Price and Lott to play?

[Black Saturday]

I feel that this situation at this point in time seems to have been handled properly - some on the Rivals board seem to imply there was no 2 in 4 option for Coach Moore and that the suspensions were from the University which could be true as I have no idea - however if you weight in some existing situations specific to where our team is at this point then there has to be a category to consider - "For the betterment of the team as a whole" - Do we really want to have to pull a redshirt just for backup? - do we really want to have to move several players into situations where they could experience failure thru no fault of their own? - etc. --- and Yes, optional or spaced game suspensions happen all the time in college sports - even the NCAA allows it in some situations when actual NCAA suspensions have been handed down ---

Finally, common sense considering the weight of the issue.

[t4pizza]

This sends a message that winning is more important than discipline. The decision to suspend for two games has been hazing, to say the least, since last spring when it was reported as a "rumor". The staff denied this rumor but low and behold the players were in fact suspended for the first game and our own announcing crew reported that they would also be suspended for the Montana game. That sounds to me like the rumor was true and the suspensions were for the first two consecutive games. I read several App message boards and I have not seen any information from the school, prior to this course reversal, that stated the 2 out of 4 rule. In fact the school was in complete denial that there were even suspensions of players for the games, the suspended players even appeared on our 2 deep roster for the game. I don't know where that 2 out of 4 came from but the first place I saw it was a message board and it wasn't attached to any school media release. Either way, its clear that at some point in time our staff chose to suspend these players for the first 2 games (confirmed by Brownie last week) and now they are changing their mind. If it was another program we would all be bashing that program about what a terrible injustice it was and how the coach was putting winning ahead of character building.....and it would be appropriate bashing. Our staff screwed the pooch on this issue from day one, this is yet another example of the problems that are caused when there is a veil of secrecy instead of transparency. We need these kids for this game, but they should sit because that was their punishment. If in fact it was 2 out of 4, I still have a problem because that punishment scheme clearly sends the message that, 'we will sit you when we can afford to sit you'. That's about as bush league as it gets in my book but then again I am a father of 4 and I believe in standing by your word because if you don't the inmates will eventually run the asylum. I think its funny how many posters were happy for what appeared to be a return to some discipline. To those posters I say, take off the rose colored glasses. It's clearly business as usual. I guess its time to reinstate KB also, after all we do need a quality backup qb (being sarcastic here).

[asumike83]

Let's think about if the shoe were on the other foot as well. If we had prepared all week for a Montana offense that was without their #1 WR due to suspension and their coach announced last night that they decided to let him play after all, I'm confident that there would be some serious criticism of the move from our fans.

That being said, I don't think this will determine the outcome. Price is extremely talented but he will also be making his first career start. Malachi looked great in his place last weekend and I wouldn't be surprised if he catches more passes than Price tomorrow.

[JMappfan5]

I was told that the "2 in 4" rule has been in place for quite awhile. I think originally, all 3 players were going to miss the first two games. Injuries have necessitated us playing Lott and I think the Coaches are anxious to see what Price can do on a "big stage". I like sitting Ware this week. We have great LBs and he will be needed against El Cit's option attack. I believe Price and Lott will probably now miss next week's game. Goofy rule but it is what it is...GO APPS!!!

[Black Saturday]

This sends a message that winning is more important than discipline. The decision to suspend for two games has been hazing, to say the least, since last spring when it was reported as a "rumor". The staff denied this rumor but low and behold the players were in fact suspended for the first game and our own announcing crew reported that they would also be suspended for the Montana game. That sounds to me like the rumor was true and the suspensions were for the first two consecutive games. I read several App message boards and I have not seen any information from the school, prior to this course reversal, that stated the 2 out of 4 rule. In fact the school was in complete denial that there were even suspensions of players for the games, the suspended players even appeared on our 2 deep roster for the game. I don't know where that 2 out of 4 came from but the first place I saw it was a message board and it wasn't attached to any school media release. Either way, its clear that at some point in time our staff chose to suspend these players for the first 2 games (confirmed by Brownie last week) and now they are changing their mind. If it was another program we would all be bashing that program about what a terrible injustice it was and how the coach was putting winning ahead of character building.....and it would be appropriate bashing. Our staff screwed the pooch on this issue from day one, this is yet another example of the problems that are caused when there is a veil of secrecy instead of transparency. We need these kids for this game, but they should sit because that was their punishment. If in fact it was 2 out of 4, I still have a problem because that punishment scheme clearly sends the message that, 'we will sit you when we can afford to sit you'. That's about as bush league as it gets in my book but then again I am a father of 4 and I believe in standing by your word because if you don't the inmates will eventually run the asylum. I think its funny how many posters were happy for what appeared to be a return to some discipline. To those posters I say, take off the rose colored glasses. It's clearly business as usual. I guess its time to reinstate KB also, after all we do need a quality backup qb (being sarcastic here).

