willywill9

May 25th, 2010 at 7:38 AM ^

The media aren't going to read past the first paragraph where it says:

"The University admits the violations alleged in fact occurred.  The University is disappointed that its history of no major infractions cases in its football program has ended"

Okay, maybe they'll actually also read the self imposed sanctions portion.

Section 1

May 25th, 2010 at 10:30 AM ^

"The University is satisfied that the initial media reports were greatly exaggerated if not flatly incorrect." 

I was not sure that Gene Marsh, Dave Brandon and President Coleman would go that route.  I wasn't expecting it.  I am totally delighted that they included that statement, and I am totally delighted that the tone of this thing has some defensivesness and some backbone to it.  Whatever we paid Lightfoot and Marsh and his associates, I think it was worth it.

On WTKA, winding up his program just before 10 am, Ira Weintraub made this point:  To all of the listeners who were waiting for him to follow through on his long-standing pledge to apologize to the Free Press if an apology were warranted after the huge initial splash -- it ain't coming.  Ira's not apologizing, and the Free Press doesn't deserve an apology.  Ira called the Freep's August story something beyond "exaggeration."  He said it bordered on fabrication.

Ira's right.  The Free Press story was bullshit, and nobody owes any apologies or 'you-told-us-so's' to Rosenberg and Snyder.

Ira laid it out -- If Mark Snyder wants to come on the program with Ira and Sam, and explain the details of the reporting and the claims in the original front-page story, the invitation is there.

Section 1

May 25th, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^

... the Freep.com website, predictably, runs this with banner headlines.  A headline story by Rosenberg, Snyder, and Gene Marsh; plus an opinion column by Drew Sharp.  And not one, single mention of anything in relation to the Michigan Response's criticisms of the original newspaper story.  Nothing.  As if the words were never included.

If any of you have any allusions as to whether the Michgan football program is at war with the Detroit Free Press, and if any of you still think that the Free Press is just in the business of reporting news, let this be the end of that.  It is now a matter of record -- the Freep claimed that the Michigan football program was routinely doing things to put its student-athletes at risk.  Michigan denies it.  There's no middle ground.  No reconciliation.  The Free Press is not apologizing for apparent errors and exaggerations in its reporting.  As a virulent critic of the Free Press, I am not apologizing to Rosenberg, Snyder, and Paul Anger.  This is war.

pee on freep

May 25th, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^

any chance UM can go after freep for malicious slander?  i know UM is admitting some wrong doing, but they are clearly acknowledging "greatly exagerated, incorrect" reports.  how can a publication get away with this without any reprimand themselves.  if they do it will only fuel the fire for continued abuse and sensationalism by the media.  something should be done.  fire-bombing?  lawsuit?  mass-wedgies?... i say lawsuit that shuts their doors!

Section 1

May 25th, 2010 at 11:19 AM ^

It is Dan Rather.  And Rathergate.  How'd that one work out for Dan Rather?

As for a libel suit against the Free Press -- no way.  Zero probability.

The frustrating thing; the really annoying thing, is that the Freep jihad is itself a story.  And enterprising reporter could work that story.  God knows, there are few people who are pursuing it.  And a lot of people that would read it.  Yes, a lot of the press sticks together.  We'll see today how this gets covered.

Double Nickel BG

May 25th, 2010 at 7:13 AM ^

1) 40% of the quality control staff will be cut for this year

2) QC staff isn't allowed to attend coaches meetings, games

3) Michigan went over by 65 hours , and will give back 2:1 hours.

4) RR and Michigan deny that they didn't have institutional control

5) Students weren't put into a abusive situation with regards to practicing.

Irish

May 25th, 2010 at 7:43 AM ^

hmmmm, (from the AP article below)
Brandon said the school decided not to take away scholarships or eliminate coaching positions. "That's usually a result of something deemed to be an offense that created a competitive advantage," Brandon said. "Those kind of sanctions are also typically related to academic fraud, gambling, recruiting violations and extra benefits."
65 hours of extra practice didn't provide a competitive advantage? Not sure I understand that fully.

Double Nickel BG

May 25th, 2010 at 7:48 AM ^

First, competitive advantage is usually suggested as using ineligable players, paying players, or grossly exceeding practice times.

65 hours over 2 years isn't alot of time considering that the football program states that the time came from misunderstandings on CARA hours spent on stretching.

Irish

May 25th, 2010 at 7:57 AM ^

yeah I am going to have to go back and read the articles in depth later today when I have time.  From what I remember of the discussions from a few months ago, a coaching loss seemed to be a pretty definite penalty, because of the number of coaches the NCAA said were on the staff, but like I said I am going off of memory which is not always a good thing early in the morning.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

May 25th, 2010 at 8:58 AM ^

I sort of agree - being that one of the new coaches is a former QC guy promoted to the position, I thought it'd be likely his position would be eliminated for a year or two.  I mean, is it really wise to get hit with the "QC guys were doing illegal coaching" rap and then let one of them be an actual coach using experience he presumably gained from coaching when he wasn't supposed to?

bcsblue

May 25th, 2010 at 9:27 AM ^

I think one of the issues they got into was that these QC guys were mislabeled. Correct me if I'm wrong but if they were called interns some of this stuff would have been ok, such as attending meetings etc.  Other school have interns who can do most of the stuff, quality control or strength people cannot do regarding meetings and film. 

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

May 25th, 2010 at 10:22 AM ^

The problem was with QC guys providing coaching instruction (technique improvement, etc.) during summertime 7 on 7s, which neither they nor interns nor anybody not labeled a coach is allowed to do at any time.  The only people who can provide that kind of instruction are actual coaches, and their time is limited and it doesn't include the voluntary 7 on 7.

bluebyyou

May 25th, 2010 at 8:17 AM ^

What is galling about the process is that these are what I would classify as technical violations.  I daresay that most institutions would have similar issues or worse if they were to be microscopically examined as was the case with Michigan.  My guess is that most major programs will not have much to say. 

That's why the loss of scholarships, IMHO, would be inappropriate; it doesn't fit the crime.

Rasmus

May 25th, 2010 at 9:11 AM ^

"Had the student-atheletes warmed up and stretched on their own, the football program would not have exceeded weekly CARA limits." [p. 10]

If we assume school B is having them warm up and stretch "on their own," then there is no advantage -- both schools are doing the same amount of strength training.

maizenbluenc

May 25th, 2010 at 9:31 AM ^

I am sorry: what decisive competitive advantage did Michigan see on the field last season? Were there extraordinary athletes in the defensive backfield. No. Were our running backs unstoppable bulldozers? No. Was our O'line so conditioned that they didn’t suffer from injuries, or protect our QB so well that he didn't suffer an injury, much less have time to avoid mistakes? No.

Did we befuddle a Notre Dame coach into questionable play calls late in close game with the psychological application of Rawk music, and cause certain ND fans to pick at their faces? Well, maybe ...

steve sharik

May 25th, 2010 at 10:48 AM ^

...while the rule may have been violated, it wasn't a competitive advantage b/c everyone does it.  Michigan just happened to get caught b/c employees of a certain newspaper decided to stop practicing journalism and instead dish dirt because they don't like people with country accents and people who are different from Bo/Mo/Lloyd in the way they do things.

Wolverine In Exile

May 25th, 2010 at 7:39 AM ^

5 to 3 and we are self-imposing the penalty that even though the NCAA changed the rules to basically allow what our QC guys were doing in the first place (except for Herron), we're not allowing ourselved to take advantage of that until next year. No, we're not dropping a formal coach off the staff (or taking a scholarship reduction), but it seems to me that we also left ourselves some room for teh NCAA to also impose these additional penalties if they want to "come down hard on Michigan"

maizenbluenc

May 25th, 2010 at 7:50 AM ^

I think you're sugar coating that one a bit. They were acting as S&C assistants in the off season when they were not allowed to. They advised in offensive skill drills which should have been done by "legal" S&C assistants. They guided stretching and warm up drills, which if those drills had been lead by the players only, then they would not have been coutable activities, and they would not have exceeded CARA limits.

What I want to know is why haven't they fired this Labadie person? This apparently was the person on Rich's admin staff who did not provide the QC staff job description to the compliance department when asked, not provide the internal CARA forms for a year when asked.

Double Nickel BG

May 25th, 2010 at 7:58 AM ^

QC staff =/= S&C assistants.

 

Offensive skill drills can't be led by anyone but the players in the offseason. There is no "legal" assistant running skill drills. S&C advisors are there in case of injury.

 

I'm not sure if S&C personel are allowed to lead/advise players on stretching in the offseason, but I'm pretty sure that the CARA hours are from the season, not off-season because everythings supposed to be voluntary.

maizenbluenc

May 25th, 2010 at 9:22 AM ^

Yep, I get that if either S&C or QC staff conducted, or somehow particpated in streching and warm up, then that is a countable activity.

My interpretation of the response, is the points in time where the QC staff assited in skill specific S&C activities (taped towel handoffs, mini basketball passes, etc.) - that is where it would have been OK if it was S&C staff.

Double Nickel BG

May 25th, 2010 at 10:03 AM ^

 I think your confusing a few things. Michigan was accused of 1) QC personel observing/participating in offseason workouts. That in itself is a violation. There's no countable hours tied to that.

