SB Nation User Blog: Wolvie

Could the "RichRod" practice regiment happen to you?

Wolvie — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:36:10 -0000

There are fresh allegations this weekend that Rich Rodriguez's/Mike Barwis' practice regiment at the University of Michigan greatly exceeds NCAA rules. Before you even form an opinion based on either the coach or the school, think about what this would mean if it was alleged at YOUR team of choice.

The original article from the Detroit Free Press.

SB Nation's Michigan Blog's initial reaction.

ESPN's Joe Schad actually gets a former player on record.

ESPN Big 10 Blogger Adam Rittenberg says you're naive if you don't think it happens everywhere

Well, ok, call me naive, to some extent.

I suppose I wouldn't be surprised if, under the 4-hours-a-day rule, players are actually on the practice field or weight room training for 4 hours a day. But you're actually at the facility for longer because you have to get ready for practice, or cleaning up afterwards. That could be an example of "stretching the rules" perhaps, while still being considered in compliance. But some of the allegations at Michigan are horrendous.

But coach, you said it was voluntary...

Players said members of Rodriguez’s quality-control staff often watched seven-on-seven off-season scrimmages. The noncontact drills, in which an offense runs plays against a defense, are supposed to be voluntary and player-run. They are held at U-M’s football facilities. NCAA rules allow only training staff — not quality-control staffers — to attend as a safety precaution. Quality-control staffers provide administrative and other support for the coaches but are not allowed to interact directly with players during games, practices or workouts.

According to NCAA rules, coaches must do more than just declare weight-room workouts as "voluntary." If attendance is kept or an athletic department staffer relays information about the activity to the coaches, the activity is mandatory.

Assuming that most of you reading this are adults with jobs, you probably know about some "voluntary" activities at work. Sure, you don't HAVE to be there at the off-site party, you don't HAVE to participate in the charity fund. But isn't it funny how you may get passed over for that promotion and your co-worker who yuks it up with the boss over a drink gets it? Sure, you can chalk this up to a similar situation, you go that extra mile, you reap the rewards. But there are actual rules...guidelines for some and laws for others, depending on who you are and the NCAA's mood of the day...in place to govern such things.

Workin' hard for the money...oh wait...I don't get paid?

Players spent at least nine hours on football activities on Sundays after games last fall. NCAA rules mandate a daily 4-hour limit. The Wolverines also exceeded the weekly limit of 20 hours, the athletes said.

One player, echoing the words of others, said the workouts in the past two off-seasons at Michigan "affected people’s grades. People were falling asleep in class."

One parent said: "It’s very difficult for kids that take the programs seriously. They’re exhausted. According to the coaches, what they’ve told our kids is, ‘This is permitted.’ "

I reject calling college players "kids", especially upperclassmen, who are in their 20's. But they ARE college students, and as long as they are STUDENTS...I'm actually ok with them not getting paid beyond their scholarship. But the reason the NCAA has these rules, is so these students still have time to do their classwork and have a life. They are student-athletes, not athlete-students. If you really are going to work these guys full-time, all year 'round, then they actually should get paid a salary beyond the schollie.

Hell, I'm not saying Oklahoma does the same things that Michigan is apparently doing. I really hope they're not. But if they did, it would explain why Bomar was getting paid for not doing any work. Under these conditions, when would a player have TIME to work?

Who was that masked man, who just committed career suicide?

The players said they had not personally reported their concerns to the athletic department’s Compliance Services Office — and, in fact, had signed forms stating that rules had been followed.

"They were making us sign those — you’d get in trouble if you didn’t sign," one player on the 2008 team said. "We signed that and joked about that: ‘We work out way more than this.’ We can’t do anything. We were trying to play."

The players described the coaches’ expectations as an ongoing concern among many teammates. Parents of several players agreed.

The players and parents agreed to talk only if they were not identified because they said they feared repercussions from the coaching staff.

