The Dantonio Double Standard Comment Count

Brian

mark-dantonio rich-rodriguez-p1

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.

Comments

SpartanDan

December 2nd, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^

Winston didn't get six months in jail for being a football player that got involved in a fight. He got six months in jail because he fucking fractured someone's skull. And Sturges wasn't involved in the initial fight, nor did he throw a punch in the latter one if media reports can be believed.

You're giving all of us Spartan fans a bad name. Stop it.

Heinous Wagner

December 1st, 2009 at 1:04 PM ^

Any lawyers out there can answer me this: Since when is a six-monthsentence excessive for a misdemeanor? By its very nature, isn't the sentencing dividing line betwen misdemeanor and felony a one-year term? Which means six months is in the middle of the range of possibilities. If this is true, what does this say about the rest of Rosenberg's Sparty-coddling?

Jebus

December 1st, 2009 at 1:13 PM ^

Disclaimer- I am a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. The following is simply a generality.

A 6 month sentence for a misdemeanor is pretty stiff, if it's your first misdemeanor. Most times the sentence for a first misdemeanor will be probation, or a much shorter sentence if jail time is called for. When the sentence was handed out, I knew almost nothing about the charges in this case, or the facts, but in my experience I thought that the sentence was severe when I heard he got 6 months. It is also my understanding that the charges against Winston were pled down from a felony.

medals

December 1st, 2009 at 2:21 PM ^

that you are on the right track with the flaw in his logic.

He was charged with a misdemeanor, which generally allows for less stringent punishment than, say, for a felony. I am not a crim lawyer and do not know the Michigan penal code at all, but generally state penal codes have sentencing guidelines for types of crimes. For example, if the first assault was a "Class A" misdemeanor which allows for a sentencing of zero jail time and up to one year, then, yeah, the sentencing judge thought this was a fairly big deal.

Rosenberg only goes half-way. He says misdemeanor, by definition, is not that big of a deal. He is wrong. If Winston had only gotten a week in jail, no jail + probation, community service, etc., then you could argue that his particular crime wasn't that big of a deal.* But 6 months hard time, is what it is. The fact that he got a longer sentence when the sentencing guidelines allow for a less stringent punishment is where the focus should lie.**

*disclaimer - I personally don't think that beating someone such that they go to the hospital is not a big deal no matter what the sentencing guidelines may say.

**further disclaimer - again, I have no idea what the sentencing guidelines in MI are, but I suspect that Winston did not get the "mandatory minimum" sentence here.

Jebus

December 1st, 2009 at 4:02 PM ^

I think that Rosenberg's analysis misses that the original charges were felonies. Sure, we can debate over-charging and piling on, but in my experience as a criminal defense attorney (not in this state), a sentence like this would be given as a trade for dismissing the felony charge.

YMMV, etc.

dahblue

December 1st, 2009 at 1:06 PM ^

I wasn't happy with Rosenberg's piece on "extra practice" which I felt was incomplete, poorly sourced and presented conclusions without analysis. I also feel that the "only a misdemeanor" comment was terrible and showed a lack of understanding of the criminal justice system.

That being said, it isn't just one writer or one paper. Local sports talk radio is fairly silent on the MSU potluck attack, the newspapers contain next to nothing, and I imagine local news coverage is lacking as well.

I don't think it's an anti-Michigan bias. I think instead it's a reluctance to make any negative reporting about Dantonio who all local media deemed to be a combination of Jesus and Paul Bryant. Why else would dismissals of players (not just the most recent dismissals) not even merit a "why" follow-up question? I think the local media doesn't want to be wrong about their Golden Boy.

At some point, however, questions need to be asked. How Dantonio hasn't had to face the cameras on this one defies logic.

michelin

December 1st, 2009 at 3:51 PM ^

I know that you mean well and citing this link in the spirit of fairness.

However, the National Press Foundation is not exactly the National Press Club. I’m not impressed by their awards.
Neither, apparently is the head of The University of Missouri journalism program, which arguably is the best in the country, It’s director, who undoubtedly knows something about merit-based awards, resigned from the board of the NPF when it gave the award to someone who, in her opinion, clearly did not deserve it (link below).

But we are not debating the merits of an award based on the Freep’s political reporting here. We are looking at a personal vendetta waged by sports columnist who won no NPF award, nor a Pulitzer Prize.

