to play football, not to play trumpet
Actually, he won't be when all is said and done.
Assuming he completes probation successfully; that's not a sure bet if he gets a bad judge or PO.
Okay Valenti, why don't you go back to 97.1 and spare us your flaming.
Saw you just joined today. Welcome to the party!
You should check your inbox for a very special prize for all new subscribers like yourself. It will probably look something like this.
Why does the football program impose discipline when the University of Michigan does not? Does the team hold players to a higher standard, and why wouldn't the school weigh in (assuming that it does not)?
derp de doo to you too
You do understand the difference between probation and parole. I was "plead guilty" to something, when I got caught using a fake ID in college (in East Lansing of all places). After six or nine months, I received a letter in the mail saying the charges were dropped because I had completed my probation without further arrests. That is likely all he will have to do, not get arrested in the next year.
Hoke has been saying this all along. He knew what happened, and Clark has already been punished thoroughly over the offseason and during the first week, same as Fitz. The plea didnt change anything and I'm ok with that, if Hoke says he's done his time, considering what weve seen of Hoke re: dicipline, I'm ok with this.
Hoke says he's done his time, and the Judge and Prosecutor have accepted the plea deal. It's important to remember that Hoke is not the sole judge, jury, and executioner in this thing. People are saying, "trust Hoke" or "it's not severe enough" but that leaves out the fact that Hoke's punishments are IN ADDITION TO whatever the state (i.e., the Judge) decides to do.
So we can't ruin his life for one mistake then?
but apparently Hoke has chosen not to.
Rumor has it Hoke pointed at Clark and Fitz intensely and with tremendous purpose for several seconds, and both players saw the light and are forever changed for it.
In reality, I'm sure both were harshly punished behind the scenes, and I trust Hoke has managed these incidents to his satisfaction and that of UM.
one game would of ruined his life? I have a hard time believing that. Not sure why some people are turning this into an either or type of thing, where the only two possible punishments had to be either a one game suspension or kicking him off the team.
An argument of whether 1 game, 2 games, or 3 games properly atones for stealing is sort of silly. How many snaps gets the laptop unstolen?
Regardless, saying "It should have been 3 games, not 1" means you largely agree, you're just slightly differing on extent. Many people seem to want Clark gone.
We need criminals in order to have a good football team. /pinkett'd
Hoke IS thinking about the program as whole.
Hoke needs to walk into the rooms of 20+ parents a year and convince them that he's going to turn their son into a better football player and a better person. If he starts cutting kids lose due to first-time-offenses that the school itself doesn't deem serious enough to warrant expulsion (check the student code of conduct on stealing), neither should Hoke. Hoke is confirming his commitment in helping to develop the kids under his control, and not wash his hands of them the first time they do something wrong.
I don't know if I agree with Hoke because I know virtually nothing of the specifics of the case. Reasonable people would let ignorance stop them from too firmly opining on the matter. This, however, is the internet.
This the most reasonable point made on this topic yet, one I've been trying to make, but haven't made as well as you have here.
We don't know what really happened with the laptop, and we don't know what has gone one between Clark and Hoke, outside of the suspension. My gripe isn't with people saying "Clark should be punished." It's with people saying "I know enough about what happened to definitively say this punishment isn't strong enough."
And I know enough to say that you are most likely a jerk.
Yeah, because all felonies are equal. Just like Michigan should probably be in the middle of a death penalty period right now for "major" violations, amirite?
You don't know enough to know that pleading guilty is not the same as being convicted. What kind of judge are you anyway?
Don't let a little thing like the law stand in the way of a good argument, right? He is not a convicted felon, and he will not be under the terms of the statute governing his plea agreement (HYTA):
". . .if an individual pleads guilty to a criminal offense, committed on or after the individual's seventeenth birthday but before his or her twenty-first birthday, the court of record having jurisdiction of the criminal offense may, without entering a judgment of conviction and with the consent of that individual, consider and assign that individual to the status of youthful trainee."
So, we have a youthful trainee dressing for games, not a felon. After satisfying the terms of his agreement, he will have (and currently has) no criminal record. That is an important distinction given the fact that your argument, such as it is, appears to swing entirely on his legal status. The State of Michigan believes he should have another chance after paying his dues, and you think Hoke shouldn't?
So as long as someone has a felony on their record, they should never be able to move on with their lives? That may be the least intelligent thing you have said yet.
For fuck sake dude!
