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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
That my friend, would be an affirmative defense. But who wants to put those things forward? No one. They just take up time and money that's why 99% of cases don't go to trial. If the prosecutor believes the story, justice is spelled P-L-E-A-D-E-A-L.
The roommate probably came back, found out his game was missing, and called police. Police took a report, then (insert facts here that I don't know about), and Robinson became the suspect. Then it's forwarded to the prosecutor who looks at the law, goes "hey this is a Home Invasion 2nd!" and there Marvin Robinson is in court. Doesn't take much to get here. It takes a lot to get out of it though.
Legally I still think McQueary and JoePa did everything they were supposed to do. But morally, we put those people in positions like that because we expect them to be leaders of men. Sadly, they were not in this situation. We all thought JoePa was exceptional, but he is not. I think it's right for him to get out while the getting is good, and I'd let him retire on his own terms. He's done a lot for that University, and this shouldn't undo everything. But he should not be celebrated as a legendary leader. (Big Ten, are you listening?) He should be allowed to go his own way, and we should focus all our anger on the actual child molester.
I don't think you can reach that far. The coaches are employed as coaches, not as counselors at Sandusky's camp. They probably don't even get paid if they help out Sandusky's charity at all. The statute says it has to be in the course of employment. Also, the events were probably never witnessed involving Sandusky's charity or camps. It just sounds like this stuff just happened while roaming the halls of the Penn State facilities.
Also, props to you for giving some love to the DA's all around the world.
This is the part that I disagree with. And I seem to be in the severe minority here. It's easy for us to stand up after the fact on the moral high ground and demand that these people be ashamed for what they did NOT do. And that's true, they should feel ashamed. But I don't think we should demonize them (specifically JoePa) and judge their entire life worth based on this sad sad story. When push comes to shove, it's always hard to do the right thing, especially when a close friend is involved. I point to these two stories to prove why:
I think there a few things to take from those famous socialogical studies.
1) People are naturally afraid to take responsibility for something when they know something wrong has happened. 2) They will almost always defer to the person in charge. Failure to report laws are actually set up knowing this, because it gives a person one small responsibility of telling their immediate supervisor, in the hopes that it will eventually make it up the chain. The chain broke in this case, and the AD and VP of the Univesity are paying for it now. We should celebrate the people who stand up and do the right thing. We should not make villains out of the people who do the bare minimum, because I truly believe it could be any one of us. I hope I would be one to stand up and say something if I was in a situation like that, but honestly you never know until you're put in that situation.
I'd say according to this, JoePa and McQueary probably didn't have the strict duty to report, because I doubt either of them are considered school administrators under subsection (b). I realize that's not an exhaustive list, but it's hard to pigeon hole division I football coach into a category that is "A person who, in the course of employment, occupation or practice of a profession, comes into contact with children." Even if they were considered to have a duty, they clearly met that duty by going up the chain of their superiors according to subsection (c). Whoever the superior is has the legal obligation to report to law enforcement according to this statute. That's why they're going after the AD and the VP of the University. I know the AD's lawyer has already come out and said they're going to defend the case by saying the duty to report doesn't apply to him. Good luck on that one.
Brian is starting to do this more and more and it's bugging me. He always comes out with a "but if the offense/defense did not catch these lucky breaks, and you remove these four drives, and Dan Persa was allowed five downs......then I am not impressed by this." I mean, obviously when you tinker with the data set to no end, of course things look differently.
I think his analysis is on about bubble screens and such. We don't defend those well. But when making sweeping judgments about a unit as a whole, you have to include the entire data, even if it includes a Northwestern team derping. So even if we do have errors, the end results are speaking for themselves.
I love Grantland. Ever since they appeared, the only reason I go to ESPN.com anymore is for Saturday box scores. It's probably the best collection of writers you'll find in one place. I wonder how much money they gave Bill to pilfer all of these people?
Is Brian really going to refer to the division names as east and west forever now? I get it. I hate the names too. But it's taken me six games to finally figure out the difference between Legends and Leaders. (Legends = All schools named M, N and Iowa.) I don't want to have to reset my brain everytime this blog makes it's own silent protest.
