It's about time Winston got kicked off that team. It only took two assaults.
8 suspended sparties return / 4 transferring
That Dantonio is a real disciplinarian.
Whatever happened to that? Apparently it only applies to players buried on the depth chart. Contributers have a 3 strikes rule or something.
Zero tolerance - fifty percent of the time, it works every time
ugh. again... scroll below. Dantonio has not shifted his approach with this move. none of these players had a 'first strike' which would validate your comment.
indeed, just ask Kevin grady
Heh! It's actually 66.7% tolerance.
Family values dude, family values.
harsh penalties are harsh
except when they're not.
Nice going, Coach Dantonio, letting these guys back even before the justice system has its say. I hope you at least make them run bleachers at 6:00 am or something, maybe write (lol) letters of apology to the victims of MSU Fraternity Nerd Beatdown '09.
Hopefully, that won't be a mandatory practice/workout for those guys.
I already did.
This situation is becoming more tiresome and disturbing as time passes. I am just trying to figure out what Saint Dantonio has on the press here. It's like he has embarassing pics of every single fucking reporter in the state.
Why does he constantly get a free pass for much more than RR gets sodomized for?
Why does the press so deperately want to see MSU do well?
And why does the press want to see RR fail when he gives them twice as much access as Bo, Mo, or Carr ever did?
please see Drew Sharp article on freep.com
Dantonio, "You lack a discipline."
Pretty ironic all the starters like Dell and Cunningham made it back.
is all i can say... none of these kids should even be allowed any where near the practice facility until the court rules on the case... but he didn't say if they were going to be able to participate in spring practice...
MSU still has a shot at winning the MAC.
UM fans can't exactly make jokes like this after these past two seasons...
no, im joking about the last 100 meetings.
"There is a no tolerance policy after the first offense." I seriously read that somewhere. Ridiculous.
is search for your comment before you make it. it's easy to shout outrage at a quote you 'seriously read somewhere.' however, when one Googles "Dantonio" "tolerance policy" they find... drumroll...
Dantonio said that their dismissals were permanent, citing a “zero tolerance” policy for players receiving second chances.
unless any of these four players had already gotten in trouble, he hasn't gone back on this quote.
ANGRY RETORT FTW!
So is it even theoretically possible for a Spartan player to be kicked off the team after his first offense? Are players guaranteed one (literal) get-out-of-jail card?
*nudge nudge wink wink* Say no more, say no more.
that's my entire point. people are harping like he said he wouldn't give out second chances. the bigger issue is if there is ever going to be a point that he doesn't. well done.
The four players who have transferred or are "considering their options" are scrubs, while the impact players are all fit to come back. Amazing how that works!
I'm glad Dantonio is giving these guys a break; they just spartied a little too hard and got carried away...
Five players -- Dell, Cunningham, Chris L. Rucker, Smith and Deane -- are "on the team right now," Dantonio confirmed.
What a remarkable coincidence that these happen to be the best players in the group.
What a joke. The thugs of the Big Ten.
I am a Michigan fan through and through, so making fun of Sparty is fun and all, and I am one of the first to yell "burn your own couch!" at UofM/MSU games...
However, I think MarkyD has made an even more serious error here then he did putting Winston back on the team after his first arrest for beating students.
What he just said was that he does not care if a good chunk of the team, after a team event, goes to a dorm in masse and beats up other students in a pre-planned attack. He cares so little he will put you back on the team while your criminal charges are still pending.
There isn't really any reason for him to put them back on the team this month. No super critical time deadlines.
I think he sent the exact wrong message to the players, and I think he will have a crapload more trouble down the road because of it.
love to see one of these kids get into trouble again, just so dantonio has to do something... suspending kids for a bowl game is all fine and dandy for a minor issue... but when a group of players conspire to go and beat up a bunch of students a one game suspension just isn't enough...
but they didn't beat up a bunch of students.....that is 100% fact. There was a thorough investigation.
trollers from the RCMB bringing it strong. so i'm guessing the kid treated for a goose egg and various others who reported being either hit or shoved in the face just 'made it up?'
