yes yes yes
No further discipline for Frank Clark
Right on. Having done some prosecutorial work, and having seen a variety of prosecutorial styles, I would say that the best prosecutors are those that can read the situation and adjust the punishment accordingly. For a felony the person can and should pay restitution to the victim. Then what? The best prosecutors are those that know how to seek just stiff enough of a penalty to get the guy's attention without ruining his life and destroying his future prospects. Some guys (or girls) walk into court with a ton of swagger, and all they are doing is showing that they really don't understand the seriousness of the charges. Other guys can barely look you in the eye and are very humble, and you can tell that they are already scared senseless by the severity of the situation. I am far more likely to be willing to give some slack to the latter guys and come down hard on the former. My goal is to give people the best chance of remaining compliant with the law going forward, and that varies depending upon circumstances.
Take a good kid that made a mistake, and hammer him with all kinds of severe punishments and a criminal record that will follow him his entire life, and you will end up making it more likely that he gets into trouble down the line. Give him a chance to pay his debt to the victim, and to prove that he has seen the light (by withheld judgment, expungement, or whatever a state may call it), and he will be more likely to use the whole process as a learning experience.
Herm is right. If this was an OSU transgression this thread would have 250 comments already with festive GIFs and pictures poking fun at Tressel and Ohio.
It seems that most alums/students don't agree with the punishment and want to preserve the sanctity of the Institution while run of the mill fans have no issue with it. Obviously there will be outliers but this seems to be the case.
I'd love to see your data on the last paragraph.
You know, assuming you're not just making stuff up.
That's like me saying "it seems those that want harsher punishments are just Walmart Wolverines who want to brag to their State co-workers, and those who actually care about the football team and the people involved with the program don't....I've polled 100 people and got their demographic data, and its shown to be true." Which is crap. People have their opinions, and where they differ people are going to think the other is wrong, but just from the posting history you can see all sorts of people fall on different sides of the aisle in this case.
making comments, festive .gifs and pictures poking fun at people. I know that not beheading Clark puts a damper on your fun, but you will survive.
Thank you for these. Has lessened the headache.
You realize there are quite a few alums/students you probably don't know, right? But continue on talking for me and all my friends. It's entertaining
Read this then you hypocrites: http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/storm-klein-reinstated
Charges were dropped and yet the majority of the people posting act like Urban Meyer just hired Jeffery Dahmer to the Food Network.
You can't hold some board members responsible for things other board members say.
Show where people currently supporting Hoke's decision lambasted Meyer, THEN you have a hypocrite. MGoBlog is not a monolithic conciousness, you fool.
Oh spare me the garbage. You can't hide behind "Oh, that wasn't ME saying it THAT time, it was SOMEONE else". Guess what, MGoBlog.com is about as good a representation of the Michigan fanbase as you can find. So holding things equal, when we have discussion (1) over an Ohio player not being disciplined to the full extent and 90% of the statements lambast Urban Meyer as a cheat, IT GODDAMN IS HYPOCRITAL when there is discussion (2) when Brady Hoke doesn't discipline someone and 90% of the statements are in support of the decision.
I don't want to (but know I will), see some self-righteous asshole link to a story about some other program (probably a rival) doing something wrong or not punishing players, and many of you stating that "That isn't how Michigan does it, we have integrity." BULLLLLSHIT. If this really is the general sentiment, we as fans better keep our mouths shut when it comes to the failures of other programs.
Garbage? You're calling people hypocrites for contradicting things OTHER PEOPLE SAID. You're either stupid or disingenuous.
Things I noticed in the thread you linked.
- Ohio State fans being upvoted for their comments
- Michigan fans saying that they couldn't care how Urban handled it
- Michigan fans saying they thought Urban handled it appropriately
- Michigan fans saying that Urban was more strict than Hoke has been in regards to Fitz/Clark
- ONE Michigan fan complaining that Michigan has a higher standard and would never allow this (this was strangely enough downvoted - hmmm...)
