Phil's track record in these matters sucks.
Agree and disagree. He was very, very poor prior to 2005 but has been very consistent within the policy since as best I can tell. I've kept track to the best of my ability. When guys have said things like you just did, I've challenged them. The only specific example is Colquitt that they'll name.
Again, besides Colquitt who do you have in mind? I agree that he should have been gone but can give a decent rationale for what they did.
First, it is the first time that's been made public that he's been in trouble in about 4 years. IOW's, he kept his nose clean and maybe MH and CPF think that earned him just a little leniency. Davis on the other hand struck out within two years of fairly persistent/frequent bad behavior. Coker persisted in getting into trouble.
If the rumor was correct about the reason for Wardlow's dismissal then it was justified by one incident.
Second, maybe they thought that saving a carrot of 7 games could maybe save the guy's life by letting them force him into counselling? Often coaches are accused of using players without caring for them. If you had the power, how far would you go to save the kid's life?
Again, I think he should have been booted for the sake of other kids that needed a clear message... but I don't think it was completely and totally out of line either considering the 4 years of good behavior.
Other than that he's a swell guy.
I know you are just being a smart aleck but I'll make a serious point using your comment.
It really doesn't matter whether he's a swell guy or not concerning the topic you addressed. What does matter is that he acts within the guidelines of the policy passed by the University and the guidance of Mike Hamilton.
I don't know if you've ever managed people or been responsible for enforcing a written conduct policy- I have. If your policy says that someone gets 4 failed drug tests then to limit them to 2 or give them 5 without some other contributing factors is an invitation for a lawsuit. It also isn't fair.
There is latitude within the policy... for instance when the time between a guy's 3rd strike and his 4th strike is 4 years but I sincerely doubt that it is nearly as much as many people imagine.
By Hamilton's own words, HE approves every punishment. For all you or I know, it was MH or some booster with MH's ear that got Colquitt another chance and not CPF. The typical thing we've seen since 2005 is that they've stayed strictly within narrow limits when applying the policy.
I personally don't think that Fulmer's say in discipline matters is nearly as potent as it once was.
