Will there be any consequences for Arizona violating the NCAA concussion policy?

Submitted by mejunglechop on

I'm not a doctor, but I suspect this happens more than we'd like to admit. Last year Tommy Rees looked more than a little dazed and came back and this year Will Gholston appeared to be out cold. Nevertheless I've never seen the media make an issue of it before, maybe they have feared losing access. I'm glad it's happening. I am disappoint, Rodriguez. Obviously the handling of this has consequences for all of college football. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2012/10/27/arizona-just-broke-the-ncaas-concussion-policy-will-it-matter/

mGrowOld

October 30th, 2012 at 8:37 AM ^

When you refer to "White LIghtening" are you talking about Ricky Leach?  If so, I had not heard that he had no memory of playing for Michigan.  If not, who are you talking about?

I had not heard that Leach had severe memory loss.  If so that is very, very sad.

mGrowOld

October 30th, 2012 at 8:53 AM ^

Well he did  win on Saturday in a very big game while we sort of....you know.......didnt.

Therefore he must die.

BTW...if there was EVER a guy who needed a full-time PR consultant to handle his every move it's him.  I have never, ever seen anyone generate so much media-hate and that includes political, religious and sporting world nutjobs from left to right and all points in-between.

Section 1

October 30th, 2012 at 11:47 AM ^

Rodriguez speaks a lot more clearly and honestly about player injuries than Brady Hoke does.  Period.

What Hoke says, is often pure nonsense.  "He just got a boo boo... Somewhere on his body... Denard is fine (halftime at Nebraska)..."

I have no real desire to attack Brady Hoke, but if anybody on a Michigan blog is going to personalize the attack on Rodriguez, I am quite happy to respond in kind, in a way calculated to cause the most discomfort.

As for any mystery as to why the media might dislike Rodriguez, I have no clue; since Rodriguez was arguably the least-calculating, most open and most media-friendly coach at Michigan since Gary Moeller, or Harry Kipke, or maybe ever.  What I can tell you from personal experience is that the blowback aimed at Michael Rosenberg and Mark Snyder, for their ill-motivated and largely fabricated story on Rodriguez, is that sports reporters, in print and electronic media, tend to circle the wagons around their colleagues and Rosenberg is a prime example.  A year later, Rosenberg was the Michigan Sportswriter of the year.  Two years later, having done nothing out of his routine work, Mark Snyder was the co-winner of the same award.  John U. Bacon, the author of an historic and groundbreaking book, a NYT bestseller, wasn't even mentioned at the ceremony.

mGrowOld

October 30th, 2012 at 12:56 PM ^

I have no real desire to attack Brady Hoke, but if anybody on a Michigan blog is going to personalize the attack on Rodriguez, I am quite happy to respond in kind, in a way calculated to cause the most discomfort.

If that was directed at me I think you misunderstood my point.  I was referencing the fact that our loss combined with Arizona's win brings out the worst anti RR on the board.  And that for reasons unclear to me he seems to be attacked relentlessly for things other coaches do without so much as eyebrow being lifted (like Dantonio for example) in the press.

In case you've forgotten......I'm one of the "supporters" (although I understand why he was let go)....

Section 1

October 30th, 2012 at 1:15 PM ^

Although the positioning as a "reply" might appear to make it so.

No; I was just challenging the general notion that Rodriguez is either a substantive idiot, or a public relations idiot.  He certainly has been a victim of an amazingly vindictive press in the past.  And yeah, he might need an extra security guard in terms of public relations as a result.

Now Dan Daimond might well have thought in this case, that he was simply raising an important question about concussion policies in college football.  He actually didn't do much to personalize it as to Rodriguez.

But Dan Diamond doesn't know MGoBlog, does he?

I suspect that with this addendum, you and I are in complete agreement...  

Darker Blue

October 30th, 2012 at 9:10 AM ^

I thought we were done with OT on the board????????

 

Apparantly all of you sick bastards can't get enough of FIRE RICH ROD! 


Now I have to spend the rest of the day listening to Rilo Kiley and sobbing my brains out. Thanks Guys!!

Section 1

October 30th, 2012 at 1:19 PM ^

I am 155% sure that if it didn't involve RICH ROD, it would not have 100+ replies.  

