Bingo...you nailed it. Its a publicity stunt that worked. No one would have heard of this otherwise and now Michigan boards are talking about it, OSU boards are talking about it.
Tony Gerdeman from the Ozone retweeted the below tweet earlier today...well stated i believe as Im sure a bunch of losers on twitter will sit and laugh at the low scores as they are leaked.
@BrendanLeister: The only reason most of you want the wonderlic score info is so you can make fun of a bunch of 22 year olds. Says more about you than them.
Here is the actual letter that OCR sent to the U of M so you can see that it does specify the investigation is as a result of a report of an assault made by a female student. The interesting thing in the letter is it asks for all sorts of data and policies only from 2011-2012 academic year on. The Gibbons incident occurred in 2009 so the focus appears to be mainly on the time after the Dept of Education mandated that universities apply Title IX in a certain way to sexual assault cases. This makes it look like the focus will be on how the university implemented policies after this mandate and how they were applied to these cases. It seems that the investigation does not look to consider the period of 2009-2011 before the mandate since it doesnt even ask for UM to provide the policies in place at that time. It will likely still involve the Gibbons case but focusing on how it was handled from 2011 on.
The investigation by the AA Police Department is completely separate from U of M's handling of it. The AA police department is concerned with any criminal issues while U of M is related to student discipline issues and ensuring a safe environment on campus. The Title IX investigation announced today is looking at how U of M handled it and their policies. For those that are interested, The Michigan Daily (the student newspaper that broke the news of the expulsion) published a pretty exhaustive piece today on the UM policy and how it has changed over the last few years ( http://www.michigandaily.com/article/4-years-3-policies-2-standards-1-respondent ).
Well, if its any comfort...OSU fans on twitter still have alot of catching up to do to look anywhere near as stupid in front of Harris given all the moron Michigan fans that tweeted at him when Harris decommitted in January.
When healthy, I think MSU has the potential to be that elite team. During their rough stretch recently, they have played much of that time missing two of Payne, Dawson, and Appling. When all of those are back, they are a much different team than wha they have been playing with recently.
Agree on this...I have posted the same in other topics. As far as Im concerned, this is the only negative issue I have with the new 11w. Everything else is great.
Regarding the recruiting forum link you embedded, I think the issue some have is the default sorting methodology is based on the number of posts a thread has. It makes much more sense to have the default sorting based on the time of last reply (most recent at the top). This was how the old site had it and quickly allowed you to see what is active. The new site still allows this but you have to twice hit the last reply link to first sort based on it and then reverse the sorting direction.
One different factor was that Jake Ryan had already redshirted earlier in his career so he was likely going to lose the year regardless. Jake Butt hasnt redshirted yet so its more of an option if it doesnt look like he will be back until late in the year.
The Cass Tech thing is interesting as there really hasnt been much production out of the recent players from there. Funny thing is Michigan has done a better job the last couple years of developing the Glenville players that OSU didnt want than developing Cass Tech players. From Glenville, Frank Clark has developed into a good defensive end and Wille Henry was a starter at defensive tackle for Michigan by the end of his redshirt freshman year last year.
Remy..If you click on FORUM at the top bar, then you select one of the boxes for the Forum Categories (like OHIO STATE RECRUITING). Once you get into that screen, there are 3 columns (Topic, Replies, Last Reply). You can click on any of the three headings to sort by that attribute and if you click again on it, it will sort in reverse order. The default seems to be Replies (from most to least # of replies). In the old version, the default was Last Reply (most recent to oldest). I dont think the new method makes sense because if you have some topic that generates 200 replies, then it will be forever at the top of the default list even when the topic becomes old and stale.
Comments are much more user friendly now with that yellow highlight showing new posts. That was the number one thing I was missing from the old version. The other thing I noticed (and assume likely others have pointed out) is the default sorting for forum items is by number of posts (most posts at the top). The old version sorted by thread with most recent posts at the top so the "current" items would be at the top instead of what might be an old item that is no longer commented on but has alot of posts. I see there is a way to change the sorting but I would think most would want the default like the old version of 11w rather than having to resort every time when viewing the forums. Thanks again for the quick changes as version 1.01 is a great improvement already.
