Wojo challenges Dantonio

Submitted by physics guy on

This morning's Detroit News:

http://www.detnews.com/article/20091203/OPINION03/912030378/1132/SPORTS…

"One option -- an unpopular one, I'm sure -- is for the Spartans to decline a bowl invitation, citing the need to handle this situation first. If more allegations emerge from the Nov. 22 incident, Dantonio should consider it, even if it means collateral punishment for innocent players."

He cites as precedent the decisions of South Carolina and Clemson to forego bowl bids following their end-of-game brawl in 2004. I doubt MSU will turn down a bowl bid but the full extent of this ugly incident has not yet been determined.

Magnus

December 3rd, 2009 at 7:16 AM ^

This is even worse than the SC-Clemson brawl, which was in the heat of competition when everyone was wearing pads. And those decisions not to play in a bowl game had collateral punishments as well, because not all 100 players on both sides were going at the other team.

raleighwood

December 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 PM ^

I think the big difference is that Sparty wasn't involved in a televised event that gets replayed every 15 minutes on ESPN like the SC - Clemson brawl. If this was making national news, there's almost no way that they could play in a bowl. To this point, it's been a pretty quiet news item (outside of MI) and I'll bet that they play in their bowl game. It's probably not the right decision, but we shouldn't expect much more out of Dantonio.

Moe Greene

December 3rd, 2009 at 7:22 AM ^

At first I read the subject heading and thought...Steel Cage Match! Finally!

...and then was disappointed.

Sparty schadenfreude always goes down smooth, though.

ijohnb

December 3rd, 2009 at 7:45 AM ^

I am enjoying it to and kind of wish I wasn't. If the shittalk from MSU fan was not as plentiful at the beginning of this season I would have had a lot more sympathy.

That being said, there is a lot of time until the bowl game. If MD wants to send the message w/o punishing the incident. Get the police report and all of the information possible, and everybody involved is kicked off the team immediately, scholarship gone on the spot. No suspensions, no "learning opportunities," gone and immediately. He cannot site L. Blount and "give the kid a chance." This was off-field, targeted, premeditated, and not provoked by something almost as immature and childish as the response like in the L. Blount-Boise dude situation.

Go to bowl game, have ZERO tolerance for those involved. They should not be part of the program for another second for any reason.

Fresh Meat

December 3rd, 2009 at 7:59 AM ^

but I would lean away from banning the team from a bowl. Yes, it was a large number of players, but 90% of the players appear to have had nothing to do with it. If something else comes out that makes it worse then I reserve the right to change my opinion, but as the facts stand now I think that would be unfair to a lot of young men.

NoNon

December 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 AM ^

...that's life, man.

Was it fair to the other members of the Fab Five not named "Chris Webber?"

Was it fair to the other members of Florida State footballwho actually excelled academically and did their own damn schoolwork?

Was it fair to Derrick Rose's teammates?

That's the way life works, sometimes innocents are caught in the crossfire and the entire team pays the price...the concept of winning and (this case)losing as a team unfortunately has unfair consequences when problems of this magnitude happen and IMO it speaks more to Dantonio's control and discipline of his own team - That should not go unpunished.

And while there is much to come forward, if the news is true and there are 15-20 players are found to have done this, that's a lot more then 90% who had "nothing to do with it."

03 Blue 07

December 3rd, 2009 at 11:09 AM ^

Random (kinda) question: I am too busy/lazy/indifferent re: Sparty ignorance to have read all of the articles about this, but are there reports that, literally, 15-20 players a.) donned ski masks and b.) engaged in acts of violence that were not self-defense? What do you do to players who were there who didn't commit any acts of violence (hypothetically)? What if, say, there were players who came along because they tried to stop it and couldn't stop the other players from going there and then went along to try to break it up/stop it at the scene? I am just throwing out hypotheticals here, obviously. I don't know what the right answer is, but I think there are always shades of gray. Didn't Dantonio kick eight (8) players off already?

I think turning down a bowl game would be a bit of an overreaction. Just my opinion, but as I said, i don't know if I am as informed as the other people posting on here about this (seriously). I just generally take the opinion that nothing is as black and white or absolute as it seems, especially in situations of crime/assault/fights/battery/booze/college/testosterone/meatiness.

wolfman81

December 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 AM ^

First of all (prepare to be shocked) Drew Sharp came down hard on MSU football. (Who knew he had it in him?)

Secondly, not everyone was wearing a ski mask (from the same article):

The attorney representing one of the suspected victims said eyewitnesses told campus police that 15-20 men, most thought to be football players and a few wearing ski masks, crashed the affair [a charity dinner at Rather Hall] and triggered violence.

They have been identifying players on videotape, and from all reports, it does not sound like there were players there interested in breaking the fight up...none of the "cooler heads" belonged to football players.

As far as punishment goes he has kicked two players off of the team: Glenn Winston and Roderick Jenrette. The suspended players are (courtesy greenandwhite)

The suspended players are wide receivers Cunningham, Dell and Fred Smith, cornerback Rucker, running back Ashton Leggett, linebacker/safety Brynden Trawick, defensive tackle Ishmyl Johnson and defensive end Jamiihr Williams.

