Daily: AD Aware of Gibbons Decision 12/19
According to a Michigan Daily report, including information confirmed by Dave Ablauf via a phone interview, Brendan Gibbons met with Athletic Department officials and faxed a letter waiving his rights to appeal his expulsion from a Schembechler Hall fax machine on December 19th. Four days later, Brady Hoke announced Gibbons would miss the bowl game for a "family matter."
http://michigandaily.com/article/gibbons-document-faxed-athletic-depart…
"At the latest, the Athletic Department was made aware of the permanent separation on Dec. 19, 2013, and it is unclear whether the football program or Michigan coach Brady Hoke were aware of the Office of Institutional Equity’s earlier finding that Gibbons was responsible for sexual misconduct. The Office of Student Conflict Resolution notified Gibbons on Dec. 19 that he would be permanently separated from the University.
“December 19 is whenever the letter was sent and the kid came to talk with the Athletic Department,” said Athletic Department spokesman Dave Ablauf in a phone interview with the Daily on Wednesday.
He later added: “That could have been the time that Brendan Gibbons talked to coach Hoke.”
Gibbons’ separation stems from an incident on Nov. 22, 2009, according to documents. This corresponds with previous media reports that Ann Arbor Police carried out an investigation of a Michigan football player related to an incident on that date.
The document was sent at 4:02 p.m. on Dec.19 from a fax number associated with the football program. Gibbons signed the document, waiving his right to appeal the sanction. It’s not clear from the markings on the document who received the fax transmission.
The letter was faxed from the offices of the football program four days before Hoke told reporters at a Dec. 23 press conference that Gibbons would not travel to the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl in Tempe, Ariz. due to a “family matter.” It’s not clear whether Hoke was involved in the Dec. 19 meeting described by Ablauf."
January 30th, 2014 at 10:06 PM ^
He didn't play. He wasn't convicted or charged with any crime.
That you are outraged because you don't know the entire story is irrelevant. You are not owed nor entitled to any explanation whatsoever.
January 30th, 2014 at 10:32 PM ^
You seem to be hellbent on finding a bunch of villains here, but I'm just not seeing it.
1) Lots of times people are left in the dark about matters, sometimes intentially and sometimes not. Also, the Daily's reporting on this matter, while thorough at times, also feels slapdash. Ablauf continues to sound like he really didn't know about Gibbons until the Daily asked about him, at least to this degree, and while that may be poor management by the athletic department it probably isn't atypical of large institutions. Look at the large number of PR people at major corporations who are blindsided by tough situations at press conferences.
2) FERPA applies more to school representatives speaking to the outside world. I don't care when and what Hoke knew, only that I'm sure he didn't have the right to publicly tell a bunch of reporters at the BWW press conference that Gibbons was off the team for a school-investigated sexual assault claim.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:30 PM ^
The issue with internal communications isn't FERPA, it's that OSCR proceedings are confidential. The department wouldn't be informed until the proceedings were over, unless Gibbons told them prior. Which he apparently did, if only by a few minutes, because the proceedings weren't over until they received his fax waiving his right to appeal.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:33 PM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 11:42 PM ^
but I'm guessing Hoke and Brandon knew what was transpiring with these proceedings. I'm also guessing that when the committee handed down their findings, Gibbons was made aware of his options and what would follow depending on what action he took. To think that Hoke and Brandon were not aware of what was taking place and what the possible outcomes could be seems unlikely.
January 31st, 2014 at 7:17 AM ^
Here:
Dave Ablauf, an associate athletic director and spokesman for the Athletic Department, declined to comment, noting that it was the first time it had been suggested to him that Gibbons was permanently separated.“We can’t comment on anything that involves private student matters in terms of student academic standings or University standing,” Ablauf said.
Dave Ablauf's exact wording is not quoted. Nor do we know whether he was saying he didn't know Gibbons was separated, or he was surprised because it was the first time someone asked him about it.
I personally think Hoke knew about this the Sunday after the Iowa game. (That was an away game. Not sure when the team traveled, but it is possible Gibbons didn't open that letter until Sunday, or at the very least waited to tell Hoke about it until then.) After that, whether Gibbons was actually hurt or not--the reason given for not playing the Ohio State game (he was seen wearing a boot)--they did not disclose Gibbons' situation because the matter had been dropped before, and they were waiting for the finding. However, after the 19th, the only thing they could say was Gibbons had been permanently separated from school, and we have all surmised the legal staff suggested personal reasons or the words "family matter".
