in town for free camps
|1 year 15 weeks ago||NO YOU ARE WRONG.||
That's not in the police report or the Supplement to Report Number 3980. I read it. So don't give me that silly crap about "some people." Get your facts straight, Bucko. You're wrong.
Quote from the ACTIONS portion of the Supplemental Report:
"Neither [redacted - a witness] nor [redacted - witness] recieved such comments personally from [redacted - Lewan] or any other [redacted - "football player"].
I'd give you a link but I refuse to give the unworthy source any more page-hits.
At least one of the foregoing witnesses should be presumed to be the complaining witness in the Gibbons investigation. The phone call you seem to be referring to apparently involved persons other than Lewan. Another player perhaps, seems to have claimed that Lewan had made such a comment, entirely apart from the complaining witness.
So as usual, I'm right. Lewan never made the suspect comments to the alleged vicitm. Not to her, or her voicemail or her phone line.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||This is so funny...||
...since I was trying to make the point in another thread a week ago, in this thread, that opposing fans devoted special hatred to opponents' "white guys." (Anybody think that Chait was reading that?!?)
So the Buckeyes reserve special hatred for Stauskas, and also for McGary and even the benchwarmers including Andrew Dakich. You needed only go to the Buckeye blogs for your evidence.
And my posting occurred in the thread where the MGoBoard was lighting up with special ridicule (including a pictgorial entry from Stauskas' girlfriend) of Aaron Craft.
These theories may not be mutually exclusive. That is, sportscasters and writers and perhaps the home fans find all sorts of extra reasons to adore their own Crafts, their own Stauskases, their own Zach Novaks, and Scotty Skiles, etc., etc. And meanwhile the rival fans reserve special hatred for the opposing white guys. Ditto all of those names.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Fuck, Bolivia||
|1 year 15 weeks ago||And fuck yourself again, for good measure.||
By the way you should have written "root" and not "route."
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Oh go fuck yourself you stupid whining asshole.||
He didn't "threaten a girl." He never spoke to the girl. Never emailed her, Tweeted her, saw her. Lewan didn't know what she looked like, by at least one recorded account in police records. Lewan never communicated with her. Hard to threaten someone when you never contact them in any conscious manner.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Of course.||
And some ideologue should go to jail, for the offense to Gibbons' federally-guaranteed right to privacy in this matter. The University of Michigan owes Brendan Gibbons an apology. And just maybe a couple million dollars if we find out how his letter got leaked.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||It might have been nice if Kim Kozlowski...||
...hadn't decided to source practically all of this article through "activists," university rape counselors and Obama Administration officials.
Because she didn't supply it, let's post it right here; a reading list on litigation related to false claims of sexual assaults on campus since the newly-aggressive Obama Administration rules:
I'm openly rooting for a lawsuit featuring a plaintiff Brendan (misspelled by Kim Kozlowski in the Detroit News) Gibbons versus the University of Michigan. I'd like to see it happen, to shed some light on the nature of the quasi-legal and/or sub-legal proceedings to which he was subjected. I'd like a civil action to force disclosure on what role Washtenaw Watchdog Doug Smith (who has falsely called Gibbons a "rapist" and who has wrongly claimed that media didn't report this story when it happened, and who has maliciously alleged that the University of Michigan ignored the case, implying that the football program somehow stymied the investigation) played. I'd love to see a defamation action brought against Smith.
These aren't predictions on my part; just what I'd like to see happen.
By the way, I think the low-level no-brain stories are the old ones about 'Did the media ignore the same kind of stuff at MSU?' or 'We need to make sure that Michigan is above board becaus gosh darnit we're MICHIGAN.'
Unh-unh. This case is all about Washington's gaming of Title IX standards, and institutions like Michigan playing along. This isn't like recruiting, or grey-shirting, or oversigning, or some NCAA academic standards. Or any of the usual 'competitive advantage' issues. This isn't really anything about "our team's better than your team." This is politics. Under current rules, it is only a matter of time until every one of our rivals, and then Michigan again, finds itself in the middle of a contested sexual assault allegation.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||?||
Interesting. I wonder how this works. What if somebody said that overall, you seem like a piece of shit? Not that I would write that. It's only a hypothetical. I'm just curious about what happens in that event.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||I actually think it's good...||
...that these things will get resolved in court where the accused has a lawyer and the lawyer can cross examine the accusers.
And where "guilt" is determined beyond a reasonable doubt, if at all.
No committees, no leaks, etc.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Good. See you court, Mr. Prosecutor.||
I'm remembering Josh Furman right now. Charged by the Washtenaw County Proscutor with domestic violence, assault and battery and illegal entry, and found not guilty on all counts.
Too bad Gibbons didn't go to trial.
Does anybody else think that the Washtenaw County Prosecutor's Office was feeling r-e-a-l-l-y chapped about all of the press surrounding Gibbons and Lewan?
|1 year 15 weeks ago||"Polygraphs are useless..."||
So you'd rather have a scenario be judged by some university-employed rape counselors?
I'll stipulate that polygraphs are useless, when everybody else stipulates that these cases belong in courts of law and not university administration conference rooms.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Such a great thread.||
Even the posts that gave rise to the clever ridicule were good. Everybody wins.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Michigan - Navy, 1928||
Well, 1928 pre-dated our winged helmets too. And, uh, numbers on jerseys.
I'm not so sure but what it predated any standardized usage of Maize and Blue for all of our athletic teams.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Re-signing with Nike has nothing to do with it.||
If you are referring to Nike supposedly trademarking one or more of our colors, it is a myth. If you are trying to say Nike had better general color sense, that is not a matter of contractual rights/duties.
And without a same-frame comparison, practically any photographic reproduction is not true color.
I don't actually disagree with you; in the photo, Manny Harris looks fine. In person, some of this year's basketball uniforms are a tad bright. But they are very fine differences. I would have seen that uniform Manny was wearing, in person. It looked fine. Not all that different (perhaps a half a shade more "pastel") from this year's.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Nobody wants to change what is iconic and what our "brand" is.||
It isn't a matter of "it's always been this way."
The change from the old goldish-corn colored "maize" to highlighter maize has been as dramatic as it has seemed (to some) gradual over time. It's actually been a hell of a long time that it was changed, since I remember exactly what Rob Lytle's helmet and pants looked like. And that was a long time ago. We were getting close to "highlighter" back in the days of Wangler-to-Carter, truth be known. Never bothered me in the slightest. I actually remember the days of black and white photography in newspapers, and our uniforms looked like two shades of gray.
I liked the old maize; it actually looked like, well, maize. It sort of said "fall" in a natural way.
But it didn't photograph very well, on Kodachrome or on color tv. It looked dull. Everyone in professional photography and cinematogtrraphy knows how colors got shifted. Maybe it is different in the digital age; but we've made that change, and I don't mind it one bit. Our new maize is a good, modern, look. It "pops" on most photographic reproductions.
So there you go; one thing that didn't have to stay the way it was because "it's always been that way."
As for the rest of the uniform; there is a reason that Mercedes doesn't change the three-pointed star and BMW doesn't change the split grille. Ford preserves the blue oval for a reason. We are the Winged Victory (Rolls Royce) of college football. The Golden Arches. IBM. The stitched Polo-player. Those things don't stay the same simply because "it's always been that way." They might evolve, just a bit (see; "new Maize") but only in the interest of preserving the brand. Not just to change things up for the heck of it.
And really; if we are talking about the almighty dollah, yours is not the demographic that ought to rule. My demographic -- the PSD payors -- ought to have the primary say.
Real simple; we'd look like West Virginia or Cal or Delaware in a New York minute, with maize jerseys.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Oh I fear the future in your hands.||
Such a big deal, being made over Brady Hoke's obsession with no red anywhere. By rights, Devin ought to just be wearing a red no-contact jersey.
Big fucking deal.
Maize jerzeez. Spare me.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||"...kept under wraps..."||
Although we'd want to keep it under raps, if we ever had a return visit from Eminem...
|1 year 15 weeks ago||I get your point, but...||
I get your point, but the effects of competitive success is a very large part of what bothers me. Brandon might well be thinking; We have to win on the football field. We have to win, and win championships. We have to win double-digits every year. Because if we don't, it compromises our main revenue stream. We absolutely have to pay whatever it takes, no matter how much, to preserve a winning football program.
Thereby, everything depends on football and football revenue. A $10 million coach who wins eleven games is a bargain, comapared to a $3 million coach who wins six or seven games. And that calculation stretches through the entire program. A $75 million facility that helps you recruit four- and five-stars is worth it, compared to a $20 million facility that helps you recruit three-stars. Do the amortization.
There is no incentive to cut costs anywhere. That may be too harsh; too much of an overstatement. Here's a better truism: When you keep throwing money at a problem, it never gets any cheaper. And you wonder why your tutition costs keep going up? Multiply this issue times the entire University of Michigan and the entire U.S. collegiate system.
There's another issue with Brandon and that is the business of hiring more marketing and development professionals, to maximize more revenue opportunities. At one level, this doesn't bother me. I'd like there to be many, many more Walmart Wolverines if they help pay the bills on South State Street. If a $225,000/year development officer nets us another $4 million in stray revenue, it would be a bargain. Anything to remove the pressure from the PSD's and ticket prices that I pay. But a look at the numbers seem to indicate that nothing is growing in cost so fast as Athletic Department salaries, and the burden on PSD's and ticket prices to support the whole thing.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||There was a time when "DB" was universally understood as...||
Defensive Back. Not Dave Brandon.
Although I don't ever recall "DB" being a good abbreviation for "defensive backfield."
Of course it's the Twitter generation that insists on widesread use of initials for personal references. I'd have never thought of referring to Brandon, Hoke, or mostly anybody else by their initials, unless they were a President or a Kennedy. That is, not until texting and Twitter.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||This, from David Brandon, is no answer...||
Let's set aside any technical disputes over that claim. The fact is, our ticket prices may be below some of our benchmark competitors. But our ticket prices are well above many of our benchmark competitors, and way beyond all of our lesser competitors. And ticket prices are the least of my concerns; the PSD racket is my real concern.
The real question is not whether Michigan's ticket prices and seat licenses are comparable with Ohio State. No; the real question is why Michigan's, and Ohio State's, and Georgia's, and Alabma's, and Tennessee's, and Penn State's and Michigan State's and Wisconsin's football ticket prices and seat licenses are all as high as they are. Those football patrons are all paying for something other than collegiate football, probably involuntarily.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||This page, from the Athletic Department, bears more discussion.||
What you see, from the Revenue side, is that ticket buyers, but especially PSD-payers, have become the financial backbone of the Department. Remember that most of those patrons purchase season tickets to no other professional athletic team sports.* Michigan athletics' financial supporters clearly want a product differentiated from professional athletics.
Licensing (apparel, etc.) is a shockingly low portion of department revenues. TV contracts also seem to be a shockingly low part of the department's revenues.
Department salaries and benefits (surprising!), as well as team expenses (not at all surprising) account for about half of total expenses.
The most surprising number on the entire page is that athletic scholarships account for only 14% of expenses. That amazes me; when we have so many grants-in-aid calculated at Michigan's mind-numbing out-of-state tuition rates. I've never thought to ask for an up to date number for the total number of scholarship athletes at Michigan. A number was floating around a couple of years ago, and it did demonstrate how many non-scholarship athletes we have (a lot).
I have sometimes wondered if the numbers published at MGoBlue.com were juiced so as to impress upon the donors who read that page, just how critical they are to the program. It is hard to imagine that we don't get more from, say, worldwide marketing/licensing. Or more from tv contracts.
I don't question the basic premise of the MLive article. Yes, football is the cash cow. Yes, the total numbers for the Athletic Department are eye-watering. Yes, the vast majority of intercollegiate sports are money-losers which all rely on money from football.
*From recent survey results; "Among these respondents, 51 percent have had season tickets for 20 years or more, and over 77 percent attend nearly every home game. Close to half of respondents travel at least 50 miles one-way to attend games, and 78 percent say they do not have season tickets to any other athletic events, collegiate or professional."
|1 year 15 weeks ago||So the simple questions for Brandon:||
Why do costs keep going up? Why does the Athletic Department budget continut to rise at rates that can't possibly be explained away as inflation, or necessary capital improvements? What are you doing, this year, in connection with other Big Ten AD's and other national AD's, to seriously hold down the costs of collegiate athletics? Your mentor, Bo Schembechler warned about all of these effects -- namely, collegiate football becoming a massive money-making engine to fund other collegiate sports -- when the 1970's changes to Title IX were being considered; Bo was right, wasn't he?
|1 year 15 weeks ago||I think that maybe...||
...you've just been going to the wrong operas.
