Thoughts on potential suspensions

[ShotgunDawg]

I haven't been able to post most of the day, but have had the opportunity to read all of your thoughts about the depth chart and the potential of some of our players being suspended for the Oklahoma State game. Therefore, I've had all day to gather my thoughts, decide what I believe and what don't, and what I think is in the best interest of Mississippi State University. Again, what I write in this post is likely to be disagreed with more than agreed with, but I am OK with that because, like the rest of you, I want what is best for the MSU and its' football program.

This is what we know:

1. A depth chart was released today, but it came with no explanations, no tone, and no asterisks. It is simply a list of players, in the supposed order of their potential playing time.

2. Quay Evans, Nick James, and Curtis Virges were not it.

3. In past years, Mullen has used the 1st game of the season for suspensions. The list of players to serve this penalty included Fletcher Cox himself; so no preferential has been given to good players.

4. Since Mullen has arrived on campus, we have opened with crappy teams.

5. This year we play Oklahoma State, which is not a crappy team.

6. Nick James, Quay Evans, and Curtis Virges are very talented defensive tackles.

7. Nick James was all smiles at the fan day yesterday.

These are the facts as we know them at this point.

Here is what we don't know:

1. We don't know if this depth chart is legit or if Mullen simply isn't tipping his hand. He may have a strategy with the depth chart that he feels like will give the Oklahoma State staff something to think about. Likely? not really, but we simply don't know. This chart could've been thrown together in 5 minutes on a napkin and names were left off.

2. We don't attend practice and therefore, really have no clue as to who is playing well, who is hurt, and who is hustling.

3. We don't know if there will be any suspensions this year. No one here knows for sure.

4. We don't know how effective our defensive line would be without James, Evans, and Virges.

With these facts in mind, I will now give my opinion. My opinion is based completely on circumstance that some, if not all of the mentioned players, are suspended for the Oklahoma State. If not, then my opinion and this entire post was a complete waste of time and I apologize to anyone I may have offended. Here we go:

A few weeks ago, Bill Parcells was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and in his induction speech he gave a wonderful nugget of knowledge that really resonated with me. He said in regards to his mentor in coaching, "He taught me one vital, vital piece of information that I took with me and preached to every organization, to every university, to my coaching staffs, to my individual coaches and I remind myself every day,” Parcells said. “And that vital piece of information was, ‘Bill, the players deserve a chance to win, and you as an organization or university and coaching staff and individual coach and head coach have an obligatory responsibility to give it to them."

After reading that quote, you can probably figure out what I am about to say. However, the quote rings true! Suspensions against Jackson State, Memphis, and Alcorn State don't detract from the ability of the team to win. Our coaching staff, fans, university, compliance department, athletic department, ect... have an obligitory responsibility to offer the players of Mississippi State University the best opportunity to win. Because of these values, UNLESS THE VIOLATION HAS LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS, I feel that if we suspend 2 or 3 very usable players against Oklahoma State, we would not be holding up our end of the bargain and instead punishing all the other players on the team for what 2 or 3 players may have done.

Life isn't fair and sports aren't fair, some employees are more important to the flow of business than others and some players are more important to winning games than others. SEC football is big business, and a ton of money has been put forth to help Mississippi State's football program succeed. There are other ways to punish players without detracting from the ability of the team to win; which you are obliged to offer. Players can run, players can sit the bench against Alcorn State, lose starting spots, etc, but the team's ability to win should not be effected.

If Mullen suspends these players against OSU, for non-legal violations, I will seriously begin to question the direction that program is going and the commitment to winning. No doubt, it is noble what we would be doing, but its simply dumb and not necessary when there are other options. College football isn't like MLB, NFL, NBA, College Basketball, or College Baseball; every loss is a big deal. There are no playoffs, there is no getting hot at the right time of year and making a run to Omaha or the final 4, and there is no starting 0-3 and still making the playoffs. In College Football, every game counts and we simply can't waste any.

If we suspend these players, and are hell bent on suspending players for every first game of the year, then why on Earth would we play an opening game that we could possibly lose? Why not play it the 2nd week when we would be at full strength?

The point is that the coaching staff and university have an obligatory responsibility to give the players every chance to win, and by suspending these players, we simply wouldn't doing that. If this goes down, then Mullen better hope we still win this game or no one should say one thing when 35,000 people show up for the Alcorn State game. If the coaching staff and university isn't committed to winning, then why should the fans?

