But Hoke already said today's actions wouldn't affect his availability.
Plea or not, I'd bet he sits for at least a half, and probably for the whole game.
But Hoke already said today's actions wouldn't affect his availability.
Plea or not, I'd bet he sits for at least a half, and probably for the whole game.
That's what I came here to say. Hoke has already said the result of this legal decision will have no bearing on his decision, I have no reason to not believe him.
I'm pretty sure he is going to sit.
Here is how the law works in Michigan cuz im a Officer. It still counts as a OWI..is just lesser fines. Three in a lifetime is a felony. He gets a automatic 3 month suspensionon on his license. If he got popped in Oakland County he would get 30 days without question. We wont see jail in Washtenaw
If I were a grammar officer, you'd definitely get 30 days in Washtenaw County.
As long as Fitz has done everything Hoke has asked, and he has I don't see the point in arbitrarily suspending him for a game. If this happened in February would you still suspend him for the opener? Or does the amount of time he has had to "prove" himself determine if he should play? If that is the case than in season DUI would be a season suspension since you are saying it takes 8+ weeks to fully prove yourself.
Someone that has thought this out a bit more than just saying, "We are Michigan and we are morally superior to everyone else." Thanks for that. I was beginning to think I was the only one.
First, a suspension would hardly be an arbitrary punishment. Second,we should realize that Hoke was going to make Fitz earn his way back onto the field, whether or not he serves a suspension.
Agreed. Suspensions are used so often because they are much bigger punishments than just having a guy run stairs. I feel like a lot of people around here are trying to rationalize playing Fitz, but if this were ND or MSU doing the same thing we would all be jumping down their throats.
Maybe the minority, but I take the stand that if a kid makes a mistake, and does everything in his power for 6-8 weeks than I have no problem with there not being a suspension. From all accounts Fitz, and Clark for that matter, have done everything Hoke has asked them to make right.
Driving while visually impaired --> Driving while blind --> Arrested for driving while blind --> ZZ Top --> Elliott Mealer could be in ZZ Top with that beard
wait... what are we talking about?
just think if we're going to be teetotalers , we also shouldn't promote drinking w/ "what r u drinking on saturday night threads, etc."
obviously, drinking "AND DRIVING" is different than drinking, but i still feel like the messages appear a little mixed; i.e., it's great to boast about drinking, but it's an unfathomable crime to drive after drinking a few....
i know i'm going to get a lot of negs for this.... but that's my 2 cents.
i, for one, am not drinking this saturday... i want to watch michigan win clear-eyed and i don't want to miss a single yard gained.
Are you serious? There's no mixed message. It's ok to drink, it's not ok to drink and drive. It's pretty simple.
i mean, i obviously understand the difference between (A) Drinking and (B) Drinking AND DRIVING.
But, if we're really being honest with ourselves, why should we (1) pat ourselves on our backs when our noble student-athletes drive while having a BAC of 0.07 (which is legal in Michigan) and (2) ridicule the sophomoric behaviors of these unworthy kids when they drive with a BAC of 0.09 (which is illegal in Michigan).
Is it because we so value the BAC thresholds that our praiseworthy state legislators have chosen for us (based on their rigorous scientific research)?
.... i know i'm being a little sarcastic, and i apologize, but if we're really frowning upon drinking (above a certain level) and driving, then let's just be honest with ourselves and say, don't drink, period.
(1) He had a BAC of .12, 50% higher than the legal limit.
(2) The limit was .10 until about 10 years ago, when they changed it to .08 based on statistics showing that the chance of getting into an accident went up significantly between .08 and 1.0, so there is a difference statistically significant difference between .07 and .09. Honestly, it was lowered to .08 because there is such a low chance that something will happen at that level and, when I heard that he blew a .08, I was ready to let it slide because he probably wouldn't have even felt it at that point. However, when I found out that the .08 was his second test at the station and he blew a .12 after getting pulled over, I decided he had to either know he was drunk or have such a high tolerance to alcohol that he couldn't tell, in which case, he needs help.
(3) It takes more than a few drinks to get to .12% BAC. At his weight, he would have had to consume ~6 standard drinks in the half hour timespan before driving to achieve that. Add one more standard drink for every hour that he was drinking. No one should be driving after a 6 pack.
(4) He needs to know what it feels like to let everyone around him down because next time, if there is a next time, he won't be getting off the hook so easily with the law or with the coach. Stonum got lots of leniency because of the coaching transition and the punishments didn't seem to get through to him. You need to make it hurt the first time around enough that he will not do it again. This is only a learning experience for him if they take the opportunity to make it one.
Based on what?
