I don't think any scenario makes Rodriguez look like a dick here. That 08 defense was a flaming bag despite having some experienced vets like Trent. It's pretty clear in Trent's comments on the program that he'd rather see Rodriguez fail than Michigan win so that tells you how toxic their one season together must have been. I wouldn't blame Rich Rodriguez for giving that scouting report to somebody that deserved it if that was the case. How damaging could it have been for Trent's draft status anyway? It's not like the scout couldn't have picked up his phone and called any number of Michigan coaches from the old staff knowing how far he had regressed in 08.
Carr talks re Trent
Ah ha. When you can't formulate a cogent response, you start hurling petty insults. Good to know.
Magnus acting like a dickbag.
Right. Half the board melting down about how Carr is a traitor, and you say Magnus is the one acting like a dickbag. I've had my share of bitchfests with the guy, but sometimes these fickle monkeys need a backhand across the face to bring them back to reality.
Let's set the record straight here. Most of the board never melted down at all. Those who did mostly vented at Trent. There were a few (including Brian) who did attack Carr, and they've come clean. Magnus needs to let it go. He's becoming a reflexive devil's advocate and it's frankly annoying.
I'm okay with being a "reflexive devil's advocate" when many of you are flying off the handle about he-said-he-said BS like has happened the past couple days (and several times in the past). As far as I'm concerned, we need more devil's advocates around here - people who don't always look at the world through maize-and-blue colored glasses.
There wasn't a traditional meltdown because most people were just content with saying "bravo" to Brian's own reasoning meltdown. There were a lot of negs thrown around to comments that now look prescient. It's safe to say it wasn't the board's finest moment.
Look at the point total of people who vocally disagreed with Brian's argument on that thread. It will vindicate my summary.
What's "annoying", much more so than Magnus is assholes who are eager to throw a legend of the program under the bus for the expediency of a man who is 8-16.
I support RR. I think he is the right guy for the job. But assholes who talk about Lloyd Carr and "loyalty" need to examine their own dedication to the fucking term.
If you want to pretend that what happened didn't, go ahead. But yesterday was the closest I've ever come to being disgusted with Michigan football, and it was because of this site, and the rising idiocy of the people who post here.
This is the kind of hyperbole that leads to any supposed Lloyd Carr bashing. Are Phil Fulmer and Larry Coker legends of their respective programs? Both have essentially the same coaching resume as Carr, but Coker owned his chief rivals (8-2 against FSU and UF, as opposed to Carr's .500 record against OSU and ND, despite getting to face coaches like Cooper, Willingham, Davie, and Weis) and Fulmer was a great player at UT with the team going 30-5 during his playing career. Yet nobody here would give them that kind of praise because they coached at different schools.
Lloyd Carr was a solid coach and is a fantastic human being. He has been a great ambassador and representative of the University of Michigan. Still, guys like Yost and Bo are legends. Lloyd Carr is not.
Phillip Fulmer - yes, I'd say he's a Tennessee coaching legend. He coached there for 17 years, won their first NC since 1967, and won more games than anyone but Neyland.
Larry Coker - no, not a legend. He only coached for six years and Miami's NC drought was only 10 years at that point.
It's opinion, so you're free to disagree.
But Carr was 122-40 (75.3%), with 5 Big ten Championships, and the only Michigan NC in the modern era (which I continue a huge, huge deal). He was 6-7 in bowls, and .500 against OSU.
Bo's winning percentage was equivalent (76%), won more Big 10 championships in 60% of his seasons (tought to compare, as the Big 10 under Lloyd was a different place than it was under Bo), was 5-13 in bowls. I can't find it off-hand, but IIRC, he was about .500 against OSU as well.
Aside from longevity (Carr was hired as an older man), the resumes, IMO, are pretty comparable.
I also find it odd that you want to denigrate Carr by calling John Cooper, whose team's lost a total of 12 or 13 games during the years carr beat him 7 times, a lightweight, but conveniently omit that Coker's "owning" of FSU and Florida occurred against an obviously slipping Bowden (putting up 7-6 teams annually) and Ron fucking Zook. And he did so, for 2 years, with Butch Davis' players. He inherited a team that immediately produced like 15 first day draft picks the next year. At least Cooper's OSU teams were good.
