ESPN creates fake QB controversey

Submitted by ish on

On the front page of espn.com right now is the following chantel jennings article:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10402014/brady-hoke-open…

The headline on the front page is "Hoke: Michigan QB job up for grabs this spring."

Unfortunately, that's not at all what Hoke said.  This is a media manufactured qb controversey and it's bad for the team.  The actual question and answer was as follows:

Question: To be clear, when Devin is healthy, obviously he will be at some point, Shane is going to get a chance, Devin is going to have a chance or is Devin going to go in as your starter?

Brady Hoke:  “I think that is an unknown.  Again, we were 7-6 and we’ve got a lot of young guys.  We’ve got a lot of competition.  Now does Devin have the most experience – yes.  There is no question.”

Hoke in no way stated that the qb job is "up for grabs."  The above was typical Hokespeech.  All he is saying is that there is going to be competition.  He always says that there's going to be competition.

[Ed-S: Deleted a few of the knucklehead responses from the Habilines around here.]

zeda_p

February 4th, 2014 at 1:49 PM ^

Funny.. not so much. Upset at my university for sheltering an accused, then kicked out, rapist. Yes. For football. For winning. I'm beyond ashamed. And I'd like to believe all of you are, too.

I miss the days when Samurais fell on their swords in shame. If U-M does nothing about this with a firin', I'd never let my proverbial daughter go here. No way.

It can happen other places but not here. You can't be a moral authority and have your cake too.

zeda_p

February 4th, 2014 at 2:17 PM ^

It does happen but it's what you do about it that matters. He shouldn't have played since. They might not have been able to take his schollie away but they could have stopped him from being on field, on TV, representing the institution. Because he was the best short range kicker.

Ron Utah

February 4th, 2014 at 2:20 PM ^

Gibbons sucked when the incident occurred.

And why should they keep a kid from playing when no charges were filed?  Unless Gibbons admitted guilt, why should he be punished?

If I accused you of murder, should you be penalize, kept from working, and locked-up until an institutional council decided your fate over three years later?

Dude.  Get a grip.

rob f

February 4th, 2014 at 2:14 PM ^

but his original post way downthread (since deleted AND  Bolivia'd  by a mod) was capped by a comment citing his perception that U of M "sheltered a rapist". 

Removed from the original context, his above comments obviously don't fit the OP.

Ron Utah

February 4th, 2014 at 2:18 PM ^

  1. Gibbons is not a confirmed "rapist."  He was convicted of sexual misconduct, of which he is likely guilty, but that's a LONG way from a rapist.  And you publicly calling him that is more shameful than anything U-M has done in this situaiton.
  2. Sheltering Gibbons?  There's not evidence of that.  The only claim you could make is that maybe, maybe he shouldn't have played vs. Iowa.
  3. Who should get fired?  The university's jumbled sexual misconduct policy is the guilty party here, and it certainly didn't do a timely job of addressing the Gibbons issue.  But who should be fired, and for what?

I get that people are pissed that a girl may have been sexually assaulted.  I'm pissed too.  But throwing around wild accusations and calling a kid who has not been convicted of a crime a "rapist" is ignorant, malicious, and stupid.

Quite frankly, the further I get away from the emotion of the case, the more I feel the end result was the right one, even if it was delayed.

You're talking about "sheltering" a kid who was the worst kicker in program history when the incident occurred.  That makes no sense.

And before you go spouting off concepts like "moral authority," you ought to think twice about labeling a kid a "rapist" and accusing a university of "sheltering" a (when the incidenct occurred) terrible kicker.

Posts like your are why this is process is confidential, and why the athletic department should NOT know until the final decision is handed down.

enlightenedbum

February 4th, 2014 at 5:33 PM ^

He wasn't convicted of anything, but if he had been charged with anything, it would have been rape.  The univesity's process found he was at least 51% likely to have committed that offense.

So you're wrong on two levels.  He wasn't convicted at all, but the university believes he more likely than not did rape that woman.

