Dear Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Snyder,

I read with interest your report about allegations of NCAA football violations at the University of Michigan.  However, I felt that there were a number of areas in which the investigation and/or report could have been improved with more detail and comprehensive information.  Certainly, there are space limitations for articles and deadlines to complete a project, but given the gravity of the subject, the report could have been more accurate and representative in the following ways:

1.       Methodology - What specific questions were asked of players and parents?   Was a breakdown of how the hours were spent asked of the players?  I felt that additional characteristics were needed about the sources used (e.g., Carr recruit vs. Rodriguez recruit, number of former players vs. number of current players).  I could come to a very different conclusion about the allegations if the report indicated that the sources were nine former players/transfers and one current player than if it came from 9 current players and 1 former player/transfer.  Note that this can be done while still protecting the anonymity of players and parents who requested it.   The report would have also greatly benefited from gathering information from a larger sample of individuals.   While not all of this information needs to be included, the report would’ve greatly benefited from more detail about the nature of the interviews, what was asked, and source characteristics.

2.       Confirming and Disconfirming Evidence - In the search for accurate answers to issues, individuals absolutely must seek out disconfirming as well as confirming evidence.  This is true for scientists as well as for journalists.   Unfortunately, I only found confirming evidence in the article published by the Detroit Free Press.  If more players and parents would have been interviewed, disconfirming evidence would likely exist on this issue.   

3.       Report Context - The report also did not include any information on the recent (2008) NCAA survey results the USA Today published about the amount of hours collegiate student-athletes spend on academics and athletics.  The NCAA study contained a large sample of collegiate student-athletes (N=1,600+ football players, N=21,000+ athletes), and indicated that college football players spend an average of 44.8 hours per week on combined involuntary and voluntary practices and workouts (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-01-12-athletes-full-time-work-study_N.htm).  Were you aware of this study?  If so, I would have either requested data from the study to get more information or at least mentioned the survey in the report.  This certainly does not absolve any program from violating hour limitations placed on daily/weekly practices and workout limits nor does it address all the issues present in the UM report, but I felt it certainly would have indicated to the reader that this is an issue that is more widespread (in fact, it’s probably commonplace) and not an isolated problem with one program or one sport.  Furthermore, it would have placed the report in a better, more accurate context.

4.       Selective Quotations - What did the other players indicate about practice and workout requirements?   The articles included selective quotations from players who had negative things to say about practice and workouts as well as an indifferent comment from a freshman (Je’Ron Stokes) who was indifferent about the issue (as noted in the article).  Were all players aware of what was being investigated during the interviews?

5.       Resolution of Conflicting Information - The report indicates that that one player (sharing the sentiment of others) indicated that workouts in the past two off-seasons at Michigan “affected people’s grades. People were falling asleep in class.”  Yet, UM reported that the 2008 cumulative Michigan football GPA is the highest it has been in nearly 20 years.  These two conflicting pieces of information needed to be fleshed out more, or at very least mentioned together.

I sincerely hope you strongly consider creating a more comprehensive, balanced, and well-rounded report on such issues in the future.

Kevin