I can't understand how the MSU guy also decided to go as a storm trooper when Boba Fett is both more appropriate given the design of the armor (spartan looking), and the color. Such an obvious miss. I guess I can understand since it's MSU, but still it seems so obvious if you want to go the Star Wars route...I mean, he also has the wrong helmet for his armor, so I guess he'd probably screw up Boba too.
Great article; I love the analysis of our new O. Adds a much better understanding of the danger an RPO offense poses.
That said, am I the only one that notices the incorrect use of Rock, Paper, Scissors? Lol. If our first play is "rock" and the defense counters this, then our counter to that shouldn't be paper (that's what the defense would throw to counter our rock), it would be scissors. I know rock, paper, scissors sounds nicer when labeling the plays, but it should go in reverse (rock, scissors, paper). I don't know why this popped in my head and threw me in enough funk to comment on it...I guess I must play too much RPS to settle arguments lol.
Anyway, great article. Keep up the good stuff. I'm looking forward to future editions of these when we face some real meat in our schedule!
I was thinking, after watching the D's response, Gattis could run this play again (or as a counter punch in a future game), where the TE #84 could feign a block on his man and slip out to the flat that the DB just vacated after following the jet motion. At worst, he'd be 1-on-1 with the guy on which he faked his block, and at best, he'd be wide open.
Early rounds: EDGE Taco Charlton, CB Jourdan Lewis, S Jabrill Peppers, DE Chris Wormley Middle rounds: TE Jake Butt (injury), WR Amara Darboh, OT Erik Magnuson, RB De'Veon Smith Late rounds: OG Ben Braden, WR Jehu Chesson, LB Ben Gedeon, DT Ryan Glasgow, S Delano Hill, OG Kyle Kalis, CB Channing Stribling, S Dymonte Thomas
I thought Stribling was applying for a medical redshirt? Was that denied already or did he declare for the draft? Or is this just the analyst's best guess with current knowledge and assuming everyone eligible declares?
I mean to say I take back the argument on issue of whether it was only groping/etc. and whether there was penetration involved. If both parties admit to sex then I see no point doubting that that occurred. My other points concerning the issues and problems I have with relying on an administrative body remain.
No, actually I haven't seen it yet. Do you have a link? I'll take what you say at your word, in which case I take back my statements on whether sexual misconduct = rape in this case.
You and I as attorneys might well appeal to our deaths; however, I have met and heard of many people that don't appeal decisions that I thought they should. Moreover, the reasons they have to do so are their decisions and in many situations appear reasonable. First, Gibbons likely was not represented. Second, if the evidence against him was primarily built on what the victim said, then that would be very difficult to disprove. Third, we don't know what the standard of review would be (substantial evidence, clear error, de novo); depending on the standard of review, an appeal might be extremely unlikely to succeed. If you have only a 5% chance of success, then you might think that appealing, starting the spring sememster (to which you will have to pay for), dealing with the stress associated with both, and not knowing when that decision would be reached (a few weeks, a month, half way through the semester?), then it might not be an unreasonable decision to cut your losses. To put it another way, how many people take plea deals even though they disagree with the charges or decision? How many pay various tickets they disagree with merely because fighting them is too difficult or they don't expect to win.
As for giving interviews, it seems reasonable to me that he wouldn't want to make this a bigger issue. The decision was supposed to be kept confidential. He chose not to appeal. What kind of interview could he give that would instantly clear his name and convince everyone out there that he's a good guy? The mere accusation of rape or sexual misconduct is often enough for people to assume that you did it. An interview, however, would only make this a bigger deal that would be picked up by more news agencies.
I agree, and I didn't mean to provide an example that minimizes anything and I apologize if I've caused offense. However, I look at this as an attorney would and I supposed I was trying to make two points without writing too much. First, is the point that I hope I clarified: that we don't know what the decider of fact in this situation actually found (rape, misconduct, etc.). Second, we really don't know that he actually raped her according to the lega definition. From what I've read here, she alleged rape and he defended that they did make out but that it was consentual (unfortunately, I can't find the previous article on here to verify the exact language). He did not say that they had sex. Although she said rape, we really don't know whether at that time she knew the legal definition of that offense. If he forced himself on her, groped her, and repeatedly kissed her against her will (certainly a horrible thing, and I mean not to minimize this horrible act in any way), then she might call that rape. It certainly would be an impermissable touching. However, for "rape" most jurisdictions require some sort of penetration, which may not have occured. Or it may have occured (her definition of rape could very reasonably be the same as the legal one). We just don't know and that's the point I'm making. For myself, I choose not to condem another based solely on assumptions made on the conclusions of a system ripe with error (see differences between legal system and administrative).
