Read the debate intro, Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan’s arguments about whether or not Oregon should be allowed to reinstate running back LeGarrette Blount.
Two interesting, well written arguments on a very relevant topic… especially for PAC-10 fans with a game against the resurgent Oregon Ducks looming on the horizon. Many questions prevail from this topic. Here is an interesting one to consider: Did Oregon head football coach Chip Kelly really have to come out and publically proclaim that his players are not allowed to sucker punch other players?
As much as coaches teach and preach to players about human values and moral values, and how football is a great metaphor for life, those lessons only gain meaning when backed up by action. Oregon’s head coach, by even discussing the possibility of reinstating Blount after publically suspending him the season, is demonstrating with real action that the truth does not matter to his player. Is that a life lesson worth teaching?
Loyal Homer wins this debate for making the most significant, impactful point. Kelly stated publically that Blount’s actions are not permitted on his team. By allowing Blount back onto the team – after publically stating the season long punishment – Kelly is in fact permitting Blount’s actions.
Ultimately, it is Bleacher Fan’s insistence than Blount did, “nothing more than sucker punch another player… and then yell at fans.” Blount tried to charge into the crowd and was acting in a way that convinced those watching Blount, if not restrained, would have done harm to those in the crowd. Frankly, the incident with the crowd was far worse that Blount’s sucker punch to Byron Hout.
Loyal Homer is correct is writing that it is not Blount’s actions that are on trial anymore, it is the integrity of the Oregon head coach and the willingness of the coach to stick by his words, no matter how much he and team may benefit from Blount’s services.
If Kelly reinstates Blount he has committed a frustrating hypocrisy that I would like to see die in college sports. The idea that winning at all costs – even if that cost is the values of team and an academic institution – is the foundational element that wins the day and the hearts and minds of those in leadership positions in college athletics.
Kelly could have levied a punishment that left the door to reinstatement ajar. An indefinite suspension with a benchmark for success that Blount must satisfy would have been a better route. Instead, he publically announced a season long suspension. Going back on his word now undoes many important lessons.
Bleacher Fan also stated that history forced emotions to run high on the Oregon sidelines. That is a true statement. However, “being emotionally charged” is not an excuse for outlandish, violent behavior. It simply explains it.
Contrary to Bleacher Fan’s assessment, it was not the suspension that has prevented Blount from leveraging his senior season of football for NFL riches, it is Blount’s own actions that have derailed his future plans.
Hopefully Kelly, the university, and the PAC-10 will remain true to their original statements. If not, rival coaches will circle the blood pouring out of Oregon’s program and lay seeds of doubt in the minds of recruits. Hopefully, when all is said and done, Oregon either sticks to its word, or pays the price.
I agree 100% Why not announce a suspension with the possibility of coming back if conditions are met. But NOOOO, Kelly announced Blounts career at Oregon is over. Now he reinstates him and tries to make it seem like the Pac-10 commissioner is responsible. The decision is the University of Oregon and Coack Kelly’s. The only thing the Pac-10 commissioner has done is say, “I won’t fight you on this” Good Job Oregon. The country has seen your Integrity up close!!
I agree with you completely that Kelly’s integrity is called into question now that he has reinstated Blount.
However, that doesn’t mean that reinstating Blount is the WRONG decision. Although Kelly looks foolish now by going back on his initial punishment, the punishment itself was excessive, and I’m glad that Kelly and the University of Oregon are not so shortsighted that they insist on adhering to an excessive punishment that was made in haste.