FWIW, if my son told me he was expelled from school for sexual misconduct right at a time when an employment contract worth hundreds of thousands of dollars was at stake, that would be a "family matter".
However, I went back and watched Hoke's press conference here, and his exact words were:
"Brendon Gibbons our kicker won't be with us, he has a family matter in Florida that he has to attend to, so Matt Wyle will handle all our kicking."
If he had stopped at family matter, I am OK. The fact that the family matter was "in Florida" really starts to get beyond legalese and become misleading. To me though the real lie was more likely the "muscle" issue after the Iowa game.
So, having analyzed and fact checked this while writing my response, I am now firmly in the boat of Hoke and the University have some explaining to do.
January 31st, 2014 at 9:56 AM ^
It was a press conference, not a Congressional hearing. I am going out on a limb here, but I think Hoke was telling a white lie to spare one of his players his privacy. You can argue whether white lies are moral, but I believe his intentions were to protect a player from the media. Hoke does seem to care an awful lot about his players. He does not have a responsibility to you or me of complete disclosure about students just because they are also athletes.
January 31st, 2014 at 12:35 PM ^
I agree its semantics, and Hoke was most likely balancing whatever agreement not to tell the reasons behind Gibbons' situation (i.e., what he could say) and protecting his player (if for no other reason than Gibbons had not been proven guilty of anything).
I am not a fan of white lies over a no comment, or a good ole' Rich Rod "Gibbons is not with the team" - "why" - "I only talk about those who are on the team" sort of no comment.
January 31st, 2014 at 12:43 PM ^
Rodriguez never, as far as I know, was ever as frankly misleading as Brady Hoke has been.
Rich Rodriguez was the most forthcoming, most press-favorable coach in recent Michigan history. Which makes his despicable treatment by the Detroit press all the more remarkable.
I think Lloyd Carr was a lot smarter with the local press, than Rodriguez or Hoke. Carr was not very forthcoming, but he wasn't as dumb as Hoke has been in terms of needlessly dumb errors in actively misleading the press in the name of protecting his program from scrutiny.
Carr, like Schembechler, was very good at manipulating the important voices in local sports coverage. I don't know, but I don't see those skills in Hoke. But of course this is a very different era, from the Schembechler 70's.
January 31st, 2014 at 5:49 PM ^
"But of course this is a very different era, from the Schembechler 70's."
January 31st, 2014 at 12:49 PM ^
White lies told to impede an NCAA investigation are a little different than white lies (a characterization I don't agree with but never mind that) told under instruction of counsel to avoid a FERPA violation, don't you think?
January 31st, 2014 at 7:29 AM ^
I knew that people wouldn't be satisfied with the facts even as they came out, and for every new fact they would invent a new fiction.
Bando, you now claim that the fact that the AD didn't find out until the 19th (which fit the timeline of facts we had before, but confirms an earlier date than many had speculated about) now justifies the assertion that "they knew full well, and probably knew far earlier than December 19th" That's pretty funny. I suppose that no truth will ever serve your interests so well as stuff you make up on your own.
As far as Ablauf's statement to the Daily, you need to look at that again. You are making up the statement you are attributing to him (which was a paraphrase, anyway; what was quoted isn't controversial), let alone "prov[en] is an absolute lie."
So, continue to believe your own "facts," and by all means continue to post as though your made-up stuff is true; just don't think you are fooling anyone.
January 31st, 2014 at 8:03 AM ^
He's on auto neg every time I see him post on this matter - before I read. Then I read his absolute fantasy bullshit and my neg is totally confirmed. Trying to make anyone but Gibbons the bad guy in this case is just a cry for attention and bordering on lunacy. There are much more valid things to loose your fist biting and cross nailing on than this non story re: Hoke.
January 31st, 2014 at 4:28 PM ^
If anybody in the athletic office has earned the benefit of the doubt, it's Ablauf. If he wasn't widely reputed as one of the most honest and forthcoming guys in college athletics, I doubt Brandon would have kept him around.
January 30th, 2014 at 10:53 PM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 11:15 PM ^
If your only point is to say that Hoke should have said sometimng different than than "family issue" than who cares.
