David Brandon - WTKA
November 5th, 2010 at 7:34 AM ^
this is in the rear view mirror for the university. howeva, rich is not out of the fire yet. the end of his tenure at wvu is still under investigation for the same types of violations. i'm not sure what happens if he is implicated in the wvu investigation.
November 5th, 2010 at 7:50 AM ^
They investigate Rich Rod's West Virginia tenure, find a complete set of identical facts, forget that they just closed out this case where they decided we did NOT promote an atmosphere of noncompliance, and arbitrarily slam us with postseason bans and scholarship losses. I'm really worried about that investigation too.
November 5th, 2010 at 8:22 AM ^
... forget that they just closed out this case ... and arbitrarily slam us with postseason bans and scholarship losses.
The NCAA cannot penalize UM for a violation that occurred at WVU. Moreover, they cannot do anything arbitrarily. That would be a violation of due process and UM could appeal that in court and would win every time.
November 5th, 2010 at 9:55 AM ^
The NCAA has nothing to do with the government; they are an organization that dictates a set of rules that all schools need to participate by. There is no guarantee of due process, because there are no laws being violated.
That being said, they still wouldn't arbitrarily penalize our school for something that happened at WVU.
November 5th, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^
But the NCAA also establishes due process for findings and punishment for their own investigations and if they violate those, a member of that organization would be able to at least go to civil courts for damages. Much like an employee suing for wrongful firing.
November 5th, 2010 at 10:15 AM ^
That's true, but they wouldn't be "appealing". They would be suing. I just want to make it clear that the NCAA is an organization used to keep schools on the same playing field. A group of schools could secede and start their own organization at any time if they don't agree with how the NCAA handles things.
November 5th, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^
being a member of the NCAA means you agree to abide by their rules and rulings. They are the rulemakers, the judge, the jury, and the executioners. Suing them because they did something you don't like isn't going to get you very far.
If you don't like the way the NCAA does things, your only real recourse is to withdraw from the NCAA so they no longer have any jurisdiction over you.
November 5th, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^
Unless they undermined the due process they themselves have established. That's my only point.
November 5th, 2010 at 10:23 AM ^
is that it does not bode well for rich's job security if the ncaa finds the same thing happened at wvu.
November 5th, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^
The problem stems from RR being unclear on the rules. The coaches were present at warmups, which made the time countable. Everything else that happened is the school not promoting an atmosphere of compliance. If that's exactly what went on at WVU then it's not going to affect RR's job security one bit considering that the school and David Brandon have shown they are behind him 100% on the issue.
November 5th, 2010 at 11:13 AM ^
It's his job to be clear on the rules, and the job of those around him to do the same.
November 5th, 2010 at 12:48 PM ^
If it was completely on him and his coaching staff, they wouldn't have an entire department dedicated to compliance. Yes, he needs to know the rules, but some rules are written so vaguely that coaches don't know what falls under the rule and what doesn't. Other rules are precise, but there is a spirit of the law attached to it.
It's also your duty to know the laws so that you don't violate them. How often do you sit down and study law books? You don't because there are people who do that for you because it's too much for one person to handle.
November 5th, 2010 at 1:32 PM ^
You're right that there are a number of people involved in compliance, including the compliance department, but one thing that's been little commented on this site is that the NCAA basically exonerated that department and placed the blame on Rodriguez, members of the athletic department, and Bill Martin.
The following is from an annarbor.com article:
A large part of Michigan’s defense of itself lay in spreading blame among multiple people, including Rodriguez, football administrators and the compliance department. The university issued letters of reprimand to seven employees.
The NCAA largely bought that defense.
“Overall, the strategy of diffusing the blame worked,” Buckner said.
The individual drawing the most heat in the findings report was Rodriguez, even though the committee changed the violation he was alleged to have committed.
Where the committee differed from Michigan, was in how much blame went to the compliance staff.
“The efforts of the compliance staff were thorough and diligent,” the committee wrote in its report. “The compliance office educated the football and strength and conditioning staffs, made numerous attempts to get the football staff to hand in the necessary forms and involved senior members of the athletics department administration.“The failure to monitor occurred when 1) the assistant athletic director for football and other administrators with football responsibilities withheld the job descriptions and 2) the former director of athletics (Bill Martin) and the senior associate director of athletics did not insist that the football staff immediately comply with the request of the compliance office or sanction the football staff for failure to comply.
“The compliance office attempted on numerous occasions to prod the football staff into submitting the forms. The compliance office involved the senior associate director of athletics in the attempts and it reported the problem to the former director of athletics.
