that is nice bonus change
Summary. The Rodriguez transition as expressed by Smurfs:
That is all.
Second edition? There's been a disconnect between the recruiting buzz on incoming defensive end Jibreel Black (major talent, say mods at the usual sites) and the recruiting services who placed him on the three/four-star borderline. Michigan's coaches had been after Black from early on in his recruiting cycle and pursued him through two(!) commitments to other schools, so they seem to be on the former side.
Maybe a couple more people are sidling over there after Black's performance in the North-South Ohio All Star game:
The star of the night, however, was Jibreel Black. He was constantly in the backfield and pretty much controlled the entire second half. He’s not the biggest guy (6’2” 255) in the world, but then neither was Brandon Graham. And when pressed for what was going to happen the next time he plays in the Horseshoe as a Wolverine, Black didn’t hesitate to answer.
“I’ll be doing the same thing,” he laughed. “Pryor better watch out.”
Insert all the usual caveats about all-star games here—who knows if the kid he was going up against is even going I-A, for one—but anything that causes an observer to mention Brandon Graham in the same sentence as someone with eligibility remaining is all right by me.
Antonio Kinard had a pick six and was reputed to have played well; the other Michigan recruits didn't draw much mention except someone calling the matchup between Courtney Avery and 6'7" OSU WR signee Tyrone Williams "unfair." His quarterbacks were exceptionally good sports about it, though, and he finished with just two catches for 19 yards. Tim has more detail in a mini-Friday Night Lights post coming up later today.
It's the circle of life.
Catching up with defectors past. Penn State's quarterback situation is not so good. Kevin Newsome, who you may remember as one of the defectors in the defection-laden class of 2008, is the only scholarship quarterback on campus right now. His competition is Matt McGloin, a walk-on(!), and neither is burning up the field:
McGloin (10 of 23, 110 yards) threw two interceptions and should have had a third – a drop by new defensive back Chaz Powell – returned 90 yards for a touchdown in the first half.
Newsome, a righty with a near-sidearm throwing motion, finished 5 of 12 for 50 yards and lost 12 yards rushing. Dual threat? Not so much Saturday.
Neither is the offensive line, apparently:
To be fair, the QBs didn't have much time to set their feet. Or duck. …
“We're trying different combinations and we're trying to get the best five guys in there,'' Paterno said during a news conference right before the scrimmage.
“The tackles are a concern for us. … We're not really sure who the tackles are going to be.''
Before you go cackling to your Penn State friends, remember that 1) Penn State's defense is not Michigan's defense and 2) IIRC, the author of this article is one of those dinosaur local columnists whose schtick is relentless negativity.
However, a softened version of the snark above has been related by generally positive outlets like the PSU's Scout and Rivals sites. It's safe to say that a certain level of disquiet exists in Happy Valley. Many people are openly speculating about how JoePa is going to have to grit his teeth and start one of his two true freshmen this fall. One of them, Paul Jones, did enroll early. Whoever starts is going to be protected by a couple of converted guards at tackle.
In other spring games:
- Is it good news or bad news that MSU's game, which was an actual game, ended 17-10? I don't know. Kirk Cousin remains an effective passer. The offensive line gave up eight sacks but the starters were split across teams.
- Notre Dame beat Notre Dame 27-19, spawning a number of thread on the message board about how they were terrible and will die against us in the fall. The ND side of things is less resigned to doom. You could even call them encouraged. I think your walk-on second string QB going 18 for 30 for 223 yards, 3 TDs, and 1 INT is not so good, but as always to read too much into spring games at your peril.
Other future warrior-poets. Meanwhile on the AAU circuit, Carlton Brundidge may have developed a jumper:
Give credit to Carlton Brundidge, the kid is putting in work. The only knock on him in the past has been the lack of a consistent jump shot from three point range, but that looks to be coming along nicely. With defenders playing a sagging zone designed to stop Amir Williams, Brundidge was hitting from deep with ease. As always he still finished going to the rim off the dribble, but Brundidge really looks improved shooting the deep jumper.
