October 2nd, 2009 at 9:38 AM ^

The only problem is that they should have just suspended him indefinitely in the first place, to leave themselves some wiggle room. Now they have to backtrack to make the right decision.


October 2nd, 2009 at 11:05 AM ^

Make sure he knows he's a split hair from losing it all, have him do the stairs or something, suspend him for 4 games, and go from there. Perhaps there were other circumstances that had him on a short leash already, but booting him out forever appeared to be a bit severe IMO;.


October 2nd, 2009 at 11:18 AM ^

is saying he could be in uniform on the 24th @Washington; USC visits Eugene the following week.

I'm OK with a 5 week suspension, but I would like to know if he was tested for steroids. That was not normal anger on display as six coaches and security men dragged him off the field and up the tunnel.


October 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 AM ^

naw he shouldnt be tested... thats just his emotions running high..... wen u loose 2 times and to the same team and oregon played terribly... and if u look at the replay they were exchanging words before the punch was thrown.... possibly trash talking...

OMG Shirtless

October 2nd, 2009 at 9:45 AM ^

Anyone who didn't see this coming, with Blount still allowed to practice with the team, is a moron.

Fine with me though, I thought that a 3-4 game suspension was adequate.


October 2nd, 2009 at 1:37 PM ^

But I thought he was being allowed to practice with the team so that he could stay in football shape and be prepared for the NFL draft, or to be able to sign somewhere as an undrafted player.

Once they suspended him for the season, I didn't think they would backtrack and reinstate him. What's the point of doing that, really? Show the world that at Oregon they can't make their minds up?! I do agree that indefinite suspension would have been the best way to go, and take it from there.


October 2nd, 2009 at 9:46 AM ^

I think it is fine. A 3 game suspension would have been sufficient especially when the Boise player got nothing. I am not condoning what either did but you can't ruin a mans life for a punch. He is a senior and has already taken a hit on the draft boards for his action but to not allow him to prove that it was a one time incident by suspending him for the season is a bit much.

Super J

October 3rd, 2009 at 12:50 AM ^

Blount was just butt hurt he could not back up on the field, the ass whoppin he stated to the media Boise State deserved.

Remember If Blount was not a football player he would be going to prison on the "three strikes" law for assaults. This was not his first punch.

I say pull his scholarship and send him packing.


October 2nd, 2009 at 10:15 AM ^

I think you suspend him for the season to shut people up. Then when everyone has calmed down you reinstate him. No one cares about this anymore, thats just the way media attention works. Remember practice gate? Exactly.


October 2nd, 2009 at 10:46 AM ^

I agree. There was so much press after that game. It was opening weekend, the second game of the season, and it was all the talk. It gave a lot of credit to Chip Kelley, and did shut people up. If Blunt would have hit a fan, it would be over, but thankfully he was held back. That's great to see him speaking to Dungy and others. With him being a father, hopefully that gives him a different lease on life.


October 2nd, 2009 at 10:51 AM ^

I should also mention, that this all worked out perfectly for Chip Kelly. He proved that he can win without the guy, so bringing him back is giving a kid another chance to work his way back. If they were losing and the running game wasn't going, I'm sure the press would talk about how he was bringing him back just to win.

Sextus Empiricus

October 2nd, 2009 at 11:13 AM ^

and factored into the "nip it in the bud" Delany mentality. This affects Michigan. The merits are complicated and best left to the Pac-10 (Kelly is a Fox in the hen house.) The severity of the punishment allowed the insanity of letting Weis fanagle a Purdue suspension in his game vs a Big Ten opponent.

aawolve has a good point as well - that is hopefully not lost on Michigan to indefinitely suspend in situations like this. We need to get these situations right initially.

We haven't seen the last of Blount. He will play in the NFL in worst case.

Raback Omaba

October 2nd, 2009 at 10:16 AM ^

Give the kid a chance to play again...he made a horrible decision in the heat of the moment.

A horrible decision....but we've all made them, especially in the heat of the moment when emotions are involved.


