Floyd and the NCAA (unrelated)

Watching the Penn State game any more than I already have this week would end in unceremonious sepuku, which would usually be fine, but I'm more or less house sitting right now and I'd hate to ruin someone else's carpet. Instead, I'll touch on some of the odds and ends floating around this week.

NCAA'in
Like everyone with a clue had expected, the NCAA accepted Michigan's self-imposed penalties for the "major" violations. I don't have much to say about this besides, "well, duh" and other things that have been more eloquently expressed elsewhere. Michigan's crimes were minor in nature but major in name, and only surfaced because of an obvious agenda by the Free Press. Anyone trying to deny that anymore is of the same mind and probably still complains that Rich Rodriguez has a West Virginia accent.

Michigan had a press conference just now and David Brandon predictably dropped bombs on the Free Press,

We believe that a thorough investigation would show the allegations to be false and misleading...

There was nothing found that even remotely suggested that our players welfare, safety, or wellbeing was at risk.

which was basically Brandon giving the middle finger to the Free Press. The only bits of relevant information otherwise were that Michigan was given a third year of probation, and that 32 of the 130 practice hours Michigan will sacrifice have already been completed. Michigan plans on getting through these hours in 18 months rather than the 24 months they were allotted.

Now we can go back to being casually uncompetitive at football in peace.

Floyd and the depth chart
With the loss of JT Floyd for the season, Michigan now turns to three true freshmen to try and carry the secondary load. This may not be as harrowing as it sounds because Floyd hasn't been particularly effective and, well,

What exactly are we so afraid that the freshmen will do, fail to cover people and miss tackles? That's what we were getting with Floyd. And now we'll gain at least 30 yards a game back in facemask penalties. At least now we'll get to find out what we've got in this freshman group. It's sink or swim time.

My guess is that Courtney Avery is the first off the bench to replace Floyd. Aside from my general excitement about Avery in the face of his obvious coverage miscues, I don't know if anyone else has been taught the position. Michigan's secondary moves around a lot during games: corners drop to safety depth, they move into linebacker-type positions, and they play corner. But the concern is that left corner and right corner are not mirrors of one another. It has seemed like Avery has come in to replace Floyd and the platoon of Cullen Christian and Terrence Talbott have relieved James Rogers when he comes off the field. So starters of Avery and Rogers is what I'm anticipating with Rogers being replaced sometime in the game with one of the other freshmen. It's going to be terrifying.

The talent drop off from Floyd to the freshman should be basically zero, and this will give the young players a chance to really get their feet wet. The other bonus is that with the younger squad, Michigan will probably have to simplify its schemes in order to protect them, meaning the defense may very well find a formation and stick with it for most of the game. This would be a big step up from the mish-mash of formations that they brought out against Penn State.

Then again, Michigan's two corners and free safety are true freshman (or James Rogers. Their other safety is a sophomore walk-on. Their linebacker/safety hybrids are freshmen. So... Nathan Scheelhaase is going to pass the ball a lot.

David Brandon: Media sledgehammer

David Brandon is not playing around. After getting around to looking at a bit of the University's response to the NCAA, there's this little bit of media annihilation:

Although media reports in late August 2009 brought much public attention to the issue of potential countable athletically related activities ("CARA") violations, the University was already aware o the absence of CARA forms for the football program... When the media reports painted a picture of serious student-athlete abuse, the University immediately investigated these claims, as its primary concern has always been the welfare of its student-athletes. The NCAA Enforcement Staff joined the investigation a few days later. While the joint investigation revealed rules violations in the football program, including some of the CARA and Bylaw 11.7 violations mentioned in the articles, the University is satisfied that the initial media reports were greatly exaggerated if not flatly incorrect.

Dear Free Press, you're not playing with amateurs anymore and have been openly called out by the University of Michigan on your fabrications. David Brandon found a way to make the worst pizza chain on the planet into a profitable entity largely through marketing. Dude is going to Death Star any bad press that comes Michigan's way.

Self flogging

And the heavens opened and the NCAA looked down upon Michigan and said, "Michigan you have sinned." And Michigan looked back and shrugged.

So after all of the Free Press allegations and chatter and nonsense for the last year, Michigan finally had a chance to put all of it to bed when they sent 168 pages of a response to the NCAA concerning the rules violations. The takeaway: Michigan is going to take their beating for exactly what they did; nothing more, nothing less. The grand total of their self-imposed sanctions include:

• Limiting quality control staff in meetings
• Reducing mandatory practice hours by 130 hours over the next two years
• Public reprimand (BOOM REPRIMANDED)
• Firing Alex Herron who has been fired for months now
• Probation, two years

And.... that's it. Michigan didn't cheat when it comes to recruiting so they're not limiting coaches in recruiting. They didn't play with any ineligible players so they're not losing any scholarships. A TV and postseason ban are obviously out of the question. The point is, Michigan looked at what they did wrong, looked at what the NCAA wanted, and imposed sanctions directly in response to their malfeasances; there will be no symbolic penalties here.

Whether or not the NCAA will respond with something more severe is yet to be seen, but as Adam Rittenberg, ESPN Big Ten blogger points out, the blame has been spread around here:

Michigan definitely spreads the blame around in its response. The compliance office takes a beating, as do Scott Draper, the school's assistant athletic director for football, and Brad Labadie, the school's director of football operations. I think it's significant that several of the people reprimanded don't have firm ties to Rodriguez and were at Michigan during the previous coaching regime.

