Brian over at MGoBlog wrote a post that bugged me a bit...
I am hoping Brian responds directly to this much like he did to Maze and Brew. This will surely cost Magnus his MGoBlog preferred parking spot.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:53 AM ^
Dark Blue I don't have a Dad Magnus and I use your's.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:56 AM ^
for sex?
March 25th, 2011 at 10:57 AM ^
Hey now!
That was just one time.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:50 AM ^
I thought that post was well-written and pretty fair.
Bonus: Commenter 912Jeff might just be the old guy with the mustache that was featured yesterday.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:51 AM ^
You do know that people can disagree with Brian's opinion, right? This is not a big deal at all.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:54 AM ^
Yes I do I simply would like Brian to respond directly as he did with Maze and Brew.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:58 AM ^
For what purpose?
Brian wrote a post, Magnus responded. There doesn't have to be a slapfight every time bloggers disagree.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:02 AM ^
The response to Maze and Brew was hardly a "slap fight" it was actually a very well thought interaction by both sides that made for good reading. I am hoping Brian responds directly becuase it would be interesting.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:24 PM ^
very true, I made my GF read that post because of how witty and interesting it was. I would like to see another one
Why don't YOU respond to it, either here or on there, rather than what seems like "calling your big brother to fight your fight for you"? If you don't agree (which is kinda the impression you're giving), just say and argue why, rather than "tattling".
<br>
<br>This sounded unnecessarily hostile, and I don't think that's really your motivations, but that's the only metaphor that seemed to match the impression it gives off.
To me it sounds like he hasn't formulated an opinion of his own and is waiting for Brian to know what he should think.
I actually agree with Magnus however as "passionate" as Brian seems to the contrary and as much as I appreciate and respect Brian's viewpoint I am curious to read his direct response.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:51 AM ^
I completely agree with Magnus. I loved the spread under Rich Rodriguez, and I think it's a great offense, but I really do believe that Denard will actually be MORE effective in an offense that doesn't use him as much. I don't think that the entire reason the offense did great at the start of the year and stalled at the end was due to the defenses getting better; I think Denard got a LOT slower. I think a healthy Denard outruns any defender in the game, and I think he lost that a lot last year. Maybe by taking the load off his shoulders a little bit, you allow him to stretch his effectiveness over the season. I also think that it's not very intelligent to insinuate that the UM O-line is not built for the power game...didn't the entire line average like a 15 pound weight gain from 2009-2010? They were already getting bigger, and another year with them being encouraged to eat everything in sight will only make things better.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:02 AM ^
I look forward to having a healthy Denard in every game this year, that means a threat on every snap to make something happen. I think he still gets 900yds or rushing it will just come in different ways.
I think Brian is doing a great job of expressing his opinion, Magnus is also. It is not like they are yelling and shouting obscene things at each other, just taking a different opinion on a given subject. This is generally considered a good thing, having some healthy debate is often fun and can help us look at things a bit differently.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:53 AM ^
Howeva, if anyone has a right to criticize the coaching staff at UM, it would be Brian, since he was the last diehard Rich Rod defender, and isn't engaging in ad hoc attacks, but rather writes from a position of cognitive disagreement.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:53 AM ^
OMG-someone on the interwebs doesn't agree with what Brian wrote? Because Brian is the writer/creator of this bigger mgoblog should we agree with everything he writes over a smaller site?
---Brainwashed
March 25th, 2011 at 11:00 AM ^
I sometimes think Brian expects coaches to be as witty and verbally dexterous as Jon Stewart. That's just not going to happen.
Also, a bitter lesson of the Rodriguez years is that it's important to be a good politician with the media. If making self-depricating jokes and saying the word "tough" a thousand times does the job, then so be it.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:00 AM ^
I don't think that Jon Stewart is that verbally dexterous, I think he just makes a lot of funny faces that people think are funny when his jokes fail.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^
Sir, if I could I would slap you with a glove and demand the satisfaction of a duel.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:05 PM ^
He's ok, but the Colbert Report gives me all the political humor I need. The halberd is my weapon of choice, let's get it on.
That said, I shall meet you with my flintlock pistol in hand at 1:30 under the clock next to the old church. I likely won't be able to hit you with the gun but I will scare you with a really loud noise.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:43 PM ^
Jay Leno = Jim Nantz
Hates black people?
March 25th, 2011 at 11:03 AM ^
I am sorry that Brian just can't seem to get over that fact that he said Hoke had zero chance of being the Michigan coach.
MGoBlog still remains a fantastic site but Brian's editorials post-OSU when he started to come to grip with the fact that RR was dead coach coaching, just come across as petulant.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:12 AM ^
Thanks.
But I don't think I'm shocking anyone with that stance.