“The members of the athletics administration with responsibilities in the football program continually failed to provide required forms pertaining to countable athletically related activities to the compliance services office, making it extremely difficult for the compliance office to do its job.
“Finally, the former director of athletics and the senior associate director of athletics failed to require the football staff to submit the forms as required. This collective failure partly resulted in the violations outlined in Finding B-2.”
November 5th, 2010 at 2:02 PM ^
The criticism that RR took was due to not being prepared for the hearing in August. They are also forcing him to take a class on the rules.
I'm not saying he's innocent, because if you commit a crime, you do the time. However, to be well-versed in the rules is a full-time job and you can't expect that any member of the coaching staff to know the rules like the back of his hand. That was my point in why they have compliance departments, not so much that they are responsible for what happened.
The problem is that there was a break down in communication between the compliance office and Brad Labadie. He has since resigned. The communication was that the compliance office needed the CARA forms, a form specific to UM, so RR had no idea he needed to fill them out. That's where it technically falls on RR to know the rules and get the forms filled out, but if he didn't have a clue that there are forms to be filled out, how is he supposed to get them turned in.
November 5th, 2010 at 2:28 PM ^
I don't really have that much of a beef with what you've written in your various posts above, but the one I responded to could be intrerpreted to place undeserved blame on the compliance staff. I've seen the compliance staff criticized by a number of posters on this site (including BigBlue02 below) and just wanted to point out that the NCAA more or less cleared their name.
November 5th, 2010 at 8:21 AM ^
There is not a single historical instance in NCAA history covering football or basketball that I can find where your guess has happened. Therefore, it is a false worry. Worry about how we play against Illinois on Saturday, and let this go by the wayside where it belongs.
November 5th, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^
November 5th, 2010 at 7:49 AM ^
don't hold your breath for an apology from a certain media source. Those douches are digging in their heels.
November 5th, 2010 at 10:20 AM ^
Agreed. I was stupid enough to read Cock Knuckle's column today, which claims that the final NCAA report "vindicates" the FREEP's initial findings. Fuck that rag.
November 5th, 2010 at 7:53 AM ^
November 5th, 2010 at 8:33 AM ^
I heard one of the papers is giving away free pee. Who would want that?
November 5th, 2010 at 7:56 AM ^
a coach goes to because there were violations at the previous one. If that was the case, every SEC coach would go to the NFL.
Each school's situation is in a bubble and they evaluate them and them alone.
November 5th, 2010 at 7:56 AM ^
I think a far more worrying thing for RR and the program is whether we can win another game this season. The WVU situation is the last thing RR should be worrying about at this point. Considering the horrific run of injuries on defense, the task in front of him is monumental from here through the OSU game.
November 5th, 2010 at 8:00 AM ^
with the WVU investigation, but it is as well right here in AA. If he loses out and doesn't turn things around, his Offensive guru status will take somewhat of a hit as well as a new history of ethical questions.
All that negativity could wind him up in the South East somewhere.
November 5th, 2010 at 8:48 AM ^
How can you even say that "his offensive guru status will take somewhat of a hit"? I think, if anything, he has only improved his offensive guru status. He took a Michigan team with a lack of talent and an old-school mentality and turned it into one of the most productive offenses in the country (based on yards per game and points per game).
Unfortunately, the same hasn't happened for the defense (YET).
The NCAA doesn't punish the coach unless he is still at the university. They punish the institution. Aside from that, the NCAA had information from WVU at the time they were making their decisions about Michigan and RR. Notice that the charge that they dropped was against RR.
November 5th, 2010 at 8:05 AM ^
U of M's best hire since Glenn Schembechler
November 5th, 2010 at 11:15 AM ^
Red Berenson wasn't exactly a terrible hire... But point well made.
November 5th, 2010 at 1:15 PM ^
His pimp hand is indeed strong.
November 5th, 2010 at 8:11 AM ^
He may well have thought that he needed to temper his comments about our favorite metropolitan fishwrapper as long as we were awaiting the NCAA final public report. And that he can now say what he really thinks.
One can always hope.
This too: Time for President Coleman to stand up for the University, too. She's done nothing but offer up the weakest mea culpas. Coleman and the Regents are others, who need to make that choice between their University, and the paper they rely on for political endorsements.
November 5th, 2010 at 8:34 AM ^
I am happy with Coleman as long as the NIH and NSF grants keep flowing into the University.
November 5th, 2010 at 9:09 AM ^
I have no complaints about how Coleman has handled any of this. It would be embarrassing and highly inappropriate for her to be complaining about a newspaper.
