Run, don't walk, to read Jonathan Chait's take.
Fresh off the presses (and not behind the Rivals paywall):
As far as I'm concerned, Jonathan Chait is the Chuck Norris of journalists.
If I ever meet Jon Chait, I am going to buy him the biggest goddamn beer imaginable.
But kind of like when the Simpsons go to Australia and Homer orders "one of those big Australian beers people are always talking about". Then when he gets it he looks sad and the bartender says "Something wrong Yank" and Homer says "I guess it's pretty big".
Thanks for posting that image.
I don't know where you got it, but the guy who submitted that exact image for our cover photo and said it was created in-house is getting a phone call tomorrow.
I just get the feeling that the Freep won't respond to any of the criticism. Chait's articles are probably surfblocked for Freep employees.
because they don't want their employees to see what a properly researched article looks like. Screw the Freep.
I was pondering the idea of taking the "The University is satisfied that the initial media reports are greatly exaggerated if not flatly incorrect." and having every MGoBlogger with a Twitter account tweet it as a reply to the Freep, but that just seemed childish and wrong, because while it would get attention, we should be above that.
So when I saw Jon Chait's take (which I had been hoping for all day), I realized it was unnecessary, the media was finally taking another part of the media to task. It's a small victory, a moral victory at best, but it is a victory.
Thank you Mr. Chait, whereever you are.
I love Chait's take on the whole thing. The way I see it, the Free Press called in a tip to the cops that RichRod was driving drunk at 90 miles per hour in a school zone with a dead hooker in the trunk. The cops set up a speed trap, and clocked him doing 34 in a 25, and issued him a ticket. The Free Press then runs an article declaring "see, we TOLD you he was speeding."
I'd say more like 29 in a 25........The type of thing you normally don't get pulled over for.
the car Rodriguez was a passenger in was going 29 over 25.
I feel like everytime I write this, someone else does it better. A hattip to JC for seeing to the heart of the problem here: there's a total disconnect between what's been initially said (and thus what everyone remembers) and what's actually occurred.
This quote from Chait's article is priceless:
"Detroit News columnist Lynn Henning offered up a typical example of the sentiment: "Michigan State is now the regional example for how a Big Ten athletic program should be run.""
Does Mr. Henning not have a clue how stupid he looks when he writes that? How many MSU players were arrested in the dormitory beatdown again?
Many people wring their hands at the impending collapse and disappearance of newspapers. I understand the big-picture reasons for their concerns, but to be honest find it very hard to do anything other than laugh when I read drivel like Henning's.
Henning's a Spartan. And probably senile.
And even his parents hated him so much they gave him the name of a woman.
and you have to be a pretty big a-hole as a newborn for your parents to hate you.
This was my favorite:
"It's highly unusual for a university to call in the NCAA as a result of an obviously shoddy report by an openly hostile columnist carrying water for disgruntled partisans of a departed coach."
I would *so* love for someone to start naming names.
The article was the best one of the day. Thanks for posting the link
Man, just when I was starting to calm down...
The only problem with the article is that anyone not affiliated with Michigan will read it and consider it blatant homerism for one reason or another. As far as the facts go, it's dead on.
Post it to your Twitter, to your Facebook feed, get people to engage it. The only way that this can work as a defense is for as many eyes to see it and to compel people to realize that the Free Press may have been technically correct, but it was substantively wrong.
Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
While I normally hold a deep and abiding respect for Number 1.0, in this case, not so much. But well played sir, well played.
"It's highly unusual for a university to call in the NCAA as a result of an obviously shoddy report by an openly hostile columnist carrying water for disgruntled partisans of a departed coach."
I don't know what was more refreshing... reading that article or looking at goody's avatar.
Well written and I think the whole world would be a better place for reading it. At some point this week the Freep well run an article back pedalling on their allegations against UM. It will be vague and probably involve more anonymous sources, also it will probably be on page 4 of the sports section. Not that it matters anyway because nobody will read it.
Chait and Rosenberg worked at the Michigan Daily at the same time. I think Chait might have been a year older. Heck, they might have even been "friends" at some point. I wish more ex U of M columnists would speak up. I've been particularly disappointed that Nick Cotsonika hasn't contributed his take. Sure, you work for the Freep, but give me your damn opinion.
Chait is certainly biased, but so is Rosenberg, and I'm glad he stepped up to point out how fucking absurd the original alligations were.
If I recall correctly, Cotsonika was the co-writer (with OSU slappy Jim Schaefer) on the Dorsey piece after Signing Day.
For obvious reasons, I have not paid too much attention to what they print.
I searched for that article. Only thing that came up was an article profiling Dorsey's recruitment. I didn't see anything overly negative about it. Was there another article?
