Biased ESPN article on rich rod/free press allegations
posted on the website today - http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4660285
Does not once mention that the forms we didn't hand in were NOT required by the ncaa, but only by the uofm itself.
to hell with rittenberg.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:40 AM ^
"It found 'a concern' that the football program failed to file monthly Countable Athletically Related Activities forms created by the school to track how much players work out and practice as a tool to comply with NCAA rules."
November 17th, 2009 at 3:14 AM ^
maybe that counts, but it sure is a round about way of explaining to the reader that the form itself isn't required by the ncaa...only by the uofm.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:48 AM ^
but it is also a very direct way of stating that he failed to submit these forms in compliance with University policy. Read the bottom of the article, RR can be terminated for cause if he committed any major violations, OR, if he intentionally committed any violations at all, be they internal or NCAA rules. I do not believe that the NCAA wants to take action against Michigan, 1)because Michigan is a very important and profitable athletic program and taking action against Michigan's football program is to hamper the entire department and 2)Michigan has committed no violations that every other major football program does not on a regular basis - if you take action against Michigan, I believe a trip down to Gainesville and out to Southern California is in order as well. Tag this internal audit onto the NCAA letter of inquiry and M.S. Coleman's vote of support, and it boils down to this. "No, RR, we are not firing you for your performance on the field, don't you remember, we supported you during that. It was those university mandatory reports you failed to file, and oh by the way, as this termination is for cause, no soup for you." To NCAA, "we really cannot confirm or deny any major violations as we are not in possession of the compliance forms, but we did identify an interal violation, and it's been taken care of." To friend and foe alike, say what you will (with words and negs), but the writing on the wall could not be more clear if written in permanent marker. It's been nice to meet you RR and I believe you had some promise, but reality is seldom the fairy tale one would like to believe. This looks like the beginning, no strike that, perhaps the end of the end.
November 17th, 2009 at 8:52 AM ^
"2)Michigan has committed no violations that every other major football program does not on a regular basis - if you take action against Michigan, I believe a trip down to Gainesville and out to Southern California is in order as well."
Oh, the "everybody else does it!" defense...
We're Michigan. I keep saying this, but it's true: We should be above this.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:05 AM ^
did you read my post or just that sentence. No where was that statement used as any kind of a defense. I do not beileve that it should be used as a defense, but it is relevant as to how the NCAA decides to handle this investigation. My point is that the University is going to do everything it can to keep it internal and address the issue without significant NCAA involvment.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:51 AM ^
as the University has done everything possible to keep this transparent and open, and to involve the NCAA every step of the way. If you that the U is going to try to keep the ncaa from issuing penalties because they fired RR, that's pretty far fetched.
You don't really think that anyone has forgotten the basketball issues, do you?
If it is established that RR's conduct was intentional in not filing practice logs, then he should and problably will be fired. More likely it wasn't clear who was supposed to ensure that. Still more likely is that the forms that were completed show that CARA was not violated. He won't be fired for that.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:11 AM ^
go together like peanut butter and jelly. Only ESPN is no tasty treat.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:20 AM ^
That's the AP article, bud.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:32 AM ^
Michigan failed to keep mandatory logs
Associated Press
ANN ARBOR, Mich. -- College football's winningest program just took another hit off the field.
good catch lulz
November 17th, 2009 at 4:55 AM ^
that's misleading. It says the forms are "mandatory" when, in truth, they are not (though it would be nice to have them right about now).
The headline was probably NOT written by the AP. That's usually made by the individual editors of the papers publishing the story.
So, yes. I agree with the OP. ESPN did not get this story right.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:00 AM ^
Look guys, it's probably time to realize that Michigan's coaching staff did what everyone else does, did, and always will do forever until the end of the world (and college football): Skirted the rules regarding practice.
And someone told on them, and keeps telling on them.
It just depends on how the NCAA will view this and what they will do about it.
Now, this stuff seems so blatant that they have to do something, and they'll prolly take away a scholarship or two for a year and put UM on some sort of "probation"
The problem is when that happens--Rodriguez and his staff will be really hamstrung if they aren't fired. He'll have the person/people who have been feeding this stuff to the press watching him so closely they'll be sleeping on the wet spot after he bangs Rita.
If Rodriguez and Co survive this bullshit, what remains will probably be a fairly neutered staff.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:41 AM ^
is serious but by no means a violation of anything other than the audit process adopted by the U. There are no external violations. No NCAA violations involved. Hopefully as of July 24, the log issues were resolved.
The impace on the underlying investigation is that the individual forms filled out by the staff and players, the quality control reports and observations, etc. will be the evidence which the NCAA and the UM rely on in the investigation. It makes it harder to "disprove" allegations, but then again, the allegations need to have merit. You don't have to prove a negative, so far as I know.
The liklihood is that there will be insufficient evidence to warrant anything other than a statement that the staff failed to follow internal procedures which were adopted to avoid this type of thing to begin with.
As for Belch's statement about finding a way to "skirt the rules" the only "skirting" that is tolerable is the amount of voluntary time that is put in by players. If Kovacs feels like he's gotta be at film study to play, that's voluntary. If he's gotta show up at a mandatory practice on Sunday morning after the game for a team meeting, that's probably not. If Boren was plowing snow and when he should have been working out, that's probably voluntary -- and he when he was told that if you're not going to put in the extra effort, you're probably not going to play, that doesn't seem to make it go from voluntary to mandatory either.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:59 AM ^
... it's fine to circle the wagons, and shoot the messenger(s).
