Quit. Posting. On. This. Blog.
Dear Mr. Woodson; Quit talking to Mark Snyder.
Dear Mr. Woodson,
I see your name in a headline, in today's Detroit Free Press. It probably isn't what you had in mind.
Before saying anything else, however, let me thank you for your great years in Ann Arbor and all of the thrills we saw on the football field. Thanks for all of your hard work. Thanks also for all the time you've devoted to Mott Children's Hospital. You've done so much good, through the hospital and through your foundation.
I presume that as you have been getting ready for the annual Mott Golf Outing and assorted fundraisers, the outreach people have been talking to your agent, and arranging for you to talk to reporters, to promote the event. I presume that that is how Mark Snyder of the Free Press got some of your time in a private telephone interview. As much as you'd like to promote Mott events, it was a mistake on your part to talk to Snyder.
Because while Snyder is willing to throw in a few lines about Mott fundraising, you should have known what would happen; Snyder would ask you all about Mott, get your guard down, and then ask you about Rich Rodriguez. And whatever you gave him, Rodriguez (and not Mott) would become the day's headline.
That is part of the reason that Brady Hoke and David Brandon are not doing any private interviews with Snyder. Your interview with Snyder tore up that page of the Michigan playbook. The other very large part of the story, as you really ought to know, is that Snyder was part of the tag-team that did such damage to the football program. Your Michigan football program. Michigan's NCAA investigation was a wholly-produced effort in which Snyder played a big part. After the harm that was caused by Snyder, why you would give someone like that a private interview is almost unbelievable. There are other ways to get out the news of the annual Mott Golf Outing; in fact, the way that the Free Press goes about its business, it is almost guaratneed to distract from those good works.
There has not been much harm done, by one interview; so that much is no big deal. But put yourself in Snyder's position. He will be at the golf course and the clubhouse that day for the meetings and the dinner, and he will be looking for interviews and stories. You and your fellow football alumni should not give him anything. You all should know that the story that he wants is "the bad old days of Rich Rodriguez" story. He wants to use you guys, to essentially support his story from 2009. You don't have to give it to him. You don't have to talk to Snyder. And if you do, you can say, "All that I have to say about those years, is that the Free Press was awful to this football program. You want me to go on?"
If anyone wants to say, "Hey let's forget about the past; let's move on," that's fine. Just be assured, that when you are talking to Mark Snyder, his idea of "moving on" is by delcaring that Rich Rodriguez was a personal disaster, because that is what his paper is invested in. If you think it is time to "move on," then think about making that your answer when Mark Snyder asks you for an interview. Because that is the message that Brady Hoke and David Brandon are interested in. Ask them, if you are unclear about this.
Quit. Talking. To. Mark. Snyder.
"There are other ways to get out the news of the annual Mott Golf Outing; in fact, the way that the Free Press goes about its business, it is almost guaratneed to distract from those good works." - Section 1
Giving an interview in a paper with a daily readership in the neighborhood of 500,000 and probably twice that many unique page hits per month is a pretty good way to get the word out, especially if you have the local renown of Charles Woodson. Considering that the article stayed mostly with the Mott Golf Outing, I am guessing his good works continue unabated and without distraction.
However, I will also check yellowpages.com in case there is a blurb there, if you would like, or I could always "Like" the Facebook page (not yours, but Woodson's). It's a little late for word-of-mouth since it is a popular event for an outstanding cause, but perhaps you can ask Charles if, next time, he would do truckside advertising instead, or even paint the time and place on the side of his own car.
Considering that the article stayed mostly with the Mott Golf Outing, I am guessing his good works continue unabated and without distraction.
That's the point! Snyder could have done an article promoting the Mott Outing. But that wasn't the lede, or the headline.
Snyder USED the Mott Outing for his access to Woodson (I presume). It was the pretext for the interview. But the money quote, what Snyder wanted and he got, was the garbage about Charles recovering his sense of Michigan Man pride, post-Rodriguez. Mott found its way into print, at Paragraph 8!
All that I am saying, is let that be a lesson to everybody else who gets interviewed by Mark Snyder in the next four days.
"For me, sitting and watching games this year, watching the defense function the way that it did and really play, with Brady implementing his system, and having the guys play that had (been in) the other system the past three years -- that was special to watch. I was absolutely proud to be a Michigan Wolverine once again." - Woodson, from the article
I dare say that Charles was not implying that, at any point, he was not proud, but instead, he is talking about something that had been missing for three years - the energy and enthusiasm that went with Michigan football. Even if Griese, Hutchinson any other former players at the Outing this weekend said the same thing, it would be a non-story at this point. The story would be the golf outing.