I opened the thread fully expecting to find a plethora of hypocrites, and was let down. I'm not sure if you read the entire thread Herm, or if you just read one or two posts and decided that it would be enough to make your point. It actually makes the counter point very well.
EDIT: Meant to reply to Herm
"I always like my team's coach to react really harshly for show and then relent when it turns out he overreacted.
If Urban Meyer is still the coach at OSU by the time the next summer Olympics are played, I'll be shocked." (Score: 5)
"My Buckeye brother in law was just texting me talking shit about Hoke possibly playing Fitz against Alabama. I then saw this post as we're arguing and informed him. The texts have now stopped." (Score: 5)
"“The charges that would have violated our core values have been totally dismissed."
So, disorderly conduct is within the new core values at Ohio. Good for other star players to know where the line has been drawn." (Score: 5)
I didn't even have to get to end of the page.
Herm, please do not take too much offense from the majority of these replies. I have found it really difficult to argue against the hivemind.
Most of those posts aren't like that at all. I counted at least six people who made the effort to point out that all charges were dropped. There's a fair dose of sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek stuff, but precious few ANGAR posts. I think your sight's starting to go, Herm.
Oh, and I know some of you will argue: he was charged with a violent crime. Well I can argue that the charges were dropped and his charge wasn't a felony. We can argue legal semantics all day. Fact is, we're acting no better than anyone else and should give up our supposed "moral high ground". Goddamnit, let us win!
I'd expect someone who has apparently been a Michigan Man since 1961 to recall the array of behavioral problems Michigan has had through the years - robbery, firearm discharges, assault, sexual assault, domestic assault, etc.
There IS no moral highground.
Herm's shtick is wearing thin. Ooohhh I'm angry old man who spends all my time on a message board and complains about how everything is changing and Dave Brandon is the devil. Get over yourself "Herm" and what ever other names you post under.
Herm is probably a 22 year old purdue grad.
Well i'm just a run of the mill fan who turned down acceptance to UM for both undergraduate and graduate school (do i get a super duper morally superior prize?) who thinks that people without all the facts prescribing punishment for a kid they don't know smacks of the worst kind of fake moral superiority.
It doesn't seem that most alums/students have much problem with bringing talented athletes to the University of Michigan who probably couldn't get accepted (or pay for the education) as a normal member of the student body. It doesn't seem like they have an issue with the university paying all the costs of attendence and giving those student athletes special treatment. But to get all that, these students need to meet some sort of half-baked moral measure.
Henry Ford used to help the poor black people too, just as long as they agreed to behave just as he dictated and allowed him to watch everything they did and decide whether it was acceptable or not.
And right now there are UM students selling hard drugs for a profit. Every weekend UM students drive drunk. UM students cheat. UM students abuse their significant others. UM students steal things. UM students destroy property. Why? Because attending the University of Michigan does not confer some exception to human failings. We know about this case because he's a football player, so we have opinions. We know nothing about the cases of non-football players and so we don't pass judgement publicly.
You should probably start a non-profit that scrutinizes police and court records and runs UM students off campus for moral failures.
And don't forget all those UM alums that sent the university hateful, racist letters when the Fab 5 were playing for the University of Michigan. That was a shining moment of the ole college moral superiority, wasn't it?
I would not have a problem with this if it was a player at another school. It wasn't a violent offense. He's a 19 year old kid who made a mistake, who now has a criminal record, and who missed a huge game. That's good enough. If he does more, the situation will have to be re-thought.
Note: I do realize that I'm arguing with a quasi-fictional character.
I'm sure he knows that's his one strike. Next time your gone. That's kind of what Brady has shown in situations like this. I have no problem with this.
but let's remember, this is about building the character of young men. A mistake can be atoned for and forgiven if you focus and work hard enough.
Kids do stupid things. That's why you sit them down and make it clear to them that they can ruin the great opportunity they have if they continue to do stupid things.
And as we saw with Stonum, once you're on a short leash, even the smallest screw-up can be the end of the line.
If we see another mistake like this...big problems. And, honestly, probably not the kind of kid you want playing at Michigan anyway. But if this is the kid's only mistake, then he learned his lesson, and that speaks volumes about the kind of coaching and players we do want to have at Michigan.
is an understatement. If the cupboard wasn't bare, he's off the team or done for 3-4 games at a minimum. Hoke is no better than his counterparts. Just look at the run defense and you have all the reasons Hoke needs. Oooooohhhhh, he ran some stairs and woke up early and served soup to those less fortunate. Give me a break. Let's hope theft is not more common for Michigan Men going forward, not to mention driving drunk. Oh, wait he had to boot a kid off last year. That lesson hit home too.
I do love your avatar though...very sexy
the whole story, like most on here, but if Hoke thinks the punishment fits the crime I'm good with it..Go blue, and beat UMass..
So how exactly isn't he being punished further when he just pleaded guilty to a felony? Am I missing something here?
Not to compare two vastly different situations, but Joe Pa had "done the right thing" his whole career too but he proved that blindly trusting a football coach is not always the best idea.
JoePa hid a crime from the police.
Hoke is not punishing a disclosed crime with as many games suspension as some wish.
There is no comparison, at all.
...I have only one neg to give you.
I fall in the "trust Hoke" camp on this one. While Hoke isn't infallible, he has to have talked to DB and other administrators, to back up his decision on this. I suspect that if we knew all the information, we'd also be supportive of what Hoke is doing.
Its not hard to imagine a scenario where this was an appropriate punishment.
Scenario #1: Clark snags laptop as practical joke, just to see kid freak out, planning to give it back. Kid loses his shit and calls the cops.
I'm going to close my eyes, cover my ears, and chant "la la la" until someone tells me this is the case.
Man I get sick and tired of all these "perfect" people posting like they never screwed up in life. Stop the holier than thou crap and trust coach on this one. If he hasn't shown you anything by now, he never will. Get over it and keep it moving.
Not that we need him against UMass.
ND 31 State 17... Book it troll
I remember that Jim Harbaugh was kicked off of the team for showing up on a police report for a party. He was let back on the team after he proved that he was not doing anything wrong and got the AA police to agree to that. (IIRC)
I think my problem is that the punishment seems so minimal. It's an honor to play football for Michigan. How many of us on this board would give up a lot if we had the talent to do that and the opportunity. (I didn't have a scintilla of the former, so the latter never came up either.)
It may be up to Hoke, but wouldn't a better message be sent by a more stringent suspension? I don't mean to cut the young man at the knees, but I do think something stronger than one game should be done.
I guess that makes me a hard hearted person, but I'd rather think it would teach the young man a better lesson if he lost more than one game for doing something like this.
You're not the first poster to be guilty of this, but why do you act as if you know all the facts? I don't know exactly what happened. Neither do you. Hoke does. He made a decision. Deal with it.
I have dealt with it. Thanks for the addition to the posting. You're right, we don't know any facts. That is because Ft. Schembechler has been re-instated at least as it relates to dealing with the media. Of course some of that could be accepted in the past because you knew, (see Harbaugh story above) that there would be zero tolerance for this kind of activity. Let me ask those of you old enough to remember when Bo was coach; Do you think he would have put up with this. But perhaps I'm just old and out of touch. So be it. I've dealt with it. While I'm a fan and still proclaim it, I'll be a little quieter now, and when Dantonio or Meyer do something I find a bit questionable ethically I'll just keep the ol' mouth closed and let it go, because I'm sure they're closer to the situation and know how to keep the young men closer to them so they can have a postive effect on the young men.
Neg away boys. That's how you deal with it.
Because you're using that as an excuse for getting battered in your arguments when the previous post you have hasn't even balanced out to a negative negging. It's 1. Stop yer whining.
