In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 94
Online now 218 Record: 7264 (3/12/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I don't buy the "if it was another team, we'd be critical" comment. Maybe YOU would be.
And I definitely don't buy the "if Fitz plays, we're no better than MSU/Dantonio" comment that Steve from Tremendous tweeted, I believe it was.
To be Dantonio, for example, Fitzgerald needed to have been driving under the influence, and then left someone else almost paralyzed after hitting them (resulting in a fractured skull, five stitches inside the mouth, and a subdural hematoma), be jailed for four months, and then be immediately reinstated by Hoke when he stepped foot out of jail.
To be Dantonio, Michigan would have had 8 players suspended indefinitely for an on-campus...mauling, only to have that reduced to one game by Hoke for three of the most important players.
To be Dantonio, Lewan would have committed several flagrant fouls, including taking a player's helmet and violently twisting it after the whistle...and Hoke would have had to pull him aside, give him a stern browbeating, and send him right back into the game. Thing is, Dantonio has SEVERAL of these lax examples of discipline, and was given a free pass by the FREEP when they were in the midst of their RR jihad.
Fitz screwed up - first offense, to my knowledge. Doozy of an offense, yes. Who knows the details of his DUI save he drank and drove? And NOBODY knows how he was disciplined or the full extent of that discipline save Fitz, perhaps a few players, and the coaching staff. IF Fitz plays, I will assume that whatever discipline was meted out was sufficient, that Fitz's acceptance of said discipline was in line with what they expected, and that Fitz was told if he even so much as toes the line of screwing up again, his punished would be extremely severe. Roughly five weeks will have transpired since he was suspended indefinitely; am sure he's been in the doghouse the majority of that time - if not all. I don't need to "see" the discipline.
I find it amusing that people are so quick to overlook a previous example of discipline. Stonum had screwed up previously under RR I believe, but I'm sure that was taken into consideration when they made him essentially sit out a year (the redshirt) after screwing up for the "first time" under them. He screwed up again, and was dismissed. This was arguably our most dangerous down field threat. He was sent packing.
There were no complaints about how that was handled (that I can recall), so am not sure why he would not be given the benefit of the doubt here.
This post has been edited 4 times, most recently by Kenetic 20 months ago
I'm sorry, but you can come up with 100 different reasons why Fitz should play, that the sentenced was reduced, that he already served his punishment, etc., etc., but the fact is, he should sit. If we were opening against UMass, this wouldn't even be a discussion. He would be suspended, we would still win by 30 and we would all move on. Just because it's Alabama, that shouldn't change.
Contrary to what some have said, I believe a public punishment does mean something. This is bigger than just Fitz. It's bigger than whatever some bucknut or little brother trolls might have to say about it. It's about the integrity of the program. You can talk around it all day long, but if he plays, that integrity will take a hit. And that means something.
I for one, will be thoroughly disappointed in Hoke if he misses the big picture on this one (which, btw, I don't think he will).
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by BobUfer 20 months ago
Thank you. These are my exact feelings on the topic. You cannot overlook the penalties these coaches have levied already and say that this example is going to be the precedent.
The coaches suspended arguably our best WR, our only experienced punter, and a kid who was thought to be a contributing RB (Hopkins) for the first couple games last season even though those games were going to be their first impression on the fanbase.
It feels like some of our fans are more worried about what Sparty and Buckeye posters will say about the topic than what our coaches and program think about the situation. Guess what, Sparty and Buckeye fans are going to troll us no matter what. They will always disagree with how our coaches handle a situation, so who cares what they say on this topic? I'm sure our coaches don't care what they, or the media, have to say and are going to do whatever is best for the program. If that is a suspension, great. If it's not, great.
Part of me is thinking that Fitz will be suspended, and in the press conference announcing it, Hoke will say the decision had been made a while ago. To which some reporter will inevitably ask why Hoke didn't announce it earlier. And Hoke will answer something along the lines of "Because it's none of your damn business." In my fantasy, it was Drew Sharp who asked this question, to which he then pooped his pants and left the press conference room crying. No matter if Fitz plays or not, I really want that last part to happen to Drew Sharp.
