UM controversy

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (pavlov) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:37:12 PST

AuldSchool wrote:

I've been following the whole thing with no knowledge of what goes/went on at UM, except what the various links to Freep and others have said.
So I noticed on the radio & TV broadcast that discussion seemed 'to be that everyone does it,' and 'there is too much grey area' for UM to be guilty enough to get a major sanction of any time.

It seems that either the NCAA will want to make it go away (if the member athletic depts have the most sway) or UM may get a shot across their bow if the NCAA (president's division) would like to make a statement. Lately it seems that the more academic side has been the trend.

I bet at the most, UofM self reports a very minor infractions or two just to "throw 'em a bone". The...

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (ColonelKVC) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:30:33 PST

MichiganElite wrote:
So, Colonel, which part of my statement was ignorant or uninformed? All you did was provide further evidence that I was correct by telling everyone exactly how many players provided evidence of the rules infraction. I said it was players. You said it was players. We seem to agree.

No, the players didn't provide evidence of rules infractions, they provided evidence of the hours they were there. They never said how much of it was truly mandatory. Those, "they would tell you it wasn't mandatory, but it really was" doesn't count as mandatory according to the NCAA. These players have little clue on how the rules actually work. And neither do you. Hence, your ignorance.

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (ColonelKVC) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:26:32 PST

WeaponX wrote:

Am I the only long time Wolverine fan that hopes Michigan tanks again this season? The sooner Rich Rod goes away, the better it will be for the program. It pains me to throw away my Saturdays but that's the price for realizing they hired a buffoon to coach at one of the greatest if not THE greatest football traditions of all-time. EVERYTHING Rich Rod has done from day one has been wrong. Some things have been bizarre at best and, now, illegal at worst. I can't be the only Wolverine that has been so turned off by this clown that I have started to pull for the opposition. I'm that certain that he's the wrong fit. This comes from a guy that for years has lived and died with Michigan football. GO WMU!

Dude, you are lost. Please become a former Michigan fan, idiot.

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (AuldSchool) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:28:39 PST

I've been following the whole thing with no knowledge of what goes/went on at UM, except what the various links to Freep and others have said.
So I noticed on the radio & TV broadcast that discussion seemed 'to be that everyone does it,' and 'there is too much grey area' for UM to be guilty enough to get a major sanction of any time.

It seems that either the NCAA will want to make it go away (if the member athletic depts have the most sway) or UM may get a shot across their bow if the NCAA (president's division) would like to make a statement. Lately it seems that the more academic side has been the trend.

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (pavlov) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:10:24 PST

Interesting point of view from Jim Carty, formerly of the Ann Arbor news, on the treatment of Mike Rosenberg.

http://papertigernomore.blogspot.com/2009/09/rise-of-faith-based-coverage-and.html

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (Mr NCAA) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 19:54:19 PST

The workouts are voluntary and when voluntary, he can spend as much time with them as he wants.

Right there you are implying that RR was at the voluntary workouts, which makes them mandatory when he's there. Look at the rules that I listed.

I might have changed the subject to make my points, but they were relevent. You never answered some questions either such as why did UM hire the Alabama sports attorney since it's a non story to you?

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (dallascarter) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 16:59:33 PST

searn, a dub's a dub. between the lions and wolverines, those were hard to come by last year. under a normal year, id agree with you, but i think this year there are special circumstances that make this win a lot better than it would in other years. i thoroughly enjoyed this win! go blue!

and mr ncaa, just to piss you off because you deserve it, i'd like to point out that coach rod has more wins vs. ranked teams at michigan than dantonio has at state.

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (Boeing747) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 16:42:48 PST

Mr NCAA wrote:
To say that people can't win he said/she said in sex cases is wrong legally. It's who you believe in the court case. Juries convict a ton of the time on the woman's word. The players were probably coerced to sign the 20 hours sheets. Trent Morgan is on the record as saying practices were held all day. Plus based on Boeing747 statement it sounds like RR was there illegally or was told of the results of the voluntary workouts since RR can only have contact during those 20 hour mandatory time. That'made the voluntary workouts mandatory whether Boeing747 agrees with me or not.

