Mailbag! Comment Count

Brian

First, a request for assistance:

Hey Brian-

I don't know if you or any of your readers might be able to help, but I'm trying to find a recording of a song. I saw a poster for some sheet music at Mr. Stadium Laundry that contained a song called "The Michigan Drinking Song." From what I've been able to find from my Google searches, it was written around the turn of the century and was voted "Favorite College Song" in the 1905 Michiganesian and included in "The Michigan University Songbook" published in 1904. It was written by M.B. Cooper.

My friends and I find it hard to believe that there's no recorded version of this song, and if it's not too much trouble, we'd really like to find it. Thanks for any help you can provide.

Andy

I don't know if I can help, but may be a reader can?

Moving on to other matters:

Brian,

Have you considered year-end awards for the best diaries, board posts, or other community contributions?  If so, and if it happens this year, I’d like to nominate Misopogon’s “How Tate Stacks Up Against M QBs of 2005-2008” for best diary – because, you know, holy crap.  In fact, maybe the award should be called the Misopogon?

--Matt

That would be something the community should do, as it's community content. I'm not sure anything can be derived from the board since it moves so fast and has so many tiny posts, but some recognition for the fine diarists who provide a lot of value to the site is in order. After the season I'm planning to implement a subscription option where for a nominal monthly fee you can get rid of the ads, and if there's some sort of user-generated awards thing I'll throw some freebies out to the winners.

Brian,

Are Roh and Kovacs outside linebackers in disguise? I know they aren't perfect fits, but given our lack of depth and GERG's willingness to move people around, do you think that the coaching staff is at least thinking about this a little?

Also, in the other football, will/should Dempsey start at forward now?

-Brian DeHaven

Roh: no. Roh is 230, maybe 240 right now and will add 10-30 pounds over the course of his Michigan career. He's a defensive end all the way and will probably be a four-year starter at deathbacker if he doesn't end up moving to Graham's spot. Kovacs: maybe. I don't know if I've kicked this around on the blog yet, but I have mentioned it on WTKA: I think Kovacs might move to the Stevie Brown SLB/nickelback/spinner position next year if they can find any freakin' safeties. I think that's unlikely given the depth chart at safety and the recruitment of Hawthorne/Jones to play the Brown spot, but if they move a couple guys and someone steps up it's at least a vague possibility. I think Kovacs's skills are well suited for what Brown's currently doing. They're better suited to that than they are the deep centerfield he's been playing; moving Woolfolk to corner has just sprung a different leak in the secondary.

Shameless answer to the irrelevant Dempsey question: absolutely. Dempsey is mostly a striker in the EPL and has done his best work with the Nats after late-game moves up top. The alternative is… um… Conor Casey? I'd rather see Holden or Torres on the field. Maybe that's because I missed the brace against Honduras. But, no, probably not.

Hey Brian,

After the 3-9 debacle last year, obviously recruiting wasn't going to be as impressive this year. But what do you think about the defensive recruiting (or lack there of) at key positions?

I know Michigan is in on a number of good cornerbacks including Cullen Christian, Tony Grimes, and Rashad Knight (Though Christian could play safety and Knight is being recruited as one), but it seems like the staff is recruiting too many "project" players who will switch positions in the coming years before they settle in. The fact of the matter is this team has no real free safety type (Woofolk moved to CB), and the primary safety commit, Marvin Robinson, is headed to the Stevie Brown/SAM linebacker position.

Also, the defensive line has a number of players who fit the Craig Roh mold (Wilkins for sure, Paskorz maybe?), but a lack of a real Graham-like DE. Talbott is a very explosive player who I think will be underrated. Couple that with Antonio Kinard as the only LB commit (have you seen our LB play?) does this concern you at all? I think it's important that the mgobloggers realize this staff is far from perfect and not every recruiting choice they make is perfect.

Jeff

Moving players from one high school position to another is a fact of life, as high schools will often throw their best players at crazy positions in an attempt to take advantage of their athleticism. The craziest position to date is Brandin Hawthorne's existence as a high school defensive end. Ideally you'd like to see guys coming in who have experience at their chosen position, but it's not like those guys get a ton of great coaching in high school anyway, or have any idea what they can get away with when everyone around them is about as athletic as they are. Michigan is clearly not in an ideal situation.

