Unverified Voracity, Avoiding Easy R Jokes Today

Submitted by Brian on March 1st, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Iowa. Asian pop bands. A love that is forever. Via the message board, another inexplicable Asian pop song in which the Hawkeyes feature prominently. This one is less pedobear and more 120 Minutes.

One correction to the MGoBoard poster: Girls' Generation is totally not obscure. "Gee" was the longest-running #1 song on KBS's Music Bank, I will have you know.

Enter the Schnell. Michigan will play Howard Schnellenberger University, also known as Florida Atlantic, in 2012:

It appears the Owls will play at Michigan in 2012 barring any snags in the final negotiations.

"It looks like both sides are amenable to it," said FAU AD Craig Angelos.

I don't really care who Michigan brings in as a random tomato can, but do have a preference for local schools. I guess the FAU game is a vague attempt to increase Michigan's profile in the state, or something. Rod Payne is a coach there and Grant Debenedictis an athletic department employee, FWIW.

"Hey, in my kit back there where I've got all my dope." I hit up NCAA.org today in search of APR information to update last summer's post about what will certainly be a dip in Michigan's numbers this year—more on that later—and the top headline is the fourth item in a series about Division II reform. This would normally rank low on my list of things to bring you, but here's the topic:

Hourly limits to be evaluated in Phase II review

Among the areas of review in Phase II of the Life in the Balance initiative is the nebulous “20/8-hour rule,” which regulates athletically related activities in and out of season.

Given that it’s difficult to understand and even harder to track (the rule trips up Division I institutions, too), it’s probably going to be tough for the Division II Legislation Committee to develop recommendations for modifying it.

The NCAA's official website just called the in- and out-of-season hourly limits "nebulous," "difficult to understand," and "even harder to track." So there you go.

Well… yeah. Add this to the pile of former Michigan players asked about Rich Rodriguez who all basically say the same thing in different ways. It's Brandon Graham's turn:

“After the season, we said that, ‘you can’t be up for so long, eventually you have to pay taxes,’ ” Graham said on Saturday. “That’s how we look at it until we get it back up. That’s what we’re going to do. I hope them boys get right next year. Because coach (Rich Rodriguez has) only got one more year — if they don’t do (anything). Because of the allegations, and then, if you have a bad year, then you’ve got to get someone new.”

Again, this is just a different version of the same opinion heard in all of these quotes. They don't say anything about Rodriguez, really. They say something about the guy offering the quote. Brandon Graham, as per usual, is win.

Another version of same. Doctor Saturday evaluates Michigan in his "road to recovery" series and comes to basically the same conclusion as the rest of the planet:

Target date for reacquisition of mojo. … If you mean "enough for Rich Rodriguez to keep his job," there is no patience for those questions to work themselves out; it's 2010 or never. The Wolverines need seven regular season wins to ward off the inevitable mob clamoring for Rodriguez's head, which probably means breaking even in Big Ten play, which means winning more conference games this season (four) than the 2008-09 teams won in the last two combined (three).

That's a dramatically lowered bar relative to anything Michigan has considered a reasonable standard in 40 years. At this point, though, beggars can't be choosers: Every energy this fall has to go to getting back above .500, finding something to hang a helmet on and setting higher goals from there.

Yeah, basically.

A theory put to the test. My swanky blogging program has an auto-link capacity that I've used to link to my Bleacher Report hating (hey, there it goes) since I published it. In that post is this assertion:

The mere fact that people can't immediately tell the difference between the dreck on the Bleacher Report and your average MSM columnist is perhaps the most damning criticism you can offer of MSM columnists.

Now we'll get an opportunity to test that out in practice. A few newspapers desperate for free content have signed one of them content-sharing agreements. Congratulations to newspaper subscribers in Houston, San Antonio, San Francisco, and Seattle: you are the vanguard. Someone who works for a newspaper said this:

“Bleacher Report’s publishing platform provides a powerful way to serve our readers quality, original content that complements our own coverage,” Stephen Weis, executive vice president of the Houston Chronicle and general manager of Chron.com, said in a statement. “Working with Bleacher Report, we’re able to reach out to local fans and add a variety of viewpoints on each of the day’s sports stories that matters most to our readers in their home markets.”

Sporting News colleague Dan Levy says "there's something missing" in his BR critique on the Sporting Blog. This is because Dan Levy is a very nice man. I have many theories as to what the missing thing is that are not very nice. I do eagerly anticipate the day when either the Free Press or the LA Times hops on board and people can't tell the difference between Plaschke, Sharp, and a 14-year-old whose main interests are Tony Hawk and imagining what it would be like to touch a boob. Dress them up in Official Journalist trappings and give them once-over from a copy editor and it'll be hard to distinguish.

Etc.: Tom Harmon goes to work.

Comments

His Dudeness

March 1st, 2010 at 4:17 PM ^

"Stephen Weis, executive vice president of the Houston Chronicle and general manager of Chron.com, said in a statement."

A newspaper subscription, like, wasn't what I was looking for, man.

wile_e8

March 1st, 2010 at 4:19 PM ^

You would think newspapers would have gotten a clue from the whole "Pittsburgh to the Big Ten" fiasco and never use anything from the Bleacher Report ever again. Or course, this would involve the newspapers learning anything about the internet, ever.

JLC21

March 1st, 2010 at 4:36 PM ^

Of major daily newspapers. This kind of move is reactionary, misguided, rearranging-the-deck-chairs-on-the-Titanic, etc. It's awful. I feel really, really, really bad for copy editors at these papers -- they will have an impossible job trying to vet this stuff, but they will also have a ton of pressure to use it. There is no way this ends well.

Section 1

March 1st, 2010 at 4:50 PM ^

Nice looking highlight package. Are we recruiting that guy?

Seriously, what a great runner. And people forget that he was as good a defender and special teams player as he was a halfback on offense.

What I like about the Harmon teams is that everybody threw blocks like madmen. Lots and lots of very big guys, moving fast, all looking for somebody, anybody, to hit. A pretty good way to play football.

bronxblue

March 1st, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^

With newsrooms being sliced apart and readership down, it doesn't surprise me that a number of papers are going to the relatively "free" content you can nab from places like the Bleacher Report, especially as they relate to sports. Since rarely do sports involve anything life-threatening or particularly "deep", at least compared to the national and global scale, it seems like a nice gamble that for every mistake being published a couple of scoops will emerge that will drive up readership.

If the newspapers really do want to leverage the power of the Internet, though, then they need to identify the high-quality sites like MGoBlog and focus on forging partnerships with them, not the lowest-common-denominator crap you find at places like Bleacher Report. A couple of well-regarded blogs like Need4Sheed, MGoBlog, Black Shoe Diaries, and Black Pants, Gold Heart are going to give you far more credible information, and with some substance behind it, than what you'll dredge up from public forums.

Don

March 1st, 2010 at 5:02 PM ^

"Given that it’s difficult to understand and even harder to track (the rule trips up Division I institutions, too)..."

I'm no lawyer, but if the NCAA itself admits that their own rules are "nebulous," doesn't that provide Brandon and his legal beagles plenty of ammo with which to argue that our transgressions were legitimately ones of misunderstanding confusing rules rather than resulting from an outright attempt to flout them?

michelin

March 2nd, 2010 at 3:26 PM ^

Are they accused of doing anything except supervise workouts?

If there's no accusation, or good proof of that, then what exactly does "coaching" mean? Would it be coaching if they gave advice to avoid having the player hurt?

Or turn the question around. If they were required to be there just to monitor compliance, would the school bear any legal responsibility if their QC staff sat by and said nothing, while a player was trying something crazy, as a result, became paralyzed or died?

I am reminded of some player who had weights fall on his neck during a bench press. While I don't recall the outcome, a severe cervical injury could result in paralysis or--if high up enough--even death. Also, I do believe that some lawyers will sue, if you don't do what your peers would expect of you, even if it's technically not your job.

michelin

March 2nd, 2010 at 1:57 PM ^

Regarding vague laws, you and Brian might really be onto something here.

There is a lot written about vague laws

eg They “may harm the innocent by failing to warn of the offense.”
“they encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement”

IMO, Regarding the unfairness of current practices, it seems to me that

the NCAA examines one school with a microscope to look for evidence of a skin cut. For others it does not even put on it’s thick glasses to see the obvious signs of moral death.