I write this not to argue with you (both because you are entitled to your opinion and because it seems we largely agree but merely misunderstood each other). Rather, I write this to clarify in hopes that others don't misunderstand my point.
I'm not saying that it was by 50.1%, but the point is that it could have been 70%, 60%, 55%, 53%, 51%, etc. We just don't know. We also don't know what evidence it was decided on or who made the decision or whether there may have been bias in the decision or whether Gibbons had any representation.
Sure, he didn't appeal, but that doesn't mean he's guilty either. If the evidence in this case was her allegations and possibly those of a few others she told (I sincerely doubt there was any eye witnesses in this case), then it would simply have come down to a he said she said situation. Moreover, it would have been based on their memories of something that happened 4 years ago. There have been numerous studies that have shown that witness testimony (including eye witnesses and victims), is not nearly as accurate or reliable as we like to think it is. Moreover, memory of events that happened 4 years ago would be far from accurate. Yes, there would be police reports, but those to would be based on the victims allegations. I'm not saying he's innocent or you aren't entitled to your opinion; indeed, I even noted that people are. I just think we should all step back and consider if more than 50% is enough. Even beyond a reasonable doubt judgements by 12 jury members have been incorrect and sentenced people to life terms and death. We have far less than that here. I wouldn't bet my life on some unknown amount of "more than 50%" and so I don't think I should destroy someone elses on that either.
My point is that they didn't need to find rape to expel him. As such, it could well be that there was not a proponderance to prove that he "raped" her, but that there was enough to show some "misconduct."
I'm not sure why you feel compelled to think Lewan and Gibbons are scumbags (although you are free to your opinion), or why a proponderance of the evidence makes people assume that Gibbons is guilty of rape. A proponderance of evidence only requires the barest amount more than 50% (50.1% would surfice). The simple truth is that we don't know how much evidence there was, which means there could well be 49.9% of a chance that Gibbons is not guilty. This seems like far too great a chance of innocence for me to judge someone a rapist. Moreover, we don't know what the university found Gibbons did. It could have been rape, but it also could have been sexual misconduct of another nature (e.g., kissing/groping someone without consent against their will). Yeah, this would still be bad, but to me isn't quite the same as raping someone.
As for the article as a whole, I thought it was very informative and appreciate that it published everything in one place.
I do, however, disagree in point 8 that the legal system failed. The legal system requires that the charges be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury consisting of at least 6 individuals (usualy 12). Although beyond a reasonable doubt is not--and cannot--be defined in any percentage, it is certainly far greater than the proponderance of evidence standard. Moreover, the legal system is governed by procedures and rules of evidence that mostly do not apply in administrative actions. For this reason, I do not think it fair to decry a legal system that was purposefully created so that individuals are not falsy prosecuted. There are already too many incidents where individuals are found guilty of rape, murder, and other heinous acts by the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, and are later proven to be innocent. Most of these cases, in fact, rely heavily on the victim's testimony and do not have DNA evidence, much as the situation here.
Finally, one final thought before people come to judge/hate Gibbons in this case: the Universities proceedings are far below and far less reliable than our legal systems. First, the University's standard of judgement (proponderance of evidence) is far less than the criminal requirements, which decreases the accuracy and reliability of the decision. Second, the decision is made by as few as one person in the University's system, whereas a criminal proceeding requires at least 6, which increases the chances of bias and decreases the reliability of the decision by the University. Third, the relaxed rules of evidence in an administrative action allow for a greater chance of bias and unreliability. Fourth, the University's proceedings are kept secret to the public, whereas criminal proceedings are open to the public; this, again, allows for a greater chance of bias and decreases reliability as the proceedings cannot be evaluated by objective observers.
I don't think that's the implication here, but your conclusion is still good. The implication is not that Hoke is forcing Borges into this offense. Rather, I think the personnel and their development is forcing Borges hand and he is running something he isn't quite comfortable with. Whether he should adapt better or not ultimately will fuel whether people think he should go. Nonetheless, I think the question also has to be what your OC hiring policy is. Are you hiring them knowing they will have middling success with the wrong personnel during a transition but that when they can fully impliment their system with their personnel they will be very successful; or, are you hiring them expecting them to be able to be like a swiss army knife and be able to have good success regardless of the system or personnel? While I would love an OC would is able to adapt to all personnel and schemes, this is likely a very hard to find, especially given that they have to fit the demands/personality of the head coach. If, on the other hand, that OC is skilled enought that you will be very successful once he gets all his pieces into place, then you can still have a great team at the cost of some middling performances until then. I think the football programs probably plan for the long-term and ultimately, I favor this approach as well.
Recent Comments
And when we go to the national championship, that will be played in 2022 (twenty, twenty-two): 20 + 22 = 42
Don't preseason numbers drop at a certain point? I would think they'd fall out by (or at least around) week 6, but I could certainly be wrong.
