Those gratuitous sics were inserted by Along The Olentangy—not Brian. Brian copied ATO's quote, which ATO took from the original—sic-less—story (which can be found here).
in town for free camps
State turdstorm UPDATE! Yesterday Eleven Warriors graciously posted that Maurice Clarett might be a troubled weirdo who tried to take down Ohio State after he got the boot, but at least he's a trying troubled weirdo and he's not all bad. This is a level of understanding I do not have with Tractor Traylor even after the guy died tragically.
11W's reward for this understanding is to have Ray Small go MoCo:
"We have apartments, car notes," he said. "So you got things like that and you look around and you're like, ‘Well I got (four) of them, I can sell one or two and get some money to pay this rent."
The wheeling and dealing didn't stop with rings. The best deals came from car dealerships, Small said.
"It was definitely the deals on the cars. I don't see why it's a big deal," said Small, who identified Jack Maxton Chevrolet as the players' main resource.
The Columbus Dispatch reported on May 7 that OSU was investigating more than 50 transactions between OSU athletes and their families and Jack Maxton Chevrolet or Auto Direct.
Representatives for Jack Maxton Chevrolet did not return repeated requests for comment.
NCAA rules prohibit student-athletes from benefiting from the sale of their merchandise. Small said he wasn't the only one.
"They have a lot (of dirt) on everybody," Small said, "cause everybody was doing it."
Man… Ray Small. That guy was in trouble from day one at OSU, threw regular public hissy-fits about it, and he wasn't even that good at football. If I was an Ohio State fan he would be in my circle of the damned. Their term for this rapidly expanding category that includes Kirk Herbstreit and (to the truly deranged) Chris Spielman is "Fake Buckeye."
You can add Mark "Club Trillion" Titus to that list after he posted there was definitely something "shady" going on with football players' cars, then followed it up with a rebuttal saying that he shouldn't get death threats because that's mean. Titus claims the shadiness was to the point where most students knew or should have known what was going on.
Meanwhile, the local news station is investigating the Gibson thing and while that transaction continues to get more complicated it's not getting proportionally more explicable:
10 Investigates [sic] found that Gibson had a trade-in. He traded in a 2003 Chevrolet Monte Carlo that BMV records showed he bought for $15,400 just seven months earlier.
But the dealership may have given him only $1,000 toward the trade-in, [instead] dropping the sales price of the car he was buying by a substantial amount.
10 Investigates [sic] has learned that's what Kniffin has told investigators with the BMV.
The trade-in business materializes as predicted; an explanation for how Thad Gibson scraped together enough money to buy two cars worth a total of 30k in less than a year is yet to be explained. Along The Oletangy responds to the investigation apparently clearing the transactions:
In any case, it doesn't matter what the BMV finds when they analyze Jack Maxton Chevrolet's tax forms as long as no special treatment was given to Ohio State football players.
It's obvious plenty of special treatment was provided, but where is the smoking gun?
Position paper on demolition of Ohio State program and whether it is good or bad. If Ohio State was going to fall apart by Notre Daming themselves with a series of coaching hires ranging from questionable to insane, that would be a thing to be conflicted about in the same way certain Ohio State fans are bored with a terrible Michigan team they're just going to blow out.
This is a different thing entirely since it suggests the fence Tressel legendarily put up around Ohio's borders is one based on massive NCAA noncompliance. Meanwhile, thanks in part to this (and in part to Michigan imploding) they've gone 9-1 and turned the Big Ten into their personal playground. If the NCAA finds proof of this massive noncompliance and OSU gets bombed into the stone age and is no longer any good, there's no conflict there. It's an unadulterated good. Michigan has been hypersensitive about this stuff since the Ed Martin Day Of Great Shame, and it's obvious their main rival hasn't. Putting that on even footing will help put the rivalry there if it doesn't swing it all the way back to the Cooper days, which fine by me.