UMHoops has video of Brundidge going off for 44 in last weekend's AAU tournament, in which his team made the final before falling. It's impressive even if #15 on the opposition has a dedication to defense that can be described as "hilariously lacking."
Also, AA.com's Mike Rothstein has an interview with Bacari Alexander:
Q: What was the best Globetrotter experience you had?
BA: “You don’t realize what the significance of the Globetrotter experience is until you travel abroad. When I went to Stockholm, Sweden and there was a capacity crowd in the arena to the tune of 18, 19,000 sold out, I said ‘Wow.’ You don’t realize that you’re a part of something so much bigger than yourself.”
This is all right and good. Sweden loves the quintessentially American Globetrotters. America loves Carl Hagelin. We'll call it even. Full profile coming later today.
Updating crush rates. MCalibur updates his QB fragility study, finding that 1) last year was a bad year for everyone except pocket statues and 2) there's still no statistical significance in the numbers. Note that this doesn't mean people who assert running QBs get injured more are definitely wrong:
At first blush it looks like there’s a difference in the injury rates of level 1, 2, and 0/3 but the fact of the matter is that there is insufficient evidence to support this. I actually ran hypothesis tests this time and that was the outcome (failure to reject the null hypothesis that A=B=C=D). Note that this does not mean that no difference exists, simply that there is no reason to conclude that a difference does exist. The differences observed are statistically insignificant.
This is a lesson David Berri could stand to learn. Still, whatever increase there might be in running quarterbacks is minimal if it exists at all:
After six years of data, the guys who run more than anyone else are 2-3% more likely to get injured than pocket throwers and the least-injured quarterbacks are guys who run a little.
Etc.: Women's tennis brings home a Big Ten title and is in the range where a national title isn't out of the possibility. Ann Arbor voids all those parking tickets from the spring game. Nebraska is now making noises about the Big Ten. So is Paul Tagliabue; his are very silly. You are now bowl eligible if you are bowl eligible.
A glimpse into the future: here's a table of schools that would fall under the 925 line if we just look at the last three years of data. These schools could be subject to contemporaneous penalties if they lose a kid because he is ineligible unless they improve this year.
Columns are mostly self explanatory. APR XX = single-year APR. SS XX = squad size for a particular year. 09 APR so far is a combination of the APR scores weighted by the squad sizes, so UAB's 756 counts more than their 931 because the 756 saw 97 players and the 931 just 80. I think I might be slightly off on the weightings here because squad size may not directly correspond with points available, but these should be close.
The last column is the score the school needs to break to get out of the contemporaneous penalties zone. Obviously, the top four teams are not going to climb out in one year. BCS teams have been bolded.
|School||Conf.||APR||APR 08||SS 08||APR 07||SS 07||APR 06||SS 06||09 APR
|Florida International||Sun Belt||904||965||81||891||77||822||90||890||1030|
|San Jose State University||WAC||888||952||78||876||82||853||86||892||1024|
|Washington State University||Pac-10||918||922||84||874||88||921||90||906||983|
|University of Mississippi||SEC||910||891||85||945||76||890||85||907||978|
|University of Idaho||WAC||905||938||77||880||87||911||90||909||974|
|New Mexico State University||WAC||905||900||95||920||87||913||89||911||968|
|University at Buffalo||MAC||908||921||80||933||81||884||86||912||964|
|University of Minnesota||Big Ten||915||887||89||935||88||924||86||915||955|
|University of Colorado||Big 12||929||935||90||893||90||918||94||915||954|
|University of North Texas||Sun Belt||911||914||87||917||87||924||85||918||945|
|University of South Florida||Big East||909||938||85||937||85||879||79||919||943|
|Florida Atlantic University||Sun Belt||913||935||85||918||77||911||85||921||936|
|University of Arkansas||SEC||927||918||91||937||91||910||96||921||936|
|University of Akron||MAC||926||948||90||906||90||912||89||922||934|
|Florida State University||ACC||932||871||91||960||83||938||94||922||934|
Ole Miss is the most relevant team in the danger zone, and it looks doubtful they will be able to avoid a small penalty or two. Florida State's ugly 871 will be an anchor for a few years but if they bounce back with numbers similar to their record to date it won't be a serious problem. And Tim Brewster's gift to whoever replaces him in two years is going to be that 887.
