Jihad The Second: Practical Matters
I made curried cabbage last night. It's a simple dish that, like most Indian dishes, can take as much butter as you're willing to risk and can be made in preposterous quantity. Basically: chop two large onions and around a head of garlic and sweat them in just under a stick of butter; add healthy amounts of turmeric, curry powder, cumin, and salt, then chop a head of cabbage and thinly slice some potatoes and throw them in; cook until everything's soft and glows like it's radioactive—
Oh, right. That. There are many thing to say about it and I guess I have to say them instead of working on the season preview as I intended to this fine Sunday. So we'll take them in slices. Slice the first will concern the possibility of NCAA infractions and starts now.
Rules
A reader has helpfully digested the NCAA rulebook into the salient sections:
17.02.13 Voluntary Athletically Related Activities. In order for any athletically related activity to be considered “voluntary,” all of the following conditions must be met: (Adopted: 4/18/01)
(a) The student-athlete must not be required to report back to a coach or other athletics department staff member (e.g., strength coach, trainer, manager) any information related to the activity. In addition, no athletics department staff member who observes the activity (e.g., strength coach, trainer, manager) may report back to the student-athlete’s coach any information related to the activity; [Editor's note: this has not been alleged.]
(b) The activity must be initiated and requested solely by the student-athlete. Neither the institution nor any athletics department staff member may require the student-athlete to participate in the activity at any time.
However, it is permissible for an athletics department staff member to provide information to student-athletes related to available opportunities for participating in voluntary activities (e.g., times when the strength and conditioning coach will be on duty in the weight room or on the track). In addition, for students who have initiated a request to engage in voluntary activities, the institution or an athletics department staff member may assign specific times for student-athletes to use institutional facilities for such purposes and inform the student-athletes of the time in advance; [Editor's note: a lot of noise about "required" in the article but these rules really require you to parse the semantics of "required"; playing time is voluntary, too.]
(c) The student-athlete’s attendance and participation in the activity (or lack thereof ) may not be recorded for the purposes of reporting such information to coaching staff members or other student-athletes; and [alleged]
(d) The student-athlete may not be subjected to penalty if he or she elects not to participate in the activity. In addition, neither the institution nor any athletics department staff member may provide recognition or incentives (e.g., awards) to a student-athlete based on his or her attendance or performance in the activity. [Former alleged, latter not.]
[Note: Coaching staff members may be present during permissible skill-related instruction pursuant to Bylaws 17.1.6.2.2 and 17.1.6.2.3]. (Revised: 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04)
The emailer also suggests this:
As far as I can tell, the authors of the article invented the rule about "quality-control staff" not being permitted to observe voluntary off-season scrimmages. The rules about voluntary activities clearly mention athletics department staff observing, and the following rule disallows observing "nonorganized voluntary athletically related activities (e.g., pick-up games)" for certain staff members, which a student-organized scrimmage is clearly not:
11.7.1.1.1.1 Noncoaching Activities. Institutional staff members involved in noncoaching activities (e.g., administrative assistants, academic counselors) do not count in the institution’s coaching limitations, provided such individuals are not identified as coaches, do not engage in any on- or off-field coaching activities (e.g., attending meetings involving coaching activities, analyzing video involving the institution’s or an opponent’s team), and are not involved in any off-campus recruitment of prospective student-athletes or scouting of opponents. A noncoaching staff member with sport-specific responsibilities may not participate with or observe student-athletes in the staff member’s sport who are engaged in nonorganized voluntary athletically related activities (e.g., pick-up games). (Adopted: 1/16/93, Revised: 1/10/95, 12/13/05, 4/27/06 effective 8/1/06)
…but I'm skeptical he read that rule right. Even if quality control staff qualify as noncoaching, they do have sport specific responsibilities and can't observe "nonorganized voluntary athletically related activities," which I'm very sure would include the voluntary seven-on-sevens and whatnot.
