H&H whishful thinking: Auburn, LSU, Florida, FSU, Georgia, Texas, USC, UCLA, or TAMU.
things go poorly
On Csont'e York. It was inevitable that once the York video was released there were going to be a lot of strong reactions to it. I deleted a number of things that were over the line, and expected to.
I left up a bunch more that weren't quite delete-worthy but did make me feel uncomfortable. Most of those were uncomfortable because they weren't sad. Many called him a coward, others were almost gleeful in their eagerness to ship the guy out. Those threads don't reflect well on our community here.
While I think that York's second chance has to come somewhere else given the severity of what he did, I would appreciate it if everyone would keep in mind that even a kid who did a dumbass thing remains a person. There's an unfortunately paywalled profile of York from his time as a recruit up on ESPN. Chantel Jennings:
In August, he'll enroll at the University of Michigan and become the first person in his family to attend college. He has made it through the death of his mother, a number of family moves, and out of Detroit with a positive attitude. And through all of this, what he keeps closest to his heart is his family.
"My little brothers and sisters, I think about them," York said. "It has always been in my head that I have to do this for them. This isn't just for me. It's for my family. That's all I think of."
The reason York did what he did started with the people around him as he grew up and the primary emotion should be sadness that a kid couldn't keep it together. Once we're on to third chances I can see the disdain begin to creep in legitimately. Now, though, I just think of the times when I've been on the verge of a bad decision and struggled not to make it.
Kleenex at the ready. Austin Hatch and John Beilein profiled:
Three years ago, lying in a hospital bed in Traverse City fighting for his life, Austin Hatch's relationship with John Beilein went beyond a player-coach situation.
Nine days after pledging his verbal commitment to Michigan in June of 2011, Hatch was involved in a tragic plane crash that took the lives of both his father and stepmother and left him in a medically-induced coma.
At that point, no one was concerned about Hatch's basketball career. The main focus was saving his life.
And, unknown to Hatch at the time, one of those people standing at his bedside -- fighting along with him -- was Beilein.
Huge, they say. Michigan is apparently set to announce two home and home series:
Michigan football is set to announce two huge home and home opponents this week.
Terry Foster and Mike Stone met with Michigan Athletic Director Dave Brandon today and that’s when Brandon dropped the news that this announcement will happen later this week.
FWIW, apparently there was a connected guy on the Rivals board saying the opponents were Stanford and Duke in a since-deleted post. No idea if that's accurate or not; obviously only one of those teams would even sort of qualify as "huge." And with Stanford there's always the possibility that they return to historical norms by the time the game rolls around. I kind of doubt that's accurate anyway—tough to see Stanford taking on Michigan when they've got a nine-game conference schedule plus their now-annual game against Notre Dame. But anyway, stay tuned.
By the way, that post has a poll asking who you'd like to see Michigan play that includes Nebraska and Wisconsin, which was momentarily absurd until it wasn't. Marshall, another option, remains so.
WELP? Prepare for the Colening.
Hoke just said on the radio we should "expect to see" Mason Cole this year, and called him a left tackle. It's happening, folks.
— Bryan Mac (@Bry_Mac) August 14, 2014
Everybody get up. But especially you. Aubrey Dawkins can get up, yo.
I sold Aubrey Dawkins short describing him athletically to be poor man's GR3. Not yoked like GR3, but he has his hops pic.twitter.com/lmka0lrRgk
— Sam Webb (@SamWebb77) August 13, 2014
When Michigan took MAAR and then still went after Dawkins that was an indication they liked him more than his rating would imply, and In Beilein We Trust.
That shot came from an open practice Michigan held before their Italy trip during which Kam Chatman impressed:
Michigan’s most highly touted freshman is multifaceted and college-ready. The general consensus among the scribes perched up on the observation deck was that Chatman will be a day-one starter, barring anything unforeseen.
The 6-foot-7 wing drilled smooth left-handed 3-pointers as a standstill shooter and off the dribble. He looked comfortable and capable making decisions with the ball. He finished in traffic.
Quinn's colleague Nick Baumgardner concurred:
First thing that struck me was Chatman. High-level shooter, can handle, finish, isn't skinny. He'll start right away.
Both Chatman and Dawkins spent time doing post drills as they prepare to play Novak/GRIII undersized 4. DJ Wilson is also going to be a 4 of the not-undersized variety but is still being held out with his pinky injury.
