February 4th, 2010 at 9:36 AM ^

That was me calling- he says that if Michigan wants to adhere to a higher standard, it shouldn't take a chance on kids like Dorsey. Leaving alone the big freaking difference between acquitted and convicted, for starters. Hate that idiot.

Magnum P.I.

February 3rd, 2010 at 11:49 PM ^

Great sound byte prefacing his quote from a U-M student. "I'm not gonna use the young man's name. We try to protect the innocent here." How'd that principle hold up with the two freshman football players your organization disingenuously interviewed last year regarding practice hours?

Big Brown Jug

February 4th, 2010 at 12:03 AM ^

Holy shit, what an ass. It's like he's intentionally taken an indefensible position and is trying to see if he can compensate for it by yelling and sounding incredulous. How does a douche like this get entitled to a media outlet?


February 4th, 2010 at 12:06 AM ^

Dorsey was tried as an adult by a jury for armed robbery (felony) and found not guilty. That does not happen routinely.

Prosecutors dismissed the charge of burglary of a vacant residence. That is a felony and outright dismissal won't happen often either -- they'll get you to plead down, at least. If they have any evidence whatsoever of guilt.

He makes the claim that people are biased in favor of 16 year old football players when it comes to felony armed robbery, when in fact the only bias regarding football players is his own: Dorsey is a UM commit and was accused of a crime, therefore he is guilty, because it suits his sensationalistic desires. Where is Sharp's evidence, how does he know better than the jury?

Loudmouthed jackass.


February 4th, 2010 at 12:29 AM ^

The most ridiculous part of his rant is the assertion that black teenagers from rough neighborhoods are getting special treatment in the criminal justice system because they are good at football.

What the fuck planet is this guy living on?? Does his think judges are letting armed robbery slide because a kid has an offer to play Safety at UF? Yes, NFL players get special treatment - because they are RICH and FAMOUS. Demar Dorsey is neither. The DA is not gonna do him any favors because he is ranked #12 on ESPN's top 150.

What a fucking embarrassment. The UM student is right - this IS why regional newspapers are dying.

Magnum P.I.

February 4th, 2010 at 12:10 AM ^

"I have very little respect for a lot of fans out there. Because you know what: you guys do not want to hear what you need to hear. . . We feel that it's incumbant upon us to tell you what you need to know."

God, if a feeling has ever been more perfectly mutual.


February 4th, 2010 at 12:19 AM ^

Was playing poker tonight with a couple MSU grads when one of them started mouthing off about Dorsey being a criminal and RichRod needing to troll the ghetto for criminals in order to win games. Over the table I went. Sonofabitch - no one questions the integrity of Mich, least of all some MSU d-bag.


February 4th, 2010 at 12:24 AM ^

God that pisses me off. The assumption that he's only stayed away from trouble because he's a football player is totally ridiculous. How about he knew he was a football player and didn't want to piss his life away doing stupid stuff: football was his way out.


February 4th, 2010 at 12:24 AM ^

Why did I listen to that. I knew it would piss me off. But it pissed me off more than I expected.

One thing that stood out to me... he says that it's his job to present facts so fans can make up their minds. He then proceeds to make HUGE assumptions and generalizations that are based on ZERO facts and concludes that Mr. Dorsey is, likely, a criminal. This, to me, is extremely slanderous and downright reckless. Mr. Sharp needs a few days off from work for this, in my opinion.

The only point he made that I thought was valid was about fans needing to take a more objective stance when evaluating the personal conduct of players. I only wish he would follow his own advice.

Clarence Beeks

February 4th, 2010 at 12:42 AM ^

Yeah, I agree. I'm actually wondering right about now whether RR might have been baiting him today into something that can get Sharp into some real big trouble since it's obvious that Sharp has no ability to control himself. I'm well aware that generally the media has wide leeway regarding public persons, but man did that seem malicious to me (to both RR and Demar). I can't wait to see what he prints in the newspaper tomorrow.

Clarence Beeks

February 4th, 2010 at 12:37 AM ^

I personally loved his "we try to protect the innocent" comment. That was irony at its best.

Another great one was his comment about the "depth" that you can get from reading the newspaper and how much more "depth" there is to a newspaper over a blog. Are you serious? Seriously?! What a joke.

Mr. Robot

February 4th, 2010 at 12:51 AM ^

This guys has got some problems. I find it especially hard to believe that a guy can have opinions like that on people for simply being put on trial in a city like Detroit.

At first I thought this was going to be a "Oh Drew, we're with you" bit form the radio. When it got to the end I realized the hosts think he's a fruitcake too (Love the sudden cut while he's going ballistic because people are calling him out on his lack of professionalism). I LOVED it when he tried to claim objectivity in the face of grilling a kid over being AQUITTED.

You stay classy Sharp. We'll make sure admissions gets the memo right away that only Princeton material gets into our university. If only Michigan could live up to the diversified, wide-open, accepting reputation of THAT school. No more Detroit applicants, that's for sure! Those guys will rip the place apart. And shoot, Muskegon is suppose to be a pretty bad place too. I'll make sure I see my advisor about a transfer to an SEC school tomorrow.


February 4th, 2010 at 12:38 AM ^

All you MGoLearned still actually read the Freep?

AND you still read Drew Sharp? Knowing it's going to piss you off before you do?

Freep-free since 9/1 here. Been a hard road (like giving up Coke for Pepsi after drinking it for 20 years), and I'm probably missing out on some decent newsbits, but I just can't justify giving them my business.

And quite honestly, it's nice not being tempted to read Sharp's drivel.


February 4th, 2010 at 12:43 AM ^

That is the first time I have ever listened to Drew Sharp. And I never read him (not out of principle and not just him in particular; I listen to zero sports radio, and I read zero old-fashioned sports columnists with any regularity). Anyhow, I had always sort of assumed that the people 'round these parts' hatred for the guy was partially justified, but likely somewhat of an overreaction. I was wrong about that last part. That clip is one of the most appallingly irresponsible pieces of "journalism" I have ever heard/read/watched/anything else. I mean, wow. That was not just bad, that was offensive on so many levels (lots of people think OJ did it and he was acquitted, so its still fair to assume anyone who has been acquitted probably did something bad?! And what the fuck was he talking about 'second chances'?! The kid hasn't used up his first).

Anyways, I apologize for secretly assuming that many of you were overreacting in the past. My bad. I was wrong.


February 4th, 2010 at 12:44 AM ^

What pisses me off the most is that he sells short, not only Dorsey, but all 16 and 17 year olds. He overgeneralizes by saying that they can't make a decision and are always changing their mind. I know people on this blog say i too. But seriously, can people just stop ripping on the maturity of teenagers?

Magnum P.I.

February 4th, 2010 at 12:49 AM ^


• Exposes a person to hatred, shame, disgrace, contempt or ridicule.
• Injures a person’s reputation or causes the person to be shunned or avoided.
• Injures the person in his or her occupation.

Examples might include accusing someone of having committed a heinous crime, or of having a disease that might cause them to be shunned.

Two other important points:

• Libel is by definition false. Anything that is provably true cannot be libelous.
• “Published” in this context simply means that the libelous statement is communicated to someone other than the person being libeled. That can mean anything from an article that's photocopied and distributed to just a few people to a story that appears in a newspaper with millions of subscribers.


February 4th, 2010 at 1:01 AM ^


libel (lI-b>l), n. 1. A defamatory statement expressed in a fixed medium, esp. writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast. • Libel is classified as both a crime and a tort but is no longer prosecuted as a crime. — Also termed defamatory libel. 2. The act of making such a statement; publication of defamatory matter by written or printed words, by its embodiment in physical form, or by any other form of communication that has the potentially harmful qualities characteristic of written or printed words.

“Libel is written or visual defamation; slander is oral or aural defamation.”

“The distinction itself between libel and slander is not free from difficulty and uncertainty. As it took form in the seventeenth century, it was one between written and oral words. But later on libel was extended to include pictures, signs, statues, motion pictures, and even conduct carrying a defamatory imputation, such as hanging the plaintiff in effigy, erecting a gallows before his door, dishonoring his valid check drawn upon the defendant's bank, or even ... following him over a considerable period in a conspicuous manner. From this it has been concluded that libel is that which is communicated by the sense of sight, or perhaps also by touch or smell, while slander is that which is conveyed by the sense of hearing.”

EDIT: the definition is actually about three times longer, but you get the idea


February 4th, 2010 at 1:13 AM ^

I dont know how he lives with himself knowing that Dorsey will undoubtedly listen to that. Saying the things he does is so hurtful on a personal level. These are college (not yet even) athletes!


February 4th, 2010 at 1:00 AM ^

This is my biggest issue with Drew Sharp and most of the "old media". They believe that they are more important than us lowly dolts who don't have a journalism degree. I can't stand how they demand answers from people like they are the courts or something. And I guess we are not smart enough to find out what we need to know. Thank God the Drew Sharps of the world are out there looking out for us.


February 4th, 2010 at 1:02 AM ^

what an ass I just listened to. I mean, I knew Sharp was negative about everything Detroit sports, but damn.

His absolutely certainty that he's in the right is probably the most infuriating aspect of the whole thing. The way he shrugs off the posibility that any athlete could ever be wrongfully accused, or that a 16 year-old could do something stupid and learn from his mistake is maddening.

And the way he dismissed the entirely calm and reasonable caller! Saying "well, you're blind to the situation because you only see what you want to see" (!!!!!). His self-rightousness...mmmm... I am so mad right now, I can barely type this out. The more I think about it the more I want to scream or possibly punch him the face. I need to sleep.



February 4th, 2010 at 1:07 AM ^

I was angry listening to that. Then I saw a picture of Drew Sharp, realized his entire agenda and frame of thought and now, honestly, I feel sorry for him. When the Freep goes bottom up, no Chicago or GR paper is going to waste their time with a guy that will alienate 2/3 of his listeners with idiotic and blatantly false claims.

Toledo law school for you, Drew.


February 4th, 2010 at 1:09 AM ^

Pure comedy gold:

"We try to protect the innocent around here, somewhat." ...with regard to the UM student who wrote to Drew

"They [fans] cannot look at things objectively."


February 4th, 2010 at 1:13 AM ^

I actually listened to this... unbelievable.

I didn't know that Rich Rod's career depended on Dorsey panning out. Gosh, no wonder Sharp is so fired up about it. He so badly wants Rich Rod to succeed that he doesn't think he should risk his career on a kid with a troubled past and a bright future.

I'd like to know where Sharp thinks Dorsey SHOULD be playing football if he doesn't think that Rich Rod should have taken him. Does he truly believe that kid's with a criminal history should not be given scholarships.

At least the co-host on there was doing a decent job of pointing out how stupid Sharp's argument was.

Also, to the original poster... how do YOU know that Drew Sharp can suck a big one?