Daily: AD Aware of Gibbons Decision 12/19

I have no problem with the language Hoke used, or how this situation seems to have been handled overall.

Hoke gave a vague answer on Gibbons status.  Pretty much all coaches do regardless of the situation.  If people think Hoke is going to say "Gibbons was expelled for a sexual assault he was accused of in 2009", you're delusional.  He was in Florida with family when he got the letter.  So it can be labeled as a family issue since he is dealing with it with his family.

 

Dantonio gave a vague "violation of team rules" or something like that on Bullough, and we still have no idea what he did to essentially get kicked off the team by missing the Rose Bowl.  In fact recently Dantonio said about Bullough playing in the East/West Senior Bowl that he has talked to him numerous times since, says he is a Spartan forever, and hopes that he attends their MSU banquet.

was trying to be deceptive, nor do I think the "family issue" statement was so calculated. Stupid? Maybe, but I don't think he was doing anything other than trying to avoid the shitshow. That said, I don't know why they feel they need to protect a player in that situation. He did the deed, he's no longer affiliated with the school, just say he's not on the team anymore and let him answer for himself. They did their part for booting him as soon as he was deemed ineligible, they shouldn't have to answer any difficult questions and they certainly don't owe him any favors at that point. Let Gibbons take his lumps.

What would Bo or Lloyd have said? Probably nothing.

Theres a game on

 

Could Hoke have been more clear when discussing Gibbons? Sure. He could have said it was a violation of team rules or a private matter or something equally vague without implicating FERPA. But I am also sure that Hoke is not an expert on FERPA so I imagine he was guided by someone in the AD's office and they thought they "family matter" was sufficiently vague enough not to violate the law. I just can't get all that mad that our head football coach isn't an expert the intricacies of FERPA law or university policy regarding a matter that is likely a first for him.

I read the whole article, but I don't see where the scandal is.  I know the OP does not like him or Brandon, but there is nothing here.

 

Down goes Indiana. See ya douche crean

Amazed by how many people feel they have a "right" to answers about anything reported in today's society.  I keep seeing statements of disgust and outrage that somehow these facts have not been discussed in detail down to the date/time/location and weather conditions in a second by second detail.

Based upon this story and a few other statements it appears that Gibbons was suspended upon notification of seperation by a disciplinary committee which I am glad that would not have input from the AD or coach.  Given the initial investigation and findings from a police investigation, and the fact that no further actions were taken until this new policy implementation, I am not sure what more people expect.

It surely does not look like any case of cover-up or outright deception on the part of anyone. Calling it a suspension, removal, family issue, etc can be debated at length, but I am not sure why anyone believes they are owed an explanation.

To me, the only individual that should have any outrage is the victim of the case and her family.  

Brendan Gibbons missed a football game, and appears to have done something terrible that wasn't punished until much later. But it's time to move on from the conspiracy theories and allegations of cover up. At worst, Brady Hoke didn't choose his words well. What a surprise, the guy says "physicallness." Deepest sympathies to the young woman, and good riddance to Brendan Gibbons. But let's move on from the Hoke and Brandon hate.

"allows" a student who may pose a threat to stay on campus for years and I'm supposed to be outraged by Hoke and the Athletic Department not saying the right thing? If this issue really is about rape and the safety of female students then it seems to me some are focusing on the wrong thing.

Sad story; it's over

Leakers aren't the problem. Leakers play a valuable role, especially when leaking information the public deserves to know. This isn't a Snowden situation. Nobody got hurt. Instead, we learned something we should have known a while ago -- that our kicker was expelled for sexual misconduct.

It doesn't look like the AD really did anything wrong.

A waiver of appeal rights is a big deal. I suspect the waiver significantly harms a student's ability to later sue on a claim of unfairness in the university process. To me, the waiver sent from Schem Hall is the extraordinary fact of the story. If there really were some cover-up/conspiracy to preserve eligibility, this would likely not have happened. Instead, powers that be would have urged that an university appeal be pursued aggressively, even if only as a delay tactic.

If there's anything to learn from this, keep your daughters away from football players. But to say anyone did anything wrong other than Gibbons is just beauty shop banter.

Faxes send out printed receipts that accompany the actual document that is faxed.  It is HIGHLY likely that the information stating the fax was sent from the Athletic Department offfices at 4:02 pm on the 19th was so precise because this information was provided by that very receipt that accompanied the received document.  That receipt from the University office that received the fax was likely provided to a Daily reporter along with a description, or copy, of the document that was received (Gibbons' signature refusing his right to appeal his expulsion).  

I HIGHLY doubt anyone in the Athletic Department went through fax records (that may already be deleted anyways, by the fax machine.. no conspiracy) and either knew exactly what was contained in the document that was faxed at that time or magically conjured a vivid imagination and gave this info to The Daily. This would also explain Ablauf's unwillingness to question the fax having been sent by Gibbons from that location at that time (as he may have been questioned and shown a copy of the receipt by the reporter seeking a statement) but instead offering a possible scenario as to the events that unfolded rather than admitting that Gibbons' legal team was practically the AD's office.