The Dantonio Double Standard
Last year, Glenn Winston put a hockey player in the hospital, costing him a whole year, and injured a second bystander. Neither victim did anything to provoke the violence, and Winston was fortunate to plea-bargain himself down to a misdemeanor and six months in jail. Mike Rosenberg on that:
Plus, people forget this: Winston was convicted of a misdemeanor. If anything, his sentence (six months in jail) was excessive for a misdemeanor. So I understood why Dantonio reinstated Winston this summer. Yes, it looks awful now. But it made some sense this summer.
"Excessive for a misdemeanor." Rosenberg is downplaying a scary, dangerously violent incident because he doesn't understand that a misdemeanor basically means the jail sentence can't be longer than a year. Six months in jail might be excessive for pot possession. It doesn't seem excessive for endangering someone's playing career.
Remember that Rosenberg wrote an "I'm just sayin'" column after Justin Feagin's situation, citing Rodriguez's decision to recruit linebacker Pat Lazear as evidence Rodriguez doesn't care about the character of his players:
The fact that Rodriguez was recruiting Feagin to West Virginia is telling because Rodriguez took considerable heat for some of his recruiting choices in Morgantown. Most noteworthy: Rodriguez signed linebacker Pat Lazear to a letter of intent even though Lazear had been accused of orchestrating an armed robbery of a Smoothie King store.
"That was a situation that was cleared up before he left high school," Rodriguez said Monday.
Well, that depends on your definition of "cleared up." Lazear pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery. He was sentenced to 10 days in jail and received a 10-year suspended sentence for his part in the robbery. He also was sentenced to 30 days of house arrest and 150 hours of community service. And in a previous incident, Lazear had been found guilty of using a stolen credit card.
I guess you could say his situation was "cleared up."
Lazear has not been in trouble at West Virginia and is on the academic honor roll. That same column cites Feagin's high school coach saying that Feagin hadn't been in trouble there only to dismiss that. Rosenberg's thrust is that Rodriguez should have known better than to recruit Justin Feagin, and should never have gone near a guy with nothing on his record other than a dropped misdemeanor and some traffic tickets. If Rodriguez didn't know Feagin was a bad guy, it was because he didn't care to know. The upshot: Rodriguez is unethical.
Here's a similar conversation in the Winston case:
MARK DANTONIO: Are there any issues with this Winston guy?
MARK DANTONIO: Well, he beat up two innocent people, putting one of them in the hospital.
MARK DANTONIO: What's that? I can't hear you. You must be breaking up.
MARK DANTONIO: We're not talking on a cell phone. I am you. We're having a schizophrenic episode. You're talking to yourself.
MARK DANTONIO: I am very public about my faith!
And yet reinstating this guy "makes some sense." The double standard could not be clearer.
Is there any question that Rosenberg would be calling for Rodriguez's job if 15-20 Michigan players had beaten the hell out of innocent bystanders for the second time in two years? Michigan State has had 20% of its entire team involved in unprovoked violence against other students for two consecutive years.
Rosenberg can couch his eminently reasonable opinion in eminently reasonable columnist terms, but the bias is screaming. Mark Dantonio's got a hell of a jaw and a bible on his desk. He's also in charge of a bunch of thugs, and got a Michigan State student injured and, likely, his university sued. This is enough for Rosenberg to gently suggest that Dantonio might need to get his team under control—oh, really? Meanwhile, Rodriguez correctly judging the character of Pat Lazear and immediately dealing with the Feagin situation is enough for the "win at all costs" headline.
This is the fair and balanced person the Free Press thought they'd have investigate the Michigan football program.
More about this on the message board.
Rosenberg reportedly rejects the idea that he favors MSU unfairly. "The favoritism is entirely justified," he said, citing a recent clarification by Dantonio, who defends his actions in the alleged assault case:
“I did not require that these young men spend more than the twenty allotted hours performing team activities. It was entirely voluntary when these 15-20 players got together in their uniforms (ski masks) and engaged in extra practice, which just happened to involve beating up innocent people.”
michelin
It was my contention that MSU best play would the jailbreak screen. MSU football is just a fancy name for work release. Rosenturd has a vendetta that is irrational.
