West Virginia All-Big 12 center Madsen: 'I messed up'
West Virginia All-Big 12 center Joe Madsen, who started 50 games in his four-year career, made his first public comments since being suspended for the Pinstripe Bowl because he was academically ineligible.
“I messed up. I should have been going to classes and doing the right thing,” Madsen told TribLive Radio. “Things didn't go my way, and I screwed up a little bit.”
Madsen, who's in Mobile, Ala., for the Senior Bowl, started every game he played at WVU, missing only two games — both times because he was academically ineligible. Madsen also missed the 2010 Champs Sports Bowl.
“There were some family things,” Madsen said. “My mom was diagnosed with breast cancer before the season. I didn't focus in. I dug myself a hole, and I couldn't get out of it.
“I talked to all the guys and told them I was sorry. There's still real good relationships down there.”
Madsen said he has spoken with NFL teams about why he didn't play in his final college game, a 38-14 loss to Syracuse on Dec. 29.
“I just put it all on the table,” said Madsen, who will play for the North team in Saturday's Senior Bowl. “I'm going up against top talent, the best of the best. If I have a good game, it puts me up there with the top people.”
Madsen didn't have the opportunity to play one last time with WVU teammate Geno Smith, who's projected as the top quarterback available in the upcoming NFL Draft.
Because of his draft status, Smith made the decision not to play in the Senior Bowl. Madsen doesn't question Smith's ability to play at the next level.
“He's that calm, cool quarterback that steps up when he needs to,” Madsen said.
John Harris is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at firstname.lastname@example.org or via Twitter @JHarris_Trib.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.