Sharp on report to NCAA
I wasn't going to post this, but I know somebody will, so I may as well do it and keep it level headed.
Drew Sharp has an article in today about the submission of the report to the NCAA. I refuse to post a link, but I will say this. Though it's obviously done through gnashing, clenched teeth, he manages to say something that sounds almost like, 'What Michigan is accused of isn't really that bad, and certainly not as bad as the MSU Institutional Control problems of 15 years ago.' He then goes on to say that he has faith in David Brandon and the staff to hit the appropriate points so that the NCAA won't come down harder, nor will they be too hard on themselves, and put the whole thing behind them.
He does take a parting shot at Rodriguez, saying that "time will sort out the coaching situation", but even that isn't necessarily all that bad, as he doesn't outright call for Rodriguez' job.
All told, for once, Sharp did not make me want to bludgeon him. It's still not really worth reading, though, as it has little substance.
I expect a retraction is forthcoming - once the hangover wears off and he gets the taste of meth and hooker spit out of his mouth.
St. Dantonio visited a leper colony in Howell and cured the sick.
He was joined by Friar Glen Winston of the Order of St. Whatshispuss.
Reading just the name Drew Sharp causeth me to reach for my vorpal blade.....
Me thinks Drew's sources may have tipped him off that the report isn't going to be as bad as he (hoped) thought. So he's trying to get out ahead of the story, let Rosenberg/Foster/Birkett be the d-bags and he gets another appearance on Jim Rome the day the story breaks, sounding like "the reasonable one".
I agree with BlazeFire. It is a pretty neutral article that carries with it the overtones of journalistic credibility. I'm not passing an opinion one way or another on Mr. Sharp, however, I liked how he ended the article:
"What's more important right now is Michigan holding itself accountable for its actions and taking a decisive step forward in restoring its time-treasured mantra of the Leaders and Best."
I think all of us can agree that we share the same thoughts in our heads. It's time to move on and close this chapter in our "Michigan Lives."
No need to spit vitriol at Sharp for this one...
Why not?
no better than those at the Freep.
I am in the same camp as those who think the article is neutral.
But never forget the "BUT FOR"....but for the Freep, none of this would ever have been a story nor would it have been a stain on the program, regardless of how minor.
Actually, "BUT FOR" the actual violations, there never would have been a stain on the program. The Freep could dig as ethically or unethically as they wanted. If we didn't do something wrong, we wouldn't be in this position. Let's just take our lumps and move forward to win football games.
Sharp's article is well-written, fairly balanced, and analytically correct (the coaching situation, for one, WILL iron itself out in 2010). The fire-breathers and tin-foil hat folks are going to have to wait for another reason to be upset for the sake of being upset.
the coaching will iron itself out in 2010. I mean, if RR wins 9+ or less than 5 games, it's pretty obvious where his future lies. Anything in the middle, which is more likely and you will have a lot of disagreement as to his future.
But I like wearing my tinfoil hat (covers the bald spot).
"Time will sort out the coaching situation" is about as vague of a statement as one can make. I don't really take that as a shot at Rodriguez so much as an admission that he hadn't met his word quota yet and needed something to fill the space.
Yeah, but Magnus, come on. If Sharp wrote, "Rodriguez will be the coach of the 2010 Michigan Wolverines," some people on this board would find that to be a "shot" at the coach.
I enjoyed the piece and especially appreciate Sharp putting to text the anachronism that the NCAA tries to enforce:
"College football at its highest levels is a full-time job. It's unrealistic thinking otherwise, but the NCAA nonetheless clings to the pretense of football as a part-time diversion from classrooms and keg parties."
Players, coaches, and programs face a paradox in that multiple markets (e.g., employment, merchandise, tickets, admissions) turn college football into a professional industry that is enacted by people who are supposed to work only part time.
about broken clocks.
If RR turns things around and starts winning 10 games in multiple seasons, guys like Sharp will be elbowing each other out of the way to be the first to write about how RR was cool under fire and resolute under trying circumstances and y'know he just might be a real Michigan Man after all.
of a witch-hunt ending in a "we're going to find something wrong here no matter what" kind of scenario. Stretching? (same voice as Jim Mora) Stretching? You wanna talk about stretching? This whole fiasco is a bunch of crap, and it's a shame that we will lose a couple of scholarships and some extremely valuable practice time this year because of it. Meanwhile USC has spend thousands of dollars on players and they will get by without a slap on the wrist. What a world we live in...
My guess is the symbolic one that we can't fill this year anyways. If we end up with a worse penalty then USC then the NCAA should just disband as an organization.