Uferfan1
It's good to know you're out there takin' 'em to task for all us sinners.
If you want to thank Brian, don't call him "Dude;" call him "The Dude."
This site has a huge Lebowsky bias.
This team is under construction. We thank you for your patience.
LebowskI. Please.
The Warden (MD) is finally in trouble. No one talks about the two car loads of football players who were with Winston last year at the fight with the hockey player. The Freep was too busy building a story against UM. It is about time.
umnumber1
Heck, even Bo's players occasionally beat the mess out of a couple of innocent bystanders.
Heck, even Bo's players occasionally beat the mess out of a couple of innocent bystanders.
and other non-sequiturs.
I'm not from Michigan, but the only worthwhile Detroit fishwrap sports reporter I bother to read regarding UM is Angelique. Granted, she's a beat reporter, but I think she's very good and fair. Stop reading the idiots. Don't give them the pleasure of clicking on their link. It may not solve anything, but for me it's a moral victory. Just out of curiosity, how is Angelique viewed in the Detroit area?
It must be the off season.
MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email
...on every billboard in Detroit, East lansing, hell..everywhere...I shared it on my facebbok as well! Wow there are a lot of idiots on this web site NO? With the insipid comments left under your very infomative and honest article- terrific assessment (unlike Rosenberg's) Thanks again Brian!
I have been looking an article about these two situations that made sense for months now. I apreciate all you do for this website and for Michigan. If I had a vote, you'd be the next AD my man!
Michael Rosenburg's supposed "double standard" is no doubt why the NCAA found sufficient cause (that is, evidence) to commence the first formal NCAA investigation into the Michigan football program in its history.
http://tinyurl.com/yk9t28n
And Rosenburg's alleged double standard is also the reason that Rodriguez' football program failed to file the monthly Countable Athletically Related Activities (CARA) forms that track how much players work out and practice; a tool UM developed to fulfill its obligation to comply with NCAA rules.
You Rich Rod supporters let your loyalty to a failing coach run away with your common sense.
Bill45
"...the NCAA found sufficient cause (that is, evidence) to commence the first formal NCAA investigation into the Michigan football program in its history."
Ignoramus, the NCAA is investigating BECAUSE BILL MARTIN CONTACTED THEM AND ASKED THEM TO.
You may now return to eating paste.
1. NCAA investigation does NOT equate guilt. Until actual results come out you can save up your bile instead of just spewing it here.
2. Part of the problem with Rosenberg's work is shoddy research on 'countable hours'. The lack of professional effort into establishing facts is the core of the problem. Rosenberg jumped on the issue and used the 'possible' allegations as a beat stick for his general anti-RR platform.
3. As I read it, the core of Brian's post is that MSU seems to get a relative 'free pass' when issues arise. Whereas, M seems to get roughshod treatment. It makes little sense if you are supposed to be an objective news reporter.
4. It does not matter whether you support RR or not, it's not hard if you can read to see that Rosenberg is not an objective reporter.
Go Blue!
The Rosenberg article could turn out to be mostly or even entirely wrong and it still constitutes sufficient cause to initiate an investigation. How does the NCAA know he's wrong unless they investigate? There's no way they can ignore something from the paper of a major city regardless of whether it was written by a biased reporter with an agenda. Everyone saw it. They have to investigate or people would throw a fit.
Ok...So the Freep did the giant "extra practice" story sourcing it from unnamed former (and maybe current) players. Those unnamed sources were enough for the Freep to publish the story.
In the MSU mob attack, we have a named victim (and an entire fraternal organization) naming MSU football players as being the attackers.
For the UofM practice story...the Freep does not wait for an investigation to be complete before reporting. The University of Michigan is not allowed to refuse comment.
For the MSU violent attack...the Freep does no digging despite having sources on the record. MSU refuses to comment. MSU is not pressed for comment.