Are you privy to exactly what happened

The buck stops with Coach Moore. Are you chunking a living legend under the bus?

[goapps93]

Question for you guys(and gals) who are fathers or supervisors...Have you ever amended a punishment for your kids or subordinates due to unforeseen circumstances or changes of behavior providing evidence of growth due to a course of punishment? That is the situation that Coach Moore is in. We do not, should not, and will not know all the circustances of this situation. I'm comfortable with allowing Coach Moore and the powers that be handle the situation the way THEY see fit since that's their job. I've had pretty much the same attitude when similar situations have occurred with opponents or other teams. Missing the first game of the season after you've been named a starter has to be tough and I'm sure it served as a pretty steep form of punishment for whatever it was that got these players punished.

[moehler]

you guys are putting way too much thought into this, the kids made mistakes, they serve 2 game suspension in a four game set at the discreation of the coaching staff, end of story. Lets get back to the actual game!!!

[WVAPPeer]

Question for you guys(and gals) who are fathers or supervisors...Have you ever amended a punishment for your kids or subordinates due to unforeseen circumstances or changes of behavior providing evidence of growth due to a course of punishment? That is the situation that Coach Moore is in. We do not, should not, and will not know all the circustances of this situation. I'm comfortable with allowing Coach Moore and the powers that be handle the situation the way THEY see fit since that's their job. I've had pretty much the same attitude when similar situations have occurred with opponents or other teams. Missing the first game of the season after you've been named a starter has to be tough and I'm sure it served as a pretty steep form of punishment for whatever it was that got these players punished.

very good point goapps93 and I will add a question to that - How many have had to suspend a player as a coach at the high school or higher level? ---

[asumike83]

I am confident that Coach Moore is acting within the boundaries of the rule and honestly, the exact nature of the rule violation is not of any importance to me. What they did results in a 2-game suspension and I do not like that the coaches are given the leeway to pick and choose which games they miss. In my opinion, it sort of defeats the purpose of being punished.

With all of the off-field issues that have plagued our program in the last year, I would have liked to see the coaches sit them out for the first two games, including this big one, to make a point. Regardless of what Sean and Jamill did (and I'm sure it was nothing that egregious), perception is very important when it comes to our program's reputation. Whether we like it or not, the perception is that if you break certain rules that result in 2-game suspensions at ASU, we will work with you to make sure you don't miss any big games if you are an important enough player.

I understand that these kids work very hard to play for the Mountaineers and making them sit on the sideline for one of the biggest home games we've ever hosted is tough. They want to be out there even more than we want to see them out there. This is a very big game and we all want to win. On one hand, I am thrilled to see what these guys can do on the field. On the other hand, I have serious concerns about how a decision like this is perceived and there is no single game that is worth doing any level of damage to the reputation of the Appalachian football program.

I will support this team no matter what and this does not temper my excitement about the game one bit, but that is my $.02.

