I hate when things like this are said. The quality of opponent should not dictate the punishment at all.
at least it's not just us?
I hate when things like this are said. The quality of opponent should not dictate the punishment at all.
It's possible the court case might not be resolved by the first game on September 1st. Every man deserves his day in court to plead and defend himself if he so chooses. Once and if he enters a guilty plea or is convicted then its fair to take action beyond the intial indefinate suspension.
If one more Wolverine runs afowl of the lawthough it will bring new meaning to playing in The Big House.
I don't really know how anyone can say how harshly Fitz should be punished until we hear more details of what went down. For instance, if he really was just stopped at a checkpoint, there may be mitigating factors. To go off and say he needs to be suspended for x number of games seem a bit premature. I say let the details come forth and go from there. Has anyone thought maybe there is something we don't know if Coach Hoke is thinking of allowing him to play? It seems he would be immediately suspended if it was an outrageous DUI. These things have a way of being dropped down when other factors are involved. I realize we all want UM to be held to a higher standard, but quite honestly, no one here knows exactly what went down.
He was immediately suspended.
Tom V says Hoke has a standard 3 strikes policy...same as was applied to Stonum. This is the first strike. does anyone know what happened to Stonum after his first strike?
I think Stonum might have already had a strike before Hoke got there. I know that Hoke had Stonum coming in early to do sleds and things like that. That's the type of thing that I expect that he's making Fitz and Clark do. They have to prove to the rest of the team that they want to be back. It's that accountability thing again.
I'll wait and see with Hoke's punishment. I'm not against them getting actually suspended and missing games, but if Hoke feels that the guys do their work to get themselves back into a position to play against Bama, I'm not against that either.
Strike one: Stonum was suspended for one game immediately after his first drunk driving arrest. Well before any plea agreement or conviction. The clear basis being "violation of team rules." Stonum was a minor, and it happened during the football season.
Stonum was later dragged back in front of the 15th District Court Judge Steven Pope, wherein they recounted his near-complete failure to comply with the civil terms of his original sentence. This was before his fourth and latest alcohol arrest (I think that there were some MIP arrests along the way, early on, as well). Even Stonum's first drunk driving offense sounded like something out of a Jerry Bruckheimer movie; speeding up South University, narrowly missing pedestrians and parked cars.
By the time Stonum was dismissed form the team by Hoke, it was effectively his eighth, ninth or tenth strike. Or more, counting all of the individual probation violations.
his first one or two strikes were before Hoke so its hard to know what is policy will be
team. I see no need for "us" to know beyond general terms.
I think if he and Hoke work out punishment together then let him play. It's his first time in either Hoke or RRs doghouse, everyone messes up some time. I'm sure he regrets his decision and will pay harsh penalties like pushing a weight around the practice field, cleaning up the locker room, spending extra time at Mott, and possibly speaking to some youth about making bad choices. Let the coaches and courts decide the punishment for the crime.
I don't think Fitz should be suspended. Sober drivers are responsible for more fatal accidents than drunk drivers. That's a fact and can't be argued. The only reason sober driving is legal is because it's a form of population control that the general public doesn't realize. Joking!
I don't want him to play.
I have this image of Hoke's program being more than about football. I want the core values of this program to be about something other than winning a game. That's how Hoke has came off since he got here, and I don't want that to change.
the game in September come into play a little?
If he commits the DUI in September, late August, then sitting him makes all the sense in the world. But there are various punishments/disciplinary actions that might be meted out in the meantime that would make playing him less unreasonable. Hoke would need to lay out this line hard and early to make the case, of course, and the need to wait out how the legal issues unfold is another factor. . .
I feel more paranoid about us getting stomped than I do about Fitz not playing. I'm still not sure Brandon did us any favors by scheduling this game. Even a close loss may just get written off as Alabama going easy on Michigan. And though a loss will not cause huge harm to the program, I'm not to keen to hear everyone say that we're on the right track, give us a year or two, etc.
With Denard and Fitz I think we stand at least a chance of surprising 'em. If Fitz doesn't play we also could be looking back and saying his DUI derailed Denard's Heisman chances from the start. Hypotheticals, I know. . .
Hoke care more about the students than he does about football. So trust whatever decision he makes. If he plays, then know that Hoke feels comfortable that Fitz corrected whatever deficiencies caused this. No worries guys.