What will it take to finally debunk the myth of the all-powerful superior-enthusiasm student rooting section? The exact timing of the photo below is determined by Michigan's Man Up Front at the tunnel entrance; the MMB is about to enter the field, and the student section is half empty.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||So sad.||
That I am the first to upvote you. I hope I am the first of about two dozen.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Then the legislators will get involved...||
...to make sure that everybody shares in the new effective taxes on college athletics, so that it all goes where they want it. Women's sports; carefully managed minority representation; union organizing fees; and naturally, fees to lobbyists who will work the regulators and help fund campaigns.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||"College football is a business..."||
If that is the premise, that "college football is a business," then let's fix that part. Make it less of a business. Decrease the time athletes spend in their sports. Make them true student-athletes. Let all of the wannabe pros go to a developmental league. Decrease athletic budgets.
To a great extent, I blame the institutions themselves for engaging in the sort of arms race towards bigger and bigger budgets and more and more NFL-Lite kinds of accoutrements.
The Ivy League isn't having these problems. I'd favor moving to the Ivy League model instead of the NFL Jr. model. I'd rather Michigan's athletic department run in the red, rather than have it be profitable under a model of paying players in a minor league football system.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||lol. The New Yorker.||
I have never, ever, understood the concern over in-Stadium concessions. I go to a taligate before the game. Almost invariably, every game. It's part of the whole thing.
After a couple of bloody marys, and a couple of Heinekens, and on rare occasion (very hot days) a beer snuck into the Stadium, and a beer at the tailgate after the game, or (on very cold days) a mini-bottle of Kahlua and/or cognac with some stadium coffee; a corned beef sandwich from Star Deli or Zingermans or something like that...
Who cares about stadium nachos? Stadium hot dogs? Stadium cokes? In-stadium alcohol sales? I like to buy a bottle of water quite often. The fact that it might be 3 bucks is pretty inconsequential compared to my $2400 seat license.
Who really cares about these concession issues? It all barely makes a dent in the Athletic Department revenues.
I agree with Brandon; keep alcohol sales out. I prefer things the way they are now. I'd rather have to keep sneaking in my beverages of choice, than put up with the disgusting atmosphere of an NFL crowd. There really is no need for alcohol sales inside the Stadium. People need to learn the art and science of tailgating a lot better.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Wofford's traditional/historical rival...||
... is Appalachian State.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||The banality with which you oversimplified and misinterpreted...||
...my comment does make it sound stupid. That's on you.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Absolutely I brought race into it.||
Just as I clearly wasn't doing anything remotely like "race-baiting."
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Laettner for sure. Great example.||
Christian Laettner is a wonderful example of what I am talking about. Bobby Hurley (not Reddick) would be next on that list.
My own feelings are of course mixed up in anything I write, so yeah; Christian Laettner. Bobby Hurley. Kent Benson. Steve Alford. Kelly Tripucka. Bill Laimbeer. Larry Bird. Danny Ainge. (The guys from Duke, IU and Notre Dame are twofers.) Etc., etc.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||WTF?||
The object of my ridicule is basically the entire world of sports fandom...
I didn't criticize whites, or blacks. I didn't pick on any one team. (I think all fans, from all quarters, are mostly alike in this regard.) I didn't single out any one player or group of players for criticism; my one and only point was how "polarizing" white basketball players can be amongst their rivals.
Is that what gets called out nowadays as "race-baiting"? Shheeeeesh.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Right. This isn't a pure 100% to 0% on-off thing.||
So; yeah, I didn't much like Magic Johnson and Jay Vincent. Or Mateen Cleaves. And our friends over in East Lansing probably didn't care for Glen Rice, or Antoine Joubert. People like you and me probably shouldn't be polled about our feelings as to any of the Spartans. But none of those guys are anywhere near as polarizing as a Skiles, a Novak, a Stauskas, a Steve Grote, etc.
And yes, the Fab Five did everything humanly possible to make themselves lighting-rods for attention (and, consequently, rival-hate).
I'm glad that you at least "agree with some of [my] argument," because I don't claim it to be any sort of mathematically perfect algorithm. You make a good point that we tend to love our own white guys (the way that we would love a Novak/Grote/Stauskas; and the way that Buckeyes would love a Deibler/Craft/Allan Hornyak) and hate the opponents' white guys (ditto every one of those names).
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Absolutely. Aaron Craft would be an adored hero at Michigan.||
We'd be talking about retiring his number. In part, because he'd not only be a starter and a leader, he'd be an invaluable part of the machinery on our team. Michigan would be a much, much, much better team with Aaron Craft.
There seems to be a peculiar thing in sports where your rival's "white guy" gets special treatment as a hate-object. So you see comments at a normally clear-eyed and smart place like Eleven Warriors, about how many faces on the Michigan bench they'd like to punch. (A reference to Spike Albrecht, Mitch McGary and Andrew Dakich.) And, apropos of this thread, all our rivals are saving a special brand of hatred for none other than Nik Stauskas. Unlike any hatred of any of our quality black players.
Our rivals didn't hate Trey Burke that way. (They hated Burke, in all liklihood, but not "that way.") They did hate Zach Novak that way. We don't hate anybody at MSU (Appling, Harris, Mateen Cleaves, Steve Smith), the same way we hated Scott Skiles. It's a kind of a universal license in sports. Lines that you'd not normally cross, in hating on a black opposing star, fall away in hating on a rival white star.
Anyway, someday very soon, Aaron Craft is just going to be a former Ohio State basketball player. He'll be remembered for playing very well, and harder than anybody had ever seen, and being a remarkably good kid. And he'll go on to medical school, and a department chairmanship at the Cleveland Clinic or the OSU medical faculty at the Wexner Medical Center, or some such thing. Aaron Craft is going to do just fine.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||I think they started to make Frank Clark count...||
... to "4 Mississippis" before demolishing our OL.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||The biennial question on Victors Club points.||
The Victors Club, which by and large operates with a really admirable level of customer service and efficiency, has done a terrible job with keeping an accurate tally on Victors Club points.
I'm at a level where a lot of people might be enviable, then they'd find out how miserably far I am from hoping to get a decent parking space on football game days.
Still I am determined to keep my count correct. Anybody have a number/web address/contact info for Victors Club points details and corrections?
|1 year 16 weeks ago||I think you may have a point...||
Upon reflection, it was insensitive, outrageous and unbelievable for me to have pictured Lloyd Carr returning for that game.
Seriously, though; why on earth would Brandon have e-v-e-r scheduled Appalachian State, if not for the spectacle of a medieval-level revenge fantasy on the part of 110,000 ticket-purchasers? I have been steadfastly unserious in this thread; but on this, I am completely serious. I presume this is all about a primal sort of revenge. I am going to this game, and I very honestly regard the game as one of the handful of prime home games of the year. For me, and the other 85,000 or so who were also (as I was) eyewitnesses to The Horror. Nobody can possibly tell me that Brandon was not teeing up this exact thinking on my part.
I want to see some of our pipe-hittin' brothers go medieval on Saturday, August 30. I've got some hurt that needs to be cured by some insensible violence. For $75 x 4, plus $2,400.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||Brandon Explains Why He Scheduled an App State Rematch||
|1 year 16 weeks ago||.||
|1 year 16 weeks ago||It won't be enough, to merely win.||
We will need to beat them 104-0. We will need to injure their starting QB, their backup QB, and their third-string QB.
We will need to beat them, then kill their coach, attach ropes to his four limbs, and quarter his lifeless body. His head will need to be severed and placed on top of the left-hand pole of the north endzone goalposts.
And finally, with the band playing The Victors, we will need to erect a platform at midfield, where Lloyd Carr, wearing a flowing Blue robe and a Maize crown, will plunge a large knife into the chest of an Appalachian State cheerleader and remove her still-beating heart, holding it high over his head while the entire Appalachian State football tream is enslaved and paraded around the field in chains.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||WE LUCKY.||
|1 year 16 weeks ago||It seems to be so easy nowadays, to play the "racist" card.||
Is it the demographic on this Board? I think it is disgraceful, to allow anybody to get away with blandly calling Musberger "racist" and leaving it as though it were an accepted fact. Naturally, at a left-wing site like The Nation, playing that race card against Musberger and in favor of a couple of 60's race-protest icons like Carlos and Smith goes over pretty easy. It was The Nation's leftist sprotswriter Dave Zirin who dug up the 40 year-old column by a young Brent Musberger, writing for the Chicago American. Zirin co-wrote a book with the subject of the story, American Sprinter John Carlos, and it is clear where Zirin's sympathies lie. Nothing wrong with that of course; Zirin can take whatever viewpoint he likes. And he most certainly has.
The big thing was to pick on Musberger's phrase, "black-skinned stormtroopers" in one line of a much longer column. The pretty obvious reason for that description was the self-styled "salute" that Carlos and Smith chose, with black-gloved fists raised high with heads bowed, reminiscent of salutes to der fuhrer during the days of the Third Reich. (Just think; we are farther in time now removed from 1968, than they were removed from the liberation of the death camps, in 1968.)
The reason for the right and left raised fists is that the two sprinters only had one pair of gloves and so they each took one.
Anyway, that's pretty much where any criticism of Musberger, circa '68, ends. The rest of his column for the American was well-written and remarkably correct. Correct, that is, for anybody who doesn't work for The Nation and who is devoted to the social protests of the 1960's.
I give The Nation and Dave Zirin credit for precisely one thing; they reprinted the entire 1968 column by Musberger. (The Chicago American no longer being around to claim any copyright, I suppose.) Here are some of the relevant bits that I commend to anybody really interested in the inflammatory charge that Musberger wrote a "racist" column about Carlos and Smith. Here are the opening paragraphs:
I gather from the dateline (Mexico City) as well as the next part of the column, that Musberger was there in Mexico City and was an eyewitness to some of what happened. Because the column goes on like so:
Then came what I think was the best line of the column. Maybe this is the line that pissed off Dave Zirin the most (although Zirin seemed content to go as Godwin as Musberger did, and pick on the "black stormtroopers" trope):
So have at it, MGoBoard! You find the most racist part of the 1968 Brent Musberger column. I call bullshit on the "Brent Musberger = "racist" smear.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||Some of you are...||
Some of us go with what the national consensus has been, for many years; that Brent Musberger has, over a long career, been one of the best all-around sportscasters in his business. And particularly good with Big Ten football and basketball, being a product of Northwestern University and Chicago sportswriting.
Nobody mentioned his one great failure, which was golf. Musberger was handed a big role in golf when he was at ABC in the days after Jim McKay (who was great at everything including golf), and Brent was a train-wreck in trying to call golf. It is really his only significant professional failing.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||Rules schmoolz.||
|1 year 16 weeks ago||Definitely the Big Ten's loss.||
When Brent Musberger did a game, you knew instinctively it was a big game, and his performance was routinely good.
The only underrated guy I can think of for them to promote is Mike Patrick, who is probably the most underrated play-by-play pro among the second-line announcers in the ESPN stable. Brad Nessler is of course the Number 2 play by play guy to Musberger; and Nessler is very good of course.
Musberger had developed chemistry with Kirk Herbstreit (also very good) and that will be lost now, apparently.
Big win for the SEC, getting Musberger and Jesse Palmer.
Well we've still got
|1 year 16 weeks ago||I'm not a real Lions fan!||
I'm not a fake Lions fan, or a wannabe Lions fan. I'm not a fairweather Lions fan, or a heartbroken Lions fan. I'm not a good Lions fan, or a loyal Lions fan.
I am a Michigan fan (alum) who doesn't even pretend to be a Lions fan.
And it's "your" not "you're." I would expect Michigan grads, and not Lions fans, to know that.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||To me, this is the irony of the NFL.||
Does anybody expect me to root for Golden Tate? Perhaps so, if I were a fan of the Detroit NFL franchise. Fortunately I am not.
I remember the years when the Pistons featured Kelly Tripucka, Bill Laimbeer and Adrian Dantley. All I saw, was a bunch of guys from Notre Dame and later IU (Isaiah Thomas).
Far easier, just to regard professional football and basketball as exoplanets; to be observed from afar without any real connection.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||Oh please.||
The football team won 10 games in 2011.
And there were plenty of <10-win years before Rodriguez was offered the Michigan job.
And listening to the students, I'm not hearing that "more wins" is the determinative factor. Who the hell knows, early in a season or before a game is played, whether it is a winner or not?