Hot under the collar, part II. ESPN's Mike Fish, you may remember from the above-referenced Maurice Clarett bombing, has a new article. This is the header image:
Africa basketball charity, AAU player headed to Indiana, Tom Crean, Indiana AAU coach. This can't be good. Not pictured: involuntary adoption. Hooray Beilein.
Hey let's rehash this again. MZone noticed that I hadn't mentioned Lloyd Carr's election to the College Football Hall of Fame and asks why I hate Lloyd Carr, complete with requisite psychoanalysis and link to me being mad in the immediate aftermath of the Hoke hire when everyone was mad, something I've obviously backed away from in multiple column-length pieces since.
To defend myself: I don't take the CFHOF seriously. It just elected Deion Sanders. When Tom Curtis was elected it warranted about two sentences. For better or worse, I am totally uninterested in the charity work of rich people. I've also said my bit about Carr as Michigan's coach over and over again. Contrary to two-bit psychoanalysis it was not negative, or at least it was far less negative than many.
And I am pissed off at the hostility to change that's obvious every time any former Carr player says something about anything. We've got a program of Joe Morgans. I'm worried how that will manifest itself on the field. It's not hard to draw a contrast between what's gone down the last three years and what would have gone down if Bo was still around. Bo would have been on the warpath; he probably would have dropped by to scream at Rodriguez some. The impression we've gotten from every one of Carr's former players is that there is exactly one person responsible for Michigan's decline—Rich Rodriguez—and not only is that incorrect (Horror, DeBord, Tressel vs Carr) but it's detrimental to Michigan's future. If we got back to the days where every bowl opponent laughs at how predictable we are that will not be good.
(I don't think that's happening because Borges is a real live offensive coordinator and not a broken robot that only calls zone left. Hoke uber alles.)
Eyerolling reorg. Adam Wodon on the inevitable hockey realignment coming sounds like anyone talking about anything last year when talking about conference realignment:
It all starts with Notre Dame. (Well, it all started with Penn State and the Big Ten, but that's already happened.) Think about it — you're Notre Dame's president. Your sports teams all play in the Big East, or, in the case of football, is the most storied program in college sports. You fire up CHN's iPhone app one morning to check the hockey standings, and what do you see? You see Notre Dame competing against some MAC and D-II schools. You recoil. This is not what Notre Dame does. This is not what Notre Dame is.
That is not a knock on the other schools, it's just reality. There is no way that Notre Dame is staying put. That means that the CCHA is certain to lose its remaining powerhouse (from an institutional, NCAA-wide standpoint), and fall further to seven teams. That means the CCHA is in trouble, as a whole.
Maybe Wodon's got some inside chatter on this that he's refusing to mention in an effort to make his column as annoyingly speculative as possible, but this is the impetus for an elaborate reorganization scenario that sees Notre Dame move to Hockey East because they'd rather play Merrimack (seriously) than Ferris State.
Notre Dame is choosing between some games against BC and then a bunch of schools no one at Notre Dame has heard of plus flying for literally every road game and staying in the CCHA. While ND has money, are they going to spend it on that for no real benefit? And will Hockey East expand to an eleven teams just for the dubious benefits of having ND in the conference? Travel costs matter in hockey, the longest season in the NCAA, and no one is going to make enough money on an ND move to justify the increased costs even if "this is not what Notre Dame does." Yeesh.
plume rising above Columbus gets bigger and bigger.
That "billowing smoke" probably is your flatulence wafting into your face.
...how predictable we are that will not be good."
You mean all the way back to the Gator Bowl?
You know as well as anyone what he meant by that comment.
Remember, you're talking to someone who thinks that losing to Appalachian State was no big deal.
The last 3 years weren't a big deal...
Which is probably as accurate a characterization....
And the seeds were planted in the years prior to them occuring.
Unfortunately people such as yourself cannot understand this.
This who come up with Years of seed planting to come up with a multitude of reasons why the last three years sucked refuse to listen to any reasons why 2007 started off so badly other than "HURR the coaches suck". Then follow that up by giving no credit for taking that disastrous situation and keeping the train from going off the rails, that, it the last 3 years have shown us, is a lot harder than it looks.
