That's all. Here's the link. U-M hired an outside firm to investigate all the basketball crap a few years ago, as you may have heard. This one will hopefully and likely have a very different (and quick) result.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-michigan-ncaa&prov=ap&type=lgns
Bad Idea
Yeah, you're looking at this the wrong way.
The point of hiring an outside firm is not to make it appear like it's a bigger deal than it is. The point is twofold:
1) To make it look like you are taking things so seriously that you are willing to go outside the inner circle to clear your good name.
and
2) That once said good name is cleared, detractors can't say "OMG YOU INVESTIGATED YOURSELVES, OF COURSE YOU WERE CLEARED."
This is what happens when serious people investigate serious issues. Think about how the government uses "Special Prosecutors" to investigate their own internal scandals. It attenuates the appearance of impropriety.
Disagree
The function of a special prosecutor is completely different.
Here, UM is a paying client to this firm. The firm's ethical duty is to advocate for UM (i.e., present the facts in the most favorable light for UM) not for the NCAA and its own investigation.
It's really different from what a special prosecutor does.
They certainly picked the right guy.
They hired Gene Marsh of the law firm of Lightfoot, Franklin and White in Alabama. Marsh is the former chairman of the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions and I believe on the committee that ruled on our basketball case.
A necessary move to ensure
A necessary move to ensure objectivity.
They will find nothing, because there is nothing to find. Upon which Rosenberg will run an expose of how Barwis cornered the outside investigators and intimidated them into agreeing that they found nothing.
I agree with this...
It's not a very defensible position to rail against Rosenpuke for his lack of objectivity but then say an internal investigation of the program would be objective.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Hiring outside representation...
...is the furthest thing from objectivity, imo.
God, I can't wait for Saturday; this whole mess just sucks.
How is outside representation
How is outside representation less objective than investigating yourself?
Really???
I worked as an auditor in public accounting for many years. We are hired by companies (clients) to audit their books and processes. It was our job to ensure things are as they say they are and to report any discrepancies. We are still "independent" from the company. In fact, we have to jump through hoops to ensure independence.
I would think in UM's case, they hired "outside auditors" for the sole purpose of objectivity.
Think about it for a minute
WVU went through their records already, right. If they can do that in a couple of days with four years or more of records, M should be able to get it done in less time, considering it's under two with Michigan.
They probably did an internal investigation already, and found nothing. By hiring an outside firm it only strengthens their own findings. The NCAA will more than likely be satisfied with both reports, and call it a day...I hope.
If Michigan Has Completed An Investigation ...
If you are correct and Michigan has already completed an internal investigation, I would be much more comfortable. I highly doubt it. An investigation would, at a minimum, entail interviewing many if not all the players, coaches and staff. No way that has been done yet.
"I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything." B. Simpson
Well,
Let's think about the schedule:
-Saturday night, news breaks - probably counter-leaked to UM before the article was posted
-Sunday - Martin promises investigation
-All the players and staff are living in Schembechler Hall for practice (BTW, the Firefox spellchecker flags the word 'Schembechler'). They could begin the internal as soon as Sunday afternoon.
-One set of ath dept flunkies can check out the paperwork and NCAA rules. Martin and his cohorts can interview players and coaches.
-~100 players + 10 coaches + others ~= 120 people.
-120 people x 10 mins = 20 hours of interviews. If Martin has four people working this, they could interview everyone within two days' time, collate the results and analyze the situation.
I'm just saying it's possible to wrap up an internal investigation in two days, and have that stuff ready for the independent agency.
Are you kidding?
No law firm will wrap this up in two days. It takes that long to put the team together and raise that group's Billable Hours target.
WVU wasn't conducting a full
WVU wasn't conducting a full investigation. They merely looked at reports from the time and checked for any complaints to the compliance department.
A full investigation means talking to the staff, any staff members who have moved on (Shaffer and whatever GA's were here last year who might have left), the entire compliance staff, the entire team, former players who have left since last summer, the entire football support staff, even player's parents. That's in addition to what WVU did. Make no mistake, this will take a couple weeks at least.
When your team is winning, be ready to be tough, because winning can make you soft. On the other hand, when your team is losing, stick by them. Keep believing. -- Bo Schembechler
Special Prosecutors
I agree that it improves the appearance of objectivity, but I just do not know if it was necessary. Schools investigate themselves and report to the NCAA all the time. Michigan has a stellar reputation, so their investigation should be as credible or more so than those of other schools.
With regard to the special prosecutor analogy, the situation is not the same for a whole host of reasons. However, since you brought it up, a major problem with appointing a special prosecutor is the possibility that you lose control. It happens all the time with special prosecutors. If the special prosecutor begins to go in a direction you do not want, it is politically difficult to reign him in. Here, Michigan better have 100% control of the law firm they have hired. If the law firm finds something, it would be unethical for them to not put it in a report. The only other option would be for the law firm to resign. And the optics of that would be terrible.
"I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything." B. Simpson
Fair enough, but I just don't agree.
The point of hiring an outside firm is that you don't have complete control over them. If you did have control over them, you might as well save the money and do it yourself.
To me this sends a message that the AD is confident that they're in the right. As a Michigan fan, I like that a lot. And moreover, if the firm does find something amiss then it should be reported. We should not be looking out for ways to get away with breaking the rules. We should get ahead while following them.
