No further discipline for Frank Clark
Title really says it all. Hoke elaborates here:
Without knowing what non game-related penalties Clark was faced with, it's pretty hard to determine if the discipline was just right, too much or too little. In any event, happy to have Mr. Clark back and wish the kid well on the field and off.
September 13th, 2012 at 12:22 PM ^
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.
September 13th, 2012 at 1:01 PM ^
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.
September 13th, 2012 at 2:56 PM ^
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.
5. Fine.
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.
September 12th, 2012 at 2:41 PM ^
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.
September 13th, 2012 at 12:48 AM ^
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.
September 12th, 2012 at 2:09 PM ^
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
http://law.onecle.com/michigan/750-michigan-penal-code/mcl-750-110a.html
and
http://law.onecle.com/michigan/750-michigan-penal-code/mcl-750-356.html
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.
September 12th, 2012 at 2:38 PM ^
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.
September 12th, 2012 at 2:44 PM ^
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.
September 12th, 2012 at 3:48 PM ^
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.
September 12th, 2012 at 3:57 PM ^
" 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?
September 13th, 2012 at 3:33 AM ^
"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.
September 13th, 2012 at 9:20 AM ^
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.
September 12th, 2012 at 6:51 PM ^
September 12th, 2012 at 2:34 PM ^
September 12th, 2012 at 3:20 PM ^
September 12th, 2012 at 2:40 PM ^
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. :)
September 12th, 2012 at 2:43 PM ^
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
September 12th, 2012 at 4:00 PM ^
Carma is a bitch? Running my mouth? What did I say that was stupid?Something you didn't agree with? That a coach who supposedly holds his team and program to a higher standard should you know, actually do what he says? And maybe you disagree,maybe his current course of actions don't break that contract of high morality in your eyes but to me and apparently to many others here, they do.
So fuck off
September 12th, 2012 at 8:36 PM ^
September 12th, 2012 at 2:50 PM ^
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.
September 12th, 2012 at 3:58 PM ^
I thought it would be bigger, too.
September 12th, 2012 at 4:14 PM ^
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.
September 12th, 2012 at 2:55 PM ^
If Frank Clark couldn't play football he would be doomed to a life of fast food jobs and manual labor until the felony is removed. Unfortunately that's the life of thousands of people who are convicted felons. I'm sure they regret the choices they made and honestly it's not fair but, lifes not fair.
September 12th, 2012 at 2:56 PM ^
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.
September 12th, 2012 at 4:06 PM ^
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.
September 12th, 2012 at 2:58 PM ^
to be suspended 4 games?
September 12th, 2012 at 3:26 PM ^
He failed his 2nd drug test. Standard punishment for that offense (first is 1 game).
September 12th, 2012 at 3:20 PM ^
LOUD NOISES!!
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.
September 12th, 2012 at 3:36 PM ^
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.
Another coach is on the phone, asking for advice about a player who got into trouble. Meyer gives his honest answer, a window into the murky, shifting world of big-time athletics, into how nobody emerges from the highest level of anything with every part of himself intact.
The first year at Bowling Green, Meyer tells him, he'd have cut his losses. His fifth year at Florida, when he needed to win every game, he'd have kept him on the team.
September 12th, 2012 at 3:37 PM ^
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.
September 12th, 2012 at 3:51 PM ^
Ahhh, what is the statute of limitations on that there law?
September 12th, 2012 at 3:58 PM ^
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-532
Of course, if there is an ongoing conspiracy to seduce and debauch, that one year extends from the termination of the conspiracy. So, time to get your story straight with your wing man.
September 12th, 2012 at 3:51 PM ^
The proper response to this offense, of course, is to slap the offender with one's glove and challenge him to a duel.
September 12th, 2012 at 4:45 PM ^
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.
September 12th, 2012 at 5:12 PM ^
Actually, I think the Maginot Line is a great comparison here, given how easy it was to bypass and ignore.
September 12th, 2012 at 5:16 PM ^
WE HAVE CREATED AN IMPENETRABLE BARRIER THAT WILL RESIST ANY ATTEMPTS TO oh shit they're behind us.
September 12th, 2012 at 3:57 PM ^
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?
September 12th, 2012 at 4:17 PM ^
"it is not necessarily anybody's business"
September 12th, 2012 at 4:47 PM ^
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
September 12th, 2012 at 4:59 PM ^
I think we should just all quit at this game called life
September 12th, 2012 at 5:21 PM ^
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.
September 12th, 2012 at 5:26 PM ^
He is not a convicted felon. Under the terms of his plea, he is a youthful trainee. There is no expunging of a record that will occur - that record will not be written for a year and what it says will be dependent on how Clark behaves himself.
He will only be considered a felon if he violates the probation the court has established.
September 12th, 2012 at 5:56 PM ^
September 12th, 2012 at 5:55 PM ^
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
September 12th, 2012 at 6:05 PM ^
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.
September 12th, 2012 at 6:08 PM ^
He nails it.
September 12th, 2012 at 8:32 PM ^
are saying Clark should kicked off the team completely? I only see a couple in four pages worth of posts.
September 12th, 2012 at 7:00 PM ^
JudgeJoeBrown has been caved. He had a Karma of -3. I have never seen that before.
Bravo and Godspeed, your Honor...
September 13th, 2012 at 12:11 PM ^
http://mgoblog.com/users/c-roh
MSU fan who comes on to flame after months of inactivity with a fake U-M name.