Larry Foote's blunt opinions on Gibbons and recruiting
Foote thinks the University should lower their admission standards for football. that isnt going to happen.
Not that one story contrary to his opinion proves it wrong, but how did Stanford have so much success when their admission standards are higher than ours? Coaching is definitely more of a determinant than admission standards
created. He always said that he looked for kids who were tough and smart. . . I think it was coaching but not just player development but also building that Stanford specific culture which has been carried further by the current guy. I forget his name.
“Do the university hire an agency to do the investigation?” Foote added later.
He doesn't sound like he was subjected to too tough an academic standard.
I had one class with Foote. Based on that one semester, my opinion is that they are low enough already.
I missed him on the show, does anybody know of a way to find to audio.
That article seems to bounce a little bit and doesnt flow right for a normal conversation.
I am just curious to see if he was taken out of context or if that is all legit.
My understanding is that Stanford recruits to the NCAA requirements and then, maybe, expect a bit more from their students. But it's not like Stanford is only taking kids who could have gotten into Stanford without football, just like NW, Vandy, Duke, etc. don't either. Some of it is recruiting and coaching, and some of it is a well-designed PR and marketing of an image.
busting oregon in the chops several years in a row and winning rose bowls certainly helps. harbaugh is a beast with a very confident vision - he demands a lot but works his butt off too and all his players love him. and he would have done even better at um with their resources....he will forever be the one who got away
Maybe. He didn't stick around too long at Stanford, and he probably would have rubbed people roughly as well. I know people talk about him being demanding, but lots of coaches are just as motivated and focused. I continue to not love Harbaugh because he strikes me as an arrogant guy who is great when he's on your side and completely insufferable and hypocrtical when he's not.
One day he will be sick of coaching in the NFL and will return to college. My hope is after a good Hoke 10 to 12 year run, Harbaugh wil take over when he turns 60. You know what they say, Today's' 60 is yesterday's 40! I think he will finish his coaching career in Ann Arbor.
We can't really lower them much more than they are. If a guy is academically qualified under the NCAA's criteria, we will usually accept him.
Admissions was reportedly unhappy that RR was bringing in too many recruits close to that NCAA minimum. They limit how many waivers they'll grant. They rejected Witty and Standifer who were NCAA qualified. I'm sure there have been many more players we didn't pursue because of their policy.
Don't we already lower our admission standards?
They need to balance their high standards while seeing potential in those with less opportunity (aka shitty schools in Detroit).
I think he is going beyond that. He is basically mocking the entire student athlete concept.
I rather lose games, hell, I would get rid of football all together if we ever have Dexter Manley situation at Michigan.
This is an institution for learning. If incoming recruit does not care about that, they do not belong at Michigan.
it isn't always all good in the hood
but pretending that recruiting players based on academic standards is also a joke...Michigan needs to ease up a bit or get lost in multiple 7-5/8-4 seasons
Isn't it likely though that players with lower academic achievement might not be as attracted to Michigan? They'd more likely go to the SEC, where they can win big and slack in the classroom. Kids with higher academic standards for themselves are probably more likely to be attracted to Michigan's ideal of success on the field and in the classroom. (see Jabrill Peppers)
Can we stop being Notre Dame? This is the kind of thing you see from former Irish all the time.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing... What's ironic about what Foote is saying and the Irish jumping ship, is that havent they lowered their standards to make room to play teams like BC, WF, GT.... If you asked, Im sure they care less about standards if it means they can increase the lead in all time winning percentage.
Yah because its not like we don't play FSU (you know the national champs), Clemson, Louisville etc... Getting to the playoff means scheduling a list of teams that gets you there with the least amount of losses. Also lets not discuss your out of conference, or even in conference schedule.
Usually you put some effort into your constant trolling rather than this naked, vanilla shit.
Fuck the Notre Dame Fighting Chickens.
Non-conf schedule? Two years ago where Michigan sacked up and stared the beast right in the face that was Alabama?
2012 was the first time in decades your program did ANYTHING worth talking about.
And really when was the last time yours did anything?
2011, chief. Michigan went 11-2 and won a BCS game.
I know, foreign concept to you since your irish never won a BCS game, EVER. 0-4 record.
That's absolutely hilarious given the system of BCS bowl games lasted for 16 seasons.
Oh I get it. When was Michigans last National Championship before 1997? We can play these games all day long, but did you know you that are currently approaching 20 years since your last Natty or appearance thereof? BCS games are beauty pagents and nothing more. You had a lucky season that year and ended up playing Virgina Tech, both on merits of you filling seats in a stadium. Congrats.
My point is that do not poke others schedules without taking a deep hard look at your own. For every OSU you have on your vaunted BIG conference slate, ND has 2. We played (and beat) the BIG champion, we also played the BIG12 champion, and the PAC12 North and South division champions. You, not so much.
Well, guess you can cross him off the list of future linebacker coach. Shoot.
Larry Foote does not strike me as very bright, going by this article.
That's why he was so good. /s
Foote deserves a TON of credit for the way he took in his son, only learning he had one when the kid was around 12-14 years old.
He has a radio show on the "all sports all the time" Pittsburgh radio station on Tuesday mornings, and when you listen to the Steelers who either have shows or are frequent guests on shows, (Foote, Woodley, Emmanuel Sanders) it seems to be a contest for who can sound "most ghetto."
I went to the Spring Game after RR's first year when they made the big push for fans to go. Larry Foote was signing autographs and talking to fans in the section in which I was sitting. He had very gracious dialogue with us, and I can tell you, his level of "ghetto" that day was NOTHING compared to what we're seeing here and what I listen to on the radio. This, "Do the University..." quotation reeks of an attempt to sound "ghetto" to fit the tone of the conversation and project some image he wants to project. He likes to do that too when he's on the radio. In Pittsburgh, the Steelers always get ratings, so there's no resistance from anyone for him to do what he does.
It's sad that someone would rather sound "ghetto" than like a Michigan educated man.
or something like that...
All I can say is yikes.
‘We’re not going to be able to compete with SECs year in and year out, and every now and then we’re going to be toward the middle or the bottom of the Big Ten. The best football players are not your best students."
Can't argue with that, results on the field have been proof positive to confirm what LF has said.
if you have to compromise the schools integrity in order to be successful in a sport is it worth it? Is having players who are not able to cope with the academic challenges just to get another win really worth it? Are you doing any service to those kids by just forcing them through "general studies" to get those extra sacks/picks/touchdowns on saturday?
I say No.
We call ourselves the "Leaders and Best" and how does lowering standards achieve that? College Athletics may be changing or more likely has always been corrupt and schools have funneled kids through garbage degrees so they can put them on the field but I always thought we were better than that. That when michigan won on saturday it was winning the right way. That all the success basketball has been having and hockey has been having and softball has been having and the 134 years of success that michigan football has had were done the right way.
Sure we had the Fab Five along the way and Practicegate but overall it was a program producing those who would go on to succeed both in professional sports and as doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, managers, governors, representatives, senators, and presidents. That when kids left Michigan they were prepared to succeed in everything they will do after.
and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee
I love former players, but sometime I just want them to keep their opinions to themselves. If you aren't helping the University than don't say anything in public. This doesn't help the University.
Yeah, this article is dumb....Larry probably should've thought twice before opening his mouth like so on an MSU radio show
I don't know about that. The fans demand wins or the coaches head. Are we willing to trade our higher academic and character standards for wins on the field? LF is saying yes, loosen the standards. I'm not saying he's right, but he does sound like much of our fan base.
