BlueVoix

August 29th, 2009 at 10:24 PM ^

Agree, 100%.

This guy isn't exactly Jayson Blair, but he is heading down a dangerous road by not giving the entire situation a fair shake.

It doesn't matter if ESPN has four thousand pages on evil Urban Meyer whipping his boys in practice everyday, this being reported will somehow make Rodriguez seem evil to the national audience. And that's kind of messed up.

A Case of Blue

August 29th, 2009 at 10:30 PM ^

Moreover, even if this is/was going on at most other programs in the country, other coaches, if they're smart, will close ranks quickly so that their players don't disclose anything to the media.

Which means that U-M will look bad, even if everyone else is doing it, because we're the first ones reported.

Biff

August 29th, 2009 at 10:10 PM ^

The most frustrating this about this is that ESPN will pick it up and run with it without giving it an ounce of thought.

At least Rodriguez will stop getting bored to death with questions about the QBs.

mgofootball4

August 29th, 2009 at 10:15 PM ^

Can't UM just play against WMU already! I was a bit surprised to hop online tonight and read this article from Rosenburg. I can't help but think and echo all of the previous comments about how this is probably quite common in ANY program. It's not like Rosenburg really has anything concrete - I'm looking forward to seeing RR address this to the media. Also wondering if we will here anything from Bill Martin to the media. The timing of this thing is what gets me. Seriously? A week before the first game - the week when the players need to be totally focused on preparing to take the field.

b-diddy

August 29th, 2009 at 10:16 PM ^

I don't shoot the messenger but the timing on this feels like more than a coincidence.

As far as the allegations, mandatory vs. optional is about the grayest of the gray areas. And if we get sanctioned it would be just another example of NCAA hypocrisy. Unfortunately, it would join a long list.

This could be something our guys rally around. Kind of a badge of honor for those who did the work without complaining.

Maize_and_Drew

August 29th, 2009 at 10:27 PM ^

If they talk about interviewing current and FORMER players, then I want to know when these interviews took place and why did the Freep wait until 1 week before the season opener to report it?

This is nothing more than a smear campaign on RR.

Brodie

August 29th, 2009 at 10:41 PM ^

The night before the game will just overshadow the entire game. It will make the SportsCenter recap the next night, etc. The week before the game means RichRod says no comment 6 times and the AD says "We'll investigate" and it goes away before the games are even played.

BlueVoix

August 29th, 2009 at 10:45 PM ^

Could be, but I think that presumes the media wasn't already on the blood trail of the program. In our case, that is unfortunately not true. This will far overshadow the open of the season for Michigan in the media.

If released the night before, it's possible most Michigan fans would be (a) asleep at this point, (b) drunk at this point, or (c) wouldn't care enough what with the impending game the next day. It would for sure put a damper on the next day. But the first Forcier touchdown would erase a lot of that.

CrankThatDonovan

August 29th, 2009 at 11:56 PM ^

Sunday is the biggest day of the week for selling papers. This is probably going to be an above-the-fold, front page story that runs in the Freep tomorrow, which is a Sunday. More people will see this story tomorrow than any other day of the coming week because it is their bread and butter day for coverage. This story was deliberately released tonight. This story is intended to distract both the team and the fanbase. This story is propaganda at it's finest, and it is disgusting that this is what passes as journalism in American in the 21st century.

Seth9

August 30th, 2009 at 1:17 AM ^

Claiming major violations by perhaps the cleanest program in NCAA history is much more interesting then writing story after story speculating about who will start at QB when a) Rodriguez isn't saying anything and b) pretty much everyone who cares enough to pay attention assumes its Forcier.

There is one thing that could make this go away though. The Freep could write about how Dantonio is allowing a player return to the team after he assaulted a hockey player (who incidentally is still pissed off), after being released from prison, just in time for football practice. After all, any newspaper would jump at the chance to report on such a low standard of integrity from a 'major' football program...oh wait...

Maize_and_Drew

August 30th, 2009 at 1:03 AM ^

RR has to answer stupid fucking questions about these "Violations" instead of talking about things that matter - like winning football games at Michigan.

This will be all over ESPN by Monday - at the latest. If this would have been reported the night before the game, the players would have been tucked neatly into their beds, dreaming about putting an ASS whooping on WMU. Now they have to deal with this shit.

TomW09

August 29th, 2009 at 10:30 PM ^

OR.....

Maybe the Freep's real agenda is to sell newspapers and get page views?

Just maybe that could be the reason that this was released a week before the season started.

Logically, I think that is more likely, as opposed to this conspiracy that all newspaper writers are out to destroy Michigan Stadium and piss on the ashes.

Thorin

August 29th, 2009 at 10:32 PM ^

Oh snap! RR just got BOOM. ROSENBERGED.

