Hoke was top notch at this aspect of his job.
- Member for
- 6 years 10 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|44 weeks 3 days ago||Political vote||
The difference in games is because one Regent thought day game fireworks would be ok but night game fieworks too late. I did find it interesting though that this was a PARTY LINE vote. Republicans were cool with the fireworks, Democrats all voted against it. I never thought I'd live to see the day that fireworks became a partisan issue. But maybe this is also a veiled shot at Dave Brandon whose conservative leanings have never been a secret, even when he was on the board. I wonder if he's lost 2/3 of the Board of Regents anytime he has to send a proposal to them.
|44 weeks 3 days ago||Party-line vote||
The Michigan Daily that posted today revealed that the Regent vote on the fireworks was across party lines. All the Republicans voted in favor of them, all the Democrats voted against them (except for one who said they would be ok for a night game.) I'm wondering if Brandon hasn't politicized the Regents behind closed doors. His conservaitve leanings were well known before he had the job and his name still comes up for Governor from time to time. It makes me wonder if he's now lost the President and 2/3 of the Board of Regents on any controversial issue he has to send their way.
|1 year 14 weeks ago||SMDH Lady||
Isn't SMDH Lady a guy, dressed up as a lady? She/He is wearing a tie, and that hair is so fake it has to be a wig. Right? I refuse to believe that a woman, who looks ilke that, who wears that, who has hair like that, would even be allowed down amongst all those bros. The simpler solution: it IS a bro.
|2 years 3 weeks ago||Don't sell this short||
Don't sell this short. This is the first active player in a major sport to come out. It's a major benchmark in the gay rights community. Just because it will happen without a serious amount of blowback doesn't make it any less important.
|2 years 3 weeks ago||This is huge||
It's huge that it's a big deal, but it's also huge in that we have to ask "is this a big deal?" Society has come a long ways in just 10 years, when this would be unthinkable. Maybe most of us are accepting and tolerating of this kind of act these days, but there are still pockets of people who are absolutely reviled by what Jason Collins did today. And the more exposure something like this gets, the more those pockets gradually disappear.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||Bubble Talk||
Bubble talk used to stress me out beyond all reason, because we were always on it. But looking at it from the other side now, I am fascinated to see how the committee treats Illinois. I would imagine they're going to be one of the more polarizing bubble teams in recent memory. Most experts seem to say if they can get to 8-10 in the conference, the strength of the conference will pull them in. But they'll need a road upset for that to happen as you pointed out. Otherwise, does a 20-12 team with a 7-11 conference record deserve to get into the Tourney? I'd say yes, even at that level. The Big Ten is just too good not to take that in an expanded field.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||So strong||
This is a really strong conference. Illinois has so many good wins that I think they squeeze in. We should be easy for 7, and maybe 8 if Iowa can pull off a win here or there.
The Big Ten Tournament is going to be terrifying. No doubt. Better than the Final Four? Well that depends on which teams make the Final Four obviously. It won't be 4 Big Ten teams. I'm sure of that. But remember, a conference is thought to be amazing strong if it can produce even just TWO Final Four teams. I would hope out of our Top 6 teams, one of them should be able to stumble into the Final Four, and it wouldn't be surprising if 2 got there. I think the best teams in the nation for the most part make it to the Final Four, where the best basketball is played. (Usually.) But in terms of sheer excitement? God the BTT might give me a heart attack. I couldn't make it through last night's game, and I might have to do that THREE DAYS IN A ROW? Good golly.
|2 years 27 weeks ago||Unfair||
I think that's unfair. Smot left gracefully and was a great contributor to the team. I think he'd be a perfect fit this year. He'd probably be starting at the 4, with GRIII sliding down to the 3, THJ at shooting guard and Vogrich off the bench. Smot would have been back at a position that suits his game more than he was last year. And Belein would have had limitless flexibility with his lineup, with an option of sliding Smot to the 3 with Morgan and McGary in, going super big. We have an embarrassment of riches now, but there's no doubt we'd be a deeper, better, more experienced team had Smot stuck around.
|2 years 27 weeks ago||Violation||
If he doesn't pay in time, he's deemed to have violated his probation. That means a judge could toss him in jail or the crime might appear on his record (which it's not doing right now.) I bet Clark gets it all paid off somehow (cause you never want to take your chances with a probation violation) but usually a judge will give you a couple chances on probation before he really throws the book at you.
|2 years 27 weeks ago||He's guilty||
You have to plea guilty in order to get your case dismissed under Holmes. He had to go up in front of a judge and admit what he did. You just get the benefit of nothing appearing on your record if you behave yourself afterwards.
|2 years 27 weeks ago||Light sentence||
I think this is actually a light sentence in the grand scheme of things. He was charged under the Home Invasion statute. People go to prison for that. If someone broke into my home (whether it's a house or my dorm room) I'd definitely want that guy going to prison. Maybe the facts aren't the same as your stereotypical house burgalar, but Frank should feel lucky he gets probation and gets to keep this off his record. Hopefull he makes the most out of it.
