TomVH: Recruiting and the allegations
I know someone had asked if the recruits were worried about the NCAA investigation, or not. At the time, I said that I hadn't talked to anyone that was worried about it.
In the past two days, I've talked to three recruits that brought it up to me. They are concerned about it, mostly because they don't really understand what it means. Who they are isn't really relevant.
One of them just wanted to know if it would have any effect on future bowl games. The biggest concern that I have is that one of them mentioned that their parents didn't like it at all. I'm sure the coaches will have time to do damage control, but it's hard to change parent opinions on things.
I just thought I'd keep you guys updated. Don't freak out about it, because they're having the same reaction as we all did, "What's going to happen now?" It will play itself out.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^
Can't blame kids or their families for being concerned. But the bottom line is that this should not affect the number of times M is on tv, and there is no reason to expect bowl sanctions.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:54 AM ^
E. Lansing.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^
or USC.
February 26th, 2010 at 3:14 PM ^
Rename your school to the University of Smoking Crater because we are about to blow you off the map.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:25 PM ^
Judging from certain players' character, most parents of their players weren't concerned about their kids...
February 26th, 2010 at 1:46 PM ^
Perhaps, but only if my child was an engineering student.
February 26th, 2010 at 6:18 PM ^
Yeah, if my kid wanted to be an engineer, I would definitely steer him away from Michigan State.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^
The mainstream media just needs to do a better job of getting the truth/facts out there. After seeing a summary of the allegations and expected ramifications I can't imagine anyone's views of the program being soured to the point of deciding to go elsewhere.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^
"The mainstream media just needs to do a better job of getting the truth/facts out there."
Are you holding your breath for this? I am not.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^
I'm not counting the Freep as part of the mainstream media. :)
February 26th, 2010 at 1:07 PM ^
The facts, as presented by Brian on this blog, would concern a lot of parents, without any media involvement. But after meeting the coaches and others here I think those concerns would go away. But on its face, it doesn't surprise me at all that parents would react that way.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:47 AM ^
It only makes sense that recruits, and especially parents would be concerned. If they don't follow college football obsessively, they wouldn't understand the severity of the violations--especially because the phrase is "major violations."
No one wants to show up and be in a really bad situation from day one. These parents could be concerned that there will be huge scholarship reductions--which might affect their child's grant and a loss of TV time--which would hurt their kids exposure, or even worse.
Once the actual penalties come out, it will be much easier to run damage control.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:53 AM ^
"grant's" as you say, won't necessarily be affected for incoming players. A football scholarship is a full ride; there are no partials at the division one level. Self-imposed scholarship reductions will likely be made so they can just not give out scholarships to some walk-ons that otherwise would have been handed out. Since the violations weren't in recruiting, I don't see any serious scholarship reductions forthcoming.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^
I know that, but someone who doesn't follow this stuff obsessively may be convinced their kid could show up and lose his scholarship halfway through the school year--or that the scholarship losses were so severe that a kid might lose their scholarship after his first year if he wasn't developing quickly enough.
Parents tend to get paranoid about bad news regarding their kids.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^
Each scholarship is a full ride for one year only. There are no 4 year scholarships; they must be renewed each year. This means that certain schools with unethical coaches and fans who don't give a shit about anything but winning (I'm looking at you Alabama football and Kentucky basketball), won't renew scholarships for under-performing players in order to make room for OMG shirtless recruits.
I don't think it will happen at Michigan, but there is a possibility that reduced scholarship numbers would result in squeezing out players who aren't performing up to snuff. I think it's inexcusable to treat players this way and, if we did, I would find it a lot harder to be a UM fan, but I think it's still a legitimate concern for parents.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:51 PM ^
I understand your point and all (and the fact that it's hypothetical) Rodriguez's history shows that he truly does care about his players regardless of their talent level though. For example, keeping Sheridan and Criswell on as GAs.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:29 PM ^
There is a site that keeps track of # of players signed. I can's remember off hand, but 8 of the top 10 schools that go over the mark are all members of the SEC. More people in the media need to talk more about that.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^
Saban isn't exactly going to be canonized.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:02 PM ^
Alabama is already building its graven image of Nick Saban. Canonization is the next step.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2010/01/saba…
February 27th, 2010 at 3:15 AM ^
Saban wife, Terry, is one of the people that will be providing input on the statue, which is intended to emphasize Saban's love of student-athletes and of teaching.If you tried, you couldn't make up this kind of shit.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:34 PM ^
Saban illustrates the overall guiding principle of College Football (and sports in general): Just Win.
