Major Major Major Major Comment Count

Brian

"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.

Comments

steve sharik

May 25th, 2010 at 11:37 AM ^

I don't think the university has legal grounds for suing the Free Press for libel.  (You and/or lawyers can correct me if I'm wrong.)  However, what do you think are the chances the university sues the Free Press to at least cover the costs of the investigation?  I think zero, but I also think the Free Press is clearly responsible for costing the university and its football program a lot more time (and money) than they were found of excessing.

Captain

May 25th, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^

It would be tough to prevail on a libel suit.  The landmark case (I want to say New York Times v. Sullivan, but that's straining my memory) would require U of M to prove actual malice (i.e. that the Freep published the story with reckless disregard to the story's truth or falsity).

While it is apparent to all of us that the Freep was on a naked jihad, this is a difficult standard to meet.  The Freep would undoubtedly produce evidence that they interviewed [angry ex-]players who said the things the article was based upon.  This would be a solid foundation that they were at most negligent in printing the article.

saveferris

May 25th, 2010 at 12:11 PM ^

You have the case study correct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

I'm no lawyer, but I think proving libel is virtually impossible   The story essentially claimed U of M broke rules surrounding practice time limits and having QC personnel exceeding their job description, which was essentially proven to be true, if not vastly exaggerated on the part of the media.

U of M does have a case against the Free Press for defamation, but that's even harder to prove.  As Captain states above [EDIT: and Misopogon below], in this instance you would have to prove malice on the part of the Free Press, which is tough to do.  You could argue that the overstatement of the degree of the violations was a direct attempt to inflict damage on the University and the employees involved, but the Free Press prints some kind of retraction or apology and they're off the hook.  Bottom line, pursuing this course of action just keeps this story in the publc eye longer and I think we're better off just letting it fade into oblivion.

I'm just as enraged about this as the I'm sure the rest of you are, but the only recourse we have is to hit them in the wallet.  It's not very satisfying, but it's all that we as consumers of news can do.

03 Blue 07

May 25th, 2010 at 11:40 PM ^

Not to split hairs, but no, they aren't. One involves print, one involves a public person, and one involves a private person/entity. Prevailing when you are a public person/entity is very difficult, to say the least.

Regardless, the number one consideration when ever considering any kind of litigation is "what do I want to accomplish?" In the instant case, i'd say that we achieve no goals as an institution from a PR standpoint or big picture standpoint by going down into the muck to sue the Freep. Not to mention, in a case like this, where the University is clearly public, you'd have to prove actual malice, as other commenters have pointed out, which is virtually impossible. I mean, you'd need some sort of smoking gun-type of evidence (I'm talking, legitimately, something like a recording of Michael Rosenberg saying he knowingly reported these "facts" as truth when he knew they were, in fact, not true, and did so to injure the school.)

Also, usually, the second-biggest hurdle in prevailing as a public entity/person in a  slander/libel type of case (with proof of malice being the first hurdle)  is showing actual, provable economic damages. Even though I think "damages" are provable here, I don't know how you can rationally or scientifically prove "damages" from a $ standpoint in a way that would get around Daubert and be admitted into court as expert evidence, as putting a financial number on losing practice time and our "tarnished reputation" would be very difficult to quantify to the extent I believe you'd need to. . . although I guess this would actually be a suit in Michigan state court, and Daubert is the Federal standard. But you get my drift- I am certain there is a similar standard in Michigan state court for being able to calculate the actual monetary damages to a reasonable degree of scientific or (in this case) financial certainty. And that's IF you had that hypothetical smoking gun recording I referred to.  

Regardless, you'd have a very, very slim chance of prevailing because of the various hurdles for such a case, and it would just look. . . bad. Let sleeping dogs lie.

Seth

May 25th, 2010 at 12:02 PM ^

A lawyer can probably give you a better explanation of the details behind this, but suing a newspaper for libel has a mountain of precedent for failure behind it.

Knowing the Free Press can say whatever it wants to say is how you know the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post etc. can say whatever they want. Or perhaps more to the point, how Brian can say whatever he wants about the Free Press.