He's making the assumption that we have less talent because of our academic standards, which I think is complete bullshit. He's begging the question, to a point. I'm quite sure that we've recruited just about every player that was a) good, and b) interested in us, regardless of their academics. We haven't been saying "no" to highly sought after kids because of their grades.
Does he have any evidence to suggest that the kids we have now have any better academics than the teams had when he was on them? He can say that he feels the talent is less than it used to be, but in terms of the "why" I think he's pulling that completely out of left field.
These recruiting services' rankings. I perceived him to be saying that these kids who are talented according to recruiting websites are not as good as players who thinks are tougher black kids
for begging the question correctly. Wait, maybe your post begs the question. Oh the circular conundrum.
Once again, the program starts to devour itself.
That was a heavy dose of reality from a guy I really respect but I have to disagree about recruiting from the ghetto. Stanford puts out a pretty good product and their academic standards might be more strict than UM. ND has strict academic standards and they were in the national championship 2 years ago, sure there was a lot of luck down the road to the NC game but they got there nonetheless. Johnny football comes from a well to do family, not the ghetto. So I get what he's saying but they don't need to ease academic standards to win football games. Kids still want to play in the biggest stadium in the country and wear the winged helmet. Coach 'em up! That's where it starts.
This is a disappointing opinion, Larry.
hate Larry but I agree for the most part. Pretty sure the Bball teams problems in the 90 made them avoid the as he says "ghetto" raised kids in the 2000s but I don't think they're completely avoided.
Oh yes, because the sons of former NBA stars are totally slumming it?
UM got good at basketball when he hired a competent HC and recruited good players. UM football seems to have a competent HC and a coherent staff; I expect success to follow. It really is that simple.
Because a kid is smart and has a "plan B" makes him less motivated to succeed? Maybe that kid isn't "fighting for his supper" but I find it insulting to question someone's work ethic or motivation simply because they are smart and/or come from a good family.
I don't think he was questioning work ethic so much as he was pointing out the likely difference in mentality (and the difference it might make when your job is to hit someone else as hard as you can on a repeated basis) between someone who had to scrap to survive growing up (and may have been rasied in more violent surroundings) and someone who didn't.
The idea that scrapping to survive is going to make you a better football player seems silly to me. Being athletic and motivated will make you a good player, and maybe there are some genetic and social issues in play that lead to a preponderance of those individuals being clustered in a particular social strata, but there are lots of poor kids who suck as football and lots of rich kids who are certainly athletic enough.
Agreed - this is ridiculous. Taylor Lewan came from a pretty nice area, and he was one of the hardest working and meanest players we've had in a while. Jake Ryan could be thrown into that same category, or Desmond Morgan. On the flip side, the amount of production we've gotten out of kids from Detroit (or any other "ghetto" areas we've recruited) isn't exactly through the roof lately.
But Magnus' avatar reminded me that Brandon Graham played his way into the NFL first round precisely because he got motivated due to ghetto proximity. And the Pahokee kids played tough too, from what I remember.
There are many examples on both sides, so many that neither category is the rule or the exception.
Graham got "motivated" when the coaches pushed him. If he needed "his boys" to get him up to work hard and make NFL money, then that's an indictment of him and his passion, not where he grew up.
Pahokee kids were motivated, but I don't know if Larry Foote would consider them "ghetto" as much as "incredibly poor."
but thought that the University does not have higher standards than anybody else when it comes to admissions and football players (with the exception of JUCO players).
I think the staff avoids recruiting kids that are borderline on minimum requirements (e.g. Demar Dorsey), but always thought that was because they didn't want to use a spot on a kid who may not end up qualifying.
I don't think people will like the way he said it, but there are some truths there.
I don't necessarily agree with it, but that doesn't mean it's not true.
Larry will now be permanently separated from the University and MGoBlog.
Can't say that I don't get his perspective on all of this. It is certainly a different take when kids with "plan B's" and what that means are a disadvantage... I have never thought of it that way but it sure is interesting.
Still, I think a lot of kids with "plan B's" have done very well in the NFL from the QB's to linebackers. Foote certainly has raised an intriguing point to this though.
Is the getto a "black" thing or an attitude. I think it's an attitude thing which can be developed.
Finally - Foote can't even beat Dusty Rutledge in checkers so does his opinion count ?
I just don't know, man. That seems like an ill-informed opinion by Mr. Foote.
He does bring up a good point. Should Michigan take chances on amazing talent that may or may not make it into the class (i.e. Demar Dorsey) due to academic risks? This year we had the room to do it in the end and did not even try.
I wish we could have filled the class all the way even if there are some that may not make it in the fall. Think of some of the talent that got away because of the lack of interest because of "academic risk." I think of Aaron Burgridge for one. He was pretty dang good this year and wow could that have helped a lot. If he didn't make it after all then no biggy we have one less kid that we recruit as a grey shirt.
I am ok with taking risks. High risk, high reward. Low risk and low reward... just look at our team the past fricken decade.
gotta give a kid a chance, otherwise all of us will have to be OK with mediocrity...and reading the posts on this here board, no one is OK with that
But you guys have no evidence that this really happens (outside of a few rumors that happen every handful of years). Our team would not have been noticeably better with Aaron Burbridge.
And for as close as recruiting is publicized now, I feel like we'd know about other good players that Michigan wasn't recruiting. Every high talent kid in the Midwest (and in most of the country) got an offer from us and was recruited by us. It's not like there were talented kids we were passing on due to grades. The good players that MSU and OSU are picking up also had offers from Michigan.
"We didn't come here to play school!"
Demar Dorsey is playing in the Arena Football League. He wasn't accepted into any other D1 school once our admissions department denied him, and as far as I know, wasn't an all-star at GRCC or wherever he went after that.
Can we lay to rest Demar Dorsey lore?
We can lay that to rest. Arron Burbridge though...
We are expecting them to be students too. Even with the help they receive, is it fair to expect students that are having a hard time meeting the NCAA minimum standards to succeed academically here? Should Michigan be a good fit for those kids? The risk of taking one probably isn't high, but a roster with a bunch of high risk students can be a serious problem. We only have to look at some of Ellerbe's teams to see what can happen.
I do think they take risks on kids, but risk is all about balancing costs and benefits. They obviously looked at Burbridge and thought it wasn't worth the risk; that might have been a mistake, but nobody should be under the impression that UM has some high bar for its athletes that makes it impossible for them to take a chance on 95% of the kids that get into "lesser" schools. Hell, look at the offer sheets of most of the kids who go to OSU, MSU, and some of the SEC schools and you'll at least see UM interest, if not offers.
My little brother went to high school with Burbridge. He said the fact that he qualified was a "miracle"
Jeff Jones is a good example of this. They dropped him because he hadn't qualified yet. But what's the harm in taking a commitment from him, and if he qualifies at a later date, then all is well. And if not, then he and the university move on. And most likely, there's still room at a Minnesota or wherever.
The coaches knew he wasn't qualified when they started pursuing him. It was even mentioned on here at the time that he wasn't going to retake the test until after NSD.
If he doesn't qualify, he's not getting into Minnesota either. Possibly, we dropped him only after admissions looked at his transcript. If admissions wanted to see more than a minimum qualifying score, then it wouldn't be fair to accept his commitment.
In any case, I'm quite okay with not taking recruits that are struggling to qualify.
Where is poster "Foote Fetish" when we need him?
Well, Larry Foote got in so I'm not sure how much lower we can really make the standards....
with the Gibbons thing, not so much on the rest.