[t4pizza]

This sends a message that winning is more important than discipline. The decision to suspend for two games has been hazing, to say the least, since last spring when it was reported as a "rumor". The staff denied this rumor but low and behold the players were in fact suspended for the first game and our own announcing crew reported that they would also be suspended for the Montana game. That sounds to me like the rumor was true and the suspensions were for the first two consecutive games. I read several App message boards and I have not seen any information from the school, prior to this course reversal, that stated the 2 out of 4 rule. In fact the school was in complete denial that there were even suspensions of players for the games, the suspended players even appeared on our 2 deep roster for the game. I don't know where that 2 out of 4 came from but the first place I saw it was a message board and it wasn't attached to any school media release. Either way, its clear that at some point in time our staff chose to suspend these players for the first 2 games (confirmed by Brownie last week) and now they are changing their mind. If it was another program we would all be bashing that program about what a terrible injustice it was and how the coach was putting winning ahead of character building.....and it would be appropriate bashing. Our staff screwed the pooch on this issue from day one, this is yet another example of the problems that are caused when there is a veil of secrecy instead of transparency. We need these kids for this game, but they should sit because that was their punishment. If in fact it was 2 out of 4, I still have a problem because that punishment scheme clearly sends the message that, 'we will sit you when we can afford to sit you'. That's about as bush league as it gets in my book but then again I am a father of 4 and I believe in standing by your word because if you don't the inmates will eventually run the asylum. I think its funny how many posters were happy for what appeared to be a return to some discipline. To those posters I say, take off the rose colored glasses. It's clearly business as usual. I guess its time to reinstate KB also, after all we do need a quality backup qb (being sarcastic here).

Are you privy to exactly what happened

The buck stops with Coach Moore. Are you chunking a living legend under the bus?

I know nothing about the specifics because as far as I know the school never released any information about the specific infractions. This is one of the problems with not being transparent. I'm not throwing anyone under the bus, I just think this is a bad decision and a 2 in 4 rule is a bad rule. I could never imagine telling my teenage daughters something like.."your restricted for two of the next four weekends and I reserve the right to change the weekend based on how useful you may be to me during that particular weekend." It's a ridiculous punishment scheme even if the guy that handed it down is a legend.

[t4pizza]

.Have you ever amended a punishment for your kids or subordinates due to unforeseen circumstances or changes of behavior providing evidence of growth due to a course of punishment? That is the situation that Coach Moore is in.

The difference is that Coach Moore isn't reducing the punishment because of changes of behavior, he is doing it because we need these kids to play due to injuries. Injuries on football teams are not unforeseen circumstances. I would feel differently if Coach said something like, ' I feel these kids have learned their lessons... since we told them of the suspension last spring, they have done everything right...improved in the classroom...volunteer work...made themselves better men and because of that we are lifting the suspension.' That would indicate some level of appropriate reflection on the coaching staff to alter a punishment for the right reasons. This just feels like what it is, altering a punishment so we can use the kids to win a big ballgame. I am not saying that the coaches should never alter a punishment, heck, they kicked a kid off the team last year but let him return because of his appropriate level of remorse and improved attitude and I have no problem with that decision. Further, I would not be surprised to see KB's year long game suspensions lifted for doing the right things, and I would not think poorly on that decision. But to alter a punishment to help us win a football game is complete and total bs on our staff's part.

[AppGrad78]

So what happened to the negative rep buttons? I disagree with t4pizza's opinion on this matter, but rather than get into a protracted whizzin' match, a simple neg rep would do the trick.

[BeauFoster]

So what happened to the negative rep buttons? I disagree with tpizza's opinion in this matter, but rather than get into a protracted whizzin' match, a simple neg rep would do the trick.

A certain poster was hitting ever post he could with negative rep, regardless of topic. Just an example of grown men who can't act like it.

[AppinATL]

I like the idea of no negative rep. That could be easily abused and it looks like it already has been. I don't think simply disagreeing with someone should call for a negative hit, anyway. I would save that for the really offensive or overly aggressive posts.

[JCline0429]

So what happened to the negative rep buttons? I disagree with tpizza's opinion in this matter, but rather than get into a protracted whizzin' match, a simple neg rep would do the trick.

A certain poster was hitting ever post he could with negative rep, regardless of topic. Just an example of grown men who can't act like it.

So what happened to the negative rep buttons? I disagree with tpizza's opinion in this matter, but rather than get into a protracted whizzin' match, a simple neg rep would do the trick.