That that season was not a total disaster is because Chad Henne and Mike Hart gutted out the games that they did.
Hart carrying Michigan on his back against Penn State was one of the all-time Michigan performances.
Henne against MSU in the fourth quarter is up there as well. He shouldnt have even been in the game and he willed us to a victory.
But, if you must:
Please, elaborate on why 2007 started off so badly. (I can tell you why: We completely overlooked our first game of the season and got beat by a mobile quarterback for the millionth time under LC. So yeah, it does fall on our coach being unable to adjust).
Please, give me your ridiculous excuses on how we lost to a I-AA team that we paid a small fortune to come get blown out.
Please, tell me that that Appalachian State team was really really good, even though they got beat by two other I-AA teams and lost 23-10 to a 3-9 NC State team the year before when they went 14-1.
Since you won't listen. But thanks for proving my point that some think players had everything to do with Lloyd's wins, and he was responsible for the losses, while the opposite was "true" with Rich.
You won't give me excuses, because there aren't any for losing that game.
Please though, tell me how we were going to beat Penn State without Mike Hart, MSU without Henne.
Then remember that those guys were gone the next year.
So RR really didn't have two great players to fall back on now did he?
You never have a point.
Because we've already had this argument, and you don't want to listen. And the Board is getting bored with it. I made one factual statement making fun of a silly statement, and you resorted to personal attacks. Coming from someone who figured out that "you win with great players", I'm not too concerned with your further analysis.
Your type didn't like Lloyd before, told everyone how glorious the Rich years would be, had to come up with excuses and others to blame, extended the results dates, still didn't get any results, had to rinse and repeat, and finally the powers that be told you that you were wrong. And you're just not man enough to admit it. So while still trying to go back and say "don't blame Rich for everything" you and others continue to go back and blame the guys 2 coaches ago for what he did and what the guy after him did. You were wrong, and you lost the argument in the grand scheme of things. Get over it, and you'll be happier.
I just enjoy watching your mental gymnastics as you attempt to do things like justify losing to Appalachian State or being happy with 1-6 vs. Ohio State.
As a side note, mine wasn't a personal attack. You 've said before that you were fine with losing to Appalachin State. I was just quoting you.
Find the quite where I said I was "fine with losing to App St". Finding something that doesn't exist will keep you busy and off the boards for awhile. I've just given reasons why it happened, with mistakes made too, just like there are for the last 3 seasons that did a lot more damage to "Michigan" than one game. I just find it funny the gymnastics people will go through to make the latter "reasons", but the former "excuses".
"App St, sure, shit happens." April 9th, 2011.
I'll bury the hatchet though.
You're right we should move on.
It's obvious we just have very differing opinions on certain issues. I'll do my best to be more civil, I think I was out of line a few times.
I apologize for any personal attacks I made against you. These arguments get too heated sometimes.
Is equating with "fine" (not my taste, but that may vary...this is the Internet after all). But I respect your response. (Frankly, if I had thought it had no merit, there wouldn't be anything to argue over). So kindly accept my apologies too if I made it too personal. I don't think we need to "hug it out", but I don't think you're being contrary just to be so (which isn't true of everyone); we just obviously have widely different opinions. Such is life.
When someone says, "shit happens" that equates to "no big deal", "don't worry about it" or some other variation of that in my neck of the woods.
I.E. something bad happened and its generally accepted as being okay.
What do you think, we could possibly get a 20+ post argument on this?
I'll take 22.
To quote the great Rich Rodriguez, quoting the great film "The Lion King" , it doesn't matter; it's in the past. Seriously though, I can't wait to read John Bacon's book on the last 3 years. The program's decline can't be rested on the shoulders solely of RR. He was certainly far from perfect, but you can't deny you started to see some flashes of what could be.