He shouldn't play. It makes us look bad even Dantonio esque to play a guy right after he got a DUI even if it's a misdemeanor.
We are college football
No, your opinion is he should sit.
It isn't "fact." Not by a long shot.
If you were directing your "you can come up with" comment towards me, frankly I couldn't care less what happens. I simply disagree with the "if he plays, we're comparable" to comments for the reasons I stated.
And lol, right on cue...
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Kenetic 20 months ago
Every week i email drew sharp and tell him how bad he sucks at life and how he should resign. Hate the prick. But to get back to it there is no way that Fitz should play. Were better then that
I'm a coach and I find that establishing clear, transparent punishments (which tend to be public) yield better results.
For one, the team realizes that no one - not even a star player - is above the rules and also respects the coach for taking a hard-line stance.
This post was edited by Frank C 20 months ago
* * * N E O . R E T R O * * *
Exactly, all kids want to play and when they're not given the chance to they won't repeat the incident. Besides, if we bite the bullet now it will persuade other kids to keep clean. We have more to gain in the long run.
Really? You sure about that?
Let's take Tyrone Mathieu, who was suspended one game in 2011 for...testing positive for synthetic marijuana.
And then he did it again. So...yes there are kids who will "repeat the incident," regardless.
We either stand by a standard, or we don't.
I will still respect Hoke no matter what, but I think that our standards will have eroded a little bit. I am not comparing us to any other school... I am only talking as a Michigan grad and fan.
But in the long scheme, I would rather we have one player who made a grievous error miss this game. Sorry, but that is my 2 cents.
You have to give the young man a second chance everyone deserves that. That being said I believe Hoke needs to take the high road on this one and sit him for the first two games of the season.
I'm not directing my comment at anyone in particular. And I agree with you that this situation isn't necessarily comparable to others that have been mentioned. But in my mind, that doesn't matter. This is still a black and white decision. If Hoke wants to live up to the Michigan standard that he talks so strongly about, then Fitz should sit. If he plays, that standard won't be as high as many of us would like to believe it is.
Ok, I'm done beating this one to death...
They aren't always going to act smartly, but it certainly helps to have Hoke tell his kids that they could end up riding the pine like Toussaint if they are found doing anything illegal.
I don't think he'll play.
11 National Titles | 42 Conference Titles | 3 Heisman Winners | 78 All-Americans | 37 College Hall of Fame Members
I agree with you, but who knows?
Drove on a suspended license back in 2010
I definitely think he should sit a game. I don't care about the "well OSU or MSU or ND would have let him played" if we want to be held to a higher standard then them we need to constantly prove it.
Get out of here you tool.
He won't play
With all due respect, I have to disagree with you on a few points.
1. I know that character issues are contagious and can hamper a program. Punishment that is consistent and public help mold the image and attitude of the program and players.
2. I read the Stonum issue very differently. Stonum was suspended for a game after his first arrest. If Fitzgerald doesn't get that same penalty, then there is one obvious reason for it: Alabama. If these punishments aren't consistent, they look like Urban Meyer "Circle of Trust" bullshit.
C'mon Woody, really? There's no comparison at this point until we see if Fifz plays. If Hoke's just keeping Bama guessing and sits him out, kudos to him for being a stand up coach. If Fitz plays, you all lose any moral high road in your "win at all costs" claim.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think your fan base would be saying about Urban if this situation was reversed? Honest answers appreciated as I've seen you tend to agree with Fitz sitting, which I applaud you for.
This post was edited by pd5811 20 months ago
Agree. If Fitz blew a .12 he needs to sit for a game or two no matter how much it hurts. Hoke's a smart guy who will do the right thing for the long term.
This post was edited by Tom May 20 months ago
I don't care either way. Hoke will do what is best for Fitz and for the team.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports