Please post embed when available!
to play football, not to play trumpet
You must be watching the presser via The Michigan Daily's video software.
I'm able to see it. The only issue has been the typical 'not being able to hear everyone's question' depending on where they're sitting in the room.
just cut out.
That was wierd. Hoke was asked question about Gibbons, feed cuts out.
It looked like that ended it.
I sure as hell hope that is not the case. If they actually pulled the video feed because a question about Gibbons was raised they have taken stupid to whole new level.
It appeared hoke was walking away and the feed died. I don't know if it was planned to end or they had enough.
I was working/listening so I didn't see what exactly happened. It seemed to get a bit argumentative and the reporter wasn't satisfied with Hoke's answers. Ugh.
This is why they should have invited the Daily and everybody else to the earlier discussion.
1. Give everybody an opportunity to ask whatever they're going to ask,
2. Answer however you want
3. Tell everyone this is your chance to discuss Gibbons issues, NSD will be about NSD
4. On NSD you start your conference by stating you are only talking about signees
5. Respond to any non-NSD question by asking if there is a question about signees
6. When there are no more questions about signees end the conference.
Michigan is colossally stupid when it comes to PR. They honestly need to fire everyone associated with public relations in that athletic department and hire people that know how to operate in the 21st century.
Was listening but not watching and it sounded sudden.
But I loved the exchange.
Reporter: "Do you have an opinion on what people deserve to know?"
Hoke: "Did I issue a statement?"
Reporter: ".. so that was your opinion?"
Hoke: ".." <death stare implied>
-feed cuts out-
Can we get Kate Upton to post the signee names on the wall as they come in? I like the girl we have but come on DB let's have the wow factor!
It seemed like that was the end of the press conference. A bit of an abrupt conclusion once the topic turned to Gibbons.
I don't know why Hoke didn't just say, "I'm here to talk about the great kids we have coming in not other stuff."
He said at least 2 twice that he gave a statement on Monday. That should have been the end of it from the reporters but they kept pressing.And not I dont think the feed was cut by Michigan on purpose.
Somebody please tell me that our coaches and AD dont think that if they end press conferences because questions are raised they dont like the questions will go away.
Please tell me they dont think that. If so I dont think I want to see their Wonderlic scores.
They got asked the same question 3 times prior to that. It sucks for the new kids to have their signing day ruined by reporters trying to get a scoop on another story. Yeah, the AD hasn't been exactly forthcoming about the Gibbons incident and I'm not happy about it either, but there's a time and place.
they did, but if you don't provide the media with an opportunity to ask the tough questions, they are not going to follow your timetable. They are going to ask when they can. Today was the only opportunity to ask, and they did. What did they expect to happen?
The time and place was today, since this was the first free press conference since the story broke, I agree the kids are being denied a better welcome, but this is the department's fault, not the reporters. Hoke is being placed under the bus by Dave Brandon and MSC. He is not equipped to handle this. It showed. Ugh.
I thought the written statement was pretty good. Perhaps it would have been more effective if Brady had taken the time just to read his statement and then ask that they direct further questions to the 2014 recruiting class. As it was, he came across as being evasive. But I thought his written statement was not really evasive and was a fair answer to the questions that have been raised.
Written statements are worthless. Its a cop out way of dealing with something. For grown up issues, and grown up responses, you need to ask people questions in person. Only cowards release statements and then try and hide behind them.
As noted, this wasn't the first time they were asked about it, nor was it the first time they answered it. At some point, you either tell the reporters that they are idiots and stop asking unrelated questions or you ignore them. It looked lik the press conference was done and Hoke was leaving anyway, so some guy tried to slip a question in there. The fact the video cut out probably was based more on the expected ending.
There is a girl who had to endure years of fan adulation towards her attacker.
A few uncomfortable minutes for Hoke is the least what Hoke can bear.
I am downvoting you because I don't expect you know anything about whether "attacker" is a fair or even reasonable characterization.