October 2nd, 2009 at 10:17 AM ^

Yes; the season long suspension is and/or was excessive but Chip Kelly's in his 1st year as being the head coach as is Mike Belotti as the AD, so I feel they were trying to send a message and set a precedent that this would not be tolerated throughout their athletic programs. If Belotti was still the head coach I believe Blount would have only gotten a 3-4 game suspension...not b/c Belotti is any less of a disciplinarian, but b/c he would have been a tenured head coach that already had respect and precedent established with his team. Granted the decision to reinstate Blount is easier as the Boise St player received no disciplinary action, but if I was Chip Kelly I'd stick to my guns based on the decision he made be it right, wrong, or indifferent, one can’t let the inmates run the asylum.


October 2nd, 2009 at 10:28 AM ^

I'd never paid attention to this kid until "punch gate." His reaction to the loss and taunting fans was highly inappropriate. He alienated fans, coaches and teamates after the Boise State game.

That said, this is a great life lesson learning opportunity. And there is no reason to ruin a kids opportunity and potentially his life.

I understand how an argument could be made for maintaining the suspension. But I ask this...If you’re going to make the argument that the indefinite suspension is the only choice for the situation, shouldn’t other players caught on camera throwing punches (like Mouton) be on that list? One can argue the circumstances of how, when, why the punch was thrown. Even though the circumstances may be a little are a little different, the intent was still there. Cut the kid a break and treat him like you would your own kid. Ground them for a month and give them time off for good behavior.


October 2nd, 2009 at 11:10 AM ^

"That said, this is a great life lesson learning opportunity. And there is no reason to ruin a kids opportunity and potentially his life. "

Sorry, the guy is a senior (probably age 22) and has had conduct issues for a while. When you go off on an opponent, your own teammates, cops and fans, you're way beyond a learning opportunity.

If I did that sh** I'd be in jail for a night and my "opportunity and life" would be ruined. I don't see why we should tolerate thugs - he's had his opportunity and he blew it.


October 2nd, 2009 at 3:08 PM ^

Why do you assume that he is a "thug"? Maybe this kid has anger, emotional, or other things in his life that influenced his actions. People do really stupid stuff and make mistakes (I know I did when I was in college) and should have an opportunity for redemption. If you are of the Jay Bilas, Dan Patrick ilk and always on your high horse that's fine; but that's not my style.


October 2nd, 2009 at 11:15 AM ^

I don't disagree that a season-long suspension may be excessive but when he's practicing with the team and having the suspension potentially lifted shortly after it's imposed I think it's clear that there was never an intention to actually have Blount out for the season and that's what is bothering me with the whole situation.

It may be slick PR to bring down the hammer and then lift it once nobody cares anymore but I lose respect for Oregon. There's nothing wrong with announcing that he's suspended indefinitely and needs to work his way back onto the team (Adrian Arrington anyone?), why not just be honest and up-front with what the punishment is and should be?


October 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 AM ^


This is exactly what I was afraid of with the "suspend him but keep him on the team" scheme. I wanted to believe Chip Kelly really wanted to help him get back on track, but the most likely reason for that arrangement was to be able to pull a reversal like this. The media firestorm has died down and the team has started winning so Kelly doesn't look like he is doing it out of desperation.

This is something Lou Holtz would have pulled. What a slickmeister.

Tim Waymen

October 2nd, 2009 at 11:17 AM ^

He absolutely should be reinstated. The whole Miami team went bezerk on FIU, Clemson and S. Carolina had a huge brawl, and the players only were suspended for a game. Blount, however, gets a whole season for suckerpunching a player who trash-talked him AFTER the game (you just don't do that). (Okay fine, so he also almost went Artest.) It's overkill, especially in his senior year. Victors2000 is right: Blount knows what he did wrong, he learned his lesson. He seemed genuinely sorry for what he did. I like that he'll have another shot at the NFL.

One thing that bugged me about a Forde Yard Dash was that Forde mentioned Miss. St's DE recruit who heroically saved a busload of kids, but then used it to show what Blount was not. What Blount did was wrong, but that was just kicking a kid when he was down.


October 2nd, 2009 at 11:33 AM ^

"a player who trash-talked him AFTER the game (you just don't do that)."

...a player who trash-talked a player who trashed-talked the entire team before the game.

"It's overkill, especially in his senior year. "

These kinds of sentimental arguments don't make any sense to me. His status as a senior give him LESS leeway in my mind, because he is old enough to know better.