Allegations
The article's hugely long and goes into detail about Barwis' workout regimes and Michigan's seven-on-seven "requirements" but the only section that specifically alleges NCAA violations is this one:
"It was mandatory," one player said. "They'd tell you it wasn't, but it really was. If you didn't show up, there was punishment. I just felt for the guys that did miss a workout and had to go through the personal hell they would go through."
In addition, the players cited these practices within the program:
Players spent at least nine hours on football activities on Sundays after games last fall. NCAA rules mandate a daily 4 -hour limit. The Wolverines also exceeded the weekly limit of 20 hours, the athletes said.
Players said members of Rodriguez's quality-control staff often watched seven-on-seven off-season scrimmages. The non-contact drills, in which an offense runs plays against a defense, are supposed to be voluntary and player-run. They are held at U-M's football facilities. NCAA rules allow only training staff _ not quality-control staffers _ to attend as a safety precaution. Quality-control staffers provide administrative and other support for the coaches but are not allowed to interact directly with players during games, practices or workouts.
If verified, the quote about punishment would violate blah blah blah subsection D above. What qualifies as a "punishment" in a regularly scheduled S&C workout is unknown. Working out harder?
And if "quality control" staff were observing seven-on-seven, a claim disputed Michigan compliance department spot checks, that would be a violation as well. And the "nine hours" on Sunday would be a violation if the voluntary workouts gray area was breached.
There is some expansion on blah subsection D:
Under Carr, off-season seven-on-seven drills were run by players, without coaches or staff members present, players said. The only staffer there would be a trainer, in case anybody got injured, as allowed under NCAA rules.
Several players said Rodriguez's coaches were more likely to insist they participate in seven-on-seven scrimmages, which have become more frequent. They also said that members of the program's quality-control staff frequently watched seven-on-sevens.
"They usually just watched and would write down who wasn't there," one player on the 2008 team said.
Another said graduate assistants would track them down.
"The phone would ring: 'Where you at? ... You gotta come.' 'I'm in class.' "
Ah, smell the objectivity: "insist" is another man's way of saying "suggest you participate lest you fall behind the rest of the team and find yourself on the bench." But taking attendance is verboten. Calling players on the team probably not.
The rest of it is filler, like quotes from some freshmen about the offseason workout program…
"Hooooo!" Stokes said. "A typical week is working from 8 a.m. in the morning to 6 or 7 at night, Monday through Saturday."
And that was starting in June?
"Yes, sir," Stokes said. "We do the weight room at least three times a week, and seven-on-sevens and one-on-ones. Speed and agility on the other days. Every day we have something new to get ready for the season. The coaches have done a great job of stressing the importance of getting us ready for the big season that we're about to have."
…that would be totally evil if Rodriguez was an idiot who hadn't dealt with NCAA compliance for 20 years and hadn't made sure the strenuous workouts fit the definitions of "voluntary." This is unlikely. The same goes for the assertions that Rodriguez had his players exceed daily limits on required activities and 20-hour-per-week maximums on practice time: all of those sections rely on vague quotes about what the team does from players who aren't complaining and include things like workouts that, again, probably qualify as voluntary. Here's the big reveal on exceeding maximum hours per week:
With three hours on Saturday and a full day on Sunday, players tallied about 12 hours on those two days. They were off Monday. Players said they would spend an additional three to four hours with the team on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday afternoons, bringing the weekly total to 21- 24 hours.
If any section of any of those days fit the definition of voluntary, that's not a violation.
Precedents
As you might expect, they're pretty lax. The NCAA just got done slightly dinging Southeast Missouri State for something similar. From the NCAA report on the matter:
a. During the summer of 2006, members of the men's basketball coaching staff, including the former head coach, were present during, and in some instances, briefly observed men's basketball student-athletes' participation in the team's strength and conditioning program. Additionally, student-athletes were sometimes required to report to a coach the reason they did not attend a conditioning session.
b. During the summer of 2007, members of the men's basketball coaching staff, including the former head coach, regularly, but not to the extent of the prior summer, were present during, and in some instances briefly observed, men's basketball student-athletes' participation in the team's strength and conditioning program.
c. During the fall of 2006 (August through October) and spring of 2007 (March through May), members of the men's basketball coaching staff briefly observed men's basketball student-athletes' participation in a few on-campus out-of-season pick-up games, including one occasion in the spring of 2007 (around April 24), when some coaches observed a prospective student-athlete, completing an official paid visit, participate in an on-campus pick-up game with some of the men's basketball student-athletes.
