And football season is 15-20 minutes. There ya go....
The nutty Michigan coverage isn't so much about Harbaugh as it is a signal to the Big Ten that Fox wants to party.
The college football offseason is a long, lonely time. Some fans are lucky to have a basketball, hockey, or baseball team worth watching in the meantime, but for those whose monogamous life partner is college football, the offseason is between eight and nine months long, and often seems even longer. So you can imagine what it’s like to be a college football writer. Sure, you’ve got National Signing Day and spring practice. And you’ve got the occasional Fulmer Cup issues and other assorted stuff. But that won’t sustain you. No, no. You need narratives. And nothing… and I mean NOTHING… chews up clock like chaos at the quarterback position.
So, in light of that, we’ve assembled a How-To manual for selling a quarterback controversy.
Having two new guys doesn’t do it. Sure, you can milk a few “who will replace Johnny Graduate?” stories out of it, but that’s just a quarterback battle. We need a quarterback CONTROVERSY.
Notice that you don’t need a bad incumbent. I mean, if the incumbent sucks, that’s fine. But it isn’t a requirement, and in fact may not be enough. Instead, you need…
We’ll call this the Football Leadership Ability Correlation/Causation Observation Effect (or the “FLACCO Effect” for short). Regardless of numbers, the eye test, or the relentless nagging nature of numbers and stuff, people will inevitably correlate team success with the righteousness and overall gooditude of the quarterback. Win a Super Bowl? Massive contract, because you are ELITE. Go 7-6 despite incomprehensibly huge numbers? Constant complaints.
Does the defense have something to do with it? Maybe the offensive line, or the receivers, or the schedule, or the coaching? Yeah, yeah. Excuses, excuses. Winners win, dammit, and winning quarterbacks win when they quarterback. You didn’t win. You aren’t a winning quarterback.
Take, for a completely random example, the University of Michigan. Michigan was 7-6 last year, and the offense struggled. Devin Gardner led the offense. It was therefore Devin Gardner’s fault.
This part isn’t terribly important, but it helps. And by “intriguing,” I don’t necessarily mean “good.” Again, if he’s good, cool. Go with it. But all you need is somebody plausible. In other words, you need a blank slate with a soupçon of positivity. You can have some data on the guy, but it better either be (a) good, or (b) scarce.
Do you have a former four- or five-star recruit lying around? Maybe he played a game or two and didn’t crash into a wall or vomit repeatedly? Cool. Go no further. You’re in.
Check all that apply:
Notice the lack of an “if yes, explain” box. There’s no need to go fleshing this out with context. Data points don’t need context. That’s how data points work.
Check all that apply:
It’s all about body language. Who looks more into the game, huh? HUH?
Quarterback controversies don’t just fall from the sky. They must be conjured by a powerful force. A wizard is preferable, but failing that, coachspeak will do just fine.
Question: To be clear, when Devin is healthy, obviously he will be at some point, Shane is going to get a chance, Devin is going to have a chance or is Devin going to go in as your starter?
Answer: “I think that is an unknown. Again, we were 7-6 and we’ve got a lot of young guys. We’ve got a lot of competition. Now does Devin have the most experience – yes. There is no question.”
Did you miss it? Let’s try it again, but this time without that messy ‘rest of the answer’ crap.
Question: “…is Devin going to go in as your starter? “
Answer: “I think that is an unknown.”
See how easy that was? Heck, we can take it one step further, in headline form:
Brady Hoke: Quarterback position “is an unknown”
And we’re off to the races.
The rest is pretty simple. Rehash the disappointing season, introduce the new guy, compare the apples to the oranges, and throw in a quote or two to prove you didn’t make it up. Let’s see how this all works, and tell me if this sounds familiar.
After a disappointing 7-6 season, Michigan has a lot of questions to answer. One big question is whether Devin Gardner will be the starting quarterback next season.
Gardner started 12 games last year, but doubts linger as to whether he’s the best fit for the offense Brady Hoke wants to run. Gardner, who was recruited to run Rich Rodriguez’s spread option attack, struggled at times last year. He threw key interceptions in near-calamities against Akron and UConn, and the offense he led stalled in losses to Iowa and Nebraska. The Wolverines also lost, once again, to rivals Michigan State and Ohio State. Both arch-enemies up in BCS bowl games, while Michigan ended up in the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl. Brady Hoke is under serious pressure, and he has to be looking for a change.