Data ho. Current four-year rates for eligibility and retention plus squad sizes and overall APRs for all of I-A, organized by conference. This was always hard to get out of the PDFs and prevented wide-scale comparisons without enormous amounts of grunt work.
|Conference||APR||Eligibility Rate||Retention Rate||Squad Size|
The ACC is your APR champion by a healthy margin; the rest of the BCS is virtually indistinguishable from another (and the Mountain West) save for the Big 12, which lags. The MAC, WAC, and Sun Belt bring up the rear, with the Sun Belt's appalling eligibility rate standing as yet another reason that conference is a blight on I-A.
Individual conference numbers after the jump.
So I was planning on putting up a post at the usual time and then I fell down the rabbit hole at the NCAA's new APR data-dump site, which happens to be a joint project with Michigan itself. After pounding at their online interface for a while, screaming "why?" the whole time, I just downloaded the whole dataset and set about doing stuff in Open Office's Excel clone.
First, a clear explanation of how the numbers are calculated from the site's Codebook:
A team’s APR cohort for a given year is composed of student-athletes who receive financial aid based on athletic ability; if a team does not offer athletics aid, then the cohort consists of those student-athletes who are listed on the varsity roster on the first day of competition. Each student-athlete in the APR cohort has the ability to earn two points for each regular academic term of full-time enrollment. One point is awarded if the student-athlete is academically eligible to compete in the following regular academic term. The other point is awarded if the student-athlete is retained by the institution (i.e., returns to school as a full-time student) in the next regular academic term. Student-athletes who graduate are given both the eligibility and retention points for the term. Squads can also earn a delayed graduation point if a student-athlete who left the institution without graduating returns to the institution and graduates.
At the start of each academic year, each Division I team's APR is calculated by adding all points earned by student-athletes in the team's cohorts in each of the previous four years, dividing that total by the number of possible points the student-athletes could have earned and multiplying by 1,000. Thus, an APR of 950 means that the student-athletes in the cohort earned 95 percent of the eligibility and retention points that they could have earned.
This answers a few questions I had before: walk-ons don't count, but walk-ons who pick up scholarships do. They even include a handy football example:
Example of APR Calculation for a Men’s Football Team (n=85 at start of year)
Semester 1 (Fall) Points Earned
75 student-athletes eligible and retained to next term (or graduate in that term)
75*(2 of 2) = 150 of 150
3 student-athletes are retained to next term but are academically ineligible
3*(1 of 2) = 3 of 6
5 student-athletes leave the university while academically eligible
5*(1 of 2) = 5 of 10
2 student-athletes leave the university while academically ineligible
2*(0 of 2) = 0 of 4
Semester Total 158 of 170 (929 APR)
There are also separate rates for eligibility and retention provided as part of the data set that only consider the appropriate halves of the equation. For example, the retention rate above is 78/85 or 918.
Also: it is super hard to get serious penalties. The 925 Mendoza line everyone has been throwing around is indeed the cutoff above which a player leaving ineligible does not hurt you, but falling below that line does not immediately bring penalties with it. It only hurts you if 1) you are below 925 and 2) you have a player leave ineligible. The punishment is an inability to use that player's scholarship the next year. You have to get below 900 before the NCAA comes in with a stick looking for trouble. Only three schools (Temple, San Jose State, and UAB) fell below that line.
Nevermind The Panic
A drumroll for Michigan's exact numbers:
|Year||APR||Eligibility Rate||Retention Rate||Squad Size|
A couple oddities are immediately apparent:
- Michigan's 2008 APR is higher than either of their individual breakout scores, which should be mathematically impossible. This also happens in 2006.
- Squad sizes somehow range from 85—the theoretical maximum—to 99. Early departures from mid-year graduates and transfers could bring the numbers up somewhat if the second semester has a bunch of new faces, be they freshmen or walk-ons, but those numbers seem abnormally high.
