Rosenberg says he gave Dantonio heat over Winston

Submitted by M-Wolverine on January 2nd, 2010 at 8:59 PM

From his Alamo Bowl game article (look it up if you really want to)-

"(By the way, Dantonio has taken considerable heat -- some of it from me -- for the incident and his decision to reinstate Glenn Winston and Roderick Jenrette after previous serious transgressions. But I think the punishments for the Rather Hall incident are strong and fair.)"

Now maybe MY memory is faulty, but isn't that kinda revisionist history? He AGREED with the reinstatement when it first happened, no? And he's hardly given any "heat" since.

But of course everything since is fair and just.

I don't know if he's knowingly dishonest or just delusional.



January 2nd, 2010 at 11:19 PM ^

Rosenpuke has so many covert agendas that one can't really trust anything he writes. Between his hatchet jobs on UM and his revisionist history here, I really don't understand why he still has a job at any media outlet that pretends to possess even a shred of objectivity.

Section 1

January 2nd, 2010 at 9:46 PM ^

Did Rosenberg write anything about Glenn Winston last August? I can't find anything. I searched and Google. I did not search Factiva. So if anybody knows for sure, I'll be happy to know one way or another.

Back in August, I imagine Mike Rosenberg was too busy with his own "investigation.. a month in the making," regarding Michigan's countable hours.

Although he did manage to take time in mid-August, to write this, about Feagin, in which Mike Rosenberg came oh-so-close to calling Rich Rodriguez a liar. Here's the link, for those who want to re-ignite their antipathy toward Rosenberg; unfortunately it is a link:…

[Does anybody suppose that Mike Rosenberg might be more concerned about the details of the NCAA investigation than Rich Rodriguez?]


January 2nd, 2010 at 11:03 PM ^

But here-…

he says (I'm paraphrasing) "While I understood his decision on Winston in a vacuum, he needs to rethink his second chance policy".

Which seems to indicate from himself he took an understanding approach in an earlier column, via Rosenberg himself. I'll look harder though.

Section 1

January 3rd, 2010 at 12:37 AM ^

Brian did indeed cover the story better than a month's worth of Free Presses.

That raises a kind of an existential question: does one become more informed, or less, via more coverage from the Free Press? Like the old joke; First Place wins a year's subscription to the Free Press. Second Place is a two-year subscription.


January 3rd, 2010 at 1:15 PM ^

I don't see any posts reiterating the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer or that Jesse Owens was fast.

Rosenberg is a liar and a douche. Further evidence seems like overkill.