|2 years 30 weeks ago||Curious||
I wonder if the Michigan coaches ever catch wind of this sort of thing on the recruiting trail, and if they cut ties with recruits when they here about it. For instance, if this turns out to be true, are we to assume any sort of connections we had with the high school are all for naught now? Since you could look at the high school as dirty?
|2 years 38 weeks ago||Two things stood out to me||
I had forgotten about Hoke's law enforcement background. But not just specifically law enforcement. Federal probation and parole. He was originally trained basically to help people who are getting a second chance. Secondly, he himself was given second chances from his times at Ball State. I think these two foundations have a lot to do with how handles discipline on the team, and how he manages his players in general. He's not a strict disciplinarian like some people might believe him to be. He's probably much more likely to nuture a relationship with a troubled player, because he believes they're all worth the effort. I bet it explains why the Fitz and Frank Clark situations tend to be drawing out. And it's probably why Stonum still spoke kindly of the University and Hoke even after he was dismissed from the team. Hoke must have bent over backwards for him hoping he'd make things work, but it just didn't happen for him.
|2 years 49 weeks ago||This matter started because a||
This matter started because a policeman saw Campbell sliding across the car. This wasn't the car owner spotting Campbell and taddling on him. Once the cop caught him, it was going criminal.
The prosecutor does have the power to drop a case whenever he/she wants, but why would they in this situation? They had a strong case, and they made an easy deal. Technically, they did keep it private for Big Will, because as long as he completes his probation, it will ultimately be suppressed from his record because he is under 21.
|2 years 51 weeks ago||Intent||
Criminal intent is not based on intended outcome. It's based on intended action. Theoretically, Campbell fully intended to jump and slide over that car. There's your criminal intent right there. It just so happened that his intentional action damaged the car. He didn't intend to do that, but he did anyway. A proper defense would be that, someone pushed him and it knocked him against the car, damaging it. In that case, he did not intend to make contact with the car. You do intend contact with the car when you think it would be funny to slide across it.
|2 years 51 weeks ago||Actually, if you're||
Actually, if you're hilariously smashing a camera (or car) you still do it on purpose. That means you had the necessary intent to commit a crime. For some reason, comedy is not a defense in our legal system. (although it totally should be).
|2 years 51 weeks ago||Intent||
You have to prove intent, and meet the damage threshold. Campbell could probably beat this at trial by saying he didn't intend to mess up the car, but that seems like too much trouble when you can just pay back the money and still get your case dropped, or at a minimum a tiny misdemeanor.
|2 years 51 weeks ago||Nah||
I bet Brady Hoke laughed at Will when he heard about this. Honestly, it's hard to categorize what Campbell did as "malicious." I'm sure he didn't mean to damage the car, he was just acting like a drunk idiot, as we all do. If I was the prosecutor, I'd want Big Will to pay back the money of any damage he did to the vehicle, and then dismiss the case or find the tiniest misdemeanor I can find. Maybe even let him keep it off his record. I know felony SOUNDS like a big deal, but in this instance, it really isn't.
|2 years 51 weeks ago||One day yes||
One day, there will be a major case, but it's not going to be this. People have been saying dumb stuff from the beginning of time, and it's pretty hard to prove that a person had specific intent to get this kid permanently messed up in just 140 characters. Alas, the problems of the anonymous internet will continue, will stupid people saying stupid things.
I would not be against the NCAA regulating this kind of stuff though. I know the last thing the NCAA needs is more regulation, but if this kind of behavior actually affected the program, you'd get a lot less of it happening. People like this would be Bartmanned into Bolivia.
|2 years 51 weeks ago||Misdemeanor||
That internet harrassment statute is probably as far as you can take this if someone wants to investigate it for some reason. And in the grand scheme of things, misdemeanors really aren't that big a deal.
However, when you're a "business owner" or whatever he claims to be, and you have the wrath of entire fan base following you around the rest of your life, then yeah, it probably would become a big deal.
|3 years 6 days ago||Worth noting||
I think Rosenberg has had a part time gig at SI, possibly even before the little expose he did. I highly doubt that that piece is what got a national publication to suddenly notice him. When you are a columnist at a major metro publication for 10 years or more, you're gonna get noticed.
Also worth noting, Rosenberg never mentioned that piece in his farewell column. He's quite aware that probably 15% of the Free Press readership associates him with that piece and only with that piece. I don't think he's necessarily proud of it to the point that he wants to tout it, but I don't think he feels he did anything wrong either. It's just another clipping in his past.
|3 years 4 weeks ago||Have some respect||
To say that you could find any ole high school band to play The Victors and think no one would notice is wrong, ignorant, and practically downright offensive to those 300 some kids who are dying today because they just learned that Dave Brandon crushed their dreams. These are students who don't get any kind of scholarship. They go through three a day practices in summer camps and give up two hours a day in the fall to play that fight song loud. We are flipping out on Brandon because the Michigan community wants to tell the band that it's worth it. That we appreciate all the effort that we put in. And trust me, as someone who can tell the difference, whether it's a high school band or an empty section of the bleachers, you're going to notice, and you're immediately going to miss them.
|3 years 6 weeks ago||Don't have the whole story||
The prosecutor will never comment on a story while it's pending, so you only get the defense's attorney's watered down version of the events. It's possible there's less to the story, but prosecutor's don't take these charges lightly. They're very serious about what and why they charge, and this Freep story says nothing about illegal entry into someone's room or any kind of domestic violence. Someone must be alleging that Furman messed up a girlfriend or someone he lives with (that's the definition of domestic violence) and that he went somewhere he wasn't supposed to without permission (the illegal entry part). We won't know these things unless a police report is leaked or until the case actually ends up in court somewhere.
