October 26th, 2010 at 2:02 PM ^
I mean to mention this again in Dear Diary this week, but see my comment on the jail thread: http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/rucker-was-jail-edit
That was just the examples I could pull from the first two pages of a Google search of college football player DUIs, not anything comprehensive (EDSBS please share your database!) but a clear trend emerged: a kid whose first offense was the DUI generally got a 1-game suspension (at Minnesota it was 2, at Ohio State it's zero, at BYU you're off the team). Kids who had previous offenses about on par with a DUI were kicked off the team, or suspended so hard they decided to transfer.
Rucker should fall into the second category, unless you take the stance that his participation in the Rather Hall Brawl (i.e. standing on the sidelines for 90 percent of it, and spending 6 seconds kicking someone) is not worth mention.
The criticism is coming because Dantonio again seems to be ignoring that the brawl ever occurred, or at least that it is done with and all participants still on the team are absolved of it. Michigan fans tend to take the view that Dantonio's non-punishment of Winston in his first incident was a contributing factor in Brawl, and that his light reaction to the Brawl is evidence that Dantonio is a poor disciplinarian compared to other NCAA coaches (and that this is a reflection on Michigan State's program).
This incident, more specifically, Dantonio's response to this incident, is more evidence of Dantonio's light reaction to the brawl.
October 26th, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^
This is a reasonable, well thought out post on the subject.
I do think that the details of the Rucker Hall incident should determine the action Dantonio takes. If he was more of a bystander, less of an assaulter, three games missed might be reasonable punishment. Although, it would make him look soft on his stance that everyone involved would not receive a third chance.
My only problem with all this foaming at the mouth chatter about how Dantonio shows no discipline, etc. is that everyone is simply assuming that Dantonio isn't going to do anything. This is sort of a pet peeve of mine, where there is always this huge rush to judgment in society before all the facts are known, a situation at least partially driven by the instantaneous nature of the internet and the 24 hour news cycle. Why can't we wait and see what happens? Won't everyone feel foolish if Rucker gets out of jail on Thursday and is told by Dantonio, "you're no longer a member of the team"?
October 26th, 2010 at 3:11 PM ^
You hit the nail on the head with your third paragraph. There are also commenters here taking "rush to judgment" to another level by complaining about the media coverage of Dantonio's decision when he hasn't even announced a decision yet.
This story may eventually deserve an outraged response, but it's not there yet.
October 26th, 2010 at 3:42 PM ^
Before the probation officer suggested 21 days in jail (they settled on 10), Dantonio announced Rucker would miss one week, maybe more, and that Rucker would be in the press box with him during the game.
Since then this has been modified to "indefinitely." Of all the guys I looked up who got DUIs and were suspended one or two games, all of them were "suspended indefinitely" as soon as it happened because that sounds harsh. Guys who were on their second offenses were "not allowed near the team," and such until the details all came out, at which point they were booted.
Dantonio's current statement about "letting the legal process play out," is enough to at least suggest he plans on taking a similar course of action as he did with Winston, i.e. "time served." If he changes his mind, that would very much surprise me, but I will readily congratulate him if that comes to pass. I think there's plenty of indications already that Dantonio does not mean to have Rucker miss the Iowa game.
October 26th, 2010 at 3:55 PM ^
I think you're reading tea leaves a bit with your last sentence. I wouldn't be surprised if you (and everyone else) is right and he's back for Iowa, well that's not true, I actually would be surprised. All I'm saying is that we don't know yet.
Wait and see what happens. If he comes back for Iowa or even Minnesota, and Dantonio doesn't address the issue other than to say he's back, hammer away.
October 26th, 2010 at 4:06 PM ^
fair enough.
October 26th, 2010 at 1:38 PM ^
Oh! you guys, Dantonio... the dean of discipline... I hear that on ESPN ...so it's true.
He's a tough disciplinarian and that is why that green team wins...yep..I heard that on T.V. so it's true, OH! he is up for coach of the year... yep..I heard it.