He sounds ill-informed. What evidence does he have that Dave Brandon or MSC had anything to do with either the timing or the fact of the expulsion? And, as has been discussed at some length on this blog, the university conducted a completely different prodedure than the AAPD for a different purpose and with a different standard. That doesn't mean the university thinks it's "better than the police department."
Brandon and MSC have control over the information and how that gets relayed to the public. They have absolutely botched this entire thing from a PR standpoint. That part isn't Hoke's fault. But with the way they've handled it and left it up to Hoke to try and deliver half-truths about what's going on, its painted him in a bad light.
This whole Gibbons thing is an absolute fuckup from the university and athletic department's standpoint. They've taken a simple thing and turned it into a PR disaster, and as head of the football program, Hoke has become the fall guy for it.
I was mainly agreeing on the Hoke part.
waiting to see what a coach who has his players as upperclassmen for the first time in 6-7 years can do before pushing the panic button? I'm not talking about raw talent and skill, but time to grow into a B1G player.
That's why this year is a make it or break it year for Hoke. The young roster thing is the only excuse left, and that goes away this season. If he can't get it done this season, then its doubtful he gets it done anytime.
I'm surprised the comments here are focusing almost exclusively on his opinions on admissions.
is no more relevant than anyone's opinion on gibbons--and we've beat that discussion to death.
his opinions on michigan recruiting are more interesting b/c he is a former player.
Those (largely misinformed) opinions have been discussed ad naseum here.
actually any higher than the minimum ncaa requirements?
I do think Michigan should recruit JUCOs.
But I guess it's very hard for them to do it because of the credits not transferring.
from JUCO's but only for certain majors and most gen eds
of coming to a school like Michigan later, he can do it. It's not hard if he goes to a CC in Michigan to find out what courses will be accepted. Unfortunately none of the powerhouse CC programs are in Michigan. I imagine most JUCO players are just looking to become eligible to play FBS ball, not worrying about whether their credits will transfer here or to some other schools with strict standards.
I love Larry Foote as a Wolverine and a Steeler (my two favorite teams). However, a review of his comments shows that he knows less about the Gibbons situation than even a casual reader of this web site would know. Larry, do your homework before you start bloviating on non-football subjects.
Secondly, I disagree with his suggestion that the only way to win in Div 1 football is to imitate the SEC's academic standards for its football recruits and rely on players that will excell in the NFL. I could write paragraphs arguing why I think he is wrong, but I'm sure any number of people could write them as well without trying very hard. I'll spare all of us.
Larry, you're my boy and you're entitled to your opinions, but you're wrong.
and only 14 points.
both because of your views and because your two favorite teams match mine!
Where did Foote ever say the Bullough was over rape?
He just said they both had dirty laundry, meaning "some issue." Not that their dirty laundry was the same.
today. He was definitely implying that we do not have enough black kids on the team. That was his point. I personally think its a transition thing, but Larry thinks its a race thing. White kids are not tough enough because they want an education. Black kids are tough because they don't care...I listened for about 2 hours and that was my take away.....
"When I watch it, these guys are not violent. They’re not tough, hard-nosed football players."
I like to think Foote had an onion on his belt as he said this.
"...which was the style at the time."
I 100% agree with that statement. I said that all damn season! It doesn't have to be a racial thing. That is a true statement. The team as a whole did not play tough at all last year.
It all comes down to toughness. Foote's comments about the ghetto were because he believes that kids coming from there are tougher. I have played and coached kids from both places, and I can say that it is definitely an individual thing. Michigan's issue as a team is culture of toughness hasn't been instituted. Every year when i look at the Michigan drill on countdown to kickoff, I am frustrated by the lack of what I perceive as an edge by the majority of players. I have been frustrated for years because teams have "out toughed" us. It starts with our coaches, we have to change the culture, because we have talent.
I'm not sure I can agree much more with him. If you want to win football games, and it seems like that's why we're reading this blog, we need players that haven't necessarily made straight As their entire life. I don't want criminals but I also know suburban kids aren't going to win the B1G. There needs to be a medium. No one wants to hear that, but 22 Little Timmys aren't competitive now.
I challenge you to go to anyone on the two deep and refer to them as a "little Timmy".
i doubt most posters on this board are D1-quality athletes.
but we could still objectively question the toughness of players on the team.
The poster is the one calling them Little Timmys. So yeah, I do think it's cheap for a non-D1 athlete to call out players as "Little Timmys" if he wouldn't do it to their face.
Frankly the whole posturing about "toughness" is just so much sports cliche, just like "wanting it more".
Do Michigan's players need to play better? Yes. Does the team need more talent? Better coaching? Maybe. But to question their effort or "toughness" because of where they are from or what grades they get is cheap. And if I were on the team I'd be really damn offended.
logical mechanisms for how coming from a rough background could make you tougher than a person with same athletic ability coming from a background of relative privilege.
But I have coached in Detroit at Frederick Douglass before they combined schools. ( the school that you went to when every other school kicked you out) and I have coached in Southfield. I've seen tough kids at both schools, and I've seen soft kids at both schools. I want smart kids on our team, I just want our coaches to get the ones that have chips on their shoulders.
I like and respect Larry a lot, but he comes off as an ass clown. that is all. GOBLUE
Well, what is so bad about recruiting kids who only meet the NCAA minimum requirements? People talk about the Michigan Difference, so make a difference in a young mans life who would never have a chance to go to a leading university, its not likely that he is going to fail given all the support athletes are given, and its also not likely that he will become a leader in the corporate, science, political, etc world, not many football players do, so if he doesn't fail out of school what is the difference between him and another high school player? Its not like he's taking the spot of a kid with a 4.0 and a 33 on the ACT.
Every year there are former ND players, or ND talking heads, who make the same comments about their academic standards and "ghetto" recruiting.
I agree with him 100% on the Gibbons stuff. What he says is exactly what I've been thinking since this began. Why are people like Chantel getting so upset about a guy not getting punished soon enough for a crime he was never even charged with? Hoke wasn't about to suspend the kid until it was a done deal, and I don't know where the university gets off expelling a kid 4 years after the incident because of a change in policy.
The other stuff I don't really agree with, but it's tough to argue that a lot of those "ghetto kids" wouldn't have the kill or be killed attitude that's so important on the football field.
The University was more sure than not that Gibbons raped someone. It's silly to think the only standard the University should have is whether there were criminal charges or not. If he wasn't a football player this would be obvious to everyone, I think.
Stop with this bullshit lie that Gibbons was "expelled for rape." He was found to have committed sexual misconduct as per the university policies.
Also, stop pretending to know more than anyone else...and if you happen to know more, then you should probably shut up anyway if you're not going to reveal your source.
"He was found to have committed sexual misconduct as per the university policies."
What do you think that means, exactly? In what way did he violate the policy? My guess is that you say you don't know since you weren't there, but at a certain point you're just shutting down discussion under the guise of something like due process (even though this isn't a courtroom) because you don't like to think about it. Again, the only reason we're playing dumb here is because the football team is involved.
If we have zero information, then the difference between sexual misconduct and rape is substantial.
If we have access to a police report that alleges a rape occurred and there is no denial that sex occurred, and a student is expelled because of that event, then the difference between sexual misconduct and rape is semantics.
So everyone that is accused of rape is guilty if they actually had sex?
Rape was not the proven charge. In fact, the charges of rape were dropped. So calling him a "rapist" doesn't further the discussion or make people think about it, it just villifies a young man.