Because of the way Michigan structured it's response, it's basically saying that this was a comedy of errors rather than anything malicious or intentional. This is the crux of Michigan's leniency on itself. They even go so far as to mention that no player's welfare or health was put into question etc. etc. Michigan is making its case and passive aggressively striking back at the NCAA. I think they're hitting the right notes and shouldn't incur any more or any more substantial penalties when the NCAA passes down its final judgment.

The thing that's most interesting is reading through Rodriguez's response to the NCAA (I didn't read through the University's because I presume it's basically what you'd expect). Rodriguez's statement basically tears apart the NCAA rules and makes a pretty solid case for him not being responsible for the stuff that went on here (he wasn't):

The bylaw does not impose strict liability upon a head coach for all violations that occur in his program. The rationale for the bylaw states: [A] violation of the proposed bylaw will occur only in major infractions cases, similar to institutional control allegations, or in very serious secondary cases. This proposal does not imply that every violation by a staff member or student-athlete involved in the head coach’s program will be considered a lack of control on the party of the head coach.

Who wants to talk about the quarterback competition?

Before Armageddon

So tomorrow is the day when we'll get one of the last pieces of the NCAA infractions puzzle: Michigan's response to the allegations including their self-imposed sanctions. Via AnnArbor.com:

Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon said last week the university will make its response public on Tuesday. The response is expected to include a period of probation and loss of practice time, and Michigan already has made internal changes to its compliance practices and Rodriguez’s coaching staff.

That's basically what everyone is expecting and should anything more serious be dished out, either internally or handed down by the NCAA itself after reviewing the documents, expect my head to explode shortly after burning down every USC athletic facility.

But if history tells us anything, Michigan should get hit with the sybolic-est of symbolic penalties along with various other inconveniences. After the letters of inquiry came out, I started digging through just about every NCAA infraction case I could get my hands on. The most relevant case I found was one concerning Florida International that had a whole bunch of similarities to the Michigan case, including a coach/quality control assistant stupid enough to lie to the NCAA and subsequently get sent to a lookout post in Alaska. FIU's self-imposed sanctions are as such:

The good news? The sanctions aren't really all that damning. Florida International self-imposed several sanctions, none of which were all that painful (paraphrased): 1. Fired the coach that lied to the NCAA committee 2. Reduced the amount of coaches allowed for the next season by one. The one that was removed was the coach doing improper training who, in the Michigan case, were quality control folk. This might be a problem for the new linebacker coach we just hired, but no one else really. 3. Lost four fall camp practices 4. For every hour of impremissable practice, the team sacrificed two hours of mandatory practice/conditioning. 5. Reduction of one coach in off-campus recruiting visits 6. A few penalties against the AD that won't apply to the Michigan case because of Brandon coming in and tidying up 7. Loss of money, written reprimand, loss of bonuses, and having to attend meetings and other meaningless things imposed on the coach. 8. #7 only for S&C coaches and assistants.

So tomorrow, we're likely to read a similar list of penalties self-imposed on the program in far more scary, the-sky-is-falling language. Prepare for a wrist slap disguised as a crippling blow; these are "major violations", mind you. You will be informed of any changes or updates as they come down.

Oh yay, more controversy

So this is happening:

West Virginia University officials confirmed on Tuesday that NCAA investigators have recently interviewed university officials about potential rules violations involving the Mountaineers' football program. West Virginia officials wouldn't comment on the specifics of the allegations, but a source close to the situation said the allegations center on former Mountaineers coach and current Michigan coach Rich Rodriguez.

Because, well, why not. My initial reaction to this is that it was kind of inevitable after they found violations at Michigan. Shortly after the allegations against RichRod surfaced concerning Michigan, WVU went back and did their own spot check and determined that nothing bad had happened. Michigan did the same thing, and voila, there were violations. So it was probably inevitable that the NCAA would look into this a little deeper.

The concern now is that they will find something and that will adversely affect how the NCAA treats the sanctions against Michigan in a few months. I don't know the fairness/legality of how that would work, but if they find that RichRod has been continuously skirting the law since his years in WVU, that may make them act a little more harshly toward him now, whether or not that's fair or legal. Otherwise, this shouldn't do much but tarnish RichRod's already muddy reputation and give more fodder for the local media to rabble rabble about.

How did we get here?

 

Bo Schembechler died the day before Michigan's last meaningful football game to date. Bowl games are fun but ultimately meaningless. Appalachian State wasn't meaningful either, and neither was anything thereafter. Since then, Michigan hired Rich Rodriquez and stumbled through two of the program's worst seasons while it watches a proud and diverse fanbase splinter and divide.

I've spent the last few days mostly ignoring the media on the topic of NCAA allegations and Michigan. I read a few trusted and collected writers and begrudgingly decided to listen in on the Wilbon recoil via PTI--which was surprisingly rational--but otherwise, I've steered clear. I don't want to get angry anymore, and I know reading about the situation will do only that. Angry and disappointed seem to be the two emotions I've felt most often over the last two years, and I can openly admit that far too much of my emotional wellbeing is tied up in the success of Michigan athletics.

But as a fan, that's what we're supposed to do. Fans without any emotional investment are no fans at all, and college athletics brings that attachment more than any other sporting event. Because I'm part of Michigan, the tradition, the University. My name is forever associated with that school and that's not something that I neither regret nor take lightly. Michigan is a pretty essential part of my identity, to the point that even my brother, a fellow Michigan alum, gets annoyed at how often I talk about the school and its athletics.

