Bruce Feldman profile of William Gholston

How is that video chilling? That seems like a fairly standard interview with a player who's happy that his team has just won a big rivalry game. He addresses the personal fouls as mistakes and says that he, and his team, needs to grow and avoid them. What level of remorse would you expect him to display in that setting? If anything, his response is more honest and direct than D'antonio's or Narduzzi's. I don't see him trying to explain the fouls away or to say they didn't happen. 

I do wish someone would have asked directly about the helmet twist, as that was on another level than the Lewan punch. (I don't think anyone knew about the arm bar when this interview occurred). But they didn't (and for some reason that I've never quite gotten, the media focused far more on the punch, than the helmet twist, which, as someone below rightly points out was an exceptionally dirty play).

His response to the Hoke question sounds reasonable to me as well. He pretty clearly says that he was thanking Hoke because he believed Hoke had turned Michigan around, that he'd previously turned programs around, and that he welcomed Michigan's improvement because he liked competition. I know you deeply disagree with the "turn around" story he's telling but it's certainly neither unreasonable nor mumbled.

As for "sociopath," words have meaning. Beyond its place within the DSM, "sociopath" is not an "ordinary social judgement," it's a description of someone so dangerous and deceptive that he/she requires high level psychiatric care and even suggests that such care may possess no path to mitigation of their psychological problems. If we take a word like "sociopath" and twist it to mean, "failing to display the level of remorse I deem appropriate," it loses its meaning. 

traits of "sociopaths" are things like remorselessness, no regard for the feelings of others or injuries to them, glibness and superficial charm, covert hostility and domination alternating with manipulation and conning, pathological lying, and impulsive rage and abuse.

That was a criminal act by Gholston and now we're supposed to vehemently oppose Sec. 1 for making an accusation that makes a decent amount of sense? Gholston is a thug - I don't see anyway around it. There's a difference between playing hard / physical and playing with an intent to injure. 

And I hate the "he just lost control of his emotions in the heat of battle argument." Bottom line, he could have broken Denard's neck. I wish nothing but the worst for that kid. 

I totally agree.  A little extracurricular’s understandable for a rivalry, like woofing, stare downs, dances, gestures, poses after tackles, etc.  All nonsense, but understandable.   The Woodson/Boston helmet slappalooza comes to mind.  Then there’s the next level - punching, spitting, eye  gouging, twisting fingers under the pile, etc..  Unacceptable.  Yet that all pales next to a DE intentionally cranking the neck of a defenseless QB 90 pounds lighter him, that if not for good fate, could have incapacitated Denard for several games, or worse, crippled him for life.  Refs flag a team for even the slightest inadvertent grab of a face mask due to how severe the injury from a neck twist can be.  But this?

To this day I remain bewildered that the neck crank was just lumped with the rest of Gholston’s actions when it was magnitudes more egregious.  Watch the replay and note Denard’s good luck  that his helmet swiveled 2-3 extra inches around his head when it twisted.  Had it not, Denard could have easily been very seriously hurt.

Yeah, yeah, Denard was unhurt.  But that Gholston intentionally put Denard in a position where he had to test luck to avoid a very serious, potentially life threatening injury, is enough for me to not so easily, if ever, forgive/forget.

If I saw a Michigan player do this, I’d despise him just the same.

"I'll just slip into oblibion"

- Mike Tyson