You're Kidding Me, Right? When "Zero Tolerance" and Discipline Mean Nothing
For those of you who don't read this site, I'm not someone to continually pick at a scab or go off on a crusade about any particular issue. It's not my thing. Personally, I've made enough mistakes, written some really stupid things, and generally embarrassed myself enough that I try not to jump on the soap box unless something really bothers me. Sadly, this is one of those times. ahem....
When Michigan State cornerback Chris L. Rucker was arrested for a DUI and placed in jail for violating his probation, everyone was dissappointed. I think it was extreme for people to call for his dissmissal from the team, but some kind of punishment was certainly warranted. Perhaps he'd be suspended a couple of games, maybe community service, something. Something to show those of us outside the Michigan State program that Mark Dantonio was taking his job not just as a head football coach, but as a molder of young men, seriously.
Were this an isolated incident at Michigan State, I probably wouldn't care about this. Brush it off as one kid being a dumbass and a coach giving him a lot of slack. But this isn't an isolated incident, it's not the first time Rucker's gotten himself into trouble, and it's not the first time Dantonio's shown that the only thing that matters to him is how well you play football. You may recall a little on campus incident last fall where Michigan State's football players not only disgraced themselves, but their school.
Witnesses and students involved in the incident said a group of 15 to 20 men, who some described as MSU football players, stormed into the dormitory and hit and injured about seven students, some of them women.
Brent Mitchell, a communication junior who said he was sent to Lansing’s Sparrow Hospital after being punched in the face, said some of the men wore ski masks, but others were recognized as football team members.
"I walked up and said, ‘It isn’t worth it.’ A guy with dreadlocks hit me and in the scuffle slapped, hit females to get them out of the way," Mitchell said.
The fall out was predictable. Eight players were "indefinitely suspended" by Dantonio. Those players included: B.J. Cunningham, Mark Dell, and Chris Rucker. All of whom were involved in the fight. Their indefinite suspension lasted one game. Today, Cunningham and Dell are 1 and 2 in receiving yards for the Spartans this season. Both of whom have kept their noses clean this season. Rucker is arguably their best member of the secondary, who unfotunately, has not. In the end, two players were dismissed for their role in the fight and because they were already there on second chances. One of those second chances was a player named Glenn Winston.
Glenn Winston's name is going to continue to come up because he is the poster child for Dantonio's lax policy on player discipline. Winston, let's be honest, was a bad man. Most notably, Winston was arrested, convicted, and put in jail for almost paralyzing a MSU hockey player. What was Dantonio's response to this? One of his players had basically tried to cripple another human being. To the shock of everyone, Dantonio reinstated him immeditately once he was released from jail. Winston went from a jump suit to the practice field without a second on the pine or a moment in the dog house.
Now this. Once is being lenient, Mark. Twice is a pattern.
I am in no way equating Rucker's DUI with Winston's intentional attempt to injure and perhaps kill another human being. But depending on how you judge Rucker's mistake with your own personal experiences, I wouldn't blame if you did. The issue here is not the stupidity of a young man, it's the decision of his head football coach. Rucker was on probation. He knew that. He entered a guilty plea as a result of his participation in the MSU fraternity brawl. He knew that if he ran afoul of the law, there would be consequences in real life. Sadly, it appears he also knew there wouldn't be consequences on the field.
Mark Dantonio is a good football coach. There is no denying that. But as a disciplinarian and someone in charge of molding the lives of young men, he has proven himself to be a fraud. Back on December 5, 2009, following the fall out from the campus brawl, Dantonio told the asssembled media that players who have received second chances for past issues face a "zero tolerance" policy if they are involved in future incidents. He went on to say that the violation of the "zero tolerance" policy was why Winston and Jenrette were kicked off the team.
Apparently "zero tolerance" meant "zero punishment."
This is no longer an issue of second chances. This is an issue of third and fourth chances being given to players that are good enough to help Dantonio win football games. I don't think anyone on this site has called for Rucker's expulsion from the team, but when you violate your parole there should be consequences on the field too. Added punishment to show your players that regardless of how good you are at football or any sport, you must behave within a certain code of conduct that reflects well on your school, your teammates, and yourself.
Instead, Dantonio immediately put Rucker back in the lineup. Straight from prison uniform to playing uniform. That's obscene. For everything that's happened with Michigan's coaching transition, discipline has not be something we've had to worry about. Justin Feagin? Gone. Immediately. Boubacar Cissoko? He was given a second chance and promptly blew it, at which time he was dismissed. That was it.
