Fitz being "prepared" to play Bama
According to an AA.com article, no decision on Fitz has been made yet, but according to Fred Jackson, Hoke said to prepare Fitz as if he was going to play the season opener. Both Fitz and Clark return to practice today. Interesting to see how this thing plays out.
"Brady just said to prepare him, and that’s what we’re doing," running backs coach Fred Jackson said Sunday during the team's media day.
August 13th, 2012 at 8:54 PM ^
I get what you're saying. This is certainly different from the PSU situation in that there were numerous people involved with the situation, to where the program screwed up, essentially. Not just one guy. The program was punished, which includes some people who did nothing wrong. There was no other way.
In this instance, only Fitz screwed up, and there are ways to punish only him. I understand that he's a part of a team, and sometimes that means the entire team gets punished. But the initial attempt is to punish the individual, and I believe that's what Hoke has done, or is doing.
August 13th, 2012 at 12:36 PM ^
My guess is that he'll dress, but he won't play. That's a good as a suspension.
August 13th, 2012 at 12:42 PM ^
This thread is headache material...
August 13th, 2012 at 12:45 PM ^
I understand the points being made about, regardless of possible suspension, they are going to get their practice time for later in the season. But if that is the line of thinking, why would they have been held out the first week of camp? It seems them missing practice time is related to a punishment for their off-the-field issues. So, by them returning to practice, and by Fred Jackson saying he is being prepared for the Alabama game and treating him "like nothing happened," this isn't saying something about Fitz's current situation?
August 13th, 2012 at 1:05 PM ^
I just love how no one ever realizes that, let's be honest here, this is way less about Fitz driving drunk and everything to do with our culture. If and when we actually hold bars (it's a start) responsible for the people drinking in their establishment then we can all have an appreciation for how careless you have to be to be a drunk driver. As it is now we have all these places luring people in with Happy Hour (is there anything more commonly revered in the adult world than Happy Hour?) and then continue feeding them drinks and making tons of money only to let them leave when they know full well they gave them too many drinks for them to make a sober decision on if they should drive. Yeah, I've seen people get kicked out of bars but that's only if they are being completely unruly and bothering all the patrons.
Is Fitz responsible for driving while drunk? Of course. Should we get off our collective high horse and realize that this isn't about the 10k people a year who get DUI's (I'm guessing at a number) and realize it's about the people who are using them for profit only to absolve all legal responsibility for how they just made all their money?
I think this is the real issue - we have a culture of getting together and drinking. Either at a house or at a bar and yet MADD and all the people who want to punish DUI people to the end of the earth never talk about holding the bar responsible and/or operating a free shuttle in the name of safety. They'd rather let people die than pony up the money to get these people home safely and that's the most disgusting part to me. You're pissed as all hell that a drunk person doesn't make a sane decision when all the facts we've ever had will tell you DUH! of course they probably won't make the best decisions because they are drunk! Instead we think we should pull out our Holier Than Thou card and talk about how they should learn all these life lessons which is what exactly? Hey, you need to know that even though your cognitive ability is diminished we expect you to be able to have enough of it to know not to drive - that's idiotic...
Hold the bars and the people who host the house party responsible, at least monetarily, and you'd see the # of DUI's cut by 80% or more. Require a 5% tax per drink and have that tax pay for a cab service and for the bar to staff someone that stands at the door and uses the breathalyzer on EVERY SINGLE PERSON that leaves. If you aren't with someone who is legal to drive you can either 1) use the free cab service or 2) go to a controlled area where there is water and random snacks (starchy things like pretzles or something) and you have to wait until you're legal to drive. Is that excessive? Sure, but if you're saying the lives aren't worth doing that well that's up to you but to me I have no idea why we haven't done that and the fact that we haven't shows that people care less about safety and more about passing judgement on others.
Oh, also, if you enact the above plan then the DUI punishment needs to be much, much higher. Your BAC can't go above .02 for at least 1 year after the incident and if it does then you have to start your year over again. You have to do community service, you have to attend AA groups, you have to meet with a probation officer. If we actually did all this stuff we'd save thousands of lives each year but we care more about the cost of safety than we do about the actual safety...
/end rant
August 13th, 2012 at 1:11 PM ^
Not everyone gets drunk at a bar...
August 14th, 2012 at 7:55 AM ^
It only takes a few and the fact is that MOST of the DUIs do stem from drinking at a bar. We need to change the culture. I knew my post would get hidden after I wrote it because people just love that holier than thou complex and want to talk about how stupid people are that drink and drive but, as I said, expecting someone who's judgement is impaired to make a good choice is just stupid and ignorant...
neg away...
