WTKA Michigan Insider Show- Michigan Messenger Writer, Woodson, and Brian

Submitted by M-Wolverine on September 30th, 2010 at 12:45 PM

OK, it sounds a bit like a joke...so the writer from the Michigan Messenger, Charles Woodson, and Brian Cook walk into a radio studio...

But I was surprised to see no one mentioned any of it yet.  It was a pretty interesting morning show.  


They started with the Michigan Messenger article MSU story, and had the writer of the article on. It was more a take on the media coverage (or lack thereof), and how it reflected on other stories, rather than a ragging on Sparty session.  Or even getting into the case that much.  So not that inflammatory, and probably a big of what we already know.  But Debucks does say that other media sources had the same info he had, and decided not to run with it.

Then Charles Woodson comes on, because the Lions are playing them this week. Highlight question might be, after Sam had visited Fremont Ohio, did Fremont put the swagger in Charles Woodson, or did Charles Woodson put the swagger in Fremont.

And then Brian comes in for his weekly segment, and they start with the MSU situation, which is I believe Brian's first public take on it, then they get into Indiana game discussion. I'd say anyone who believes in jinxing games, do some reverse ju-ju for Brian, because he basically says we're going to roll Indiana like Bowling Green.  The karma isn't feeling too good...



September 30th, 2010 at 12:54 PM ^

Sagarin places Indiana in between UMass and BGSU, both of which have already lost to Michigan. Where do you think they rank once they lose to Michigan and the other two teams win a game this weekend?

This isn't a game that we really need to worry about unless our defense plays like they did against UMass. I, however, am willing to take Craig Roh at his word.


September 30th, 2010 at 1:26 PM ^

So, what if I were to tell you that Indiana has put up those points against possibly the two worst teams in FBS football and a bad to mediocre FCS team. Western Kentucky and Akron are ranked 105 and 108 in scoring offense and 117 and 109 in scoring defense. They let those two teams score 20 on them. I wouldn't be surprised to see Denard break his record for total offense in this game. The only reason I don't think that will happen is because he will get pulled for Gardner or Forcier depending on how out of hand the game is.

They also have no running game. They are 96th in rushing yards against the teams listed above. Yes, they can pass, but they are going to have to chip their way down the field. I expect pressure from our DL to make some mistakes happen and kill a drive or two.

Bottom line: Indiana has 3 wins against the worst OOC schedule that money can buy. The fact that those teams were able to do anything to Indiana is very telling of their team.


September 30th, 2010 at 1:03 PM ^

I was wondering when someone was going to post about Webb's discussion of the MSU alleged rape story and lack of local media coverage.  They made the very good point that our practice scandal began with unnamed sources saying we practiced too much.  Shouldn't an unnamed source alleged rape at least produce coverage of the allegation?  It certainly isn't about whether or not the players are guilty of anything, but the lack of coverage is bizarre.

[side note...the News finally put a short "this was reported" story on-line.]

I feel like I just chummed the waters for the Freep haters.


September 30th, 2010 at 1:17 PM ^

It's hard to repeat everything that's said, and I don't want to steal their thunder or hits, but that was one of the good teaser points. (Wasn't that a caller that made that....? Was that you?  lol)  But yes, the whole idea behind no one covering it is unnamed sources and unproven allegations shouldn't be printed...but in both the Michigan sexual assault case that was dropped, and the big practicegate thing that showed the sources weren't accurate...there was no problem publishing those.

Webber's Pimp

September 30th, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^

Whether this incident is prosecutable or not, it was a disgusting display by two kids on scholarship. The disparate treatment of the players and the victim is mind-boggling to me. Let's see if there any repercussions. IMO, there won't be.


September 30th, 2010 at 1:04 PM ^

But wow what a turn around on opinion from Brian.
<br>I really don't like how manic he is. Went from we are so screwed to we are going to roll IU.
<br>While I would love to roll IU I am still concerned about their offense and frankly every game in the big ten this team (and pretty much any team in the conference) cannot take lightly.


September 30th, 2010 at 1:23 PM ^

Well, not really. But you did call him out on his negative nelly stuff.  And to flip flop to overconfidence does seem like a leap.

I mean, hey, I hope he's right, but I share concerns. Maybe the last two years have beat me down enough that I'm more level headed.  But I thought we could be 4-0 at this point. I could get excited about beating ND. But I could see problems vs. U-Mass.

I'd be happy with a double digit win, comfortable enough to never be in panic mode. It's only their second road game, and Indy could score points on us at home last year. (How many more points do we see getting against them than we did LAST year??).Though I can see some danger.  I'm not sure post U-Mass you waive a magic wand, and everything is better. But I expect to be 5-0.  


September 30th, 2010 at 7:19 PM ^

Brian is manic? Before the season I'd agree. He posted a very negative column type thing where he admitted he didn't think Rodriguez would survive and then later that week to predicted that we'd go 7-5.

But since UConn I have no idea what you're talking about. He said on the podcast and elsewhere that he thought Indiana's run defense meant we'd be able to score at will. Predicting a big win doesn't come out of the blue at all.


September 30th, 2010 at 1:08 PM ^

This is not intended to be a slam on Craig Ross, but given the breadth and depth that Brian shows during their shared segments on Thursdays, I really would like more dedicated time for just Sam, Ira, and Brian.