As far as Michigan sports go, all I care about is that she seems to have made a wise choice for athletic director, and in my opinion Brandon should be the only person making any public comments about the Free Press.
Also, it's clear that Coleman has put Rodriguez's future squarely in Brandon's hands. I thought the following was an interesting part of Wojo's column today:
I asked Coleman how she felt about the future of the program and she dodged as nimbly as a sprite university president can. She said she was proud how coaches and players responded to the allegations, but deferred to Brandon on the direction.
"I'm very pleased I was able to hire an athletic director who is thoughtful, careful and an expert in the area we're dealing with," Coleman said. "And this is ultimately his call."
November 5th, 2010 at 9:59 AM ^
I'm very pleased I was able to hire an athletic director who is thoughtful, careful and an expert=
I'm so great. Look at this great thing I did.JK. Luv ya MSC.
November 5th, 2010 at 9:36 AM ^
Section 1, I've had my disagreements with you, but we have common ground here. There was a time when you said it would be suicide for UM to take on the Freep, that it is a losing battle. Not sure why you've changed gears now, but fwiw (very little if anything) I basically agree.
What the Freep has done is full of hypocrisy and is at the upper limits of unethical behavior. They've launched an assault on the University itself, not just the football program. The paper may be fading but it is still too influential to be allowed to behave that way with no consequences. This state needs a return to greatness, and the only way to get there is to demand accountability to the highest standards, in ourselves and in the state's leading organizations.
I honestly don't care if its a losing battle, the University has a moral obligation to hold the Freep accountable. This is a good fight to take on. I think Coleman and Brandon have handled the process brilliantly so far, but we're at a new stage now, and I fully endorse going into battle mode. I would expect Brandon and/or Coleman to meet privately with the Freep's leadership and lay down the gauntlet: take responsibility for the hatchet job, or the fight goes public with the U defending moral behavior by the state's leading institutions. Yes, fine, we effed up with "major" violations, but we responded *exactly* the right way, took responsibility and held ourselves accountable, and so we have the moral authority to fight from high ground. Eff the Freep.
In fact, I would urge Brian to play a role in this (I know, true, it's easy for me to say). I still would love to see a panel discussin on ethics in journalism with this as the case study. The panelists could include Brian, Chait, Bacon, and/or Charles Eisendrath from UM's Knight-Wallace Fellows program. Oh yeah, and Rosenberg or Snyder, if they have the guts.
November 5th, 2010 at 10:11 AM ^
Details aside, @#$%ing yeah. I'll bring the marshmallows.
November 5th, 2010 at 3:19 PM ^
Such a thoughtful post deserves a thoughtful reply.
First, a correction. I NEVER said that it would be suicide for the Univeristy "to take on the Free Press." Let's clarify that. What I have said, on probably a dozen occasions when non-lawyers have suggested that the University should sue the Free Press and Rosenberg, for "libel and slander," is that it would never work. And what I have tried to very carefully point out is that there is zero possibility that the University or Rich Rodriguez could prevail in such a suit, and there is even less chance of such a suit being filed. Based on a number of factors -- how the story was reported, NY Times v Sullivan principles, the strategic fallout for the plaintiffs, etc., etc.
I'm not the only attorney on MGoBlog, and on every one of those occasions, other attorneys and indeed some people who were in the print journalism profession have strongly agreed with me. No serious attorney or journalist thinks a traditional defamation claim would fly.
Having said that, the one really interesting cause of action that nobody, except occasionally me, has ever talked about, is a suit on behalf of then-freshmen Je'Ron Stokes and Brandin Hawthorne, for a kind of "false light" abuse of their statements to the Free Press. The two kids would have made very attractive plaintiffs, and the underlying facts, and the way that they were maliciously abused by Snyder and Rosenberg, would have made for an embarassing case for the Free Press, irrespective of any money judgment.
But that's water under the bridge now. I think the statue of limitations is one year.
And, people might suggest that the Freep story and the NCAA investigation is undr the bridge, too. But what is ongoing, is the Freep's continuing campaign against Rich Rodriguez. Exhibit One is today's paper. Which has contorted itself into making a case that Rich Rodriguez is responsible for major violations, and that the Free Press writers were right all along.