Enter Shane Morris.
Morris was a five-star recruit out of high school, and sat most of his freshman year behind Gardner. Morris started the BWW Bowl and showed flashes of the kind of arm strength and poise that make him a threat to take the reins for Big Blue. He threw for nearly 200 yards and completed over 63% of his passes (higher than Gardner’s 60.3% completion rate). If Hoke wants to return to the days of the big-armed pocket passers, Morris looks like his guy.
Hoke insists this is an open competition, saying instead that it’s “unknown” who will start.
Of course, I just made that whole thing up, and the only part that required me to do more than look at box scores and pull fun narrative storylines out of my ass was the last sentence. See also: here and here and here and okay stop clicking those links.
Oh, that’s the best part. You can’t be wrong. You’re not claiming the new guy WILL start… you’re just saying the new guy MIGHT start. It’s 50-50. Heck, you can even give the incumbent a 60-40 edge. Repeat after me: “this battle will go right through fall camp and right up until the season opener (and maybe beyond), though if I had to make a prediction, I’d guess that Gardner starts.”
What’s even better is that almost nothing can refute your narrative, and just about every piece of news can confirm it in some way. Devin Gardner has a poor spring game? “See, the door is open.” Practice reports indicate Gardner is an unstoppable hell-beast? “The competition is bringing out the best in Gardner.”
If things get slow during the off-season, this particular well won’t go dry. You just need to add a fresh ‘source,’ such as “buzz from practice,” “sources inside the program,” or even “the word out of Schembechler these days.” You can also ask hilariously loaded questions, like asking the new guy “do you think you can be the starter?” (as if anyone is going to say, “nah, I’m not that good, so pray that this guy stays healthy ‘cause I’m basically a 7-loss season waiting to happen).
It was terrible that Hank left him in that safe house all alone. I wonder how long he stayed.
You may be starting to think to yourself “this is kinds sounding plausible.” And you might even start believing it yourself. And in doing so, you might be tempted to engage with people who think you are completely full of crap. DO NOT DO THIS. This “controversy” is an oblique attack. Stick and move. Don’t get tied up on the ropes. If you do, people will probably point out some of the following tidbits:
Wow. I wouldn’t put that stuff into your articles. It kinda makes it sound like the earlier stuff was complete bullshit.
And football season is 15-20 minutes. There ya go....
Yeah, BiSB is probably my favorite writer on this site. Bravo.
While I agree with you does that mean we're now on the verge of creating a "who's the best writer on mGoBlog" controversy?
Brian (the incumbent) V BiSB (the plucky challenger)
Seems like all the elements that BiSB outline in the piece are there.
EDIT : Beaten to the punch a few posts down. Great minds thinking alike and all that.
I like Morris. I think there is a good possibility he will put up bigger numbers than Gardner during his two seasons (2015 & 2016). I believe he has a better arm but he's a gunslinger so the accuracy issue is always lingering.
I don't think there is any way he replaces Gardner this season. That only happens if Gardner strings together several interception laden games. Gardner had some issues early in 2013 but his conference play TD to INT was pretty good.
At least we have two QB that people feel positive about. I think that's good.
We need an OL.
Holy s***! I have a rough draft on my work computer addressing the same topic with THE EXACT SAME TITLE.
After a disappointing article, MGoblog has a lot of questions to answer. One big question is whether Brian will frontpage the next BiSB.
BiSB started 12 articles last year, but doubts linger as to whether he’s the best fit for the website Brian wants to run. BiSB, who was recruited to run color commentary-ish analysis for Brian's anti-MANBALL attacks, struggled at times last year. He threw key interviews in near-calamities that were Akron and UConn, and the stories he led stalled in losses to Iowa and Nebraska. The Wolverines also lost, once again, to rivals Michigan State and Ohio State. Both arch-enemies up in BCS bowl games, while Michigan ended up in the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl. Brian is under serious pressure, and he has to be looking for a change.
RYG was just a random Guy on the Internet, probably not out of high school, and sat most of his freshman year on his ass reading MGoBlog. RYG posted in the latest BiSB thread and showed flashes of the kind of prejudice and poise that make him a threat to take the reins for MGoBlog. He nearly published a diary and completed over 63% of his latest article (higher than BiSB's 60.3% completion rate). If Brian wants to return to the days of the big-mouthed bloggers, ReadYourGuard looks like his guy.
