December 3rd, 2013 at 1:04 PM ^

Feinstein commented on this early on his morning show. He also threw Jim Delaney and the B1G under the bus (justifiably) calling the division name a complete hypocrisy if you don't hold the players to their actions.


December 3rd, 2013 at 2:26 PM ^

I was at The Game this year, and I saw several players from both teams flipping the bird over the course of 3+ hours. So I have mixed feelings about punishing a player solely because he got caught on national TV doing it.

Hall should've known that the cameras would be on him after an ejection, but he got punished then shouldn't the refs started penalizing EVERY single player that does it? Like having one official who's sole job is to monitor the sidelines and make sure everything is staying PG.

Ultimately, Hall should have probably recieved an additonal 1-game suspension I think though. Just for the sake of consistency.


December 3rd, 2013 at 4:31 PM ^

  The main problem i had was that the Big ten reviewed this and nobody else got suspended wheny ou can clearly see other guys throwing punches. I'm ok with 2 of the guys getting ejected and thats that but Hall should have gotten at least another half game for his exit and a few others for throwing punches. Watch the replay and you can see number 83 for the buckeyes throwing a punch


December 3rd, 2013 at 9:46 PM ^

Isn't the reviewing of punches on video the reason we had the RR and Hope issue? We had a player suspended a game for a punch vs. ND and the following week RR basically forced the hand of the BIG 10 to look into the Purdue player doing the same thing. This begat the famous scene where Hope brings the player up to RR in an attempt to embarass him (RR).

So, is it now ok to throw punches or is it time and place dependent?


December 4th, 2013 at 4:11 AM ^

I only comment on coaches who coach for Michigan. I kid i kid. I thought the big ten issued a statemtn when Ghoulson got suspended for punching Lewan that any player throwing a punch in a game would be suspended. I know it wasn't always like this because i remember David Boston and Woodson throwing punches at eachother and just having off setting penaltys.


December 3rd, 2013 at 3:41 PM ^

Hall would get suspended for a game for flipping the bird.  It's not the bad of a thing anymore, but I do however think RJS should be suspended for the rest of the season including not being able to travel to the bowl game for ripping Dontre Wilson's helmet off.  That could have ended his career and/or life if not careful....ie Denard's head from the Gholston twist.  Just my two cents.


December 3rd, 2013 at 1:12 PM ^

I have a hard time getting worked up over this when I think about concussions, two of the last handful of Heisman winners almost certainly taking money (Newton and Maziel), oversigning, ESPN's borderline monoply over coverage of college sports (which co-exists with them being in the business of selling college sports), and the fact that schools make huge amounts of money off of guys like Denard Robinson while giving them relatively little in return.  I tire of sportswriters who use small incidents as chances to jump on a moral high horse all while ignoring much bigger issues like the ones I just listed (especially concussions).  If nothing else, doesn't Feinstein have an article to write about how great Duke is?   


December 3rd, 2013 at 1:16 PM ^

Extremely well said Eric.  I would just ask this question - if one of our players did this in Columbus, say a Jake Ryan for example, in a game we won - would we be collectively upset and demanding he be suspended or would we be congradulating him?

I'm guessing the vast majority of the board wouldnt want him suspended.......


December 3rd, 2013 at 1:20 PM ^

Do you really think that Jake Ryan would do something like that? Well, supposing that he did, then I would say yes, definitely, suspend him. That's just me.

As for what Eric writes, I don't disagree at all with any of it, but it seems quite the red herring here.

Meanwhile, people should check out other writers like Dave Zirin if they are tired of the John Feinsteins out there.


December 3rd, 2013 at 1:23 PM ^

Actually, several weeks ago there was a large group of people on this blog who wanted Taylor Lewan suspended for his actions against MSU. I think if Jake Ryan did this in Columbus, a lot of us would want some sort of punishment for him. We're not all clueless homers.


December 3rd, 2013 at 1:24 PM ^

It may seem like I think I am holier than thou, but I would cry for Jake Ryan to be suspended.