I care. I doubt I'm alone.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:30 PM ^
If this had been Urban Meyer who had done this, this entire board would be calling him a sleazy liar for it. C'mon you know it's true. I don't think Hoke should be fired or anything, but I expect better from him. He had to know that the story will eventually come out, so why go with something that will end up looking like such a blatent mistruth? Maybe he actually was naive enough to think the story would stay under wraps.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:44 PM ^
If this had happened at OSU and Meyer had said what Hoke did, this board would be raking Meyer over hot coals day and night.
January 31st, 2014 at 12:33 AM ^
January 31st, 2014 at 2:32 AM ^
But I don't think it's necessarily true. Raking Meyer over the hot coals for having "this guy" on his team for four years, sure, but not over what he said. What Hoke said was a non-statement.
January 31st, 2014 at 6:39 AM ^
I respectively disagree. I hate Urban as much as the next guy, but what is so sinister here. A player, going through Univesity channels was convicted of sexual harassment/assault (not rape), and removed from the team as soon as the charges were made clear. No charges have been filed. At the end of the day, if his statement was made by coach Urban, I wouldn't have given two shits about it. I would have had issue with the timing of the incident, but as has been explained, all stem from logically distinct steps in the University timeline.
January 31st, 2014 at 1:03 AM ^
January 31st, 2014 at 2:31 AM ^
I genuinely don't get it. Demanding a different non-response ("no comment" and "family issue" are both "none of your business," aren't they?) doesn't make any sense to me. Hoke was in a difficult spot - he had recently (probably) found out that one of his players was expelled for something terrible that happened many years prior. Ignoring the input of lawyers and FERPA, I'm sure he wanted to avoid giving reporters a reason to jump all over one of his (now) former players while that player was dealing with a life-changing problem (even if that problem was deserved). I generally understand concerns over half-truths and lies, but here, no purpose would be served by "no comment" that wasn't served by what Hoke actually said.
January 31st, 2014 at 10:52 PM ^
Even if both mean "none of your business", one is clearly a mistruth meant to throw people off of the story so that they don't do any digging. Which makes it look like Hoke was trying to cover things up. Which reflects badly on the football program.
Whether that was his intent or not, who knows? Maybe UM lawyers told him to say that. Maybe he thought that was the best thing to do to keep the press from going bazonkers on the team right before the game. Maybe he just panicked. I don't know. But IMO with a situation this serious you just say the guy isn't on the team anymore and we have no further comment. Short, truthful, and beyond reproach. It would have obviously opened a big can of worms as everyone would have started digging for the story, but that was going to happen anyway it appears.
January 31st, 2014 at 2:18 AM ^
The AD and Lawyers told Hoke what to say. Hoke did not lie, he was told not to violate privacy concerns, and this is the line that the AD and Lawyers told Hoke to say. Case close! May be the lawyers will address your concern to why "family issues" was used.
January 31st, 2014 at 2:27 AM ^
Again, "family matters" is not what happens when you're at home because you got expelled.
Hoke should have addressed the problem in a way that was accurate, yet honest. "Not traveling with the team" is a good start. Michigan State effectively and honestly used that line with Max Bullough. Why couldn't Michigan with Brendan Gibbons?
Hoke treated this like another one of his cutesy "boo-boo" coverups, intending to fend off the journalists in the short term and not thinking it was a long-term story. It was short-sighted, and wrong. The weight of this incident, the fact it has a victim who suffered not just physical trauma but emotional abuse at the hands of multiple Michigan football players, deserves more than that.
Let me put it this way: Do you think Bo would have stood in front of those reporters on December 23, knowing four days earlier his kicker was expelled for something like this, and spin a story about "family matters" as if Gibbons was attending his grandpa's funeral?
What's the integrity move, and what's the easier move?
January 31st, 2014 at 8:12 AM ^
regret is that I have but one neg to give.
Your life must suck what with all this wasted angst on stupid shit. Go donate some time to a local soup kitchen or something. You're seriously losing sleep over your prefernce to one non-answer over another? My god am I glad I'm not you.
January 31st, 2014 at 9:20 AM ^
You would think when a poster is so heavily negged so often it might earn him a vacation. Otherwise, what the hell are they for? My guess is the posters that rack them up feel good about it.
January 31st, 2014 at 10:45 PM ^
like the integrity of our head coach. Who cares about that right?