Or (pardon the mixed metaphor and mild exaggeration),

if the NCAA and the press together were the investigative and enforcement parts of our justice system, they would punish those guilty of arithmetic errors on their taxes while letting serial killers and cannibals run wild.

I am not a lawyer either, and I don’t know if it’s worth the effort, but, given the published acknowledgment of NCAA on its website of the vagueness of the 20/8 rule, I wonder if UM even would have a legal case here, should the NCAA be guilty of discriminatory enforcement and unfairly tarnish UM, leading to economic damages.

Moreover, the guy who wrote the NCAA accusation letter to UM, Price, is already embroiled in a lawsuit where he screwed up and probably will lose (see last link).

Does he want another one now, over minor, equivocal accusations that many coaches, players, and writers have acknowledged to be applicable to most of the other schools that the NCAA is supposed to patrol?

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the_problem_of.html
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/12/17/vague-laws-defy-the-rule-of-l…
http://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+fight+vague+laws&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-…

Ncaa enforcement head price screws up LINK
http://www.seattlepi.com/huskies/213985_trial01.html

lexus larry

March 1st, 2010 at 5:13 PM ^

The NCAA's official website just called the in- and out-of-season hourly limits "nebulous," "difficult to understand," and "even harder to track."

And silly MGoBlogosphere...how did we expect a U-M grad, named Michael Rosenbag, be able to discern the difference?

Particularly since it doesn't seem he ever went through official channels (through the AD or the NCAA) to understand what the terms meant or included.

If the NCAA doesn't understand 'em, M Football mis-applies 'em, what does the intrepid journalist do? SCREAM "FIRE IN ANN ARBOR" and then get smug when something else is discovered.

trueblueintexas

March 1st, 2010 at 8:04 PM ^

So Rich Rod goes from 3 - 9 to 5 - 7 in his first two years and everyone says, he better win 7 or 9 to keep his job. Welllll...duh. Wouldn't any coach at a big time program?

FYI - here is Charlie Weis' record at Notre Dame:
Year Overall Bowl
2005 9–3 L Fiesta
2006 10–3 L Sugar
2007 3–9 — — —
2008 7–6 W Hawaiʻi — —
2009 6–6 — — —

Keep in mind 05 & 06 were with Brady Quinn as a Junior & Senior and people that could, well, actually play defense.

All this after not significantly changing the whole offensive and defensive scheme.

Point is, yeah, after Charlie's 3-9, and 7-6 years, 6-6 didn't cut it. But Charlie had the opportunity to build on what was already there. Rich Rod basically had to start from scratch and is going in the right direction.

mbrummer

March 1st, 2010 at 9:18 PM ^

I will continue to ignore the sports page. It just worst. In two years, I've never read a bad column about the Astros and their owner. In fact, there's consistent fluff about how great the owner is.

Even though he took public funds to build the stadium, and has completely screwed the farm system until recently.

joeburner82

March 2nd, 2010 at 1:09 AM ^

Assuming Michigan's defense will improve to an average D, I think 8 wins is a a realistic possibility. They should go 4-0 in the nonconference once again, Michigan will probably be a small favorite in South Bend.

They have a shot to start 3-0 in the big ten: at IU, home for MSU and Iowa ( will at least split MSU & IOWA).

Therefore, they will enter Happy Valley at 6-1 or 7-0. They will most likely lose at PSU, get revenge on Purdue, kill Illnois, and have a strong possiblity to beat Wisconsin in the Big House. It is my dream that they will win in Columbus, but it I will not hold my breath.

8-4 or 9-3!

cjpops

March 2nd, 2010 at 9:30 AM ^

8 wins - RR stays
7 wins - must beat MSU to stay
6 wins - must beat OSU to stay
5 or less...that'll be all she wrote

I'm hoping for 8 wins (or more).

Realistically: I'm choosing door #2, 7 wins. However, that means they win the first 6 (including MSU at home) and then beat Illinois at home. Won't be easy to win 6 in a row (ND on the road is not a gimmie, UCONN can play, and I'm worried about BGSU because I don't like Ohio). Iowa, UW, and PSU are going to be tough. Purdue is still a tricky team for UM lately (for some reason). OSU on the road is a pipe dream.