No further discipline for Frank Clark
Title really says it all. Hoke elaborates here:
Without knowing what non game-related penalties Clark was faced with, it's pretty hard to determine if the discipline was just right, too much or too little. In any event, happy to have Mr. Clark back and wish the kid well on the field and off.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:28 PM ^
Wouldn't the dismissal of Stonum not causing any change in behavior indicated that "sending a message" is utter nonsense?
September 12th, 2012 at 1:46 PM ^
Are you saying that the idea of a message being sent by the dismissal is utter nonsense?
September 12th, 2012 at 1:49 PM ^
You said that dismissing Stonum apparently failed to send the proper message. Then you said that Clark's 1-game penalty doesn't send the right message.
If Stonum's punishment failed to "send the message", what can Hoke do to Clark that will?
September 12th, 2012 at 2:21 PM ^
I'm saying that Clark's penalty doesn't send a strong enough message to the others. It's quite possible that Stonum's dismissal is perceived as being a result of multiple infractions and so the others blow it off. They see Clark getting suspended for only 1 game for pleading guilty to a felony and they think that they have a free pass as well. I would suggest a harsher punishment along the lines of 4-6 games or suspension until Clark's felony is absolved.
September 12th, 2012 at 2:23 PM ^
Hoke is making decisions based on what actually happened rather than the semi-arbitrary lines drawn by the legal system.
September 12th, 2012 at 2:27 PM ^
You're suggesting just totally disregarding the legal system because you think Coach Hoke is a greater being than the legal system? That's laughable.
September 12th, 2012 at 2:34 PM ^
There seems to be an idea pervading the board where a label given to an action by the legal system should be assigned to a predefined football punishment. That is, regardless of what actually happened, if the word "felony" is involved, the player should have the planet dropped on their head. I find THIS idea laughable.
The whole Furman ordeal really turned me around on this matter.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:59 PM ^
Also, what's the purpose of the criminal justice code?
September 12th, 2012 at 2:23 PM ^
That's really not relevant to this argument at all.
September 12th, 2012 at 4:03 PM ^
is in place to keep the proletariat from taking ownership of the means of production, comrade.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:59 PM ^
True, Stonum didn't get the message and made another mistake (not as serious as another DUI, but breaking his probation nonetheless), so he was then taken off the team completely. So THAT message-- that if a player faces the legal repercussions and internal punishments (whether public or private), and keeps his nose clean, he'll get another chance; but If he screws that up, he's gone. For good. Clark is on probation. The Stonum message is that if Clark wants to stay on this team, he can't afford another mistake. Hoke didn't abandon Stonum, still supported him as a young man who needed guidance, but he couldn't allow him to remain a member of the team and a public representative of the University. He apparently believes in Fitz & Frank as well. But I'm sure he's sent them a very strong Message A, which includes what happens if Message B should be required.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:57 PM ^
By golly, that would make people think twice before they do anything wrong!
September 12th, 2012 at 1:14 PM ^
I agree. He could have used his redshirt and it wouldn't have affected his eligibility, but that's not happening now.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:18 PM ^
The notion that Hoke will play someone simply because the team "needs a DE," is ridiculous. He sat the teams best running back for the Alabama game.
September 12th, 2012 at 3:28 PM ^
If Hoke knew that having "the team's best running back" wasn't going to change the outcome of the game. Honestly, having Fitz wouldn't have changed it.
September 12th, 2012 at 5:58 PM ^
Hindsight is always 20/20, ain't it?
That is all.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:30 PM ^
This does leave a bad taste in my mouth. When Furman rejected his plea deal and fought, he did so because felons (or perhaps more properly those who commit domestic violence felonies) couldn't play for Michigan. The plea would have counted and caused his removal from the team.
Clark admits to a felony and will be wearing maize and blue next week. I'm not thrilled about that. Maybe it is different circumstances, but it does seem a bit odd that a WDE can admit to felony and play right about the time the WDE depth chart falls off the cliff. I'd have much rather seen a redshirt year for Clark and him not playing until the first offender act does kick in and the felony is expunged. Right this second he is a felon. It is true he won't be in the future, but when our defense takes the field against UMass it will have a felon on it. Not cool.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:31 PM ^
Furman was accused of a violent crime. I think there are different gradiations at play here.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:37 PM ^
The issue is though that our staff is in part determining this. As in "This felony is kick off the team material, this felony is miss one game and run a shitload of stairs, etc". I do believe Hoke punished Clark, but I also believe the court system is a higher authority than Hoke. To me it should be as long as the court system considers you a felon, you don't play.
I'm actually a bit surprised Clark is even still enrolled. I'd have assumed committing a felony on campus would have gotten your rear end kicked out of Michigan.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:41 PM ^
as well. I would of assumed under the code of conduct for students that a felony on campus, resulted in expulsion.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:44 PM ^
Nope. Check the code of student conduct again. Stealing is punished by a review with the discipline committee. Not automatic expulsion.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:44 PM ^
But if Clark fulfills the terms of his probation, he won't be a felon any more. As of this point, he's a "conditional felon."