In the unlikely event Rich Rod wins the NT, or a BCS bowl game, that's all that people will want to talk about.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^
I think the real fear for parents is that the alleged conduct is true and will continue, and their kid will end up spending way more time on football than in the classroom.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^
Isn't one of the alleged violations that the coaches were monitoring classroom attendance, and "punishing" the players if they didn't attend class?
If I were a parent of one of the players, I would much rather have this situation than the one up in East Lansing.
February 26th, 2010 at 3:24 PM ^
I read the complaint once, and I didn't see it mentioned the way you describe. Yet, Brian and others on this blog seem to accept it as a fact that one violation was for punishing players who missed class.
Simply put, I'm not sure what's fact and fiction in this case. Surely a resident expert can clear it up?
February 26th, 2010 at 4:43 PM ^
It was a violation because it occurred in the off season, not that it happened per-say, but the timing of it.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:55 PM ^
But that doesn't really answer why question of where in the complaint it says that the violation was for punishment for missing class? By my reading, the complaint is broad enough that it could encompass anything from punishment for missing class to a straight up mandatory work out.
Is there anything that supports the idea that the violation was specifically "punishment for missing class?" I'm sure there is, but I haven't seen it.
February 26th, 2010 at 6:58 PM ^
I see what your asking, yeah it was for missing class here is the quote, from section 2.b of the LOI
During the summer of 2008 and 2009, strength and conditioning coaches who monitored and conducted some voluntary athletically related activities occasionally used additional conditioning activities as a disciplinary measure when they required football student-athletes to participate in such activities for missing class. [NCAA Bylaw 17.02.13]
February 26th, 2010 at 9:09 PM ^
Are they saying that this time was over the limit? In my opinion, I don't think a work out that is a punishment of some kind should be counted toward your practice limit. It's not a team practice, and you could have avaoided it if you followed your rules. Essentially it's voluntary, such as "you won't get benched for the game this weekend for missing class if you attend extra workouts." What about when Adrian Arrington ran the bleachers for Lloyd at 6AM to get out of the doghouse. Was that counted as well?
February 26th, 2010 at 10:39 PM ^
I think the key parts of the quote are that they "required" it during the "off-season" to "discipline" the player. It sounds like all 3 of those qualities have to be met for it to be a violation. During the season its not a violation. I would guess that Carr made it optional to Arrington to complete even if it was obvious the consequences if he didn't. But it sounds like it would only be a secondary violation anyway so UM could have even self reported it if they thought it was a violation or they may have just gotten away with it.
February 27th, 2010 at 10:14 AM ^
arrington was kicked off the team at the time as well. it would seem that if a student is not on the team, and voluntarily doing conditioning during the summer to get back on the team, the situation may be different.
February 27th, 2010 at 10:54 AM ^
that would definitely make a difference as well
February 26th, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^
It may not be many, but there will be some who will turn their attention elsewhere after we go on probation.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:49 AM ^
This was actually one of the biggest concerns for me. I was happy that recruits weren't making a big deal about it, but now that the issues have been released and some kind of punishment certainly looms, it is up to the coaching staff to mitigate fears.
This is where I think Brandon's vote of confidence in RR is a big deal.
I feel like every year, RR and co have a new, and perhaps more difficult, task to deal with in recruiting then the year before. They've come up sparkling before, so here's to hoping they do it again.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:58 AM ^
One thing that may work against us with the Class of 2011, too, is the fact that there probably won't be as much of an opportunity for "immediate playing time." We're only scheduled to lose approximately 5 starters (Dorrestein, Schilling, Woolfolk, Mouton, Ezeh).
There will be plenty of returnees to vie for Woolfolk's job, and Dorrestein/Schilling can't be replaced by true freshmen.
So really the only position that presents chances for immediate PT is inside linebacker, whereas this year we had a couple defensive line positions where freshmen might play backup roles, plus cornerback, safety, and wide receiver.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:13 PM ^
But I was hoping that the Jail-sexing of the Irish, The Beat-Down of Sparty, and the utter Pantsing of OSU in 2010 would help distract the 2011 recruits from that pesky playing time issue.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
I know this comment is meant as a joke, but it contains the ultimate truth about the fate of RR and Michigan's football program.
Win (especially against ND, MSU, and OSU) and all will be forgiven.
Lose (especially those games) and fans (and future prospects) will be ready to move on.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^
I have to believe a recruit who is really interested would do his homework, or that at least staff have shown them the precedent. There's no way Michigan gets any kind of post-season ban. Michigan might self-impose a couple of less scholarships though. For a recruit that is very interested this could cause them to commit a little sooner, right?
