Talk is cheap, Dino. By the way--wasn't this the guy who quoted the line "Pride comes before the fall?"
Actually, I'm quite fine with it. It's that kind of unsubstantiated arrogance/sense of entitlement that makes him think Michigan will win just because they're Michigan. Meanwhile, they're going 7-6 (3-5 in conference) and losing the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl. And the rest of college football (if they're even paying attention to Michigan anymore) is laughing at that kind of leadership.
Good call on the 2005 game at Michigan. Best game I've ever attended.
My vote goes for 2005. I was at the game that day, I'm pretty sure everyone in the stadium thought in the 4th quarter that Michigan had the game won. To pull that one out, in their place, was amazing. Watching their troll fans walk out of the stadium with their tails between their legs was even better.
You do realize we're talking about a guy who thought skywriting (yes, skywriting) "Go Blue" over the MSU stadium on gameday was a good idea, right?
There's blind homerism, and then there's calling Brandon the best AD in the Big Ten.
Whether that's true or not, I think everyone would agree we have at least a good chance of landing Harris. MSU has no one the caliber of Harris even on their radar screen. Hence my read between the lines post re: Scott committing there.
MSU will not have another top flight RB in its class. OSU probably will. Read between the lines...
Quit whining. You spoke with a great deal of certainty and you were wrong. So people called you out over it. Big deal. My suggestion--get a thicker skin, or don't post things unless you're positive they're true.
Come on. In this day of cell phones, email, text messages and various other forms of instantaneous communication, you're going to assume that the university didn't bother to reach out via any of those methods to inform Hoke or the athletic department of such a damning determination made by the university against one of its starting players? Or was Hoke and/or the athletic department actually informed? If I were an alum or supporter of the Michigan football program--to say nothing of the broader institution--those are the questions I'd be asking. Frankly, I'm surprised Michigan fans don't want those questions answered, but would rather attack the process and perpetuate tinfoil hat theories as ridiculous as there being one letter that was accidentally tossed into the garbage.
You're really whining about down votes? Ha! Insecure much?
You're grasping at straws, M Man. The University of Michigan made that determination on November 20, and the guy suited up for the University of Michigan's football team on November 23. That is a pretty damning thing to have happened at the University of Michigan, your attempts to render the athletic department and Hoke blameless--by nothing more than pointing to the fact that there's no smoking gun--notwithstanding. At a minimum, it is (in your words) a "real question" that should be answered.
The "real question" I'd like to see Brady Hoke address is why Hoke allowed Gibbons to suit up for the Michigan football team three days AFTER university determined there is a “preponderance of evidence” to suggest Gibbons committed sexual misconduct.
"I there's a reason why Urban Meyer is the highest-paid employee in the state."
Beyond missing a word at the beginning of the sentence, it's also incorrect that Meyer's the highest paid employee in the state. I think you meant to say he's the highest paid state employee in the state. Otherwise, good article.
Nah--people going out of their way and taking to twitter to completely trash a guy's game (and revel in it) is pointless and immature, regardless of where the guy played in college.
Pointing that out? Seems OK. Reveling in it? Pointless and immature. Ask yourself which of those two more accurately describes the majority of those tweets.
Doubtful. And even if he does, it'll likely be with something similar to what Hoke had to say.
1) Of course I read that post. The entire reason I called your response childish was due to your six-year-old playground response playing off what he said.
2) You made your point once. I'm not sure why you felt the need to attack the second guy as well. Whatever your reason, calling it "defending ESPN" seems appropriate under the circumstances.
I do think you're the one that needs to calm down--you made your AP point the first time, but that wasn't enough--you had to jump back on the second poster and toss in a childish "run a mile" shot to top it off.
Look--I don't really care if OSU was named first or not, but if someone points that out, I don't see why you see it as your duty to defend ESPN.
Are you the author or something? You need to calm down and not write the same response to everyone who notices that OSU was named first.
Maybe the "OSU Under Federal Investigation" in giant letters on the front page is a bit premature until more facts are known.
Might I suggest "Office of Civil Rights declares OSU's protocols could serve as a model for other schools around the country."
Or you could look before you leap next time. Both you and M Man were wrong.
You "already destroyed" my point? Congrats for declaring yourself the victor, playground style.
Your playground antics aside, you've clearly missed the bigger point which is that Hoke (or the athletic department at Michigan) have done some really questionable things for which they have not answered. Playing Gibbons three days after the university finding is one of them. Another is keeping Clark in the starting lineup while he was charged with a felony and after he pleaded guilty to it. It's telling that you don't dispute that Hoke was starting a guy who was charged with a felony and continued to start the guy after he pleaded guilty to a felony (and before the record was expunged). There's a reason that job applications routinely not only ask about criminal convictions but also ask about expunged records. But you know that--you're just selectively choosing your facts in an attempt to paint Hoke in as good a light as possible. I'm sure you realize how bad all of this makes Michigan look.
Here you go, fella--Clark pleaded guilty to felony home invasion.
Now, you can carry on with your weak attempts to rationalize Hoke's continuing to keep Clark in the starting lineup both while felony charges were pending and after Clark pleaded guilty to them, but if I were you, I'd consider it a better use of my time to look into why Hoke and/or the athletic department are permitted to do things like this, allowing Gibbons to suit up for the football team three days after the Nov. 20 finding, etc. Your insistence on defending/rationalizing these types of things is, quite frankly, surprising to say the least. The funny part is that Michigan fans love to claim that OSU is a win at all costs program, all while these shenanigans are going on in Ann Arbor.
That's cute about Clark--he's "not legally" a convicted felon. So that's the level to which your program has sunk--that you're justifying Hoke continually playing Clark on that basis? Technicalities aside, you're (of course) choosing to ignore the time before he completed his year under the Holmes Act and therefore was, you know, a convicted felon, and during which time he was still in Brady Hoke's starting lineup and a starter for your University of Michigan football team.
On the "railroaded" issue, the title of the thread (which you chose, of course) suggests you think he was. Semantics aside, an OSU blog seems like an odd place to attempt to garner sympathy.
Bigger picture, frankly I'd think Michigan fans would have more important things with which to concern themselves, namely the state of the program (playing Gibbons three days after the university finding and playing Clark being two of the more glaring issues). This topic seems trivial in comparison, to say the very least.