Brian insists this is an open competition, saying instead that it’s “unknown” who will start.
"BiSB"? Sound more like "I B BS" to me! (nervous chuckle) Back to you, Frank.
Stopped reading after "enter Shane Morris" and promptly tweated, emailed and FB'd all my friends a family that Morris was starting according to UM's official FB site. I think I've done my part.
there was one...
A+ work BiSB. Great read
"The next six months will tell us a lot."
I don't think there is a controversy. I think there is competition. I think competition is healthy for everyone. I don't see any benefits by naming your starter in April for game played on August 30, 2014. Coachspeak would dictate saying that every position is in competition. It was spring camp for God's sake. At the end of the day the best QB will start and it is up to the coaches to make that determination so have faith.
I cannot upvote this enough. What in the world has shane proven that he is the starting quarterback? Was it the sweet jet sweep to Gallon in the bowl game or the nice bubble screen to justice hayes? I hate to bring this up...but does anyone think that there is a race component to this "quarterback controversy"? I am not saying there is but I just find it funny how people want to blame the Black QB who lead the big ten in yardage and TDs but forgive the atrocious O-line.
you all the way. Then something stupid was typed that earned my neg. Care to guess what that was?
the race thing was slightly implied in the original post.
And while I stand by it, I don't necessarily mean to suggest that if someone thinks or suggests Shane Morris should start it is just because they are racist.
That said, I have seen plenty of "Morris looks more like a traditional Michigan quarterback" stuff when both are tall, strong-armed downfield throwers who primarily operate out of the pocket. Often it's purely football-related analysis. Sometimes it's not. And the line is... subtle.
For my part, I do believe Morris looks more like a traditional Michigan quarterback, as in my 25+ years of watching Michigan football, Michigan quarterbacks don't traditionally look like they need to be MEDEVACed from a war zone, while Gardner increasingly did as the season progressed.
A Michigan quarterback shout stand up straight and not spit up blood between snaps.
last year the picture of Gardner on crutches is about what I would expect. It would be appropriate for all the quaterbacks to practice using crutches so they can be effective when needed. You never know when the person above you on the depth chart is going to be carried off the field.
Some people can be motivated at least in part by race while others are not.
"Choose" is the key word there. You choose to view the world that way. That's generally not a great way to be accurate.
People aren't likely, in 2014, to say, "I assume that a white guy is a better QB than a black guy." People use code words instead. And, of course, many people just like the back-up whomever he is.
I never said that everyone who doesnt like devin is racist or that it is all the reasons why people want devin replaced. I said that I believe that race has a role in it. Can you say with a straight face that black QBs are critqued the same as whites? Race plays a factor in our everyday life and bringing up the issue is not "playing the race card"
I am not implying that the only reason anyone wants to see Morris play is because Gardner is black. That would be a stupid interpretation.
What I AM saying is that, for a certain small portion of the participants in this debate, you see a LOT of the code words and phrases that accompany traditional quarterback racism.
Fine, I'll just say it. Some people's views on this are tinged by race.
Well great - that's just the sort of statement that might make me as a white guy wonder whether I am always as fair-minded as I aspire to me. It also suggests that I, as a white guy, have possibly benefited from racism in some way. In other words, you're making me think and hurting my ego?! Shit...
I think you just simply call him Mark Sanchez
Why are people so scared to talk about race? It does not make you racist but makes you socially aware that things such as race does play a part. Or are you one of those people who think we need to live in a colorblind society and not take notice of certain aspects that affects our everyday life
I had a friend who changed her status to "Gardner never fails to disappoint" when he threw that pick on the 2-point conversion against OSU.
I was like "THAT'S your takeaway? Not the fact that the defense couldn't stop a nosebleed?"
The dude was dead and nearly carried Michigan to an insane upset. Devin Gardner was the main reason we even had a shot. Yes he made a mistake at the end; but my god put nearly any other quarterback in the country out there and this is a blowout before halftime.
Yeah, I kind of noticed the disconnect. Same with Tate/Denard when it became clear that Forcier had not improved one iota in the offseason while Denard had clearly become the better option. I don't think people make decisions purely on race; to ignore that there is a subset of the population that definitely allows that to frame their opinion in both directions, though, is also simplistic.