This was part of a laundry list of other violations, including an impermissible car trip and two separate instances where boosters or coaches paid for school fees or tuition. But what really got SEMO in hot water was the head coach's response to the investigation; that and the collective malfeasance-lookin' thing got SEMO the dreaded three words that indicate serious ire on the part of the NCAA:
Other violations include unethical conduct by the former head coach for knowing about the program's involvement in NCAA violations and providing false and misleading information to the institution and enforcement staff when questioned about his involvement in and knowledge of possible NCAA violations; unethical conduct by the former assistant coach for failing to act in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty and sportsmanship normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics for his knowing involvement in NCAA violations; and the institution's failure to monitor the men's and women's basketball programs.
All this added up to three years of probation and one scholarship taken away for one year, AKA nothing whatsoever.
So, Yeah… What Might Happen?
You're not dealing with amateurs here:
Van Horn said, "Compliance and administrative staff conduct in-person spot checks of practice during the academic year and summer. We have not had any reason to self-report any violations in this area with any of our sports."
At the very least a detailed list of clean spot checks will assuage the NCAA if they choose to investigate. "Failure to monitor" can't be alleged when there is monitoring. This is a major reason big schools report a lot of minor violations and escape the NCAA hammer: they pay attention and back it up with documents. Meanwhile, the accusations leveled are anonymous, unverified, and vague. It takes a huge leap to go from this article to even the tiny wrist-slap SEMO received.
The Free Press says the NCAA's reaction is "impossible to predict," but I'll predict: it'll be slightly more strenuous than their reaction to the NCAA's reaction the Ann Arbor News academics story. Since their reaction to that story was to ignore it, that only implies a cursory look through the books.
I was curious about Carr's reaction to the situation, not whether reporters have to inform people they interview about the true nature of the questions. They don't need to do that, but if they don't when interviewing kids not long out of high school then it's not surprising if the kids, or their coaches and parents, feel taken advantage of.
As for the vitriol towards the writers: the piece written by Rosenberg immediately after Witty was dismissed was one of the more distorted and slanted sports articles I've read in the Detroit media in my almost half-century of reading the local papers, so it should not be unexpected that Michigan fans are suspicious of his writings.
Yes, the messenger shouldn't be automatically targeted, but there is so much shoddy journalism practiced in this country on a daily basis in all areas that I long ago gave up my former automatic trust in what "professional" journalists write.
It was largely anonymous sources, unnamed intelligence officials, and people with huge axes to grind or financial interests at stake that were used by professional journalists at the NY Times and Washington Post to help support and peddle the Bush administration notion that Saddam had a robust WMD program that would soon enable him to launch in 45 minutes, so I trust anonymous sources about as far as I trust Denny McClain with my pension fund.
and suggest that the Michigan coaching staff and administration has a better handle than these two reporters on what the NCAA guidelines actually mean.
I doubt there is any problem with the workouts. I don't think demanding that a player do more reps or laps as punishment for missing something counts as "punishment." I think that means things like throwing them off the team, taking away privileges, etc. It's got nothing to do with the internal rules of an organized workout regimen, as long as you're free to drop out of it at any time without being punished for doing so.
On the voluntary scrimmages, the rule seems confusing, but I'll bet the coaches know exactly what it means. My reading of it disagrees with Brian -- they should count as "organized" activities. These are not "pick-up games." Just because something is voluntary and student-organized does not necessarily mean the NCAA considers it "nonorganized." Brian needs to explain why he is so sure his source's understanding of the rule is wrong.