Michigan was also accused of going over CARA limits (via a misunderstanding of stretching rules) during the season. This is where the countable hours applies.There is no countable limit in the off season. It's all voluntary, so it's however long the players want to go about it.

Anything "skill" related isn't supposed to be monitored or assisted with in the offseason. It is all voluntary, player based activities. Trainers/SC guys are only there to treat injuries. If anyone besides players assisted with these, it's a violation.

 

maizenbluenc

May 25th, 2010 at 10:38 AM ^

Yep, I get that too. My read is if they had the proper first aid and CPR certifications, etc., then they could help with off season workouts as S&C staff. Since they didn't, they could not. And that activity is not a CARA violation, but a coaching limit violation.

Rasmus

May 25th, 2010 at 9:00 AM ^

On page 5 of the introduction, it seems that Scott Draper is the administrator who ignored the CSO's requests for QC staff job descriptions.

On page 9, Brad Labadie is the guy who fucked up the CARA forms in two ways: [1] Failing to provide the forms for all of 2008 and up to July 2009; and [2] omitting countable warm-up and stretching time on the forms after that.

Draper's position (Assistant Athletics Director for Football) seems pretty high up and makes me wonder about the role of the AD's office in this -- it seems they are responsible for providing job descriptions. The report repeatedly says the coaching violations could have been avoided if the job descriptions had been done when they were supposed to be done. The timing of Martin's resignation seems right around the time MSC would have learned about this failure.

Both Draper and Labadie still have their jobs, at least according to MGoBlue.

Yostal

May 25th, 2010 at 7:26 AM ^

Just look at the first two pages, particularly the first footnote.  While clearly trying to establish a tone of contrition and seriousness with regard to the report overall, there's a sharp look toward "initial media reports."

Also, I can't tell if it's brilliant or maddening that the PDF is not searchable or copy and pastable.

MGoShoe

May 25th, 2010 at 8:59 AM ^

...but Coach Rodriguez's response to Allegation 4 is searchable, etc.

The enforcement staff has alleged that the scope and nature of the violations in Allegations 1 and 2 demonstrate that Rodriguez failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance and failed to monitor the underlying activities that resulted in violations. In other words, the enforcement staff has alleged that Rodriguez caused or contributed to each and every violation alleged in Allegations 1 and 2. Rodriguez denies that he failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance.  However, as explained below, Rodriguez agrees that his actions or inactions caused or contributed to some - but not all – of the violations alleged in Allegations 1 and 2.

Conclusion excerpt

This investigation has been extraordinarily difficult for Rodriguez, his family, his staff and the young men in his program. Since last August, his integrity and character have been impugned.  Self-appointed pundits have suggested Rodriguez is a rogue coach who runs a renegade program.  People have called for him to be fired because of this investigation.

Rodriguez hopes that this Response and the Committee's Infractions Report will set the record straight. Rodriguez and his staff are not rogues, renegades or cheaters. Yes, there were violations. But they were not done deliberately or knowingly. Rather, they were inadvertent and in many cases isolated. The underlying activities were done openly and transparently. Finally, the violations did not result in a significant competitive advantage for Michigan's football program.

gum-bercules

May 25th, 2010 at 10:45 AM ^

Interesting word choice.  Impugn derives from the Italian word impugno which means "to attack" (with the Latin prefix "im-" [not] and root "-pugnus" [fist] implying nonphysically) but the usage has shifted over the past few centuries to mean calling into question, I'm guessing due to its use in law.  It doesn't necessarily mean to affect adversely anymore.  In that sense, last August was hardly the first impugnment of Rodriguez's integrity or character*.  I feel we're seeing some first-class lawyering here - impugn is technically used correctly to describe "self-appointed pundits" questioning Rodriguez, and also implies to the casual reader the Free Press Jihad that the athletic department cannot come out and directly say.

*Do these mean different things? PR babble, to me.

Feat of Clay

May 25th, 2010 at 9:25 AM ^

I love that they're making sure this is part of every version that is released.  This from U-M's news service:

"U-M found no evidence of student-athlete abuse, nor any evidence that its employees disregarded student-athlete welfare. This is in stark contrast to early media reports."

GunnersApe

May 25th, 2010 at 9:54 AM ^

ESPN did UM no favors yesterday on College Football Live. The "experts" basically said that UM is a repeat offender and the NCAA will come down heavy. The same idiots that brought us "Les Miles to Michigan" is now hurting UM by telling everyone Doom and Gloom. I hope on today's show they change their tune after the press conference. Positive thoughts people.