That is a double standard.
The NCAA is in the position now of knowing that their policy on countable athletic hours is an impossibly vague anachronism. If, however, national media attention is focused on how or whether they deal with the problem, they are likely to feel obliged to do so. Personally, I’d much prefer seeing them being this aggressive with the wider issues raised by their investigation. For instance, they should at least get anonymous surveys from college athletes everywhere about the voluntary practice time and the pressures they feel to do more. Then, the NCAA could try to formulate some real policies that deal with the underlying, universal problems.
But I suppose they’re too busy to really address problems like that—or recruiting violations or PEDs in well-connected schools. The NCAA is too busy giving awards to people like George Steinbrenner. Also, they need to to get back to the other critical business that occupies most of their time—like deciding about the acceptability of school mascots.
michelin
I bet you don't know the difference between a countable and non-countable hour either. Just like your hero.
Oh, and the forms *were* filed as soon as Rodriguez found out his "friends" in the athletic department failed to file them. And, as noted, they aren't required by the NCAA.
But thanks for playing.
And when Michigan gets vindicated by the investigation, I look forward to your apologies. Just like I will look forward to your buddy Rosenberg's resignation.
My support for Rodriguez is tepid at best, but I don't see these as the same issue. I think you can acknowledge that the coverage of the two football programs in the Free Press doesn't seem to be balanced and without agenda and at the same time say you aren't convinced Rodriguez has done or will do well at Michigan. Two separate issues.
The FORMS ARE NOT REQUIRED BY THE NCAA!!!
Please see the Braves and Birds article from yesterday's post
I have a Fandom Endurance III merit badge
surprise anyone if they just shove(kick, punch, and gouge) these violent incidents under the rug and try to get these players back asap?
To those who are arguing that this is a Pro-UM/anti-MSU-biased whining session.
Listen, I went to MSU. I understand that it comes across as disingenuous for UM fans to vilify MSU while deifying its own players, especially when those players have been less than perfect. But that wasn't the point of this article - it was pointing out that the media coverage of UM vs. MSU is woefully unbalanced, at least as it pertains to columnists at a leading Detroit-area newspaper. Both Rosenberg and Sharp have become synonymous with UM bashing in recent years, and the fire has only been turned up as the losses mounted. While every RR stumble is transmitted in 100 pt font across the front of the Free Press, Dantonio, who has fielded a team with mediocre on-the-field results and a less-than-angelic reputation off the field, has largely been given a pass by the same media.
Now, that alone might just be the whining of some fans down about how the past two years have worked out. I get that - Dantonio has taken MSU to three consecutive bowl games for the first time in 20+ years, and UM has been mired in neutral. It looks like UM fans are just lashing out, taking cheap shots at MSU and dragging their skeletons out of the closet while trying to bury UM's. And some of UM's skeletons needed to be aired out, but they need to be aired out by a media that at least adheres to minimal standards of objectivity.
Fairness and Accountability
Irrespective of how you feel about the Freep's "expose" on UM's practice activities, the one consistent theme everyone would agree on is the rather reactionary and inflammatory tone adopted by the Freep in reporting on the issue. Every time there is even a hint of blood in the water, headlines are stamped and journalists like Rosenberg stand on their soapboxes and scream, fingers pointing like arrows from straining arms "Look, we were right! We were right! Haha, get them!" At times, it might be justified - most UM fans would be harping on the Feagin story more if it happened at OSU, FSU, MSU, USC, etc., and if the sexual assault charges turn out to be true, then the player and the coaching staff deserve some of the criticism that will be heaped upon them. Sure, some UM fans want to stick their heads into the sand and ignore the reality surrounding this team, but most sophisticated fans are aware enough to accept that the program has seen better days.
Now, if this level of scrutiny was doled out equally, posts like Brian's would be unnecessary. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I was at MSU during the end of the JLS era and the beginning of Dantonio, and the team had its fair share of run-ins with the law. I remember at least two stories of MSU players (1) setting off M80-sized fireworks in the dorms, resulting in arrests, and (2) absolutely demolishing a couple of kids at Chandler Crossing (or one of the other apartment complexes right off campus). And in the past two years, to paraphrase Ben Kenobi, MSU football players have been cropping up on the police blotter quite a bit, and in greater numbers. Now, I'm sure similar incidents occur at other schools, but for a coach trumpeted as a disciplinarian and a straight-shooter, there has been disturbing trend of aggression and limited consequences by the coaching staff.
All the while, these transgressions have seemingly been overlooked by the major media players in the state, treated with kid gloves by a media establishment that professes to be unbiased and only interested in the truth. Dantonio has rarely been pushed by reporters like Rosenberg to explain his rationales for keeping or dismissing players, or how these incidents keep occurring. There just doesn't seem to be a push for accountability equally; RR is expected to fall on his sword every time one of his players makes a bad decision, but Dantonio can wipe his hands of all transgressions with a few flippant phrases and a terse acknowledgment.
The bigger picture
The bigger picture in all of this, though, is how this treatment frames the national view of UM and, to a lesser extent, RR as a coach. The average sport fan/blogger/columnist doesn't intimately follow the activities of a school or team; he or she relies on the local media to provide a quick synopsis of the team to form an opinion. Now, that probably isn't a workable system anymore - if you visit the blog for virtually any team, you'll notice that they provide far more context for a "national" story than what winds up on ESPN or Yahoo! Sports, and it usually highlights the major factual errors that exist with the story as reported. So when Rosenberg reports that UM is basically guilty of running a sweatshop in the Big House, that is the story most people read - not the numerous holes and logical fallacies pointed out both here and at other blogs. As they say, the accusation is on the front page and the retraction is on the back page.
RR has been under fire since the day he stepped foot into Ann Arbor, and the level of misinformation surrounding him has grown to mind-boggling heights. Just from what I can remember, RR has been accused of:
(1) costing WVU a shot at the NC because he was looking ahead to UM instead of Pitt,
(2) shredding all of the player documents before leaving WVU, (3) forcing UM to pay his entire buyout without telling them of it first,
(4) telling the fans that they need to get a life and back off, (5) entering into a real-estate scam,
(6) receiving an illegal loan for a bank associated with Bill Martin,
(7) running a sweatshop and pushing his players well beyond acceptable NCAA limits, all in a quest to win while undermining the notions of amateurism and fair play,
(8) swearing in front of men, women, and children while basically ripping a Bible in half,
(9) recruiting both a drug dealer and a rapist and letting them loose on the unsuspecting UM populous, and
(10) punching Tate Forcier in his groin, kicking him while he was down, and setting fire to his car all because he missed an open receiver on 2nd-and-12.
(Note, I only made one of those up)
With all of these "stories" and half-truths floating around, RR has become a pariah, and in the process the position of head coach at UM has gone from a sought destination to a radioactive wasteland. If RR is removed next year, who would want to step into that position and take over in such a hostile climate? Largely because of the media overreaction, a man who was asked to completely overhaul a storied program with a completely new offensive system (and that is what the AD must have understood when they hired RR) is on a short leash after 2 years and 1.5 recruiting classes. All the while, Dantonio and MSU keep chugging along virtually unmolested even though they have struggled mightily to be consistent and are almost always outclassed by the better teams in the Big 10 and other conferences.
So I guess the end of this rant should sum it all together. The issue here isn't that RR and UM is coming under fire; it is that a media group claiming to be without an agenda has not wavered from the same narrative for the past 2 years, pointing out RR's failings while ignoring Dantonio's. Listen, I understand that the media is supposed to frame the news, but at some point they start creating a narrative that just isn't there.
On a small tangent - The treatment of MSU's program the past few years, in some ways, seems to be karmic retribution for the years of positive treatment received by UM under Carr, another coach who was usually handled delicately by reporters (at least until the last few years) even while his teams had some off-the-field issues. I'm not sure why this happens, and I'm sure there will be those who disagree with this assessment, but it does seem like certain coaches are granted a "pass" by the Detroit media while others are not. JLS was absolutely destroyed by the media even when he was marginally successful, and while he proved to be a overmatched, the level of vitriol was surprising.
I'm confused as to what reality we as UM fans are ignoring? Certainly the program from a performance perspective has stuggled under Rodriguez's tenure thusfar. I also think most fans would be willing to accept some level of criticism levied against UM and Coach Rodriguez for how the team has stuggled these past couple of years. We may not like speculation about long-term implications or whether Rodriguez will be successful at Michigan, but I think those criticisms and questions are at least fair.
Your comment, though, suggests that we as fans are ignoring a complete trampling of ethics and values within a Rodriguez-led program, which is what I think most of us find outrageous and unfounded. I still challenge anybody to illustrate how that is the case. So far there has been no evidence of Rodriguez willfully recruiting a "bad kid" just because that player would help him win. The players who have stepped out of line under his charge have been dealt with swiftly and without compromise. Still, the media seems to take delight in portraying Michigan as having compromised it's image in the interests of winning and this is what infuriates me as a fan.
If you compare Rodriguez to Dantonio, the coach I see who is more willing to overlook poor behavior seems to be Dantonio. The fanbase sticking it's head in the sand and not wanting to see the reality of the situation of their program is MSU, not U of M. Mark so far is getting a free pass though because he is beating Michigan, but he hasn't done much else. What happens when the Michigan victories dry up?
"...what do you say, is it the new Bluesmobile or what?"
"Fix the cigarette lighter."
My point was that there is a subset of UM fans (and this is true of every team) that are decked out in colored glasses and can never accept that their particular team does anything wrong. They are the people who believe all 85 players are saints and that every call against them was wrong. These are the fair-weather fans who love the team when they win and complain when they lose, but never understand the reasons behind those wins and losses.
Personally, I do not think that the ethics of the program are in any way troubled or diminished by RR. UM has always run a reasonably clean program with the occasional knucklehead, which is true at virtually every program in America. In fact, UM has remained one of the few programs free of the major violations that have plagued other powers - FSU, USC, Alabama, etc.
Honestly, places like mgoblog feature passionate and intelligent fans who understand the direction of the program and accept that there are flaws that need to be ironed out. I agree that Dantonio has received pretty much a free pass by the media, but at some point the scrutiny on his program will be turned up if events like these keep taking place. I do think a major reason why Dantonio has received this pass is because MSU is simply not a big story nationally - they have been, at best, the 4 best team in the Big 10 once in the past 6-7 years. It is a supremely mediocre history, and compared to UM doesn't draw many eyeballs.
I agree with you on your last point too -- John L was really treated badly by the media. In part that was because he had those close losses to Michigan (and the one to ND in '06) so never had enough defining victories. He was a good coach, I think he just couldn't pull in the talent necessary to succeed in the Big Ten--in part because he didn't work the state enough.
IMO, the program's troubles on the field are not entirely independent of the problems that the press has created for the coaching staff. It's hard to sleep at night, when you're continually being attacked and investigated, no matter how how great your integrity may be. Just ask anybody who's been in a lawsuit. Even if they knew all along that they would win, the unfairness of the ordeal still takes a real toll.
However, you do make some very good points. Once we step back and take an objective look at what's happening, it's clear that the main problem is the current bias in the Freep is its anti-RR (as well as anti-UM) sentiments.
That does not mean the Freep's always been anti-UM and pro-MSU. I don't know if editorial changes or new reporters fundamentally changed the balance of the paper to now make it appear to have such an imbalance. However, since the Freep primarily reports on UM and MSU, it's inevitable that MSU's current treatment by the Freep is used as a basis for comparison.
In our small world, it's even fair to point out--as you have done---that more serious problems with Dantonio and MSU are treated with far more leniency. For UM fans then to bring us MSU problems, however, is not so much an attack on MSU as it is an attack on the journalistic unfairness.
In a larger world, I do not think that reporters should really be focusing on MSU at all. The problems being reported should be put in a broader perspective. For instance, I have no problem with UM's training methods being studied so long as those of other major programs are studied too. That's really the only way to tell is a program, or a coach, is an outlier who really deserves the negative press.
michelin
I totally agree. That is my issue with the media treatment of RR and UM. Either do it at the micro level and report evenly on all major teams, or do it on the macro level and report how it applies to the rest of college football. You can flip between the two, but consistency for a particular story needs to be maintained. Right now, the local media focuses so heavily upon RR and his flaws that it has been injurious not only to RR's tenure, but to the school in general. Having an agenda is fine if it gets you to the truth; right now, though, the agenda exists simply to footnote every misstep by RR.
Pretty detailed and well thought-out comment.
Bias or no, my problem with the Dantonio treatment is the absence of pressure to answer for any of these issues.
You wrote, "Dantonio can wipe his hands of all transgressions with a few flippant phrases and a terse acknowledgment". Actually, Dantonio doesn't even have to utter a flippant phrase or terse acknowledgment. He doesn't comment at all, and the media says nothing and never returns to the subject. When two MSU players were released earlier this year for "violation of team rules"; there was no "what happened" follow-up. With the current two dismissed...after a mob attack...not even a peep. It's just bizarre.
I agree. Carr was never one to wax poetic with the media, but at least he was at least held somewhat accountable for those instances when his players screwed up publicly. And maybe the fact that nothing like Student Beatdown I and II occurred on Carr's watch (unless you still believe in the Marlin Jackson-grad student dust-up was anything more than a student biting off more than he could chew) had something to do with it. But at some point, Dantonio needs to be pressed about why these types of incidents keep happening.
Oops. This was a response to bandgeek and has been moved below.
I just noticed this:
http://www.detnews.com/article/20091201/SPORTS0202/912010421/Results-of-...
Maybe we'll get some more info soon. Maybe Dantonio will be pressed to comment. Frankly, I think MSU will continue to stifle comment until they are faced with embarrasing disclosures during a civil suit.
Plaintiffs may argue that the players were negligently supervised, and possibly claim gross negligence in taking a player from prison to practice. They will be able to get internal docs on the first Winston fight, emails, memos, etc. It will take time...but that's ok...let's let this fester into next year.
Notice in the Detroit News story the claim that no incident report exists. Ummm...let's see...bullshit.
You can be sure that an incident report was taken either by dorm employees, campus police, and/or university police. There is zero chance that 15-20 guys beat up women and men, police came, blood was on site, victims were treated...and no one took a report.
It says that Winston and Jenrette were "suspended." To me suspended is different than kicked off the team. Is it true that they were only suspended? Or did the writer just assume that it's the same thing?
Since being "suspended" at MSU means you can still play in every game (Winston), being "dismissed" at MSU is probably what being suspended is to everyone else.
I believe the two players were "dismissed" from the team. That would be different than a "suspension". I have no clue why the terminology would be different. It's possible that MSU issued a press release with a different term. One never knows when Winston will be released from jail. If it's prior to kickoff, there might be a ride waiting for him.
could also mean the Tropp treatment.
Rosenberg is a tool. Who actually reads what this douche writes?
If the FP is the double standard then...
Is Charlie double stuffed?
Is Tressel double sweatered?
Is Tacopants double tall?
life is like a box of chocolates...
and you got the Whizzo Quality Assortment
I've another point to add to Brian's...
When Rodriguez dismissed Feagin, there was no public knowledge of his alleged drug issues. However, after he was dismissed, the Freep did some investigating and then outed Feagin's "character issues".
Conversely, Dantonio dismissed Winston and Jenrette a full two days following their latest incident, and only then AFTER the report ended up in the papers.
In short, Rodriguez didn't need public opinion to influence his decision on Feagin. But for all we know, Dantonio would've kept the Winston & Jenrette on the team had it not reached the papers.
Meanwhile, the crack reporters at Freep who went out of their way to go after Feagin were nowhere near this incident -- it was Sparty's own school newspaper that outed their football players.
Yes, there's a double standard. No, I'm not going to vent about it too much. Someday there will be something that happens at U-M that I wish would be underplayed, and I want good karma.
I am sure that if/when the investigation comes out, if there are more than the two Spartans confirmed to be involved, this will be a bigger story.
Wanting something to be true does not make it true.
We all remember that Rosenberg went to UM and wrote for, edited and managed at the Daily, right? He doesn't give a rat's ass about Dantonio's bible or his jaw line. And I don't even think he's really part of the Lloyd Carr rump faction, although I think he wouldn't mind if everyone thought that about him. He's just making sure no one can accuse him of pro-UM bias by always seeing UM incidents in the worst possible light and MSU incidents w/ "Rosey"-colored glasses.
Political comparisons are dangerous in a sports forum, but it looks to me exactly like the "liberal media" that couldn't get enough of GWB's perfectly framed crotch in that flight suit. It's all good as long as the bias you project is the opposite one from what is expected of you.
Bandgeek Summary: Rosenberg is so concerned with his image and possible expectations of him as an M grad, that he overcompensates by being biased against M and rosy toward state?
Wow... if that's true, then that is one insecure and small-minded sportswriter. Doesn't Rosenberg know that he is supposed to be 'objective' and professional in his approach? If BG's theory is true, then Rosy needs to grow a pair of balls and actually show some objectivity and do some real reporting.
I hardly think his writing experiences at M taught him to be a biased hack who does inadequate research. He really should have some pride in himself and his Alma Mater. It's not about liking RR, it's about writing truthfully and respecting a fine institution that helped him along in life.
Go Blue!
Why the hell are people negging this?
Bandgeek made a great hypothesis here about potential overcompensation, and the flight suit thing is a good enough example of that.
What, you think that biases only work one way?
Believe me, they don't. Journalism requires you to identify your own biases and try to work around them when you write. Overcompensation seems as likely a result as undercompensation, especially to someone writing for a Detroit market filled with loud and dumb Spartans.
I personally think it's not overcompensation, but that Rosenberg was close during his Daily days with Lloyd and is the mouthpiece of the "Rich Rod isn't a Michigan Man" contingent. I think that's probably coupled with Rosenberg spending way too much time around circles who dislike Rich Rod, and professional circles who talk about RR getting fired as if that's the only thing going on for the Wolverines.
But I'm not willing to rule out this overcompensation idea at all. Plusses for coming up with it!!
This team is under construction. We thank you for your patience.
Rosenberg has been writing about Michigan football for a while as a Freep columnist, yet only found it necessary to "overcompensate" for his Michigan roots after RR was hired. He also continues to generally write favorably about Michigan basketball under Beilein -- why no "overcompensation" there? And, to top it off, he initially wrote favorably about the RR hire, but then turned against him, as we have seen. Something happened fairly recently to turn him rabidly anti-RR -- that isn't overcompensation.
Good point.
But you're arguing against bandgeek, not me. I stated why I thought Rosenberg turned against M, and it wasn't overcompensation.
However, you make a very good point against bandgeek's suggestion that it's overcompensation.
My greater point was I'd like to see bandgeek plussed back up to 20-plus again. Even if you don't agree with his argument, it was a plausible thesis, and he wasn't a dick about its delivery or anything, and I, for one, would like to have this guy contribute his ideas more often.
This team is under construction. We thank you for your patience.
Except maybe the part about it being a plausible thesis. But I wouldn't neg him/her for that.
I don't think he's even close to being in danger of being accused of having a pro-UM bias. But thanks for playing.
the guy went to UM, got a degree, covered sports and rose through the ranks at the Daily. he was a seemingly happy member of the UM community (we were there at the same time, and distant acquaintances, so I can't really say anything specific about him, but he didn't seem to have any major problems). then he lands a columnist gig w/ one of the region's main newspapers and just decides to go permanently ballistic on his alma mater and the football team he covered for years? i don't get it.