Michigan 28, Maryland 0 Comment Count

Seth

21732310959_5b4cfe2360_o

[Patrick Barron]

Maryland thought they were getting a primetime showdown on national TV; what they got instead was a lesson in what being a member of the Big Ten is really about. Michigan is going to walk into your building, change the start time to just after breakfast, eat you for lunch, and be home in time for supper.

Facing a slate sky whipped up by the tendrils of Hurricane Joaquin, the Harbaugh 1.4 Wolverines left De’Veon Smith warm in his Ann Arbor stable, content to use the same strategy that got the Harbaugh 1.2s past UNLV: probe the inside, pop a thing or two when it’s time to get some points, and wait for your defense to throttle the will to football out of a vastly inferior opponent.

Growing up we called this a “Schembechler win,” and we got one, but not before a first half and change that conjured memories of a far more recent former Michigan coaching tenure. From Maryland receiving the kickoff, the drives went punt, punt, interception, fumble, punt, fumble, interception, missed FG, punt, field goal, punt, punt, punt, field goal, punt, kneel out half, interception, punt, punt, interception.

At this point I asked Twitter if they preferred a recap of these proceedings or a 10-minute pasta recipe. Votes for the game did outscore Maryland, but only barely:

How to Make Seth’s Creamy Gnocchi

image

Start by pre-heating the oven to 400 and shove the meatballs in (if you want to hurry this up just nuke ‘em for 4 minutes), then put the water on to boil. In another pan I pour some olive oil, balsamic vinegar, sriracha, and—here’s the trick—a tablespoon of peanut butter. You melt down the peanut butter on medium until you have a nice brownish sauce. Add garlic too if you’re into that. When the water boils put the gnocchi in and turn down the heat.

They’ll cook pretty fast then pop to the surface, whence you’ll remove them with a slotted spoon to your saucepan. Once all the gnocchi is moved over, pour in a half a cup of 2% milk and your tomato sauce, turn the heat up to medium-plus, and cook it down until it’s getting thick-ish. Turn off the heat and let it cool until your meatballs are ready. Plop those on top, followed by your preferred level of parmesan, and you’re in business.

At this point you may relocate back to the living room to find that Michigan has scored on a screen to Drake Johnson and a jet sweep to Jehu Chesson, Maryland’s starting quarterback is on the bench, and Willie Henry is getting free hits on Daxx Garmin. Salt away with Drake Johnson runs and serve cold.

The one really bad thing for Michigan is Mario Ojemudia left the game with an apparent Achilles injury. I thought he had his best day as a Wolverine today; if it was indeed his last that is a huge loss.

The rest of your takeaways: Maryland is bad at football and should feel bad. Michigan is excellent at defense and should feel excellent. Rudock is turning out to be fine in a Krenzel sort of way. De’Veon Smith probably really is Michigan’s best back. And while there’s still plenty of 2014 left to Harbaugh out of this team, you can start believing that both Mr. Smith and MICHIGAN will be back for Homecoming.

Comments

Reader71

October 3rd, 2015 at 5:41 PM ^

Hoke's biggest failure was his failure to get Gardner to buy in. We've never heard another M QB badmouth his coaches, and I hope we never will again. Keep it in-house.

You Only Live Twice

October 3rd, 2015 at 10:30 PM ^

It's more than getting through to the kid.  The kid played injured a lot, He also endured indignities on the field such as other teams targeting him when his coaches should have objected and didn't. To me, that was the biggest fail of that regime, as much as I always wanted to give the benefit of the doubt.

Reader71

October 4th, 2015 at 12:30 AM ^

I think it is part and parcel. Backing him up in those situations would have gone a long way to getting through to him. In the end, it is embarrassing that a guy who started 2+ seasons for you feels the need to bash you after he is gone. The player has gone through the fire with you. In most cases, that leads to enough loyalty for the player to defend you. That is missing here, and that is the coach's failure, because he has to earn that loyalty. I had my own personal problems with Carr, but i always praise him to the high heavens because he earned that from me in a number of ways.

pescadero

October 4th, 2015 at 10:05 AM ^

In the end, it is embarrassing that a guy who started 2+ seasons for you feels the need to bash you after he is gone

It's just like all jobs, football or otherwise... bad bosses get bashed. It embarassing that Michigan was stupid enough to engage in the Peter Principle and let Hoke "rise to his level of incompetence".

Bosses who are good but make a few mistakes (Carr) get the benefit of the doubt. Bosses who employees know are incompetent get just what Hoke is getting and worse.

