Mason NEEDS this, Pistons, after all you've put him through
- Member for
- 3 years 14 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 day 9 hours ago||Agree..sometime I feel like||
Agree..sometime I feel like nothing would make people on this board happier than an empty stadium so they could say "i told you so". Not to mention it feels like most people hope the O line fails miserably so they can say "i told you so" about funk.
|4 days 18 hours ago||Very true..I guess I think||
Very true..I guess I think the criticism of the other news sites (mlive, detroit news) for being scooped by the Daily was a bit overdone. It seems natural that the Daily would have be the one with the relationship with an employee in the OSCR willing to illegally leak the gibbons letter.
|4 days 19 hours ago||Let's be real about the Daily||
Let's be real about the Daily breaking the Gibbons story...it means they were given the leak and thus given the story. The leak of the document saying Gibbons was expelled was the reason they were able to write the story. The rest of the story was just filling in background material.
|5 days 16 hours ago||I think some would argue that||
I think some would argue that both are meaningless.
|5 days 17 hours ago||The main takeaway from the||
The main takeaway from the CSG report is the university wouldnt help them with any info so the CSG report has alot of assumptions. Luckily, the university will comply with the Federal civil rigths investigation and will have to provide them with all the info and documents so this incident is actually looked into with facts as opposed to assumptions.
The CSG report makes some guesses and assumptions due to the lack of info...at one point, they state that if an unresolved 2012-2013 incident was related to the Gibbons case then it took 445 days instead of the targetted 60 days. Of course, they failed to mention that if that unnamed case was not related to Gibbons then it has nothing to do with any of their report.
The 60 day thing was not a hard rule but a guideline that the university is encouraged to investigate complaints within 60 days of notification. I think it would be interesting to hear the circumstances as to why it took longer. The federal investigations will get these facts and make their conculsion whilt the CSG was not given this info so just assumes it was because of lack of staffing.
Finally, I would think the federal investigation will have zero interest on statements Hoke made to the media. The investigation will focus on UM's policy, their transition policy, and whether the case was handled appropriately within this policy. The Feds would care if Hoke made statements to internal investigators about this...but I cant see them caring at all about a "family matter" statement to the MEDIA.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||You do know this took place||
You do know this took place over a month ago, right? The championship match took place on Feb 15th.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||I would think teams are doing||
I would think teams are doing the same negative recruiting against Michigan...if Nussmeier does well with the offense, the chance he is here for a recruit's junior or senior year is probably less than Mora's chance.
|6 weeks 1 day ago||This is bad for schools in||
This is bad for schools in southeast and cali assuming that official visits would also be allowed earlier. This allows schools like UM, OSU, ND, etc. to get kids from CA and the Southeast on campus much earlier. Currently, you are forcing a kid from CA to pay his own way for an unofficial visit to Michigan...so what happens is those kids have to wait until their senior year for official visits and by then many people have alrady committed and Michigan doesnt have a chance to show off their campus. Assuming official visit timelines also shifts, you can get these CA kids to visit in spring of junior year.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||The judge||
|7 weeks 1 day ago||I highly doubt he will be||
I highly doubt he will be able to get a medical redshirt. The NCAA just denied Christian Bryant of OSU of a redshirt under same circumstances after the season including denying his appeal.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||Yes - anyone know what the||
Yes - anyone know what the logic is behind having break in the middle? Where are the players during that break? If they are on their own somewhere "fun" for break, isnt it safe to say they will come back in worse shape which will make the first few days back not as useful and the remaining days so few because two were spent before the break.
|8 weeks 22 hours ago||I think there are a few||
I think there are a few issues with what you have:
|9 weeks 1 day ago||Bball Antoine "the judge"||
|9 weeks 2 days ago||Go easy on this guy.||
Go easy on this guy.
|10 weeks 2 days ago||If he does that, that would||
If he does that, that would have been the most famous play in Michigan history.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||I dont see your point as Dave||
I dont see your point as Dave Brandon's most significant accomplishments as AD here are in the big picture long term planning of facilities and the long term health of the department. Yes - he is involved with everything and alot of his decisions annoy people but he has done more for the long term future of the non-revenue sports than any prior AD has. If your point was Michigan went from an AD who treats it as a leisurely symbolic role to one that treats it as a 24 hr/day crucial role, then I would agree with you.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||If this is the issue, it||
If this is the issue, it seems like the university could address it by just laying out their general procedures for cases involving athletes without referencing anything with respect to the Gibbons case. I agree that this seems to be more and more likely but the only thing that makes me question it is the inability for the university to address it laying out these general procedural details.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||Regarding 2||
You mention the letter to Gibbons announcing their prelim finding. How do we know that document was for Gibbons and sent to him. The daily article states it as an OSCR document but makes no mention of it being addressed to Gibbons. This is despite them being very explicit about the Dec 19th letter being addressed to Gibbons at his Florida address. Is it possible that this Nov 20th document was just an internal document addressed to a supervisor detailing their preliminary findings and that it was never meant or sent to Gibbons. Nothing in the daily articles refute this possibility. This was just an assumption people here made.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||Personally i found his||
Personally i found his racquetball incident when he tried to hire Pitino to be more disturbing than the boat incident...at least it was more humorous in retrospect.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||It seems that the AD did not||
It seems that the AD did not invite The Daily today to the q&a with Hoke today. on Twitter, the Daily reporters seem angry (check Matt slovin who wrote gibbons article) and have been attacking hoke as a result. Stupid PR move to make the Daily angry here as they have attacked the athletic department more. From twitter reports, it seems that the Freep, News, MLive, Sam Webb, and Steve Lorenz (247 sports) were all there.
