gambling establishment etc
Here is the latest on from ESPN on the Freep article. Somewhat more measured, I guess.
I'm not too sure what to make of the "allegations". It seems that there were some former players (and I'm not too sure if the current players that were mentioned were just the freshmen that he cut and pasted their quotes) that didn't like the change in culture and want to throw stones.
My take: What it seems to me is that Rodriguez, Barwis walk in last year... see the dumbbells ala jack lalanne circa 19-ought-8... and after picking their jaws off the floor, they say "we have a ton of work to do". So they have their meeting with the players, say "this is how it's going to change", and in their minds they know they will suck, but let's whip these fluffballs into shape for next year. Workouts become hard, reallyyyy hard (comparatively, you know, like actual workouts now), and some don't like this change. Workouts beyond the 8 hours are "voluntary" as everyone winks, but just like every other sport, it's about who wants it bad enough. All they knew from the Carr days was full large pizzas and lifting some weight some times, right? Some shined in these situations, some didn't, got left behind, and now complained to a willing Freep who is more than happy to sensationalize it to end up on the ESPN.com ticker. The Brandon Minors excelled, the Borens didn't in this environment.
Mod Edited Formatting
In my mind, the Freep article left a host of important questions unanswered in its attempt to brand the Michigan football program NCAA rule-breakers.
1. Most obviously, who are these guys? The phrase "current or former" players is vague. How many are currently on the roster? How many left the program early? How many graduated? How many lost playing time under Rodriguez? How many were Carr recruits? All these questions could have been answered without compromising the anonymity of the sources. Why weren't they?
2. Speaking of anonymity, why were the former players allowed the opportunity to speak without attribution? The Freep offered this justification for granting anonymity: “The players and parents agreed to talk only if they were not identified because they said they feared repercussions from the coaching staff.” How does this apply to former players? Were they worried Mike Barwis would come to their houses and pull some MMA moves on them? I used to work for a media watch non-profit, and they liked to call these “spinonymous sources” – individuals granted anonymity on dubious grounds with an obvious interest in pushing one side of the story. A disgruntled transfer who has already cut all ties with Michigan would certainly fit in that category.
3. How many programs have off-season conditioning programs that, if required, would wildly violate the NCAA hour limits? How many of these programs strongly encourage their players to attend, so they can get bigger and stronger and compete for playing time? Would this quote apply to all of them? “‘It was mandatory,’ one player said. ‘They’d tell you it wasn’t, but it really was.’"
4. Why are the quotes from freshmen Je’Ron Stokes and Brandin Hawthorne in the story? Were they misled as to the nature of the story? Did their quotes add anything to the story’s contention that Michigan was requiring players, in violation of NCAA rules, to attend rigorous offseason workouts? With all the Freep’s concern for the anonymity of both current and former players, why would they put true freshmen in the uncomfortable situation of having their quotes used in a way they obviously never intended? The disclaimer that the players were “not complaining” does nothing to change the fact that these student-athletes are now forever publicly associated with a story eviscerating the program they just joined.
However, as NCAA sanctions and the like were mentioned, I began to see a glimmer of hope:
1. All programs do this. As everyone knows, in college (and high school sports, for that matter) off season workouts are not "voluntary", but mandatory if you ever want to see the field.
2. The coaches never strictly declared they were mandatory. Because of this, I'm not sure the NCAA truly can come back and slam the U-M football program. Besides, what are they going to do, take away our 3 wins from last year?
3. Finally, this seems to be another facet of the "wah wah family values" that we've seen develop over the last year and half. Hopefully the NCAA will take this into consideration when reviewing the situation.
Maybe this has already been discussed but I'm not about to read through over 330 replies for the original forum topic...
My question is how or does this affect the team chemistry? At this point we're less than a week away from kickoff! One of my concerns is how the team responds to news like this. Does something like this bring the team closer together or drive them apart/lead to a witch hunt? The other question is how do the coaches respond to something like this? I don't have the answers and hope someone can give me some reassurance.
So much for getting any sleep tonight.
Thought some of you might enjoy the Onion's take on purported peace talks between Michigan and Ohio State.