No; what I keep hearing is, "moar parties"; "hi-def tv's"; "crummy wifi in the stadium"; et cetera.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||double post||
|1 year 16 weeks ago||Jason Gay had a pretty funny column in the Wall Street Journal.||
|1 year 16 weeks ago||That is a superb point. You DON'T see that at the 'Shoe.||
I was there for two games in 2013; their game versus Florida A&M (disappointing that the Rattlers' band was still banned) and San Diego State.
And it was NOTHING like the Michigan students' pathetic showing. They were mostly filled for "Quick Cals" with the team and coaches which is BEFORE their band comes out and like 15-20 minutes before the team comes out for the national anthem.
So those were two low-grade opponents, early in the season on summer-like beautiful days. And still they had their stadium filled, that early.
It is almost a mirror image of Michigan, where the PSD-paying regulars are there in time to fill the place for the band to "take the field." And the students are laggards. At Ohio Stadium, the two endzone Block O sections are the ones that fill up early.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||Man, these insults have really grown stale.||
The recent-year students have been the biggest fail in terms of attendance in the last 30 years.
Show up, on time, and maybe somebody will listen to you.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||Oh yeah. A picture of about 2500, making noise...||
|1 year 16 weeks ago||I still don't get that "first rows" thing.||
What is the view like, in the third row of Section 31? Never in my life have I had any desire to sit there. Uh, stand there.
Who in their right mind wouldn't rather be in about Row 50 of Section 25? Where you could, like, see the game?
|1 year 16 weeks ago||It's like Junior College now, isn't it?||
A bunch of guys showing up to play for a couple of years and then they are gone, to their preferred destinations.
It's somewhat surprising, that college basketball can maintain its popularity with the constant reshuffling of lineups. Even more surprising, that anyone can get any of the great collegiate players to show up for a single class. How many credits did Trey Burke complete?
|1 year 17 weeks ago||StAEE.||
|1 year 17 weeks ago||PSD's and donations are a much bigger revenue source...||
...than all of licensing. And (this is amazing to me) bigger than all of television contract revenues.
The University of Michigan Athletic Department owes more, in other words, to season ticket holders, Victors Club members and loyal alumni-donors, than any revenue source you named.
We are owed an explanation; what do we get, for our ever-increasing prices for tickets and seat licenses? I don't see anything. Sure, we compete with the Ohio States and the Alabamas and the Notre Dames. And they are all spending more. It is an arms race. To what end? I could not possibly care less about the NFL, or producing NFL-ready players. All I want is the traditional spectacle of college football.
I'd rather not participate in anything that looks like NFL Jr. A tv contract is meaningless to me, as a season-ticket holder. Merchandising is a silly sidelight. TV and merchandising might interest me, if it meant holding down ticket prices and PSD's. But it doesn't seem to work that way. I'm paying for an arms race with other schools, to produce a "product" I'm not so sure I even like all that much.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||Thank God for the Ivy League...||
...showing us what collegiate athletics ought to be. Real student-athletes.
But seeing the tensions with Amaker (whom I always liked) and Harvard and the Ivy League, competitively, demonstrates just how hard it is to maintain a world of student-athleticism when the pressure is to cut corners on academics and study time.
I say for the umpteenth time: if you are ever at an event where David Brandon is speaking (alumni groups, U of M Club meetings, Victors Club functons) ask him what he is doing, this year, in connection with other AD's, to reduce costs and spending on athletics. It's a question that could well be put to all of higher education, but that's for another forum. I'd like to hear an entire speech from Brandon on the subject of the future of Michigan's Athletic Department budget. Will the budget always continue to expand? If so, where is the money going to come from?
|1 year 17 weeks ago||What is shocking to me, in looking over the AD financials...||
...is how little Michigan makes, off of licensed apparel deals. If anybody thinks that Michigan is getting rich off of all of these stupid little uniform tweaks, think again.
I don't think it is worth it. At least not to Michigan. Maybe adidas is getting some coin out of the deal.
By its own accounting, roughly 5% of Athletic Department revenues come out of all licensing. Compare that, to 22% from PSD's and other individual giving.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||adidas||
More "template" uniforms. It's the worst trend in collegiate sports. Letting the manufacturers dictate template designs, into which they force schools under contract.
Indiana, I presume, said "No" to this. They have a classic, iconic basketball uniform that they regard as emblematic of the brand of Indiana basketball. I am guessing that they have decided not to compormise it.
No To "Wolverines." Are we "the anti-mascot school"? I kind of hope so.
It seems to me that the most handsome and most-admired basketball uniforms in recent years were the designs from last year where someone had the brilliant idea to go back to Michigan's basic, simple, classic design from the 1960's and early 1970's:
|1 year 17 weeks ago||Back in 1985, the New Yorker on Joe Dumars' draft day:||
For subscribers to the New Yorker, there was a very cool writeup in the Talk of the Town section on Joe Dumars' own draft day back in 1985:
Quite revealing; a worthwhile short read.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||What a depressing thread.||
What a depressing thread.
This is why college basketball, despite being a thrilling game to watch (much better than the NBA) and having a wonderful climax to the season with the 64+ team tournament, is so much less compelling to me now than in past decades.
College basketball is reduced to being a developmental league. It's too bad, because the game has so much going for it. You have to work at it, to screw up college basketball. They are definitely working at it.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||WHAT?||
When did THAT happen? Don't try to tell us that Taylor Lewan called the woman's cell phone and issued any "indirect threat" to her. Because I don't think that happened at all.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||I can pretty easily imagine Coaches Schembechler and Knight...||
in the same athletic department. Kindred spirits. The synergy would be fantastic.
But at Wisconsin?
Barry Alvarez must have some great stories; the clash of a major athletics department and the culture in Madison. On paper, I should have all kinds of reasons to hate Alvarez. A resume that runs through all of our rivals; Nabraska, Iowa, Notre Dame. I presume that Alvarez would like nothing better than to beat Michigan, in basically everything.
But what he has done in Madison is pretty astonishing. He's built success and stability. He's done well in fundraising. Their programs have few blemishes. They seem to be having fun in Madison.
Maybe the administrators in Madison learned from Michigan; to just leave athletics to the athletics guys.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||Exactly...||
Frieder, schooled by Johnny Orr in one of many great Michigan matchups in the NCAA. The whole Big Ten nearly collapsed in the NCAA tourney that year, after an amazing year in the conference. IU lost early, Purdue lost early, Michigan was upset by Johnny Orr and Iowa State and only Jud Heathcote's Spartans made it as far as the Sweet Sixteen.
Michigan has an unfortunate history in the NCAA tournament. The great Dave Strack teams with Cazzie Russell ran into the dawn of the John Wooden era at UCLA. (And, I think, Bill Bradley's Princeton team.) There was Frieder, running into Johnny Orr. And Steve Fisher running into the late Hank Gathers' Loyola Marymount team. We have an unfortunate way of bumping into a lot of NCAA legends.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||Well there is a lot of truth in what you say.||
No one ever went broke understimating the insight of sports fans. For many of them, nothing matters except winning.
Of course Urban Meyer walked into a team with a future Big Ten Conference Player of the Year at QB, and Rodriguez inherited Saline High School's QB.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||It never occurred to me before...||
...that Avant did that in his old hometown of Chicago. That is, if a kid from the South Side could ever regard the north shore in Evanston as his hometown. Anyway, a real nice time and place to do that.
Probably my favorite player coming out of all of the years of Coach Carr's coaching tenure.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||On Twitter, regarding the NCAA proposal...||
...I think that the larger national perspective is that Rodriguez was speaking truth to power and was being smart about it. Most people I saw seemed to think that Rodriguez was right. Rodriguez's own perspective about the way that the NCAA had failed to alert anyone to discussion about the possible rule change was as informative as it was powerful in calling the NCAA to account.
By most measures I am familiar with, he's doing a good job in Arizona. He put a team on the field last year that was probably as good as Michigan. His recruiting out of Tucson is also comparable to Michigan: 2014 team recruiting -- Rivals AZ #28 (Michigan #31); Scout AZ #30 (Michigan #27); 247Sports AZ #31 (Michigan #20).
It really is interesting how smooth the coaching transition turned out to be in Columbus, compared to Ann Arbor. I wondered why; it occurred to me that the Rodriguez loyalists weren't the outlier. It was the Rodriguez-haters. There is simply no corollary in Columbus, to the Rodriguez-haters in Ann Arbor. They love them some Urban Meyer for sure, but it is never at the expense of Coach Tressel. Jim Tressel still has a considerable wellspring of support throughout Ohio, Columbus and the Ohio State University.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||Too bad Rodriguez wasn't as deft at handling the press as...||
Brady ("family matter") Hoke.
I mean, really. I like Brady Hoke as much as the next Michigan fan. Nobody thinks Brady isn't a good guy. Certainly, I have little doubt about Brady's being a wonderful, decent, caring, straight-up guy with his players.
But so was Rodriguez, wasn't he? I've never heard any different. I think his guys loved him. His Michigan seniors weren't very happy about his discharge.
Anyway; you seem to be making a point that it is all about handling the press and creating a public persona. And this year has not been a kind one for Brady Hoke on that front.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||So you want the AD to sell students tickets...||
...at reduced student prices, and then make it real easy for those students to turn them around on the open market, for market prices?
We have student sections for a reason. A couple of reasons, actually. First, there are a lot of students who want to go and who will show up on time, etc. The Athletic Department wants to give them a deal, to do just that. Second, we all want a student section in the Stadium. Yell, make noise, get rowdy, show a Maize bloc, etc. It is part of the spectacle.
If students want to make a case that they should be able to buy single-game tickets, and not be cornered into purchasing season tickets, I'd be willing to listen. But student tickets, sold at a discount, should not be resold on the open market. That is an insult to people who paid full-fare plus a PSD.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||Um...||
...for University of Michigan undergarduates, do we have to allow not only alcohol sales, but underage alcohol sales?
I don't wish to be too harsh; the drinking age was 18 when I matriculated. Seems to me that a worthy campus protest might be to lower the drinking age. But maybe before that happens, your cohort will succeed in legalizing marijuana. That will no doubt help with everything.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||Let me see if I can summarize.||
So; I have a mixture of sympathy and contempt for the students. The ones who show up ought to be treated better. Better gate access; no more GA. The ones who don't show up ought to be weeded out of the ticket market.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||Self-parody.||
Meanwhile, the SEC just goes along, being parrot-y.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Congress didn't issue the April 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter.||
The Obama Administration, through its appointee did that. The equivalent of a "phone and a pen." That's how that works.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||I was speaking in hyperbole, to meet the previous post.||
You stated it far better, and I couldn't agree more. Well said.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Michigan had such a policy, and procedure, in 2009.||
Under explicit direction from Assistant Secretary Russlynn H. Ali in April of 2011, the University felt compelled to re-craft its policy.
And under what seems to be urgent pressure from that same Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education, and in apparent response to a complaint from "the Washtenaw Watchdog," the University took further action after a lapse in time of about four years.
Law. Ha ha.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||And to be sure...||
...the Auburn/Joshua Strange case was not a football case. Josh was a 'civilian' student. It might have been even more interesting, had they tried to do what they did to Josh, to Cam Newton.
The only probable relevance of "football" in the Gibbons case, is that Gibbons' status as a football player prompted our ol' buddy Doug Smith to hound him (and the supposed victim, I gather) for the rest of his days in Ann Arbor. Including Smith's personally filing a federal complaint with the OCR.
People will try to make this about "football," when football has almost nothing to do with it.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Well, I think the Duke lacrosse case is worth mentioning...||
... but I don't think you've characterized it accurately.
The three indicted players -- Evans, Finnerty and Seligman -- sued Duke and the case was settled in a fashion that leads me to believe that they each got millions. The entire Duke team from '06-'07 sued, and that case also got settled. I think Duke's coach also sued, although they may have settled with him pre-suit.
Reade Seligmann graduated from Emory Law School and is now a clerk for a U.S. District Court Judge.
David Evans went to Wharton, and is now at a venture capital firm.
Collin Finnerty I am not sure about. He was probably the best player of the three, and was the youngest at the time.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||The standard "SEC" joke fails in this case.||
Because we have Auburn, as I mentioned above.
People need to understand. This isn't a "Football versus Academics" fight. It's not a "B1G Discipline versus SEC Corruption" fight. This is none of those things.