How will the NCAA punish Barwis? Cage fight with a live wolverine? That one didn't work out too well for the wolverine last time. Major NCAA violations will just increase his street cred. If we lose 5 scholarships, we can just cut 5 guys like Alabama, starting with the snitches.

ssuarez

August 29th, 2009 at 10:33 PM ^

The whole story had a undertone of anger and resentment towards the program, and seemed to take facts and bend them to fit into the story. For something that claims to be an expose highlighting huge ills in the program, they sure needed to stretch a lot of facts to make this a story. One particular section that highlights this is shown in some snippets that I've pasted below.

"For the season, the Wolverines were outscored, 166-157, in the first half — and 181-86 in the second half, when conditioning is crucial."

Is this a sign that we were poorly conditioned in the second half, or that teams made easy adjustments to our simple, partially installed offense and game plans. Which one fits the story best and makes us look the worst?

"Michigan finished with a 3-9 record. The low point came in October, when the Wolverines lost at home to Toledo."

Why not just mention app state, and 5 straight to ohio state as well. Both seem pretty applicable to the overall tenor of this story.

Michiganguy19

August 29th, 2009 at 10:47 PM ^

Is to take a bunch of BS, cite anonymous sources, and generally be a b*tch. This is clearly a silly article, no program goes down for too much practicing. They go down for paying players, cheating scandals, and other shit. But not too much practice.

b-diddy

August 29th, 2009 at 10:47 PM ^

They could have released the article in the days after the interviews.

When were they conducted? how long did this story sit in a vault?

I get that they have to sell newspapers and that a piece like this helps. But its a college football team. If the only objective is to sell newspapers, then the freep is just a tabloid. If the objective is to make a difference, they should have released the story BEFORE camp. If the object was to hijack the season / get RR back, then screw them.

I do think this blows over, but I'm done with Rosenberg. He's a watered down Bill Simmons want to be (who I don't even like) who (imo) is acting like a scorned teenage girl.

Bando Calrissian

August 29th, 2009 at 10:49 PM ^

While I take this with a grain of salt, I don't know how anybody could say they find this truly surprising, hard to believe, etc. etc. If there is any element of truth to it, which I tend to think there is, I don't see how you can think it is OK. "Everybody else does it!" or "The NCAA doesn't -really- care!" doesn't make it right. Rules are rules, and these are rules the NCAA puts in place to protect student-athletes from exploitation, ensure their well-being, and have college sports still come with the possibility of someone being able to complete their education.

If my team is going to win games, and if this is a team that is going to represent my University and its longstanding tradition of doing things the right way, I'd hope they'd make an effort to do so. I'd rather we go 0-12 doing things the right way than cut corners and break rules to win BCS championships. Ohio State does that. USC does that. We tried to do that in our basketball program. But that's not the way Michigan football does things.

We built our tradition on integrity, coming clean, being honest, and being above board. And if that's an element of our identity Rich Rodriguez and his staff wanted to put by the wayside as they're "building a program," well, I think we should all have a major problem with that.

Like it or not, this is a story we don't want to see. And if there is indeed a story here, I don't see how the Free Press has any obligation not to report it. That is the mark of responsible journalism. I'd rather it get nipped in the bud before it goes on for years unchecked, and then have it come out later, when we really do get in trouble with the NCAA, that it was known but not reported on.

BlueVoix

August 29th, 2009 at 10:53 PM ^

Depends on what we're comparing here. Are we paying players? Or are we working over time while the athletes are still succeeding in class? It's a little different.

And this might be semantics here, but it's our University. I don't think any of us want to break with our tradition of doing things the right way, but I don't think many of us believe this is also anywhere similar to what Calipari just did.

jrt336

August 29th, 2009 at 10:55 PM ^

Agreed. Although this isn't the worst thing a football team could do, it will get blown out of proportion and people will bash RR. There isn't an excuse. He shouldn't have done it (if he infact did). I love Lloyd, but I doubt that he did everything right 100% of the time. RCMB is already well into their bashing. I actually think this might not be a bad time for it to happen. Hopefully a win next Saturday will make people forget about this.

formerlyanonymous

August 29th, 2009 at 10:52 PM ^

There's enough lithium in my medicine cabinet to power three electric cars across a sizeable desert. I'm more than aware that this isn't actually a selling point, but nonetheless it's my favourite statistic about me. Man, 33 - officially Three Cars Crazy

Meeechigan Dan

August 29th, 2009 at 10:54 PM ^

People don't seem to get it. When great men are targeted, you begin with shredding of documents, move to family values and then to violations and excessive workouts. I am not granting RR "great man" status, but he is a target, a man who blew up MIchigan tradition, a disciplinarian, a workout fanatic, and a man with enemies all over the place. He continues to break a lot of eggs.

I do not give this report 1/1000000th of second of time or the same fraction of credibility. You who are reacting to this with doom, wrung your hands about shredded documents and family values. Enemies do not give up. You can go into every high-achieving, intense organization and find malcontents. There are undoubtedly one or two left.

Please, people. Give the man the benefit of the doubt.

And if real evidence of real wrongdoing comes out, then I will admit it and suggest appropriate action. Anonymous sources is not real evidence.