The in-season Sundays allegation has already been debunked to some degree -- the first two hours were spent in treatment, starting at 10 AM. So any coaching would not have started until after lunch, at, say, 1 or 2 PM. So probably we're talking four hours until 5 or 6 PM, then the team has a break for dinner. Anything after that would not be mandatory. When players came back after dinner, they presumably did so voluntarily. That wouldn't be against the rules as I understand them. We're talking two or at most three hours of extra football-related time, not the five to seven hours the article suggests.
Why are all the Detroit newspapers so negative? Has there ever been a fucking positive story from these papers? Can they not focus on a single positive thing on Michigan's football team? These guys like Rosenbery and Sharp are really pathetic; sad that everything that they write is so negative in tone.
that richrod should pull a dantonio (yes i said it, but bare with me) and call out rosenberg and snyder at his next press conference. this is a lot like what parker did with the whole cousins thing. using un-credited sources to try and throw cousins under the bus. other than stokes and hawthorne what does rosenberg or snyder have??? nothing..... what does espn have with their whole "talked to a former player who started last year"??? nothing.... all they are doing is putting thoughts into our heads that shouldn't be there.
parker and the news was held accountable, why can't the free press??? its no secret that rosenberg has some major bur up his ass about RR, but to go to the extent of trying to get the whole football program in toruble to prove a point is just stupid.
First off I think that the players that said this are disgruntled players from last year and some disgruntled ones from this year. Do I think that Rich Rodriquez pushed the limit for time, absolutely I do. I like the fact though that our team works hard though and puts in work. It seems that 95 percent of the players don't have a problem working hard and it seems that team chemistry is really good in terms of the players that are willing to work.
FWIW.. I attend practices from time to time and was there at the most recent open media day. Rosenberg usually sends Snyder to cover practices. I've never seen Rosenberg there.
For those of you who aren't familiar with Mr. Snyder, you can't miss him. Without being derogatory, it's appropriate to have a perspective on him. At best, he's 5'6" and 140 lbs. Of the times I've seen him, I've always seen hium with a frustrated look on his face. He seldom interacts with anybody during these practices. The reporters that cover the U-M football sports beat are generally very collegial with each other.
The other thing that it may be helpful to realize is that many of the guys in the media are - simply stated - dweebs. Most haven't played competitive sports since 4th grade T-Ball. Consequently, they don't have a very good perspective on what it is they are "supposed" to be reporting on them. Beyond that, there seems to be a general absence of people skills.
I've got no doubt that Rod pushes kids up to the line. Many of Lloyd's kids simply weren't pushed and weren't required to compete for starting positions. Lloyd's system had a heavy seniority component to it. It's fairly well known that Lloyd told Gittleson & his assistants to back off on or around 2001/2002 because he wanted his kids to have a normal college experience. Lloyd's pracices weren't very intnese - Rod typically runs 3x the amount of plays in the same time. Bo would have loved Rod's tempo.
Folks, welcome to 2009. If you're not going to push up to this NCAA line and operate in the "grey" area, you're not going to compete with USC, LSU, Florida, Texas, and OSU. Take a look at Lloyds post 2001 bowl and OSU records and that shoudl give you a pretty good indicator of how well he was competing.
Rosenberg had better understand the gravity of his remarks and make sure he's got all of his sources documented.
It's one thing for him to say that Rod should have done a better job with due diligence on Justin Feagin. However, it's another thing to accuse the program of willfully violating NCAA rules.
If Rosenberg (1) didn't do his due diligence properly and THOROUGHLY, and (2) if his story does not hold up to the ensuing scrutiny that will undoubtedly follow - he'll find himself out of a job. This are extremely serious allegations. If Mr. Rosenberg does not have a good understanding of the rules, the grey areas, and the loop holes - he'll blow up his own credibility/integrity.
Rosenberg's work is increasingly taking on the tone of a biased malcontent - with a motive. He needs to get over the fact that Les Miles wasn't hired for the job.
If only the freep had a Barwis to weed out their underachievers and complainers!
The report is such a non issue. The is obviously a case where the Freep is desperately searching for another big issue now that the Kwame Kilpatrick story has ended. Shock journalism at best. I wouldn't be surprised if the next headline reads "Scandal at the Big House" to try to drive more readers to the Freep website.
