play em. Why not.
Mike Lantry, 1972
play em. Why not.
You all praise Brady Hoke, but then think you know better than him in this decision?
I, for one, 100% support this decision because I have no idea the entire story behind it.
There's the story.
it's brushed aside when you don't kill someone in the act!
I was referring to the act itself and the "possible" results of said act.
By that logic alls good as long as nobody gets killed and the court doesn't treat it as a "as bad of an offense"! Tell that to everyone who has lost someone to a drunk driver!!!
Re-read what you replied to.
that logic? Are you saying that driving drunk and not killing someone is the same as driving drunk and killing someone? And how do you feel people should be punished when caught texting and driving..since that also has a chance to kill somoene. Is running a red light the same if you clear it or you kill someone? /rant
Not talking about that story.. Talking about the story of how he made his way back to the field.. if he truly is the starter.
My comment stands. We are not qualified to make this decision. Only Brady Hoke is. I'd support it either way.
Broaden the mind a little
Black - got drunk
White - got in car and drove drunk
I agree. Also, speeding can possibly kill someone too. Therefore, anyone who gets a speeding ticket should be suspended. Pretty black and white, eh?
Good lord, will you Puritans relax?
Who here has heard the story of the Zen master and the young boy?
No Penn State jokes.
But I don't like this at all
What else are we supposed to do for the rest of the work week?
No... He's listed as #1 on the depth chart... That's not the game lineup. Use some common sense please.
bleating presents itself? Surely you jest.
Appeasing the fanbase's sense of outrage and moral superiority is not, in my opinion, a good reason to not play him.
That said, I think a person in Toussaint's position needs to be reminded that being irresponsible has consequences. I do not know what consequences Toussaint has been made to suffer, however. As such, I will avoid any opinion on the matter.
Hope he plays. If he indeed paid his dues, there's no reason he shouldn't. Frank too.
I don't see the problem with him playing. I've never had a problem with an MSU or ND or OSU player not missing game time for a first offense.
The reason we rip on Dantonio is for repeatedly letting guys off the hook. This is not the case here. When Stonum blew his second and third chances, he was booted.
what he said!
An "everyone gets one warning" policy seems dangerous. If you're a player who knows he has a get out of jail free card in your back pocket, you're willing to take chances that you wouldn't take with stronger beavhior expectations. The last thing we need is a bunch of guys getting their first DUIs/whatever and then getting on the field the next week. With the inevitable negative media coverage, Hoke's poop suddenly wouldn't seem quite so golden, which could seriously affect recruiting and other things.
I'm not sure we're talking about a "everyone gets one warning" policy. We don't know what type of punishment Hoke gave them while they were trying to get back on the field. When Stonum had his DUI (when Hoke took over), he had to come in early every morning and do sled pushes and things that. If Hoke had Fitz and Clark do those type of things to get back in his good graces, then are you still in the must suspend him camp?
Furthermore, I think the timing of the arrests makes it a very sensitive issue. If this had happened during the Spring, they would have just missed practices, but they probably could have gotten everything sorted out for fall camp/the season. If this had happened during the season, they're probably missing a game or two, easily. This is sort of the gray area where you wonder if they've been punished enough to get in the game. This happened before fall camp. This didn't happen during a game week. It's hard to say.
For the record, I'm not taking a side on this one. I'm with Brady.
I understand your arguments and they're reasonable. I reserve the right to change this opinion, but for now, I'd be inclined to keep virtually anyone who gets in legitimate legal trouble out of at least a half of a game just because of the "it's a privilege to play for Michigan" cliche and the reality that it's not very hard to not get arrested. In fact, I'm not getting arrested right now.
I'm also in the camp that thinks that a DUI is a pretty serious deal, where the difference between drunk driving that doesn't harm anyone and drunk driving that does is often blind luck.
And to answer your question a little more directly... I don't know this, but I suspect that what really stings players is lost playing time (and the consequences for the team), not having more strenuous, inconvenient workouts than their teammates.
Yeah. I mean, there is definitely a Michigan ethos of not only winning, but winning the right way that you don't really want to usurp long-term to get short-term results. I think that Hoke understands that, but at the same time, he's not going to let that be a reason to not get a potential competitive advantage (the gamesmanship of not announcing). We really won't find that out until later this week if this is true.
So your minimum suspension is a half?
I get what you're saying, but it just doesn't seem just to me to single out athletes as people that should be punished above and beyond what the law is doing. The law exists for a reason, and that is to deal out fair punishment for crimes.
I don't think that Hoke's role in this is to punish Fitz. Rather, his job is to steer Fitz in the right direction so that he doesn't commit the mistake again. It is my understanding that Fitz has been worked through in camp. If he demonstrates to Hoke that he has changed his path and will work to never make the mistake again, then why NOT play him? To say that Hoke must punish Fitz means that we deem to law to be inadequate and now we're getting into vigilante justice, which I don't think is right. I think Fitz should play if he has demonstrated that he has learned from his mistake. If he messes up again and breaks Hoke's trust, he's lost a year of playing time (a la Stonum). Another time, and he's gone.