I really want to believe he wouldn't do something like this, and, ultimately I want to believe that he is way to smart try it. Doesn't make any sense in the grand scheme of things.

[CooterDavenport]

tl;dr

[Fader21]

Sorry but I might be in the minority, but if those players committed a violation of team rules, or illegal activity they should be punished however the coach chooses. Yes winning is important but so is teaching the kids right from wrong. You do realize when kids go undisciplined then it's worse for the team. Look at the bball program.

[angusyoung]

Playing sports is a privilege not a right. If you accept the scholarship and everything that comes along with that privilege then you accept the terms set by the institution offering the scholarship. You **** up and will not play. Regardless of the team's needs. As a person someone has to teach you that your individual shortcomings can be a detriment to the entire group.

Now, I don't know you but I'm making the assumption that you don't have kids because you wouldn't be saying this if you did. On more than one occasion I have cancelled family outings and even week long vacations the day before because one of my sons was being a shithead. You don't get to go through life being a privileged asshole never seeing how your actions can hurt an entire group. That's what being on a team is all about.

[MSUDogFan]

I don't have a problem with coaches suspending players for the first game or the first home game. I've always felt that being suspended for your first home game in front of your family, friends and fans was more of a punishment. That being said, I feel that my desire to know who is being suspended is far outweighed by the need not to tip off the opponent prior to game day.

[smootness]

Completely, but respectfully, disagree, Shotgun.

Yes, Mullen is responsible for putting the best product on the field. However, as Fader said, he does have other responsibilities; some, like Urban Meyer, choose to ignore these responsibilities but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Bill Parcells wasn't directly talking about player suspensions when he said that; I guarantee you he didn't mean, 'You shouldn't suspend players for important games'; I'm quite sure he did his share of disciplining, and some of that was through suspensions.

Also, in regard to being obligated to give the players a chance to win - you can make a very good case that by playing guys who have broken rules in big games, you have undermined the team's best chance to win going forward. For one, you have made it clear to that player and everyone else that the rules on the book aren't hard rules (this isn't a video game, you can't just check off 'suspension for 1 game' and it be the same no matter when it is). Everyone is going to understand that those rules don't mean what they say they mean at all times. So you have made it more likely for that player and all others to try to bend those rules later. You may lose a player in the future for more than 1 game, and it be out of your hands, because the culture of rule-bending was already established. And again, you run the very concrete risk of the attitude of your team changing from one of discipline to one of entitlement; that will hurt your ability to win games.

It's strange to me that everyone jumped all over Stans for his discipline issues, yet some want to see Mullen skirt on discipline to help win one particular game. Doesn't make sense to me.

[Political Hack]

if they did something worth being suspended over, suspend them out the gate. If they did something that can be handled better through alternative means... handle it that way.

If I had to discipline Nick James, I'd make him run 10 miles. It's harder for
him than sitting out and it forces him to show his level of
dedication.

[Coach34]

you can't do that. And if any coach out there made his players accountable- it was Parcells.

You can't sacrifice team rules and discipline because the opponent you play is tougher. If players know you arent going to sit them out in big games- what's going to stop them from breaking rules? Good lord man, we just watched Standsbury and Houston Nutt crumble as coaches because they didnt discipline their teams like they should have. With those two shining examples fresh on everyone's mind, you would think that people would see the light.

[ckDOG]

If a father gets busted for doing something that requires jail time, do you support letting it slide because his kids at home would be better off having two parents around or you make him serve his time?

Like you said, life isn't fair. Sticking to principles isn't easy and individual actions affects many. You don't let it slide if it really is a guiding principle.

That said, I think we read way too much into Mullen's depth charts. Hurry the hell up, Saturday!

[mic]

Its going to be more than grades and missed classes with Nick IF he is suspended

[HancockCountyDog]

This whole lose the program thing is a little overblown.

Plenty of successful FBS coaches do this.

One of the greatest coaches of all time, Jimmy Johnson talked about cutting John Roper for falling asleep in a team meeting, and he said if it had been Troy Aikman he would have told him to just wake up.

I think there may be another issue with James that we may want to consider, He may not be that good. Talented? Sure. But good? So far there is no tangible proof that he will be a contributor on a SEC program. I've known Nick since the 8th grade when those bastards at SSC recruited him to play there. He only lasted a year at SSC which is almost impossible to get kicked out of. I mean impossible. Some guys just don't want to be helped.

As for Quay, I have no idea what is going on, because some on here, that actually know what they are talking about, have compared him to Warren Sapp, and folks, Eulls is a lot of things, Warren Sapp, he aint.

