Member for

15 years 8 months
Points
26.00

Recent Comments

Date Title Body
#1 and 1A

1.  "Ainge Packs Fudge"

     -'88 Silverdome, playoffs, not pictured.

 

1a. 

whoops

whoops

its never a good sign

 

when you start a comment and breaking news happens that could alter your entire premise... a day before you’re done writing it.
 
In this case the golf incident reports mention the courses’ manager calling JT, but it also mentions someone under that fella first calling a few people he knew within the AD to make a report.  Provided those names get named it’s a matter of phone records verifying those calls were placed and said employee being willing to spill his beans.  
 
I think one solid hit like that to a school employee outside of JT is the crack that would open the flood gates.  
 
Something the USC Report found very significant was a “culture” on the campus and within their AD that created, feed, and endorsed star treatment of star players.  I think the NCAA stopped short of saying USC should have stamped out that culture.  What they did say that culture was the institutions bed, and they were going to lay in it with Reggie.
 
It wouldn’t be difficult to argue a similar situation here.  So why hasn’t the NCAA at least moved the 8/12/11 hearing?  No way they’ll add the LIC charge at this point and keep that date. 
thanks

 

I agree, some of what’s come out since the 4/21/11 Notice shows good potential.  Esp whether the team was aware of how much gear issued to Pryor was going missing, and the golf course allegations.  If the golf course allegations (as I understand them) boil down to the owner calling JT to report the situation, and OSU never documenting the report or taking action... OSU will argue that’s another pile of dirt that belongs on Jim’s grave, but its not connected to the school.
 
So much of what OSU has done fits in the ways you describe.  I still believe that to date the most egregious examples of LIC are also the most clear cut from an evidence standpoint, and all stem from JT's involvement with Tategate and the school's response to all things Tategate.  That being said, wouldn't the worst violations with the least controversial evidence have lead to that charge being in the 4/21/11 notice?
 
Best case scenario would be a new case (like the golf thing) that has good evidence and is an easy fit for new allegations.  Otherwise, I hope there will be enough good evidence to support a pattern of institutional conduct that forces NCAA to look again at whether the charge makes make sense for past violations.
I don't see anything to get excited about

 

1.  From the jump, OSU has been arousingly vague about how it uncovered the JT-Cicero emails back in Jan 2011.    
 
2.  OSU hasn’t gone into details with the press about its version of those events, but you bet the NCAA investigation did.  Whatever OSU’s story was it MUST have satisfied the NCAA since OSU was never charged with failure to monitor.  
 
3.  Was OSU obligated to rummage JT’s entire email inbox going back to April 2010 in order to adequately investigate the Tategate violations?  In Dec 2010 when OSU submitted its Tategate investigation/findings to the NCAA apparently they didn’t think so.  The NCAA issued their punishments and said “case closed.”
 
4.  OSU did ‘self-report’ the JT cover-up in Jan 2011 when the emails (allegedly) were first brought to their attention.  They weren’t snitched on to the NCAA.  OSU reported the possible violations by JT and started investigation #2 in conjunction with the NCAA long before the school was outed by Yahoo, which prompted their first reporting to the public.
 
5.  No OSU on the record statements are directly contradicted by revelations in this Brooks story.  How is responding to an FOIA request not “an unrelated legal issue”?  
 
6.  Buckner’s credentials are shinny but his statement is brain dead.  “They’ll want to find out about how the institution found out about the allegations?”  ORLY?  Think so Dr.?  Think that maybe the NCAA asked that question and got a satisfactory answer before their 4/21/11 notice of allegations?  Also, schools aren’t expected to ferret out all violations.  When something external “triggers the process” OSU isn’t exposed to ‘failure to monitor’ liability unless a gap in NCAA mandated monitoring protocol is responsible for the gap, or they had reason to believe JT had committed a violation that was ignored. 
Coming in way late, but...

 

 

“Should” get off easier than USC?  Not sure who’s willing to go there.  “Will” get off easier?  Mmmmm....Gauntlet Light.
 
[Author Note – Boy, that escalated quickly.  I mean that really got out of hand fast.  Started with an hour to kill between 4-5pm last Thursday.] 
 
I cosign 100% with Brian’s statement that OSU should get much worse than USC.  But nearly 100% of his OSU-USC analogy is off the mark.  That statement tells all anyone reading this board all they need to know about how convoluted the NCAA investigation/sanctioning process can get.  “Abandon common sense all ye who enter.”
 
Let me ballpark things up front.  No lack of institutional control violations = No USC-level sanctions.  IMHO, anyone who looks at the facts as they sit today and still believes a lack of institutional control (“LIC”) is headed OSU’s way hasn’t spent a couple days looking into and thinking about it from every conceivable angle.  On April 21, 2011 the NCAA sent Gordon Gee its Notice of Allegations without an LIC charge, meaning such a charge will almost certainly have to come from evidence or violations uncovered after that date.  As Brian points out, what’s come after the 3/25/11 outing of the Tressel-TP-Sarniak menage has been all Preparation and no H.  Steepening the betting odds against USC-esque sanctions is that the NCAA’s treatment of McNair’s violations in the USC Report actually makes it more difficult to project a similar whack for OSU, and that unlike USC, OSU has not stonewalled the NCAA reporting process.
 
As far as USC level sanctions go... it looks like that corpse was buried at sea with once Jim and (to a lesser extent) Pryor slipped overboard.
 
1. No ‘lack of institutional control’ = no USC level sanctions.  Given the NCAA’s reliance 
on precedent and bizarrely strict adherence to an Old Testament-style system of punishment, without finding LIC, it won’t matter how much the NCAA wants to make an example of OSU.  
 
In the room next door to UM fans is a tantalizing smorgasbord of punishments, that smells of bowl bans, scholarship losses, TV bans, and a carving station with perfectly medium-rare death penalty.  Not too dry.  We’ll never know for sure what delights lay just beyond without an engraved invitation stamped L-I-C.  The room we’re in now has fridge with the culinary equivelant of leftover chinese food of indeterminate age.  Some wins and a B10 championship vacated, probably.  
 
If we’re real lucky the last pair of gold pants ever was handed out last year.  Buy now while asking prices are still comically reasonable.     
 
2. Failure to monitor.  Failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance.  That is how the
NCAA defines LIC.  You’ve got to cram the violations of OSU the institution into one of those tents just to get to first base.
 
3. The LIC findings and punishments in the USC Report were not tied McNair in any way, shape, or form.  Of this I’m like 96% sure.  Its been awhile since I read that somebitch, but his role in the Bush scandal wasn’t mentioned anywhere in the institutional control section of the Report’s violations or punishments.  Which sucks because he was found guilty of the exact things as JT. Namely, he knew major violations had occurred, never snitch, participated in a cover-up, and repeatedly lied to the NCAA about it.  You scrub McNair completely from the USC report and it wouldn’t move the needle one way or the other LIC-wise. 
 
McNair became the media’s focus of the USC Report because it was by far the sexiest angle.  But the actual result of those nasty findings against McNair didn’t hurt anybody.  Except McNair. And his poor, poor mother.  A ‘Show Cause’ penalty is the coaches problem.  Any damage to the program is collateral 
 
3a.  For anything to be different this with OSU, the NCAA will have to basically find that,
unlike RB coach Todd McNair, Jim Tressel was the institution.   Could they?  Cuss yeah!  Is there precedent for it?  Ehhhhh.... maybe for my next project.  
 
Will they?  Almost certainly not.
 
The day after JT’s initial presser the NCAA should rightfully have called Gee and told him, “LIC is on the table as of this moment.  We don’t so much as discuss it coming off until I see a pike held high with the heads Smith and Tressel.  We’d appreciate it if you could ‘get right on that.’”  
 
