Blount Reinstated
Apparently LaGarrette Blount was reinstated today.
My opinion is, and always has been, that his suspension should have been a game, two at the most. Anthony Reddick, the player who used his helmet as a weapon and sparked a humongous brawl in 2006, was only suspended for four games.
If we are to take the FIU-Miami incident as precedent, LaGarrette punching one fat asshole and responding to racist Boise St. fans never warranted a full season suspension (at least not from a major football university like Oregon).
Then again, you could make the argument that no fighting should ever be tolerated and that both Reddick and Blount should have been tossed off their respective teams–meaning Reddick’s example and precedent is false.
It is my opinion, as a realist, that not only are emotions bound to run high in a setting like collegiate sports, but more importantly the universities make an insane amount of money off of our student-athletes. They don’t want to suspend these players.
Dare I ask you, the Duck fan, what your opinion is?
Don’t make me regret this now. Play nice with each other.
Also … if Hout filed charges, then he would officially have to cash in his man-card. I mean, he’s an athlete – he’s stronger, faster, and physically tougher than a lot of people out there; he spends entire games knocking and getting knocked around out on the field. Its a physical game … and to then get all in a tizzy because of a single punch … well, – to use the words of my generation – thats weak-sauce.
It was poor sportsmanship on both sides – and I don’t think either should have to sink their season because of it. Lets just all act like grown-ups, and move on.
There’s no way Hout would have pressed charges because he would most likely be required to recount his own words which doesn’t make the situation any less embarrassing for either school. Additionally the DA would have a helluva time proving that Blount is a menace to society which would just be a waste of their time either way.
And I’m pretty sure the vast majority of bar/drunk fights don’t end up in court because both parties tend to realize they made stupid, emotionally charged decisions when they shouldn’t have.
Ya know, like rubbing a loss in someone’s face instead of enjoying a win or punching someone for being a dick instead of staying classy.
Classic case of “shoulda-woulda-coulda” … COULD Byron Hout have pressed charges against Blount for assault? Probably … but I didn’t hear anything about it. Would the DA have pressed charges on behalf of “The people” against Blount? It’s possible … but they didn’t. While the first question has missed its window of opportunity, the answer to the second lies in the the third: SHOULD the DA’s office have pressed charges for this? Absolutely not … I’m sure that the DA of Boise has more pressing issues on his plate than dealing with a single punch.
Chip paying back the fan seemed like hush money. After all, the guy may have been ready to write a letter to the editor about the issue. The basic theme of this story is whatever UO says it is completely full of $&%#. The punch was after the game was over so it should have gone to court. If the other guy did not want to press charges the local D.A. should have.
“Scientific poll” is a technical term. When the news station says that, what it means is that the poll was not conducted using methods that would have made it an accurate sampling of public opinion in Oregon/Portland/wherever.
Basically, what they mean when they say that it wasn’t a scientific poll is, “We are wasting your time by devoting time in our broadcast to this because what we are telling you means, reflects, and proves nothing.”
Take this shit to the Emerald message boards, or something.
Nope, we got out coached and out played. I’ll freely admit it when it does happen. What about you?
@ Darby Shaw:
You are bad at WordPress … FAIL.
I did, however, see your sad, little USC logo as the icon for your page. Bet that one’s gotta sting … jealous, maybe, that your team is no longer #1?
Go punch somebody on the street and see how it works out for you. I guarantee you won’t be in jail “like…an hour max”, More likely at least over night. Then you have to go to court, possible probation, fines and maybe more jail time depending on your previous police history which Mr. Blunt has. PLus, that little pesky question on a job app, have you ever been arrested? But I digress b/c he will fit in nicely in the NFL. Maybe he can trade stories with Ray Lewis among others.
“Spent time in jail”
Like…an hour, max? Your ‘punch hyperbole’ doesn’t make any sense.
If Blount had punched somebody like he did at a Bar or a party, he would have spent time in jail. If I did that to somebody at work, do you think I would have a job? He’s getting off easy and it shows that sports star/celebrities are above the law. How about that Stanford game? Nice defense you got going there.
