On Michigan and the Free Press

by Steve Hendershot on Sep 1, 2009 4:00 PM CDT in Michigan State Spartans Football

I want to weigh in on some not-so-breaking news: The Detroit Free Press ran a story Sunday outlining NCAA rules violations by Michigan’s football program under Rich Rodriguez. The allegations are related to overwork: that Michigan’s players are required to devote many more hours to football than the NCAA permits.

I know this is a Spartans blog, but I’m not really writing about Michigan here. This is about the Free Press’ reporting and college football generally.

In the hours after the story broke, predictably, commenters of all stripes went wild—opining, sometimes reasonably, sometimes venomously, with everyone from the reporters to the Wolverine coaches and players in their crosshairs. Our friends at MGoBlog get both high and low marks: high marks because they quickly posted the relevant NCAA rules so readers could learn that there are mile-wide loopholes between the specifics of the rulebook and its theoretical intent. The rules are aimed at limiting the number of hours players devote to football, but leave room for a lot of exceptions that may make Rich Rodriguez’ denials stand up.

But MGoBlog also loses big points for running a poll asking readers whether they planned to cancel their Freep subscriptions. That’s because I think that Rosenberg and Snyder did college football a great service with their reporting.

It may be true that every school flouts these rules. If so, it’s Michigan’s bad luck that the reporters who are digging on this happen to work at the local paper—after all, the real culprit here may be the NCAA, not the Wolverines’ staff. But Rosenberg and Snyder have pointed out that there’s a gulf between the NCAA’s student-athlete-focused ideal and the way its rules play out at at least one of its premier programs.

That’s good reporting. That’s what journalism is supposed to do, bring those inconsistencies to light.

It’s also understandable that Michigan fans feel singled out. That’s why the most important next step has nothing to do with Michigan’s internal investigation or any potential sanctions, but instead involves journalists in other BCS markets. They should follow the Freep’s lead and conduct similar investigations on their campuses.

If lots of BCS programs are functioning like Michigan’s, then the problem will be exposed as a systemic one and the NCAA will have to change its rules or acknowledge that big-time college football requires a time commitment from players that’s on par with an exceptionally demanding full-time job. (Either course is fine by me; the problem is if the image doesn’t match the reality.)

If Michigan’s program is unique, then we’ll know that, too. Even if that’s the case (which would be shocking), the rules are written such that this discussion should be more focused on the NCAA and BCS culture than on Michigan’s program.

Anyhow, I admire these journalists’ reporting. I understand why Michigan fans feel unfairly stung by this, but implicit in that sentiment is the idea that this overwork is common practice, and that are serious gaps between the intent of the NCAA rulebook and college football culture. And it’s a good thing to point those out.

Lastly, as a college sports blogger, I want to acknowledge the important role that beat writers play in providing bloggers and fans with information ranging from training camp quotes to dramatic investigations. We bloggers do not have the proximity, access or resources to conduct an investigation like this, and thus I am grateful that traditional media organizations like the Free Press exist and are doing this kind of work. If newspapers are dying, then I don’t know how we will survive without them.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Outstandingly well said.

by cwel87 on Sep 1, 2009 6:27 PM CDT reply actions

one fallacy RE: freep

You make one big assumption: that “Rosenberg and Snyder have pointed out that there’s a gulf between the NCAA’s student-athlete-focused ideal and the way its rules play out at at least one of its premier programs”. Now I agree that is probably true…And I agree that is especially true at many of its premier programs (and also many of its bad ones)—(money, roids, drugs/violence, recruiting). But I don’t see how that necessarily applies to Michigan, particularly in this case. Look at the evidence that was provided by those “reporters” and the rest of the evidence that is provided to us. A couple of freshman’s quotes, who weren’t complaining at all, but actually complimenting the intensity of Michigan’s workout, as we’ve discovered from the families themselves. Some quotes from a disgruntled transfer who
has already shown to be bitter…and maybe one current player (starter?? maybe?) who occasionally doesn’t always enjoy the toughness of a football program (hmm…that type of thing never happens in sports does it?). Yet, while all this tough time has occurred, Michigan’s football players set a record for highest GPA. Not to mention that the rest of the players actually mean to characterize their coaches’ and their own hard work as a good thing. Doesn’t sound to me like a bunch of “student-athletes” who have their priorities too messed up (even though lets be honest, >90% of FBS player’s first priority is probably football in college). Maybe Rosenberg did a good thing by trying to expose the divergence between the Ideal of the college football “student-athlete” and what the reality is for these kids, but he decided to ignore the true evidence on hand to him at Rich Rod’s program and instead fall under the lure of yellow journalism (way too common in today’s media), taking a few misrepresented anonymous sources to try and prove Michigan was breaking serious NCAA rules (which they almost definitely will not receive sanctions for). Furthermore, if Rosenberg and Snyder really intended to do as you say, they could of easily included those ideas in their initial columns.

by christopherwallace on Sep 2, 2009 2:07 AM CDT reply actions

Also you know what? I too want to I want to “acknowledge the important role that beat writers play in providing bloggers and fans with information…”. They have a great responsibility entitled to them, and thus must be held to higher standards than any blogger/fan. In this case they violated the code of ethics that should be withheld by the traditional newspaper. If these organizations are dying, then they are going out because they decided they needed to cross the line between the responsibility required for professional journalistic integrity and that required of a common blogger or twitterer. Of course, the story that may sound big will always make the quick big splash, and thus get the most “clicks” (money…)

by christopherwallace on Sep 2, 2009 2:12 AM CDT up reply actions

While I think the Freep hate has been a bit overboard in some circles, it’s also because Rosenberg has been out to get RichRod almost since the day he set foot on campus. How can you trust somebody with a vendetta like that to write a fair investigative piece. Blast the guy in columns all you want, but when purporting to do actual journalism, be fair.