But now we're all stuck looking for answers--some more maliciously than others. Why hasn't Rich Rodriguez been successful? Why has the fanbase splintered so significantly? What's wrong with our basketball and hockey teams? Logic has mostly been tossed out as is often the case with athletics. And anger, disappointment, and mistrust begin to take over many's feelings toward the program. The point is, I understand why Mark Snyder wants Rich Rodriguez out of Michigan. I don't agree with him, his methods, or his lack of self-control--because that's what this whole fiasco has been about--but I do understand him. He's looking for answers and believes those begin with the ousting of Rich Rodriguez. We should all be so lucky so as to having the backing of a major metropolitan newspaper.

The spread offense can't work in the Big Ten and Rich Rodriguez can't win at Michigan because he's not from the Schembechler coaching tree. These are not logical ideas and yet people are willing to accept them as reasonable because it's an answer. They're answers to why Michigan is struggling and how to make everything better. Because for a lot of people Lloyd Carr's Michigan wasn't broken or out of date, it was perfectly suitable for the contemporary college football environment. Eight to ten wins a season, a middling national storyline punctuated by a win or loss to Ohio State. This is Michigan and it doesn't need fixing or reworking. But Appalachian State doesn't just happen, and trying to logically explain it returns only that things were not quite as settled in the Carr camp as decendents and alums of the Schembechler school want to imagine. And then there's the divided former players. Morgan Trent and Braylon Edwards standing staunchly on one side of the line and everyone else cautiously and reasonably waiting in the middle. Very few have crossed the line to the Rodriguez camp.

The question is why, though. Why did so many people dislike Rich Rodriguez from the outset? Why have the former players so completely turned their backs on the program, and more importantly, the University which they represent? This is a concept I can't imagine. Michigan will forever be my University, regardless of what they do.

I started this blog as a place where I could talk about sports, primarily Michigan sports, and really go in depth into the ideas and people that matter to me. And yet I've spent most of my time angry and disappointed, lost amid game film, staring at coverages and techniques and wondering why we can't get it right. My way of coping with all of this is to post electronic music on Fridays rather than write up another column about how our once-hyped basketball team can't win games against Big Ten basement dwellers and doing statistical significance analysis of shooting percentages.

So I avoid the discussion of all of this because it's only going to get me angry. I'm already disappointed that it happened but it's over with. Just like 2008 and 2009, these are things that happened and now it's time to just go forward. Rationally.

NCAA allegations: What's going to happen?

So in my last post, I mentioned something I wrote a while back about possible consequences that was probably out of date now. It's not, and in fact, it's particularly relevant.

Given the reports we've recently heard--that Michigan's compliance department didn't obtain the CARA forms from Rodriguez but eventually filed their own audit in response--it seems that Michigan is almost certainly guilty of a failure to monitor. It would be pretty difficult, given the outline above to make a case that Michigan didn't have institutional control and were repeatedly unaware of what was going on. Though the lack of CARA forms extended to over a year, the University audit may play as a significant factor into the NCAA's judgment. Plainly put, however, this is an NCAA violation. Whether it was, as MGoBlog suggested, Rodriguez telling someone in the compliance department to to buzz off or the compliance department simply not doing its job, one way or another Michigan will be reprimanded for this. If there are no other violations found, the fact that Michigan filed an internal audit on the situation prior to the Free Press report, Michigan will probably get a public reprimand and be asked for records on a fairly consistent basis for the next few years--in the various NCAA official documents, it's "public reprimand and censure". It would be difficult for the NCAA, unless they were on a serious crusade, to make anything more than a failure to monitor out of the current situation.

So that was pretty on point. It seemed obvious from what we knew, that there was going to be the failure to monitor charge. The other things that came up are the quality control members that were coaching various players during the offseason and now, a GA that decided it was a good idea to lie to the NCAA committee.

In that post, though, I had discussed a 2005 case against Florida International that, now, looks exactly like the one Michigan is facing. The allegations, word-for-word from the NCAA report, include: Impermissible skill instruction, impermissible out-of-season athletically related activities, unethical conduct, and countable athletically related activities outside the playing season. These are basically spot on with what Michigan is currently being charged with, including the unethical conduct allegation. Alex Herron, there were others who made your grave mistake:

On July 23, 2004, at the conclusion of the former assistant coach's initial interview with the NCAA enforcement staff, the former assistant coach was admonished to keep the interview confidential. The former assistant coach acknowledged and agreed not to discuss the content of the interview. Approximately three hours after his July 23 interview, he was interviewed a second time by the enforcement staff and institution. During the course of the second interview, the enforcement staff specifically asked the former assistant coach whether he had any conversations with any student-athletes after his first interview. The former assistant coach responded that he had not spoken to any student-athletes after his first interview. However, it was discovered that shortly after his first interview, the former assistant coach placed a cellular call to a football student-athlete (henceforth, "the student-athlete").

For this, he was promptly fired. Obviously, this is not exactly what Herron did, but it's the same idea: lie to the NCAA committee and get your name engraved in a major violations case. Anyone who knows Alex Herron should say goodbye now. He'll be working a tollbooth in Alaska next month. The rest of the details of the case are similar to Michigan's. Coaches are coaching when they shouldn't, exceeding practice limits,  etc.

So now, what everyone wants to know, What happened? Well, "For the reasons set forth in Parts I and II of this report, the Committee on Infractions finds that this case involved major violations of NCAA legislation associated with an assistant coach knowingly violating rules regarding athletically related activities and an associated failure to monitor." So that settles it, no? Michigan is almost certainly going to be punished for major violations. That's the bad news.

