Unverified Voracity Could Beat Up Godzilla

Submitted by Brian on March 15th, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Truth. From the message board: a post entitled "Jake Long is bigger than you" that is 100% truth.


The third guy in that line is a 6'1", 235 pound former D-III linebacker.

[David Chappelle racist white guy voice] "They have such animal passions." [/dcrwgv] One of the main tensions on the message boards around here is between people who reflexively attack people who write anything even slightly negative about Michigan and people who push back at them. I thought the latter group was more correct after the signing day press conference when Dave Birkett went into I Are Serious Reporter mode and latched onto Rodriguez's pant leg for a series of questions about Demar Dorsey.

Yeah, it was kind of a dick move, but if you're going to add every reporter who sees a piece of meat and goes after it to the enemies list there isn't going to be anyone left off that list in short order. QED: even Angelique Chengelis got knocked around after she said the Victors Rally was dumb. Birkett was one of the people pointing out that the ridiculous Freep story about Rodriguez invoking Hurricane Katrina left out that thing called context.

This from the latest chat on AnnArbor.com, however, is indefensible. Birkett is out and pops back in. He offers this apropos of nothing:

Dave Birkett: Sorry had to run for a more. A buddy came over to look at my home repair issue. I'm back.

Dave Birkett: If anyone needs any home improvement done, try Nelson Home Improvement. I've been using them for years.

Dave Birkett: And thanks Demar, I'll see you here shortly. No need to bring your crowbar.

There is absolutely no context for that. So… wow. Cheapshotting a kid who hasn't even enrolled, you've never talked to, and is trying to turn his life around. Classy. How about we wait for Dorsey to do something, maybe?

First in line. Due to a walk-on snafu, Michigan is only going to be able to enroll 26 of their 27 players this fall. This will leave at least one scholarship open, and the guy at the top of the list will surprise no one:

UM coach Rich Rodriguez maintained throughout the season that it's his intention to include Kovacs among his scholarship players. That process has seemingly progressed this offseason.

"He'll have the first one available in the fall, and it looks like one will be available," Rodriguez said. "I'm hoping it will be available for this summer because he's earned one."

I've seen a couple people react to this article as if Kovacs is now a full scholarship player, but that does not seem to be the case. If Michigan actually has 85 scholarship players on the roster in 2011, Kovacs will have to pay his way. Given the way Michigan recruits—not oversigning like a mother—that's not likely.

Also in that article is a rundown of the players who will be unavailable for spring: Brandon Herron, Mike Martin, Vincent Smith, and David Molk. Junior Hemingway has a minor injury and will miss a week or two.

No thanks. Chengelis suggests the spring game should be held at night. I'm not one of those guys who hates night games, but that seems like an epically bad idea. Reasons:

  • In April it's often really nice out during the day and super cold at night. One of the main draws of the game is to have an excuse to sit outside in the spring sun after the traditional Michigan hibernation period.
  • Attendance would be depressed since people aren't going to get a hotel room for the spring game.
  • Michigan would have to shell out for portable lights.
  • Any Michigan football game that starts after 3:30 is like feeding Gizmo after midnight. Do you want a zombie apocalypse?

I would like to see Michigan push the start time back to two or three so I can take the rare opportunity to tailgate properly.

In which you prove their point anyway. WLA tiff with the Buckeye Battle Cry, the new-ish SBNation Ohio State blog. In sum: WLA posts picture of Kevin from the Office on blog to imply that while the "writers" there are probably not handicapped that's something you would need careful examination and probably a DNA test to confirm. Kevin from the Office deletes, bans, and then contacts the poster's employer.

I'm not sure why SBN even has an Ohio State blog if that was the best one they could sign up. Talk about damaging your brand.

Etc.: Jimmy King interviewed by Lost Lettermen. New blog by a diarist around here is up: Wolverine Tactics opines on what to do with Denard. Discount tickets available for the CCHA Championships. Markus previews UConn. Yes, in March.



March 15th, 2010 at 3:05 PM ^

From reading the entire transcript, it looks like he was responding to a comment that was not published in the chat. His responses just prior to the Demar one did not have a corresponding comment. Also, later in the chat he mentions that he is not able to post the submitted comments. This looks like something on the innocent side that is getting blown out of proportion.


March 15th, 2010 at 3:52 PM ^

Is it the poster who used Demar Dorsey's name or a varient to make an initially snarky comment or Birkett to use the poster's name in his response.

Since Birkett was talking about home improvement the comment he was responding to could have easily been rather innocent. Maybe along the lines of wanting to help with demolition.

Supposedly Birkett is trying to get the original post that the "Crowbar" comment is in response to. Once we see that we will see just how out of bounds the comment was.


March 15th, 2010 at 10:46 PM ^

Yeah, I kind of agree. A submitted comment (which you know may not be printed) doesn't give license to the chat admin to take a pot shot at a 17-year-old kid. I don't think context means much here; it was a jerk move and completely unnecessary. Nelson Home Improvement will still get their plug, so just move along.


March 15th, 2010 at 2:59 PM ^

Kovacks getting a schollie is nice, but what happened with the "snafu"?? Are we sure someone isn't making it or is someone getting screwed?


March 15th, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^

Yeah, I think that preview gave UConn too much credit in a lot of areas. First of all, although UConn only lost one WR, he caught half the balls that UConn threw, and the other guys only got the ball when opposing D's were concentrating on him.

Also, Todman hasn't been injury prone because he's only been asked to carry the ball 15 times a game. He was always option 2, or maybe option 1A, but he always had a good powerback to compliment him. Other than him, UConn doesn't have a RB who did a damn thing last year, so Todman will either have to carry the load on his own (which he's never had to do and he's little) or he'll split carries with a nobody instead of a very solid senior. Very different situation.