I also suspect that you don't know much about any "enduring" on the part of the alleged victim. I should think that rather than "endure" anything, the alleged victim ought to proceed with full cooperation with police, and the pursuit of any legal remedies available. In the criminal justice system, in the civil justice system, by way of a personal protection order, or by way of University disciplinary proceedings.
You went out of your way to speak of the alleged victim "enduring" for years; and that is just the question I have. Why was the recent University Student Conflict Resolution proceeding undertaken so long after the fact? The principle reason seems to be (I'd like to hear about any alternative explanation) that the alleged victim did nothing to obtain any remedy, if one was owed. I'm not even certain that the recent administrative proceeding leading to Gibbons' expulsion was initiated by the alleged victim. Are you?
So; -1. Now you know who negged you, and why.
If I'm Hoke I'd be more frustrated with my boss for not getting out in front of this sooner and perhaps prevent this derailment.
I mean they had to know people were going to ask about Gibbons right? I can't believe the AD would be that naive enough to believe that reporters/journalists are going to follow along with the script and stick to strictly NSD questions.
Sharp and Fithian were a disgrace. Signing day presser and they just kept on negging with the Gibbons questions (which Hoke clearly stated that he was not gonna answer). Once again it feels like the Michigan/Detroit media just love to be negative no matter what. You really don't see stuff like this in places like Columbus, Austin, Tallahassee etc...
While I dislike Sharp A LOT, (and I believe it was Riger not Fithian) the athletic department brought it upon themselves by not getting in front of this quicker and in a more thorough or at least more authoritative manner if they can't speak due to legal reasons.
If you don't address issues like these, they do not go away. They will keep coming up, over and over again until someone does.
To be fair, with Sharp you could tell him three weeks ago and the message would only now be making its way to the hamster drunkenly stumbling around on its wheel in his head.
...a lot more questions. Let Brandon do it; because this was never really a football program issue; it is a University issue. (I'd certainly agree with any suggestion that Hoke's "family matter" comment was inexcusable; his only reasonable position now is to admit that he gave a misleading answer to protect a player's privacy under very complicated legal circumstances, and that he regrets it.)
But regarding Sharp, the way to fix him is for Brandon to do an in-depth sit-down interview with the guys from the Daily, or Angelique, or Beckmann's radio program. Anybody but Sharp, or Snyder.
Are you suggesting that the head football coach cannot answer tough questions about football team business?
I mean, if you are, I agree, but I just want to know if you are suggesting that and agreeing with my impression.
...matters within the OSCR. Because, as the University has forcefully asserted, the head football coach has no role in those administrative proceedings.
For that matter, neither does Brandon. Whether that disqualifies Brandon as well... I'll leave that to the University.
You see that kind of stuff in all those places you mentioned when the team isn't winning. That's the problem right now with the press. If the team isn't winning, the press inflaming emotions is how they generate revenue.
This presser almost felt like RR era part two. The only thing missing was Hoke telling them to be more positive. I hope this staff learned their lesson, no more excuses you either win next season or its over for them. It might also be the end for Brandon... who knows if the new president would be willing to let him pick a new coach.
I didn't hear any excuses or pleading out of Hoke in this presser - in fact, one reporter seemed to want him to pin some lack of development on individual players, and he unwaveringly said that everyone they've recruited is the right kind of player for Michigan (the point being that nothing they've done since coming here has made that any different.)
So, when are they going to answer the questions?
Any tough questions will be met with disdain and icy glares.
I see the press wanted to talk about Gibbons, not the recruits so much. I believe we deserve to know why Hoke said 'family stuff' about Gibbons, and what he knew when (if that's allowed according to law or school policy). But besides that, I don't know what else people expect to find out. They're not coming to violate the law and provide details of the investigation (if they even know it).
The program needs to give some information about there knowledge of the Gibbons situation. I fear for the worse though when schools refuse to answer questions about the situation.
