your dish story - i can't believe that old trick actually works.
You are one of the few people I know who defends RR. I do as well. Do you think RR should have been fired? Do you think, if he should have been fired, that it should have happened after OSU game? Do you agree with me that if he had a vote of confidence before the season that RR would have hauled in a top ten class? Do you think with a new DC they would have been better next year with RR then with BH? Do you think DB treated RR poorly as I do? Seems to me that DB wanted RR out even before the season. I am so tired of hearing about toughness, as if that is something that can be taught and as if RR wouldn't teach it if it could be.
Peter from Horsham, PA
There are half-dozen posts discussing this but to reiterate: I thought Rodriguez had done enough after the regular season to keep his job if he fired Greg Robinson, hired an actual defensive coordinator, and never ran the 3-3-5 again unless that DC was Jeff Casteel, then rumored to be open to a move. It was a close thing.
The bowl debacle moved the needle for me to "should fire," but this was under the assumption that Michigan would introduce Jim Harbaugh at a press conference held thirty seconds after the last shovelful of dirt hit Rodriguez's grave. If Harbaugh didn't exist I probably would have gritted my teeth and said we should give Rodriguez one last chance. As you say, even with everything Rodriguez had locked up two five-star guys and was probably going to bring in a recruiting class on the edge of the top ten. The offense was a yardage/advanced metric juggernaut that seemed likely to start turning that into more points as it aged, cut down on the turnovers, added a five-star at the glaring weak spot, and hopefully got some more help from defense and special teams. The other two units were bound to improve from amazing low points, etc.
All the bad stuff is still there but that setup seems more likely to produce wins in 2011 than having Denard Robinson take snaps from under center so he can hand off to someone not named Demetrius Hart.
Does it matter, though? There's a large section of Michigan fandom that would read the above sentence and screech like pterodactyl. The national perception of the program was sinking and while the team figured to get better I'm not sure it was going to get better enough—beat OSU—to make a dent in that. What happens if you go 8-4 next year and lose to OSU by ten? Rodriguez gets pilloried and fired. Hoke gets a bag of popcorn to watch Rodriguez get pilloried. At some point Rodriguez's baggage takes him to the bottom of the sea no matter who tied it to his legs.
[As to the dead man walking meme: I heard it plenty before the bowl game, including from people I know and would have a good read on it, but didn't believe it. Since Michigan got obliterated we don't know. If they'd lost by misfortune or won and Rodriguez still got fired it would be different. IME, Rodriguez was gone. This is just based off Brandon's performance in the press conference.]
I'll admit my knowledge of APR is not very good, but does oversigning not negatively affect a school's APR? If kids are leaving the program/school does that not affect the APR?
So we've overloaded the language here and "oversigning" now stands for two different things:
- signing more kids than you can enroll by going over the 25 cap, and
- signing more kids than you can pay for by going over the 85 cap.
In the former case, signing a kid to a LOI and then shipping him off to JUCO when he doesn't qualify does not affect your APR. Not that it should since you haven't had the chance to educate the player.
In the latter case, the answer is yes… hypothetically. In practice the NCAA has provided boatloads of waivers [scroll down]. They're plentiful enough that Kentucky basketball maintained a 979(!) APR despite having a graduation success rate* of 31%. Hypothetically, a school on the 925 borderline is graduating 60% of its players.
What are these waivers? Well, medical hardships, for one.
Those don't count against you because the player is still in school. It makes sense that they wouldn't… until someone starts beating the rules into profane shapes. There are plenty others that are less obvious but no one really knows what they are.
This invites questions about how the hell Michigan failed to take advantage of any of these when players started leaving the program left and right and Michigan put up an ugly 870-something. I don't know but assume it's a combination of Rodriguez failing to understand the gap between WVU and Michigan academics—though he did seem to emphasize it—and the massive attrition that went so far beyond even Alabama's rampant axe that Michigan couldn't get close to the 85 number. I'm not entirely sure but I don't think walk-ons count, so when Michigan's running around with 70 scholarship players and one of them flunks out that hurts way more than Alabama sending a guy in good-for-Alabama standing to South Georgia.
*[as opposed to the federal rate, the GSR does not count transfers in good standing/early entries against you.]
File under Rich Rodriguez will have a job by then and will pursue this kid with a force unknown to mankind:
The AD at Southfield is one of my closest friends and assures me that he has a freshman football player with what is perhaps the greatest name ever. I give you Lion King Conaway!
And file under testimonial:
I’m a junior in high school, and I recently got my first semester grades. A while back in my Government class, I got an extra point on a study guide because I wrote “which, duh.” In my notes (I was talking about how being liberal/conservative affects voting dem/rep, and I guess my teacher thought it was funny), which is something that I picked up from reading mgoblog. I finished that class with a 93%, which is just barely an A, and I finished the semester with a 4.0. So, reading mgoblog may have been what pushed me from an A- to an A, giving me a 4.0.
Know that if I get into Princeton, I’m giving at least some of the credit to you and mgoblog.
Just don't send a bill.