"Looks like MSU is just "The U" without good weather or winning."
just what Dantonio promised
All the evidence revealed so far... Ranging from the statements from the witnesses, the statements from the players and their families, the statements from the DA, and the charges themselves suggest that Winston, Jenrette and possibly Leggett were the only MSU players that actually threw punches.
All 3 are permanently off the team.
All the remaining players were charged with only 1 count of assault or assault and battery which the DA himself suggested could be satisfied simply by the player being present in the room and/or putting their hand on someone's shoulder. If, during the course of this case, it is revealed that another MSU player struck someone I have no doubt that Dantonio will immediately re-suspend, or more likely, kick that player off the team. Dantonio has taken a lot of heat over this affair and probably won't be as lenient as he has in the past.
Time will tell, but his reinstatement of the remaining players right now doesn't really mean much as we'll know the result of any legal action by the time spring practice starts.
The conspiracy charges relate to events preceding the actual incident in which it is likely all the players are guilty as I doubt they just didn't happen to wander into the situation unaware of what was going to happen. The assault charges could be satisfied by simply being in the same room and the assault and battery charges could be technically satisfied by simply touching someone over the course of the incident.
So it's very likely that many of the football players charged could be guilty of 1,2 or all 3 of the misdemeanor charges, but the punishment levied by the court will be the most telling part. For example, it is unlikely that a player who discussed the plan to crash the potluck earlier, stood by as another player was fighting, and may have bumped into someone at some point will receive much punishment beyond probation even though they were found guilty of all 3 charges. If a player actually punched someone, the punishment from the court AND from Dantonio will likely be a little more serious.
Who cares if they actually punched someone. Dantonio just made it loud and clear that you can go around and bully whoever you want around campus. Do you think these kids wouldn't have thrown a punch if they needed to? Gang intimidation is nothing, right? I mean, they only attended the gang beatdown to watch, not to actually do anything, right? And for you to say that reinstating them doesn't mean anything just means that you don't fully understand the difference between being suspended and not being suspended. Team meetings and practice facilities are sort of a big deal in the offseason.
Well, I'm sure the court cares.
The reasonable approach is to withhold judgment until the legal proceedings have run their course, no?
Besides, if a player is eventually found innocent of all charges, Couldn't it have been considered unjust for him to have remain suspended this whole time?
You know, innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz.
Well, the official reason given for the players missing the bowl game was not due to the charges but rather for "violating team rules".
i'll take a shot in the dark and guess "punching people at a charity event" falls somewhere in the MSU team rulebook. might actually be written in there.
You think intimidation and "bullying" should get these players kicked off the team? Go find a group of football players, from any school, and even cut them in line at a bar.....
Trick question, football players don't wait in bar lines.
man, pryor was SUCH a dick when he thought i cut the line
Are you suggesting that if I cut in front of one football player in line, he would bring 15 friends in order to beat me up? My original point is that the kids should be kicked off the team because they conspired to commit a crime and then lied to their coach about it after they figured out it was on tape. They should actually be kicked off the team for being a bunch of morons, but criminal charges being brought up against them doesn't make it as obvious.
I think "standing in the same room" is simplifying it just a bit. They can be charged with assault for being there, given they were in a large group, because that could instill fear of bodily harm.
I was curious about the Freep coverage of this Sparty "event". Seems like the Justin Feagin plea deal, something relating to a single player immediately dismissed from the team when Rich Rod heard the story, demanded the same size headline and story as the not so little escapade in East Lansing.
What a bunch of Aholes. Objective reporting at its not so very best.
I applaud the effort, but it doesn't "seem" that way at all. Freep.com has an entire subset of headlines titled "Full Coverage of the MSU Football Team Fight" containing ~20 articles in total. The initial reporting of the MSU football team fight was embellished just as much as the report of UM's "NCAA Violations". The freep.com reported with what they had at the time - the result is typical and shouldn't come as a surprise to UofM and MSU fans alike.