I forgot that UM's coaches are saints since Red Berenson got caught urinating in public.

Where did I claim RR was anywhere? And why do you insist on bringing unrelated topics that have...

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (Mr NCAA) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:39:13 PST

Boeing747 wrote:
In the end, much to the chagrin of Mr NCAA, nothing is going to come out of this hullabaloo of nothing.

Nothing happened in my example as well since you can see that Red was kept on as coach. It speaks volumes about UM's philosophy. So everything is a hullabaloo in A2 these days and nothing happens. It's the good old boys network about whitewashing things - sort of like what Slick Willie and his spinmasters tried to do in the Monica episode.

I did watch the first half of the UM game yesterday. I thought WMU played badly and UM played better than I thought they would. It should be interesting to see what happens in the ND game.

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (upfootball) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:36:19 PST

Talk about bad blood between Mr.NCAA and anything UofM. Sheesh!!

And good point Searn on being exited about beating the teams ND and UofM beat yesterday. It proves last season was a long one for us fans. They did look better in that game then any other they played last season regardless of opponent (although many have WMU picked to win the MAC this season). I am not going to get ridiculous after that win. I think maybe the Wolverines can finish 7-5 this season. Who knows. Of course if I were a State fan I would have them going to the NC game after that win. (just rattling your incredibly short chain on this issue Mr.NCAA! hehe!).

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (GHSfootball1990) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:19:32 PST

Mr NCAA wrote:
I forgot that UM's coaches are saints since Red Berenson got caught urinating in public.

How is this exactly relevant to this matter? I don't think anyone here has nominated RR for sainthood. Fact is any report can get the answer he wants to hear simply by asking a particular question differently. I am willing to bet that the players were not asked point blank "does coach Rodriguez's training policies violate the NCAA 20 hour rule". I sure it was far more vague than that.

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (kaycob) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:32:30 PST

I am thoroughly enjoyng this spirited debate. I have no dog in this fight, whatsoever! Maybe I am a bit Polyannic, but I always prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to everyone and anyone, until proven otherwise. And, while I have preferred not to chime in, I have to comment that, to in any way compare this to a sexual assault/rape case is about as assinine a rebuttal that has thus far appeared within this debate. NO sexual assault/rape case has ever been settled, nor has anyone ever been convicted based on he said/she said/hearsay evidence. It is only through eye witness and physical, exculpatory evidence that anyone has ever been convicted. This particular situation with Michigan will not be settled in a court of law, but by an investigative panel who, right or wrong, has the latitude to dole out sanctions based on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, along with corroborating testimony.

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (Mr NCAA) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:57:37 PST

To say that people can't win he said/she said in sex cases is wrong legally. It's who you believe in the court case. Juries convict a ton of the time on the woman's word. The players were probably coerced to sign the 20 hours sheets. Trent Morgan is on the record as saying practices were held all day. Plus based on Boeing747 statement it sounds like RR was there illegally or was told of the results of the voluntary workouts since RR can only have contact during those 20 hour mandatory time. That'made the voluntary workouts mandatory whether Boeing747 agrees with me or not.

I forgot that UM's coaches are saints since Red Berenson got caught urinating in public.

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (Searn) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:15:06 PST

Was checking out both the ND and UM rivals boards yesterday to see the fans reactions to the first week games ...

At that point I realized how sad it was that the fans of programs like ND and U of M were so excited about beating teams like Nevada and WMU (no offense to those programs)

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (GHSfootball1990) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 09:46:22 PST

pavlov wrote:

I saw that and thought it was an obvious good point that can go a long way in this. However, it made me wonder then, why don't we see this happening more often at universities every time a new coach comes in?