You sort of remind me of Holden Caulfield.
to his defense, the couch was a huge phony
"I always thought people that went to UofM were progressive thinkers who were open to different people and ideas "
That is the single biggest mistake anyone can make. In fact, to use the term "liberal" about UofM is a joke, too. The term should mean open to thought, but UofM has never been that. It is not just a political thing, either, as I have seen meetings on affirmative action debate ruined by chanting demonstrators unwilling to have a discussion, and people on both sides of this coaching debate call each other close minded idiots because the other side didn't agree with them. We are all so arrogantly confident in our own intelligence and opinions that we are incapable of believing for a second that the other side of the argument might have a few points. I include myself in this statement, by the way. The whole thing is a testament to hypocrisy and nobody seems to see that they are just as guilty as everyone else.
about the entire country right? And every large institution/ political party/ religion/ circle jerk within it?
Thumbs up for admitting your part in the machine. I have allowed myself to be swallowed by the gears as well (no circle jerk though, sadly)
Calling people who disagree with you "mouthbreathing inbreds" is a hallmark of "progressive people who are open to different people and ideas"
thank god for blind, delusional homers
Does the fact that you suffered through three of the worst Michigan teams in your lifetime have a little more to do with distancing yourself than the traumatic discovery that Michigan football fans weren't progressive thinkers? That's a little self serving, and hard to believe the blue haired "down in front" crowd struck you as intellectual trailblazers regarding football before all this. You went so far out on the Rodriguez limb that it got personal, and now you're taking your ball and going home. As a Packer fan, I had friends who did the same thing with their hatred of Ted Thompson, and they were enduring the Super Bowl with mixed feelings rather than drunken euphoria. Don't make the same mistake. Wins are what matters, not cutting edge schemes, not kids Michigan doesn't normally recruit, not bringing in new blood to dust the program's cobwebs. Wins.
So because, in your opinion, the fanbase was "completely unfair and close minded" to RichRod, you're going to become the person you hate and be "completely unfair and close minded" to Hoke? That only makes sense if you're a bitter high school girl, which you've told us countless times that are not.
I don't want to be associated with someone who slings gay slurs and calls people fucking retards and mouthbreathing inbreds and then whines that others aren't more tolerant of differing opinions.
I don't want to be associated with someone who thinks his community wasn't egalitarian enough in welcoming the proverbial outsider but cannot go five words without reminding us that he is a STUDENT at the UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN where he ATTENDS because he GOES TO MICHIGAN.
I don't want to be associated with someone who cries that the world has let him down, that nobody makes enough concessions for him, while he makes none for others.
I don't want to be associated with someone who is too caught up in the smell of his own self-righteous farts to see his own blatant hypocrisy.
I don't want to be associated with a boorish asshole with a persecution complex.
I pray that you're serious about your impending Michigan Couch Protest. You say you're ashamed of us; you say we embarrass you. Frankly, Dude, you embarrass me. You traded in your opinions and civil discourse for a big LED billboard of ad hominem bullshit only because it made you the star of the show, provided the show is Psychopaths on Parade. You found a hot spring of e-attention and you're going to tap it until it runs dry. Well, congratulations, Dude, you're the belle of the ball.
You are very wrong here: "I don't want to be associated with someone who slings gay slurs" and I will put that to the test. If you find anywhere in which I have done so I will retire from this board completely.
I didn't even read the rest of your post because you started off with a wild and very untrue accusation and you should really tread lightly with things like that in whatever you do in the future.
the whole thing. yes you did
THAT IS A SLUR?!?! You are out of your fucking mind.
ok. Do you prefer "juvenile, amateurish homophobia?" Because I don't want be associated with that, either.
You have seriously crossed a line here. I would prefer that you are accurate in your accusations.
How is what he's saying inaccurate?
You said "you and your boyfriend", to a male, as a means of being dismissive.
What's inaccurate in his synopsis?
I would love to see your definition of the word slur.
Definition of SLUR
a : an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo : aspersion
That is a stretch. I am actually an advocate for same sex marriage and I take it pretty seriously. There was no slur, but if you want me out of here that badly I'm gone. Great job, guys.
But the easy answer would have been "Yeah, I let that one slip, it was inappropriate, I'm sorry to anyone I offended, I'm a jackass for saying it". Done. Not grand proclamations and indignant "I support gay rights". Humor sometimes goes over the line, and it's a fine line. I've posted stuff that wasn't funny, though it was meant to be. I've taken it down, and said "Deleted for stupidity. Sorry". It happens. But as I said, don't dig a deeper hole. Own it, and move on, sheepishly.
You can expect the target to be back on you when one is calling out whole fanbases, and being generally prickish to everyone. You don't want to be hunted? Don't keep hanging a bullseye around your neck.
But I don't really want Dudeness to stop posting. I want The Dudeness born on January 2 that's grown into a monster to die a fiery death, only to be reborn like the Phoenix into Dudeness 1.0, before the last 3 months. Don't get me wrong, I didn't agree with much of what he said even then. But it wasn't all this hostile rhetoric that at worst was some pure trolling, and at best, sadly, consists of "your facts aren't as true as my belief". It had more substance. Being a contrarian, I'm not looking to quash viewpoints. Maybe just a wake-up call. Many still feel strongly about Rich and get their viewpoints across here without turning into the other side of the coin of what they once hated.