His playing skill is the most cynical appeal. If he was a third-string walk-on without an NFL future, we never would have heard of him again. He'd be off the team so fast he'd be able to play tennis with himself. But because Blount is a good player and an NFL prospect, we're supposed to forget it and "feel for his future."

EDIT: Here's my question for all the Blount advocates: if punching an opponent after the game and trying to go into the stands isn't a kick-off-the-team offense in your mind, _what is_? Does the guy have to carve up a player's face with his cleats? Moon the crowd?

Tim Waymen

October 2nd, 2009 at 12:48 PM ^

People make mistakes. I try to put myself in their shoes, so I imagine how Blount must feel after making a horrible mistake. He fucked up; we know the feeling, even without having ever done something like what he did. This doesn't at all excuse what he did--it doesn't even mean he's now a good person or that we have to forgive him! When I hear about him sitting in the locker room afterward, crying about how he did a terrible thing, and then continuing to go to school and attend practice, I can't help but wonder how bad he must feel.

The original punishment didn't fit the crime, he's served his sentence--I think we can call it a day. Hopefully he learned something from this. His being a possible NFL prospect has nothing to do with my sympathy. At the end of the day he's a kid who made a terrible mistake. I wish bad upon very few people.


October 2nd, 2009 at 3:13 PM ^

premeditatedly going to a party and being up very kid at the party including hockey players from your own team? Or trying to decapitate someone with a hockey stick and sending them to a hospital? Or selling drugs while you're on the football team? All offenses seem much worse in my opinion.

Captain Obvious

October 2nd, 2009 at 12:35 PM ^

here. The suspension should remain, imo. If people were so inclined, he could have faced serious jail time and a couple civil suits.

- several counts of assault (the verbal kind)
- criminal assault (felony, I believe, for the punch)
- battery (civil liability for the punch)
- resisting arrest (again, jail time)
- not sure if he pushed any cops but assaulting an officer is a pretty serious felony if he did
- likely a host of other civil claims, including IIED

The emotional arguments don't do much for me. If one of our players produced a rap sheet like this I'd want him gone for the season, even if it was Tate, Minor, or BG.


October 2nd, 2009 at 2:06 PM ^

you see that every now and then in sports, it was not an assault that landed the bsu player in the hospital like we've seen in hockey, but it still was a crime. The tirade against the fans is also a big deal, in the nba, that leads to suspensions. But isn't he a juco player? I didn't know he was a nfl prospect. What has he done on the field?

Captain Obvious

October 2nd, 2009 at 4:40 PM ^

Most violent acts in the course of a sport are not crimes because people assume these risks when they sign up to play. Getting bareknuckled punched in the face (especially after the game) is not a part of football and therefore is treated as any other run of the mill face punch - crime.

I believe a boxer got charged with a crime for punching a guy right after the fight for the same reasons.

2 Walter Smith

October 2nd, 2009 at 12:45 PM ^

We are witnessing the public relations machine of Nike in full force. They make headlines with their stern discipline of suspending him from the team. The public can say wow, Oregon is a stand-up school.

Then, the story dies down. The team is now ranked again and sees a real opportunity to beat their local bully, USC in a few weeks. This decision has nothing to do with what's best for Blount. That's laughable. It about what's best for the football program, and by extension, Nike. It's very duplicitous and just plain weak. Regardless of how you feel about the initial suspension, taking it back is ridiculous. I can't stand Oregon and Nike. I'm glad we're with Adidas.

Next thing you know, Nike will have Vick back in the fold. Oh wait . . .


October 2nd, 2009 at 3:43 PM ^

I agree with most of the levelheaded commentary here. Blount made personal calls to both the opposing coach and the player he punched to offer an apology. In addition to this, he decided to remain with the team knowing that he was in the doghouse of his coach and school administration while assuming that he wouldn't be allowed to play another down for the team. He definitely made a stupid, stupid mistake in the heat of the moment, but his actions afterward showed me that he has character that goes beyond that one boneheaded moment on the field. He's going to pay for this additionally with a drop in the draft next year (if he's drafted at all), and to me, he's paid enough for the crime. Let the kid show that he can redeem himself.


October 3rd, 2009 at 3:28 AM ^

I say reinstate him. I have no problem with it (unless it was at OSU). I do agree w/ the comment that they should have suspended him indefinately at first, but still, I don't see what the real damage is to give him (yet) another chance.