Okay, that's it. You simply won't engage any debates, clearly, and prefer name-calling. Your right. What's funny is that I and my buddies are M grad students, assessing M blogs with an M professor as part of an M-sponsored study. We actually go to school here, alongside these players, two of whom are in our class. Call us all the names you want.
I'm posing questions. Look at how quickly you resorted to name-calling.
Countable hours and non-countable hours are pretty subjective, wouldn't you say? The point of the report is that peer pressure might be blurring the accounting lines. Big-time football programs have been known to blur things. Agreed? Maybe, just maybe, M has been. I don't know. Neither do you.
The point is: I don't know all the facts. Nobody does. We weren't at practice. But several players have made serious claims -- maybe invalid, maybe not. We can't be sure just yet. Until the investigation reveals the truth, why is everyone so certain who is right and wrong here?
Fair enough.
So you don't think there's any chance that RR may have pushed it too far? No chance? RR has been 100 percent slandered? And all ten players are liars?
Has it occurred to you that maybe Lloyd hasn't said anything because Lloyd agrees with the allegations? Why is it that nobody here considers the possibility that M/RR actually may have done something wrong? Seriously.
They said what they said, clearly. Doesn't matter how the question was asked, as long as the reply was on-point re the issue now at hand. You're making a false argument.
Brian, you're still kind of dancing around three central points:
*Anything resembling that much of a workout, on Sundays, is a violation. NFL teams don't lift weights on days after games.
*Your beloved Angelique, at the News, confirms that M exceeded the hours permitted according to NCAA rules.
*Just because Other Teams Do It doesn't make it right, especially at M, a school with a reputation for doing things the right way.
Don't get me wrong: you're awesome and invaluable. But since you largely always take the RR line, and here seem disinclined to accept any part of the Freep story, you too should be view skeptically. Sometimes, at least. Admit it. Inasmuch as Rosenberg may or may not have an Agenda -- and I'm not sure that's entirely true, BTW -- you don't really pretend to view M with anything like true objectivity. You've become something of a de facto news-source, so...
Just saying for all those who reflexively take every word you say as The Undisputable Truth. Obviously, I read you for a reason too. But let's take a breath here.
I'm a reporter, too. Not at the Freep. I, along with most of my colleagues, found Rosenberg's piece a little vague and hole-y. That being said, though, that's how first-day stories often play. The Freep story is far more compelling and by-the-book than most people here wish to admit. Consider: the larger bias appears here, not in the Freep, and the opinions of national reporters and readers generally confirms same; you're simply reading the story thru blue-colored glasses.
The story is well-sourced. The freshmen Rosenberg quotes clearly state what's what. Doesn't matter re what context the questions were asked, as long as the subjects were offering the right information. They were stating the hours required. Do you think that, had Rosenberg gone into great detail re what he was writing, the info would have been different? Probably the frosh would have done only the following. They would have said nothing, or lied. Instead, if unwittingly, they actually revealed the truth. So quit your half-baked, self-serving, apologist whining about The Media. That's what guilty or defensive people always do when they don't have a better response. Since none of you actually know what the truth is...
Note: Brian, while "debunking" the Freep story, conveniently ignores the central point: Sundays. He also conveniently ignores how many sources (ie players) complained. Not a good sign. Doesn't matter who called whom first. That's ridiculous. Everyone looks at the story solely with an eye toward debunking it, rather than with a POV that says, "Hmmm, could actually be true, couldn't it?" Are you really that confident in RR? Really? Think about THAT.
I'm a reporter, too. Not at the Freep. I, along with most of my colleagues, found Rosenberg's piece a little vague and hole-y. That being said, though, that's how first-day stories often play. The Freep story is far more compelling and by-the-book than most people here wish to admit. Consider: the larger bias appears here, not in the Freep, and the opinions of national reporters and readers generally confirms same; you're simply reading the story thru blue-colored glasses.
The story is well-sourced. The freshmen Rosenberg quotes clearly state what's what. Doesn't matter re what context the questions were asked, as long as the subjects were offering the right information. They were stating the hours required. Do you think that, had Rosenberg gone into great detail re what he was writing, the info would have been different? Probably the frosh would have done only the following. They would have said nothing, or lied. Instead, if unwittingly, they actually revealed the truth. So quit your half-baked, self-serving, apologist whining about The Media. That's what guilty or defensive people always do when they don't have a better response. Since none of you actually know what the truth is...
Note: Brian, while "debunking" the Freep story, conveniently ignores the central point: Sundays. He also conveniently ignores how many sources (ie players) complained. Not a good sign. Doesn't matter who called whom first. That's ridiculous. Everyone looks at the story solely with an eye toward debunking it, rather than with a POV that says, "Hmmm, could actually be true, couldn't it?" Are you really that confident in RR? Really? Think about THAT.
Fair point. I guess what I really should be saying is:
If you really love the M, you'll want this investigated and adjudicated thoroughly, over time. If RR is guilty, that means he really has been kind of abusing the laws and the players. Ten hours on Sundays? They don't even do that in the NFL.
