Unverified Voracity Has Yet More Hot Takes To Deal With Comment Count

Brian

Just another day in the life.

lake-invaders_0One of our photographers wrote a book. You've probably seen Bill Rapai's hockey photos around these parts. If you like those you'll no doubt love his new book, which is about invasive species in the Great Lakes. For some reason it has a picture of an SEC coach reacting to Harbaugh's latest antics on the cover. Bill on the contents:

It’s called Lake Invaders: Invasive species and the battle for the future of the Great Lakes and it explains how these little beasties got here, the damage they are doing, how they might be controlled, and why you should care. (Yes, you should care.) There’s even a chapter on everybody’s favorite invasives, the Asian carps.

It's available on Amazon for anyone who's interested.

DRAKE JOHNSON GOT RUN OVER BY A FORKLIFT!? Yes. He is apparently fine afterwards, if 1) very bruised up and 2) understandably pissed off.

Do not run people over in forklifts, people. I shouldn't have to tell you this.

Tick tock the hot takes don't stop. All it took was for Jim Harbaugh to say some pointedly critical, but true, things for people to lose their minds about the dude. NJ.com columnist Steve Politi has been a reliable source of humor ever since that "Jim Harbaugh may be flashy, but Kyle Flood is real" column, and he is undeterred by being as wrong as humanly possible about that. His reaction to Man Invited To Give Speech may even top his earlier opus:

Steve Politi, a columnist for The Star-Ledger and NJ.com, said Paramus Catholic should be ashamed for having Harbaugh give the speech. …

"The big problem here is Paramus Catholic president Jim Vail who, in announcing his decision to give an out-of-state football coach a free infomercial at his school, called Harbaugh a great leader and educator. Come on, Harbaugh speaking to your students is as much a recruiting advantage for your football program as it is for Harbaugh at Michigan."

I love all these accusations that PEOPLE might be DOING THEIR JOBS WELL. While there's no doubt an element of publicity and recruiting on both ends, Jim Harbaugh is also a very interesting and successful person who might want to give people some guidance. And he's sure as hell going to be more interesting than whoever my high school graduation speaker was. I have no idea if there even was one. Chris Ash is openly envious, and he's real, so…

This undercurrent of "wait a second… wait just a minute here! I see what you're doing! You are trying to make your football team good!" is a never-ending source of entertaining spittle these days. Remember that Alabama dude who clutched his pearls and fell over because Michigan's satellite camp at Prattville was really about recruiting? This is just the latest episode. Here's Mike Florio accusing Harbaugh of the blazingly obvious:

If we’re going to pull back the curtain on why the SEC and ACC coaches wanted to keep Harbaugh out of their backyards, it’s only fair to pull back the curtain on why Harbaugh wants to frolic in them. Although Rosenberg does his best to defend the satellite camp process by baking the concept into the apple pie of American dream chasing, it’s obvious that the camps had become at least in part a pretext for recruiting the best players in a setting that, from the perspective of a high school kid, doesn’t feel like recruiting. It all leads to a more organic, authentic, and visceral bond.

That's the point! Also it is good! We have reached the point in this dumb conversation where people are accusing Jim Harbaugh of trying to have a real relationship with the people he recruits. I feel like I am going crazy here.

Yes, e-goons of the world, people have motives. When they pursue those motives within the rules and without negatively impacting anyone, pointing at them and screaming "YOU ARE PURSUING YOUR GOALS" is literally the dumbest argument possible.

I mean, yeah, get on Harbaugh for the various decommits last year. That's a legit criticism. This stuff is moron central.

Shots fired. I assume you've all seen the Harbombing of the satellite camp decision in SI. While Harbaugh talking to a dude who tried to sabotage the program with bogus allegations of NCAA violations is a frequent irritation, I'll take it as long as he's willing to say the things that are true in public:

Says Harbaugh: "You've got a guy sitting in a big house, making $5 million a year, saying he does not want to sacrifice his time. That is not a kindred spirit to me. What most of these coaches are saying is they don't want to work harder."

