Michigan football coach Brady Hoke on Darryl Stonum's status: 'It hasn't changed'
Michigan football coach Brady Hoke said this afternoon there has been no change in the status of senior receiver Darryl Stonum.
Stonum, who redshirted this season after being charged last year with his second drunken driving arrest, was ticketed Thursday morning for driving with a revoked license shortly after meeting with his probation officer.
Courts records indicate he also lied to the probation officer about how he arrived at his appointment, saying a female friend brought him there.
Darryl Stonum
That hasn't affected his role with the team — yet.
"Until we know everything, it hasn’t changed," Hoke said today at a previously scheduled season wrap-up news conference.
When asked if he was concerned about Stonum's decision-making, Hoke simply replied, "No."
Stonum's next court hearing is Friday morning, when he could face possible jail time.
The senior has been commended throughout the year by Hoke for accepting his redshirt season and playing well on scout teams. By all accounts, Stonum had been fulfilling his requirements, both legally and with the team.
He had received 12 satisfactory probation reviews.
But he's also had problems complying with the law and probation in the past.
Stonum was jailed for three days in 2010 for repeated probation violations stemming from his first drunken driving arrest, which came when he was a freshman in 2008. He was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated and driving with a suspended license.
Stonum has started 25 games at Michigan. He has 76 catches for six touchdowns and 1,008 yards receiving in three seasons. He was the team's second-leading receiver last year and was expected to be the team's go-to guy next year with Junior Hemingway graduating.
He also was expected to start at kick returner, where he excelled in the 2010 season.
Stonum talked about that return on Tuesday shortly after the Wolverines beat Virginia Tech 23-20 in the Sugar Bowl.
“It was a learning experience,” Stonum told the Michigan Daily. “It was pretty hard. But everything happens for a reason. I’m just glad Coach Hoke kept me around to be a part of this. And I’m back — I’m back now.”
Kyle Meinke covers Michigan football for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at 734-623-2588, by email at kylemeinke@annarbor.com and followed on Twitter @kmeinke.
Comments
Larry Weisenthal
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 7:11 a.m.
If the allegations are true, he should be dropped permanently from the team. Full stop. If the allegations are true. I wish that all the players were all true scholar athletes, with good character. I accept the reality that some of them are athletes and not really scholars at all, but the character thing still does matter. I think that the characters of the individual members of the current team are exemplary, from all I can discern. Mr. Stonum's character doesn't seem to be up to acceptable standards, and he's has multiple opportunities to change his ways. Breaking a condition set down by the court system and then lying about it, after everything which happened before, cannot be explained away and certainly can't be condoned. In situations like this, it's useful to ask "what would Bo have done?"
Billy Bob Schwartz
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 3:26 p.m.
He would probably say, "I told you already, I haven't made a decision on this yet. When I do, you will hear it. I'm not throwing this kid to the lions until I give it plenty of thought. Besides, why do I need a pass receiver? I read about it, but I forget."
michboy40
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1:58 a.m.
Hoke will deal with it in his own way. Most Michigan fans will be OK with that, and the state fans will say it's not enough. Hoke would have to welcome him back with open arms and make him a captain before he approaches anything that state or ospoo would do. On that thought, did anyone notice that after being reinstated to the buckeyes after serving two different suspensions, boom harron was not only reinstated, but made captain of the team?
trespass
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1:07 a.m.
I am beginning to worry about Hoke's decision making. First he violated NCAA rules by using early morning conditioning drills as punishment (a repeat violation from last year's violations). Second, he covered up another violation by calling the work out schedule a "trade secret". Now he cannot recognize when a player has run out of chances.
Eep
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 5:09 a.m.
@trespass, No matter how many times you say that using early morning conditioning drills as punishment is a violation, it still won't be true. The violation involved requiring the player to participate in the drills during the summer, which is a time when only voluntary workouts are allowed. The fact that the drills were being used as punishment was relevant because it proved that the drills were mandatory rather than voluntary, but it isn't reason for the violation. There is no NCAA rule against using drills as punishment. Here is an exercise for you: Look up the actual report of violations from the NCAA (which is available online) - don't look at what other people said or wrote about the report, read the actual report. In the paragraph where it talks about this particular violation, the report cites an actual rule number. After you've found that rule number, look up the actual rule in the NCAA rulebook, which is also available online. You will find that there is absolutely nothing in that rule regarding punishment or discipline - the rule deals with the difference between voluntary and mandatory workouts during particular times of the year.
