Gholston Listed as Starter / Suspension?

Submitted by I Wrote a 4 Wo… on October 18th, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Sorry for everyone sick of the MSU/Gholston talk. This just broke, and is relevant regardless of what some people will say. Gholston might be out because of the Michigan game, and him being out might hurt MSU which directly impacts Michigan in the division standings.

Anyways, on the Depth Chart released today, Tommy Gholston is listed as the starter. It appears that at the press conference today they'll be announcing that he was made a captain, or called a racial slur (which we know is untrue, but maybe Saint D saw a way out of of suspending his favorite defensive player by claiming this and is taking it).


LINK to news, not depth chart:!/mattcharboneau/status/126319468858191873



UPDATE: Apparently, MSU is looking into a possible infraction in which they were made aware of (maybe they didn't watch the game). Also, it looks like they're only looking at one play. I wonder if it's the punch or the helmet twist.

Bigger joke than I thought. They're basically downplaying the whole thing, saying it's possible & only one play. I just hope the Big Ten Offices aren't as blind & stupid about this whole thing. Either way, we'll find out soon as the Big Ten only gives teams a few days to announce either way before they make their own announcement.

UPDATE 2: "I wouldn't characterize it as dirty play, I would characterize it as reaction." -Mark Dantonio



October 18th, 2011 at 11:47 AM ^

Supposedly, one of the reasons he chose MSU over Michigan was because on one of his recruiting visits, he was called Tom instead of William.  So Lewan was calling him Tom during the game, which some people considered racist because of the whole "Uncle Tom" thing, but really was a reference to being called by the wrong name for an entirety of a recruiting trip.

This was at least my understanding.  Anyone correct me where I'm wrong.


October 18th, 2011 at 12:04 PM ^

Yeah, I was a premium member on at that time and I don't remember any of the experts--including Sam Webb--stating that UM was ever in good position with Gholston. He was the recruit who lived with his HS coach who was a former Sparty and is now on the MSU football staff.



October 18th, 2011 at 1:31 PM ^

BS story made up to pile on RR's grave. 

Is it possible someone called the kid by the wrong name?  Sure. 

Is it possible they kept inviting a top talent to the school and then calling him the wrong name repeatedly?  No

Gholston was a 5 star kid who was slated for MSU from the get go.   If he gave the Mich coaches any indication he had interest he was made a top priority when he came and people would have known his name.   It's not like he was some random 2 star recruit who was lumped in with the masses and easily mistaken for someone else.



October 18th, 2011 at 11:01 PM ^

The source is Will himself, guys.  Will said he liked UM. Will said he was close to committing to UM.  Will said he finally had enough of being called "Tom" and, in Will's words, "started thinking who's this 'Tom' guy they keep talking about?".  He started getting in a lot closer with the MSU staff after that.  But he was the one who said he considered UM for a long time. 


I know how the recruitment went/looked, I know he had a lot of MSU influences, but he himself said he thought very highly of UM. 

Section 1

October 19th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^

Will also said that he went to Brady Hoke to "thank" him after the game.  Will is a sociopath.  And if you think that Will is truthfully telling you, now that he's been a member of Pat Narduzzi's defense in E. Lansing, that he was ever close to commiting to Michigan, but for the name "Tom," there is some swampland in Ingham County that I'd like to sell you.


October 18th, 2011 at 11:49 AM ^

William "Don't call me Tommy!" Gholston.

Supposedly Gholston's defense for his behavior in Saturday's game was that Lewan was calling him "Tom" or "Tommy" because someone had mistakenly called Gholston that on his trip to AA when he was a recruit and it ticked WG off.


October 18th, 2011 at 11:59 AM ^

Joe Rexnode in his LSJ blog writes a good summary of where the possible suspension process is at. He feels that the 'punch' will definitely get a suspension and the 'facemask twist' (a worse case in his mind) will not help his situation.

"The Big Ten Sportslike Conduct Agreement states that "It shall be the responsibility of each member university to ensure that all of its students and all individuals employed by or directly associated with it comport themselves in a sportslike manner when representing their university, especially at intercollegiate athletic contests."  So the onus is on MSU to punish the player, but (like listing him as a starter against Wisconsin) apparently they are content to ignore this issue.

Also, from the Big Ten rule book:

  Acts of unsportslike conduct shall include, but not be limited to the following:
    1. Striking or attempting to strike or otherwise physically abusing an official, opposing coach, spectator or athlete. Any person committing such an act shall be subject to the following penalties:
    a. First offense: A public reprimand and suspension for up to 50%
of the scheduled contests in the sport as deemed appropriate.


October 18th, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^

Best case scenario:  MSU decides to play him against Wisconsin and MSU gets stomped anyway, then the Big Ten steps in because of MSU's failure to act, and they lose to Nebraska as a result.

I am not holding my breath, though.  It is becoming harder and harder to find teams and coaches that value integrity in CFB.


October 18th, 2011 at 3:57 PM ^

does everyone keep talking about one game when the rule is up to half remaining games as appropriate. What seems appropriate in this case is half the remaining games. What worse could he have done than punch Lewan and try to unscrew Denard's head after a play?


October 18th, 2011 at 11:51 AM ^

We don't and he very well could have been.  That said, there are very explicit rules regarding punching or attacking other players.  There aren't any rules on punishment for one player saying something mean to the other with no one else around to confirm it...


October 18th, 2011 at 4:10 PM ^

Point taken.  What I was trying to get at was that in the heat of the moment, things can be said that don't really have a bearing on your true feelings on a subject. 

Also, all racists say derogatory things.  Does that mean that all people who say derogatory things are racist?  No.  If I call your mom a whore, it doesn't mean I really think your mom is a whore.  I'm just trying to piss you off.  So saying that Lewan isn't racist does not mean he couldn't say these things.

I'm not saying he did, but it's not exclusive.


October 19th, 2011 at 1:38 AM ^

I'm certainly not saying Lewan is a racist. All I was trying to say was that a punch thrown in a football game is more understandable if it's in response to a racial slur than if it's completely random. I definitely don't want to disparage any of the guys on the team, especially a hard worker like Lewan.


October 18th, 2011 at 12:29 PM ^

The problem is, people then just say "well he called me [insert whatever here]" in order to get off the hook for flagrant personal fouls.

Words are one thing, but you can't retaliate in a physical way outside of the rules in the game.  By all means, block him into the turf, tackle someone hard, etc.  But nasty things are said and that's just how it is.

Is it justified to go break someone's arm in a Starbucks for saying something racist to me? Maybe.  Are you still going to get arrested and prosecuted? Absolutely.


October 18th, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^

And his punch was a lot more understandable if it was in response to a threat by Lewan to rape his mother and then blow up a federal building in the name of al Qaeda.  There is no evidence that any of that happened, though, so it doesn't matter.  There is instead a very understandable story about how the use of the name "Tom" was confused for a slur later on Twitter.