Out Of Dantonio's Hands?
The dormitory beatdown by x number of MSU football players was clearly premeditated. Given that a University has a clear obligation to protect the physical safety of its students, especially on University property, then is this issue really Dantonio's to handle anymore? Should it be? I no longer believe it resides with Dantonio or even Mark Hollis. This baby has landed on Luanna Simon's desk. And, IMO, any reading by her of the institutions obligations to all its students should lead her to expel some or all of the players involved. No suspension with possible reinstatement a la Winston. This is worse than cheating. Worse than...ahem...excessive practicing. Worse than driving while impaired. Frankly, it's about as bad as it gets. A culture of physical intimidation.
And while Simon ponders this enormous and embarrassing turd left on her desk, do you think she wonders about whether Dantonio is the man for the job?
December 1st, 2009 at 8:37 PM ^
If these kids are found guilty in a court of law they should be expelled, but if any are found innocent of any potential charges, they should be allowed back on the team.
Let law enforcement officials handle the situation for now
December 1st, 2009 at 8:41 PM ^
I just pray they are not convicted by the media before they have a proper trial...
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:06 AM ^
I was reading an article in a paper a couple of weeks ago about the London police. They have over 100 000 cameras in London and police only solve 1 in 1000 crimes. That is some terrible work IMHE. Granted, I am a Dr. and not a police officer, but if only only found out what was wrong with 1 out of 1000 of my patients I would be out of a job, and rightfully so.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:43 PM ^
I agree. If any of those players touched another student or damaged university property than they will be expelled. The East Lansing police has footage of the incident and charges will be filed for everyone involved.
Although I don't think that this will affect Dantonio's job security in any way.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:31 PM ^
Did Winston not punch a fellow student hard enough to knock him down upon which he fractured his skull? Did not said Winston go to jail for 6 months only to be welcomed back immediately to the practice field?
Where was the expulsion for Winston after the first assault?
Didn't happen.
This is basically the same situation.
Does the tiger change his stripes?
December 1st, 2009 at 11:30 PM ^
...in MSU circles was that there were circumstances surrounding the Sturges incident not reported in the media that while not by any means leaving Winston guiltless did significantly complicate his punishment on campus.
Maybe that is true. But even if it were, there won't be anything complicated in assigning discipline to 15 dudes in ski masks who run into a fundraiser.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:49 PM ^
a revenge attack and I had read somewhere that yes, revenge is the right word. That Sturges was not completely without fauly in originally doing something that Winston didn't like.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:46 PM ^
With the way the incident went down I do think it is a university issue. Punishment (after trial to prove guilty) should be determined by the President/AD if they are not in prison following the trial.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:59 PM ^
Many years ago Eastern Michigan had a pretty good BB team.
At the same time there was high racial drama on campus, the main event was two girls who were fighting over the same (black) man, the campus cop tried to break it up, the man objected, the cop pulled his spray, the man beat him down and took the spray while booting the cop in the face and the cop pulled his gun and "racistly" let the blood from his smashed teeth drip on the man while cuffing him.
The campus got silly for a few months, including "blackwatch" security which was a bunch of black dropouts with cool jackets who practiced staring mean at white students.
The admin thought that was all fun and games until the activists got crazy and broke up a BB game that was televised. The crap ended that next day.
Turns out the admin has the power to summary expel anyone who endangers the community, and everyone who was vaugely involved in forcing the forfit matched that catagory.
The lesson I learned? Until it costs the U a game, the admin will not act as long as there is a hint of race. As soon as it does cost a game, butts will get booted.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:32 PM ^
Do you remember the year this occurred?
December 1st, 2009 at 9:58 PM ^
Race shouldn't be an issue here. The attack occurred at a black fraternity.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:13 PM ^
Just 15-20 guys getting together after practice to work toward a common goal.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:35 PM ^
That's an interesting scenario but is there any precedence for something like this? The EMU incident was precipitated by a basketball game but none of the perpetrators were basketball players (guessing here). Granted multiple incidents like this is unprecedented unto itself so.
Even the Kansas thing is different to me because those were athletes on athletes. These incidents involve people in the general student population; against women and nerds...oy.
Simon definitely has the authority and already gave Dantonio and the AD to handle it like big boys but they failed, obviously. But if she were to do this, she'd undermine Dantonio in a huge way. How could he not leave? A move like that would send a big message to students and parents of students as far as public safety is concerned and that no one is beyond reproach. Still, big money sports trump such trivial virtues. Big props to Simon if she were to drop the real life ban hammer on some rogue football players but I doubt she's got the stones to do it. Yes, I know she doesn't have any actual stones.
