM ^

... Stonum pled guilty to driving while visibly impaired not DUI. Also, as part of that plea deal, the ticket he received for driving on a suspended license has been scheduled for dismissal as soon as he meets certain conditions. I am not excusing his conduct and believe he should be suspended for games this fall (possibly the entire season), but Floyd has shown a similar disregard for the law three times now (with the third offense, the DUI, being the most serious) and it does seem light for him to see no suspension at all.


June 15th, 2011 at 2:03 PM ^

Actually, I was trying to respond to the poster who was explaining that the two situations are different because Stonum was arrested four times, including two DUI's, while Floyd has only been arrested three times. That is a pretty technical distinction, so I thought it entirely reasonable to point out that technically he was incorrect on his facts.

Each has three arrests for alcohol related violations, including one DUI. IMO, it's an exercise in splitting hairs for anyone to argue that a DUI followed by a probation violation for failing to show up for a series of related breathalyzer tests and a driving while impaired is significantly worse than two minor in possession violations followed by a DUI.