Unfortunately, Michigan won't be streaming any of the Italy games.
Brutal departure/injury spree. Unlike Nebraska's, this one actually matters for Michigan: Northwestern tailback Venric Mark will transfer; leading wide receiver Christian Jones is out for the year with a knee injury.
Mark, of course, tortured Michigan two years ago with his quickness. Jones is less of a loss since Northwestern tends to plug and play at WR but he was still their best guy in yards per target by some distance. Looks like it's Prater time? Naw, man, it's never Prater time. Until it is. But probably not. Because a Rutgers transfer is the guy Inside NU is promoting for the job.
A man familiar with the situation. Michigan doesn't get much mention in CBS Sportsline's group preview of the Big Ten except for incessant Jabrill Peppers talk in the "best newcomer" category, but the one guy who singled out Michigan as an underrated team is an interesting one: Auburn fan Jerry Hinnen, who's seen both Al Borges and Doug Nussmeier up close and personal. His take on M:
Most underrated team: Michigan. The Wolverines have to visit both Michigan State and Ohio State, keeping their odds of winning the East low, but they might still be the third-best team in the league. A healthy Jake Ryan and a loaded secondary should give Greg Mattison his best defense yet, and going from Al Borges to Doug Nussmeier might be the biggest offensive coaching upgrade in the FBS. If the offensive line has a pulse, 10 wins will be in play.
That is Michigan's great hope.
Looking pretty good down the road. More high praise for a hockey commit:
Griffin Luce is a tough as nails defender with an excellent stick and innate positional sense. Manage the puck,eats minutes. Michigan commit
— Sean Lafortune (@SeanLafortune) August 14, 2014
Unfortunately, that is an addendum to an article running down the top prospects the OHL's Kitchener Rangers have. Luce checks in third after being drafted in the fifth round despite his NTDP commitment. Details:
Steady, instinctive blueliner with great size and poise. Textbook hitter and defender backed by solid positional sense. … Thrives in the dirty pockets of the ice, using his size and strength advantages to win battles and gain possession. Excellent one on one defender, keeps an active stick, extremely efficient at getting sticks on pucks. Difficult to drive the net or gain an outside lane on, manages gaps efficiently and takes advantage of his massive wingspan. … Projects as a tough, physical, stay at home defender who can contribute at both ends of the ice. … Would be a top paring defender if he ever comes to the league.
Sounds like the kind of shutdown D Michigan hasn't had in a long time. I mean, Trouba, but Trouba was here and gone in a flash.
Kitchener does manage to snipe guys frequently, but in Luce's case Michigan should be okay. He's headed to NTDP and not currently projected to be a pick so high that he would get signed immediately and then reassigned. Also, his dad is the Panthers' director of scouting and played in the OHL himself—when they chose college it was an informed decision.
This is going to be a problem. The NCAA has just been hit with an injunction that says it cannot cap scholarship values below the federal government's full cost of attendance, so eventually those numbers are going to have to come up. The issue: those gaps vary widely between schools:
Ohio State: $3,346
Penn State: $4,000
Somehow it's more expensive to live in the middle of nowhere than an actual city or in Ann Arbor's notoriously expensive student housing market. Meanwhile, Tennessee has the biggest gap in the power five at 5,666.
It doesn't seem likely that Michigan's going to stand for a system where a kid going to Penn State gets 7k more over his four years, and there's no way in hell Georgia (1.8k) is going to go for a system where half the SEC is offering 10k+ more. So then what?
The power conferences have one way to normalize cost of attendance across all 65 schools: let every school go up to the highest cost of attendance figure, which in this case is Tennessee’s $5,666.
But that has its own set of problems. First, many schools would then be permitted to exceed cost of attendance, some by thousands of dollars. Not only is that philosophically troubling for the NCAA, it also complicates matters with financial aid offices. If a portion of an athletic scholarship exceeds cost of attendance and is not paid through the financial aid office, what is but payment for services rendered?
The shakiest part of the O'Bannon decision is definitely the proposed remedy, which forces the NCAA into a choice they don't want to make.
Etc.: You can see the Lego Movie at Michigan Stadium if you're a season ticket holder. The Pac-12 wants you to know it schedules hard and should be rewarded for it. Gopher blog predicts 31-13 M win over Minnesota. Fresno State tries to keep up with the Joneses.