A couple additional points that are worth merit. First, Rosenberg fails to tell us what the other 5 players said about practice and workouts. Instead, he decided to selectively report quotations from players who had negative things to say and took advantage of a naive freshman (Stokes) who appeared to be indifferent about the matter, but whose quote was spun out of context Second, what specific questions did the Freep reporters ask these players? Were they leading questions trying to bait players into producing a certain answer? Did they ask for a breakdown of how the hours were spent? Let's hope proponents (players and parents) also come forward to provide a well-rounded perspective.
This is part of the culture change at Michigan. During the latter years of the Carr era, practices had a country club type atmosphere. RRod is bringing hard work and dedication to football back to UM. The primary reason it has been brought up is due to the stark contrast in practice and preparation styles.
The climate of college football practice regulations is touchy, given the recent spike in player deaths in practice. Let's hope that the NCAA sees this for what it really is (a non issue) and decides not make an example out of UM for the rest of college football.
I work with a former closer for the M baseball team. He said in his last year, the football team "took over" the fields with their 7 on 7 drills, which went on during baseball workouts. The grad assistants were most definitely there and most definitely taking attendance and calling people.
That said, he agrees with Brian in terms of the eventual NCAA sanctions- few, if at all.
I don't think the "Noncoaching Activities" rule applies at all. These are not "nonorganized" activities. So that just leaves the "Voluntary Athletically Related Activities" rule, especially section (c). I don't think any part of section (d) applies unless Michigan was punishing the players for not participating in some concrete way, which I don't think has been alleged with regard to the scrimmages.
If the graduate assistants were reporting attendance or anything else about the scrimmages back to the coaches, then that would be a violation of section (c). But the article does not make that allegation. It says the players knew they were taking attendance. It doesn't say the players knew who was getting that information or how they were using it. There are good reasons for keeping track of attendance other than tattling to the coaches. The whole thing is completely absurd.
Unfortunately, as Cokie Roberts once famously observed, "It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It's out there."
1. Was the amount of time spent in practice/conditioning at Michigan the same as at WVU when RR was there? If it was, why was there no mention of violations in Morgantown? Did Snydenberg inquire there? They have been working on this for many months, allegedly.
2. Ryan Mundy was in a perfect situation to comment on the amount of time spent in practice/conditioning under Carr and under RR. He did mention directly that the S&C program under RR and Barwis was far more rigorous than at Michigan under Carr. He never mentioned anything about unreasonable time demands, but it would be interesting to ask him directly. Did Snydenberg?
3. Who first approached Snydenberg with the allegations? Did Snydenberg talk directly with any member of the former coaching staff about this?
4. Fred Jackson is in a unique position to know about time spent in practice under Carr and under RR. Did Snydenberg talk to him about it?
5. Did Snydenberg talk with any parents who disputed the allegations? If not, why not? If so, why aren't their statements included?
6. Lloyd Carr would have been apoplectic if two freshmen players under him had statements obtained by a reporter who did not inform the players what he was going to do with the statements. Will he speak up now?
7. Has anyone researched the articles written about the football program by Snyder when he was with the Michigan Daily? Just curious...
8. How many hours will the players spend at Fort Schembechler today? (just partially in jest...).
The freep doesn't have the budget for long distance phone calls! (or journalistic integrity)
As for #6, since when does a journalist have to tell his/her interview subject why they are being asked a specific question? What were they supposed to do, hand these kids an outline of their story and see if it was OK if they asked them some questions, preferably quotes that would help? That's not journalism, that's fiction.
One thing that is really getting to me around here today is the amount of vitriol being thrown at Snyder, Rosenberg, and the Free Press. They're not the problem here. If there was no story here, why did the players come to them?
Journalists have a responsibility to report on stories like this. Responsible journalism exposes and rights wrongs, no matter what the fallout may be. If you think Michigan is better off by a media that is willing to turn the other way when they see something they think is sketchy, you're delusional.
