Facepalm*

Hopefully this turns out to be a false accusation. Many forget that Mark Sanchez was arrested while at SC in a case that turned out to be nothing (mother of hysterical girl had called cops who brought in choppers while video evidence later refuted the girl's initial story). Really hope this didn't happen, both because Michigan football doesn't need another scandal and (more importantly) because it would mean no horrible crime actually took place.

And the storm of negativity will not stop. If there's a Doctor in the house, please let us know how to stop the bleeding. I feel that this program is sitting on an ER bed bleeding profusely, and it won't stop. I know who it is. Not gonna say it online, especially since it's innocent before proven guilty and I don't want to start rumors. It's not a massive loss (if it does indeed result in a loss), but a big loss. Keep your dick in your pants kids.

Let someone else out the name, but everyone please remember, many of these allegations are proven false in the long run. There is no point to possibly ruin his reputation for something that may not have occurred. From my knowledge of the Washtenaw County Prosecutor's Office (No I do not work there, nor have I been arrested), they will poly a suspect (if he/she so chooses) and if the person passes, charges typically do not get filed, this is specifically for sexual crimes. That said, WTF? Hope it's not true.

How is there not a Free Press article yet blaming Rich Rod for the sexual aggression of his players?

Kudos to Brian (and to the cops, from what I can see) for not identifying either party until a legitimate vision of the facts is established. To Bryan: yes, polygraphs are bogus and inadmissible in criminal court but sometimes used in law enforcement (yes, I say WTF? to that.) Sex assault cases, especially in college, tend to cleanly divide into several scenarios, in order of increasing crime by the accused: -Flat-out crazy false accusations - e.g the Duke case where the accuser was high, the accused had alibis and no one had any sex at all. -False accusations after consensual sex designed to get a person out of trouble - e.g the Hofstra case, where a woman participated in a five-way then cried rape so she wouldn't get in trouble with her boyfriend. I have heard too many stories of people covering up their cheating by claiming rape. -Both parties had been drinking and someone decides afterward that they were coerced (despite the efforts of campus radicals this is not really a true rape, often a stand-in for "sex a woman regrets in the morning") -Cases where sex occurred and the two sides argue about who did what. This is really a who-does-the-jury-want-to-believe situation. -The accuser was drugged beyond the ability to control their body - passed-out drunk, or date-rape drugs or something. The Minnesota football players took turns on a woman who was passed out and one of them taped it with a cellphone cam. Busted. -Cases where sex is established and the accuser has signs of real violence, along with possible aggravating factors (fighting, threats) witnessed by others. I will be interested to see where this case falls. Until then I give berth to the cops to investigate and I am not rushing to any opinion.

It's a guarantee that there was alcohol involved in whatever took place. It's a probable that it wasn't actually a malicious sexual assault, but was instead a drunk dude trying to hook up with a drunk girl, or grabbing something he shouldn't have at a party, or something like that. Which means it was a drunken idiot act. It was probably one of those 'Hey, I'm super awesome football player ___, I know you want to ___ my ___. Do it.' moments that I heard about a certain former player with initials RM having a lot. I am an advocate of not allowing athletes to drink, and therefore be drunken idiots. By not allow, I mean 'if you get caught, you're screwed'. My high school's football team drank a lot, and sucked because of it. The coach turned a blind eye. He should have been handing out punishments. First offense suspension for a game if in season, day (8 hours) of community service if out of season, second offense year sitting (burned year of eligibility), third offense being permanently kicked off the team, with scholarship revoked, and public reprimand. If the player is 21, only the game suspension would apply - players shouldn't be drinking in season, and shouldn't be drinking under 21 no matter what.

It is not the tiniest bit difficult to read between the lines and narrow it down to a very small sampling of the team and then based on what's already said, take an educated guess with a pretty damn good chance of being right. No, I don't know who it is, but perhaps there's too much detail already.

and wait until it becomes public. That would be a welcome break.

The player in question did not see the field this year but is/was expected to start next year. (No, not Justin Turner.) If you're making the decision to keep the name to yourself, why even include this?