Hagerup reinstated, will sit out 2013
Getting back around his teammates is an important step in this process," said Hoke. "Will and I have had several discussions over the past five months, none of which have been about football. Our primary concern has been for him as a person, and that will not change. Will is a part of our family, and we will continue to offer the resources to help him learn and grow. I am pleased with his progress to this point, and he knows that must continue every day moving forward.
http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/050713aab.html
Other than the setting, this has nothing to do with academia.
It's "A state of privileged seclusion from the facts and practicalities of the real world".
It can be used for people who are trying to feel superior to others, although I admit that BiSB's works better
seems like a real world practicality to me
Well, he missed a lot of games for Baylor. I'm not sure if it was the coach's decision, being buried on the depth chart, injury, or what, but there may be some other issues there.
Then the probation violation. So he was given 3 chances really.
1st chance - welcome to Michigan!
2nd chance - you drove drunk but we'll let you back in
3rd chance - you drove drunk again, you'll need to do some things, but you can come back
Stonum messed up (probation violation - driving w/o a license) his 3rd chance at Michigan.
He got a 4th chance at Baylor.
appeal to an emotional response. Go look at motor vehicle deaths in general. You are putting someone's life at risk every time you sit behind the wheel. Someone who has been drinking increases that risk of course, but don't pretend the world is a warm and fuzzy place until it is interrupted by someone you have pre-judged. Unless you are privy to his private thoughts (or lack thereof), you are hardly in a postion to define his actions.
Not sure how I pre-judged Stonum, when a JUDGE has already judged him. Before that I just thought of him as a talented football player.
Stonum showed no indication that he learned from his mistakes.
While you have a point, it seems dangerous to argue 'driving is dangerous either way'. The risk goes up pretty dramatically if you're drunk.
that has changed over the course of my lifetime.
Wondering how he fits in the argument and where you draw the line for second chances.
You give a guy a second chance, not because you necessarily expect him to take advantage of it, but because helping college age men grow into productive adults who are responsible, learn from their mistakes, and don't have problems with drugs/alcohol is important. It's too bad that Stonum didn't take advantage but it was still a worthwhile risk to take even if it didn't work out. There are limits to what you can do, of course, but giving up on a person too soon can also be a missed opportunity to help someone. I thought Hoke handled that one just fine. Ditto Hagerup. Opportunities to come back but a severe season long punishment sounds right to me.
Don't agree on Stonum. I don't think you are necessarily giving up on a guy when you tell him some things are simply unacceptable. If he had killed somebody while driving drunk - I don't think anybody would be calling for a second chance.
To fram it another way -- Did Larry Harrison deserve a second chance?
During the Carr era one of my friends played at Michigan and was kicked off the team for smoking.
Was your friend Kelly Baraka?
Nope.
And just as an FYI, I guarantee you that having JT Floyd and Will Hagerup play in the Outback Bowl would not have won that game.
But that's ridiculous in practice. Are you going to boot people for being late to one team meetings? For skipping a class? For calling them Ohio STATE? Those are team rules, too.
These are college kids. College kids - ALL college kids - do stupid stuff. Hell, I'm 30, and I still do stupid stuff. And these coaches aren't just there to coach football. They're there to mold these young kids. And one way is by being supportive when they inevitably succumb to the things to which kids succumb and teaching them how not to continue down that path.
What kind of ridiculous lesson would it be for these kids for the coaches to say, "I demand that you give this team everything you've got. I demand that you work as hard as you can and learn as much as you can and run as fast as you can and hit as hard as you can. But if you screw up, even once, even a LITTLE BIT, I will discard you."
But part of 'molding men' is communicating that sometimes enough is enough. There are consequences.
The kicking a kid off the team argument is the inverse of having a murderer on the team. It is silly.
There are little screwups and there are big screwups. The difficult/interesting question is where you draw the line.
And just as an FYI, I guarantee you that having JT Floyd and Will Hagerup play in the Outback Bowl would not have won that game.Well, that's a pretty easy guarantee to make, seeing as how none of us has a time machine and can replay the game with them in there. But seriously, you don't think losing Floyd hurt our secondary for that game?
It couldn't have hurt.
This reminds me a lot of the Stonum situation, and I have the same summary now as I did then. Hoke is giving Hagerup all the rope he needs with which to hang himself. Stonum couldn't hack it. Maybe Hagerup can.
These days, many youths are seen as needing "instant gratification", so Hoke's method here actually makes sense, IMO. Hagerup will have to prove that he wants to remain at UM, and he will have to do his time, a full year, wisely. He will need to make long-term changes. Behaving for a few weeks or months is easy; even career-criminal parolees can do that.
At this point, he holds the cards; it's up to him to play them wisely.
Sounds like a great party school.
Is that you Michael Floyd??
No, its Tommy.
The party school I can see, the school school... Well not so much.
For all we know, that was Clark's first offense. Hagerup has been suspended EVERY SINGLE YEAR he's been in college, and basically, that streak is being extended to include 2010-2013 (four straight years!). In about a year and half, we'll see if he can get suspended for a fifth consecutive year...
Personally I don't agree with giving someone that many chances, but smoking weed is a bit different than stealing a lap top...
How much weed is the morally equal to one stolen laptop? That's why being "consistent" in these situations is probably so hard; no two circumstances are identical.
Does it really matter what the infraction is? Smoking pot is against team rules, and illegal, whether we agree or not. If someone consistently can't follow rules, that tells me something about that person. Smoking a lot of pot might not be a major problem, but the inability to follow rules, especially when it means your actions affect your team, is at least a medium problem. If everyone else is expected to follow rules, Hagerup should be, too. It kind of seems like an easy one to me.
My point was just that two weed-related incidents (or two underage drinking incidents) should probably be treated differently than, as an example, two killing sprees. I'd be okay with whatever punishments are dished out, I'm just saying that hard-and-fast rules are tricky when the whole realm is so amorphous.
I agree - there are some infractions that are so egregious, once would be grounds to get kicked off the team. Obviously, smoking pot is not that. And you have to give Hoke the benefit of the doubt in that he's spent time with Hagerup (I certainly haven't), so he's making a judgement based on his relationship with the kid and the details that I know nothing about. I'm just talking about multiple offenses and at what point do you cut ties.
What if Hagerup stole the weed?
That's more serious than smoking a laptop.
So 1 DUI = 2 laptops or 3?
Then those laptops = how much weed?
What if you're smoking weed WHILE stealing laptops?
I'm so confused...
This is a mistake by Hoke.
Neat.
No offense, but "This is a mistake by [Hoke/Beilein]" seems to be your knee-jerk response to everything.