- Lloyd Carr's last year: guh. Remember that picture where Mike Hart is staring down five Buckeyes? "889" is that in numerical form.
Also, the NCAA official numbers confirm my back-of-envelope doodling: despite the flood of transfers over the last few years, Michigan is nowhere near even the "contemporaneous penalties" cutoff line. It would take a 2009 APR of 863 or worse to get into trouble. This is actually four points more buffer than this site's previous estimate.
863 is spectacularly low. Only four teams have managed that over the past three years: SJSU, UAB, Temple, and Florida State(!). Those are three mid-major schools who specialize in the marginally eligible and a school that endured a massive institutional cheating scandal. Michigan is not in either situation. We can officially stop worrying about this. Not that you would have been worrying about it without my prompting.
There is no official word about it yet, but both premium sites have started with the grumbles about the upcoming APR report. As demanded by math, Michigan won't fare well. This here site has been fretting about the APR numbers since at least May of last year when the 2008 numbers came out:
I am a bit concerned Michigan's football numbers will dip over the next few years. The four-year rolling numbers:
That's a steady decline as the Carr years waned and attrition increased. The APR issues two points per student per year, one for being academically eligible and one for not leaving, and Michigan's suffered a lot of premature departures.
Note that I didn't have that quite right. The APR issues two points per term:
What is the APR?
The Academic Progress Rate is an NCAA measure to track the academic achievement of Division I teams during each academic term. Each student-athlete earns one point for staying in school and one point for being academically eligible. A team’s total points are divided by points possible and multiplied by 1,000 to equal the team’s APR score. Teams that fall below the minimum APR score of 925 face possible sanctions ranging from scholarship reductions to more severe penalties.
Also, early pro departures who leave in good standing don't hurt you. If they leave ineligible, that's 0-for-2.
In late July, I tried to put some hard numbers on the departures and came up with improbably positive results: even after somewhere between twelve and fifteen players left the team in 2009 I came up with a worst-case number of 941, which is considerably above the NCAA minimum of 925. After some consideration, I think my error was in overestimating the number of available points. Michigan's latest APR report shows an N of 241. If Michigan was using every last scholarship every semester—or, rather, if the NCAA was counting every last scholarship—that N would be 260. If you assume that only 93% of the points are available in an average year, the 941 estimate drops to 937. Since Michigan has spent the last two years really short that is a conservative estimate.
Since then Michigan has lost Justin Feagin, Marell Evans, Vince Helmuth, Boubacar Cissoko, and Brandon Smith, but it's unclear where those guys will count. Smith and Cissoko will clearly apply to 2010 numbers, but Feagin, Evans, and Helmuth all left over the summer and it's not clear which year their departures will be charged to. Feagin played at Texas Southern this year and therefore must have left eligible. Evans was a member of Hampton's latest recruiting class*, which makes me think he stayed at Michigan for at least a semester. If he'd transferred immediately he would have played, like Feagin did. (He's still in the directory, but I'm still in the directory. This is not conclusive.) Vince Helmuth transferred to Miami (Not That Miami). Since that's a D-I school he has to sit out a year eligible or not, but IIRC Helmuth was a good student in high school and Miami is not a common destination for the academically challenged.
Departures after the July 22 post should cost Michigan two more APR points if they count against '09 at all. That brings them down to 930 using the same system my rough, still-optimistic math above suggests. My guess is Michigan's APR this year is below 925.
ARRRRGH GIVE ME A FRICKIN' SIREN?
But will they fall under the mark when all four years are averaged? Probably not. Since the first APR reports on the NCAA's site cover shorter periods of time we can figure out Michigan's yearly APR and find the ones that will figure in this year's calculation.
The last three scores are 970, 930, and 933. The premium grumbles give me pause—does anyone care enough to mention it if Michigan's four-year APR drops to 935?—but Michigan would have to drop an 867 this year to be subject to penalties. That 970 is a big buffer.