That being said, I really don't understand why you would rail against Woodson expressing his opinion about the current state of the program by contrasting it with the previous state of the program. There is an exceedingly long German word - Vergangenheitsbewaeltigung - that might be of use to you. Granted, you're not coming to terms with quite the same things they were in the post-war period but certainly the principle of learning how to deal with the past and face the present in a far healthier state of mind is similar.
We have a great coach, a fine former coach who did not succeed here, but will likely do well in his new home in the southwest, and a local paper that delivered unto us a hit job that we may now easily ignore if not forget. On with the rest of my day.
Never ignore...never forget.
Section 1's point and vigilance is to ensure that this sort of hack journalism does not go unpunished.
1. The new coach seems like a great guy, who is doing a good job.
2. I appreciate your generous comments about the previous coach. I think generous comments like yours are a good idea; I notice that on the very rare occasions that Hoke or Brandon say anything at all about the previous coach, they are usually generous in nature.
3. We agree about the malevolence of the local paper. Very much unlike the previous coach (who is gone), and the current coach (who had nothing to do with the 2009 controversy), "the local paper" is still here, still in business, and ought to be treated with the suspicion and contempt that it has earned.
The new coach seems like a great guy
What world are you living in, Hoke is a great guy.
I appreciate your generous comments about the previous coach.
They were directed at the previous coach, not you. You are not Rich Rodriguez, though you both may have the same persecution complex.
I hate to have to re-introduce you to this theory, but here goes. Rich was fired because his teams were 15-22, and suffered as many 20+ point defeats in three years as Michigan had between 1963-1997.
That's called results-based firing.
Brady Hoke; "Great guy"? Or the greatest guy!"?
...or are you?
Cheese and Rice; we've seen this post, ad-infinitum. Can we put the RR experiment behind us and just get excited for the the Hoke era, Fergodsakes!.
FREEP=evil: we get it.
Carr= devisive; maybe.
Former Players=Michigan tradition; Absolutey!
GERG=Crappy D-Coordinator; YEP!
Section1!=Beating A Dead Horse Into The Ground, Driving A Steak Through Its Heart, Conducting A Seance To Revive It, Creating A New Issue Based On The Purported Rise Of Said Horse and then Causing MGoBlog Universe to Bomb Said Post...
Wait for it...
about "forget"; the guys over at the Freep are still pretty much the same and apparently still stirring stuff up. This is up to personal choice, but I have trouble forgetting.
This next point isn't directed at you, but I'll just stick it here anyway rather than post another comment: I get a sense that a lot of the energy being expressed here is not of the "forgive and forget" variety; it's a little too vehement for that. Why can't we all just get along?
I get a sense that a lot of the energy being expressed here is not of the "forgive and forget" variety; it's a little too vehement for that. Why can't we all just get along?
It really is odd. I've never said much of anything that wasn't favorable to Coach Hoke. The guys that I save my hatred for are the guys that everybody has long had good reason to hate -- Rosenberg, Snyder and their editors.
That much is certainly all that I advanced in this Diary. Criticism of Woodson? Nope. Criticism of Hoke? Nope. Criticism of Brandon? Nope. Praise for Woodson's charity work with Mott? Yep. Heckling of Mark Snyder? Yep. Fergodsakes, yes. Timed right before one of his biggest interview days of the summer.
It is almost as though any statement of support for the plight of former Coach Rodriguez is seen as undermining of the current regime. There is a Soviet quality to that. As though all comrades must not only praise the Current Dear Leader but you must also condmen the Past Infidel Leaders, because all our misery may be blamed on Them.
I was RR's numero uno supporter, but there is no denying the fact that he shit his pants while at M. You don't have to be a quality investigative reporter of the Rosenberg and Snyder level to figure that one out
simple misunderstanding here....I didn't say "forget"...I said "if not forget"....I also didn't suggest "forgive". I did say "ignore". How better to combat Rosenberg and Snyder? Screw 'em.
To the OP:
Dude, get over it and find a life.
Now just you wait one darn cotton-pickin' minute! That joke is TREMENDOUS!
I was worried someone might actually like it...
I call BS. I'm a scientist and I HATE chemistry. Also, I am not a cat.
I could go the rest of my life and never hear the words Rich Rodriguez again and die happy. The man nearly destroyed our football program, there is no argument.
I think Woodson promoting Mott might take precedence over RR's beef with the Freep. Children's Hospital>Years old dispute that honestly didn't harm the program that much
Do your realize, Jack, what a non-issue and a non-sequitir you've raised?
