Ace from the Wolverine Blog has some gory details up about Demar Dorsey's transcripts and how they turned into his current GPA. I won't get into the exact numbers if only because I have the strong sense that doing that is a one of the few things you can actually do on a sports blog that could actually get you sued, but suffice it to say the reparations job done by LifeSkills is beyond the realm of the plausible.
I can confirm from a couple independent sources the broad outline of what Ace describes: Dorsey's application remains incomplete. As of the beginning of his senior year his path to qualification was so grim that making it automatically raises red flags about the validity of the new grades. Not that anyone was caught cheating, just that the alternative curriculum must necessarily have been less than rigorous, and the amount of improvement raises eyebrows when it's accomplished in a potentially unsupervised environment outside of a traditional high school. The facts in the post are, to my knowledge, accurate.
The decision not to admit him had nothing to do with tinfoil hat theories and everything to do with the fact that he shouldn't have been offered in the first place. In the parlance of an earlier post…
There are two ways to be qualified. One is to be qualified. The other is to be Michael Oher or Derrick Rose, in which case you are "qualified" via a string of correspondence classes and/or a sketchy test score. Michigan takes qualified guys, but when scare quotes get involved Michigan tends to go the other way. Ask new Bearcat Adrian Witty. Is Dorsey qualified or "qualified"? We don't know until he enrolls somewhere, whether it's Michigan or Florida State or a JUCO. Available evidence suggests the latter, in which case it's better if Michigan doesn't enroll him.
…Dorsey is "qualified." Michigan basically can't take him in good faith because they can't expect he will be able to keep up with the work.
Admissions is not the problem here. They are just doing what they have always been doing, except now they're dealing with some kids that previous Michigan coaches would not have tried to recruit. I did imply that in the UV and maybe by not fully rewriting a couple of sentences in the alliterative Dorsey post, which originally took a much more OUTRAGED position before I edited it, and that was incorrect. The problem here lies in more Michigan-Rodriguez culture clash stuff that would be a minor annoyance if the team had, you know, won any games.
Provost note. Ace spends a section of his post debunking the idea that Rodriguez got a sign-off on offering Dorsey from the "provost" mentioned. I think there's been a miscommunication due to an awkward sentence. The original paragraph:
This situation is the Draper/Labadie/compliance dysfunction all over again, with miscommunication between Rodriguez—who went to bat for Dorsey with a provost before signing day and got a signoff on him—and admissions replacing the lack of communication between the football administration and compliance. It's a different sclerotic artery, but the root cause is the same.
This has been taken to imply that Rodriguez had gotten some sort of sign off from admissions; unfortunately I was trying to express the opposite. When Rodriguez was clearing Dorsey with part of the university—something that did indeed happen, though it might not have been a "provost"—it was about his checkered past and not his checkered transcript. It was the failure of both parties not to explore the kid's academic background sufficiently, or of Rodriguez not to understand that Michigan is not West Virginia in these matters*, that left Dorsey and Michigan in the position they are today, where Michigan looks stupid coming and going and Dorsey's left to find a new home in the middle of June. That is essentially identical to the CARA form fiasco.
Everything in that post remains accurate except for the aforementioned shot at admissions, which basically had no choice when it came to their decision. Michigan should not have offered Dorsey, what happened to him was unfair, and it's another symptom of an athletic department that needs to operationalize some processes stat.
But who do we blame? As per usual, many people can take the hit. Rodriguez is one. Without knowledge of what he's been told is kosher and what he's been told is not—and how strenuously—how much is a guy working from assumptions built up after ten years at Clemson and WVU and how much is pure stubbornness from a guy who should know better isn't clear. If there is someone on the staff who is supposed to be in contact with admissions and know which guys are borderline and which are no way—and I honestly don't know if there is one—then it falls on that person. If there isn't then there should be, and I expect that there will be.
Even if it is all Rodriguez's fault, I don't think this is a major issue if Dorsey isn't a critically needed recruit who created a media circus. He's just another Quinton Woods, albeit one that Michigan should have known better than to take.
*(No moral superiority implied.)
i like this picture because he's about to shoot a planet-destroying laser out of his mouth
Some horse-holding may be in order in case anyone is printing up huge quantities of Pac-16 t-shirts. These reports come from a television station and a guy in Indianapolis radio and are about conference expansion should therefore be taken with a grain of salt large enough to have moons, but they appear to be independently-sourced claims that Texas and Texas A&M may be heading Midwest instead of just West.
High level sources in multiple conferences have told KCTV5 that Texas and Texas A&M are looking to move to the Big Ten Conference and have petitioned for membership, while the University of Oklahoma is planning on petitioning the Southeastern Conference to become a member of its conference.
Texas Tech can pound sand, according to KCTV.
Kent Sterling, the Indiana radio guy does have an extensive newsy background, FWIW, but his site's report is way fuzzier and it's posted by Pauly Balst, whose bio reads "Pauly Balst has a very solid reputation and track record in speculative journalism and for-profit amatuer [sic] athletics." This is not reassuring. Anyway:
College Station, Texas, based sources close to Texas A&M confirm the scenario of Texas A&M, Texas and Nebraska joining the Big 10, bringing the total to 14. … Sources also confirmed the rift with Texas Tech and Baylor is that “UT and A&M have joined together in this decision”. By adding this trio, UT does not “go to war alone in a new conference” when ongoing issues arise.
"Confirm the scenario"? What does that mean? That could be talking. It could be a D&D meeting. I'm not putting a ton of stock into that, but it's out there.
Meanwhile, Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott is sounding less imperial:
“I’d say that (having an 11-team conference) is a possibility,” Scott said.
He also said that no assurances and that no invitations have been issued to any other Big 12 schools, including Texas and Texas A&M, whose athletic directors met on Thursday in Austin to discuss their future.
“There are several different scenarios,” Scot siad. “There is no defined timetable” for further Pac-10 expansion.
Colorado snapping up the Pac-10 invite and thereby bouncing Baylor may have given the Big Ten the wedge it needs to crowbar Tech off the Texas schools everyone wants, in which case thanks Baylor.
This post's information value will self-destruct in ten seconds.
(HT: Aaron and Damon Lewis.)
World Cup content ahoy. The below is a conversation with War Blog Eagle proprietor, guy who is basically dog blood comprised of 90% cocaine during the first round of the NCAA tournament, and gracious host for the MGoRoadtrip to Auburn-LSU Jerry Hinnen. If you're trolling for more WC content, Stars and Gripes remains highly recommended, and I'd add the Shin Guardian to that list despite the fact that more than one of their contributors advocates a Robbie Findley start on Saturday.
I'm in bold; Jerry is plaintext.
So I know that after this whole Demar Dorsey thing you're ready to think about something totally non-stressful and anti-depressing. Let's talk about the U.S. central defense! Do we battle Wayne Rooney with the guy who plays (regularly!) in Norway and spearheaded the defensive "effort" against Mexico in the 5-0 Gold Cup loss? Or the guy who hasn't played more than 45 minutes since October and runs like your grandfather?
Probably the guy who not only runs but looks like my grandfather, if my grandfather was Greg Oden. As soon as Onyewu sprouted that hellacious neckbeard it was like it had always been there. Bradley said he was ready to go 90, and while that might be a smokescreen the USA backline actually started clearing crosses before they hit the ground when he came in against the Aussies.
With England seemingly set to start Emile Heskey, strength will be at a premium over speed, and it's not like Goodson is that quick or agile anyway. I think you deploy two destroyers in front of the central D and hope.
What would you do? Leave a comment below!
Ives, I agree. If Slovenia or Algeria were the opening match, I'd advise playing it safe with Goodson and giving Onyewu another few days to get the beard up to "Eliminator" standards. But England is the damn-the-torpedoes, high-variance, all-or-nothing match. Onyewu's ceiling is so many thousands of miles higher than Goodson's.