If he plays, cool, if not I think we'll be alright. The key to beating Alabama is defense and Denard.
How in the world are guys getting DUIs in Ann Arbor? One of the best parts about the town is that you don't need to drive anywhere for the most part and there are countless bars/parties within a short stroll from your apartment. And if you do need a lift, how can a guy with 100+ teammates, giant support staff, and thousands of fellow students who would gladly bend over backwards to help the guy get home not find a safe/sober ride?
It seems like the athletic department or the coaching staff or just the team members themselves could solve this problem immediately and very easily, but instead we keep having to deal with Grady, Stonum, and now Fitz suffering both the on and off field consequences of these things.
Would it he against NCAA rules for volunteer student boosters to create a "dial a ride" DD network that gives athletes free rides home?
I'm sure the NCAA won't allow it
Honestly, I am sick of reading all these posts of what Fitz SHOULD get, and how you will be SOOOO disappointed if he doesn't get suspended.
Like any of you know anything. We should trust that the coaching staff will get ALL the facts (we have very few), and make the right decision, whether is no time missed, or 6 games, or whatever.
Coach Hoke has done nothing but exemplify integrity and good discretion with dicipline so far with player dicipline and we should just trust that whatever Fitz gets is the right call, even if we don't get all the facts.
I guarantee Hoke just gave his typical vague coachspeak, and it got wildly misinterpreted. Hoke doesn't give out relevant information to the media for even the most minor of details, no way in hell he gives anything for this.
See this coaching staff letting either play...Brady always talks about responsibility, etc.
I'm torn. Part of me thinks about Floyd, Rucker, etc. and how they didn't miss any games despite being 3 time losers, and thinks, "everyone else is doing it...why shouldn't we?" But then the other part of me, the near 40 year old alumnus of the University of Michigan, thinks "we're Michigan fergodsake, we do things different, we do things the RIGHT way.
That being said, I trust Hoke to know what the "right way" is for the program. I won't complain either way. But, I really do want to see Fitz and Denard on that field together on Sept. 1st.
he should play rock, paper, scissors with hoke to win his way back on the team, best out of one.
It'd really be appalling if he played w/o serving a *lengthy* suspension first. Blowing a .12 means you're seriously impaired, i.e. you're needlessly and foolishly putting lives at risk. It is unfortunate that our legal system doesn't take this more seriously, but Hoke sure as hell should.
"Blowing a .12 means you are seriously impaired." This is not necessarily true. The impact of alcohol on a individual varies widely at any given BAC. Some poeple are trashed at .05 others, based on objective testing, are minimally impaired or unimpared at .15.
Before MADD, DADD, and SADD, BAC levels were guidelines that were intended to protect drivers and indicate when law enforcement should assess the level of impairment. The issue was impairment, not some politically established BAC.
I think that Hoke should and probably will take this very seriously. Further I would expect that Hoke has privately determined exactly what happened and has already decided and implemented a response. Hoke will also be careful not to influence public perception before Fitz has run the legal gauntlet. Hoke has implied that how Fitz (and Clark) respond to the corrective actions that have been put in place have a lot to do with the ultimate result.
There is still much to play out in Fitz's case and these decision's involve multiple variables, but I think he should be suspended at least one game if the charges are correct. Michigan should lead the entire NCAA in character and integrity, which I think Hoke did with his corrective actions last years.
in integrity. Maybe there are some extenuating circumstances that would lessen Fitz' punishment, but that seems hard to believe. Either Hoke should have a hell of a justification for not suspending him for the Bama game, or he's got to sit at least that game out. And I don't wanna hear anything about 'internal team matter' either. Especially in the wake of PSU, this is where Hoke has total control of demonstrating leadership.
Hoke is going to act like a father in this situation like he does at all other times throughout this program, and like a parent, its going to have to be his judgement on the actual details and after effects of this charge. There is no way that any of his here know even close to the necessary amount of information to make an appropriate punishment. I know I don't know Fitz at all to the point where I think this is a common action in his personality, and I certainly do not have a right to question his relationship with Hoke and the rest of the program. If the coaching staff feels like the punishment given to him (by the courts, the staff, the school, etc.) are appropriate enough that there is no need for him to miss any games, then who are we to question it.