I can't understand how the MSU guy also decided to go as a storm trooper when Boba Fett is both more appropriate given the design of the armor (spartan looking), and the color. Such an obvious miss. I guess I can understand since it's MSU, but still it seems so obvious if you want to go the Star Wars route...I mean, he also has the wrong helmet for his armor, so I guess he'd probably screw up Boba too.
Great article; I love the analysis of our new O. Adds a much better understanding of the danger an RPO offense poses.
That said, am I the only one that notices the incorrect use of Rock, Paper, Scissors? Lol. If our first play is "rock" and the defense counters this, then our counter to that shouldn't be paper (that's what the defense would throw to counter our rock), it would be scissors. I know rock, paper, scissors sounds nicer when labeling the plays, but it should go in reverse (rock, scissors, paper). I don't know why this popped in my head and threw me in enough funk to comment on it...I guess I must play too much RPS to settle arguments lol.
Anyway, great article. Keep up the good stuff. I'm looking forward to future editions of these when we face some real meat in our schedule!
I was thinking, after watching the D's response, Gattis could run this play again (or as a counter punch in a future game), where the TE #84 could feign a block on his man and slip out to the flat that the DB just vacated after following the jet motion. At worst, he'd be 1-on-1 with the guy on which he faked his block, and at best, he'd be wide open.
Early rounds: EDGE Taco Charlton, CB Jourdan Lewis, S Jabrill Peppers, DE Chris Wormley
Middle rounds: TE Jake Butt (injury), WR Amara Darboh, OT Erik Magnuson, RB De'Veon Smith
Late rounds: OG Ben Braden, WR Jehu Chesson, LB Ben Gedeon, DT Ryan Glasgow, S Delano Hill, OG Kyle Kalis, CB Channing Stribling, S Dymonte Thomas
I thought Stribling was applying for a medical redshirt? Was that denied already or did he declare for the draft? Or is this just the analyst's best guess with current knowledge and assuming everyone eligible declares?
I mean to say I take back the argument on issue of whether it was only groping/etc. and whether there was penetration involved. If both parties admit to sex then I see no point doubting that that occurred. My other points concerning the issues and problems I have with relying on an administrative body remain.
No, actually I haven't seen it yet. Do you have a link? I'll take what you say at your word, in which case I take back my statements on whether sexual misconduct = rape in this case.
You and I as attorneys might well appeal to our deaths; however, I have met and heard of many people that don't appeal decisions that I thought they should. Moreover, the reasons they have to do so are their decisions and in many situations appear reasonable. First, Gibbons likely was not represented. Second, if the evidence against him was primarily built on what the victim said, then that would be very difficult to disprove. Third, we don't know what the standard of review would be (substantial evidence, clear error, de novo); depending on the standard of review, an appeal might be extremely unlikely to succeed. If you have only a 5% chance of success, then you might think that appealing, starting the spring sememster (to which you will have to pay for), dealing with the stress associated with both, and not knowing when that decision would be reached (a few weeks, a month, half way through the semester?), then it might not be an unreasonable decision to cut your losses. To put it another way, how many people take plea deals even though they disagree with the charges or decision? How many pay various tickets they disagree with merely because fighting them is too difficult or they don't expect to win.
As for giving interviews, it seems reasonable to me that he wouldn't want to make this a bigger issue. The decision was supposed to be kept confidential. He chose not to appeal. What kind of interview could he give that would instantly clear his name and convince everyone out there that he's a good guy? The mere accusation of rape or sexual misconduct is often enough for people to assume that you did it. An interview, however, would only make this a bigger deal that would be picked up by more news agencies.
I agree, and I didn't mean to provide an example that minimizes anything and I apologize if I've caused offense. However, I look at this as an attorney would and I supposed I was trying to make two points without writing too much. First, is the point that I hope I clarified: that we don't know what the decider of fact in this situation actually found (rape, misconduct, etc.). Second, we really don't know that he actually raped her according to the lega definition. From what I've read here, she alleged rape and he defended that they did make out but that it was consentual (unfortunately, I can't find the previous article on here to verify the exact language). He did not say that they had sex. Although she said rape, we really don't know whether at that time she knew the legal definition of that offense. If he forced himself on her, groped her, and repeatedly kissed her against her will (certainly a horrible thing, and I mean not to minimize this horrible act in any way), then she might call that rape. It certainly would be an impermissable touching. However, for "rape" most jurisdictions require some sort of penetration, which may not have occured. Or it may have occured (her definition of rape could very reasonably be the same as the legal one). We just don't know and that's the point I'm making. For myself, I choose not to condem another based solely on assumptions made on the conclusions of a system ripe with error (see differences between legal system and administrative).