<br>
<br>Though when I Googled your site (the links through the App sometimes fail pretty badly), I got this text-
<br>
<br>"Mar 24, 2011 … If you have any other pictures of girls wearing Michigan gear, feel free to e- mail me at [email protected]. …"
<br>
<br>Somehow I'm guessing that's not the first thing you want referenced on your blog link...
<br>
<br>Or maybe you do. In which case- Bravo, sir.
<br>
March 25th, 2011 at 11:15 AM ^
"I am sorry that Brian just can't seem to get over that fact that he said Hoke had zero chance of being the Michigan coach."
I don't think anyone here believes that Brian is that petty. And that's really not what is coming across in his posts, it's more frustration at the MSM's reception of Hoke and the attitudes of those surrounding the program towards him.
Now the merits of those points can be debated (as many have said already, they're a little tired), but I think you're way off-base in your assessment.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^
Brian and the last of pro-RR's are upset that the media has been pro-Michigan and have given Hoke a honeymoon period. Yes, that strikes me as whining. It also strikes me as strange since one of the arguements for support of RR was that he lost the support of the MSM, hence wasn't given a fair chance. Enjoy the honeymoon period and understand it only lasts until the first loss. Or maybe first lawsuit.
March 26th, 2011 at 11:15 AM ^
Fair enough. But that's really an entirely different argument from the one I responded to.
I understand the frustration with the media but agree that having them be overly smitten with the coach is far better for the program then being overly critical. Isn't necessarily fair but whining about it isn't productive in any way, which is where I take issue with Brian's posts.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:23 PM ^
that Brian is that, un-attractive for a guy. Oh wait, you said petty. Never mind.....
March 25th, 2011 at 11:10 AM ^
with everyone. We are winning a National Champion next year with our toughness and teamwork.
And our family values.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:10 AM ^
My interpretation of Brain's post was that Hoke is simply framing his language in a way that will appease the fan base. He's basically enacting hegemonic masculinity, while emasculating RichRod's offense. By doing this, he is taking control of the dialogue and therefore garnering support.
This doesn't really change what he'll do on the field. As both Mangus and Brian pointed out, Denard wasn't running out of the Zone Read anyway.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:12 AM ^
"Hegemonic masculinity". This is why mgoblog houses the most intelligent fan-base on the planet.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:24 PM ^
The fact that someone thinks the phrase 'hegemonic masculinity' in this context is brilliant actually makes me worry for the ol' MGoBoard's intellectual level.
So, agree to disagree, I guess.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:33 AM ^
At first I thought this was a snarky parody of high-falutin, academic jargon. Maybe it is, but it might be right too.
Not meant to be snarky.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:34 AM ^
So what you're saying is Brady Hoke assigns gender roles to football schemes? I can see why he likes the I formation so much...
/s
The dong forest.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:36 AM ^
A phrase last heard in women's studies & lit crit circles.
Question for trickydick81: how is the coach "enacting" said masculinity? Is that the same as "acting manly" or such?
I fall in line with Judith Butler's theory of identity performance which posits that every behavior we have is somehow influenced by a social script and therefore we are acting out our roles within those scripts. Whether or not someone is conscious of said performance is inconsequential since they have the ability to act a different way.
Hoke is enacting hegemonic masculinity because his rhetoric is wrapped up in the norms of a patriarchal society - one of control and authority. It’s not like Hoke is doing this on purpose, he’s just been enculturated in football, which is the ultimate expression of said masculinity. His public appearances (and probably private too) are wrapped up in the idea that he has to conquer, that he is the leader, that he needs complete control for things to go right.
Of course, no one has a self without fissures, so I don’t really think that Hoke is that one dimensional, but that is what he is displaying to us and probably his players. In the paradigm of football, it's easy to follow hegemonic masculinity to a tee. There are five basic tenants of said identity: (1) psychical force and control, (2) occupational achievement, (3) familial patriarchy, (4) frontiersmanship, and (5) heterosexuality. So, in the case of Hoke, his rhetoric so far has focused on psychical force and control (ie manball, where the fullback literally becomes the phallus and is used to control and conquer the rushing lanes... I mean, we (academics) can make anything into a text to analyze... When presenting this in contrast to zone blocking, then zone blocking becomes about defensiveness, instead of force. You protect your zone, you don't take another's position on the field, and therefore you are feminine (I realize that you could switch the paradigm to make zone blocking masculine, ie controlling one's zone, but Hoke and co. are using this as a talking point)). This manball and phallic battering ram type of football also folds into frontiersmanship.
In Hoke's (or any coach for that matter) hiring press conference we also heard the athletic department praise his occupational achievement and heterosexuality (talking about his wife and kid) and his familial patriarchy, as head of said family. Hoke has continued to intone the themes of familial patriarchy when referencing the players (of course RichRod did this too).