Bo had players in trouble. Check the amount of guys who ended up in rehab after their playing days. Bo had guys take money from an agent. He didn't kick them off the team because they did it; he kicked them off the team because they lied about it to him, and he couldn't help them. As far we we know, Clark didn't lie, and must have been pretty straight up with Hoke if none of what has happened is new information to him. Bo had lots of guys in trouble too. But it was a time where he could call the police station and get things smoothed over, and there wasn't a 24/7 hostile media, and every fan had their say on the Internet. I mean, if the one Harbaugh story is a representation of the totality, then you'd have to believe Harbaugh when he says that Bo steered him away from being a History major because it was too tough. I don't think that's entirely accurate either, and other examples can be found. It's just something else that was said to make the person saying it look good.
But if the outcome is that you aren't so ready to rub someone else's face in it next time some kid gets in trouble at MSU or OSU, then it had a good result. Because for someone trying to impart aged wisdom, that's kinda childish.
1. Number of Players in Rehab: How does the number of players in rehab after their playing days tie directly to players in trouble?
2. Kicking off Players who took money: Okay, but if they hadn't lied to him about it, wouldn't they have had to be kicked off due to NCAA rules, or at least part of the NCAA's rather nebulous punishment policy. If the NCAA handled punishments for criminal activities (more regularly that is) then I believe this would be a valid point.
3. AFAWK, Clark didn't lie. AFASWK, Clark did steal a laptop. He was caught. The case has been adjudicated. That's what we know. Hoke doesn't owe us more, but I don't owe him the benefit of the doubt that his decision is correct either. (And I'm sure he doesn't care, yet if his caring was what was necessary for posting on Mgoblog, I'm guessing Brian would be working as an engineer someplace)
4. I don't know if Harbaugh was steered out of being a history major or not. We don't have two people agreeing to it, only one as far as I know. In my story, all parties agreed that it happend, from Bo, to Harbaugh, to the police. Therefore I think it's fairly safe to assume it happened.
5. You are right. (re other schools) That is a poor reason to offer for a different punishment. I was wrong. (That doesn't happen often does it)
My question at the end of this is this: Do you feel proud of how Brady Hoke has handled this? I don't. Simple as that. That and a 1.06 will get you a pop at McD's.
However I want to be proud of the U of M coaches' actions at all times. I'm not stupid enough to believe that the players will be perfect. They weren't perfect back then, and maybe Bo was able to hush things up. Honestly, you're right, I have no proof one way or the other. But in today's world we have proof. In the end, I want the men and women who wear the uniform of my school to have earned the honor to wear it. If they haven't I'd rather not have them wearing that uniform.
1. If you think they all just had drug problems after they were done being under the watchful eye of Bo, I'd say there's bridges to sell. But overall just saying it's not like Bo had a group of angels and kicked anyone out at the first sign of trouble.
2. Not necessarily. Guys like Marcus Ray had agent contact, and where suspended, but they weren't kicked off the team. Troy Smith was shown to have gotten somethin' somethin', and he wasn't banned by the NCAA. It's not necessarily a death sentence for college play.
3. Well, what we do know is that unlike Bo's players in the example, they weren't caught in a lie. And it's usually when the law is involved that these things come out. I'm also guessing since the court is agreeing to a minor sentence, they didn't feel it was some cold hardened criminal activity either. Because they're not locking him up. So the court seems to be agreeing with Hoke, not you.
4. Your story- if you think Harbaugh was really going to get kicked off the team, and wasn't just an example to try and scare everyone in line, I don't know what to tell you. If you really think Bo was going to give up his star QB because a guy was *caught* partying (alledgedly) you either think Bo was arrogant or stupid. Was it slick and did it have a nice effect? Yes. Was he going to go through with it? Yeah, just like he told player after player "you will never play a down for Michigan Football", and how he fired and rehired his assistants in the same afternoon on a weekly basis. The guy was dramatic. But he knew what he was doing.