Hugh Freeze responded to this with the time-tested retort of the smarmy gasbag: muh families.

"I'll never apologize for wanting to be a father and a husband," Freeze said when asked about vacation time. "I miss enough volleyball games (and other things), that is a priority for me. ... I think we work very hard, I don't think working hard is an issue. If you're asking me if I want to add more nights away from my wife and kids, I do not. That window is closing for me to be a husband and a father and I think the kids that play in our system need to see me in that role an awful lot."

When someone talks about being a family man in this way they are always attempting to shut down criticism by being holier than thou. See: Dave Brandon's "this hurts my family" talk on his last-ditch media spree after the Shane Morris incident. It also blows by a point: if you don't want to do them, don't do them. Nobody's making you. You are in fact making the demands.

Freeze then doubled down on the smarm by criticizing Harbaugh for being right, but in public:

Along with being recursively hypocritical, this is an admission that Harbaugh is correct but also mean. I like mean.

Elsewhere in shots fired. High school coaches are just as fired up about the ban:

"Realistically, I shouldn't have been surprised." said John Ford, the head coach at Roswell High School, which is located north of Atlanta. "The NCAA works in opposition to what benefits young kids and student athletes. They work to protect the few as opposed to protecting and promoting the many. The hypocrisy is pretty well known."  …

"I've been doing this for 15 years and I know it's really, really helpful for kids at these camps," [Toby] Foreman said. "It makes it extremely difficult, and I personally don't think the NCAA has kids interests at heart. You're almost punishing people for being proactive. Go out and recruit harder. Quit being lazy."

I wonder if the pushback on this is going to be sufficient to torpedo the rule change here. These days a lawsuit-stricken NCAA is very sensitive about public relations, and there are a ton of people on the warpath about this. It is really rare to see guys with skin in the game come out with these kind of statements, and the condemnation for the rule change has been near-universal. The only people sticking up for it are guys like Tony Barnhart who are more or less bought and paid for by the SEC and a less-than-lucid Dennis Dodd.

Tommy Tuberville, for one, thinks that the ban will not stand.

Elsewhere in how Freeze gets work done. Interesting little glimpse inside the sausage factory Freeze is running at Ole Miss from a doofus with money:

An Ocean Springs businessman claimed to have offered his guest house to unnamed college football players rent-free, only to later amend his story. But a source with knowledge of the situation said Scott Walker’s neighbors were told by the renters they paid for a two-night stay at his home last weekend.

Renting his home on a short-term basis would be a violation of local ordinances, and when first contacted by the Mississippi Press Walker said it was “four university players” who were “absolutely not paying” to stay in his guest house.

That raised red flags, because a booster (Walker is an Ole Miss grad and fan) offering free or reduced rent is a clear-cut NCAA violation.

Ole Miss cheats. Hardcore, all the time. That's how a nobody high school coach with one year at Arkansas State who arrives at a school with a fanbase that mostly still wants a plantation owner as their mascot and zero success in the past 50 years starts recruiting five-stars. I'm resigned to the fact that this will happen forever, and that the correct solution is to let people pay the players without repercussions.

But you run the cheatingest program in the country and you get sanctimonious about your free time? Harbaugh's just trying to level the playing field out a little bit here. Freeze can take his vacations and come back knowing that an Ole Miss offer has thousands of dollars behind it that a Michigan one doesn't.

That solution could be on the horizon. Via Get the Picture, this is a potentially huge move towards an Olympic model of amateurism:

Big East commissioner Val Ackerman told SI Now’s Maggie Gray on Friday that the NCAA is reconsidering allowing student athletes to sign endorsement deals.

Under the current rules, student athletes may not be paid for the use of their image or likeness or they would forfeit their amateur status and their collegiate eligibility could be affected. When Gray asked Ackerman why students shouldn’t be able to capitalize on the value they bring to their university, Ackerman responded that the NCAA is considering changing that rule.