Hoke's responses to the Gibbons questions were unimpressive. I wish he would have said something generic about the disciplinary process so that he would not appear to be uninformed, or hiding something. His responses will only lead to more paranoid speculation.
Otherwise, good presser. I am excited about the class.
I am in agreement with you (and all others who mentioned it). In an effort to help out the school board that oversees the school my children attend, I have volunteered on many projects as a consultant. The most recent one was a rennovation of an old school.
The project started at the beginning of the school year and the communication was very poor from the start. I was consulted because the community found out that there was asbestos in the school that they were never aware of and were now concerned that their children (and the staff of the school) were exposed during some demolition that took place.
When I met with the CEO and the director of operations they informed me they were aware of the asbestos and the contractor performing the work took all the proper precautions but they thought informing people would just cause undue panic.
After my investigation I was very confident that no one at the school had been exposed to any harmful levels of asbestos and we had a public meeting to talk about the concerns and hopefully, put them to rest. The meeting went well and we faced a lot of questions, but all were answered by the end of the night.
Fast forward a few months and we are still having huge problems with that project and the interference being run by the parents in that community. The reason for all of these problems is the lack of communication at the start.
Had the school board informed staff and parents that there was asbestos in the school and educated them about the risks associated with it, then explained the precautions that would be taken during removal and that these types of projects often occur while buildings are inhabited, I believe the parents would have been fine with it. The worst case scenario would have been that the parents wouldn't give up and the school would have to be closed for a few days while the asbestos was removed.
In the end they didn't do anything. They hoped that no one would find out and because of that they lost all credibility and now everything they do and say is met with skepticism and doubt, and who could blame parents for that.
It similar to what is happening here in that UM should have been transparent from the beginning instead of trying to hide things and hope they go away...It never works and always makes things worse than they would have been otherwise.
If you all believe that the AD cut the feed because of questioning, then you are dumber than you believe Brandon and communications department to be.
I clearly heard someone say last question before the feed cut.
That doesnt matter to the some folks around here.
Your wrong - that DOES matter - if it was said before the question. But if it wasnt said (and so far only one person claims to have heard it) or if it was said after the question they didnt like was asked then they are beyond stupid and continue to handle this situation almost as badly as humanly possible.
Honestly, people have largely picked their sides, and nothing is going to change that. People who want this to be some black mark on the entire university will see the pieces of the Matrix at every turn, and people who think this is just bureaucracy and poor PR will hold tight to that.
The situation sucks, but man this place (and the media) sure want to hump this into even more submission than it already is.
Do man. Beating a dead horse!
Great for argument on Sharp's FreeP column (btw he'll get the most hits and comments) and sports talk radio beating this topic to death. It has been the number one topic on 97.1, Valenti now asking if MSU football has officially surpassed Michigan. Later on, Jamie and Wojo will take calls on... who's the better coach Beilein or Dantonio?
yeah, because they know that this is Michigan country. Any pro-Sparty topics get *dialtone* but inflammatory Michigan topics get full lines from Sparties going YEAH! and Wolverines angrily waiting to defend.
It's infuriating but it's true.
About you write the school a letter for your own closure?
Here's the thing. whether is was said before or after, Hoke was clearly preparing to end. He was gathering his notes and walking away. Hoke had already said that he gave a statement and it was already established by how he answered previous questions on the topic that he wasnt going to get into it. At some point the media types have to recognze that and move on. This was not a day about Gibbons and once he said I gave a statement on Monday, that should have ended the Gibbons questions no matter how you felt about that answer. Lastly Hoke said it best when he said something like "it doesnt matter if you are here, you are going to write what you want to write."
Asked Hoke if fans deserved more than just a statement about Gibbons? "My opinion? Did I give you a statement?" That ended the presser
We are tossing gasoline on the fire instead of putting it out.
