Frank Clark Pleads Guilty to Felony 2nd Degree Home Invasion
Title says it all. Sentencing is on Oct. 23. I wonder if this will further affect his playing status.
Link:
http://annarbor.com/mi/wolverines/2012/09/michigans_frank_clark_pleads_…
September 12th, 2012 at 9:01 AM ^
lol @ all the apologists.
September 12th, 2012 at 10:16 AM ^
Lurkers are welcome, but if your only comments are those designed to poke people with a stick, you may as well simply lurk.
September 12th, 2012 at 9:58 AM ^
Very few of the people on this thread that want Clark OFF THE TEAM have expressed an opinion that the penalty handed down by the Court - probation, or the School discipline commmittee - none, is too light. They are, however, upset about what Hoke does, who is probably in power to punish him the least (he cannot imprison Clark or expel him, like the other two can).
This would indicate that they're not ACTUALLY concerned that Clark is not being punished enough - they're concerned that he'll blight the perception of their precious program.
September 12th, 2012 at 10:33 AM ^
Some people view it differently - that getting free college to play football at a prestigious university is a privilege...and there are certain expectations the players must live up to in order to maintain this privilege. If you think like this, and clearly many do, it's just a matter of where you want to draw the line. Not everyone thinks the courtroom is the only place consequences should flow from criminal actions. There's a number of other reasons too:
- Lots of kids look up to the football players and the university has an interest in maintaining a clean program.
- It's better from a deterrence perspective to come down hard on offenders. Other players are less likely to commit crimes if there are harsh consequences to stuff they care about (i.e., football). This deterrence effect could keep many kids on a better path and out of trouble because they fear the consequences.
- It's bad from a "brand" perspective to have convicted felons, etc. play on your team. Football is a business, as many say. Well, then why do you think 99% of employment contracts for executives in businesses have a clause in their contracts stating that they can be fired for cause immediately (without severance) upon being convicted/plea of nolo contendere of a felony or any crime of moral turptitude? Same concept.
- Believe it or not, some people would rather root for a cleaner program than get more wins...and not just because it gives them "bragging rights" over rivals. The W/L column for us would probably look better if we started cutting kids, medical redshirts, greyshirting, letting all kids play always regardless of criminal records...but I don't see many people arguing for a win at all costs model. Most have a line somewhere they don't want to cross.
- A team with bad disclipline issues might be worse than a team with less talent and more focus. People can argue that getting rid of talented players with criminal issues actually makes the team better.
I could go on and on but the point is that it's not as simple as you make it out to be. You always seem to seize on the low hanging fruit arguments for some reason.
September 12th, 2012 at 10:40 AM ^
I thought you quit MgoBlog to be a LAWYER from the UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL. ANN ARBOR.
Anyway - I reject virtually all those argument merely because I don't view Frank Clark's life as something to made "an example" of - that does a disservice to Clark. When the school, and the team, grants a scholarship to a player it takes on a portion of the role of developing him not just as an athlete, but as a person. Tossing him off the team, to me, doesn't serve this purpose. That's not to say anything goes - but a non-violent crime from a first-offender certainly seems, to me, to be something we can deal with.
The school owes Clark more than to hold him up as an example for "the kids", future recruits, "the brand", or as a totem of moral superiority to the fans. Frank Clark is a person - not a symbol. People should remember that, I think.
September 12th, 2012 at 10:52 AM ^
his football scholarship as more of a right than a privilege. My goalposts are in a different place. I don't think my viewpoint or your viewpoint necessarily holds the moral high ground...it's just a difference of opinion.
The only time I see you post is to take a contrarian position on something and berate Tater et al for having irrational fandom preferences.
Now returning to my regularly scheduled lurking and not commenting on stuff.
September 12th, 2012 at 10:54 AM ^
I "take a contrarian position"? Yes, I post when I see things I disagree with. Like you did. On my post.
September 12th, 2012 at 11:21 AM ^
You're looking at it more like a college scholarship given out of the financial aid department, and then taken away by some nebulous body who doesn't even know the student. That's not how football works. From recruiting on to graduation it's a family atmosphere. If your kid did this, would you kick him out of the house? Or kick his butt? Not that there aren't things you can do that as a family member you can't protect them from anymore, but where is that point?
And if you want consider how it "helps a football team/program", if you get the reputation as a program that "man, if you screw up once there, they're ditching you...they don't care about you" recruiting becomes tougher, and saying you'll look after Mommy's kid is going to fall on deaf ears, and we'll see how do recruiting then.
There's a line that you can't come back from. I don't know if we've hit that, because we haven't even heard from all the parties involved yet. But I do know we're in an area that's gray, not black and white. It's not laughable like Big Will, and not "how can you even think about keeping him?" like he raped or murdered someone. So I can wait a couple of days to find out. We waited a long time with a dozen threads and thousands of posts for Fitz which was a whole lot of nothing*.
Edit: *the "he should not play vs. Alabama" part, not the crime.
September 12th, 2012 at 10:37 AM ^
September 12th, 2012 at 11:19 AM ^
If the coaches deem that his punishment is over, then I am fine with that. They have proven that they can be tough discipinarians, so obviously there is more to this story or else the punishment would be more severe.
September 12th, 2012 at 12:23 PM ^
Coach Hoke know what he wants from his players on the field and as men. It makes me sick to see stuff like this happen but what matter most is how you handle it.
September 12th, 2012 at 2:52 PM ^
Frank Clark is NOT a convicted felon. Why is that so hard to understand? He will only be a convicted felon if, and only if, he violates the terms of his probation. He is pleading guilty as per an HYTA agreement, which if you bothered to do any research, requires a guilty plea in exchange for probation the offense being expunged from his record upon successful completion of the terms of the probation.
September 12th, 2012 at 12:45 PM ^
According to Hoke's presser, Clark will not be punished any further.