You know - I'm very happy none of the righteous posters on this board were my parents growing up. Nobody is deserving of a second chance, nobody is allowed to right their wrongs, and nobody is allowed to learn from their mistakes.
Since it's so offensive that Clark is allowed to rehabilitate his name, just ignore him on the field, and remain morally superior that you still will have the opportunity to take away your child's car keys, forever, the first time he/she gets caught speeding.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:49 PM ^
But this is spot on. None of us know shit about what actually went on with Clark; we only know some official-sounding terms and what Hoke has said about it...which isn't much. Yet so many posters are enthusiastically offering up their judgment as if they're dead certain of all the important details.
I'm willing to bet the posters who applauded Hoke for how he dealt with Fitz are criticizing him this time around.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:51 PM ^
Oddly enough while growing up, I did need many second chances. However none of those second chance needing events ever involved a visit to a court room or the tag or felon/conditional felon. I expect the same from my children.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:58 PM ^
Sorry not everyone's kids can go through life and not get caught. I've never had a brush with the law, either, but that really doesn't mean anything.
What, are you going to disown your kids the instant a cop slaps cuffs on them?
September 12th, 2012 at 2:05 PM ^
That could just be stupid given that you're innocent until proven guilty. However if one of my kids ends up in court with their goose pretty well cooked regarding felony charges then I'll feel like a failure as a parent and put my kid on lockdown (assuming they don't end up in jail). You realize of course the cops don't hand out felonies like AA hands out parking tickets right? How I feel when my kid gets popped for 42 in a 35 or sneaking a beer in the basement is a lot different from how I feel when the DA says "You know what, I will expend the time and effort to charge your kid with a felony and make them appear in court...".
September 12th, 2012 at 2:08 PM ^
I guess it's a good thing Josh Furman isn't your kid.
September 12th, 2012 at 2:13 PM ^
That means I would have become a father at age 7. That's no good for anyone.
September 12th, 2012 at 2:00 PM ^
exactly, I don't ever recall getting a felony... does that make me holier than most? I wouldn't think so but listening to this board I guess it does. props to me I guess.
1 game penalty is a joke. Look people, I don't see many people saying he should be kicked off the team. Just sit until you prove yourself and this conviction is waived. That's not asking a lot.
I expect DB to get more than a handful of emails from alums on this. Wouldn't surprise me if this is not over.
September 12th, 2012 at 2:02 PM ^
What are you going to do then...?
September 12th, 2012 at 2:11 PM ^
At the end of the day, the felon would still be my kid. So I have responsibility to clean up the mess I made when I screwed up raising my child. I wouldn't expect other organizations to extend them any priveleges though.
September 12th, 2012 at 4:27 PM ^
You wouldn't throw him out of the house and ban him from the family the first time he did it.
September 12th, 2012 at 2:05 PM ^
September 12th, 2012 at 4:15 PM ^
EDIT: misreplied
September 12th, 2012 at 2:13 PM ^
Yeah, but isn't some of that luck? Some of the stuff you've described in your personal stories (my memory isn't great, but haven't you talked about stuff like hard acceleration when driving; discharging a firearm near your residence?) could possibly have landed you (or your wife, or sister in law) in a courtroom. That doesn't make you a worthless immoral guy who deserves the worst that law enforcement can throw at him. It would means you didn't catch the break you needed to, or that you unfortunately had to get as far as a courtroom to explain why said event was justified (i.e. varmint needed shooting; that dog was threatening your dog so force was justified, etc).
I'm not trying to bust your chops, but I think the line between "behavior that deserves second chances" and "behavior that gets you into a courtroom" is way more blurry than you've made it out to be, and that may even apply in your own experiences.
September 12th, 2012 at 2:17 PM ^
I'll clarify, behavior that gets you convicted in the courtroom. That was I meant with your goose is cooked comment. In the courtroom and at the point where your own lawyer is going "You know what man? Plea bargain, cause you're screwed here." .
(Also it was an air rifle below a caliber that Michigan considers controlled (.22+ air rifles are controlled) and in a locality that imposed no further controls. )
September 12th, 2012 at 2:34 PM ^
Yeah, you posted some more comments while I was composing mine. Thanks for the clarification (and I was never gonna remember what kind of firearm). I see your point.
Still, I'll stand by the basic idea that most of us, even those of us who are rightfully considered really decent people, bend and break laws. The reason we don't end up in courtrooms, or with criminal records, has a lot to do with being smart about what we can get away with, or being blessed with reasonable (or even lenient) authorities when they get involved. It's not due to morals or worthiness.
I know no shortage of people who got cut a LOT of breaks by their principals, the campus cops, the city police, etc. Decent people! I am married to Exhibit A, who is a marvelous guy but holy sh*t his high school/early college exploits could have earned a less fortunate person a criminal record, even a felony conviction.