Riger just loves to stir up contoversy. He always got Jim Leyland riled up asking dumb questions. I get that its his job to do this but he really makes an ass of himself.
My goodness, if there is one time Michigan/Brandon's "corporate" operating skillz should be useful, it is situations like these.
If someone keeps asking questions you feel you've answered and/or don't want to get into, you simply stay calm, smile and say
- "Thanks for your question, but I already said all I'm going to say about the situation. If you have any other questions about the new signees, which is why we're having this presser, I'll be happy to answer them."
- Reporters then shout/say another Gibbons-related questions
- You immediately, firmly but politely cut in and say, "No other questions about signing day then? Thanks for your time. I appreciate it."
...and then calmy and quickly leave the podium.
No death stares or hemming or hawing. PR 101. Perhaps U of M should enroll itself.
this is not an issue of his making, and even his management of the issue has in fact been minimal, almost or fully dictated from beyond his reach. He's hardly the most nimble public relations person, but why should he have to be in this situation? It's the long, slow, changing grind of university-style justice that has got us where we are. Arguably, Brandon should have been out front to answer these questions and saved Hoke the misery.
Looking forward to reading the statement.
and I don't get why the media is so poor about asking questions, but there is no FERPA protection for Lewan's situation as far as I can tell and I would like a justification of why Lewan remains a captain at Michigan after the text exchange. Were phone records ever submitted and checked, and is Hoke aware of findings and if in spite of the threats, if Lewan is still going to stay a captain, I'd like to hear why Hoke thinks what he has done should trump the awful things he's accused of doing.
That said, Hoke did not rape anyone and I don't see anyway in which Hoke covered up a rape. But I do think there are some problems that should be addressed involving timing, lying, miscommunications etc.
to a reliable transcript.
It was my take that if Lewan threatened the girl with rape then he should have been gone, too. But observers of the report noted that he had in fact said she wasn't raped, and then went on to threaten her.
I don't think that dwelling on the minutiae in he said she said fashion takes you far; the point (for me) is that if there was strong evidence of wrongdoing--regardless of criminality--we don't want them on our squad, and something like a "violation of team rules" and "representing the university" kind of ruling--which would have been made by RR--should have had Gibbons or both off of the team. (This is an accepted practice in many institutions, including a lot of other schools. Having women feel safe on your campus has to be high up the list of things you get right.)
I'm still not sure why "he's not a criminal" is good enough for some people here, or how they can be comfortable with the fact that those two guys helped secure us various wins. To each their own, but I've got a daughter who I would also like to have go to the UM, as did my dad and grandfather.
...that somebody thinks that Taylor Lewan texted, or emailed, or called the alleged sexual assault victim.
I say; that is flatly untrue. If you think I am wrong, tell us all and be very specific.
Taylor Lewan never communicated with the alleged victim as far as I know. If you think I am wrong, tell us all and be very specific.
I am not aware of the alleged victim ever having complained to anyone -- most importantly the police -- to say that she felt "threatened" by Lewan or anyone else. In this regard, I look more strictly to the police investigation records, and not the "reporting" by Washtenaw Watchdog Doug Smith, who has shown himself to be so casual with the facts and his own reporting/allegations as to be rendered no longer credible on the subject. Again, if you can correct me on this precise point, tell us all and be very specific.
that this is widely out there, and that the university--once the rules changed--felt confident enough that there was wrongdoing to throw Gibbons out of school. . . four years later. And I am asserting that the standard for the team should be higher than for the courts. This is the issue, rather than the facts of the case, now over, that I would like to debate. Other schools kick kids off for all kinds of reasons; they often call it "violation of team rules." Often it is for indiscretions that are, to my mind, far less serious than what is alleged here.
I think that I have about exhausted my arguments about this, coming to these conclusions. I would just point out that--correct me if I am wrong--you continue to argue the details rather than the larger issues here. I don't want the school that I love, or the team, associated with these guys (Gibbons for sure, maybe Lewan either); I don't like to think we won games because we kept them on the squad, whether the rules were followed or not.