I'm not sure if you went to college, but these drunken sexual encounters can be more complicated than they seem. Sometimes people don't say what they're thinking, don't do what they mean to, and don't remember what happened. It's not always as black-and-white as a big football player throwing a girl down and taking advantage of her.
You have no idea what happened, and discussing things when you don't know what happened means you are behaving ignorantly. So don't jump on the guy that says you shouldn't label a kid a rapist because he refuses to speak ignorantly on an issue. Of course, you're not just ignorant, you're bigoted, since you are assuming someone is saying something just because this is the football team, when you have no idea what their motivation is.
For me, it's about not calling a kid a rapist when I don't know the facts. I'm not calling him innocent or saying I don't think he should have been expelled, but I'm not going to call him a rapist unless he's been proven to have raped someone or I know he raped someone.
Is accused of rape is expelled from school. Just as not every rapist is charged and convicted. The difference between a criminal sex offender rapist and this situation is that there is a new standard of justice that has been established by the federal government. If you don't think the university has any moral power to judge people, as foote feels, then so be it. But powers that be have changed the rule of the land. So technically, it's not rape because he was expelled for sexual misconduct. But to me, the difference is semantics.
I would think there is a big difference between being expelled from a University and incarceration for many years. Please. Using the appropriate terminology actually matters. A lot.
The difference between a criminal sex offender rapist and this situation is that there is a new standard of justice that has been established by the federal government.
No, that's not the difference. And the federal government has not changed the justice system, just the disciplinary system at universities, which are not part of the justice system.
I do think the university has the authority (and responsibility) to judge its student body on these matters, and FWIW, and I agree with the decision to expel Gibbons, however terribly it was handled.
But it's not just "technically" different. The difference between "rape" and "sexual misconduct" is like the difference between murder and manslaughter: they are very different crimes. Look it up.
And calling someone a rapist instead of saying they are guilty of sexual misconduct is a lot like using a racial slur instead of calling someone a jerk. There's a big difference.
Language matters. Nuance matters. My opinion is that Gibbons made a mistake, a big mistake, and that justice was delayed. I'll say that publicly. But I'm not going to say he raped someone unless it's proven that he did or I know he did.
I am going to just go ahead and say, without knowing all the facts, that there was no "justice" in Gibbons' case at all.
I say that, because I don't think that "justice" is even intended, in these kinds of administrative proceedings. Unless someone can tell me that Gibbons was represented by counsel, who had the chance to investigate the matter, and confront the accuser, and cross-examine her under oath, and call witnesses, and a thousand other things that are the most basic elements of the criminal justice system, then no one should even be mentioning "justice."
It is not necessary to know all of the details of this particular case, to know that these kinds of proceedings are not intended to substitute for criminal justice proceedings. We absolutely know that beyond any doubt because the freakin' University of Michigan says the same thing in its code of student conduct.
You are confusing justice and criminal justice (and even use the terms interchangably). They are different things. All ciminal justice is justice, but not all justice is criminal justice.
At some point in your life, you are going to just have to accept that.
Insofar as we know, Gibbons broke no laws, but did violate student condiuct standards. You don't need to know all the particulars to see that. Gibbons was not charged with a crime because the criminal justice system works that way. He was expelled from the university becuase the university's student conduct justice system works that way. That's all we know, all we will likely ever know, and wise people will be satisfied with that; the people in the position to know and with the authority to make those decisions made them.
You know, to decide guilt or innocence.
But courts aren't sufficient, apparently, to promote the kind of atmospherics that Title IX bureaucrats and university administrators want.
Wise people would say that the courts are not the answer to everything. To subject a student to the court system if accused of cheating on a paper would be incredibly time-and-money-consuming for the courts and the student.
Gibbons was found guilty of the equivalent of blatant plagiarism. That's not the kind of issue the courts deal with.
Dunno what "Title IX bureaucrats" are, and don't much care. University administrators definitely don't want to have to charge all erring students with crimes and have their cases heard in the courts; I think they are right to not want this, even if you personally want that result.
Then NOBODY should ever get away with calling Brendan Gibbons a "rapist" or a sexual assaulter. Because you are setting the bar that low.
And NOBODY should have released any record of the expulsion proceeding. It would have been a monstrous offense, to have released the name of the accuser in an administrative proceeding. It is just as monstrous to have named the accused, in a sub-judicial proceeding.
"Guilt" isn't an issue in plagiarism. There is no criminal sanction in that context. And no due process rights for the accused. But we're talking about sexual assault. CRIMINAL SEXUAL ASSAULT IS ABSOLUTELY IS THE KIND OF ISSUE THAT COURTS DEAL WITH. Uniquely, it is precisely the kind of closely-contested, terribly-serious kind of offense that criminal courts are designed to resolve.
If you are so sanguine about the process to which Brendan Gibbons was subjected, then whenever he is publicly called a rapist, I'll let you take the time to carefully correct each and ever such reference.
As for Title IX bureaucrats, I'll identify one for you; Russlynn H. Ali. A political appointee of the Current Occupant of the White House. Whose administrative pronouncement led directly and inexorably to Brendan Gibbons' expulsion.
"Then NOBODY should ever get away with calling Brendan Gibbons a "rapist" or a sexual assaulter. Because you are setting the bar that low."
No, I am setting the bar at the truth. You are correct that no one should be referring to Gibbons, or you, or me, as a rapist.
"But we're talking about sexual assault."
No, YOU are talking about sexual assault, when you have no credible evidence that Gibbons is guilty of any such thing. Unless you have such evidence to lay before the pertinent authorities, I suggest you cease to argue that Gibbons should be tried in a court of law.
I have no idea what bizarre reasoning leads you to believe that Russlynn Ali took action that "led directly and inexorably to Brendan Gibbons' [sic] expulsion," but don't really want to know. I don't own a tin foil beanie, so I wouldn't understand your explanation due to the influence of the Mind Control Ray from Mars.
"Rape was not the proven charge. In fact, the charges of rape were dropped. "
Except whether someone is charged isn't the measure of whether they actually committed the crime or not. There is good reason to believe Gibbons did what he is alleged to have done (at least the University thinks so), charged or not has little bearing on that.
"I'm not sure if you went to college"
Graduating from Michigan this May, thanks.
"It's not always as black-and-white as a big football player throwing a girl down and taking advantage of her."
No, you're right. Way more things than just that qualify as rape.
"You have no idea what happened"
I don't know to a certainty, no. But I'm not a judge, and standards for belief are not as rigid as certainty.
"Of course, you're not just ignorant, you're bigoted, since you are assuming someone is saying something just because this is the football team"
It's a pretty good guess, I think. Whether they admit it to themselves or not, the reason people (like you!) get so passionate about this is because they're football fans.
"I'm not... saying I don't think he should have been expelled"
Foote was, which is what this comment chain was discussing.
"I'm not going to call him a rapist unless he's been proven to have raped someone or I know he raped someone."
We're typically perfectly fine calling O.J. Simpson a murderer, though.
Comparing OJ and Gibbons. Interesting. Comparing the amount of evidence we actually know about from a months long televised trial and a confidential internal proceeding. Hmm. I think I fee more comfortable expressing "beliefs" about the former rather than the latter. By all means, express your beliefs. The earth is flat, for instance. That was a solid belief for what a millennium? The point is we know next to nothing about the Gibbons case. That is what makes it so dangerous to attach labels.
Yeah, man. We know absolutely nothing. Nothing at all.
Stopped at "women don't lie about being raped". Where? in YOUR world?
the reason people (like you!) get so passionate about this is because they're football fans.
