to play football, not to play trumpet
For those living near Fort Wayne, the local Alumni Club is bringing John Bacon as a guest speaker on 10/26. He has visited here previously and is always entertaining. Details below:
Dear U-M Students, Alumni and Friends, You’re invited to the U of M Club event: Discussion with John Bacon on his recently released book “Three and Out” Where: Main Library, Meeting Room A - Free parking in underground garage for library card holders. Address: 900 Library Plaza, Fort Wayne When: Wednesday, October 26th Time: 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm Speech to begin at 7:30 pm Cost: Free!
Since Hoke has been hired, check that since RR was hired, wait since football was invented, there has been a lot of talk about toughness. Coaches preach it, the fans eat it up, and the media keeps stirring the pot. I recognize that each player has certain toughness level to him, but do certain teams and coaches really teach toughness so much that their specific team is so much tougher than other teams?
I think to make it to the high college and pro level most of the players have to have a certain amount of toughness to stay in the game. I would contend that at that point the levels of toughness are pretty small.
My contention is that when teams win they are usually considered tough and when teams lose the fans and press question their toughness. I think talent and strength is mistaken for toughness.
What got me going on this was some of the talking heads and fans lathering up over Dantonio and Narduzzi. Are they coaching toughness this year and not teaching toughness 2 years ago when they were getting torched by CMU and Minnesota? Or is J . Worthy playing now with competent secondary?
I know it has happened before but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Find me a game that people thought the tougher team lost. I know it has happened but I would guess the media stories and fan reaction is about 98% winning team and 2% losing team on who was tougher.
I love doing what ifs. So let's suppose everything that happened Saturday was the exact same except the ref did not blow the play dead on the backward pass. We probably pick it up and score for a 14PT turnaround(they scored on that possession) and for the sake of argument the rest of the game played out pretty much as is and Michigan pulls out a tough win.
Is Michigan being lauded for their toughness?
Does Kovacs come to the podium and say yeah we won but they were the tougher team?
I think a lot of it is BS what do you think?
Edit-I struggled with the title so I changed it to try and cut down on the snark/lack of understanding of my point.
Per 247 Sport and Wilfong, Gunner Kiel has re-opened his recruitment and planned a visit (presumably to Notre Dame, since it's posted on the ND 247 board).
I presume Michigan won't try to jump back in, but you never know.
EDIT: Per Tim Sullivan at Rivals, there are rumors that Michigan coaches may visit a 2012 QB during the bye week. Query who that might be.
Chris Brown has a column on Grantland today about how dynamic safeties like Reed and Polamalu have changed the way NFL defenses match-up to the latest offensive schemes. He also outlines some of the evolution of defensive schemes from the 4-3, to the 46, to the Tampa 2, and now the Cover 4. There's also an interesting footnote about the Desert Swarm defense implemented in the 1990's by Arizona.
Michigan's defense still has a long way to go, but we finally have a coordinator on the front lines of this evolution. We also probably have our best pair of safeties since......since....hmm......Welbourne-Murray? I don't think Kovacs-Gordon are THAT good and still make their share of mistakes, but the bar isn't set very high for a pair of Michgian safeties.
Is there such a thing as trash talking going too far? I know that Rose and Webber were really into trash talking, and Michael Jordan was also a master at it.
In the ESPN article on the Gholston suspension, there is a comment about the context for the punch to Lewan:
Gholston, a sophomore and a starter, said in a statement that he was provoked to react.
I get that Glolston was provoked. I also get that on the field, some players would do anything to gain an advantage. Does that mean anything can be said? I'm thinking about next year. Can Lewan say to Gholston, when they're on the ground after a play, just the two of them, [EDIT: My original hypothetical example was over the line for several bloggers, so I am striking / editing it. My original question, BTW, is not about what Lewan said or didn't say. I'm not speculating on that. I'm interested in whether or not trash talking can go too far.] "You're a ******* ****** ******, and your mother is a cranked out ****** ***** who'll do anything for her next fix. She'd even **** *** if someone paid her enough." Can Lewan do opposition research and throw out insulting but true statements about Gholston's relatives or friends or history to provoke Gholston to punch again?
Obviously, we're not talking about any public statements . . . the players know that you can't do politically incorrect things. But tactically, would players do something like that? I can easily imagine that there are some guys out there that have no personal boundaries.
Myself, I think things like that go over the line and are just wrong. But I can easily imagine some guys being big enough tools to do that kind of trash talking. More than once, I've seen Lewan described here as a "nasty" player who likes to ride donkeys, and he's not an idiot. He knows that the refs will be watching for Gholston, and all he has to do is pull Gholston's chain enough to get him ejected from the game.
I guess I'm wondering if players nowadays have an internal code tacitly agreed upon about what is ok and what is over the line, and not ok.
"It's not a marketing and merchandise strategy," Brandon said. "It was to fire up the team as far as our own competitive edge. I'm glad we did it. It worked out well, but like everything else, some people love it, some don't love it."