This is all about the current Department of Education Office of Civil Rights flexing its muscles. Ordinarily, as a certifiably-pc institution, the University of Michigan would fall all over itself to comply. That seems to have happened in this case, in fact. It was the same in the Auburn case.
No; this fight is to see how far the federal government can push universities, and at what cost to those unversities. Places like Michigan and Auburn might well say internally, Just do whatever they want. Try to do it before they ask us to do it. That's what the actions say. And just maybe, compared to the federal dollars involved, any lawsuit(s) from a Joshua Strange, or a Brendan Gibbons, are mere afterthoughts.
So in this case, we are indistinguishable from the SEC.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||That's some very solid Fisking, BiSB.||
I approve. Very nicely done.
Bring on this fight, I say. I hope everybody sues everybody else. Put this in court, where Gibbons' case should have been (or should not have been) from the beginning.
Next leak I am looking forward to; the transcript from the OSCR/OIE proceedings in Gibbons' case. Of course, they should not be leaked. Neither should Gibbon's letter have been leaked to The Michigan Daily. Shit happens, I guess.
It was a leak (defense-side, I presume) of the transcript of proceedings in the Auburn case that led to James Taranto's explosive WSJ column. The transcript revealed what a ludicrous kangaroo court those proceedings had been. With Auburn's assigned hearing panelists stage-whispering questions about what they were supposed to do. (A university librarian was the chairman of the panel. The other members were two students, a Liberal Arts College staffer and a fisheries professor.)
The campus protesters seem to have no idea whatsoever where this is likely to go.
Let the lawsuits commence.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Where this is heading...||
My big question: Did the federal government insist on something like expulsion, no matter whether a crime was charged or not?
No need to discuss politics on the MGoBoard here and now. But rest assured that is where this is heading.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Congrats. You offended me.||
Just think about these words: "The old guard more often than not needs to be offended..."
More often than not. They need to be offended.
Mission accomplished. I never thought of myself as "old guard" in any particular way. And I remember cheering for Jalen, Chris, Juwan, Jimmy and Ray. But you have offended me, so you've got that going for you.
Just to be clear, I am offended by people who presume to know eyewitness kind of stuff when they weren't there.
I am waiting fo the first non-millenial Michigan fan to come on here and say that they were there, and that they recall some really clear evidence of division, divisiveness or hostility when the Fab Five were playing. I don't see it happening.
"[E]xpose their ignorance" is what you wrote. Lulz. Expose the ignorance of the people who were actually there?
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Mostly nonsense.||
I was there for the first game where Jalen started and was pretty amazing as a freshman. I was there when they all played together the first time, and I think I was around when they all started together (or at least the first time they all started together in Crisler). There was nothing but enthusiasm and a feeling of novelty. Crisler in those days was no less supportive than if the five of them showed up next weekend.
This myth about the Fab Five facing some sort of wall of prejudice is absolutely ridiculous. If some of their attitudes, statements and behaviors got called out in media stories, it is only because it was worth it to the media to talk about it. That's what the media does.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Your own prejudice is revealed...||
...in your assertion -- twice -- that "all the right people" were offended by the Fab Five.
That's really the point. The view that some people need to be offended.
Plain and simple; some of us view the contributions of people like Bob Knight, Knight's protege Mike Krzyzewski, Knight's personal friend Bo Schembechler, Schembechler's mentor Woody Hayes, etc., etc., as infinitely more important to collegiate athletics than the two scandal-tainted years Chris Webber was in Ann Arbor.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Knight hated Bill Frieder, because he thought Frieder was dirty.||
And by extension, I think Knight probably had some disdain for Fisher too.
Knight wanted to beat Michigan all the time. But he didn't hate everything about Michigan. As I mentioned, Schembechler and Knight were good friends and under other/different circumstances, Schembechler as AD might well have hired Knight.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||It's not really about performance, Don.||
Although it is a remarkably celebrated team, considering they didn't win anything of any consequence.
They were fun to watch. I was there, rooting for them. They played very well. I wish they had all stayed four years and all had gotten degrees. And that none of them took any of Ed Martin's numbers-racket money.
They would have been great as seniors. But they chose differently.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||The biggest myth in modern Michigan sports history.||
This notion that while they were still in school, the Fab Five were "divisive" or viewed as a threat.
I was there; I held season basketball tickets through those seasons. I never once saw or heard any "division" or "divisiveness." There was no such division on campus; just lots of fun watching a good (if under-performing in the biggest games) team. The team felt home-bred, even though just two of the guys (Webber and Rose) were from Detroit. Local media loved the Fab Five. There was no MGoBlog. No Facebook. No Twitter. The Free Press had no website, and consequently no comments pages. The internet was for information technology professionals.
The myth -- apparently based on a single documentary film dramatizing some negative letters (letters used to be things written on paper and sent through a delivery service called the U.S. Postal Service in envelopes with stamps on them) sent in to the Michigan Athletic Department at 1000 South State Street, or to the president of the University or to members of the Board of Regents -- was that there was a sizable contingent of alumni and fans of Michigan basketball who protested the appearance and attitutde of the Fab Five. The fans may have been more right than anybody knew, if they had only criticized Chris Webber's then-unknown corruption. But for anyone who thinks that there was any sort of serious, non-fringe divisiveness surrounding the Fab Five...
it is a completely myth, made up for current consumption.
If anybody has copies of any of the alleged letters, by all means say so and we can examine them for content, number, and authorship.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||Complete quote of my reply to you.||
If you can't see anything in the foregoing link, this is it:
|1 year 20 weeks ago||And so then did you catch...||
My completely civil and respectful-disagreement reply to you?
For my part, it isn't even question of a civil debate. Everything I have posted has been civil and serious. It really seems to me to be a matter of shutting off one side of a debate, by any means necessary.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||Post-Dumars.||
I expect that it will be the first time post-Dumars, that the Pistons, with a new MSU-grad owner, will go after Izzo.
I don't know much or care much about the NBA. But there is so much logic to this rumor, it is hard not to be interested. It could be Izzo's franchise to run. With a team President he rcommends.
I'd take this very seriously.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||I respond, respectfully...||
The post was crafted as an exact corollary to the "DFW sports anchor" thread. Quoting it, in fact. It was a kind of copy, with a competing link.
Serious question: Are you suggesting that I should simply have made my post as a "reply" in that other thread?
The post contained no more and no less "analysis" by the OP than the "DFW sports anchor" thread. I plead guilty in that regard. I didn't try to do any analysis. Is "analysis" a requirement of posts containing links to self-explanatory, and sometimes contentious, issues? I did not know that; if so it would seem to be a rule observed quite often in the breach thereof.
"Flamebait"? I supplied no substantive commentary. (No "analysis" in your parlance.) My post, and the linked column, contained not one word of objectionable material. My post said little other than introducing the link and quoting the DFW sports anchor thread; "Like him or hate him, he makes some strong points." The linked column was nothing more and nothing less than a commentary on a perception of media bias on the coverage of Michael Sam. The column author wrote not a word of commentary on the substance of gay rights. As other MGoCommenters have been falling all over themselves to say, "This has been the biggest story in sports for the past 48 hours." (48 hours-plus, now.) Analysis of that national coverage meta-story ought to be fair game.
"Obviously political website." Hmm. Okay. You got me. It was not an "obviously politcal" column; it was media criticism. It was not an "obviously political" post on my part; I said nothing substantive about the debate, much less politics. But yeah, Newsbusters is, in general, just one side of the political spectrum. So all sources with a political lean are now verboten? So explain the link to Jon Stewart and the Daily Show in the other thread that I have referenced.
I should add; the "DFW sports anchor" thread is now a true godawful mess. I can hardly bear to wade through it. From players' "junk" in the locker room, to a general free-range discussion of "sexual aggression," "sexual assault" by "dudes," "lesbian locker rooms," "steers and queers" in Texas [I know full well it is an intended sarcastic reference to an R. Lee Ermey solliloquy in Full Metal Jacket] and so on and so forth.
By comparison, my thread on the Tebow/Sam media treatment comparison was 10,000% more serious, and more civil. At least it was when I started it.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||Negative comments toward Michael Sam.||
Have there been any negaitve comments toward Michael Sam? This is a serious question.
I can think of very few "negative" comments, at least from people who are publicly named and given attribution. I would automatically disavow and disown all of the random and nonattributable social media trashtalk in the cases of Tebow and Sam. So we can forget that part.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||And you'd run the A-11 Offense. Sweet...||
|1 year 20 weeks ago||Wut?||
How did I miss any news about that pregame video at the Schottenstein Center? Is it posted online? Anybody got a link?
|1 year 20 weeks ago||?||
He is suspended from Cass Tech. Has been, since the day it happened, I think.
As for being expelled, I think that only the University of Michigan expels student-athletes for alleged crimes without anything being proven against them in a court of law. Oh and Xavier too. And Xavier might just have a hard lesson to learn, in civil court.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||No...||
He's not being "tried" as anything, yet.
He's been booked, and a charge of assault has been referred to the Wayne County Prosecutor's office. He'll be arraigned (a pro forma proceeding at which he will say nothing) in the 36th District Court. Only then -- probably in a few weeks -- will they talk about a preliminary exam, a plea, a trial, etc. Everybody gets charged, all the same. Adults and utes.
The big problem now for Jayru is that he'll be looking at a "no contact" order with anybody involved in the case. Routine, in an assault case. He is suspended from school, and I expect he's going to stay suspended and maybe through the end of the school year. At that point, Jayru ain't come to play school or football. His standing as an athlete and a member of any school's 2015 class gets a little wierd by then.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||Holmes Youthful Trainee Act may save the day.||
For Jayru, and for Sparty.
When someone refers to Frank Clark as a "felon," you can correct them because under the HYTA, Frank Clark is not a felon. He completed his year under the Act, and no record of conviction was entered.
Jayru would likely qualify; there would be good reason to put him into the program, and I suspect there'd be a good chance of his completing it successfully, with lots of attention. I am not aware of Jayru's having any other sort of a record.
By the fall of 2015, Jayru could be out of the program with no felony record.
"Two counts" of assault is a bit of a puzzlement to me; anybody know exactly why two counts? (They might work a plea as to just one count. I am not sure as to whether "two counts" might disqualify HYTA application.)
|1 year 20 weeks ago||I can't speak for anyone else.||
I can only speak for myself. But I could have a perfectly civil discourse on this subject. I'd wonder why anybody thought this was the biggest sports story in recent memory. A fourth round pick on the third day of the NFL draft. It is "big" only because one side in the culture wars wants to use it.
I never even saw -- much less participated -- in the thread that gave rise to this. On my own, I wouldn't have taken it down. But I certainly would have observed that it was political, much like the comments in this moderation thread are political statements; demonizing the cultural opposition.
This is my last word on the subject. I won't debate any of you here, because the mods have already laid down the law which is that they have unilateral subjective authority over how discussions are conducted. It would never be a fair fight, even if I wanted to contest it. The mods do a pretty good job of adhering to some general rules. But I realize, as they do, that the prime direcrive here is not the Oxford Debating Society but rather the creation of a certain kind of sportsfan website. Which is for the entertainment of the audience, and not to resolve social issues.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||It's your rule. Live with it.||
I'm a real agnostic on "no politics." It's not my rule. It's an MGoRule.
Just have the integrity to apply the rule across the board. And, literally, across the Board. I give you credit for having done that, although you appear to have done so reluctantly and under a very different reasoning than I might have employed.
I didn't see, or post in, the now-deleted thread. If I had the chance -- I would have liked the chance -- I would have written just three words: "This is politics." You can't seriously claim that taking sides in the culture wars is not politics. I don't care what anybody's substantive views are. But no matter what they are, it is still politics.
By the way; if the casual/operative test* is whether a reader can tell who a board-poster voted for in the last election... I think I can tell.
