Remember when you heard Santa Claus was fake? Maybe you were a big professional wrestling fan and found out that it too was fake. Think back to those moments and how you felt. It was probably more than disappointment. You felt lied to. You reassessed how you viewed the world. Well, at age 22, I still feel that way today.

Growing up, I always felt strongly that someday I would pursue a career in journalism. I grew up with a love for reading. Quickly, that turned into a love for writing. As I grew old enough, I began reading more sophisticated writing. I loved reading sports articles in the Detroit papers by Mitch Albom. Nationally, I loved reading Gene Wojciechowski. I watched ESPN and grew to love Broadcast journalism as told by guys like Peter Gammons. These three men are near the top in their respective fields. They have more in common than that, though. They are guys who write passionately, and not simply to get a response, but to seek some sort of a truth in and through their writing. The concept of seeking the truth reminds me of one of my all-time favorite movies– A Time To Kill. Matthew McConaughey says in his closing argument:

“You see, in all this legal maneuvering, something has gotten lost. That something is the truth. Now it is incumbent upon us lawyers not to just talk about the truth, but to actually seek it, to find it, to live it.”

That truth has been lost today, and it has shaken my confidence in the journalism field. The idea of shock journalism has become too popular. You can replace the word shock with bad, and it does not lose its context. Journalism with the sole purpose of eliciting a response is not legitimate journalism. It is about time for journalists to take on a Hippocratic Oath. The Internet is often used as an excuse for why newspapers are failing. While that may be true, it is not the only reason. The quality of journalism has fallen dramatically in only the past ten years. The editors who approve the shock journalism articles are the same ones who will be looking for jobs in five years because their profession has become obsolete. And, the more I read from these people, the less sorry I feel about their future.
The motivation for this article comes from Saturday’s Detroit Free Press article: http://www.freep.com/article/20090829/SPORTS06/90829023

The Facts

This article alleges NCAA violations by the Michigan football coaching staff. Specifically (a term I would use loosely), the allegations are that Rodriguez and his staff has broken time limit rules by forcing players to practice for more time than is allowed by NCAA regulations. I’m sure most people’s initial reactions reading this article was something similar to, “Duh.” Let’s face it, almost every school bends the time regulations, and all of them cover their butts because… well… it’s easy to do.
Here’s what the Free Press failed to tell you:

1. There is no rule prohibiting a coach from “punishing” a player for missing a voluntary workout. This is commonplace at every legitimate high school program in the country. You miss workouts, you make up for it during practice.
2. Time spent watching video is not considered mandatory practice time, and therefore does not fall under the 8 and 20 hour restrictions.
3. Time spent in the trainer’s room is not considered mandatory practice time, and therefore does not fall under the 8 and 20 hour restrictions.

This is how teams “get around” the time restrictions. Watching video is a huge part of college football today, and takes up as much time as field practice in most cases.

The Evidence

Probably the biggest issue I have with this article in general is the lack of evidence supporting the claims made by the Free Press writers. Bolded are the pieces of evidence used in the article.
Two players called Michigan’s off-season requirements “ridiculous.” The players described the coaches’ expectations as an ongoing concern among many teammates. Parents of several players agreed.

Commentary: Okay, so the program is tough. It might not be what you thought you had signed up for.  But nothing in that statement supports the notion that Michigan is breaking rules.  Michigan finally has tough workouts and high expectations.  Deal with it.
“It was mandatory,” one player said. “They’d tell you it wasn’t, but it really was. If you didn’t show up, there was punishment. I just felt for the guys that did miss a workout and had to go through the personal hell they would go through.”

Commentary: “They’d tell you it wasn’t, but it really was.” This is your evidence, Detroit Free Press?? There was punishment?? Of course there was.  If you don’t put in the time working out like the rest of your teammates do, you’re going to be out of shape, so you’re going to run to get into shape.  There’s nothing in the NCAA rules against doing so.
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.

Commentary: And how many of those hours were required by the coaching staff? Since games occur on Saturday, it would seem likely that players might want to watch film on Sunday.  They are more than entitled to. The NCAA can’t restrict the free will of student-athletes. If you want to prove something, show that those nine hour sessions were required. I bet you’ll have a difficult time doing so.

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.