Your question - would I have handled it the exact same way? I don't know, no one outside of the parties involved know all the details yet. And so far the courts haven't released enough to enlighten it. Was he going into dorm room to dorm room, looking to steal all he can? Or was it a laptop of someone who he had borrowed it from before, but is now pissed at him for some reason and is making a case of it now? Both are extremes of villiany or excuse making. I'm guessing it's somewhere in between. On face would I maybe like to see a little more punishment? Possibly, but I don't know what all the punishment is.
In 3, you're right, no one owes anyone anything. But in my case I'm not going to be a guy who says he handled Stonum perfectly the first time, he handled Stonum perfectly the second time, he handled Fitz just right when everyone said he wouldn't, he was even extra tough on Furman, who ended up not doing anything....and then go "he must be wrong in this case! OUTRAGE!!!!!" Just like if he continues to seem to let stuff slide, I'll probably give him less benefit of the doubt, the fact that he has seemingly handled everything right makes me think he knows something about the situation I don't.
And in any regard, we disagree on the basic premise. I think he earned the right to wear the uniform, lost it when he was suspended from practice and the game, and is now in the process of showing he should be allowed to keep it, which I imagine is an every day affair for 3 more years. I don't think a first time offender needs to be cast off for this crime. If he had regularly been in trouble before, or it was something harsher he had done, I'd feel differently. I'm not happy he did it, but I don't want to be know as the "family" that cuts bait the first time things get tough with you because they care more about the image and what media and other fans think than they do about the person. You seem to want anyone who tarnishes your ability to beat your chest about how much better you are than other people to hit the road. Of course, you won't have much to brag about when people stop sending their kids here to play because it's more about the program than the kids.
Disagree. You teach a much better lesson by keeping the offender close, and and punishing him behind the scenes. The only advantage game suspensions have over other types of punishment is that they're the only ones that are visible to the public. And by publicly shaming an offender, you risk driving them away from you, and minimizing the effect you'll have on their future development.
From what I could see... Frank Clark didn't start last week. It's possible that instead of just suspending him for game after game, you could slowly give him more playing time as he earns it. I'm not saying Hoke will use this method, but I think this method could work on certain occasions.
And whether he plays or not, Hoke is clearly disciplining the kid. He's earned my trust enough to know that when he says something, he means it. I personally feel like the fact that Hoke benched both Touissant and Clark for the Alabama game and not a UMASS type game is definitely telling that not only did he take both of their situations seriously (and put teaching them in front of his own desire to win games), I think that there is probably more to the story than any of us knows with Clark since both suspensions were for the one game. We know Touissant's story; Clark's actions are the ones that are unclear. I'm not saying you can compare the two either way, but I am saying that you can compare the suspensions - both one game - and maybe come up with a conclusion that it might not be as severe as it first sounded. But again, it's hard to conclude with much without the full story.
No matter what, I trust Hoke. He's legit. It shows through what recruits and players have to say about him, and it shows through his interviews. I have a hard time believing anyone can look at Brady Hoke and just plain dislike the guy. He's classy, and he's highly respectable among other coaches. In fact, I've heard OSU fans say good things about him. You won't hear Michigan fans saying things like that about Tressel or Dantonio too often.
Point being, I'm not concerned about this at all. Let him do the coaching and the teaching, and we will most definitely see his discipline structure as time passes. Players will continue to make mistakes. It happens to everyone. Let us judge when more evidence is available.
Just so we're all on the same page, everyone knows the reason this is a felony is because of the value of what was taken, right? More than $1,000 makes it a felony, if I'm reading everything correctly
So if Clark had broken in, taken a pair of shoes, presumably he would be facing a misdemeanor charge.
I'm not defending anyone or taking a side in this one. I'm just making sure all the people worked up about us "playing a felon" would have been A-OK with us playing a guy who did the same thing but swiped a less expensive item.
I experienced an incident somewhat similar to Clark's, as expressed in my post below, and in my case it was a misdemeanor because of the value of the items. A higher value would have been a higher charge, with no change in the action itself.
