Major Major Major Major
"I have named the boy Caleb," he announced to her finally in a soft voice. "In accordance with your wishes." The woman made no answer, and slowly the man smiled. He had planned it all perfectly, for his wife was asleep and would never know that he had lied to her as she lay on her sickbed in the poor ward of the county hospital.
-Catch-22
"The University is satisfied that the initial media reports are greatly exaggerated if not flatly incorrect."
-University of Michigan
So there are about a zillion documents to go over but here are your thunderbolts of justice:
- Michigan has reduced the number of QC staffers by 40 percent (ie, by two) and prohibited them from attending practices, games, and coaches meetings for 2010. A new bylaw specifically allows QC staffers at coaches meeting, but Michigan won't take advantage of this until 2011. Michigan will not add more QC staffers until the 2011 season ends.
- Michigan will give back 130 hours of practice time over the next two years.
- Michigan has taken "corrective action" to prevent a repeat.
- Two years of probation.
…aaaaand that's all, folks. No scholarships, no reductions in the number of actual coaches, and they didn't even fire anyone other than Herron—the other QC staffer they're losing is Braithwaite, who's now an actual coach. This is actually less severe than the mild sanctions this site has ballparked since May. The NCAA will accept the report essentially as-is in August and Michigan will get on with it.
This is it, by, the way: these documents are the official results of the investigation release to the public and the NCAA. Michigan took this seriously enough to bring in third-party NCAA investigators and this is what they turned up. If there is anyone out there still defending the original article as something other than a one-sided hit job that cost Michigan thousands of dollars and should cause any Michigan fan to boycott the Free Press until the people who wrote and edited it are gone, read the PDFs. Just a couple days ago someone was complaining that characterizing the violations as "stretching" was a dishonest representation of the violations and hurt the site's credibility. It's true that there is a tale of sordid institutional miscommunication buried in the documents, but "warm-up and stretching" is literally 90% of the hourly overages. The QC issues came because Rodriguez thought they were classified as S&C assistants, which they were not.
Compare that—a very serious document that will have consequences if it is wrong—to the Free Press report detailing lurid excesses, student abuse, and complete disregard for NCAA regulations. If newspapers cared about truth in reporting as much as the university does about its compliance with NCAA regulations, everyone involved with the story would be looking for a new job.
Does anyone have any thoughts on what Michigan can do to mitigate the loss of time that can be spent developing players? UM has some young and raw talent that we need to develop sooner than later.
the 20 minutes a day wasn't that big a deal, the lost time shouldnt be a big deal either.
I'm sure theres a few conditioning days/practices that will be cut. Most practices might be a little shorter, but only minimally affecting actual practice time.
First thing than needs to happen is getting rid of the rotating captain. This team needs to establish some freaking leadership and continuity at the player's level. Then, let the players police themselves. It's not hard to do and not unheard of. My friend who coaches a D-I sport at another school doesn't supervise his players over the summer. But NOT one of them leaves campus, even the ones from out of state, and they practice together every day.
I hope you realize that captains lead by example and not because they have the shiny title of captain next to the name.
Where are all the Freep apologists now?
We have concrete results from a thorough investigation that clearly illustrate just how biased the initial reporting was and the completely slanted nature of the the allegations being made.
We have a statement from University officials, although measured in tone and scope, that is an obvious response to the blatant exaggerration of the intial reporting.
Where are all the anti-RR people now?
We have an investigation that names the current staff as being completely open and transparent and fostering an atmospere of compliance.
We have an investigation that spreads accountability across several departments and a systemic breakdown in communication amongst several parties, most of which would not be considered part of RR's staff, that resulted in some very minor oversights.
We have a clear understanding that at no time was the welfare of the student-athletes compromised....ever.
Do you have a 'Yeah, but....' here also?
> Where are all the anti-RR people now?
I'm not anti-RR (I certainly don't want Michigan to fail) but I am very very very disappointed with his comments today. Dave Brandon, who wasn't even the freaking AD at the time, laid down the law and took full responsibility for the infractions. Very impressive. You somehow know Bo is smiling down on this man.
RR on the other hand said that he was at fault but others were too. Come on. You're the head football coach. There isn't anyone higher in the football program than you. It happened on your watch. I think RR had an opportunity to hit a leadership home run today and he struck out through innuendo and suggesting others caused his problems. Man up RR.
David Brandon made a grand symbolic gesture in accepting responsibility for actions that could not possibly be his responsibility. He is great and he is doing and saying exactly what he should.
Rich, on the other hand, was the subject of a serious host of allegations directed specifically at him and his staff. In his response, he accepts completely responsibility for his part in the failing of the process, indicates his regret and that he will do better at compliance in the future. What he takes exception to specifically when he says, 'but not all' in his response, is the accusation that he did not foster an atmosphere of compliance, which the investigation proved to be patently false. Were I the head coach I would definitely voice my objections to that publicly to be sure it is understood that I wasn't acting with callous disregard to the rules and the welfare of my players.
I am glad it is important enough for him that he wants to be heard and to clear his rep in that regard. I certainly don't interpret it as a failing of leadership.