Rosenberg and Snyder stretched the minor allegations as far as they could possibly go, but nowhere near far enough to counter journalists' "Qualified Privelege" which protects us from defamation.

Also, because the University is a public institution, the Freep is doubly protected by "Fair comment on a matter of public interest."

And, since the investigation did turn up something, however minute, there's no case to be made here that Michigan was in any way forced to undergo a useless investigation because of malice.

There has been some success against publications for harassment, but to an individual, not to an institution, let alone a public institution.

Be happy for this. I would rather live in a society where media is judged by the people for the quality of its content, than one in which media is judged by courts and legislators. The Freep has lost readers (I am one) and subscribers from this, and you are welcome to contribute to that. If that's not justice because a greater amount of morons across the nation made it up to the newspaper and more, well, that's the People we are all a part of; you and I can only do our best to change opinions willing to change by presenting superior information.

mgoblue0970

May 25th, 2010 at 11:19 PM ^

Instead of suing, why not just yank their credentials?

Under previous coaches, wasn't Sharp and others (I think from the A2 News) persona non grata on campus?  Was it not until Carr left that Sharp got more access to M Football?

I wouldn't have a problem yanking their credentials.  It's not like Sharp, Synder, Rosenberg are journalists.  Muckrackers yes.  Journalists no.

jamiemac

May 25th, 2010 at 11:40 AM ^

I know some are still worried that the NCAA may yet come down harder on Michigan, or perhaps you are already tired of hearing others lol at this and say wait for the NCAA.

Just to add a bit to Brian's perspective.

The IU/Sampson debacle......its worth noting that the NCAA didnt add any sanctions to what the school self imposed in the wake of their own investigation. And, from following both situations closely, the IU scandal was much worse, involved obvious repeat offenses by the coach and while IU cooperated with the NCAA investigation, initially the school probed this in the summer of 2007 and was like nothing to see here.....even though, in the end, there was a lot to see.

IU, however, did not place itself on probabtion. The NCAA did that, for 3 years, but didnt add one single sanction, so the probabtion is what probabtion is--a warning to keep things clean during that period. IU didntn ban itself from the postseason either. Nor did the NCAA add that as a penalty.

With Michigan, the school did place itself on probation and were generally more open from the get go and cooperative that IU was. Nothing else is happening to the program.

I know what Biran says and certainly what I say wont calm everyone down. God knows, there are people on this board that just have to obsess about something (I think I saw Dee Hart wearing some Auburn orange at school today, TOMVH talk me off the ledge!!!!!)....but in this case, the song is over.

The NCAA will not be adding to this penalty. Book It.

Poster Nutbag

May 25th, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^

Any chance of the NCAA adding additional sanctions to us?  or is it pretty much they'll (ncaa) accept this and move on?  I know we had the 3rd party investigators assisting/investigating the allegations.  Just wondering.

casmooth

May 25th, 2010 at 11:44 AM ^

So it sounds like the investigation went well.  Sure this is a bad time in history, but I am glad to see the self-imposed fractions are not completely damaging.  I just hope the media frenzy begins to subdue and we can start to gain momentum with more recruits.  Still, I like DB and think the program is headed in the right direction.

 

GO BLUE.

mgoblue0970

May 25th, 2010 at 11:13 PM ^

 

Something doesn't sit right though.  Reggie Bush and OJ Mayo got paid.  That has been going on since 2004 and the NCAA has done squat.  Michigan, exceeding allotted practice time, is being labeled repeat offenders and is facing punishment by the NCAA in August -- not even a full year later.  At this disproportional rate, I bet some scholarship reductions are coming too.  Ugh!

Suddenly, I know how Bama fans must feel.

GBOD79

May 25th, 2010 at 4:30 PM ^

With a team of 100 players someone is going to feel forced to go. To me that is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the coaches are not the ones making them feel forced. Any team leader worth a damn will make sure everyone feels forced to go to these optional sessions,

Space Coyote

May 25th, 2010 at 12:10 PM ^

And if I'm not mistaken includes things like spring practice too.  So a week less of two spring seasons knocks out two of those weeks, so on and so forth.  It is still very significant, but not as huge as it sounds.