The formula used to estimate BAC. Plugging in his numbers, I came up with .12 BAC being ~5.4 standard drinks without subtracting any time. Add in another half of a standard drink and a half hour to consume them (one standard drink per hour) and you get ~6 standard drinks in a half hour.
I'm not trying to debate the science behind the thresholds (because I don't know). But, I just feel like we're getting hung up on the fact that he had one drink too much or two drinks too much, etc. I think someone who drives with a 0.07 BAC level sounds somewhat dangerous and perhaps, 30 minutes ago, he had a 0.10 BAC, etc.
In addition, as background, apparently Fitz drank VSOP Brandy (according to an ESPN article that I read) and not beer. If your 6 "drinks" math is correct (and it seems close based on a 200 lb person according to this wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content), it sounds like Fitz had approximately 9 oz of brandy.
Therefore, Fitz drank slightly more than a cup (i.e., equivalent to 8 oz) of liquor and started driving.
I don't know if that's any better than drinking 6 beers, but I also don't think I would feel comfortable with someone driving after drinking half a cup of brandy (holding all else equal).
Hoke will discipline him.
His parents will discipline him.
But at the end of the day, it's up to Fitz to learn what's the right way to be an upstanding citizen and a Michigan Man!
Actually there's very little difference between the risk of crashing at .08 and .12 BAC. The .08 is an arbitrary number that makes people like MADD feel like they're stopping drunk driving (it used to be .10). The risks go up quickly at 2 beers then level off until around .125 according the NHTSA.
Yes Fitz will have to decide for himself what's right and wrong, just like everyone else. I just think it's going overboard to say since you shouldn't drink and drive then you shouldn't drink at all. It'd be like saying, since I can't fire a gun into a random group of people I can't shoot at a gun range either.
hoke said that the ruling wont change his decision and that you have to make the decision based on the program and not this team. cant find the quotes right now but anyway, i doubt he will play.
It's not like he missed the Stonum drama the last 2 years. He knew what he was doing.
Operating while visibly impaired is usually what OWI's get plead down to. It isn't much of a break at all. It is a drunk driving no matter how you slice it. It allows him to get a restricted license quicker and is 4 points instead of 6 on his drivers license. if he picks up a second one, the visibly impaired constitues a prior conviction which subjects him to enhanced penalties.
In my opinion, Hoke has to sit him down this week.
What seems to be the officer, problem?
Possibly my favorite line from south park....ever!
I'm so mad at Fitz for not only doing an incredibly stupid thing endagering his own life and the lives of others but for putting us in this endless position of will he play / will he not play / should he play / debate.
It was fun to watch other programs go through this. Old Purple face down in South Bend released a statement last summer that Michael Floyd had paid the price for multiple DUI's and then he went on to play in every single game. Dantonio will allow all players to go straight from the jail cell to the playing field. Les Miles didn't suspend any of the several key players last year for their big opener against Oregon after they were in a huge bar brawl the previous week. He then made them sit out the following game against Northwestern State.
I'd like to think we're above those kinds of coaches when it comes to ethics. So if (big if) Fitz sees any playing time against Bama, I'm guessing he won't start the first half. It's either that or nothing. But I'm leaning more towards nothing.
Just for the sake of argument, what makes Michigan "above" the schools you've named? During my time at Michigan I did not see football players behaving in ways that exemplified being above much at all. I love Michigan football, but the idea that Michigan is somehow "above" any ill-defined notion of elevated civic decorum is, in my opinion, erroneous.
No school's players are above acting stupid. I'd just like it if we were above other programs when it comes to disciplining players that do something incredibly stupid. That's all.
It's the Michigan Man thing that people always harp on about. The University prides itself on molding the young men on the football team into not only better athletes, but better people as well. Some of the schools listed above do not hold their teams to the same standards.
That sounds great, but good look winning a national title.
I don't think he should miss a snap. If he would have committed the crime during the season then he should miss a game or two. This happened during his summer break. Besides, there are other ways of punishing him.
He sits the first half
After reading Hoke's comments I think he has to sit him for the entire game. Sitting him for a half would be gutless, worse than just starting him. Either he sits or plays, serve one master or the other.
I think the legal system's punishment is enough for Fitz, but I do think that Brady Hoke needs to sit him for at least a series for violating "team rules."
I know that any form of drunk driving is considered a terrible crime right now because of the potential for injury, but shoulda, woulda, and coulda don't apply here. The bottom line is that nobody was hurt, the legal system will make him pay, and he has had to jump through a lot of hoops to get back on the team.
AFAIC, he doesn't need any more punishment than a symbolic gesture to promote team discipline and send a message to the public. A series or a quarter would be enough to do that.