*A test that I think is boring and restrictive.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||.||
|1 year 20 weeks ago||And so Dave Brandon was looking across the Huron River...||
And standing next to Dave Brandon was a young reporter for the Michigan Daily. The reporter asked Brandon, "Mr. Brandon, do you have a problem with our reporting on Brendan Gibbons' expulsion?" To which Brandon asked in turn, "Do you have a problem with reporting the name of the accuser?" The young reporter, being versed in journalistic ethics, puffed out his chest with pride and declared, "Oh no sir. There is a policy that directs us to never name sexual assault victims. To do so would undermine the system. People, and most importantly vicitms, might not step forward if they were named publicly. We do not name sexual assault vicitms -- alleged or not -- whether it is a criminal proceeding or an administrative proceeding. Moreover, sir, we know that all parts of an administrative proceeding must remain confidential because the due process rights of an accused are not protected in the administrative setting, as they are in criminal courts." "Well, lad, said David Brandon, then that makes it clear what a moral and ethical lapse it would be, to name someone in such a proceeding."
|1 year 20 weeks ago||You, and the U.||
The Dear Colleague letter, stating exactly and specifically how standards that may have been in use by Title IX institutions will no longer be allowed. In cases just like the Brendan Gibbons case:
That is just as clear as it gets. The University saying essentially that it is responding specifically to a new Department of Education Office of Civil Rights initiative, naming and dating that initiative. And the initiative itself, explicitly stating that a standard "currently in use by some schools" (including the University of Michigan; hence the prominent notice of the new initiative) is no longer the applicable standard. That is, if you don't want this Administration to cut off all the federal money we are currently giving you.
I tempted to say that I am through with you and your stubborn sutpidity. But I'm not. I'll continue to make as big a deal about all of this as much and as long as I possibly can.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||Fine.||
Then NOBODY should ever get away with calling Brendan Gibbons a "rapist" or a sexual assaulter. Because you are setting the bar that low.
And NOBODY should have released any record of the expulsion proceeding. It would have been a monstrous offense, to have released the name of the accuser in an administrative proceeding. It is just as monstrous to have named the accused, in a sub-judicial proceeding.
"Guilt" isn't an issue in plagiarism. There is no criminal sanction in that context. And no due process rights for the accused. But we're talking about sexual assault. CRIMINAL SEXUAL ASSAULT IS ABSOLUTELY IS THE KIND OF ISSUE THAT COURTS DEAL WITH. Uniquely, it is precisely the kind of closely-contested, terribly-serious kind of offense that criminal courts are designed to resolve.
If you are so sanguine about the process to which Brendan Gibbons was subjected, then whenever he is publicly called a rapist, I'll let you take the time to carefully correct each and ever such reference.
As for Title IX bureaucrats, I'll identify one for you; Russlynn H. Ali. A political appointee of the Current Occupant of the White House. Whose administrative pronouncement led directly and inexorably to Brendan Gibbons' expulsion.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||Because...||
...with commercial logos, warning labels, a conference logo, a player's name and a Legends patch, there's just not enough clutter on a Michigan football uniform.
And don't forget a player's number, an American flag, a breast cancer awareness sticker, a memorial sticker for a deceased member of the extended football family, etc., etc.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||Ironic||
"Grim reaper" covering the helmet warning sticker:
|1 year 20 weeks ago||Three iterations:||
|1 year 20 weeks ago||What would we do with a dual-threat QB?||
Or is that a 2013 question?
|1 year 20 weeks ago||lol. Nobody got it. At least not as far as I could tell.||
And there's nothing wrong with that.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||NO YOU ARE WRONG.||
THIS WHOLE THING HAS BEEN DRIVEN BY A WHITE HOUSE DIRECTED CHANGE TO TITLE IX ENFORCEMENT. PER THE APRIL 2011 "DEAR COLLEAGUE" LETTER FROM RUSSLYNN H. ALI OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS.
HOW DO I KNOW THAT, WITH CERTAINTY?
BECAUSE THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ADMITS IT IN WRITING.
LINK #3 - AFTER GIBBONS' EXPULSION WAS PUBLICIZED, THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN'S VICE PRESIDENT FOR COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATING STATEMENTS FROM BRADY HOKE AND MARY SUE COLEMAN, AS WELL AS A DETAILED TIMELINE, PLACES THE WHITE HOUSE-DRIVEN CHANGE IN TITLE IX ENFORCEMENT IN A POSITION OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE IN THIS ENTIRE CONTROVERSY.
NOW TAKE ALL OF THIS -- MY "CONSPIRACY THEORY" AND SUCK ON IT.
The all-caps are of course intended to convey the sense that I am in your face, yelling, and jabbing my finger in your chest for emphasis.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Wise people would say that we have courts for such things.||
You know, to decide guilt or innocence.
But courts aren't sufficient, apparently, to promote the kind of atmospherics that Title IX bureaucrats and university administrators want.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||It's possible. I honestly can't say what Foote has heard.||
But if Foote is echoing things he has read about the twists and turns of Title IX changes that led directly and swiftly to Gibbons' expulsion, I sort of wonder what exactly he has read. Because otuside of conservative political circles, I don't think that the "Dear Colleague letter" has been reported in depth and in real-world context.
I don't know; maybe Larry Foote reads James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal, or the American Spectator. But I thought it a lot more likely that he is talking to some of his innumberable friends inside Schembechler Hall.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||This isn't enough. There was no "justice" in Gibbons' case.||
I am going to just go ahead and say, without knowing all the facts, that there was no "justice" in Gibbons' case at all.
I say that, because I don't think that "justice" is even intended, in these kinds of administrative proceedings. Unless someone can tell me that Gibbons was represented by counsel, who had the chance to investigate the matter, and confront the accuser, and cross-examine her under oath, and call witnesses, and a thousand other things that are the most basic elements of the criminal justice system, then no one should even be mentioning "justice."
It is not necessary to know all of the details of this particular case, to know that these kinds of proceedings are not intended to substitute for criminal justice proceedings. We absolutely know that beyond any doubt because the freakin' University of Michigan says the same thing in its code of student conduct.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Yeah it is a very interesting development.||
Larry Foote -- God love him -- was a great Michigan football player, but he's not the most articulate advocate.
My guess, in hearing him talk about the Gibbons case, is that he has talked to at least some people in the football program who have said something to the effect of, Larry, that thing with Gibbons was such bullshit. It was some kind of kangaroo court in the Student Actvity Building; but with his eligibility gone, and with pressure from high up in the University, it was decided just to let it go for the bowl game...
I'd certainly like to know more. And I really don't expect Larry Foote to add to anybody's detailed understanding of the details of Title IX litigation and criminal due process. But Larry Foote has been a window into certain sectors of the football program for several years and I am glad to hear from him.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||I will say this...||
...if Michigan is going to play football on Labor Day weekend (which should never happen in my opinion), I'm more satisfied if it is an "away" night game. Labor Day ought to be the celebratory end of summer, not the beginning of the fall. I don't want to be forced to buy four $95 tickets for a football game on Labor Day weekend. I'd rather have a six-game home schedule than have a seven-game home schedule that includes a Labor Day weekend game.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||?||
Do we pay insurance premiums on a per-game basis, or on an annualized basis?
Merchandising: Just look at the revenue figures I posted below. Merchandising is such a remarkably small part of Athletic Department revenue. I'm pretty amazed at how small it is.
I look at the revenue numbers, and it occurs to me that "Our season ticket holders and PSD-licensees are our core audience and largest revenue source. How can we better serve them?"
Now I didn't write Brian's post from August of '12; I sure can't take credit for it, and I can't defend it in all of its detail. But if there are very specific issues with Brian's numbers (I respect your attempt, even if I'm not buying it), let's hear it. I don't think Brian ever tried to make the point that Michigan got soaked by going to Dallas. He only made the point that the deal was never going to be a windfall for Michigan. And so in the end, if the money is a close call, the next question is whether it is more attractive to play a nuetral-field circus show, or a home-and-home with the same caliber opponent. I side with Brian.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||How right you are!||
I was surprised to see the numbers; just how critical PSD's are. PSD's are a larger part of annual revenues, than all of the Conference-shared tv contract rights. Larger, by far, than merchandising and licensing royalties.
The for-sale bottled water that everybody complains about? It's chickenfeed, compared to the PSD amounts. I'd happily buy water for a hundred people if they relieved my PSD. All of the familiar Brandon-Bitch comments -- uniformz; lousy stadium nachos; Arby's advertisements; Big House bar mitzvahs -- they all recede into insiginifance, compared to what the PSD-licensees are paying. You know; the people paying all that cash for the right to pay full price (chalk that up in the "Ticket Revenue" department, just above PSD's) for tickets that will be worth half of the full price in the marketplace.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||You've managed to miss virtually every salient point...||
that Brian Cook deconstructed, HERE.
Scheduling isn't that hard. You've made the unforgiveably dumb mistake of thinking that the choice is between scheduling a tomato can, and playing a big neutral field game. Wrong. The other choice is a high-profile home-and-home series. As OSU and MSU have done. As Notre Dame does every year.
I simply do not understand how it is preferable for players and coaches, to go once to Dallas, instead of playing Florida once in Ann Arbor and once in Gainesville. You can explain that one.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||You said that time had shown that Admissions made the right call||
And I said I don't know about that.
The Freep dug into the kid on criminal matters. Time has shown that theory to have been bullshit.
I am not looking for martyrs from the Rodriguez era. I am quite satisfied with pointing out the villains from that era.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||lol.||
I was just trying to remember the names of the two -- count 'em, TWO! -- investigative reporters that the Freep sent to Florida in a big hurry to dig into Dorsey. They sure weren't looking for his ACT scores.
Nowadays, collegiate recruiting is an even bigger deal. (And especially for the Freep; ever take a look at their "Most Popular" list of stories? Any story about a top football recruit is always at the top of the list.) And yet, even with today's unjustifiable focus on recruiting can you imagine what it would take for the Freep to send two reporters on an airplane? They don't do that for the Detroit bankruptcy, or the Super Bowl, do they? I don't think the Freep sends even one reporter to the Masters. Or a non-Tigers World Series. Or a non-Red Wings Stanley Cup, here in Hockeytown.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||I don't know about that.||
Perhaps Demar Dorsey was unfit to enroll as a student at Michigan. I can't argue that point.
But that wasn't the knock on this particular Florida teenager when Detroit sportstalk radio (speaking of intelligence quotients) and the Detroit Free Press (lulz) were running a public relations campaign against him.
No sir; the complaint was that he had a criminal record and may be a social danger.
Now, the passage of time seems to have shown that fear to have been unfounded. The people who said essentially that this kid needed to get out of the atmospehere he was in -- to make a fresh start -- seem to have been right. Out of the 'hood, Dorsey has not been in trouble.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||A former pathology professor shouldn't be playing cub reporter.||
What were her "internal injuries"?
What exactly makes you say she was "badly injured"?
Her alleged "bruising" is a subject of considerable debate; by my reading of the police records, it is not clear what the nature of the supposed bruising was, and was by no means evidence of an assault.
"Vaginal tearing" is not, by itself, evidence of a sexual assault. If it were, then no one would be able to explain why the AAPD never referred any charges to the Washtenaw County Prosecutor.
The only thing that Doug Smith has done of any consequence was to FOIA the records. All of his writing, all of his other reporting, has been riddled with errors.
He called Gibbons -- who has never been charged or convicted -- a "rapist." No self-respecting professional journalist would make that mistake. I think it could be the basis for a defamation action by Gibbons against Smith. Not that Gibbons is likely to do that.
But one look at Doug Smith's wierd history at Regents meetings, at city council meetings, on his blog; it is remarkable when any serious news outlet takes him seriously at all.
I really want to know what Smith's role might have been in the reopening of this matter within OSCR.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||"Exception" or not, the Duke case is very much on point.||
The Duke case would almost certainly have not turned out the way it did, if it had been handled as a purely administrative matter. Those three lacrosse players would have been expelled. No, they wouldn't have been put in jail. They would never have had a trial. But they would have been judged simply on the basis of whether they created a "hostile environment" in the view of their accuser. And they would likely have been judged by one or more representatives of that class of faculty/administrators like the "Group of 88," who condemned the players and the team based on a knee-jerk reaction to incomplete information. Because the defense lawyers would have had little substantive involvement and their legal tools would have been very limited.
I say again; if there is a real case of rape, mere expulsion from the University of Michigan (or Duke) is a grossly inadequate remedy. If there is a phony allegation of rape, expulsion from the University of Michigan is an outrageous offense to the accused. The important thing is to make a complete investigation of the facts, with serious consequences, while protecting the due process rights of the accused.
The criminal justice system is the place we all look to, for that kind of resolution. An administrative proceeding is a lousy substitute. Administrative proceedings are intended only to serve the needs of the institution, not the parties.
The Gibbons case is just one of a great many cases we might see going forward, if the current "Dear Colleague" policy on Title IX enforcement continues. There are going to be problems; guaranteed.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||So you think I am silly...||
Silly, on my part, to have explicitly linked the relevant University of Michigan policy now at issue, with something like "Obama." (As for my characterization of the Free Press, I was being deliberately mild. Stronger language could have been used.)