February 26th, 2010 at 12:04 PM ^
Well it hasn't seemed to have affected the parents of kids wanting to go to USC and those allegations seem far more serious than ours, so I would hope it does not affect us much either.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:07 PM ^
The difference, I think, is that the NCAA allegations against USC hadn't been made public (and still haven't, to my knowledge). You and I know that USC is going to get hit harder than Michigan, but to a lot of people that won't be real until it's in a newspaper.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
USC is on a different plane. Yeah, they're in a similar situation when it comes to sanctions. No, they're not similar on the field.
USC went 8-4 last season (I don't remember their bowl game) and is very recently removed from MNC shoo-in status. And if you start at USC, you're practically guaranteed to get drafted in the first two rounds.
Michigan is 8-16 over the past two seasons, its coach is on the hot seat, and if you're a starter...you might not even get invited to the Combine.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:36 PM ^
I don't remember the bowl either, but they beat BC. I think they were the only Pac Ten team to win their bowl. Maybe UCLA won too, I can't remember.
Anyway, of course winning cures everything. If we go out and throw down an 8-4 season with a bowl victory this fall, a lot of those recruits will stop worrying about the allegations, or our success will attract enough other guys to make up for the ones that were scared away.
Losing post-season eligibility isn't so bad when you're not making it to a bowl...
February 27th, 2010 at 8:25 AM ^
USC beat BC in the Emerald Bowl.
February 27th, 2010 at 9:45 AM ^
job jen... :)
February 26th, 2010 at 12:54 PM ^
I have to hope that SC will finally get slapped so hard it actually has an affect on their unbelievable recruiting. Then again it wouldn't shock me at all if SC gets off scott free while UM gets slammed for practicing too hard and creating an "unfair competitive advantage" in 2 of the worst seasons in its history.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^
The coaching staff probably hasn't had the chance to explain the situation to these players and their families. That should turn at least some people around. I think it will mean a lot that none of the allegations involved academic fraud or players being invovled with agents, etc.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:11 PM ^
Winning will overcome most problems, particularly recruiting, when you include a bowl game, but make no mistake about it, this NCAA investigation is an ugly stain against Michigan which will not be swept under the rug as quickly as many would like to think.
Put in the same position as Michigan, most schools would have technical violations just as we did. I cannot get over my increasing disdain for the MFers at the Freep who caused this debacle. No Michigan alum or fan should have any contact with that paper going forward.
In the old days, it might have made sense to put a whole page ad on page 3 explaining the untrue, biased reporting those bastard columnists used for their story last August.
I would also share with the parents that part of the problem was that the assistants made sure their sons were attending class over the summer. Parents will relate to the absurdity of that charge and be happy that someone cared about their kids.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:41 PM ^
All agreed, and I hate the Freep as much as anyone. But they did not cause this debacle. Michigan breaking NCAA rules did. The Freep certainly caused all grades of drama, were clearly slanted in any reporting they've done since, and the reporting is the suckiest excuse for journalism I can ever recall. But if the Freep had given fair, balanced, and factual reports from the start, we would still be exactly where we are right now.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:51 PM ^
I actually disagree with this point. Obviously, you can't get caught doing something unless you actually did it. However, if the Freep hadn't jumped in and made a big stink of a pretty small situation, there would have been no NCAA investigation.
If 10 kids steal candy from a store, but only of them gets narked on, are they any more at fault than the other 9? Most major schools fall into "the other 9," we just happen to have the class taddle-tale selling newspapers in our backyard.
Well, barely selling.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:24 PM ^
Fair and balanced reporting means:
-you don't print the comments from the current players out of context
-you name the ex-player sources
-also, you do some research and provide context as to the nature of the rules and voluntary vs. involuntary
-most importantly, you talk to athletes at other schools (or even other sports at UM) to determine if you have a nationwide epidemic, or if M is the rogue program
At any rate, it may have ignited a firestorm, but it would not have ended up such a conveniently slanted hit job on RR and his staff.
February 27th, 2010 at 3:33 AM ^
We will never know, but what if reporters had gone to the HC and AD some weeks in, said "we have allegations from anonymous sources, blah, blah, any comment," then printed a reasonable facsimile of what they had, maybe or maybe not the week before the season opener, and the process had gone from there. Question: "exactly where we are right now?" I just don't know (not rhetorical).
I was utterly surprised that there was anything there. That part of it is what I have to take time getting used to. I didn't conceive that it was possible for this to happen at UM. I don't think this exhonorates the damn paper, but I also don't think we want for this to have gone on and on without some interference. Yes, my feelings in all this are confused. The NCAA, per Brian, treating a trucker cap or a t-shirt as a "major violation" if it happens four years in a row, at SDSU, just adds to the confusion, and forces me to feel more empathy for SDSU, now that we're sort of in the same boat. Crap, crap, crap. I find 3-9 easier to deal with than this swirling shitstorm of NCAA wierdness I never wanted to have to try to understand.