... I simply cannot argue that Gibbons or Lewan are "innocent." What I do know is this:
My big thing in all of this is always going to be the political backdrop to the recent White House-led changes to Title IX rules on sexual assault and/or harassment on college campuses. And the interaction of those changes with basic due process rights of the accused in such cases.
little more to say.
If Hoke was a good leader he would handle this completely on his own. We should not hear so much form the AD. Hoke needs to answer the questions. They are not unreasonable. He is just not good enough it seems.
Shocking too.. seems that DB wasn't ready to talk at this one.
When it's good and something exciting, he's ready for the limelight. When it's hard and someone needs to step up, he's gone.
Don't act like a clown. Is it really too much to ask the athletic deparment to contact a professor or two in the communications department.
Seriously, if they just said we kicked his ass off of the team for violation of team rules and privacy rules prevent us for talking about it the first time this issue would have been dead to the fan base. Why the lie? Now you are linked to the event and you open yourself up to the what did you know and when did you know it question.
If you watch the archived video on mgoblue.com you see Hoke say "Did I make a statement?", shrugs, shakes his head and looks to someone then grabs his papers and walks off. I just think it was the end of the press conference, not because of the Gibbons stuff.
I don't know which "Drew" was there (the last Gibbons question was following up on "Drew's" question) , but I imagine it was Sharpe since the "Drew" was asking about Gibbons.The name Drew with regards to Michigan press makes me cringe...
It was Drew Sharp who asked first and also had a follow up. Then it was Jeff Riger with the final question. I think DB has done a pitiful job with this situation, they should've answered the questions yesterday and ended it there. Now with this presser, Sharp got himself another "most popular column" on freep.com.
Riger's a joke...all he hopes to be is, Valenti one day.
God how low do you have to be to want to be that troll.
So Hoke told a fib about why Gibbons wasn't playing. Big deal. It was a screwed up situation and only Gibbons and the victim will ever really know why. Hoke did the best he could under the circumstances to protect his player's privacy. Personally, I like that.
How in the hell is Drew even allowed at these things? Hell John U Bacon deserves to be at them more. Pretty amazing Sharpe hasn't had his press pass pulled yet.
when the Freep smells (7-6) blood in the water. They can finally go after Hoke like they did RR day one, throw the shit on the wall and see if it sticks.
...will ever "go after" Brady Hoke. Certainly not the way that Rosenberg and Snyder, later backed by the full weight of the editors and publisher Paul Anger, went after Rodriguez.
Drew Sharp might go after Hoke on his own; because that is what Sharp always does. He looks for occasions when he might credibly demand that somebody in sports be fired. And in the process, he seeks to be a controversialist. Over and over and over again.
But I will say, that the more political that the Gibbons expulsion story gets (and I think it could get political, if ever we were to dig into which of Gibbons' due process rights were rolled in the proceedings, by an Obama Administration directive), the more I think that the Freep will side with University/Title IX/political correctness. No matter if Hoke and Brandon take the fall in that. Or not. The Freep will surely side with Title IX.
In other words, I don't think anybody at the Freep has it in for Brady Hoke personally; he is nothing politically. (Not so much Dave Brandon, who might be something political, someday.) But when it comes to protecting the Department of Education, and defending the big "A" Administration (in Washington D.C.) and the little "a" administration (in Ann Arbor), the Freep is a hardball playa.
Thou hath jumpeth the shark.
Silly, on my part, to have explicitly linked the relevant University of Michigan policy now at issue, with something like "Obama." (As for my characterization of the Free Press, I was being deliberately mild. Stronger language could have been used.)
I admit, it is a little bit incredible, that a single discrete policy change on the part of the current Administration could have the kind of effects we see in this case. I'd have a hard time believing it myself, but for the fact that the University of Michigan devoted a webpage to the exact point that I raised: