"You know how Kyle Flood still has a job? Yeah, all Jourdan."
- Member for
- 5 years 44 weeks
|33 weeks 6 days ago||Whingy posts like yours are||
Whingy posts like yours are what "little brother" is to me.
|1 year 34 weeks ago||Will this kid be the first?||
Will this kid be the first to forego his final 2 years of HS and go straight to Kentucky?
|1 year 39 weeks ago||MSU couldn't afford to hire Nussmeier?||
Uh... I'm not sure how to tell you this, but...
|1 year 44 weeks ago||Amazing rationalization!||
Championship level effort. really.
|1 year 44 weeks ago||LOL!||
That is all.
|1 year 45 weeks ago||Meh||
I think most Spartan fans are thinking Rose Bowl no matter what happens in the crazy world of college football in the next couple of weeks. Our loss to ND in SB may have been... ahem... interesting, but we lost because our offense hadn't clicked yet. It now has clicked (enough to be average which is all MSU needs).
Rose Bowl first. if we have another season like this next year maybe then Spartan fans can start to worry about a NC. At least teams will have to earn it rather than win a popularity contest soon. That can only help MSU in any run for a NC.
|1 year 45 weeks ago||They'll score between 28-34||
They'll score between 28-34 points on OSUs mediocre defense. MSU has a very average offense but keep in mind that the defense will cause turnovers and put MSU in great field position at least once and special teams and the punting game will keep the ball contained on the OSU side of the field. The MSU game plan isn't meant to dominate the scoreboard or the offensive stat sheets. It's built to control the game and steer it's trajectory towards an MSU win. No last second heroics. No 80 yard bombs. Just slow and steady inevitability.
|1 year 45 weeks ago||This is MSU's year||
OSU will lose next week. I'm telling you. If you've watched MSU play this year it's clear that this is not SOS or Sparty No! or lil bro or whatever. This is a damn good football team. Full stop. So if you don't want to see the Buckeyes in the NCG you can sit back and relax knowing that these Spartans have your back.
|1 year 45 weeks ago||MSU has changed. If we want||
MSU has changed. If we want to stick with the "little brother" metaphor I think it's fitting to say that they have "grown up". I think they can, and will, beat OSU and go to the Rose Bowl. Sure part of that is because they are due to go, but it's also because they are winning their games solidly, convincingly even. OSU has benefitted from a very favorable schedule and matching up well to some weak defenses. MSU will give them a test they have not seen for over 2+ seasons.
MSU beats OSU, by 2 scores, defeats Stanford in the Rose Bowl and brings honor to the B1G.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||Michigan's fan base is no different than any other fan base.||
Exhibit A: This thread.
|5 years 28 weeks ago||Michigan Athletics are cursed||
And because of this curse the least favorable outcome in any sporting event for a Michigan fan will, in fact, be the eventual outcome. It is for this reason that I'm betting my life savings on MSU winning the NCAA bball national championship.
|5 years 37 weeks ago||Logic lesson to follow||
50% of the home team's shots were from beyond the arc while the visitor shot less than 25% of their shots from 3 point land. Yet the visitor got called for more fouls than the home team and the home team shot more FTs than visitor.
Most people knowledgeable in basketball would say the visiting team was "homered" based on these numbers.
Truth be told neither team garnered an advantage from the referees as it was clear from tip off that the refs were going to let them play... especially after one of the referees left the game.
As for the tugging jersey foul...
1. Only a small percentage of "jersey tugs" are ever called, even during a tightly called game.
Bitching about the lack a seldomly called foul in a loosely called game in the last 1.5 seconds of a 1pt game is dumb. Period.
|5 years 39 weeks ago||Based on information from the||
Based on information from the players' families and other sources it appears that Dantonio suspended the players for not being forthcoming to him or his staff prior to the incident and/or lying to him about their involvement after the incident. That would be the "violation of team rules" part.