[DanDority]

Playing sports is a privilege not a right. If you accept the scholarship and everything that comes along with that privilege then you accept the terms set by the institution offering the scholarship. You **** up and will not play. Regardless of the team's needs. As a person someone has to teach you that your individual shortcomings can be a detriment to the entire group.

Now, I don't know you but I'm making the assumption that you don't have kids because you wouldn't be saying this if you did. On more than one occasion I have cancelled family outings and even week long vacations the day before because one of my sons was being a shithead. You don't get to go through life being a privileged asshole never seeing how your actions can hurt an entire group. That's what being on a team is all about.

Couldn't agree more. Plus, I think Shotgun in making assumptions that he is not completely sure about.

[archdog]

I don't show up week in and week out for "a privilege". I show up for wins. This is a sport. Make them clean up campus, cut grass, wash clothes, but do not suspend them for OK State. They can be suspended for all the other nonconference games for that matter.

[smootness]

I don't show up week in and week out for "a privilege". I show up for wins. This is a sport. Make them clean up campus, cut grass, wash clothes, but do not suspend them for OK State. They can be suspended for all the other nonconference games for that matter.

Well, then honestly, you're part of the problem with college athletics, really athletics in general. There are things more important than doing whatever it takes to win a football game. Anyone who can't see that has some issues.

[Political Hack]

Well, then honestly, you're part of the problem with college athletics, really athletics in general. There are things more important than doing whatever it takes to win a football game. Anyone who can't see that has some issues.

while I agree with your position in this issue, winning football games increase student attendance, brings national recognition to an otherwise unknown school, creates revenue, lowers taxpayer obligations for education, helps the state and local economy, increases the value of your degree, brings pride to the state of Mississippi, etc...

It's not about winning a football game. A 'W' is the least important thing about having a winning football program in the SEC. It's about the betterment of the University and the State of Mississippi as a whole.

[ShotgunDawg]

This is a good conversation and I appreciate that. Thats one of the beautiful things about EliteDawgs is that we can have good discussions like this without ass-hats jumping in the ring destroying it.

I respect all of your opinions, but I still feel the same. Where I disagree with you guys is, I think Mullen has painted himself into a corner with this 1st game suspension. There are better and more creative options to suspending players than the first game. Run, suspend them the 2nd game, extra study hall hours, etc..

The secondary point is, if we aren't going to be any more creative than suspending players for the first game, then why on Earth would you ever play a tough first game?

Finally, I'm just tired of the speculation every season about suspensions. I feel that the speculation, because no one tells us, is much worse than the actual suspensions there self.

I am not against punishing players. They have to be punished when team rules are violated. My only question is, does it have to alway be the first game?

Just my opinion. Thanks for the rational responses.

[ShotgunDawg]

while I agree with your position in this issue, winning football games increase student attendance, brings national recognition to an otherwise unknown school, creates revenue, lowers taxpayer obligations for education, helps the state and local economy, increases the value of your degree, brings pride to the state of Mississippi, etc...

It's not about winning a football game. A 'W' is the least important thing about having a winning football program in the SEC. It's about the betterment of the University and the State of Mississippi as a whole.

THIS!!!!

[curmudgeon]

If you are advocating holding suspensions until a winnable game, you are an idiot.

[mic]

Here is the bottom line.. Nick WILL NOT be suspended this game for missing a few classes or something minor.. Coach Balis would have taken care of Nick in house for sure.
This will be bigger than that if he even is suspended. Hopefully not PJ big..
I was at an invent last year before the season started right after media days. Bunch of us were taking to CDM asking questions about other schools he had been at , players he coached, ect...
A guy asked a question who is the most talented player , most athletic guy u have have ever coached.. He said Percy Harvin. Said guy was a freak biggest wow factor and most talented he has ever coached. we then asked who on our team has that potential..
CDM said Nick James.. and then said he would a hard one to keep in line at the same time.. That was last fall after media days.. Nick had been there what maybe 3 moths..
So I think our coaches knew what kind of talent Nick was and what kind of headache he may bring.. Hopefully the "light" will come on with Nick and we can witness what CDM said he could be...

[Barking 13]

I kind of think we're reading more into the (publicised) depth chart than what it is... Does anybody have any concrete facts about any suspensions? For an opening game, would you want to show the opposing team all of your cards? I don't think so... just looks like a smokescreen to me...

[ShotgunDawg]

I kind of think we're reading more into the (publicised) depth chart than what it is... Does anybody have any concrete facts about any suspensions? For an opening game, would you want to show the opposing team all of your cards? I don't think so... just looks like a smokescreen to me...

And everyone on the message board just said, "I hope to hell your right."

[maroonmania]

I have NO problem with disciplining players but my only issue with the 'first game suspension' is that it appears to be a catch all for EVERYTHING that may have happened over the last 9 months since the last season ended. And that might be anything from classroom results to off field incidents to other potential team rule violations. We ALWAYS end up with 4 or 5 players suspended EVERY year under the current policy. SO, if that's the way it has to be, then we should NEVER schedule a decent opponent to open up the year and Stricklin should be keenly aware of that when we set up our opening game. Funny to me, AL and LSU, and other teams that play bigger opening games don't seem to have this issue EVERY year with multiple players being suspended for the opener. I mean is Nick Saban just a big ol' softie? Are his players just much more self-disciplined than ours? I don't know but we seem to have an major issue with opening game suspensions that is well beyond what I see with the vast majority of other college programs. Either we need to stagger out the suspensions for the various players involved OR we just need to forget scheduling tough games for openers and stick with the SWAC schools.

[Barking 13]

And everyone on the message board just said, "I hope to hell your right."

me too.. let's just play the dadgum game! Another thing, since this is a road game, isn't the roster abbreviated to like 60 or something (travel team)?

[ShotgunDawg]

I have NO problem with disciplining players but my only issue with the 'first game suspension' is that it appears to be a catch all for EVERYTHING that may have happened over the last 9 months since the last season ended. And that might be anything from classroom results to off field incidents to other potential team rule violations. We ALWAYS end up with 4 or 5 players suspended EVERY year under the current policy. SO, if that's the way it has to be, then we should NEVER schedule a decent opponent to open up the year and Stricklin should be keenly aware of that when we set up our opening game. Funny to me, AL and LSU, and other teams that play bigger opening games don't seem to have this issue EVERY year with multiple players being suspended for the opener. I mean is Nick Saban just a big ol' softie? Are his players just much more self-disciplined than ours? I don't know but we seem to have an major issue with opening game suspensions that is well beyond what I see with the vast majority of other college programs. Either we need to stagger out the suspensions for the various players involved OR we just need to forget scheduling tough games for openers and stick with the SWAC schools.

THIS

In a nutshell, you nailed what I have been trying to say. I'm not against discipline, I'm against painting ourselves into a corner with this first game things. Its dumb

[SheltonChoked]

All this about the depth chart is silly. Mullen lies on the depth chart. I think he'd like to list Mike Henning and the Polish Rifle at QB, but the SEC office would get him for that. So he purposefully makes it generic, plauseable, but wrong. Like Vandy does with the lineup card for the DH in baseball.

[aerodawg]

I respect all of your opinions, but I still feel the same. Where I disagree with you guys is, I think Mullen has painted himself into a corner with this 1st game suspension. There are better and more creative options to suspending players than the first game. Run, suspend them the 2nd game, extra study hall hours, etc.

This is making a pretty big assumption that first game suspensions are the only punishment Mullen gives out. How do you know that the players don't have to do all of these things except for the 2nd game suspension in addition to their first game suspension? How many players are punished by running or having to be available for extra study hours and you never hear about it.

It seems pretty selfish and disingenuous to say "Well I am going to suspend you for a game, but its gonna be one of the crappy games that we should win no matter what." What kind of punishment is that?

As others have said, there is a reason Stansbury and Nutt are no longer head coaches of SEC athletic programs.

[ckDOG]

I don't see what's complicated. If there's a policy that says "if you do X, then you get Y", and Y really sucks, then don't do X. Policies are there to be objective. If game 1 this year is that much more important/difficult than game 1 of past seasons, it's probably that much more important to punish a player if you expect their head to be in the game later in the season. If they can't do what they need to do to get ready for a high-profile game on a national scale, they aren't going to do what they need to do later in the year either. It's best to get their attention now if you want the production you need out of them.