So to me, 1 game vs. 2 games or 3 doesn't really make a difference. That's not the kind of punishment that will have any effect on Clark and how he learns and grows from this mistake. Suspensions look good to outside observers/media, but don't do anything to actually help the kid. I don't blame anyone for preferring a couple more games on the suspension, but I'm fine with where it is.
What's kind of shocking to me is how many people on this board seem so utterly unwilling to forgive a 19-year-old kid for a momentary transgression. Someone in yesterday's thread made a comment to the affect of "A person who steals a laptop is not a person of adequate moral fiber to play for Michigan." This is absurd. Kids make mistakes, and if they're repentant, they deserve a second chance.
When I was 17, I shoplifted twice. The second time, I got caught. In retrospect, there is no event in my life that I am more ashamed of than that one, but the fact is I was 17, and like every other 17-year-old (and 19-year-old), I was totally oblivious to the consequences of my actions. Lucky for me and others like me, the state of Michigan has a legal provision called the Holmes Youthful Training Act that allows young first time offenders to complete a period of probation and community service and have their offense stricken from official records.
Some people think this act is too soft on youthful crime (like mine and Clark's). I challenge anyone to feel that way when it's their own child who has committed a stupid crime and is just trying to avoid a permanent black mark on their life.
If Clark does something similar again, then it's time to consider whether he belongs on the football team. But until that happens, I'm more than willing to think the best of him. As far as I know, he walked into a room, saw an unattended laptop, and like an idiot 19-year-old that doesn't think about consequences thought: "Hey, free laptop!" If it's as simple a case as that, and he returned the laptop, paid restitution, faced his criminal charges in an honest and forthright manner, and (this bit is very important) apologized to the victim and expressed regret, then a minimal suspension is fine with me.
All of the above actions are far more important to Clark's development as a person (which to me is what matters when we're talking about 19-year-old college students) than a longer suspension or dismissal from the team. I hope Clark regrets what he did. I hope he's ashamed of it. And I hope he'll learn from this situation and never do anything like it again. Until I see evidence to the otherwise, I will assume that is true.
I totally agree with this statement. The HYT act is great for young people, because it allows for a second chance. We have a big problem in this country with prison population. One of the few things we as Americans are number 1 at is prison population. HYT gives these kids a chance to right their wrongs before they are thrown into this prison culture, where they are basically on the downslope for the rest of their lives once they are in. Since we don't know every facet of this case, I have to say that I agree with Hoke's decision, and if he says that the punishment has been finished, then it is finished.
" I was 17, and like every other 17-year-old (and 19-year-old), I was totally oblivious to the consequences of my actions" are what make people desire a moral high ground. Do you really think there are no teenagers that know stealing has very serious consequences?
"the fact is I was 17, and like every other 17-year-old (and 19-year-old), I was totally oblivious to the consequences of my actions."
You might have not realized how much trouble you would have gotten yourself into, if that is what you mean, then I might buy it. But don't insinuate that you didn't know that stealing is wrong.
I agree with you that the youthful perpetrators act is right. Of course I don't think many of us who feel that the suspension should be longer disagree with you. We just want and expect that the young man would suffer a longer suspension from the team. There are two huge differences there. He's still a member of the team, he's just not an active member. I don't think the should be kicked out of school. He should still have his scholarship, still be able to workout, he just shouldn't be dressing for the game. That's simple.
The difference is that being a member of the team is an honor. One shouldn't keep honors when one behaves dishonorably. Does anyone believe that Clark behaved honorably. Disregard his age. 17 is old enough to know better. You even admit you are shamed by your actions. You've become a better person. Does Clark need to be a playing member of the team to be a better person. If that's the case what happens in 4 years? Perhaps he would do better to learn now what thousands of prior college football players have learned, and that's how to be that better person while your just a normal member of society.
I agree it's Hoke's decision. Just because it's someone's decision, doesn't mean it's the right decision, or right for me, or even able to be argued as being ethically correct. Ethics is often defined as the collective morals. I'm not sure I belong to the collective that thinks that the honor of playing college football or being part of any extracurricular activity is nearly automatically granted.