“That’s one that’s actually under consideration I believe by the NCAA,” Ackerman said. “It’s actually a time right now where student athlete interests are being closely examined. I don’t have an answer for you on that one today but I will say that and a number of other topics are under review, and I think rightly by the NCAA and it’s very possible that over the course of the next year or two as these these ideas work their way through the legislative system you could see changes.”

In the next year or two! As always I will remind you that even if you don't like the idea of players getting paid directly by the university, opening up outside compensation is a very good thing when you command a money cannon like Michigan does.

Warde Manuel sticks up for his guy. Good to see that Manuel isn't shying away from the fight either:

“People say this is Jim Harbaugh, he wants to do it this way,” Manuel told the Free Press today. “No. This is a rule that has been allowable for a long time. With all due respect to … questions about not being able to recruit (during the NCAA quiet period), all that stuff was there before, and people did it. Now it’s no good? Some kind of way, it’s bad for the game? It’s crazy.”

That is direct and devoid of hand-waving CYA business speak, so bully for that.

Elsewhere in laziness. Iowa DE Drew Ott will not get a fifth year after a midseason injury. That's not much of a surprise since he played in six games a year ago and the NCAA does not budge on injury redshirts if you've played more than 30% of a season. The timing of the announcement, however, has irritated many since Ott cannot enter the NFL draft proper and will have to go the supplemental route. Why did this come so late? It's not on the NCAA:

In fairness to the NCAA, it does seem like the lengthiest delays in this entire ordeal were not their end -- it sounds like Ott's case wasn't even sent to the NCAA bodies that rule on this matter until late February.  His case was with Big Ten authorities until that point.  What took the Big Ten so long?  Good question -- and one that neither Ott nor Kirk Ferentz had an answer for during their press conference earlier today.  So perhaps our ire at the glacial pace of the decision-making in this situation should be directed at Jim Delany & Co. rather than the NCAA folks.

That is especially odd since Mario Ojemudia suffered a similarly ill-timed injury and found out he would not get an exception in December.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with MSU's attempt to get sixth years for three players, all of whom appear to have taken voluntary redshirts. MSU keeps telling people they'll be back but the NCAA is very strict about sixth years; going to be tough to come up with sufficient documentation about an injury when these guys have bios declaring they were scout team player of the week.

Etc.: FFS just fire Butch Jones already. Willie Henry getting talked up as a second rounder now. Cut off one of Harbaugh's heads and he grows two more.

Comments

pescadero

April 14th, 2016 at 4:08 PM ^

b) You lost me at "The university isn't a business." It's basically a business. I mean, maybe it doesn't pay taxes like a business...but it's a business.

 

It doesn't pay taxes like a business.

It isn't subject to zoning laws like a business.

It isn't attempting to generate profit like a business.

It has a duty to serve all Michigan citizens, not just customers.

It doesn't have a fiduciary duty to maximize profit.

 

pescadero

April 14th, 2016 at 2:40 PM ^

I can't build a water park in Anchorage, Alaska, or create a ski slope in Miami, Florida, and then ask for special considerations when nobody wants to wear a bikini in cold weather or go skiing on a mountain of slush.

 

Of course you can.

 

Americans do it every day.

Quailman

April 14th, 2016 at 2:50 PM ^

I dont think Kermt said that things NEED to be equal.

And I dont think all schools being allowed to hold camps anywhere is "getting special rules in favor of gallavanting across the country". Special rules would be allowing just the Big10 or Big12 to hold them wherever and make the SEC and ACC stay home.

You argue that you can't complain about about the location of your school not being in the proper climate or near the right resources because you chose that place. Well, then if you pick the place with the good climate or resources, you can't complain about other people wanting in on it. And if you pick the good spot, you can't complain that there isnt a better place for you to go. 