H&H whishful thinking: Auburn, LSU, Florida, FSU, Georgia, Texas, USC, UCLA, or TAMU.
Well whoever it is my guess is that by the time the games actually are played the rest of you guys will be old too.
better old than dead
just kidding man... but not really
This does not fall into the "huge name" category, but I would really like us to schedule a series with Pittsburgh. They don't draw huge crowds at home, so they might be willing to schedule an unbalances series (two games in Ann Arbor for one game in Pittsburgh). They're good but not great, so we should be favored to win each game. Western PA is fertile recruiting territory. Plus I'd love to go there for a game, it's actually closer to my home than Ann Arbor is. C'mon Dave B.
I see OSU's slate of interesting non-conf matchups over the near future and can't help but frown at our own. Virginia Tech, Oregon, TCU, Texas, Boston College, all home-and-homes. If revenue-hungry OSU can schedule those road games, why can't we?
most of those games have been scheduled for a while. ND stuck it to UM when they said they weren't going to renew. I'm guessing DB figured the ND game was going to be the marquee non-conference match up for a while. I actually think he's done a decent job of filling in the schedule. Most big time schools have most of their non-conference slate scheduled a few years down the road. Throw in the fact that most of the big time schools usually only like to play one other big school in their non-conference slate and it's tough.
But why should I let facts get in the way of irrational envy? But since you mentioned it...
As far as the home and home.....I still think Arizona ends up being one of them.
Also...I'd say it's rather unamious that everyone in the free world think Nuss over Borges is a huge upgrade.
will not happen, not while RR remains at Arizona. There is absolutely nothing good that could come from it.
Nothing good would come out of scheduling a rematch with App State, but here we are.
Wow factor and whatnot...
All jokes aside, Arizona would be an interesting concept only because it would be the first time we'd be facing a former head coach. We've gone up against Moeller, Carr, Hoke and even Schembechler as head or assistants BEFORE they were head coaches here but never after.
Although the "weirdness" factor would clearly be overshadowed by the fact it was 98% misery from beginning to end of RichRod's time here.
I don't see it happening. Although I still don't understand why the athletic department is waiting to make this big reveal. My 7 year old niece will probably be in college herself by the time we play these games.
I want zero part of a series against Arizona. I'm not sure the fanbase could handle it.
Is our fanbase really that soft that they cannot handle a game against a former coach who was unsuccessful here? Sheesh, talk about wet tissue paper.
I'm generally sympathetic to dudes like York, and I think if all we heard was "Csont'e punched a guy in the face and broke his jaw" we'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt in the sense that we wouldn't know exactly what happened (a la Lewan punching megaphone Buckeye man).
And in a sense we still don't know exactly what happened because of no audio. But that video... I mean, this was not remotely a scuffle or a "heat of the moment" thing. He balled up, paused, and then drilled a guy looking away with his hands in his pockets.
It's easy for me to believe the kid said something or was generally douchey, but man. Some things you just can't undo, and I honestly can't get myself to a place where York should stay on the team. I'm not at all sure of the UM policies on this, but it seems like if Gibbons got expelled, York should too. Both are unconscionably violent acts and to me require revoking the privilege of attending UM.
I find it interesting that more people weren't furious with Glasgow for driving drunk. there was a crowd that disdained the action but all the york threads have been filled with people ready to kick him out yesterday. funny thing is, if the jaw would not have broken it would be a minor issue. conversely, if Glasgow had crashed and injured someone that would have been a much bigger issue. I don't agree that punishment should be based on the result of a violation and not the violation itself. I also think people are quick to kick him out due to his level of contribution. the same thing the base rips on rivals and sec for. personally, I'd like to see York suspended for the entire year with a strict policy to get let back on the team. people make bad decisions and usually deserve a second chance to prove it was a mistake.
Drunk driving kills thousands every year and is basically winked at in our culture. I don't like the standard at all. I'm not really sure how to equate the situations, though.
I guess I was just trying to equate the level of poor decisions. people fight in college. if that occurred between two non-athletes one would be in trouble with the law and both would remain in school. from a football punishment perspective I can't say that what Glasgow did was worse than York simply because luck was on one person's side that day.