The fact that links like the one you provide are often used as as a defense of a sports reporter by citing a political reporting award mirrors a wider confusion. It suggests the identity of the two types of reporting. Political and sports reporting, however, are worlds apart. Going after a crooked politician is one thing. Taking a highly biased, one-sided view of problems that beset all educational institutions by attacking a single coach is quite another. Letting another coach off the hook for more serious problems displays a naked intellectual dishonesty. When the sports reporter uses his tools for political retribution, when he manipulates the truth to serve his own needs, it’s just as crooked as lies of a politician. If you look hard enough, I’m sure you can find some people with vested interests to give you an award for what you did. But I’m sure Bernie Madoff also got awards for his philanthropy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Press_Foundation

steve sharik

December 1st, 2009 at 1:16 PM ^

...then he needs to treat them with disregard, disdain, and disrespect like all the other coaches throughout history who the press has loved. Think back and recall all the great coaches the press loved. Those coaches were pricks to the media. Rich should stop being buddy-buddy with them and treat them like the ignorant fools they are. The writers know zero about football, and Rich needs to make them feel that at every interview and press conference.

If, on the other hand, Rich doesn't care what the media says, then he should go on being himself and go about his business.

The key is whether or not Rich believes that the media can influence the success of his program.

jlvanals

December 1st, 2009 at 1:37 PM ^

Rosenberg's article is awful and sounds like it was written by a 6th grader (sorry for the ad homenim, but it's true). Even though I'm usually a contrarian in these parts, there is no other rational conclusion here other than that the Freep is awful and there is absolutely no excuse for not kicking off of their respective sports teams and out of the university anyone who perpetrates random acts of violence on asshole frat guys and innocent bystanders who happen to be in the way. It disgusts me that it took something like this happening twice for the correct response to come from Dantonio.

Coach

December 1st, 2009 at 1:42 PM ^

Rosenberg dislikes Rodriguez and that has been obvious for quite a while. But apparently that bias draws readers, so the Freep isn't going to do anything about it.

It's also clear that Brian has no fucking clue what he's talking about in regards to the incidents at State, yet he continues to talk out his ass about them.

It's funny to see so much bias in a post about bias. Understandable, but still funny.

Yinka Double Dare

December 1st, 2009 at 1:57 PM ^

Please point out what was wrong, since he has "no fucking clue". Didn't the witnesses say that Sturges was trying to break up the fight, and thus was an "innocent bystander"? Didn't Winston plea it down from a felony? Was he not reinstated virtually the moment he got out of jail? Was he not just kicked out of the program right after an incident in which football players raided a fraternity dinner in a premeditated group attack, the second premeditated group attack in which he was involved within just over a year?

Not to mention the point of the post was that Rosenberg is treating one party vastly different than the other -- it's pretty effing hard to argue that two incidents of premeditated group attack within a year aren't pretty freaking bad, and it seems reasonable to think that light punishment from Dantonio and the school for the first one may well have emboldened the players to do it again the second time (once more, with ski-masks, I mean feeling!).

Coach

December 1st, 2009 at 8:16 PM ^

I came on too strong in my original post, but Brian's take on the first Winston assault has been grating on me for a year.

He's wrong in treating the first Winston fight like everything is cut and dry, when it’s really a jumbled mess. Claiming that Sturges was innocent is an example of that. Despite what the “witnesses” (fellow hockey players and their friends) have to say, he was involved to some extent. Another thing is the belief that Winston beat on Sturges so badly that he had to be hospitalized (though not mentioned in this post, Brian has mentioned it before, and it does appear to be the prevailing view on this site). Based on Sturges own words, it’s more likely that his severe injuries came from falling to the ground after he was hit. Same legal outcome, but two drastically different events.

Michigan State has had 20% of its entire team involved in unprovoked violence against other students for two consecutive years.

The 20% number isn’t true for last year’s fight and I think it’s an overestimation for the recent assault as well. And last year’s incident was not an unprovoked act.

it seems reasonable to think that light punishment from Dantonio and the school for the first one may well have emboldened the players to do it again the second time

Brian also said that the current incident was caused by last year’s incident. I think that’s quite a stretch. If they felt the punishment was light, then why the ski masks? The “light punishment” (multi-game suspension, jail time) didn’t cause the second attack; it just changed where it happened.

I’m not saying any of this to justify the actions of Dantonio or anybody on the football team. Winston should have been kicked off the team last year, as should any goons involved in this year’s assault. There should also be jail time. I just think it’s funny that Brian’s attitude on this story seems so similar to the msm attitude that he regularly rails on.