However, I do agree that the punishment for a first time drunk driving offense needs to be greater. As of now, a first time offense makes insurance for a college student nearly impossible to afford, so I don't see Fitz driving for a long time. He's going to have to work very hard to pay the fines for the offense. Maybe on top of that, we should have everyone who gets caught get temporarily laid off from their jobs? That's what really stings, right, being unable to do your livelihood.
How the moral tide has turned--welcome to big boys football where you don't throw a season away because of a mistake by a young man. Make all the excuses all you want, UM has just proven that the moral high ground is a level playing field.
To be clear, if Fitz & Clark don't play in the Alabama game (and this report is premature), you're acknowledging that UM and MSU play by different sets of rules and principles?
For example, many UM fans site Rucker playing right out of jail. Here's the facts. He was arrested following the UM game. He was suspended for the Illinois game. He then went to jail. After getting out of jail, he did not start the following game 5 days later. He did play in it, however. So, yes, our guy got suspended. Also, Sims was suspended for the rest of the season for the stolen laptops.
So, if your guys play, yes, UM and MSU do, indeed, play by different rules.
//tries to break Denard's neck after the play
///doesn't go to the Rose Bowl
No - they play by the same rules - to find any excuse to play questionable players. Playing Rucker all but the first series and "starting" him is a distinction too meaningless to parse.
Take your idiocy back to your jerkoff rcmb site.
Rucker played in a game 5 days after getting out of jail. Fitz is not in jail.
Now that we've made that clear, can I ask you what the fuck kind of a point you're trying to make?
You JUST won your first bowl game since the dinosaurs left this earth. JUST won it. You don't get any special memberships for winning a bowl game.
who doesn't severely punish someone getting a DUI. This isn't fighting in the club or whatever. It's not even stealing someone's computer. It's putting people's lives at risk.
That is a blatant over reaction, in my opinion. I’ve said this before, the spectrum of DUI charges are too often grouped together. You can get a DUI on a bicycle or a riding mower. Everything needs to be taken in perspective.
If he were joy riding down 94 with a bottle of vodka in his hand, that would probably result in his removal from the team. If he were having a beer while mowing the grass on a tractor, he would probably get laughed at for being dumb. This situation is somewhere in the middle and it is possible the severity of his crime isn’t what you think, despite it being a DUI. Consider the differences. Unless you know the story, which Hoke probably knows as well as anyone else, then it is difficult for you to determine a just penalty.
he wasn't on a riding lawnmower.
He also wasn't joy riding down 94 taking pulls. I said it was somewhere in the middle and Hoke has to punish accordingly. From the one report I saw he was extremely compliant with the arresting officer which leads me to believe he was not much over the legal limit, and hopefully not putting other lives in danger to the level that the DUI sterotype leads on.
I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished. He should be punished for the crime, for letting the team down, etc. but as others have said he might not warrant missing game time if he has paid his dues in other ways.
Then you might as well call up your courthouse and rip their books to shreds because the job of punishment falls on the courts, not some guy named Brady Hoke who happens to teach Fitz. That's like saying any student who gets a DUI should be given additional punishment like Academic Probation and all your first exams are Fs by Mary Sue Coleman. Let the courts do their jobs, and Hoke will do his own - guiding Fitz in the right direction so he never makes the mistake again.
And believe me, there are many ways of guiding Fitz other than making him miss 40 minutes of football on one day, something very inconsequential in the long run.
As long as he's on the team (suspended or not) he is the #1 RB on the depth chart, so it's still premature to say the sky is falling. That said, I don't like this and will be disappointed if Fitz is on the field against Bama. Even if Fitz has done three Divine Comedies' worth of purgatory behind the scenes, he should still sit to send a message that no one is above the rules and violating them has consequences for the rest of the team b/c they are all accountable to each other.
(hell, Will Hagerup was suspended for the 2010 OSU game and for those of us who were able to stomach watching it, we coulda used any and all help in our punting that game.)
That bathroom isn't going to mop itself.
EDIT: the post I replied to was deleted. Sparty troll was trolling.
Well, well, well...
You are *THIS* close (/holds fingers close together) to the banhammer. You're welcome to stay, but you've gotta stop being such a f*cking troll. Contribute something DERP-free, or you're gone like Denard running 87 yards. Or Gallon running free in the secondary. Or Tate Forcier right up the middle. Or...
he has to stop trolling or he'll be out like Armando Allen?
3 in a row.
Have fun losing to navy in ireland.
I'm sure coach Hoke has been watching him during summer practice. May be he made strides. We don't know, he may have had to attend some AA meetings? I would still expect Hoke to sit him out for a quarter or a the first half of the AL game!
during Hoke's 12:30 presser he will address both players situations?