Fitz listed as starting RB vs. Alabama

Submitted by CollegeFootball13 on August 27th, 2012 at 12:01 PM

UPDATE from Hoke Himself (From Sam Webb):

 

Hoke on toussaint's status "haven't made a decision yet"

 

Hoke on Clark's status: "same" as toussaint

 

 

What happens in court with Toussaint tuesday to have no bearing on hoke's decision

 

Not sure how I feel about this, but we're not sure what type of punishment went on behind the scenes. Nothing official for game day yet, but it's all over twitter.

 

Suspended TB Fitz Toussaint listed as starting running back for Alabama game.

Retweeted by Steve Lorenz
 
mgoblog

wat RT @kmeinke Suspended TB Fitz Toussaint listed as starting running back for Alabama game.

 

UPDATE: Tweets on if this means anything at all- Still seems pretty inconclusive.

How long is Brady gonna wait to announce this? I get making Bama prepare for Fitz and Rawls/Smith until they know for sure, but 5 days before the game you think they would have announced suspensions already.

 

Being #1 on the depth chart doesn't translate to Fitz playing on Saturday. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I know depth charts don't mean much, but that's why people dump anyone in trouble off 'em.

 

Whether you think he should play or not, perception is reality with this stuff. Fitz playing will lump M in with MSU, etc. RE: discipline

Comments

AAB

August 27th, 2012 at 12:39 PM ^

Sanctions against them (or the absence of sanctions) carry more weight than punishment of random people no one has ever heard of.  That's one of the reasons that authorities went after Michael Vick so hard on the dog fighting charges.  Getting behind the wheel while drunk is something that potentially comes with a lengthy prison term (one that we're, in my opinion, too reluctant to hand out).  Given that, it's sure as hell enough to warrant missing a football game. 

Put another way: if Touissaint were charged with rape, murder, arson, aggravated battery, or vehicular homicide, I'm guessing people would overwhelmingly agree he shouldn't play (and would be furious at Hoke if he were allowed to suit up).  Letting him play says a DUI is closer to fighting in the club or scooter violations than it is to other very serious crimes.  I think that's wrong.  

chitownblue2

August 27th, 2012 at 12:48 PM ^

Yes, if Toussaint had done something other than what he did, something that required an intention to harm other people, than people would view it differently.

And yes, I think that driving with .08 BAC is closer to a moving violation than intentionally murdering somebody.

My point is that there are sanctions on this earth other than playing time on 9/1. Not using that specific punishment does not mean punishment didn't occur.

I should clarify: I wouldn't oppose not playing him either. I'm not saying he should play. I'm saying other forms of punishment exist other than whether he is playing against Alabama. Saying that's the ONLY form of acceptable punishment is calling for a Public Punishment - which has more to do with PR than it does with punishment.

chitownblue2

August 27th, 2012 at 1:01 PM ^

Of course, that was one of 5 items you listed, along with murder, rape, and arson.

I don't dispute that had he done something else, people would view it differently. That seems like a pretty facile point.

I agree with you that he should punished. I merely acknowledge that other punishments exist.

AAB

August 27th, 2012 at 1:08 PM ^

On your specific one, I think drunk driving is closer to murder than it is to driving with a broken taillight.  Cierre Wood got more games for smoking pot than Michael Floyd got for getting behind the wheel in a condition where he might kill someone.  That's a problem, and it's one I hoped Hoke would treat differently (he still might, obviously, given that Touissaint hasn't actually suited up yet and Hoke says the depth chart doesn't indicate actual starters).  

chitownblue2

August 27th, 2012 at 1:22 PM ^

I'm not terribly familiar with Wood's situation. But I'd argue that you should come up with a set punishment for DUI - not use Toussaint's as of yet unkown punishment compared to Wood's as your argument. In other words - what does the severity of Wood's punishment have to do with how harshly Toussaint is punished? If they decided to chop Wood's index finger off, would that change your opinion of what Toussaint warrants?