And why are people so surprised and pissed that Rosenberg is acting like this? Writers have to get in their licks when they have the chance because winning makes everything else irrelevant. Right now MSU is winning (yeah, 6-6 is winning for that program) and Michigan isn't. It's that simple. Win and it all goes away.

BigBlue02

December 1st, 2009 at 8:57 PM ^

Why did you say Winston got a multi-game suspension last year? He wasn't suspended until he pleaded guilty in March. He was just benched earlier in the year. He was 4th string and Dantonio had Ringer, why would he suspend him when he could just be a great disciplinarian and bench him. This way, he can still get all the weight lifting and practice time while attending team meetings and funtions. You think Dantonio didn't notice his depth chart the following year consisted of Winston and some talented true freshmen?

The reason they wore ski-masks is so they couldn't be identified....it isn't rocket science.

Yinka Double Dare

December 1st, 2009 at 2:06 PM ^

Also, speaking of "no fucking clue", maybe you can talk some sense into DoctorWorm up there, who included two guys who transferred due to playing time in a "Dantonio kicks people out too" list, and seems to think that stealing money from someone by claiming you could get them cocaine and never bothering to do so is "dealing cocaine". Not to mention Worm seemed to have missed the whole effing point -- Rosenberg goes berserk over Feagin, while he's still making excuses for Dantonio when Winston gets involved in Premeditated Group Attack 2: Electric Boogaloo. If Rosenberg is going to go nuts over Feagin, he simply can't be making excuses for Dantonio here and expect anyone to believe he doesn't have an agenda against Rodriguez.

And what the hell happened to Worm anyways -- he used to be sorta reasonable, but the last few times I've seen him post on here it's the standard frothing dumbass stuff that the Sparty posters who sign up just to troll would post.

El Jeffe

December 2nd, 2009 at 10:44 AM ^

But this just proves my point. You seem to have no ability to understand the subtleties of arguments.

Just as the "double standard" refers not to Dantonio but to Rosenberg et al., so too my whole argument in that exchange had nothing to do with Izzo. It had everything to do with the B10.

I observed that Izzo's (well, MSU's) record in the last 5 NCAA tourneys (7-5) was far less gaudy than the previous 5 years (17-4 or something insane like that). I also observed that OSU, in recent years, was having trouble competing at the highest level (i.e., BCS games). I speculated that this might be because the B10 wasn't preparing their champions for the highest-level competition in the way that the ACC/Big East were in basketball and the SEC/Big 12 were in football.

Now, if I had said that AFTER MSU had gone to the final game, I would obviously have been an idiot. All I was doing was trying to explain an empirical trend. You, for whatever reason, took that as a personal assault on Izzo, which it most certainly was not.

Two other points:

1. Izzo is a brilliant coach and to the extent I predicted he and MSU would never again be successful (which I don't think I did), I was way, way, wrong, obviously.

2. I don't want to suck your balls, if that's okay.

markusr2007

December 1st, 2009 at 1:43 PM ^

First of all, I'd like to refer Mark Dantonio to a few hours alone with Christopher Hitchens.

Secondly, as far as Rosenberg goes, I read somewhere that he is a graduate of the University of Michigan? Is this true? One would think he could at least construct his assertions and arguments a little more objectively and concretely. But no. He gave up his objectivity card at the door by deliberately leaving out other considerations, evidence, details and facts that would undermine his own preconceived opinions. That's free press alright.

Actually, all of us "pick and choose" the bits that support our belief systems and prejudices every day of the week. It's human nature. Why muddy up the picture with supportive facts and more poignant questions that would place us on shaky ground? No! That's not the society we live in. We must be galvanized to one position or the other or be viewed as indecisive jerks. And newspaper columnists don't change their minds or admit they were wrong. Ever.

Rosenberg and the Freep are trying to do a 36 month series on comparison and contrast:

Dantonio is good and righteous.
Rodriguez is an unethical slimeball.

If reasonable people in Michigan are convinced by this lazy, self-serving approach to journalism, then they're welcome to it. I would simply say that Freep readers are being poorly served here.

mendrygal

December 1st, 2009 at 1:52 PM ^

Maybe we could get this guy to write an article about how Brandon Graham doesn't have a shot in the NFL unless he comes back for one more year at Michigan. You know, since "journalistic integrity" is just a hard phrase for him to spell.

jsquigg

December 1st, 2009 at 2:03 PM ^

Hey Brian,

I love this blog to death and maybe your just suffering like the rest of us, but isn't this all old news? I get it. The Free Press is 110% biased towards State these days. I guess I just think it's ridiculous to rehash past events in the hope that something changes. If you want good news, I think you'll still be blogging when the Freep implodes. Let's not dwell on D'Antonio more than we have to.

