One Man's opinion on Darryl Stonum's DUI

Submitted by Salinger on May 20th, 2011 at 1:16 PM

An interesting read from Michael Spath over at TheWolverine.com.  His supposition is that Stonum should either be kicked off the team or suspended for an entire year.  I don't want to delve too much into someone personal demons, but I thought that this warrented some thought from the MGoCommunity.  

 

I especially liked the following quote:

 

"There are all sorts of way to teach a lesson and maybe no right or wrong answer. Hoke is an upstanding guy and I do not for one second question his moral integrity - like I didn’t with Carr. He will make a decision and maybe it will be even stricter than the one proposed here but I would make Stonum’s path to becoming a Michigan Man the most difficult one (he) has ever faced because only then will he understand the risk he took with his life and with those that share the road with him.

Only then will he understand the gravity of what he did and only then will he be faced with the opportunity to grow from his poor choice, put the past in the past, and take a step towards becoming the man that will benefit society in the future instead of selfishly putting it in harm’s way yet again."

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=rivals-1223286

Comments

Tater

May 20th, 2011 at 9:12 PM ^

...but with one caveat: let the legal system decide whether he is actually guilty and what his crime was.  

Then, if the legal system finds him guilty of a crime, he needs wither a year off pending the completion of rehab, or kicked off the team.  Stonum has already gotten one "second chance."  If Michigan starts giving multiple "second chances" to people found guilty of misdemeanors by the legal system, they might as well start wearing green and white.

 

 

goblue27

May 20th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^

very well written article. my first thought was that suspending him for the year wouldn't reallly be a suspension at all because he could redshirt and play every game next year...however it makes a lot more sense if he isn't allowed to participate and is forced to sit in the stands. i really hope that stonum is able to work his way back onto the team

Blue-Chip

May 20th, 2011 at 1:25 PM ^

This is a very serious offense, but I see what Hoke is doing.  By going with an indefinite suspension, it provides a motivation.  If Stonum wants to see the field he will need to do the right things off of it.  I see this as a motivational strategy, and I for one fully support it.

I will have a serious problem if this turns into "he met our requirements and will start against Western." 

Lloyd's Boy

May 20th, 2011 at 1:57 PM ^

I wouldn't say that redshirting him amounts to him "losing nothing". I assume that it would be very frustrating (and hopefully motivating) to be unable to participate on Saturdays. I think redshirting him would be the right thing to do. It allows him to earn back that year by demonstrating that he has gotten back on track.

aawolverine

May 20th, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^

First one already on a suspended license. Fails to comply with terms of probation for first one. Gets another one. He should sit this season out.

aawolverine

May 20th, 2011 at 2:00 PM ^

I was referring to his license already being suspended when he got his first DUI.

Also, from the police report from the first incident:

"According to a police report, Stonum's car accelerated to a speed of approximately 60 miles per hour through the campus area of State Street, and nearly struck another vehicle crossing an intersection."

This is serious.

mvp

May 20th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^

The media used to always describe with great reverence the Carr penalties for players.  Typically, they'd have to run the stadium steps at 6 AM for a prescribed number of weeks.  If they missed even one day, they were off the team.  Carr would be there with a cup of coffee at 6 AM waiting to make sure they arrived and ran.

Isn't that the coach being "present?"

I never understood how this wasn't practice time.

I'm not saying I have a problem with the idea, or Carr -- just that I never understood how this sort of punishment meshed with NCAA rules around practice time.

Taken to the extreme, when an offensive lineman missed a block, the coach could insist that the O-line do 30 minutes of extra "punishment" each day the next week.  Or whatever.  It would just be extra practice time.

danimal1968

May 20th, 2011 at 3:36 PM ^

and they are tracking what he is doing, it is no longer voluntary.  During the school year, it would count against the allowed 8 hours per week.  During the summer, everything must be voluntary.

Michigan got in trouble for requiring players to do extra work as punishment for missing spring/summer classes when no mandatory workouts are permitted.

Sextus Empiricus

May 20th, 2011 at 1:43 PM ^

Stonum hasn't had his day in court.  Hoke has done the right things so far to help him.  

Football can help deal with this sort of behavior issue.  Keeping Stonum on a rope is ideal to get him the most help.  There is no one best way to deal with every DUI offender.

I'm pretty sure this sort of offense means the entire O side of ball has to perform some sort self inflicted workout pain.  This is his third strike (probation breaking being his second).  I think only Darryl is doing the 45lb pulls for now - AFAIK. 