If there was a second offense, though, I think a year off would be appropriate, because it would then be a major discipline problem as opposed to someone not realizing he was too drunk to pass a BAL test.
This makes sense to me. It's a nod to the fact that he screwed up, but sitting the entire game doesn't seem justified. If he screws up again to this degree, then by all means make him sit a year or worse. However, as you and others have indicated, this seems more like a one time screw up and he paid his dues by doing whatever he’s being doing since the incident. Additionally, I don’t think the football program will be chastised for not suspending him for a game, legally he didn’t even get a DUI. The belief that Michigan players must be held to a higher standard is being over played here in my opinion.
the internet will burn down.
I think he should sit, but I'm not going to consider Hoke "nutless" or burn my Michigan paraphernalia if he plays. I agree that you need to send a message, but to who? Other players within the program or everyone else? With the Fort on lockdown, we have no idea what punishment they may have received. I was young and stupid and drove drunk twice. Once because, in my 22 year old mind, I had no other choice. I have no excuse for the other (for either). I was lucky not to get caught, and I don't really even drink anymore (I don't consider "having a drink" and "drinking" to be the same thing). Coach Hoke will do the right thing, even if some of us don't agree on what that is.
Median here is sit Fitz for the first half. He is still being punished game time, but doesn't lose out on all 4 quarters. This is a first time offender and the situation seemed pretty tame, ie he was cooperative with the Police and everyone else. Lord knows Hoke & Co. have made him pay dearly during practices, with possible early morning running sessions up and down the bleachers in the Big House (I believe Arrington had to do something similar a few years back). As far as Frank Clark is concerned, he should definitely sit the whole game. Hoke still makes a strong point to his players and appeases the masses, without doing too much and overreacting to make a statement and appease the Drew Sharps of the world. Not saying he would make a decisoin based on D.S., but you get my point.
Can't people have rational differing opinions on this? I'm personally of the opinion that a college kid getting a DUI or an MIP or something of that sort for the first time doesn't need to be suspended. If it's a second offense and appears to be a course of conduct or if it's a first-time offense involving violence, then yes, absolutely. However, a DUI or an MIP can often be characterized as a mistake. One that will be dealt with by law enforcement officials and the judicial system. I get that some programs do consider it suspension worthy but does that mean that Hoke has to adopt their take? He just kicked Darryl Stonum off the team for repeating similar conduct. I don't think if he starts Fitz that he's capitulated to the "FOOTBALL OVER ALL ELSE" frenzy. It's not a disgrace to the University if he starts Fitz. Maybe you think he should be suspended, which is a reasonable opinion, but I don't, and I think anyone who embraces my viewpoint shouldn't be colored as someone willing to just chuck away all the University stands for in order to get football wins.
but lumping in MIPs with DUIs unreasonably minimizes what Fitz did, at least in my book.
I'm not saying the offenses are equal, but they're offenses which are not committed with malice towards another human being - like say, beating up a bunch of dudes or hitting your girlfriend.
Because it punishes the whole team is exactly why it is going to happen. How often have we heard Coach talk about accountability to your teammates? This is how you teach that lesson.
I understand your point and initially that was my first conclusion in the matter, but the more I thought about it, what impact does the perception of media types (re: "tough on crime" attitude of programs) actually have on the programs? If we don't believe he should be suspended because he doesn't deserve it, do we really need to capitulate just because Drew Sharp or Wojo tells me that Michigan will now be perceived as soft on crime? Particularly when there's directly contradicting evidence in the form of Darryl Stonum, a player who would be unbelievably instrumental on this year's team.
Look at all the damage the perceived/real moral issues surrounding Saban's stance on oversigning and Dantonio's stance on discipline have caused.
I heavily dislike the cries from the "there needs to be a public example" crowd. It's as if no matter what Toussaint does in private, it will never fulfill some moral obligation to the public that a suspension will.
I once thought this way...in 2007. Now? After the Chris L. Rucker stuff and Glenn Winston and Tatgate...NO ONE CARES now except a few Michigan fans wringing their fists from ivory towers.
Screw public opinion. I'm not sure any fanbase in the country is as hard on its football program as Michigan.
Drug possession and abuse, multiple offenses, along with illegal gun possession...more serious than a DWI involving a person of legal drinking age, that is pled down.
As usual, I disagree with Sharp... he says the longer it goes, the more like Touissant plays.
I think, however, that the longer it goes, the less likely he plays..... at the very least, Hoke will have both of them dress but not play a single play, a scarlet letter of sorts.... but the most likely is that they don't travel with team, nor play.
If they're not playing, you really think Hoke would let them travel let alone dress? Over 2 younger guys or walk-ons that busted their ass in camp and deserve it more?
You are probably right