Rucker was in jail *edit*
It appears that MSU's Chris L. Rucker has been in jail without comment from MSU.
http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2010/10/michigan_states_chris_l_rucker_2.html
He is to be released this Thursday. Any bets on whether or not "The King of Discipline" (that's ESPN speak for Dantonio) counts the jail time as "suspension" or if Rucker finds himself right back on the field for Iowa?
**Also very interesting (thus the *edit*) is USA Today's report that Dantonio, after the NW game, said this about Rucker's status:
Mark Dantonio said MSU will await "the process" before deciding on Rucker.
It would be oh so nice to see a follow-up question from the locals, perhaps something like, "Coach: When you said that MSU will 'await the process' before deciding on Rucker, you must have known that he already cut a deal and was sitting in a jail cell. Do you think that lying to protect a twice-convicted criminal is appropriate behavior for a head coach?" Ok, so that will never happen, but I think this rates up there with Dantonio's prison-to-practice move for Winston.
October 25th, 2010 at 12:16 PM ^
where every second chance deserves a second chance...
October 25th, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^
But what about THAT second chance?
October 25th, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
And the chance after that, oh noes!!!
October 25th, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
Like rollover minutes for a certain cellular telephone company.
October 25th, 2010 at 2:19 PM ^
Just remember that timeouts are NOT like cell phone minutes.
October 25th, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
Mark Dantonio only talks about players that play for Michigan State.
Err, wait a minute.
October 25th, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
eh, its hard to say. I know Darth Dantonio would love to play him, but he has suspended players in the past.
October 25th, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^
He probably shouldn't play because he will miss all pregame preparation. Other than that, I'm not sure he deserves any additional suspension. He's missed two games after a DUI arrest, three if he sits out Saturday. What coach would suspend him for more than that?
October 25th, 2010 at 12:36 PM ^
Considering he was already on probation for assault, still being on the team seems kind of lenient to me.
October 25th, 2010 at 8:15 PM ^
Do you feel that way about all football players who violate their probation?
October 25th, 2010 at 8:20 PM ^
Nice try.
October 25th, 2010 at 8:25 PM ^
I didn't assume. It was an honest question.
October 26th, 2010 at 10:15 AM ^
considering one happened during a season where, you know, games exist and one happened during the summer where, you know, games don't exist...
it's perfectly normal for a coach to hold a player out for X amount of games because of something they did 2-4 months before. totally. Sparty on mate.
October 25th, 2010 at 12:36 PM ^
it's the probation part that makes it a little juicier.
October 25th, 2010 at 12:42 PM ^
You don't see the difference? He hasn't served any suspension. His punishment was imposed by the judge, not Dantonio. A 1-game suspension is kind of the standard for a plain DUI.
Do you need to be reminded that he plead guilty to a crime, for his part in the PREWB, less than a year ago? CLR then violated his probation before he even got behind the wheel (by drinking). Then he crashed into someone's property, and drove off to delay being caught.
I would bet money that he will see the field this Saturday. Dantonio knows what's on the line in this game, and he's shown that he accepts time spent behind bars as punishment enough.
October 25th, 2010 at 12:57 PM ^
I'm not sure how bad suspending a guy indefinately is in terms of "lack of discipline". Yeah, if all the sudden he magically appears in the game this weekend I think there is plenty wrong, but if he spends the remainder of the season "suspended", or maybe can show up again for a bowl game or something, I'm not sure how much you can realistically ask for here.
October 25th, 2010 at 1:14 PM ^
He hasn't been in jail since he was arrested, If he gets out on Thursday, that means he was jailed last Wednesday, meaning he was suspended for the Illinois game. He'll likely be suspended for the Iowa game. Two "coach imposed" games, three total, for a DUI/Probation violation seems reasonable. I'm sure there's not an exact Michigan precedent for the situation, but I know we didn't suspend Stonum for his probation violations. If Dantonio plays him on Saturday, I think that would be a problem. But again, more for what it says that a kid can miss a week's worth of practice because he's in jail and still play than for the length of a suspension for what he did.
I can be convinced that he needs to be suspended for more, tell me, what was his role in the fight last fall? Was he a leader? Did they show that he beat up some poor engineering geek, or was he just there and encouraging? It doesn't matter in terms of probation violations, but it might effect how you'd view a Michigan player in the same circumstances.
