You're kind of proving my point. We should let the courts decide on James, but what about all these other players currently in trouble with the law who still only stand accused? I guess
James' girlfriend said he grabbed her neck during an argument and pushed her to the ground. The woman sustained an abrasion but did not require hospitalization, a law enforcement official said
and being charged with five misdemeanors and not being allowed on campus isn't enough to boot him off the team. Right.
Anyways, why was Matt Simms kicked off the team? After all, he's only been charged with a misdemeanor. Did he commit six? I am confused as to why he was booted off the team after pleading not guilty to the crimes he's charged with. How different is his situation than James's? Enlighten me.
Also, I find it kind of funny that bringing back a player who committed assault on a football field could be considered a "plus" as far as discipline goes. One could easily surmise that Kelly set a dangerous precedent by giving Blount a second chance and that the continued discipline issues he is having could have stemmed from this. If Blount had been booted and been denied the Pac-10 Championship Ring and TD in the Rose Bowl he was allowed to have, you'd wonder if his players would take him more seriously. That's where the parallel to MSU is so existent....give players with troubled characters chances and then act surprised when other players feel like they can get away with stuff. Has Blount done anything wrong since? Not to my knowledge but it's irrelevant. The precedent is still there. Now only after the program's public image is going down the toilet do they start to take anything that resembles a strong stance.
Go ahead and pat Chip on the back though if James is eventually booted off the team. It's common fricking sense to boot a woman beater out of any program. Not that he's a beacon of discipline or anything, but I did forget to mention that Meyer just booted off a UF player who had only been charged with beating his girlfriend. When national news publications are reporting that the victim has abrasions on her neck.......the longer he's rostered the more of a joke it becomes. He did have 1,500 yards rushing last year though.
Are you an investigator Aqua? Have you talked to the young woman accusing James? Because he was accused and arrested he must have done it right? And what about Simms? Do you know everything involving his case? Did you know he admitted to coaches that he was in fact involved in brawl? Each and every case Kelly has dealt with, and is dealing with, is different. You have no clue what the ins and outs are, and comparing James case to a case involving a player is Florida in apples and oranges too.
And what about Blount? Are you serious with that? Blount never should have been suspended that long in the first place. The NCAA would have handed down a 2 game suspension max, Kelly rushed to judgment and suspended him for the season, realized that was much much too harsh and allowed him back after a still lengthy 10 game suspension. The only precedent I see there is that Oregon is more stiff in handing down punishment that the NCAA is. The only mistake Kelly made regarding the Blount situation was in initially calling it an indefinite suspension.
And what about all these other players accused? Alonso was cited for DUI, you and I both know that nearly all DUI arrests end in a conviction. He's been suspended for the year. Again, Garrett Embry was not booted from the team because of his name coming up regarding a burglary, he was booted from the team 2 weeks prior. Masoli isn't a suspect, as I've already pointed out. Who else is there? This is all deteriorating back to James only, and like I have already said if the charges are not dropped he wont be with the team. He is claiming his innocence at this point and apparently the program is waiting to hear more on his situation. The Simms situation was different. Trying to compare them as black and white and then blast the coaches decisions are laughable at best.
AquaMan2342 wrote:Also, I find it kind of funny that bringing back a player who committed assault on a football field could be considered a "plus" as far as discipline goes. One could easily surmise that Kelly set a dangerous precedent by giving Blount a second chance and that the continued discipline issues he is having could have stemmed from this. If Blount had been booted and been denied the Pac-10 Championship Ring and TD in the Rose Bowl he was allowed to have, you'd wonder if his players would take him more seriously. That's where the parallel to MSU is so existent....give players with troubled characters chances and then act surprised when other players feel like they can get away with stuff. Has Blount done anything wrong since? Not to my knowledge but it's irrelevant. The precedent is still there. Now only after the program's public image is going down the toilet do they start to take anything that resembles a strong stance.
You are really reaching here. There are punches thrown on the football field every year, in dozens of games. If every player who threw a punch in a football game were tossed off every team every time I would say you had a point, but this doesn't happen. Brandon Spikes gouges the eye of a Georgia player and gets one game off. Tre'Shawn Robinson punched a guy and got a warning. Jonas Mouton got a game off. Sean Weatherspoon punched a Husker player and got 15 yards. Blount should have been suspended for one game, max. The fact that he lost nearly his entire senior season belies your premise. Characterizing it as "assault" is a stretch.
What would I need to investigate? What crime could Simms have been charged with that's worse than domestic violence? They are both charged with crimes, neither has been convicted, yet one is already been booted and the other hasn't. One is a star player and one isn't. How much clearer could it possibly be? You didn't really answer this, you beat around the bush and say they are different situations. Again, as far as the law is concerned, they are in the exact same position right now (charged, not convicted), except the crime that James committed is probably a much more serious crime. That's OK though, keep giving James the benefit of the doubt that other players are obviously not afforded.