That Deadspin post that Chait responded to on the main page had some silly and unfair points in it, but the line about "Leaders" coming before "Best" resonated with me. Obviously, I don't think anyone did anything wrong here. But if we did, we shouldn't be afraid to face it.
Ok ...
I admit I am very conflicted here. I am true Blue all the way and if they are doing something wrong (which I doubt they are) I want it stopped immediately. I want Michigan to remain Michigan. But I just do not want this to get out of control and have some little things that could be corrected with some new internal controls put a black mark on the program. It would kill me.
"I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything." B. Simpson
I wish I could feel better
I wish I could feel better with your comment, "To me this sends a message that the AD is confident that they're in the right" except that they did the same thing with the basketball program a few years back.
Phschomatt
I understand that you are a huge UM fan (like the rest of us) and I think you are right in that the NCAA would likely be happy with an internal investigation done by UM staff. The problem is that the general public would not be so likely to give that investigation the credit that the NCAA would. It is not only the NCAA that UM is trying to convince here. It is the entire fan base as well as colloge football fans across the nation so that, when nothing is found, no one can than say "we don't believe you, you did your own investigation and swept everything under the rug". When this investigation is complete it will prove once and for all that either a) UM was breaking the rules and rosendouche was right or b) that UM was playing by the rules and rosendouche is a rosendouche. Either way, going forward this issue will be put to rest at last.
Necessary?
I definitely think its necessary, if you only do an internal it still leaves doubt . Go to the NCAA with both and squash this shit now.
I Hope You Are All Right
Ok.
"I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything." B. Simpson
Michigan knows these charges
Michigan knows these charges are BS and wont stick...and they know they have all of the documentation to support it...so hiring the outside firm, will just add to the creditability of the report and will blast the Freep to high hell once it is released and they will have 0 room to argue back.
This will cost Michigan money, which sucks...but ultimately it should play out very much in their favor.
The Freep and Rosenberg lose any and all creditablity they have left after the report is released.
Michigan will strengthen its position as a school and program that does things by the book but works hard.
This is a win win situation.
Strictly business...Not personal.
Picking up the check
When the independent investigation comes back with nothing, can we pass the bill to Rosenberg?
The Freep is going down, once
The Freep is going down, once this report is released.
Fuck Rosendouche. I want to puke now, every time I see his Fucking grinning mug.
The Facebook anti-douche group is over 500 members and growing strong.
UM knows it is in the right and will put the beat-down on Rosendouche, Snide-r and their fucking editor once this is all said and done:
""We've reached out to the Big Ten and the NCAA about this investigation, but it still helps to bring in an outside firm to provide more of an objective view when we make our final report," said Bruce Madej, associate athletic director for media relations. "We have engaged an outside counsel to come in as a partner to discover and assess the facts."
no shit. pretty confident there Bruce. for good reason.
Go Blue.
Strictly business...Not personal.
Backfires
"The Freep is going down, once this report is released."
This could backfire on the Freep, if the report reveals significant facts that the Freep omitted or did not investigate at all.
"""We've reached out to the Big Ten and the NCAA about this investigation, but it still helps to bring in an outside firm to provide more of an objective view when we make our final report," said Bruce Madej, associate athletic director for media relations. "We have engaged an outside counsel to come in as a partner to discover and assess the facts.""
Only quibble I have here is the use of the term "discover the facts." Michigan should project the position that they KNOW the facts because they are on top of their program, but that they are giving an outsider carte blanch to examine the situation. Then they will have two sets of data to back up their case.
Now, one way this can backfire on UM is if the outsider doesn't have a good sense of context in college football, reads the rules by the letter, and proclaims Michigan in violation. Then the NCAA has had its work done for it. Actually, they should encourage said outsider to examine other programs as well as NCAA "case law" to provide context.
Dude, every other comment by
Dude, every other comment by you the past two days has included the word "Rosendouche"... let's hope this investigation clears us for our own sake, not because we could laugh at the Free Press. Because really, why be as petty as they are?
When your team is winning, be ready to be tough, because winning can make you soft. On the other hand, when your team is losing, stick by them. Keep believing. -- Bo Schembechler
Outside Counsel Hail Mary
It's a common tactic.
Good news: enhances perception of handling an investigation properly.
Bad news: can be hard to control. Do you want to give any law firm a blank check?
Key questions: (a) who does the firm report to? (b) does that person have an agenda?
My guess is that the athletic dept didn't have a choice, and were told to do this. And it's not about either of the reporters, so all of the anti-Freep blather is just a sideshow.
An outside review is about (a) determining compliance, (b) self-reporting instances of non-compliance, and (c) recommending improvements in practices and procedures.
I've seen quite a few of these things, and I will tell you this: you ALWAYS find something. There is no such thing as 100% compliance, especially in a case like this with the "voluntary/non-voluntary" grey area.
Any BCS school could bring in outside counsel to look at this and find potential infraction. ANY ONE... Hell, any major newspaper that did it would find ethical lapses and problems with anonymous sourcing guidelines.
Hopefully the firm that was retained has a few UM law grads somewhere up the partner food chain...
;)
They absolutely needed to launch an internal investigation, but this is a bad idea. It makes it look like this is a bigger deal than it probably is. It also makes it look like the compliance department is incapable of undertaking an investigation. I wish they had not done this, at least until they did their own work to see if there was anything at all to the allegations.
"I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything." B. Simpson