Plus Demerit seems to not be suffering a prolonged seizure when Gooch is out there, too, plus plus thanks to B. Bradley's marathon training sessions--as in "let's be fit enough to run one"--we may be OK burning a sub in central defense if we have to. So that's one of the two big lineup questions. The other: who are your forwards?
No, seriously: send Bornstein home with a bruised ego and bring in Ching. Seriously. No foolies.
Do I hear a second? Sustained.
Failing that, I would go with Jozy and Dempsey because I'd rather have Holden on the field than Buddle. Given Buddle's ability to score goals when they are put on a plate, though, I'd be okay with having him start if you're dead set on having Dempsey in the midfield.
Findley: absolutely not. I will be stabby if he gets 90.
What, you're not interested in having his speed stretch the defense? But the defense! It'll be stretched! Because of his speed! That's far more important than his ability to, you know, score in an empty net from three yards.
To be fair, one of those was from like... eight yards.
You're right, I'm being too harsh on the guy who scored once in 12 MLS games this year. Me, I start Altidore and Buddle. Dempsey just seems so much more comfortable starting in midfield and moving up later, and for my money "how can we get the most out of Dempsey?" is a more important question than the Buddle/Holden dilemma. Besides, dude, Buddle was visited by some sort of magical goalscoring fairy last offseason.
I won't be mad if it's Buddle-Altidore. I will only be mad if Findley starts. I can see him as a 60th minute sub against an old and creaky English defense, but that's all. I mean, aren't Jozy and Buddle somewhat close to his speed?
Yes. They are not slow. I wonder if Bradley believes they are because they are not short.
You left out one positional debate: midfielder who is not Bradley.
Who should start next to Bradley? Leave your thoughts below!
We can discuss our choice for not-Bradley defensive midfielder, but I'll eat a raw egg if it's not Clark. Donovan said after the Aussie match B. Bradley had used it to get his guys used to playing 90 at altitude. That Clark played that 90 (until his weird hamstring/thigh injury that no one is allowed to talk about, ever, for some weird reason) tells me it's not even a matter of debate.
Does that bother you at all? Clark sucked against Turkey. Pulling him off for Torres turned that game around. Against Australia the midfield provided almost no resistance, leaving the back four exposed. He's supposed to be a destroyer but I don't remember one tackle from the friendlies. How effective can Clark be if he's not even picking up yellows? I don't even know if that's a joke.
He was balls against Turkey but I think you're selling him a little short against the Aussies; he wasn't great, but he had a handful of decent plays, and he played the cross-field ball to Cherundolo that set him up for the run-and-cross to Buddle.
I'd start Edu myself, but I don't think England is the right game for Torres. Because jobs No. 1, 1a, 1b, and 1c for whoever starts alongside Bradley are: Mark Frank Lampard. Possession is awful nice, we all know that, but taking Lampard out of the game and unshackling Bradley from that kind of dirty work might be even nicer. If you disrupt Lampard, maybe Gerrard has to come forward to try and get something going in the middle, maybe now we've got even more space on the counter for Bradley. I think Edu could manage that assignment and give us some ball control, but I'm all right with Clark.
I'm just leery of Clark because he's basically Onyewu. He has hardly played since the end of the last MLS season. The difference in the midfield is that the US has options. Edu's battled injury problems of his own but got some significant run for Rangers towards the end of the season and just looks more ready to play. I know some of the soccer insider folks have been suggesting he will start and Clark's friendly experience was an effort to get him fitness, fitness that Edu already has. I'm hoping that's the case.
I agree that the US will be playing to absorb pressure and will be thrilled with a draw, so Torres will not and should not start. If the US is behind at the half, I think he might be a quick sub, but that's only if things aren't going well.
Here's to hoping the insiders are right. I'm not losing sleep over Clark (not more than I'm already losing anyway), but there's loads more potential for a transcendent, England-beating performance with Edu.
There's seems to be a growing consensus out there that Torres needs to start against Slovenia and Algeria, though. We're part of that consensus, right? Is anyone not?