I think you'll see (PA DE Ken) Wilkins end up at Graham's spot down the road. Graham is currently 270 pounds and Wilkins is already 240 in high school; he'll end up putting at least 20 pounds in his first couple years here, at which point the move will be obvious, and what you'll see is Michigan pick up a bunch of defensive backs—5 or 6—with the intent of putting everyone in a blender and figuring out where they fit later. Some position moves are scary; safety-to-corner isn't. The linebackers are a concern; if Michigan doesn't pick up both Furman and Olaniyan the class will be disappointing there. And I don't think they'll get both.

Obviously the staff is not "perfect," but neither is the opposite extreme accurate: Rodriguez is not going to bring in classes like this year every time out. When he had a full year to recruit and didn't have a 3-9 anchor around his neck, Michigan brought in the #6 recruiting class, one laden with four-star guys. Almost every one of the recruits Rodriguez picked up in the brief window he had to finish Carr's last class was highly rated by one service or the other. This year's an anomaly, and the class will probably finish at the tail end of the top 20, not coincidentally the same area Notre Dame's post-crater class ended up.

Hello, Brian.

Some background on FBS teams being allowed to play FCS opponents.

Until 2005, schools could count only one I-AA game every 4 years toward becoming bowl eligible.  Obviously, this only applies to schools that go 6-5, and has no effect at all on schools with any other record from 11-0 to 0-11.

Here is an October 2004 article about this issue that includes begging from the Southern Conference commissioner to allow one counter every year. Here is the decision in April 2005 where the NCAA decides to allow one I-AA game every year to count towards bowl eligibility, tied into an increase to 12 games.

It really seems like that 12th game was intended to be a game against a I-AA school.  Unless I am mistaken, I recall some I-AA schools were threatening the NCAA with a lawsuit for limiting their scheduling options.  I could not find a record of this, unfortunately.  Maybe I am confusing this with the "exempt games" issue.

I don't think the NCAA has the power to say "only play other FBS opponents."  They don't have that much control over in-season scheduling.  The conferences can mandate this, but not the NCAA.  The NCAA can only say "these games don't count toward bowl eligibility," but the FCS schools would fight that, and they would probably win.

I don't know if you find this interesting, but there has been a good deal of discussion of this point on mgoblog, and there seems to be some misunderstanding of what the NCAA can and can not do.

Alton

Mostly included for the interesting background. I disagree that the NCAA doesn't have the power to do what it wants here, as the two sets of schools exist in different divisions sponsored by the NCAA. You might as well say the NCAA doesn't have any power to regulate that D-I and D-II schools can't play each other. The NCAA sets limits on the number of games that can be played in all sports, provides exemptions for various things it would like to promote, and actually organizes the different divisions. I'm sure some I-AA teams could sue, but I find it hard to believe they'd win.

Brian,
I posted a thread on this topic but wondered about your thoughts.  Is it too early IYHO to classify the 2008 defensive recruiting class a disappointment?  Although they are only in their second year, ideally (apart from Martin) some would be pushing the upperclassmen for playing time, and as we know they are not, in some cases falling behind walk ons. Thoughts?

Brian Durocher

IMHE, it is too early to classify the 2008 defensive recruiting class a disappointment. But it is not too early to look at it with trepidation because it seems like we'll be thoroughly concerned about it midway through next year. A brief dossier:

  • Beasts: Mike Martin
  • Contributors: Boubacar Cissoko, JT Floyd
  • Idling away: Brandon Smith, Kenny Demens. UPDATE: Also JB Fitzgerald.
  • Gone: Taylor Hill, Marcus Witherspoon

So… first of all, it was only seven guys in a class of 24, and two of them were gone about two weeks after class started. Two more are linebackers stuck behind a walk-on, two more are backup defensive backs in a very poor secondary basically behind a walk-on since their poor play necessitated the Woolfolk move, and Mike Martin is a beast. These guys are going to be juniors or redshirt sophomores next year and it looks like Michigan isn't going to get a whole lot out of them. Cissoko's come back from the brink and may yet develop into something, and maybe we can expect one of the linebackers to pick it up after Ezeh and Mouton leave, but the early returns aren't great outside of Martin.

UPDATE: Forgot about Fitzgerald, who's had a reasonable career path so far given that he was behind a couple of starters; he rotated in for Ezeh a bit last week.

Comments

Jebus

October 27th, 2009 at 11:32 AM ^

is one player whose career I don't quite get- he has the physical size to be a productive LB, and seems fast enough- he's certainly contributing on special teams. Does anyone have any more insight about what's going on with him?