I am 10,000% sure that if it didn't involve Coach Rodriguez, it wouldn't have 100+ replies.  And as I noted just above, Dan Diamond's peice can actually be read as a question aimed at "Arizona football," not "Rich Rodriguez."  But "Rodriguez" almost always gets personal, and almost always generates 100+ posts.  Usually 200+.

M-Wolverine

October 30th, 2012 at 9:36 AM ^

In the game thread Saturday I said we had a long post with people killing Dantonio for putting Gholston back in. Even got some front page derision.  Yet someone we like does something very similar, maybe worse, and most here are defending him. 

Hey, if you were one of the few who said "you're not one of the team doctors, you don't know if Dantonio did the right thing" and are doing the same thing here, more power to you, I respect your consistency. If you killed MSU's staff and are now going "oh come on, how would he know?!", well, you might want to take a look in the mirror.

justingoblue

October 30th, 2012 at 10:08 AM ^

How much time was there between Gholston getting hit and him getting sent back in? From my recollection of the Arizona game, AZ took a timeout and there was a media time out, which would suggest some amount of time for evaluation. I'm not sure if he did the right thing or not (although I would say he has a history of making the right call), but if the medical staff on the sideline had some time to evaluate and didn't say anything, I'm not sure what else he's supposed to do.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

October 30th, 2012 at 10:30 AM ^

We are allowed, I think, to take the respective histories of the coaches into account.  We've already seen that Dantonio doesn't think it's a big deal when his football players slam another student into the ground neck first, or attempt to snap an opponent's spinal cord in two.  We've also seen RR hold players out of the game against their will when he thought it was in their best interest due to concussions.

profitgoblue

October 30th, 2012 at 11:19 AM ^

I agree to the extent that some people shift their soapbox opinions whenever they see fit rather than applying them even-handledly.  I was always a Rodriguez supporter (if only because I felt bad for the guy) but I'll be the first one to bash him if he did, in fact, purposely ignore the warning flags and leave the kid in for the next series.

On a related note, has any head coach in recent history had as bad of luck as Rodriguez?  First he has a sh-tty 3 years in Ann Arbor and then, after finding a new job that fits him better and winning two huge games this year, this concussion-gate happens.  It may be his own fault but still.  Bummer luck!

robpollard

October 30th, 2012 at 5:51 PM ^

"Yet someone we like does something very similar, maybe worse, and most here are defending him."

- The discussion about Gholston was because he was clearly knocked out. His actions on the field (laying on top of Miller for half a minute; not moving) were given no other plausible explanation beyond he was knocked out. You don't lay on top of the opposing team's QB for that long, with your hand on his belly, if you are "winded."

- Thus if Gholston was knocked out, he had a concussion. Knocked out = concussion. End of story. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000799.htm

- Scott was not knocked out in the Arizona game. He still could have had a concussion. He vomited once and then a timeout was called before any more plays occurred. At that time, he was evaluated by Arizona's medical staff. Based on that, RR put him back in the game.

- After a three more plays, the drive ended and apparently something changed where they decided to keep him on the bench the rest of the game.  Scott (according to himself and RR) was "naseuous" all day b/c he was running the ball more than normal and it was hot (his words); they kept him out at the end because they were being "cautious."

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wildcatreport/2012/10/29/arizonas-matt-scott-expects-to-play-saturday-after-concussion-controversy/#more-4417

If someone has evidence that a) Scott wasn't evaluated for a consussion or b) he had one and RR still put him in, RR is in the wrong and worse than Dantonio. Since I have seen exactly zero of that, your statement off-base.

M-Wolverine

October 30th, 2012 at 8:13 PM ^

Has Gholston or anyone fom MSU ever said this? I believe they've denied it. So it comes down to you believing Arizona's denials, and not Michigan State's. you say he was knocked out, they say he was laying there with the wind knocked out of him. But you don't know they were lying. Any more that you know he was throwing up the whole game (announcers didn't say anything about it happening till he took dual hits to the head and looked dazed...so, if we're judging just by what we saw on tv...). And what were they being "cautious" about? His upset stomach after playing him all day? Or all these concussion symptoms he showed not at first examination, but after he ran a TD drive, that suddenly appeared, even though he didn't have a concussion (as they say)? Just admit you want to believe Rich, and villainize Dantonio. Because your eyes see what they want to see in each case. Arizona might have been completely honest about the situation. But MSU could have been too, for all you can really show.