Look, I'm not of the mind that Hoke did anything super terrible here, but perception is reality. There is no way you can look at his comment and claim he wasn't being intentionally mistruthful. Maybe he was told to do so, but he clearly was trying to throw people off of the story. IMO, that wasn't very honest. Maybe there was an important legal reason he did it that way, but honestly a "Brandon is no longer with the team, and we have no comment about that at this time" would have been IMO the proper way to deal with it.
Like Bando said, by making it sound like he was at his Grandpa's funeral or something he makes the whole thing feel like a sleazy coverup, whether it was or not.
January 31st, 2014 at 10:58 AM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 9:35 PM ^
I'm impressed by the Daily's reporting. They're actually doing some pretty good investigative work.
January 30th, 2014 at 9:39 PM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 10:40 PM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 11:18 PM ^
They don't have the muzzle on them that the pro media sources do. With some exceptions, the Freep, News and MLive have become PR arms of local teams in recent years. Someone like Angelique doesn't even know what the word "investigate" means.
January 30th, 2014 at 9:40 PM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 10:01 PM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 11:26 PM ^
That is the definition of a blatant half-truth.
January 30th, 2014 at 10:27 PM ^
We demand more specific coachspeak in meaningless press conferences.
January 30th, 2014 at 9:40 PM ^
I guess it's informative, but the story does not paint either the AD or Hoke in a bad light. What would you want Brady to say, Brendan has been expelled? That doesn't fly.
January 30th, 2014 at 9:51 PM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 11:01 PM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 9:49 PM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 9:50 PM ^
Remember here, the business of the University of Michigan, as a business that deals with large amounts of money, is to protect and advance the mission of the University of Michigan. Thus, like any other entity, they are going to be put in situations where they will choose to manage public perception first and foremost, whatever form that may take and whether that includes telling the truth (or even the whole truth) or not. Reading between the lines of professional public relations officials and lawyer approved language is important.
This line from this latest release is key. He later added: “That could have been the time that Brendan Gibbons talked to coach Hoke.”
Ablauf says "could've". He's not walled in by declaring this to be the facts, subtly feigning ignorance of what happened himself by saying "I don't know myself" but he provides many of the interested public with the perception that Hoke knew nothing about Gibbons' impending expulsion until it was already finalized.
However, anyone who thinks Hoke and Brandon were not "in the know" about the step-by-step developments of one of their athletes being investigated for a rape must be considered beyond niave about the inner workings of effective, self-protective, multi-million dollar businesses.
It's just the way things work.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:48 PM ^
January 31st, 2014 at 6:54 AM ^
"Or should he have been kicked off the team the day the school reopened the investigation?"
I'm not sure he necessarily should have been kicked off the team simply because the investigation was reopened. But he unquestionably should have been suspended once the police records were published and the school reopened the investigation. That he wasn't is simply stunning.
If Sparty or Meyer had left a guy on the team with those police records, who was expelled by the school after being found "guilty" by a school committee a few months later, these boards would be up in arms.
That's the test: Take Michigan out of the equation and ask yourself, "What would I be saying if "Hoke" was "Dantonio," and "Brandon" was "Hollis"?
January 31st, 2014 at 7:46 AM ^
I'd argue that it is those who are so dismissive of us who think that the University would have better protected its intersts by following its own rules about the privacy and snactity of the student conflict resolution system are the naive ones. They credit the athletic department with far too much power and sway over the rest of the university.
The University would be far more concerned about the potential impact of someone illegally keeping Home and Brandon "in the know" about the ste-by-step developments in the investigation of an athlete than they would be concerned about the impact on the football team of losing the services of a kicker with little notice.
Which looks worse; a team substituting in a kicker, or a university giving its athletic department leaders the opportunity to interfere with an internal investigation into one of its athletes? Obviously, the latter. Only conspiracy freaks and those beyond naive about the actual power of athletics would think the University would take that risk.
It's just the way things work.
January 30th, 2014 at 9:54 PM ^
Angry that Gibbons probably did something really terrible? YES
January 30th, 2014 at 10:08 PM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 9:55 PM ^
who the fuck cares. I don't care if Hoke blames it on family problems. It was a problem, and it technically had to do with his family. Let this damn subject be, it is over.
January 30th, 2014 at 10:45 PM ^
This x infinity. For fucks sake people, give over. It's fucking semantics.