You mean the Free Press that won this year's Pulitzer Prize for reporting? That one? What is wrong with those of you who immediately respond with defensive hostility? What makes you sure the Freep is wrong? Were you at all those practices? Or is it simply that you're pissed because the paper had the gall to report something you don't like? If the paper had reported same about Notre Dame, would you have the same reaction? If it turns out that M did indeed cross the line, then it should be punished, and we should support said punishment. Stop being such one-dimensional homers. Wait and see how this plays out before yelling and screaming about The Media.
Oh, by the way, one very popular M player, Terrence Taylor, is going on the record confirming the story's accuracy. At which point, no doubt, you'll begin finding reasons to impugn him as well.
Michigan has to do things the right way. If it hasn't been doing so, shame on M, and on us for blindly supporting them.
It doesn't matter what context the quotes were said in. They said them, clearly. They were talking about practice schedules, and what they said clearly indicated that we weren't following the rules. That these two kids didn't know the rules, or didn't understand the larger implication of the question, doesn't invalidate what they said. In fact, the ease with which they offered their answers speaks to their veracity.
You essentially convict the Freep of jumping to conclusions by jumping to conclusions. How do you know the Freep is wrong? Have you interviewed players? Maybe you ought to see how things play out before coming to a conclusion, perhaps? The Freep won a Pulitzer for reporting this year? Did you win one, too? Meantime, both ESPN and SI are reporting similar accounts? But, hey, I'm sure you and your dad in Northville know better.
*They granted anonymity because the players requested it, and because that was the only way to get the information, and because the players don't want a commotion at their new schools, and because they don't want to be harassed by abusive maniac M fans, some of which can be found on this page. (And you know they would be abused).
*More than a few of the players interviewed are current players, you'll find. If the Freep had interviewed mostly ex-players, they would be required to say so. They don't want to look like idiots in the coming weeks, either. ESPN is already confirming much of this.
*Probably many or most big-time programs bend or defy these rules. That's no excuse, though. One of the great things about M is that it holds itself to high standards. Or once did. If M is guilty of these practices, it's no better than Alabama, USC, or all the other sleazeball programs. Maybe RR just thought what works in the south, for WVU, works at Michigan.
*The freshmen were flatly asked to describe their daily practice routines. They very clearly replied. Context really isn't necessary. There's no way to spin those answers, and no need.
Actually, the M scenario -- if true -- would be much worse. Floyd did something creepy with one player, individually. The M scenario would be a vast institutional cheat by the entire coaching staff, plus by the AD (for being either complicit or totally out to lunch). Let's be clear: the practice cheat, if it indeed turns out to be one, would amount to a major violation of NCAA laws, which exist for very good reasons. And, unlike the SC thing, this one goes directly to "competitive advantage," rather than recruiting. Stop deluding yourself. A team that gets to practice/workout far more than other teams does is getting a huge competitive advantage, a la steroids.
And, please, don't resort to the "others do it, too" argument. That doesn't make it right. The only difference there is that other schools in other places (Alabama et al) are covered only by half-assed "newspapers" that function as PR offices.
You're taking a one in a thousand example of a botched investigation. Also you're totally dismissing the likelihood that the Free article may well be true, or largely true. The Freep does not have a reputation for blowing big investigative stories. It just won a Pulitzer for reporting.
The timing of the story probably isn't "suspicious"; it's because players assembled for practice only this month.
And the article clearly states that it interviewed both past and current players; it also notes that other current players, without giving interviews, acknowledged that this stuff is going on. And the freshmen, Stokes et al, flatly stated what's going on. (They just didn't know it's illegal.) The Freep isn't just making this shit up out of thin air.
Um, this year the Freep won the Pulitzer Prize for local reporting. It singlehandedly investigated the Kilpatrick scandal. Kilpatrick, like a certain Ms. Palin, tried to make the same argument you're now making. Don't like what you're hearing? Blame the press.
Folks: I don't mean to be rude, because we've all got the same rooting interest here, but...
Most comments on this story absolutely radiate homer-dom. Whether or not one likes Rosenberg or the Freep is one thing. But this story is a a HUGE deal. Even if every fact in the story turns out to be false, the damage is already done -- in terms of PR, in terms of how this reflects on the team's morale, etc.
But the larger problem is this: It's extremely unlikely that most of this stuff is false. An article like this one isn't written in a vacuum, by some rogue columnist with a grudge. A story this big will have gone through several layers of editors, lawyers, etc., all of of them endlessly vetting and nitpicking every interview and transcript. The potential consequences are too huge for everyone involved. The Freep, whether you like it or not, wouldn't just let a writer chuck something like this against the wall and hopes it sticks. They can't afford to be totally discredited, either. If they're making such allegations so definitively that's probably because they're onto something.
And, by the way, Rosenberg doesn't seem to be a RR fan, but I've seen no evidence that he's out to get the program. He's a grad, for crissake. Just because he's a critic doesn't mean he has no credibility. So stop being homers and start thinking: Wait, might this actually be true?
Sad but true: This is bad, very bad. As in major violations. And even if the story turns out to be only half true, it's a disaster.
Recent Comments
So you don't