Pac-10 reinstates Oregon's Blount AFTER Stanford beat them to a pulp.
Ape Recovery Services
_ABAD9BS5L2G4
WALNUT CREEK, Calif. � Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott says he has
approved the request from Oregon to reinstate running back LeGarrette
Blount, who was suspended in September after he punched a Boise State
player.
Scott said in an announcement Monday that after reviewing the situation he
was "convinced LeGarrette Blount paid a significant and appropriate price
for the mistakes he made on the field, and that he has learned important
lifelong lessons."
Blount will be eligible to play in Saturday's home game against Arizona
State.
Oregon suspended Blount for the season after he punched Boise State's
Byron Hout on the field after the season opener in Idaho.
Sure he did. He learned it all, right after Oregon got the shit kicked
out of them by Stanford, and Nike wrote a check to the Pac-10.
gb
<yo...@email.com> wrote:
...
>Oregon suspended Blount for the season after he punched Boise State's
>Byron Hout on the field after the season opener in Idaho.
>
>Sure he did. He learned it all, right after Oregon got the shit kicked
>out of them by Stanford, and Nike wrote a check to the Pac-10.
This is Colludj Football, ferpete'ssakes! It's about Money.
This was predictable And predicted.
But the action was only formally announced after the defeat. It had
been in the process previously.
Did you think the guy was going to be kept out for an entire season??
Sheesh!
C The Shocker
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jVlu1tZDshz3xDRRtgT...
YSB. AYB?
-
C The Shocker
Quack!
Eric Ramon
blahblah blah...blah blah blah...then this
>
> Sure he did. He learned it all, right after Oregon got the shit kicked
> out of them by Stanford, and Nike wrote a check to the Pac-10.
I know! Oregon got pummeled by 9, just like LSU got pummeled by
Alabama. Some teams just get pummeled.
C The Shocker
Goddamn, that's some serious PWNage right there.
Alex DeLarge
> This was predictable And predicted.
======================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> You should really find another set of friends. ;)
"Not my friends, clearly. Never used one, and wouldn't. Have
considered, once I'm well into my dotage, taking one of the target
rifles and a Gillie Suit into the woods, and simply offing a bunch of
them as far from anything as is possible.
Society would suffer no great loss thereby, seems to me."
===================================================================================
Alex DeLarge
No...just for 8 /12 games, you fucking pompous peehole!
But the real damage is done, say bye bye to MILLIONS OF $$$, Blunt-head
drops from the 1st to the 3rd round.
Ha Ha!
Anthony Summers
Errr.. no.
Stanford != Alabama
--
A. Summers || summerstorm0007-->at<--yahoo.com
GregoryD
Right. Stanford = Middle Tennessee Valley State.
GregoryD
lein
And it's not as if they could put in in a ziploc bag and toss him in
your freezer.
Spread Eagle®
> Oregon suspended Blount for the season after he punched Boise State's
> Byron Hout on the field after the season opener in Idaho.
>
> Sure he did. He learned it all, right after Oregon got the shit kicked
> out of them by Stanford, and Nike wrote a check to the Pac-10.
That's not it. Oregon's only concern --the only thing they've ever
been concerned with in this whole deal-- is how they _looked_. Not
justice. Not doing the right thing. Just appearances. It all
happened on national TV after all. That's why the very next day after
just 12 hours later Bellotti and Chip Kelly called their somber press
conference to announce Blount's permanent suspension. They were full-
tilt willing to flush Blount down the toilet when that served their
purposes. Now they're gonna bring him back because that serves their
purposes now.
Michael Fletcher
I give them credit for playing Va Tech, but who the hell else have they
played? Florida International? North Texas? Chatanooga, in NOVEMBER!?!!?
All at home?
I know, I know - they're in the SEC and the SEC is SOOOOO GOOD that all
their teams should be allowed to play eight home games (and a minimum
three cupcakes per year) just because the conference is SO GOOD.
But if they don't play anyone out of conference, and no one in their
conference plays anyone out of conference... then how the fuck are we
supposed to know how good they really are!?
I guess that's kind of the SEC's point.
gb
Try a dose of reality(tm) now and again.
Eric Ramon
that's just screwy...I mean "serves their purposes now". I assume you
mean because they lost to Stanford so the lead in the conference is
down a half a game.
But the move was discusses awhile back about how Blount would not be
allowed back until after the USC game, perceived to be the toughest
game. That he could be brought back but not until the Stanford game.