It's a buffer that will go away next year, though, and Michigan will have to resume its usual practice of not flailing around with 67 scholarship kids because of a zillion transfers if it's going to stay out of the penalty box. Of course, if Michigan doesn't do that the APR is just going to be another reason Michigan's looking for a new coach.
*(So is Nu'Keese Richardson, FWIW.)
His blog is long defunct but a hat tip to ny1995, who did the legwork in the NCAA infractions database and unearthed these cases. Burgeoning Wolverine Star also highlighted the FIU case I'm about to and has a take on the similarities between the two cases.
UPDATE: I asked Compliance Guy to sanity-check this and have added his comments in below.
The accusations the NCAA has levied against Michigan are not unprecedented, so a look at a couple similar cases over the past decade might prove illuminating. But first, here's an example of what qualifies as a "major violation" these days. One of the things San Diego State got nailed for:
During the 1998-99 through 2001-02 academic years, the assistant coach provided impermissible apparel to the student-athletes who played the position of offensive line. Specifically, at the commencement of training camp each year, the assistant coach distributed “flexi-fit” hats embroidered with the offensive line’s theme for the particular year. Themes have included “Big Block Boys,” “O-Line Finish the Block” and “Trench Warriors.” Further, at the conclusion of the 2002 spring practices, the assistant coach distributed shirts embroidered with the phrase “Tuff 15” to only those members of the offensive line who attended all 15-spring practice sessions. The fair market value of the shirts was approximately $35 and the hats, approximately $25.
The following section explains the committee's rationale for deeming TRENCH WARRIOR hats a major violation:
The enforcement staff and the institution agreed that the apparel items were provided with no intent to violate a rule and provided little, if any, competitive advantage. However, the violations occurred over a period of four years, was not isolated or inadvertent and thus could not be considered a secondary violation.
Takeaways: the chance that Michigan does not get hit with a major violation in August is zero. The QC stuff isn't going to be deemed "isolated or inadvertent." But "major" has clearly ceased to mean much aside from providing big scary headlines.
Compliance Guy: The term "major violation" has this big scary connotation. In fact, the default for a violation is major. It's up to the university to prove that it met the two criteria to be classified secondary:
- Isolated or inadvertant; and
- Did not provide a significant competitive advantage or provide a significant benefit.
Being a major violation means you start with a set of presumed penalties that are then argued up or down (usually down overall, the list is extensive) based on the facts of the individual case. In the past, most secondary violations did not have prescribed penalties so you had much more flexibility if the violation was secondary. Now there are prescribed penalties for most secondary violations as well.
At this point the biggest difference between a major violation and a secondary violation is public reprimand and censure. If you have a secondary violation, the NCAA doesn't announce it, and it's stored in a private database without the school's name attached. A major violation is announced and stored in a public database with the school's name front and center.
IMHO, the NCAA ought to either find a bigger distinction or do away with the distinction all together. In fact, there's actually three types of violations: Level I secondary violations (so small they are only reported to the conference); Level II secondary violations (reported to the NCAA and involve student-athlete eligibility or rules the NCAA is focused on); and major violations. I say expand the Level I list a bit and just have two types of violations: Level I and Level II, where Level II might include an infractions hearings and major penalties.
What They Did
1. An assistant coach—we'll call him Captain Dumbass—conducted "skill and technique workouts" with offensive linemen during the summer over the course of three years. 30 impermissible workouts over three years gave them a "competitive advantage."
2. Over the same timespan, Captain Dumbass conducted "impermissible technique activity" in the same fashion as the summer sessions, for another 27 impermissible workouts.
3. Captain Dumbass then lied to the NCAA and attempted to call another student athlete, disclosing the content of his interview and telling the kid to lie to the NCAA as well. He did, then he recanted.
4. Failure to monitor. "The football coaching staff, including the head coach, and members of the S&C staff were aware in varying degrees" of the sessions. The administration was not. "The majority of the coaches" were aware the sessions were not kosher, but not one said anything. Note this failure to monitor was directed at the university only.
5. A secondary violation because the S&C coach took attendance at voluntary S&C activities and periodically reported the information to other coaches.