I'm pretty sure that at least 4 of these guys see significant playing time (Dell, Cunningham, Leggett, and Rucker). In my mind, this is plenty of reason to consider not playing in a bowl game...(i.e. they will suck even more without four of their better skill players).

Engin77

December 3rd, 2009 at 11:41 AM ^

I have no insight into who was there or why they were there. I have seen no statements by the victims of the attack that any of the 15-20 people who burst into the Iota Phi Theta party were trying to prevent violence.

However,

Didn't Dantonio kick eight (8) players off already?

No. he kicked two off. The other eight are suspended, they could be reinstated any time; today, if MD chooses. Hence, Wojo's article, calling for better judgment than MD used last August.

Tater

December 3rd, 2009 at 8:51 AM ^

Turning down a bowl would be the right thing to do. That is exactly why I hope he doesn't. It might be more fun if they get trounced in a bowl game and we still get to rebut any MSU criticism of RR or even those one-trick Sparties who still use "Fab Five scandal" to "rebut" any factual argument about UM's superiority.

Hopefully, Rosenpuke and Shyster will take their hatchets up to EL now. That would be really, really fun to watch. Sadly, though, it would require objectivity and equal opportunity hatcheting, so I don't think it's gonna happen.

Anyway, a big thanks goes out to Wojo for violating the apparent restraining order against subjecting Saint Dantonio to the same scrutiny as everyone else.

UMMAN83

December 3rd, 2009 at 9:15 AM ^

I would never visit their board. I won't rub it in their face like people I run into that know I'm a UM fan. I won't stoop to their level. This a very serious situation and there is more to come. Paybacks are a bi&$#. Things have a way of working themselves out.

brianshall

December 3rd, 2009 at 10:16 AM ^

While I'm sure we don't have all the info, it's sure fun to watch. But, rejecting a bowl game would be dumb and punish all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons.

steve sharik

December 3rd, 2009 at 11:12 AM ^

...I don't blame him for giving opportunities for kids in the first place, nor do I blame him for giving kids a second chance. IMO, it seems like he isn't doing these things the right way. He's like a parent with good intentions and without the skills to back them up.

If I were him, I would find out who was involved and suspend every single one of them, including not even letting them in the football facilities. No hanging out with players, no lifting, no watching film. I wouldn't let them into the academic support center. I would have tutors, etc. meet them at another location, but not in the football facility where other players are around. I would make them earn their way back onto the team with good grades, zero "incidents" and some "voluntary" conditioning, a la Lloyd Carr.

And I would take my real team to the bowl game, and I would tell them, "Guys, this is our team. We do not roll with assholes. We may lose this game tonight, but if we do I want to go down swinging with you, the guys who really know what it means to be a Spartan."

The greenie weenies love to use the movie "300" as inspiration. Well, instead of drawing the lesson of violence from the film, they need to learn the lessons of character and integrity. Only when I see that will I ever call them "Spartans."

wolfman81

December 3rd, 2009 at 11:53 AM ^

about giving second chances. Sometimes they work out (see Troy Smith). But I agree with Wojo too:

I believe in second chances, which is why I didn't rail against Dantonio's controversial decision to bring Winston back. But I don't personally know Winston. Dantonio does, and it appears he badly misjudged the situation, or misread the player's character.

The key problem to me is that I'm not sure Dantonio actually stopped and stared him in the eye (into his soul?) before letting him back on the team. (Quote from Wojo, emphasis mine)

[H]e [Dantonio] reinstated Winston in August, a few hours after the sophomore from Detroit was released from Ingham County Jail.

Sadly, I'm not sure what all of the consequences of this will be for the suspended players. Both of them could make a soft landing at a MAC school, assuming they don't have years to spend in prison. After all, Johnny Sears landed at Eastern...Kids learn from a young age that incredible athletic talent means that you can get away with certain transgressions.

El Jeffe

December 3rd, 2009 at 1:51 PM ^

Agree with this also, to an extent. I'm not sure a guy who fractures another guy's skull and spends six months in jail for it is the guy I want to spend my "second chance" capital on.

But the bigger failure on Dantonio's part was making Winston's return to the team conditional only on not being in jail. That's not really a very high bar, is it?

Even Arrington had to run steps at the stadium every morning at 6 a.m. for a summer. Also not a tremendously high bar for a highly-conditioned athlete, but still higher than simply not being in prison.

GW: Coach, what do I gotta do to get back on the team?
MD: Well, are you in jail?
GW: Nope, just got released.
MD: Well then I think you just answered your own question!

Yeesh...

tbliggins

December 3rd, 2009 at 12:23 PM ^

Winston was suspended at the end of 08 and in jail in 09. I am sure that MD had talked w/ Winston regarding getting a 2nd chance. So the issue of letting him on the team w/in hours of his release is simply a black eye in public perception. It would have benefitted him if he would have, gulp, gone the JLS route w/ Smoker. Make him "prove" himself (to the team, coaches, media, ect) before officially letting him back on the team.

I am not against giving 2nd chances. MD just happened to get burned on this one as he did realize that Winston has some major issues. Not that I have any sympathy for MD...