Section 1

October 30th, 2012 at 8:27 PM ^

Oh yes; I like Rich Rodriguez, and I think he was treated very unfairly in Ann Arbor.  For a very long list of very detailed reasons.

And yes, I dislike Mark Dantonio, for a very long list of very detailed reasons.

I think it is unequivocal -- that the only plausible explanation for the video I saw -- was that Gholston was unconcsious for a considerable period of time.  If anybody else has an explanation, I'd like to hear it.  And loss of consciousness, as I cited in other threads equals a presumptive concussion for that day's play.  Loss of consciousness can't be much of anything else, after a hit like that.

Vomiting might be a symptom of a concussion, or of lot of other things, particularly in a kid who throws up in lots of games and workouts.

Gholston went out for two plays after he was helped to the sideline, and then after a basically inexplicable "exam," came back to play the rest of the game.  Hits; banging inside; the whole works.

Matt Scott played (beautifully) for two plays, without a sideline exam, and also without being reinjured in any way.  After a further exam on the sideline, they sat him out of an abundance of caution.

The more you argue this point, the better the Arizona/Rodriguez defense sounds to me.  So keep it up.

turd ferguson

October 30th, 2012 at 10:24 AM ^

I think the primary lesson I've learned from this weekend is this:

The absolute worst thing that can happen to the MGoBoard is a bad Michigan loss with a poor offensive performance on the same day as a big Arizona win with a stellar offensive performance.  It's brings out the RichRod zealots' most obnoxious behavior, which brings out the RichRod zealot haters' most obnoxious behavior.

Here are my thoughts on this story:

(1) I'm not willing to believe it based entirely on this Forbes article.

(2) If this is essentially accurate, that's awful, and I'd be furious if a Michigan coach did this to one of our players.  (I believe this to be a really disgusting side of college football.)

(3) I feel like this is where the essence of the RichRod debate/issues comes in.  If this is true and he had done it at Michigan, it would (rightfully, I think) be on the front page of espn.com right now.  The spotlight and expectations - both for performance and behavior - are just different at Michigan.  At Michigan, you'll see Undergraduate Admissions saying "hold on a second" when you try to bring in Demar Dorsey, and the local media will smell blood if you disregard some NCAA rules.  This isn't necessarily the case in places like Morgantown and Tucson.  Like many others here, I think Rodriguez will be great at Arizona just like he was great at West Virginia.  I don't think he ever would have been great at Michigan.  That's not because he didn't have a Michigan degree or anything stupid like that; it's just because his strengths (and weaknesses) happen to be a poor fit for the Michigan job.  Some people think that's because of Michigan's shortcomings.  Maybe that's true, but I think a lot of the stuff that makes us unique is what I really like about our football program.

Section 1

October 30th, 2012 at 11:29 AM ^

We know what MGoBlog's Rodriguez haters do...  I could never even keep track of the Rodriguez-hate threads that were started, or the threads that devolved quickly when Rodriguez was brought into the mix by one of his detractors.  I see it all the time; more often than I even have the time or enrgy to point it out.

What I am wondering is what offense has been committed by Rodriguez supporters?

As far as I could tell, the main avenue for expression was in the designated Afternoon Games Open Thread; which was opened for the purpose of discussing the Arizona-USC game among others.

turd ferguson

October 30th, 2012 at 1:02 PM ^

I was referencing some of the Borges stuff in Brian's game recap post, among other threads.

Let's see, how far do I have to go to find an example of an obnoxious, divisive, backward-looking post...

Oh, Section 1(!) wrote this just above:

Rodriguez speaks a lot more clearly and honestly about player injuries than Brady Hoke does.  Period.

What Hoke says, is often pure nonsense.  "He just got a boo boo... Somewhere on his body... Denard is fine (halftime at Nebraska)..."

