Bravo on the Brandon stuff. If you don't count the Martin renovations that he tried to put his face on, Brandon hasn't done anything good since his early praise besides throw a fun night-time party at the UTLs.

There is a wide perception that because Brandon is a Corporate America crusader that he's a jerk but he gets things done. Not even close to true. You can be a jerk and be bad at your job. DB is Exhibit A. That there was actually once a "Dave Brandon pimp hand" meme is insane to think about now.

We need one more probability listed ... 6 bolded items, 5 given probabilities.  It's killin' me!

I don't think there's really much choice there. If you bring in Hoke and pay him a cold mill, it looks like he was a back-up back-up choice that you don't really believe to be the guy and aren't willing to pay him as such. This negatively affects recruiting, player retention, and all that good stuff. So maybe he didn't need to throw down cash like they did, but it is reasonable that, regardless of circumstance, Hoke get paid like a Michigan head coach should.

What's the over-under on the number of boardmembers who will use the following quote as their new signature line?  (It would be mine if I did not already feel strongly about my current one.) 

Things make much more sense if you think of Dave Brandon as Lucille Ball than as Gordon Gekko.

I assume dodgy, very dodgy refer to the OL.  I'd say the second could be updgraded to dodgy.  Communication problems were a real problem last year, and that can be improved with better coaching (I assume Nuss will help here).  Also helping would be better RB pass pro, which Nuss put a premium on as soon as came in.  Fitz, bless him, was not good at this.  Neither were Green or Smith, but they're big and with a second year of experience should improve.  Dodgy here. 

So that would be dodgy, dodgy, likely (I assume Gardner is likely), likely, likely, 50/50.  That's fair.  That would average out to more likely than dodgy. 

My optimism beanie must be working overtime, but I am actually looking forward to this season.  Why, you ask?  Some thoughts:

1.  The defense.  Even playing a ton of underclassmen, our defense was solidly average.  The problem was the because of our youth, we were forced (or GMAT felt it best) to play a very non-aggressive style of play.  Fortunately, we lose virtually nobody of any significance, meaning that we should see a better, older, more experienced version of last year's D.  And spring buzz seems to indicate that we will be playing a more aggressive style of play, which should provide even further benefit.  If the defense goes to solidly above average (not great), we should be able to contain everyone on the schedule that is not MSU, OSU, ND and throw in one other game here. 

2.  The OL.  Last year was a shit show, and most people are expecting further regression because we lose both tackles to the NFL.  Without opening a big debate on Lewan's character or Borges, I think that it is safe to say that anyone watching Michigan football last year could figure out that something more was going on with the line than youth, crappy players, lack of experience, lack of execution or some other quantifiable metric.  Something was really off.  Practice quotes seem to indicate the Borges was running a scheme that was just too complex for young players to quickly pick up, lead to frequent missed assignments.  Nuss seems like he is doing the opposite. 

3.  QB - While Devin has been with the program forever, people forget that last year was his first as the starting QB from day 1.  The prior season, he came in 2/3 of the way through and ran an offense designed for Denard.  You can really look at last year as his redshirt freshman or sophmore campaign.  This season, he comes in with another full offseason of practice as QB and a full season and a half as starting QB under his belt.  I expect an even better Devin.

4.  RB - I liked Fitz as much as anyone, but he was just a poor fit for the offense that we ran.  And he couldn't pick up a blitz to save his life.  If we even get to approaching competency from the OL, I expect Green, Hayes and Smith to be a huge upgrade at the RB spot. 

5.  Overall team chemistry - Seems like Hoke aluded to the fact (and numerous posters on here seem to indicate) that Lewan was a crappy leader, and that there was some friction on the line and with the team.  Hopefully, regardless of whether it was Lewan or some other seniors on the team, we are entering a phase where Hoke's "character" recruits take over leading the team and the team can gel as a cohesive unit.  Lack of locker room chemistry is not uncommon in years 2 and 3 of a coaching change as the kids from the prior regime begin to feel left out of the center as their playing time is eaten up by younger players who committed to the new staff.   This problem should largely be gone this year.

So, will we win a National Championship?  Likely not even close, but I do expect improvement.

The NHL at Michigan Stadium was not even close to Brandon's idea.  I heard Bill Martin speak about an NHL game back in 1999 or 2000.  It was so long ago that he was suggesting the Wings and the Avalanche as the two teams. 

The juxtaposition of the optimism question and the Dave Brandon schedule-fu made me laugh but then got me pissed.

I simply cannot imagine any other school in the B1G agreeing to what we obviously agreed to regarding MSU & OSU.  Where's Bo when you need him?  I miss having somebody with balls and attitude representing us.  I hate the fact that we act like we're fucking Purdue or something in negotiations.

No way does this ever happen to OSU, Texas, Alabama, USC, Florida or any other "blue blood" football school.  

I love it when you sugar coat things and never tell us what you really think.

I love this blog!

but that doesn't mean DB was on the losing end of the deals. 

For example, the sanctions thing.  I'd contend that accepting responsibility and not shirking your punishement is an example of "the Michigan diference."  See UM re the basketball violations.  Or do you really want Michigan to be more like Ohio State, with all that that means?

The Borges raise: timing is everything. Borges got that raise after Michigan went 11-2 and won the Sugar Bowl.   

Notre Dame:  Like DB was going to be able to change ND's mind. And since football schedules are set so far in advance, he didn't have much to choose from.On paper, it's fine: ND replaced by a team from the strongest conference.

