Fan Day, and Lost Freep Subscriptions

Publishing an article "MSU follows the rules" along with an article such as this - wether it be true or not - is reason enough to stop reading this crap. Rich Rod's not perfect, but he certainly is not as terrible a human being as this joke of a newspaper paints him out to be.

Very few have "jumped to conclusions". Many have pointed out that this story (as written) is so full of holes that it would probably receive and F-D in any journalism class. But, on the other hand, (and this is NOT meant to be a political comment), with Death Panels and calling the president of the US a Nazi in the MSM, why would we expect more on the sports pages. What a Cluster F*ck!

I don't think most thoughtful readers are criticizing the report based on its validity. All research is biased and motivated by the researchers' values, and it's on these grounds that I have a problem with the report. The fact is, any ambitious reporter could have conducted this same investigation, with similar conclusions, at most college football programs in the country. All other sports reporter chose not to. Rosenberg chose to. What happened yesterday was simply the confluence of Rosenberg's opportunism and the historical reality of controversy in the U-M program. Part ambition of the reporter, part opportunity presented by the situation. If we're to assume that most college football players devote more than the allowed mandatory hours to their program (a point substantiated in the USA Today report reference in a diary post), and if there is an obvious clash of cultures surrounding the shift of coaching regimes at any one program, all a reporter would need to do is: (a) identify the malcontents at the program for interview, (b) fish for supplementary comments via disingenuous interview with other players, (c) paint a picture of the program that is skewed in favor of the points that the report is trying to make. Rosenberg capitalized on the general sensationalism surrounding the U-M program since Rodriguez's arrival. This story didn't need to be written, and even though there are other programs in which players exceed the alloted mandatory training hours, a story hasn't been written about these. The Free Pres made the decision to pursue this story here. Whether or not the statements made by the interviewees are true is really beside the point. There are many, many stories that could be written--on all variety of topics, in all parts of the world. And without getting into a philosophical discussion of realpolitik versus fundamentalism as appropriate paradigms for decision making, I think it's safe to say that one must perform a sort of cost-benefit analysis when deciding to engage in an act of journalism. For this Free Press Report, there are potential benefits for several groups: (1) for U-M detractors there will be a temporary affective benefit in the sense of self-righteousness they experience; (2) for U-M football opponents, this may serve as a blow to the U-M program, thus increasing their future chances of success; (3) for the Free Press, it may result in more temporary on-line readership and subsequentn advertising dollars; (4) for Rosenberg it may draw professional accolades for investigative reporting; and (5) for college football players, it may relieve some of the hardships associated with the rigors of Division I football requirements (although, given the systemic nature of this problem throughout college football, this report alone is likely insufficient to this end). The costs, too, may be felt by several groups: (1) the U-M football program suffers a blow to its prestige and dignity and may experience recruiting consequences and offical NCAA penalties; (2) for U-M supporters, the report creates more stress in the context of an already stressful two years; (3) for Michiganders, in general, this adds another black mark to a series of black marks that have made Michigan one of the least desireable places to live in the U.S. and damaged the collective self-esteem; (4) the Big Ten Conference, already suffering from a diminished reputation is further set back, actually in terms of integrity and potentially in terms of U-M's decreased competitiveness via affects on recruiting and team cohesion; (6) for current U-M players who enjoy the culture of the program, it has the potential to create a feeling of being party to something unethical and to diminish their hard work; and (6) for the Free Press, in the long term, it doesn't pay to ostricize U-M alumni, who likely make up an important element of the publication's readership. For my part, I believe the negative consequence outweigh the positive. And I believe that Rosenberg and colleagues were motivated primarly by benefits number 3 and 4 and were inexplicably insensitive to costs number 1 through 6 (particularly given the timing of the report). For this reason I have a serious problem with it.

Hey there Sparty troll! How's the weather?