That didn’t happen, so we must accept the JT as lone gunman defense as viable.  The known record shows him as the only conduit between the school and outside sources of information linking the players to improper benefits.  Allegedly, JT didn’t even tell the dirty players themselves he knew what was up.  He simply informed the team as a whole, “Stay away from Fine Line and Rife.”  To move Tategate from problem that dies with JT to a possible LIC charge would require showing either: a) the school had reason to know about the violations before the Fed’s letter in Dec 2010 and took no action; or, b) the violations and JT’s cover up went undiscovered as the result of weak compliance efforts.   
 
There’s a very, verrrrry clear option “c” that should to be on this list.  From an NCAA compliance standpoint the head coach and institution must be considered a single entity.  You can argue over other members of the team staff, but as far as their sport goes, the head coach is the chief compliance officer.  Period.  Coaches report possible violations and the school decides what to do with that info.  That’s the only permissible distinction.  To treat the school employees responsible for hands-on oversee of a the team differently in any other way than the school employees responsible handing in compliance forms and calling the NCAA when there is a problem is a blue print for cheating the system.  
 
3b. That doesn’t mean the institution has strict liability for the compliance sins of a coach.  It does clearly mean an institution must have a zero tolerance policy for anything less than 100% reporting transparency from the HC when it comes to NCAA infractions.  How can you operate otherwise and claim to “foster an atmosphere of compliance”?  
 
That phrase may sound like it was written by the kindergarten teacher from Happy Gilmore, but what it really means is that the institution ensures employees are sufficiently scared sh--less of not reporting possible violations.  Let alone committing them.  
 
Here, OSU’s defacto head of football compliance (and the athletic department’s most high profile employee) walked in on an orgy of violations, tore of his clothes and jumped into said orgy*, then told oodles of lies right to the face of his parents, the cops, and the media, about whether he knew the orgy ever wend down.  When all this was brought to his parent’s attention, they said, “Jimmy, you’re such a good boy.  An angel among us.  But we can’t let this slide.  Its straight home after practice tomorrow and an elevvvv... make it 11:30pm curfew this Friday.”      
 
OSU the institution, the capital “I” Institution’s collective response to all the revelations over Tategate has to been to squat directly over everything the NCAA claims to hold dear, and take a big, yucky, poop on it.  The NCAA should be using OSU as an example of what every school should do if they want to do the exact opposite of fostering compliance.  
 
OSU’s on the record statement of what they considered an appropriate institutional response was a kiss on the wrist.  And the instutution’s statement never waived. 2 non-con games for the kids, 2 for the coach (JT’s $250k fine is 2 games with of salary), and a promise to really take this stuff seriously in the future.  For realz this time.  They never dropped their appeal of the player suspensions, and it was JT himself who bumped his game suspension to match their 5.  Gee is on record that JT was never given an ultimatum, and resigning was all JT’s idea.  The school’s actions in terms of consistently seeking penalties well below NCAA precedent speaks volumes about their attitudes toward compliance.  But in this rare case Smith/Gee’s statements (ie, the institution’s statements) have actually spoken louder.  
 
The “hope he doesn’t fire me” soundbite is the one that’ll live forever.  For me the money quote was, “We trust Jim implicitly.”  It encapsulates the essence of the distinction between the OSU and USC situations.  
 
It should be a distinction without meaning.  USC treated compliance like a joke and cheating got out-of-hand.  OSU built the Titanic of compliance departments and continues touting it as unsinkable months after the ship had settled on the bottom of the ocean.  The “We don’t care” approach vs. the “We don’t care if anyone performs their compliance roles competently” approach.  Don’t both stances have a negative impact on the atmosphere of compliance? 
 
OSU the institution has either constructed a ‘front’ for compliance, or been shockingly incompetent in the hiring and ongoing management the 3 biggest fish in their NCAA compliance pond (Gee, Smith, JT) and who knows how many more?  Like, a 12 volt to the nuts shockingly.  NCAA sanctions are supposed to punitive and corrective measures.  Unless the NCAA pulls a 180 it will set the crystal clear precedent that willful blindness will get you gaffed, as where FAIL allow you to be gently let off the hook.        
 
4. Apparently the NCAA sees this zero tolerance logic as less than bulletproof, since as of 
the April 21, 2011 Notice of Allegations letter to Gordon Gee, everything I just wrote was widely known and long digested, yet LIC was not on the table. 
 
 The media at large has poo-pood this fact into the ground with the a perfunctory, “...but the NCAA can always add more allegations” that allows them to get on with the lambasting.  And I’m cool with that.  
 
But why does anyone believe the NCAA will add those allegations?  Common Sense?  The facts?  Presumably the NCAA had both those in its hands on 4/21/11 when their Notice of Allegations went out without an LIC charge.
 
If there’s one thing we can solidly say about the NCAA its that they’re not in a hurry to do anything.  Ever.  So here they are on 4/20/11.  In the midst of one of the highest profile NCAA investigation in history.  Torches are lit.  Pitchforks pointed.  New allegations flowing like wine.  The media and public in 49 states and the greater-Toledo area are thirsty for BLOOD.   The rhetoric is flying, some of the strongest coming directly from the new NCAA prez himself, whose own institution is being ridiculed for allowing TP et al. to play in the Sugar Bowl while watching Cam Newton and Auburn ride happily into the sunset.  Leading the new sheriff to actually says what everyone is thinking, namely, nothing would boost the NCAA’s image and restore authority like a very public hanging.
 
Yet, on April 21, 2011, the NCAA decided to go off half-cocked with a Notice that doesn’t include the most serious charge under consideration?  Really?  That’s how it went down?  
 
On April 21, 2011, the NCAA was possessed of all the juicy details we know of regarding JT, TP, Ted, Fine Line, Rife, Cicero, Smith, Gee, et al.  And more. There was no reason for the NCAA to rush out the notice at that time.  On that date if the NCAA thought they had a case to beef OSU with LIC for their handling of compliance, the NCAA investigations in question, or how the school comported itself in the wake of these revelations, they should have had all the relevant evidence they needed to support such a charge.  
 
They chose not to.  
 
Assuming the time of that notice was the result of a sloppy mistake by the NCAA, or some unknown behind the scenes reason nobody has been able to figure out, nearly two have passed since the Notice was drafted.  We’re now closer to the Aug 12th hearing date than we are to the issuance of that notice.  The purpose of notice is to alert OSU the charges it’ll be answering to at the hearing with enough time to collect relevant evidence and prepare its defense.  How long is the NCAA waiting to ‘spring’ the allegation on them and/or announce the Aug 12th hearing date is being pushed to conduct further investigation into adding such a charge?  
 
5. The key elements in the USC Report finding LIC were its puny compliance department 
and gross indifference to compliance oversight as a concept, obviously a huge difference between that case and OSU.  The Report’s treatment of their stonewall approach and defiance in the face of significant evidence was not directly linked to the LIC finding, it was more of a kicker once things moved to punishment phase.  OSU’s approach to compliance is the polar opposite of hiding and stonewalling, which would act as a mitigating factor at the punishment phase, and could add a significant layer of difficultly even if the NCAA was hellbent on nailing OSU for LIC.       
 
USC’s defense was that if the had seen something worth looking into, they would have. In that context USC’s “you ain’t nothing but a lot of talk and badge” attitude toward the investigation was consistent with their defense.   The NCAA said you lose anyway because you should have seen this stuff and probably would have if you followed NCAA guidelines.   
 
OSU looks at everything but only sees what it wants to.  Which, curses(!), was never  major NCAA violations.  
 
