Being Manball, what are the requirements?

Have negged & will neg. Lucky that negs aren't real yet. You must cease and desist.

He's right, this Manball crap is becoming almost unbearable.  If this keeps up, I'm going to have to go on a few months break again.

I cringe when I listen to him because half the time it sounds like he's talking to someone who has never watched a game of football in their life.

Exactly, sometimes you have to go down to the level of your audience to connect with them.

Maybe when they talk about "understanding Michigan" and the like, this is actually code for "knowing how to talk to/pacify Detroit media".

It helped that SDSU played six of the twenty worse Ds in the country last year + a 4-7 FCS school.

SDSU plays in a small conference, so they invariably play some terrible defenses.  It's not like their schedule suddenly got easier last year.  Nor did they have, on paper, much more talent than anyone else in their conference. They played pretty much the same caliber of teams as always, with pretty much the same caliber of players as usual, only this time they set some offensive records.  

Also put up 35 points against the #1 scoring D in the country.  But since he did it in a more traditional scheme, it's not as impressive?  Not trying to start anything, but what did UM do against good defenses last year?  Oh right, they put up lots of yards.

Hoke's speeches aren't intentionally misleading.  I don't think he is playing to his audience or hiding anything at all.  What he says does not contradict what he did at SDSU.  It's more that Brian and others have misunderstood what he's said - specifically, when he said that he did not believe in using zone blocking 100 percent of the time (something that everyone, RR included, would agree), Brian interpreted this to mean "0 percent of the time."  If he had actually watched SDSU play, he would not have come to that conclusion. 

first, which, as the basic offensive football play, should come first, where has he ever said MANBALL? He's talked about toughness, but damn, I hope that's not lip service, I'd like to see more toughness, on both sides of the ball. I'd like to be able to convert 3rd and 1 without going into a shotgun that has a 50-50 chance of losing yards rather than gaining one. Or have 4 shots at the goalline, and you know, get in. Or not let a team run every single play in a half. Toughness isn't necessarily a bad thing. So no, not everybody hopes it's just coachspeak. Coachspeak was hearing it before, and not seeing it. I hope he can institute it.

Now do I hope for 100% MANBALL with the current personnel? No. But then I don't hope for it with any personnel. I hope this time around we mold the talent to the players we have, while teaching them new things, meshing the systems in transition, rather than just jumping into the fire. But even when it's all Hoke's guys, I would hope (and think) we won't be all 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Lloyd, for his conservative nature, passed more than he ran in the end.  With a more passing scheme offensive, I would think we would too. 

So, I don't think we've heard as much as some have, and in some respects, it's a good thing, and in others, it's not really that different than what we were doing under Rich. The difference was when Rich would say it, no one would believe it except places like this that would point out the running numbers, and now everyone believes it, to the extent that the same people forget what we were doing before, that they were defending it, and now thinking it was a bad thing. The main difference is we're hopefully not depending on our QB to do it until he breaks anymore.

Now that's some serious MANBALL right there.

No, seriously. That face is because of testicular chafing from the rubber bat suit.

man ball