Since that time Michigan has had exactly two issues with the law. Darryl Stonum's DUI, which he is presently on his second chance, and Kenny Demens' association with Cissoko which resulted in a $10,000 civil suit for back rent. You might have noticed Demens on the bench for the first half of the season despite clearly being superior to Obi Ezeh as a Middle linebacker. Those are the warts Michigan's players have displayed under Rodriguez. And I'm very comfortable with the way those situations have been handled. [Editted for new violation: Fitzgerald Toussaint has been arraigned and suspended for driving on a suspended license]. That is my glass house. Lob away.
Here's the bottom line: I'm not calling for Rucker's dismissal. Not even a little bit. He made a mistake. However, it's clear his future involves playing football and not building rocket ships. That's a future that shouldn't be cast aside because of (what I hope) was simply an isolated case of poor judgment. Personally, I expected him to be suspended until the Penn State game. Instead, nothing. Come on down Chris, your pads are waiting.
I'm sorry, but there has to be some showing of discipline from Dantonio on this one. He put his own neck on the line back in December when he said "zero tolerance." Those are his words. That was his position. Dantonio knows he's gotten burned by this in the past. He knows that this isn't an isolated incident. He knows this isn't a second chance, it's a third or fourth. He also knows he's going against everything he's said earlier about discipline and responsibility.
But then again, he knows there's a big game this week and Chris Rucker makes it more likely the Spartans will win that game. I hope he also knows that, win or lose, no one will ever take him seriously again. And it's a sad day when a words like "discipline" and "Zero Tolerance" mean absolutely nothing.
23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
missed two games
He was suspended for the Illinois game.
Then he missed the Northwestern game while he was in jail.
He was also held out of the bowl game last year due to the Rather Hall incident.
How many games did Stonum miss for his DUI and subsequent probation violation?
Sweet post! Some differences...
Stonum: Pleads guilty to DUI (CRIME) and placed on probation. Serves a 1 and 1/2 game suspension.
Rucker: Pleads guilty to Assault and Battery (VIOLENT CRIME) and is placed on probation
Stonum: Violates probation for not doing something, in the offseason, is punished and is in good standing 2 months later.
Rucker: Violates probation by drinking, gets behind the wheel (CRIME #2), hits a parked car and leaves the scene (CRIME #3). Serves a 1 game suspension before spending the next week in jail (not really a ‘suspension’), will probably be starting less than 3 days after release.
Stonum was suspended a game by Rodriguez
The Wisconsin game.
Maize n Brew
Because Football is Better with Beer
by Maize n Brew Dave on Oct 29, 2010 2:05 PM CDT reply actions
As I posted elsewhere
Dantonio’s permissive attitude towards his players has been long established. Bear in mind, this was during the 2007 SEASON, so it’s not exactly like the problems are new. At this point, it’s no longer a coincidence, but a pattern of (lack of) responsibility by the head coach when it comes to his players.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
Did anyone actually expect
the suspension to last through the Iowa game? As soon as I read he was suspended, I knew he would be back in time to play in Kinnick. Something about history repeating itself…
This isn't a rant, Dave
This is the truth. Forget Urban Meyer. Mark Dantonio is to the modern Big Ten what Bobby Bowden was to 90’s Florida State.
Before you respond, let me remind you: Brian Cook called me smug, which makes me the Obama of smugness. I'm basically Smugbama.
Agreed
You nailed this one, Dave.
"Bama Hawkeye, you know, the Iowa blogger who actually uses reason and analysis." - Patrick Vint
http://www.offtackleempire.com
by Bama Hawkeye on Oct 29, 2010 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Dave - I might take you seriously
if you even once acknowledged in your lengthy post that Dantonio has already punished Chris L Rucker on the field. He sat out two games – the first while suspended, the second whil in jail (and still suspended, although that’s a technicality).
You have made no point here except that you, Dave, are not informed in this case. Unless you are calling for a five-game suspension for probation violations, which you clearly are not or you would also be railing against Rich Rod’s handling of Stonum.
Rucker and Dantonio’s handling of this incident have been exemplary – Rucker admitted his mistake, and paid the price promptly. He could have strung this out easily until after the season. Dantonio did not wait for the legal system to run its course in this case – Rucker was suspended immediately. Both handled the situation well.
Finally, this assumption that Chris L Rucker will play on Saturday could be totally off base. All Dantonio has said is that Rucker has the choice to travel with the team or not. Travelling, suiting up, playing, and starting are all different things. Save your “I can’t believe he’s playing two days after getting out of jail” outrage until it actually happens.
How do you type with your head so buried in the sand?
Dantonio did not ‘punish’ Rucker by sitting him for a game when he was in jail. That’s the equivalent of Southern Cal suspending Reggie Bush for this week’s game against Oregon for taking money from a booster. When you can’t play because you’re behind bars, your ‘disciplinary action’ doesn’t really matter.