Did Conley actually play in the Florida A&M game? The article seems skeptical of it and I cant recall hearing that before. Sometimes the participation chart can have mistakes in blowouts as it gets confusing with so many backups getting alot of playing time especially when there are often two players with the same number.
This isnt my logic...Im not defending anything as I am hoping to find out the actual timeline myself. Im just pointing out this as one of the key questions that people are hoping to have answered.
100% agree with you if Hoke knew of conclusion on Nov 20th...but the second issue was that this has not been determined whether Hoke knew of this Nov 20 finding. If he did, then you are spot on. If he didnt, then things are a bit differently. its logical to question how it is possible that he didnt know but if the university wanted to make sure to avoid any appearance of interference by the athletic department, then they may have made sure not to inform athletic department until the final ruling in December. This is why the detail of this timeline is so critical yet frustrating that it cant be determined yet.
I understand your reasoning for why you will be using that date...I guess Im just saying that there was no official punishment by the university yet as they had determined a finding but had not discussed it with him yet. I think that some believe that the Dec 4th meeting between OSCR (Office of Student Conduct Resolution) and Gibbons where they discussed their findings with him before determining penalty was a sort of appeals meeting.
Again, I feel I have to say this again because of the big "M" by my name...but I am in no way defending any of the actions or how it was handled but was just trying to get the details down. In this case, unfortunately no one knows any of the details/timelines for sure.
Just on an interesting note...Hoke will be having a scheduled press conference at 2pm tomorrow for national signing day so this will come up again. I am sure the Daily (student paper) will be at this one because it was a scheduled press conference so this will come up again tomorrow. Yesterday's conference where they were not invited was put together quickly on the day of so the Daily was not aware of it in advance...while tomorrow's is well known in advance so even if somehow they were not invited, it would be safe to say they would try to show up anyways!
I think the main thing is people are hoping to get more details on the timeline. Given the lack of details, there are still possibilities of very different timelines which would vastly affect your conclusion of how Hoke/Brandon acted.
We dont know if:
-did they know about initial finding on nov 20th and still played Gibbons on Nov 23rd
-in order to avoid any appearance of interference, was the athletic department not notified of any detail until the final decision of expulsion on Dec 19th? Then the main issue is the "family matter" comment by Hoke. But then again the Dec19th letter was sent to Gibbons. Given the privacy issues, we dont even know if Hoke knew then if Gibbons didnt tell him directly.
Just based on the two above, one could have vastly different opinions on how they handled it.
It seems much of criticism is directed more to the university in total as to how they handled it as there isnt anything yet to suggest the coaches interfered in any way.
Thanks for the quick response. Im not trying to be a pain or defend their handling of this in any manner but just wanted to fix the accuracy. I think the fix may also have an issue as he wasnt suspended on Nov 20th as you modified it to. To be honest, no one knows what that Nov 20th document meant other than it was their initial finding based on the evidence. At that point, no action was taken against Gibbons as he still had yet to have the Dec 4th meeting where they discuss the findings with him before they (the university student disciplinary office) decide on a punishment for him. The lack of details released other than the two leaked documents mentioned by the Daily makes it very hard to really know the timeline.
The reason why the Nov 20th date gets so much scrutiny is that Gibbons played at Iowa on the 23rd. Logically, everyone wants to know if the coaches knew of the Nov 20th document but still let him play. No one knows that answer unfortunately. Some may think it is unbelievable that the coaches wouldnt know of the initial finding on that date. However, it could make sense if they truly want to keep it independent. We all know that if coaches were notified early at this point, there would be accusations or wondering if attempted to interfere in the investigation. Not notifying coaches until the final decision nearly a month away at least removes any appearance of interference...but in the end, we still have no idea what the timeline was for that. But regardless clearly he wasnt suspended at that point as you changed it to as he still played on Nov 23.