As far as Blount goes, I guess cold clocking a player on the field is any different than him doing it at a bar or a party? Right? It's not like it was a big brawl involving both teams and a bunch of players. He's lucky Haut didn't become the Rudy Tomjanovich to his Kermit Washington. Not to mention he tried to go all Ron Artest and fight people in the crowd too. Again, I linked to an article from a national news source that shares this same opinion on what kind of message is sent when you forgive these types of players, yet I am totally off base in even bringing up the idea? Again, I don't care if you agree with me or not, but please don't be naive enough to believe that my viewpoint doesn't exist.
EDIT: Comparing in-the-pile scuffles to consciously walking up to an opposing player after the game and knocking him out and following it up by trying to fight people in the crowd is ridiculous.
Also, it's seriously crazy that you would even use the word stiff to describe anything resembling discipline within the Oregon program when you're handing scholarships to thugs like Masoli in the first place. That's right, I forgot though, committing ARMED ROBBERY and spending your high school years in jail is teenage shenanigans right? Unbelievable. It's amazing a kid like that even gets a chance, yet here you are as rabid fan making it as clear as you possibly can that it's only an alleged robbery and blah blah blah. Kids like that wouldn't touch the field at a respectable program in the first place. If he wasn't fast and couldn't throw a ball real well, he'd never have any opportunities afforded to him. Instead, programs like Oregon actually come calling to him and here he is accused to be in trouble again. Oh yeah, he's only accused, oops. What am I thinking believing he'd ever contemplate burglarizing again? Look how it worked out for him the first time.
Again, I gave you five articles, three of which were local outlets who I am certain know more than you and I both that share my opinion and you're acting like I am coming out of left field here. Maybe you didn't even read them. It sounds like you didn't. I don't care if you agree with me or not, but acting like my POV doesn't exist just makes you look like win-at-all costs fan. I mean, at least I linked to an article that more resembles your opinion and took the time to look at it from your side.
EDIT again: You keep saying Masoli isn't charged, but I don't see where he's been cleared of anything either. And as far as Simms goes, I don't see anything that says anything other than he was arrested and quickly kicked off the team for violating team rules.
I've read all those articles (plus many many more) and I still feel you're reaching, but then again so are many of the same article writers. You keep bringing up the Simms case, but you don't have any more information than the rest of us. LMJ has vehemently denied any wrongdoing to his coach, perhaps the same is not the case for Simms. If the information comes out that Simms flat out told Kelly that he was innocent, then your argument has merit.
Joined: 1 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Reser Stadium; lamenting the D-Line for 2011
I've read all those articles (plus many many more) and I still feel you're reaching, but then again so are many of the same article writers.
That's a convenient viewpoint to take.
I don't really want to argue about this anymore it's frankly going nowhere. I have my opinions and everyone else has theirs.
EDIT: One point I want to make clear is that I don't harbor any unhealthy feelings towards Oregon in particular. I haven't posted on the football side much and if I had you can be sure I'd have things to say about schools like Alabama and Florida who make 5 or 6 arrests look like nothing. It just so happens there is a strong UO following on here....I knew I'd get into it with somebody, just know I'm not purposely seeking certain teams or fans.
I live in Portland Agua, I couldn't not read these articles, or dozens of others like them if I tried. It's not about what Simms did being worse that what James allegedly did, it's about the situations being different. I mentioned earlier, and I can't find the blurb now, Simms and the others involved in the "brawl" told the coaches about their role in it. Whereas James has completely denied any wrongdoing. Does that mean one should get booted while the other gets to hang around until conviction? That's not for me to say, I don't know the ins and outs of each individual case. Unlike you however I recognize that each case is different, and I'm not assuming to know everything. Apparently the coaches felt they had enough information to dismiss Simms. Maybe he flat out admitted that he beat up everyone in the brawl, I don't know, I do know he admitted to his role in it to a degree.
I'm not a blind rabid fan, I hate when crap like this happens at the school I support. If James, or Masoli, or anyone else has broken team rules they need to be disciplined, and they will be. If James did indeed lay a finger on that woman he needs to be booted, and he will be. You seem to have enough information to call him guilty from your couch, I don't yet. If Masoli participated in a burglary he needs to be booted too, and I'm confident he will be as well. If you want to paint them as guilty from what you've read on the internet that's your right. From what I've read on the internet I haven't heard enough to call for their heads...yet.
As far as Blount, I'm done talking about him, that situation is really irrelevant. A football player mocked and taunted another football player right after a deflating loss, emotions got the better of one, he snapped and lost it. I do not condone any of Blount's actions but I understand it happening. If you go back and read any of my comments regarding the matter right after it happened you'll note that I was calling for his head too. However after I cooled down and thought it through I realized that a complete dismissal wouldn't be appropriate. It's not like he walked up and punched a guy, he was being instigated. Does that make it right? No. But he should have gotten a couple games max.
What I'm still having a hard time understanding, and I think the two others involved in this discussion are too, is where the inconsistencies really are? Embry was dismissed 2 weeks prior to this alleged burglary he's linked to. Holland has had a checkered past in his short time at Oregon, he left a team meeting, where the focus was player conduct, and publicly criticized coaches and posted racist remarks on the web...he was dismissed. Alonso was cited for DUI and is suspended for a season. James allegedly assaulted his girlfriend. He's been charged, is out on bail, cannot attend any classes pending a hearing. Obviously the coaches are waiting for more information on him. Masoli has not been charged with anything, he hasn't even been named a suspect. Most of all the reports I've read have him spoken of as a person of interest. His past run ins with the law doesn't make him guilty and it's not fair to assume he or anyone else is because of their past. Simms was involved in a street fight and was dismissed from the team.
Did I miss anything?
Also I find I funny that a Beavers fan, a guy who would love nothing more than to cut Oregon down a notch, would be here supporting the point of view that Kelly and his coaching staff has acted appropriately. I mean that has to tell you something.
AquaMan2342 wrote:As far as Blount goes, I guess cold clocking a player on the field is any different than him doing it at a bar or a party? Right? It's not like it was a big brawl involving both teams and a bunch of players. He's lucky Haut didn't become the Rudy Tomjanovich to his Kermit Washington. Not to mention he tried to go all Ron Artest and fight people in the crowd too. Again, I linked to an article from a national news source that shares this same opinion on what kind of message is sent when you forgive these types of players, yet I am totally off base in even bringing up the idea? Again, I don't care if you agree with me or not, but please don't be naive enough to believe that my viewpoint doesn't exist.
Naive? Right. When you've seen half the things I've seen in my life we'll talk about naive, junior. People like to bandy that word about when they have no idea who they're talking to. I'll put my life experience up against anyone's, either Cafe, any time. You look like a fool when you use that word. Spare yourself. You're smarter than that or I wouldn't even be talking to you about this.
I don't want to get into some ridiculous semantic argument about the words we're all using here, but let's be real about what Blount did - he punched a kid who goaded him after a game which his team lost. Blount lost his mind and had to be restrained - by former Husker QB Scott Frost, a neighbor of mine here in Lincoln, BTW - but aside from that extracurricular, his situation wasn't markedly different than the other players I mentioned. Glossing over the infractions of Spikes, Mouton, Weatherspoon and Robinson belittles your point. There is a difference because Blount's actions happened after the game, but that difference is mitigated by the actions of Hout. Are they equal? Hardly. But they're not so disparate that you should just toss them aside callously. They're most certainly relevant.
Blount didn't just walk up to Hout and clock him. Hout sought Blount out, tapped him on the shoulder, and got in his face. Without Hout's instigation it's likely there would never have been an issue. Despite that instigation, Kelly suspended Blount for not just any season, but his senior season. That's hardly the action of the character you're painting Kelly in.
There are some battles not worth fighting. You're engaged in a dispute with Met, an Oregon fan, and me, a Husker fan with zero vested interest, and sandrock, an OSU fan who should be supporting but isn't. If that doesn't tell you something you're not the guy I think you are.
1. Yes, you are completely showing a lack of understanding towards my argument, as if my opinion is alien and nobody else shares it. Like I said, I don't care if you agree with me or not, but it's as if you guys think I am crazy in thinking that allowing players to break rules and forgiving them doesn't enable other players to feel like they will be forgiven too, subsequently leading to more problems. Why do the same schools (Ohio State, Penn State, MSU, entire SEC, Oregon) continue to be the ones with discipline problems? Also like I said, I even extended the courtesy of looking at the opposite viewpoint and admitted that I was probably being too harsh on the coach because of all the pressures coming from different directions. Did it change my opinion? No, but I'm not close-minded enough to at least try to see a situation in different lights.
2. You're basically arguing that it wasn't even Blount's fault in the first place. That's unreal. You should thank your buddy Scott Frost (QB of the second best team in the country in 1997) because if Blount had broken his grip and gotten to the innocent students he was attempting to engage, there's no way you'd feel as comfortable making that argument as you do right now.
Overall, I'm just glad I went to a school who's biggest problem (besides returning to the top) is that they're practicing a half hour longer than they should be *gasp*.
2. No one implied your view is crazy, and no one is saying your view is alien, if you're reading it that way that's on you. However it's hard to take you seriously when you make a bunch of off base claims that Oregon is treating certain players differently than others. You're the one that started this off with your original claim that the Oregon brass has been inconsistent with their disciplining of players. A claim that holds zero water. You're acting as if Oregon continuously has players breaking major rules and getting away with it. Go ahead and look though the recent disciplinary actions the Oregon brass has handed down. Who's gotten away with what? I imagine the crux of this point would be what? The Blount suspension? A suspension that by most peoples standards was far far too harsh?
2. Nobody is "basically arguing it wasn't Blount's fault" he punched someone in the face, don't be silly. Blount was fully responsible for his actions, and Hout was responsible for his. You can dismiss the antagonizing, and instigating by Hout if you want but he played a big role in the incident. He's the one that pushed that button that set Blount off. Does that make it OK for Blount to punch him? Absolutely not, but Hout is far from an innocent.