A certain poster was hitting ever post he could with negative rep, regardless of topic. Just an example of grown men who can't act like it.

I guess you didn't notice that the same thing was happening to me!!! So they are grown men and not me. Geez. I've always admitted to being retalliatory.

[WVAPPeer]

.Have you ever amended a punishment for your kids or subordinates due to unforeseen circumstances or changes of behavior providing evidence of growth due to a course of punishment? That is the situation that Coach Moore is in.

The difference is that Coach Moore isn't reducing the punishment because of changes of behavior, he is doing it because we need these kids to play due to injuries. Injuries on football teams are not unforeseen circumstances. I would feel differently if Coach said something like, ' I feel these kids have learned their lessons... since we told them of the suspension last spring, they have done everything right...improved in the classroom...volunteer work...made themselves better men and because of that we are lifting the suspension.' That would indicate some level of appropriate reflection on the coaching staff to alter a punishment for the right reasons. This just feels like what it is, altering a punishment so we can use the kids to win a big ballgame. I am not saying that the coaches should never alter a punishment, heck, they kicked a kid off the team last year but let him return because of his appropriate level of remorse and improved attitude and I have no problem with that decision. Further, I would not be surprised to see KB's year long game suspensions lifted for doing the right things, and I would not think poorly on that decision. But to alter a punishment to help us win a football game is complete and total bs on our staff's part.

t4pizza - I am not picking on you here nor disagreeing with most of what you say - however it does seem your thoughts are based on the 2 in 4 rule not actually being a rule or that is shouldn't be a rule - What if it is an actual rule therefore as I have stated previously there is no reason for a rule like this if it isn't meant to be used as it is in this instance - As far as I can tell, the only reason for a rule like this is to give the head coach an option of determining which of the 4 games to be missed with the consideration being the betterment of the team - If your argument is you don't like the rule then that is absolutely understandable - however if that is the rule what problem do you have with how it was used in this instance? ---

[goapps93]

.Have you ever amended a punishment for your kids or subordinates due to unforeseen circumstances or changes of behavior providing evidence of growth due to a course of punishment? That is the situation that Coach Moore is in.

The difference is that Coach Moore isn't reducing the punishment because of changes of behavior, he is doing it because we need these kids to play due to injuries. Injuries on football teams are not unforeseen circumstances. I would feel differently if Coach said something like, ' I feel these kids have learned their lessons... since we told them of the suspension last spring, they have done everything right...improved in the classroom...volunteer work...made themselves better men and because of that we are lifting the suspension.' That would indicate some level of appropriate reflection on the coaching staff to alter a punishment for the right reasons. This just feels like what it is, altering a punishment so we can use the kids to win a big ballgame. I am not saying that the coaches should never alter a punishment, heck, they kicked a kid off the team last year but let him return because of his appropriate level of remorse and improved attitude and I have no problem with that decision. Further, I would not be surprised to see KB's year long game suspensions lifted for doing the right things, and I would not think poorly on that decision. But to alter a punishment to help us win a football game is complete and total bs on our staff's part.

t4pizza - I am not picking on you here nor disagreeing with most of what you say - however it does seem your thoughts are based on the 2 in 4 rule not actually being a rule or that is shouldn't be a rule - What if it is an actual rule therefore as I have stated previously there is no reason for a rule like this if it isn't meant to be used as it is in this instance - As far as I can tell, the only reason for a rule like this is to give the head coach an option of determining which of the 4 games to be missed with the consideration being the betterment of the team - If your argument is you don't like the rule then that is absolutely understandable - however if that is the rule what problem do you have with how it was used in this instance? ---

I can also understand pizza's thought process and I think had Coach Moore not suspended them for ECU and Montana but waited until weeks 3 and 4 to hold them out I might have questioned it as well. I can see Coach Moore's possible reasoning that ECU is a more important game to the players and a conference game is more important to the program than the Montana game. Neither of these players was around for the last Monana game so this game probably isn't as big a miss as the ECU game was. I'm satisfied with it because I agree with that reasoning. ECU game hurts the players, conference game hurts the team because of those players' behavior. I think it's really unfair to call it "total bs" without really knowing the reasoning behind the decision.

