Contrary opinion, debate, censored
Re: Blue-Colored Glasses:
Naturally, since this reader dared offer a contrary opinion -- one simply requesting caution, restraint, and fairness, and suggesting a reasoned debate -- the post was promptly locked, and its author accused of flaming skullduggery. I'm neither a flamer nor a troll. I'm an M fan offering a different POV. Within twenty minutes, that POV was summarily quashed. Can't debate with facts? Eliminate it. Can't answer questions posed? Lock it out. You've proved my point, sadly.
I thought this was a blog inviting reasoned debate, not just one-side rants that defy any counter-arguments. But this blog, like most sports blogs, is increasingly proving to be a hall of mirrors in a house for the blind. That's not the Michigan way. Real Michigan people invite and welcome healthy debates. They don't just lock away those who happen to disagree.
BTW: I'm an M grad surrounded by other M grads and ticket-holders. We want debate. We admire a lot of the points Brian has made, but also see plenty of room for debate. Just because Brian says something doesn't mean it's indisputable gospel. You do realize that, don't you? There are holes in his arguments as well. Too bad nobody seems to want to consider those. Meantime, actual reporting (as opposed to "analysis") by other media seems pretty consistent with the Freep story. And SI, by the by, is preparing a larger story about same. You may want the story to go away -- don't we all? -- but that doesn't mean it will, or should.
PS: http://papertigernomore.blogspot.com/2009/08/espn-follows-up-adds-to-fr…
Naturally, since this reader dared offer a contrary opinion -- one simply requesting caution, restraint, and fairness, and suggesting a reasoned debate -- the post was promptly locked, and its author accused of flaming skullduggery. I'm neither a flamer nor a troll. I'm an M fan offering a different POV. Within twenty minutes, that POV was summarily quashed. Can't debate with facts? Eliminate it. Can't answer questions posed? Lock it out. You've proved my point, sadly.
I thought this was a blog inviting reasoned debate, not just one-side rants that defy any counter-arguments. But this blog, like most sports blogs, is increasingly proving to be a hall of mirrors in a house for the blind. That's not the Michigan way. Real Michigan people invite and welcome healthy debates. They don't just lock away those who happen to disagree.
BTW: I'm an M grad surrounded by other M grads and ticket-holders. We want debate. We admire a lot of the points Brian has made, but also see plenty of room for debate. Just because Brian says something doesn't mean it's indisputable gospel. You do realize that, don't you? There are holes in his arguments as well. Too bad nobody seems to want to consider those. Meantime, actual reporting (as opposed to "analysis") by other media seems pretty consistent with the Freep story. And SI, by the by, is preparing a larger story about same. You may want the story to go away -- don't we all? -- but that doesn't mean it will, or should.
PS: http://papertigernomore.blogspot.com/2009/08/espn-follows-up-adds-to-fr…
August 31st, 2009 at 8:50 PM ^
The diary post that you wrote early was a piece of shit. If you want debate don't be such a douche about it.
Everything has been debunked by Brian and nothing will come of this.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:52 PM ^
I am sorry but....what Brian says IS gospel around here!
August 31st, 2009 at 8:54 PM ^
I don't want to debate malice and nonsense. If you can't see that this is not a debate, but an attack, then you are not paying attention.
If you want to strip away the names and events associated with this hack job and discuss the student athlete's plight in general, welcome. Otherwise, go away.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:54 PM ^
You're an assface. Shut the hell up. Debate is good - being a douche gets you nowhere but getting shot up into cold, dark, frightening places.
It's the refuge of idiots like you that, upon being a dick, you retreat to whining about freedom of speech and the joy of debate. Grow some and quit whining.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:55 PM ^
you are a troll, and I remember your name from Mlive boards.
Debate is great, and encouraged, however you need to present some facts and a reasoned argument. Where is Brian incorrect?
If you feel a certain way, list out your facts and open up a debate. I for one, believe you have no facts.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:55 PM ^
Fair enough.
So you don't think there's any chance that RR may have pushed it too far? No chance? RR has been 100 percent slandered? And all ten players are liars?
August 31st, 2009 at 8:59 PM ^
There are things called count-able hours and non-count-able hours...
Eating lunch is NON-count-able.. "voluntary" workouts are NON-count-able
you're a fucking idiot
August 31st, 2009 at 9:10 PM ^
Nice work! Bouje
August 31st, 2009 at 9:00 PM ^
Maybe not but i do suspect that you are the liar... or at the very least a biased-imbecile who attempts to hide behind a cloak of 'lets show objectivity and have a debate' when you are the very one who dismisses LEGITIMATE TRUTHS that Brian and others here have posted.