Frank Clark is NOT a convicted felon. He plead guilty as per the HYTA, which requires that the accused plead guity in exchange for probation and upon its successful completion, expungement. He will only be a "convicted felon" should he violate the term of his probation.
Stop being such a blowhard!
Do you mean to say a felon is in our midst? Heavens! Lock away your women, and ride your horseless carriages to another town where we can all be safe!
Look, there is legitimate discussion to be had over this decision. IMO Clark's offense--based on what we little we know--was worse than Fitz. And perhaps there is a punishment worse than whatever it is he received that is more appropriate, I don't know, because I don't know all the facts. But I do know that to put on your shocked face and repeat "felon" over and over like that decides everything, is foolish.
Troll, troll, troll your boat, gently through the thread.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, Joe Brown will soon be dead.
Ah, it worked perfectly until you got to Joe Brown. I had to try a few times to get that to fit just right, and even then it doesn't totally work.
Maybe "Joe Brown is soon dead." "Joe Brown gon' die soon." We're almost there.
I'm amazed at how many people are seeming to forget (1) that this is basically just a kid, which makes him prone to bad decisions, (2) that he's a human being not an object that we ought to use to "set an example" or "make a statement" and (3) the purpose of punishment in the first place. It isn't to make up for the bad thing the punishee has done. It's to help the kid learn from his mistake and be a better citizen in the future. And that's going to vary from kid to kid, and from situation to situation.
I know a lot of people want to say "LOL Dumbtonio and Brian Kelly let criminals play cuz they are so jealous of Michigan they have to win at all costs," but feeling butthurt because you lost your pretend bullshit moral high ground is no reason cut a kid loose and severely negatively impact his life beyond what is necessary because of a bad decision.
When Hoke tells parents that he treats the kids on the team like family, this is what he means. When you have a son or daughter that makes a bad decision, you help them learn from it. You don't kick them out of the house for the first offense.
Perhaps I'm alone here... I'm not sure I agree with the whole, aww shucks he's just a kid meme. He's at least 18. You can vote. You know right from wrong at this age. Stealing someone's candybar because you want one is a heck of a lot different than stealing someone's multi-thousand dollar computer. He SHOULD know the difference.
Its just a laptop, the kid probably got it back anyways when he got caught or he can just get another one. Stupid to even suspend him for one game, if the court date had been before Alabama he could have played. It was a legal problem so let the legal system handle it. My professor wouldn't suspend me from classes if the cops got me for something, so why should a coach?
"he can just get another one" suggests you aren't actually a student, since nobody who has any idea how much work can be lost when a computer gets stolen would say that. i, for one, would want a kid who stole a computer from a classmate out of my classroom immediately.
disclaimer that wouldn't be necessary if the michigan difference involved reading comprehension skills: i don't know what frank clark did, and nothing i've said suggests that i have an opinion about it, but i do think that if he stole somebody's work computer, he should be removed from the university community via expulsion immediately.
Note I never said anything about whether he should be suspended or not. All I said was that you can't use the excuse of "he's just a kid". Stop implying I said something, that I did not.
Not all wrong action stems from ignorance of right and wrong.
Of course he knew it was wrong, unless he's a sociopath. But knowing what the right thing to do is and doing it are different things, and people get better with it as they age (or at least most people do) and as they develop. The fact that we give the right to vote to people who are 18 has nothing to do with whether most 18 year olds have fully developed systems of impulse control. They don't.
I would be completely fine if this was a case of sliding across a hood of a car, a minor-in-possession, or even getting caught with pot.
The fact that this was Clark STEALING someone else’s laptop hits closer to home. I remember having my laptop stolen while I was a freshman in the dorm. It absolutely sucked. I put in a whole summer's worth of work at a landscaping company in order to play for that laptop. To come back from class one day and find out that someone had stolen it was a punch in the gut.
If they had ever found out who did it, you bet that I would charge the criminal to my fullest ability. Stealing someone else's hard earned property is disgusting.
I mean we all rag on Urban Meyer being a poor disciplinarian, but he kicked Cam Newton off the Florida for a similar charge. I'm not saying that Hoke should follow suit, but I just don't think that one game is adequate.
STEALING sounds so much worse when you put it all in CAPS.
Yeah, that's even better. Next time, say "FUCKING STEALING."
Please focus on the semantics, and ignore the rest of my post. I like how I get negged for not agreeing with the hivemind.
How about next time I call it "borrowing without the intent of returning?" Better?
Cool story, bro. And Meyer didn't kick Cam Newton out, he left by himself. So there goes that point. This happens at every college, so deal with it.