September 30th, 2010 at 1:19 PM ^

Am I the only one who does not share Brian's confidence that we are going to roll IU this weekend?  Not that I don't think that we SHOULD win, but this team scares me because their strength plays directly into our weakness.  They have a competent, senior, returning starter at QB and a decent crop of receivers.  While they can't run for shit, they may not have to, as I think that they will be able to march down the field through the air with regularity. 

We will obviously put up a ton of points, but I so will they.  This is one of those games that could turn on special teams and turnovers - that scares me.


September 30th, 2010 at 5:09 PM ^

that we will control the clock with our 'O'.  when that happens IU will have less time with their 'O' which i believe will translate into less points then UMass scored.  of equal importance we are now several weeks past that "defenseless" display and i believe some things have been corrected.  also worth mentioning is that we have discovered with extra time who can play and i believe we will see some athletic plays made that will also stiffle drives (i.e. turnovers) therefore allowing less points on the board.  IU scores mid 20s and our 'O' racks up awesome numbers!  GO BLUE!


September 30th, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^

...through the lenses of last year's close call.  Even if Michigan's D isn't any better (it is), the offense is executing at a level so much higher than last year that we should feel typical U-M vs. IU confidence.


September 30th, 2010 at 2:43 PM ^

Not to mention that Molk was out, which caused us to have something like 4 bad snaps, and Tate got injured in that game.

We had it pretty close to locked away when Van Bergen blew that call on that play which everyone remembers. Van Bergen single handedly destroyed their next drive. I wouldn't be surprised if we have two Hulks on the field this weekend.


September 30th, 2010 at 3:39 PM ^

But Debucks does say that other media sources had the same info he had, and decided not to run with it.

If only our own beat reporters would show this kind of discretion, instead of the always fun "Here's something that might possibly make U-M look bad -put it on the front page!" attitude. 


September 30th, 2010 at 4:02 PM ^

Brian can say whatever he wants but at the end of the day the players decide the outcome.  IU's WR's have the advantage against our secondary and they have a senior qb who last year threw for 270 with a great outcome from the running game to help him out.  This year with no visable running game we should see Chappel's numbers swell to well over 300 yards.  At the end of the day I like Michigan to power their way past the hoosiers but we will definitely be challenged during this one.  Michigan 42-33


October 1st, 2010 at 9:13 PM ^

It sounds like  Michigan Messenger didn't have All of the facts when it constructed its narrative.  It seems to me that the truth lies somewhere in between. Two new pieces of infermation came out tonight.  A statement from Dunnings and a release of an interivew transcript.  I think bad decisions were made all around.


Statement from Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III

As Prosecutor, I have prosecuted numerous prominent persons – including police officers, attorneys and athletes. In each instance, I believe that our office has handled the case regardless of status, and shown neither favor nor prejudice to any person.

I declined to prosecute a recent incident that occurred on the MSU campus. I would like to explain the reasoning behind this decision.

The Assistant Prosecutor (Debra Bouck) who initially screened this case met with the woman who reported the incident. At this point, the case was still under review. Ms. Bouck explained the legal process. As is the standard practice of this office, Ms. Bouck also questioned the Complainant regarding specific details of the incident, which were not covered in the police interview. This was done so that the young woman would understand the types of questions that she would be called to answer should the matter go to court, and also because we need to know the answers to those questions in evaluating the case.

Following this interview, Ms. Bouck indicated to the young woman that she still needed for the police to speak with a potential witness before any final decision was made. Following that further investigation, Ms. Bouck called her to indicate that no charges would be filed. Ms. Bouck also indicated the rationale for her decision and that the young woman could come in to meet with her to discuss this matter. Ms. Bouck then reviewed the case with Chief Assistant Prosecutor Lisa McCormick, who agreed with the decision.

There have been numerous reports that indicate that one of the two men “corroborated” the story told by the woman. However, the prosecutors who reviewed this case examined not only the police report, but also the actual interview of one of the men. I have attached transcripts of the police interview with one of the accused men. You can see from the transcript of the interview with the man that he did not, in fact, corroborate the facts necessary to substantiate a criminal sexual assault charge.

Based on our review of all of the materials, including the police report, actual interviews, and the specific details that were elicited directly from the Complainant, our office reached the conclusion that no crime had been committed. We therefore made the decision to decline to bring charges against the two young men.




State News  & Quotes from Suspect Interview

Based on the transcripts from one of the men interviewed, Dunnings said the man did not corroborate the facts necessary to “substantiate a criminal sexual assault charge.”

In the transcripts, the interviewee tells two detectives the victim never explicitly asked either of the men to stop while having sex.

“She didn’t say stop,” the man told the detectives. “She was like, ‘I’m done.’”

According to the transcript, the man also told detectives that when she said she was done, he stopped, but the other man allegedly involved “talked her into” continuing. She could have stopped, he told detectives during the interview.

“The tone of her voice was like, she was done, but then he talked her into it, and she just let him go,” he said. “So I mean, I don’t really. I mean see, so like, I guess he talked her into it, but she, she could have stopped.”

He also told the detectives that he told her “I wasn’t going to make you stay there.”’

“I mean, like, if she wanted to leave, she could have left because, like, I wasn’t going to make her stay there,” he says in the transcript.

The interviewee told the detectives that when he spoke to the victim after the alleged incident, she said she was “alright.”

“I was like, ‘Are you alright?’ and she’s like, ‘Yeah. You alright,’” the man told detectives. “She just told me, like, basically, like, ‘You was alright. Don’t worry about nothing.’”