OSU pretends to care.  Pretends to be proactive.  Has a massive compliance staff.  Ted Sarniak isn’t a back alley booster whose name was buried somewhere in Pryor’s file.  His name was practically next to TP’s on page 1.  OSU doesn’t pay lip service to taking compliance seriously.  They can afford to pay for actual.... uhh, tongue (?) service.  “Is compliance important to tOSU?  Have you SEEN the size of our staff!  Don’t you know they work out of an office built entirely from signed/notarized NCAA affidavits?”  OSU’s compliance dept is a perfect mirror of JT himself.  The surface is so compelling it not only hides what’s below, even when the underlying contradictions are laid bare you question if what you’re seeing could really be true.  
 
When something like Tatgate or Pryor’s Wild Rides Round 1 hit in Dec 2010, OSU compliance does its thing.  Document.  Investigate.  Report STAT.  Follow up.  Invite the NCAA to join the party.  Cooperate.  All good things and easy to document.  Then they figure out the most desirable outcome for OSU and fill in the blanks behind it  with whatever investigative ‘results’ are deemed least likely to attract future scrutiny, always  leaving a plausible back door open just in case.  These are bad things excruciatingly difficult to prove.
 
The NCAA has no subpoena powers.  On the other hand, they also don’t have to deal with exclusionary rules of evidence.  Put those facts together and the result is most evidence and findings in an NCAA inquiry like this one are circumstantial in nature.  So while USC’s stonewalling approach didn’t lead to the LIC finding, in helped paved the way for that finding.  The NCAA only had to pile up the individual instances of  unreported violations high enough to say, “no way you should have missed this” in order to prove their case for LIC.
 
Here, OSU’s defense is going to be, “We tried our best.  We put in the resources and lived within the letter of compliance efforts.  We built a dam.  True, a  lot of water got through.  Between us we were just as taken in by JT everyone else, and all these shennangins happened on his watch.  We were about to finally fire him but he beat us to the punch.  He’s gone now and we’ve learned some other lessons.  This won’t happen again.  Honest.” 
 
That defense is a lot harder to topple.
 
6. What are we missing?  Based on undisputed facts and reasonable inferences, I feel
safe in saying that on 4/21/11 the NCAA didn’t think it had the horses to go for LIC, and given that we’re less than 2 months from the hearing with no public changes on that front, its officially a longshot.  Perhaps the NCAA saw a tactical advantage in holding that charge back.  Perhaps they felt some pressure to get the allegations against JT on the table in time to schedule a hearing that would happen before the football season, and are now taking their sweet-ass time doing anything else.  
 
For now my hopes are pinned to an FOIA request that leads us to OSU’s nazi gold, or a couple ½ decent witness stumbling forward to openly testify about contradictions between what the institution has claimed to know about, and when, with regard to Tategate and/or the other various perks OSU football players availed themselves of.  
 
At this moment all those prospect are looking very dodgy. 
 
*One of the widely accepted myths in the Tategate fiasco is that JT never committed any actual violations, other than those related to not reporting/covering-up someone else’s violations.  That was the hatstand for OSU supporters who wanted to parse levels of NCAA culpability between the JT’s and the Bruce Pearl’s of the world.  This premise was rarely if ever challenged by outside pundits who usually shrugged their shoulders and responded “who cares” if not “what JT did is actually worse.”  
 
IMO - Isn’t suiting up players you know to be ineligible and playing them for an entire season a “violation” itself? 

 

An unsolicited variation on Brian's challenge, accepted

 

“Should” get off easier than USC?  Not sure who’s willing to go there.  “Will” get off easier?  Mmmmm....Gauntlet Light.
 
[Author Note – Boy, that escalated quickly.  I mean that really got out of hand fast.  Started with an hour to kill between 4-5pm last Thursday.] 
 
I cosign 100% with Brian’s statement that OSU should get much worse than USC.  But nearly 100% of his OSU-USC analogy is off the mark.  That statement tells all anyone reading this board all they need to know about how convoluted the NCAA investigation/sanctioning process can get.  “Abandon common sense all ye who enter.”
 
Let me ballpark things up front.  No lack of institutional control violations = No USC-level sanctions.  IMHO, anyone who looks at the facts as they sit today and still believes a lack of institutional control (“LIC”) is headed OSU’s way hasn’t spent a couple days looking into and thinking about it from every conceivable angle.  On April 21, 2011 the NCAA sent Gordon Gee its Notice of Allegations without an LIC charge, meaning such a charge will almost certainly have to come from evidence or violations uncovered after that date.  As Brian points out, what’s come after the 3/25/11 outing of the Tressel-TP-Sarniak menage has been all Preparation and no H.  Steepening the betting odds against USC-esque sanctions is that the NCAA’s treatment of McNair’s violations in the USC Report actually makes it more difficult to project a similar whack for OSU, and that unlike USC, OSU has not stonewalled the NCAA reporting process.
 
As far as USC level sanctions go... it looks like that corpse was buried at sea with once Jim and (to a lesser extent) Pryor slipped overboard.
 
1. No ‘lack of institutional control’ = no USC level sanctions.  Given the NCAA’s reliance 
on precedent and bizarrely strict adherence to an Old Testament-style system of punishment, without finding LIC, it won’t matter how much the NCAA wants to make an example of OSU.  
 
In the room next door to UM fans is a tantalizing smorgasbord of punishments, that smells of bowl bans, scholarship losses, TV bans, and a carving station with perfectly medium-rare death penalty.  Not too dry.  We’ll never know for sure what delights lay just beyond without an engraved invitation stamped L-I-C.  The room we’re in now has fridge with the culinary equivelant of leftover chinese food of indeterminate age.  Some wins and a B10 championship vacated, probably.  
 
If we’re real lucky the last pair of gold pants ever was handed out last year.  Buy now while asking prices are still comically reasonable.     
 
2. Failure to monitor.  Failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance.  That is how the
NCAA defines LIC.  You’ve got to cram the violations of OSU the institution into one of those tents just to get to first base.
 
3. The LIC findings and punishments in the USC Report were not tied McNair in any way, shape, or form.  Of this I’m like 96% sure.  Its been awhile since I read that somebitch, but his role in the Bush scandal wasn’t mentioned anywhere in the institutional control section of the Report’s violations or punishments.  Which sucks because he was found guilty of the exact things as JT. Namely, he knew major violations had occurred, never snitch, participated in a cover-up, and repeatedly lied to the NCAA about it.  You scrub McNair completely from the USC report and it wouldn’t move the needle one way or the other LIC-wise. 
 
McNair became the media’s focus of the USC Report because it was by far the sexiest angle.  But the actual result of those nasty findings against McNair didn’t hurt anybody.  Except McNair. And his poor, poor mother.  A ‘Show Cause’ penalty is the coaches problem.  Any damage to the program is collateral 
 
3a. For anything to be different this with OSU, the NCAA will have to basically find that,
unlike RB coach Todd McNair, Jim Tressel was the institution.   Could they?  Cuss yeah!  Is there precedent for it?  Ehhhhh.... maybe for my next project.  
 
Will they?  Almost certainly not.
 
The day after JT’s initial presser the NCAA should rightfully have called Gee and told him, “LIC is on the table as of this moment.  We don’t so much as discuss it coming off until I see a pike held high with the heads Smith and Tressel.  We’d appreciate it if you could ‘get right on that.’”  
 
That didn’t happen, so we must accept the JT as lone gunman defense as viable.  The known record shows him as the only conduit between the school and outside sources of information linking the players to improper benefits.  Allegedly, JT didn’t even tell the dirty players themselves he knew what was up.  He simply informed the team as a whole, “Stay away from Fine Line and Rife.”  To move Tategate from problem that dies with JT to a possible LIC charge would require showing either: a) the school had reason to know about the violations before the Fed’s letter in Dec 2010 and took no action; or, b) the violations and JT’s cover up went undiscovered as the result of weak compliance efforts.   
 