A coach is not responsible for a player getting in trouble...but a coach is responsible for how he reacts to it.
October 26th, 2010 at 1:42 PM ^
[nevermind]
October 26th, 2010 at 1:39 PM ^
Why are we reading posts about what is going on at MSU? I thought this was a Michigan blog.
What's the next post going to be? "Dantonio wipes his ass back to front!" This is a stupid topic.
October 26th, 2010 at 1:56 PM ^
can make topics decide what's stupid
October 26th, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^
I can still have an opinion....I remember reading posts about how MSU boards are covered with posts about Michigan and pathetic it makes them look.
Who's looking pathetic now?
October 26th, 2010 at 2:09 PM ^
Well, you've now posted TWICE in a thread you declared was stupid and not worth anyone's time. So, I guess I'll go with you looking pathetic.
October 26th, 2010 at 2:16 PM ^
and not ONCE have I made a comment about MSU....because I don't care about them. But let's keep talking about big bad Sparty so we can avoid talking about how this team is on the verge of becoming the laughing stock of the Big Ten, again. I can now see why so many people call Michigan fans arrogant. It seems that most of you on this site are Maize and Blue color blind and/or complete idiots.
October 26th, 2010 at 2:18 PM ^
Now THREE times. You must be really interested in this topic. I'm glad it was posted.
October 26th, 2010 at 2:20 PM ^
It's people that get frustrated about what other people are posting that makes me laugh.
October 26th, 2010 at 2:48 PM ^
I believe he said "Blow me", so...................
October 26th, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^
For consistency, please go bitch in the thread about the injured Syracuse player.
October 26th, 2010 at 1:40 PM ^
Jebus, can we stop talking about msu and Dantonio?
October 26th, 2010 at 1:43 PM ^
Why can't we get the mgostore to return the
"East Lansing where second chances get second chances" shirt back
October 26th, 2010 at 1:54 PM ^
I wonder if he will call this play "The Jailbreaker"
October 26th, 2010 at 2:03 PM ^
Michigan would never allow any players with criminal backgrounds to remain on the team!
Sincerely,
Darryl Stonum and Kevin Grady
October 26th, 2010 at 2:13 PM ^
Fans are NEVER biased for their own team...
October 26th, 2010 at 2:15 PM ^
While your point is valid, I think the big difference between UofM and State is that here a criminal background is the exception. Whereas at State it is quickly becoming the rule.
October 26th, 2010 at 2:19 PM ^
Yes. Exactly. MSU has a rule that forces students to become criminal. You hit the nail on the head.
Get off your high horse.
October 26th, 2010 at 2:20 PM ^
I am not on a high horse. MSU is setting the bar so low it just appears that way.
October 26th, 2010 at 2:23 PM ^
Michigan has had more than a few athletes get into trouble with the law. You're throwing boulders in a glass house here.
October 26th, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^
I am well aware that Michigan players have had run ins with the law. However, Michigan has not seen 36 arrests in 2 years that is a fact. Also, RR has proven that he will not tolerate athletes being involved in serious offenses, see Feagin for example.
The point is MSU, and more specifically Dantonio, have the power to stop the behavior of their athletes and the criticism of rival fans if they would just take action instead of letting their players walk out of jail and back onto the field. They choose not to do so.
October 26th, 2010 at 2:36 PM ^
it is pretty easy to arm chair quarterback a decision to kick a kid off of the team. But the reality is, it isn't an easy decision to do at all. Coaches learn to love their players and they will put up with a certain amount of "growing up".
Would you have a problem with him not dismissing him from the team but not allowing him to dress again?
October 26th, 2010 at 2:39 PM ^
Honestly, I think most alcohol offenses are minor and part of growing up. I had an MIP in college I understand. Rucker however, was involved in the Rather Hall incident as well. This to me is showing a history and pattern of bad decisions on his part. I would be ok with him being suspended the rest of the season, yes.