From the outset, I presumed that Woodson was interested in promoting the Mott fundraiser. Frankly, I expect that while kicking back at home in Atlanta, Charles might not be accepting any calls at all from Mark Snyder on stray topics pertaining to Rodriguez.
But Charles probably took this call following arrangements with his agent and the development people. Specifically related to Mott. Promote the event, and as part of that, talk to the guy from the Detroit Free Press.
Your complaint about what is more important -- Mott Chidlren's Hospital or "the Rich Rodriguez era of Michigan football, when the program was spinning its wheels or backsliding ," might be better directed to the Free Press and Mark Snyder. "Mott" didn't make it into any headlines. And Snyder buried the Mott information in the eighth paragraph, after, uh, dealing with Rodriguez.
I'm just saying that, like it or not, the Freep has a huge readership. And you have repeatedly mentioned that Mott was his motivation for getting the interview. Any mention in the Freep is, in fact, a big deal. So if he was just chatting away with Mark I see your point. But he didn't... I don't get how promoting Mott is a non-issue.
for creating the day's most discussed content, barring Brian's.
I'm embarassed a so-called Michigan Man has as poor of a grip on how a semicolon is used as Section 1 displays in his title.
I'm also embarassed a so-called Michigan Man has as poor of a grip on reality as Section 1 displays in every one of his thousands of bizarre, delusional missives. But mostly the semicolon usage is what embarasses me.
I had to recheck the title; the semi-colon is really there. Good catch.
I'm also embarassed a so-called Michigan Man has as poor of a grip on reality as Section 1 displays in every one of his thousands of bizarre, delusional missives.
I don't understand as well.
Are people saying the Freep Jihad didn't really happen, or what is this overwhelming outpouring of hostility all about?
So here is where everyone has been all day... I had a feeling I was missing something really important.
I was wrong.
Did you email or mail this letter to Woodson or was this just posted on mgoblog as a way for you to vent at your screen? Either way, this is just like scratching a scab posting it here, let the shit heal son
Mark Snyder could have written 500 words , about Woodson, Mott Children's Hopsital, about the Packers, the NFL, about Lloyd Carr, etc. And I wouldn't have written one single thing about it.
But he didn't.
And note the order of importance for Mark Snyder:
- First and foremost, Woodson's terrible shame as a Michigan Man from 2008 to 2010;
- The upcoming Mott Charity;
- Concussions in pro football, safety, his future, yaddy yada yada.
MODS - Any one of you care to count the number of personal attacks on me in this thread? How do you, Mods, propose that I respond? My current stance is "no response in kind." Which does not mean that I wouldn't like to tell Butterfield to go fuck himself. -9400 MGoPoints did it for me.
Why is there something wrong with a person voicing their opinion? This is a Michigan blog, sure, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be differing opinions. I mean do you want it to be censored to the point that every diary and post is the same old ra ra bullshit that is meaningless? Hey Hoke sure knows how to mail a letter to a recruit. Let's all get boners about it. At least this has some sort of point rather than inflating all of our egos about something that is cursory at best.
The FREEP actively campaigned against the University of Michigan Football team. I think Section 1 may see that people are beginning to forget that. I think it is a valid post.
I just don't get it. Many panties in bunches 'round these parts, eh?!
One of, and perhaps the primary complaint against the OP has to do with the frequency with which he raises the same issue. Yes, it can be annoying for those who already know the role the Freep and its reporters played in using falsehoods and manufactured "facts" to portray UM football negatively. But there are hundreds, probably thousands, of people who drop in every now and then and don't know all the ins and outs of the Freep's actions. I was one of these people several months ago. It was a Section 1 post that first made me aware of this issue.
Yeah, it gets tiresome and perhaps comical to those who have read dozens of Section 1 posts that are variations on the same point. But not everybody does know what went on, and those involved at the Freep have never done a retraction or even a mea culpa, so I don't have a problem with the dude standing out alone in the rain shaking his fist at the Freep. He only seems crazy because you've heard the story before. To those who haven't, he's worth listening to.
I'm beginning to think Section 1 is actually pro-Free Press, and that this is actually his way of getting us to visit their website. I wouldn't have ever known of any of these articles if he weren't constantly posting about them.
Here toward the end of the comments. Many people, not just in this blogosphere, but in real life, choose to "forget the past, and move on". Silly mistake. Silly mistate with an ex-girlfriend, an enemy country, a previous belief, AN EX-FOOTBALL COACH, etc, etc. These are all silly mistakes because of the "forget" aspect of it all. Move on, but DO NOT forget; it happens much too common in this world anymore. This is big reason why wars still happen (I think we can agree wars are not good, except for arms dealers), why we continue to date stupid b*t*hes with same results 2 months later, or why we argue insanely about religion/politics.