There’s a very, verrrrry clear option “c” that should to be on this list.  From an NCAA compliance standpoint the head coach and institution must be considered a single entity.  You can argue over other members of the team staff, but as far as their sport goes, the head coach is the chief compliance officer.  Period.  Coaches report possible violations and the school decides what to do with that info.  That’s the only permissible distinction.  To treat the school employees responsible for hands-on oversee of a the team differently in any other way than the school employees responsible handing in compliance forms and calling the NCAA when there is a problem is a blue print for cheating the system.  
 
3b. That doesn’t mean the institution has strict liability for the compliance sins of a coach.  It does clearly mean an institution must have a zero tolerance policy for anything less than 100% reporting transparency from the HC when it comes to NCAA infractions.  How can you operate otherwise and claim to “foster an atmosphere of compliance”?
 
That phrase may sound like it was written by the kindergarten teacher from Happy Gilmore, but what it really means is that the institution ensures employees are sufficiently scared sh--less of not reporting possible violations.  Let alone committing them.  
 
Here, OSU’s defacto head of football compliance (and the athletic department’s most high profile employee) walked in on an orgy of violations, tore of his clothes and jumped into said orgy*, then told oodles of lies right to the face of his parents, the cops, and the media, about whether he knew the orgy ever wend down.  When all this was brought to his parent’s attention, they said, “Jimmy, you’re such a good boy.  An angel among us.  But we can’t let this slide.  Its straight home after practice tomorrow and an elevvvv... make it 11:30pm curfew this Friday.”      
 
OSU the institution, the capital “I” Institution’s collective response to all the revelations over Tategate has to been to squat directly over everything the NCAA claims to hold dear, and take a big, yucky, poop on it.  The NCAA should be using OSU as an example of what every school should do if they want to do the exact opposite of fostering compliance.  
 
OSU’s on the record statement of what they considered an appropriate institutional response was a kiss on the wrist.  And the instutution’s statement never waived. 2 non-con games for the kids, 2 for the coach (JT’s $250k fine is 2 games with of salary), and a promise to really take this stuff seriously in the future.  For realz this time.  They never dropped their appeal of the player suspensions, and it was JT himself who bumped his game suspension to match their 5.  Gee is on record that JT was never given an ultimatum, and resigning was all JT’s idea.  The school’s actions in terms of consistently seeking penalties well below NCAA precedent speaks volumes about their attitudes toward compliance.  But in this rare case Smith/Gee’s statements (ie, the institution’s statements) have actually spoken louder.  
 
The “hope he doesn’t fire me” soundbite is the one that’ll live forever.  For me the money quote was, “We trust Jim implicitly.”  It encapsulates the essence of the distinction between the OSU and USC situations.  
 
It should be a distinction without meaning.  USC treated compliance like a joke and cheating got out-of-hand.  OSU built the Titanic of compliance departments and continues touting it as unsinkable months after the ship had settled on the bottom of the ocean.  The “We don’t care” approach vs. the “We don’t care if anyone performs their compliance roles competently” approach.  Don’t both stances have a negative impact on the atmosphere of compliance? 
 
OSU the institution has either constructed a ‘front’ for compliance, or been shockingly incompetent in the hiring and ongoing management the 3 biggest fish in their NCAA compliance pond (Gee, Smith, JT) and who knows how many more?  Like, a 12 volt to the nuts shockingly.  NCAA sanctions are supposed to punitive and corrective measures.  Unless the NCAA pulls a 180 it will set the crystal clear precedent that willful blindness will get you gaffed, as where FAIL allow you to be gently let off the hook.        
 
4. Apparently the NCAA sees this zero tolerance logic as less than bulletproof, since as of 
the April 21, 2011 Notice of Allegations letter to Gordon Gee, everything I just wrote was widely known and long digested, yet LIC was not on the table. 
 
 The media at large has poo-pood this fact into the ground with the a perfunctory, “...but the NCAA can always add more allegations” that allows them to get on with the lambasting.  And I’m cool with that.  
 
But why does anyone believe the NCAA will add those allegations?  Common Sense?  The facts?  Presumably the NCAA had both those in its hands on 4/21/11 when their Notice of Allegations went out without an LIC charge.
 
If there’s one thing we can solidly say about the NCAA its that they’re not in a hurry to do anything.  Ever.  So here they are on 4/20/11.  In the midst of one of the highest profile NCAA investigation in history.  Torches are lit.  Pitchforks pointed.  New allegations flowing like wine.  The media and public in 49 states and the greater-Toledo area are thirsty for BLOOD.   The rhetoric is flying, some of the strongest coming directly from the new NCAA prez himself, whose own institution is being ridiculed for allowing TP et al. to play in the Sugar Bowl while watching Cam Newton and Auburn ride happily into the sunset.  Leading the new sheriff to actually says what everyone is thinking, namely, nothing would boost the NCAA’s image and restore authority like a very public hanging.
 
Yet, on April 21, 2011, the NCAA decided to go off half-cocked with a Notice that doesn’t include the most serious charge under consideration?  Really?  That’s how it went down?  
 
On April 21, 2011, the NCAA was possessed of all the juicy details we know of regarding JT, TP, Ted, Fine Line, Rife, Cicero, Smith, Gee, et al.  And more. There was no reason for the NCAA to rush out the notice at that time.  On that date if the NCAA thought they had a case to beef OSU with LIC for their handling of compliance, the NCAA investigations in question, or how the school comported itself in the wake of these revelations, they should have had all the relevant evidence they needed to support such a charge.  
 
They chose not to.  
 
Assuming the time of that notice was the result of a sloppy mistake by the NCAA, or some unknown behind the scenes reason nobody has been able to figure out, nearly two have passed since the Notice was drafted.  We’re now closer to the Aug 12th hearing date than we are to the issuance of that notice.  The purpose of notice is to alert OSU the charges it’ll be answering to at the hearing with enough time to collect relevant evidence and prepare its defense.  How long is the NCAA waiting to ‘spring’ the allegation on them and/or announce the Aug 12th hearing date is being pushed to conduct further investigation into adding such a charge?  
 
5. The key elements in the USC Report finding LIC were its puny compliance department 
and gross indifference to compliance oversight as a concept, obviously a huge difference between that case and OSU.  The Report’s treatment of their stonewall approach and defiance in the face of significant evidence was not directly linked to the LIC finding, it was more of a kicker once things moved to punishment phase.  OSU’s approach to compliance is the polar opposite of hiding and stonewalling, which would act as a mitigating factor at the punishment phase, and could add a significant layer of difficultly even if the NCAA was hellbent on nailing OSU for LIC.       
 
USC’s defense was that if the had seen something worth looking into, they would have. In that context USC’s “you ain’t nothing but a lot of talk and badge” attitude toward the investigation was consistent with their defense.   The NCAA said you lose anyway because you should have seen this stuff and probably would have if you followed NCAA guidelines.   
 
OSU looks at everything but only sees what it wants to.  Which, curses(!), was never  major NCAA violations.  
 
OSU pretends to care.  Pretends to be proactive.  Has a massive compliance staff.  Ted Sarniak isn’t a back alley booster whose name was buried somewhere in Pryor’s file.  His name was practically next to TP’s on page 1.  OSU doesn’t pay lip service to taking compliance seriously.  They can afford to pay for actual.... uhh, tongue (?) service.  “Is compliance important to tOSU?  Have you SEEN the size of our staff!  Don’t you know they work out of an office built entirely from signed/notarized NCAA affidavits?”  OSU’s compliance dept is a perfect mirror of JT himself.  The surface is so compelling it not only hides what’s below, even when the underlying contradictions are laid bare you question if what you’re seeing could really be true.  
 