ThWard

October 27th, 2009 at 11:52 AM ^

Yes, '08 and agreed, probably "idling away." I for one think that 2 years is too early to worry about a player, but the trend of defensive players not developing in the 2000s (under Carr, too, obviously) is annoying. New DCs and all that, I know.

loosekanen

October 27th, 2009 at 11:45 AM ^

I was in Men's Glee while I was at UM and I think you may be referring to the song that goes... "Fill your tankards deep with wine Drink a health to Michigan In the sprakling flood divine Drink a health to Michigan To the corn flour and the maize Autumn skies and opal haze To the indian summer days... Fill your tankards! Fill your tankards! Fill your tankards deep! Drink a health to Michigan! Anything in that book would be able to be answered by the director of Men's Glee. If you're in town they congregate and sing at Cottage Inn after weeknight rehearsals so you might even be able to hear it if you can get a spot upstairs. It's a private get together though. Best to email the president of the club I would think. I guarantee you WILL hear it at the Hill Concert if you attend that. Hope this helps! Cheers.

osdihg

October 27th, 2009 at 11:52 AM ^

" If you're in town they congregate and sing at Cottage Inn after weeknight rehearsals so you might even be able to hear it if you can get a spot upstairs. " That was you guys all along? I used lived in Maynard House (on top of Cottage Inn) for 3 years and I used to hear a group of guys singing and I always thought it was the church. The first couple times, though, I thought my apartment was haunted.

J. Lichty

October 27th, 2009 at 11:49 AM ^

Per the mgo depth chart by class and my own ever faulty memory wasnt jb fitzgerald part of that class with demens, cissoko and martin as well? Doesnt really diminish the point - but in interest of accuracy.

jamiemac

October 27th, 2009 at 11:51 AM ^

Sadly, I never mentioned it during a podcast, but I know we can dig up a diary, comment from a forum thread and even a post in the Scorn where I mention him at the Stevie Brown position. I just think this kid knows how to play football. Seems to be a good tackler and is very effective nearer the LOS. He is where he is at now because he is the best option. But, i dont see him staying there.....but there is no way he's going to stop contributing to the defense. This kid is on the team, he'll get a schollie and he'll be a big part of the turnaround, IMO......we just need to find a spot for him. And, my take on this evolution is 100 percent positive. I dont think it sucks that he beat out a frosh or soph recruit. Nor do I think it means those kids now must suck. Kovacs can play ball. He is very instinctual. Frankly, he is more ready to play than the young recruits. But, those kids have talent too and they will get their day. You see this at virtually every other program in the country, walk ons getting a chance and showing that the guru's missed them in high school. I am actually happy to see it play out like that in Ann Arbor. Maybe its the optimist in me. But, I'd rather find happiness in Kovacs development as a positive on the D, than trying to spin it as a failure on everyone else's part. Not saying Brian is doing that, but certainly many of my fellow posters are.

bacon

October 27th, 2009 at 11:59 AM ^

Up front, I don't know jack about recruiting. However, I'm consistently surprised by comments like Michigan isn't recruiting on the defensive side of the ball. I have read several posts by TomVH and others that indicate that Michigan is trying to get big name recruits, many of which may be coming on visits, but most seem to be unlikely to actually commit to Michigan (for whatever reason). Therefore, it sounds to me like the coaches are going after a lot of guys, but not pulling them in. I'd be interested to know from people who follow this more closely if this impression is correct and whether this is likely to change.

jamiemac

October 27th, 2009 at 12:06 PM ^

Um, sign my up for the group that thinks its way way way too early to be judging a football recruiting class from 2008, even narrowly focused on just defense, as a bust/disappointment. Cissoko's season has been disappointing, but the kid has game and two years left to play. Otherwise, who else but Martin and Cissoko from this group did we really think was going to see a lot of minutes this season? Most of them have three years left. Some just two. I think we can give them a bit more time. The Fitzgerald development on Saturday bears watching. If he ends up taking snaps over Ezeh, then this discussion becomes even more premature.