If anything, it shows he should be excited by a change away from Rich Rod, because one of his most worrisome points of the prior regime hadn't changed under the new one. Will it change under Hoke? Who knows, but we do know it hadn't changed under Rich, so if that's so important, more change was obviously needed. Because while it doesn't guarantee that this needed change will occur, it at least allows for more possibility of it.
and find the countless coordinators and coaches who have said that RR's offense is nearly impossible to prepare for.
That one game was nothing more than an anamoly.
You know this.
You just cannot admit that there was ever a problem with Michigan football before Rodriguez.
Did their coaches say that Michigan's offense was easy to prepare for?
The Mississippi State defenders said we ran exactly what they were coached to expect. Sounds familiar.
I acknowledged that.
I said it was an anamoly because no one else has ever said that about Rodriguez's offense.
If he was responding to my post, I'm assuming he meant coaches from all those teams said that, which I had not heard.
So I asked him a question.
Don't make us prosecute his job tenure for the 100th time in the last 50 days.
Goes both ways. We've had the coaches from Penn State who praised the offense say how laughable the defense was. Unfortunately head coaches have to consider both. Do I think the Michigan program was perfect, and there was no room for improvement? Of course not. There's always room for improvement, and you're either getting better or you're getting worse. Most programs lull a bit towards the end of a career. But do I think the program was in a state of total disrepair, where our worst season was 7-5, rather than one where that would be our best season? Nope.
But really it's about this meme of unpredictability. Yes, there is a factor to it. But football is won on talent and execution. The USC teams that said that about us weren't running anything innovative. They were pretty much running the same thing as we were. They had better players, and made less mistakes. I don't think Mississippi State really ran anything that surprising either. Same situation. "I knew what they were going to run" is just something the winning team gets to say. They should; they've watched film. The difference is generally they were able to do something about it. Trickeration is a nice change up, but you don't just with it. Florida State used to do it a lot when they were up and coming, taking on everyone, and trying to prove themselves. When did they stop? When they were good and talented enough not to need to.
The only thing someone can't admit is that you've been wrong for the last 3 years. It's better to admit it didn't work out for anybody, it's been quite sad, and move on.
You know what's funny about you?
You act like Michigan was this scrappy upstart Lloyd Carr.
That we lost games because other teams had more talent and that we were lucky to win as much as we did under Lloyd Carr.
Then, when Lloyd leaves and we actually do have less talent and a bunch of young players out of the field and we really are the scrappy upstart, you deride the coaches as the problem.
Face it, you wanted Rich Rodriguez to fail from the beginning so you could be smug and say "See? Be happy with your yearly loss to OSU and mobile QB x. It's okay to lose to Appalachian State, these things happen. The spread can't work in the Big Ten, because you have to play Manball, just like Bo and Lloyd."
What you fail to acknowledge, is that in a transition, there are two sides to new regimes results.
Bo himself said that he owed it to Bump Elliot for a smooth transition and for leaving him with talent to work with.
Bo himself said that he made sure to do the same thing for Gary Moeller.
Gary Moeller, when asked, said that he did feel he had a hand in Michigan's national championship season, because he had recruited a lot of the main guys.
Bo himself said that the reason his team in 1984 went 6-6 is because they didn't have enough talent.
So, please, find a way in your completely biased mind to tell me how these men who made Michigan football what is is before Lloyd Carr and Rich Rodriguez, can say that the predecessor is important to the success of the successor, yet Lloyd Carr is not at fault at all for Michigan's woes at the beginning of the Rich Rodriguez era.
Please, argue with Bo.
This level of attachment to a fired coach can't be healthy. You're trashing a coach that just made the College Football Hall of Fame and at the same time, making excuses for a guy who posted the worst record in school history. At this point, you need to stop accusing other people of having an agenda and take a look in the mirror.
To argue with everyone who defends Rodriguez?
Equal and opposite reactions and all that.
Simple as that.
You'll say no, but the evidence suggest otherwise.