When something like Tatgate or Pryor’s Wild Rides Round 1 hit in Dec 2010, OSU compliance does its thing.  Document.  Investigate.  Report STAT.  Follow up.  Invite the NCAA to join the party.  Cooperate.  All good things and easy to document.  Then they figure out the most desirable outcome for OSU and fill in the blanks behind it  with whatever investigative ‘results’ are deemed least likely to attract future scrutiny, always  leaving a plausible back door open just in case.  These are bad things excruciatingly difficult to prove.
 
The NCAA has no subpoena powers.  On the other hand, they also don’t have to deal with exclusionary rules of evidence.  Put those facts together and the result is most evidence and findings in an NCAA inquiry like this one are circumstantial in nature.  So while USC’s stonewalling approach didn’t lead to the LIC finding, in helped paved the way for that finding.  The NCAA only had to pile up the individual instances of  unreported violations high enough to say, “no way you should have missed this” in order to prove their case for LIC.
 
Here, OSU’s defense is going to be, “We tried our best.  We put in the resources and lived within the letter of compliance efforts.  We built a dam.  True, a  lot of water got through.  Between us we were just as taken in by JT everyone else, and all these shennangins happened on his watch.  We were about to finally fire him but he beat us to the punch.  He’s gone now and we’ve learned some other lessons.  This won’t happen again.  Honest.” 
 
That defense is a lot harder to topple.
 
6. What are we missing?  Based on undisputed facts and reasonable inferences, I feel
safe in saying that on 4/21/11 the NCAA didn’t think it had the horses to go for LIC, and given that we’re less than 2 months from the hearing with no public changes on that front, its officially a longshot.  Perhaps the NCAA saw a tactical advantage in holding that charge back.  Perhaps they felt some pressure to get the allegations against JT on the table in time to schedule a hearing that would happen before the football season, and are now taking their sweet-ass time doing anything else.  
 
For now my hopes are pinned to an FOIA request that leads us to OSU’s nazi gold, or a couple ½ decent witness stumbling forward to openly testify about contradictions between what the institution has claimed to know about, and when, with regard to Tategate and/or the other various perks OSU football players availed themselves of.  
 
At this moment all those prospect are looking very dodgy. 
 
*One of the widely accepted myths in the Tategate fiasco is that JT never committed any actual violations, other than those related to not reporting/covering-up someone else’s violations.  That was the hatstand for OSU supporters who wanted to parse levels of NCAA culpability between the JT’s and the Bruce Pearl’s of the world.  This premise was rarely if ever challenged by outside pundits who usually shrugged their shoulders and responded “who cares” if not “what JT did is actually worse.”  
 
IMO - Isn’t suiting up players you know to be ineligible and playing them for an entire season a “violation” itself? 
yeah

reading this again a better subject header or maybe an introductory paragraph would have helped.

Wasn't thinking of it since this wasn't really a diary just some links and comments, but I went to "create content" and couldn't post a forum, diary was the only option.

thanks for filing in
After

thanks for filing in

After posting the question, I noticed the link in Brian's post and followed links until I figured this out. Sort of ironic as Walken has a classic Kareokee scene in Search and Destroy.

nobody moves to from FL to

nobody moves to from FL to michigan because they're from flint. there's a reason they left

I agree that no player

I agree that no player commits based on another player's cajoling. There has to be a baseline interest in the school for starters. I do think a recruit’s initially positive vibes about a school can be reinforced by the other guys who are on the team, and committed to their class, since they are future teammates.

More importantly, recruits look for players with similar experiences/background to honestly address their questions and concerns. For warm weather guys, they can talk to Miller about moving to MI. For distance guys, they can talk distance, etc. I doubt Miller will give the hard sell only, I think he’ll be up front with players about challenges he’s noticed that they’ll face. And in the end, most recruits seem to react more positively to the strait dope than to fluff.

For improvement, need Turner to = Warren Fr year, not Boo Boo

I enjoyed the post. Keep 'em coming.

Reason I'm responding is that I've heard a lot of the "well, if Turner can give us what Boo Boo did as a Fr., and Boo Boo can step it up, we could see improvement" analysis.

The more apt comparison between players, and ceilings as a Fr, is between Turner and Warren. Warren was a 5* big corner who came in as ready made for college, save the need to get bigger/stronger. Turner is close to a carbon copy. If Warren can be an all american contending performer, Turner can replicate Warren's fr year, and Boo Boo can handle the slot (half of Harrison's position last year), I think your optimism will come to fruition.

Gereric Turner knock was great player, but can he play corner? Turner and his coach always maintained he wanted to (and could) play corner and that is where UM had him slated. Cause he committed early and gurus stopped paying attention the question persisted. Then he showed up at the AA game and played corner all week (early in the week he was one of only two healthy corners practicing for his team) and everyone said "oh shit yeah, this guy can play corner" and he got his 5th*.

I think Warren was fairly knocked for needed strength but unfairly knocked for physicality as he was a willing tackler as a fr. For the limited amout I've seen, I think Turner will also need strength (though he is praised for his physicality). But I think he's one of those rare guys like Law/Jackson/Warrenn who you can start on the outside by like his second game and be an above average second corner in the Big 10.

Also, cosign on the boom or bust from Smith, but I say that's a career label. I'd be stunned if he gets much meaningful playing time this year. Though, this is not what coaches/insiders are saying.

Not sure I agree 100% with your police work there Lou

First, great post, and I always enjoy your input. Interesting theory re: why we went so much 3-3-5 v purdue, that it wasn’t the product of discord within the coaching staff but rather (what was perceived at the time as) a low risk experiment.

I have read all your posts on Shafer’s defense. I was more excited about the Shafer hire than RR, as I’m of the school that would prefer to see M’s identity be built around defense. Shafer’s resume speaks for itself and if given time, he likely build an aggressive, attacking defense that great athletes will want to play in and which he will make successful.

I also loved the fact that RR seemingly handed the reigns to Shaf. I think a common denominator among great defensive teams and consistently great defensive programs is a D coordinator who has a lot of freedom and runs his defense almost as a 1a. head coach (or the HC is a defensive guy who leads the D and allows his OC to handle lots of the O). You don’t want a fractured team, but defense is a different breed and different mentality, and I don’t think its an accident that many great defenses are like a team unto themselves.

I also agree that Shaf didn’t have ideal personal for his system, and that defensive systems take time. But let me make the following observations:

1. Most DC’s may use a variation of the nickle against spread teams, as we should have.
Where I disagree with Shaf is that given our personal where M’s 5 man DL rotation contained arguably 5 of our top 7 defenders, I don’t think you lift a DL for an extra man in the secondary. You lift a LB and go 4-2-5. This limits your blitz options on third and long and from what you have said, Shaf loves the blitz. But again, you have to face facts about your personal. The only two players who could reg blitz worth a crap were Harrison and Mouton, and Mouton didn’t emerge until 1/3 of the way in.

2. I don’t “blame” our poor third down D on the 3-3-5. Theoretically, any defense which is
executed will stop the play. But I think UFR demonstrated that 3 DL in those situations made it too easy for a spread team to execute in 3rd and short, and that we couldn’t generate much pass rush out of it in 3rd and long. Had our LB’s picked the correct gaps more often and maintained leverage, and had our secondary covered better and been more sure tacklers, there would have been more success in stopping 3rd down. That is on the players. But there comes a point where a coach must recognize that while a certain scheme is better against a certain offense, that if the players aren’t executing the scheme, they’re better off playing a scheme not as well suited but which can be executed better.

3. The best way to blitz may be out of a 3 man front, but blitzing is not always the best way
to get pressure. Mouton certainly improved as the season went on as a blitzer, and Harrison has long been a great blitzer for a secondary guy. But aside from those guys, there are no two players on M’s team who I would trade blitzing for either a Jamison or Graham with single blocking on the outside. It’s a misconception that rushing three automatically means that both outside DE’s get doubled, usually its only one guy. But I’d have rather forced OL’s pre-snap forced to figure out how the 5 of them would handle the 4 of Jamison-Martin-Taylor-Graham, then have to watch out for one of Mouton/Harrison coming on the blitz. I would guess that most OL’s M faced would tell you there were more comfortable lining up against M’s 3 man front and then dealing with the blitz.