The very large difference is the shoddy reporting at the beginning of the brawl was going off of police reports, not their own journalist's work. People at the assault filed a report and the freep went off that for the original story. People at the freep misrepresented Michigan football players and the freep went off that for the original story....big difference.
Well, considering your internal investigations validated the freep story, it can't be classified as a misrepresentation....and considering the initial police report was deemed inaccurate (no ski masks, etc.) that CAN be classified as a misrepresentation.
Go home sparty, you are trolling.
1st - since when did our investigation validate anything the freep has written? Read up on it a little and educate yourself. You won't sound like a ridiculous homer. If you don't think the UM players' quotes were misrepresenting what they meant, you weren't paying attention. Or you aren't very smart...I am going with the latter.
2nd - the initial police report was reported on by the freep, not an initial report from the freep reported on by the freep. Also, masks were worn, just not ski masks. It only your run of the mill masks that cover your head and neck while leaving your face open. I guess it must have been freezing out that night.....or maybe that guy was hunting beforehand instead of attending his team meeting. But you are right, he wasn't wearing a mask so no one would know who he was.
Why did Dantonio suspend them in the first place? Did he have information indicating a violation of team rules? If so, why reinstate them now, before the legal process (which Dantonio says he wants to allow to work its course) is completed?
Did the players supply any kind of statement to Dantonio? Surely they would not, under advice of counsel. It might make Dantonio a witness, and any statement(s) usable in the trial court.
If the players have not given any statements to Dantonio, why the dismissals, and now why the reinstatements? Why now, shortly before the pretrial? It might make some sense, if there had been a plea deal worked out, and everybody was on the same page and knew what they were talking about, but if these players were in fact pleading guilty, then what's up with the reinstatement?
Alternatively, Dantonio might have been given information that the lesser-involved players were going to fight the charges, and it might take a while to either go to trial and get acquittals, or else to get the prosecutor to back down and dismiss charges or allow minor misdemeanor pleas.
I have to say, given that this appears to have been nothing more than a wild night and an instance of menacing among people who knew each other, it does seem to me that perhaps the prosecutor might be overcharging or overprosecuting the case.
I say that even as I acknowledge that the Glenn Winston-aggravted assault looked to be a horrible and frightening criminal act worthy of a felony charge. Perhaps the current charges are a kind of a prosecutorial make-up call.
Anyway, I don't get any of this from a legal persepctive; the timing is very odd, and it makes me wonder if there might be any football-specific reason to change the players' "suspension" status, because the legal part doesn't make a lot of sense.
keep in mind this is a legal system where McDonald's gets sued for serving hot coffee.....and loses. 15 football players from a large university are involved in some way, shape or form. You have a DA who wants his name in the papers and a prosecuting attorney (who has practiced law for just a few years) wanting the same.
this example: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Yeah, the story is not at all how it was fed to you.
my point is this: in this country charges are filed so liberally (in whatever capacity) that you can't always take the initial charges for face value. If these players get convicted then I'll concede.
or is a plea bargain not a conviction and thus reinforcing your point?
Dammit! Didn't register that it was a freep article until after I clicked on it
I have obviously heard about the case, commonly used to cite an example of the frivolous suits that are won. Howeva, I had not hear the real story and it seems ridiculous to assert that the plaintiff had no legitimate claim. Ignorance resolved, thank you.
And to the person who brought this up in the first place, lolwut?
So let me get this straight. A women buys hot coffee from McDonald's. The coffee is hotter than most coffee is served at. The women spills the entire coffee in her own lap. She sues. The temp is 180F.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't people boil water (202F) for tea and coffee? So McDonald's is guilty of what again? Serving coffee at comparable temps to the tea I make at home?
Don't eat/drink anything from McDonald's.
you state "they should have decreased compensatory damages due to her being more than 20% at fault." you could not have more profoundly proven you've read nothing on the case. because the jury did JUST THAT. further, the award was reduced even further because McDonald's "interns" proved the coffee was at around 150+, not 170+.
oh and the fact she tried to settle pre-trial for $20k seems to be missed by a lot of people. she's just some 70 yr old beeotch suing for a new Audi.