Just for a scale of reference, if all these things are true, the law views this worse than anything Daryl Stonum did, but not quite as bad as the MSU dorm ambush.
|3 years 10 weeks ago||Seth Davis knows what he's talking about||
Everyone has a little dirt, but that doesn't necessarily relate to their job. I think everyone knows we've been overperforming this year, so now all the analysts are waiting for the shoe to drop. Besides, they all know that if they pick ridiculous upsets, no one calls them out when they're wrong, but they get to toot their own horns if they can call the long shot. Davis and Gottlieb were both picking 3-14 and 4-13 upsets like crazy, even though these rarely ever happen. The best advice is Belein=Believe.
|3 years 20 weeks ago||More than that.||
For one thing, he's on probation, not out of prison on parole.
Secondly, this isn't just showing up late for a probation appointment. He showed up late because he got a ticket. That ticket was for driving on a suspended/revoked license. That license is suspended/revoked because he has been convicted of drunk driving, and the state has deemed him not responsible enough to possess a license at this time. On top of that, he has been ordered by the court not to drive already. This is a problem. The court may take some mercy on him because it sounds like he's done alright on probation so far, but we can't treat this like it's not a big deal.
Also, the "Our players aren't robbing and assaulting people and raping women fergodsakes," quote just reeks of Terrelle Pryor-ishness. Pardon my french. But I would hope we could keep our standards higher in society than robbin' and rapin. Especially for our Michigan Men.
|3 years 23 weeks ago||You also have to remember||
You also have to remember that a waiver is essentially what a prosecutor is shooting for anyway at the preliminary exam. The prosecutor just needs to get the case from point A to point B. The defendant is usually thinking about long-term strategy, so sometimes a waiver is the best outcome for everyone involved. Even if a prosecutor could add charges if they demanded an exam, the saying goes "one in the hand is better than two in the bush."
|3 years 23 weeks ago||Very common||
It's real common to waive, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with an intent to plea bargain down the road. Oftentimes it's strategic on the defense's part. Many times, you DO NOT want to hear what the victims have to say. The defense already has access to witness statements and grand jury testimony. If a witness shows up at a hearing a testifies, that testimony is locked in forever, and can be used against the defendant at trial. But if no testimony occurrs, then the witness must appear for the trial. Sandusky's lawyer has already said he thought some witnesses wouldn't want to testify. By waiving your exam, you're hoping maybe witnesses will change their mind between now and trial. It's kind of a long shot, but what else choice does Sandusky have now?
|3 years 23 weeks ago||I looked at the Pennsylvania state codes||
I looked at the Pennsylvania state codes. I don't recommend this to anyone. I remember from the indictment that Sandusky is being charged with at least a number of counts of Involuntary Deviant Sexual Intercourse. That carries a maximum penalty of 40 years in Pennsylvania. If any of the children testify that they were seriously hurt or harmed in any way as a result of this, he can be charged with the life offense. He's also being charged with a laundry list of more minor felonies and misdemeanors.
This doesn't mean he will necessarily serve the maximum on any of these counts, but on such a high profile case, a judge or jury would probably consider it. Not that it's going to matter anyway, because there are so many counts racked up against Sandusky that the time he does do is going to take away any of the life he has left.
|3 years 23 weeks ago||Legal system||
You have to remember that the legal system is alwys stacked in favor of the defendant. In a fight where you have conflicting eyewitness reports, a jury will often throw up its arms because it can't decide who to believe. When that happens, a defendant gets acquitted. In fact in this case, he was still found guilty of the aggravated assault misdemeanor. The difference being that, the jury thought he tried to hurt Kampfer and didn't do it out of self-defense, but they don't think he tried to like, felony level mess him up.
We really don't know what happened, and can never know what happened. If I had to guess, I would bet that Milano was jawing at Kampfer the whole way back. Eventually he said something that drove Kampfer over the edge, and he turned around when he shouldn't have. I'd really chalk this up to drunk college kids are idiots, and everything probably ended up sorting itself out in the most fair way possible.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||MSU whining||
The Michigan State whining is quintessential Little Brother. I know it's not fair. I agree with them. But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy laughing at their misfortunes. Sometimes the older brother is more important. Sometimes he gets to do things the Little Brother doesn't, and he just has to put up with it.