All that being said, these criticisms are leveled and the defense as a whole, not Shaf exclusively. As you point out, M ran a ton of different schemes and coverages this season trying to find something. While they spent all this time searching, the fundamentals never improved. There was a lot of pressure on Shaf and the defense to carry a situation they were not equipt to carry. I have a feeling that if you asked him, Shaf would say his biggest regret was not simply sticking to his guns and what he knows, and taking his lumps along the way.

I just hope M gives him an opportunity to learn from this year.

Somewhere in the basketball

Somewhere in the basketball offices, there is a big board. That board has a list of the UM's top rated HS players in the country. Those rankings take into account how a player's abilities fits into UM's style of play, but I would be willing to bet that there is not a lot of variance between the top 50 guys on that board, and the boards at Duke, UNC, Sparty, etc.

All basketball programs have finite recruiting resources. The nets are cast wide, esp at a national recruiting university like M, but in the end, resources are allocated in large part based on potential for success in landing. That potential is gauged in large part on said players level of interest in M.

I can't predict how many one-and-done players JB will sire during his M tenure. But if he starts having sustained success, I can predict with a lot of confidence that top 25 recruits will start showing serious interest in UM.

JB wants to win national championships at M. If you have a top 10 overall PG showing M as much love as the Morris' of the world, the Morris' of the world will start becoming second priority recruits because better players give you a better chance to win. Bad tudes won't be tolerated, but top 25 kid does not = bad chemistry.

And I agree that JB's system requires adjustment and time to master. But the curve is loads different when the entire team is learning, vs incorporating a couple key Fr each year.

I project a top 10 class by 2010, or 2011

Not to downgrade your post, because I agree with the conclusion (that M won't be a mecca of one-and-done type players), but I don't agree with your premise. And I think your aversion to NBA caliber players would mean sustained success without banners. Look at the NBA talent on each winning team in the past twenty years.

First, How many hoops programs are the one-and-done mills for the NBA you fear? UNC. Sparty? Duke? UCLA? After that, programs like OSU will pop up from time to time with huge classes out of which there are multiple one-and-done guys. And yes, that can be discombobulating for a couple seasons following a final 4 appearance.

Second, most senior classes aren't going to have more than a dozen or so players who are widely regarded as potential one-and-done guys. So by definition, even if M is in on couple of those players every year, the odds of getting a guy like that won't be more than once every few years.

Finally, do you think JB would pass on a legit chance to get one of those guys who is going to make you a hell of a lot better in the short run but will need to be replaced in a year or two? Or when Manny and Sims leave after this year, if JB had an opportunity to recruit a couple top 5 players to fill those spots, that he would pass?

I could be wrong, but I don't think so. He should shy away from guys with bad reps/tudes, but I think you make an incorrect assumption that the majority of players with NBA aspirations after a year or two are bad apples or incapable of playing within a team concept. All players have the NBA as a goal, and I would say that there are very few top 100 players that don't have unrealistic visions of making the league after a year or 2. Dealing with those issues is part of coaching at the highest level, and I doubt JB fears that challenge.

One thing JB might be willing to do that other coaches aren't is to give that top 25 guy who is listing you in his top 2 or 3 an ultimatum. "We love you but we have another guy willing to commit who fits our system. Get on board or we'll go in another direction."

If JB continues having success and makes the tourney this year, I foresee a top 10 class in the very near future. This is esp true if M can get a tourney W or hit the sweet 16 this season (if M makes it, I feel one or two Ws isn't just possible, but likely, for a variety of reasons).

There are many variables in a top 10 recruiting ranking, such as a) in-state talent b) positions of need relative to recruits with an M interest c) schollie #s in a particular class d) MSU success and available PT there, etc. That's why I give it 2-3 years. But if JB is the coach we think he is it will happen sooner or latter.

If next years Oden or Conley expresses a sincere interest in M this summer (I love their style of play, everyone says JB is a top 5 coach in America, they play close to home, Manny and Sims are gone soon and PT is available) I would expect JB to be all over them and be disappointed if he wasn't.

Thanks for the post

Two questions, I know you said he didn't have the chance to go downfield often, but how would you rate the zip on his passess that had to travel more than 20-25 yards in the air? Perhaps you got a better feel for this during his warmups. If there were any.

Also, when he was moving around in the pocket due to the line, was he keeping his eyes downfield or looking for a place to run as soon as it broke down? In the highlight reels, I've thought he's shown maturity in the way he's moved around with eyes downfield feeling the rush, then taking off. But of course those hightlights only show a handful of plays per game.

I'm hoping that Tate is Pat White in reverse. You don't need a huge arm in RR's system if you're accurate with the ball up to 20 yards downfield. When the guru's rate the best running qb, biggest arm, most accurate, etc in this class, Tate is often mentioned as the most accurate. If Tate's accuracy is to White's speed, the offense should hum by his second season, so long as Tate's speed is at least equal to White's accuracy.

If someone went back through the '08 UFRs, I would be willing to bet that for every time Sherdian/Threet properly took advantage of a crashing DE and kept the ball, there 4 or 5 instances when they should have kept but handed off. Of all the glaring shortcomings in our QBs, this prob ranks next to inability to throw an accurate bubble screen and ahead of lack of speed.

Virtually anytime Threet made the proper read and kept, it was at least 4 yards, with the occasional buffalo stampede. As we saw v Whiskey, Threet actually wasn't all that slow once he got up to top speed. Which took about 5 strides. Threet's first, second and third steps were worse than Johnny Naver.

From what I've seen on Tate's highlights, he's no speed merchant, but as you say he's got good feet. If he can make the proper read of that DE and keep in obvious situations, he's got enough foot speed to pick up 5-7 yards before he reaches a second defender. Not only is that run a part of the offense which was vastly underused, DEs will be forced to honor it, which is going to eliminate a significant percentage of running plays where our RB is meeting first contact at or before the LOS.

One thing I think everyone overlooks when projecting Tate or the Beav next season, which you point out, is their physical maturity. Look what happened to Threet with the hits he took this year. That's a big reason why I believe that RR's plan will be to develope Threet as the starter, and allow Tate and the Beav to fight it out for the role of primary back-up and player who gets a special package a la Tebow. I don't think he can afford to give a guy starters reps in practice when there's a chance that guy gets broken in half with the first good lick.

Thanks

Great observations, that's what I was hoping to hear. As we know, not even Sparty is immune to a preseason clunker or two against a team it should whalop, I'm glad it was more or less a convergence of bad circumstances in the first half, then a charge in the second.

Also good to hear about the crowd. M needs something to cheer about, If the hoops team can pick up at least a win out of their next two, I think it'll go a long way towards filling Chrisler for the big 10 season.

thanks

Appreciate it. It goes without saying that fans who frequent Mgoblog are interested in taking a critical view of the teams we follow that is near impossible without seeing the actual game, or getting a solid report from other like-minded fans.

Regardless of the eventual outcome of the season, watching year 2 of the JB experience unfold is going to be fascinating, and worth keeping close tabs.

Plus I am really pulling for this team to solidly exceed expectations (top 3 Big 10 finish, one tourney W) to get some positive vibes flowing back into M, and to draw attention away from RR so he can work in relative peace until fall camp.

He should hold up

One of Manny's comments after the game was that JB told him he wanted Manny to get 10 boards, and Manny commented that he really put an emphasis on it. The results were good but it was against an opponent without a SF who could come close to dealing with him on the glass.