I've also found, like many a great thing, the names aren't really that terrible. Kinda like when Facebook changes. People just fear change. My guess is that in two years time, we all relent.
PSA's are not targeted at everyone in the stadium. Yeah, they might annoy some people for being preachy, but that's exactly the point they're trying to make. And in order to make that point, it's really hard to hit just the right tone without sounding preachy but still be taken seriously.
Whether people want to hear it or not, gay rights is the next (and even current) frontier of real pivotal civil rights in this country. Some of these deragatory words don't matter to young kids out there, and sadly even a lot of adults. I couldn't be happier that University is willing to take a stance to try and curb some of this behavior. The same goes with some of the messages that pop up in the NBA, since we all know sports is where this ignorance persists.
So yeah, maybe it will be boring or preachy or annoying to listen to some poorly cut message for 30 seconds at a football game where we go to escape, but just take a moment to appreciate the message it is trying to get across.
By now, we all agree that things like drunk driving and racism (except maybe the SEC) are bad things. Sadly, unfortunately, not everyone realizes that homophobia and anti-gay slurs are a bad thing yet. The whole point of a PSA is to tell as many people as possible that society is changing, and we want everyone to change with it. Sometimes you need those forms of public encouragement and pressure, even if it makes some of us roll our eyes.
My wife was so happy when she found out this was the chick in the Denard jersey. We saw them on the field talking to Denard afterwards and we both thought "who the hell are these people that get personal access to Denard after such a ridiculous game, and why do I suspect it involves this chick being a whore somehow."
Turns out they just had a camera and an ESPN badge, which seems a bit more acceptable than just throwing money around and being hot. Although I guess the whore part still might stand when it comes to ESPN.
But Michigan has been a short team for a long time. I'm mostly excited about having big men again. And Hunter, Brown, Sims and Petway was a ridiculously talented big man rotation for any normal college team. Everyone but Brown at least got a sniff of the NBA, and Sims and Hunter actually hung around way longer than you would suspect for woefully underachieving college players. It just goes to show how talented they were and how awful Amaker was at developing talent.
Banner isn't supposed to be a 5-star kind o basketball recruit anyway like he could be in football. That said, I'd kill for a 6'9", 300 lbs. bench player. If he was a reserve, and you added him to a junior Jordan Morgan and Jon Horford and a maybe hopefully freshman McGary, that is a big man lineup that Belein has probably never had, and that Michigan certainly hasn't had since the Chris Hunter, Graham Brown, Courtney Sims, Brent Petway days. Yes please.
Dude's from Fargo and he likes Michigan. The only other people I know like that are me, my parents by association, my ex-girlfriend, and two other highly advanced girls who ended up attending. By my calculations, this guy has an 83.3% chance of being awesome.
Go to my parents' house. They live on Prairiewood. They've got satelite so they have BTN. This way my mother can watch her precious Huskers. Make sure to bring a gift. Old Man likes him some Petron for his margaritas he so zealously makes. Mom tends to be more of a wine person. If they've gone to the lake for the weekend, ask them for the security code to the garage. Offer to wash any dishes in the sink. There's a univesal remote that handles all six of their silly entertainment systems. You'll want "watch satellite." Use the bathroom upstairs. If you go downstairs, my old room should still possess some old Michigan trinkets like a 1993 regional NCAA Tournament size small t-shirt and a poster of the 1999-2000 admissions standards and data. These MUST be displayed for good luck if watching a Michigan game in the house.
The death penalty bylaw reads that it can only be imposed on a repeat violator if their probation came within the last five years of their current major violation. A separate bylaw interpretation says that the NCAA can reach back beyond their statute of limitations to investigate a pattern of closely related behavior. Shapiro's behavior is obviously a ridiculous, habitual pattern. According to the probe from Yahoo!, he started "boosting" in 2001. Miami was placed on 3-year probation in 1995 and got off in 1998. According to my lawyerly statute interpretation, if an NCAA investigation includes violations from 01, 02, or 03, that would be within the 5-year window the NCAA requires to levy the death penalty. It sounds like it will be up to them on whether to drop the hammer, errr, nuclear bomb.
Recent Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
You are probably right. Still gotta make a jury believe it though. Plea deal is still on the horizon I bet.