Admittedly, I did not follow the Cam Newton case all that closely. Looks like Urban still suspended him though.
I still question why Cam would willingly transfer from a National Championship contender, where he was slated to be a stater, to a Junior College.
Starter? Tebow to fullback maybe? You really don't know anything about what you are talking about. Keep digging.
BoFlex is saying that Newton was going to be a starter after Tebow, but instead of waiting Newton burned a year of eligibility at Blinn College.
Hopefully there are no further threads on him, too. I don't mean that as criticism of the OP, but at some point, when the guy has dealt with punishment from the legal system, missed one of the highest-profile games of his college career, dealt with whatever the coaches gave him in the offseason, and seen his problems splashed repeatedly over a bunch of media sources, the punishment probably fits the crime.
He screwed up, but I will be cheering for him and would love to put this stuff to rest at some point.
I think one game is not enough, regardless of what the "internal" discipiline was. I'm sure Hoke doesn't give a $hit what I think but it doesn't change my opinion.
He should sit until the Felony charge is wiped from his record (yes until next Oct). Harsh I know but, but "no Felons will play for UM" is not too strict of a rule in my book...
He could still practice and then play at a later date. He could still go to school, keep his schollie and be a student and if he is fortuante have the chance to go to the NFL.
BUT we need a DE so Hoke will play him.
a significant number of disciplinary issues involving Michigan players during the past year and a half. The dismissal of Stonum doesn't seem to have sent any messages and sitting a guy who plead guilty to a felony for only one game doesn't seem to be a proper warning to others either.
Wouldn't the dismissal of Stonum not causing any change in behavior indicated that "sending a message" is utter nonsense?
Are you saying that the idea of a message being sent by the dismissal is utter nonsense?
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?
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.
Hoke is making decisions based on what actually happened rather than the semi-arbitrary lines drawn by the legal system.
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.
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.
Also, what's the purpose of the criminal justice code?
That's really not relevant to this argument at all.
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.
By golly, that would make people think twice before they do anything wrong!
I agree. He could have used his redshirt and it wouldn't have affected his eligibility, but that's not happening now.
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.
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.
Hindsight is always 20/20, ain't it?
That is all.
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.
Furman was accused of a violent crime. I think there are different gradiations at play here.
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.
as well. I would of assumed under the code of conduct for students that a felony on campus, resulted in expulsion.
Nope. Check the code of student conduct again. Stealing is punished by a review with the discipline committee. Not automatic expulsion.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...".
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.
What are you going to do then...?
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.
You wouldn't throw him out of the house and ban him from the family the first time he did it.
So you're fine giving second chances to your kids if they do exactly what Frank Clark did, as long as they do it with a less expensive computer?
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.
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. )
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, not only will he not only not be a felon, but he won't have been convicted of a crime at all. Big deal there. It is entirely plausible he could have pled to the felony, knowing full well that it will be gone in a year, where he could have fought if to a misdemeanor or even acquittal, but could have ended up with something on his record.
According to the Code of Student Conduct, stealing is not automatic expulsion.
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.
my daughter for smoking and drinking and you don't like the discipline...tough.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What is the totality of the penalties incurred by Frank Clark? Unlike you, I am not privy to this info.
I know we don't know all the facts
and because of this inconvenient reality, you really should have put a period after "facts" and spent your time complaining about something else, like Michigan's defense of the triple option.
"NEED MORE JERSEYS!"
Since NONE of us know all the facts, I have just as much of a right to say that he wasn't punished enough as others on here have to say that the punishment fits. Correct? All of us are basing our arguments on incomplete information, does that make one side of the argument more valid than the other?
Regarding the above point discussing the "totality of the punishment", if you are trying to infer that, say, running wind sprints or some other sort of "football punishment" should suffice, that is your opinion and it is fine, but I would respectfully disagree.
You DO have just as much of a right to say Clark wasn't punished enough. However, you're still just being an uninformed dick about it, and I definitely have the right to point that out.
I may be "uninformed" (not any more so than anyone else blabbering on here), but I fail to see how I am being a "dick" (nice mature, descriptive word by the way) about it. I'm sorry I may have a differing opinion than group-think which pervades this website, which is quickly morphing into SEC-style permissiveness.
Ultimately, what's valid is what we know:
Clark screwed up
Hoke has punished him
the legal system will punish him
Clark has the opportunity to rehabilitate his name, get a degree, and play football at Michigan.
Anything beyond that is unwarranted and unhelpful.
