Printed version here as respect to my freep ban brothern:
fair point that
Printed version here as respect to my freep ban brothern:
It's just kind of sad the way freep keeps trying to remind everyone about their jihad-...err... "story." Thats they only way that they can actually keep any interest in their sorry excuse for a paper.
this is the type of article that should have been written at the beginning of this mess. This is actually researched and attempts to survey other schools.
Some "highlights" for those not inclined to read it.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association — which touts its core mission as helping athletes to be students — doesn’t have a system to enforce its own rules that limit the time athletes spend on their sports.
Schools offered a range of enforcement strategies, from Oklahoma, which says it requires athletes to sign affidavits, to Mississippi, which says it conducts and documents exit interviews to gauge how players view their coaches once their football careers end, to Notre Dame, which says it assigns a deputy athletic director to monitor football.
At Michigan State, compliance director Jennifer Smith said all four football captains and one player representative from each class sign forms that coaches turn in monthly.
While NCAA rules governing time limits are clear, athletes say they’ve often had trouble determining what is truly voluntary. For example, they say they often get conflicting signals from coaches and other athletes who may interpret coaches’ wishes. Position coaches schedule film meetings every week. That is involuntary. Yet players often study film for hours beyond what is scheduled. A coach might argue that is voluntary. A player might see it differently. It can be a matter of perception, and real or imagined pressures.
Sorting it all out, said Walt Harrison, president at Hartford and former chair of the NCAA’s executive committee, “is a tough issue.”
It is not unreasonable, he said, that players might want to practice more or that coaches might “want to practice more. I’m not so naïve to believe that these young men don’t want to be football players more than anything else.”
They also talk to a former Iowa player who was convinced they worked too many hours and decided to make a diary of the workouts. Iowa never went over.
said iowa never went over because he didnt count the when he was being tapped up, injury rehabilitation, etc.
ah, yes, but then the freep went on to IGNORE that part of the iowa player's testimony and says that michigan MAY have gone over (but like i said, they ignore the fact that some hours could have been due to players being helped with injury or watching tape etc)
It was 2000, and the Iowa offensive lineman documented every football-related activity he participated in. He didn’t count getting taped or putting on shoulder pads or getting treated for bruises or watching film on his own. He did count practice, games and anything else coaches told him to do.
“Not once,” he e-mailed the Free Press, “were the Iowa coaches over. Usually they ended up 15 minutes below it.”
Why is Trappe talking about the 20-hour rule now?
Because when he heard about the U-M allegations, he felt compelled to join the burgeoning discussion about practice rules. He published details of his diary on a Web site — Eastern Iowa News (www.easterniowanews.com/?p=6836).
“Myself and some other teammates thought that perhaps Iowa was going over those 20 hours,” he wrote. “It sure felt like much more.”
Trappe told the Free Press he never felt his coaches coerced him into putting in more than 20 hours while at Iowa.
In Michigan’s case, former and current players described Sunday practices during the season that would have far exceeded the NCAA’s limit of 4 hours a day, in addition to weekly totals that appeared (!!!!!!!!!!!) to exceed the 20-hour limit.
and I think the bigger issue is that he perceived that they were way over the limit but in fact weren't. The same thing could be said for the UM players. They may have thought they were way over just like this guy, but in fact were not.
you're right... but the problem goes beyond that now. The fact that the football program's compliance "effort" was a complete joke is the big issue.
The kids may have been wrong about exceeding time limits but without documentation, there is no objective measure to benchmark anecdotal accounts against. Also, it just does not look good at all.
That third quote, the final sentence, is the heart of the issue.
"It's a matter of perception, and real or imagined pressures."
The pressures are imaginary in that the players don't actually HAVE to ever do a minute over mandatory practice. The school can not cut a scholarship for that. A player could go through all four years with doing Exactly what is required, and they can not be cut, and can ride the scholarship for four years. Will never see the pros for it, but if they are playing in order to have a scholarship to do, say, engineering, or pre-med, this is a doable route.
HOWEVA, to play on game day, you can't just do the mandatory... above and beyond. That's the real pressure... those players that want to go pro. Which a lot of them probably have the dream of a chance.
Technically, that's not true. All athletic scholarships are on a year to year basis, so a school could "cut" a player's scholarship for not working hard enough.
But I think this whole discussion really sells a lot of the athletes short. They want to work hard, they're driven to push themselves, and when you start having sympathy for something they're proud of, I think you fail to truly appreciate everything out college athletes are.
Why do they keep talking about this? I thought it was just some thing the Michigan Athletic Department did on their own.
The Freep should actually investigate the MSU incident.
1) its stupid that they're even printing articles about this that aren't flat out apologies...especially with whats going on up at msu.
2) its less biased, and thats good, but im sure its nothing more than a response to lost subscriptions, and for me, its much too late. i will never give another cent to that paper until a certain "journalist" is fired.
Yeah they're definitely engaged in "advocacy journalism" here. This is the closest they came to acknowledging that not everything football related counts towards the 20 hour limit:
Many fans, broadcasters, former players and coaches defended U-M’s program by suggesting that big-time college football demands more than 20 hours of training a week to remain competitive. And that the pressure to lift weights, study film and run drills outside of a coach’s regular practice schedule is as much a part of football culture as hitting.
Not only did they not air any actual opposing viewpoints, just two sentences suggesting that some people might have a different opinion...but they still are determined to make sure that readers are left ignorant of what does and does not apply to the 20 hour rule.