 

1VaBlue1

April 14th, 2016 at 2:55 PM ^

"My poor choice of a geographical location to build my business does not mean I should get special rules made in my favor to go gallavanting around the country."

 

Nobody had any special rules!  I really thought you would have understood this, so let me 'splain it to you...  Here is a link to an NCAA presentation about camps.  Harbaugh (and Franklin, et all) were completely within NCAA rules when attending non-institutional camps (ie: satellite camps) - and there is no limit on how many camps one can attend.  The SEC and ACC decided among themselves to implement a conference rule to disallow those coaches to attend a non-institutional camp.  They did that to themselves.  The rule change the NCAA just made is to adopt the SEC/ACC model of not allowing any non-institutional camp attendance for the entirety of NCAA FCS membership.

The special rule was implemented by the few because they didn't want to allow free enterprise to do it's job.  Using your business anology, the business owners that didn't want to expand enacted a law that said nobody is allowed to expand.

I really though you had understood the whole mess.  But your long analogy proved otherwise...

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 3:20 PM ^

I understand that. However, this is a fairly new concept, which is why it came to a boiling point fairly quickly. It really just made its way to the big-time in the last two years, especially in 2015.

For example, the A-11 offense that took flight several years ago gave teams a chance to exploit some weaknesses in the rules. That loophole was closed when people determined it violated the spirit of the game.

Maybe my "special rules" word choice wasn't the best, but I think allowing unlimited satellite camps violates the spirit of the idea. It was not the SMSB camp where coaches spent time with local youth as arguably a kind of local community outreach. I don't know of any coaches that had a problem with those types of camps, just like I don't think anyone had a problem with the idea of teams running a fake punt on 4th down. The problem arose when Harbaugh pushed the boundaries (or, in the A-11's case, when people started running a fake punt on every down).

1VaBlue1

April 14th, 2016 at 3:55 PM ^

That point I'll see...  But I don't understand how something within the rules was 'abused'.  You can't abuse something unless there is a definition of said abuse.  In this case, what was happening was perfectly within the rules, with no definition of abuse (ie: limits, or conditions).

The rule implemented was nothing more than a knee-jerk (to borrow from Coach) and reactionary repsonse to one person - Jim Harbaugh.  Why?  Because he had the gall to establish his brand in a location his competition didn't like.  And he did it with gusto...

However, that is not a crime according to the rule books.  Our free enterprise system allows him that opportunity when it is not specifically outlawed in one's professional rule book.  So claiming 'abuse' doesn't work.  Don't like it?  Change the rule book like an adult - not with knee jerk reactions that have no thought behind them.

Personally, I don't see any reason for limits on this.  It is good for student-athletes and smaller schools, and really doesn't hurt anyone.  If Bama doesn't like Michigan coaches poaching homegrown talent, do a better job of recruiting them.  Maybe Bama would like to guest coach a camp hosted by Cass Tech this summer?  Let 'em come up...  I doubt Harbaugh would complain about it.

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 4:03 PM ^

I'm not claiming the camps were a crime. I'm not asking that anyone should be punished. What I'm suggesting is what you're suggesting: if enough people wanted the rule changed, then they should go about changing the rule.

That has been done.

The rule hasn't been changed to what I want. I would prefer that teams be allowed to hold two camps per year: one within the school's home state, and one outside the state. Then a team like Michigan could hold SMSB in Detroit and go visit Florida or Alabama or Texas once per year. And if Alabama wants to recruit Cass Tech, then they can hold a camp at Cass Tech and one in Prattville.

The agreed-upon solution isn't the right one, but a solution was needed, IMO.

pescadero

April 14th, 2016 at 2:39 PM ^

Again, you're missing the point. If Jim Harbaugh and Urban Meyer and Mork Dantoni and Bert Bielema are all doing the camps, then Hugh Freeze has to, too. Yes, he COULD just send his assistants, but he and his program would fall behind the others.