It's sometimes hard to take anonymous sources seriously. You're left to speculate on who they are, what the motivations are. Do they have an axe to grind, do they even know what they're talking about, or slinging mud hoping it'll stick? But I thought about this in a "whistleblowing" sense, and it must REALLY suck to be a college football player in such a situation. Say that you know there are rules violations, maybe major violations are happening. If you talk to someone on record, you're potentially killing your school and your career. Beyond "betraying your team", the NCAA could bring sanctions against the team and school, harming it for years. And you're stuck there. You could transfer, but you'll lose a year of eligibility if transfering to another Div 1 school (if the NCAA allows a transfer in such a situation, please let me know). And who would accept your transfer? (Hopefully a school who actually follows the NCAA rules)

This ain't intramurals brother, it's a 4-year NFL training camp

I love this!

What is it about Rodriguez that has proved to be such a lightning rod for these kind of things?

He doesn’t like softies. Softies get their feelings hurt and go crying to somebody.

I am liking RR more and more every day. M may finally get over the father Lloyd syndrome.

--comment from "Pinchy The Lobster" at Maizenbrew

you have to realiza how whimpy the old conditioning program had eroded too. These players who complained can't handle hard work

--comment from "prof21" at freep.com

People need to read the first two paras here - they tell the same story -everywhere-. The difference? The formers are those that left mainly because they couldn't hack it. Why not take one more stab with the knife. The currents, they're likely the ones not even tabbed to dress and who have no real chance to see any playing time. Could also be those same players RR mentions are having issues academically. The timing on this sucks and it will be a topic in the lockerroom. Cut the chaff and move on and get this program back to relevance!

--comment from "UMich4ever" at espn.com

This is what seems to be most disturbing to me. The comments of many Michigan backers is of the "these guys were weak anyway...throw 'em under the bus and move on...screw 'em...it's happening everywhere else too" variety. Beauford over at Maizenbrew had some similar comments, the "it happens everywhere, no big deal" kind. But he's at least holding out until the pending investigation brings everything to light.

I gotta say, if this were Nebraska, I'd be surprised and pissed if Nebraska was doing this. To my knowledge, Nebraska Football has never been cited by the NCAA for a major rules violation. Neither has Michigan up to this point. It's one of the things about Michigan I liked. I mean, I'll ALWAYS be a Husker fan first. But out of the Big 10, they were the team I happened to like/respect. They tended to do things right, and they hate Ohio State and Penn State. ;-) When Nebraska played Michigan in the Alamo Bowl, I decided I'd go to my first bowl game (and 3rd Husker game). That game led to me plunking down the cash for season tickets for the Huskers. So now I'm left with Wisconsin I guess, with the Barry Alvarez connection.

But I digress. It's not about the players being weak or not working hard. 4 hours a day, 20 a week, plus a load of classes, is hard work. And if they can, truly voluntarily, work out more, more power to 'em. But I sincerely hope this type of "voluntary" overtime isn't going on everywhere. I wouldn't think that Dr. Tom would allow it at Nebraska. What about YOUR school?

Big 12 Schools Athletic Results Comparison

Wolvie — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:20:05 -0000

So what makes a school have the "best" athletic department?

I thought about that when I came across a blurb on Tuesday's (6/16) "Buff Bites" at Colorado's The Ralphie Report. The blurb itself links to a story put together by the guys at the Lincoln Journal Star's Husker Extra, reflecting where each school finished in the 21 sports under the Big 12.

But is that a truly accurate picture? As the original chart showed, not every school participates in every sport. There are some sports with as little as three participants. Easier to finish first in a sport like that, and when the worst you can do is third, that'll help your average score.

So using that data, I worked up my own numbers.

