it's a major award
Apparently Peppers and his mother had an apartment arranged for them as a "favor" when he was at Don Bosco, which he was forced out of when he transferred schools. Any possibility U of M will face consequences for recruiting a player who is later deemed ineligibile (if that's the case)? Sorry if this isn't an appropriate topic, feel free to delete.
mlive (baumgardner) dug
digged this up, so i am linking both the original mlive article that led me to this and the alumni association website
it seems that if the alumni association is willing ot publish clear discontent, the tide of discontent is so strong that it cannot be hidden by associations that are typically loyal to the university at all times
i found the comments, particularly from those who have had season tickets for 30+ years most interesting.
freep now cutting and pasting from the M alumni website
So we have a new Banner tag line "aware, but not fully aware". Let it be a sign of things getting better in the future and our awareness moving to "we are fully aware".
Okay, THIS would work like hell for Michigan. The helmets pretty much look like this already.
Nice work, AH-dee-DAAS.
Reducing the number of athletic scholarships at Chapel Hill, or vacating wins, or banning teams from postseason competition, is in each case a punishment wholly unsuitable to the crime. The crime involves fundamental academic integrity. The response, regardless of the visibility or reputation or wealth of the institution, should be to suspend accredited status until there is evidence that an appropriate level of integrity is both culturally and structurally in place.
I'm not sure whether I agree with President Rosenberg. Via FB, I see several other professors arguing that losing accreditation is too large a punishment, and that the appropriate response would rather be to nuke the entire athletic department and end sports at UNC for a period of years. These are the kinds of sanctions we should really be discussing in cases of serious academic violations, so I'm glad some people in high places in academia have the spine to say that it's much more than an NCAA issue.
First post from a long time reader. So please.. be kind in your plot to kill me when you are inevitably dissattisified.
I saw this posted in the "Brandon on e-mails.." thread..
"I know its got to be extremely tough for Schlissel to make a change like this, especially less than one year into the job, but this comes with the territory." -Russale2012
It left me wondering.. I am a student at Florida and a long time fan of everything Michigan/Detroit, so my familiarity with the adminstration at Michigan is slim outside from the surface level information I have read from this Blog. With that said.. What would this situation look like if Mary Sue Coleman were still the President? Would the timeline look different? What would be her reaction to a protest on her front lawn by the student body?
I imagine that a year into a unique job like being President at the University of Michigan would make me extremely cautious and thorough in making an athletic department change, but if this were say, year five of Schlissel's tenure, what would be different?
As a fan caught in the middle of two of the biggest stories in college football right now concerning coaching hot seats, I am eager to here your insights.