As to why they would be reinstated now is anyone's guess. Possibly the players have finished their sentence in the "Court of Dantonio" for violating the rules. It would certainly mean more egg on Dantonio's face if any of these reinstated players were to be eventually convicted of some of the more serious charges, so I would imagine that he feels pretty confident of the charges being dropped/reduced, plea deal as you say or that no serious punishment will be levied if convicted.
|5 years 39 weeks ago||Well, the official reason||
Well, the official reason given for the players missing the bowl game was not due to the charges but rather for "violating team rules".
|5 years 39 weeks ago||Well, I'm sure the court||
Well, I'm sure the court cares.
The reasonable approach is to withhold judgment until the legal proceedings have run their course, no?
Besides, if a player is eventually found innocent of all charges, Couldn't it have been considered unjust for him to have remain suspended this whole time?
You know, innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz.
|5 years 39 weeks ago||The conspiracy charges relate||
The conspiracy charges relate to events preceding the actual incident in which it is likely all the players are guilty as I doubt they just didn't happen to wander into the situation unaware of what was going to happen. The assault charges could be satisfied by simply being in the same room and the assault and battery charges could be technically satisfied by simply touching someone over the course of the incident.
So it's very likely that many of the football players charged could be guilty of 1,2 or all 3 of the misdemeanor charges, but the punishment levied by the court will be the most telling part. For example, it is unlikely that a player who discussed the plan to crash the potluck earlier, stood by as another player was fighting, and may have bumped into someone at some point will receive much punishment beyond probation even though they were found guilty of all 3 charges. If a player actually punched someone, the punishment from the court AND from Dantonio will likely be a little more serious.
|5 years 39 weeks ago||Schadenfreude and all that aside||
All the evidence revealed so far... Ranging from the statements from the witnesses, the statements from the players and their families, the statements from the DA, and the charges themselves suggest that Winston, Jenrette and possibly Leggett were the only MSU players that actually threw punches.
All 3 are permanently off the team.
All the remaining players were charged with only 1 count of assault or assault and battery which the DA himself suggested could be satisfied simply by the player being present in the room and/or putting their hand on someone's shoulder. If, during the course of this case, it is revealed that another MSU player struck someone I have no doubt that Dantonio will immediately re-suspend, or more likely, kick that player off the team. Dantonio has taken a lot of heat over this affair and probably won't be as lenient as he has in the past.
Time will tell, but his reinstatement of the remaining players right now doesn't really mean much as we'll know the result of any legal action by the time spring practice starts.
|5 years 41 weeks ago||Bartender! A shot!||
Bartender! Give me a shot of Kool Aid! Wait... make that a double! Cheers!
|5 years 44 weeks ago||That is not my positioning at||
That is not my positioning at all. The Free Press reported one side of the story (negative MSU) for 10 days before reporting the other side. By then the widely accepted narrative of a ski mask wearing posse of women beaters was already established as evidenced by this blog and the comments contained therein. That is pro-MSU bias?
|5 years 44 weeks ago||I agree. For 10 days the||
I agree. For 10 days the only side being reported was from the fraternity, nearly all from 1 particular fraternity member who had already retained legal council and was threatening a lawsuit. Take from that what you will.
After 10 days one sided reporting (mainly because no one on the MSU side was permitted to talk), information from the players' perspective was leaked through side channels (their parents). This was presented as evidence of biased reporting. I find that claim extraordinarily bizarre without a hefty dose of bias on Brian's (and Chait's) part.
The investigation is still ongoing and there is a lot we still don't know yet. The truth could very well be similar to the initial story. A gang of football players wearing ski masks assaulted multiple people seriously including several women. Or, it may be revealed that only one player hit anyone, the injuries were not serious, there were no ski masks, no women were harmed and the incident was sparked by the victim assaulting a football player the night before as the players' parents suggest.
I'm assuming the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Isn't that a more reasonable position than what has been promoted on this blog? Both in regard to the MSU story and allegations of bias on the part of the Free Press?
|5 years 44 weeks ago||Once again Brian fails to||
Once again Brian fails to acknowledge that the initial story itself (ie. Everyone was fighting, players wore ski masks, there were serious injuries, women were assaulted, etc) was based solely on comments from the fraternity and it's members with the vast majority of the info coming from ONE fraternity member and his lawyer.