I may be an admitted slappy, but JMBlue was a complete RR backer. I'm not positive where it changed (I think around Penn State), but he took the evidence at hand and came to a different conclusion as things evolved. He's the test case example of an open-minded poster who was going on results, and not taking sides. I still have the bruises from some arguments to prove it.
He usually responds to anyone defending Rodriguez.
I usually respond when I think someone unfairly attacks Rodriguez.
Why is one an agenda and one is not?
I have stated my problems with Rodriguez, my agreement with his firing, my support of Lloyd Carr and my happiness of Hoke.
So what is the difference?
Check my history. I like Rich. Wanted him to succeed. But from day 1 everyone wanted to blame the guy before him for his failures. If anything, Rich (and maybe you) should have followed the Bo concept of not trashing what came before you while making changes. If Bo had said how much Bump sucked to everyone, maybe his players wouldn't have gotten behind him either. We'll never know. But telling "everyone" from day 1 how bad it is, and blaming the guy before you (as even Rich has said recently he did) didn't work out so great, so maybe Bo had the tight idea.
The only people who wanted "I told you so's" were the Rich fanatics who wanted to show how easy it was to do what Lloyd did, and step it up and do even better. Unfortunately for everybody, it wasn't that easy.
It's chicken or the egg.
Bump left Bo with good players. Bo got the most out of those good players. (Bo acknowledges later though, in regards to his 1984 team, that if you do not have enough talent, it is difficult to win). Bo has nothing bad to say about Bump because there isn't anything bad to say. Sing when you're winning!
Carr leaves Rodriguez with a makeshift team, especially on offense. Rodriguez has two bad seasons. At the end of his second season, probably frustrated from losing, he acknowledges that they don't have the talent right now and that some of that falls on not having players to work with. In the first two years, that is on the previous coach. (As I've said before, I think the biggest problem with the change was timing). All you have to do is look back and see the lack of players Rodriguez had to work with in comparison to other major schools in transition.
Honestly, do you want to know what my biggest problem with Carr is? It really isn't him. It's really not even his problem. It's how people treat him: Like he is Bo.
He's not. And do you know how I know that? Because even if he didn't like Rodriguez, Bo would have done what was best for the University and the players and come out and said "Hey, we're switching systems, it's going to take a while, hang in there and support the team". Lloyd didn't do anything like that. And that's not his fault and it's not anything against him, but he's just not Bo.
He's a great guy. I was proud to have him as a football coach. I think he was a very good coach. I was happy with him until that 4 game stretch in which we lost 42-39 (not that close), 32-18 (not that close), 34-32 (ugh) and 39-7 (amazingly, not that close) with teams that never should have lost like that. To me, that was a wake-up call: If we want to have a truly great team, I don't think Lloyd is the man for the job. Is it really that far-fetched and delusional of me to think we can't find a great coach who runs a clean program?
Did I think Rodriguez was the guy? I thought he could be. I saw what he did with his teams and I saw the type of players Michigan could bring in and I assumed it was a done deal when it came to Michigan being a huge success. But you're right, it is not as simple as that. A lot of it is on Rodriguez.
But at the same time, some of that is on Lloyd Carr.
I love it when people ventriloquize a corpse.
Nobody knows what Bo would have done.
Make your own argument, don't phrase it through a dead man.
points the the fact that MOST LIKELY, he would have done whatever he could to help the program, even if it's coach wasn't his first choice.
maybe I should have clarified, but from every book, interview and and old show I've seen of Bo, that seems like something he would have done.
If you have any quotes or evidence of how Bo would have responded to a coach that was not a former employee of his, who obliquely expressed frustration with the state of the program, you live in an alternate dimension.
Let's not marshal our assumptions of how the dead would feel, then cite it as evidence. This ain't tarot.
I don't think it's out of line for me to think that Bo Schembechler would publicly support the kids wearing Maize and Blue to help keep the program stable.
I see the stupid-ass conspiracy theory your careening towards. I will withdraw before I'm forced to read it.
I have no idea what you've even been driving toward this entire time.