What They Did To Themselves
They fired Captain Dumbass and eliminated the OL coach position for the entire 2004 season and 2005 spring practice. They reduced preseason practices by four, and gave up 171 hours (twice the number of impermissible hours logged by the offensive line) of mandatory practice or conditioning over the course of three years.
They also took one assistant coach off the road for the spring evaluation period for two years, put notes in folks' permanent record, and hit people with some pay decreases/finger wagging.
What Got Done To Them
Three years of probation for the university and a three year show-cause penalty for Captain Dumbass.
Compliance Guy: This is probably a good starting point for the penalties Michigan might face. Unlike the SDSU violation, this violation covered just practice violations (aka only Bylaw 17, the playing and practice limits bylaw). Michigan's alleged violations cover Bylaw 17 plus another (Bylaw 11, personnel limits) but the penalty is accounted for here: eliminating a coaching staff position for at least a year.
The COI didn't do anything of substance to FIU. Three years probation is one over the minimum and makes sense considering the violations lasted three years. And the three-year show cause penalty is pretty fair considering Captain Dumbass not only was involved in the majority of the underlying violations AND lied to the NCAA about it, but also tried to get someone else to lie about it too.
San Diego State
What They Did
1. Over the course of three years, the offensive line coach conducted mandatory offseason "deep sand training" for an hour once a week May through July. (What is it with OL coaches?) Captain Dumbass #2 then sold videos of this training as part of a three-video package featuring current student athletes. He also wrote newsletters praising attendance and listing people who had perfect attendance records.
2. Before spring practice one year, several assistant coaches met with players to discuss "academics," but each meeting had diagrammed plays and chalk-talk and whatnot. An assistant coach conducted drills at least eight times for about fifteen minutes. It's unclear if this was Captain Dumbass or not, but someone videotaped one of the drills. Football coaches also had members of the football undergo impermissible 11-on-11 activities, simulating plays with a "taped towel" instead of a football.
In the committee rationale area, there is the implication that the assistant coaches misrepresented the meetings to the NCAA by claiming the students were just so excited about the new plays that they initiated the "chalk talk"; students did not echo this. The head coach acknowledged the activities were "pushing it" and compliance should have been consulted about the workouts.
3. TRENCH WARRIOR hats.
4. Failure to monitor levied at the institution, citing the sand practices being common knowledge with everyone except the institution. The head coach "observed at least seven or eight of these workouts."
What They Did To Themselves
SDSU self-imposed six total years of scholarship penalties: three the first year, two the second, one the third. They eliminated 21 practice days over the course of three years, took one assistant coach off the road for four days, suspended Captain Dumbass, and put notes in the offenders' permanent records.
What Got Done To Them After
Two years of probation.
Compliance Guy: The major difference is that the Trench Warrior hats are an extra benefit in addition to a practice violation. Giving material items as prizes for performance is not allowed, even though giving them to the whole team might be OK. They're a practice violation as well because you cannot punish or reward student-athletes for voluntary workouts.
Also notice the COI did even less than they did to FIU. Two years probation is the minimum imposed in a major violation case. There will always be a penalty of two years probation, so this is basically rubber-stamping the penalties. Why this is two years probation and not three is a big confusing, but probation doesn't mean much competitively. It means more work for the compliance office. It doesn't even mean a longer period of repeat violator status, which is always five years no matter how long the probation is.
The extra benefit piece is a big deal because it explains the scholarship penalties. Penalties have to match the violations. If you violation recruiting rules, you get recruiting restrictions, if you violation practice rules, you get less practice, and if you give student-athletes too much financial aid or extra benefits, you reduce your financial aid.
Based on the difference between these two cases, I would say reduced scholarships are still on the table, but are most likely to be self-imposed. Michigan might give up scholarships if they believe scholarships are worth less than practice and they can reduce the practice penalties somewhat by giving up something else
Michigan Versus Those Guys
Unfortunately, it's tough to tell exactly what bits of the previous cases caused the punishments levied. FIU's two-for-one hours penalty is pretty obvious, but what exactly was so much worse about the SDSU case that saw them dump six years of scholarships when FIU didn't have to ditch any? Both violations took place over three years. And involved an actual assistant coach. The head coaches knew in both cases. Captain Dumbass #1 seriously pissed off the NCAA, as did #2. I don't get the discrepancy.