Just a small correction in your dates...Gibbons was expelled in the Dec 19th letter not Nov 20th as you state. The Nov 20th document stated that a preponderance of evidence had found that he had committed an unwanted/unwelcome conduct. Gibbons them met with the internal disciplinary board on Dec 4th. Then the letter to Gibbons was sent Dec 19th.
Im not arguing against your general view but just wanted to point the inaccuracy of the statement that he was expelled on Nov 20th as that was the initial finding date but was still a month before the expulsion determination.
Yes..this whole thing seems so bizarre. I wonder how much of this drama with him and his parents is overblown and is just the paid recruiting sites creating some narrative around his situation to draw clicks. The kid has basically said close to nothing his entire recruitment yet everyone seems to talk about all this drama involving him and his parents.
As for OSU..if he chooses OSU, Im willing to bet that its because he really wants to go to OSU and thinks its the best school for him and not because of some sort of bizarre compromise with his parents. But Im sure the fans of the other schools (especially MSU but also UM) will claim he didnt even want to go to Ohio State and that the only reason was because of the compromise.
As for Michigan..the situation is bizarre also as they were supposedly his favorite awhile ago. Now the stories make it sounds like only his parents like Michigan and that he would basically go anywhere else to avoid Michigan. There seems to be little chance for Michigan but its safe to say if he does pick Michigan, fans of other schools (especially MSU) will claim that his parents forced him and he doesnt want to be there.
Of course, there is no real proof. My intention was not to say UM fans are cooler or whatever you are saying. You are implying that the fans who think its less of a rivalry win some contest or something. Thats not what i was saying and doesnt even make sense to me. I guess in the end the only statements that make sense from my posts are: its a bigger deal to the state of ohio since there are so many MSU fans around metro Detroit and rest of Michigan. Also its a bigger deal to OSU students overall since much higher percentage are in state. The Michigan students from NY and California (which are the two highest other states) did not grow up caring about OSU/Um as much as in state kids. Even this year, everyone on this board was laughing at UM student section not being full yet right before gametime of the OSU game saying there is no way that would happen at OSU. I think that is reflective of a more apathetic attitude at Michigan because a larger percentage of kids did not grow up fans of the rivalry.
The foreigners were included in the non-Ohioans number already so they were doublecounted in your original numbers. The table was a bit confusing so I can see why you made the mistake...no problem.
With the Columbus campus only, the out of state/international is 23.8% (13,677 non-Ohioans out of toal of 57,466). I agree that Columbus is relevant for this purpose and I mistakenly used all campus but this still is not the 35% stated initially
The correct comparison (just using Columbus and Ann Arbor campuses) would then be 23.8% for Columbus and 49.8% for Ann Arbor (for all students including grad).
JoeBobb - You are right. Using those same links, the 4 states (excluding MI obviously) with the most students at Michigan are California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey.
You misread the intention of my post...it wasnt supposed to be a put down of OSU but really was stating that OSU has more serious fans that appreciate the history of the rivalry. I probably could have worded things better. If you see my other post below, I think I words things better there at the end. The lifelong fans view the rivalry as just as important but due to the demographics it is fair to say the students view it as less important since about 49% are out of state/international while same number at OSU is closer to 24% (24% at Columbus campus - in below post I had 21% but that was for all OSU campuses so not relevant) . Its probably better to state that there are a higher % of serious fans for OSU than there are for Michigan and so more OSU fans have an appreciation of the rivalry.
Fair point...undergrads probably make up the bulk of students at the games so the most relevant number probably is somewhat a combination of the undergrad number (40% out of state/intl for UM) and the total number (49.8%). The total number can explain some of the general apathy on the UM campus as there is a larger percentage of grad students at UM vs OSU (based on those links, grad students are 35% of total student at Michigan while 23% at OSU-Columbus).