I am so on-board with that consensus. Going back to the "form" argument, Torres has logged a ton of time for Pachuca, way more than the other viable options. He takes pressure off a central defense that will feature Demerit and someone who is not Bocanegra. Bocanegra is pretty good with the ball at his feet and takes pressure off his central defense partner when he's in the middle; when he's not the US has hoofers. Having Torres drop back to pick up possession, relieve pressure, and release freakily accurate balls to attacking players makes the US way more likely to score from the run of play.
You and I are charter members of the Jose Torres fan club, though. At halftime of the Costa Rica game in CR we were ready to fly down there and scream at Bradley for yanking Torres at the half.
I don't know if I've ever been more confused by any coach I've followed, in any sport, than Bob Bradley. He makes so many decisions that make me think a ferret with a Ouija board could do better. But the results are there: 1st in the Hex. Confed Cup finalists. Even these two friendlies; 2-1 over Turkey and 3-1 over Australia (both of those teams something close to their respective A-sides) are light years ahead of what we saw in the '98, '06, and even '02 run-ups. I can't decide if I want to hug him or strangle him. Maybe start to hug him and turn it into a strangle.
In any case: no more ambivalence after Saturday, which is nice. You on the panic side or the 1776 all over again side?
I'm not expecting a win. That Onyewu injury is haunting. Right after everything with the Confed Cup that got him the Milan transfer, a meaningless game against Costa Rica, the injury... the total lack of field time... I mean, I think the US is a good bet to score against England but unless Timmah puts on a Spain-like show I think they're going down.
My personal prediction is a 2-2 draw with the U.S. going up 2-1 early in the second and just barely--like, batting cage-style bombardment on Howard's goal--hanging on for the point. I'm thinking we really need a point at least, though, because I've to the conclusion that Slovenia could be nightmarish. It's _so_ easy to see an early mental lapse in defense, a 1-0 deficit, and 80 minutes of useless pounding away at the same defense that did just that to Russia. (Russia as coached by Guus Hiddink, nonetheless.) Tell me why that won't happen. Please? I'm begging you. Seriously, I'm on my knees here.
Russia doesn't have Jose Torres.
No, just Andrei Arshavin.
I cannot tell you anything about Slovenia other than the vague overviews, but that's totally possible. The US is only 56% to advance according to Nate Silver's crazy computer, but the Slovenians are just going to sit back and hope, really. Their defense is fantastic; their offense is piddling. I think that's the game Torres comes in and maintains possession like a mofo.
That video does fill me with hope. Still, I think the most likely path to progression for U.S. remains England draw, Slovenia draw, Algeria win, five points is good for second. I do think progression is the most likely outcome, since Slovenia (despite my worries) and Algeria are still Slovenia and Algeria. But thanks to the defense, I'm still clutching my knees to my chest and singing Amazing Grace to myself twice daily.
What do you think of the U.S.'s chances of getting out of the group? Leave your thoughts in the comments below!
I'd rather look at the broader picture with Slovenia: they had a weak group and bombed out of Euro '08. Algeria is widely regarded as the weakest team outside of the pure minnows (North Korea, New Zealand, and Honduras) and may be eliminated already. And England has a rich history of wobbly play. I do think Silver is about right and the US is only 60-40 to get out of the group, but 60-40 isn't bad.
But there is nothing that can possibly calm my nerves. What if they played college football once every four years and made the season 3-6 games? You would die, and nothing could prevent you from doing so. Thus the World Cup.
There is something both soul-crushingly horrible and soul-stirringly fantastic about being the kind of soccer fan--a species I'm going to hyperbolically claim is unique to the U.S., and which I believe represents the both of us--who love the sport, never attached themselves to a club side for geographic reasons, and root exclusively for the national side. Our team plays, essentially, three games that matter every four years. They mean absolutely everything. There is no next year, no fallback, no safety net of a club for our investment as fans. Defeat is unbearable. But victory a la 1994 or 2002 is ... it's hard to describe. I mean, remember the Portugal game? My dog could have been run over by the girl who wouldn't go out with me in seventh grade and I'd have written her a check for tire damage. Or something.