Commentary: So quality control staff aren’t allowed direct contact with players during scrimmages. But, the players said that the staff watched the scrimmages. How does that conflict with the scrimmages having to be “voluntary” and “player-run”? The fact is, it doesn’t. Michigan addressed this specific issue. Quality control staff is there specifically to ensure that the NCAA regulations are being followed.  So, they’re verifying that only the trainers were there. In other words, they were doing their job.
There is a lot more “evidence” written in the article, all equally poorly researched with numerous fallacies contained within the statements. What is not clear are who the sources are. The Free Press claims to have as many as ten current or former players who relate similar stories to what they claim in the article. The only one named is Terrence Taylor who said that Sundays required a lot of time. Nowhere did he actually make a claim with evidence supporting a breach of NCAA rules. Funny enough, Taylor is one former player who has been supportive of Rich Rodriguez and the direction the Michigan football program is taking. So, who are your other sources, Free Press? I wonder if they include Justin Boren, Alex Mitchell, Jeremy Ciulla, Dann O’Neil and Kurt Wermers. All of these fat, out-of-shape offensive linemen have complained about how much time was required in workouts. One of them (Wermers) even made these complaints before revealing that he was academically ineligible for the upcoming season.

All of the transfers were more than entitled to transfer when they didn’t approve of the program. But, once they opened their mouth to the media, they eliminate any objectivity in future statements they give. Former players who were unhappy with the coaching staff have agendas, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. I know several rocket scientists, all of whom would agree.

The Counter-Argument

So, we have the facts. We have the evidence. The Free Press made their argument based on those two factors. Now, any good piece of writing will provide at least one potential counter-argument and address that argument. Any decent high school English teacher will tell you that. So, where is that in the article? It is non-existent. It would have been fairly simple to ask the rest of the football team if they felt that the rules were being violated. If they don’t know the specific rules, tell the players what they are and THEN ask if they are being violated. The Free Press makes no attempt to do anything resembling this process.
Perhaps players did not understand what constituted voluntary and mandatory in both the eyes of the coaches and the NCAA. After all, it really is the coaches and quality control staff’s responsibility to know the practice rules and ensure they are enforced. The players have a lot on their minds between practice, school, and their family who is often 1000+ miles away from them. They shouldn’t be expected to know what practice time as regulated by the NCAA is. Michigan is paying people plenty of money to do that. So, maybe the whole thing is a misunderstanding. It might not be… but what if it is? Sure would make for a compelling counter-argument. Too bad the Free Press didn’t address it.

An Agenda?

To those who have followed the Free Press’s coverage of Michigan football since Rich Rodriguez took over, it is not surprising to see a one-sided argument.  For the most part, article the Free Press and News have written have focused on how the Michigan football program is falling apart in one aspect or another. Michael Rosenberg’s previous Michigan football article about the Justin Feagin situation is a great example. At a certain point, it begs the question… what is the fascination?
Rich Rodriguez wasn’t a Bo disciple. He’s not as media friendly as Lloyd Carr, even though he’s always much more willing to explain himself to the media. You know who was a Bo disciple? A media friendly head coach? Les Miles. The guy who didn’t get the job is ultimately still the story in Ann Arbor. People hate change and the Detroit media is no different. The stories coming out of Ann Arbor would be dramatically different if Les Miles was head coach, even though he is notorious for running a similarly strict program. Detroit media members and the old time Michigan contingent have never recovered from the Les Miles saga. Some of them never will.

You know what else would sell papers? Writing about how great of a family man Rich Rodriguez really is. Write about how, in his first year, Rich Rodriguez led the football team to its highest GPA ever. When you don’t do this, when you only write about the negative aspects of the Rich Rodriguez regime, it’s clear you have an agenda.
The timing of this article also causes one to question the motivation of the Detroit Free Press. Players have been transferring and making these claims for over a year. Why did you choose the week before the 2009 season starts to publish this article? It just screams of having an agenda.

The Truth
In my sophomore year at the University of Michigan, I took an Argumentative Writing class. That’s essentially what an article like this is: an argument to prove a particular point.  Had I turned this article in, I probably would have received a response similar to this:

Evidence– One-sided and not interpreted correctly. How can you expect someone to believe this argument if you misrepresent the facts? Poor use of logos.
Counter-argument– Where is it!?!? We talked about this in class, it’s a necessary part of your argument. The lack of one makes you seem unreasonable and your ethos suffers as a result.
F. Please see me after class, it’s clear you don’t understand the concepts we have gone over all semester. You’re going to need to improve drastically to receive a respectable grade this semester!

So, congratulations Detroit Free Press. You just failed English 225 at the University of Michigan. Maybe you shouldn’t write your first draft the night before it’s due.

*********************************

Matt Way is a law student at Marquette University after graduating from the University of Michigan.  You can read more of his commentary on his blog:  Matt Rants about Sports