RWBill
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 12:14 a.m.
Wait, he drove to his appointment with his probation officer, who knows full well his license is in revoked status? I know it's been frustrating and at his age must seem like forever, but he's possibly blowing the chance of a young lifetime here. Dang.
boo
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 10:57 p.m.
Stonum will be back, and ALL OF YOU will be cheering for him next year when he scores a touchdown for Michigan. Get over your righteous selves. Go Blue!
RJ12688
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 6:25 a.m.
i dont condone the things Stonum is doing. All im saying is, is that i know i made bad decisions at that age, and im hoping he can get his act together. And scott, please dont attempt to judge the type of man i am. A real man doesnt do that over the internet.
Scott
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 4:34 a.m.
boo and rj- perfect men of the new millenium.
RJ12688
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1:06 a.m.
I agree with the "get over yourselves" thing. I hope for the best for the kid, and id love to see him on the field next year if he can get his act together.
redceder1
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 10:52 p.m.
At least he wasn't drunk again. As a State fan I must say that I have been surprised and impressed with Hoke. HIs brief tennure in AA has shown he has integrity and is a huge improvement from RR. Keeping Stonum on the team would be a change from his past actions. It would make a statement that the suspension was an excuse to redshirt him with the abundance of Senior receivers this year and the need for them in 2012. By the way, congratulations on your victory over Va Tech.
RudeJude
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1:16 p.m.
Thanks, and congratulations on the Outback bowl victory. The state of Michigan saved the Big Ten from another complete bowl season drubbing!
Scott
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 4:36 a.m.
Good point. Then Hoke will be no better than Dantonio. This will be a seminal moment in defining who he is.
MRunner73
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 10:28 p.m.
Brady Hoke was speaking in the present. This is not a done deal, either way. Stonum faces probation violation charges. It doesn't look good. Once that decision is rendered, Stonum could very well be kicked off the team. Stay tuned...
Hailmary
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 9:51 p.m.
In my opinion, if Brady decides to keep this young man after his multiple displays of dangerous immature behavior it will set a poor example to the rest of the team especilally the team players that party a bit to much. It will set a bad example to the incoming freshmen that need mature guidance not to mention it says a lot about the University of Michigan to the rest of the big 10 and nat ion. We are already walking on thin ice with the NCAA we don't need attention brought to us because this immature (dangerous) young man flaunts his nose at the law. If Brady keeps this multiple offender on the team it will tell me a lot about Brady Hoke. "For gods sake, this is Michigan".
Wally the Wolverine
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 9:50 p.m.
I'm finding the equivocation and repeated references to msu very disturbing. We ridicule the other fanbase because they are always comparing their team/players to ours. Since when do WE compare ourselves to them? Are we going to lower the standard because of what the other guy does? ARE WE MICHIGAN OR NOT?
Billy Bob Schwartz
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 3:17 p.m.
It's just that, in so many ways, comparing Michigan with them makes us Michigan fans happy! So in the area of thuggery, we really, really look good by comparison! BTW, when did Michigan last try to put the 270 degree twist to a pinned Qb's head?
Scott
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 10:20 p.m.
Your right. Dantonio having Ringer go from the jail cell to the playing field was a disgrace. I don't ever want my school to sink so low. We are Michigan, not MSU, OSU or Miami
Johnny2x2x
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 9:56 p.m.
Why wouldn't you compare yourself to MSU, they are a team that dominates you on the field right now. They're doing something better in E. Lansing and 2012 looks like more of the same.
truebluefan
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 9:46 p.m.
I would be floored if Hoke doesn't boot Stonum from the team. The next question would be, who are we going to throw the ball to next year besides Roundtree? Jeremy Jackson? Kelvin Grady? Yikes. The West Coast offense should be put on hold for a few years until we recruit and develop a few talented outside WR's. I wish Stonum would've pulled this stunt BEFORE Arnett made his decision.
miatamich
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 3:09 a.m.
Arnett chose MSU because he will be closer to his father by going to school in East Lansing. MSU had also heavily recruited him before he committed to Tennessee. Add these two factors together and you can see he chose MSU. That and they have a closet full of ski masks for those who need them.
Johnny2x2x
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 10:15 p.m.
LOL, you guys are still recruiting WRs, you had schollies available, he just saw a better opportunity at MSU. Probably another schollie available soon with Stonum pulling another Stonum.
Wally the Wolverine
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 9:57 p.m.
Yeah, Arnett would've looked good in the Maize & Blue. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear we were ever on this kid's radar. I guess this is a risk we take when we rush to get all of our schollies filled. Due to one reason or another, there always appears to be a good decommit or other transfer that becomes available later on. We'll make do.
Johnny2x2x
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 9:55 p.m.
Yeah, Michigan was a school Arnett didn't want to go to. "It wasn't a hard decision at all," Arnett said of his decision to transfer to Michigan State. "It wasn't really a contest. It was Michigan State from the get-go." "I knew I was eventually going to get the unconditional release, so that decision to choose Michigan State was pretty much already set in stone in my mind," "I didn't even talk to Michigan," he said. "I don't know if they called my high school or not, I didn't even try to talk to them." Maybe he watched the Sugar Bowl, why would any WR want to play in that offense?
Michael
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 9:51 p.m.
It wouldn't have mattered for Arnett. He didn't want anything to do with UM.
UM757881
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 9:42 p.m.
Status has not changed for Stonum = he's still suspended. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, he is still suspended and until Hoke knows "everything, it hasn't changed". While Stonum messed up, it is not like he got busted again for drinking and driving. His license was not revoked because he couldn't drive - it was revoked because he chose to drink and drive twice. Bad move to drive with a revoked license to somewhere he needed to be eventhough it was a cold morning. Really, really, really bad move to drive to visit a PROBATION OFFICER with a revoked license. That move MAY cost him a lot - $$$s, jail time, no more football at UM. It was stupid. But, to put things in perspective, it is not like beating up someone and putting them in the hospital - he wasn't impaired, he wasn't driving badly, he simply drove a vehicle when he shouldn't have. Now don't get me wrong, what he did was a serious probation infraction but he did not physically endanger anyone THIS TIME. What, I believe, Hoke needs to consider is how Stonum has done on his probation up to now and how he progresses from here. And he needs to consider THAT in the context of how Stonum has, or hasn't, matured. This incident taken out of that context is surely indicative that he has not matured. However Hoke needs to put it in context and address the situation from more just the disciplinarian coach's perspective. He needs to assess whether Stonum has matured overall. Hoke already made the decision to let Stonum earn his way back from a much more serious offense, now he needs to decide if this negates any or all of the progress Stonum might have made up to now. I, personnaly, trust that Hoke will take the above into consideration. And that he will also consider what is best for Michigan, the football team as a whole, and Stonum - without regard to its effect on wins and losses.
Michael
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1:01 a.m.
@IndyWing Stonum is NOT suspended, he is on a redshirt, which means he is not missing any games eligibility wise. It's nothing more than a smokescreen. Walmart wolvies are dumb enough to misinterpret a redshirt as a suspension.
IndyWing
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 12:13 a.m.
@Michael, Yes, Stonum HAS been suspended from playing football games for Michigan. PERIOD. STOP. Brady told him he could choose to invoke his redshirt in order to extend his ELIGIBILITY if he wanted to, so that IF he ever does get reinstated he would be able to play in games again. OR he could choose to leave the program. Stonum chose to stay on suspension and not declare for the NFL. Hoke has always been very clear that he is still suspended. The terms of his suspension are that he is not allowed to play in games. That is a pretty standard condition of being suspended. It is NOT the same as being kicked off the team! The agreement he has with Stonum is that if he is a straight arrow for OVER A YEAR he will get fully reinstated. And only then will he be able to play in games again. If you can't recognize the distinction then I'm truly sorry. And if you can't see the glaring difference in how Dantonio would've handled this then you are incredibly niave!
Michael
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 9:49 p.m.
Stonum is NOT suspended. He had a redshirt year, which means he is not losing any eligibility. If he were suspended for a year, he would have lost a year of eligibility. This is no punishment, it's simply a smokescreen for a MULTIPLE OFFENDER who continues to break the law. Way to set an example Hoke.
XTR
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 9:12 p.m.
C'mon! If Dantonio could play Rucker straight from Jail why would Hoke get this top WR and KR in 2012? Stonum has not hurt nor stole laptops from anyone. Har har!
Michael
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 9:21 p.m.