That he wasn't playing in that game is because Coach Kelly wanted to
make sure Blount's first appearance would be at home. Period.
Blount will not be the #1 back. Lamichael James has won that spot and
done better than Blount ever did. Last season Blount scored a lot of
TDs but James has already rushed for more yards than Blount did all
last season.
The Ducks lost to Stanford while outgaining them 570 yards to 505. The
Ducks do not need Blount back. They are fine without him. This doesn't
mean that Coach Kelly is right about this. All I'm saying is that
Blount's reinstatement has nothing to do your claim that it "serves
their purposes now". If he were a linebacker maybe...but he's not.
gb
<ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 9, 11:01�pm, Spread Eagle� <red...@virtualhosts.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 11:04 am, Ape Recovery Services <yo...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Oregon suspended Blount for the season after he punched Boise State's
>> > Byron Hout on the field after the season opener in Idaho.
>>
>> > Sure he did. �He learned it all, right after Oregon got the shit kicked
>> > out of them by Stanford, and Nike wrote a check to the Pac-10.
>>
>> That's not it. � Oregon's only concern � --the only thing they've ever
>> been concerned with in this whole deal-- �is how they _looked_. �Not
>> justice. �Not doing the right thing. �Just appearances. �It all
>> happened on national TV after all. �That's why the very next day after
>> just 12 hours later Bellotti and Chip Kelly called their somber press
>> conference to announce Blount's permanent suspension. �They were full-
>> tilt willing to flush Blount down the toilet when that served their
>> purposes. �Now they're gonna bring him back because that serves their
>> purposes now.
>
>that's just screwy...I mean "serves their purposes now". I assume you
>mean because they lost to Stanford so the lead in the conference is
>down a half a game.
Nah. Blunt was always going to come back, once he did his penance.
we discussed this a while back.
>But the move was discusses awhile back about how Blount would not be
>allowed back until after the USC game, perceived to be the toughest
>game. That he could be brought back but not until the Stanford game.
>That he wasn't playing in that game is because Coach Kelly wanted to
>make sure Blount's first appearance would be at home. Period.
Ah -- you've discussed this with him, apparently?
The decision was not Kelly's to take -- it was the Pac-10's. So was
the timing of it.
>Blount will not be the #1 back.
That depends entirely on how he performs, dunnit?
> Lamichael James has won that spot and
>done better than Blount ever did.
Football players change even over the course of a year. What happened
last year is not indicative of what will happen this year.
> Last season Blount scored a lot of
>TDs but James has already rushed for more yards than Blount did all
>last season.
Yards are nice. The Ducks has 600+ in the game against Stanford.
yards are immaterial. Touchdowns matter.
>The Ducks lost to Stanford while outgaining them 570 yards to 505. The
>Ducks do not need Blount back. They are fine without him.
But even better with him, along with the extra audience they will
draw, which translates to Money.
> This doesn't
>mean that Coach Kelly is right about this. All I'm saying is that
>Blount's reinstatement has nothing to do your claim that it "serves
>their purposes now". If he were a linebacker maybe...but he's not.
The purpose being served in college football is Money. If a losing
team made a Lot of money, no one would really much care, other than
for bragging rights.
Do try to keep these things in perspective. Blount'
s return will mean an increased audience, which will translate to
Money for the teevee types. D'ya figger that even One less actual
ticket to the game will be sold as well?
Please! Get real!
Alex DeLarge
> Try a dose of reality(tm) now and again.
And YOU, killer?????
Alex DeLarge
> Do try to keep these things in perspective.
======================================================================================
Spread Eagle ®
> > > Oregon suspended Blount for the season after he punched Boise State's
> > > Byron Hout on the field after the season opener in Idaho.
>
> > > Sure he did. He learned it all, right after Oregon got the shit kicked
> > > out of them by Stanford, and Nike wrote a check to the Pac-10.
>
> > That's not it. Oregon's only concern --the only thing they've ever
> > been concerned with in this whole deal-- is how they _looked_. Not
> > justice. Not doing the right thing. Just appearances. It all
> > happened on national TV after all. That's why the very next day after
> > just 12 hours later Bellotti and Chip Kelly called their somber press
> > conference to announce Blount's permanent suspension. They were full-
> > tilt willing to flush Blount down the toilet when that served their
> > purposes. Now they're gonna bring him back because that serves their
> > purposes now.