Finally, I think one of the reasons RichRod caught the ire of the local media was because his communication style could be described as feminine (this is not an insult, it’s just a moniker, which was unfortunately coined in the 70s without regard to its automatic lesser positioning it would earn in a patriarchic society just because of its naming) This is his style because many times his logic was inductive and his delivery involved anecdotal evidence instead of a more authoritarian style which is deductive and involves a clearly laid dictum. This can be very effective, especially when things are going well (Bill Clinton is the best example of this) but when things go wrong then you allow for those who are more used to a traditional (masculine) style of discourse to take control of the dialogue.
/academic crap
almost skipped it cuz I am lazy but well worth the read!
thanks for the effort
Or collaborate, as you desire.
Didn't get me laid with anyone in my women's studies classes either. Heh. But at least you found a use for it. I tip my hat.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:44 PM ^
By 'fall in line' do you mean 'paraphrase in order to impress with my intellectual chops'?
You can have the last laugh if you tell me you have a job, though. I'll be convinced that you were the last person who got in as the identity theory gate was crashing down.
EDIT: Ok, I'll say this knowing that likely no one else on the board cares about this, with the possible exception of trickydick up there. But as a graduate student, I run into people all the time who try to dazzle or overwhelm others by spitting back almost the same exact shit they just read in a book. Often, said shit is laced with impressive-sounding jargon (and usually, it's ultimately traceable back to either Butler or Foucault.) It drives me apeshit.
All I can say is that at some point you're actually going to have to come up with your own ideas. I'm pretty sure the quota for dissertations that take Butler's theory lock, stock, and barrel and apply it to a specific context has been filled some time ago.
/Gets back to life of professional studenting and/or self-pity.
Wow! Didn’t mean to stir up your negative feelings toward your pretentious colleagues. I, in no way was trying to dazzle or claim those thoughts as my own, hence the Judith Butler subject line. I also didn’t want to cite like it was a paper, this is a message board after all.
As to the job comment, I’m a full-time doctoral student, like you. I will though (thanks to you) try to come up with original, dissertation-worthy, thoughts for commenting on this blog! Thanks for that! /s
Give me a break; to imply that I don’t have my own, original thoughts in my scholarship because of one relevant comment on a blog (and a subsequent reply to a question) is crazy. I think, perhaps, you shouldn’t co-mingle me with the people you hate at your school when you know nothing about what I’m studying and researching.
/rant
For a second I felt a little bad. Then I realized that you made sure to say 'doctoral student' instead of just plain ol' graduate student. And I remembered that, after all, your original post was indeed pretentious and over-the-top - and on a football message board, as you say.
I don't think you can honestly say that you weren't just trying to show off with that post.
Apparently you think less of people than I do. We've had plenty of intelligent, non-football references on this board (including Foucault, who you seem to hate), so, yes I can say I expected this to be a fruitful post that others would both understand and want to engage with.
<br>
<br>I do find it odd that you think I'm so pompous but in your reply post to me you were willing to wager I didn't have a job, and if I did it was because I was somehow grandfathered into it...
<br>
<br>I'm done with this, and in the future, if I feel like posting something from my schooling, I will. If you don't want to read it, don't. Seems simple enough.
March 28th, 2011 at 10:51 AM ^
Save three minutes of your life and ignore this if you are not TrickyDick ...
This is a good tactic: putting yourself forward as the man of the people who merely tried to spark discussion. I think it's utterly disengenuous, though, since I think you were mostly trying to bludgeon people with a mass of stuff that ostensibly sounded super smart. You didn't leave much room for discussion at all with that post - instead, you asserted that you had a handle on what Hoke was really doing, while others did not. This is not democractic. This is didactic.
And you may have misread my comment about having a job, which I admit was worded with the expectation of a rather high level of same-pagedness regarding the academic job market. I thought that, as humanities students, the underlying understanding was that effectively none of us have the reasonable expectation of getting a job - we have, in the words of the Simpsons, made terrible life choices. What I was saying is, "hey, maybe you have a job, in which case feel free to laugh and laugh and laugh at me, who's likely to hit the job market, realize there are three open positions in the country, and start looking for jobs that require the fewest pieces of flair." I think grandfathered is a somewhat inappropriate term to characterize my following sentence (although a rather ironically gendered one) - all I was trying to say is that I think the high tide of identity politics outside the academy and post-modern identity theory within has already been receding for a few years. I think there's a turn toward taking the considerable insights of Butler and others and putting them back into the embodied context of material reality and institutions.
Anyway, I realize I over-reacted in the first place, and I'll admit it was unfair to lump you in with obnoxious AmCiv students on the basis of one post. I still question whether regurgitating Butler like that is useful at all - whether in a seminar or on MGoBlog - and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that you may have been showing off, your assertion of high-minded pedagogic purposes notwithstanding.
Out of curiosity - and I'll more than understand if you don't feel like answering this - what exactly are you studying, and who with?
March 25th, 2011 at 11:59 AM ^