Swazi

February 4th, 2014 at 2:50 PM ^

Sheltering?  He was never charged with anything in 2009.  I like how in your desvription of Gibbons  there isn't the word "convicted".

 

Sheltering Gibbons "for winning" and "for football" makes absolutely no sense.  For starters he didn't play in 2009.  Second, he was AWFUL in 2010.

 

And who exactly do you want fired over this?  Bill Martin says it never came up.  So if he didn't know, Dave Brandon probably didn't know, and Hoke sure as hell didn't know.  What do you want Hoke to do?  Go long distance over Martin and RichRod's head and kick Gibbons off while he's the head coach at San Diego State?  By the time Hoke was hired this whole thing was OVER.  It didn't come back up until November 2013, and Gibbons did not even meet with the university body until December.

JTrain

February 4th, 2014 at 4:18 PM ^

Do we know that he REALLY did it? Didn't Brian Banks get "accused" and spend time in prison when he DIDNT do anything wrong?
Now, if he did do it then justice needs to be served. But, I'm under the impression there was no conviction. Until that happens, I think we all need to keep our "swords" in their sheaths.

NYWolverine

February 4th, 2014 at 6:10 PM ^

I'm just curious about what proverb or idiom you're referring? We've all heard of the "proverbial [prodigal] son" from the Book of Luke, referring to celebrating a son who finds his way home (spiritually and literally); but I'm not familiar with a proverbial daughter.

Unless you're a farmer, in which case we've all heard the story of the "farmer's daughter" and what that implies. Which actually kind of makes sense in context.

mGrowOld

February 4th, 2014 at 12:47 PM ^

I just saw that was getting ready to post the same thing when I saw yours was up.  I had a slightly different take on it though.  I wonder if this is coach-speak for "Devin's hurt far, far worse than I've led everyone to believe and he may not be back at full strength for quite a while".

 

CalifExile

February 4th, 2014 at 3:48 PM ^

FWIW, Nick Baumgardner agrees with her:

"And, per Michigan coach Brady Hoke, once Gardner is healthy enough to practice in full, he'll be engaged in an open competition for the starting quarterback job heading into 2014.

"I think (the starting quarterback for next season is) an unknown," Hoke said Monday. "We were 7-6 (last season). And we've got a lot of young guys (on the team). We've got a lot of competition.

"Does Devin have the most experience? Yes, there's no question."

http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2014/02/brady_hoke_sees_an_op…

 

tbeindit

February 4th, 2014 at 1:57 PM ^

This is perhaps my biggest concern for next season.  I'm probably overblowing it since the offensive and defensive lines have a lot of question marks, but if Devin is forced to sit out spring practice and a good hunk of the summer, you wonder how fast he will hit the ground running at the end of the summer.  Afterall, this is going to be a new system.

If people remember, Denard got basically no playing time as a senior largely to give the other guys time, but I feel like Devin needs to see the field with a new system this year and a lot of youth at wide receiver.

tasnyder01

February 4th, 2014 at 2:52 PM ^

after you said "Denard got basically no playing time as a senior largely to give other guys time."

So we sat him to give Bellomy PT in the Nebraska game?

Is this a standard thing to do, to sit the seniors so that freshman, who have more time left, can play?

Did Hoke lie about the injury?

. . . . I'm probs being too mean here, but it seriously baffles me that people can believe stuff like this

 

5th and Long

February 4th, 2014 at 2:31 PM ^

 

FROM THE PRESS CONFERENCE (Per Scout):

 

Question:  What ultimately was the injury? 

Brady Hoke:  “It’s still the toe.  It is still classified.  You are getting into semantics of turf toe.”

Question:  That is pretty severe turf toe. 

Question:  It is a broken toe.

Brady Hoke:  “But it is considered a turf toe (laughter).  That’s what it is considered so I’m calling it a turf toe.”

Seth

February 4th, 2014 at 2:04 PM ^

Note the title and treatment of this versus yours. If you'd posted the above I would have left it.

It's not the link, it's how you addressed it.