 

My feeling, because we didn't make a bowl game the last two years like usual, we should just be able to call that missed practice time.  I don't think the NCAA will buy that though...

Puget Sound Blue

May 25th, 2010 at 11:53 AM ^

The problem - for me - with boycotting the Freep is that I'd have to read the News for information about Detroit and Michigan, and the News is a paper I've disliked for years.

Wolv54

May 25th, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^

a bunch of douchebags to fire other douchebags....there's a code.  I lamented that their is no accountability for the Freep in this matter because they can essentially print any amount of unsubstantiated garbage they want to and always cite seedy anonymous sources and play Jedi mind tricks on others.  You're asking a bunch of folks with no integrity to do something honorable and it's not in their nature.  The alligator does not save the baby duck other than in children's books. 

Moreover, this was a calculated move by the Freep and they are probably sitting in someone's office over there right now drinking bourbon and smoking cigars...somebody in that room is stroking a cat sitting on their lap....

saveferris

May 25th, 2010 at 12:08 PM ^

somebody in that room is stroking a cat sitting on their lap....

His face is probably partially obscured by a screen and he refers to his minions by number, not name.  "We will now hear from Number 3 on his and Number 4's progress on Project Punching Dolphin.....you may begin Number 3.:

"Thank you Number 1...."

sandiego

May 25th, 2010 at 12:11 PM ^

I've been personally involved in an Administrative investigation by the local election monitoring commission for the last two years - triggered by a complaint by my opponents paid political consultant (read: FreePress equiv.) .   The exchange below, from RR's response, highlights what is wrong with these types of actions - the investigator knows next to nothing, uses incorrect terminology, IF you respond to their question some lawyer reads it later and uses it as an admission.  Kudo's for RR for not letting them put words into his mouth.  The whole thing is ridiculous, but lets hope the NCAA takes the report at face value and accepts the self-imposed sanctions.

 

Jackie Thurnes: Okay. They (quality control staff), um, they're – they're
involved in coaches' meetings. They – they might –
Rich Rodriguez: Can I stop you there?
Scott Tompsett: Well, wait a minute.
Jackie Thurnes: Sure. Sure.
Rich Rodriguez: But who says involved?
Jackie Thurnes: Not involved. That was the wrong term on my part.
They part–
Rich Rodriguez: It is the wrong term. They don't participate.
Jackie Thurnes: I just – I just said it was a wrong term.
Scott Tompsett: Yeah.
Jackie Thurnes: They participate. They ob – not par – they observed. They –
they're involved in coaches' meetings. They're out on the
practice field.
Scott Tompsett: Well, wait a minute. You said – you said again they're
involved in coaches' meetings, and that has a connotation that
they're actively participating and contributing. You know, I
think Coach has made clear that they're just there –
Jackie Thurnes: Right. And I –
Jackie Thurnes: - I understand that.
Rich Rodriguez: I – I'll make it clear, so it's on the record. If I go over there
right now and there's an offensive, there may be one or two
quality control guys in there, but you wouldn't know it. They
say nothing. They do nothing.

psychomatt

May 25th, 2010 at 12:17 PM ^

but the one thing that seems to have not been specifically addressed is the "repeat offender" problem.  It might turn out to be nothing, but Michigan technically was still on probation from the Bball scandal when these violations occurred (Michigan was on 5 years probation from 2003).

No question these self-sanctions are appropriate for the nature and extent of the violations and should be more than enough, but it is possible the NCAA feels a need to add something.  If not, what does it mean to be on probation in the first place?

Gene Marsh is the expert and has looked at this issue and advised Michigan that these self-imposed sanctions are enough.  I hope the NCAA agrees.

Tha Quiet Storm

May 25th, 2010 at 12:42 PM ^

The "repeat offender" thing is the only issue I'm still a little worried about.  It would be a stretch to try and link these violations with those that took place with the b-ball team 15 years ago to show a pattern of wrongdoing, but the football violations did technically occur during the probationary period.  Hopefully common sense will prevail.