I do. That was the greatest day of soccer fandom ever for me, because I was in Ireland and the next game was the famous 1-1 draw with Germany that basically put the Irish through to the second round. May some day this month equal it.
At the same time Izzo is either going to Cleveland or not going to Cleveland (GO TO CLEVELAND, FOR GOD'S SAKE) another misinformation-rife story has either happened or not happened. This one is almost universally in the "happened" category, though, and there is actual FOIAed evidence of it:
Resolution regarding UNL athletic conference alignment.
If you want a meticulously-linked summary of the current state of affairs, Doctor Saturday has you covered. Suffice it to say that the evidence in the media is at the point that it should overwhelm the understandable skepticism given the many false alarms to date.
The Big 12 is "dead" according to expansion savant Chip Brown, with Nebraska's defection the fatal blow and the original Pac-16 (Colorado, no Baylor) the next step. Colorado's move to the Pac-something is the next domino, with Matt Hayes and the local paper both declaring the move a fait accompli:
The University of Colorado will announce at an 11 a.m. Friday press conference that the school will leave the Big 12 and join the Pac-10.
Multiple sources confirmed the deal to the Camera early Thursday, and league officials are scheduled to be in Boulder on Friday for the announcement.
The Big 12 is set to explode soon after, though the remaining members are gathering in Austin to see if they can work something out. Also Texas A&M has been talking with the SEC, because crazy needs to happen everywhere.
Big Ten Endgame
The Big Ten seems to have been undone by the "solidarity pledge" taken by Texas (woo!), A&M (all right), and Tech (guh) despite the widely-held opinion amongst Texas fans that UT would prefer the Big Ten and the CIC over the Pac-10 and nothing. If we're entering a world of 16-team super conferences that are logistically stupid, the Pac-10 has just eaten the Texas power pellet and will start chasing the Big Ten all over the map, all because they are willing to swallow things like Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech.
If the Big 12 South minus Baylor does move to the Pac Something, where does that leave the Big Ten? Outmaneuvered, mostly. Letting Texas escape to another conference is a major blow. They'll be battering down Notre Dame's door by threatening to pick off enough Big East schools to destabilize ND's home for basketball and non-revenue sports. They could pick over the scattered remnants of the Big 12 to see if they want a Missouri, though the current environment suggests they won't.
Just because everything is happening all at once and these things are the variety of news that goes yes-no-yes-no-yes-no in the modern world, here's a random 10PM update on one of the Stories Of Our Time.
The Only Colors isn't using DEFCON to measure its Izzo departure panic level, but on a scale of 1-10 they're at 4.5 and KJ is still "well under 50%." He admits that's moving towards things he hopes instead of things he thinks, and I might be in the same boat: I think they're inching just over 50% but admit that is also a necessarily biased opinion.
I've got some reasons, though. TOC appears to be banking on the idea that Izzo will do a Billy Donovan-esque pullout, because the people on the team are predicting a departure. Delvon Roe's dad:
Blanton, who lives near Cleveland, has not spoken with Izzo. But he said he thinks Izzo will end up taking the Cavs job. "My opinion is, I think he's gonna leave," Blanton said. "When you keep it in the air this long. ... I don' t know if he's happy where he's at right now."
That's considerably less encouraging* than the original Rexrode blog post, which just mentioned Blanton's opinion that Izzo was out without giving the details. Blanton appears to be guessing.
On the other hand, this opinion may have come from his son and appears to be an opinion shared by multiple current Spartan players:
Sources have told The Plain Dealer that Michigan State players left a meeting with Tom Izzo Tuesday night believing he was going to leave to accept Gilbert's offer to become the next Cavaliers coach. Izzo didn't tell them that, he called the meeting to acknowledge reports that he'd been offered the job, but players left afraid they were about to lose their coach.
And as if on cue given the Ethics Throwdown this weekend, Cleveland blog Waiting For Next Year just plain says Izzo is headed to Cleveland:
Sources close to WFNY have informed us that Tom Izzo has told his players at Michigan State that he plans on taking the Cavaliers job. Our sources have heard directly from players on the MSU team that Izzo informed them this week that he is planning on making the move up to the NBA level under the ownership of MSU grad Dan Gilbert.
