If we do indeed lose Sheppard and Ealey...

[Ish88888]

We are in monumental trouble depth wise for years to come. These two kids were on their way to being at least 2 year starters. I pray its short term and its nothing serious, but fellas this could be huge! We would have no choice but to raid the JC market for edge d-lineman.

 

[Whitey23]

I think if they were gone Shafer would have said so. Also, still might need juco depth regardless.

 

[jekelish]

Why are people under the impression they're gone for good? I'm baffled as to where that's coming from.

 

[Chip]

Why are people under the impression they're gone for good? I'm baffled as to where that's coming from.

Suspended indefinitely tends to lead people to their own conclusions.

But I'm sure the staff reported as much as they could without violating HIPAA.

 

[Crusty]

Suspended indefinitely tends to lead people to their own conclusions.

But I'm sure the staff reported as much as they could without violating HIPAA.

Doesn't involve HIPPA unless it is health related. Would be

Suspended indefinitely tends to lead people to their own conclusions.

But I'm sure the staff reported as much as they could without violating HIPAA.

Could be Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act if academically related.

 

[Chip]

Doesn't involve HIPPA unless it is health related.

I was joking. I personally don't think when we started our upper lower injury status process, it anything to do with HIPAA. Although it might be used as the reason now.

 

[djorange1989]

Hopefully just a couple of kids who drank underage or smoked some weed. Could be anything but those are usually the most common violations of team rules.

 

[SUFaninNJ]

Just asking, but when Norton was suspended, was he suspended indefinitely? I think in his case it was during the off season. I believe that the word "indefinitely" is leading to speculation. If we were told that it was a 2 game suspension, for example, I think that would put some fears to rest.

 

[Finwad32]

Indefinitely could have multiple interpretations, most often it's because they're waiting for some type of process to occur. If the process were legal, I'd imagine we'd have heard about it already. This tells me that they most likely got in trouble on campus. Ofcourse this is speculation, but, I'd imagine we hear soon regarding their status.

 

[jekelish]

I know why they were suspended and I don't for one second believe it will lead to them not being on the team next year, unless they simply don't like it at SU and decide to transfer. If what I'm told is 100% accurate, and there's nothing else in terms of mitigating factors, there's simply no reason to believe they won't be back.

 

[Nick44]

It's not in the police blotter so hopefully no one was knocked out for throwing a snowball and I haven't seen anyone drag a large screen television by its cord out of Ryan Nassib's apartment yet. So all good signs.

 

[jekelish]

Well it's out there in the news now: they failed drug tests. Multiple. That's why it's an indefinite suspension, because they're trying to figure out how far it should carry into next season since this was the second time they've each failed a drug test.

Like I said when this was first announced: sometimes 18/19 year olds just do dumb things.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Well it's out there in the news now: they failed drug tests. Multiple. That's why it's an indefinite suspension, because they're trying to figure out how far it should carry into next season since this was the second time they've each failed a drug test.

Like I said when this was first announced: sometimes 18/19 year olds just do dumb things.

50% of the schedule. Minimum.

Looks like 6 games ... 3 this year and 3 in 2016.

 

[jekelish]

50% of the schedule. Minimum.

Looks like 6 games ... 3 this year and 3 in 2016.

Yep. So as hinted at in the Syracuse.com article, I wonder if they're still trying to determine how it impacts other team activities.

 

[CUSU]

:bang:

 

[Ringostar57]

THC in the stream??? Colorado Bufs recruiting should get much better with a lot of athletes getting a Rocky Mountain high. Meanwhile time to get rid of this policy and join the rest of the NCAA P5

 

[dollarbill44]

THC in the stream??? Colorado Bufs recruiting should get much better with a lot of athletes getting a Rocky Mountain high. Meanwhile time to get rid of this policy and join the rest of the NCAA P5

Definitely need to get rid of this policy, but still, 6 positive drug tests? Are these their roommates?

 

[VirginiaOrange]

So Ealey burned his red shirt playing special teams and now will miss at least 3 games next year. Solid start to his career.

At least Sheppard had one tackle in nine games.

 

[Chip]

50% of the schedule. Minimum.

Looks like 6 games ... 3 this year and 3 in 2016.

If I were SU, I wouldn't even follow this internal policy. Who would ever know?

Wait, wrong board.

 

[djorange1989]

If I were SU, I wouldn't even follow this internal policy. Who would ever know?

Wait, wrong board.

yeah, and maybe Gross can get involved and figurer out a way to get them eligible again right away. oh wait, wrong board too.

 

[jekelish]

I appreciate the goal of having a policy...but when the NCAA doesn't require a written, department-wide policy, it's utterly foolish to use one. You can still have private, program-to-program policies wherein each coach sets down the rules and expectations and deals with it in his own way. Boeheim could have a different policy than Shafer, etc. That's what most schools actually do. That's what the school I work for does with athletes. But as soon as you announce you have a department drug policy, it comes under NCAA jurisdiction to make sure you're following it to the letter.

It's just idiotic on a number of levels.

 

[baggerbob]

I appreciate the goal of having a policy...but when the NCAA doesn't require a written, department-wide policy, it's utterly foolish to use one. You can still have private, program-to-program policies wherein each coach sets down the rules and expectations and deals with it in his own way. Boeheim could have a different policy than Shafer, etc. That's what most schools actually do. That's what the school I work for does with athletes. But as soon as you announce you have a department drug policy, it comes under NCAA jurisdiction to make sure you're following it to the letter.

It's just idiotic on a number of levels.

This is all on Jake who is the one who started this mess, which now has gotten completely out of hand. You can't after the fact tell the NCAA we're getting rid of the policy, they would believe you are hiding something. Jake should have retired when we didn't get in the ACC, before BC.

 

[Crusty]

I appreciate the goal of having a policy...but when the NCAA doesn't require a written, department-wide policy, it's utterly foolish to use one. You can still have private, program-to-program policies wherein each coach sets down the rules and expectations and deals with it in his own way. Boeheim could have a different policy than Shafer, etc. That's what most schools actually do. That's what the school I work for does with athletes. But as soon as you announce you have a department drug policy, it comes under NCAA jurisdiction to make sure you're following it to the letter.

It's just idiotic on a number of levels.

I couldn't disagree more.

 

[PhatOrange]

50% of the schedule is a bit much.

 

[Phillymoose]

50% of the schedule is a bit much.

No - that's about right. They should definitely miss half of the remaining games this year.