One more honest question. How do you know he couldn't drink while on probation? I thought probation orders were based on the criminal action with a few automatic provisions (no illegal drugs, no further arrests). I thought complete sobriety was generally only part of probation for DUI arrests.
October 25th, 2010 at 1:52 PM ^
I read something incorrectly. He was not in jail for the Illinois game. I still maintain that if a probation officer recommends 21 days in jail, then he shouldn't see the field in <3 weeks. Stonum served 3 days for violating terms of probation (passively) in the summer (plenty of time for other forms of punishment), not for commiting new crimes.
I don't really care what his role in the PREWB was other than following Winston's lead. He was 21 at the time, and he thought that pleading guilty and taking probation was his best option. Glenn Winston would not have been given a second chance by RR.
As to your last question (freep link):
October 25th, 2010 at 2:28 PM ^
My 2 cents says that it doesn't really count as a "suspension" when the reason you aren't playing is that you're awaiting sentencing (or serving jail time). Beyond that, I think he should be kicked off their team and would demand the same if he were a Wolverine. He took part in a planned group attack (plotted during a football function) and then was "put on a short leash" following his conviction. He couldn't wait even a year to violate probation while committing another crime? He has two separate convictions (even though he pled down both) and a probation violation...all within a year.
MSU needs to answer something as well...why did they list him as "suspended" for the NW game? That's more than a bit misleading when the guy is sitting in jail. It's hard for a school to preach discipline if they're actively covering for their jailed players.
October 25th, 2010 at 4:46 PM ^
Is there a listing for "in jail"? In any event, even if he was not in jail, it seems to indicate that he would be playing. Do you think that M would handle this any differently (from a listing on the roster perspective)?
I'm not sure how MSU has really been "covering" for him either. If he is allowed to play this week then I think we can get up in arms, not about a guy being suspended indefinately.
October 25th, 2010 at 5:00 PM ^
Dantonio is certainly covering for him (as he did for Jenrette after his 2nd B&E). Otherwise, he would have clarified Rucker's situation (when asked directly about it post-game) rather than lying. Rucker had already cut a deal and was in jail when Dantonio said that he was "awaiting the process". The "process" was done.
October 26th, 2010 at 9:35 AM ^
...the process is playing out with his sentence.
Honestly, Dantonio or any other coach should use their own judgement. He shouldn't air everything publically about Rucker's situation. If it were me, I wouldn't want my coach to do that.
My guess, he sits again this weekend... and Minnesota, then is eligible after the bye week for the final two games.
As for does he deserve to be reinstated, I would say yes. He followed a group and from what I've read tried to kick somone in that Rather Hall mess. He pled out and (as we all know) blew a .10.
To me, it is more important for Chris Rucker as a person to be a part of what is going on at Michigan State this season than it is for MSU to get him back. I trust Dantonio.
October 25th, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^
He'll go right back on the field like Winston did. The MSM will applaud Dantonio for his bleeding heart and contradictorally villify Urban Meyer for playing Rainey.
October 25th, 2010 at 12:22 PM ^
October 25th, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
never say Chris Rucker without the "L" ?
I seriously cannot figure out why everyone single person insists on the middle initial?
October 25th, 2010 at 12:30 PM ^
Promised him his initial in recruiting. Now our recruit Chris Rock I could see going middle initial, but why this kid?
October 25th, 2010 at 12:30 PM ^
because they also had a WR named Chris D Rucker on the team
October 25th, 2010 at 12:45 PM ^
IIRC, there are 2 Chris Ruckers that play for MSU. They differentiate by using middle initials.
October 25th, 2010 at 12:57 PM ^
This has been driving me crazy.
October 25th, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^
...Chris D Rucker is pretty happy that they consistently use the middle initial now. "No, mom, it's Chris L Rucker who's been in jail."
Hehe, those cheeky Ruckers.
October 25th, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^
No matter what, I'm sure the local MSM will cover this latest MSU incident with their usual indifference while issuing ALL CAPS headlines about Kenny Demens and Boubacar Cissoko not paying rent.
October 25th, 2010 at 12:46 PM ^
In Kenny and Boubs' defense, Rent is 2 Damn High.
October 25th, 2010 at 1:25 PM ^
The Rent Is Too Damn High!
October 25th, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^
Hootie is a sparty?
October 25th, 2010 at 12:44 PM ^
You think i'm a baby 'cause the spartans make me cry...