Wanna see the problem? Look in the mirror asshole.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:08 PM ^
He may have pushed it too far. It's possible.
BUT
I'd like to see someone other than a RR HATER write an article about it. And the piece he did on MSU as his defense showing he's not showing partiality? After their own paper had a blog by a freshman QB talking about 14 hour days? I think it shows enough bias to question the entire article. He wants to quote players who transferred because they would never see the field and freshmen who don't know what the difference between hours that count and that don't? And he still discounts the blog by the MSU QB?
Show me some facts and I'll debate. That means I'll look for facts that are contrary to yours.
Give me your opinion and tell me that you don't want to hear facts that disagree with your opinion and I'll call you a troll and a steaming pile of dog poo.
Debate.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:11 PM ^
Ten players were spoken to, six players spoke out in one way or another. Not ten, that was the total of the six who spoke out and the four who didn't. And I think it's pretty telling that Rosenberg would not say that any of them are still with the program.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:56 PM ^
an address to a carty writing??????
is that you jim?/
August 31st, 2009 at 8:56 PM ^
Start a diary but yet cannot start a forum topic.
DEATH TO THE INFIDELS!
August 31st, 2009 at 8:57 PM ^
It wasn't censored. It's still there on the front page so everyone can read it. Or it was, until you helped push it further down.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:57 PM ^
IT'S MMMMMMMMMMMMMMEGATROLL!!!
August 31st, 2009 at 8:59 PM ^
The point is: I don't know all the facts. Nobody does. We weren't at practice. But several players have made serious claims -- maybe invalid, maybe not. We can't be sure just yet. Until the investigation reveals the truth, why is everyone so certain who is right and wrong here?
August 31st, 2009 at 9:15 PM ^
Because of the very calculated way in which at no point did Rsnbg even acknowledge that not all of the time spent lifting, practicing etc is "countable". Neither did he reference the overall team GPA, because neither fit his agenda.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:20 PM ^
ah, ya beat me. and with a better argument no less.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:17 PM ^
Because this was never about whether the players are telling the truth or not. This was about a bitter reporter on a vendetta against a coach. When the "investigator" is as biased as Rosenberg was before he even started looking into this it's not that hard to be certain about who is right and who is wrong.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:00 PM ^
You offered UN-reasonable debate. The article was prejudiced, as is your diary.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:01 PM ^
Your previous post was idiotic. Everything you brought up had already been responded to on this site. Furthermore, you didn't even look at the actual rules regarding practice. Instead, you took the word of the people who alleged that there was misconduct in the first place, as well as cursory follow ups from several other news organizations that contributed little, if anything upholding the Freep article. And even those small additions (i.e. Clemons) have been shown to in fact detract from the Freep allegations of violations because the activities Clemons described were voluntary.
Locking the post was a kindness to you because this way, at least fewer people will note your stupidity. That is, until you wrote this.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:04 PM ^
I'm posing questions. Look at how quickly you resorted to name-calling.
Countable hours and non-countable hours are pretty subjective, wouldn't you say? The point of the report is that peer pressure might be blurring the accounting lines. Big-time football programs have been known to blur things. Agreed? Maybe, just maybe, M has been. I don't know. Neither do you.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:08 PM ^
Thank fucking God you're here to pose questions. And I'm here to call names. You're a cunt. Yay! Both of our lives have meaning!
August 31st, 2009 at 9:14 PM ^
Then this happens EVERYWHERE and it's an indictment against the NCAA and college sports in general.
Do you HONESTLY think that ANYONE including VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY HOURS STAYS BELOW 20 HOURS?
Oh right... that survey said that involuntary and voluntary added together was roughly 45 hours a week... and Michigans total voluntary and involuntary was 44... And even if the line is "blurry" as long as they said "it's voluntary" then it's voluntary. What else do you want the coach to say? Do you want them to hold their fucking dicks when they take a piss too?
WOW LOOK OUT!!! MAJOR VIOLATIONS!!! RR IS A DIRTY DIRTY CHEATER!! My God you are a fuck-tard.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:18 PM ^
bouje wrote:
"Do you HONESTLY think that ANYONE including VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY HOURS STAYS BELOW 20 HOURS?"
Yeah. Justin Boren.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:13 PM ^
I'm sure things are blurry. Yet here we have a reporter saying "THIS IS AS CLEAR AS THE FACT I HATE RR!! HE'S A CHEATER!!"
And you're going to support everything he says.
Motive?
One springs to mind.
You're a troll.
Period.
Trolls are the only people who get on and write like you have. You purport to offer debate and want to downplay everything you hear that does not agree with your predetermined conclusion. That makes you a troll.
