Stephen Hopkins - Suspended for WMU?
Simple question: Is Hopkins serving a 1 game suspension?
I've heard no official word. While Hagerup is off the official/unofficial depth charts per his supsension, Hopkins is on the charts. And while Hagerup's suspension was noted on MGoBlue.com, I saw nothing re: Hopkins. I've seen no comment from Hoke, and I'm not certain if anyone has asked the question. Am I overlooking anything?
If true, it would clearly not be a critical suspension, personnel-wise, for purposes of facing Western, with a bunch of other healthy running backs. What I am really wondering about, is the veracity of the people who started the Hopkins-is-going-to-be-suspended rumor a couple of weeks ago.
August 31st, 2011 at 9:31 AM ^
I have heard nothing to back this up at all. In fact, they've mentioned hopkins few times during those preview shows on the BTN, FSN and inside Michigan football that would lead me to believe we'll see him play in situational downs.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:16 AM ^
False claiming
August 31st, 2011 at 10:51 AM ^
Boards a while back, for what it's worth.
August 31st, 2011 at 9:35 AM ^
Everything I've heard...he's the short yardage back and the running FB.
August 31st, 2011 at 9:36 AM ^
August 31st, 2011 at 9:41 AM ^
And this is what we might call an exercise in rumor-killing. Naturally, I hope the rumor is untrue. I am not unbiased. I don't wish to spread rumors that would hurt Hopkins' reputation. I would very much like to kill a false rumor about him. But I am not sure at this time.
Okay?
August 31st, 2011 at 9:59 AM ^
Remember, its only true if you choose to believe it. I choose not to believe it, so its not true!
August 31st, 2011 at 10:11 AM ^
with my wife. Erm, that discussion did not end well.
September 3rd, 2011 at 11:15 PM ^
just someone who seemed to know what he was talking about. Maybe people should pay more attention in the future!
August 31st, 2011 at 9:38 AM ^
I don't understand how you leapt to this conclusion?
August 31st, 2011 at 9:46 AM ^
because various outlets were reporting that he would be serving a one game suspension about two weeks ago, and now there is no mention of it
August 31st, 2011 at 9:40 AM ^
is unverified.
August 31st, 2011 at 11:07 AM ^
voracity*
August 31st, 2011 at 1:46 PM ^
September 1st, 2011 at 1:13 AM ^
you people need to look up the reason the feature on this site has the name it does.
August 31st, 2011 at 9:42 AM ^
Where is this coming from?
August 31st, 2011 at 9:47 AM ^
It was "reported" on the Board and elsewhere back when Hagerup's suspension was reported. I remember reading it as well.
August 31st, 2011 at 9:51 AM ^
Oh OK, seems to me though that if it had any merit, more would have come out by now, especially player discipline type stuff.
August 31st, 2011 at 9:53 AM ^
Other sites have mentioned Hopkins is in the newly built doghouse multiple times during fall camp. Our buddy Ace Williams also threw out (pronounced: "Made Up") some very specific details about a suspension and the reason, which has never been verified.
It seems the coaching staff doesn't like to talk about internal things like who's banged up and who's being disciplined, so I doubt we'll ever know. They had to mention Hagerup because they couldn't hide him not punting for 4 games without getting a ton of questions. Hopkins though, if he doesn't see time during Western they can just say "Shaw, Smith, and Fitz were ahead of him" and end the discussion. So if he plays, it's proof he wasn't suspended. If he doesn't...?
August 31st, 2011 at 10:15 AM ^
I actually think your logic is very...um, logically. However, then I thought about Terrence Robinson. Why announce that suspension, when it too could just as easily be hidden. Perhaps the details surrounding Robinson's suspension were more public and therefore, a public mentioned had to be made?
August 31st, 2011 at 9:45 AM ^
He's not suspended, he isn't being talked about because we have 3 other backs that are apparently playing better than him..
August 31st, 2011 at 9:53 AM ^
I'm unconcerned with how Hopkins is playing right now. I presume he's doing fine.
I'm unconcerned with the substance of any news, or any rumors, about Stephen Hopkins. I know of absolutely nothing that casts him personally in a bad light. I presume he's doing just fine.