August 13th, 2012 at 2:20 PM ^
during happy hour. The bars in those states often offer a free appetizer or cheese plate. Some states impose a reduced BAC level, .05 is common, for up to five years of probation following a DUI conviction. These have proven to have little impact on whether someone drinks to excess following a DUI.
There are occasional law suits against bars in cases of gross intoxication, but the reason that you don't see flat laws holding businesses responsible based on BAC levels is simple. Businesses are not driving drunk, and they, unlike the happless person who happened to have a half drink to many, form a constituency with the political clout to fight back.
Besides most bars and restaurants do not turn obviously impaired drivers loose on the roadways. I owned a restaurant for seven years. Many of our patrons were told "That's the last drink I can serve you unless you give me your car keys". We often called and paid for people's cabs and put them in the cab to ensure they did not drive. If they lived close enough, I or my employees often drove people home. It's bad business to have your patrons arrested, or involved in accidents, plus we generally liked our customers and didn't want them or others to suffer from a bad decision. This was common practice among all the bars and restaurants around the area. If we knew where someone was going for another drink, after being shutoff, we'd call that establishment to warn them. We got such calls as well.
As I said elsewhere, this is not about an arbitrary number, it is about impairment. I can show you people unimpaired at .15 and others unable to stand or speak without slurring at .05.
August 13th, 2012 at 10:53 PM ^
I, for one, think we should hand in our keys if we solicit a drink from the local bartender. End of.
August 13th, 2012 at 1:16 PM ^
Toussaint should be allowed to play in the Alabama game... but only under the condition that his BAC during the game match what it was when he was pulled over.
August 13th, 2012 at 1:22 PM ^
Let's simply quit stating we're morally superior to every other team and seemingly play by the same standards as everyone else. I don't see how this approach benefits us much in any way, other than some sort of strange bragging rights that mean nothing in the big scheme of things. However, this type of thinking does harm the team by not allowing the coaches to punish kids as they see fit without being called hypocrites.
Let's say Fitz did learn his lesson from all of this without having to miss the Alabama game. How does making him miss the game just to feed the angry mob of public pressure help him or the team in any way? We all know Hoke is not a slimy coach and will do what he feels is best for his players, the team, and the university in general. If Hoke feels Fitz deserves to start, then who are we to say he doesn't? We will never understand the dynamics of these situations as well as Hoke or the rest of staff.
August 13th, 2012 at 1:29 PM ^
Everryone who is in a position of authority, where it be a parent, coach, teacher, police officer, judge or whomever knows that you don't treat every circumstance equally. There are different degrees of everything. These are young kids mentally and its important that those involved (in this case coach Hoke and his parents primarily) take action that is best suited in this instance for Fitzs. This a "teaching moment" as much as anything else both for Fitz, his teammates as well as other coaches, student athletes, students, future recruits as well as everyone on this board. No one on this board is privy to the exact circumstances of what happened, period. When the time comes we should all have faith that Hoke and his parents will make the right decicion that is best for Fitz w/o concern as to whether he plays or doesn't play in the Alabama game.
How many posters to this thread also post to the Friday or Saturday night drinking thread and then get in their car? HMMMMM. Maybe you should miss the Alabama game as well.
August 13th, 2012 at 2:35 PM ^
I say "probably" due to not knowing all relevant facts, as many others here have rightly pointed out. If the facts turn out to be that he is guilty, he should not play.
Anyone who has been involved in the formation of young people knows that effective discipline requires speaking a language that the offender understands. For college athletes, nothing speaks more clearly than loss of PT.
Fitz, along with all players, coaches and recruits, would learn that this type of behavior will not be tolerated at Michigan, not even for stars and starters. DUI is taken seriously and will cost you PT no matter who you are or who we are playing.
Wrist-slapping teaches the opposite: DUI may be taken seriously, depending on our depth chart and schedule.
I understand those who argue for leniency. None of us want to see Fitz or the team hurt, and I trust that we are all unanimous in wanting the best for them all and in trusting this superlative coaching staff to determine what that means.
However, as ashamed as I am to admit this I also know that I want the rush of endorphins that will accompany a win over Alabama, and that desire affects my objectivity.
Respectfully I point out that the idea that the W's trump everything else is what has brought Penn State to its knees. Of course, very different issue here in the particulars, but not in the basic principle: there are things that are bigger than football. DUI is one of them.
I also trust Hoke & Co., but I am hoping they make the tough-but-right decision. I think that would be the most beneficial decision for everyone involved, including young Fitz.
