On Monday Dustin gave an Ethical Issue Presentation on Oregon Running Back Legarrette Blounte. I thought he gave a really good presentation on the subject, but just wanted to reflect on a few things that were brought up during the discussion.
My initial reaction to the incident was for Blounte to be suspended indefinitely, that way Head Coach Chip Kelly could discuss his status with the University and NCAA before reaching a decision. When he decided to suspend him for the year I wasn't surprised, because I thought the punishment fit the crime. What Blounte did was inexcusable and Kelly's decision was completely within reason. Of course, Blounte has recently been reinstated by Kelly because he had met certain academic, among other things, requirements. A lot of people found this to be unfair and that Kelly should stick with the punishment he administered the first time. I however tend to agree with Kelly. If Kelly gave Blounte a list of requirements that would get him back on the field, and Blounte met them than why shouldn't he be allowed to compete? I think that some people feel Kelly went soft on Blounte but I believe that the punishment still taught him a valuable lesson and he probably deserves a second chance.
The other issue that I wanted to address is something that came up during the class discussion. I'm not sure who made the point, but someone stated that the University of Oregon should give Blount another chance because suspending him was ruining his future in the NFL. I completely disagree with that idea. As a collegiate athlete your required to behave yourself and stay out of trouble, its not the university's job to do that for you. As an athlete if you can't keep yourself out of trouble its not the university's fault if your draft status takes a hit. The university is their to help make you better as an athlete and a person, but they don't have any responsibility for your future. If I got caught cheating as a student, no one would be demanding the university give me a second chance because they're ruining my future.
In the end I think that Kelly and the University acted appropriately, in both suspending and reinstating Blounte. And I also feel that the its the responsibility of the athlete to keep themselves in a position to play, not the university, in order to compete for a chance at the next level.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you made some really good points about the LaGarrette Blount situation. First, I agree that the coach would have been wiser to suspend him indefinitely, rather than proclaiming the penalty on the next day. It would have enabled him to consider the consequences and not have to backtrack. In a way, I think the Coach hurt his own credibility by revoking the suspension, even though I do believe he should probably have a second chance. I also agree with you that the university is not responsible for Blount's post-college career.
ReplyDelete