Would Michigan basketball have been better off if Ed Martin had been allowed to pay players for another 5 years? Of course this is nothing akin to the Ed Martin scandal, but it is something that had the lid blown off by the media, and something that should have been exposed a lot earlier.
Responsible journalism would be an examination of the NCAA in general, and place what is happening at Michigan within that context. Suggesting that Michigan is egregiously violating NCAA rules, and then backing it up with essentially nothing, is in no way responsible. Last year the team SET A RECORD for team GPA, but this isn't mentioned. It's not even clear if the players who were complaining are even on the team.
Hell, even the timing of this - the Sunday before the first game - suggests that this is clearly motivated by money on the part of the free press, as well as an attempt to justify a paycheck by two dweebs.
Not to mention the obsession the free press has with tearing down Rodriguez, which has been obvious to EVERYONE.
Please, go to your room.
c/o 2008
GO BLUE!
I was waiting for Brian's take all day, and I have to say that it certainly made me feel better as I was hoping it would. The most unfortunate thing about this all is the timing and the effect that it could possibly have on team chemistry. Clearly, it is a small minority of players who feel this way about the program. The freep cited 5 or so players both former and current. What they did not say however, is how many of these players are current. For all we know there could have been one current player out of the five who went along with what the others were saying. And all the quotes that were used could easily have come from former players, ala boren, who have an obvious conflict of interest as far as their relationship toward Michigan goes. So potentially we have ONE, ONE disgruntled current player, who could be a walk-on scout teamer.
I also liked how the freep mentioned that 5 other players would not comment on the workouts but did not dispute others statements. My question is what exactly the freep considers not disputing. Does that mean that the other players simply refused to say anything and therefore did not disagree? There is so much rediculousness surrounding all of this.
If the team can just rally together like they did all off-season and come out with the right attitude next week, I think the effects of this will be minimal. However, if this whole ordeal leads to distrusts in the locker room and more and more players becoming disgruntled, I think we could be in for a rough couple of years as a program. Winning can solve everything. We just gotta perform.
Brian,
Buckeye Battle Cry is calling you out as a "complete coward." If THEY say it, it must be true, right?
http://www.thebuckeyebattlecry.com/?p=2094
[/sarcasm]
Eeeeeeeeee...
Wow, are we lucky to have MGoBlog.
There were so many factual errors and absolute false statements in that one post on the Buckeye Battle Cry that I could not believe it. What garbage!
Yeah, that is my license plate.
Eeeeeeeeee...
I loved the recipe symbolism in your opening graph.
Made me laugh.
Be it bad post or investigative piece, there is always a recipe for cooked squirrel or curried cabbage thats more worth our time to discuss.
www.justcoverblog.com
God Bless Your Cotton Pickin' Maize & Blue Hearts
I agree with Brian's conclusion (likely no NCAA sanctions or investigation) but two things:
1- it would not require Rodriguez to be "an idiot" for these allegations to be true: it would require him to be human. Non idiots push the envelope and rules every day and in every industry. Trying to game the system and get advantage is endemic to humanity.
2- I think the NCAA won't investigate but the school likely will. The administration is very sensitive to this kind of allegation and will no simply dismiss it. that guarantees that this issue will stay top of mind. In fact, I think it likely that the school will call a press conference this week in order to discuss this, which will add more fuel to the fire.
In the end, IMO this will end up as a minor skirmish causing much debate but with no real impact--other than increasing negative recruiting against us. Much ado about likely nothing, but nonetheless it's gonna suck for awhile.
MGoBlog "Circle Jerker"
Re your #1, I think that if we were talking about the difference between 21 and 20 hours, you'd be right. But as far as I understand what's going on, there were claims that the players were forced, forced I say, to spend 9 hours on Sunday instead of permissible 4 doing football-related stuff or whatnot. RR is not an idiot to overshoot that target by a factor of 225%. More likely, he is flouting the spirit of the rules while staying ever so slightly within the letter of them.
Whether we like this or not is a different matter. I highly doubt RR is dumb enough to trample well-known rules to this extent.
