The Price of Greatness

Submitted by diclemeg on
Worry not....fellow Wolverines..... for this entire excessive pratice time uproar will end......to our benefit.... in manifold ways.

First of all, there is no chance that Rodriguez did not cover all the bases regarding the practice time rules. And I guarantee you, all great college programs currently toe the line on practice time, as they should, and in doing so, even inadvertently help the NCAA redefine the line itself, or remove ambiguity. Any real issue is any ambiguity itself. And these great programs will operate within that ambiguity, until the NCAA removes it.

What is so despicable is the timing and target of the Rosenberg and Snyder article, trying to achieve notoriety by launching this mud on the one program who is in perhaps the biggest transition of its storied history, and to the same storied history that perhaps has helped draw so much interest to college sport itself, in that Rosenberg and Snyder have a job to even write about it. It is one thing to make a claim when on a program when it is in full swing, but it is quite another when the program is understandably trying to make a smooth changeover. It is not easy being the WINNINGEST COLLEGE FOOTBALL PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES and trying to return to that greatness. And if it requires additional non-mandatory work, so be it. Rosenberg and Snyder saw an insanely underhanded opportunity, and they went for it. They did not go after the established USC, they went after the easier target, the one that is nearby, and one who has a coach, who perhaps, cared too much for what his old WVU program thought of him, after he left.  Now today we have another alum Drew Sharp chiming in, misunderstanding the coach's emotion for fear instead of care, perhaps deliberately.

So you say, what good will come out of this ?

The investigation will reveal that there were no violations, but will serve as a way for the NCAA to find flaws in their rules whereas incoming players are concerned and the communication to them on what is mandatory and what is not.

Then, as the Wolverines are kicking the snot out of the rest of the Big Ten and are perpetually in the national Top 5, that the national perception will remain that our program is the best partly because players work the hardest.

But best of all, this BS will serve as the agent necessary to truly bring the team together, since there is NO better way than to solidify comraderie than to create and Us vs. Them mentality, especially when it involves all the work and effort they put in. In a good way, it gives an OBJECT for all that work and practice.

The following is a notably famous quote....

"Any greatness that has not attracted envy, jealousy, accolades and praises from all corners has not yet attained enviable standard."

It should not be a shock, of the current attack on our coach and program, nor should it be going forward.  And our program sooner than later, in this transition, will arrive at that enviable standard of its past, and in the meanntime will bear the brunt of envy.





Comments

Geaux_Blue

September 1st, 2009 at 11:39 AM ^

posts like these are starting to sound like propaganda films of the 40s. let's just let the issue sort itself out. facts and research are the only things making me feel better.

Magnus

September 1st, 2009 at 11:46 AM ^

The question isn't about ambiguity. It's about, "Did this happen or not?" For example, if Rod Smith watched even one voluntary 7-on-7, that's a violation. Can we stop saying "This will lead to nothing" so definitively? It was extremely poor journalism, yes. That doesn't mean violations didn't occur. I'm certainly not going to take my lead from a guy who said "I told you IT'S ALL ABOUT DENARD" before the kid has ever taken a snap. Also, stop posting diaries.

bouje

September 1st, 2009 at 11:55 AM ^

Did they sign in the sign in sheet too? Did Rosenberg sit outside the practice facility and get a video of some coaches being there? This all falls under the gray area that is "involuntary versus voluntary" and most of it cannot be proven one way or the other

Magnus

September 1st, 2009 at 12:16 PM ^

In this type of case, I'd say the testimony of a few players would be enough. You don't need a sign-in sheet to determine who a murderer is, do you? You just need a couple witnesses to say "I saw THAT GUY RIGHT THERE kill my best friend." I'm guessing the threshold for an investigation like this isn't too much more stringent.

wolverine1987

September 1st, 2009 at 1:05 PM ^

as I wrote yesterday, IMO he did not destroy the Freep allegations. I concur with Magnus, if as few as 2-3 current players tell investigators that there was a quality control person at a voluntary practice, or that anyone was contacted that didn't attend a voluntary practice, or that any time past 4 hours on a Sunday was mandated, that alone will be enough to cause punishment of some kind. And any punishment, self-inflicted or not, will be a large PR blow to the program.

jblaze

September 1st, 2009 at 12:02 PM ^

that a violation did occur. There are quotes from 4 former players (1 being Toney, who may be recanting a bit) and 2 freshmen (taken out of context). That leaves anywhere from 3-4 ex-players left that would have to say, I saw Rod Smith, Coach McGee... observing 7-on-7s on Days A, B, & C... This is unlikely, as these players are no longer at Michigan and wouldn't have a record of this. Also, this would be compared to the signed sheets that say M observed the rules. Alternatively, if some (meaning >3) current players were to verify this, then we would have a problem. Until that happens, there is just no proof.

Magnus

September 1st, 2009 at 12:21 PM ^

Here's how an investigation works: People ask questions to other people, and those people answer them. (Plus other fact-finding missions.) They're going to ask current and former players if the coaches attended 7-on-7s. There's no "record" of that, but a handful of players saying "I saw Coach X at a few voluntary practices" would probably be a pretty good start. You don't need a sign-in sheet or a cadre of film to make a case.

The King of Belch

September 1st, 2009 at 12:26 PM ^

I agree on the "Oh shootie. This is all a bunch of nuttin'" as well as "Win and it will all go away" Winning will NOT make this go away. What will make it go away is when the NCAA says, "We have found nothing. Carry on." And for those who really believe there is an agenda at play, here's a news flash: Rosenberg ain't going anywhere, and he will dig and dig and dig and dig. He isn't through by a longshot.

The King of Belch

September 1st, 2009 at 12:22 PM ^

Sounds, still, vague to me. The S&C staff are called "coaches"--they CAN watch practices. That's been the biggest sticking point for me. Did Those Who Talked mean S&C guys? Or, did they mean Rod Smith or Tony Dews? That is what I think can clear up some of the vagueishicity. And I ask: What is the difference between "Vague" and "ambiguous"? I get them cornfused sometimes. HAHAAHAHAH Thanks in advance.

Magnus

September 1st, 2009 at 12:28 PM ^

The descriptions are what I would call "vague." We haven't been told which coaches appeared at 7-on-7s. "Ambiguous" means, basically, it could be this or it could be that but it's pretty murky. But a violation either did or did not occur. They either went over practice time or they didn't. The football coaches either attended 7-on-7s or they didn't. It's not ambiguous - we just don't know the answer yet.