The good news? The sanctions aren't really all that damning. Florida International self-imposed several sanctions, none of which were all that painful (paraphrased):

1. Fired the coach that lied to the NCAA committee
2. Reduced the amount of coaches allowed for the next season by one. The one that was removed was the coach doing improper training who, in the Michigan case, were quality control folk. This might be a problem for the new linebacker coach we just hired, but no one else really.
3. Lost four fall camp practices
4. For every hour of impremissable practice, the team sacrificed two hours of mandatory practice/conditioning.
5. Reduction of one coach in off-campus recruiting visits
6. A few penalties against the AD that won't apply to the Michigan case because of Brandon coming in and tidying up
7. Loss of money, written reprimand, loss of bonuses, and having to attend meetings and other meaningless things imposed on the coach.
8. #7 only for S&C coaches and assistants.

The NCAA saw these regulations and raised them a few:

1. Public reprimand (oh noes, don't Freep us!)
2. Three years probation, during which time there's lots of reporting of compliance
3. Letter from the NCAA to the fired coaching stating that if he looked for a job at all affiliated with the NCAA during the years of probation, that institution would have to appear before the infractions committee.
4. A letter from the President at the end of the probationary period outlining all practices and making sure they're up to the NCAA's standards.

So that's that. Things like a loss of scholarships or a postseason ban seem almost completely out of the question here, as does a possible television ban. Florida International saw nothing that aggressive and I'd assume too, with a larger university and far more public athletic program, Michigan will probably skate a little easier than this. These are major violations, but that does not mean the penalties associated with said violations are significant in the long term.

NCAA allegation letters

Check out the allegation letters yourself, provided by the University. These can be a little dense if you've never looked through these kinds of NCAA infraction papers before. I read about a million of them when I wrote what a now out-of-date post examining similar situations and possible consequences a few months back.

The primary thing Michigan is accused of here is using quality control personnel as de facto coaches. Given what the NCAA is requesting from Michigan, the worst case scenario here is a temporary television ban, which isn't great, but is also not something as serious as scholarship losses (I assume) or a postseason ban.

Practicegate presser notes

Coleman
- Today sharing the notice of allegations received from NCAA.
- Integrity at core of a university
- Make all necessary changes. We will not make excuses.
- Addressing concerns quickly and head on.

Brandon
- Will highlight major areas of concern and provide document from NCAA. RichRod will make statement. Can’t answer all questions but will be as open as we can.
- Never been involved in rule violations of “this nature”
- "This is a tough day."
- Dedicate ourselves to learning from this.
- NCAA allegations: Revealed areas we need to improve.
- Quality control people engaged in prohibited coaching behaviors. May not engage in skill development of give advice while stretching or watching game film. Quality control can now sit in on coach’s meetings but couldn’t when they did.
- Allegation that they exceeded permissible practice hours during some weeks this year.
- Overages is approximately 2 hours a week in offseason.
- During season, overage by less than 1 hour. Sometimes 20 minutes
- There were no situations where any athlete’s welfare was put in jeopardy
- Significant reason for overages is internal confusion over what is and is not countable. Significant portion of discrepancies.
- There was no charge of loss of institutional control.
- Address one other allegation: During the summer, coaching staff was disciplining unexcused absences from class. Reprimanding players during the season is a normal situation. Not permissible during summer months. We made a mistake.
- 19.5.2.1 repeat violator rule. Aware that may be subject to this rule because of 1996 Fab Five case. Penalties are up to NCAA to decide, rules allow for discretion. Probation period overlaps with current violations by a few months.
- Created failsafe procedure for internal tracking.
- CARA forms have system with notices to coaches/AD and eventually president.
- Quality control staff is no longer present in any situation that could be construed as a coaching situation.
- Next steps: Spend time reviewing all allegations and see how they match up with internal investigation. If details do not match, will provide info. NCAA has requested additional information. Standard and will prepare responses. Will self-impose sanctions. Prepare response to the NCAA and will have a hearing in August. Until file response, will not be discussing the investigation.
- No accusation is trivial. We take this report very seriously and will learn from it and get better. Leadership has been the foundation of this program and will be in the future.

RichRod
- As the head coach, it is my responsibility. I will do all I can to carefully monitor the activities.
- Make sure no compliance problems in the future.
- Be very open and very transparent.
- Proud of team. Excited about the program.

Brandon: Based on my reading, there was no one that was maliciously falsifying documents. My read is we had a breakdown internally in some of our policy and procedures. That led us to where we are today more than anyone individual being incompetent or malicious.

"Rich Rodriguez is our football coach and will be our football coach next year"

Practicegate presser

Via AnnArbor.com:

University of Michigan officials will hold a media briefing at 1 p.m. today to discuss the NCAA investigation into the football program. The briefing will include university president Mary Sue Coleman, incoming athletic director David Brandon and football coach Rich Rodriguez.

I don't know what this means really. I've been thinking myself in circles as to whether this is good or bad, but really, we'll just have to wait and see what they say. AnnArbor.com will be live blogging it, and if it's up on MGoBlue, I'll watch and post notes afterwards here.

May the Force(ier) be with us.

Drew Sharp: Terrorist

Drew Sharp, Free Press columnist and all-around baseless moralist, recently went on the radio to blast Rich Rodriguez for the signing of Florida safety prospect Demar Dorsey, a player who apparently, at the age of 16, was acquitted of several charges: "He was acquitted by a jury on a 2008 charge of robbery with a deadly weapon, and had an earlier charge of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling dismissed," according to AnnArbor.com. On the program, Sharp questions why Rodriguez would take a chance on a player who had previously shown a checkered past after the Justin Feagin issues last year--something that Sharp still doesn't understand, asserting that Feagin was a cocaine dealer in high school.