I write this not to argue with you (both because you are entitled to your opinion and because it seems we largely agree but merely misunderstood each other). Rather, I write this to clarify in hopes that others don't misunderstand my point.
I'm not saying that it was by 50.1%, but the point is that it could have been 70%, 60%, 55%, 53%, 51%, etc. We just don't know. We also don't know what evidence it was decided on or who made the decision or whether there may have been bias in the decision or whether Gibbons had any representation.
Sure, he didn't appeal, but that doesn't mean he's guilty either. If the evidence in this case was her allegations and possibly those of a few others she told (I sincerely doubt there was any eye witnesses in this case), then it would simply have come down to a he said she said situation. Moreover, it would have been based on their memories of something that happened 4 years ago. There have been numerous studies that have shown that witness testimony (including eye witnesses and victims), is not nearly as accurate or reliable as we like to think it is. Moreover, memory of events that happened 4 years ago would be far from accurate. Yes, there would be police reports, but those to would be based on the victims allegations. I'm not saying he's innocent or you aren't entitled to your opinion; indeed, I even noted that people are. I just think we should all step back and consider if more than 50% is enough. Even beyond a reasonable doubt judgements by 12 jury members have been incorrect and sentenced people to life terms and death. We have far less than that here. I wouldn't bet my life on some unknown amount of "more than 50%" and so I don't think I should destroy someone elses on that either.
My point is that they didn't need to find rape to expel him. As such, it could well be that there was not a proponderance to prove that he "raped" her, but that there was enough to show some "misconduct."
I'm not sure why you feel compelled to think Lewan and Gibbons are scumbags (although you are free to your opinion), or why a proponderance of the evidence makes people assume that Gibbons is guilty of rape. A proponderance of evidence only requires the barest amount more than 50% (50.1% would surfice). The simple truth is that we don't know how much evidence there was, which means there could well be 49.9% of a chance that Gibbons is not guilty. This seems like far too great a chance of innocence for me to judge someone a rapist. Moreover, we don't know what the university found Gibbons did. It could have been rape, but it also could have been sexual misconduct of another nature (e.g., kissing/groping someone without consent against their will). Yeah, this would still be bad, but to me isn't quite the same as raping someone.
As for the article as a whole, I thought it was very informative and appreciate that it published everything in one place.
I do, however, disagree in point 8 that the legal system failed. The legal system requires that the charges be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury consisting of at least 6 individuals (usualy 12). Although beyond a reasonable doubt is not--and cannot--be defined in any percentage, it is certainly far greater than the proponderance of evidence standard. Moreover, the legal system is governed by procedures and rules of evidence that mostly do not apply in administrative actions. For this reason, I do not think it fair to decry a legal system that was purposefully created so that individuals are not falsy prosecuted. There are already too many incidents where individuals are found guilty of rape, murder, and other heinous acts by the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, and are later proven to be innocent. Most of these cases, in fact, rely heavily on the victim's testimony and do not have DNA evidence, much as the situation here.
Finally, one final thought before people come to judge/hate Gibbons in this case: the Universities proceedings are far below and far less reliable than our legal systems. First, the University's standard of judgement (proponderance of evidence) is far less than the criminal requirements, which decreases the accuracy and reliability of the decision. Second, the decision is made by as few as one person in the University's system, whereas a criminal proceeding requires at least 6, which increases the chances of bias and decreases the reliability of the decision by the University. Third, the relaxed rules of evidence in an administrative action allow for a greater chance of bias and unreliability. Fourth, the University's proceedings are kept secret to the public, whereas criminal proceedings are open to the public; this, again, allows for a greater chance of bias and decreases reliability as the proceedings cannot be evaluated by objective observers.
I don't think that's the implication here, but your conclusion is still good. The implication is not that Hoke is forcing Borges into this offense. Rather, I think the personnel and their development is forcing Borges hand and he is running something he isn't quite comfortable with. Whether he should adapt better or not ultimately will fuel whether people think he should go. Nonetheless, I think the question also has to be what your OC hiring policy is. Are you hiring them knowing they will have middling success with the wrong personnel during a transition but that when they can fully impliment their system with their personnel they will be very successful; or, are you hiring them expecting them to be able to be like a swiss army knife and be able to have good success regardless of the system or personnel? While I would love an OC would is able to adapt to all personnel and schemes, this is likely a very hard to find, especially given that they have to fit the demands/personality of the head coach. If, on the other hand, that OC is skilled enought that you will be very successful once he gets all his pieces into place, then you can still have a great team at the cost of some middling performances until then. I think the football programs probably plan for the long-term and ultimately, I favor this approach as well.