What really amazes me is that 24 of 36 schools they asked for info about compliance programs responded! Of course the way the Free Press writes I suspect 22 of the 24 responded with "pound sand jackoffs."
That name reminds me of the time my nephew continued to bother him the whole spring game his freshman year. He was nothing but the nicest guy.
I've got the cooest picture the two together.
I wonder if its the Nick Saban or emo guy.
Boycotters beware - that link is not the one to the print version. Oh, the humanity!
I thought the same and clicked the "Print" icon at the top of the page ... sent me to the exact same page. It seems the Freep has figured out or plan!
Those bastards. I guess the Mgocommunity deserves some credit for this shift in strategy on their part.
“It is up to institutions to determine how they will comply with the bylaws.” God this is such a non issue. The University should have just told the NCAA to Pack Sand , just like OSU and USC do every time they have any allegations brought against them
I can't wait until that rambling rag finally bankrupts itself.
Just think that it is interesting that the same day that MSU finally addresses the fight in the media and say that they are "past the situation", we get put right back into the fire with more allegations on the same thing that they have not been able to prove in the first place(whew... run on sentence).
"After the Free Press reported in late August that U-M players said coaches practiced and trained them more hours than the NCAA allows, the newspaper asked 35 schools, including the entire Big Ten, to explain how they monitor coaches. Twenty-four responded."
Oh, you mean the Freep didn't bother to do that BEFORE they reported their story? No. Remember, Free Press Editor Paul Anger wrote, in the Sunday edition following the August 30 story, that it had been "a month in the making."
So, what happened "a month" earlier? Easy. In late July, the Compliance auditors issued their limited-release report, to the AD's office and the members of the football staff and the Compliance Services Office. In that report, the auditors found no violations, but noted that they had not been provided with CARA ("Countable Athletically Related Activity") forms from the football program. The CARA forms were a University requirment, not an NCAA rule.
Naturally, once that report made it into the hands of Rosenberg, he got the idea, "Hey, if they can't document anything from before 2009, I think I'll ask some of the 2008 guys, some of whom have left, who might give me some great stuff, if they went over the number of countable athletically related activities."
God, wouldn't it be great to have Rosenberg's tapes from those interviews?
Anyway, it's my presumption that that's the Genesis of the original story. It doesn't take much imagination, or presumption, which is why I am so comfortable with it.
In the ensuing four weeks, the Free Press didn't collect any documents, didn't do any FOIA requests, save one request from Mark Snyder to the University, asking if the football program had ever had any major or minor NCAA violations, via self-reporting or otherwise. I presume that the answer they got was, "no major violations," because Snyder then placed that fact into the August 30 story. But the important point is that the Freep guys didn't ask for any explanation from Compliance Services; they didn't interview Rodriguez; they didn't interview Barwis; they didn't ask Bill Martin or Martin's office for information.
I think it is safe to say that the Free Press didn't want that information, at least not before it went to print, even though it would have been a much fairer (not to mention DIFFERENT) story if they had done so. No; what the Freep wanted to do was to attack, based on the story they had plotted immediately after getting the Audit report. They didn't want anybody in authority to respond, or even to know what they were up to. (That allowed Rosenberg to get his unwitting quotes from Je'Ron Stokes and Brandin Hawthorne, at Media Day.)
I presume that some of you guys know, but others might not. The Free Press went to Rodriguez, Martin, Coleman, et al ON THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE SUNDAY PUBLICATION, to "outline the story" and ask for their comment. That's EIGHT DAYS BEFORE THE START OF THE FOOTBALL SEASON. And about 36 HOURS BEFORE PRESS-TIME. Most of you know what that time is like for the coaching staff; they are working 20-hour days then, trying to get their young team ready for the first game of the season. And then they get a phone call from the Free Press. Asking for, uh, comment.
So this is the bottom line: the Free Press has done a lot of investigating since the story broke. It is all a lot of investigating that they could have done before the story, but they chose to run with what they had. I say, the Free Press deliberately laid in the weeds with its requests for documents. The Freep issued its FOIA requests for documents relating to CARA documents AFTER it published the August 30 story.
Isn't it amazing, what our local media is NOT reporting? You ask any one of our local writers, local radio guys about any critical analysis (heck, just aksing good questions) of the Free Press writers, and they just run and hide. Disgraceful.
I think it's pretty clear the Freep rushed this article to publication with the intent of tying up loose ends in follow-up articles. If they really wanted a well-rounded report, they would have started research earlier or released the article later. But the purpose was to time the article's publication with the start of the football season, and they got exactly what they wanted.
If the freep had done their research to start with they don't have a story and they knew it. First they write a story where its obvious that UM is guilty. Then months later they give out information the mitigates the first story, but by now everyone already "knows" UM is guilty. If they would have wanted to research the story from the beginning the could of. They didn't because they knew it wold hurt their case.
Right now they are probably trying to soften the blow for when the NCAA report comes out basically says the story was crap.
I think everyone who has an interest in this entire issue should give this article a read. I would say that it's pretty well done and covers a lot of good angles. Everyone above who is complaining about the timing of the original article and the questionable tactics about who they asked what when are dead on. There's no question in my mind that this was all released in a certain order to get maximum effect, which clearly worked. I think that's disingenuous and dishonest and overall a pretty crappy thing to do.
But, this article seems well researched and relatively unbiased. It should have been printed side by side with the original investigation for a full picture of the issue.