I have no real desire to attack Brady Hoke, but if anybody on a Michigan blog is going to personalize the attack on Rodriguez, I am quite happy to respond in kind, in a way calculated to cause the most discomfort.  ...

M-Wolverine

October 30th, 2012 at 12:15 PM ^

Ever  been identified as a "RichRodHater"?  I suppose one can't remember everyone's every post, but I don't think he's been particular pro or con one way or another on the coaching situations. 

Section 1

October 30th, 2012 at 1:29 PM ^

I started from the premise that the thread title was a fiction; there is no NCAA "policy" at issue in this case.

Will there be any consequences for Arizona violating the NCAA concussion policy?

Answer:  "No, because there is no such policy to violate.  Arizona, by NCAA directive, should have formulated its own plan on football concussions."

But I have a suggestion; let's use this ill-advised thread for some fun purposes, shall we?  Let's get some odds on whether the Detroit Free Press will use the Forbes.com story as a springboard for its own anti-Rodriguez article on the same topic.  I'm giving even odds on that occurrence.

lexus larry

October 30th, 2012 at 2:00 PM ^

Even?  Hardly.  I'd put the odds at 3:1 they'll do it!

Surprised they didn't run something yesterday.  Googling seems to indicate the story is already beginning to lose steam...another sign it's ready for the Fr**p to try to run with it.

Section 1

October 30th, 2012 at 2:35 PM ^

Plus, it is so cheap... A thing that "Free Press Staff" can run, unbylined, referencing Forbes.com.  According to a report at Forbes.com, former Michigan coach Rich Rodriguez...

The fun part would be writing the hypothetical Freep headline, wouldn't it?

"Rodriguez Subject of Arizona Concussion Scandal"

lol.  They won't be able to resist, even when we are preemptively ridiculing them.

mejunglechop

October 30th, 2012 at 2:35 PM ^

I've been described as "leader of the 3 star mafia", so I was pretty critical of Rodriguez's recruiting in his last 2 classes. I also thought he got a bit of a raw deal and I supported bringing him back until the Mississippi State game, where the players clearly quit on him. I have mixed feelings about him personally and professionally.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

October 30th, 2012 at 10:35 AM ^

I'd like to ask where the writer's priorities are.  Granted, you can make a case that Matt Scott should have come out of the game immediately.  That said, he did come out not that much later.  Shouldn't we really be taking the USC staff to task for allowing their team to take no fewer than six personal fouls, including at least two each of targeting the head and late hits on a sliding quarterback, as well as one taunting penalty?  It's piece-of-shit Lane Kiffin and his piece-of-shit team that should be taking the heat here, particularly #7 as I think he racked up about 60 yards' worth of personal fouls on his own.

justingoblue

October 30th, 2012 at 11:03 AM ^

but I think the penalty structure in football is lacking. Why is there not a hard limit on personal fouls before a player is automatically tossed? For that matter, why is there not a limit on personal fouls before the head coach is thrown out? If a player is taking four personal fouls in a game, why should he be allowed to take a fifth? If a coach is cool with taking 7-8-9-10 personal fouls in a game, he shouldn't be on the sideline.

Another thing I don't understand is how fifteen yards makes up for the loss of a player due to concussion/game ending injury. If I'm a coach and saw what happened when Denard went out last week, what's the disincentive for having a backup NT go straight for his head in the first quarter? A loss of fifteen yards is completely insignificant compared to the loss of Denard, and there isn't even a guarantee the dirty player gets thrown out of the game.

/notquiterantbutimnotsurewhattocallit

mtzlblk

October 30th, 2012 at 11:24 AM ^

1. Scott has long been famous for throwing up quite often, during sprints, at hot practices, etc., so when he explains that he threw up because of his workload in the game (see stats, he was performing at an uncommenly high level), perhaps we should just take a 21 year old QB and the medical staff there as knowing something we don't. He says he was fine, he was checked.....and was/is fine.