What I find to be particularly egregious -- yet more journalistic malpractice by the Freep -- is that not once in the entire paper, devoting five or six full pages to this story, did the Free Press report that David Brandon had called out the Free Press, using the phrase "false and misleading" to describe the August 2009 story that set all of this into motion. The Free Press does not like it, of course. And if it had come from message-board trolls, or angry e-mailers, it might not have been a story. BUT IT CAME FROM DAVID BRANDON, AS PART OF HIS PREPARED REMARKS. Sorry, Freep; but it is news. And for the Free Press to leave that part out, gets the Free Press into the realm of the Soviet-era Pravda or Izvestia.
And yes, my friend, you are so right. This case screams out for analysis by a panel of journalism ethicists. Here's just a fraction of that agenda:
- With journalism's general suspicion of all anonymous sources, why were Rosenberg's sources granted anonymity?
- Why in the world would Rosenberg go to print on a front-page story, the highest-profile story of his career, without asking any of the important people at the University (AD's, Compliance services, coaches, counsel, etc.) about the basic story?
- Why did the Free Press wait, until two days after the story ran, to ask for any documents?
- Why did the Free Press wait until the Friday before the Saturday/Sunday publication, to inform anyone in authority of the story, with only 24-36 hours to respond?
I'm with you; I just don't know who would take this on.
November 5th, 2010 at 9:03 AM ^
I can't find the interview on the wtka podcast site. Is it under a different heading?
November 5th, 2010 at 9:09 AM ^
They haven't posted many of the podcasts for the 5th yet. Likely up later this morning.
November 5th, 2010 at 9:10 AM ^
If I see it, I'll post the link and anyone do the same.
November 5th, 2010 at 9:31 AM ^
The Brandon podcasts are now up. Here's a general link. I don't think you can link to individual podcasts anymore.
November 5th, 2010 at 9:50 AM ^
Thank you for the link
Thank you David Brandon. I am placing my trust in you.
November 5th, 2010 at 9:57 AM ^
Hey, thank M-Wolverine below for posting the individual links. My bad--must've been on the wrong page.
Definitely agree that Brandon was a wise hire.
November 5th, 2010 at 9:35 AM ^
3 - Dave Brandon has good Kung Fu
http://www.wtka.com/index.php?fuseaction=home.podcasts_sel&id=8758
4 - Dave Brandon
http://www.wtka.com/index.php?fuseaction=home.podcasts_sel&id=8759
4b - Dave Brandon
http://www.wtka.com/index.php?fuseaction=home.podcasts_sel&id=8760
November 5th, 2010 at 9:58 AM ^
Remember, remember the 5th of November,
The practice treason and plot,
I know no reason why the Practice Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Rosenberg, Rosenberg, t'was his gain
To blow up Rich and Mich-i-gain.
Three score CARA forms below
To prove old Rich's over-throw.
By NCAA mercy he was catch'ed
With a dark Laptop and extreme bi-as.
Holla boys! Holla boys! Let the Victors pitch!
Holloa boys, Holloa boys! God Save Rich!
And what will we do with Freep? Burn Freep!
Sorry for including it here, saw some parallels and kept my mind going on a Friday, Didn't want to give it a new thread
November 5th, 2010 at 10:52 AM ^
It's also the date on which Marty McFly traveled to 1955.
November 5th, 2010 at 10:00 AM ^
The biggest worry about it i have is that Rich Rod will no doubt be in the media more, it will be negative, any way you slice it, etc. However, Michigan is done now. the NCAA came in with a fine tooth comb and investigated US, and we've seen what they were able to find, NOT MUCH.....
the WVU investigation only effects us because our coach was thier coach during the time they are investigating and we will no doubt hear our coaches name in the media, on ESPN, the Freep is probaby on the way down there to get a story going, etc
November 5th, 2010 at 10:51 AM ^
Some choice quotes:
"Accountability is what I do."
"I'm waiting for someone else to apologize from the media."
I'll follow this man straight into hell.
November 5th, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^
It's very encouraging. He says, alumni and booster and former players have basically no impact on his decision -- because he has access to an enormous amount of data from the inside of the program, including talking to current players.
I would think that a guy who talks to the players is going to keep RR. The team is very close-knit, and they aren't going to want a disruption of the coaching situation.
November 5th, 2010 at 11:11 AM ^
No AD fails to account for the wishes if the wealthy alumni for it is those people who pay for much of UM football has.
<br>
<br>Is it the sole determining factor? No, but their wishes definitely are considered. Brandon is the CEO and the wealthy alums are the investors. You simply cannot ignore the desires if those who
<br>fund you.
November 5th, 2010 at 1:52 PM ^
Why take Brandon's word about the decision process he plans to use -- what does he know about it? Nah, I'll go with MGoBoardGuy and pronounce Brandon "simply not believable"!
/s