Daily: AD Aware of Gibbons Decision 12/19
According to a Michigan Daily report, including information confirmed by Dave Ablauf via a phone interview, Brendan Gibbons met with Athletic Department officials and faxed a letter waiving his rights to appeal his expulsion from a Schembechler Hall fax machine on December 19th. Four days later, Brady Hoke announced Gibbons would miss the bowl game for a "family matter."
http://michigandaily.com/article/gibbons-document-faxed-athletic-depart…
"At the latest, the Athletic Department was made aware of the permanent separation on Dec. 19, 2013, and it is unclear whether the football program or Michigan coach Brady Hoke were aware of the Office of Institutional Equity’s earlier finding that Gibbons was responsible for sexual misconduct. The Office of Student Conflict Resolution notified Gibbons on Dec. 19 that he would be permanently separated from the University.
“December 19 is whenever the letter was sent and the kid came to talk with the Athletic Department,” said Athletic Department spokesman Dave Ablauf in a phone interview with the Daily on Wednesday.
He later added: “That could have been the time that Brendan Gibbons talked to coach Hoke.”
Gibbons’ separation stems from an incident on Nov. 22, 2009, according to documents. This corresponds with previous media reports that Ann Arbor Police carried out an investigation of a Michigan football player related to an incident on that date.
The document was sent at 4:02 p.m. on Dec.19 from a fax number associated with the football program. Gibbons signed the document, waiving his right to appeal the sanction. It’s not clear from the markings on the document who received the fax transmission.
The letter was faxed from the offices of the football program four days before Hoke told reporters at a Dec. 23 press conference that Gibbons would not travel to the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl in Tempe, Ariz. due to a “family matter.” It’s not clear whether Hoke was involved in the Dec. 19 meeting described by Ablauf."
January 31st, 2014 at 7:29 AM ^
January 31st, 2014 at 12:39 AM ^
Overall, it's disappointing that this has become such a black eye for the University and that should fall almost exclusively on Gibbons. He is the one who is alleged to have and has been found likely (at least in the OSCR system) of commiting a violation that is universally accepted as horrible.
But, it does seem like from a University perspective, they did what they could given the rules in place and it seems like they got it right, eventually. The timing looks terrible, but after reading everything, it does seem like it was coincidence that it lined up with the end of his eligibility. It can't be easy when you're trying to figure out if you're dealing with a Duke lacrosse or UVA lacrosse situation. I don't envy them.
I's also pretty clear to me that they should have handled the aftermath better. There's just no way they could have honestly thought this wouldn't come out, so they should have either gotten out in front of it or made damn sure that everything they said on it would look right when people started tracking back after it came out. Hoke obviously has been coached in pressers, so someone should have fed him a line or they should have just put out a release. Being expelled and ineligible in the eyes of the NCAA is just not a family matter. That was a stupid thing to say and it makes them all look bad.
January 31st, 2014 at 12:41 AM ^
January 31st, 2014 at 2:29 AM ^
January 31st, 2014 at 12:42 AM ^
January 31st, 2014 at 2:49 AM ^
...at the number of people who seem to think that Hoke's only two options were to (a) say what he said or (b) violate FERPA by spilling the entire details of the story. There is a wide swath of middle ground where most coaches tread in situations like this that involves statements like "no comment" or "private matter" that don't, in retrospect, look like a lie or a cover-up. That's the issue here, the perception that it has created (note that the act itself is out of scope of this particular comment; obviously it's reprehensible and I feel for the victim). It's not a good look for a university that prides itself on being "leaders and best". Those of you that don't think our rivals are out there telling recruits that we're about to be handed the Penn State treatment from the NCAA are kidding yourselves. And, more important, it gives the impression (which we all believe to be false, but outsiders don't have the benefit of our perspective) that Hoke was sympathizing with and covering for a "rapist". I mean, just go spend two minutes reading the comments to the various news articles out there. Even if we all think it's BS, the fact remains that a differently-phrased explanation of why Gibbons wasn't playing in the game would give everyone far less ammo and reason to get worked up.