"You guys [fans] only want to hear what you wish to hear," says Sharp. "This is why I have very little respect for the fans out there. Because you guys do not want to hear what you need to hear. I feel that's my job and most of the people in the job that I have, my co-host included in this, we feel that it's incumbent upon us to tell you want we think you need to know and then you can form your own opinions."

Unfortunately, in Sharp's telling us what we need to know, he editorializes. But not in any meaningful or insightful manner. Frankly, Sharp uses terrorism--defined loosely as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"--as a means to get you to agree with his way of thinking. Want to argue that Dorsey is a risk for the Michigan program? Why don't you, without knowledge or reasonable doubt, speculate that most (all) high school athletes that get into trouble only get acquitted because of their stature or that the charges Dorsey was acquitted of are the only ones that the public knows about. Sharp even shamefully goes so low as to compare a 16-year-old Dorsey to OJ Simpson: "OJ got acquitted. Most of us still think he did it."

Sharp has a sense of entitlement from working as a journalist for the Free Press. He says, "If you're a head coach, why put yourself in that spot? And that was the tone that myself and other reporters there asked Rich this afternoon. I was making sure, are you comfortable that you're basically putting your career on whether or not this young man can keep his nose clean, figuratively speaking." Sharp feels the need to not only moralize everything, but more importantly, to make everyone aware of his morals and the morals that he thinks you should have. In his eyes, the signing of an 16 year old, acquitted on all charges, is outside the bounds of this morality and thus condemnable. He boldly claims to being done with second chances. But what's worse is that this may not even be a second chance for Dorsey. Sharp seems not to acknowledge the idea that his acquittal may have been for legitimate reasons. Because in Sharp's world, the world governed and run by the upstanding morals of himself, high school student athletes are never innocent, even when they are; second chances are wasted on the privileged who ultimately throw them away on the slippery slope to hell.

I try not to spend a lot of time editorializing on the local newspaper because it doesn't much concern me. Drew Sharp should be embarrassed though. This is offensive, dismissive, and presumptuous. And frankly, I wonder when it crosses the line into slander.

Halibut smacking and Judgment Day ... maybe

Something that had gone mostly unmentioned in the blogosphere lately but has been weighing fairly heavily on my mind, are the NCAA investigations that are tentatively set to be completed on December 31. I've tried poking around for any whisper on the status of the investigation but understandably couldn't find all that much. I did find, however, to I'm sure no one's surprise, that the Free Press has continued their quest and has an entire directory of stories aggregated in a site core page dedicated to the investigation--page title: Free Press investigation: Michigan football program broke rules, players say.

I haven't spent all that much time addressing the Free Press or the situation. I had a moment of panic when Michigan's practice logs came up missing, looking for any way that it wasn't a horrible, terrible problem that would crush the program. The upshot: It wasn't. But I've generally left the other criticism and analysis to MGoBlog and Jon Chait, both of whom have been thoroughly torching the Free Press for what will politely be called yellow journalism.

But in my recent searching, I came across the Free Press' non-Rosenberg-written Colleges on their own when enforcing time limits. From the headline, you think, "Well maybe this is an honest evaluation of the NCAA and a reasonable look at what is wrong with the system." It's not. It did, however, say a few things to me about the Free Press and its coverage.

I've said it before around these parts, but the Free Press' continued coverage and insistence on sticking to its guns in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary screams of desperation. But reading this article, more than that, it's a newspaper trying to salvage its dignity when it's been firmly placed behind the eight ball by shoddy editing and a columnist with an axe to grind. Let's say that no serious violations come from the investigation and the NCAA only issues some sort of formal reprimand. The Free Press is then fully exposed, making all of the accusations the Michigan faithful have made against the paper seem true, or at least gives them substantive evidence.

At this point, the Free Press needs the investigation to find something wrong, and if it doesn't, there are basically two approaches the paper can take: issue some sort of apology and admit they were wrong--and this might even require the removal of an editor or two--or come out against the NCAA investigation, saying that for whatever reason, it was unable to uncover the problems their reporters found, standing behind its mass of "evidence". And this is exactly why articles like "Colleges on their own when enforcing time limits" exist. The Free Press is safeguarding itself against the possibility that the investigation won't turn something up and is looking for an exit strategy in case it needs one.

But that doesn't excuse the proliferation of poor reporting, twisting stories, and semantics--a topic Chait addressed rather poorly, IMO, here. (Per the Chait piece, it's not that I necessarily disagree with his sentiment or logic, but it feels petty and needless. He's looking for bias in the details when it's smacking him upside the head with a halibut.) Chait did, however, touch on the idea of an institutional bias, and one that has only become clearer as the newspaper continues to produce one-sided reporting with, apparently, zero editing. From "Colleges on their own when enforcing time limits", the authors supply an anecdote of a former Iowa player who thought Kirk Ferentz was exceeding practice limits (emphasis mine):

Nine years ago, Christoph Trappe was convinced coach Kirk Ferentz and his staff at Iowa were breaking the NCAA’s 20-hour rule. So Trappe began keeping track. It was 2000, and the Iowa offensive lineman documented every football-related activity he participated in. He didn’t count getting taped or putting on shoulder pads or getting treated for bruises or watching film on his own. He did count practice, games and anything else coaches told him to do. "Not once," he e-mailed the Free Press, "were the Iowa coaches over. Usually they ended up 15 minutes below it."