Sethgoblue

December 1st, 2009 at 3:59 PM ^

squigg, I agree with your general sentiment, but I think there is an exception to be made when a side-by-side example like this pops up. The timing is relevant because Winston is now off the team. I'm glad Brian put this out there now because the rosenberg's bias is just so glaring in this light.

jsquigg

December 2nd, 2009 at 1:47 PM ^

I love how I got negbanged for what I thought was a pretty neutral statement. Let me be clear: Brian has every right to post whatever he wants on HIS blog. I love what he does, but I also have a right to a response as given by Brian and have a life that doesn't revolve around mgopoints (I realize this looks more bitter than it is and will prompt a "yeah right" sentiment).
With that said the thesis of Brian's post is old news. Rosenberg is biased = old news. Winston and Feagin incidents = old news. The Freep is doing what it can to exploit situations to save itself = old news. D'Antonio is a douche = old news.
I am frustrated by everything that has gone on to paint Rodriguez as bad news which has been totally unmerited, but just because the media has a double standard shouldn't be a mark against D'Antonio. I don't like D'Antonio as a coach, but didn't he kick those players off the team who were involved in that beating? And why bring his faith into it?
Speaking from the position of one who has faith I hate it when people's bad decisions are attributed to that faith without merit. I believe in second chances and while I certainly think D'Antonio has lacked at times with discipline I don't think he should be criticized because the media coverage has been horrendously imbalanced.
I guess my bottom line is that it doesn't come off well when we get our ass kicked twice by State and repeatedly whine about the media coverage and D'Antonio in general. I choose to get behind Coach Rod in spite of the negative attention rather than get drawn into it.

cfaller96

December 2nd, 2009 at 2:17 PM ^

With that said the thesis of Brian's post is old news. Rosenberg is biased = old news. Winston and Feagin incidents = old news. The Freep is doing what it can to exploit situations to save itself = old news. D'Antonio is a douche = old news.

Agree with everything up there. But you're ignoring the fact that there has been a development in most/all of those "old news" storylines. In other words, when a new, more damning piece of evidence appears and makes your "old" case even stronger, well how can you ignore that?

The Potluck Assault is a de facto "new" piece of news, and the Rosenberg bias was made new when Rosenberg opined on that "new" news.

I understand and will grudgingly admit that maybe this whole storyline shouldn't get much more play, but let's not pretend that there is "nothing new here." Things did happen recently, and those things did impact old stories.

dahblue

December 2nd, 2009 at 4:32 PM ^

I've big with the negative points, but agree with the majority on this one. There has been a double standard in terms of coverage of problems at MSU. When Ray and Anderson (I think those are the right guys) were kicked off the team...we didn't even get a comment from the program. There was not a single "why?" asked.

With the current issue, MSU is again silent. That is not acceptable. If Tiger Woods has to talk about his personal life, Dantonio must address the Potluck Massacre.

Last point, Dantonio has not kicked the players off the team. The Detroit News reported today that the players have been suspended on a day-to-day basis and that they might be playing in the bowl. That lack of discipline is the reason the Potluck Massacre occurred.

BornInAA

December 1st, 2009 at 2:04 PM ^

http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2009/11/iota_phi_theta_blame…

Iota Phi Theta blames players for Rather Hall altercation
By Kate Jacobson (Last updated: 11/29/09 10:06pm)

Members of Iota Phi Theta, the fraternity involved in a Nov. 22 assault in Rather Hall, formally stated members of the MSU football team were involved in the assault, although university officials and MSU police have not confirmed this.
mugshot

Jenrette
mugshot

Winston

Last week, two players were dismissed from the football team following reports of the incident.

A statement issued late last week by the national fraternity, which is based in Baltimore, said members of the MSU football team were involved with an incident at The Small Planet, 16800 Chandler Road, and the assault in Rather Hall. It said the fraternity is appalled by the actions of the football players.

