Lately, the popular analysis is that setting aside whether there were time limit violations, the episode evidences a locker room divided. I fail to see the basis for the conclusion.
If what is meant is that some of the players Rodriguez inherited opposed/oppose him, true. See Boren, Wermers, Clemons, etc. If the assertion is that current players are upset with Rodriguez, who are these players?
It is true that a "current starter" is one source for the Schad story. Why are we convinced this is not just another player that said "yeah man, we were with the team ALL DAY on Sundays" or "voluntary workouts aren't really voluntary," leading a reporter to put two and two together and deduce the violation? I think that is in fact the most likely scenario. I think it is unlikely that a current player is corresponding anonymously with Schad or Rosenber/Snyder and saying "it's true, all of it, get me out of here but don't print my name!"
The only current players who have been relied upon thus far are the freshmen, both of whom had no intention of suggesting wrongdoing by the team. Or even saying something negative. Why then, the conclusion that an unnamed current player has said more or said different?
It is clear there is dissension among players who HAVE played for Rodriguez. I keep reading some variation of 'clearly some players are not happy' or 'some of the players obviously wanted this story told'.
Which players? Who is still in the locker room and dissenting? This line of analysis has some appeal since it seems moderate and above-the-fray, but it needs to stop being lazily accepted without some specification as to why it has any merit.
Agree with all of this. I have wondered the same thing. A current starter may have said, "yeah we practice a lot" or something to that extent...whammo, Rosenberg has his "source."