As a second thought, and this is more about general sports punishments. Isn't the goal after an incident like this to provide a proper punishment, but still make sure that the individuals activities and actions after the event are aimed towards recovering from their mistake and leading to a better future overall? Why would suspending him (or any athlete for that matter) for a game, especially one as big as this one, be helpful to his recovery? I get that it would convince him to not do it again, but aren't there other punishments that would do the same? Ones that wouldn't have him miss an opportunity to showcase his talents on possibly the biggest non bowl/championship game of the year. If he misses this game, it could have a negative affect on his draft stock which could contradict the goal of him being a success in life. The past is the past, and as long as Hoke and Fitz's superiors feel like he has truly learned from the experience, I am not at all against him not missing a game for this first time offence.
If Fitz has to miss the first series or the first quarter, after running a lot of stadium steps this summer, I think it would be enough for a first DUI.
I would bench him for anywhere from one quarter to one game, depending on the circumstances.
Jesus, nothing bad happened. You're all acting like he mowed down a troop of girl scouts. Sure, "maybe" he could've killed someone. Maybe the moon is really a giant coconut cream pie and one day we'll all feast. We deal in reality, and what happened is that he made a poor decision. That's it. No one was hurt, no cars were wrecked, no property was destroyed. He has an otherwise clean record. Chalk it up to lesson learned - just because you feel fine doesn't mean you are, have him running the field and stairs for the next month, get him mandatory counseling on drug/alcohol abuse, and have him do some community service. If all criteria are met satisfactorily, he's good to go. If not, re-evaluate.
You can't really be saying that doing something incredibly irresponsible and dangerous isn't a big deal as long as you lucked out and didn't kill anybody - this time?
mmmmm....coconut cream pie!
I really need to know the details before forming any kind of opinion on this. The way drunk drivers are sometimes entrapped and the sometimes ludicrous punishments that are enforced is an issue I take umbrage with. We place all DUIs under the same umbrella, but are being blackout drunk and plowing your car headlong into a children's street hockey game and being pulled over for DWB, subjected to a breathalyzer and narrowly missing an arbitrary mark at all similar? I'm not saying either of these are what happened in Fitzy's case, merely that DUIs can range on the moral outrage scale from completely despicable to completely null.
Let's let him play in the BCS bowl and then suspend him for a few meaningless non-conference games to start NEXT season! That'll teach him!
Was there any doubt?
Wasn't his BAC .12? The legal limit in Michigan, like Wisconsin, is .08. His license will be revoked, he'll pay some fines that can bankrupt a college undergrad, and he may have to go to Group Dynamics.
I don't think I really understand the stance of most people here on this kind of thing. I didn't understand the outrage over the Michael Floyd thing, and I don't understand the "he MUST miss several weeks" thing for this. Why is it a necessity that he must miss games for this? You have to consider the following things when determining a punishment:
1) Is this a first offense?
2) How did he respond when confronted, punished, etc?
3) What were the circumstances surrounding the incident?
4) How strong of a punishment is necessary to sufficiently communicate that this can never happen again?
If you get the answer to #1-3 and you feel the answer to #4 is something less severe than missing a game, then that's fine with me. Hoke seems like a very smart guy who handles his players well, so I'd trust his judgment. He's a nice blend between no-nonsense but also very human. If he thinks game suspension, great, if not, that's fine with me too because I trust hiim to do the due diligence on the above things. Shrug.
Everyone has an opinion on this, it seems. But in the end it is up to Coach Hoke to make a decision, and Coach Hoke has shown himself to be a class act and a true Michigan Man. So I know he will make the right decision and we should all support whatever decision that is.
Right on, I think people close to the situation that know Ftiz and know the exact details are better judges of what the punishment should be. I will be happy to let the coaching staff be the judge of that since they are privy to the facts and the character of player. Hoke and company have not been overly light in past, and I don't see a reason to doubt the coaching staff's judgement.
Don't mind him not missing games but he just needs to be disciplined in some way. Also meens u can't always bring up Mike Floyd if this happens ;)
Didn't Floyd have a .20 BAC when he got his DUI? You could argue that a DUI is a DUI. But then you'd be wrong
Wasn't that Floyd's third alcohol related offense in less than two years? Toussaint has no such pattern to indicate this might be a much more serious problem.
Even if Toussaint does play against Alabama, the Stonum situation was much more analogous. Hoke sat him for the entire year.