I've been in those stands and heard alumni say things about players that are borderline offensive, and whether or not that comes from some deep-seated personal bias or simply a dogged reliance on tradition is open for debate. But yeah, people crap all over Gardner and then say "but the offensive line was young" as if that only affected the running game. Devin isn't the greatest QB in UM history, but he had a pretty good season given just how terrible parts of that offense were last year.
You ever read something and wonder if you had actually written it yourself and not known it? You know, Tyler Durden-style?
....Oh, you haven't? Yeah, no, me niether.
Plus one for zerohedge reference, sir.
If ever one wants to get depressed and consider survival strategies in a bunker somewhere deep in the woods ... read Zerohedge.
That said, the comments there are often quite funny.
Particularly loved the "Home Alone" Easter Egg.
BiSB, stop ignoring the narrative.
I agree that the controversy is manufactured, but the line here is that experience makes a guy better, for sure. We know what Gardner is. He's very good. That does NOT mean he could not be challenged.
Gardner shouldn't be challenged. This is a shot at the hack journalists and derpy bloggers that are taking Hoke's quotes and various other issues out of context and manufacturing a QB controversy.
If Johnny Manziel or Teddy Bridgewater or Brett Hundley came back for another year, they could also be challenged. But people would lose their shit if there was any public "controversy" because it's rather preposterous to consider any of them losing their spot.
Not to say that Gardner is quite on the level of those guys (although his ceiling is in the area), but the only reason this topic merits any discussion is because journalists love clickbait and we have stupid people.
But the point is that it IS manufactured. In the words of the coachspeak, no position is ever guaranteed. If Ben Braden had outplayed Taylor Lewan last year, he would have started. But we didn't get the regular stream of "Hoke won't name Lewan starter at left tackle" stories last year, and we aren't getting the stream of "Middle Linebacker spot up for grabs" stories this year just because Hoke hasn't explicitly said "Jake Ryan will start at the MIKE."
There is no reason to believe, based on history, statistics, rumor, or anything else, that Shane Morris will seriously challenge Gardner. And there CERTAINLY isn't enough to write the stories that are being breathlessly written.
So....you're thinking it's Morris?
You told me to stop clicking those links, I should have listened. Here's the advice some genius gave Hoke:
"Hoke...You gotta stop going after the 1 and 2 star receivers(b/c you have no qb to get them the ball) and fill that Oline to allow the QB and back to do his thing..."
All this time, all we needed to do was recruit linemen instead of 2 star recievers.
"playing through a broken Devin and three cracked Gardners. . ."
Part of me gets pissed-off, though, that Gardner's numbers get so resolutely ignored.
were the Borges appologists because they had to point to some reason why Borges and/or Hoke weren't at fault last year.
If you aren't sure who I am talking about try reading the GBMW blog and the incoherent mutterings of Eroc and his lemmings.
It is completely absurd to bench Devin at this point.
but have always believed in Devin.
A. I'm not that lucky.
2. We use smoke detectors.
D. We live on the most boring street in the world.
Buzz, your girlfriend. Woof.
Haha yep, great line.
And look at the coach. Does the coach have a history of starting players that are obviously inferior? Is his relationship with the incumbent strained? Is the challenger the coaches "golden boy"?
I will tell you, without a doubt, barring injury, and for better or worse Brady Hoke will give seniors a chance to play before underclassmen.
You might be right, but I don't see any evidence. I don't recall a coach at Ichigan ever start so many underclassmen. And there have been a number of seniors who were never given a shot to start.
The reasons most seniors start is because they are simply better than the competition. But we have had so few seniors. And some of them haven't been very good and, appropriately, didn't start.
Either name one senior who started in front of a more deserving underclassman or tone down your certainty.
few things. I can't tell you who is "more deserving" of starting, because who is most deserving probably would prove why they deserve it during practice, the offseason, etc etc.
Second, I don't want to tone down my certainty because this is the internets and no one really cares what I have to say.
Third, Brandon Herron, 2011, Started against Western, displaced shortly after (maybe? Brady Hoke will always give his seniors a chance)
Anyway I think the most important thing to remember is the second thing
Just at linebacker: Mike Jones never started, Cam Gordon (who could play) wouldn't have started if Jake Ryan was healthy.
I just see far more instances of young guys playing over older guys than the other way around. I think a Hoke hates seniors actually has more evidence to support it than your idea.