September 12th, 2012 at 3:16 PM ^
The cut a break part is kind of part of my point. There are multiple levels where people can say "This is a stupid waste of time to expand more energy on" and end the punishment. An adult can opt to punish their child/student directly as opposed to calling the cops. Two adults can work it out without going to the cops. The cops can frame their report in various ways suggesting this isn't worth pursuing. The DA can opt not to follow up on it. There may be a grand jury that can opt not to bring charges. The judge can view the whole thing as a waste of time and tell the DA to get the hell out of the court (remember the judge in the Furman case ripped the a bit prosecutor for that). Basically when someone blows through all those checks and ends up plea bargaining in court, I tend to assume the odds are that they fucked in a serious fashion. At the end of the day I can only base my judgement off the label the courts stuck you with and when you managed to hit the level of felon, that's not good.
Basically, Robinson destroyed a parking gate but pays for it (after he was tracked down to be fair), he's not a felon. Furman goes to court and wins, walks away with nothing. BWC does thousands of dollars in damage while drunk, pays for it, and isn't a felon. Fitz drives on three beers and cuts a plea deal where he isn't a felon (assuming I'm reading state OWI laws correctly). Clark pleas to be being a felon. Basically there isn't some shadowy cabal of "No second chances" folk out to screw college students. Rather to me this says 1 of the 5 managed to do something serious enough to actually earn the tag of felon, not that every college kid who ends up interacting with the police ends up in state pen due to evil people wanting to ruin their life.
September 12th, 2012 at 3:37 PM ^
Fitz having an Airsoft gun. If it looked like a gun, you are dangerous, in their tiny minds. You are lucky they were not in a position to judge you.
September 12th, 2012 at 3:32 PM ^
Most are not saying Clark should be kicked off the team, the argument is that a one game suspension is pretty weak for a felony regardless of what extra conditioning he did in the offseason.
Someone brought up that Clark should be redshirted until his probation and felony charge is lifted from his record. How is that not fair? Clark will still be on scholarship, he'll still get to practice with the team, and he won't lose a year of eligibility.
September 12th, 2012 at 7:03 PM ^
September 12th, 2012 at 1:45 PM ^
According to the Code of Student Conduct, stealing is not automatic expulsion.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:39 PM ^
Distinguishing between a felony and a non-felony isn't terribly useful in a moral sense. The twin cases of Fitz and Clark are good examples of why the "felony" tag isn't that helpful for our purposes. Clark stole something, and I agree that that's bad. But Fitz could have killed someone. A DUI is a more anti-social act than the theft of a computer is, in my opinion.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:14 PM ^
September 12th, 2012 at 1:20 PM ^
on this one. He knows the kid, and will make sure he doesn't do anything stupid like this again. Kids make mistakes. Hopefully he learns from this.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:21 PM ^
Glad we don't have the "moral high ground" anymore, not that we ever did.
People who flaunt the "moral high ground" bull shit, have got to be in the top 99 percentile of obnoxious people. Get over yourself. Your not really interested in doing the right thing, as much as giving the perception of being uncommonly, yet ostentatiously, pious.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:28 PM ^
Blunt, but there's a lot of meat and potatos there.
The reality is it's a balancing act with the coach weighing a lot of different considerations. Too far one way, and you bury a kid for good. Too far the other and you put the integrity of the program in jeopardy.
The way he handled Stonum proved that football-related on field need is not a foremost consideration with this coach. Stonum was far more of a proven commodity than Frank Clark and at a position so thin, Michigan is retraining quarterbacks to fill in.
I look at it like this: Hoke's not afraid to tell a guy good bye. He could have made an example of Frank Clark and gotten the approval of basically everyone outside the program. In this case he chose to stick with a kid that might turn into a good player or might be just pretty average.
If this wasn't about on-field football considerations foremost, I don't have a lot of complaints.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:23 PM ^
I'm sorry, but this is not a harsh enough penalty. I know we don't know all the facts, but would any of you be saying it was a proper punishment if this was a player from any other school? Absolutely not. Don't let your rose-colored glasses skew the reality of the situation, he stole a laptop, most likely one owned by another student, who is probably paying to attend school.
Say what you want about the severity of the crime, but this is not one that can be attributed to a mistake of youth. Unless you at six years old, you understand stealing is wrong. This should be especially obvious if you are attending a world-class institution on a full ride. This is simply unacceptable and unbecoming of a Michigan student. In some ways, I wish we had an enforced honor code, which would make situations like this much more easy to handle. Yes, the consequences may be severe, but if they are displayed before one accepts his position at the school, he would know full well what the consequences of an action would be.
What would you be saying if you were the student whose laptop was stolen? Do you really think someone who basically has his entire life paid for by the university should be abusing the privilege by stealing from other students? Absolutely not. He receives a scholarship worth tens of thousands of dollars, more than enough money for rent, free food, and numerous other benefits. I don't think it is too much to expect to not steal.
I'm not so much upset with the legal consequences, but with the actual thought process. Yes, some of you may be saying it is a minor transgression. But think how violated you would feel if you had your laptop stolen, possibly at an important part of the term, by another student? Simply unacceptable.
~Herm
September 12th, 2012 at 1:27 PM ^
What would the equivalent to ganking a laptop have been back in your day, Herm? Stealing an abacus?
September 12th, 2012 at 1:28 PM ^
What is the totality of the penalties incurred by Frank Clark? Unlike you, I am not privy to this info.