Locker room not divided

Submitted by summit595 on September 1st, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Sharp went on Dan Patrick to talk about...well...stuff. Besides the typical anti-Michigan BS (like calling quality control grad assistants assistant coaches) I think there was something significant in there that shouldn't be glossed over.

He said that the "current players" in the article were the two freshmen answering questions at Media Day. He then suggested that the other four people who tattled on the program were former players and could very well have an axe to grind.


Dan Patrick: Current players turned on RRod. What's that all about?

Sharp: Well the Free Press talked to a couple freshmen at media day. They gave an honest answer - that's what work days are like. They were surprised how long it was. Now there are some former players, who knows if they have an axe to grind, but it doesn't preclude the very real possibility that these guys are telling the truth...hard to believe all these guys are lying.


In other words it seems like this isn't a case where anti-RRod people currently on the team are going to the media to damage his reputation.

Now why the article said their "sources" had to speak on condition of anonymity due to repercussions from coaches is definitely an unresolved issue. Perhaps they feared their current coaches on whatever crappy teams they play for would punish them?

Audio can be found at: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/danpatrick/blog/75663/index.html


Please share your interpretations.

Comments

Helfy

September 1st, 2009 at 3:08 PM ^

It's hard to believe that four axe-grinding, ex-Wolverines could possibly be lying, but it's easy to believe anyone speaking out in defense of the program is lying.

"Hard to believe..." is just code for "not helping our smear campaign..." But we all knew that.

ColoradoBlue

September 1st, 2009 at 5:34 PM ^

Good catch. That's pretty significant: the "current" players that the detractors reference to build a case for the "toxic" atmosphere in Ann Arbor (Forde, I'm looking your way you asshat), are really

a) Freshman
b) ...who were talking about fall camp (which has no NCAA imposed limit)
C) weren't complaining anyway.

evenyoubrutus

September 1st, 2009 at 3:11 PM ^

I'm so tempted to make a comment/joke about how that quote could not POSSIBLY be by Drew Sharp because there isn't any stuttering left in the transcript, but I'm not that big of a douche. Oh wait, crap!

Bronco648

September 1st, 2009 at 3:16 PM ^

It's been mentioned before that these guys are most likely telling the truth concerning the work involved and how long it takes to complete. That's not the issue (apparently it hasn't soaked thru F Sharp's thick skull). What's at issue is what activities count toward the NCAA mandated 20 hour limit (and what activities do not). It's not surprising that a lot of student athletes are not particularly well versed in the details of the NCAA rule book.

wildbackdunesman

September 1st, 2009 at 3:27 PM ^

One more thing to lump into the long list of Journalistic shortcomings of Snyder and Rosenberg.

At the very least Rodriquez deserves a public apology for a pathetically prepared article that was a smear job on his reputation. This could truly be a fireable offense.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

September 1st, 2009 at 3:33 PM ^

Frankly, if this is true it would undermine nothing at all about the allegations as far as NCAA violations are concerned but it would completely torpedo the notion that it's a "locker room divided."

I wish there were more words in the thesaurus for angrier than angry and furiouser than furious. I used them all up yesterday. I need more now that it appears to be true that "current players" means nothing more than the freshmen Rosenberg ambushed. Something like "I'm really fuckshitupious right now." Earlier I said they were unwittingly the star witnesses in the case without being told that would happen. Now they're being used to imply divisiveness in the locker room where none exists and turn the college football world against RR. There aren't enough swear words in the English language for this.

fatbastard

September 1st, 2009 at 3:49 PM ^

that this was not an objective investigation. It was a witch hunt. By a writer who dislikes Rich Rodriguez. Who did not look at the NCAA regs he claims Rod violated. And who did not tell the Freshman he questioned any background abour the purposes of his questions. Slanted withhunt from step one. Bullshit. Period.

The first reporting Drew does with any import is unintentional -- gotta love it.

Don

September 1st, 2009 at 3:59 PM ^

I came across a brief reference either here or on some other blog that Rosenberg had been asked to leave practice on one or more occasions. I gathered that this had happened before the big smear came out. Does anyone know any more details about this, such as when and why?

Hell hath no fury like an entitled sportswriter booted from practice, I guess...

CheckOutMyRod

September 1st, 2009 at 4:49 PM ^

what happend at osu 6 or 7 years ago when former players talked about the money and cars they recieved at osu? I believe there was 4 or 5 players that had left or whatever that made those claims. I dont recall anything coming from those so I dont really see how anything can come from this.

PeterKlima

September 1st, 2009 at 8:42 PM ^

If the Rosenberg article said "former and current players allege NCAA rules violations" but the cureent players never said anything about rules violation, isn't that a case of libel. The paper made a false statement of fact that damaged Rich's professional reputation. Seriously this part seems actionable.

PeterKlima

September 1st, 2009 at 8:42 PM ^

If the Rosenberg article said "former and current players allege NCAA rules violations" but the cureent players never said anything about rules violation, isn't that a case of libel. The paper made a false statement of fact that damaged Rich's professional reputation. Seriously this part seems actionable.

BlueTimesTwo

September 2nd, 2009 at 1:17 AM ^

The legal bar is set pretty high for libel with regard to public figures. It has to be shown that the false statements were made with "actual malice." Even though it does appear to most of us that Rosenberg does bear actual malice towards RR ("knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not"), that is the kind of thing that is hard to prove in court. Reporters in particular receive a lot of leeway and are given the benefit of the doubt. Sadly, negligence and bias alone are probably not sufficient to sustain a claim.

SpreadGuru

September 1st, 2009 at 10:17 PM ^

this is getting fucking ridiculous. Leave RichRod and the UM team to tend to their business. What will happen is that this team will rally to defend their coach and when UM starts winning, the free press will be on the outside looking in...where they belong.

Magnum P.I.

September 2nd, 2009 at 12:57 AM ^

The diary does make an important point, though, in trying to clarify who the report--and subsequent media storm--is implying when it refers to "current players" and what exactly these players said or corroborated. There's a massive difference between several current players genuinely being discontented with the program (which we have no reason to believe based on evidence) and Stokes and Hawthorne being misled into describing workout regimins. I wish someone with a national voice could clear this up because most of the MSM is running amok with the fractured-locker-room story. Are the "current players" Stokes and Hawthorne, in which case there is no fracture or are there others? Are Stokes and Hawthorne being counted when the report quantifies the number of players who gave testimonials? If anyone has seen this clarified, it would be great to have it synthesized into one place.

The King of Belch

September 2nd, 2009 at 6:55 AM ^

Now tell me, has anyone commented that you get 120 people in a locker room and EVERYONE is all ablaze with love and affection for each other and their coach?

Does even TEN people on the team who might want to kill the coach make a locker room "divided?"

Sensationalism.

What I loved is that Patrick derided Sharp for saying Charlie Weis's seat is hotter than Rich Rod's. "All that and Charlie Weis has more pressure?" (Yes, Patrick is so talented he can speak in italics and bold). Then he laughs in Drew's face and more after Drew hangs up.

You can read into that "This guy (Sharp) is all over the map and is a fucking hack. Have fun with a career at the Macomb Daily or whatever. I'm Dan Fucking Patrick. I don't care what paper this asshole writes for.
First, a shower, then someone who matters. Be back after the break."