 

No one is saying there is no cost to the choice, just that it is a choice.

 

 

 

 

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 2:52 PM ^

I have addressed this. Toyota could put cranks on all their windows, too, but they don't because everyone else has power windows. At some point it's not a choice. You either do it or you go out of business. But the NCAA is an organization that sets the rules in accordance with its members' wishes. And if Freeze and others don't want camps - and get enough votes - then camps won't exist.

McSomething

April 14th, 2016 at 3:35 PM ^

So did Toyota try getting power windows banned? No, they followed what everyone else was doing because there was nothing wrong with it. The SEC didn't like this activity, so instead of just not doing it, they made sure nobody else could either. It wasnt about work in the offseason, it was about maintaining a near monopoly on a recruiting area.

pescadero

April 14th, 2016 at 4:15 PM ^

You either do it or you go out of business.

 

Yes - that is where the choice comes in. If you don't like the game, you either change the rules or quit playing. Both are perfectly legitimate choices.

 

But the NCAA is an organization that sets the rules in accordance with its members' wishes.

 

Well... it's an organization that sets the rules in accordance with the wishes of the representatives of a subset of its members.

 

And if Freeze and others don't want camps - and get enough votes - then camps won't exist.

...unless, like the assistant coach salary limits, the NCAA is violating anti-trust and labor law in doing so.

 

 

 

 

pescadero

April 14th, 2016 at 5:54 PM ^

a) And the rules changed in his favor. Hugh Freeze didn't break any rules by getting the rule changed.

 

The rule hasn't actually changed yet, and Hugh Freeze didn't get the rule changed.

 

c) You're right. If the NCAA is breaking the law, then the law is being broken.

 

The NCAA has a history of getting hammered on this sort of thing.

Trader Jack

April 14th, 2016 at 2:11 PM ^

The competitive market around him is one he knew about when he accepted the job and the responsibilities that come with it. I actually think the "just don't do the camps" argument is one of the strongest ones I've seen so far. Freeze is basically saying, "I don't want to work harder, so no one else should be able to, either." You're not entitled to having a $5 million job and being able to set the terms by which your competition can work. If you'd rather stay home and fall behind, that's your decision. But one man shouldn't be able to decide for himself and everyone else, too. If you're not comfortable with the time commitment, choose another profession.

Imagine someone who works in an office pushing for a rule banning another co-worker from staying late to work overtime just because the originally person didn't want to. That would be ridiculous.  




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 2:12 PM ^

The competitive market at the time did not include Jim Harbaugh taking his traveling camp circus on the road for a week and a half. Furthermore, various other jobs include rules and regulations for the number of hours you work. Truck and bus drivers can only drive for so many hours consecutively. NFL players have only a certain number of practices/camps that are mandatory.

Trader Jack

April 14th, 2016 at 3:00 PM ^

Yes, many jobs have restrictions on the number of hours you can work. In regard to satellite camps, the one Freeze accepted did not have such restrictions at the time he agreed to the terms of the position. Also, I doubt most of those pay $5 million a year.

If you're arguing that other coaches having satellite camps while Freeze stayed home would give them an advantage... Isn't that what every coach is trying to do? Gain an advantage? If that isn't palatable to you, why don't you disagree with many of the recruiting advantages certain schools enjoy? Freeze would fall behind if he stayed home, but he would have no one to blame but himself.

It would be unfortunate that Freeze would have to choose between arguing with Twitter eggs at home or running a satellite camp but that isn't a good enough reason to decide what every other coach is allowed to do, or take camps away from kids who want to participate.

I want the same number of mgopoints as you, Magnus. But I don't want to post more often than I already do. Therefore, you should only be allowed to post when I post. That doesn't make much sense, does it?




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 3:06 PM ^

"I want the same number of mgopoints as you, Magnus. But I don't want to post more often than I already do. Therefore, you should only be allowed to post when I post. That doesn't make much sense, does it?"