I think the difference in this case obvious Lloyd Carr and Rich Rod. I think there is a huge difference in the demeanor of these to men. LC seems far more laid back and far less emotional than RR. RR has shown me more emotion on the sideline in one season than Lloyd did in 14 seasons.

pavlov wrote:

It also made wonder more about the current and the former UofM starters that ESPN talked...

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (pavlov) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 09:29:47 PST

GHSfootball1990 wrote:
I think Todd Blackledge hit the nail on the head during the broadcast of the game yesterday. He said something along these lines "Some players and player parents may have been a little upset when they found out they were not as good of fit for the RR system and did not have the option to go anywhere else." Right now you have two and a half recruiting class at UM that are not RR's guys so I can only imagine there are more than a few players on scholarship that are a little upset about how things worked out form them. Is there any validity to the claims? I imagine there is some but again it is a moot point because any wrongdoing will never be proven.
I saw that and thought it was an obvious good point that can go a long way in this. However, it made me wonder then, why don't we see this happening more often at universities every time a new coach comes in? It also...

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (pavlov) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 09:22:06 PST

Boeing747 wrote:
First, unless there is physical proof of illegal practices (letter, flyer, etc.), nothing can be definitively proven. It's a he said/he said situation. Also, since the players did sign the time sheet verifying the 20 hours, that makes that much more of a mute point.
Agree.

Boeing747 wrote:
Second, I would guess a vast majority of the players do not know what a "countable" hour is - it does not include treatment or training table, among other things. While they probably were there for an extended period of time on Sunday, the majority of it is non-countable.

Probably true, even though they sign the previously mentioned document. Makes you wonder though, how much stock and value can be placed into that sign-off. Also makes me think about what can be "required" but not...

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (GHSfootball1990) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 09:17:22 PST
I think Todd Blackledge hit the nail on the head during the broadcast of the game yesterday. He said something along these lines "Some players and player parents may have been a little upset when they found out they were not as good of fit for the RR system and did not have the option to go anywhere else." Right now you have two and a half recruiting class at UM that are not RR's guys so I can only imagine there are more than a few players on scholarship that are a little upset about how things worked out form them. Is there any validity to the claims? I imagine there is some but again it is a moot point because any wrongdoing will never be proven.

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (upfootball) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 08:59:36 PST
Exactly Boeing. The whole point is if you want this loophole fixed in College Football then go after it as a whole. Singling out Michigan and more specifically RR distracts from the issue at hand. This is a poor piece of journalism plain and simple. Chait is not the only journalist ripping the Free Press for this.

Did the Free Press give any proof that any of their accusations happened? On the contrary, I think more proof was given that the "sources" dont even know the rules and the Freep tried to paint the picture that these were mandatory practices as outlined by the NCAA rules, which from what I read they obviously were not.

Re: UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (Boeing747) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 05:16:51 PST
First, unless there is physical proof of illegal practices (letter, flyer, etc.), nothing can be definitively proven. It's a he said/he said situation. Also, since the players did sign the time sheet verifying the 20 hours, that makes that much more of a mute point.

Second, I would guess a vast majority of the players do not know what a "countable" hour is - it does not include treatment or training table, among other things. While they probably were there for an extended period of time on Sunday, the majority of it is non-countable.

Third, regarding this whole Big 10 and NCAA looking into it - that is a disingenuous statement made by Drew Sharp. The Big 10 already stated it is not investigating the claims and in Sharp's mind, because the university is conducting an investgation and reporting its findings to the NCAA, he is using that as context to say there is a NCAA investigation being conducted. (A friend of mine emailed Sharp regarding the...

UM controversy

feeds@kickapps.com (Mr NCAA) — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:45:33 PST

I'll check on the Detroit News after I type this up, but I didn't see an article in the box like usual for major articles. There is controversy tonight in A2 as at least a handful of players based on the link below are alleging violations of NCAA rules by the current football staff. The staff denies this though. Will the NCAA investigate this and what will happen?

http://www.newsobserver.com/1577/story/1667875.html