I don't think the O side is going to be too happy bringing Stonum back until he changes for the better.  Forcing them all to pull the weights might give Stonum the addtional intervention/daily help to get him through his senior year and maybe on the right path in life.

Lloyd's Boy

May 20th, 2011 at 1:53 PM ^

There is sufficient evidence that these incidents display poor judgement. If this were a one time incident, I could understand reinstating him after a couple games, but there is obviously a deeper issue at the heart of this. He deserves to be sat out this season. It is a shame too, because he definately seems to be one of the more charismatic and likable players (not to mention a top three receiver). Do the right thing Hoke... let's not put the STATE into reinSTATE. Leave that to sparty. 

kmanning

May 20th, 2011 at 1:54 PM ^

 

The way I see it, if Stonum plays a single down this year, Hoke is on his way to being the next Dantonio. Obviously a lot more would have to happen to get there, but if he lets the guy play after all he's done he's no better than letting Winston play or any of the other asinine things Dantonio has done with regards to discipline.

I'm okay with the idea of keeping him on the team in a symbolic fashion to try to keep him out of more trouble, but his playing career should be over.

BlockM

May 20th, 2011 at 2:49 PM ^

It's obvious that many posters here want Hoke to be very harsh on Stonum just so they can keep their moral superiority argument against Dantonio intact, and it's ridiculous. How Hoke and Dantonio decide to discipline players has nothing to do with us, except to the extent our egos get scuffed up by opposing fans.

BlockM

May 20th, 2011 at 2:01 PM ^

My word, since when did the mgoboard become the moral police, or the actual police for that matter?

This is a matter for the courts, Hoke, and Stonum to work out. What exactly do all of us have at stake here? 

jmblue

May 20th, 2011 at 5:54 PM ^

Not just two DUIs.  He also failed to fulfill his probationary responsibilities a year ago, leading to brief jail time.  So this is really his third offense.

I'm curious to know if the people who want to rationalize Stonum's repeated legal problems are willing to do the same for players on other teams.

Idaho Wolverine

May 20th, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^

Stonum should not play this season; Hoke needs to use this opportunity to set a standard that Michigan athletes need to follow. It doesn't matter who the player is, if players continue to break the law they need to be punished.

joshfull931

May 20th, 2011 at 2:34 PM ^

Interesting in comparing the approach to M. Dantonio. I don't want Hoke to be lenient with this punishment. Unfortunately for Stonum, he will be made an example of for current and future Wolverines. This is a serious offense and I anticipate serious consequences for Stonum.

Spontaneous Co…

May 20th, 2011 at 2:55 PM ^

With all the resources our Ath Dept has, I just hope they stick with him and try to help him out.  No football this year and have him spend time with grieving mothers in MADD who have lost children.

ryebreadboy

May 20th, 2011 at 2:59 PM ^

I think it's very hilarious that we're all declaring the standards that Michigan athletes should meet when few (if any) of us have been Michigan athletes ourselves.  Granted, I'm a Michigan alumnus, and I bleed as Blue as anyone.  But I knew a lot of kids who did a lot of stupid things in college.  Lest we forget, for Stonum, football is his future.  The kid's not going to be a Rhodes scholar, or go on to get a PhD.  The purpose of Michigan is to help kids achieve their dreams, not limit them.  College is for shaping people; prison is for punishing them.  I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be punished, but I think kicking him off the team does a lot more to deny him his future than it does to teach him a lesson.  What would be left for him then?  Honestly, if anything was going to drive me to drink, it'd be that.

I'm in favor of a Redshirt year, during which he practices with the team and meets various community service, counseling, and sobriety requirements.  He helps make his teammates (and himself) better through practice, and he helps others through community service.  A Redshirt year never hurt anyone.  It is an effective punishment.  He has to spend a year not playing, but still practicing (which he won't like much), and he has to WASTE a year (which is actually a big deal, especially when the average NFL career is not long at all).  Personally, I'd hate to spend an extra year in limbo waiting on my future.  If he proves that he's shaped up, he plays in 2012.  If he can't shape up, re-evaluate at that point.

ngroves

May 20th, 2011 at 3:44 PM ^

Why did my comment get redacted for pointing out the obvious prejudice of the previous comment?  Is it the blogs point of view also that Stonum has no other chance in life than to play football?

ryebreadboy

May 20th, 2011 at 5:29 PM ^

Um, what?  Clearly you're one of those people determined to see racism everywhere.  I don't think he's stupid; I don't even know him.  That said, he's a three-year letterman general studies major.  Which breaks down to: good at football, probably doesn't want to pursue an advanced degree.  He's good enough to play in the NFL, and my assumption is that that's what he wants to do.  Ergo, my argument that kicking him off the team (and thereby taking away his scholarship, AFAIK, because he certainly won't qualify for a medical hardship) would be a very bad thing as far as his future prospects are concerned.  Could he do something besides football?  I'm sure he could.  But he doesn't want to, and shouldn't have to considering a DUI is not actually a football-related offense.

