Izzo on the Tunnel

duffy munn wrote:

DWags wrote:

What’s SLS fans?

Guessing self loathing spartans

duffy munn wrote:

DWags wrote:

What’s SLS fans?

Guessing self loathing spartans

DWags wrote:

duffy munn wrote:

Guessing self loathing spartans

I don’t even know what Reddit is. I’m assuming another forum like twitter?

MrMojoRisin wrote:If Haller had half of Izzo's moxy he might be a great AD.  Poor leadership from Haller sadly.

MrMojoRisin wrote:If Haller had half of Izzo's moxy he might be a great AD. Poor leadership from Haller sadly.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MrMojoRisin wrote:If Haller had half of Izzo's moxy he might be a great AD. Poor leadership from Haller sadly.

Problem with thoughts like this and what dwags said earlier in the thread is that we simply do not have all of the facts.

Did the big ten originally want a million dollar fine, kick the players out of the big ten forever, and public apologies to jim harbaugh and for Tucker to place flowers on harbaugh’s grave? And that was all negotiated down to what we saw yesterday? Do we know?

We don’t. All we know is what we saw yesterday. We can’t say that we capitulated to the big ten and just gave them whatever they wanted without push back since we don’t know what the big ten actually wanted. We’re just assuming the result is what the wanted, but how do we know?

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

MrMojoRisin wrote:If Haller had half of Izzo's moxy he might be a great AD. Poor leadership from Haller sadly.

Is administrating while black the same as coaching while black? Does Haller believe that to be true? (probably)

Just more kindling for the um hatred fire.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Problem with thoughts like this and what dwags said earlier in the thread is that we simply do not have all of the facts.

Did the big ten originally want a million dollar fine, kick the players out of the big ten forever, and public apologies to jim harbaugh and for Tucker to place flowers on harbaugh’s grave? And that was all negotiated down to what we saw yesterday? Do we know?

We don’t. All we know is what we saw yesterday. We can’t say that we capitulated to the big ten and just gave them whatever they wanted without push back since we don’t know what the big ten actually wanted. We’re just assuming the result is what the wanted, but how do we know?

True enough.

Why MSU is being punished for UofM's lack of control is puzzling, however.

MrMojoRisin wrote:If Haller had half of Izzo's moxy he might be a great AD. Poor leadership from Haller sadly.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

MrMojoRisin wrote:If Haller had half of Izzo's moxy he might be a great AD. Poor leadership from Haller sadly.

Is administrating while black the same as coaching while black? Does Haller believe that to be true? (probably)

Just more kindling for the um hatred fire.

Turtleneck wrote:Can you cite other times with fanboy prosecutors used the judicial system to punish a rival? I’ll wait, bro.

NigelUno wrote:I still don't understand why a 4 game suspension was warranted. Just because we were waiting for the Big Ten? If the message from Tucker (to the team) is that behavior like this won't be tolerated, then OK...I'll live with that.

2 game max based on previous suspensions should have been fine though.

And how the hell can the Big Ten impose fines, rule on suspensions, and lengthen a suspension (in a less than timely manner)...and not do a damn thing about a kid making racist comments on the ice? Why did our player have to bring that to light?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Problem with thoughts like this and what dwags said earlier in the thread is that we simply do not have all of the facts.

Did the big ten originally want a million dollar fine, kick the players out of the big ten forever, and public apologies to jim harbaugh and for Tucker to place flowers on harbaugh’s grave? And that was all negotiated down to what we saw yesterday? Do we know?

We don’t. All we know is what we saw yesterday. We can’t say that we capitulated to the big ten and just gave them whatever they wanted without push back since we don’t know what the big ten actually wanted. We’re just assuming the result is what the wanted, but how do we know?

True enough.

Why MSU is being punished for UofM's lack of control is puzzling, however.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

True enough.

Why MSU is being punished for UofM's lack of control is puzzling, however.

Because MSU players were on video hitting uofm players in the tunnel. Maybe.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Can you cite other times with fanboy prosecutors used the judicial system to punish a rival? I’ll wait, bro.

I’ll get back to you if i can find fanboy prosecutors.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Because MSU players were on video hitting uofm players in the tunnel. Maybe.