I don't think he beleives anything he writes. He sniffs what direction the public leans and then for controversy's sake goes the other way.
you post here("I wasn't going to post this, but I know somebody will, so I may as well do it and keep it level headed." : Translation: You are all too stupid to present this scholarly work in its proper light, so let me...).
You are condescending about Sharp's journalistic credentials, yet you faithfully report on his work here.
Either nut-up and stop reading the freep or have the decency to cite the work you are referring to. You can't have it both ways.
He did cite it. He specifically said it came from Sharp and the Freep. It'd be pretty hard for him to call it his own.
either :
A. Not worth reading ->My opinion of EVERY article on the freep.
B. Worth reading and discussing (like he is doing here) and therefore worth linking. I find it academically dishonest to read+discuss Sharp's work and then pretend as if we are punishing them somehow by not linking it here.
I understand many of you feel the opposite. Thats okay.
that any time a teacher in a school wishes to discuss a literary work, he must provide copies of that work for all students, rather than simply telling them what it is and where they can find it if they're more interested?
Or that when somebody mentions some song lyrics, they need to offer the album to everyone else so they can listen, rather than simply leaving it up to them if they want to do that?
I don't link the FreeP because, good article or no, they have lost my dollar. It does not cost them anything for us to discuss their works here, and I did not post those works as my own, so I've hurt neither them nor Drew Sharp in any way except personally choosing not to support that work.
support that work" why did you go to their website (which helps them with the Ad dollars)?
Why do you post about them here which will undoubtedly cause at least 10% of the folks to go check out that article now ? You are kidding yourself if you think you are not supporting that d-bag. Discussing the freep ad-nauseum does NOT hurt them. IGNORING THE FREEP WILL HURT THEM.
That this particular article, in its entirety, was distributed to me in an email at work by another concerned fan. I proceeded to initiate a discussion about it, because, as I said, I thought I could introduce rational, forthright consideration of it. Furthermore, I was unconcerned if others would proceed to access it, because, as I said, if I didn't bring it up, somebody else would, and eventually each person would have to choose for themselves whether or not to check it out anyway.
If you stop to think for a moment, you might stop yourself from making even more silly arguments.
It is useful, I suppose (I'm not sure how useful, but I am willing to presume it to be useful, as you apparently do as well), to avoid all indicia of support for the Free Press, by subscription, by newsstand purchase or by clicking on Freep.com.
But I think it is silly to avoid discussing anything in connection with the Free Press. What appears in the free Press, in print or online, is a very large driver of public opinion and the public's understanding, for better or worse, right or wrong, in this region. I say that the Free Press needs to be publicly doubted, questioned, attacked, rebutted in every possible public forum.
I think that the old-style maisntream media, very much including the Free Press, is now more vulnerable to that kind of attack than ever before, and that outlets like MGoBlog ought to lead the way in that regard. 10 or 20 years ago, this kind of counter-attack on the Free Press would have been inconceivable. (Maybe the News might have taken up the charge; maybe not.) The public would have followed whatever the Free Press, and JP McCarthy, and Dick Purtan, and what a few other television sportcasters told them. And there'd be a lot of Detroit-based pressure on Ann Arbor.
Now, I almost never have a conversation with other Michigan alums who are not "All In" for Rodriguez, without them saying, "Yeah, I know Rosenberg is a douchebag, but I just hate these losing seasons..."
That part is a big deal. There's only one way to judge Rich Rodriguez, and that is if he produces the kind of football program that we all want. If we cede that judgment to people like Mike Rosenberg, instead of results, we are making a terrible mistake. And right now, that part is not a neutral either/or. Rosenberg is not simply examining what is best for the success of the Michigan football program. Rosenberg is trying to run Rich Rodriguez out of town on a rail.
"("I wasn't going to post this, but I know somebody will, so I may as well do it and keep it level headed." : Translation: You are all too stupid to present this scholarly work in its proper light, so let me...)."
This is actually one of the biggest lessons to be learned when interacting on the world wide webs. A large number of people on the internet are a) not smart, b) not level-headed, or c) both. This is probably the opposite of your intention, but you pretty much validated his point.
I did just that. I genuinely felt insulted when I read that, so I pointed it out, but apparently quite a few people felt the opposite. Ah well.
Who or what are they, again? I vaguely recall those terms, but its way back in my distant memory.
While Drew has been shaky in the past, this piece seems fine. To me, the most important part is accepting responsibility. That should apply to the program and to its fans. Whether we think the violations are rubbish or otherwise...Whether we think they only came to light by questionable reporting or fair reporting. The "we were just stretching" defense sounds childish at this point. The "press hates us" defense sounds childish as well. It's like a Spartan fan saying, "That dorm fight is so overblown, they weren't wearing ski masks."