JimLahey

May 20th, 2011 at 3:18 PM ^

He should be suspended for the year. He did it twice, obviously didn't learn his lesson the first time. Drunk driving is serious shit already...BUT there's driving under the influence, and then there's being so drunk that you pass out behind the wheel. He's lucky nobody died. He needs to be an example that such behavior is not acceptable and will be severely punished.

YouremyboyBlue

May 20th, 2011 at 3:28 PM ^

Kind of OT for this thread, but anyways...  So the evening that Stonum got the DUI, my friend and I saw him walking down South U earlier in the evening. 

After we heard about the DUI the next week, my friend said, "Man, I wish I could go back and run up and just punch him in the face or something.  Then he would've had to go to the hospital or something and would've never gotten that DUI!" (kidding of course)

Promote RichRod

May 20th, 2011 at 3:44 PM ^

of football in a Michigan uniform it will be Hoke's first major mistake in my eyes.

1st DUI - standard suspension for a couple games.

Missing probation - OK, not good, but not enough to warrant major punishment.  Handle internally and warn about thin ice

2nd DUI after all this?  Gone.  He needs to be gone. Another DUI is major.  If it was something like public intox or something then maybe suspend him a year and give him a path back...but if you give a path back after DUI, minor probation issues and a second DUI, thats MSU territory.  No thanks.

We need to keep and enforce a strict policy.  It's one thing for college kids to drink but it's quite another to then get behind the wheel multiple times.  He has shown a disregard for the law, others' lives and the team. 

Promote RichRod

May 20th, 2011 at 4:09 PM ^

I especially liked the part where you pulled 3 words from my entire post and complained that those three words speak to "ego," whereas the other 80 or whatever words gave a reasoned analysis of why he shouldn't be back on the team.  I'll summarize for you:

- he was given multiple chances and still committed a serious offense.  If found guilty, then there should be consequences that include losing the privilege to play football on a full scholarship at Michigan.

- if let back on the team it sets a terrible precedent.  Things like this can destroy a team's culture (see Iowa, OSU, MSU) and creates an expectation that they can do whatever and not get punished.  The idea is to deter future bad acts.

- it also reeks of favoritism - Stonum is an important part of the team and it looks especially bad to others on the team if the coach or school is unwilling to harshly punish the most "valuable" players.

But go ahead and characterize my posts as just "not wanting to be Sparty" regardless.

BlockM

May 20th, 2011 at 4:23 PM ^

- Fine. That's up to the coaches. He's obviously being punished already, hence the indefinite suspension.

- We have no idea what the punishment is or how it is affecting the other players on the team. We have no idea what's going on inside the Iowa, OSU, and MSU locker rooms. Sometimes college kids don't think about the ramifications of their actions, and that's what gets them suspended indefinitely.

- We don't know what Hoke would have done to other players, how long they would sit out for, or how that would compare to Stonum. Partly because other players aren't in this situation yet, but mostly because Stonum's punishment isn't up.

But that's not what I was referring to. All of the points you made could have been made without referring to MSU as the bad example. I'm just saying we should let that go, because the only reason we could possibly care about how Hoke disciplines his players compared to how Dantonio does is that we need some extra ammo for our pissing matches.

Hoken's Heroes

May 20th, 2011 at 5:00 PM ^

Legally, he has yet to be convicted of anything. He put in a plea of not guilty. The question that Hoke will have to answer is if the fact that he was arrested again under suspicion for DUI enough of a reason to punish him or do you wait to see if he's convicted. Because, what if he isn't convicted and found not guilty? Should he still be punished?

Hoken's Heroes

May 20th, 2011 at 5:00 PM ^

Legally, he has yet to be convicted of anything. He put in a plea of not guilty. The question that Hoke will have to answer is if the fact that he was arrested again under suspicion for DUI enough of a reason to punish him or do you wait to see if he's convicted. Because, what if he isn't convicted and found not guilty? Should he still be punished?