October 25th, 2010 at 12:43 PM ^
$10 says that Ingham County even has a van that drops him off at practice once he's released.
October 25th, 2010 at 12:46 PM ^
Someone ought to set up a direct shuttle from the jail to the campus. Maybe set up a people mover. Good money to be made.
October 25th, 2010 at 12:46 PM ^
What I don't get is how the MSM chooses to vilify one and not the other.
I'm not saying this because I root for Michigan- I would wonder this no matter which school I was a fan of.
It just doesn't make sense that the consistent majority would be in agreement on Dantonio's great discipline and Urban Meyer's lack thereof.
Exactly how and when does a school of fish decide, "Hey, the evidence is the same- but that guy there, now he's a saint..."?
October 25th, 2010 at 1:06 PM ^
Think about what sells. The Free Press/AnnArbor.com/assorted cadre of soon to be dead old media know that scandals about the big program in state will sell papers. The added on-the-field problems only accentuate the issue.
They know just as well that the "emergence of Michigan State" story will sell way better than "Mark Dantonio doesn't care about discipline" story. This has everything to do with:
- The lack of success of UM the last two years on the field.
- The position of UM in the state.
- The dying newspaper industry.
Once things revert to normalcy, and they will, these problems will all but disappear.
October 25th, 2010 at 2:14 PM ^
You couldn't have nailed that any better. Perfect.
What was it Bo said about the media: If I am losing they can't help me. If I am winning, I don't need them.
Something like that?
Michigan State is a different animal. Way less popular in a garden variety average year. Therefore, way less influential towards the bottom line for MSM. Michigan has to play by way different and more stringent rules if they care to avoid really negative publicity.
As we have seen the last couple years.
Best to not care.
October 26th, 2010 at 9:40 AM ^
I read threads like this and wonder what you mean by "normalcy"? I assume you are saying when the University of Michigan football program returns to prominence again? Like there is going to be some type of re-balance in the universe?
No doubt, Michigan football will bounce back... but with the Big Ten changing, Nebraska coming in, MSU getting better (fair assumption?),... what is normalcy? Respectfully, UM is not pre-destined for anything moving forward.
October 25th, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^
msu is a local story only. No one cares one way or another. never easy being big brother though
October 26th, 2010 at 9:42 AM ^
And if they are able to pull through in Iowa City Saturday that will grow.
October 25th, 2010 at 4:34 PM ^
Regarding the MSM and the treatment of Dantonio vs. Urban Meyer, Drew Sharp wrote a column on Oct. 16 titled "Chris Rucker Shouldn't Take Another Snap for the Spartans," which also included a comparison with Meyer's disciplinary actions (or lack thereof). So there is at least one MSM figure who called for Rucker to be booted off the team.
I know nobody around here cares what Sharp thinks, but it'll be interesting to see if he writes another column about this if--or should I say when--Rucker is reinstated.
October 25th, 2010 at 4:39 PM ^
I think that even Mike Valenti was screaming that Rucker should not be allowed back. It will indeed be interesting to see/hear what happens after the prison shuttle picks Rucker up for practice.
I think that Dantonio's cover-up after the NW game, however, might be an even bigger deal. He knew Rucker was in jail and lied about it. Maybe I'm crazy and no one else thinks that matters?
October 25th, 2010 at 4:58 PM ^
I find it difficult to conclude that he was out-and-out lying not knowing what question he was asked and not having his direct quote in response to that question. It may not be as clear-cut as you seem to think.
In the meantime, Rittenberg has a column up arguing that Rucker should not return against Iowa but should be allowed to play again this year.
October 25th, 2010 at 5:16 PM ^
It takes some real faith in Dantonio to conclude he wasn't lying. He said he would "await the process" before deciding on Rucker. It's clear that the question was some form of "Have you made a decision on Rucker?" or "How long will Rucker be suspended". If he had said, "I haven't made my decision yet," it would have been a fair statement. Instead, Dantonio knew that the "process" was complete, that his kid had cut a deal and was in jail. The best that could be said is that Dantonio purposefully misled the press. I think that's the same as lying.
As for Rittenberg's column, it makes a number of good points, but misses an important point that Rucker missed the NW game because he was in jail, not because he was suspended. I don't know...I guess I'm just amazed that (given all of the criminal issues that team has had and attention to recruits like Demar Dorsey) a player can be jailed for days without comment (and now still without comment) from his program.