I see Manny as one of those guys who can play every minute at an extremely high level of energy. If he can bring a focus on the glass to match that energy every night, I think 7 boards a game in Big 10 play is well within his grasp. I think he will hit that figure because there aren't many guys on his own team that are going to snatch boards away from him, and because he has the green light to grab a rebound and run, which provides that much more incentive.

yeah

Its an open gym so grain of salt etc., but you do get a sense of what he's capable of physically. I watched the vid after my post. I've been laboring under the assumption that he was 6'3 (shame on you scout/rivals) when he looks a lot closer to 6 flat. Which is fine. I agree with you on his quickness and he seems to have much more overall athleticism than I imagined (not typically discussed when people critique his game). I think he'll look great on the back end of the 1-3-1.

thats it

Not only catchable, but a solid effort at least gets his hands on it. Instead the ball isn't even to him yet and he's peeking and pulling his arms down.

Anyone here who was at the

Anyone here who was at the game able to weigh in on how close it was?

I'm not saying it was a great throw. It was behind him and over his head. We'll have to agree to disagree as to how far over his head it appeared on T.V. replay. I thought it was catchable or that he could easily have had a hand on it.

It was at least close enough that we are arguing over it, Massey's reaction to the ball looked like an 8 year old girl in gym class, and it was intercepted by the NW player behind him.

point isn't even if it was high or not

My original post prob came out wrong anyway, so to elaborate:

I watched the reply several times. The ball was over his head and slightly behind him. How far over his head? I saw a ball that could have been caught without full extension, merely raising the arms and reaching back.

We’ll never know how far it may or may not have been out of his grasp because he didn’t even get his arms 3 quarters of the way extended before he turtled.

Was he scared? Did he think there was another M receiver behind him? Did he simply give up on the play? It doesn’t really matter to me because I don’t bring it up for the purpose of questioning the guy’s heart. As I rewatched that play to try and determine if my white-hot anger at Massey was justified or not, I went from fan frustration to an empathy for the humiliation, “deserved” or not, that these players and coaches are absorbing.

Not only is M loosing but they appear completely helpless as its happening.

I'm confused

What mgoblogger wouldn't want an attractive female doctor of the Oosterbaan line as their primary care physician? I mean, jesus, there are so many levels here.

I figured her receptionist's switch board would be lighting up with new patients from all over the midwest right now. Instead people find it strange. Noted.

yes

yes

Tate

I have no idea what Tate’s running the 40 in these days, or the level of his hs competition. But one thing you can see from the film is that he has good acceleration, and is comfortable running the ball. If Rich has visions of implementing his WVA spread, running 70% of the time and relying on the QB to take a lot of those carries, Forcier isn’t our guy. But in a 50/50 run-pass offense, as Brain says in the Northwestern mold, I think Tate is going to give M what it needs in the running dept. Which is a guy who the weakside DE absolutely must respect.

As we’ve all seen, Threet doesn’t have bad speed, it just takes him 2 or 3 strides to get going. And he can’t make any sort of a cut without losing all his momentum and starting over. Defenses can get away with foregoing their contain responsibility on the QB and 9 times out of 10, Threet won’t be able to make them pay with more than 4-6 yards (2 of which come from falling forward). Because Tate can accelerate and appears to be able to make some nice cuts without losing the speed he has, he will force the D to play honestly.

I don't know if missing is the right word

When first reading this post, I was like many, saying that counting dudes like Slocum, Guts, and Mallet as flame outs was overly harsh. Slocum had grade issues not talent issues, Guts got stuck behind our all time passing leader and is now on an NFL roster, and the jury is still very much out on Mallet, its only that the verdict will be rendered elsewhere.

On second look, I like what this post highlights. For every Anthony Thomas who pans out, there is a Baraka who flames out and a Grady who doesn’t perform up to rating. Everyone in the country wanted all 3 of those guys, so how much blame can you put on the coaching staff? And how much credit do you give them for sticking with a guy like Hart?

Without Hart, a 3 star who many big programs didn’t offer, we would have been fucked. Coaches are going to mis-evaluate some talent, and a lot of talent is never going to pan out for reasons beyond their control. Lesson? Every recruit counts.

Looking at these percentages it shows that there is a better than even chance that your plan B guy is going to have to step up and be the guy. This also spotlights the need for even distribution between classes. I think Carr gets some demerits in the player development category as well as class distribution, but its tough to see from the outside where these were his shortcomings or the cases where it was just out of his hands.

I'll say one thing for the

I'll say one thing for the offense.  They don't have many good plays and they have a shit-ton of bad ones.  But they somehow manage to string most of those good plays together and turn them into drives.  I would agree that this is a good indicator for the coaches.  When not dealing with 2nd and 16, they have shown some ability to "layer" the playcalling for lack of a better description.  Imagine what might be possible if UM cut its negative plays to 25% of the offense?

RR and Magee's increased use of the I formation and iso runs, esp on first down, I think shows some recognition of the fact that  its time to do anything and everything to scratch out a few years on first down when you decide to run the ball.  Or at a least avoid those big losses we see everytime Threet hands to McGuff on 1st down and he's got his shoulders turned to the LOS 5 yards in the backfield with 5 hats on 7 guys in the box in front of him.  But as Brian points out, what about the personal on this team leads you to believe UM can have success running I-form isos on first down?  May as well stick with the speard principals and work for improvement. 

Thats why I say a partial answer IMO is letting Moundros or another pure blocker line up as a TE on the end of the line or as an H-back.  Moundros has been great at that h-back counter play.  So what if the D knows we're going to run?  They usually are playing run first anyway so you may as well get a TE in there who has a chance in hell of actually blocking someone.  And I agree that Minor has shown flashes as a blocker, so maybe the answer (if he's healthy) is more Minor as the big back, more Moundros at TE, and less of Grady/Koger.   

Against Houston from the 5,

Against Houston from the 5, Miami's TE blocked down and Jake pulled left and got enough of the Safety to let Ricky score untouched.  Funny you mention that play.  At first blush, I was thinking, "Yeah, good block.  Got the job down and got the touch.  But slightly unsatisfying because it looked like Jake had the chance to make a highlight block where he absolutely crushed the safety or took him into the back of the endzone a la Boren v. Minni last year.  Instead he basically just got in the way."

Right after Replay last night I watched the Toledo game.  I'm watching Schilling moving up field in space on a screen to McGuff.  Schilling has the saftey lined up perfectly.  He dove at that mutherfucker from 3 yards away like Willie Mays-Hayes first attempt at stealing second, landed a yard short, and allowed the S to not only tackle for no gain on what would have been 5 yards if Schilling just stopped and stood in front of him, but get a big fat lick on McGuff. 

 I replayed that 5 times.  Never been so pissed off at a UM football player in my entire life.        

nice, thanks for the links. 

nice, thanks for the links.  Any football fan whose favorite aspect of the game are the physical battles should be on the lookout for Miami games this season.  I'd never have known if it weren't for following UM and Jake.  My go to used to be the Seahawks with Jones and Hutchinson.  As an aside, Hutch seems to have slipped since he left.  He's not mauling like he used to. 

"If Brian can't stick to his

"If Brian can't stick to his preseason deadlines, I'm going elsewhere..."

 Preseason deadlines.  Preseason.  Do you see where I wrote "preseason"?  His preseason deadlines.  Not his Sept 1st side notes.  His preseason deadlines.  So maybe you're the one who can't read.

 Fagot

i like

I like all the funny pope hats with the winged helmet design.  How'd he think of that?

tough call

I'm also checking the site way too often, which is why the potential invitation to observe practice/attend pressers, etc., is so intriguing to me.  The blogger v. MSM deliniation and debate from mgoblog's perspective has been fascinating, and now comes the chance to participate in MSM type activities. 

 With it comes the opportunity to examine why I am obsessed with the site as my #1 stop for UM football.  The answer is the humor and candor, followed very closely by the analysis and information.  Yet, in the end, I would be willing to potentially sacrifice an unknown quantity of that humor and candor for a quantum leap ahead in information and analysis.  I guess Brian must be pondering if he himself, and other readers, feel the same way.  

 Or maybe I am just way too over thinking this fucking thing and should get back to work.

this is long, perhaps wrong for comments

Brian,

I don’t want to waste too much of your time with these questions. You probably don’t have the time to answer everything, and possibly don’t have the inclination to (and publically). But this shit fascinates me. I think accepting access to practice/pressers would be incredible for your site. It could make 30 minutes to an hour of my average day that much better, and as such, there is a tremendous amount riding on the outcome of your decision.

1. What could they possibly ask of you regarding site content? I realize that if the SID is waiting to set a meeting to discuss mgoblog press passes for practice/post-practice pressers, then they’re probably going to do some recon on the site (side note, shouldn’t the UM SID already be aware of mgoblog?). My guess is that after evaluation they either issue the credentials, or don’t. Do you actually think there is a chance they will condition the access based on "you can write this but you can’t write that?" You can criticize the players and coaches openly but you can’t use foul language? Use whatever language you want but you can’t criticize anyone? I mean, WTF could he tell you? They obviously wouldn’t have this conversation with a print media journalist. I always figured that when it came to this sort of thing, once they issued the credentials it was up to the individual to decide what to do with it, with the threat that it could always be yanked if "abused". There’s a chance access could come with explicit instructions?

2. Would they consider some sort of restricted access? You alluded to this. Again, my thought has always been that press credentials once issued were one size fits all. Perhaps some are like limited season ticket plans? You get access to a few practices and few press conferences? You can attend the practices/pressers but not ask questions? I also wonder if they’ll take into consideration the lackeys at rivals and scout, guys who have toed the hell out of the company line and who get paid directly via premium memberships to dole out tiny processed nuggets of info. If you (or any other UM bloggers) get the back stage pass, those sites are basically going to be reduced to recruiting only and loose about 30-50% of their utility IMO.

3. Don’t you have to try this? When you talk about the Mgoblog’s pov, a large component of the blog has been reactionary against the program and against the MSM. UM as we’ve known it has been overly conservative in every aspect, including on the field and access to info. Part of what Mgoblog has done is to try and shine a light into the dark corners, and call a spade a spade as far as performance. Access to practice would obviously contribute significantly to performance evaluation. Another huge aspect of the blog is to take us where the MSM is too lazy (or in some cases, to constrained by space/deadlines/etc.) to go. Having practice access, and being able to ask real questions, would obviously be a boon there. Think of being able to ask assistant coaches specific questions? Those guys can hardly help themselves when it comes to talking football.

4. Would this be too expensive? Would you make more money? Is this too much for one man/site to handle? Lets say they open the door for you. All access. Practice, locker room, pressers, etc. Once you can go there and do that on an equal basis with the MSM, do you then have to start covering this team like a beat reporter? I mean, you don’t have to. But we’ll want you too. You may want to too. Would it be too expensive/time consuming? Could you get more dollars for your work? What fan wouldn’t want one of its most passionate, knowledgeable, and articulate fans to go Almost Famous? I gotta think there’s a raise in there somewhere.

4. If you don’t do this, are you leaving the corners dark on purpose? Not to get all psychoanalytical on you an’ shit, but is being an "outsider" too much a part of the blog’s identity that changing the status alone makes you wonder about Mgoblog’s place in the world?

5. Could you farm this out to someone else? Lets say they don’t have a problem with allowing people to report on what they see at practice, but they would want you to tone it down too far. Isn’t there some square ex-coach or someone we can find to start a blog and do this?

6. Bottom Line Hypothetically, lets say they offer you a shit-ton of access.  (Perhaps I'm jumping the gun here, but one day its the big 10 meetings, the next day its access to summer practice, isn't locker room interview status the next logical step?) In exchange, you have to forego the 7 dirty words in anything you personally post, and you must refrain from posting or linking to any R-rated imagery. Is it a go? Would you solicit reader input first? I’d want you to say "yes", for sure. Nobody gets a twitter out of a well placed "cocksucker" or "finger blasting" dropped into their morning reading than I do. But for me its much more about the football.

I don't want to put words in Brian's mouth

Which is why it's going to hurt right now while I go ahead and do just that.

I believe that Brain’s distilled argument in bloggers v. MSM as applied to the set of facts before us, would be that from the MSM side, a blogger writes nothing but opinions which are based on wild speculation or sub-educated guess because they don’t get to see how the sausage is made. From a blogger’s pov everything written by the MSM is like the second draft of the Port Huron Statement, since those reporters are required to censor themselves to some degree to protect the commodity which allows them their place at the table.

I understand Brian’s concern. MGoblog is terrific as is, and you want to tread lightly on anything that would change the formula. I’m sure he’d like the access, and what he could do with it. Question is, would it effect his ability to write the prose the way he wants too, and/or would he feel obligated to temper criticism of on-the-field play?

If there’s a chance he’d have to change is writing, I’d reluctantly say that its probably not worth it. The guy is a funny mother fucker. But I think this is an area for explosive growth in what this site can bring to fans of UM football. Brian references wanting to make sure the site’s focus doesn’t waver. I’m my estimation, the site’s focus is and has always been 1) expose fans to the most in depth information and analysis of UM football humanly possible 2) do so with an entertaining blend of passion and levity to maximum effect.

To me, observing practices and attending press conferences (with the intent to participate) does nothing to detract from that focus, it is simply enhancing #1 by adding two more primary sources to the site (the first and foremost always being UFR). And who knows, maybe it would even help raise the entire level of discourse on UM football within the square media.

The worst that could happen is that the access would be turned off following an apocalyptic Mike Gundy-esque meltdown. There is no way Brain could possibly have less access than he has since the blog’s inception, and its done quite well, so it would go back to "normal". At least I think it could go back.

could you have ever have could you have ever have imagined that you'd be debating whether to turn down access to real-live UM summer practice? On a personal level, there is no way in hell you can turn that down. Its like shortening the off season by a month, maybe even better than that. Do it. Take us with you. So the line between access/unfiltered analysis blurs. We’re well aware of the theoretically corrupting forces of access. I’m sure you’ve day-dreamt about how you’d toe that line if given the chance. How it could, nay, would work. What’s the worst thing that could happen? You’re entire relationship with UM football could be perversely and irreparably distorted in a way none of us could have ever foreseen? At the very least, you walk away with a couple weeks worth of seeing that goofy-looking bastard Vince Helmuth without his helmet on. I don’t think a reporter covering UM can call Vince a goofy looking bastard. If that’s the trade-off, I’m still in. http://www.rivals.com/viewprospect.asp?Sport=1&pr_key=44813
Looking forward to increased program access With the season rapidly approaching, one thing I won't miss about Lloyd (or more acurately, one think I'm really looking forward to under RR) is the increased media access to the program. It will be very interesting to see how forthcoming the coaches are with comments about specific players, and how honest those evaluation are. Hopefully the media won't waste their ink on article-after-article on the "new regime" and will instead focus on the team itself. Though, I'm not holding my breath.
Plenty of reasons for optimism in '08 Good thoughts on last years D. I sort of forgot how much they disappointed. I am looking forward to see Shafer's defense every bit as much as I anticipate RR's offense. He's put up some crazy numbers and I can't wait to see what he does with UM level talent. Unlike RR, Shaf doesn't need to wait for guys who can run his system. He has talented and experienced vets at key positions, and as long as the O doesn't put him in too many bad positions, my main concern is that he won't last long as a coordinator.