The thing is...Jake Ryan didn't do it.  Hypocrisy cannot be claimed in an argument over a hypothetical situation.  Jake Ryan didn't do it.  I have no reason to think he would have done it either.  It didn't happen.  The above?  it happened.

But now....forever in B1G play....it is OK to do what he did.  And this causes me sad.


December 3rd, 2013 at 1:32 PM ^

Isnt that exactly the point of a hypothetical?  To propose something that didnt happen so you can discuss the "what if"?

Of course it didnt happen and my point, perhaps poorly stated, was not that ALL Michigan fans would support such a thing if he did it. My point was that I believe the majority of  fans would as they would see it as an act of defiance to a crowd (OSU's) we dont like very much.

I have no way of knowing if this would acually happen though.  Just a guess.


December 3rd, 2013 at 2:46 PM ^

Fair enough.  I see what you mean.  We don't really disagree.  I am just passionate about stuff like this at the college level.

I am definitely ruled by an opinion that I truly would not believe many UM palyers ever would do what Hall did.  They may WANT to, but they would not do it.  Plus, UM would escort a player off better, accordiing to the regualtions to which the B1G supposedly adheres.

And yeah, I am in the group that wanted Lewan suspended a game.

And again, gosh darn it, it is now ok, forever and ever, to flip off the crowd in the B1G.  That botheres me.  Also, it is OK to continue to act like a fool after you have been kicked out just because you have already been kicked out.  I find this sad.

OK, I am done with my bitter old man stuff, carry on, heh.


December 3rd, 2013 at 2:29 PM ^

Oh come on, it was pretty hilarious when it happened. Why does this actively make you sad? We watch football to be entertained, and it was entertaining at the time. It's over now though, and I agree with the people questioning why we still care about this. It seems kind of petty to still be discussing this and hoping that he is suspended so it hurts their title game chances.

In terms of hypocrisy, I see where the arguments come from. It's not that posters on mgoblog are hypocritical in terms of what kind of punishment they think players deserve; for example, most people thought Lewan should have been suspended after the MSU game. But it is definitely hypocritical/homerish to continue to bring up Urban not suspending hall when Hoke didn't suspend Lewan. It was brought up once the other day, everyone voiced their opinions, and that should have been the end of it. Rehashing it again isn't accomplishing anything.


December 3rd, 2013 at 2:51 PM ^

It was entertaining I admit.  But should not be in college football.  Have a Pro minor league if it is needed.  Should not be in college football, is what I feel.  Teach a lesson to the student athlete.  I do come from an old school point of view.  You should not do that it is wrong. Simple.  I know there are all kinds of reasons why it is tolerated (money is the biggest), but I just don't like it.

I don't want to rehash the suspensions any more either.  But I am on record of being disgusted that Lewan was not suspended for what he did.  Just a new way of doing things I don't like.


December 3rd, 2013 at 1:45 PM ^

Hall would be issuing a public appology to the fans he flipped off (funny how he has issued a social media appology to the Buckeye fans), and privately he'd be running steps for a few days.

Otherwise, ain't no big deal really. He had clearly lost his temper ... no one was hurt except maybe the bench and his foot.

I also think both Buckeyes in question should play against Michigan State. This really was a non-event that was handled on scene.


December 3rd, 2013 at 3:40 PM ^

What does that even mean?

A 'non-event' -- people are still talking about it days later, precisely because it so rarely happens. It's by definition an 'event' ; you may not care about it, but it very untypical behavior that was very noticeable. How often has what Marcus Hall did happen at a UM (or OSU or MSU or ...) home game?

And how was it 'handled'? He had alerady been kicked out of the game (i.e., punished) when he THEN did all that nonsense (throwing helmet, kicking bench, flipping off fans). He suffered zero meaningful punishment for that. It wasn't handled at all. 