If that's what the governing body of this here blog decided, then so be it. Meanwhile, if I want to be a really good poster, I'll make sure to research and prepare for my X number of allotted posts per day.

Trader Jack

April 14th, 2016 at 3:42 PM ^

What does what you'd do to be a really good poster have to do with anything? You think Freeze is doing this because it's going to help him be a really good coach somehow?

If the governing body of this here blog allowed the preferences of one poster to determine what would be allowed for every other poster, that would be pretty stupid. You run a satellite camp when you want, I'll run one when I want is a much better and smarter solution.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Trader Jack

April 14th, 2016 at 4:16 PM ^

Why do you get to decide if me and my staff want to do "everything in moderation" though? That's the point. If my staff IS for unlimited camps, the fact that you and your staff isn't should have no bearing on what I decide is in the best interests of myself and my program.

I disagree with you and don't see why you'd support taking opportunities like darts life camps away from kids... Just because, I guess? But if you're out on them, stay home. That's your decision.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Trader Jack

April 14th, 2016 at 4:45 PM ^

Of course. I'm not putting all the blame on him for the actual ban passing, I'm saying that the reasons behind his objections to the camps happening, like yours, are self-serving and illogical.

Tell me how the kids are helped by this ban? Tell me how high school and Group of 5 conference coaches are helped by this ban? Many people are hurt so that coaches who want to stay home (whose side you're advocating for) can choose an option that was already available to them.

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 5:50 PM ^

I've explained my points about the camps elsewhere. I'm not going to rehash them here. If you want to find them, they are easy enough to find.

Regardless, as I have also said many times, the complete and total ban is an overreaction. I don't agree with it. So I'm the wrong person to ask. The camps did, however, need to be more limited than they were last summer. I don't think it's too crazy to think that there's a solution somewhere in the middle.

Cranky Dave

April 14th, 2016 at 3:44 PM ^

I like you and read TTB on a daily basis but I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this issue.  I understand there are always rules in any profession.  And if there were a safetly issue associa with satellite camps I could see a limitation, like the hours a trucker can drive, or pilots can fly.  However, I believe you're expericence as a coach colors your view knowing how much time this profession takes up so feeling like you have to give up family/vacation time to keep must hit home.  But this happens in my job too.  I could work longer hours and have a better chance at a promotion or more money but I choose not to.  However, i would hate for an industry association tell me I had to work less because, well, I don't know why. 

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 3:57 PM ^

Again, this happens in a lot of places. You can work in this building until 10:00 p.m., but you have to leave after that. You can have football practice for 20 hours a week, but not any more than that. You can teach 180 days a year, but not more than that.

Now if you want to go off on your own and watch film or lift weights or gather neighborhood children and teach them math using Oreos, then so be it, but it's not industry-approved.

The industry isn't telling Harbaugh he has to work less. The industry is telling Harbaugh, "You can work as much as you want, but you can't do it in Location X with Y and Z personnel." He can go home and draw up plays and watch film and come up with new drills and call up his coaching buddies and do other things, but he can't travel the country all summer, drag around his assistants, and have 10 or 20 camps. It's called moderation.

Cranky Dave

April 14th, 2016 at 4:10 PM ^

we'll just disagree on this issue.  I'm in a client facing role and the satellite ban is like saying you're not allowed to go to conferences to find new clients, or you can only go to one conference a year.  The only limiting factor would be financial-my company (or university) may not have the money to visit conferences to "recruit" new clients. 

grumbler

April 14th, 2016 at 4:45 PM ^

Those are some bad analogies there, Magnus.  I can teach more than 180 days if I want to, and I can work after 10pm if I want to.  The NCAA telling Harbaugh that he cannot work at X location with Y and Z personnel is an infringement on his freedom, and has to be justified in an objective manner, or it simply becomes arbitrary.

