Sumlin told both players they could rejoin the team for the home opener if certain conditions were met. Those conditions were met. Suspending them for the Florida game would be much more severe punishment than what was assigned.

Not crazy about that decision. If Mack had done this we would be screaming our heads off.

SumDog sets a poor tone right off the bat. Wonder how seriously the kids take his discipline if he is already compromising his judgment to have a better shot at a W. if things don't work out for Kevin we can look back to where it went wrong right here.

Why doesn't he suspend them for South Carolina State? That's what a seasoned SEC coach would have done?

Well played, Coach Sumlin.
Lash, how bout them apples?

Oh - look at MasonStorm's comment above.
Another sorry sip sucker.

[This message has been edited by ckwarren33 (edited 8/29/2012 1:00p).]

I don't think this has any negative effect on overall team discipline. Missing a game is missing a game. No player wants to miss even 1 game.

During the summer (before the season ever started), Sumlin clarified the suspension was for "LaLaTech"...so, he's done nothing wrong here as weather is out of his control. Therefore, they'll be suspended for LaLaTech still and he's a man of his word. Go away horn and let ol'buttertooth keep fooling ya.

Sumlin isn't compromising a thing. He is paid to win football games, not change his plans around forces that are out of his control. Last time i checked they're still missing a game.

Ol yellertooth would do the same thing you stupid sips. Or he wouldn't suspend them at all...oh wait...

Sumlin continues to show us he was the best man for the job.

quote:

---

Well played, Coach Sumlin.
Lash, how bout them apples?

---

Ha, yeah, like I was the only one who thought it was a bad idea....

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're a tu fan.

fwiw, I've been saying for weeks that A&M will beat UF. Next week, the gators will walk into a buzzsaw and lose. Kyle will be electric. I think the same thing would have happened if these suspensions would have been upheld.

I still think it's a decision that reflects poorly on the future direction of the program. Again, it's not about the players themselves. It's what the overall decision about the players means for the culture of the program.

It's a signal to everyone in the program that rules are meant to be bent (or broken) and running a loose ship is the new order of the day under this regime.

This is what a lot of people were worried about with the SEC move in the first place. People worried that A&M would have compromise its own identity and become another low brow version of Auburn.

That might be a bit harsh, but this decision goes a long way toward answering that question.

The die is cast.

(yawn)

^^ articulate!



Seriously, I just don't think it will have a big impact on this game either way. Florida isn't the program it used to be....by a long shot. And they're walking into a hornets nest.

A friend of mine sent me a text saying that people who are mad at this decision by kevin are probably the same ones that think we dont cheat

I chuckled

I was just yawning because, well, it's that time of day. I share your optimism, albeit a little more tempered.

quote:

---

That's classic. Lets not even pretend to have a shred of honor.

Bold move.

---

Y'all have been 'pretending to be in the SEC' all offseason.

Even Bolder Move.

lash, you don't even know what they did! Who are you to judge how they should be punished?!

Overreact much? Good lord. It isnt a big deal. The folks who are against are probably big sleepy and think he did a great job and should still be head coach. In other word, idiots.

It's funny...in the old pre-Internet days and before the elctronic news/sports media were so omnipresent, suspensions of players were internal matters that fans often had little knowledge of. There would have been little-to-no info on such suspensions, even after the game was over.

Today, it's much different. Just looking at the threads today makes me realize how much has changed over the past 40 years...much of it not for the good. Fans want to know...no, make that must know all of the particulars, and must weigh in on how bad the decision was (because good decisions are rarely commented on).

[This message has been edited by RhodeAg (edited 8/29/2012 2:40p).]

The players were already held out of 1st team practice repititions (at least Jenkins who is a starter), there is no reason to hold them out of repitions on starting unit for two consecutive weeks, which would put them and the team farther behind in a development and cohesiveness standpoint.

Coach handled the situation well, imo.

quote:

---

...and become another low brow version of Auburn

---

So, your saying we're going to become Georgia Southern?

Coaches have almost always made suspensions public - serves the intended purpose of putting players on notice. It also difuses the obvious question from fans and the media as to why a certain player is not on the field. Now, as then, the transparency of such a move is not hard to see through when policies are broached and suspension levied.....but only for the creampuff teams.

Starters now know they are safe - safe from missing any significant playing time against teams with a pulse as long as they don't mess up "too" bad and Sumlin can try to justify it any way he can....but everyone knows if the LaTech game was followed by another warm up game such as Rice, etc....those guys would both sit.

quote:

---

warm up game such as Rice

---

which would qualify as your most exciting home game this year

quote:

---

Starters now know they are safe - safe from missing any significant playing time against teams with a pulse as long as they don't mess up "too" bad and Sumlin can try to justify it any way he can....but everyone knows if the LaTech game was followed by another warm up game such as Rice, etc....those guys would both sit.