I maintain the arrogant and accurate position that we are Michigan, which makes us inherently better. It's time to take a couple of small lumps and win football games.
make we want to slice the webbing of my toes with a dull razor.
Why, Joe, why?
That was my response during the Billups trade too. I've never had confidence in AI as a team player (though he is incredbile on the court as an individual) and I was nervous about Stuckey ascending to greatness.
Easy. He didn't want the Darko Debacle to be the worst thing he ever did in Detroit.
...is that big time collegiate athletes are essentially full-time professional athletes, and that they should be paid, somehow, for the valuable entertainment that they provide. To be sure, Sharp doesn't make that position explicit in this column; he does make it implicit. He sort of yawns and implies, "Oh we all know what a crock these notions of 'student-athlete are all about, and Michigan isn't any worse (and maybe no better) than all of the other big-time programs with which Michigan competes." It's a form of damning with faint praise.
Drew Sharp calls big-time collegiate football "a full-time job." News falsh, Drew: so is big-time medical school. So is big-time law school. Life is a full-time job, if you're serious about it. I'd like to think that Michigan's student-athletes are serious about it. Because a lot of them, and almost every player on the football team, is having about $35,000 a year paid for them, to the University's general fund, by the Athletic Department.
And somebody riddle me this; since the University of Michigan has now gone through the most rigorous, fly-specking, IRS-audit kind of scrutiny, is anybody at the Free Press willing to submit to the same level of scrutiny? Is anybody going to fact-check Michael Rosenberg the way that Michigan's Office of Compliance Services has been audited by the NCAA, and by Michigan's own in-house counsel? Of course not. Part of the reason is that the Free Press will claim that as a newspaper, it needs to protect sources and methods of information collection. By that standard, Michigan is an infinitely more transparent institution than the Free Press.
Anybody can send a FOIA to the University of Michigan.
Nobody can send a FOIA to the Free Press.
For Drew Sharp of the Detroit Free Press to preach about what kind of transparency the University of Michigan needs to provide, while this whole mess has been premised on the Free Press' concealment of its sources, is nothing short of nauseating to me.
So for me, it does not matter what Drew Sharp says today, or tomorrow, or the next day. Actions speak louder than words, unles of course you are the Free Press and you have no responsibility in the realm of "actions" at all, and your only business is the realm of responsibility-free words. Drew Sharp remains sickening to me, as does his paper. He's offered nothing to erase, explain or answer for the past 12 months of his paper's errors and ethical lapses.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Our actions aren't excused just because the Freep might have done wrong as well.
We are Michigan; not the Free Press. Let's just fix whatever violations WE are responsible for (not the Free Press) and move on.
I thought it was kind of funny when the Ernie Harwell stuff went down in the last few weeks that Drew Sharp was talking highly of Ernie and how he never said a bad word about the city of Detroit. Drew could take a page out of his book and try to be more positive when it comes to Detroit sports and sports in general in the state of Michigan.
that Drew Sharp's WDFN biography, posted on the website, states in part:
"People ask me all the time that if I grew up such a big Michigan fan, what happened to me in later years and why I turned so cynical. And I tell them 'I grew up.'"
If you go to that particular page today, WDFN also has lined up, for your viewing pleasure, an awful unflattering picture of Amare Stoudamire's mom (I have no idea what the back-story is); YouTube video of Justin Bieber walking into a glass door; a photo of Venus Williams' crotch underneath her tennis skirt at the French Open, and more YouTube video of a fight in the stands at an Angels-White Sox game.
Isn't it great that Drew Sharp grew up, and now associates himself only with the finest in adult entertainment? Wait, that can't be right. "Adult entertainment" is another part of the WDFN marketing demographic. "Mature audiences" is more like it. Right? No, that can't be it, either. How to properly acknowledge Drew Sharp's having "grown up," such that he can command the attention of the intelligent, discerning audience of WDFN? Hmmm. That's a tough one.
{Here's a link to the WDFN page with Sharp's bio. Note that the other content may change throughout the day as more nasty semi-porn er more crazy shit from YouTube er important developing news from the sports world comes in to the WDFN studios}:
Actually, now I'm interested to go watch Justin Bieber walk into a glass door. Does his hair break the door, or is it the other way round?
Part of the reason is that the Free Press will claim that as a newspaper, it needs to protect sources and methods of information collection. By that standard, Michigan is an infinitely more transparent institution than the Free Press.