January 31st, 2014 at 9:44 AM ^
you think "no comment" or "private matter" would have satisfied the people who don't like "family matter".
January 31st, 2014 at 10:14 AM ^
January 31st, 2014 at 2:47 AM ^
I am not going to accuse or defend Hoke's use of "family matters" on this one, but instead point out the dim "logic" used to defend the use of the term.
1: Whether a child gets straight A's in school or goes on a spring break trip to Italy, has unprotected sex with some randoms and contracts oral herpes, and is arrested for a satanic ritual murder of her roomate, all and anything in between could be considered a "family matter" because families care. The NCAA considers what constitutes "family matters" when deciding if an athlete may receive a hardship waiver to transfer to a school closer to home and not lose eligibility. Rape and expulsion is not an NCAA sanctioned "family matter" that warrants a hardship waiver. "Family matters" is a slippery slope justification for expulsion for rape. It's a poorly constructed evasion and that's why some folks have taken offense. Brian has a valuable point. Stating that Gibbons would not be in the bowl game for a "violation of team rules" was a most correct and reasonably non-evasive response. Rape is a violation of team rules and no coach is ever scrutinized for refusing to reveal the specific violation of team rules.
2: Many folks have said "would you rather him have violated FERPA and said that Gibbons had been expelled for a rape charge" or something of the sort. This is the commonly used fallacy of false alternatives where the number of alternatives is said to be fewer than the actual number - or the "if not this, then that" deal. The truth is, Hoke could have said "violation of team rules" or "no comment" or any other number of things. He was not afforded only two choices and should not be defended as if he was.
3: Finally, Brian did specifically point out that FERPA states that universities are allowed to discuss the dismissal of students for charges of sexual misconduct, so I'm not sure that Gibbons needed to be protected after he was officially discharged from the university on the 20th.
I don't have a dog in this horse. Hoke was likely trying to keep the team from distractions leading into the bowl game when he used the term "family matters" and that was probably his motivation in using an evasive term. However, like it or not, there is heat going around for this and that alone is evidence that it could have been handled better.
The bigger issue is still the University's handling of the investigation and whether or not the victim who reported the assault received a fair, unbiased investigation into the allegation from the start all the way through the process.
Hoke protected the team in his eyes. Big surprise.
January 31st, 2014 at 2:58 AM ^
Clearly I agree with your first point...we pretty much said the same thing at the same time. On the university's handling, I would say that the university has been over-aggressive if anything. Revisiting a case from four years prior upon a change in the policy seems zealous. In other forums, attorneys from other universities have basically opined that most schools would not revisit an old case, but that Michigan was taking an aggressive approach so as not to have its fairness and bias questioned, as you suggest. Who knows the truth, but would be sad irony if an attempt to do the right thing actually brought more scrutiny than if this situation were simply allowed to live in the past handled by the policy in place at the time it occurred.
January 31st, 2014 at 3:24 PM ^
"Finally, Brian did specifically point out that FERPA states that universities are allowed to discuss the dismissal of students for charges of sexual misconduct."
This was dealt with elsewhere in the thread but those posts seem to have disappeared.
Universities are allowed to dicuss the dismissal of students for "forcible sex offenses" or "acts that, if proven, would have constituted statutory rape or incest."
From what we know, Gibbons was not dismissed for a forcible sex offense. Force or coercion are not a component of the University's definition of sexual misconduct; the University would not have made any determination as to whether the offense was forcible.
January 31st, 2014 at 6:29 AM ^
January 31st, 2014 at 6:39 AM ^
The only new info this story adds is a confirmation that in fact the AD/Hoke found out Gibbons was expelled right around the time of the letter, and before the bowl game press conference. Everyone sort of suspected that before, and now it's confirmed.