One other question for anybody: Mike Barwis was one of the 7 who received a letter of reprimand.  How exactly does he and/or the S&C staff fit in with the 5 allegations?  I'm kinda confused by that.

Yostal

May 25th, 2010 at 12:46 PM ^

And I read a lot of words this morning like the rest of you, so I could totally be wrong:

Because the QC staff were being employed in an S&C capacity and in being employed in said capacity, they were in violation of NCAA bylaws, Barwis, as the head of Michigan's entire S&C program, should have been more vigilant in knowing the rules of how S&C coaches can and cannot be used.

I could be wrong, but that would be my guess.

mejunglechop

May 25th, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^

While it's a safe bet that this is all that will come of this at an institutional level for Michigan, there's still the question of whether Rodriguez himself will be. There's no precedent for sanctioning coaches so it's hard to know the criteria and likely outcomes.

Seth

May 25th, 2010 at 12:30 PM ^

From the coach's response:

"Rodriguez regrets that any CARA violations occurred, but he notes that the scope of the violations is significantly less than reported by media reports in August 2009. For example, without identifying sources, the media reported that student-athletes typically spent at least nine hours on required countable football activities on Sundays in the fall of 2008, five hours more than permissible. In marked contrast to what the media reported, the enforcement staff has alleged that overages on Sundays were one hour, at most. Moreover, again without naming sources, the media reported that student-athletes were required to spend as much as 21 hours a week in off-season workouts, 13 hours more than the weekly permissible limit. The allegations, however, allege off-season overages of two hours per week, at most."

WCHBlog

May 25th, 2010 at 12:32 PM ^

But I heard Mark Snyder from the Free Press on ESPN yesterday, and he said the NCAA may make a connection between these violations and the Ed Martin scandal, which would cause the NCAA to drop the hammer on Michigan.

What could he possibly have to gain by trying to make these charges sound 1000 times worse than they actually are?

JeepinBen

May 25th, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^

Plug time on ESPN!!! Why else would ESPN have him on? In the 24 hour news cycle, nothing is news unless its NEWSNEWSNEWS!!! huge exciting stuff. 

Michigan might have stretched too long - that gets a 20 second clip on ESPN. 

MICHIGAN ABUSES PLAYERS FREEP JIHAD on the other hand - that gets Snyder on ESPN talking about whatever he wants, gets him (and the freep) more hits on web sites and sells papers.

With the industry failing, as many other people have put it, The goal isn't good journalism, it is to sell papers, and that's what he's trying to do

lexus larry

May 25th, 2010 at 1:43 PM ^

Among my favorite quotes from the movie:

Charlie Mackenzie: Hey Mom, I find it interesting that you refer to the Weekly World News as, "The paper." The paper contains facts.
May Mackenzie: This paper contains facts. And this paper has the eighth highest circulation in the whole wide world. Right? Plenty of facts. "Pregnant man gives birth." That's a fact.

Indeed, the fr**p is now among the dregs of Weekly World News...

mgoblue0970

May 25th, 2010 at 11:08 PM ^

Michigan had pictures of Ed Martin up in the locker room with the caption, do not go near this man.  Yet, Snyder seems to think the independent actions of C Webb are metaphor for the whole institution.  Never let the facts get in the way of a good story eh Synder.

might and main

May 25th, 2010 at 12:56 PM ^

If the internal investigation had found that RR indeed failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance I would have been really bummed.  I believe in RR, I'm all in for him and the program.  I've been outraged by the Freep's methods and obvious motivations in this whole thing.  And yet if the U came out and said RR failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance I would have had to re-evaluate my view of RR.  I am relieved and grateful to read the investigation seems to have turned up just the opposite.  Per Angelique's article (linked below): "Information gathered by the university during its investigation shows Rodriguez has been committed to compliance with NCAA bylaws and with the academic success of his players."

 

That is great news.