As frustrating as the Free Press' use of anonymous sources for this story has been, the press' use and protection of anonymous sources is the foundation of investigative journalism. Without these practices, stories like Watergate are never brought to light. Of course, the Watergate expose was an exhaustive 2 year investigation, occupying thousands of manhours of work to complete, which stands in stark contrast to the Free Press' apparent 4 week rush job by a couple of guys.
The issue with the Free Press article shouldn't be that they quoted anonymous sources. You can call into question whether these sources are anonymous because they fear reprisal by the current administration or anonymous because their initials are Justin Boren and could damage the credibility of your article. Nevertheless, the issue really is the lack of fact-checking of these sources, which has been shown after investigation by The University and the NCAA to be greatly over-stated.
For me, the issue with this whole affair isn't that the Free Press chose to break this story, it's that they chose to break the story when it seems clear that it wasn't fully investigated and complete, and instead was run when it would achieve the maximum publicity. The latter is how you make profits, and of course a newspaper has to turn a profit, but they also have to maintain a sense of ethics and integrity. If there is any justice, the Free Press has taken a hit to their image in that regard.
In the past, I have carefully parsed why the Free Press' use of anonymous sources in the August '09 story seemed indefensible.
The Free Press story was not based on documentary evidence. It was based, almost entirely, on anonymous source interviews.
Rosenberg's stated reason for granting anonymity was that the "current and former players" and some parents, feared retribution from coaches. And that is a myth at best. At worst, it is a falsehood, manufactured by Rosenberg.
We now know that the information fed to Rosenberg by his anonymous sources was, to a great extent, wrong and/or exaggerated. And we know that if his souces were Boren, or Mallett, or Clemons, or people like Boren, Mallet and Clemons, that the notion that they needed to fear coaching "retribution" is false. And we also know that the use of quotes from two "current" players, Stokes and Hawthorn, were laubhably misused by Rosenberg.
When a reporter like Rosenberg bases his entire story on anonymous sources, without other documentary backup, and without ever once asking for Michigan's side of the story (until hours before publication), he needs to satisfy a very high burden that the sources absolutely need anonymity. Otherwise, it is journalistic malpractice. Because those are the kinds of sources, with personal grudges and partisan axes to grind, that need to be made public so that their veracity can be fiarly judged by readers.
I'd accuse Rosenberg of journalistic malpractice, except that Jon Chait of The New Repuboic has already done it for me.
Although there is no love lost between UM and tOSU, one can imagine that if Boren went mouthing off to Rosenberg about RR's practice schedules, he'd have had one Coach Jim Tressell in his face. Whatever else the Buckeyes may be, they don't heap scorn on their competitors. Their head coach knows they are one bad interview from their own NCAA "inquiry", as are all major programs. He surely doesn't want his players inviting scrutiny.
I'd laugh if the excuse for giving someone like Boren anonymity would ever be reduced, by Rosenberg (whose task it is to explain his own use of anonymity), to "Boren was afraid of bringing the same scrutiny on OSU, because the NCAA would hammer them, too." Because there really is an answer for that. That answer is, MIKE ROSENBERG, WHY DID YOU ONLY INVESTIGATE MICHIGAN? WHY NOT INTERVIEW A DOZEN PLAYERS AT A DOZEN SCHOOLS? WHY NOT ENLIST THE COLUMBUS POST-DISPATCH IN OHIO, AND THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE AT SOUTH BEND, AND THE AJC IN ATHENS AND AT AUBURN, TO GET ALL OF THEM TO JOIN YOU IN A SWEEPING INVESTIGATION?
No, there is NO excuse for the Free Press' selective and unjustifiable use of its anonymous sources in the Michigan case. And assuredly, while there is no "excuse," there assuredly is a "reason." The reason for the way the Freep conducted this investigation is that it was a personal vendetta aimed at Rich Rodriguez and his inner circle, including Mike Barwis.
Dude...Re-lax.
This (whatever it is) is about to be over. We all agree that the Free Press wasn't perfect here, but the Free Press is not submitting self-imposed sanctions today. Your CAPS LOCK MADNESS won't made a drop of difference in the long run. At some point, you'll need to get over your rage against the Freep and admit to yourself that we did something wrong. Something terribly wrong? No, but wrong enough to cause the headaches we now face. I'm just happy that our administration is facing this like adults and not children.
Time to be done with the nonsense and win football games.
I respect your opinion in all of this, but I also respectfully disagree with your constant mantra of UM is at fault and the Freep is blameless.
It is now clear that the Free Press manufactured their allegations of impropriety on the part of the UM football program.
They were not doing their jobs, they were unduly attacking an organization as part of an agenda. that is not their job. They committed journalistic mapltractice in perpertrating that attack. Plain and simple, they do not get a 'pass' as being the Press. If they had reported accurately and fairly, they would get that pass. They deserve every bit of rancor and bitterness that M fans can muster.