Rucker made one mistake and learned from it. He was suspended for a game. Stonum has obviously not learned from his mistake as he has broken the law MULTIPLE TIMES and continues to do so. Way to set an example by keeping this loser on the team, Hoke.
D21
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 9 p.m.
When asked if he was concerned about Stonum's decision-making, Hoke simply replied, "No." Mr Hoke, the correct answer is, "Not yet". Expect UM to recruit another WR or two.
D21
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 8:58 p.m.
Stonum talked about that return on Tuesday shortly after the Wolverines beat Virginia Tech 23-20 in the Sugar Bowl. "It was a learning experience," Stonum told the Michigan Daily. "It was pretty hard. But everything happens for a reason. I'm just glad Coach Hoke kept me around to be a part of this. And I'm back — I'm back now." Yeah right. I do hope you will LEARN from your mistakes but playing for UM is out of ? for you, period.
Daveguy
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 8:51 p.m.
Stonum doesn't need luck, the folks on the road the next time this guy decides to drive drunk do. Revoked license and probation wasn't enough to stop him and by the sounds of it, the team is just waiting for it to fade away. There's a story a few pages back on the results of drunken driving.
Eep
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 8:43 p.m.
A person doesn't report to a probation officer when they are on parole, and a person doesn't report to a parole officer when they are on probation. These are two different things. Also, people only become subject to parole after being convicted of a felony - so by using the word "parole" the reporter is implying that Stonum is a convicted felon, which isn't true, and is potentially libelous.
f4phantomII
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 9:25 p.m.
"And I don't give a darn!" "Oh, he's our shortstop."
Billy Bob Schwartz
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 3:05 p.m.
Sheesh! This reminds me of my childhood in a five-kid family! How about we all google the subject and move on? Sheesh!
Eep
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 4:28 a.m.
@proudtobeme: He's on probation. Double secret probation.
proudtobeme
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 4:17 a.m.
so is he on parole or is he on probation?
Eep
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 11:16 p.m.
@Kevin, you are, of course, techically correct about Circuit Court misdemeanors, but those are a very strange feature of criminal law in Michigan (and, as far as I know, no other state), and for almost all purposes Circuit Court misdemeanors are treated as felonies anyway, which I'm sure you know. It's good to know that we can count on you to stoke up the fire on our hissy fits.
Mick52
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 11:07 p.m.
Only for the reason to stoke up the fire on Eep and Michael's hissy fit, I would like to point out that a person convicted of a Circuit Court Misdemeanor can be sent to prison too. And not all felons get put on parole. Only those who do not compete their entire sentence. But I think you two know that part of the parole issue.
Eep
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 10:15 p.m.
Incidently, I agree with both of you (Scott and Michael) regarding Stonum. He should go soak his head and he should be kicked off the team, and he should definitely NOT sue the good Mr. Meinke. Let's all be friends now?
Eep
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 10:12 p.m.
@Michael. I never said that "felons go on parole," or that "all felons go on parole." I said that ONLY felons go on parole. Some felons go on parole, and some felons don't, but ONLY people who are felons go on parole. People who are NOT felons NEVER go on parole, and (most importantly here), when it's said that a particular person is on parole, it has been implied that that particular person is a felon. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Scott
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 10:12 p.m.
Your right but the last thing that kid needs is a reason to sue someone over . He should go soak his head
Eep
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 9:53 p.m.
@Michael, this is getting to be silly, but the statement that "parole has to do with prison, not necessarily felons," doesn't make sense. Only felons go to prison, and only people who've been to prison can be placed on parole. Therefore, parole is associated with felons, and only with felons. The fact that a felon could also be placed on probation in other circumstances is true, but not relevant. A person who has been convicted of only a misdemeanor can never be placed on parole, and my correction of the reporter was based on him reporting that a person who had been convicted of a misdemeanor had reported to a "parole" officer and had violated his "parole." Because the reporter has already corrected the article, you may not have seen the earlier version, and you may have thought I was implying something beyond what I actually wrote. The only statements I actually made were that people on probation don't report to parole officers, that people on parole don't report to probation officers, and that the use of the word "parole" implies that the person on parole has been convicted of a felony. I think you can agree that all of these things are true, even if some other things are also true.
Michael
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 9:43 p.m.
@I perfectly understand what you wrote, and I corrected you based on your inaccuracy. Parole has to do with prison, not necessarily felons...as I pointed out, not all felons go to prison.
Eep
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 9:32 p.m.