And the argument that, since Hugh Freeze et all got enough NCAA board of director votes to ban camps is, again, an observation, not an argument.  If Harbaugh gets enough votes to overcome the ban, then the camps will exist again.  The current status of the rules has no weight when considering that the rules should be.  

And your personal definition of moderation has no bearing on what moderation is.  If you want to argue for moderation, you have to actually offer a definition of moderation that has some objective component, else the NCAA will be unable to do anything in moderation until they check with you to define moderation in that particular circumstance.

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 5:55 PM ^

My brain is starting to hurt. Where can you teach more than 180 days? That's the school day limit everywhere I've been. Are you talking about teaching to an empty classroom? Or teaching kids arts and crafts during the summer at a park shelter? Because Harbaugh's certainly allowed to go to a retirement home or have a bunch of 25- to 55-year-old men run through some drills at Elbel Field.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, 1 or 2 satellite camps per year would be plenty. One in-state (SMSB), one out-of-state (Alabama or Texas or California or wherever). It's not unlimited, and it's not a ban. Moderation.

grumbler

April 15th, 2016 at 6:12 AM ^

I can teach more than 180 days right here in Virginia.  In fact, I have.  I can teach college courses on the weekend at the community college, for instance, or teach during the summer semester.

I understand yourt assertion that "one or two... camps... would be plenty," but don't understand where you get the data to back up such an assertion.  What determines "plenty' and why is one or two moderation but six or seven excessive?  What is the measure of effectiveness you are suing for summer camps that allows you to place such a number on "moderation?"

Magnus

April 15th, 2016 at 7:44 AM ^

Jim Harbaugh can have more camps, too. As I said above, he can have camps for little kids, for 25- to 55-year-olds, for mothers, etc. But he can't have camps for high school athletes. Just like you can teach community college, but you can't teach high school kids.

I've addressed your second point elsewhere. Sorry, but I'm just tired of repeating myself.

Jonesy

April 14th, 2016 at 7:10 PM ^

This argument doesn't work. You're basically comparing it to steroids except unlike steroids having camps isn't bad for anyone so there's no reason to limit or prevent them. This ruling only protects laziness, it's akin to saban's ridiculous complaint against fast offenses because 'think of the kids.'

Brhino

April 14th, 2016 at 1:33 PM ^

We really need to learn the details of this Forklift V. Drake Johnson situation, especially if the part of the rumor that he was stretching at the time is true.  Like... why was Drake Johnson stretching near an active forklift (or, why was an active forklift going where Drake Johnson was stretching)?  How does a person get run over by a vehicle that weighs more than a car only get bruised?  

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 1:38 PM ^

It's a terrible thing that happened, and yet I'm glad it didn't happen at the football facility. I'm sure the story would be a lot bigger if it happened during football practice.

I'm guessing it's probably a small-ish forklift that is used to carry around equipment, such as hurdles or maybe pads for the field events. That's obviously just a guess, though.

Pepto Bismol

April 14th, 2016 at 2:02 PM ^

I guess this happened at the indoor track?  And I know the UM Hockey garage sale is there this Saturday.  Perhaps they were clearing out the area of whatever large track-and-field aparatus was in the way in preparation for the weekend event.

Drake and friends said, "Whoa, a forklift. That's irregular, but surely I can stretch over here and remain out of harms way..."

That's the best I've got.  

the Bray

April 14th, 2016 at 1:33 PM ^

Doesn't it stand to reason that MSU feels very cofidently in getting Davis a 6th year - because if they don't, they would have cost him a shot at going in this year's NFL Draft.  If the decision on Ott was late (whoever is to blame for that) - the decision on Davis will come much later (I believe he has to first officially graduate in the spring).  So MSU either knows he'll be back provided he graduates, or Davis is running a huge risk of costing himself a year of pro ball.

kevin holt

April 14th, 2016 at 1:40 PM ^

We sorta discussed this in another post yesterday but I have searched for answers on this. Either Dantonio/compliance at MSU know something we don't about those players' redshirts, or Dantonio/compliance at MSU are extremely misinformed. It's reckless to be so confident when Davis would almost certainly have a shot at the draft but for (1) his injury and (2) not entering in time.