I admit, it is a little bit incredible, that a single discrete policy change on the part of the current Administration could have the kind of effects we see in this case. I'd have a hard time believing it myself, but for the fact that the University of Michigan devoted a webpage to the exact point that I raised:
|1 year 21 weeks ago||I don't have any expectation that the "Free Press" as such...||
...will ever "go after" Brady Hoke. Certainly not the way that Rosenberg and Snyder, later backed by the full weight of the editors and publisher Paul Anger, went after Rodriguez.
Drew Sharp might go after Hoke on his own; because that is what Sharp always does. He looks for occasions when he might credibly demand that somebody in sports be fired. And in the process, he seeks to be a controversialist. Over and over and over again.
But I will say, that the more political that the Gibbons expulsion story gets (and I think it could get political, if ever we were to dig into which of Gibbons' due process rights were rolled in the proceedings, by an Obama Administration directive), the more I think that the Freep will side with University/Title IX/political correctness. No matter if Hoke and Brandon take the fall in that. Or not. The Freep will surely side with Title IX.
In other words, I don't think anybody at the Freep has it in for Brady Hoke personally; he is nothing politically. (Not so much Dave Brandon, who might be something political, someday.) But when it comes to protecting the Department of Education, and defending the big "A" Administration (in Washington D.C.) and the little "a" administration (in Ann Arbor), the Freep is a hardball playa.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||And for my part...||
... I simply cannot argue that Gibbons or Lewan are "innocent." What I do know is this:
My big thing in all of this is always going to be the political backdrop to the recent White House-led changes to Title IX rules on sexual assault and/or harassment on college campuses. And the interaction of those changes with basic due process rights of the accused in such cases.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||I expect that Michigan's head football coach cannot talk about..||
...matters within the OSCR. Because, as the University has forcefully asserted, the head football coach has no role in those administrative proceedings.
For that matter, neither does Brandon. Whether that disqualifies Brandon as well... I'll leave that to the University.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||I gather...||
...that somebody thinks that Taylor Lewan texted, or emailed, or called the alleged sexual assault victim.
I say; that is flatly untrue. If you think I am wrong, tell us all and be very specific.
Taylor Lewan never communicated with the alleged victim as far as I know. If you think I am wrong, tell us all and be very specific.
I am not aware of the alleged victim ever having complained to anyone -- most importantly the police -- to say that she felt "threatened" by Lewan or anyone else. In this regard, I look more strictly to the police investigation records, and not the "reporting" by Washtenaw Watchdog Doug Smith, who has shown himself to be so casual with the facts and his own reporting/allegations as to be rendered no longer credible on the subject. Again, if you can correct me on this precise point, tell us all and be very specific.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||I'm actually okay with the idea that Brandon ought to answer...||
...a lot more questions. Let Brandon do it; because this was never really a football program issue; it is a University issue. (I'd certainly agree with any suggestion that Hoke's "family matter" comment was inexcusable; his only reasonable position now is to admit that he gave a misleading answer to protect a player's privacy under very complicated legal circumstances, and that he regrets it.)
But regarding Sharp, the way to fix him is for Brandon to do an in-depth sit-down interview with the guys from the Daily, or Angelique, or Beckmann's radio program. Anybody but Sharp, or Snyder.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||I don't know if anyone else will downvote you; I am the first.||
I am downvoting you because I don't expect you know anything about whether "attacker" is a fair or even reasonable characterization.
I also suspect that you don't know much about any "enduring" on the part of the alleged victim. I should think that rather than "endure" anything, the alleged victim ought to proceed with full cooperation with police, and the pursuit of any legal remedies available. In the criminal justice system, in the civil justice system, by way of a personal protection order, or by way of University disciplinary proceedings.
You went out of your way to speak of the alleged victim "enduring" for years; and that is just the question I have. Why was the recent University Student Conflict Resolution proceeding undertaken so long after the fact? The principle reason seems to be (I'd like to hear about any alternative explanation) that the alleged victim did nothing to obtain any remedy, if one was owed. I'm not even certain that the recent administrative proceeding leading to Gibbons' expulsion was initiated by the alleged victim. Are you?
So; -1. Now you know who negged you, and why.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Yeah, that's why I came to this thread so late.||
There's been no LOI sent in on McDowell's behalf. The kids all had LOI's in front of them to sign. McDowell's paper was changed, from an LOI, to some other piece of paper.
What a weird day to become a "verbal."
There is something more going on here.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||These families seem to choose these odd "ceremonies."||
Nobody is forcing anyone to hold curious ersatz announcement ceremonies with hats on a table, or anything else.
These things turn me off to the sport entirely. It's like NFL-Lite Draft Day. This is only a good thing for businesses like subscription recruiting services and 24-hour sports broadcasters.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on Cobo...||
Cobo was very cool. First of all, it was NBA basketball, right in downtown Detroit. When was the last time that happened?
Second, I have some good memories of some good (not great) Pistons teams playing some badass teams back in the day. With Bob Lanier and Dave Bing for the Pistons.
But mostly, confirmation comes from Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (who is a very cerebral guy away from basketball; a jazz expert, interested in literature and culture). Kareem has always rated Cobo in Detroit as one of the best places to play in the history of the league. Cobo had a fantastic organist, good sound (there is a stage, essentially, at one end), great ambiance and back in the 60's and early 70's, they had fantastic characters in the stands.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Will Joe Louis Arena be the least-missed sports venue...||
... in Michigan history?
I can't think of one, but the competition is fierce. Starting with the Silverdome. The culmination of three or four of the worst ideas in sports -- domed football stadiums, fabric roofs, 80k+ seating. The Silverdome did have a sort of a nice endzone restaurant. But there was pretty much zero history there. The one Super Bowl with the 49ers and the Bengals (is that right? The Bengals?) was a historic clusterfuck on the night of one of our worst ice storms in a generation. It got Herb Caen of the San Francisco Chronicle to write a devastating anti-Detroit column that turned into a year-long scandal. As for the Lions, of course they never won much of anything at the Silverdome, because they haven't won much of anything after leaving Tiger Stadium.
As for JLA, the Wings have a good history there including numerous great championships, and so there will be some sentimentality around that. But for fans of the franchise when they made their home at Olympia, JLA is such parking garage of a wasteland. And worst of all, it is such a public eyesore right on the riverfront.
They simply cannot destroy JLA fast enough for my tastes.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||And then do the prosecutors serve a subpoena on Hoke...||
...to make him testify as to everything Gibbons has ever said to Hoke inside a closed office at Schembechler Hall?
I'm one of your upvoters, robpollard.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||The one upvote you see is mine.||
I don't understand why I am the only one upvoting maizenbluenc right now.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Somebody has to answer for Santino.||
|1 year 21 weeks ago||I dunno.||
I knew about all of this, in real time.
I knew within a matter of hours about the arrest, from a thread on MGoBlog. I knew about the investigation, a day later, from The Daily, and AA.com. I knew it was Gibbons, from the general rumor mill. I then saw all of the eccentric postings from Washtenaw Watchdog Douglas Smith, as they were posted.
The University of Michigan has a six-figure contract with a company to monitor social media.
I simply cannot imagine that anyone "did not know."
But to say that there was anything to decide is a very different matter. I take Martin's word as being indicative of, It never came up, as requiring a decision from me, or from Bruce Madej, or from Rich Rodriguez...
|1 year 21 weeks ago||We'll agree to disagree.||
|1 year 21 weeks ago||You left out one other group.||
There are the people who think that everyone enjoys a presumption of innocence; and that abandoning substantive and procedural due process rights under the law equals an abandonment of anyone's right to declare "guilt," as so much of the world is now doing in this case.
Moreover, in the vauge and squishy procedures of the OSCR, because there are so few personal protections, they are supposed to be private. Gibbons has been the vicitm of a ghastly violation of that privacy in this case.
I have written nothing that would betray me as some sort of Micihgan fan-boy for whom the team the team the team can do no wrong. I have said nothing in particular offering any blanket defense of anybody at the university, from Hoke to Brandon to MSC to the lower-level administrators.
Far from it; I think that there is much explaining to do in this case. The only way in which I have been a real MGoContrarian is that I have done everything I can to call attention to the political nature of the recent Title IX sexual harassment eforcement rubric as a result of top-down policy initiatives coming from the White House.
The University's own position confirms it. You can bet your life that the University is going to proclaim to the heavens that before 2013, they had nothing to go on, and no proper basis to expel Gibbons. But the new policy made it happen. That's in large part self-protection by the University. But it casts an intense light on the recent policy change.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||I respect Angelique Chengelis, period.||
I always refer to her as "the lovely and talented," it is an in-joke. Long story.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Was Martin "oblivious"?||
What if Martin knew all about the reports in the media? And he spoke with the coaches, who said, "Gibbons said he's innocent; we are going to watch and wait and see what the police investigation reveals. We won't make him talk to us and expose him to any criminal jeopardy..."
And then, weeks later, there is nothing else to decide. The investigation concluded; no university investigation initiated (no student sexual assault claim); nothing else.
Just what is Martin supposed to "decide" in that case?
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Spoken like a loyal Freep/Sharp reader.||
Bill Martin will be remembered for transforming the Athletic Department's budget, putting it in the black and on a firm footing for the future. For renovating Michigan Stadium on time and under-budget. For putting into place the most far-reaching transformation of the athletic campus since the days of Fielding Yost.
I think that Bill Martin is the thrid most consequential AD in Michigan history, behind Yost and Canham, and ahead of Crisler and Schembechler.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||No; it is a big deal.||
I don't blame the Daily for thinking it is a big deal; I think it is.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Or...||
...if the Daily is the one and only organization that has illegally-obtained documents, and Brandon and Hoke are determined to not to answer any specific questions about certain documents that only the Daily has. The one way to do that is to ban the Daily. Mark Snyder and others can ask all of the questions they might like, but they don't have the documents.
That puts a bit of a finer point on it, don't you think?
There must be something odd about the documents that the Daily has, that they won't copy them and link .pdf's on the website. Either the offeror/leaker knows that a copy will expose somebody, or else there is something else that the Daily can't or won't redact.
I think the Daily has a lot of questions to answer, along with Brandon, Hoke and most especially the University.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||I don't think so, Magnus.||
Of course, since 2009, we have an entirely new generation of sutdent-athletes at Michigan. A lot of them probably couldn't recite the details of the Rosenberg/Snyder debacle. I think a lot of them, wittningly or not, would talk to Snyder now, since he is Mark Snyder of the Detroit Free Press who is the main beat-reporter for the region's largest-circulation newspaper.
Politically smart people like Dave Brandon know better, and Brandon, to his great credit in my view, has made no secret about his open contempt for the Free Press and Rosenberg and Snyder. Brandon's disdain for Drew Sharp may be a little better disguised.
Brandon has done these things. (A) He banned John U. Bacon from Schembechler Hall for the most part, and assigned him to the back row in the press box. At least I presume Brandon did that. It is the sort of thing that I cannot imagine Bruce Madej doing. (B) He has all but ignored Mark Snyder. Brandon has given exclusives to the lovely and talented Angelique Chengelis, as well as AP stringer Larry Lage. Brandon has doled out small perks and favors to a lot of media folks. But nothing to the Free or Snyder. (C) And now Brandon apparently fired a little warning shot across the bow of the Daily. It's very true that this sort of action was never taken with the Free Press; it is pretty remarkable in this case.
It may be assured that Brandon and Athletic Department people know more ab out this than we do. The Daily, in publishing the story might well have adhered to journalistic standards. But also violated the rights of Brendan Gibbons.
We can all agree on the important policy reasons for, say, not naming sexual assault vicitms. To do so would damage the system in which we want such victims to come forward without fear of public humiliation.
Now, just think about the student conflict resolution procedures at Michigan. It isn't designed to asses guilt or innocence, but to resolve conflict and foster a certain atmosphere on campus. As such, ALL of the participants in that system ought to be presumed innocent and their confidences kept private.
It would not surprise me at all if Dave Brandon's calculus in all of this activity today was, I know that banning the Daily is pretty much of an indefensible position on our part in the Athletic Deparment. Well, I don't give a damn about that. They hurt Gibbons unfairly in this mess, and I am going to make a symbolic statement on that. I'll take the hit; I don't care.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||So this thread is going to take all the page views away...||
from my Second Annual Downton Abbey Open Thread. Mr. Bates is going to be so angry. I'm very afraid of what he might do now.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Right; I didn't see any comma splices either.||
I think I have committed comma-splice errors on occasion. But I expect that those are most often intentional confrontations with the rule.
And yes, I suppose that I might have avoided a couple of commas.