This has caused much consternation on the twitters from local beatwriters, ESPN's Pat Forde, and various other national basketball reporting folk. And… yeah… they're not wrong. WFNY's report has been directly refuted by multiple sources, with direct quotes from Blanton. This is yet another example of someone jumping the gun.
On the other hand, this sarcasm from Forde…
Stunned that anonymous blog got this wrong. RT @LarryLage MSU asst Mark Montgomery told AP Izzo informed players Tues he has talked to Cavs
…is wildly provincial given the events of the past month—which have seen a parade of false reports about conference expansion—let alone the few months that have passed since the Chicago Sun-Times refused to let the Stoops-to-ND rumors die. Mainstream media folk pretending that blogs have cornered the market on erroneous reports are just as annoying as bloggers blithely stating that the proper amount of ethics is none.
Still: WFNY could have broken a major story if they'd just, you know, gotten it right. I don't necessarily blame them. As I discovered during Michigan's coaching search, and the Sun-Times will discover sometime in 2015 when it finally becomes clear to them that Bob Stoops is not Notre Dame's next coach, these situations are nightmares to report. Solid information is thin on the ground, minds can change in an instant, and certain parties are motivated to leak information to get what they want, whether it's true or false. Getting something wrong is going to happen.
But now that there are direct quotes contradicting their story they should give readers as much detail as they can about why they believe what they do and leave the decision in the reader's hand. They're "standing by" their original report after multiple people have called them liars. It's time to stop hiding behind "sources." That's a Sun-Times move. Here's this blog's primordial example from the coaching search, and the ur-example from the Morgan Trent Broken Hand New Media Fiasco. As it is, even if Izzo does take the job they were just wrong first.
[UPDATE: WFNY has done the full data dump suggested here. I still think they would have gotten a lot less attention straight away and looked better long term if they had gone for the soft sell, but it's a major step in the right direction.]
*(I'm not even going to pretend that I'm not pulling like a mofo for Izzo to leave. Blah blah blah, Michigan is its own program, etc: lies. The absolute best State can do is get a coach just as good, and the chances of that are small.)
Michigan's 2010 APR is out, and all sports that aren't football are well clear of the 925 penalty mark. Football is down to 936 thanks to the 897 they put up last year, something this site repeatedly fretted about before getting the raw numbers and concluding it would take a San Jose State level of failure to get in trouble this year.
That 897 is ugly, considerably uglier than even my revised estimate was, but Michigan avoids falling below the 925 mark that would see them suffer "contemporaneous penalties"—eye-for-an-eye scholarship losses that prohibit you from replacing students who leave ineligible. Since the just-released numbers cover 2008-09 and Kurt Wermers (and possibly others) left ineligible, Michigan would have gotten hit.
Next year is when Michigan might feel some pain and the corresponding Super Fun Headlines that go along with it. The fancy 979 from 2006 drops off the calculation and Michigan will have to deal with the 918 put up in Lloyd Carr's last year, the 940 from Rodriguez's first, and the transfer-saddled 897 just posted. To avoid falling under the 925 mark they'll have to put up a 945 next year.
How bad is that 897? It depends on what the breakdown is. Michigan spent the last couple years witheringly short of scholarship players, which magnified the impact of each transfer. The NCAA keeps separate numbers for eligibility and retention, but unfortunately the site which has those numbers has not yet been updated with the latest numbers. If Michigan has a terrible retention rate and a good eligibility rate, the problem is solely the flood of Carr-to-Rodriguez transfers. If the eligibility rate is poor, that would not be good.
That would not be due to Rodriguez's recruiting. Since the numbers are from last year, the only RR recruits on the team were the scattered late adds to the 2008 class and the 2009 freshmen. Of those players, only Justin Feagin and Taylor Hill have left, and Hill might not even count since he left the team so quickly he probably beat the drop/add deadline. Feagin played last year at Texas Southern.
Not that tomorrow's newspaper articles will mention anything but the 897.