The Free Press is not responsible for whatever minor infractions occurred, nor is anyone trying top posit that they are to blame. They ARE most definitely responsible for the hyperbole and inaccuracies that attempted to taint the reputation of the program as a rogue entitity that was out of control. The leaked memo that the Free Press ran with as the seed for the story was part of an internal process that was already underway. That process would have seen an internal investigation into the issues with the results, corrective actions and self-imposed sanctions self-reported to the NCAA. Instead, the Free PRess turned it into an attempt to very publicly besmirch the program.
Did M commit some tiny infractions? Yes, and they should be addressed and dealt with, that is occurring and the process will be complete. Should they have had their image dragged through the mud unecessarily? no.
I appreciate the comment, but I don't hold the Freep blameless. They were lazy. They were not professional. They did wrong. I am not an alum of the Free Press, so my concern is for my school. I just think that no matter what the Freep did wrong, we have to "man up" and admit responsibility for whatever we did wrong. Today, it seems we did that.
p.s. I am more bothered by their treatment of Demar Dorsey and lack of criticism of Dantonio than I am surprised by their coverage of the practice thing.
Let's remember:
~The Free Press got it wrong, substantively. Michigan didn't do most of what the Free Press alleged.
~There'd have been no NCAA investigation without the Free Press August story.
~The NCAA investigation refuted most of what the Free Press claimed.
~Nobody at Michigan is dodging what the NCAA found. We are NOT saying, "We did no wrong, and it is all the Free Press' fault." What Michigan has said has been accurately assmebled by Gene Marsh's legal team and by Dave Brandon. Michigan is saying: The Free Press was wrong, we were not hurting players or their academics or their amateurism, we did some minor things wrong in CARA, compliance and quality control definitions, and we take responsibility for those.
But here's the thing; to understand what the Free Press has wrought, just go to the Comments pages of Freep.com, or the sportsblogs, or sportstalk radio, or the websites of our rivals, and just read what is being written. It is a world of hate speech, aimed at Michigan and Rodriguez. Fueled by the Free Press.
Although I would posit that this is part and parcel of the bias that is also demonstrated so clearly in the article in question.
To be clear, I don't think M should ignore anything or attempt to sweep anything under the rug. I think the that 'smoking memo' that was leaked to the Free Press is a clear indication that there was a process underway by which this would have been dealt with. Conjecture on my part, but I assume there would have been an internal investigation, a self-reported account of any infractions, corrective actions taken and any reprimands or self-imposed sanctions being levied.
Publicly this outcome would have been a non-story and hardly discussed outside the region and a rubber stamp 'okay' from the NCAA, with perhaps a 'don't do it again' probationary period if not part of the self-imposed sanctions already.
We disagree fundamentally on the level of Free Press culpability, as I would go beyond terms like 'lazy' and 'not professional' in assessing their role. Terms like 'biased' and 'unethical', at least to me, more aptly describe their actions and I believe carry a much heavier burden of responsibility in the overall PR nightmare that this has become.
I don't blame the Free Press at all for whatever infractions took place, I hold them completely responsible for blowing the situation out of all proportion to reality and for igniting a media circus in an attempt to smear the football program and its coach. Their initial report went far beyond simply being a poor application of journalistic methodology, it violated the basic standards of journalism and was a pretty egregious dereliction of journalistic ethics. The fact that they have continued their coverage in a slanted, self-serving manner for the purpose of mitigating any damage from their initial trangression is even more shameful.
It is for this I believe that they deserve every bit of rancor and bitterness that M fans can muster. If you choose not to do so, that is your option, but others will boycott the Freep and will call attention to their iniquities at every opportunity. It does not mean they are dismissive of the infractions, but they are rightfully angry at an attack on the program.
This is not the case of 'don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message.' This is a case of 'go ahead and shoot the messenger, because initially he told everyone he didn't like your coach very much, he then stood in the middle of the town square with a bullhorn and shouted to everyone that would listen that he had proof that the coach was a cheater, a liar and an unscrupulous person with no regard for the players under him who has been blatantly flouting NCAA regulations and thus committed a long list of serious infractions, since that time the messenger has refused to provide any verifiable evidence to that effect and refuses to examine or acknowledge the accuracy of the allegations he made originally, even when an exhaustive investigation has publicly concluded that those allegations held only the smallest grain of truth and were only in part the fault of the accused coach.'
[duplicate/deleted by me]
Drew Sharp is still a major douche, masquerading as a so-called journalist and writer at the Freep.
Again, just my opinion.