Anyway, some guesses:
Braithwaite's hire implies that Michigan might lose a coach for some period of time. Michigan turned around the notice of allegations instantly and Brandon said there wasn't anything in there that was a surprise, so Michigan knew full well what the investigation would show. Here's betting one of the self-imposed penalties is removing a coach for spring and possibly fall, and Braithwaite will be that guy.
(Compliance Guy: Oddly enough, Braithwaite might end up doing what the QC guys were supposed to be doing.)
Michigan will probably give two for one on the practice overages. They come to 66 hours, so Michigan will probably try to spread 132 hours over a few years.
(Compliance Guy: That penalty can take many forms: a later fall start date, additional off days, a shorter spring, or fewer hours per week (or a combination of any or all of these).
Could Rodriguez's "failure to monitor" actually be a good thing? My research over the past couple days indicates that failure to monitor is a charge that the NCAA levies against programs when they believe people who should be in a position to know these things didn't know these things. In the cases above both head coaches knew there were shenanigans going on, so they did not get a failure to monitor charge. Only the universities did.
In Michigan's case, both coach and university got charged with failure to monitor. On the surface this is one of the FIVE MAJOR VIOLATIONS. Underneath, it actually seems like a mitigating factor. Having people violate NCAA regulations without your knowledge seems better being aware of it.
This may be a straw I'm grasping at.
(Compliance Guy: Rodriguez is not charged with "failure to monitor." Rodriguez is charged with "failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance." It's basically a catchall that includes something like "failure to monitor" and "lack of institutional control" on a program level. Basically its to make head coaches take responsibility for their program, whether they knew about something and ignored it, failed to control the assistants at all, or ordered assistants to commit violations (how John Calipari has escaped this is beyond me).
It's not a mitigating factor and it's not a "good thing." But it's not necessarily going to be a very bad thing. If it is a very bad thing, it might mean some penalty directed personally at Rodriguez, like prohibiting him from recruiting off-campus for a period of time. Michigan might attempt to head this off by self-imposing internal penalties like establishing meetings between Rodriguez and the compliance office, suspending him, or withholding pay, raises, or bonuses.)
Alex Herron lying probably doesn't matter. If FIU had its coach tell a kid to lie and get caught for it and didn't get scholarship reductions, having one GA get caught being deceitful reflects on the GA, not Michigan.
(Compliance Guy: Agreed. He'll get hit with a show-cause penalty, unlike the two similar noncoaching staff members in the Central Florida recruiting violation who were not hit with show-cause penalties because they were so forthcoming.)
Scholarship reductions don't seem assured. FIU conducted 57 actual practices supervised by an assistant coach that the head coach knew about and didn't get much more than the practice reductions. However, since Michigan is capped at 84 this year due to some foul-ups with walk-ons I'm betting Michigan takes a small hit for 2010 only since taking that hit has zero impact.
(Compliance Guy: Agreed. It's possible that Michigan will just get coaching staff and practice penalties. But the goal of penalties is to erase a competitive advantage, and Michigan might add in a seemingly unrelated penalty to avoid an even bigger practice reduction, or the COI might deem it appropriate to impose the scholarship limitations to erase that competitive advantage (less likely).)
Whatever Michigan self-imposes is probably going to be the end of it. In both cases above, the NCAA looked at the penalties, said "okay," and tacked on some probation.
The above scenario is a worst case. I'm not sure how much credence to put into the rumors flying around that once the full report comes out Michigan will have seriously mitigated many of the charges—that's a classic example of something you want to believe—but they are out there and I've heard from a couple good sources that the details here will be less than damning. We'll have to wait for the Michigan response and self-imposed penalties to find out.
Again, tons of thanks to Compliance Guy for the clarity. His blog is The Bylaw Blog.