Fitz listed as starting RB vs. Alabama
UPDATE from Hoke Himself (From Sam Webb):
Sam Webb Hoke on toussaint's status "haven't made a decision yet"
Hoke on Clark's status: "same" as toussaint
What happens in court with Toussaint tuesday to have no bearing on hoke's decision
Not sure how I feel about this, but we're not sure what type of punishment went on behind the scenes. Nothing official for game day yet, but it's all over twitter.
Kyle Meinke Suspended TB Fitz Toussaint listed as starting running back for Alabama game.
wat RT @kmeinke Suspended TB Fitz Toussaint listed as starting running back for Alabama game.
UPDATE: Tweets on if this means anything at all- Still seems pretty inconclusive.
How long is Brady gonna wait to announce this? I get making Bama prepare for Fitz and Rawls/Smith until they know for sure, but 5 days before the game you think they would have announced suspensions already.
Steve Lorenz Being #1 on the depth chart doesn't translate to Fitz playing on Saturday. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I know depth charts don't mean much, but that's why people dump anyone in trouble off 'em.
Whether you think he should play or not, perception is reality with this stuff. Fitz playing will lump M in with MSU, etc. RE: discipline
August 27th, 2012 at 12:06 PM ^
what does this mean... seems a bit contradictory if you ask me
August 27th, 2012 at 12:15 PM ^
Means nothing...good day sir
August 27th, 2012 at 12:20 PM ^
Pineapple boy
August 27th, 2012 at 12:06 PM ^
Good.
August 27th, 2012 at 12:07 PM ^
August 27th, 2012 at 1:41 PM ^
you call him a scumbag.
Double standards, anyone?
August 27th, 2012 at 1:57 PM ^
Came directly from jail to the practice field. He "actually missed games" because dude was in jail for four months. Repeat violent offender. Jeebus man, they're not even remotely close...
August 27th, 2012 at 7:31 PM ^
August 27th, 2012 at 12:07 PM ^
/nervously tugs collar
August 27th, 2012 at 12:08 PM ^
play em. Why not.
August 27th, 2012 at 12:09 PM ^
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.
August 27th, 2012 at 12:11 PM ^
There's the story.
August 27th, 2012 at 12:12 PM ^
it's brushed aside when you don't kill someone in the act!
August 27th, 2012 at 12:28 PM ^
well to be fair One is misdemeanor and if you kill someone it's a felony. So yea even the criminal justice system doen't think one is nearly as bad as the other.
He goes to court before the Bama game, it's possible he is waiting to make the call until after the judge makes his call.
August 27th, 2012 at 1:12 PM ^
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!!!
/rant
August 27th, 2012 at 1:58 PM ^
Re-read what you replied to.
August 27th, 2012 at 7:34 PM ^
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
August 27th, 2012 at 12:14 PM ^
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.
August 27th, 2012 at 12:17 PM ^
Broaden the mind a little
August 27th, 2012 at 1:14 PM ^
Black - got drunk
White - got in car and drove drunk
August 27th, 2012 at 2:04 PM ^
August 27th, 2012 at 1:09 PM ^
Good lord, will you Puritans relax?
August 27th, 2012 at 12:10 PM ^
Who here has heard the story of the Zen master and the young boy?
August 27th, 2012 at 1:58 PM ^
No Penn State jokes.
August 27th, 2012 at 12:10 PM ^
But I don't like this at all
August 27th, 2012 at 12:11 PM ^
...Brady Hoke about his decision (whatever it may be), I recommend not freaking out one way or another.
August 27th, 2012 at 12:35 PM ^
What else are we supposed to do for the rest of the work week?
August 27th, 2012 at 12:11 PM ^
August 27th, 2012 at 12:17 PM ^
bleating presents itself? Surely you jest.
August 27th, 2012 at 12:12 PM ^
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.
August 27th, 2012 at 12:13 PM ^
August 27th, 2012 at 12:13 PM ^
August 27th, 2012 at 12:19 PM ^
what he said!
August 27th, 2012 at 12:22 PM ^
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.
August 27th, 2012 at 12:32 PM ^
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.
August 27th, 2012 at 12:43 PM ^
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.
August 27th, 2012 at 12:53 PM ^
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?
August 27th, 2012 at 4:21 PM ^
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.
August 27th, 2012 at 12:26 PM ^
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.
August 27th, 2012 at 12:29 PM ^
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?
August 27th, 2012 at 12:36 PM ^
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.
August 27th, 2012 at 12:50 PM ^
/grandstands
//tries to break Denard's neck after the play
///doesn't go to the Rose Bowl
August 27th, 2012 at 12:54 PM ^
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.
August 27th, 2012 at 3:20 PM ^
Take your idiocy back to your jerkoff rcmb site.
August 27th, 2012 at 4:25 PM ^
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?
August 27th, 2012 at 12:32 PM ^
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.
August 27th, 2012 at 7:35 PM ^
August 27th, 2012 at 12:32 PM ^
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.