October 26th, 2010 at 6:08 PM ^
so lloyd carr never let me play a down
in fact he acted like he didn't know me or that i was on the team
that was some badass discipline. tremendous, really.
October 26th, 2010 at 2:53 PM ^
36? Am I missing something? Rather Hall had 15 players involved. Is there another incident that I'm not aware of?
October 26th, 2010 at 6:14 PM ^
he was pulling an exaggerated number out of his butt... though, to be honest, it's in the 20s right?
October 26th, 2010 at 9:34 PM ^
As my fellow blogger below me pointed out, I was indeed pulling an exaggerated number from my butt. I do believe the number is closer to 21, if counting multiple arrests by one player.
Which honestly, if not for the gang beating, you arent doing so bad.
October 26th, 2010 at 2:34 PM ^
Yeah but Stonum wears cool glasses
October 26th, 2010 at 2:45 PM ^
I don't think any DUI or pot possession charge should be enough to get a player kicked off a team. They are minor "crimes" that don't involve violence or theft. My main problem with MSU is that criminals convicted of violent crimes are routinely welcomed back to the team. Also, the cover-up of the sexual assault case involving two basketball players is quite troubling.
Rucker shouldn't be suspended for just a DUI, but he should have been on zero tolerance after the Thanksgiving Weekend Gang Attack. And if one is on zero tolerance, a DUI should be enough to get them kicked off the team.
Notice the treatment given to Boo-boo and Feagin after they committed crimes that are more serious than simple DUI or possession: they were booted from the team. RR runs a lot tighter ship in Ann Arbor than Saint Dantonio does in EL. Somehow, though, the instate media act as if the opposite were true.
October 26th, 2010 at 4:46 PM ^
I find it odd that you put DUI and possession charges as equal. I would agree with your points about possession, but a DUI is a whole different thing. DUIs should be very serious matters, but the sports(and celebrity) world seem to think they're meaningless. It's an incredibly dangerous situation, and a situation where one should NEVER put themselves in.
I'd be in favor of much harsher penalties for DUIs, and that includes guys like Stonum. Two of them should be an automatic boot off the team, and a former arrest + a DUI should also be an automatic boot off a team. Heck, the first DUI should probably be at least a 6 game suspension. It's just such an incredibly dumb thing to do and puts so many other people in danger.
October 26th, 2010 at 3:16 PM ^
I agree that one instance of legal trouble should not get someone booted from the team. But the big difference here is Rather Hall. Frankly, every player involved in that incident should have been off the team, permanently, and Dantonio should have been fired immediately. Why? Because one player getting in trouble is a bad decision made by a young man. But the Rather Hall brawl was an instance of a large portion of the team deciding, as a group, that going off and committing premeditated assault was a good idea. It demonstrated, perhaps more clearly than anything else I can think of, that a culture of lax discipline and violence existed in the MSU team. That is the responsibility of the coach, period. If 20 of your players think that Rather Hall is acceptable behavior and no one in that group stands up and says stop, then either Dantonio puposely looks the other way from that sort of behavior, or he has zero control over the discipline of his team. The fact that one of the ringleaders of the incident is someone Dantonio let back on the team immediately after sepnding six months in jail for a serious assault is even more damning.
If something like that happened at Michigan, I would want Rodriguez and his whole staff fired. If Brandon wouldn't do it, I'd expect Mary Sue to fire him too, and then do it herself. Again, players screwing up is an individual problem and will happen. But when extracurricular assault becomes a team activity, the idea of anyone getting a second chance, let alone a third, is ridiculous.
October 27th, 2010 at 8:02 AM ^
More to the point, if this happened at Michgian, would the coach had been fired?
The sticky point for Dantonio is that the ringleader was a guy who previously committed an atrocious assault (ruining the career of one of their hockey players), and that player walked out of jail and back onto the team. This gives the coach some culpability, since I think it's pretty reasonable to say given the nature of Winston's transgression, he should have been off the team or suspended at least a year. The weak action in that case could have been construed by his players as tacit tolerance (to a degree) of gang behavior.