His actions aren't the end of the world and aren't as bad as other behavior (e.g., off the field stuff like DUIs) -- but it still should have been punished in some small, meaningful way (e.g., suspended for 1st half of his next game). It wasn't.


December 3rd, 2013 at 3:34 PM ^

Did you see the reaction after Lewan's antics in the MSU game? A good portion of the board expected him to be suspended or punished in some way (I don't have the exact numbers but it wasn't just a couple peopple).

If Ryan/Lewan/whomever came off the bench to join a fight, threw his helmet afterward, kicked over a bench and then flipped off the fans with both middle fingers, I'd certainly want him suspended, at least for the first half of the next game. 

Essentially,  Hall suffered zero reprecussions for his post-fight antics, which ultimately means that's acceptable behavior (oh, Meyer did say he was 'disappointed' and Hall did get a 'public reprimand' --  I'm sure he's all torn up about what Jim Delany thinks of him). I don't think that's OK.

rob f

December 4th, 2013 at 3:47 AM ^

Surely you jest!

Without a doubt, Hall came off the bench.  He wasn't involved in the kickoff return and shouldn't have in any way been involved in the direct aftermath of the kickoff play.

If there's not already a CFB rule prohibiting players in such a situation from entering the field and being involved, the rules committee needs to give this a hard look and institute one.


December 3rd, 2013 at 1:26 PM ^

Nobody forced Denard Robinson to play at Michigan.  Plus he did get a $219,636 education for free since he was on full athletic scholarship.



Plus for every kid like Denard that brings in tons of cash for the athletic department there are 80-84 other guys who don't.


December 3rd, 2013 at 1:38 PM ^

I hear you.  In the grand scheme of things it is such a small thing. 


I didn't mean to jump on you but the idea that college athletes are victimized because they don't get a piece of the TV and apparel money grinds my gears.  $220K is a life changing amount of money especially if it is used to further educate oneself at Michigan.  So what if the athletic department rips off Denard Robinson by selling thousands of #16 jerseys modeled after his likeness to pay for the 699 other student athletes at the university college tuition is expensive.


December 3rd, 2013 at 1:49 PM ^

The free education argument is tired and played out.

Everyone says, "Are you kidding me, I'd love a free ride to Michigan! Those kids have it made." 

OK, but you're not thinking it through.

Imagine a world in which you were offered a full ride to Michigan on the condition you work 40 hours a week in the AD.


MICHIGAN: Hey, you want a free ride to U of M?

YOU: Hell yeah! Where do I sign up?

MICHIGAN: Right here....OK, good. Congrats on your free ride to Michigan.

YOU: Awesome. So I've always wanted to be an enigneer and I was thinking--

MICHIGAN: Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa! You don't get to choose your own major.

YOU: What kind of BS is that? I'm at the school. I'm a student now. I should get to choose my own major.

MICHIGAN: Haha! That's cute. You think you can just be whatever you want to be. Well, unfortunately it doesn't work like that. Engineering is too time consuming what with your job in the AD. We think you'd be best suited for general studies. So that's your major.

YOU: I don't want to be a general studies major. What the hell can I do with that? I've always wanted to be an engineer.

MICHIGAN: Too bad, buddy. You signed the contract. We own you now. You're an employee of the AD first, a student second. 

YOU: I never would have signed up for this had I known.

MICHIGAN: What's wrong with you, cry baby? You're getting a free ride to Michigan fergodsakes! You should be grateful.

YOU: But what is the point of even going to college if you can't do what you want to do with the rest of your life, and instead you're shoehorned into an ultimately useless major?

MICHIGAN: LOL! That's your problem, not ours. 

You: Who came up with this bullshit system?

MICHIGAN: Hey, if you end up being a particularly good employee you might be able to land a job at ALRO Steel when you graduate.

You: You suck.


December 3rd, 2013 at 2:09 PM ^

Many people work full time while attending college.  I feel for athletes who have to pay their own way and still commit to the demanding sports schedule like walk ons have to.  But kids on scholarship know the deal when they sign the letter of intent.