"Syllogism" was prompted by the Poynter link, which referred to that term. Syllogisms play into the proper use of "begging the question." I think I agree with you otherwise.
And I'm both amused and gratified about the fact that 24 hours and about 170 posts later, nobody figured out why I posted this. I'll bet that I've had more fun, checking in on this thread during commercials in the golf/basketball telecasts, than anyone else. More than you apparently realize, I feel a lot like Colbert in the .gif just below.
I didn't go to Cooley. Not that there's anything wrong with Cooley.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Hmm.||
|1 year 21 weeks ago||For a new guy, you're good. Of course it's a joke.||
|1 year 21 weeks ago||BiSB||
|1 year 21 weeks ago||There's nothing nefarious||
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Huh.||
|1 year 21 weeks ago||lol||
Not touchin' that one!
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Huh.||
|1 year 21 weeks ago||:-)||
Oops; sorry. I thought you were saying you "seen" what I did here. Oh well; +1 for you anyway.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||;-)||
|1 year 21 weeks ago||No, Douglas Smith is wrong.||
The Ann Arbor News doesn't really exist; it is "AA.com." And they didn't suppress the story. They published a story about the incident when it happened. Then they followed it, waiting for more criminal justice developments. There weren't any.
Douglas Smith also declared that the Michigan Daily ignored the story. Again, Smith is wrong. The Daily did run a story about the incident and an arrest, in their very next edition.
Douglas Smith is wrong. He's a reckless incompetent as a "reporter," a field in which I believe he has no professional training.
He probably doesn't realize that credible and prudent newspapers don't routinely publish the names of persons who are arrested but not charged in matters under ongoing investigations.
It pains me that there are credulous people like you who are willing to believe Smith. I hope that there's a defamation suit in his future.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||No, you are wrong and so is Seth.||
There is more than enough misinformation and public misunderstanding in this case already.
"Rape," as already mentioned, is not a criminal term of art in the state of Michigan (it is "criminal sexual assault, first-, second-, third-degree). And "rape" is not part of the University of Michigan's formal student conduct and/or conflict resolution rules.
Yet another good reason to have left this entire matter to criminal justice professionals and not univeristy administrators.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Absolutely correct.||
Moreover, the author of the April, 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter was Department of Education Assistant Secretary for Civil rights Russlynn Ali, nominated to the position by the Current Occupant of the White House and confirmed by the Senate. There are of course plenty of good career lawyers in the Department of Education. A lawyer like Russlynn Ali, with her background, is placed in that position (by an administration of either party) precisely to extend the administration's social, political and administrative ideology. (I have every expectation that the "Dear Colleague" letter would in fact have been reviewed by several layers of White House and/or DoJ lawyers, so there's that too but now I think we are running up the score on this point.)
How MGoShoe got any upvotes for his comment is explainable only by something other than the facts. That first downvote is mine, for sure.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||So you agree (as I do) with MGoMember "Dragon":||
The legal system did not "fail." There is no basis for Seth to have made that pronouncement.
And yes; what we do know about this system is that Gibbons may have been judged by someone who may well have been disqualified as a simple juror if Gibbons was being tried for CSC in a Michigan Circuit Court. To wit; let's suppose a CSC trial in Wahstenaw County Circuit Court, and we are in the jury-selection phase. It is voir dire, and Juror Number 8 is a University of Michigan employee who is trained in rape counseling/restorative justice and has counseled rape victims. I think that juror might be challenged for cause. The juror would certainly be subject to a peremptory challenge.
And with that sort of trier of fact (we don't know, and I'd like to know, who it was), Gibbons may have been found to have simply had sex that he genuinely believed to have been consensual, but the alleged victim was (perhaps with the help of after-the-fact toxicology) too drunk to have given "valid consent."
Again, I know of no evidence to suggest that the legal system "failed," and plenty of evidence to suggest to all of us that we would have been better served by a public jury trial of this case. It would have been public; Gibbons' due process rights would have been preserved; we'd have confidence in the outcome; Brady Hoke would not have had to comment; Dave Brandon would not now be accused of a coverup; and there'd be no public relations disaster for the University.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||That quoted language is not a finding of fact.||
Actually, the University and the press might want us to think so. But no; it is boilerplate language, drawn word-for-word from the now-infamous April 2011 Dept. of Education OCR letter, upon which the University of Michigan now openly bases its entire proceedings in this case. Read: We think you did whatever it says in that letter from the Department.
They can't, and wouldn't, say that "We find you guilty of criminal sexual assault in the first degree." Indeed, the language is so squishy that it's possible that the panel (or the RC or whoever was running this dog and pony show) found that there was consensual sex, but that consent was not properly given (no "valid" consent) because the alleged victim was too drunk.
UCLA Law Prof. Eugene Volokh at his blog, "The Volokh Conspiracy," one of the top handful of lawprof blogs in the nation, dishes on the very language at issue. It is a perfectly modulated, devastating takedown of the breathtakingly vague and amorphous nature of this new "standard."
Volokh is a free-speech expert and the blog post admittedly focuses on speech aspects far short of a sexual assault. We all agree that sexual assault is intolerable; but this case seems to have been a clear-cut allegation of a sex crime, and not a mere "hostile environment." (The OCR made it clear that of course a single sexual assault would create a "hostile environment.") But with that issue so clear, why not leave the criminal justice question to the criminal justice system?
|1 year 22 weeks ago||"Sixty minutes of unnecessary interruptions."||
"That's what we try to do."
|1 year 22 weeks ago||It might have been nice...||
... if Coleman had reminded the world that the University's OIE and OSCR bodies are neither equipped, nor even intended, to determine criminal guilt.
That should not be a stretch for Coleman; it's not any sort of comment on any individual case. It comes from the university's own Satement of Student Rights and Responsibilities: "This Statement is one of the University's administrative procedures and should not be equated with procedures used in civil or criminal court."
She's obviously trying to respond to the press and the public's concern (it's mostly bogus, but clearly out there because of the terrible handling of the case) that there was a coverup.
It might be nice if she extended the defense and most particularly the explanation, to also meet the public's screwed-up notion that an accused was found guilty.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Sounds like "mock trial" in junior high school.||
I am still trying to figure out the "no appeal" angle. Would an appeal "stay" any separation decision? I think so. So I don't understand that part if it would have delayed everything until we were well into 2014.
Perhaps Gibbons just figured, "To hell with it, I am out of here. I'll be looking at NFL tryouts in February. I am not going to walk myself into a perjury trap if they later attempt to try me in the Washtenaw County Circuit Court for this mess. As of now, they told me that I'm free to go. I'll keep it that way. Good bye Michigan, thanks for nothin'."
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Your comment is more stupid than you can even imagine.||
Of course, translating your butchered English, you meant to say, "Case close[d].."
And guess what, homey? The case was closed under Coach Rodriguez's watch. The police investigated. The never referred a charge to the Washtenaw County Prosecutor's office. Case closed.
There was no OSCR hearing or finding under Coach Rodriguez's watch. Case closed. No, wait; in that regard, there was never a case opened!
Exactly what do you think that Coach Rodriguez should have done in 2009-10? And whatever you think Coach Rodriguez should have done; is Brady Hoke subject to the same obligation(s)?
|1 year 22 weeks ago||No they didn't.||
No they didn't. The OSCR is in no freaking position to make any sort of criminal judgment. Even the OSCR would agree with that. They'd NEVER crawl out on any limb of "criminality." They know that they would be venturing far above their pay grade in that.
It is an office of conflict-resolution counselors. Not judges and trial lawyers.
And the fact that their non-judicial "conclusion" has been made public, to the life-altering detriment of Brendan Gibbons, without a trial, is a monstrous offense to Gibbons. The whole world will now surely view him as a sex offender. Based on a proceeding that, even if it was conducted by the book according to the University's own rules, is a "joke" (your word) compared to a serious criminal court proceeding.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||I don't understand. Really, I don't.||
Did your brother-in-law just find a single buyer who paid $1000 over face value for the whole season?
What is your brother-in-law's PSD? Did the buyer pay that too?
There is no way that I can possibly break even on my tickets. I'd sell all of my tickets, here and now, if I could break even for 2014.
Here's the price, if anybody is interested:
$2,400 (PSD) + $1875 (est. ticket cost) = $4275.
I make zero profit on this deal.
Four tickets together on the fifty yard line in what I will say is an ideal row. One year. All yours. With smart, pleasant, knowledgable people all around. I'm betting no one will take this offer.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||"... no matter the price..."||
I can hear myself saying that. And I'd be stupid.
Stupid, because it's not as though you won't be able to go to any games. StubHub is making it easier than ever. Buy a ticket to whatever game(s) you want.
You can keep on going to the the games, buying off the secondary market. No problem. You just won't be paying the PSD anymore.
Now (and this gets sort of esoteric); you might well say, But I like my season tickets; sitting in the same seats that I like; that I know where to go and park and walk and make the whole experience -- a real game day experience -- better; I see old friends and family and stadium acquaintances that are important to me; I go to more games, as an invested season ticket holder...
And to that I say that I understand very well. If you are saying those things, I join you; and I respectfully suggest that as season ticket holders we are being screwed for liking those things. Things that ought to make us preferred customers and not dupes, paying extra.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Yes. Always. At least, for 15+ years. More, I think.||
Now, don't misread the chart. It's not, for instance, $420 plus $60 per game; it is $420 which equates to $60 per game.
It is: ($TOTAL) $Fee/game
Divide by 7 games. The chart gives you the total and the per game charge.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||We'll find out how scared they are after this week.||
They'll never say it. But we'll be able to figure, when we see how many special new ticket offers are being made. Special super-family deals! Tickets to four games, plus crazy bread, dipping sauce and a 64 oz. beverage!
They do that, when they think they'll be able to convert those deal packs (non-renewable of course) into season tickets next year for one of our new unnaturally-enhanced odd-year schedules with MSU and OSU.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Almost certainly not.||
Athletic Deparment giving is its own world.
I'd advise doing 100 bucks a year to Mr. Brandon; what you get for that, with your X number of priority points and your email address permanently embedded in their mailing list, is offers to other things; basketball tickets, baseball, other single-game ticket offers. You get the idea; if you've been getting the same stuff I have, you know how it goes. Plus your 100 bucks gets you 1 point. So you got that goin' for you. Which is nice.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||I'm not sure that is true.||
The seats will still be there; the tickets will still be for sale; and the marketplace might well drive the price down to where people will buy.
So the "100,000" metric is a misleading one in my view. They could well have 100,000 people in Michigan Stadium, but many of them will have purchased tickets for $30 on StubHub.
The unseen metric is the vast difference between what season ticket purchasers pay/donate, and what the market price of those tickets are. It's a rapidly-widening gap. Season ticket holders are being asked to pay sometimes 100% more than the face value of tickets, and the face value of tickets is routinely 100% more than the market value.
Michigan season football tickets are nothing more than a very large tax on alumni loyalty and family tradition associated with Michigan football.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Tell me exactly how you have made money off season tix.||
Because I don't believe it.
I made out like a bandit last year, when I sold my 4 ND tickets for $2000. I don't know anybody who did better. But the ONLY way I could have possibly "made" money was if I had sold off ND, and OSU, and not only that but timed the sale of the OSU tickets exactly right.
I just don't believe you. There is no way on earth that you can buy season tickets this year and break even. I am telling you in no uncertain terms that you will lose money.
Go ahead and tell me how I am wrong; but be specific. Start by telling me how much your PSD is, and how you factor that in to any profits or losses.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Rich Rodriguez...||
Rodriguez never, as far as I know, was ever as frankly misleading as Brady Hoke has been.
Rich Rodriguez was the most forthcoming, most press-favorable coach in recent Michigan history. Which makes his despicable treatment by the Detroit press all the more remarkable.
I think Lloyd Carr was a lot smarter with the local press, than Rodriguez or Hoke. Carr was not very forthcoming, but he wasn't as dumb as Hoke has been in terms of needlessly dumb errors in actively misleading the press in the name of protecting his program from scrutiny.
Carr, like Schembechler, was very good at manipulating the important voices in local sports coverage. I don't know, but I don't see those skills in Hoke. But of course this is a very different era, from the Schembechler 70's.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||I'll concede that there may be a difference...||
... as you say, injury/personnel issues might be strategic gamesmanship.
But I made that point myself in those posts that I linked. I'm way ahead of you on that.
The point I wanted to make was Brady Hoke's own personal prediliction to stretch "non-committal" to "actively misleading."