I usually agree with you, but yeah, I would even excuse Cam Newton's first non-theft at Florida.
You get one strike before the hammer falls. With the investment made in these kids, I think they deserve that one chance to see how their actions actually affect their lives.
This wasn't a heist, so we're still just talking about a kid doing something stupid.
But again...strike two means yer out!
I agree. A lot of people like to say that the law is the law and there are no exceptions. Of course many of those same people's lives would have turned out very differently if they had been caught at the time that they were doing the dumbest thing that they have ever done in their lives. In a completely apolitical sense, think about the fact that our last three presidents have all admitted to using illegal drugs at certain points in their lives. Had they been arrested for doing something that everybody knows that they did, they would never have become president. Rather than take potshots at Clark based on our limited knowledge of the circumstances (debating about the number of games is legitimate, though), we should be happy to know that Hoke believes that he has done enough to get through to Clark and help him be a better man.
If you want an automatic punishment based on the crime, there are courts for that. Hoke's job is to do what's right for the school, the team, and the players. In doing that, he can, and should, take into account many things we can't know, such as the player's character, likelihood of recidivism, character of other players on the team, and even his gut instincts. Hoke should, and probably did, put himself in the shoes of not only the victim, but also Clark's family and Clark himself. Whether we would be up in arms about other schools' behavior is a fair question with regard to our own hypocrisy, but speaks nothing to the current situation. I trust Hoke's decision, and to be consistent, I will not lambast other coaches' similar decisions except to the extent that there appears to be a culture of thugery or unusually egregious situations.
yes yes yes
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.
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.
I have never questioned another coach's decision when it comes to disciplining players, even when it comes to outside legal issues. It may not be popular, but even when it happens at Ohio, State, or even in the SEC, what other choice is there? Suspend, just to appease the media/rival fans? The last thing we need to do is ruin a kids chance at an education because of a mistake. Clark will have enough problems explaining a felony on a job resume...kick him, or any other kid out of school ad send a kid back home with little life options just doesn't seem to do anyone anything positive. So, a program has to deal with rivals calling it thuggish or felony U on some crappy radio station...much better than other alternatives for the kid and society.
I have never questioned another coaches decisions when it comes to disciplining players, even when it comes to outside legal issues. It may not be popular, but even when it happens at Ohio, State, or even in the SEC, what other choice is there? Suspend, just to appease the media/rival fans? The last thing we need to do is ruin a kids chance at an education because of a mistake. Clark will have enough problems explaining a felony on a job resume...kick him, or any other kid out of school ad send a kid back home with little life options just doesn't seem to do anyone anything positive. So, a program has to deal with rivals calling it thuggish or felony U on some crappy radio station...much better than other alternatives for the kid and society.
Fair enough, but mistakes are typically less serious than deliberately stealing valuable property. Especially at his age. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Second chances are cool, but why do people deserve them? Just because if they didn't get one their life would be worse? What about the millions of kids that didn't even get a first chance, ie: a full ride to a top 25 school. They got screwed too and probably didn't commit felony theft.
I think that we can get on about our business. Something deeply unappealing about the kind of person who gets pleasure out of insisting on other peoples' punishment, letting us all know WE'RE morally lacking if we don't lust for same.
Some of us will dissect the moral failings of 18-year-old laptop thieves for hours, not blink an eye as much bigger robbers make off with everything else. :)
Judge joe brown will get his... Carma is a bitch, so keep running your mouth.. The ones who say stupid things are usually the hypocrites in our society....I have my eye on you Brownie
Think about the children , gasoline mouth.
Here's an idea? How about everyone CALM THE BALLS DOWN FOR FIVE GODDAMN MINUTES. I can't babysit this, so if people can't have a reasonable debate, I'm going to have to delete the internet.
/Totally how that works.
I thought it would be bigger, too.
Some of you all REALLY need to grow up. Doesn't matter what side you're on.
It's a FACT that this kid pled guilty to a felony. It's also a FACT that this kid has worked his ASS off this summer/fall due to this major mistake.
One more FACT - this staff has put the clamps on most media relations and "inside information..." NONE of us know what Clark has done or is doing behind the scenes.
Some coaches suspend players for multiple games, but the kid serves no punishment in practice, or community service wise.
What if I told you Clark has to run stadium stairs every morning at 6am, he has to visit Mott Children's hospital 3 times a week, he's had to sign a contract saying any violation with the law for the next 2 years and he's off the team - no questions asked, he has to maintain a 3.0 or better and sit in the front row of every class, he has to attend every class, he owes 5 hours of manual labor community service every week until the season is over, he has to be a great teammate and represent the University of Michigan in the best manner possible from now until graduation, he has to sit the opener vs. Alabama.