Whatever happens, she'll probably toe the company line citing the Winston and Jenrette dismissals.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:56 PM ^
Bobby Williams was fired in part because he seemed to have lost control of his players off the field. Then, the big problem was MSU players using drugs. Now you have a band of 10+ players committing assault. When one guy screws up, that's on him. When 10-20% of the players on scholarship screw up, that may fall on the coach. If I were one of the victims, I'd be calling for Dantonio's dismissal.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:11 PM ^
Jmblue, Bobby really got fired because Carr held him down and booted him in the head a few times.
The cries to fire Williams over the off field crimes and on field screw-ups had been loud (including signs to fire Bobby posted all the way from 96 to main street exit on 23), but it took Carr spanking the team and keeping the first string in to shame them to make it happen.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:20 PM ^
Bobby Williams went 1-2 against Michigan. Our second win against him came after Williams had suspended his starting quarterback over an off-field issue, a move that frankly I don't know Dantonio would be willing to make. If I'm not mistaken, Smoker was never charged with a crime. Williams probably deserves some credit for suspending him anyway. That game would not have been anywhere near as big a laughter if Smoker had played.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:56 AM ^
I disagree. Michigan would have killed MSU in 2002 even if Smoker had played. At the time of the 2002 UM-MSU game, Smoker was reportedly abusing drugs big time. In that condition, he would not have helped Sparty much, if at all. Plus, Carr was out for blood after Spartan Bob's timekeeping shenanigans at the end of the 2001 game.
Also, the fact an alleged drug addict was not charged with a crime has no bearing on whether a coach should be fired for presiding over a team that apparently had a hankering for nose candy.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:07 AM ^
Here's the point. MSU has, earlier this decade, fired a coach in part because he seemed to have lost control over his players off the field. The key piece of evidence that he had lost control was that he suspended his starting quarterback and sent him to drug rehab. Williams was not forced by the legal system to take a stand; he took a proactive measure himself. Still, MSU deemed him negligent and fired him anyway.
As for the outcome of that game, I agree that we would have still won had Smoker played, but not by 46 points. Even when coked-up, Smoker was a decent player (and I think fans like to put their heads in the sand when it comes to drug use by college athletes - it's likely far more prevalent than we want to believe).
Now here we have a coach under whose watch players have committed a far more serious crime (assault) - one of them twice. No disciplinary action was taken after the first crime (even though it landed the player in jail), and that player played a key role on MSU's team until his injury (scoring a TD against us). Whatever lesson should have been learned from the Winston episode seems to have been lost, given that Winston not only (allegedly) committed assault again, but brought along a posse of 10+ teammates. Is this not also a sign of a coach not having control over his players? I'd argue that this is worse than what went down under Williams' watch.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:00 PM ^
(at MSU) Gang-land attacks on innocent victims
Quoting biblical verse during public pissing contests with 20-year old RBs from opposing teams.
(at OSU)
accepting booster money.
choking opposing QBs
Felony drug abuse
concealed weapons
theft,
lying to police,
felonious assault,
negligent assault
drunken disorderly conduct
driving under the influence
drug trafficking,
robbery,
assault,
criminal trespassing,
passing fake money
fighting,
drug use
December 1st, 2009 at 11:04 PM ^
understood from the beginning is why Winston was allowed back on campus, much less the football team. He, with others, carried out a premeditated attack on a fellow student. The university administration had the power at that time to permanently expel Winston under the premise that not doing so could create a hazardous environment for other students (this will be the basis of the inevitable lawsuit).
This falls on Simon as much as it does Dantonio.
With that said, the fact that a second, similar incident occurred implies that Dantonio has little control over his players. How else does it happen twice in a year? Did Dantonio not make it clear what the consequences would be if it did? If he did make it clear, why did (up to) 10 players, including Winston, not fear those consequences? This should be concerning to the university.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:03 AM ^
If this ends up true (it's already 10) that is truly an amazing feat by a sizeable part of a team.
"Southfield attorney Vanessa Moss-Wilson, who is representing MSU junior Brent Mitchell, a potluck attendee who said he was injured in the altercation, said she was pleased that the school appeared to be “taking the matter seriously.”
“We stick by the statement that there were 15-20 members of the football team involved,” she said. “Of that number, there were three that we could not identify because they were wearing ski masks.”
What a bunch of clowns. What is the comparison? FSU's academic scandle -- I don't think that's too similar because that was an effort to cheat by folks in and out of the football program. Minnesota Vikings sex boat parties? Nebraska of the 90's?
I don't know what happened. But I think there's enough out there that this has now become a major black eye not only on the MSU football team, but the University as well. Kinda' sad, really.