I never said that there should be no repercussions. I just don't see the real value in suspending an athlete for games in November for a violation that occurred many months ago. Like i said before, these types of punishment are really only a show. If you commit some egregious act that truly needs to be punished 6-8 months later then I'm thinking that you shouldn't be on the team at all anymore.
As an example, last year Marshall was suspended for a few games at the start of the season due to some inattention to his academics. This occured either just before or at the beginning of preseason practice. This is a reasonable and valid time to punish him with sitting out a few games. Now, what if his academic issues occurred in April? Do you address it in April and over the summer or do you suspend him for games 6 months later? Obviously, you deal with it immediately. Like I said a lot of these early season suspensions are punishments administered mainly as a show of how the school won't tolerate that behavior.
How about if a football player gets cited for underage drinking at a party in February. Should he be suspended for the season opener at the end of August? I say No. Punish him immediately. Maybe make him sit out the BW game, but not 8 months later.
Now, I get what you are saying. I'm trying to envision a punishment that could be administered during the off season that would be as meaningful and effective and fair as a susupension from games. I do think that there is a fairness factor here. Say one player a team violated a team rule during the off season and suffers some sort of "alternative" punishment. Then another player viloates the same rule just before or during the season and subsequently losses playing time. How is that fair to the 2nd player. He may prefer to suffer the same punishment as the first player. Aren't players expect to follow the rules every semester and not just during the season? After all, their scholarships are good year round.
Jakkl is right, it is just for show. Trey Burke is suspended from an exhibition game. Seriously, what is that going to prove?
I remember either Bobby Bowden or Tressel was suspending players, and you could look at their schedule and see which games they were being suspended from. I think it was a year when Bowden was playing Miami in the opener, and somehow it was announced that the player was suspended from the SECOND game against Howard or some irrelevant program.
The real problem is the fact that this guy is playing at ALL. Assaults, non-compliance with treatment orders, DUIs... and he's still on the team?
As far as gametime suspensions, I understand what Jakkl is saying, but seeing how he just plead guilty in September is the ticket for suspending him for a few games this season. Like he said, if it all went down in May, it would be a tougher sell.
We all want to know that he is being punished somehow. It's partly huan nature to want to SEE it, and partly being a college sports fan and being naturally jaded about the "fairness" of the treatment of these players.
Ask yourself.... ....if this was a reserve player, would it be handled differently? As the article says, "Mbakwe is a projected first-round pick on many boards, despite last season's ACL tear. The 6-foot-8 forward could be the difference between the NIT and the NCAA tournament for the Gophers."
To expound on that, the difference between an NIT appearence and an NCAA appearence can translate to a few millions dollars in Tubby's next contract. Perhaps it's my jaded side showing through, but I feel that has more weight in the decision than anything.
Why wouldn't Mbakwe be suspended for any games?
- Because Minnesota will need to win EVERY game it can in order to make the tourny. Any loss can criple their chances.
- Minnesota's first game is against American University. Last year, American's record was....
- 20-10 (10-4)
...and that's the SEASON OPENER. Can Minny afford to lose that one? Does Tubby want his star sitting that one out? Does that play into his decision?
....Is that ethical?