 

WFDEric

October 4th, 2015 at 11:58 AM ^

You never know when saying something bad about someone in a public forum will come back to bite you in the ass.  Keep it in your inner circle if you need to vent. You might feel better at that "Moment" but it almost always ends up being a mistake later. 

I agree with 71. Hoke failed, and Gardner should have kept it in house. I love Gardner but that 30 seconds of typing made Michigan look bad. Wasn't worth it...

Bando Calrissian

October 3rd, 2015 at 7:58 PM ^

Buy into what? Which position? Which offensive scheme? 

By all accounts, Gardner was a great kid who loved Michigan. At the same time, his talents were wasted by a coaching staff that couldn't decide what to do with him and when--so that by the end of it, he had barely developed to his full potential.

If you want to spout some inside knowledge about his attitude, go ahead. Because there's no evidence from everything out there that there was a problem there.

Reader71

October 3rd, 2015 at 8:14 PM ^

I'm not knocking Gardner at all. My comments are criticizing Hoke. He couldn't get his starting quarterback to respect him enough to not repeatedly call him and his staff out after he left. I think Gardner was just about a model team mate, and I agree his talents were wasted by the previous staff. But there have been a lot of malcontents, and none of them have spoken ill about the coaches after they've left. Because they bought into the program mantra or keeping it in house.

Reader71

October 4th, 2015 at 12:24 AM ^

I'm not sure why you want to play this game. I didn't say what you think I said. No amount of your bullshit can change that. Its Hoke's greatest failure that he could not engender the same loyalty in Gardner. Coaches have to earn that respect. I'm not saying Brady is a better person than Gardner. Presumably, they both are good guys who love Michigan. But Carr succeeded in convincing his kid that the program should be protected from this kind of talk and Hoke didn't.

Reader71

October 4th, 2015 at 11:19 AM ^

Two things. Obviously, my personal experience makes me tend to dislike the talking, but again, its because my coach instilled that successfully in me. Which is why this failure of Hoke disappoints me. It's alien to me that the 2+ year starter would do it. But second, I'm not faulting Gardner, even though I wouldn't do it. Anyone can say anything they want, I just think this is unusual, and I blame the coach, who is responsible for getting the kids to buy in. They don't automatically get respect by being a coach, they earn it every day. I guess I find Gardner's words distasteful, but I dont blame him, I blame Hoke. I dont know why this is controversial, to be honest. Maybe I just cant explain it well enough. There is often a disconnect between me and the average fan, because I look at it from a different angle.

Seth

October 4th, 2015 at 11:54 AM ^

I think you're coming from a perspective that's shared by most in the college athletics world and many in the business world, but is not the perspective of most, and nor is it, I would argue, the right perspective.

Whether to speak out is ultimately an ethical question, right? On one hand, being part of an organization grants you access and a unique perspective. An enemy of that organization could use that perspective to damage the org. And one perspective inside is probably not a complete picture, so if one guy is talking and everyone else is mum the public will end up with a skewed perspective. That's why it's unethical to share secrets about the goings on of your company, your school, your program, etc.

However there is a higher level of ethics than that, and here's the disconnect. The people you're arguing with are speaking to these higher moral imperatives: that when your organization is diseased to the point where it's doing harm to itself and those who are part of it, the ethical thing to do is blow the whistle.

On both levels, we seek Truth. THAT is the moral we are serving when we keep our mouths shut about what goes on in our organizations. What I mean is that silence is NOT an ethic into itself. It is taught as such because it's self-serving; instilling silence is an effective method of protecting your organization from a few facts giving out a false truth, and of saving your own ass.

In this case, the Truth is that things were very wrong inside the Michigan program. And if ANYBODY who was around that program has absolutely proven his loyalty to Michigan and should be trusted implicitly to convey Truth about what went on in there, it's Gardner. We have had some impressive people come through this program, but he stands very high among them. If he throws shade on Brady Hoke, Hoke deserves it. If he throws shade on Nussmeier, it's because it's an open secret that the players did not trust Nuss.

These facts can no longer hurt Michigan; if Gardner spoke out a year ago it could have driven off recruits and damaged the team. But now we should all want to know the Truth of what happened to make Michigan so bad in 2014. Because what we care about more than Hoke's reputation here is that no player has to go through what Gardner did again.