They haven't had a chance to start with the racism accusations yet
In a month full of awful posts (many from HD as well), this string of diarrhea is the worst yet
On how long that lasts? We could do brackets, squares....though it might have to go into seconds and minutes...
please use the "I have friends who are gay!" defense
please use the "I have friends who are gay!" defense
please use the "I have friends who are gay!" defense
please use the "I have friends who are gay!" defense
you pull up your pants.
juvenile or amateurish either? You will be very lonely on this board. Juvenile humor and amateur opinions are a lot of what I come here for.
Enjoy your retirement.
That is very far from what this pile of shit accused me of.
If you have some other explanation for how "you and your boyfriend" doesn't have negative connotations in that post, you can try it out. But you're probably digging your own hole deeper.
And don't tell us you won't go quietly into retirement after making a proclamation that you would if he could produce evidence. No one likes a disingenuous mild homophobe.
Were you not making fun of mejunglechop by telling him to go tell his boyfriend, thus implying he was gay, as if it is a bad thing?
That is not a slur and any implications are yours and yours alone.
What did you mean by it?
Since you wrote it. And saw fit to add it to the end of your statement. It must have had some implication to you. What other implication could it be??
Honestly, that accusation really pisses me off. That was so far out of line. I have never done anything like that. That is just flat out false.
Just a thought experiment:
If 2010 SDSU, in Hoke's 2nd year at a moribund program, played 2010 UM last year, in RR's 3rd year after taking over a program that went 20-6 in it's last two seasons, who do you think would have won that game?
For real, I'm curious what you think.
SDSU by 7.
SDSU beat 2 teams with winning record and they're against service academies. SDSU defense won't stop Michigan offense from going wild.
Um, we beat three teams with winning records. One by 2 in triple overtime and one by 4 who's starting QB missed almost the entire first half and was half concussed for the second. Let's not start patting ourselves on the back here.
And do you honestly think that our defense would fair any better against SDSU's offense that featured a 3,500 yard passer, 1,500 yards rusher and two 1,000 yard receivers? I'm not saying Michigan would definately lose, but it certainly wouldn't be the walk you seem to be suggesting.
aren't exactly strong endorsement for SDSU team. I would think that SDSU is roughly equvialent to UConn who aren't exactly a great team, just a good team who happens to be lucky in the right time with a weak Big East conference.
Well, we can play this game. Michigan beat ND by 4 on a last minute drive after their starting QB was out for half the game. Navy dominated ND by 18 points with ND's starter in there. SDSU crushed Navy by 21.
And again, SDSU's defense may not have been able to hold up to Michigan's offense, but there's no chance Michigan's D holds up to SDSU's offense. That UConn game was a mirage. Michigan did well against the run, but that game would have been alot closer if UConn's receivers didn't drop about 8 and their QB didn't miss wide open receivers for huge yardage with no pressure on numerous occasions.
doesn't really work in college football if that were true than THE HORROR is better than Florida. They beat Michigan and Michigan beat Florida. Surely, they are better than Florida!
By this measure, our entire season was a mirage. Our offense would have been light years better if Denard wouldn't have overthrown so many open receivers, thrown into double coverage and thrown behind receivers so many times.
Here is a fun fact for all:
In Brady Hoke's 8 year coaching career, he has defeated a total of 11 teams with winning records. Take it for what it is worth.
He won against, what, 5 non-FCS teams that had winning records? FWIW.
That's kind of my point. RichRod averaged more wins per year against teams with winning records in his 3 years here at Michigan than Brady Hoke has his entire career. Give RichRod 8 years anywhere and I gurantee he gets more than 11 wins against teams with winning records. But it doesn't really matter anymore. I am still going to be skeptical of the hire until he wins some games for the maize and blue.
In totally non-comparable situations? How many teams with winning records did they play? (Because invariable a .500 MAC team is under .500 overall due to OOC schedule). And how many over .500 teams did each school beat win in the years before the respective coaches got there? I bet at Ball State it's similar...at SDS worse. At Michigan we know it was better pre-Rich. I would bet WV historically was fairly comparable. Maybe a bit less.
The point isn't that you're skeptical; it's that you throw out meaningless stats as a dig because you're not skeptical, you're hostile.
Have you actually read anything that would make you think I am hostile? That is laughably ridiculous. My point was that Hoke didn't and still doesn't have a very good resume. He has coached for 8 years. I would think in that amount of time he would have beaten more than 11 teams with winning records. He has a losing record as a head coach. These aren't really up for debate. For everyone who wants to whine and cry about RichRod's record being the reason he got fired, just understand you look a little ridiculous saying anyone that is skeptical of a head coach with a losing record is "hostile." Sorry I upset your delicate sensibilities but myself, as well as a large number of people, are going to be skeptical with the hiring considering his best attribute as a coach is that he is a "Michigan Man." If and when he wins games, I will be less skeptical. It isn't as though I am going to root against him. Jesus Christ take it easy.