Just speculating here, but I think the reason why people don't treat the Glasgow and York situations the same is that we tend to have more sympathy for drunk drivers because they aren't in the greatest frame of mind.
Further, I think a lot of us could see ourselves making the mistake Glasgow made as opposed to what York did. We see a few of our friends and neighbors and family walking that fine line too often, that maybe it becomes more excusable in our heads. Obviously, both are just horrible offenses, and I'm not trying to justify either in any way. Just a thought.
He blew a 0.057 three and a half hours after the incident, so he may have been at 0.11 BAC at the time of the fight. He was not in the greatest frame of mind, either. That's the point I was trying to make in the original thread. I wish I could have written what Brian did, but that's why he's the blogger and I'm the whatever it is that I am.
Yeah, this is a legitimate point. But even then, I still think society tends to give more sympathy to drunk drivers then a drunk guy who lines someone up for KO at a bar, or wherever. I'm not saying this is fair or not, but I think that's the way it is to a large degree.
And let's face it, a drunk person getting in their car thinking "I could kill somebody." Even though drunk driving is bad, the same malicious intent simply isn't there.
Between those two things. One is a careless act that can hurt someone else, the other is a deliberate intent to injure someone
Drunk driving has resulted in ~ 10,000 fatalities per year the past two years:
I'd say that's considerably worse than hurting someone else.
to drive, even if they're seriously impaired. They think that nothing bad will happen in this particular case. Drunk drivers aren't thinking about annual statistics of fatalities.
You don't, on the other hand, punch someone in the face thinking that nothing bad will come of it.
Isn't it about intent? I doubt most drunk drivers intend to injure themselves or others, notwithstanding the occasional, horrible outcome, but here, a sucker punch from a well conditioned athlete can only be intended to injure someone. If York didn't realize this, then I'm really not sure what to say.
Lots of student-athletes at Michigan have come from backgrounds that are anything but stellar, and most don't do what York did.
misdemeanors for first offenses, battery causing serious bodily injuries are felonies. Until our society (the US) treats OWI's differently, then what York did was clearly worse than what Graham did. OWI's are terrible, so don't misinterpret that I think one is worse than the other. I have lost family and friends caused by drunken driving. But we don't treat the two the same way. York clearly hit someone that had no time to react and luckily the guy only suffered a broken jaw and no brain damage. His head bounced off of the pavement! Anyway, I believe in second chances, so when he's done serving his sentence, he should be able to come back and play... just not at Michigan.
Right or wrong, I think the difference between the reactions is intent. Glasgow's actions may have resulted in killing someone, but his intention was to have a good time and acted irresponsibly. York, on the other hand could have no other intention than to inflict serious injury on that kid. Yeah, maybe he didn't mean to break his jaw, but he still meant to hurt him.
if the jaw would not have broken it would be a minor issue.
Maybe, but on the other hand he's very lucky a broken jaw was all that happened. People get lifelong brain injuires and die from stuff like this pretty regularly.
This is actually one do the problems I have with the narrative surrounding drunk driving in our country. Sure, you hear commercials against it on the radio and stuff, but the overall impression I have gotten is that people kind of wink at it as long as it turns out ok. People go home from a bar or a party and they're only a bit sloshed and they say they're alright and people just kind of let it slide.
But it's actually really dangerous. People are maimed or killed by drunk driving on a regular basis. NOBODY means for it to be that way, but it doesn't change the fact that it's careless.
If some guy pulls out a handgun and waves it around, laughing and joking, and they accidentally fire off a round or two, and maybe one of them hits someone, people don't go easy on them because they didn't mean to hurt anyone. They are, rightly, excoriated and prosecuted for acting carelessly with a deadly weapon.
Getting drunk and then getting behind the wheel should be treated the same way.
If some guy pulls out a handgun and waves it around, laughing and joking, and they accidentally fire off a round or two, and maybe one of them hits someone, people don't go easy on them because they didn't mean to hurt anyone.
Actually, we do. That's the difference between Manslaughter, 2nd Degree Murder, and 1st Degree Murder.
Intent does matters.
Do you think a football player who waved a gun around in a crowd, accidentally fired a couple of rounds, and didn't kill anyone, gets a one-game suspension at the start of the season?