And that seems reasonable, right? Players are unaware of what exactly constitutes countable hours and though they may feel that the coaches are going over the 20-hour limit, they are usually incredibly specific about how much time they spend on these activities. Maybe the same happened in the Michigan case, and, had the players who allegedly accused Rodriguez of ignoring the limits actually tracked the hours, they would come up with a similar discovery. The Free Press definitely came to that conclusion, right? (again, emphasis mine):

“Myself and some other teammates thought that perhaps Iowa was going over those 20 hours,” he wrote. “It sure felt like much more.” Trappe told the Free Press he never felt his coaches coerced him into putting in more than 20 hours while at Iowa. In Michigan’s case, former and current players described Sunday practices during the season that would have far exceeded the NCAA’s limit of 4 hours a day, in addition to weekly totals that appeared to exceed the 20-hour limit. Unlike Trappe at Iowa, Allen Langford felt that at Wisconsin he had no choice but to put in more than 20 hours.

Not only does the article move on from the Michigan case in one sentence, but it explicitly differentiates the situation between Trappe and Michigan, indicating that Michigan actually did do something wrong, whereas the Iowa situation was handled properly. I would bet that if you interviewed Trappe before his experiment that he'd describe exactly what anonymous Michigan players did; it was the catalyst for Trappe's experiment, no less. But again, no critical analysis by the Free Press and an important omission in an effort to prove themselves right (again, because they have to be).

What's really sad is that this sort of stunt doesn't even bother me at this point. The Free Press is going to do what they're going to do, regardless of the results of the NCAA investigation, and at this point, they're doing it as a safeguard against the backlash if no major violation surface. Although I'm increasingly anxious about what the end result will be, especially with its pending, tentative deadline looming, reading schlock like this from the Free Press actually settles my fears a bit.

Win at any cost, you say?

Ed.: This will probably be my only post until Monday, as most of the next few days will be spent traveling to various places across Michigan and Ohio.

It's a shame I have to waste my time writing about this, but Michigan State running back Glenn Winston and safety Roderick Jenrette have been kicked off the team, presumably for the brawl that took place a few nights back in an MSU dorm. This wouldn't normally be a huge deal as college students are dumb and get into fights and sometimes get kicked off of football teams. The real problem here is Winston, who you might remember from your stint in Ingham County Jail where he was for four months before the football season started--getting out just in time for Dantonio to reinstate him to the team.

Winston was temporarily dismissed from the team after he hospitalized MSU hockey player A.J. Sturges. The day Winston was released from prison, he was reinstated by Dantonio and ended up becoming one of the more potent players in the MSU offense before being injured late in the season. You might remember him from such touchdowns as "Oh noes, we lost to MSU in overtime."

By why does anyone care that Winston is a thug and got kicked off the team? BOOM FREEPOCRISY:

You may remember a few months back, there was a kid on Michigan's team and something about cocaine and etc. It wasn't, like, a big deal, and the Free Press definitely didn't run a lead story on their site called, "Win at all costs a poor formula for Rich Rodriguez". That player, of course, was Justin Feagin who was immediately dismissed from the team upon Rodriguez's knowledge of the situation. Winston, however, who was imprisoned for violently attacking another student, was allowed back onto the team--and at the time, Dantonio was praised for his forgiveness--and has now, presumably, attacked a bunch of random students in a dorm because he was mad at someone he couldn't find.

What does the Free Press do? Run a completely objective headline as the third lead. Win at all costs? How about the fact that Winston was MSU's second leading rusher this season before his injury, something Dantonio more or less expected when he let Winston back onto the team practically wearing his prison uniform. You want to talk about winning at any cost? The cost of Dantonio's winning was the hospitalization of another Michigan State athlete, and now, the terrorizing of completely innocent Spartan students. And yet, not a peep from the Free Press condemning Dantonio's embarrassing lack of accountability and standards.

It's a shame that the day before Thanksgiving, I have to get in a fuss because of blatant media bias, but I'm being forced to. Rosenberg, Drew Sharp, we're looking at you. It's time for you to get your journalistic integrity on and rip Dantonio for this gross mistake. But that's probably too much to ask.

Panic level: Moderate

Like many of you, the recent admission from the University that they had not submitted countable athletically related activities (CARA) reports from the 2008-2009 academic year was pretty bothersome and foreboding. The Detroit News and Free Press both handed in their take on the situation and neither one of them were particularly positive. The Michigan Daily also ran something yesterday, which also included the various documents that the University had been circulating on the situation. I suggest you read it.

So being a journalist of sorts, I decided to do a little digging and see what exactly this all means. The comment from the Daily that stuck out to me was this one:

Michael Buckner, a lawyer from Florida who consults with universities during NCAA investigations, told the Free Press that if the University cannot produce evidence to convince the NCAA of its innocence, there could be much more trouble for the Athletic Department. “The enforcement staff is going to be looking at whether the institution failed to monitor,” he told the Free Press. Buckner continued by telling the Free Press that could be “a major violation.”

After doing some digging into past violations and otherwise on the NCAA website, I found that in almost all cases of major violations, they cited either a lack of institutional control or a failure to monitor. The separation between the two is as such, per the NCAA website:

2. Failure to Monitor vs. Lack of Control. a. D-I: In recent years, failure to monitor was cited at a greater rate than lack of control, suggesting that institutions may be doing a better job of putting systems for control in place but need to enhance monitoring. b. D-II/D-III: In recent years, lack of control was cited in nearly every case, suggesting that institutions may still have work to do in establishing appropriate systems for control. c. Considerations when evaluating failure to monitor vs. lack of control (not intended to be an exhaustive list): (1) Duration/frequency of violations. (2) Visibility of violations. (3) Warning signs to institution. (4) Number of involved student-athletes/teams. (5) Number of involved staff members. (6) Significance of impermissible benefit. (7) Recruiting/competitive advantage gained. (8) Self-report or report from outside source. d. Multiple failures to monitor can be viewed as a lack of institutional control. e. In failure to monitor cases, adequate systems for compliance often exist, but the institution fails to pay proper attention to a limited area and/or for a limited period of time.