You could not be more wrong on this one. I am passionate about this issue because I don't think it's fair to a young man--any young man--to call him a rapist without proving he raped someone or knowing he raped someone.
The only thing that's proven here is that you're acting in an ignorant and bigoted manner, and that's why I won't waste my time responding to the rest of your post. Your mind is made-up that you know what happened and that you know what everyone else is thinking, so why bother.
"Except whether someone is charged isn't the measure of whether they actually committed the crime or not. There is good reason to believe Gibbons did what he is alleged to have done (at least the University thinks so), charged or not has little bearing on that. "
There is no reason whatever, even a bad reason, to believe that Gibbons was guilty of rape, or any other crime.
This all the way. No one knows what the hell happened here but all the media have gotten out their pitchforks. This could very well have been a case like the one involving the USC player being accused of rape by his best girl friend about 10 years ago. Spent many years in jail because of it before she confessed to making it up. There are plenty of rapists around and I hope they burn in hell, but there are also a lot of crazy girls out there with vendettas.
Case in point for a little comic relief: http://www.uproxx.com/webculture/2014/01/sorority-girl-alabama-revenge-bed-poop/
edit: This was a reply to a different post. Has anyone else been having a lot of problems with the site the last few days?
Larry Foote -- God love him -- was a great Michigan football player, but he's not the most articulate advocate.
My guess, in hearing him talk about the Gibbons case, is that he has talked to at least some people in the football program who have said something to the effect of, Larry, that thing with Gibbons was such bullshit. It was some kind of kangaroo court in the Student Actvity Building; but with his eligibility gone, and with pressure from high up in the University, it was decided just to let it go for the bowl game...
I'd certainly like to know more. And I really don't expect Larry Foote to add to anybody's detailed understanding of the details of Title IX litigation and criminal due process. But Larry Foote has been a window into certain sectors of the football program for several years and I am glad to hear from him.
You may be giving Foote too much credit with the Gibbons discussion. I have a feeling he basically read a couple of media reports and came to the conclusion that Rich Rod was guilty so just call everyone an idiot. Remember, defend the fort.
But if Foote is echoing things he has read about the twists and turns of Title IX changes that led directly and swiftly to Gibbons' expulsion, I sort of wonder what exactly he has read. Because otuside of conservative political circles, I don't think that the "Dear Colleague letter" has been reported in depth and in real-world context.
I don't know; maybe Larry Foote reads James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal, or the American Spectator. But I thought it a lot more likely that he is talking to some of his innumberable friends inside Schembechler Hall.
There were no Title IX changes. You can let go of that conspiracy theory right now.
THIS WHOLE THING HAS BEEN DRIVEN BY A WHITE HOUSE DIRECTED CHANGE TO TITLE IX ENFORCEMENT. PER THE APRIL 2011 "DEAR COLLEAGUE" LETTER FROM RUSSLYNN H. ALI OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS.
HOW DO I KNOW THAT, WITH CERTAINTY?
BECAUSE THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ADMITS IT IN WRITING.
LINK #3 - AFTER GIBBONS' EXPULSION WAS PUBLICIZED, THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN'S VICE PRESIDENT FOR COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATING STATEMENTS FROM BRADY HOKE AND MARY SUE COLEMAN, AS WELL AS A DETAILED TIMELINE, PLACES THE WHITE HOUSE-DRIVEN CHANGE IN TITLE IX ENFORCEMENT IN A POSITION OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE IN THIS ENTIRE CONTROVERSY.
NOW TAKE ALL OF THIS -- MY "CONSPIRACY THEORY" AND SUCK ON IT.
The all-caps are of course intended to convey the sense that I am in your face, yelling, and jabbing my finger in your chest for emphasis.
"The all-caps are of course intended to convey the sense that I am in your face, yelling, and jabbing my finger in your chest for emphasis."
Yelling doesn't make an untruth true. There have been no changes to Title IX that impact this case since the case first appeared.
it is true that the Education department reminded universities that they had an obligation to investigate potential violations of title IX that they were aware of, instead of relying on a complainant, but this makes perfect sense, and i suspect that a lot of universities were doing this before the "Dear Colleagues" letter. After all, the purpose of the process is to protect students, not obtain "justice" or "revenge' for a specific complainant. I am disappointed that the university didn't have the common-sense policy in effect to begin with.
Your contention that the outcome of the Gibbons case was the result of some change in the law is as bogus as your argument that Gibbons must have committed a crime to be expelled.
Getting "in [my] face, yelling, and jabbing [your] finger in [my] chest" is simply childish, but I won't deny that it is funny as shit.
There have been no changes to Title IX that impact this case since the case first appeared.
On April 4, 2011, the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education released the "Dear Colleague Letter" (DCL). The Dear Colleague Letter provides direction for schools under Title IX regarding sexual violence.
The Dear Colleague letter, stating exactly and specifically how standards that may have been in use by Title IX institutions will no longer be allowed. In cases just like the Brendan Gibbons case:
Thus, in order for a school’s grievance procedures to be consistent with Title IX standards, the school must use a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., it is more likely than not that sexual harassment or violence occurred). The “clear and convincing” standard (i.e., it is highly probable or reasonably certain that the sexual harassment or violence occurred), currently used by some schools, is a higher standard of proof. Grievance procedures that use this higher standard are inconsistent with the standard of proof established for violations of the civil rights laws, and are thus not equitable under Title IX. Therefore, preponderance of the evidence is the appropriate standard for investigating allegations of sexual harassment or violence.http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf
That is just as clear as it gets. The University saying essentially that it is responding specifically to a new Department of Education Office of Civil Rights initiative, naming and dating that initiative. And the initiative itself, explicitly stating that a standard "currently in use by some schools" (including the University of Michigan; hence the prominent notice of the new initiative) is no longer the applicable standard. That is, if you don't want this Administration to cut off all the federal money we are currently giving you.
I tempted to say that I am through with you and your stubborn sutpidity. But I'm not. I'll continue to make as big a deal about all of this as much and as long as I possibly can.
"That is just as clear as it gets."
Indeed, and that's why I don't understand why you not only don't get it, but don't seem to WANT to get it.
There was NO CHANGE IN THE LAW. Michigan (and, presumably, some other schools) just found out that they had been interpreting the law wrongly. They corrected their procedures to comply with the law. That's it. No vast conspiracy, no secret changes tom the law, not "current Administration [sic]" cutting off all the federal money. Just an adminsitrative tweak that happened to apply to the U of M. I doubt anyone in the Deprtment of Education's upper echelons even knew who Gibbons was.
And standing next to Dave Brandon was a young reporter for the Michigan Daily. The reporter asked Brandon, "Mr. Brandon, do you have a problem with our reporting on Brendan Gibbons' expulsion?" To which Brandon asked in turn, "Do you have a problem with reporting the name of the accuser?" The young reporter, being versed in journalistic ethics, puffed out his chest with pride and declared, "Oh no sir. There is a policy that directs us to never name sexual assault victims. To do so would undermine the system. People, and most importantly vicitms, might not step forward if they were named publicly. We do not name sexual assault vicitms -- alleged or not -- whether it is a criminal proceeding or an administrative proceeding. Moreover, sir, we know that all parts of an administrative proceeding must remain confidential because the due process rights of an accused are not protected in the administrative setting, as they are in criminal courts." "Well, lad, said David Brandon, then that makes it clear what a moral and ethical lapse it would be, to name someone in such a proceeding."
I'm sure,vast majority of you don't understand that term...perhaps Michigan should recurit the ghettos of Grosse Pointe Shore or Kalamazoo more often.