When the Freep writers approached Dorsey to discuss the piece they were preparing for right after Signing Day, they told him they were writing an uplifting redemption piece and how he was going to get away from his past troubles in Florida.
They then proceeded to write the article I'm assuming you found when you searched (and was discussed here by Brian).
Great job by JC!
What people have to do here is to just ignore the Frickin' Freep and move on.
This story is national news, not because of the Freep, because this whole thing involves Michigan. Top item in news on the ESPN homepage all day; big time mention on the Rome show, and I just heard it on Fox Sports Radio's Petros and Money.
Michigan (and its partisans) have to stop moaning about some hack dead-tree journalism and focus on getting better on the field.
Michigan football's mantra for 2010 should be: "Scoreboard."
Yup, scoreboard, bitches, scoreboard.
Too many people still trust the Freep as a legitimate news source. This must be changed before we choose to ignore such a despicable publication.
I read his columns in The New Republic from time to time. I usually disagree with his politics, but man, that guy knows how to turn a phrase.
I wish, wish, wish Chait would publish his Rivals column in TNR. He's the Editor, forcrissake. It would be an awesome, new media take-down of old media.
Jon: I know you you're a member here, (well, I don't know that for a fact, but since he and Brian exchange notes, I gotta believe he is). Do it. Do it. Do it.
The man can write. It is refreshing to read some news and reports of actual journalistic quality and research.
Fantastic piece. Thanks for the link.
He's a good writer, but he doesn't get it:
But "everybody does it" is a valid defense against charges such as this. If the accusation was doing something inherently wrong - say, providing athletes with dangerous performance-enhancing drugs - then it wouldn't matter if everybody did it. When it comes to rules that are solely designed to prevent a relative advantage, though, it's crucial. There's nothing inherently wrong with a quality control staffer who tosses a taped towel around with a player. It's only wrong to the extent that it gives that program a leg up on its competitors. If the competitors are doing the same thing, then it isn't a leg up.
That's not a valid excuse against anything. It doesn't work anywhere - not with traffic cops, not in school, not at work, and not with the NCAA. However few, there are probably programs out there who don't do the types of things that Alex Herron did. And even if literally every other program does it, then that doesn't matter. Examples must be made. You can't just ignore the rules because "everybody does it."
If the rule doesn't make sense, change the rule. In the meantime, the rule has to be enforced. It sucks that Michigan got caught - but that only sucks because we're Michigan fans.
Michigan fans, including Chait, need to face reality. The football program screwed up. The Free Press sucks, absolutely. But if the cops knock down your door on an anonymous tip that you have a basement full of AK-47s, and it turns out you only have a vial of crack . . . well, you shouldn't have had crack. Violations wouldn't have been found if violations didn't exist in the first place.
Chait isn't arguing that Michigan shouldn't have to pay its penance; no one is. Also, let's not make a what is metaphorically a speeding ticket into metaphorical drug possession.
I've gotten multiple speeding tickets, and parking tickets, in my time as a driver. Lock me up, I'm a menace to society. Fire me for being reckless.
The NCAA sole purpose is to regulate competitive advantage. That's what Chait is getting at in that section.
The Nick Saban guide to recruiting is in compliance with the guidelines specified by the NCAA...should Michigan do what he does? Compliance does not mean ethical; Non-compliance does not mean unethical.
this is the equivalent of being taken to trial for manslaughter, hit and run, ignoring a traffic signal/stop sign and failure to follow from a proper distance.
and pleading to (and likely having the court accept) failure to follow from a proper distance.
I clearly have a wanton disregard for the established rules and regulations of society. As MCalibur, I hold myself to a higher standard than my poor fellow travelers on the road of life and, therefore, I feel that it is only appropriate that I don't drive my car until the points roll off my license. Maybe I can sell my car and donate the money to Motts. Then, maybe, Bando Calrissian will respect me.
Okay, this is petty, but the whole "it's only a speeding ticket" thing is underselling it a bit. For a young team that's 8-16 over the past two years, we lose THREE FULL WEEKS of practice time this year and next (and we lose football staff). Furthermore, it's a black mark on the University and the athletic department. And furtherfurthermore, we've already heard recruits talking negatively about Michigan because of the potential sanctions and Rich Rodriguez's job security, which is linked to these sanctions.
So . . . I know you guys want to make this sound like an extremely minor offense, but it could have a serious impact on our program. I know there was no postseason ban or scholarship reductions (not yet, anyway), but I'd say it's more than a "speeding ticket."
Will you please change your Avatar? I have a hard time thinking you're a dick when I see Brandon Graham's smiling face.