First of all, what the players do is on the players, not MSU.

If MSU didn't have rules or policies on this, then the B1G could fine MSU for it.

The direct cause of the fight, from an institution POV, as Izzo among others points out, was UofM's lack of control of entrance to the tunnel.  This is what needs to be corrected and this is what the institutions fine should mainly be about.

If there are to be fines for the actions of the players, then they should be "per-player", thus 7 fines to MSU at whatever the fine for fighting is, 2 fines to UofM for whatever the fine for fighting is, and 2 fines to UofM for the players not following the tunnel procedures. (Just like most workplaces, when there is a fight both parties are at fault)

In addition, there should be a team fine to UofM for taunting after the end of the game.

If the B1G was really "by-the-book" this is what would have happened.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

First of all, what the players do is on the players, not MSU.

If MSU didn't have rules or policies on this, then the B1G could fine MSU for it.

The direct cause of the fight, from an institution POV, as Izzo among others points out, was UofM's lack of control of entrance to the tunnel.  This is what needs to be corrected and this is what the institutions fine should mainly be about.

If there are to be fines for the actions of the players, then they should be "per-player", thus 7 fines to MSU at whatever the fine for fighting is, 2 fines to UofM for whatever the fine for fighting is, and 2 fines to UofM for the players not following the tunnel procedures. (Just like most workplaces, when there is a fight both parties are at fault)

In addition, there should be a team fine to UofM for taunting after the end of the game.

If the B1G was really "by-the-book" this is what would have happened.

Sorry i misunderstood your post. You were talking about the fine not the suspensions. Got it. Yeah fine doesn’t make sense. Suspensions do  

Trapper Gus wrote:

NigelUno wrote:I still don't understand why a 4 game suspension was warranted. Just because we were waiting for the Big Ten? If the message from Tucker (to the team) is that behavior like this won't be tolerated, then OK...I'll live with that.

2 game max based on previous suspensions should have been fine though.

And how the hell can the Big Ten impose fines, rule on suspensions, and lengthen a suspension (in a less than timely manner)...and not do a damn thing about a kid making racist comments on the ice? Why did our player have to bring that to light?

The 4 game suspensions were not justified, but while the players were under investigation there was nothing MSU could do.

The B1G is a shit organization which bows down to OSU / UofM and fucks the rest of the conference in the ass.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Agree that there’s no way tucker can say something remotely close to what izzo said and come away from it positively. This response, like having his bball team 5-2 was another izzo masterclass.

He is literally the face of the university and he came out swinging. Wish he mentioned more incidents that UofM has gotten away with, but he was fired up and probably didn’t plan this.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Agree that there’s no way tucker can say something remotely close to what izzo said and come away from it positively. This response, like having his bball team 5-2 was another izzo masterclass.

He is literally the face of the university and he came out swinging. Wish he mentioned more incidents that UofM has gotten away with, but he was fired up and probably didn’t plan this.

True. Izzo has experience with media going after him for ridiculous shit, like lunging at a player. He has experience with media tying him to things that he wasn't involved in, like Nassar's abuses. He has experience with local media members who know better but can't or won't set the record straight. He's also seen the same things happen to the football coaches, and he's seen the vastly different treatment Michigan gets. This has to be infuriating for him. I appreciate the pointed but restrained way he handled that.

NigelUno wrote:Goodbar.  

Trapper Gus wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:Haven't felt like typing it all out, but since the night of the altercation,  UM and the media have been up front with some racist dog whistling.

Yes, the altercation was some black dudes going at it. Since then, it's been all gasping and pearl-clutching with a strong helping of racist insinuations from UM and the media. Using words like "jumped", I've seen/heard "thugs" thrown around.. a black head coach who has a penchant for gold chains, fancy cars and swagger vs the khaki-wearing Savior from the "Harvard of the Midwest ".

I could go on.. but I won't. Loved Izzo's take, by the way. That's my guy right there and, yes, he's being the unofficial spokesperson for MSU because he can be. Love it.

Also, I think Tuck can (and will) play this like a drum when given the chance. When sitting in a recruit's living room, who do you think has a young black recruits back? The guy who knowingly sends expendable players into a tunnel to start some shit or the coach who knows what it's like to have to keep your hands on the steering wheel and out of your pockets when they're near a cop?

