From Rivals.com’s South Carolina site:
TODAY’S QUESTION: Notre Dame coach Brian Kelly said last week that, essentially, star WR Michael Floyd either will play all 12 games or none at all this season; Kelly said he would not suspend Floyd on a game-by-game basis for his March DUI arrest. Your thoughts?
Olin Buchanan’s answer:
I’m not sure Floyd’s personal transgressions should result in a career-ending punishment, which is what a year-long suspension would be. If it’s all or nothing, then I’d assume that would mean nothing. Notre Dame has a chance to have a good season and could make a run at a BCS bowl. But the Irish will need Floyd, who is their best and most explosive player.
Tom Dienhart’s answer:
I don’t agree with Kelly’s penalty on Floyd. I think Floyd should have to sit out some games, regardless if he behaves between now and the start of the season. Floyd isn’t coming off his first alcohol-related offense. This was his third. ND’s response to this point: He has had his captaincy stripped. That’s it. And that’s a joke. Floyd has gotten off too easy time and again. He deserves a harsh treatment. I think he should sit three or four games, at least. And if he has another run-in with the law, he should be gone for good. Bottom line: If Floyd was the backup long snapper – and not the best player on the team – he would have been booted long ago. But we all know there’s a double-standard in the sports world: Stars always have and always will get special treatment.
David Fox’s answer:
Kelly has half of a good idea here. If Floyd slips up again, he’s gone. Kelly has done what most coaches would do by exiling Floyd from the team since his third alcohol-related incident in three years. Players deserve second chances, but the potential for no suspension at all doesn’t sit well with me. That’s especially true when Kelly and Floyd already are breaking Notre Dame precedent by allowing Floyd to play at all this year. It would be perfectly appropriate for Kelly to say Floyd will play 10 or 11 games or none at all.
Mike Huguenin’s answer:
I am stunned Kelly issued that “edict,” which basically means Floyd isn’t going to miss any time. Call me a cynic, but Kelly is not going to suspend his best player for the entire season. And call me a cynic again, but if the player in trouble were a backup linebacker instead of one of the top three or four wide receivers in the nation, the guy would be gone after a third alcohol-related arrest. I wonder if some athletic department officials won’t talk with Kelly and “suggest” that a suspension of two or three games would be warranted.
Steve Megargee’s answer:
I don’t understand Kelly’s line of thinking here and wonder if he eventually will decide to find some middle ground. The Notre Dame Office of Residence Life showed some leniency earlier this year by deciding not to suspend Floyd for the season and instead allowing Kelly to hand out whatever punishment he sees fit. That move reflects a recent change in the philosophy of the Office of Residence Life, which was notorious in the past for handing out stiff penalties to these types of charges. I don’t think Floyd’s action required a season-long suspension. But I think it would be equally misguided to allow Floyd to return to the team without missing any games at all if he is convicted of this latest charge. Floyd is accused of driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.19, more than twice the legal limit in Indiana. This represents Floyd’s third alcohol-related incident since he arrived on campus. Floyd currently is under an indefinite suspension that prevented him from participating in spring practice or joining the team for conditioning drills, but that penalty is relatively toothless if it doesn’t also force him to sit out at least part of the season. I think a three-game suspension would be the right way to go.