And 6th years are so rare that even if all three players legitimately had injuries during their redshirts, making them involuntary, Dantonio should not be as confident as he is. It's still not a 100% proposition. The compliance person said she has only seen one denial in her tenure, out of countless applications. That makes it seem like even she is confused about the difference between a medical redshirt and a 6th year is. Which is bad news for her if these are denied.

That tells me that maybe the three players were legitimately hurt. Maybe their bios on the site were written to cover the severity of their injuries? Who knows. I guess we'll find out.

Yinka Double Dare

April 14th, 2016 at 1:43 PM ^

Davis wasn't really a projected draft pick BEFORE the season and his knee injury. NFL Draft Scout, for example, had him as the #33 OLB, which doesn't even have a round grade on it. And then he injured his knee. 

So he can do the supplemental draft, go undrafted, then try to hook on as an undrafted free agent pretty much whenever over the next 2-3 months.

tyler durden

April 14th, 2016 at 3:29 PM ^

I think the key distinction from the MSU cases and the Ott case is that Ott played more than 30% of the games (or 3 games, whichever is greater), where none of the MSU guys did in the seasons that are in question. 

All three have to have degrees completed by the end of the school year also, I don't know if this played a factor in the Ott case. 

kevin holt

April 14th, 2016 at 4:25 PM ^

That's for a 5th year though. To get a 6th year you must have been kept out of football for more than a season (i.e. at least 2 seasons). Davis certainly fulfills the requirement of one season but he needs to show a second. He definitely played in his 2nd 3rd and 4th years, so he has to show his redshirt year was medical.

Icehole Woody

April 14th, 2016 at 1:36 PM ^

This Summer camp controversy sure is entertaining for the off season. Rarely are the NCAA's motives so blatantly obvious. Take advantage of the opportunity and force a change in Indianapolis.

M Go Dead

April 14th, 2016 at 1:38 PM ^

I don't know about student athletes getting paid endorsements. Imagine if one wide receiver was being paid by Zingerman's and one by Maize and Blue, that could tear the team apart. I think it is in the best interest of NCAA to just squash the whole idea, it is just easier on those in charge, that who needs their interests protected.

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 1:44 PM ^

I don't like the idea of endorsements for students. It's not the same in the Olympic model, because you can't just choose your nationality. Usain Bolt can't choose to run for Japan just because Toyota gives him an endorsement deal. However, Twitter could pay Jabrill Peppers a crap-ton of money if he signs with Michigan, and Google could offer Rashan Gary a monster deal, because both have CEOs/founders who are Michigan grads. 

If college players are getting paid, it should be spread equally among the players. Okay, there's $10 million in the pot after TV deals, EA Sports products, apparel, etc. Each player gets an equal share of that $10 million, whether he starts for Michigan or whether he's a backup for Louisiana-Lafayette.

M Go Dead

April 14th, 2016 at 2:02 PM ^

I'm by no means an expert or learned about paying players. But doesn't that bring up questions about revenue producing sports only and title IX and all that congress with it? Letting players get endorsements or paid appearance fees would allow for the smaller sports that are local favorites to get some gigs as well. Like Michigan hockey players or the woman's softball team, you know some car dealership would pay them a decent amount to come out on a Saturday for a meet and sign event. Again, I'm no expert, just wondering out loud on an internet comments section.

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 2:06 PM ^

Oh, sure. There are lots of legal hoops to jump through, including making sure that the crew team gets the same benefits as the football players who play in front of 110,000 people. But that would be the best way to approach it, IMO.

Meanwhile, NCAA basketball players should split equally a pot of money made from basketball revenue.

The same goes for baseball and women's basketball and hockey and such.

It won't happen, but that's what SHOULD happen, IMO.