Michael Jordan never forgot about being cut his sophomore year in highschool (even though that story is a bit fabricated). I doubt Donald Trump/Warren Buffet/-InsertOldRichGuy- forget all the people who denied them early on in their careers, only to become the wealthy. Same with the Silicon Valley guys; they probably used the people who told them they were crazy as motivation to become who they are/were. Grudges aren't always a bad thing to hold onto. So never forget about your enemies. Though it may seem extreme, the DFP was an enemy to the Michigan Football program.
I don't know if I agree completely with much of what the OP writes but I sure as hell don't hassle him/her(?) for expressing their thoughts and keeping it fresh for all to remember. You may have moved on, which is what you should have done, but don't forget the sh*t they put this program through. It's also not hard to ignore someone. If you don't like what someone has to say, don't read it and sure as hell don't reply to it. I'd think ignoring someone to make them go away would be something that we'd have learned by now. You might think it, but whatever's being posted that you don't like isn't making these message boards any more cluttery than half the sh*t that's posted here already.
Dear Section 1:
Are you really saying that you know how to handle the press better than Woodson? Do you have any idea how many hours of media training these guys go through?
Are you really saying that Woodson, a true Michigan Man of character and integrity....who was accepted to and attended Michigan...who's dealt with the media for 20 years, was actually "duped" by a member of the press? Do you know how much media savvy Woodson...?
How is it you're able to suggest that Woodson censor his comments ("You and your fellow football alumni should not give him anything') and you can't censor yours? Thank god people actually listen to him.
Is it really true that you think the Freep is responsible for RR failure and responsible for bringing down our program and not the mistakes by the guy who personally headed the program. That's like the girlfiend who got caught cheeting and decided her mistake was getting caught.
Do you have any idea how the process works at the Freep, at the NCAA, and at the AD department to at least try to maintain an institutional level of integrity for vetting stories and infractions as would be required by their many attorneys? Yet RR is completely infallible?
How is it possible that you can personally attack or criticize the media, the previous AD, the University President, Coach Carr, and the entire previous AD deparment but the moment someone on this blog says something critical toward you, you cry bloody murder. That reminds me of.... Well.
Do you know the difference between the "Golden Rule" that Brandon and Hoke follow vs. the "Tell It Like It Is" rule that Woodson follows. Brandon and Hoke are old school and part of an institution. Woodson has what's known as FU money. He also has a heck of a lot of character. Thank god for guys that have both FU money and character.
How dare you drag Wooson's name into your meaningless delusional diatribe. Just having his name associated with this BS makes my stomach turn and the stomach of many good and fine Michigan men and women. Bringing a Michigan Man like Woodson into this conversation brings down Woodson. Bringing down Woodson brings down the football team. I just won't stand by while you bring down the football team, the University and for that matter the United States of America (thanks Otter).
Woodson's main and perhaps only point was that the Coaching is a lot better. Have you ever criticized RR and his coaching? Do you think he was as good a coach as Hoke, Carr, Mo, Bo, or any one else that had a better record than the Worst Three Years of Any Coach Ever In The History of Michigan.
As far as coaching, there are a lot of little things that make a great coach. What do you think Gibbons what thinking about the year before Hoke told him to relax by thinking about "brunette girls"? Do you think it was "If there is any student enrolled at the University of Michigan...that's a good guy...that can kick the ball in the endzone." Or was it RR pacing up and down the sidelines?
End of Part One
So how many hours of media training has Woodson had? What was the curriculum in these training sessions?
Since there has not been a response from the OP I assume his answer is "no."
I've been through media training and you learn quite a bit including how to recognize and avoid leading questions (if you want to avoid them) and traps. Media training is anywhere from a few hours (depending on the institution and the profile of the individual) to many days and often includes at least a couple of video taped sessions. Most if not all institutions will put any one through it that is going to speak to the media. All Michigan athletes get some media training but I don't know what it covers. All Pro teams put their athletes through media training and the athletes agent or agency probably does as well. It's just smart business. Le't assume Charles got all three plus paid for some himself given his high profile. The hundreds of hours of real media experience that Woodson has is of course much better training than a course.
Your post was so rambling and point-missing, I didn't want to take the time to deconstruct it.
Instead, I'll say this; simple and straight-up. I am not interested in Charles Woodson's media skills. I am not interested in criticizing them, or improving them. Charles is a football player; he isn't the Athletic Director or the Head Football Coach.