Your coffee maker does not boil water. Nor do you expect boiling coffee when you pour it into your cup. You also would not expect to drink boiling tea directly out of the pot.
If you took a fresh cup of hot coffee at normal temps (130-140f) and poured it directly on your sweat pants, you could reasonably assume that third degree burns would NOT be the result. However, as the temp of the liquid goes up, the degree of severity of the resulting burns skyrockets.
McD's got into trouble when discovery showed this:
"During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard."
"McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving."
McD's was fully aware of both the intent of their customers use of the product and the hazards created, yet they ignored the data.
The jury gave the defendant 2 days worth of McD's coffee revenue. Then the judge deducted 20% because the woman did spill the coffee herself. As stated, if I took a cup of coffee I brewed at home and repeated the spill, I wouldn't have anywhere near the injuries that resulted. That's why McD's had to pay, and as a result lowered the holding temps of their coffee.
apologies for bringing up the MCD case - I was trying to make a point about our legal system and the incentive an attorney, even if it is a DA, has to press charges or take a case. The MCD case is obviously way out of context. I am not arguing that the MCD case has any merit - the fact that an attorney even took the case proves my point.
god you're dumb. read the facts of the case. an attorney took the case because McDonald's, in discovery, acknowledged that they knew the coffee could cause third degree burns if present on skin for 2+ seconds. they had also had an overwhelming number of complaints and situations occur just like this and, in court, more or less said they didn't care and ignored them bc they wanted the coffee excessively hot. read the case, then react. it's so stupid when people try to posit themselves as experts and use examples when they have zero idea what they're talking about except the jokes a late night talk show host or internet meme gave them.
Don't bring up a specific topic you know nothing about in an area in which you are completely ignorant. Stop conflating civil and criminal cases - there is almost no similarity between the two. Also, the thought process/economics behind "taking a case" is way above your head.
Based on information from the players' families and other sources it appears that Dantonio suspended the players for not being forthcoming to him or his staff prior to the incident and/or lying to him about their involvement after the incident. That would be the "violation of team rules" part.
As to why they would be reinstated now is anyone's guess. Possibly the players have finished their sentence in the "Court of Dantonio" for violating the rules. It would certainly mean more egg on Dantonio's face if any of these reinstated players were to be eventually convicted of some of the more serious charges, so I would imagine that he feels pretty confident of the charges being dropped/reduced, plea deal as you say or that no serious punishment will be levied if convicted.
so they could participate in the team meetings. Which is a load of BS.
Anyone else find it interesting Dantonio let this out the same day as Jones coming back? He's trying to take the heat off.
so they could participate in the team meetings. Which is a load of BS.
Anyone else find it interesting Dantonio let this out the same day as Jones coming back? He's trying to take the heat off.
a witty and insightful t-shirt? One that I can buy on cafe press and wear to replace my fraying "Little brother beatdown: Mike Hart vs. MSU"
Perhaps it can match a ski mask?
Suspended until next team activity.
You get a forest-green knitted ski mask, and then you put the toilet-brush thing on top. Or an "S" on the side.
Court proceedings continue for eight other players. Two have been kicked off the team, one is transferring and the other five have rejoined the team after serving a suspension.
Leggett plead guilty, and is transferring. He wasn't kicked off the team; he is transferring.
We've been talking about this as if Leggett was the guy most obviously involved, or against whom the D.A. had the best case. That could be what went down.
Or maybe it's just the first one, and it's random that he chose to transfer.
But here's another hypothesis: the D.A. agreed to drop the more serious charge of conspiracy, and to reduce the sentence for the other charge to community service, in exchange for testifying in the 8 other trials.
That would explain the sentence. It also would explain why he wanted to get the heck out of East Lansing, since you can't exactly be teammates with guys you testified against.
Maybe I've been watching too much Law & Order. But the transfer makes sense then, right?