And I have been remarking about that for almost as long as Hoke has been Michigan's Head Football Coach.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||I'd be a bit surprised, if it wasn't cc'ed to several UM admins.||
I'd like very much to see a .pdf of the letter.
I don't think that the Daily is letting that out. It may have been a condition of disclosure. The Daily may have only seen the letter (and confirmed the provenance).
This may be like the July, 2009 CARA-report letter, that turned into Mike Rosenberg's jihad against Rich Rodriguez. That report was published as a .pdf; but it was cc'ed to about a dozen people. (No way to pinpoint a leaker.) But in that case, the identity of the leaker was probably more important in this case.
In the Gibbons case, the leak suspect might just be a feminist/activist who wanted to advance the cause more generally advanced by the Department of Education's Civil Rights Section. The pool of such people in Ann Arbor is only about 95,000.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Makes sense; but...||
... you'd probably have to donate $100/year to keep those points "activated."
|1 year 22 weeks ago||I just got the email.||
It's old news. It is just the same dismal news on how unobtainable are the parking places in the Champions, Blue and Grey lots.
This chart, which hasn't changed much at all in recent years, shows the terrible state of affairs:
Ignore the cost of the parking fee. Look instead at the "Estimated Points" required to qualify, to pay the parking fees. 750 Victors Club points equates to about $70,000 in giving to the Athletic Department (not the University) in most cases. The fact that someone might be an alum, a past letter-winner, a multiple degree holder, a President's Club Member, an M Club member; those factors make only a tiny dent in the requisite donation numbers. Such is the focus on cash giving.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Yeah I had the same question, Bando.||
Or perhaps they are re-naming the parking lots south of the UMGC, to fool people into thinking they aren't a 30-minute walk away...
|1 year 22 weeks ago||+1. Brilliant.||
All we need now, is a Ross School of Business case study on exactly how terrible is the deal that season ticket holders are getting. Published.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Here's the thing...||
A smart, forward-thinking professional could have gotten out in front of this, for the good of all concerned.
But now Michigan is backpedaling, trying to recover its balance on this story.
A smart and aggressive p.r. strategy might have gone like this:
Just think what a different posture the story would be in, nationally, at this point.
The essential conflict in all of that is that the coordination of such a strategy is that to the extent it is coordinated at all, it puts Gibbons and the football program at odds with the University and the OSCD. And in the p.c. world of the University of Michigan, anything less than total obeisance to political correctness might be intolerable.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||I have a number of friends who are season ticket holders...||
...and who know nothing about MGoBlog. Among that group I see even more dissatisfaction, and I've learned that a shocking number of my unscientifically small anecdotal sample are NOT renewing ther season tickets this year.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||To all who decide to not renew...||
...make sure you let the Athletic Department know who you are and why you are saying goodbye. Make a big deal about it. Let them know. I'm not sure how much of a difference it may make, but I think it has an impact.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||It's not so much a matter of Michigan fandom....||
...as it is basic fairness.
I'd hate to think that Michigan "fans" would excuse a rape because, hey, it's our kicker...
Of course, this is Brendan Gibbons' outrageous fortune. People --even educated and informed people like Bando -- are liable to go off on pronouncing this situation as having been a "rape," when the University of Michigan's Office of Student Conflict Resolution isn't even close to being competent to make such a pronouncement.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||I agree with you on this one, Bando.||
This latest episode is just the most recent in a line of instances wherein Brady Hoke seems to have crossed a line between non-committal responses to the press, and active misinformation.
I observed this growing problem on the topic of player injuries more than a year ago.
Here, on October 29, 2012:
And here, on November 5, 2012:
And here (this thread got to be pretty good). November 4, 2012:
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Or...||
..."I don't want our son going to a school that does that to a football player who was never even charged with an offense by the police"...?
|1 year 22 weeks ago||So you presume that the process was fair. I don't.||
I look at what happened at Auburn (Taranto- WSJ), and I don't have any confidence in that system. Somebody -- a trier of fact -- presumably had to disbelieve Gibbons. And who is the trier of fact? We don't even know.
You're a lawyer, right? I'm not so sure that the sorts of people assigned by universities to these hearings/panels would even qualify for civil litigation "alternative dispute resolution" procedures, much less critical reputation-ruining fact-finding, or a criminal court judge.
Anyway, the defense of this system ("We're only trying to create a good academic community atmosphere, not determine guilt...") denudes this finding of all meaning. All meaning, that is, except the trashed reputation of Brendan Gibbons.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||You didn't get it.||
My pointed usage of "something" was the obverse of your preposterous presumption that you highly doubted that Gibbons did "nothing."
Gibbons got the worst of all worlds. He was effectively accused of something terrible -- a sexual assault -- but because the university administrators live in the silly cocoon of "conflict resolution" and "interpretive justice," the procedure wasn't designed to protect his rights as in a criminal court. Easier to "convict" Gibbons of a non-criminal offense (whatever it was), but with the effect of tarring Gibbons with a public presumption of his being a sex offender.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Assume...||
Assume that Gibbons has told the truth. That he gave a story, to police investigators (who know very well how to question suspects for maximum effect) without the assistance of counsel. That he had consensual sex with the female athlete, and that she was into it. (I say it that way for the reason that that's how Gibbons actually described it.) That they had consensual sex, including a blow job. And that later on, the woman (for reasons personal to her) was distraught, upset, remorseful, emotional... whatever. And said to friends that she had sex with Gibbons and that she thought it was rape. She was drunk at the time. Her friends led her into the process of reporting a sexual assault. And the "system," as it were, took her down the path of an examination, a rape kit, etc.
Assume all of that. And that Gibbons was telling the truth. What, then, empowers you to suggest that Gibbons was clearly wrong and guilty of something? Your words; "clearly violated a standard"?
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Nope. Nothing like that.||
I think I have had exactly two signatures on the MGoBoard. One was a Moderator-imposed punishment that lasted about 48 hours for some fight in which I admitted no wrongdoing. I think it read, "I am a pretty pretty princess." The other person got a worse sanction, as I recall.
I also put up a quote from Michael Rosenberg, for a couple of weeks. I think it was about his being offended that his work of three years War As They Knew It, was being unfairly trashed on Amazon. Just take a moment to appreciate that. Rosenberg, complaining that three years of hard work were trashed by anonymous persons.
So no word games. You're just not recalling correctly. Your apology is accepted.
I've never read all of Atlas Shrugged. I'm not even a student of Ayn Rand. You could fool me with an Ayn Rand quote. All that I know about her is that she was a friend and dinner companion of Allen Greenspan when he was young.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Holy Christmas...||
The University of Michigan'sOffice of Student Conflict Resolution is a freaking joke, compared to a crminal court. Let us count the ways:
|1 year 22 weeks ago||It's a bad idea.||
Whether or not MGoBlog has a "no politics" policy (it is a policy that I don't much like, but it is your policy to make), such a gesture would be political.
It would be a form of condemnation of Gibbons, and a tacit signal of support for the University's process against Gibbons.
Because as I understand it, what Bando proposes is a public donation of the proceeds. As a statement, of MGoSolidarity with The Process. And siding with the The Big U, in the Title IX War For Women.
I personally don't give a rip if anyone wanted to make a quiet private donation to any worthy charity. It's not any kind of charitable problem. If you were to quietly do what Bando suggests, such that neither Bando nor I, nor anyone else, ever knew about it and could not argue about it on internet discussion boards, I couldn't complain. But I don't suspect that that meets Bando's intent. I think Bando wants a symbolic public statement.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Michigan Ignorance.||
God, what ignorance.
You are willing to presume guilt based on other statistics from other cases?
I know I'd be goddamned embarassed to write something as factless and as non-legal as, "I HIGHLY doubt BG did nothing wrong." You note, I haven't written the counterpart; "I HIGHLY doubt BG is guilty." That is because I am smarter, and a more careful writer than you are.
Brendan Gibbons hasn't been expelled for doing "something." He has been declared by the university to have engaged in unwanted or unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, committed without valid consent, and that the conduct was so severe as to create a hostile, offensive, or abusive environment.
That's a big problem for you, actually. You seem to want to prevent a national epidemic of sex crimes. But the Gibbons result should satisfy no one. Gibbons wasn't found "guilty" of any crime. Mostly because the University of Michigan's administration would be a crappy trier of fact in a case like this. Even the University of Michigan would be quick to disclaim that they were in an adequate position to find criminal guilt. The University of Michigan would take a different position; that they enforced a much lower standard, with lowered indicia of proof, and relaxed procedural standards than what would be owed to Gibbons in a court of law. They do that, they will claim, in order to foster the sort of campus atmosphere that they desire. And not to find guilt or to protect the public.
But after all that, if there had been a rape, there has been no criminal sanction. The University policy isn't doing one damn thing for your hysterical whining about "rapists... going free." The University policy is doing nothing but creating a certain atmosphere on campus. That atmosphere, for better or worse, is arguably protective of women, and just as arguably chilling of the rights of the accused.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||No.||
Nope. Not me. And I cannot think of you who might be talking about. You lost me with that.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||You don't think... ?||
You don't think that the April 2011 policy change was a political decision?
As for what I "try to do"...
I'm not sure that even I could tell you what I am trying to do. I thought I was just trying to be right. Be accurate; supply the information that is being overlooked or ignored; in the general media, or on the Board.
I'm not trying to win friends or influence people. And I don't propose to suffer fools gladly.
Of all the dumb, sloppy, careless posts in the several threads on this subject, it is so weird that anyone would pick on me since I've been 1,000 times more accurate, careful and subsantive than most.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||"No media pressure"?||
Duke chemistry professor Dr. Stephen Baldwin, on his fellow faculty members, 88 strong, who signed on to the controversial ad in the Duke Chronicle condemning the lacrosse team: “There was a collision between political correctness and due process, and political correctness won."
That is a real danger in these cases. Duke illustrated it. Thank God for a court of law, with real rules, and aggressive counsel for the defendants, and criminal investigations. Where would those three players have been without such protections? I think about the two non-accused Duke lacrosse players who got F's from their poli sci professor who had signed the Group of 88 advertisement. They sued Duke and the prof. Duke settled the case.
You say there was "no media pressure" in the Gibbons case. Don't all of these new cases demonstrate how -- worse than "media pressure" -- there is extreme federal Title IX pressure to "do something" in these cases? What the the feds collecting numbers on the results of investigations...
|1 year 22 weeks ago||It's the central issue.||
The policy change was a political, politicized, controversial change.
There was a policy balance to be made, and the balance was tilted against suspects, in the interest of being able to make the sort of press release seen from the White House in my preceding post.
Nothing shocks me. I don't know why you think I'd be feigning shock. I'm trying to coldly assess why we are where we are. It's a political decision. A very recent political decision.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Yeah as a matter of fact I think I do have a problem.||
These are thorny, contentious, hard cases. I think I want them in courts of law, not university conference rooms.
I think about the Duke lacrosse case. If there had been no defense lawyers in that case; if the players had not been subjected to criminal charges, but were instead subjected to a university committee (recalling that a whole page-full of faculty members had signed a letter condemning the lacrosse team); and supposing that the world had said, don't worry we are just protecting a sexual assault victim and we are not trying to throw anybody in jail...
Supposing all of that about the Duke lacrosse case, and supposing that the Duke three had been expelled in the same manner that Brendan Gibbons has now been expelled...
And we never got to discover what a lying crook the Durham prosecutor was, and what a dangerous nutjob the alleged vicitm was...
Yeah; I have a problem with that.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||The terrible jeopardy posed to Brendan Gibbons...||
...even if he and his counsel thought that they had a dandy case against the University of Michigan for denial of due process, and against his adversaries, for libel...
Just points out why any case against him in the first instance should not be conducted under lowered standards of proof and any relaxed evidentiary rules. There is just too much at stake.
If Brendan Gibbons is to be accused of rape, make the prosecution take him to court and prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. And give Gibbons all of his due process rights. That's the right way to do it. That's the only way to do it.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||I've stated this elsewhere:||
I don't propose to settle, to anyone's satisfaction, the truth of what happened in the Gibbons case.
So setting aside the details of the case, we are left with the policy/procedure issue. What is the state of affairs for allegations of sexual assault on campus? As a matter of policy, are there problems with lowered standards of proof and relaxed evidentiary and procedural safeguards?
I think the answer is yes, and I think the trend in active litigation is that more campus males who have been subjected to student disciplinary board proceedings (in many cases after the criminal justice system invesitgated and passed on any prosecution), are suing the universities.