Hagerup reinstated, will sit out 2013

Submitted by justingoblue on May 7th, 2013 at 10:49 AM
Getting back around his teammates is an important step in this process," said Hoke. "Will and I have had several discussions over the past five months, none of which have been about football. Our primary concern has been for him as a person, and that will not change. Will is a part of our family, and we will continue to offer the resources to help him learn and grow. I am pleased with his progress to this point, and he knows that must continue every day moving forward.




May 7th, 2013 at 8:04 PM ^

1st chance - welcome to Michigan!

2nd chance - you drove drunk but we'll let you back in

3rd chance - you drove drunk again, you'll need to do some things, but you can come back

Stonum messed up (probation violation - driving w/o a license) his 3rd chance at Michigan. 

He got a 4th chance at Baylor.


May 7th, 2013 at 1:00 PM ^

appeal to an emotional response. Go look at motor vehicle deaths in general. You are putting someone's life at risk every time you sit behind the wheel. Someone who has been drinking increases that risk of course, but don't pretend the world is a warm and fuzzy place until it is interrupted by someone you have pre-judged. Unless you are privy to his private thoughts (or lack thereof), you are hardly in a postion to define his actions.


May 7th, 2013 at 2:02 PM ^

Not sure how I pre-judged Stonum, when a JUDGE has already judged him.  Before that I just thought of him as a talented football player.

Stonum showed no indication that he learned from his mistakes.

While you have a point, it seems dangerous to argue 'driving is dangerous either way'.  The risk goes up pretty dramatically if you're drunk.


May 7th, 2013 at 11:55 AM ^

You give a guy a second chance, not because you necessarily expect him to take advantage of it, but because helping college age men grow into productive adults who are responsible, learn from their mistakes, and don't have problems with drugs/alcohol is important. It's too bad that Stonum didn't take advantage but it was still a worthwhile risk to take even if it didn't work out. There are limits to what you can do, of course, but giving up on a person too soon can also be a missed opportunity to help someone. I thought Hoke handled that one just fine. Ditto Hagerup. Opportunities to come back but a severe season long punishment sounds right to me.


May 7th, 2013 at 12:05 PM ^

Don't agree on Stonum.  I don't think you are necessarily giving up on a guy when you tell him some things are simply unacceptable.  If he had killed somebody while driving drunk - I don't think anybody would be calling for a second chance.

To fram it another way -- Did Larry Harrison deserve a second chance?

Buck Killer

May 7th, 2013 at 11:57 AM ^

They blaze that shit up. Not an issue, and suspensions killed us against the mother fucking SC cocks. F! Why is it that we have to be extreme? I get it we want "classy kids" and to finish 15th in the poles the "right way". I am not saying cheat like Saban by cutting kids and doing nothing, but the whole season? F! We will never get a national championship handcuffing the team.

Perkis-Size Me

May 7th, 2013 at 1:21 PM ^

Playing football for the University of Michigan is a privilege, and if a kid abuses that privilege by breaking rules that our coaches set, they should have football taken away from them. Whether its our punter or our stud All-American left tackle. It doesn't matter whether or not weed should or shouldn't be legal. Hoke clearly has stated his policies on the matter, and if a team member violates that policy, they should pay the consequences. If SEC teams want to do things different, that's their business.

And just as an FYI, I guarantee you that having JT Floyd and Will Hagerup play in the Outback Bowl would not have won that game.


May 7th, 2013 at 1:34 PM ^

But that's ridiculous in practice. Are you going to boot people for being late to one team meetings? For skipping a class? For calling them Ohio STATE? Those are team rules, too.

These are college kids. College kids - ALL college kids - do stupid stuff. Hell, I'm 30, and I still do stupid stuff.  And these coaches aren't just there to coach football. They're there to mold these young kids. And one way is by being supportive when they inevitably succumb to the things to which kids succumb and teaching them how not to continue down that path.

What kind of ridiculous lesson would it be for these kids for the coaches to say, "I demand that you give this team everything you've got. I demand that you work as hard as you can and learn as much as you can and run as fast as you can and hit as hard as you can. But if you screw up, even once, even a LITTLE BIT, I will discard you."


May 7th, 2013 at 5:46 PM ^

But part of 'molding men' is communicating that sometimes enough is enough. There are consequences.

The kicking a kid off the team argument is the inverse of having a murderer on the team.  It is silly.

There are little screwups and there are big screwups.  The difficult/interesting question is where you draw the line.


snarling wolverine

May 7th, 2013 at 4:43 PM ^

And just as an FYI, I guarantee you that having JT Floyd and Will Hagerup play in the Outback Bowl would not have won that game.

Well, that's a pretty easy guarantee to make, seeing as how none of us has a time machine and can replay the game with them in there.

But seriously, you don't think losing Floyd hurt our secondary for that game?

Victor Hale II

May 7th, 2013 at 12:00 PM ^

This reminds me a lot of the Stonum situation, and I have the same summary now as I did then.  Hoke is giving Hagerup all the rope he needs with which to hang himself.  Stonum couldn't hack it.  Maybe Hagerup can.


These days, many youths are seen as needing "instant gratification", so Hoke's method here actually makes sense, IMO.  Hagerup will have to prove that he wants to remain at UM, and he will have to do his time, a full year, wisely.  He will need to make long-term changes.  Behaving for a few weeks or months is easy; even career-criminal parolees can do that. 


At this point, he holds the cards; it's up to him to play them wisely.


May 7th, 2013 at 1:10 PM ^

For all we know, that was Clark's first offense.  Hagerup has been suspended EVERY SINGLE YEAR he's been in college, and basically, that streak is being extended to include 2010-2013 (four straight years!).  In about a year and half, we'll see if he can get suspended for a fifth consecutive year...


May 7th, 2013 at 3:51 PM ^

Does it really matter what the infraction is? Smoking pot is against team rules, and illegal, whether we agree or not. If someone consistently can't follow rules, that tells me something about that person. Smoking a lot of pot might not be a major problem, but the inability to follow rules, especially when it means your actions affect your team, is at least a medium problem. If everyone else is expected to follow rules, Hagerup should be, too. It kind of seems like an easy one to me. 


May 7th, 2013 at 4:24 PM ^

My point was just that two weed-related incidents (or two underage drinking incidents) should probably be treated differently than, as an example, two killing sprees. I'd be okay with whatever punishments are dished out, I'm just saying that hard-and-fast rules are tricky when the whole realm is so amorphous.


May 7th, 2013 at 7:48 PM ^

I agree - there are some infractions that are so egregious, once would be grounds to get kicked off the team. Obviously, smoking pot is not that. And you have to give Hoke the benefit of the doubt in that he's spent time with Hagerup (I certainly haven't), so he's making a judgement based on his relationship with the kid and the details that I know nothing about. I'm just talking about  multiple offenses and at what point do you cut ties.