So I would contend that the Free Press did "bother to talk with the victim" because the entire narrative of the initial story was formed from this source.
The victim's side of the story has somehow managed to influence Brian's thoughts on the matter despite the bias and collusion of the Free Press. :rolleyes:
|5 years 44 weeks ago||I agree that the best thing||
I agree that the best thing to do is wait and see what the investigation uncovers. Considering that each side in this story has vastly differing version of events, I'm sure we do not have the real story of what really happened yet.
Up to this point, all the details reported have come from the fraternity with only 1 person quoted on record who witnessed the actual fight. That 1 person is the fraternity member with the lawyer. All the other witnesses are either not named or were describing the scene after the fight.
Also, I am not insinuating that only one person was fighting, I was just pointing out that that was the version of events being put forth by the parents of the players. I'm sure each side has an incentive to put the incident in the best possible light for their respective sides. The players' parents also stated that their sons were suspended for lying to Dantonio, not for fighting. Again their version.
You may notice the original story, which interviewed only fraternity members, did not make any claims as to how many people actually were fighting. The quotes imply the whole team was fighting when they "stormed" the dormitory, but again, this is taken only from interviews with fraternity members.
If 15-20 football players stormed a building and they were all fighting don't you think there would be a hell of a lot of injuries? Many serious? As it stands there is only 1 reported injury with medical corroboration, and 6 claims of "injury" with no medical corroboration. And even if all 7 injuries are real, if all 15-20 football players were beating up on 7 people don't you think there would be 7 fatalities?
Right now, very little of what is being reported makes sense.
|5 years 44 weeks ago||How do you know the version||
How do you know the version of events as detailed by the fraternity are backed up by the video? No one who has seen the video has commented on it publicly.
On one side we have a fraternity member and his lawyer talking to the press right away and hinting at lawsuits possibly to drive the public narrative and force a settlement. On the other we have players' parents telling the story from a different angle presumably to protect their kids and their playing future.
The truth is usually somewhere in the middle no?
|5 years 44 weeks ago||I made a new account just so||
I made a new account just so that I could address this article.
I usually like Jonathan Chait's articles, especially when the subject is politics, but I think when he start to delve into "bias" as it relates to the Free Press, he begins to lose his usual sense of clear perspective.
In Chait's zeal to showcase the supposed bias of the Free Press, he resorts to a little bias of his own... and some extremely shoddy research for his article.
For a week and a half the the entire narrative regarding the altercation at Rather Hall was provided by ONE SOURCE. The 15-20 football players, the ski masks, the assault on women, the serious injury, etc were all based on the comments obtained from the fraternity member was was assaulted AND his lawyer who immediately began talking to the press and dropping hints of a possible lawsuit.
No one who represented the University nor the players has spoken with the press until now. And lo and behold, they have a different story. No mask, no serious injury, only 1 person fighting (Winston), etc. It's funny how there are always 2 sides to every story.
So after a week and a half of hearing only one side of the story provided by only one source (Frat kid + attorney) thereby shaping the entire narrative of the story in the press, we finally get to hear what happened from the players perspective through side channels. And Chait claims that the Free Press is only telling the players' side of the story and paints this as evidence of Free Press "pro-MSU bias"?
His article is telling in itself. He portrays the allegations of the article provided by ONE SOURCE (the frat) as fact. "It wasn't a fight it was an assault". He also takes issue with the article headline "INSIDE the MSU Fight" and claims it's not really an "insider" story because it only takes into account the players' parents viewpoints. Uh, up until this point the ENTIRE STORY was based on the viewpoint of ONE SOURCE (and his lawyer).
Chait seems all too willing to accept the sequence of events as portrayed by the fraternity as established fact as the basis for his article on bias, while ignoring that it took 10 days before the players' version of the story was finally reported.
Irony might be a better topic for his next article.