I agree with you about the "spirit of the rules" vs. the actual rules themselves. Breaking the spirit of the rules is not an infraction.
I think there was a very heavy peer pressure element to last year's Sundays. The coaches can say, "you can leave now if you want, but we have 20 additional things prepared for you and those of you who want to play should go to room X to start." Then the walk ons probably leave since they wouldn't play in any event, but everyone else stays and follows the herd. Therefore, the intentional peer pressure and the playing time expectation break the spirit but not the rule. Everything was still voluntary.
Bill Belichick. And that guy is no idiot. His explanation of violating the NFL taping rule was laughable. Let's be honest -- RR is not an idiot, but he will push the limits as much as he can to be successful.
that (for the sake of this argument, let's say all allegations are true) anything can be traced to back to a specific mandatory command. No one could be that dumb. So this is all shades of grey. But as we all know from the workplace, there are ways of your boss letting you know that something extra they want is "voluntary", when in reality everyone at work knows it is not. Nothing could ever be traced back, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Now I'm not arguing the Freep side, as I said earlier, I think it will turn out to be not much. But I do think it's conceivable that this could have happened.
MGoBlog "Circle Jerker"
... with a quote from RichRod at the end:
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4432506
My great source of comfort is not that "everyone does it", but that as Brian states, RR has been doing this for some time on a high level. He knows the rules and (I hope) knows how to run a program that is safe to scrutiny. In a similar fashion, the athletic department should be professional enough to have their ducks in a row. If not, they deserve their lumps for stupidity.
It is bothersome though that there is so much resistance and dissent seemingly from within. The culture obviously changed which reflects poorly on either the Carr regime's work ethic or the demands of RR(maybe a combination of both).
Kentucky basketball does not seem so conflicted and their guy has a real track record. Rodriguez should hire a PR guy.
"It is bothersome though that there is so much resistance and dissent seemingly from within."
There is absolutely NO evidence of this! Few players were actually cited in the articles. And, some that were (e.g. Hawthorne and Stokes) merely said workouts were tough. They never said they thought they were unnecessary or that they were unhappy about it.
Yeah, that is my license plate.
re: voluntary practices. i come from an accounting/auditing background. it is the job of QC to ensure rules are being properly followed. as far as football goes, to me, it would be a good thing to have "quality control" personnel observing "voluntary" practices and workouts to ensure that ncaa rules are being followed (ie. no coaches). i guess the key is to ensure that these QC people are disassociated from the football program.
But maybe this could theoreticaly HELP recruiting? Most 4 and 5 star recruits think they are headed to the NFL. Having a full time job working out under Barwis can't hurt. If I was RR, I'd have team shirts made up that say: Michigan -- We practice and work out WAY too much. LOL.
that would have appeal to, but the majority, especially those recruits where parents are a major influence on the school decision, IMO will react very negatively to this, particularly after being goaded in a negative way by rival coaches.
MGoBlog "Circle Jerker"
I don't buy the newspaper. We really are spoiled. All the info we need is on a blog like this and is educational with some entertainment. Not because it says what I want to hear, but because it is well thought out and believable. Thanks Brian
I am not too worried.(as if I have any say anyway) W's will make this meme all go away.
Rule #1- Never talk about MGoPoints
This is a lot of content in a short amount of time. Thanks for doing all of this research so quickly, great informative info.
HAIL.
ZOMG WMU DEATH APPROACHETH. FUCK NEWSPAPER PRACTICE MOAR!!!1
MGOVIDEO
I liked how at the end of the article, they tried to make a point that all the extra work didn't show on the field last year. Evidently the lack of a consistent QB and defense had nothing to do with 3-9. Let's see how things play out this year.