That my friend, would be an affirmative defense. But who wants to put those things forward? No one. They just take up time and money that's why 99% of cases don't go to trial. If the prosecutor believes the story, justice is spelled P-L-E-A-D-E-A-L.
The roommate probably came back, found out his game was missing, and called police. Police took a report, then (insert facts here that I don't know about), and Robinson became the suspect. Then it's forwarded to the prosecutor who looks at the law, goes "hey this is a Home Invasion 2nd!" and there Marvin Robinson is in court. Doesn't take much to get here. It takes a lot to get out of it though.
Legally I still think McQueary and JoePa did everything they were supposed to do. But morally, we put those people in positions like that because we expect them to be leaders of men. Sadly, they were not in this situation. We all thought JoePa was exceptional, but he is not. I think it's right for him to get out while the getting is good, and I'd let him retire on his own terms. He's done a lot for that University, and this shouldn't undo everything. But he should not be celebrated as a legendary leader. (Big Ten, are you listening?) He should be allowed to go his own way, and we should focus all our anger on the actual child molester.
Double post
I don't think you can reach that far. The coaches are employed as coaches, not as counselors at Sandusky's camp. They probably don't even get paid if they help out Sandusky's charity at all. The statute says it has to be in the course of employment. Also, the events were probably never witnessed involving Sandusky's charity or camps. It just sounds like this stuff just happened while roaming the halls of the Penn State facilities.
Also, props to you for giving some love to the DA's all around the world.
This is the part that I disagree with. And I seem to be in the severe minority here. It's easy for us to stand up after the fact on the moral high ground and demand that these people be ashamed for what they did NOT do. And that's true, they should feel ashamed. But I don't think we should demonize them (specifically JoePa) and judge their entire life worth based on this sad sad story. When push comes to shove, it's always hard to do the right thing, especially when a close friend is involved. I point to these two stories to prove why:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_Experiment
I think there a few things to take from those famous socialogical studies.
1) People are naturally afraid to take responsibility for something when they know something wrong has happened. 2) They will almost always defer to the person in charge. Failure to report laws are actually set up knowing this, because it gives a person one small responsibility of telling their immediate supervisor, in the hopes that it will eventually make it up the chain. The chain broke in this case, and the AD and VP of the Univesity are paying for it now. We should celebrate the people who stand up and do the right thing. We should not make villains out of the people who do the bare minimum, because I truly believe it could be any one of us. I hope I would be one to stand up and say something if I was in a situation like that, but honestly you never know until you're put in that situation.
I'd say according to this, JoePa and McQueary probably didn't have the strict duty to report, because I doubt either of them are considered school administrators under subsection (b). I realize that's not an exhaustive list, but it's hard to pigeon hole division I football coach into a category that is "A person who, in the course of employment, occupation or practice of a profession, comes into contact with children." Even if they were considered to have a duty, they clearly met that duty by going up the chain of their superiors according to subsection (c). Whoever the superior is has the legal obligation to report to law enforcement according to this statute. That's why they're going after the AD and the VP of the University. I know the AD's lawyer has already come out and said they're going to defend the case by saying the duty to report doesn't apply to him. Good luck on that one.
Brian is starting to do this more and more and it's bugging me. He always comes out with a "but if the offense/defense did not catch these lucky breaks, and you remove these four drives, and Dan Persa was allowed five downs......then I am not impressed by this." I mean, obviously when you tinker with the data set to no end, of course things look differently.
I think his analysis is on about bubble screens and such. We don't defend those well. But when making sweeping judgments about a unit as a whole, you have to include the entire data, even if it includes a Northwestern team derping. So even if we do have errors, the end results are speaking for themselves.
I love Grantland. Ever since they appeared, the only reason I go to ESPN.com anymore is for Saturday box scores. It's probably the best collection of writers you'll find in one place. I wonder how much money they gave Bill to pilfer all of these people?
Is Brian really going to refer to the division names as east and west forever now? I get it. I hate the names too. But it's taken me six games to finally figure out the difference between Legends and Leaders. (Legends = All schools named M, N and Iowa.) I don't want to have to reset my brain everytime this blog makes it's own silent protest.