August 13th, 2012 at 3:10 PM ^
August 14th, 2012 at 11:17 AM ^
1. If Hoke suspends Fitz, then it is Fitz who hurts the team, not Hoke
2. Hoke actually helps the team long term by setting a healthy precedent early in his tenure. It serves as an effective deterrent for current players, and also helps to attract to attract the right kind of recruits and repel the wrong kind.
It hurts, but I would much rather our coaches take heat for doing the right thing than for doing the wrong thing.
August 13th, 2012 at 3:29 PM ^
People need to set football aside. Drunk Driving is SUCH a dumb thing to do. It kill/injures/affects millions of people. I find it ridiculous that people are trying to make excuses for him, or hypothetical scenarios that would make it okay for him to play. He was drunk, and he drove. He shouldn't play. It's as simple as that. He needs to learn that it's not okay. Extra conditioning or the legal system don't always do that. I know quite a few people who have gotten DUI's and yet they still do it. As a highschool athlete myself, nothing gets to you more then losing playing time. I can't even imagine how bad it gets to athletes at such a high level. He needs something strong to show him that he cannot do that.
August 13th, 2012 at 7:01 PM ^
After reading that it's pretty clear this "I don't even know" from Hoke with regards to his status for the game is pure gamesmanship. There's absolutely no way he plays.
Gun that supposedly wasn't his? 4 AM? Driving a huge F150 drunk? Hoke is smarter than that. He's just keeping the Alabama coaches on their toes it seems.
August 13th, 2012 at 7:23 PM ^
Between your "gun" and the articles "pellet gun", maybe we should just hang him now.
August 13th, 2012 at 7:39 PM ^
A pellet gun "designed to look like a semi-automatic handgun" is not something you should want football players transporting under the seat of their cars. There is no circumstance in which that is a smart decision, let alone driving around with it at 4AM drunk, "pellet gun" or not.
August 13th, 2012 at 8:04 PM ^
Okay, he might splatter paint on the inside of the truck, or are you trying to accuse him of something else? This was not even a pellet gun, it was an Airsoft gun.
Stop trying to inflate this - that is what I commented on, not his wisdom. Let the system do what the system does before you make judgement. I know that is hard for some of you, but give it a try.
August 13th, 2012 at 10:55 PM ^
I don't think Alabama is losing sleep over this one.
August 13th, 2012 at 8:09 PM ^
...he is doing more than "pushing sleds"? I am not sure anyone on this board knows what Hoke's actual punishment has been.
If he is doing community service for victims of drunk driving right now. Would you feel different. If he is on a tether, has to do room checks and is not allowed to drink the rest of the season (presuming he is off age)...does that matter? if he misses the first half but plays the second.
Seems like the crime is serious enough that it should not just be measured in team related penalties but rather in effective ones. I care more about the effectiveness of the penalty not whether or not he misses game time. I don't want the kid to kill anyone or suffer from addiction.
If Hoke thinks suspending him for a game is going to cure this fantastic...if there are better ways to deal with it for this individual, I am all for it. If its a football decision, I have problems with it. That said, my loose understanding of Hoke to date is that he values Michigan tradition/values more than a singular football decision that would not help the kid in the long term.
August 13th, 2012 at 9:44 PM ^
August 18th, 2012 at 5:45 PM ^
Completely agree with your statements, if the only punishment is missing a game, it is probably not enough. I am all for the hills/stairs football punishment given that it also includes some community service (i.e. talking to high schools, volunteering in the ER to see the results of poor decisions, volunteering for some safe rides programs, etc.). Make the community service a semester long thing. If that is the punishment, then I would feel better about him playing. If it is a community service type punishment, then if Hoke is going to play him in Dallas then he probably should state something along the lines that Fitz is getting some football punishment and performing some community service. If he states that, then he can leave it at that.
August 13th, 2012 at 9:49 PM ^
When was the last time anybody ran for anything significant against Bama, 2-3 years?
I can see Denard getting his on the ground but this is going to be a real low scoring game and the weakness of Alabama's D is clearly the secondary.
August 14th, 2012 at 12:22 AM ^
Well, last November 19th, Georgia Southern averaged 7.7 yards a pop. They ran 39 times for 302 yards, including an 82-yard touchdown.
August 14th, 2012 at 11:25 AM ^
for?
I don't see them overlooking Michigan in the same way.
August 17th, 2012 at 9:16 PM ^
a .12 is barely drunk driving, am I right?
As far as I'm concerned you are not really drunk driving until you say that mickey mouse was a dog.