2. RR never displayed any kind of disregard for player safety at any time during his tenure at UM, in fact on several occasions he demonstrated very high regard to player welfare with regard to concussions or any other type of injury, nor am I aware of any such thing occuring while he was at WV. One would think that given the number of rocks turned over and crevices sniffed in order to discredit him over the last 5 years, this would surely have been brought to light were it any kind of trend. People did knock him over his 'use' of Denard and the seemingly common dings he sustained, but I think that can safely be regarded as not limited to RR at this point. He was arguably in a worse situation career-wise when on the hot seat at UM and would have had as much or more reason to roll the dice on a player's welfare as he currently does at AZ and as far as I can remember he never did.

The guy is building something very cool at AZ right now and we should just wish him luck and stop trying to tar him from a distance. I do believe he will have AZ playing on an entirely new level within the next 3-5 years, assuming he doesn't end up going back to Auburn should that job open up. 

UofM-I-Hart

October 30th, 2012 at 11:46 AM ^

Try right now. He lost to a good oregon state team because of missed feild goals, lost to a good Stanford team, shouldve been ahead by a few possesion early against Oregon if not for players making a ton of mistakes, and now beat the preseason #1 team and looked good in doing so. Hes a few close plays from being 7-1 and ranked in the top 10-15! Honestly, if we play Zona right now we lose. Matt Scott is a beast!

True_Blue

October 30th, 2012 at 1:34 PM ^

The article states that Arizona won't be penalized for it.

"To be fair, it was your biggest victory in two whole years. And the NCAA’s not going to penalize you"

MGoJen

October 30th, 2012 at 2:13 PM ^

I actually met Coach Rod in his office the Thursday before Arizona played Oklahoma State.  I was in Arizona for work and it was set up as a favor from a super well-connected and awesome mutual friend.  I was super emotional and thanked him for being so great to us.  He asked me to sit down and chat with him for a little bit even though he had a huge game to prepare for.  He was nothing but super positive about Michigan, the folks up here, etc.  He said, "I knew there were a couple of you up there who still liked me!" lol.

I know there may be no place for this in the realm of sports and fandom, but I was always taught that how one treats people is the most important thing in life.  It's more important than winning, than any job, than absolutely anything.  Do what is just and be excellent to each other. I identified with RR because he's all heart and always says exactly what's on his mind.  I understand how that's counterintuitive to the success and business of coaching college football, but I respected and identified with that part of him.  That's why I was so heartbroken at how he was treated by some Michigan fans.  You don't start wearing Stanford gear to Michigan home games with four games left on the schedule.  That's tacky, disrespectful and mean.

I found myself apologizing to him for how things went down in Ann Arbor...for how he was treated, how unsupportive people inside the program and in the fanbase were, etc.  He smiled super big, thanked me and said, "It's all alright now!  We couldn't figure out why there were people against us on the inside, but it's okay now."  

A lot of people, ranging from random Twitter followers to my best friends, freak out about my love for RR and question my loyalty to M.  I'm an alum, I have a block M tattoo on my lower-left hip (never tell my mom that part) and I love Michigan in a way I've never loved anything in my life.  I always will.  But I'm deeply disappointed in how our fanbase continues to chastise, taunt and disrespect Coach Rod.  It didn't work out.  We could debate the reasons, but the bottom line is it didn't work out.  I don't understand why so many people act like it's this ex-girlfriend you don't want dating anyone else even though you don't want her back.

If you were truly over it, it wouldn't incite such a response every single time he or Arizona does something remotely newsworthy.  There's no need to root against him.  It's really not that serious.  Let's be respectful of his success and our own and stop comparing.  The success of Michigan, Arizona and any school Coach Rod coaches for in the future is not mutually-exclusive.

MGoJen

October 30th, 2012 at 2:40 PM ^

Haha that's awesome! I hope you kept it together better than I did. :)

I had cried all my makeup TWICE off before I got there.  I told him I love him and, "this is like...this is like meeting Leonardo DiCaprio for other people!" He laughed and asked if I wanted to get a picture with him.  I'm totally wearing my "IN ROD WE TRUST" shirt in that picture with my puffy eyes. lol  

I asked if we could call my friend Aimee who also loves him and he said, "Sure!"  So he waited patiently and we called my friend Aimee.  "Hi Aimee, this is Coach Rod!" 

He makes you feel like you know him, like he's your crazy Uncle Rich, you know? Super endearing.