Team	F	MB	WB	MO	WO	MI	WI	MG	WG	MX	WX	WT	Tot	Avg	W/O F	Avg
TA&M	5	4	3	2	1	3	1	3	2	4	11	3	42	3.5	37	3.36
UT	1	4	6	3	5	1	5	8	6	6	4	2	51	4.25	50	4.55
BU	5	9	2	7	4	4	4	5	7	10	2	1	60	5	55	5
UN	1	8	7	1	3	2	3	11	10	7	3	4	60	5	59	5.36
TTU	1	11	7	4	2	6	2	6	11	9	1	7	67	5.58	66	6
OSU	4	4	10	8	11	8	10	1	1	1	7	6	71	5.92	67	6.09
UO	1	2	1	9	6	5	6	10	3	12	10	10	75	6.25	74	6.77
KSU	4	4	5	6	9	10	7	4	4	11	6	11	81	6.75	77	7
UM	1	3	10	5	7	7	7	9	11	5	12	7	84	7	83	7.55
UK	3	1	7	12	10	11	9	7	5	8	8	7	88	7.33	85	7.77
ISU	6	10	3	9	7	9	11	12	8	3	9	11	98	8.17	92	8.36
UC	4	12	12	11	12	12	12	2	8	2	5	4	96	8	92	8.36

These are the 12 sports that all 12 schools in the Big 12 participate in: Football, Mens Basketball, Womens Basketball, Track (Mens Outside, Womens Outside, Mens Inside, Womens Inside), Mens Golf, Womens Golf, Mens Cross Country, Womens Cross Country, and Womens Tennis.

I also added a second total and average at the end, which excludes Football. These standings are divisional-based. So the worst a team could do is sixth instead of twelfth (and how realistic is it that 5 of 12 teams can place first).

So what did this tell me? Well, I'm a Husker fan, and like many, I focus on football. I don't hear much about Texas A&M, but they have put together one hell of a set of teams, finishing in the top 3 in 8 of the 11 non-FB sports, and only finishing in the bottom 3 once.

Texas, well we all know Texas is the biggest-baddest Athletic Department in the Big 12. They didn't have quite as many top 3's, but they weren't at the bottom in anything, their worst finish was 8th.

Baylor, Nebraska, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State are good for averaging in the top half of the conference.

I was surprised that Oklahoma came out a bottom-half team. They're good where it counts as far as the money-sports (Football and Basketball). But beyond that, they fall off quite a bit.

Colorado didn't have a good year. Even Irish1611 at Ralphie Report said "Hard to put a spin on any of that." But there's one other chart that I put together that may be related to Colorado's woes.

Sports not participated in (out of 21)
Team	Opt outs
TA&M	2
UT	2
BU	4
UN	1
TTU	4
OSU	4
UO	2
KSU	7
UM	1
UK	4
ISU	3
UC	7

Colorado and Kansas State choose not to participate in a third of Big 12 sponsored sports. Does this indicate a lack of commitment to athletics? I'm not sure, as Missouri is in all but one Big 12 sport, and they finished rather low in the averages. But the schools that skip out the most also finish in the bottom half (dead last in Boulder's case), while Texas, A&M, and Nebraska are in all but one or two sports, and they finished in the top half. What I don't have to throw in for a comparison are athletic budgets and so on. But I just found it interesting.

Now Colorado may throw in a few insults now about how there's nothing else to do in Nebraska, we're a boring state, all we have are the Huskers, and so on. That's why we support the Huskers as much as we do. But beyond the smack, I think many fans may know the commitment may not be there as much as they'd like it to be.

There was talk at the end of April, when Mark Helfrich (OC) left for Oregon, that a knock against Colorado was that according to state law, they can't sign assistant coaches to multi-year contracts (the law may affect other state employees, this was specifically mentioned about the coaches). I don't know how their facilities are, but I'm told they have the best scenery around their facilities in the Big 12. I would think they could bring in the funds (at least as much as Nebraska, we're a bunch of poor dirt farmers, right).

Kansas State, I won't comment on, as their Athletic Department is in major flux right now, with the revelation of secret contracts for former coaches.

So what doesn't this show? Well for one, the Big 12 sports that only some schools are in. Nebraska (and Texas) are tops in Volleyball, Texas and Oklahoma are high in Baseball (with Nebraska bringing up the rear this year), And the sports that are not sponsored by the Big 12. Colorado (and other schools) may be in a number of other sports, and may be very good at them (such as Lacrosse), that aren't reflected in Big 12 standings.