Larry comes off as an ass here - super disrespectful to the guys on the team. They aren't tough because they aren't flunking out of school? They can't be tough because they're not from the "ghetto"? They can't be tough because they're white? Screw all that. Why not haul his old ass over to the practice field and try his luck against some of these "soft" guys busting their butts for the block M after they've had a chance to hear his comments.
Anyway, I don't think Michigan needs to recruit more marginal kids. And frankly I don't think our entry standards are that different. Where I suspect there is a difference is what they are expected to do academically once they get to UofM. Do we really want to lower our standards such that we're giving functionally illiterate guys degrees like they do down south? If that's the cost of winning, just spin off the team as a minor league franchise and stop the farce.
But I don't think it's the cost of winning, so how about Larry Foote either calls up Brady to offer his services in recruiting, or shuts up and stops providing bulletin board material for our opponents?
Larry would destroy anyone on the team. Plus he is a former doughboy.
Some? Certainly. Anyone? I doubt it. My point was that he ought to get to know these guys before running his damn mouth in a way that hurts the team and insults the players on it.
I don't have a problem with anything Larry said, but it sounds like the same things I've heard about UM basketball; you know, soft, NBA kids, etc. However, things seem to be working out well for MBB, so I don't see why it wouldn't in football. Then again, perhaps more of a "killer" instinct is needed on the gridiron than the court.
Also, I can't help but wonder if Michigan's admission standards were part of the reason Larry's mentee, Jamal Lyles, didn't receive an offer. Lyles is mentioned in another article as Malik's good friend, by the way.
From the comments about GR3 and a lack of killer instinct I would say it is important on the court too
Here as an article which is from 08 because I can't find anything newer with enough schools to be meaningful. Draw what conclusions you will from the study.
In 08, Michigan was second on the list of the best programs, with an average SAT score of 997. That's right, 997. While things have changed undoubtedly since that study, I have no doubt the average SAT score for football programs is hundreds of points below the average for the undergraduate academic side of the University. I've seen fast facts and Michigan Almanac enough times to know we excel on test scores for incoming freshmen.
The double standard smacks you in the face, and hard. There are some pretty good schools in that study, and most of them do what Michigan seems to do, only worse. That is the world, for most instititutions, of big time sports programs.
While I thnk Foote might have chosen his words a bit differently, I think the handling of the Gibbons matter has been deplorable and I agree with him.
As for the ball players we are getting, if going to the ghetto means getting a few more Denard Robinsons or Jeremy Gallons or Vincent Smiths, that's fine with me. I think the jury is still out on Hoke's recruiting classes, and Nuss's hiring has calmed things down, but based on what I see in the way of player improvement over the course of Hoke's tenure, I'm not ready to discount Foote's words as being totally devoid of merit. Maybe when next season is over, I will feel differently.
First of all, he couldn't be more right about the Gibbons' situation. Give him credit there.
Far as the other comment, it's true and false. I don't think that it's as much about being from the "ghetto", though. It's more about kids who play with an edge, those kids just often come from disadvantaged situations. There are exceptions, though, kids like Aaron Craft play with an edge. You can find those kids anywhere, they can have a chip on their shoulder from being overlooked or having separated parents. Anything.
I do understand where the thought process comes from, though. I've coached AAU since 2010 and you could tell the difference in the way our kids played. Most of them were spoiled, great family situations. But we had two who were from the ghetto and used to not having anything. They were the hungry ones, the ones who played harder than you can imagine, diving on the floor, etc. However, that can be TAUGHT. We fed that to the whole team and today they all play that way. So I see why he says that, there's truth to it, but not 100%.
cite craft as a player who plays with a chip on his shoulder instead of using Burke. I think Dakich is getting to you
Haha I used Craft because I know generally people associate the ghetto/toughness with black players. I'm not a big fan of his game, though.
A friend of mine who listens to 97.1 and follows M football pretty closely thinks that Foote's opinion was a bit mis-represented in this article, FWIW.
It definitely was. The article and listening to him actually talk about it, its two completely different takes. I agreed with everything Larry said and the article makes it sound terrible.
Oh lord, I love Larry Foote, but that was absolutely the most #HotSportsTakes! drivel he could have spouted. Just ranting and complaining without any logic or coherence. Yes, all football players at UM aren't "violent enough" for his liking, the University definitely investigated Gibbons for 4 years while ignoring the AAPD, etc.
I know that former players are sometimes the best for discussing a program, but that doesn't give them a special right to their own facts about the current program. Hell, I'm a dumb guy on the internet and I think I have a better grasp on the program than half of these guys.
Wait, isn't this the same program that Jim Harbaugh poo-poo'd for funneling student athletes into classes like Introduction to Underwater Basketweaving? I didn't have a problem with what Larry said, but the more I thought about it, I was having a moment of cognitive dissonance.
Foote came from this envronment (was a marginal qualifer), and appreciated the chance he was given, so I understand where he's coming from. He's not saying we need to compromise on character, however. Look at Denard - like Foote, he's another UM success story, despite also not being a stellar HS student. So there's room to be more inclusive, but you've got to be balanced and vet the kids from tougher backgrouds out extremely well, both from the U's sake and thier own. The RR classes were attrition disasters - many of these kids couldn't assimilate into an academically-oriented campus culture. Hence, I don't see things changing, as Michigan's "brand" is trending more towards Ivy League/Stanford than the RichRod/Foote ideal.
I think a large reason the RR kids didn't work out was because he struggled and all of the concerns about his coaching security led to him (a) taking a couple of risky kids, and (b) lots of kids left the program when he was let go/looked like he was gone. I don't remember an obscenely large number just failing out, though I guess Tate was the major example. Of course, he seemed like a head case for many reasons.
Not saying they all failed academically, but they attrited to a degree we've never seen before. UM's student culture is one of serious academic interest. If a sports career is your plan A, B, and C, you're going to have a have hard time feeling comfortable amongst the general student population. Cissoko, C Christian, Tate, and others were more the rule for Rich Rod than Denard, who was one of the exceptions. It's a tough one, because you want to give those guys a decent chance and at the same time have to recognize what the odds are.
I'd only counter that some of those guys left not because of academic issues (Tate) but because of off-the-field (Cissoko) or apparently on-the-field (Cullen) as well as the madhouse this place was for a couple of years. A big reason people hadn't seen that attrition before was that UM had never really gone outside of its comfort zone hiring guys since maybe Bo, and that was a totally different era. Lots of schools have this type of turnover, and it is a minor miracle Hoke kept as many as he did, though I do think the leadership shown by guys like Denard, Lewan, Martin, etc. when Hoke took over was significantly better than that shown when RR took over, and that contributed to kids sticking around.
I do think RR had a bad habit of looking at recruits on the fringes like he did at WVU and not realize that UM didn't need/couldn't allow all of those close cases.
Whether it's a business culture or that of an athletic team, my personal experience is that you need common values and a common vision to unite. Regarding Michigan's student culture: smarter most all public U's, a little arrogant, nerdy, broad world view - athletes from tougher, impoverished areas can feel like outsiders at UM and that's not a recipe to keep kids on the team. Look at the transfers over the years and I surmise for every Gardner, Robinson, and Gallon who thankfully stayed, RR had a more than 1:1 ratio that didn't.
far to play football. He graduated from Michigan specifically to give himself, and his family, a Plan B. For every "look at" you can dig up, there is a Long, from the mean streets of Clarkston, Lewan and Roh, the slums of Scottsdale. Hutchinson, the ghettos of Coral Gables, where the median income is north of 70k.