AAB

August 27th, 2012 at 1:33 PM ^

should operate at least somewhat on a curve.  "Crime X is more serious than crime Y, and thus deserves a bigger punishment."  You can pick any minor offense you want, but the comparison of Wood's punishment to Floyd's serves as a useful barometer for how college coaches tend to view DUIs in comparison to other crimes. 

Being a bit of a zealot on this issue, my set punishment for a DUI would be kicking a guy off the team, but I realize that's on the extreme side, and I'm fine with Hoke not doing that.  But the set punishment for a DUI has to be something meaningful, both because of the associated risks and because of how common it is for people to get behind the wheel while drunk.  And, in my view, it has to be more serious than the punishment for an offense that harms no one other than (arguably) the offender himself.  Yes, that's using a player to make a "public statement," but the benefits of being a public figure come with downsides too.  This is one of them.

chitownblue2

August 27th, 2012 at 1:41 PM ^

Using Wood, Floyd, or anyone else as a barometer implies that how their punishment was handled was correct. I'm not going to argue about the danger/innocence of pot, but what Brian Kelly does isn't neccesarily a useful benchmark.

I whole-heartedly disagree with the idea that a kid should be kicked off the team, but I'm obviously not going to dissuade you from that.

jabberwock

August 27th, 2012 at 2:27 PM ^

"And, in my view, it has to be more serious than the punishment for an offense that harms no one other than (arguably) the offender himself".

but Drunk Driving DOES'NT harm anyone.

It has a hell of a chance of contributing to harm however, and thats why it's serious.
but you can't tack on every possible "what If" and consider it a fair punishment.
Unlawfully discharging a firearm and 1st degree murder are different charges with good reason;  they take into account the inherent danger, the intent, & the consequeses.

But you are more than a bit of a zealot on this issue, you're a complete zealot.  There's nothing wrong with that and if you want to loby to increase the legal penalties for drunk driving thats great.  But honestly, I'm pretty sick of the game of football being turned into the prime venue for modern day morality plays.

Gulogulo37

August 27th, 2012 at 11:43 PM ^

It's interesting to consider the news story I heard today of a guy who changed the tail of his plane to make it faster, which also made it less stable. He ended up out of control, crashed, and killed 7 people. It's an awful tragedy, but let's suppose there was no crash, or a minor one, and no one was killed. No one would be calling for this guy to have a lengthy prison term like some people do for DUIs, even though it was no less dangerous.

inthebluelot

August 27th, 2012 at 7:25 PM ^

hasdriving has had an impact on your life in some way, and if you were a victim in some way, I am sorry. However, if you would kick a guy off the team for a DUI, would you also recommend that a person be fired from their job for a DUI as well? I'm just curious where you draw the line on this issue.

wolverine1987

August 27th, 2012 at 1:33 PM ^

"Closer to murder" than to driving with a broken taillight? There's a reason society gives almost zero jail time to first DUI offnders--because it is closer to a broken tallight as long as no one got hurt--and it's not because we don't take it seriously enough. And BTW people who drive with a .08 or .10 are not "lucky" they didn't kill anyone--the vast, vast majority of time they do so, nothing happens. Lastly, just because football players are "high profile" members of society, is no reason to treat them differently or with more harshness than regular members of society. "Sorry, I know a normal person would only get a fine and suspended license, but you play football for Michigan so..."

His offense was NOT a light one--but that does not mean that Hoke is not capable of punishing him the entire last month since this happened, in ways we have no way of knowing.

AAB

August 27th, 2012 at 1:36 PM ^

as long as no one gets hurt is giving someone a pass based on something at least partially (and sometimes largely) out of their control.  The reason we criminalize drunk driving as a separate offense from vehicular homicide (or whatever) is becaues we need to discourage people from driving drunk in the first place.  Once they do that, what follows is largely just a matter of chance.  

OverDey

August 27th, 2012 at 3:17 PM ^

 Tough to call, which is right, are we just being reactionary? If he were just an ordinary student, would he be prevented from participation in extracurricular events because of this? Would he be banned from theatre, music, or art if he was a fine arts major? Or even intramural sports, clubs or other activities? If you are talking scholarships; would you lose an academic, or artistic scholarship from this action?

