February 5th, 2014 at 4:09 PM ^
the reason why i stopped listening to 97.1... 97.1's MO is "slow news day? throw random michigan topic out there to piss off the masses to get people to call in"... foster did it once a couple of summers ago about michigan using adidas over nike and i couldn't believe how many people called in...
February 5th, 2014 at 4:57 PM ^
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.
February 5th, 2014 at 3:28 PM ^
February 5th, 2014 at 3:33 PM ^
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."
February 5th, 2014 at 3:21 PM ^
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.
February 5th, 2014 at 4:03 PM ^
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.
February 5th, 2014 at 3:36 PM ^
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.
February 5th, 2014 at 4:13 PM ^
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.
February 5th, 2014 at 4:20 PM ^
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.
February 5th, 2014 at 5:11 PM ^
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.
February 5th, 2014 at 5:20 PM ^
...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.
February 5th, 2014 at 6:33 PM ^
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.
February 5th, 2014 at 7:09 PM ^
... I simply cannot argue that Gibbons or Lewan are "innocent." What I do know is this:
- Neither one was charged with a crime;
- The police report indicates that accounts of Gibbons' alleged sexual assault are disputed;
- Under Gibbons' telling, there was no crime, and I'm not sure there was any violation of any team rule;
- There is no indication that Taylor Lewan ever had any contact with the alleged victim, and thereby no indication that he ever "threatened" her in any way;
- There is no recorded indication that the alleged vicitm ever felt threatened by Lewan or Gibbons or anyone else;
- There is no indication that there was any trouble/contact/communication/conflict of any kind between Gibbons and the alleged victim for at least three years after the incident in question.
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.
February 5th, 2014 at 7:27 PM ^
little more to say.
February 5th, 2014 at 5:27 PM ^
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.
February 5th, 2014 at 3:57 PM ^
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.
February 5th, 2014 at 4:09 PM ^
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.
February 5th, 2014 at 4:42 PM ^
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...
February 5th, 2014 at 5:15 PM ^
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.
February 5th, 2014 at 5:56 PM ^
Riger's a joke...all he hopes to be is, Valenti one day.
February 5th, 2014 at 9:40 PM ^
February 5th, 2014 at 6:19 PM ^
February 5th, 2014 at 8:52 PM ^
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.
February 5th, 2014 at 8:52 PM ^
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.
February 5th, 2014 at 10:32 PM ^
...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.
February 5th, 2014 at 11:21 PM ^
February 6th, 2014 at 1:18 PM ^
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:
http://oscr.umich.edu/tags/interim-sexual-misconduct-policy
.