Given the reports we've recently heard--that Michigan's compliance department didn't obtain the CARA forms from Rodriguez but eventually filed their own audit in response--it seems that Michigan is almost certainly guilty of a failure to monitor. It would be pretty difficult, given the outline above to make a case that Michigan didn't have institutional control and were repeatedly unaware of what was going on. Though the lack of CARA forms extended to over a year, the University audit may play as a significant factor into the NCAA's judgment.

Plainly put, however, this is an NCAA violation. Whether it was, as MGoBlog suggested, Rodriguez telling someone in the compliance department to to buzz off or the compliance department simply not doing its job, one way or another Michigan will be reprimanded for this. If there are no other violations found, the fact that Michigan filed an internal audit on the situation prior to the Free Press report, Michigan will probably get a public reprimand and be asked for records on a fairly consistent basis for the next few years--in the various NCAA official documents, it's "public reprimand and censure". It would be difficult for the NCAA, unless they were on a serious crusade, to make anything more than a failure to monitor out of the current situation.

However, the lack of these records does one of two things: a) indefinitely validates the accusations of former/anonymous players or b) acts as, essentially, a safeguard against the comments made by the former players. Since the missing records are directly from the time in which the program is being accused of overworking players, my guess is that the NCAA is going to take the accusations significantly more seriously. Michigan is going to have to make sure the rest of their paperwork is in order (spot checks, educational sessions, the subsequently collected CARA reports, etc.) to avoid a more serious NCAA reaction.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barring unforseen clerical errors and a lack of institutional control ruling, Michigan is still going to deal with the fact that, with no paperwork to prove its innocence, it's staring down several players that are accusing the program of overworking its student athletes. I started looking into a lot of different major violation cases to try and get a handle on what kind of penalty might be passed down. There aren't really any cases that are as relatively pedestrian as this one. In the cases where players are overworked, there are also a variety of issues including immoral conduct from coaches, recruiting violations, financial aid issues, and other problems. In all of these cases, the most severe penalty handed down is a loss of scholarships and postseason ban for a few years.

Obviously, this would be devastating. But even if Michigan is given such a ban, there's precedent for having it repealed. With the excessive hours put in by players, the NCAA, aside from its 20-rule is most concerned with the idea of competitive advantage. It's described as such:

THE PRINCIPLE OF COMPETITIVE EQUITY The structure and programs of the Association and the activities of its members shall promote opportunity for equity in competition to assure that individual student-athletes and institutions will not be prevented unfairly from achieving the benefits inherent in participation in intercollegiate athletics.

Those benefits of intercollegiate athletics presumably include winning. And if that's the case, well... 8-15 doesn't exactly scream competitive advantage. I highly doubt Michigan could use that as a valid retort, but I digress. In February, Eastern Washington University was hit with an NCAA violation from 2003-2004 when 13 players who were ineligible, practiced with coaches. Eastern Washington was hit with the aforementioned public censure and reprimand and a post-season ban. The school, however, appealed the ban as it was based on the program gaining a competitive advantage due to the excessive workouts.

The NCAA's ruling for repealing such a ban had to prove that an abuse of discretion had occurred due to one of the following:

…we conclude that an abuse of discretion in the imposition of a penalty occurs if the penalty: (1) was not based on a correct legal standard or was based on a misapprehension of the underlying substantive legal principles; (2) was based on a clearly erroneous factual finding; (3) failed to consider and weigh material factors; (4) was based on a clear error of judgment, such that the imposition was arbitrary, capricious, or irrational; or (5) was based in significant part on one or more irrelevant or improper factors.

This is where things bode well for Michigan as the ban was eventually overturned. But it's not just that it was overturned, but why (emphasis mine):

The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee has overturned a postseason ban for Eastern Washington University’s football program, saying that the competitive advantage the school gained through the violations was not as significant as the Committee on Infractions had claimed. The Infractions Appeals Committee noted that the Committee on Infractions based the postseason ban “substantially on (the Committee on Infractions’) judgment” that the violations provided the university with a significant competitive advantage. However, the Infractions Appeals Committee found that the violations in the case did not justify that conclusion. Rather, it noted that “while the violations provided some competitive advantage, the conclusion that the advantage was ‘significant’ was a clear error of judgment, such that the imposition of the postseason ban was arbitrary.” In support of this decision, the Infractions Appeals Committee noted that of the 13 persons involved in the impermissible practice violations, most never competed for the team, or competed in a limited capacity.

The fact that the allegations that still stand are from former players and transfers, it seems as though Michigan may be subject to a similar fate if the NCAA decides to come down with a postseason ban.

For the record, I don't think they will. Another case study in 2005: There was a case against Florida International that included, "impermissible skill instruction; impermissible out-of-season athletically related activities, unethical conduct and a failure to monitor." There's a lot of the same stuff Michigan is dealing with here, and the penalties included "public reprimand and censure, three-years of probation, show cause provision placed on the former assistant football coach involved in this case and annual compliance reporting required". The relevant aspect for Michigan, however, is this:

SECONDARY VIOLATION. COUNTABLE ATHLETICALLY RELATED ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE THE PLAYING SEASON. [NCAA Bylaw 17.1.5.2.1.2] During the summer of 2004, the head strength coach took attendance of football student athletes participating in voluntary strength and conditioning activities. The head strength coach maintained weekly attendance logs indicating a student-athlete's presence during summer strength and conditioning workouts. The head strength coach then periodically reported the information regarding a football student-athlete's attendance to the head football coach as well as selected assistant football coaches.