 Is it just the notoriety? Not trying to defend their actions, just want to consider the question. These guys always get held to the standard, “they shouldn't get extra benefits than ordinary students”; but, shouldn't they get the same allowances?

Blazefire

August 27th, 2012 at 12:41 PM ^

There's no due process for player punishment

Exactly. Have some faith in Hoke to make the right choices. If Hoke plays Fitz, I have no doubt whatsoever that he performed way more restution for the crime than you or I could ever know, and has worked himself out of hock.

This is NOTHING like MSU. At MSU, players are reinstated the DAY they get out of jail. There is no chance for them to do any team-specific work for restitution. Fitz has had over a month to run stairs, ace tests, watch film, or do whatever else Hoke cooked up to teach him his lesson. If he plays, I have faith that Hoke has made sure he understands consequences.

MetricSU

August 27th, 2012 at 1:40 PM ^

MSU players actually serve suspensions. They actually miss games when they break the law. Winston and Rucker actually both missed games. And the details of Rucker's DOI are a joke: he was moving his car from one parking spot to another.

Rationalize all you want, U-M fans. If Toussaint plays in the Alabama, U-M loses even its perceived high road. Most on here know it. I will be interested to see what Hoke does.

Oh, and for those of you trying revisionist history: Toussaints BAC was .12, not .08. It's called the Internet. Go look it up.

BigBlue02

August 27th, 2012 at 2:18 PM ^

If you're looking things up on the Internet, make sure you find the article when Dantonio announced his suspension. That's right, it was after the season. Just because he didn't play in games during the season doesn't mean he was suspended. His actual suspension came after the season, unless Dantonio just decided not to mention it during the season. So basically, the state suspended Winston for Dantonio.

HAIL-YEA

August 27th, 2012 at 7:27 PM ^

Rucker gets out of jail on a Thursday or Friday..when asked if he would play against Iowa on Saturday Dantonio said It was up to Rucker to decide. We all know how that ended lol

And your really going to come on here and brag about how Winston was punished with a 3 game suspension? He fractured a hockey players skull..guilty of multiple counts of assault on MSU students no less. The guy should have never been let back on the team and he burned Dantonio in the end for doing it

 Hoke has already proven he is willing to punish guys ..Kellen Jones, Stonum, heck Furman was suspended all spring for something he didnt even do. Name 1 time Dantonio has given a harsh punishment that would hurt MSU's team (unless he had no choice like with Winston or Sims)

Whatever happens wiith Fitz, it's not even close to the same situation as MSU so get lost.

BigBlue02

August 28th, 2012 at 2:17 AM ^

Hey, remember when this happened and everyone on the MSU boards was taking issue with the hockey player because they couldn't believe he just walked outside of his house and was cold cocked by Winston? Remember when he had brain damage and there was a story on how he had trouble studying or concentrating because of said brain damage and your entire fanbase was taking the side of Winston, even after reading in the article that Winston had never even apologized or talked to the guy he blind sided with a haymaker? Yeah, get the fuck back on RCMB. They need some more Dantonio blowing over there. Not quite enough of it on their boards.

inthebluelot

August 27th, 2012 at 7:29 PM ^

You may want to google Damon Dowdell. MSU QB who raped a female student at a party and never missed a game. He was found guilty of a lesser charge, but was never punished by the coaching staff. There was an accomplice to that rape as well who's name escapes me. He was not punished either. Before you start chiming in about what Hole should do, you may want to clean up your yard first.

mzdmv

August 27th, 2012 at 12:07 PM ^

As I understand it, he's #1 on the depth chart.

 

This does not reflect any potential suspensions for either Toussaint or Clark

 

stephenjnesbitt
To be clear, Fitzgerald Toussaint being listed as the starting running back right now means absolutely nothing. Don't read into it yet.
8/27/12 12:06 PM

 

hart20

August 27th, 2012 at 12:06 PM ^

Actually playing in the game. In my opinion, it's unacceptable for Fitz not to miss any time and it sends a terrible message to onlookers, including players and fans of the program.