The Johnny Manziel Suspension Accomplishes Nothing

Aug 7, 2013; College Station, TX, USA; The Johnny Manziel suspension raises more questions than it provides answers.

What’s the point? Why is Texas A&M quarterback, reigning Heisman Trophy winner and media lightning rod Johnny Manziel suspended for one half of the Aggies’ season opening game against 28-point underdog Rice?

The 30-minute suspension, originally reported by TexAgs.com, is yet another SEC record for Johnny Manziel. This surpasses former Florida Gators linebacker Brandon Spikes’ 2009 penalty for attempted eye-gouging as the SEC’s most famous one-half suspension.

Manziel met with NCAA investigators for a reported six-hour grilling on Sunday. He’ll sit out approximately 17 percent of that duration. Such a paltry penance suggests the NCAA has nothing substantial enough to drop the hammer on Manziel, at least currently.
Jul 17, 2013; Hoover, AL, USA; The Johnny Manziel suspension of one half vs. Rice is perplexing.
So if Manziel is in the clear, why is he serving a suspension — truncated as it may be? George Schroeder of USA Today reports the suspension is classified as “inadvertent violation” of an NCAA rule, though both the NCAA and university agree there is no evidence Manziel committed no infraction.

ESPN.com’s Brett McMurphy summarizes the “penalty” nicely.

Is this Texas A&M’s response to the Summer of Johnny? Manziel’s various public appearances and social media outbursts brought plenty of negative attention to a football program on the rise.

But then, Johnny Manziel has been and will continue to be a double-edged sword for Aggie football. Yes, his off-field antics might command negative attention that distract from the program’s meteoric. However, that rise is due in large part to Manziel’s on-field performance. And so long as Manziel’s shenanigans break no laws or university and NCAA regulations, the pros vastly outweigh the cons.

SaturdayBlitz.com associate editor Luke Brietzke posited that if A&M had any uncertainty about Manziel’s innocence in an alleged autograph-for-profit deal, suspending him for the duration of both the Rice and Sam Houston State games was the most appropriate response. This suspension falls well short of that, but is worse than not suspending Manziel at all. Any time lost implies some level of doubt on A&M’s part.

If the goal is to punish Manziel, sitting one half against an overmatched opponent falls well short of sending any kind of substantial message. Manziel misses one half of stat sheet-stuffing against a lesser foe, which admittedly is in his wheelhouse. Otherwise?

You’re left with a whole lot of question marks.