What I am interested in, is isolating Mark Snyder from our football program. I want all of the former players, who might not be aware of what Snyder and Rosenberg did, to be aware. I want them all to know all about Snyder, before Snyder approaches them at a fundraiser or a golf outing for an interview. I want them all to know that the apparently semi-formal position of Brandon and Hoke is that they aren't talking to Snyder. And consequently, former players ought to be asking themselves why they should talk to Snyder.
And when someone like Woodson talks to Snyder, thinking that he (Woodson) is just doing the routine media legwork to promote the Mott fundraiser, I want Woodson and everyone around him to know how Snyder turned the lede from "Mott" to "Rodriguez." It surely wasn't what Charles intended. And living in Atlanta and Wisconsin, and not paying much attention to Detroit media, Charles just might not know what Snyder has wrought. So I want to make sure that the subject of "Mark Snyder's history with Michigan football since 2009," gets prominent attention.
My post was rambling? So the flattery by imitation joke was over your head i see. How many words, posts, and comments have you used to say: you don't like Snyder and the Freep and RR got the shaft?
Woodson's comments about RR and his embarassment during those years were exactly as he intended... just like every other player that has pretty much said the same thing over the last week.
You just don't want to keep hearing it.
Can't say I'm a fan of Mark Snyder, but this article is hardly special...it's just the same thing all the old stars say when asked about Brady Hoke and our 2011 turnaround. And I don't see anything in Woodson's opinions that are wrong. It must have been excruciating for someone who'd been on the 1996 and 1997 defenses to watch us leak points in 2009 and 2010. Is this news?
As for "talking to FREEP," well actually any PR person worth their salt will tell you that the best strategy with s**t-stirrer journalists is not to cut them off, but to feed them a strictly controlled diet of platitudes and banalities, and keep feeding them so they don't get hungry enough to seek out prey. Isn't that exactly what everyone from Dave Brandon to Brady Hoke to Charles Woodson are doing? Not only is this article inoffensive, it's part of the solution to the FREEP problem. Besides, what does Michigan care if someone writes something not 100% gushing about Rich Rodriguez? He coaches another team now. What matters is how they write about the coaches we do have. And Snyder's piece is pretty positive on them.
You didn't read very well.
I pointed out that it is totally understandable that Charles Woodson would get called on to do some interviews. Quid pro quo. Woodson wants to promote the Mott fundraiser; the reporters want one-on-one interviews that they can call "exclusives."
Mark Snyder basically gets almost no "exclusive" interviews at Michigan anymore. And that brings up the next thing that you got wrong. Brandon and Hoke don't feed Snyder platitudes; they have cut Snyder off. Of course, Snyder gets to go to the regular pressers. Part of the Michigan beat-writers' press pool. But Snyder -- unlike Angelique and unlike Larry Lage and unlike others -- no longer gets any exclusives in the Athletic Department. Nothing, that is, that Brandon can control. Maybe that will change. But I say to you that is the way it has been for many months.
Woodson, again, had every good reason to talk to reporters to help promote Mott. What I suggested was this; if somebody says to you, "Mark Snyder wants to do an interview with you to run in the Thursday paper, you say, 'Is there anybody else?' Because we don't like what Snyder did to the program." If the paper, or your agent, says, "No, Charles, you have to do it with Snyder; he's the beat reporter and it is too confrontational with the paper to go around him," then Woodson might just go ahead and do it. Knowing, expecting, what it is that Snyde is liable to ask about. First, Rodriguez; second, Mott; third, anything else. And basically do what Brady Hoke does, or what Brandon does, if he they are asked about Rodriguez.
Now maybe, because Woodson has a job in Green Bay and becaue he lives in Atlanta, he just doesn't know who and what Snyder is. Somebody should have told him.
And maybe, Charles is okay with what Snyder did, to get rid of Rodriguez by any means necessary. If that is the case, then that really is a problem. It's up to Charles to explain himself.
...if I asked Charles a tough follow-up question, and instead of answering the question, he sent one of his cousins over to punch me out and teach me a lesson, and then had fun Tweeting about it, he wouldn't be Charles Woodson anymore. He'd be Braylon Edwards.
You were punched by Braylon Edwards' cousin?
You wrote an angry letter to the editor
It was one of the most despicable things I've seen in "journalism." (I'm sure there are plenty of other examples, but this one really matters to me.)
I've got no problem with Section 1 carrying the torch. In fact, I'm glad someone still is. Eff the Freep.