I've also found, like many a great thing, the names aren't really that terrible. Kinda like when Facebook changes. People just fear change. My guess is that in two years time, we all relent.
PSA's are not targeted at everyone in the stadium. Yeah, they might annoy some people for being preachy, but that's exactly the point they're trying to make. And in order to make that point, it's really hard to hit just the right tone without sounding preachy but still be taken seriously.
Whether people want to hear it or not, gay rights is the next (and even current) frontier of real pivotal civil rights in this country. Some of these deragatory words don't matter to young kids out there, and sadly even a lot of adults. I couldn't be happier that University is willing to take a stance to try and curb some of this behavior. The same goes with some of the messages that pop up in the NBA, since we all know sports is where this ignorance persists.
So yeah, maybe it will be boring or preachy or annoying to listen to some poorly cut message for 30 seconds at a football game where we go to escape, but just take a moment to appreciate the message it is trying to get across.
By now, we all agree that things like drunk driving and racism (except maybe the SEC) are bad things. Sadly, unfortunately, not everyone realizes that homophobia and anti-gay slurs are a bad thing yet. The whole point of a PSA is to tell as many people as possible that society is changing, and we want everyone to change with it. Sometimes you need those forms of public encouragement and pressure, even if it makes some of us roll our eyes.
This technically doesn't make sense. Both teams are in the Big 10 now. A victory by either spells glory for the conference. Or something like that.
My wife was so happy when she found out this was the chick in the Denard jersey. We saw them on the field talking to Denard afterwards and we both thought "who the hell are these people that get personal access to Denard after such a ridiculous game, and why do I suspect it involves this chick being a whore somehow."
Turns out they just had a camera and an ESPN badge, which seems a bit more acceptable than just throwing money around and being hot. Although I guess the whore part still might stand when it comes to ESPN.
But Michigan has been a short team for a long time. I'm mostly excited about having big men again. And Hunter, Brown, Sims and Petway was a ridiculously talented big man rotation for any normal college team. Everyone but Brown at least got a sniff of the NBA, and Sims and Hunter actually hung around way longer than you would suspect for woefully underachieving college players. It just goes to show how talented they were and how awful Amaker was at developing talent.
Banner isn't supposed to be a 5-star kind o basketball recruit anyway like he could be in football. That said, I'd kill for a 6'9", 300 lbs. bench player. If he was a reserve, and you added him to a junior Jordan Morgan and Jon Horford and a maybe hopefully freshman McGary, that is a big man lineup that Belein has probably never had, and that Michigan certainly hasn't had since the Chris Hunter, Graham Brown, Courtney Sims, Brent Petway days. Yes please.
Dude's from Fargo and he likes Michigan. The only other people I know like that are me, my parents by association, my ex-girlfriend, and two other highly advanced girls who ended up attending. By my calculations, this guy has an 83.3% chance of being awesome.
Go to my parents' house. They live on Prairiewood. They've got satelite so they have BTN. This way my mother can watch her precious Huskers. Make sure to bring a gift. Old Man likes him some Petron for his margaritas he so zealously makes. Mom tends to be more of a wine person. If they've gone to the lake for the weekend, ask them for the security code to the garage. Offer to wash any dishes in the sink. There's a univesal remote that handles all six of their silly entertainment systems. You'll want "watch satellite." Use the bathroom upstairs. If you go downstairs, my old room should still possess some old Michigan trinkets like a 1993 regional NCAA Tournament size small t-shirt and a poster of the 1999-2000 admissions standards and data. These MUST be displayed for good luck if watching a Michigan game in the house.
The death penalty bylaw reads that it can only be imposed on a repeat violator if their probation came within the last five years of their current major violation. A separate bylaw interpretation says that the NCAA can reach back beyond their statute of limitations to investigate a pattern of closely related behavior. Shapiro's behavior is obviously a ridiculous, habitual pattern. According to the probe from Yahoo!, he started "boosting" in 2001. Miami was placed on 3-year probation in 1995 and got off in 1998. According to my lawyerly statute interpretation, if an NCAA investigation includes violations from 01, 02, or 03, that would be within the 5-year window the NCAA requires to levy the death penalty. It sounds like it will be up to them on whether to drop the hammer, errr, nuclear bomb.