|11 weeks 15 hours ago||Seth - important timeline issue question??||
I raised this point earlier...where is it documented that GIBBONS was INFORMED of the Nov 20th letter/conclusion? I think we all made that assumption but there is no source that says Gibbons was notified of the finding of the document on that date or that any letter was sent on Nov 20th.
The initial daily article talks about a OSCR document with the conclusion. However, it never says it was addressed to Gibbons despite the article being very clear that the other Dec 19th letter was addressed to his home.
Additionally, in the friday daily editorial there is another passage that questions this assumption we made. It notes that the university determined there was a preponderance of evidence, that he played 3 days later, and goes on to criticize the internal communication between OSCr and the athletic department to allow this to happen. The focus seems to be on the OSCR not informing the athletic deparment to it conclusion at that point and doesnt mention a letter being sent.
Summary: In none of the articles, does it refer to the Nov 20th thing as a letter...rather it refers to it as an OSCR document. If you read it closely, it is logical to assume this is an internal document summarizing its finding only. I think myself and everyone somehow moved to concluding that Gibbons was notified of the findings at this time but nothing supports that assumption.
|11 weeks 20 hours ago||Really looking forward to||
Really looking forward to seeing how thepitching rotation works out. It seems like they may struggle to keep eah pitcher satisfied with enough innings during B1G play if Betsa is as good as advertised. This problem may be even worse next year as they have a top pitcher from Orange County coming in despite losing none of these 3 to graduation.
|11 weeks 1 day ago||Daily just revised article about fax||
In the last 5 minutes, the daily has revised the article about the fax. They added a section where Ablauf has emailed them today saying his earlier comments were inaccurate about a discussion between Gibbons and athletic dept officials on the 19th.
|11 weeks 1 day ago||Nov 20th letter?||
I went back and reread the initial Daily story. Are we certain that the Nov 20th letter was sent to Gibbons? The article refers to a document but in no place does it say that Gibbons was informed or sent the document. From the article, it almost reads as it could have been an internal document informing about the findings.
|11 weeks 1 day ago||EDIT: Delete I misread your||
I misread your comment initially so my post didnt apply here.
|11 weeks 1 day ago||Exact quote from Meyer I see||
Exact quote from Meyer I see to be "he is working on some personal issues at home"
I know we on this board have in this case argued over the precision of terms like "personal issue", "family issue", "family matter" so I just wanted to clarify the quote from Meyer.
|11 weeks 1 day ago||I guess it's pretty clear||
I guess it's pretty clear that we dont know...as one of you (Yeoman) thought we could be pretty sure it was sent to Gibbons only while the other (Section 1) said they would be surprised if it wasnt CC's to several UM admins. Others (not the two I mentioned) just make an assumption one way or the other to support their criticism or support of Hoke. We dont know.
Even outside of privacy laws, there is also a VERY GOOD case for NOT including the coaches on any information of the progress of the case...in order to avoid any appearance of the athletic department being able to influence the decision.
We dont know yet.
|11 weeks 1 day ago||Yes - the Iowa issue is||
Yes - the Iowa issue is important. But I think its clear that no one knows yet if Hoke/Brandon had knowledge of that finding prior to the game. All we know is that the letter was dated nov 20th but not sure who if it was only sent to Gibbons and when it was received given that gibbons would have been out of town from 22nd on. Still alot of details needed to comment on the Iowa game.
|11 weeks 1 day ago||Yes - the cases and many of||
Yes - the cases and many of the issues are very different as you point out. The Gibbons arrest points out the seriousness of the case relative to winston...but it also removes any talk of a cover-up as some suggested in the Winston case. Since Gibbons was arrested and investigated, it wasnt a case of something being covered up as some have used that incorrect term. Also, the Winston case is one where the accuser pursued the case while the Gibbons case was not pursued by the accuser after a few weeks.
|11 weeks 2 days ago||I think you overstate||
I think you overstate this..The Daily's edge over the Freep, News, MLive is that whoever internally at UM that is leaking these documents illegally went to the Daily and not the other news media. Someone giving you a non-public fax with a signature on it makes it alot easier to write this story.