He also gave way too much credit to Zach Frazier, IMO, who only played about half the season last year, had a 53% completion rate and threw as many picks as TD's, and saying Frazier will improve as much as Tate is silly. Any player will improve more from year 1 to 2 than from year 4 to 5. But the rest of the preview I don't know enough about to comment.


March 15th, 2010 at 3:12 PM ^

Posting that comment about Dorsey for the entire internet universe to read was nothing other than incredibly dumb, dumb, dumb for a supposedly "professional" journalist.

Let's be honest: the fact that he couldn't keep that highly inflammatory comment to himself reveals exactly what his attitude towards Rodriguez and the Michigan program is.


March 15th, 2010 at 4:02 PM ^

Part of my points total is cause I've said I don't think RR (Michigan) should recruit and give full ride scholarships to kids like Dorsey.

BUT -- he's here, I've always wished the best for him, hope the best for him and hope he does the team and the U proud. To diss him for potential screw ups just to get an easy half a laugh is shit.

Monocle Smile

March 15th, 2010 at 11:57 PM ^

like to be judged for the rest of your professional life by your first two years of high school?

"Kids like Dorsey" are "kids who have made a few mistakes and are looking for a fresh start" not "incurable criminals." I thought this university was all about improving kids' lives, not like the fucking Ivy League who just takes those who already have it made.

Not a Blue Fan

March 16th, 2010 at 9:47 AM ^

Hey, I don't condone what BBC did, but you can't honestly think that internet anonymity is some kind of magical shield. Hell, WLA even said that none of the privacy policy exemptions apply to this situation. So why bring it up at all? Here's why: they're mad that someone retaliated after they went and shit in BBC's yard. Nevermind that the logic that WLA uses is ridiculous and their argument is spurious. Well guess what, you mess with the bull, you get the horns...even if those horns come in the form of petty, petulant, immature revenge.

So yeah, the BBC guys are dicks. But the WLA guys are failing terribly at playing the victim. In short, nobody looks good here.


March 16th, 2010 at 10:26 AM ^

The WLA isnt mad at "retaliation"

It was typical rivalry blog back and forth until those folks at BBC crossed the line and basically tattle-told to a WLA member's real life boss about him wasting time on the Internet.

Come on, man, that's why this is an issue. It was petulant and immature, not to mention dangerous to somebody's livlihood. Telling somebody to eat a shit sandwhich or mocking a WLA member in a post is not only fine, but encouraged at the WLA.

Crossing the line to try to get somebody fired or trouble is not. When that was done to a fellow WLA member, the WLA fought fire with fire.....and rightfully so.


March 16th, 2010 at 10:37 AM ^

What would your reaction be if a MICH blogger didn't like a post of yours on his blog, so he took your IP address and e-mailed your employer, thus violating his own privacy policy? While he may have access to that information (as you say, it's the internet and there is no true anonymity), the privacy policy exists to protect against that kind of abuse.

BBC fucked up. No two ways about it.

Not a Blue Fan

March 16th, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^

Well, for the sake of argument let's assume that I post from work (I don't, but feel free to track down my IP if you don't believe me).

Would I be upset? Of course. But hypocrisy doesn't make you wrong, it makes you a hypocrite. I'm not trying to paint anybody in a bad light, and I certainly apologize if I have the facts here wrong (and I think I do; I understood that it was someone who writes WLA who was posting on BBC, but that appears to not be true RE: my statement about 'playing the victim' - my apologies), but I am not entirely clear that they in any way violated their own privacy policy.

Should this sort of thing be included in their privacy policy? I think there's a good argument that it should (and I happen to think that it should). And it's obviously a dick move that they made. But this isn't a case of "should" but a case of "is". Is it against their privacy policy? I am unpersuaded that it is in a literal sense, though certainly it against the spirit of the policy. If SBN wants to terminate the BBC's contract, I don't care (I don't read BBC or WLA, FWIW). But they have to walk a fine line between "you violated company policy" and "you did something that isn't in the spirit of company policy". That's all that I'm saying.


March 16th, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^

Anonymity isn't a shield. However, the expectation of privacy, as detailed by the site's privacy policy, as well as common decency are. They establish trust between a website and its visitors. In this instance, that trust was breached.

As someone who helped write that WLA post, I can say the reason for bringing up the exceptions in the privacy policy was, as you noted, to demonstrate that none of them applied. That means to say, the general policy stated that no information, such as an IP address, would be shared, except for certain defined situations. None of those situations applied. As a result, the IP address should never have been sent to the person's employer, nor should the person's employer have been contacted.

Even so, the nature of the comment was a picture of Kevin from The Office. The response to that comment was not simply to delete it and ban the user, but to further contact the user's employer about such "offensive content." That crosses the line not only of the privacy policy, but also conventional behavior, even for the Internet.

In the discussions with SBN, termination of BBC's contract was never advocated. An apology to the wronged parties would have been fine. Termination of the contract was a decision SBN came to upon reviewing the evidence, discussing the situation with Jeff, the head of the BBC, and weighing all the factors involved. The folks at SBN took the situation very seriously, and rightfully so. They should be commended for it.

As a final note, the WLA is not playing the victim. I certainly do not feel like a victim in this. We stuck up for an e-friend. The only victim, if you want to identify one, is the guy who posted a picture of Kevin from The Office on the BBC and in return had his IP traced back to his employer followed by an email complaining about the picture as being "offensive content" in an effort to get him in trouble with his employer. If you don't believe that's a breach of trust or crossing the line, then I don't know what to tell you.


March 16th, 2010 at 9:51 PM ^

I'm all for being against a "time thief", hell I work in an office and there are instances where I steal time. Now I wonder, the one who went through all of that work to tattle, did he do it on his own time? Either way he's a douche, just more so if he did it on the clock.