Members of the fraternity said they were attacked in Rather Hall after a Nov. 22 event. They also said a fight broke out Nov. 21 at an after-party event hosted by the fraternity at The Small Planet. Mike Krueger, general manager of The Small Planet, said security shut down the event after several people got into a fight on the dance floor.

The statement did not identify the football players involved in the incidents.

University spokesman Terry Denbow said no charges have been filed against any members of the football team or anyone else as of Sunday. MSU police referred all questions to Denbow.

Denbow said if and when charges are made, the university would not comment on the involvement of those charged based on affiliation to a group on campus, such as the football team.

The fraternity’s statement also said the fraternity was disappointed one of the reported assailants was able to return to MSU after assaulting an MSU hockey player.

Sophomore running back Glenn Winston was charged with assaulting MSU hockey player junior defenseman A.J. Sturges in an Oct. 19, 2008, fight. The fight resulted in Sturges’ hospitalization and Winston was sentenced to 180 days in jail. MSU head coach Mark Dantonio reinstated Winston to the team hours after he was released.

Although not named in the fraternity’s press release, Winston has been accused by witnesses of being involved in the Rather Hall altercation. He was removed from the MSU football team’s roster Tuesday, according to a statement from Dantonio.

Junior safety Roderick Jenrette also was dismissed from the team Tuesday and matches a description given by witnesses of an assailant with dreadlocks. The coach’s statement did not cite specific reason for either of the players’ removal.

bandgeek

December 1st, 2009 at 2:06 PM ^

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

December 1st, 2009 at 3:12 PM ^

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.

Seth

December 1st, 2009 at 4:04 PM ^

That's exactly it.

It would be well to point out that he's not the only Michigan guy who was close to Carr who hasn't been comfortable with the new regime. Personally, I see Rosenberg as part of the difficult transition. It sucks that the local paper's "intellectual" columnist came down as one of those guys, but if you really bought into Lloyd and Bo and "Michigan Man" and "we will beat you by being bigger and doing whatever we want" and all that, it's not an easy divorce when your program suddenly turns into "we're gonna out-scheme and out-exercise everyone."

Rosenberg's one of those guys.

It's also gotten him removed from covering the Wolverines anymore, by the way.

bandgeek

December 1st, 2009 at 7:31 PM ^

i certainly don't read him regularly so the timing may not make sense and I am sure RR has a lot to do with it. but the "careerist whore" and drew sharp comments are pretty much what i was trying to get at, which is that i think his biases, which are very real, probably have quite a bit to do with the desires of those who sign his paycheck and not so much some secret abiding love for all things sparty, or how much he digs the way dantonio runs a program. i guess that's not a phenomenal insight, but it seemed interesting at the time. i'll have my AM coffee first before i try this again.

Sethgoblue

December 1st, 2009 at 3:36 PM ^

While the points that Rosenberg went to UM and wrote for the Daily are true, they don't hold much water in this argument compared to what he's put in print. I think Brian put it perfectly that his opinion is reasonable, but his bias is clear. That Rosenberg could have attended Michigan because he was an ambitious person is just as likely, if not more, than if he simply was a fan of the school or the football team. It's not relevant to say that he writes the way he does to avoid being accused of having a UM bias because what he writes doesn't come close to that, like Marshmallow said. Is that why Drew Sharp writes the way he does? He's a Daily alum as well. Also, whether or not his bias stems from being a member of the "Lloyd camp" doesn't matter. Bias is bias, no matter the source. In fact, I think it's more likely he saw how Drew Sharp made a name for himself and is following a similar tack.
Like Marshmallow said, thanks for playing.

cfaller96

December 1st, 2009 at 5:06 PM ^

My own theory is that Rosenberg sees bashing U-M as an opportunity for him to get ahead in his chosen profession. Or, more cynically, he's a typical modern journalist- willing to sacrifice everything in order to make his job easier and/or more profitable.

I think Rosenberg has made a mistake, FWIW. Over the long term his reputation will be shit and ESPN won't view him as indispensable. He will be gone and forgotten within a decade, IME.

Seth

December 1st, 2009 at 4:16 PM ^

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!!

InterM

December 1st, 2009 at 5:07 PM ^

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.

Seth

December 1st, 2009 at 6:45 PM ^

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.

ATrain32

December 1st, 2009 at 6:26 PM ^

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.

Undefeated dre…

December 1st, 2009 at 2:17 PM ^

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.

steelymax

December 1st, 2009 at 2:22 PM ^

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.

dahblue

December 1st, 2009 at 3:26 PM ^

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.