I've gone over this in my head 100 times and the best I've got is this: if it was a 3rd year coach, absolutely; if he was in his 10th year, probably. The difference is in whether or not there's a history to suggest this was against the character of the coach and his program. For a guy in his first five years at a big program, there's not enough to go on.
October 26th, 2010 at 3:25 PM ^
Did they steal that form letter from Marlin Jackson, Carson Butler, Adrian Arrington or somebody else.
Maybe its been handed down over the years beginning with that dude in the 1970s who got busted for writing forged checks--including the check he wrote to cover his restitution. In his autobiography, Bo said it was one his favorite players. Cant remember the name, though.
Anyway, maybe the form letter is his original work?
October 27th, 2010 at 8:18 PM ^
No, it was probably plagiarized.
October 26th, 2010 at 5:53 PM ^
I agree with the hypocrisy, but I will counter that I don't remember Lloyd, Moeller, etc. ever being treated as scions of character and sportsmanship like Dantonio has been anointed recently; or conversely, portrayed as a peddler of thugs like RR has been defined basically since he arrived. My issue is less about this particular offense and more about the fact that Dantonio has shown an inability to properly control his team off-the-field until it is convenient for him.
October 26th, 2010 at 6:07 PM ^
you LOVE you some devil's advocate but grady had to work his way back on the team and stonum's issue occurred during the off-season. this isn't an issue even with the player but the coach who says one thing and does another.
October 26th, 2010 at 8:03 PM ^
Oh, and you're sure those things aren't/haven't been happening at MSU, huh?
October 27th, 2010 at 10:09 AM ^
on Michigan's hypocrisy
October 27th, 2010 at 7:13 PM ^
I'm not talking about Dantonio. He's an ass.
I'm talking about the players who screw up having to work their way back onto the team, etc. Are you certain that Rucker et al. haven't had to pay their dues to remain on the team?
October 28th, 2010 at 9:27 AM ^
The entire focus on Dantonio's lack of discipline stems from his taking Winston directly from prison to practice. Then, the legend grew with the dorm attack (plotted during a football function), revelation of Jenrette's Florida arrests (and Dantonio's coverup), and now Rucker's DUI (and Dantonio's snide "How's that?").
All teams (as we know) have kids who may get into some trouble (hell, not just all teams, but all college campuses). But, we can very clearly say that Dantonio does not require kids to work their way back onto the team. The shining example (Winston) was in jail the second before getting back on the team. There was no time to "work his way back". The coach clearly didn't require it, nor did he answer to the press for it.
October 26th, 2010 at 7:24 PM ^
Thats apples to apples,but how much would you want for oh say 1000 points.
October 26th, 2010 at 2:13 PM ^
You know what? It's the job of a head coach to decide what discipline will be given out for offenses. Not anybody else's. I would kick Rucker off my team too, but that's me. People are upset because of the Dantonio/Rodriguez double standard set forward in the press, but that's not Dantonio's fault.
I don't think that this isn't board-worthy (in fact I think it's petty that people pretend they are the arbiters of what can and cannot be posted), but I do think it's evidence of how much MSU has gotten under our skin and I'd just as soon not stress and whine about what Dantonio does involving the exercise of discipline at a school that is NOT OURS.
October 26th, 2010 at 2:50 PM ^
My question to you, and the rest of the GoBlogWorld. Would this have been a multiple page post (the week of the Penn State game might I add) had this been involving a starting CB on one of John L. Smith's early mid 2000s 5-win football teams?
October 26th, 2010 at 3:13 PM ^
5 wins or 11 wins, doesn't matter. It isn't the team record, it is the media stance that is causing the reaction. John L. Smith was not cannonized by ESPN like Dantonio. That is what is irritating.
The other issue is that we are trying to spread one week of PSU butter over two weeks of bread.