[War Machine Dawg]

I have NO problem with disciplining players but my only issue with the 'first game suspension' is that it appears to be a catch all for EVERYTHING that may have happened over the last 9 months since the last season ended. And that might be anything from classroom results to off field incidents to other potential team rule violations. We ALWAYS end up with 4 or 5 players suspended EVERY year under the current policy. SO, if that's the way it has to be, then we should NEVER schedule a decent opponent to open up the year and Stricklin should be keenly aware of that when we set up our opening game. Funny to me, AL and LSU, and other teams that play bigger opening games don't seem to have this issue EVERY year with multiple players being suspended for the opener. I mean is Nick Saban just a big ol' softie? Are his players just much more self-disciplined than ours? I don't know but we seem to have an major issue with opening game suspensions that is well beyond what I see with the vast majority of other college programs. Either we need to stagger out the suspensions for the various players involved OR we just need to forget scheduling tough games for openers and stick with the SWAC schools.

Bingo. Most of us don't disagree with discipline. We just want to see it handled smartly, in a manner that other SEC schools handle it. SEC football has become big business. It's time to acknowledge the farce that is "amateurism" in college football and treat it like what it is.

[bocfarm]

This yr I don't think it's going to matter what game the kids are suspended for but I do agree it doesn't always have to be the first game. A lot of depends on the severity of the action.

Suspended players

Will Redmond (we all knew this)
Nick James (until someone on the staff says otherwise I feel this has legs)
A true freshmen who wasn't going to play anyway

Not bad

[smootness]

Bingo. Most of us don't disagree with discipline. We just want to see it handled smartly, in a manner that other SEC schools handle it. SEC football has become big business. It's time to acknowledge the farce that is "amateurism" in college football and treat it like what it is.

Just b/c college football has changed and is now big business does not in any way diminish the kind of impression a coach can have on his players. That in no way excuses making decisions based more on what helps the bottom line than on what helps your players in their individual lives.

And no, we are not the only ones who do this. Spurrier has made jokes in the past about UGA having so many suspensions in their first game every year as a way of taking shots at their discipline, but it's precisely because they're well-disciplined that it happens, not the other way around.

If we discipline like Richt and unlike anybody else, I actually like that. It means we have a coach who at least stands for something other than selling out for every win.

[Drugdog]

My 2 cents. The program is bigger than any 1 player. Do what is best for the overall health of the program.

[Barking 13]

me too.. let's just play the dadgum game! Another thing, since this is a road game, isn't the roster abbreviated to like 60 or something (travel team)?

I stand corrected.. Mullen says 72-78 will make the trip...

[Maroon Blood]

It's simple with Quay Evans and Nick James. They haven't been performing and did not make the first/second team depth charts. I am unsure about Curtis Virges.

[bocfarm]

I wouldn't put alot of stock into the depth chart, alot of guys are going to play on defense...Quay and Virges will def get reps.

Once again, this isn't as bad as its been in the past

Redmond (we've known ab this)
James (wait and see but this looks to be accurate)
Freshmen who will likely redshirt anyway

[maroonmania]

This yr I don't think it's going to matter what game the kids are suspended for but I do agree it doesn't always have to be the first game. A lot of depends on the severity of the action.

Suspended players

Will Redmond (we all knew this)
Nick James (until someone on the staff says otherwise I feel this has legs)
A true freshmen who wasn't going to play anyway

Not bad

First off, as far as wins and losses go, it absolutely matters which game a key contributing player is suspended for. If you are saying it doesn't matter I guess its because you don't believe we have a shot against OSU even at full strength. Secondly, the concern here is that potentially we may have 3 experienced DTs suspended for this game (James, Evans and Virges) along with the mandated suspension of Redmond and possibly others. We don't know that they are but since Mullen won't speak to suspensions it remains a concern that we will have PJ Jones, Kaleb Eulls and then only have guys available behind them who are playing their first college game.

[bocfarm]

First off, as far as wins and losses go, it absolutely matters which game a key contributing player is suspended for. If you are saying it doesn't matter I guess its because you don't believe we have a shot against OSU even at full strength. Secondly, the concern here is that potentially we may have 3 experienced DTs suspended for this game (James, Evans and Virges) along with the mandated suspension of Redmond and possibly others. We don't know that they are but since Mullen won't speak to suspensions it remains a concern that we will have PJ Jones, Kaleb Eulls and then only have guys available behind them who are playing their first college game.

No, I'm saying this yr it doesn't matter bc the players mentioned are the ones that are going to be suspended for the first game. Yea, would love to have Redmond and James but how much were they going to play? Redmond probably more but not sure how much he plays with Love, Jiles, Cox or Calhoun in the mix. James wasn't going to play unless it was a goalline or short yardage situation..he apparently doesn't have the conditioning to be playing alot of snaps particularly against a up tempo team in the first place.

Virges and Quay are not suspended