Long story short, the initial allegations appear to be secondary in these sorts of cases, so that's good. Furthermore, the things that constitute major violations, and presumably a postseason ban are mostly avoided in the Michigan case--failure to monitor rather than lack of institutional control, and secondary violations rather than major ones.

So what's the upshot? Well, the bad news is that Michigan is probably going to be punished by the NCAA in some regard. The failure to monitor charge will be the main thing Michigan is hit with if nothing else serious surfaces. This should bring down public reprimand from the NCAA. But the fact that Michigan launched an internal audit on the problem and has since corrected the recently found issues, Michigan should be spared something more serious. In terms of the allegations? Well, it will probably end up being nothing more than fluff that eventually gets either entirely dismissed or appealed away.

I can't see any way Michigan gets hit with major NCAA violations here. And if they do, like I said, appeals have a good chance of doing away with the problems we currently know about.

Free Press GPA report update

The Free Press now has an update of the original article by chronicling all of the times Rodriguez has mentioned the team's GPA. Here's the breakdown:

May 11 “We have a couple, two or three of our student athletes, who have not gotten their grades back. I think the professors maybe left early, but when we get those back, we think we’ll break the record — 25-year record — for overall football team GPA this semester.” — Rodriguez to an alumni group in Washington, D.C. Aug. 31 "They’re working hard in athletics and they’re working hard in academics. And they’ve showed that in the balance, in that endeavor, in the way they’ve recorded the highest GPA ever recorded. And as a coach, I am very, very proud of them. And they continue to do that, to this day. They do it in practice. They did it in their summer workouts with Mike (Barwis) and his staff and they did it in spring practice and they’re doing it academically. So they’ve obviously been able to show a great balance in being able to handle that.” — Rodriguez defending his program one day after a Free Press report in which several former and current players said his staff required them to train beyond NCAA limits designed to balance their athletic and academic lives. Oct. 2 “When Coach RR said the team had the highest GPA in memory he was using an estimate as a motivational tool for the students. Our Academic Success Program is the program that works with student athletes and they don’t routinely track a team GPA because their main focus is on individuals. … A team GPA doesn’t help with that. ASP staff will occasionally calculate a semester team GPA if Coach RR asks for it, but they don’t keep it because it’s for his motivational purposes, not what they do.” — Kelly Cunningham, director of the university’s Office of Public Affairs and Media Relations, in e-mail explaining why U-M said it had no records on team GPAs.

This is followed by his statement that I quoted when I first reported this. Again, all I can do is ask Why? The fact that this is still the lead story on the Free Press' sports page is kind of mind boggling. They haven't accused any players of not making the grade, nor are they seemingly attempting to. This entire story revolves around the idea that Rodriguez may have lied about having the highest GPA a Michigan team has ever recorded. The Free Press doesn't care if the team is or is not passing NCAA standards here. They are just out to show that Rodriguez lied about what the University calls something used for "motivational purposes". If you didn't have qualms with the way the Free Press handled things before, you definitely should now.

Free Press GPA report

In a story that's sure to be blown painfully out of proportion, Detroit Free Press is reporting (link is no followed) that Rich Rodriguez, who has long since claimed that the current team has the highest GPA of any Michigan team in the last 25 years, has now backed off of the claim. An official statement by Rodriguez is posted on MGoBlue:

I have mentioned publicly several times that the football team last year achieved the highest average GPA ever, and I'd like to set the record straight on that statement. Last fall, in order to boost academic performance, I asked the Academic Success Program for the highest-ever team GPA and challenged the players to beat it. The ASP doesn't track team GPAs, so they provided me with an estimate based on their experience dealing with individual performance. They did not make it clear that the number was just an estimate and not an exact calculation. We apologize if this has caused any confusion. That said, I want to re-emphasize how proud I am of the academic performance of our team members. We have implemented several activities aimed at motivating each player to succeed in the classroom as well as on the field. A number of them have achieved their "personal-best" GPAs, and I believe that each of them will continue to strive for excellence.

This prompted a story from--who else?--the Free Press' Michael Rosenberg, the man behind the Michigan NCAA allegations and various other anti-Rodriguez articles. In the article, it claims that the Free Press "The Free Press filed Freedom of Information Act requests last month for specific information related to the team’s combined grade point average.", to which I can only ask: Why?

For anyone still in doubt about the Free Press' continued witch hunt against Rodriguez, look no further than completely unprompted searches to discredit and disprove Rodriguez's statements and attempts to advance the Michigan program. This, however, should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the Free Press allegations--unprompted interviews with players, looking for information against Rodriguez.

Complete speculation, but this, to me, seems to me like the Free Press is feeling the heat from the lack of news on the NCAA violation allegations. Not that I'm particularly privy to how these investigations go, but it's my assumption that, without having heard anything leak about NCAA violations, there probably haven't been any serious ones uncovered. The Free Press dedicated a lot of manpower and placed, essentially, the reputation of two of their reporters (which were backed up by their editors) on this story. If it comes back to be completely false or simply incorrect, as most have argued, the Free Press is going to look very, very bad. This digging is bothersome and reeks of desperation. Rodriguez has handled it correctly, even if his claims were overzealous to begin with. This is another non-story that the Free Press will likely try to expand. Ugh.