This has a lot to do with reporting of rumors and another, unrelated story. Hopkins is purely the unfortunate object in this case.
Okay?
August 31st, 2011 at 9:47 AM ^
Word of mouth can be even dumber than the internets. 6 players kicked off the team, two of them starters, swampland in Florida, what time does the bridge pivot over to the island...blah blah blah there are too many spartans in my life.
August 31st, 2011 at 9:51 AM ^
Section 1= Drew Sharp?
August 31st, 2011 at 9:55 AM ^
That Section 1 and Drew Sharp want nothing to do with each other, and that the feeling is very much mutual.
And all this is probably the total opposite of what is lurking in the dark corners of your mind.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:05 AM ^
What I got from this is you think about drew sharp sometimes. And if he would want something from you.(weird)
August 31st, 2011 at 10:59 AM ^
you email him 8 times a day and he has a filter on his Inbox to block your letters
August 31st, 2011 at 9:56 AM ^
Get all your up-to-the-minute, right from the source, rumor verifying information from tRCBM and 247sparty (that's 24months to 7 years, if you didn't know).
They had a thread on Hopkins a while ago. One of those "a friend who knows this guy" thread. You can find out the "real" story over there. Of course, you have to sift through the "Suggestions on a new Mower", "Would you eat lab grown meat", "foosball", and a littany of other important topics that MUSTbe discussed 4 days before opening kick-off.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:03 AM ^
Dont forget "Ever banged a chick who was blackout drunk?," "cHoke is a fat ass," and "Best couch burning accelerants."
A thread should really be started on this topic, there are just far too many hilarious possibilities. It would also serve to replicate the dearth of intellectual discourse occurring on RCMB and allow us all to avoid perusing it in the future.
September 1st, 2011 at 6:10 AM ^
August 31st, 2011 at 9:56 AM ^
Here's one place that the rumor was brought up, by someone who doesn't appear to be an idiot:
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/shaw-would-start-if-season-started-today-an…
August 31st, 2011 at 10:07 AM ^
Because obviously you aren't going to get a lot of argument from me on that point...but its still kinds rude. Say you're sorry, then we can have ice cream.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:15 AM ^
I just meant that he wasn't repeating a rumor that was floated by some idiot that has no reputation for reasonableness on the board.
I don't think Section 1 is an idiot. I think his obsessive, incessant Free Press-related drumbeat is irritating, but he strikes me as an intelligent dude with an unhealthy man-crush on Rich Rodriguez.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^
There are a lot of us around here who have unhealthy man-crushes on RR and despise the Freep. That doesn't change the fact that this post was inappropriate.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:43 AM ^
I doubt anyone would be freaking out like this if it was someone other than Section 1 that posted it.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:09 AM ^
It ordinarily doesn't end well.
Anyway, now that I see people negging me at every possible opportunity, it probably needs to be said, for the third or fourth time, that I am not reporting that Stephen Hopkins is suspended. I am asking whether that rumor, started by others and spread in the first instance on this board by people other than me, is even true.
I see no evidence, so far, that it is true. Sometimes, suspensions are not announced until the Wednesday or Thrusday before a game. (Sometimes - ahem - the Conference doesn't even decide if people are suspended until Wednesday, but that is another Boilermade-story.)
Who knows; raising the issue now, might prompt some statement from the team, or it might prompt a question to be put to Hoke later today.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:13 AM ^
It appears from this thread that you have some work to do in building up your "goodwill" here on the Board (i.e. your "intangible but quantifiable 'prudent value' of an ongoing business"). Just hang in there and weather the storm.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:58 AM ^
who i've noted often just regurgitates premium info from other boards likely ran with the Ace Williams C&P that also claimed Oregon and Michigan would be implicated in Pryor recruitment. it also garnered two responses, one in mockery. it did not require a thread to 'demand answers' that validate Section 1's constant demand for THE WHOLE TRUTH
August 31st, 2011 at 11:07 AM ^
Look, I'm not saying I was coming to the site to post this exact thing when Section 1 took the words out of my mouth. Of course this was unnecessary, but I think it's just not that big of a deal. 80% of what gets posted on the board is unnecessary.
People were jumping down his throat like he was pulling this out of his ass. I thought it relevant to note he was pulling it out of someone else's ass.