@Michael If you're going to correct someone, you better make sure you actually read and understand what they said. I didn't say that everyone who has been convicted of a felony is placed on parole - I said that ONLY people who are convicted of felonies are placed on parole, which is entirely true, since only people who have been convicted of felonies can be sent to prison (as opposed to jail). A person who has only been convicted of a misdemeanor can NEVER be placed on parole. What you said is also entirely true, but not relevant to my comment.
Michael
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 9:18 p.m.
If you're going to try and correct someone, you better make sure you know what you're talking about. Not everyone who has been convicted of a felony is placed on parole. Felons who get a jail sentence are placed on probation. Only those who go to prison are placed on parole. As far as Stonum goes, how many chances does this guy get? he is way past three strikes, yet Hoke doesn't seem to care. Hoke must be desperate for WR's.
Kyle Meinke
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 8:55 p.m.
Eep, you're right. I used the words interchangeably, and they're not interchangeable. Thanks. I fixed the references in question.
RudeJude
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 8:36 p.m.
This is sad. As much as Michigan needs him offensively, Hoke needs to remove him from the squad. Best of luck, Stonum.
Billy Bob Schwartz
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 2:59 p.m.
Oh, yeah, this is not OSU. It also is not Florida, where UMeyer had 60 arrests for his team over six years. Don't those two schools deserve each other? LOL! Still, if the kid wakes up and gets another chance and uses it to restart his life, I wish him well. I also hope that his ten days in the cooler lets him know he has reached (and passed?) the last chance deal. C'mon, kid, wake up and fly right!
Mick52
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 10:58 p.m.
Good grief John how much investigation is necessary here? He didn't deny the violation. I am on the fence here. Not convinced it is enough to take him off the team, but what bothers me the most is the apparent disregard of following rules, laws, etc. Lack of improvement. I'm thinking that the inappropriate behavior is not going t stop and he may not be around for another season anyway. Maybe a last chance agreement would be appropriate but if there have been several violations, that should have been done already.
John
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 9:24 p.m.
Wholeheartedly agree... Jesus this is Michigan, not OSU - haha
RudeJude
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 8:57 p.m.
No, and I'm jumping to conclusions because I'm not in the decision maker position. Hoke is right to wait until all is said and done, but if it turns out that he was driving with a suspended license after what has happened, he needs to go.
John
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 8:50 p.m.
Hoke is doing the right thing by not making a knee-jerk reaction. I'm sure once it is investigated thoroughly a decision will be made. At this point I would lean toward him being off the squad as well, but I don't think it is the time to make the decision being that the season literally just ended.
Johnny2x2x
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 8:33 p.m.
Translation, if he were 4th or 5th on the depth chart for 2012, you bet it would effect his status, but since he's basically all we have coming back at WR in 2012, we'll wait and see.
Mick52
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 11 p.m.
Michael settle down a little. Okay it is not a "suspension" per se, but it is not a "smokescreen" either. Mr. Stonum was set back a year in his football pursuits, taken off the playing field. That is a punishment.
Scott
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 10:14 p.m.
Your right. If he's some bench warmer he's off the team.
Johnny2x2x
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 9:42 p.m.
Too bad Arnett picked MSU over U of M, looks like the Wolverines could have really used a WR this fall now.
Michael
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 9:27 p.m.
Hoke did NOT suspend Stonum at all. I'm sorry, but a redshirt is NOT a suspension, as he will not lose any eligibility. If it were a "suspension" like people on here want to believe, he would have lost a year of eligibility. The fact is Stomun is a MULTIPLE offender. 2 DUI's (crimes that could potentially kill people), and MULTPILE probation violations, including another violation committed earlier today. How many screw ups does it take at michigan to actually get punished? Sorry, but a redshirt year is no punishment. It's a smokescreen.
UMBlue99
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 : 8:47 p.m.
Translation: If Dantonio can reinstate a known felon TE convicted of participating in a laptop theft ring, a RB convicted of felonious assault (twice), and only suspend half the football team a few games for beating up an MSU student and putting him in the hospital 5 minutes after a team banquet, I'm sure Hoke thinks suspending a player a year is good enough. After all, Dantonio won the Big Ten playing these games and came close again this year. He's setting quite the example and precedent. At least Stonum's (2nd DUI) was a non-violent crime and is not considered a felony but a misdemeanor in the state of Michigan.