And this isn’t Stonum (and I’m not even a Michigan fan). Stonum received probation for a DUI and violated it by leaving the state, something which is not in and of itself a crime. Rucker’s Island assaulted someone, received probation (and a laughable “zero tolerance” stance from Mr. Discipline), then violated his probation when he committed another offense worthy itself of probation. This isn’t “oops, I screwed up on the terms of my probation.” This is “I am a reckless jackass who doesn’t get it.”
But the most absurd part of your post is that “Rucker and Dantonio’s handling of this incident have been exemplary.” No, Rucker is a repeat offender who paid a price far lower than what his joke of a head coach told him he would pay when he screwed up last time. And this is to say nothing of the ridiculous stance you’ve taken, that Dantonio suspending him for one game while the case was playing out is sufficient. You suspend the kid because it’s more likely than not he’s guilty. Then you penalize him once the case is complete. This is how it’s done in every program in the country not named Florida. Congrats, MSU.
Also, Rucker is officially traveling, and if you think for one second he’s taking up a valuable travel team spot for a road game against Iowa just so he can ride pine, you’re really more delusional than anyone thought.
Before you respond, let me remind you: Brian Cook called me smug, which makes me the Obama of smugness. I'm basically Smugbama.
by Patrick Vint on Oct 29, 2010 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions
THANK YOU
for this:
When you can’t play because you’re behind bars, your ‘disciplinary action’ doesn’t really matter.
I really can’t believe how many MSU fans are trying to push the angle that being in jail counts as Dantonio-administered punishment.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
The Reggie Bush comparison is maybe overwrought,
but what’s the difference between “you’re in jail and you’re not allowed to play, too!” and “you screwed up, and you have a 3-game suspension which you only have to serve in games where you’re injured and can’t play”?
Before you respond, let me remind you: Brian Cook called me smug, which makes me the Obama of smugness. I'm basically Smugbama.
by Patrick Vint on Oct 29, 2010 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions
Fair enough objection, but....
The contrast between Rucker’s actions and Stonum’s actions is fairly stark. Stonum mistakenly left the state, thus violating his probation for a DUI. Rucker was on probation for beating the hell out of someone and violated his probation by getting drunk and getting into a car. There is no comparison between the two.
If you want to say that Rodriguez was not stern enough with Stonum, fine, I’ll grant you that. Rodriguez should have dealt with it harsher. But again, it was Stonum who approached the coaching staff, informed them of his mistake and dealt with whatever Michigan did internally. That’s not the same as a DUI after you’re already on probation. On top of that, Dantonio got to hear about the parole violation from the news media and the cops.
I’m sorry, but Dantonio said in December there would be Zero Tolerance for the players involved in the Nov. 09 brawl and he’s continued to show that isn’t the case. Again, I thought Rucker should’ve been suspended for much longer than two games (even if we count his jail time as a suspension) and not thrown off the team. But Dantonio has basically said the second you’re out of jail you’re back on the team. And I’m not giving Dantonio any credit for suspending him immediately. He HAD TO. The story was on ESPN’s front page and all over the Michigan media. Have we hit the point in the conversation that Dantonio doing what he’s SUPPOSED to do gives him a free pass?
Maybe you’re right and Rucker won’t play. But if I’m a betting man I’d wager he will. Either way, Dantonio could have saved himself and the rest of us a headache by simply suspending for the Iowa game or longer. When you’ve got Dantonio’s history with multiple time offenders, you’ve basically waived the right to say “trust me, he’s learned his lesson.”
Finally, I’m well aware of the all the support Rucker’s gotten from Dantonio, the coaches, the unity council, the players,etc… How is it surprising that the team voted to put one of it’s best players on the field for the biggest game of the year? And why is Dantonio getting a pass on basically punting this decision to everyone else!?
Dantonio’s actions have shown his words about discipline are meaningless and that he’s unwilling to enforce his own edicts. And there’s no explaining that away.
Maize n Brew
Because Football is Better with Beer
by Maize n Brew Dave on Oct 29, 2010 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions
I should have stopped at my original point – your assertion that “Apperntly zero tolerance means zero punishment” is wrong.
I guess I’ve read enough about this and the rather hall incident to have concluded that Rucker’s involvement in the dorm fight was minimal – basically he was there and nobody can really say that he did anything other than being there and that this latest thing was a really stupid thing to do, but minor. He should have just parked the car in the garage across the street in the first place. That’s what he did – present at a fight, clearly did not get a very good lawyer, then 11 months later moved his car across the street while buzzed, granted the probation makes that a really dumb move. For this, he has been in jail 7 days and missed 3 games (including a bowl game) and around 2 months of practice. Frankly, I think the punishment this kid has already received has been pretty harsh.