Blue in Yarmouth

October 27th, 2009 at 1:06 PM ^

That is definitely something to watch. I really like Ezeh but he is just having a hard time playing his position. I keep holding out hope that he will put it all together and break out but that seems to be less and less likely with every subpar performance. It would be nice to see Fitz start getting more playing time because that would mean he is fast approaching (and very likely to eclipse) Ezeh's ability.

antoo

October 27th, 2009 at 12:16 PM ^

I got to the part where you talked about Dempsey/Casey and I just had to comment before I read on. Watching Casey play drives me insane. It's like watching a beat down and broken homeless version of Ching. I definitely agree with you on moving (and most likely keeping) Dempsey up top, especially since Davies is out.

Yinka Double Dare

October 27th, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^

Watching Casey drives me nuts too, but other than being tall he's like the opposite of Ching. Ching is good at possession and works his ass off, but can't score goals (at least in international competition) if his life depended on it, which kinda automatically makes you a crappy forward. I've regularly seen Casey kinda just jogging around and not really contributing to trying to win the ball back, and he's lousy in possession, but does manage to score. So Dempsey really has to be the guy. Rogers is a wing, and it shows with his service, the guy puts in some great crosses in every match. Ching is a useful bench forward -- you bring him in late when you're winning, as he'll work tirelessly and his being somewhat awkward tends to draw fouls on the other team (except in Mexico City apparently, where they mystifyingly always called Ching for the foul no matter what). I loved how Torres played as a deep central midfielder against Costa Rica. It's probably not going to happen in this World Cup, but they have to find a starting spot for that guy in the coming years. He looks like the kind of midfield distributor that this team has been looking for and sorely needing since Claudio Reyna was in his prime.

Magnus

October 27th, 2009 at 12:18 PM ^

Roh's "disguise" as an outside linebacker isn't a very good one. He's listed as an OLB on the roster and the depth chart. TONS of Michigan players "switch" positions when coming from high school to college. Like Brian said, in high school coaches just want to put their best athletes in places where they can terrorize the opponent. A lot of big-time corners play safety in high school because then other teams can't throw away from them all the time. Some big-time DEs play DT in high school so teams can't run away from their side of the ball. Some big-time RBs and WRs play quarterback in high school so the ball is in their hands every play. Ian Gold was a high school RB. Steve Breaston was a high school QB. Brandon Graham was a high school MLB. I don't see anyone complaining that those people switched positions. Wilkins and Paskorz would both be best served by playing defensive end. Remember that play Roh made against MSU in pass coverage? Yeah...neither Wilkins or Paskorz makes that play.

Glutton

October 27th, 2009 at 12:21 PM ^

"I think it's important that the mgobloggers realize this staff is far from perfect and not every recruiting choice they make is perfect." Am I reading the same blog? Most of the comments I see are from readers concerned about our recruiting-- the 3* threads...

Tater

October 27th, 2009 at 1:41 PM ^

Jeff said: "I think it's important that the mgobloggers realize this staff is far from perfect and not every recruiting choice they make is perfect." All I can say to this is, "No shit, Sherlock." It'a bad enough that you have grossly misinterpreted OVER NINETY PERCENT OF THE POSTS HERE, but expecting everyone on the board to agree with you is more appropriate for Billy Bob's Trailer Park Message Board. As a reader and participant, I am really easy to entertain. If you give your heartfelt opinion, I usually like it, even if I fully disagree with it and even if you post it twenty times. Divergent opinions are a vital part of any blog community, and are how we learn to see things from the POV's of others. I do, however, have a problem with gross misinterpretation, lumping everyone into the same "box," belaboring the obvious, and telling everyone here how they are supposed to think, even if it was just in an email to the blog owner. Did you even bother to read the poll grading RR's performance? I am probably one of the five or ten biggest RR "marks" on the board, and I gave him an A- to B+. How can one possibly read the B's and C's that many gave him and then conclude that "the mgobloggers realize this staff is far from perfect and not every recruiting choice they make is perfect?" And this is just an example of the many threads and posts here. You make mgoboard sound like a Sparty-style Sycophant board; nothing could be further from the truth. So, please: tell me how you feel. For example, tell me you are perplexed that so many are jumping off the bandwagon or that so many haven't jumped off yet when you think they should. Tell me the staff sucks or tell me the staff is great: if you can actually make me see something I hadn't seen before reading your entry, that's even better. But please, please, please don't tell me that I have to agree with your opinion. Thank you.

wolverine1987

October 27th, 2009 at 3:03 PM ^

where he said you had to agree with him? Or the part where he didn't say pretty much anything you are addressing here? I don't agree with his point about who we're recruiting, but that was really the extent of his argument. Someone may be carrying around a little chip...