If York issues a statement where he says "I was just mad, I didn't mean to break his jaw, I just wanted to teach him a lesson," that doesn't change anything in my view. Intent does matter, but so does taking responsibility for the potential impact of one's actions. Nobody asked Joe Paterno whether he intended for Jerry Sandusky to be allowed to continue to commit his heinous crimes; at some point the line has to be drawn.
I'm not really intending to zero in on you here, please don't get me wrong. I know what you're saying. It's the series of responses in this vein. It's a real issue to me.
Since driving (like any other action) has an inherent risk, you have to look at the increased risk brought about by the immoral/illegal aspect, not simply the flat risk of drunk driving. So for drunk driving, you need to look at the increased risk of accident that results from being drunk. In the supposedly analogous case of the gunman, you'd need to look at the increased risk of accident that results from waving the gun instead of say, waving your hand (fixing the relevant alternatives isn't easy, but the gist is here). If, as I suspect, waving the gun increases the risk in that case much more than drinking increases the risk in the other case, then we shouldn't treat them similarily.
But in general drunk driving has specific consequences that are handed out if nothing else negative happens with it. You get fines/tickets/community service/probation and maybe some jail time. In addition those consequences can increase based on how intoxicated you are.
When you kill/injure/maim someone you are taking the consequences to a whole new level.
That said fighting/assault has the same types of levels which have a lot to do with intent and the amount of damage you inflict upon someone.
In this situation if York had gotten drunk and picked a fight with this other guy, basically let the other guy know he had aggressive intent either by pushing him, yelling at him or something, I would be looking for a much less severe punishment.
In this situation York decided to do something bad. He wanted to fight. If all he wanted to do was fight and started a fight, most people would let this guy. But instead he went about the socially worst way you can do and hit someone when they weren't looking. In addition that person had some pretty bad damage inflicted on them. As such his punishment should be severe.
Another reason it may be viewed differently is the common man has drank and drove before. Not too many people can relate to knocking out a person with a sucker punch. Our society says you cannot punch someone in the face for no reason. But our society also says well, I just had a couple, and I am not going to leave my car here, because I have work in the morning. Not that it is right. But also, why we shouldn't jump down this kids throat and ask for his head on a stake.
That's kind of my point, I think. If (1) Glasgow had hit someone with his car and broken their jaw and knocked them unconscious; and (2) there was high-quality video of it that made it unambiguous that he did it on purpose, people probably would have had a much bigger problem with it.
I was mostly responding to Brian's apparent chagrin that people were so ready to shitcan York. I think the video had a lot to do with that reaction.
I think the two main things that differentiate the situation are the video and the results. As others have discussed lots of drunk people throw punches and lots of drunk people drive when they shouldn't. The results from one to the other are a big difference. Glasgow got a ticket and luckily didn't hurt anyone (although he very easily could have). York broke a kid's jaw.
The other big thing is the video. York's entire crime has been witnessed by everyone, it could have easily been played on a loop or even a GIF. I wonder how much more outrage there would have been if Glasgow's escapade was on a dash cam? Remember, this was the description:
Glasgow, 21 of Ann Arbor, was driving a white Chevrolet Suburban SUV on William when Officer Pat Maguire observed a woman, Alexa Dannemiller, hanging out of the front passenger window. “As the vehicle turned, Maguire saw that there was a white female hanging from the front passenger side window,” the report stated. “She was sitting on the lap of another passenger who was in the same seat.” Dannemiller, a Univeristy of Michigan volleyball player, was screaming at pedestrians and not wearing a seatbelt so Maguire began following the vehicle, according to the report. He said the rear tailgate to the SUV was open and, as Glasgow continued driving, it started to open more and more with items coming out of the trunk. Eventually, the falling items started to obscure the license plate and Maguire initiated a traffic stop.
Maybe that's appropriate, and maybe there are circumstances which mitigate our initial reaction. At MSU, when Winston cold-cocked a teammate, he was given a reprieve. When he repeated this behavior at Rather Hall, he got the boot.
Unitl Brian mentioned York's background, I had no idea what his backstory was in getting to Michigan. Yes, we all believe in Michigan values and we know whay they mean and how they should be upheld. But we also know that the coach has indicated that this player will be given the benefit of the doubt available to all through the legal process, and then a judgment will be rendered. There is no need to rush to judgment here. The kid is suspended indefinitely. He is as good as gone now. And if that's your perspective on his case, then accpet that verdict.