The only thing from your list that to me is inarguably a loss is the Ohio State/MSU scheduling. But I don't agree that UM/Ohio State in different divisions and the protected crossover is bad. Put the 2 historically strongest programs in opposite divisions to set up frequent UM/OSU playing for the title. The script writes itself for TV.   

For seemingly reasons of self flagellation, I went back and re-watched the spring game this weekend. Zeroing on just OL play, I felt.... actually ok. Most of the argh inducing negative plays were either from guys that probably won't start (Cole, LTT, all the 3rd stringers) or RB/TEs. The latter will probably continue to be an issue come fall, but here's to hoping our new shiny OC will be able to scheme around it a bit.

I'm sure I'll get accused of sunshine blowing here as per usual, but honestly the 5 guys that were actual linemen did pretty well. Granted it was vanilla offense against vanilla defense, but there were surprisingly few mental mistakes that I picked up. They even managed to pass off pass rushers on the fly without losing anyone and pick up a blitz or two (and also blow a couple, but back-ups and RB/TE caveats apply here as well). Brian was right, they focused on blocking the line well at the expense of downfield blocks. This led to RBs having to make someone miss in the hole and/or falling forward, but hey, it's better than getting swarmed in the backfield.

Kalis was flat out good. I don't recall him really busting a play, I'd give him a B+ (because he didn't blow anyone off the line either). Miller, Kugler, Glasgow, Braden all grade out in the C range. Miller got pushed around a bit and also seemed to not hold his doubles leaving the guy next to him in tough shape a couple times. But he was solid the majority of time. Kugler got pushed around a bit but was the most technically sound of the OL; watching him snap, execute a combo and release downfield was very refreshing. A summer of conditioning may solve the strength issues. Glasgow and Braden both did well at RT, with their biggest problems being a speed rush (Clark ran around both guys once or twice). Braden particularly, seemed to get good push on runs and held his ground on pass pro if he could keep his guy in front of him.

Bosch had probably the most bi-polar day, getting great seal blocks one play only to get way out of position on the next. Give him a D+ but with obvious potential to improve. Cole looked good athletically but was clearly overmatched physically. Probably an F is deserved, but he's a true freshman and is (hopefully) only keeping the spot warm for Magnuson.

Overall, I'm encouraged at the back to basics approach as opposed to the try everything routine we did last year. If these guys continue to build a solid foundation on a couple of base plays and add a few wrinkles in fall camp, I honestly think there's reason to be hopeful that they'll be serviceable, if not competent.

What are the odds of a "random" drug test being administered to a player who was clearly only suited up for moral support?  What kind of system would choose this guy from amongst all the others?  Aren't there any human beings with functioning brains who review which players are "randomly" tested.  I don't have the answers, but the questions boggle...

"Nice guys finish last." That's just the truth. Google, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Ford, Name-Your-Oil-Company, labor unions, etc., are big and wildly successful because they are (or were) absolutely ruthless. 

I don't mean that being ruthless is necessarily a bad thing. Rather, it means being willing to do whatever is necessary within the rules/law to give yourself, your company, your program, your team an edge; taking no prisoners and making no apologies.

There is a theory of diminishing returns that basically says it's fairly easy to go from F to C and harder to go from C to A (on the OL in this context).

basically b/c to go from a F to a C, you just need basic competance- and that's not extraordinary to achieve.

but to get to an A, you need all cylindars running to perfection at all times. every little thing needs to be executed at the highest level- takes a lot more effort (for lack of a better word) to get to the very top.

in this way, I could see a decent year this year (9-3, say), but not too much better in '15 (10-2, say)- even with the schedule in our favor in '15. (tho with a preseumed new starter @ QB)

So, would everyone be happy with 9-3 in 2014 (no BT CG appearance), and 10-2 (BT CG appearance) in 2015?

The understatement of the year.  If 2014 is 7 or 8 wins the heat will be nuclear.

Brandon has never really impressed me; I mean, the guy ran Domino's.  They make pizza that is cheap and fine if you are in a pinch, but the brand hasn't really innovated much and retains the same C-level stink you get from mass-consumer brands.

UM probably hasn't earned the A+ reputations fans have given it, but blame does have to fall on him for helping to make UM seem like, well, an also-ran.  And while I remain higher on Brady Hoke because so far his coaching has been an incomplete, I wasn't a huge fan of signing him when it was pretty clear he wouldn't have turned down the offer in the future.  And I was absolutely unimpressed with Brandon's handling of the Practicegate not because he did anything wrong but simply because there was NOTHING to really do in that situation.  The NCAA had to act like they did something important, but everyone knew it was crock and perpetrated by a couple of sad little reporters who thought ambushing a couple of freshmen made them interesting and adventerous.  It is somewhat telling that neither of them have done much since that time, unless Rosenberg penning 500 words once a week at SI.com qualifies as "making it."

But honestly, at this point I don't expect anything to change.  There is this pervasive sense around the halls of power at UM that the brand is indefatigble, the leaders brilliant and thoughtful because they "love" the Maize and Blue and are "Michigan Men", and I'd be amazed if anything happens to Brandon because, well, Beilein is a great coach and the Big House keeps making money.  

He was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Pac 12- Big 10 scheduling deal that was the cause of Notre Dame seeking the ACC membership-5 game a year schedule deal. Dave Brandon was cool with ditching the Notre Dame series so Michigan could play Pac 12 teams that there is no relationship with or longstanding rivalry with. Then he seemed absolutely shocked when USC and Stanford killed the Pac 12-B1G deal and Notre Dame dropped them. 

It's just a pattern of Dave Brandon overplaying weak hands and then being shocked when shit blows up in his face.