If I told you that...I'm sure it would change a few minds. Especially if I told you the alternative was he had to sit 6 games, but suffered no further punishment or standard.
The fact is NONE OF US KNOW. So stop passing judgement when you don't have even 1/10th of the information.
How would you feel if some stranger stole your laptop? I really doubt many of you would think, "He's just a kid, poor guy just made a mistake, give him another chance!" You'd probably be more than a little peeved. Should not your reaction then be harsher for someone who commits the same crime while representing an institution that you support and love? Anything less is blatant hypocrisy.
Frank can have his 2nd chance...at Prairie View A&M. I don't think he deserves to be a Michigan student, let alone on scholarship. He's one guy I sure won't be rooting for on Saturdays.
I'd be a better human than to want for the person to be locked up and his life ruined, but it would depend on the circumstances, etc.
Being peeved and expecting the person be punished is not the same as believing that i should be the sole arbitor of the punishment or that the punishment should be in excess of a relatively small value like $1800 ... and given that i'd probably be smart enough to have my valuables insured so that the theft would be an inconvenience rather than one in addition to losing $1800.
But that's just me, and i wouldn't blame the student who had his/her laptop stolen for hating Frank Clark. I'm just not real big on the transitive property of victimization and hate.
to be suspended 4 games?
He failed his 2nd drug test. Standard punishment for that offense (first is 1 game).
I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE YELLING ABOUT!!!!
durka durka muhammad jihad
Seriously why are we wasting energy telling our opinion on the internet while hiding behind our computers. This does nothing and has zero affect on the outcome. Besides making yourself feel better. I don't think Hoke is going to go hey you know what I read this blog and I think we should do what TheDirtyD says....
I'm sure this will get negged but I do not care.
I would like to believe Hoke is doing the right thing, but in a recent ESPN article Urban Meyer shows some real candor and maybe insight into what Hoke is dealing with.
In Michigan, it is a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, to "seduce and debauch an unmarried woman." If your seduction/debauchery involves sex, it can be punished by life in prison.
Bottom line: The felony/misdemeanor distinction isn't the Maginot line of dastardlyness. There are plenty of misdemeanors that most of us would consider "more serious" than some felonies.
As a legal note, there is something peculiar in the charging here. In this particular case, he was not charged with larceny or burglary, which are the logical choices. He was charged with home invasion, which is basically entering someone else's home without their permission. So, one logical interpretation of the charges is that the element missing from the larceny/burglary charges is his intentions once he entered the dwelling. If (HYPOTHETICALLY) he entered with the intent to take the laptop as a joke, or to take it, use it to write a paper, and then return it (i.e. without the intent to permanently deprive te owner of it), that's not larceny, and it's not burglary (which requires the intent to commit a felony therein). The only the actual crime was the entering.
Bottom line: we don't know, but by all means, let's continue to throw out ideas as if we know what happened/is happening.
Ahhh, what is the statute of limitations on that there law?
The proper response to this offense, of course, is to slap the offender with one's glove and challenge him to a duel.
I doubt that the MI statute would withstand legal scrutiny following recent SCOTUS decisions, and I doubt even more than anyone would prosecute, but I agree very much with what I'm thinking is your broader point that labeling of crimes and statutory definitions do not always cleanly fall in line with broader moral values of a society.
Actually, I think the Maginot Line is a great comparison here, given how easy it was to bypass and ignore.
WE HAVE CREATED AN IMPENETRABLE BARRIER THAT WILL RESIST ANY ATTEMPTS TO oh shit they're behind us.
What does Hoke have to lose by explaining his rationale a little bit or informing the public of any mitigating circumstances such as those posited in some of these posts? I understand it is not necessarily anybody's business and "the fort" and all of that. But if it was really a simple misunderstanding and Clark has really gone through x y and z punishments, couldn't Hoke help everybody, including himself, by just issuing a short statement or something?
"it is not necessarily anybody's business"
1) Clark is represented by counsel in a criminal case. Hoke doesn't want to potentially interfere with legal proceedings.
2) As a minor and a student, Clark has certain rights of privacy.
3) Nunya Bidness
I think we should just all quit at this game called life
This is a sad day for Michigan Football, I know I'll get flamed, but Clark should not be playing as a convicted felon, give him a redshirt for the year and let him go throught the program that gets the felony expunged from his record, bring him back next season and he gets to continue his football career.