I've already gotten two emails from my Michigan-hating friends that say "RR practiced three times as much as others and all you can manage was three wins?" Makes me want to blow my head off.
as usual, Brian knocks it out of the park. As I briefly mentioned on my board message about the latest ESPN analysis, though, I don't think the biggest worry for RR is the NCAA. It's the big alumni donors. I'd like to think the folks on MGoBlog are the power base of Michigan fans. But we're not. If enough people paying for the suites, etc. get fed up and voice it to Bill Martin directly and from the checkbooks, Rich Rod is in trouble. This the first time a "major" NCAA violation has been alleged in the national print media vs. Michigan. Donors used to being able to say we're better than everyone else because our program is so "clean" won't like it. Just my two cents. And if UM does well this year, the donors will be happy. We'll see a week from yesterday.
Oh, and Rittenberg does a good job staying objective on all this here:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/ncfnation/0-10-296/Michigan-allegations-sugge...
I agree with him that it's troubling that current players spoke out, even if it was only 1 or 2--not because there are a couple malcontents, all programs have them. It's troubling because if the implications for team chemistry and morale for guy that go speak to reporters.
MGoBlog "Circle Jerker"
I think DC Blue hits the nail on the head here. I'm not exactly a stuck-in-the-mud traditionalist in the mold of our older brethren, but even I'm starting to become unsettled at the frequent issues that the program has had to deal with in the past year and a half. The bluehairs will most definitely issue warning shots after this one, if nothing else, and Martin's still got 30% of the boxes to fill up. Granted, he's also right that winning will assuage some of the concern, but not all of it.
The "Rosenberg hates us" meme does not satisfy me. Journalists have it out for all sorts of coaches and programs, keep your nose clean.
Regardless of the fact that almost every top program in the country is probably doing this, that our players would self-report this in the worst possible light is enough to tell me that there are still severe problems in the locker room. This is a problem. I don't care if Rodriguez introduced a whole new culture and it's only Carr guys that can't deal with it (although at this point simple reasoning says that thought is shot to hell), the fact that there are still so many disgruntled players on this squad is very unsettling to me.
the freep article indicated that current and former players were interviewed. i believe the freep intentionally left the issue open as to who the disgruntled players are (were). i'm guessing those disgruntled players left the program.
that said, how difficult would it be to get a player to admit that they dislike long, grueling workouts?
as others have said, this article is about grabbing attention. i think it's largely BS.
There is nothing that says there are SO MANY disgruntled players. I am guesssing that it was Stokes and Hawthorne. And they said it without knowing it would be used in this context. Also, Joe Schad just said that his sources say that it is folks who could not adjust to the new regime. (slackers...or guys who are okay with 8-4)
Rule #1- Never talk about MGoPoints
Apparently there is some speculation on Rivals that Greg Mathews may be a disgruntled current player.
When you take a survey (or ask football players questions), there is bound to be some variation in the response. If not, the survey is rigged.
The fact that around 5% or less (it looks like) of the current players have some problems with the program is virtually a statistical certainty.
It does not mean:
1) Team chemistry is destroyed forever!
2) RR is in deep trouble!
3) The laws of gravity no longer apply.
Yeah, that is my license plate.
Just wondering if your reply to my post was directed at something specific?
Sorry, must have lost my train of thought.
I hope the alum donors also realize this and that they got to be rich and famous because they have the ability to think. Therefore, they will dismiss this as just another sensational headline rather than get all in a lather about it.
Also, most of those donor alums are in business and realize that what M is "accused" of doing is no different than what they are doing every day (and, what helped them become rich and famous).
I think if RR wins, he stays. If not, he is gone. This will not matter a twit. Because, I think, it is much ado about nothing.
Yeah, that is my license plate.
Unfortunately for the MGoRabble, Brian didn't tell them what to think. Whatever will they all do?
wolverineliberationarmy.com/blog
I like this comment because it can be read one of two ways:
1. Chitown is adopting his Leninist persona and chiding Brian, as a member of the Vanguard of the Proletariat, for not providing clear direction;
or
2. Chitown is being a condescending prat.
There has to be someone to make all the badness go away.
Why the hostility?
Rock bottom's where we live
And still we dig these trenches
When you say "This is unlikely" re: Stokes and Hawthorne's comments, are you saying that they were simply categorizing their workout schedule incorrectly?