Foote needs to remember to label beer, not people.
Sorry Larry. I don't thiink you get it.
A lot of NFL players have been giving their opinions of blunts lately.
Of course, when RR was here people were bitching about him recruiting marginal guys. Not sure it gets much more "ghetto" than Pahokee. And we weren't playing any better.
So I guess ou can't win.
on the Gibbons situation? It seems like comments here are about the recruiting opinion.
I'm curious what people think of his take on the Gibbons situation.
Seems as though he's looking at it in simplistic terms and isn't aware of the two standards employed and why they were emplyed at different times. The police case was about rape, and the U's case was about a lesser standard of misconduct. The sexual misconduct was clear: Gibbons, in his own words, took advantage of a girl who was "wasted." UM changed its policy based upon the new Fed directive. Once they changed their policy, they had to abide by it.
I'm sure I missed it, but I didn't ever hear it put this way.
A police report on the incident, names redacted, was published by Washtenaw Watchdog. Assuming Gibons is the guy in the report, he doesn't come off as a high-integrity Michgan Man by any stretch. In fact, just the opposite. I hope he turns his life around, but he rightly lost his privileges at the U.
One thing I will agree with is the fact we aren't playing physical enough. Those teams in the 90s played with reckless abandonment. The defenses had no fear. Linebackers would plow full speed into the hole the running was coming into. I haven't seen that brand of play since Carr retired.
Linebackers would plow head first...and then let the QB run right past them because no one taught them QBs were apparently allowed to run the ball as well.
Those defenses were fine when they played Wiscy or someone who just tried to run them over, but they were incredibly lost against mobile QBs. I was in those stands when guys like Jarious Jackson and Zak Kustok were carving them up.
"Fearless LB play" sounds great on a t-shirt, but I want them playing smart, heady football. Foote was great, but those Carr defenses weren't always world-beaters, and in today's game they would have been eaten alive. Hell, the couple of times they played a spead-type team they struggled mightly, and some of those were proto-spreads with mediocre players. OSU would have dropped 70 on them if they played today.
Jordan Kovacs is either laughing or crying.
I don't really think Larry Foote, an 11 year NFL veteran who has Super Bowl rings is all that concerned about an undrafted practice squad player who during Foote's time probably would've never started at safety for Michigan.
That's not a knock on Kovacs, that's just a fact that we're not as fast, physical or tough as Michigan used to be.
concern himself with. He didn't say we needed more Larry Foote's, I don't know that I would argue that. How many of those very players Foote would have Michigan recruit would kill for a locker in an NFL locker room? Kovacs has one. He also has this:
Kovacs was elected team captain. He was selected to the preseason watchlist for the Bronko Nagurski Trophy (best defensive player). Kovacs was a second team All-Big Ten selection by the coaches and an honorable mention selection by the media. On November 27, he was named a finalist for the Burlsworth Trophy. At the December 3 team banquet, Kovacs earned team MVP for the season. He earned Academic All-Big Ten recognition in 2012. Following the season, he participated in the February 2, 2013 Texas vs. the Nation All-Star Bowl.
I would take a team full of players like that each and every year, thank you very much.
Not to totally disagree with you, but all those awards still couldn't give him the speed to cover elite receivers. That's the difference Larry is talking about.
Well that doesn't seem like a lot to ask. I can't understand what the other 160+ comments are doing here. They must not all like fast guys.
Other than Cato June and (maybe) Curry, I don't remember a single safety from Foote's era being all that good. And I'd argue that Kovacs could have kept pace with Curry.
Kovacs proved he could play against good players in the B1G for 3+ years. I know people want to act like everyone was awesome back in the late 90's/early 00's, but I was at those games and I can tell you without reservation they weren't all awesome. And I'll say, just because he's a white dude doesn't immediately make him some dumpy, slow dude who gets by on gumption and sticktoitiveness. I mean, his Pro Day stats are perfectly acceptable.
Go read Foote's comments about the NFL draft being an indicator.He could cover "good players in the Big Ten......" is what you claim? The Big Ten has been a laughing stock for a decade now, and it really started with the demise of Michigan.
The South Carolina receivers torched us, as did the Alabama receivers. Kovacs being able to cover "Big Ten receivers" is nothing really to brag about.
I see his point. We love the swagger that players like Norfleet play with. But I don't see how we're recruiting any differently than we ever have. What is Foote's threshold on 'ghetto'? Does Peppers count? Gardner? Wilson?
Overall his theory doesn't add up. I could support the argument, but I'm on mobile and don't want to.
Just Go Blue, and win this season. So sick of the rabble that's starting to bubble up again.
Larry never said "Michigan needs to recruit from the ghetto." I listened to all 4 hours of the show. He never said that.
Agree that we want violent guys with swagger and an attitude about it. I am no fan of powder puff football and want guys who have swagger. Some who see this guys like this think they are being too tough or arrogant - but such people probably never played competitive sports in their lives and attended schools where hypersensitive parents and teachers banned kickball.
I disagree that with the premise that we cannot find guys tough and violent guys who are good academicallly. See Stanford, for example. If they can do it, so can we. Still, I think the university should open its doors to the "ghetto" a little more if in fact Foote is correct in saying that it doesn't.
It might be nice if more attention were given to those students who are named to Academic All-American and Academic All-District football teams, but that’s unlikely to happen; and no Michigan students received that honor this past season.
Of the 24 members of the 2013 District 5 Academic All-District team, there were nine from the Big Ten: three from Northwestern (RB Mike Trumpy - 3.53 GPA, Communication Studies and Sports Administration; OL Brandon Vitabile - 3.45 GPA, Economics; and LB Collin Ellis - 3.31 GPA, Learning and Organizational Change); two from Purdue (WR Shane Mikesky - 3.80 GPA, Movement & Sports Science; and OL Robert Kugler, Patrick’s older brother - 3.83 GPA, Political Science); two from Michigan State (LB Max Bullough - 3.56 GPA, Finance and P Matt Sadler - 3.97 GPA, Applied Engineering Sciences); plus Illinois QB Nathan Scheelhaase (3.38 GPA, Communications) and Indiana DB Mark Murphy (3.91 GPA, Informatics.)
IMHO it's not that we're too soft or too intelligent, it's that our older guys are not as talented and our younger more talented guys are...younger. Once our younger more talented guys become juniors and seniors I think our "toughness" will begin to show through experience. I see this beginning to change next season and continuing to do so for the next few seasons and then maintaining a quality level of wins, "toughness", etc. from then on out. I do agree every once in a while we may miss on a kid for academic reasons, but I don't see the coaches avoiding any major talent because they're too "ghetto". It's just that most of those kids are in the south and LA areas and we aren't recruiting nationally as well yet. I mean they aren't avoiding Detroit area kids, are they? National kids in LA and the South will come with more on-field success and as Hoke becomes more of a recognized name. But, Peppers, although really smart, comes from a "ghetto" area and is a huge national talent. So, I think we are growing in that regard, but it is a process and doesn't happen overnight.
to remind Larry that it's Duke not recruiting from the 'hood that led him to UM.
This is nonsense. Kids with speed, character and smarts come from all places. Yes, UM will not embrace kids like Standifer or Burbridge with spotty academic transcripts. But so what?