And on that note, it’s painfully clear that Rosenberg and Snyder either have a very, very shallow (and inaccurate) view of what the rules are, or they willfully chose to keep their readers in the dark on what the actual rules are in order to make their point, which would be a terribly serious violation of journalism ethics. I could go on for days about how dangerous it is to accuse rule violations when not understanding (or willfully ignoring) the rules yourself, but I think anyone here can make the logical conclusions themselves.

The way they sourced their article also tends to give an indication that not all is aboveboard. Why use Toney Clemons’s “testimony” anonymously, when he gladly gave it without anonymity to Joe Schad the next day? Anonymous sourcing should only be a last resort, and it’s clear these guys were compromising their ethics in order to get a scoop.

Refusing to say how many current players talked to them for the “report” (I use quotes as the evidence is mounting that it really was just a smear story, as even the national media is starting to call it a witch hunt) is pretty bad too, since most now believe that the two freshmen who were given attributed quotes in the report were the only current players to say anything – and they didn’t accuse any violations on Michigan.

That brings up the next point, of course: saying “we worked hard in the offseason” is a vastly different thing that “I was forced to work hard in the offseason against my will, and the potential punishment was getting my scholarship revoked.” The former is completely aboveboard, and a columnist twisting its interpretation into the latter is totally irresponsible.

Yes, a well-researched investigative journalism piece would be a service to college athletics. However, it’s painfully clear that this wasn’t it.

by sullivti on Sep 2, 2009 8:32 AM CDT reply actions

I tend to agree with both these last sets of comments

We need more good investigative journalism. It’s just not clear that’s what this is.

The fact that Rosenberg didn’t appear to know what that the specific rules were regarding offseason workout time limits is most damning IMO.

Cheer for The Only Colors: Green and White!

by KJ@theonlycolors on Sep 2, 2009 8:44 AM CDT reply actions

FWIW

Here’s a more concise version of Brian’s analysis/opinions/etc. on the matter.

Cheer for The Only Colors: Green and White!

by KJ@theonlycolors on Sep 2, 2009 8:49 AM CDT reply actions

The most...

…credible thing to me is the bit about coaches being at the voluntary workouts, that seems a lot more cut and dried than the practice times, which most of the coverage has focused on.

But, you know, whether those coaches are there or not, that just speaks to the letter of law. The intent of the NCAA rules, to make sure players don’t spend too much time working on athletics, does seem to be widely flouted, probably at every major Div 1 program. It’s obviously completely banal to have these player-directed off season workouts. Whether the coaches are there or not, or aware of who is, if you want to start, I think you’re well-advised to be there and that seems to contravene the spirit of what the NCAA is trying to accomplish with their rule. Whether Javon Ringer and Brian Hoyer are the ones telling you to come, or the coaches are, seems almost like a technicality when you look at it from the perspective of the what the NCAA is (in theory) trying to accomplish with the rule.

It gets to the big, trumpeting elephant in the stadium in big-time college athletics. These players are laboring for fairly low pay (some fraction of a college education) in some cases and more valuable compensation (the chance to become well-paid pro athletes) in relatively few others and the universities and coaches are reaping the direct financial benefits.

I’ll be honest, as someone who loves watching college basketball and football moreso than the respective pro leagues, my approach to this topic is to mostly not think about it. I don’t feel real good about the state of affairs, where these guys are maybe getting something of a raw deal while they entertain me 13 Saturdays a year. But I love watching MSU run out into Spartan Stadium or the Breslin Center and I cherish the memory of standing in the happiest crowd imaginable in Cedar Village the night the Spartans won the national title.

by witless chum on Sep 2, 2009 11:39 AM CDT reply actions

100% cosign

on those last two paragraphs.

Cheer for The Only Colors: Green and White!

by KJ@theonlycolors on Sep 2, 2009 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions

thoughts...

“But Rosenberg and Snyder have pointed out that there’s a gulf between the NCAA’s student-athlete-focused ideal and the way its rules play out at at least one of its premier programs.” Yes! excactly! Their GPA’s must have dropped through the s**tter! Yea! WOO!! GO GRee…

oh, what. wha?

“That’s good reporting.” = FAIL

by mohog on Sep 2, 2009 11:50 AM CDT reply actions

That’s good reporting. That’s what journalism is supposed to do, bring those inconsistencies to light.

Which is why it’s great that the USA Today has done exactly that story on a national level, citing numerous programs and players, on the record (including Michigan player Mike Massey), in 2005 and with a massive survey across many sports in 2008. That was an investigation, real journalism, bringing to light the inconsistencies. It didn’t accuse anyone of violations, it didn’t take sides, it just reported. The NCAA in response obviously must have decided that nothing needed to change because they’ve done nothing to change the rules.

This on the other hand was nothing but a hit piece on Rich Rodriguez. It was one-sided, ignored context and more damning ignored the very rules the authors claimed the freshmen (the ones they lied to, for that matter) didn’t understand.

So I ask that you don’t try to polish this turd. We already know what a good article on this looks like, because a national paper has done it. Twice. Rosenberg never wanted Rodriguez hired in the first place, and has wanted him fired ever since. This article had nothing to do with a systemic problem in college football. It had to do with one man’s ongoing crusade to get Rich Rodriguez fired, and that’s all.

by Yinka Double Dare on Sep 2, 2009 3:54 PM CDT reply actions