---

Yes, we need our moral superiors from tu to tell us what is right and just. So, if he really wanted to get by this, why didn't he just suspend them for the SCSt. or Sam Houston game?

EDIT: One more thing, what is more of a punishment for a tu player: being suspended for the OU game or the New Mexico game? This is the 1st SEC game at Kyle Field, and your argument is that Sumlin should INCREASE his punishment of these players because of an act of nature. Why in the world should he punish the players more?

[This message has been edited by AgStuckinLBK (edited 8/29/2012 3:10p).]

Nobody is insinuating increasing anything - offseason aggressions are paid by sitting usually the first one or two games. No coach sits down, looks at the schedule, and indicates players will miss this game...but not that one. Punishments are always sequential, not game-specific. Your grasping at semantics.

Last year LSU suspended R.Sheperd for the Oregon game for violating rules. He didn't miss the game because it was Oregon - he missed it because it was the first game. Georgia this year also has a number of players suspended - their penalty: missing a sequential number of games...not certain ones depending upon the difficulty of the opponent.

Russel Shepard had 14 reception for the entire year in 2011. He was a real important part of that team. Georgia opens with Buffalo this year. Your examples really don't make any points.

You can try to make Sumlin out to be an immoral person all you want but he suspended them for the LaTech game not the Florida game. If you think sitting out the Florida game and the LaTech game are the same punishment for the player, then you're really a moron.

quote:

---

Punishments are always sequential, not game-specific.

---

You're naive to believe this. Plenty of times, kids get in trouble and the coach waits to announce his punishment on a more favorable week.

Gotta win, baby. Art Briles has meted out about the same "punishment" to rules-breakers at Baylor the last couple of years.

Sue and Lash are sorry sip suckers whose fanlives are so boring they became internet 'peeping Toms,' deriving fapping pleasure from Texags voyeurism.

Feel free to get a real team (> .500 over the past 2 years) in a real conference that plays on real national network TV. A&M might be big enough for both your T-shirts, but the Beevis and Butthead act will need to change.

quote:

---

Plenty of times, kids get in trouble and the coach waits to announce his punishment on a more favorable week.

---

You have links for this of course because there are dozens upon dozens of examples of players missing generally the first one, two, or three games of the year. I've yet to see a coach cherry-pick a game suspension that is set deep in the years schedule.

And Georgia opening with a patsy isn't the point. All teams do - that's the point of early OOC games. Georgia was concerned about players missing the USC game (who are highly ranked this year), but with the conference realignment they got a break as the game was pushed back. What you didn't see was the coach specifically naming suspension soley for patsy games!

They were to sit out for the LaTech game because it was the FIRST GAME. You are continuing to hang on semantics as if he specifically wanted them to miss that specific game. The first game is now FL, and he's ducking for cover!

[This message has been edited by BoyNamedSue (edited 8/29/2012 4:49p).]

quote:

---

They were to sit out for the LaTech game because it was the FIRST GAME.

---

You have links for this of course. You knew what his motivation was. You knew exactly what punishment he wanted to hand out to his players. You are hanging on your own personal thoughts about the situation because you know that he wanted them to miss the FIRST game regardless of who it turned out to be.

EDIT: He's not ducking for cover. He made a decision openly and publicly, a week and a half before the Florida game about these suspensions. He's not hiding anything.

[This message has been edited by AgStuckinLBK (edited 8/29/2012 5:12p).]

I like it.

Having them miss the Florida game would kind of be like double jeopardy

What a joke. Oh wait, I really meant the first game in which I don't think we need these players to win.

Fits right in the SEC.

quote:

---

Overreact much? Good lord. It isnt a big deal. The folks who are against are probably big sleepy and think he did a great job and should still be head coach. In other word, idiots.

---

There was a time when Aggies were known for having integrity. This is a very bad precedent being set by Coach Sumlin, and quite disappointing to those of us who still believe in that silly honor code thing. Contrary to what some of you believe, you can have morals and be successful. However, after seeing Manziel not punished, and even being named a starter, I knew that Coach Sumlin would make this call, so I'm not mad about it. If he wants to hitch his tenure to that wagon, that’s on him - It’s disappointing, but it seems those days are long gone. What does bother me is that so many "Aggies" are almost gloating about the fact that we're sacrificing our integrity, contorting their brains to justify the decision, shouting down the Aggies that voice concern, and have the nerve to call out sips(etc) for their shortcomings. We live in a glass house.

FWIW, I hated Sherman and was way out in front of most in demanding his job. Bringing up Sherman is pretty absurd, considering his team had no discipline at all, and that's the primary reason for his failure. Coincidence?

Bring on the mental gymnastics and flames.