What people aren;t talking about is that this is a big risk for Hoke, what if Clark violates his probation and has to do time? Hoke will get killed in the media. He did not do what was best for U of M Football IMO, he did what was best for his depth chart this season.
This is not a sad day for Michigan football. If Clark screws up again I'm pretty sure Hoke will handle it accordingly by suspending him for a couple games, a year, or kicking him off the team. Relax and let it go. I would sure hate to be some of you guys kid and get the book thrown at me for making a mistake.
I looked at every post and maybe I missed it, but does anyone have the copy of the prosecutor's factual allegations? I assume that because Frank is a minor, those docs are sealed?
Without that, we don't know the facts as alleged. We know the general charges. Remember Josh Furhman was accused of something bad. Facts came out that proved it to be something that shouldn't have been prosecuted.
Here we may be dealing with something similar, but from a legal standpoint Frank and his counsel are accepting the plea to avoid the risk (and time expense) of a trial verdict. Prosecutors sometimes have no leeway to drop charges in certain fact scenerios even if they want to. Maybe this is such a case? We don't know.
I'll be willing to bet, based on how Hoke has dealt with things in the past, that the facts here are not anywhere near what springs to mind from these charges. I just don't see him harboring a kid that used forced entry breaking into a stranger or semi-stranger's room looking for expensive stuff to flip into cash.
Facts do matter in these cases because they can make the difference between poor character and simply bad judgment.
I was listening to MSM on the way home and people are blasting away at Hoke, but I still haven't heard any facts of the case
What I don't understand about the "OMG He's a Felon, He MUST be kicked off the team" crowd, is why they don't actually read about what the HYTA is, and what it entails, BEFORE passing judgement.
Any CD lawyer will tell you that trial is a crap shoot, with a significant risk of conviction, despite the amount of exculpatory evidence you think you have. The notion that the accused is "innocent until proven guilty" is cliche, and the reality is that most people think if you've been charged, you've likely done SOMETHING wrong. Sad, but true. When your client is a 19 year old scholarship athlete with a chance to play in NFL, i.e., a lot going for him, you'd have to be insane to allow the matter to go to trial, even if you're 100% certain that it was nothing more than a misunderstanding. The CJS does not want accused persons to exercise their right to a trial, and will make sure that they pay a much harsher penalty if they choose to do so, and are convicted.
Many of you are assuming, quite erroneously, that Clark's guilty plea means that he, in fact, is guilty of the crime. This is not necessarily the case. As I said above, you do not risk 15 years in prison on the roll of the dice.
This is the very scenario that the HYTA was developed to cover. A kid with a lot to lose, who made a bad choice, who the state does not want to see become pigeon holed into a life of crime because he's now branded with a scarlet letter.
If it was your son, I am sure you all would want him to have the same chance at redemtion.
Please stop being so overly judgmental about something you know basically nothing about.
He nails it.
are saying Clark should kicked off the team completely? I only see a couple in four pages worth of posts.
JudgeJoeBrown has been caved. He had a Karma of -3. I have never seen that before.
Bravo and Godspeed, your Honor...
Think about this:
If the situation was the same and this this thread was titled "Mark Dantonio announces 'No futher discipline for Joel Heath'" (I thought about saying Gholston, but naming his back-up seemed more apt to the situation.)
Would the majority of those posts be disparaging or giving Dantonio "the benefit of the doubt?"
I'm sure most State fans would be saying things like "Dantonio made him do extra conditioning during the offseason!" or "I'm sure Dantonio handled this off-scene." How would those excuses be received on this board?
disparaging comments and post funny .gifs and pictures. I'm a fan, I don't have to be rational.
There were some OMG threads, but weren't most of the reactions in the posts following it kinda "meh, funny to make fun of, but not really anything that'd I'd say 'this program is out of control'"? Fans will always make fun of other fans, but when serious I think most of us see the difference between trying to smash a guy's skull and pissing in public, and whatever's in between.
I try to make a discussion-provoking comment, and I get labeled as "Flamebait." Why?
I'm sure he already knew that stealing things is wrong. What more has he learned?
Frank gave me his gloves after the Air Force game! That was awesome
Arkansas suspended 3 players indefinitely for stealing textbooks in May and they still aren't on the team. Frank Clark stole a laptop, which is much more valuable, and missed one week of practice and one game. Michigan's "standards of excellence," "leader's and the best" are obviously below that of the so called dirty SEC.