Plus, aside from Hand there aren't a large contingent of big time recruits or Football Players who want to be engineers.  On the BBall team Jordan Morgan is an engineering major.  I knew some Women's soccer players who were engineering majors during my time at UofM.  Plus Mark Huyge was a Naval Architecture and Marien Engineering Major when I was at UofM.  So it can be done.


December 3rd, 2013 at 2:41 PM ^

My friend was on the soccer team, and she wanted to be a business major (was hoping to own her own business/gym one day). Her advisor, however, was very persistent in her becoming a sociology major even though she said had no interest in the subject.

Now she's graduated, working as a personal trainer with a Sociology degree from Michigan that she'll probably never use.


December 3rd, 2013 at 4:44 PM ^

But my 3 anecdotes out number his 1.  Thereby making mine a trend.  /s


In all seriousness the steering athletes into easy majors is true in some regards because not all athletes at UM are the greatest students but I don't think it is the case every single time.  Remember they have to keep these atheletes academically eligible so that they can compete.  If a kid gets a 2.5 GPA their freshman year they probably aren't going to be encouraging him/her to major in STEM fields.  If a kid gets a 3.5 GPA freshman year I'm sure they let them major in whatever he/she chooses.


December 3rd, 2013 at 4:50 PM ^

Right, so by your own admission then, using the "they're getting a free education" argument is total bunk, because what are they really getting? Certainly not the same sort of education you or I would receive.

We get to select our own majors, our own courses, make our own decisions with regard to planning out a career path.

They are shuffled into general studies and forced to take an academic path not centered around receiving an actual education, but rather staying above that magical eligibility line.

That's why whenever anyone brings up these sorts of arguments, it is complete and utter nonsense.


December 3rd, 2013 at 5:03 PM ^

They are still getting a free education.  What that education is in has to keep the athlete eligible while not conflicting with practice times.  Beggars can't be choosers, if they want to go to UM no strings attached they can apply on their own academic merit and be admitted with out athletic consideration.  Fact is most athletes wouldn't get admitted this way.


December 3rd, 2013 at 5:15 PM ^

I wonder about the underlying assumption that the value of the free education players receive is the value of the tuition, books, etc.  Many athletes are serious students who will receive a degree and it will be an important part of their future.  For those athletes, the valuation makes sense. Many of the marquee players in football and basketball, however, are primarily focussed upon a professional athletic career.  The value to those players of the academic value of the University is next to nothing.  In fact, the educational experience is an obtacle to their focus on athletics.  I think there is more merit to the argument that the marquee players receive athletic training and the big stage to showcase their talents.  I don't know how you quantify the value of those assets, but the uncertainty of a professional athletic career has to reduce that value.  I favor some type of compensation to players, but understand and respect that many people cannot cross that line. I just don't think it is as simple as saying the marquee athletes are receiving x number of dollars worth of education when they are not really in the market for education.


December 3rd, 2013 at 5:31 PM ^

I agree with everything you say with one exeption, the stipend.  All full scholarship athletes recieve a $2000 per month allowance for food (beyond training table) and housing.  This is why many athletes stay at school during the summer months to continue training on site but to keep the $2000/month gravy train rolling in.  It is very easy for athletes to live comfortably on $2000/month. 


$800 dollars a month in food ($200 a week seems a bit much)

that leaves $1200 to find a place to live.  I don't know about you but the places I lived in college were around $1200 a month split between 2 or 3 people.

So frugal athletes are reasonably pocketing $500 a month.  But I guess when you throw in your $500 car note then yea money is tight.


December 3rd, 2013 at 1:53 PM ^

Yep, that's exactly how I'm sure it goes. Word for word. So, uh.... explain how we've had engineers and business majors on the team before? How we've had athletes do pre med? The strongest argument you can make is that they're pushed in one direction or another and that they might lose playing time if they don't submit. But that's a reasonable trade off, I think.