Local PDX Newschannel 8 last night featured an opinion poll about what people around Portland thought about Chip’s decision … only 25% agreed with the move to re-instate Blount, while 75% disagreed. What is really interesting is that, 6 weeks ago, ESPN ran the same poll, and this time, the numbers were reversed – 75% of ESPN readers thought that Blount should be allowed to play again. Of course, the newschannel defeated any shred of credibility to their poll by immediately saying after the results – I kid you not – “These numbers are not scientific”. It’s a freaking poll – a yes / no decision – how is that not “scientific”?
But I digress …
I completely agree with C.T . … when you think about the situation, its actually kind of astonishing that none of the usual governing bodies – the NCAA, the Pac-10, or the University of Oregon – directly intervened in the doling out of punishments or precedents in this move. This was all Chip’s decision, and I think reacting quickly might have been the best thing. Let people think that Chip is handling this in a very strict and severe manner – make him look like a leader who won’t tolerate any kind of unsportsman-like conduct. Whether or not he sincerely over-reacted in the initial punishment and later rescinded, or whether this was all a devious PR scheme – it doesn’t matter, because the effect worked.
I have long said that Blount should not have to end his season because of that one single incident. Let the punishment fit the crime – in this case, I do not believe that suspending Blount for the season really fits with “the punch”. Especially when they have proven themselves at working on a road towards redemption.
I think that the UO mascot raping that other mascot on the field at Autzen a couple of years ago helped Oregon cultivate a more “edgy” program.
What exactly do you mean by
What exactly do you mean by “at least not from a major football university like Oregon?”
Should athletes at a large school somehow have more free reign to attack people than those at smaller schools? Or the student body at large? Elevating our football players to that sort of demigod status is dangerous territory, and is hurting the primary (educational) mission of the University.
“I think the mistake Chip made was to say he was suspended for the season instead of indefinitely.”
I agree, Chip definitely made a decision too quickly in order to please people. Suspending him for the whole season is too harsh a punishment, but letting Blount come back now makes Chip look bad.
I think that Chip’s preemption of the league and/or the NCAA was a good move. That allowed the U of O to keep the matter in-house and deal with it in a way that mitigated the harm done to the player, the team and the university in general. The way things unfolded, it is hard to say what sort of punishment would have been levied against Blount had Chip left it up to others.
As for the suspension, I think it was far more than the situation called for. Let’s just call it the nationally-televised, first game of the season tax. Regardless of what anyone thinks, it had to be bigger than what was warranted. So, eight games is the vast majority of the season and about twice as much as the punishment should have been.
Considering what most people thought of after that Boise game, namely that the Ducks’ season was over, I think that Chip pulled off a pretty big coaching coup.
I’m also glad that Blount will have a chance to showcase his skills again. He made a bad decision, but like Dane said the NCAA, Pac-10 and the U of O make millions on the performance of these college athletes. Just last week, Lokey (the famed Nanoscience lab benefactor) was cited in a UO email saying that he donated $27 to the UO Foundation because that was the point spread against USC. Then, he called for others to donate the same, and to follow suit for future games. Sure, it’s a small gesture, but it’s just another way that football is linked to university funding. ANYWAY, Blount has a decent shot at the NFL and I hope he makes it. If he had been suspended the entire year, the last thing people would have remembered would be Boise State. Now, he has a chance to (furhter?) redeem himself.
I think the mistake Chip made was to say he was suspended for the season instead of indefinitely. Suspending him indefinitely and laying out conditions for his return would have ensured that 1. He was being punished. and 2. This punishment wasn’t a spur of the moment reaction to public pressure. Now it looks like Chip changed his mind to the public, which could have been avoided. But hey, hindsight is 20/20 and although I don’t see Blount contributing much beyond blocking and short yardage situations its always good to have an additional option in the Ducks’ scoring arsenal.