Meeechigan Dan

August 29th, 2009 at 11:02 PM ^

I can say it is false because the burden of evidence isn't on me. You think a player buried deep on the bench - a former stud HS player who has been lauded since he first strapped on a helmet in 5th grade and achieved everything with ease - isn't above saying that the rules were stretched to compensate for his first taste of failure? That it was sanctioned as opposed to practices outside of the coach's control?

I grant none of it. If people come forward and real evidence is presented, then I will.

kmd

August 29th, 2009 at 11:47 PM ^

I used to work as a tutor in the academic center. One time I had a player tell me something to the effect of "I'm done working on this assignment (he was only about 2/3 done, and it was due the next day), I need to go sleep because we spent 8 hours doing stuff yesterday, and I've got to get up at 6am tomorrow for conditioning". That was the Monday after a game, can't remember if it was a road game or not. He wasn't necessarily complaining (though players did bitch about the conditioning occasionally), but just sort of stating the kind of compromise he was forced to make to get by.

He wasn't lazy, he was in a difficult program, came in consistently to work on assignments and get help. I don't think he was that highly touted coming out of high school, and isn't buried on the depth-chart since I guess he's projected to start this year. Quite honestly, I'm a little pissed that somebody I worked hard to help pass two or three of the more difficult classes at Michigan was being hindered by what was apparently a gross disregard of the NCAA rules. There's significant substance to the allegations being made, and if the NCAA acts quickly and can verify some of these claims, I honestly think RR might (and should) be gone before the season is over.

A Case of Blue

August 30th, 2009 at 12:14 AM ^

On the one hand, I see your point and it's really valid.

On the other hand, I've taught classes at a D-I university, and I have to say that the NCAA touts itself as being pro-student-athlete when it's convenient for them, not necessarily for the students.

For example, at the university where I taught (and I assume at most other D-I schools), as long as athletes have a letter from the AD, they're excused from as much class as they need to miss in order to fulfill their athletic duties. Imagine, for example, how much class a basketball player misses during the postseason - not exactly conducive to learning.

Now, I'm not saying it can't be managed, as there are people who have academic success in spite of the time needed to devote to D-I sports - but those tend to be the brightest of the bunch. For those who are average students (or worse), the time required may be crippling as far as academic success.

kmd

August 30th, 2009 at 12:50 AM ^

My one big issue is that I don't think athletics should ever be so much of a time requirement that it precludes somebody from being able to get a legitimate education. And not just the brilliant people, but the average people who want to take advantage of the academic opportunities their athleticism has opened up to them. People always make anecdotes about how back in college they held 5 jobs, took 27 credits, and were still banging supermodels every nigh. But those people are the minority, and often times doing it out of necessity, and it's ridiculous to assume that every D1 football player should be able to do that on a consistent basis (especially given most player's academic background relative to their peers).

Some things like playoffs and road trips are to an extent unavoidable. Going significantly over the NCAA mandated maximum time per week is not.

kmd

August 30th, 2009 at 1:04 AM ^

Like I said, it could be the case that more players than average chose to take easy classes with guaranteed A's as opposed to taking more difficult/interesting classes to help balance their workload. I don't know if this is necessarily the case, I'm just saying the record GPA isn't a bulletproof argument against the existence of NCAA violations that are negatively affecting some (even if just a minority) of the players.

A Case of Blue

August 30th, 2009 at 1:11 AM ^

To go way, way beyond the scope of this article and the subsequent discussion, I am not sure that the two missions (individual academic success and team athletic success) have ever been, are currently, or will ever be fully compatible. Not just at U-M, but throughout the NCAA. When you mix in the huge amounts of money involved, the stakes are even higher, and I tend to think that not only at the university level but the organizational level, academics are that which is allowed to suffer.

However, we married amateur football and academics a long time ago, and I'm not sure there is any way to untangle the two at this point (disregarding whether we'd ever want to).

kmd

August 30th, 2009 at 1:38 AM ^

There really isn't a way to nicely disentangle them. I accept that academics are going to suffer compared to team success, but there has to be a limit. You can't let academics suffer to the point where your average player doesn't have time to do more than the bare minimum academically. That's the purpose behind the NCAA maximum limits, and that's why I hope they come down especially hard with the ban-hammer if Michigan is found to be blatantly flouting the rules.

bouje

August 30th, 2009 at 10:06 AM ^

And at the end of 4 years we had to take Senior Design. Do you know how often I had to go to group meetings? Do you have any idea how much time I spent on that one class (luckily I only had 12 credits).

How does this relate to the current "fiasco" well the meetings weren't "mandatory" because well we had to finish the project but if I didn't attend most/all of the meetings then my teammates would turn in their evaluations and grade me lower saying that I didn't participate as much as the other people in the group and was a slacker.

How is this ANY different for football players? They knew that the workouts were "voluntary" just as I knew my meetings were. They knew that if they didn't bust their ass they wouldn't play.