All I stated is that I believe that everything about Bo shows he loved Michigan and Michigan football and would have done everything he could to keep the program stable and support the players on the team, in a more outspoken way than Lloyd Carr.
Is that really that far-fetched?
I was getting bored reading this (no offense to the debating gentlemen)
but that made me laugh, thanks
but Michigan had a lot of talent in 2008 when RR came in. Maybe not National Championship talent, but it wasn't starved. We had Mallett, Matthews, (Arrington and Manningham ran away from RR for the draft,) plus our current upperclassmen receivers Hemmingway Stonum Odoms, and Roundtree, 3 four year starters on O-line in Schilling, Molk, and Boren, plus most of our current starting line, we still had Carlos Brown, Brandon Minor, Michael Shaw, and Kevin Grady, a few solid TE's, Solid starters at DT in Terrance Taylor, plus Marques Slocum, Segasse, and Mike Martin, Brandon Graham, Tim Jamison, Greg Banks, and our current DE's, Ezeh, Mouton, and our current LB's Evans, Fitzgerald, and Herron, DB's Stevie Brown, Donovan Warren, Morgan Trent, young Troy Woolfork, and JT Floyd.
We had lots of good players on the team RR inherited, many of them at the fast skill positions he was labeled as favoring fled to the NFL. There weren't many holes on the roster, even though it might not be a world conquering team, more than 12 of the kids were drafted.RR didn't recruit the state well and missed many big names like Mark Ingram or Greg Jones to fill in, and he didn't best use the players he already had. Hoke or Harbaugh would have done much better with the same kids because they're just better coaches.
First of all lots of those players were young and inexperienced, you can't count Molk as an asset back in 2008 when he hadn't even played a down for UM, Mallet was gone, either because Carr didn't want him or because RR's offense isn't by any means compatible with a 6 foot 7" rocket armed slow QB which wouldn't overtake his own linemen on a run play...
About Stonum, Odoms, Shaw, Martin, etc, (Roundtree weighted like 160 pounds when he came). They're good, but they're way better now than 3 years ago (It took a while for Odoms to get used to cold temperatures for example, just watch the Northwestern game for reference, he dropped a few punts and passes and couldn't hold on the ball even when it was in his hands). Shilling, Boren, DW, BG, etc were underclassmen then, and Minor & Brown were injury prone...
I think Manningham was gone either way, he had proved already that he had what it takes to be drafted, and after losing Long, Hart and Henne I have a hard time believing that he would've stayed, Carr's retirement aside.
His best assets were on the defense, and aside that ugly game against Purdue didn't fare that bad, (compared with the last couple of year's standards, if can call them that) Ezeh wasn't ever consistent under RR that year's linebackers were mostly Thompson and Panter rather than Ezeh, players like DW and Trent never believed in RR to start with, it's hard to make a guy play well when he doesn't like you, the true gem I can find was BG.
JT Floyd, really?? even now he's struggling, he has played the last couple of years because we don't have more CBs to put on the field, not a jab at him, but he's far from being a quality CB at UM still.
I'm not trying to be an apologist, but I really feel that the team wasn't that good
the countless coordinators and coaches who have said that RR's offense is nearly impossible to prepare for.
Unfortunately for us, most of that lavish praise came from coaches that beat us. Let's get back to winning.
That's damning, but also worthy of being its own post. Expect lots of negging, but it's important to parse the data.
However, I'd like to ask you if you included or excluded the bowl game? Seems unfair to include it, since we didn't play one in 2008 or 2009. Also there's obvious differences between who's in the top 25, and then issues of comparison. Might be interesting to look at our scoring vs. all Big 10 opponents in those years too.
change was necessary again? After the bowl game this year he's written that RR had to go. He was only concerned with who exactly we replaced him with. Sometimes you write like Brian is constantly bemoaning the change, and writing "if only Rich Rod had one more year everyone would see!" Not true.
Are we going to fire Rich Rod in THIS thread too?
But we really mean it this time.