November 3rd, 2010 at 6:59 PM ^

The punishment has pretty much been agreed to and it will not impact the football program or players beyond that. As far as the Free Press is concerned, they did the right thing. Had the infraction not been reported, more serious violations may have occurred and the punishment much more severe. 


November 3rd, 2010 at 8:06 PM ^

ANN ARBOR, Mich. -- The NCAA has concluded that Michigan coach Rich Rodriguez did not fail to promote an atmosphere of compliance, a previous allegation that the school challenged, a source close to the situation said Wednesday night.

The NCAA will reveal its finding as early as Thursday, the source said. The NCAA will also announce if Michigan's self-imposed penalties for admitted excessive football-related hours and excessive coaches were acceptable.

While the source did not reveal specifics of those findings, the person said the results were "positive news for Michigan football."


November 3rd, 2010 at 6:10 PM ^

He's the Associated Press writer for southeastern Michigan. General sports reporter. He's been around the block and probably knows a lot of people -- dollars to doughnuts that his "source" is Dave Brandon.

Brandon wants to get some good news out but knows the school can't officially say anything before the NCAA ruling, and I doubt anyone else under Brandon the athletic department would risk going to an AP reporter with a comment.

Section 1

November 3rd, 2010 at 7:07 PM ^

And, it is funny how, exactly, this news has broken.  It is, I think, a poke in the eye to the Free Press.  For someone like Brandon (or, MUCH more likely, somebody who is very trusted, at Brandon's direction, along with a second source for Lage's security and confrimation) to do this, is completely deliberate.

The Freep has prided itself on this being "their" story.  And now, the AP gets first dibs!

If you wanted to go to the mainstream print press, and you wanted to go around the Freep, this is exactly how you would do it.

Larry Lage is, as already indicated, the general Detroit sports stringer for the AP.  His office is downtown.  Naturally, he does Michigan coverage as part of his gig.  But he also does the Tigers, Lions, Red Wings, Pistons, MSU/Michigan Department of Corrections, etc.  So he's not  exactly a U-M beat reporter.  His getting this story is a message.

And if you read the Freep's now-posted version of this story, they do the humiliating thing of acknowledging that they basically heard about this story by reading it themselves, from the AP.  [Here's how you tell; the Freep acknowledges the AP report in its own story, and  Rosenberg and Snyder simply say, "the Free Press has learned..." about this new break in the story.  They don't say, "A source has disclosed to the Free Press, on condition of thus-and-such..."  Because they don't have a source.  Except perhaps a panicked call to Bruce Madej's office, after getting scooped, to ask, "Is it true? Do you have the report with plans to release it tomorrow?"  It may even be that the Free Press was just one on a long list of the usual press pool on an email list to have gotten notice of a press conference and/or release tomorrow, as a courtesy.  In any event, the Free Press got deliberately scooped, complete with the "We're very happy" quote going to the AP and not Rosenberg or Snyder.  Who are probably pretty unhappy.]

Well played, Mr. Brandon.  Very well played, sir. 


November 3rd, 2010 at 8:31 PM ^

Agreed 100 percent. First thing I thought of when Lage got the story. Tomorrow he'll write something about the Tigers hot stove season and we'll LOL another round.

But, i dont think any of them called Madej. I really dont. I've scooped people before and seen them use the 'we learned' schitck and its just from reading my article. I have a petty side too and have checked into it and was able to reasonably conclude. I'm not proud to be so paranoid and petty like that, but hey its a scavenger's business. Thank God I burned out while I was still young

Section 1

November 3rd, 2010 at 9:48 PM ^

Because I should make it clear; I don't know if anybody talked to Madej.  I was just positing examples, hypotheticals.

For those who don't know, Bruce is a fantastic guy, who has been Michigan's functional Sports Information Director for about 25 or 30 years, after Will Perry, even though I don't think Michigan ever used the generic term "Sports Information Director."

I meant to take no liberties with Bruce Madej's good, unblemished name.

I do know, for a fact, that it was Bruce who was called by Rosenberg to request an immediate meeting on the Friday before the Saturday (online) publication of the infamous Sunday Free Press story of August 30, 2009.  Rosenberg and Bruce have both confirmed it to me.  Not that Bruce had any substantive involvement in the story.  He had none, of course.  Rosenberg and Snyder just went to Bruce to lay it out what they were going to publish and ask, uh, for the University's "comment."  Right.  36 hours before publication.  On a Friday.  One week before the start of the season.  So that they could publish the line that "the University was asked for comment, and said only..."  Blah blah blah.

Many thanks, jamiemac, for prompting that clarification on my part, for Bruce Madej's benefit.

Section 1

November 4th, 2010 at 1:03 AM ^

At 9:15 pm, the Rosenberg and Snyder re-wrote their story.  Presumably, after they had been reading MGoBlog and the rest of the intertubes.

The updated, rewritten story included the claim that their information was based on what "sources told the Free Press."  Of course, the AP had reported it three hours earlier, and even in the rewritten story, Rosenberg and Snyder acknowledged the earlier AP and ESPN stories.

Mitch Cumstein

November 3rd, 2010 at 6:13 PM ^

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at this point there is no chance to avoid a "major violation".  I mean, can the NCAA say, well the initial report was a bunch of BS, and everyone over reacted, lets give them a slap on the wrist?  I'm assuming the answer is no.  In which case the reasons we have to be happy are 1) that the challenged charge was not upheld, or 2) the penalties are not severe.

Anyone have some insight into this?


November 3rd, 2010 at 6:18 PM ^

My understanding is we had 5 major violations. We challenged 1 saying it wasn't a violation (the one about RR not having control). That means we should automatically get 4 major violations with the possibility of a 5th. We self-imposed santions that were pretty standard, but there is always a chance they add more.

If we are "very happy", my guess is that the 5th violation is gone and no more sanctions were added.


November 3rd, 2010 at 6:25 PM ^

We already admitted to four "major violations", and imposed penalties on ourselves.  So yeah, there is no chance that they say "even though you admitted to these violations there were none."


We disputed the 5th violation.  


A ruling we are happy with surely means that they accept our self-imposed penalties and will not argue with us on the 5th "RR failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance" issue.  


edit: too slow, sorry for the redundancy

gnarles woodson

November 3rd, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^

Will they say that Michigan was too severe with their own punishment?  That would be great news.....I think they will also say that Demar Dorcey can play and NOT even go to school!


November 3rd, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^

This is HUGE, and in some ways is bigger than anything Michigan does on the field the rest of the year.  Had Michigan found to be "promoting an atmosphere of non-compliance," a finding Michigan challenged, It could have lead to serious sanctions, and a black mark that is darker than any loss. 


November 3rd, 2010 at 7:15 PM ^

Don't know if I totally agree with that - I believe most people felt that the punishment we gave ourselves fit the crime.  I would have been very surprised and incredibly disappointed had the NCAA done anything more than some very minor slap on the wrist beyond the self-imposed penalty.  As you know, there was excellent legal counsel, versed in these matters, representing the University.  The self-directed punishment accrued from advice of counsel skilled in advising violating institutions how to deal with the problem.  Additionally, we already paid the price for the indiscretions via a ton of bad press.

Losing  a bunch of games, on the other hand, will now add RichRod's job security to the equation, way beyond what it is already.  This, more than anything, would have a highly negative impact should a recruit not think RichRod will be here.


November 3rd, 2010 at 6:19 PM ^

This sounds like good news, but I'll still have to put up with various Sparty types saying "MAJOR VIOLATIONS, huh, huh!" for a few years.  @#$%ing adjectives ...