I'm not thrilled about the "family matters" wording, but I'm willing to let it slide. It's a lawyered-up term Hoke probably didn't come up with himself. They shouldn't have couched it that way, but it's not a massive deal.
But by far the bigger issue is what they knew before them -- not just about the expulsion, but about the existence of the inquiry itself, the police records, and the findings in the November 20 letter. This story reeks of selective admission, to make it look like the AD is being at least somewhat forthcoming.
Story's nowhere near over.
January 31st, 2014 at 6:56 AM ^
January 31st, 2014 at 8:30 AM ^
...would be so proud if he knew you had added this. Oh wait, he does know.
January 31st, 2014 at 7:28 AM ^
Does Gibbons have a sister? Maybe it was a family matter. Why do you assume it was not family related, or assume anything at all?
Mayber it was Colonol Mustard in the kitchen with a salami. Maybe it was trumped up nonsense. Maybe no crime was committed, charged or warrant issued.
Maybe something criminal did occur, either a sexual assault, or a false accusation and attempt at bribery, or some combination. No one outside the inner circle will probably ever know.
What more do you really want from a coach and an AD? Alleged criminal activity is the realm of law enforcement. Why don't you spend some time finding out what they know, and why no arrest was ever made? Freedom of Information act, and all that......too late.....Rosenberg is probably already all over it.....
January 31st, 2014 at 7:42 AM ^
Since Hoke has emphasized that the entire football team is family, I guess he can call the situation a family matter.
Based on all if the press conferences, it was my impression that Hoke was never forthcoming to the press, at least regarding his players. The press never pressed anything and even apologized before asking certain questions. I am not saying this is right or wrong, just my observation.
Is there any way we can just blame the entire situation on Borges and move on?
January 31st, 2014 at 7:50 AM ^
January 31st, 2014 at 10:28 AM ^
I hear you, but things don't go away when you get caught lying. They stick around. Still, a few more well-placed lies may get this to go away. I know I sound like a broken record on hear but I just can't over my disapointment: Hoke's a liar.
January 31st, 2014 at 8:00 AM ^
It is about him as the leader of the program blowing an opportunity to reinforce to all players and recruits that team rules and University rules are what he runs his program by. Misleading people on the 23rd is the only problem I have based on the timeline available to us. Brady only had to say the Gibbons was no longer with the team for violation of University policy. Thats it, he is free and clear and we are all talking about 2014.
January 31st, 2014 at 8:11 AM ^
Pointed out elsewhere in this thread, but I'll summarize:
- You're assuming that a guy who has the word "Physicalness" in his vocabulary can choose exactly the right phrase at exactly the right time, in the heat of the moment during a press conference, a few days before the bowl game, right after his senior kicker got expelled and has been told in no uncertain terms that he cannot say so.
- Per Clarence Beeks (seriously, if I ever need a lawyer, I'm getting his real name): University attorneys may have told him to use that exact term and none other.
January 31st, 2014 at 8:17 AM ^
But if you read what I said, I said that he is no longer on the team. I never mentioned he was no longer with the university. Big difference in my mind. Thats all he had to say. Kids being removed from teams occurs daily across the NCAA for violating team and university rules.
January 31st, 2014 at 8:28 AM ^
Had he said "No longer on the team", judging by the proliferation of unfounded conspiracy theories over the past few days, my guess is that something similar to the following would have occurred:
Reporter: "Coach, didn't you say he was injured just a few days ago? Why the change?"
Hoke: "Violation of team rules."
Reporter: "What team rules?"
Hoke: "I can't say."
Reporter: "Related to his injury?"
Hoke: "No comment."
New and Old Media Everywhere: "Why was Gibbons kicked off the team? Was it related to his injury?"
Followed by: "OH, GOD! MICHIGAN FOOTBALL JOINED THE RANKS OF THOSE SNANKY PROGRAMS THAT UNFAIRLY DISMISS INJURED PLAYERS!!"
Section 1, et al: "This is the end."
January 31st, 2014 at 9:58 AM ^
Had Hoke said "Gibbons is no longer on the team," the exchange would have gone like this:
Reporter: "Coach, didn't you say he was injured just a few days ago? Why the change?"
Hoke: "First, he was injured a month ago, not a few days ago. Second, he is now no longer on the team."
Reporter: "Why is he no longer on the team?"
Hoke: "I have no further comment."
Reporter: "Related to his injury?"
Hoke: "I have no further comment."
New and Old Media Everywhere: "Why was Gibbons kicked off the team? Was it related to his injury?"
Followed by: "OH, GOD! MICHIGAN FOOTBALL JOINED THE RANKS OF THOSE SNANKY PROGRAMS THAT UNFAIRLY DISMISS INJURED PLAYERS!!"
Followed by: "Wait a minute; Gibbons already graduated, and was only eligable for this one further game. If he was injred and unable to play, maybe he just decided to leave the team one game early so he could spnd more time at home."
Followed by: silence.
Given that I can figure out this scenario, so can Hoke. The fact that he didn't follow this path indicates that, if he knew the exact circumstances surrounding Gibbons, he wasn't free to pursue his own remedies.
I'd note that "family matters" is a generic term that could be used as easily by the administrative side of the house as the athletic department. If the school's lawyers were devising a term for everyone to use, that's the kind of term they would devise. "Team rules" doesn't fly outside the Athletics Department.
January 31st, 2014 at 10:25 AM ^
"Team Rules" probably includes not sexually assaulting someone or even putting oneself in the position to be accused of sexually assaulting someone. I care how Hoke worded it becasue it smacks of avoiding questions about how Gibbons played all year and the injury for the osu game. He lied.
January 31st, 2014 at 10:34 AM ^
Based on what has transpired on this site and others in the past few days, what would lead you to believe that anyone would conclude that? Or that it would be met by silence?
January 31st, 2014 at 4:56 PM ^
I was answering the assertion that the media would conclude that Hoke dismissed Gibbons because he was injured. If Gibbons hadn't gone to Phoenix and hadn't been capable of playing, would you really assume that Hoke had doismissed him from the team because he was injured, as opposed to it being Gibbons's own decision not to go?
January 31st, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^
Followed by, a few weeks later, this sh!tstorm when the real story comes out, WHICH WAS KNOWN TO HOKE AND STAFF AT THE TIME, followed by everyone saying:
"OOOOHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. That's why"
Instead of what we have here.
January 31st, 2014 at 4:59 PM ^
But Hoke would have been covered by his having already announced that Gibbons had left the team. There are many cases where the public only finds out why a player was dismissed from a team long after the fact. It generally does not, in fact, result in a "shitstorm."
January 31st, 2014 at 10:30 AM ^
Well summaraized. But if lawyers tell you to lie and you do, you are still a liar. I admit this would be a tough spot, but Hoke being a football coach should argue he needs to say something else that isn't a lie.
January 31st, 2014 at 10:38 AM ^
A good lawyer - and for the purposes of this rebuttal, I'll assume that the University has more than a few of them at its disposal and deployed them in this circumstance - does NOT tell you to "lie".
As I am sure every attorney who contributes to this site will confirm, a good lawyer tells you what to say and not say so that you keep your ass out of (further) trouble.
January 31st, 2014 at 11:16 AM ^
...but there's one thing I'm absolutely sure of: Brendan Gibbons spent that latter part of December in Florida dealing with a family matter.
He'd just come home from school and told his parents he'd been expelled for sexual misconduct. If that's isn't a "family matter he needs to deal with," I don't know what is.
January 31st, 2014 at 8:43 AM ^
January 31st, 2014 at 12:20 PM ^
Do you see a current sh!tstorm that was avoided by Hoke's words? Or created?
January 31st, 2014 at 12:38 PM ^
I don't see a shitstorm of any kind. Apparently it has a pretty small radius.
I live in Ohio, surrounded by OSU fans who spare no opportunity to give me shit about Michigan when they have the chance. I expected to spend a good chunk of this week on explanations, but instead...
Silence. It isn't news. To the extent anyone's even aware of it, they don't seem to see anything scandalous in the way it's been handled.
Of course, none of them read mgoblog.
January 31st, 2014 at 2:10 PM ^
Double post
January 31st, 2014 at 2:09 PM ^
Fair enough, hope you're right and that this is already on its way to blowing over.
January 31st, 2014 at 2:41 PM ^
It didn't even get a mention in the local paper here (the Enquirer). I thought there'd at least be a paragraph in the back of the sports section when the fact of the expulsion leaked, but nothing. Nothing on line, either.
If I didn't read this blog I'm not sure I'd ever have known about it.
January 31st, 2014 at 9:11 AM ^
From Post 202:
"any essential findings supporting the institution's conclusion that the violation was committed."
These are the magic words. The university and any of its agents are free to disclose the facts underpinning the decision on Gibbons to anyone.
They can disclose that there was an investigation to anyone. They can disclose the finding of sexual misconduct to anyone. They can disclose the sanction they imposed on Gibbons to anyone. And they can disclose the facts they found to have supported the finding of a violation to anyone.
They can say that now, and they could have said that at any time after the decison to expel was final.
Which means Hoke could have said, instead of "family matters," "Brendan was removed from the team and expelled from school because the school found that he had committed sexual misconduct in violation of university policy."
Thus "family matters" was a decision among many possible decisions. It was not mandatory, as the AD representatives have claimed. They aren't telling the truth.
Once we conclude that it was a decision, rather than mandatory action, the question becomes, "Why did they decide to say "family matters" as opposed to telling the actual truth?
January 31st, 2014 at 9:54 AM ^
January 31st, 2014 at 9:17 AM ^
No wonder most coaches hate dealing with the media.
January 31st, 2014 at 10:23 AM ^
All they have to do is not lie. Learn some catchphrases and tell the truth or withhold it. But liying? Don't lie.
January 31st, 2014 at 9:30 AM ^
We should note that the university is free to disclose more about Gibbons because the underlying actions if proven would be a "violent crime or non-forcible sex offense." (Thanks again to post 202)
If the proceeding involved something like academic fraud or theft of a student's computer then, yes, the university and athletic department would have to stay pretty much silent on the matter. But not on this matter.
January 31st, 2014 at 9:30 AM ^
January 31st, 2014 at 9:36 AM ^
The "directory information" stuff isn't the applicable material. The rules at issue are those involving disclosure of "final results of a disciplinary matter."
Those rules became the new guide around December 19, when Gibbons's proceeding became finalized. After that date, the university and AD became legally permitted to say far more than they've said.
January 31st, 2014 at 9:51 AM ^
January 31st, 2014 at 9:57 AM ^
Correct -- permitted, not required.
January 31st, 2014 at 10:12 AM ^
The quibble is falling! The quibble is falling! Jeebus! Isn't there an incomplete 8 piece jigsaw puzzle people could be better spending their minutiae on?
January 31st, 2014 at 10:18 AM ^
If they would have suspended Gibbons in 2013, it probably would have raised questions about why they didn't suspend him earlier, and Brandon probably decided to try to ride it out rather than have those questions raised. If it just held on a few more months, his and Lewan's eligibility would have expired, whatever happened in the university hearing would stay private even if it was bad, and no one would have cared to ask about anything.
Ann Arbor News confirmed that Gibbons was in fact arrested in 2009, which I guess the W. Watchdog had either reported or implied in August 2013 when it published a mugshot.
Gibbons's arrest puts it above the Winston case in seriousness. Winston was never arrested.
January 31st, 2014 at 11:00 AM ^
Regarding the AA News, they published an article the next day (nov 2009) after the incident that a UM football player was arrested in the case. Then two months later (jan 2010) they also published a piece saying the rape charge against the FB player resulted in no charges being filed.