It started last night.

Word started leaking out that Oregon Ducks running back LeGarrette Blount could possibly be reinstated from his indefinite suspension.

Chip Kelly's presser on Friday was supposedly going to address his feelings on the matter—ESPN broke the news prior to noon PST.

Nothing is definitive, according to Kelly. But we do know this—Blount may be reinstated, and if he is, the earliest date of his return would be November 7th, against Stanford.

Interesting PR here.

First, many sites had reported that Blount was suspended for the entire season—the Ducks, however, alluded to an indefinite suspension, meaning there was no definitive date of his possibly returning. Technically, the Ducks have not reneged on their official suspension of Blount if they do decide to reinstate him, and if, in fact, it was merely an indefinite suspension, and not a year-long suspension.

But then, the Pac-10 has this to say about the suspension:

"The University of Oregon may appeal to the Conference for a reduction in the original disciplinary actions taken against LeGarrette Blount," [Commish] Scott said.  "The power to reinstate rests with the Conference, and if and when the university decides to make such an appeal, the Conference will take the matter under advisement and make a decision." 

 

The Pac-10's website also said, "Blount was suspended for the 2009 season as a result of unsportsmanlike actions following Oregon's September 3 football game at Boise State."

Are you as confused as the rest of us?

Secondly, the date of the possible reinstatement specifically avoids Blount possibly playing in the game against USC on Halloween. A very important game.

For sure, if Bobby Bowden had been making the call, Blount's butt would be playing on Halloween.

But Oregon is making somewhat of a statement by not having him play at Autzen in the Ducks' biggest game of the year. In other words, they are making small concessions and proactively appeasing the critics who would be yelling "sell out" if he were to play in that game.

The Ducks have made a stand by saying, in essence, "we will probably reinstate him, but he's not playing in the USC game because we don't want you to think we are sacrificing our ethics to win a game."

It's a good move, but still, you have to wonder what Joe Pa would have done here. Probable year-long suspension? Yep.

In Blount's defense, he is a new father, and was probably banking on an NFL career next year. The school may have had second doubts about "ruining" Blount's draft status and thus affecting the potential income he would use towards supporting his child.

Forgotten, perhaps, is the fact that Blount was suspended in the preseason for conduct detrimental to the team, was reinstated, then punched a Boise State player on national television, which resulted in another suspension.

Isn't Blount the one who potentially ruined his career? Fatherhood aside, Blount is responsible for his actions, and caving in to a player's campus-wide apology may not help this young man. Then again, becoming a new father and carrying a chip on his shoulder won't help his prospects, either.

While we won't know for sure if and when Blount returns, one thing remains clear—if the punching incident hadn't happened on national television, there is a likely chance Blount would have just received a one-game suspension.

The fact that it was captured on television and broadcast nationally forced Oregon to punish Blount more than if a punch had been thrown and no one had seen it.

Recently, a Michigan player punched a Notre Dame player, and he didn't receive an indefinite suspension from the school, even after Michigan head coach Rich Rodriguez was shown videotape of the incident.

Michigan's Jonas Mouton received a one-game suspension from the Big Ten, not the school, for giving an Irish player an upper cut as he was getting up from the turf.

No one screamed about him being suspended indefinitely and the school didn't even punish him—the conference did.

So the question begs to be asked—did LaGarrette Blount get an excessive punishment?

And is the Mouton incident the reason for Oregon possibly reinstating him?