If DAntonio kicking him off the team or suspending him for half the season is warrented for these two minor offenses, then I guess you are right. I tend to believe neither of these things was severe enough to warrent that, and in fact the punishment already levied was more than enough – hence I think coach has made good on his zero tolerance policy.
I think that's a well reasoned opinion on this
You and I just disagree on it.
To be honest, I appreciate you posting a view point that’s different than mine on the site. Like I said, you and I don’t agree on this one, but I respect where you’re coming from.
Maize n Brew
Because Football is Better with Beer
by Maize n Brew Dave on Oct 29, 2010 5:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Where I disagree with you
is that punishment by the team should be in addition to punishment by the state.
Has that punishment been harsh? I don’t know what local law would do to a non-football player in that situation, but let’s assume it would be similar. In that case, the probation and jail time would not be harsh, it would be typical. Outside of the legal setting, for a player to miss 3 games for 2 run ins with the law doesn’t seem harsh to me, especially when the player (along with others) was specifically warned that “zero tolerance” was in effect. And again, missing a game because you’re in jail is not a team punishment, it’s a legal punishment.
I’m not suggesting that he should be kicked off the team, I don’t think that helps anyone, but for him to serve no additional suspension after his conviction seems to not be harsh, but actually very lax.
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on Oct 29, 2010 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions
I think people may be getting carried away
" Rucker was on probation for beating the hell out of someone and violated his probation by getting drunk and getting into a car." This isn’t true. While Rucker did plead guilty to assault, it has since come out that he played a minor role in that whole situation, not even throwing any punches. He was still there though, and obviously played enough of a role to plead guilty.
At the same time, it’s hard to argue that letting Rucker back so quickly after getting out of jail is a good idea, at least in terms of PR. While I honestly believe that Dantonio sees himself as a father figure to these players and he wants to do what he thinks is best for his players, I think that there is a line between supporting a player who was down and failing to be a disciplinarian. Yes, Rucker sat out for 2.5 weeks (8 of those days being in jail). Yes, now would be a bad time to turn your back on a player as a coach. However, supporting Dantonio could still support Rucker without immediately reinstating him. I think it is a good idea to wait until the game to see if he actually plays.
Letting this guy back onto the team to know that people do support him is one thing. Letting him play that saturday is another thing.
Good post.
While I think suspension until the Penn State game might be a little harsh (and, like others said, we don’t know 100% that he’s actually going to PLAY in the Iowa game), I pretty much agree with you.
I’d like to point out I’m a Spartan fan, as well. Alum, too.
I’ve argued elsewhere in SBNation that if Rucker were apart of an academic organization, or represented the university in some non-athletic manner, this simply would not fly. Can you imagine a member of, let’s say student government, getting involved in a fight on campus and violating probation terms and still being allowed to serve? While I don’t off-hand know the rules of student government, common sense tells me that they’d be out of there faster than Denard Robinson can make it to the end zone.
If Rucker plays, and his play is part of the reason we win on Saturday, the win is going to be a little bittersweet for me.
Two points of clarification:
Your block quote is the initial report from the victims, which has since been proven to be wrong. There were no ski masks involved in the incident (as confirmed by police chief Dunlap), and it is misleading to reprint that.
The word “prison” also has no place in this article. Stonum (after violating probation on 3 counts) and Rucker were in jail. There’s a difference.
That said, Dantonio got burned when he trusted Winston. Badly. Rexrode (MSU beat writer for the LSJ) said it best… the timing is really poor. Much of this controversy could have been avoided by just waiting a few days.
REMINDER
MSU and UM are not rivals. You guys barely even realize we exist. You’re too busy winning.
Sparty on. Gator done.
What the hell is this?
However, it’s clear his future involves playing football and not building rocket ships
Are you fucking kidding me? What the hell do you know about Chris Rucker’s academic and career possibilities.
Asshole.
Dude, really?
From MSU’s website:
majoring in sociology.
plus getting involved in a gang beating, whether he was allegedly there or not;
plus driving under the influence while on probation;
equals…well…. not a rocket scientist.
Is anyone really debating this?
Maize n Brew
Because Football is Better with Beer
by Maize n Brew Dave on Oct 29, 2010 9:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes, really
Not a fan of the reinstatement myself, but … No. This is a poor defense of a ridiculous statement.
Maybe I failed reading comprehension but I’m pretty sure your original comment was meant to be a knock on his potential as a contributing member of society as opposed to a statement on whether or not he’d literallty be a good “rocket ship builder” … as you seem to argue by looking up his major (not rocket science! not even physics! for realz!) to defend your point. If not, I’m sure you will clarify things for us.
Could be a bright kid who fucked up twice and will redeem himself. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that your actions as a 21-yeard-old don’t exactly define your potential as a human being.

by 




