August 31st, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^
anybody else posts this and nothing comes of it. instead, the Truth Fighter who hates anything resembling a rumor posts an item he KNOWS to be untrue and redundant in order to play an endaround game of 'outting' people who claimed it to be true. it's passive aggressive bullshit from someone who obviously believes they are smarter and more in tune with 'the truth and reality' than the rest of us.
August 31st, 2011 at 4:04 PM ^
Whoah, man. You got all of that from S1's posts in this thread? I intepreted the OP and thread to be saying "hey, this was thrown out there, floating around...haven't heard anything about it in awhile; it's not true, right?"
I think you're imputing scienter that doesn't exist. Or, isn't based on anything in this thread, but your (I presume) unbridled hatred of S1 as a poster.
August 31st, 2011 at 4:32 PM ^
Yes, because this thread does infact happen to be in a skew universe, unrelated to everything we've had thrown at us before on "rumor mongering."
August 31st, 2011 at 5:40 PM ^
he said. even the smarter than everybody portion
August 31st, 2011 at 10:00 AM ^
I have no logical reason to think he is and all evidence available says he isn't but A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE TALKING about Denard, so I just thought I'd ask the question as a way for people to not ask this question.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:09 AM ^
Honestly, this response adds nothing to the conversation. We've already established that several "reports" identified Hopkins as being suspended. The point of this thread was to debunk those "reports" so that it was clear that Hopkins is, in fact, not suspended. So far, I'm still not sure if that is apparent or not. Your response was not helpful in reaching the conclusion.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:25 AM ^
the point is that the reports have yet to be substantiated so they should be allowed to sink back into the shadows rather than regurgitated as fact. posts like this lend credibility to the notion UM isn't forthcoming about some of their suspensions - it's a lose lose because the OP does not have the patience to wait 3 days.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^
I hear you, but the opposing viewpoint is that, at some point, rumors appear to be "substantiated" by the sheer volume of reports, notwithstanding the fact that the best source (the program itself) has not weighed in or even hinted at confirming/debunking the rumor that is circulating. I'm not saying that they have to debunk rumors - definitely not saying that. But I think Section 1 was justified in at least asking the question, at least justified to the extent that others felt the information would be useful. As such, the harsh responses were unnecessary and unhelpful. That is how I see it, anyway.
[EDIT: Neg me if you want, but at least use the proper drop-down choice - this post is clearly not "off-topic" in any way, shape, or form.]
August 31st, 2011 at 10:48 AM ^
the only thing i've seen on this board was the original question, where nobody had a source and it was likely based on a RCMB posting that day, and this. there wasn't a post yesterday, or the day before, or any time recently AFAIK. for anyone coming in blind, this would be the ONLY reference point. Section 1 is trying to be clever and is instead redeploying the same stupid shit he rails against. there is no sheer volume to the reports - the original wave came out, the fake 'backers' claimed it was true to show they were Insiders, and then nothing came out. at all. Section 1 is trying to act like the most clever kid in school and instead is ending up at prom with his mom. it's getting tired and is literally getting to the point of trolling.
August 31st, 2011 at 11:12 AM ^
I guess I'm one of the dumb ones that actually believed the rumor posted a few weeks back to be more than just a rumor. I assumed that Hopkins was unavailable for the game this weekend due to suspension. What I learned: The Board is not as reliable as I first thought? I didn't want to believe that to be true which is why I appreciated this thread.
August 31st, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^
was my exact point of why this shit shouldn't be allowed. but also note it wasn't its own Board Topic (until now), which substantiated rumors tend to receive, and that it didn't come from an MGoReliable. it was a passing flit based off of an Ace Williams post. did it out some people who claim to know all? sure. but posts like this only connect the dots between Hopkins - Suspension - Naughty Substances more than, say, not bringing it up. the passive fan will skim and assume a) there was something of merit to it and/or b) it was swept under the rug. this post would have been way more qualified on Monday as a "huh, Hopkins played Saturday. guess you can't believe everything you read - keep that in mind next rumor!" PSA than a "THERE'S A POINT TO MY QUESTION YOU JUST DON'T GET IT" Wednesday post intended to show Section 1 is so intelligent and aware.