You know that life frequently throws you a curve ball. And at Michigan, people like to handle those. They don't see things on a black and white basis. And yes, that metaphor applies in this case. There are plenty of examples which can be cited to support the coach's handling of York's status. But the best one is simply this: the kid is not guilty until that verdict is determined. And you or anyone claiming otherwise regardless of the evidence, can't make that decision before his case is decided.
Fan response is noted but not actionable until the legal matter is adjudicated.
I am not in a hurry to boot the kid. If it comes down that way, I won't be upset. If Hoke wants to keep him on the team, I won't be upset either. It's a fine line between kicking kids off programs to apease the fanbase, and keeping a kid apart of a program (and a family like they try to convey) to try and teach the kid how to become a man. He is better off at Michigan, earning a degree, becoming responsible, then to be on the streets.
It is also not the football programor athletic department's job to expell kids. That is a University decision. The most Brady could do is kick him off the team. And I am comfortable with York being suspended indefinitely until after the whole legal process shakes out.
No need to knee jerk reactions. That being said, I don't think he should represent the University on the field.
was nodding my head, more or less, till you equated punching a guy to rape.
Personally, I'd much rather get sucker-punched than raped.
I don't think you have to interpret what I said that way. For them to be treated similarly by policy doesn't mean we have to think they are exactly the same thing.
Maybe it's not what you meant, but when you write "if Gibbons got expelled, York should too" that implied, to me anyway, that you think the punch was at least as bad as rape.
I'm probably getting overly semantic here, but I guess I think that they are both pretty awfully violent things to do to someone (not just the punching, but the damage it caused).
I would agree that if the explusion line is placed right at what Gibbons did, then I probably wouldn't say York's offense was at that line or worse. But I tend to think York's offense was also past that line, even though on balance I probably agree that Gibbons's is well past that line.
I guess I would turn the question around on you--why is (almost certainly) giving someone a concussion, breaking their jaw in three places, forcing them into weeks of recovery, and potentially giving them PTSD, not also worthy of explusion?
probably best to have left the Gibbons case out of it.
Yeah... that was really poor wording at best.
Agreed about York. While it's important to protect the integrity of the program, a big part of that is putting the best interest of the kids first. You don't want a player that's going to be a big problem for the image of the team or a bad influence on his teammates, but you always have to weigh that against what happens if you throw that kid to the curb.
I think it's safe to assume he won't be playing for Michigan anytime soon or probably ever, but I like that Hoke isn't abandoning him. Even if he decides that he can't keep York on the team, I bet he'll try to make sure he stays in school, either here or somewhere else.
for the interests of the other Michigan student? You know, the victim?
They aren't mutually exclusive. Assuming (for the sake of argument) that York is allowed to remain on school, but on probation and basically forced a redshirt and limited participation in football activities does not mean that the interests of the other student are not being served. I would assume the kid has insurance, or will otherwise be taken care of medically and academically if he has to miss a semester.
if York is rewarded for his crime with additional years of scholarship, shouldn't his victim be compensated to at least the same degree by the university?
He's not being rewarded for his crime. If he does get a second chance, which is still undetermined, he just happens to keep the scholarship he's earned up to this point.
in spite of his crime when that scholarship could be rewarded to someone else who may be just as needy but in exchange would set a better example.
Honestly - it is probably best to let the police, and Hoke figure this one out. We don't know the whole story, nor (as Brian reminds us) the back story.
I was not wild about keeping Frank Clark on the team, but apparently (I think it was Rittenberg who wrote) Clark is a good guy who has really come a long way from very bad circumstances.
Maybe Hoke too? What indication do you have that no one is?
I also find it interesting that Toussaint and Glasgow can get DUIs and no one wants them off the team, yet York punches a dude (which I admit was very bad) and everyone wants him gonzo before we hear anything else. If Funchess did that, is the reaction the same? I bet it's not.
The problem I have with Brian's statement is the complete lack of mention of the victim. Yeah, some of the York hate was over the top. I think the correct emotion is sorrow, rather than anger. But it's a bit disturbing that there are a number of commenters rushing to feel sorry for York over his presumed unpleasant upbringing, even suggesting he ought to keep his scholarship, and not even making a token mention of the guy with the shattered jaw.