It's fairly simple.
Non-debating person hoping to anger all other readers of a website = troll.
Q.E.D.
You = Troll
August 31st, 2009 at 9:19 PM ^
The point of the report was to accuse Michigan of violating NCAA practice rules. That's the reason for everyone here being angry. It's because the Freep said Michigan was operating in clear violation of the rules, rather than a gray area that the NCAA needs to address in order to protect student-athletes. If the Freep had taken that approach, combined with checking out schools other than Michigan (and no, I'm not counting releasing the report, then asking MSU players if they cheat or not), then people probably wouldn't be this mad.
Also, didn't you start out your posts by calling everyone else here names?
August 31st, 2009 at 9:05 PM ^
McFarlin!!! Get out of your dog and get to bed.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:06 PM ^
Hard to add to all of this. I agree with Seth9. You didn't want debate in your original post. You wanted to tell us that what "we" were thinking was wrong (and who is "we," exactly?), that
Seriously, in your heart of hearts, you're at least a little concerned that RR, while perhaps a fine coach, is a bit...murky.How the fuck do you know what I think? I think that every single allegation against RR (except for the fact that he swears like a sailor with Tourette's) has been thoroughly debunked, so I have every confidence that this one will too. I think that I am fucking over the Freep and Rosenberg trying to exact a pound of flesh for... what, exactly? Let's debate this. Are you (a) a troll, (b) an anti-RR crusader, or (c) a pretentious, pedantic cunt? I say c. What do you say?
August 31st, 2009 at 9:06 PM ^
- Both posts are very inflammatory. To accuse every person on the board
defensive, whiny, paranoid, biased, Palin-esque, a joke to every other fanbase.
is to just egg on responses like what we've seen. - You make statements like
The freshmen confirmed same, and please stop trotting out the red-herring re the manner in which they were asked questions.
which is contrary to every thing stated any where else.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:19 PM ^
Point taken. But do you dispute that the sum total of posts read as a pretty overwhelmingly witch-huntish?
August 31st, 2009 at 9:20 PM ^
That tells me who you likely are. I imagine you're probably mibluegrad. You get on mlive and are a complete ass. You attack people and groups of people before anyone says anything.
And you do it on all the articles I read that you've commented on.
Palinesque.
Anything you don't like is like Palin. Or can be associated with her.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:09 PM ^
I think I see what's going on here. He's trying to beat bouje.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:20 PM ^
And have never done anything like this.
"Boooo"
"Are you saying boo or boo-urns?"
"BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"
August 31st, 2009 at 9:10 PM ^
Okay, that's it. You simply won't engage any debates, clearly, and prefer name-calling. Your right. What's funny is that I and my buddies are M grad students, assessing M blogs with an M professor as part of an M-sponsored study. We actually go to school here, alongside these players, two of whom are in our class. Call us all the names you want.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:13 PM ^
He and his buddies are M grad students.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:18 PM ^
"M grad students, assessing M blogs with an M professor as part of an M-sponsored study. We actually go to school here, alongside these players, two of whom are in our class."
lololozzz. I think, no hope, that you are just lying through your teeth.
Should we be afraid you'll give this blog a bad grade? Or maybe we should be afraid that those two players will go rat out Rodriguez. Or even worse, your professor will write a book about the evils of MgoBlog. You've convinced me with your fantastic credentials that we should heed to your wisdom and not engage in futile debates with such a great mind such as yourself.
Read your own posts, who started the name calling?
August 31st, 2009 at 9:20 PM ^
You, clearly, are dragging down the program GPA and the post-graduation employment rate.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:11 PM ^
Good stuff FA.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:18 PM ^
Don't join yesterday, post a whiny, illogical diary post, then complain that people are not taking you seriously. I'm happy you are a "M Grad" - that seems to be a common characteristic of most trolls.
As for your link - last time I checked, a blog post by a 1L at Toledo law school does not count as "reporting" but (gasp) the same "analyzing" you decried from Brian. Yes, ESPN posted about two more unnamed sources who said they were pushed hard in the off-season, but again the actual breakdown would likely show the same voluntary workouts that Brian & Co. have noted.
And I hate to break it to anyone out there, but this is nothing new for major college teams. If you honestly believe that college football players are only involved in 20 hours of game preparation a week, you need to reevaluate how teams prepare for games. Hell, when I was in high school you were expected to put in the hours necessary to prepare for your sport, and that was true for soccer, football, basketball, track, XC, swimming, etc.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:20 PM ^
This isn't going anywhere either. I've given you 15 minutes to respond to me, and you haven't. If you're doing a study, talk to Brian. In the mean time. This thread is over.
Comments