For now, I choose to focus on the "Big Game," even though that isn't getting much attention now, unfortunately.
go blue, beat Tosu! (lower case denotes frustration....)
November 17th, 2009 at 8:26 AM ^
I don't think this is inappropriate bias. Circumventing internal controls is a big deal. Further, there may be a reason these forms were not turned in. It is fair to speculate at this point. Before this happened, I was convinced this issue involved the irrelevant issue of how much did the players practice, without asking the important question of how much of the practice was mandatory. Now that these forms are missing, I think this issue may be a lot more complex. I wouldn't be surprised if someone lost their job over this issue.
November 17th, 2009 at 8:31 AM ^
Looks like the AP just read the original audit memo and jumped to conclusions. The audit memo is doesn't state clearly enough that the CARA forms are an internal requirement (not and NCAA requirement).
The University Statement clearly says, "The CARA form is an INTERNAL mechanism developed by the University..."
Interestingly, these are the forms the football players are required to sign, which were mentioned in the Freep allegations.
So one of two things happened:
a) the audit results were leaked, and the Freep launched into its yellow journalistic effort
- or -
b) when the football program had to go back through its records (they must keep records on this stuff ... just not on the required form) and filled out the forms and then asked the players to sign them, a few of the players were surprised at the mandatory / voluntary split, and were thus ripe for the Freep to harvest.
Or maybe both happened.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:45 AM ^
Did you notice the timing on this revelation--the week of the OSU game?
Recall that the news of the investigation broke the week of the ND game.
No comment.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:58 AM ^
ugh. reading comprehension. "the reason this story broke OSU week is because the Regents meet on Thursday."
November 17th, 2009 at 5:37 PM ^
OK, let's assume for the sake of argument that ESPN is reporting accurately the reason for the "release" of the information. What does that mean? Was the information "released" in a written agenda for the Regents? That would make sense, but isn't that information supposed to be confidential? If so, why the leak? Why now?
On the other hand, does "release" mean that the school called the NCAA to report it this week? It would seem a bit odd--in fact stupid--to release it on Ohio State week if they knew about it two months ago, as the article says.
Or does "release" mean a real "press release"? That would be completely idiotic to do this week, knowing that the press will have one other excuse to slime the program with innuendo.
So, I see your point, and admit I hadn't read the article. But now that I have, it only raises more questions in my mind. If you have answers to these questions, then rather than questioning my reading comprehension, I would appreciate reading your thoughts Then, maybe I can admit I'm mistaken and drop the whole issue.
Thanks
November 17th, 2009 at 5:57 PM ^
1. the NCAA knows full well that players routinely practice more than the guidelines state--former players from other schools all over have publicly verified this.
2. whether or not this practice is "voluntary" is an extraordinarily murky matter. This problem applies to schools all over the country. It will not be adequately addressed by the existence or non-existence of some "forms." The problem is not a clerical error.
3. the heart of the problem is the question as to whether the student-athletes are real students anymore. How on earth can a player from that school down south of us, who's been in school 3 years score below the basic literacy levels (chris gamble)? If there were enough motivation among NCAA officials to really get to the heart of the problem---eg to measure academic achievement--then I think UM would fare pretty well, relative to the other successful athletic programs.
But the NCAA, in no small part motivated by the press and the attendant public attention---seem more interested in attacking one school on this issue: UM.
You know, there's an old story about someone who found a drunk in an alleyway down on all fours looking for his keys under the light. He's asked "Is that where you dropped the keys?" His answer is "No, but that's where the light is."
Right now, the NCAA and the press are a lot like that drunk. They're looking in the wrong place. And the first step toward a solution is to get over their intoxication with money and attention.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:06 PM ^
There's so much to say but the bottom line is I hate this situation and just want it to go away already.
I'll leave it at that.
November 17th, 2009 at 8:03 PM ^
It's likely just an oversight, which could be cause for a slap on the wrist. Here is what makes the most sense to me:
Michigan has guidelines that all coaches in the athletic department have to comply by. Those guidelines provide the backbone of day-to-day operations, and are almost invisible during stable times. During transition, like a coaching change, there are lots of opportunities for the new regime to miss requirements they don't even know about, since the guidelines are University specific.
Even if the University takes the time to educated the new coaching staff about all of the guidelines, there are so many different guidelines that are new to the incoming regime, that some will likely be missed. In this case, it was a form documenting practice time. The compliance office caught it during an internal audit (unfortunately several months late, but who knows what their audit schedule looks like -- timing, frequency, content...), and those findings were leaked to the Free Press. Note that the Free Press story broke more than a month after the internal finding by the compliance department, which makes the timing about right.
Rosenberg knew that missed documents were not enough of a story, so he started asking ex-players if they were required to practice too much. He got several players to talk, and voila. Big news over an overlooked guideline.
Do I know this to be the case? No. It could be more sinister. Is it likely, as Rodriguez questioned, that he suddenly forgot the NCAA rules? No. It's much more likely that he missed a University specific requirement, and didn't have the required documents, and the discovery of that lack of documents led directly to the Free Press story.