We've missed on Hand, McQuay, Isaac, Kozan and other recruits who would've made UM much better without lowering any standards.
when Larry was asked about the Spartans being better than UM he say's that will change in time. Then out of the other side of his mouth he says they need to lower admissions, what the hell. I know Harbaugh doesn't feel that way and I am tired of watching Northwestern guys learning their system overnight and giving UM all they want. There is a happy medium where UM can keep admission standards and get players who are tough, athletic and have goals to reach like playing in the NFL.
1+ to the poster above me
Taking the competitive aspects of this aside, I've long thought that schools just need to catch up with the modern entertainment and sports industry. Being a professional athlete is a well respected, and often high paying, career for many people in practically every part of the globe. The tools needed to be succesful in the football industry are clearly not the same as those needed to be successful as an educator, a nurse, an engineer or a scientist. The general admissions requirements are simply out of date with many modern careers.
If the world's most elite young director wants to pursue theatre at Michigan why do they need to be "OK" at math to do so?
If the world's most elite musician, the next Bach or Beethoven, wants to pursue music at Michigan why do they need to be "OK" at language arts to do so?
If the world's most elite athlete wants to study their natural field at Michigan why do they need to be "OK" at so many other things?
Forcing applicants to be well rounded really does mean you are turning away some genius talents. This isn't really targeted at any one school and it's not a change that's needed to be successful. A good program will succeed period. It's just something that comes to mind when I hear people tout the academic standards of Michigan... why? Maybe in order to be accepted to the Nursing School you should need a minimum 40 time and bench press score?
Kudos on the post. From what I understand, charter schools around the country are doing just that - picking what kids are good at / want to be and then tweak curriculum accordingly. This is a motto that seems to be gaining ground in the K to 12 range, but no really in our four year institutions.
I still think athletes need to be held to a high standard when applying to college but I agree that forcing engineers to take a foreign language or English lit majors to take high level math seems outdated.
College sports are about making money. Student athletes should be able to take courses that they find interesting along with a few basic requirements to serve them in life. Maybe there should be a class on how to manage an instant $20 mil, like they will get when drafted. Or maybe they should be taught social etiquette or public speaking.
I think we need to get with the times and begin to teach kids the way they learn, what they want, and try to make them successful without boxing them in.
i guess I'll clear the whole "ghetto" thing up. Since I am FROM the "ghetto" and have experienced things many of you couldn't fathom. Many of those experiences make you tougher, more aggresive in different facets of life.
It's a toughness thing. I will agree that it depends on the individual more than anything. However, you're more likely to find that type of tough, aggressive player in the "ghetto".
We just need to play with aggression.
in regard to who we should recruit. You are correct in your assessment of the SEC and a few other teams separating themselves from the pack, however, during some of our greatest seasons and throughout our most successful decade in fairly recent times, that being the 70s, of course, roster was filled with players named Cannovino, Mallory, Dufek, et. al. These players, although they do fall into your category of "non-NFL" talent, played with aggression and determination similar to the style you displayed during your time in AA. And just like you, although often times not as athletic, with the possible exception of our last "wolfman," Dufek they also played with tremendous discipline and it is my belief their intelligence played a large part in their effectiveness on the field by correctly reading their keys, maintaining their assignments and depending on the other ten to do their jobs. ^Furthermore, all one has to do is look at Stanford, which just happens to have admissions standards surpassing possibly every other major program and it's not difficult to realize you can field great teams filled with players possessing a combination of both superior intelligence and often times good to well above average athletic ability. ^ I am not certain I want to stray away from our long held tradition of higher than average academic standards Bo be represented on national TV by the two qbs that played in the BCS championship game of 2013, Neither displayed an ability to articulate above what one might expect from a high school junior. As proven under both Mo and Lloyd, we are capable of fielding great athletes with the standards that are in place. Afterall, it is not as if we are among the "elite" in terms of admission standards for our athletes, but it not uncommon for a Dhani Jones, Devin Gardner, and many others to opt for Michigan in large part because of the education the university offers. And the number 3 rated player in this year's incoming freshman, who may very well prove to be the actual number one is not shy about why he chose Michigan should all else fail. ^I will give you that the coaches should feel free to sign certain players whose high school transcripts might indicate an "academic risk," should they be satisfied that said transcript is not truly indicative of actual academic potential at Michigan. This is often times true and discovered throughout the recruiting process. There are many factors that come into play resulting in less than impressive academic achievement that become evident as the coaches go throughthe vetting process.
I don't understand what Foote is saying when he says recruits who have a "Plan B" are inherently inferior. What constitutes a legitimate Plan B? Is MSU a Plan B? Should we be chasing guys who are too "ghetto" or "violent" for Pat (60 minutes of unnecessary roughness) Narduzzi?
A plan B in this case is; ANOTHER way out. Take that player he's speaking of from the inner city and couple that with the fact that playing Collegiate ball may be his ONLY way OUT. He's going to play the game with so much passion and tenacity, because this is ALL he has.
Granted, recieving a degree from Michigan would suffice as a hell of a plan B. But we don't even give certain players the opportunity.
If there is such a family atmosphere at Michigan, why not take a chance on an "AT RISK" player, who meets the NCAA guidelines, but is a hell of a football player?
17-18 is still a child. Michigan's "family" atmosphere should be able to mold and groom the kid to be a better person. I mean isn't that the purpose of a family after all. To be a support system.
but maybe not, THIS IS MICHIGAN FERGODSAKES
I get what you're saying, and I definitely agree that at-risk kids deserve a chance to prove themselves. However, I don't agree with Foote's implicit claim that kids who have options other than a Michigan football scholarship will be less motivated to perfrom on the football field.
I also don't believe that Foote was referring to the fallback of a UM degree when he said "Plan B." It seemed to me he was referring to other schools who would offer scholarships without being as stringent as UM would be about meeting academic standards.
“You’re getting too many guys that have Plan B’s,” Foote added. “You want to build your team with guys that don’t have Plan B’s. Your best students are not your best players.”
"...desperate to succeed on the football field"
You may have read wrong. Seems to me he's speaking about academics and kids who play with a chip on the field; as I was referring to in my post. He refers to the kids in the inner city as desperate in comparison to those kids not from the inner city as having plan b's and being the best students. Plan B = guarenteed degree/success from already high academic showing = lack of motivation/toughness/agression/passion on the field. The player's mind is elsewhere. In his opinion.
With Foote going to a HS in my neighborhood, ironically, I think I have a full understanding of what he means.
He's saying we need some monsters, on the field, essentially lol.
I don't really agree with Foote about much in here, but I have often taken notice of the fact Michigan's recruits lately have been disproportionately from high SES-backgrounds. I think its a little ridiculous to say "Michigan isn't tough" because a lot of our kids aren't "ghetto," but at the same time, the types of families these kids have probably isn't entirely an accident. Do the coaches have blinders on directing them only/mostly at certain kinds of kids, and are they missing talent because of it? It doesn't seem terribly likely, given how strong Hoke's recruiting classes have been, but maybe there's a little something to that idea.
Comparison with the SEC. The playing field is NOT level, so how can we compare?? When the SEC is cut off from over signing football players, no more SEC teams averaging 30-35 signed players every time February comes around, and when Michigan can start adding college ready JUCO football players that can be a huge difference maker (like a Cam Newton) like these SEC teams can.. Let's talk comparisons of Michigan vs SEC when the whole playing field is actually level for once. Unfortunately, this is never brought up on espn and real reasons why the SEC has dominated the last 10 years in winning the most BCS Championships.
Dumbest article ever..bring kids from the ghetto? Really? What about Stanford who recruits ivy league caliber students? Look how they been doing..playing hard has nothing to do where/how ur raised..