What he takes exception to specifically when he says, 'but not all' in his response
That's what the "head" in head football coach means. Yeah he probably wasn't 100% responsible for everything that happened (especially the dude that lied) but it is RR's program after all. You think leaders don't get blamed all the time for their staff? It comes with the territory. That's why execs get paid what they do, because they work ridiculous hours and it's their ass on the line.
is the accusation that he did not foster an atmosphere of compliance, which the investigation proved to be patently false.
But it's not "patently" false. If the conclusion was as definitive as you suggest, Michigan would not be on probation right now. Fortunately, we're talking about 65 practice hours and paperwork... and not FSU or USC type allegations.
This is a response to the NCAA for specific allegations against RR and the program, not a PR campaign to woo fans for Rodriguez. They don't have a choice, they need to provide a statement that rejects those claims in no uncertain terms as the NCAA will be looking at this when they make a decision. They aren't interested in his nobility of character in falling on his sword, they are interested in what happened and what sanctions should/should not be brought.
Please keep in mind also that this was one part of a very well-planned and perfectly orchestrated overall response and that both Brandon an Mary Sue Coleman were no doubt intimately involved in deciding exactly what RR's response would contain. If you think that Rich and his lawyer talked it over, took a stance, wrote it up and showed up at the press conference, then you are quite simply out of touch with how things work and quite frankly a bit naive.
Hypothetically, even if Rodriguez could cop to the accusations without eroding his case to the NCAA, unconditionally accepting responsibility for every accusation is wrong because:
1. It contradicts the findings of the investigation that are being presented to the NCAA
2. It would cast him as a coach that is not concerned with the welfare of his players and that would impact his ability to recruit....not smart. Hello negative recruiting.
3. It would be reinforcing the most serious of the false allegations brought forth by the Free Press. Lord only knows what they would print after that.
Every anti-RR 'fan' out there who doesn't bother to understand the nuances behind what they read in the headlines would look at it and be on here spouting off about 'see, it IS all his fault, he even said so', the same people that are on here now still trying to hang him when the evidence from investigation clearly exonerate him.
So he is supposed to take all of that because of some hokey notion that the ony noble thing to do is accept all responsibility when all the evidence points to the contrary? I don't think that is a smart move at all.
He accepted responsibility for his role in the breakdown of the system, he regrets his failings and indicates he will strive to do better, however he rejects (and all the evidence backs him up) the most egregious of the accusations in that he did not fail to foster an atmosphere of compliance.
I can guarantee you if someone accuses Brandon of financial impropriety while AD and an investigation clears him of any wrongdoing while implicating others, he will not be offering a blanket acceptance of responsibility. that I assure you.
As someone who isn't necessarily "all in" for Rodriguez (though I don't consider myself a hater or freep apologist or whatever) the University's response was very comforting to read. I think they took everything head on and answered it all very logically. Well done, I am much less worried than I was. I would encourage everyone to actually read the response. It's long and probably requires a few breaks to clear your mind, but I think it's worth it. My take in bullet points...
- The QC staff stuff was very informative and very helpful. When I read the inital allegations, the QC stuff jumped out at me as the big red flag. It didn't seem that bad in the response thoough. Basically, they were doing things that would have been done anyway and it seems every program does, but because of their classifications, it was a violation. Obviously this shouldn't happen, but my fear that Rodriguez was nefariously adding extra staff and consciously skirting the rules seems to have been unfounded. I am happy for that.
- Stretching. The numbers here are pretty small on a week by week basis. When you see 65 total hours, that sounds bad, but it took them a long time to get to that 65 hours. The question I didn't see answered was whether most schools have their coaches involved in stretching and warmups. If they do (and count them appropriately) then I think you can make a case that UM did get some advantage by not counting them. If everyone is counting 20 minutes of warmup and stretching in their 4 four hours a day, that gives them 3 hours and 40 minutes of "actual" practice. If UM was getting 4 full hours, that is an advantage (small one obviously). If most schools don't, this will turn out to be a heavy price to pay for what I have to imagine was just the coaches going around and hyping the players while they warmed up. Too bad.
- The nuggets about the Ed Martin investigation was pretty crazy. So basically, if UM hadn't insisted that the NCAA look back into it when Martin got indicted, the entire course of the last 10 years of hoops could have been altered. I am proud that they did the right thing, but man it's been painful.
- Finally, I was one of the people that thought Brian constantly referring to this as "20 minutes of stretching" was disingenuous. I can admit he appears to have been pretty much right. Given the language of the allegations referring to QC staff and coaching activities, Brian must have had inside information that those would come to nothing or he took a chance and got lucky.
I seriously want a apology from them to the university. What they did was low and dishonest and they should have been fired.
It would certainly be a way for Rosenberg to show he's a Michigan Man after all; owning up and taking the heat.
I grew up in Ann Arbor. I live in Wisconsin, I never knew the difference in the Free Press and The Detriot News. I know now that one paper stinks and one does not. If the Free Press apologizes then I forgive them. I have not logged on to the Press since this mess. Also I would not use the Free Press to potty train my dog.
