The NCAA has placed the University of Michigan on three years’ probation for major rules violations in its football program.
The Division I Committee on Infractions announced its decision in the closely watched case Thursday afternoon, when it released a 29-page report detailing the allegations—and sanctions—against head coach Rich Rodriguez’s football program. In addition to placing the institution on probation, the committee also upheld Michigan’s self-imposed penalty that would reduce the amount of practice time allotted to its football team through the end of the 2011-12 academic year.
In the report, the NCAA faulted Rodriguez for allowing his program to run afoul of the association’s rules in several areas, including the number of coaches he had on staff and the amount of practice time athletes were required take part in. The NCAA also said the head coach—as well as the athletic department at large—failed to monitor the football program, and directed Rodriguez to participate in an upcoming seminar about NCAA rules.
Allegations that Michigan’s football players were devoting far more time to practice and training in 2008 and 2009 than the 20 hours allowed per week attracted widespread attention when they first surfaced. The infractions committee noted that much of the additional time came from summer workouts that went beyond the prescribed limits of weight training, conditioning, or review of game film, and from strength and conditioning activities that coaching staff used as disciplinary measures for athletes who missed class.
The committee noted, however, that while the program’s violation of rules governing practice time were serious, they were far less extensive than originally reported.
15 Responses to NCAA Puts U. of Michigan on Probation for Rules Violations in Football Program
henr1055 - November 4, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Yea and who is going to be there to see how long they practice?
princeton67 - November 4, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Are there any limits to, say, music or art majors practicing their craft?
How long programming/computer majors can spend in front of a monitor?
Notice that the article does not say any football players were academically ineligible. As long as a player’s GPA passes muster – NCAA’s or UM’s, how he manages his time is his own business.
jffoster - November 5, 2010 at 8:20 am
I agree with Princeton 67, and point out that nobody gets all in a flutter over ballerine, dancers, or instrumental musicians using steriods either.
It is the NCAA which has gotten arrogant and authoritarian and needs to be slapped down a few notches.
knysna - November 5, 2010 at 9:48 am
I don’t find the comparison with fine arts majors to be apt. Here’s why:
1. No one majors in football or other sports. These are extracurricular activities, whereas music and ballet are fields of academic study.
2. Fine arts students do not compete on the national stage the way college athletes do. The pressure from national competition and the rewards associated with that require stiffer regulation.
3. A wealth of medical research indicates that overtraining or overuse of various parts of the body used in sports has negative effects later in life. Witness the emphasis that the NFL is now placing on concussions (the damage if which accumulates over a lifetime, leading to dementia), or baseball teams watching pitch counts for young pitchers to protect their arms. No parallel of this medical danger exists for fine arts students.
jffoster - November 5, 2010 at 11:49 am
Knysna’s No 3 says that “No parallel of this medical danger exists for fine arts students.”
It certainly does for music and dance students, who not uncommonly wind up in physical therapy and in fact are often treated in “Sports Medicine” units. And music majors certainly compete for jobs. And music is extracurricular for some band or orchestra or chorus student members, physical education is sometimes a major for student athletes. I agree they are not identical, but the line is fuzzier than you seem to allow for.
_perplexed_ - November 5, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Compare UM’s “violations” and punishments to USC’s (see http://chronicle.com/article/NCAA-Slaps-Southern-Cal-With/65904/ ). At USC the offenses were those of individual players…the institution was faulted only for lax oversight. At Michigan, it was the insitution (coaches, not players) that violated the rules. What an outrageous double standard: UM cheats (their infractions were designed to obtain competititve advantage) and gets little more than a reprimand, players at USC accept money and the University gets banned from the postseason.
bitel - April 7, 2011 at 4:08 pm
I was once in residence at the Dublin Instsute for Advanced Studies, on the bottom floor with the Celticists, studying medieval Irish saints. Upstairs were the cosmic physicists, who seemed to have a much better time and were reputed to throw parties on the roof. I wish I’d gone upstairs.
hariseldon - April 8, 2011 at 9:55 am
What people who fund these prizes never realize is that awards committees always give the prize to someone who has already had lots of recognition. That way, the committee avoids the risk that the prize winner disappears and is never heard from again. But then why bother? In all likelihood, if a person is already widely recognized, they already have tenure, perhaps even an endowed chair, so they don’t need the extra recognition to establish their career. Like so much else in the academic world, it’s winner-take-all, which is not exactly the best way to hear from the many voices needed to advance scholarship.
minnesotan - April 8, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Christians and Scientologists have the right idea. No god is a true god who doesn’t bribe famous people to believe in him.
steverankin - April 26, 2011 at 11:28 am
“And it’s best not to bring up the fact that religious leaders have, historically, not been terribly supportive of cutting-edge science.”
This generalization is demonstrably false. You’re simply perpetuating a historical prejudice.
tombartlett - April 28, 2011 at 10:28 am
Tell that to Galileo.
steverankin - April 28, 2011 at 11:26 am
Ah, Mr. Bartlett, so we go from a false generalization about religious leaders and science to your committing the same error in reverse: to cite one admittedly bad episode as proof of the false generalization. Your flippancy is showing.
The Vatican has openly admitted that the church badly handled the Galileo affair. (By the way, I’m not a Roman Catholic, so my defensiveness on their behalf is as a historian, not a Catholic. I’m actually United Methodist.) Furthermore and as important, there were many social and cultural factors involved as context to that situation that had nothing to do with science or religion. To make of even the Galileo affair an example of conflict between science and religion is to sketch a false and dangerous caricature.
When will the warfare thesis be laid to its proper rest?
tombartlett - April 29, 2011 at 10:03 am
You’re right — the Vatican did admit that it was wrong about Galileo and apologized. In 1992.
And I would argue that long-standing institutional opposition to heliocentrism was more than one bad episode. But I’m not making an argument that religion and science are irreconcilable. There are plenty of scientists who are religious. Nor am I making the argument that religious leaders have always, in every case, stood in the way of scientific progress. They haven’t. But, historically it’s often been — and it remains — a strained relationship. Would you disagree with that?
steverankin - April 29, 2011 at 10:18 am
To Tom Bartlett: I think the strain falls mainly in the arena of polemics, which is what captures our attention most often. I just don’t think the polemics should define the relationship. Outside the glare of popular media, there are plenty of exciting and fruitful (and friendly) conversations going on between theologians and scientists. The Templeton Foundation, of course, is one source for encouraging the dialogue, but I also think of places like the Center of Theological Inquiry at Princeton.
Eric Teske - August 16, 2011 at 9:11 am
Great post, wish I started following your blog sooner – I just added it to my reader!