Cosigned.
Magnus doesn't agree with us and he's making a reasonable argument . . .
. . . let's call him names!
Didn't call you names. I agreed that it's hard to think of you as being a dick while looking at BG's smiling mug.
Also, I don't think your argument is very reasonable, if that wasn't already apparent.
It's not reasonable to think that existing rules should be enforced?
I mean, you can disagree or whatever . . . but to say that my point is "unreasonable" is, well, unreasonable.
Not if that rule is not being enforced equally, across the board, I don't. Or if it's a rule that needs to be clarified or changed.
Just like you can't catch everyone who speeds down the highway, you can't catch everyone who stretches too long. Or uses QC guys to coach 7-on-7s.
The NCAA doesn't have the resources (and what a waste it would be!) to investigate all 120 FBS schools. We got caught. If other schools get caught, they should be punished, too. I see no reason why they wouldn't be.
But seriously, a lot of this is just sour grapes because we got caught. If OSU were getting sanctioned like this, we likely wouldn't be saying "This is unfair! How could the Columbus Dispatch do this!"
We'd be saying, "Ha-ha! Those cheaters!" Sometimes you just gotta take your lumps.
I'm not at all suggesting they should investigate all FBS schools, don't put words in my mouth. I said the rules need to be equally enforced, or re-evaluated.
is why some of us find your act irritating. We all have opinions, but yours are the only ones that are ever reasonable. That's unreasonable.
And please change the avatar for the reasons already stated.
No.
Believing that the University should receive lesser punishment is reasonable. I might disagree, but it's reasonable. That's fine. You can have your own opinions. Nowhere did I say that such a thought is crazy.
But it's not "unreasonable" for me to say "Existing rules should be enforced," which is my entire point. We screwed up. Suck it up and deal with it. That's it.
You are being unreasonable here. This started with your claim that Chait "doesn't get it" because the everybody-does-it idea cannot be a valid excuse against anything.
Magnus, this time you're the one who doesn't get it. Chait is speaking normatively in a paragraph about morality and blameworthiness. The idea is that certain actions are wrong for different reasons.
Some things are just plain wrong irrespective of any prohibitory rule, like [insert your favorite really bad action here. Mine's murder because it's also a cool word to describe a group of ravens]. Even if there was no law forbidding these things, they would still be wrong (intrinsic or inherent wrongs). Other actions are wrong because there is a rule against them, but there is no reason to believe they would be "wrong" or "wrongful" if not for the rule.
In this latter category, not all wrongs are created equal. The purpose of the rule is significant. Violating a Homeowners Association rule that no person is permitted to eat bananas on Tuesdays because the community wants to reduce the amount of yellow visable through open windows, for example, is a stupid rule. Eating a banana in front of a window on Tuesday would violate both the letter of the rule and the purpose of the rule, but, because the purpose of the rule is inane, the act would be very low on most people's wrongfulness meter. Nobody would care whether a guy ate a banana in front of the window (thereby violating the purpose of the rule) or in his bathtub (not violating its purpose)...it's irrelevant whether somebody violates the purpose of a nonsensical rule.
Very few systems of morality (I can think of none) consider working longer hours to gain a competitive advantage in a sporting event to be wrong in and of itself. The purpose of the rule is, however, a good one. Violating the purpose of the rule becomes wrongful because the purpose is perceived to be benign. So whether Michigan violated the purpose of the rule suddenly becomes significant.
Doing something prohibited by the NCAA that no other school is doing would likely offer a true competitive advantage and would violate both the letter and the purpose of the rule. This is typically perceived as more wrongful than what Michigan did. The "everybody does it" concept is actually significant in trying to decide whether Michigan crafted an uneven playing field for itself. If every team truly does it, no competitive advantage is gained and Michigan's conduct amounts to merely violating the letter, but not the purpose, of the rule. The idea is that if Michigan did not violate the purpose of the rule, the act was somehow less wrongful from a normative standpoint.
That is not to say Michigan's violations were not wrongful. Violating the letter (even if not the purpose) of an NCAA rule is perceived to be wrong by almost anybody who cares about such things. Chait is not arguing that Michigan should not be punished according to the letter of the rule for violating the letter of the rule. That's how rules work. Chait is arguing that the "everybody does it" defense is significant, if only to evaluate the degree of wrongfulness.
By constructing a straw man argument, you have attacked Chait for the wrong reasons. Or you are lacking sound reasoning in your own argument. Or you are being unreasonable. QED.
Captain, I appreciate your well thought out argument.
However, I disagree. For many reasons, most or all of which have been enumerated throughout this thread.
But thanks for sharing your thoughts. I truly did enjoy reading your comments.