[goapps93]

OK, just watched Rock Notes on GoASU.com. David finished his spot by saying that Lott and Price would be in the starting lineup this Saturday. He stated that Coach Moore was originally given the "2 in 4" option and chose the first 2 games. He said that Coach Moore gave it some more thought and decided to let them play in the home opener thinking the appropriate message was sent by keeping them out of the season opener. I can live with that decision but it makes me wonder if Ware's violation was more severe than the other 2 since he's still out for the home opener. This also supports my example of amending punishment after further thought and circumstances. It's entirely the prerogative of the punish giver to do that.

[t4pizza]

WVA- I personally think the 2 in 4 rule is ridiculous because it sends a message that some games are more important than others and we don't want to punish kids for the really important games. Sends mixed messages. But that being said, my main issue here is the appearance of changing a punishment to help us get a win. I think if we were on the other end of this everyone of our fans would be chastising the other team for this behavior. Once he picked his 2 games out ofthe 4 that he was going to suspend the kids, he should stick with it. Now I will readily admit that part of my view on this is derived from watching years of vieled secrecy about these types of discipline issues. I thik if the school is upfront at the get go, explains that player x and y are suspended for 2 out of 4 games and those 2 games will be determined at a later point. Well, I probably could get behind something like that because it was trasparent from the beginning. The problem is that even if Coach had great reasons to change the games based on the kids remorse and significantly improved behavior, nobody ourtside of our fan base will ever believe it. To the rest of the football playing world we look like we amended a punishment to win a big game. That's what I really have issue with, perception is reality and we are going to be perceived to be disingenious in our punishments. Bobby Bowden once had two football players get arrested at the same time for the same crime. He kicked one of the players (Laverneaous Cole) of the team and I cant even remember if the other (Peter Warrick) missed a game. At the time, the other player played a much more signifcant role in FSU's offense. My FSU friends plead till they were blue in the face about the appropriateness of the punishments but everybody else just saw it as Bowden trying to keep his best player on the field. I never wanted App to be in a comparable situation but now we are. It may be the right decision, and the right man (JM) made the decision, but the rest of the football watching public will see it as a ploy to win a game.

[WVAPPeer]

WVA- I personally think the 2 in 4 rule is ridiculous because it sends a message that some games are more important than others and we don't want to punish kids for the really important games. Sends mixed messages. But that being said, my main issue here is the appearance of changing a punishment to help us get a win. I think if we were on the other end of this everyone of our fans would be chastising the other team for this behavior. Once he picked his 2 games out ofthe 4 that he was going to suspend the kids, he should stick with it. Now I will readily admit that part of my view on this is derived from watching years of vieled secrecy about these types of discipline issues. I thik if the school is upfront at the get go, explains that player x and y are suspended for 2 out of 4 games and those 2 games will be determined at a later point. Well, I probably could get behind something like that because it was trasparent from the beginning. The problem is that even if Coach had great reasons to change the games based on the kids remorse and significantly improved behavior, nobody ourtside of our fan base will ever believe it. To the rest of the football playing world we look like we amended a punishment to win a big game. That's what I really have issue with, perception is reality and we are going to be perceived to be disingenious in our punishments. Bobby Bowden once had two football players get arrested at the same time for the same crime. He kicked one of the players (Laverneaous Cole) of the team and I cant even remember if the other (Peter Warrick) missed a game. At the time, the other player played a much more signifcant role in FSU's offense. My FSU friends plead till they were blue in the face about the appropriateness of the punishments but everybody else just saw it as Bowden trying to keep his best player on the field. I never wanted App to be in a comparable situation but now we are. It may be the right decision, and the right man (JM) made the decision, but the rest of the football watching public will see it as a ploy to win a game.

pizza - thanks for taking the time to explain - your points are well taken - the only thing I would take a different approach would be if I were the opposing coach here - it would piss me off much more to be the team "chosen" to have the players miss my game than the one getting the "respect" of having the players play against his team