This is what Tucker has been trying to avoid in public. If he said anything critical the dog whistles would increase in volume, which sucks but it is what it is.

No mention of the thuggish behavior on the UofM side?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I get the feeling that MSU, Tuck, Haller went into 'damage control' too quickly due to the back-channel relationship UM has with the media.

I suspect if they had it to do over again, there would've been a more measured response vs. a quick reaction. Maybe lesson learned for the next time UM baits players into a situation then plays whiny, sanctimonious victim to the sympathetic media?

Hope so.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Can you cite other times with fanboy prosecutors used the judicial system to punish a rival? I’ll wait, bro.

You kinda changed what you said. Your post said manipulating the legal system for relative gain. I’ll get back to you if i can find fanboy prosecutors.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Bob says harbaugh sent expendable players into the tunnel to start shit? I didn’t know that. Wasn’t one of the guys covering Coleman in the secondary?

Nordic wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

You kinda changed what you said. Your post said manipulating the legal system for relative gain. I’ll get back to you if i can find fanboy prosecutors.

Does Dana Nessel / Dr. Anderson count?

NigelUno wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

The 4 game suspensions were not justified, but while the players were under investigation there was nothing MSU could do.

The B1G is a shit organization which bows down to OSU / UofM and fucks the rest of the conference in the ass.

OSU's hockey player was allowed to play while the Big Ten "investigated".

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Can you cite other times with fanboy prosecutors used the judicial system to punish a rival? I’ll wait, bro.

You kinda changed what you said. Your post said manipulating the legal system for relative gain. I’ll get back to you if i can find fanboy prosecutors.

Nordic wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

OSU's hockey player was allowed to play while the Big Ten "investigated".

He meant the criminal investigation. I believe Tucker confirmed they would remain suspended pending this outcome. And the BIG was in turn waiting on the prosecutor. The criminal charges (and video) make these very different circumstances.

NigelUno wrote:

Nordic wrote:

He meant the criminal investigation. I believe Tucker confirmed they would remain suspended pending this outcome. And the BIG was in turn waiting on the prosecutor. The criminal charges (and video) make these very different circumstances.

Not sure why the Big Ten had to wait on anything. A punch got a few basketball players one game last year. Seems like a standard has been set. Just because a local prosecutor wants to make a stink shouldn't necessarily impact the Big Ten.

And the Big Ten investigated and didn't do jack shit about a racist comment.

So, I think deferring to their decision making process (and punishment) is kinda dumb.

But, I could be wrong.

NigelUno wrote:

Nordic wrote:

He meant the criminal investigation. I believe Tucker confirmed they would remain suspended pending this outcome. And the BIG was in turn waiting on the prosecutor. The criminal charges (and video) make these very different circumstances.

Not sure why the Big Ten had to wait on anything. A punch got a few basketball players one game last year. Seems like a standard has been set. Just because a local prosecutor wants to make a stink shouldn't necessarily impact the Big Ten.

And the Big Ten investigated and didn't do jack shit about a racist comment.

So, I think deferring to their decision making process (and punishment) is kinda dumb.

But, I could be wrong.

Nordic wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Not sure why the Big Ten had to wait on anything. A punch got a few basketball players one game last year. Seems like a standard has been set. Just because a local prosecutor wants to make a stink shouldn't necessarily impact the Big Ten.

And the Big Ten investigated and didn't do jack shit about a racist comment.

So, I think deferring to their decision making process (and punishment) is kinda dumb.

But, I could be wrong.

You would have to ask them.

Trapper Gus wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Not sure why the Big Ten had to wait on anything. A punch got a few basketball players one game last year. Seems like a standard has been set. Just because a local prosecutor wants to make a stink shouldn't necessarily impact the Big Ten.

And the Big Ten investigated and didn't do jack shit about a racist comment.

So, I think deferring to their decision making process (and punishment) is kinda dumb.

But, I could be wrong.

If they were an honest organization you would be correct. If someone eles offers MSU more than they get from the B1G they should jump.

NigelUno wrote:

Nordic wrote:

You would have to ask them.

I don't need to ask them. I can just say their process and punishment is bullshit.