Other than the Sports section, the Free Press is generally the better paper, attracting the better writers, going for more pulitzers, etc. Though since they went under the same ownership, there really is little difference news-wise between the papers. On the editorial page, the Freep is left while the News is right, but the political differences, especially locally, are much less rancorous or divisive as the country's red/blue split in general. As evidence, metro-Detroit liberals read the News almost as often as conservatives, and vice versa -- the paper choice has really come down to which special features individual readers prefer.
The most recent feather in the Free Press cap was single-handedly taking down Detroit's corrupt-as-hell mayor.
As far as the sports section, the low quality of both papers is oft-remarked, especially by those of my generation (X). It's really more of a matter of pleasing a stupid masses, not an editorial decision to flip one school the bird. There are a lot of Spartan fans in Detroit, enough to make Drew & Mike the most popular radio show in the area. The reason the Freep and not the News has Drew Sharp is because his annoyance style gets more readership than anything the News offers. If there wasn't a market for this crap, they wouldn't be peddling it.
Amidst the pantheon of sports columnists in Detroit, Rosenberg was supposed to be the intelligent, reserved one. What is so galling about this witch hunt (I can think of no description more apt) was the profound betrayal it represented, both to Rosenberg's university, and more importantly in my mind, to his own previous standard of journalism, or at least what we thought was his standard.
Rosenberg was not a flame-headed asshole before publishing this story. He was usually the guy with clarity and reserve, and maybe a bit of academic insight. Turns out, this really wasn't, as we had thought, a mark of his incredible journalistic integrity, i.e. an ability to turn off his biases and passions when reporting. Rather, until Rich Rod, there was nothing he wrote about -- not Yzerman's last stand, not Millen's bungling, not resonance of the hard work ethos of Detroit in its 2004 Pistons -- that ever touched Rosenberg's passions. Rich Rod did. He hated Rich Rod, and made it known. Rosenberg was your quintessential Lloyd guy, the type of guy who if he were an MGoBlogger would have spit bile at mention of Les Miles because of LSU indiscretions, and apparently would expect the holy sanctity of Michigan to conjure the perfect candidate from some unsullied corner of a business gone universally dirty. He also would have been negged all the way to Alaska for this.
Rather, Rosenberg had his flame-out in a piece that he convinced his editor was so evidentiary that it couldn't be disputed. This, of course, is the same editor currently employing Drew Sharp, and sending a check each month to Mitch Albom in return for an occasional case of syrup and the rights to republish his life's work.
Under Paul Anger (since 2005), the Free Press has most notably shifted its efforts toward investigatory pieces, and then when something pops, making that the editorial focus. Anger has sought to reassert the paper, through the one story type that the great dailies medium has historically done best: the Exposé.
The Kilpatrick coverage, which still dominates the paper's headlines, is the exempli gratia but they have made Rosenberg's attack on Michigan the same for its college football coverage. The plan: report something incredibly shocking, and then keep talking about the shocking thing forever (even after it's resolved), because every time it gets mentioned, you get mentioned for breaking the story.
If it sounds like Yellow Journalism, it's because it is.
It makes sense. An exposé, an investigatory piece that prints erstwhile secret information about an enterprise/organization which that org didn't want brought to light, requires a certain amount of institutional backing from its publisher to come to print (and survive). It's a way to compete with blogs, who generally don't have the access, let alone the institutional fortitude to spend a lot of time investigating and be able to still cover that enterprise after the piece has broke.
Anway, this is Anger's vision. And Rosenberg's attack on Rich Rodriguez and the MIchigan football program was made possible by that vision.
Thanks for giving this some perspective.
Question, do you think at this point he has any regrets?
No. I think Michael is as proud of it as I am of my Decimated Defense Trilogy, except more so because he put a lot more work into it, and got a hell of a lot more recognition for it.
I think he believes that Rich Rod and Barwis showed up with the idea that they could make Michigan's players practice and train harder and longer than any other team in the country, and that their carelessness in implementing their program led to Michigan football's first NCAA infractions.
Furthermore, I think he believes the practices were not "optional" and that the minimal sanctions for "major" violations are representative, not putative. By this I mean Rosenberg imagines Rich Rod was riding a loophole close to the edge, and got nailed for slipping over it. For Michael, the real transgression was not following the spirit of the NCAA rule, not whether real infractions were incurred. To him, the serious charge is the "lack of institutional control," which he lays at the feet of Rich Rodriguez, whom Rosenberg despises.
Speaking as a journalist, this as clear-cut a case as you could ask for as to how biases can taint even an investigatory piece, and how an editor should not act. If I was his editor, I would have demanded Rosenberg hand all of his notes over to Snyder, assigned Snyder a "monkey" (a young staffer to act as fact checker, assistant, and ombudsman), and given the university an opportunity to comment before publishing it.
I don't live in Michigan anymore, so don't have the familiarity with local writers, this is helpful.
I do hope there are commercial repercussions for the paper that make them reassess the story and at least begin to look at the situation objectively from here on out, although I don't think there is much chance of that at this point.
Even a real monkey would have been an improvement in terms of checking facts and it would have screeched and hurled feces from its cage at the prospect of printing the original piece.
Instead, Rosenberg was hurling it.
Comments