Reader71

October 4th, 2015 at 1:00 PM ^

Well put, but: The coaches are as much Michigan as Gardner. No man is more important than the team, no coach is more important than the team, etc. And, I think to a certain degree, we are talking past one another. I am not saying Gardner is wrong at all. I dont even think him saying it is wrong. I'm saying what you are saying: Hoke failed to get his kids to respect him enough to keep it in house. And this is 100% a Hoke problem. He couldn't earn that loyalty. I swear, I have reread that first comment a bunch of times, and I think its clear. Not only that, but I have always defended not only Gardner, but every M ballplayer, on almost every issue except performance, from fans on here. I'm not one to take a side against players, and I certainly am not doing it here. I think you think I'm asking for blind loyalty. To the contrary, I am asking for the coach to merit it. And I love Brady Hoke, but he failed at that. I still think either my point isn't being made clearly (sorry) or it is being misread. Edit because I cant shut up but I will, I promise: I sympathize with Gardner, who had to play behind that line in those offenses. But, if you seriously think anything will stop other guys from going through what he went through, I just have to disagree. There are hundreds of kids who went through the program and felt like they got a raw deal. Many of them actually did. It happens, and it is going to happen. Playing time is decided subjectively. I have seen players ride pine despite being better than the guy on front of him. Different, yeah, but still a grievance. But you don't hear about it. So the appeal to my heart works, but it is a bit overwrought. Also, I resent the suggestion that I care more about Hoke's rep then the program. That's asinine. I love the man personally, but his rep is thoroughly tarnished, with or without Gardner's comments. And even if it weren't, I dont care about his rep. I care that the brotherhood of M players doesn't make the program look bad. I didn't like Coach Rod, but I also didn't want anyone to ever disparage him in public. Its a bad look. We can all agree that Braylon, as much as we loves him, looked bad with "LC's UM".

pescadero

October 4th, 2015 at 2:44 PM ^

The coaches are as much Michigan as Gardner. No man is more important than the team, no coach is more important than the team, etc.

 

I agree no coaches or players are more important than the team. Some are decidedly LESS important than others though.

 

The team is the sum of its parts - and sometimes some of those parts are negative.

FreddieMercuryHayes

October 3rd, 2015 at 8:12 PM ^

Maybe if his coaches didn't throw him under the bus all the time. All that "we just didn't execute" crap basically says "hey man, we called played but the players just didn't do good enough"...that gets old quickly. Especially if the coaches never thought Gardner would never be a QB anyway. What's the first thing Hoke asks about she he's hired? Forcier. I'm sorry, but the coach has to buy in too.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

SMart WolveFan

October 3rd, 2015 at 6:12 PM ^

.....whose ceiling is lower than the ones in Bag End, this team is really, really good.

I wonder if the AP would vote for the team's offense and defense seperately, IMO their defense alone is the # 6 team in the nation. Anyway, it's nice to see Michigan back were it belongs: winning games even with a less than stellar offense, rather than losing spectacular offensive shootouts!

 

But seriously, I bet even Frodo ducks when he gets anywhere near Rudock.

 

Pancakes House

October 3rd, 2015 at 6:31 PM ^

It would be great to stop busting balls about MD joining the B1G. Sure, it is a small sample, but the MD fans today were cool and gracious hosts. They like being part of the B1G. Some can bitch and bitch about including MD in the conference, but it is great to have the Wolverines roll into the DC area - for in person attendance and TV mkt revenue. So, just accept it, which is easier after hanging out and drinking beers with the MD faithful.

Mr. Yost

October 3rd, 2015 at 6:47 PM ^

Rutgers on the other hand is stupid.

Syracuse, Mizzou, Louisville, even Pitt make more sense than them.

I do wish the NCAA would just go to eight 10-team conferences that geographically made sense. Take all the Power 5 schools, even though some don't deserve it. Then add the next best programs until you get to 80 and call it a day. Split them up geographically and play football.

cromartie

October 4th, 2015 at 5:46 AM ^

Is about as close as you get to the New York television market.

I'll disagree with you slightly. There shouldn't be a Power 5, there should be a Power 4 with 16 schools in each. Arranging things geographically as you suggest is fine with me.

Those 64 should be what is currently FBS.

The next 64 (MAC, Sunbelt, CUSA, Mountain West, most of the AAC) should be their own division with a playoff and championship structure akin to the FCS.

Let the big boys who can compete financially stay up top, and give their players a larger stipend than the second tier of FBS.

Seth

October 4th, 2015 at 9:46 AM ^

Boo 16-team conferences. There aren't enough games to see your rivals. 16 teams is a league, not a conference. I'm with you on having a separate division for what's now the "Power 5." That in fact is what Division 1 was supposed to be, and they've actually threatened the NCAA to make a "Division 4" with their own rules if they couldn't offer full cost of attendance stipends.

 

ermgoblerg

October 3rd, 2015 at 6:49 PM ^

I was real proud of our fan base today. Scanning the stadium, the crowd felt like it was almost 50/50 Michigan/Maryland. The only chanting I heard came from us. It felt like things are back to normal.