Drew Sharp, and "pawns."
There are many descriptors for Drew Sharp; "provacateur" (on a weekly basis); "slanderer" (for his libleous misquoting of Rush Limbaugh that he repeated and then laughed off in national interivews); "incomeptent" (for his low-level and crummy Free Press writing).
But today brings a new adjective into the mix; "Disgust."
Today's Free Press features this quote from Sharpton, er Sharp: "He [Demar Dorsey] is just another pawn, another easily disposable piece in a meat-grinding business where athletes are judged more by what they bring Saturday afternoons in sold-out stadiums rather than Monday mornings in half-filled classrooms."
So let's consider this business of "pawns." On the one hand we have Michigan; following the law (the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act), and declining to discuss anything with respect to the admissions process for Demar Dorsey. Despite the fact that writers (and I use that term VERY loosely in Sharp's case) like Sharp will continue to write the story and make presumptions, assumptions and speculation despite not having any facts about the details of the admissions process.
And then, we have "the pawns." I can think of three pawns, and the institution that has most abused them. The three pawns are Je'Ron Stokes, Brandin Hawthorne and Demar Dorsey.
The institution that has abused all three of them is the Detroit Free Press.
The way that Stokes and Hawthorne were abused was the outrageous misquoting of them on the front page of the Sunday Free Press on August 30, 2009. Taking quotes form them that implied a terrible breach of NCAA rules. A "breach" that, after the NCAA and Michigan investigated, turned out to have been a fabrication of the Free Press. (Other irregularites, as we all know, were found. I am focusing here only on the abuse of interviews with Stokes and Hawthorne on media day in 2009.)
The way that Demar Dorsey was abused was the elevation of his old juvenile arrest record to a headline story, and the transformation of his college application process to a quasi-criminal investigation.
There was a reason for the treatment of these teenagers as pawns, by the Free Press. The Free Press is involved in a concerted campaign against Rich Rodriguez. The Free Press is motivated in part by the personal animus of one of its reporters, Michael Rosenberg, against the new coaching staff with which he enjoys a less-cozy relationship than what he had in the Lloyd Carr era. The Free Press also features the knee-jerk defensiveness of its publisher, Paul Anger, who is always eager to try to make any story into a crusade for rightness. In the Michigan case, the Free Press sought to set itself up as the protector of collegiate student-athletes, by investigating NCAA rules that Anger wrote
"This apparent excess [what Rosenberg and Snyder reported] goes against the concept of student-athlete as embraced by the NCAA, which years ago set up rules trying to ensure that players have a semblance of a normal college experience, that they have time for class, that they are not at greater risk of injury in excessive drills and that overzealous coaches can't gain a competitive advantage."
What. A. Crock. There's no better evidence, of the Free Press' hypocrisy and malevolence, than what happened with Stokes and Hawthorne, who as freshmen found themselves in anguish, in the office of their head football coach, wondering what kind of damage they had done to him and to their team and their school. And of course, nothing said by Stokes or Hawthorne turned into a substantive allegation by the NCAA.
So when Drew Sharp talks about the treatment of student-athletes as "pawns," it makes me nauseous. He should know about using young men as "pawns." His paper has developed a certain expertise in it.
Drew Sharp. Disgusting.
Who is Drew Sharp?
He who shall not be named...
And what is this Freep you speak of?
is the ultimate pawn.
Prawns are delicious.
there's something fishy about this comment
you're just baiting for a response.
Hook, line, and sinker.
about this whole conversation. I think we'd better reel it in.
This conversation could be a lightning rod for opinions.
We are already treading in murky waters.
Would it be considered trolling to add to this thread?
Feel free to cast your opinion on the matter.
you're opinion doesn't snag with others.
That's a good way to get a swift kick in the tackle box.
It would help if I knew what the prevailing school of thought was on the subject.
you made your bed, now lay in it.
I only posted for the halibut.
i'd hate to think you're just perched at the keyboard with too much interest on this topic
and he's trying to worm his way out of it.
He's just being crabby.
on porpoise?
I'm having a whale of a good time.
stay on topic. This whole thing is starting to flounder.
if someone did a jig it wouldn't have become so rocky?
a cod piece.
if he has to take a carp?
eel with it I guess.
like a crappie situation.
of floundering amidst such a conversation are murky at basst
...haddocked it up to here with Drew Sharp.
And you bought it, hook, line, and sinker.
So let me get this straight: first Sharp trashes the University for siging a LOI with a Demar because of his history, and now he trashes the University for deciding he did not meet admission requirements?
What an ass.
That's Drew Sharp all over: Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
And the latest to the hypocrisy department: Birkett
Birkett gets a lot of criticism here. I don't always join in on that.
Here is how Birkett's column ended, my little Wolverines:
Instead, Rodriguez and his staff, who were roundly praised by Dorsey’s father for the way they handled the situation, were the only ones with enough principle to stand by their word.
And Birkett is right. Rodriguez and his staff recruited Dorsey. They may have gotten an explicit signoff on that recruitment from somebody in Admissions. Rodriguez and his staff, by all accounts, went to bat for Demar's admission, and lobbied as heavily as they could. Rodriguez and his staff, according to Demar's dad were honest with the family, all along.
Now, yes, I think it would be helpful for Dave Birkett to acknowledge that he, and Drew Sharp, and Mark Snyder, all had a personal hand in creating a climate that had to have been harmful to Demar's admission. Whether it was decisive or not, we may never know. maybe it wasn't. In any event, I don't see so much hypocrisy with Birkett as schizophrenia. Birkett doesn't say this was Rodriguez's fault. Birkett says Rodriguez was the one straight-shooter in all of this.
Nicely done.
I'd add that the quote (I refuse to click to the Yellow Press) is idiotic. DD is "disposable" because he's only "judged" based upon his athletic prowess and not his academic capability? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? This is exactly the opposite of what happened. I think it was the wrong thing to do, but UM denied admissions to this kid from an academic perspective. Academics trumped athletics. Now he complains the kid is thrown aside because only athletics matter? Unless the context of the quote is much different, this is exceptionally dull, even by Sharp standards.
So, if I am reading your excerpt right, Sharp says that a student who would have been a great addition to the football team but was denied admission for academic reasons was "judged more by what [he brings] Saturday afternoons in sold-out stadiums rather than Monday mornings in half-filled classrooms."
It looks to me like he is contradicting himself. This is a mistake that would result in an F in a junior high journalism course. This is just another reason why I'm glad I don't read the freep anymore.
he cant wait to see the Freep first trash Michigan for taking DD, then trash Michigan for denying him admission, needs to be posbanged.
-1 for taking your time with any Sharp offering
+1 for deconstructing his "work" accordingly
Some facts can not be disputed.
Funny you say that, because there was speculation on MGoBlog that this is exactly the course the local media would follow post-Dorseygate: Criticize the University, whether he gets in or not. We just happen to see the more hypocritical of those two scenarios.
Well written, my friend. +1 to you.
stop reading him
Why is this not blindingly obvious to every thread on the freep. Do people realize they are giving free publicity to that paper when they post links and discuss, at length this mistake and that error?
Just stop reading. I promise, you will be happier.