>
> that's just screwy...I mean "serves their purposes now". I assume you
> mean because they lost to Stanford so the lead in the conference is
> down a half a game.
Not necessarily. Whatever their purposes now are, as in the broadest
sense of what that all means and includes. It theoretically might
include what you say, but not automatically. Oregon the football team
doesn't need really Blount, they've shown that. It wasn't the offense
that lost the game to Stanford. It was their defense's inability to
stop the slow white guy.
> But the move was discusses awhile back about how Blount would not be
> allowed back until after the USC game, perceived to be the toughest
> game. That he could be brought back but not until the Stanford game.
> That he wasn't playing in that game is because Coach Kelly wanted to
> make sure Blount's first appearance would be at home. Period.
>
> Blount will not be the #1 back. Lamichael James has won that spot and
> done better than Blount ever did. Last season Blount scored a lot of
> TDs but James has already rushed for more yards than Blount did all
> last season.
>
> The Ducks lost to Stanford while outgaining them 570 yards to 505. The
> Ducks do not need Blount back. They are fine without him. This doesn't
> mean that Coach Kelly is right about this. All I'm saying is that
> Blount's reinstatement has nothing to do your claim that it "serves
> their purposes now". If he were a linebacker maybe...but he's not.
That's what I said.
Put on your thinking cap. As yourself the obvious. Why? And why now?
Consider this: Perhaps the entire way they treated and handled Blount
messed up _recruiting_ bigtime. It might well appear to some that
they don't support African-American players, or that they'll throw an
African-American player under the bus at the first opportunity if
things go bad. People might say or think that. True or not. Fair or
not. It could be said. And they may have thereby lost out on a
recruit or two who specifically mentioned or at least alluded to the
Blount situation when they decided to go decline Oregon's offers. And/
or maybe their PAC-10 rivals are saying this to African-American
recruits out there on the recruiting trail. Ya think that'd get their
attention and induce them want to now make their ostentatious amends
to Blount?
I say Oregon screwed up handling this right from the get-go. The
punishment Blount got was WAY too quick and WAY too excessive. It
unfolded right there on ESPN on national TV, and then ESPN put it on a
repeating loop with their on-air people clucking and tsk-tsking about
how horrible it was ad infinitum ad nauseum, and then ESPN continued
to loop it as a Saturday highlight reel for the rest of the day and
night over and over again. This in turn caused the Oregon brain
trust, i.e., Kelly, Bellotti, the UO president, and whoever else who's
in there (probably Phil Knight too) to monumentally FREAK OUT, seeing
their carefully crafted and manicured public image swirling around the
toilet bowl about to go ker-plunk. So they got together right that
very night smack dab in the heat of the moment when emotions were
still running extremely high, full of fear and all over-the-top
freaked out, and before all the facts were in, and they decided the
best thing to do was to call a presser, dump on the kid with all 8
feet, and basically ruin the rest of the kid's life in the most public
way possible right then and right there.
What they should have done that night was, yes, immediately, but
fairly quietly, announce that Blount was suspended until further
notice, but then wait a week or two to let passions die down and make
sure they had all pertinent information in front of them, and THEN
review the entire incident and make a knowledgeable and dispassionate
decision about punishment. And no way would it have been a rest of the
season suspension as originally announced. It would have been a few
games suspension, tops. Blount would've been back in action a few
weeks ago. The way they initially handled it screwed them up because
another problem they have is the inability to admit they initially
blew it.
qsp...@comcast.net
>Oregon suspended Blount for the season after he punched Boise State's
>Byron Hout on the field after the season opener in Idaho.
>
>
>Sure he did. He learned it all, right after Oregon got the shit kicked
>out of them by Stanford, and Nike wrote a check to the Pac-10.
I am as apt to be cynical as the next guy--even more so.
But Blount did not play last Saturday. Not a down.
And even before the Sun Devils came to Autzen it was apparent that
Blount was not re-instated because of the loss to Stanford. The Ducks
did not lose to Stanford because of the lack of a running backs. They
actually have a couple who have been doing quite well.
The Ducks lost to Stanford because they could not stop the running
game.
It isn't necessary to ignore facts and reason like this in order to
take your cynical out and play with it in public.
I don't think you're outraged, here. I think you just like ragging on
the Ducks.
"No matter how cynical I get, it's hard to keep up."
Lily Tomlin
Words to live by...words I apply to your comment.