The Carr/Coker comparison is closer than anyone would like to suggest. If you just look at their first six years on the job (which is all Coker got at Miami and is when Carr had his greates success), Coker had a better overall record, both won a national title and two major bowl games (though Coker also made another national title game). While Coker certainly inherited a strong program, Carr inherited two NFL starting quarterbacks, one of whom is a surefire future hall of famer (while Coker got Ken Dorsey) and one of, if not the greatest defensive player in college football history and another likely NFL hall of famer in Charles Woodson.
As for the Carr/Bo comparison, Bo's teams finished in the top ten nationally (not just in the Big Ten) in 16 of his 21 seasons on the job. Carr did it 5 times in 13 years. His bowl record was poor because he was playing the very best teams in the country every year (notice I did not criticize Carr for losing to very good Texas and USC teams in the Rose Bowl). Carr was just as likely to lose 4 or more games as he was to finish in the top ten (he did both 5 times). Carr was 6-7 against OSU (not .500) and 1-6 when they brought in a coach with a pulse. Bo went toe to toe with Woody when he had the best program in the country and ended with an 11-9-1 record against the Buckeyes. Bo's winning percentage overall is adversely impacted by his eight ties (which count as losses for the purposes of winning percentage). His record is much better when this is accounted for. In his first ten years on the job, Bo finished in the top ten every single year. In his last ten years on the job, they still went to 7 major bowl games (winning three) and finished in the top ten six times. Other than the fact that Carr got the bounces to all go his way for one season, Bo dominates this comparison. Michigan was always an elite team under Schembechler whereas under Carr there were just as likely to be mediocre.
But, IMO, you can't be a legend in six years.
Also, Schembechler coached in a different time period. With scholarship and recruiting limitations, you're not seeing the same perennial juggernauts as you used to. Now the great teams have about 6-8 years in the spotlight before they wilt and make way for another "powerhouse."
And I'm not suggesting I think Coker is a legend, merely that his entire run at Miami is comparable to Carr's best year's at Michigan, so I don't consider the latter a legend (not that this is necessarily a knock, there are a lot of non-legendary coaches out there who are very good).
I also think the parity thing is overblown a little bit. Coaches like Stoops, Carroll, Brown, Tressel, etc. (guys like Saban and Meyer look poised to do the same) have shown at big time programs the ability to be an elite team (top ten while making and occasionally winning big bowl games in my view) the majority of the time, which is something Carr didn't do, especially in the last eight years of his tenure.
Trying to define a 'legend' from quantitative data will only get you so far. Legends are born both in the statistics and in qualitative data. What really matters is perceptions - how these coaches exist in the minds of the fans. I think the Fulmer-Carr comparison is much more valid than the Coker-Carr comparison. Like Magnus said, tenure matters, and I would argue that other actions also matter, such as all Carr has done off the field to forever solidify his status as a 'Michigan Man'. Perceptions matter, just as wins and championships matter. I know that Fulmer is legendary at UT (as it is called there). Carr I would say is slowly being given legendary status here, but perhaps more time has to pass (hell, he is still being partially blamed for 2008).
Scholarship and Recruitment limits started in 1973 with 105 scholarships and 25 per year. In 1978 the scholarship limit dropped to 95. Then 92 in 1992, 88 in 1993, and the current 85 in 1994.
Also, Bo went something like 50-4-1 from 1970-1974; Lloyd never had a stretch like that.
Bo was very likely gypped out of a MNC in 1973...
Because it sounds too much like knocking Bo, which is a sin. But if you want to say the teams Michigan played in Bowl Games were elite too (damn USC), like was done above, I can roll with that. But let's be honest that up to the 90's the Big Ten BLEW. It was a 2 team League. They were great, and did what they should have, and ruled the roost there....but the rest stunk. It didn't even change that much in the 80's either. Just the 2nd of the Big Two bounced around between OSU, Iowa, and even latter a bit...MSU. Then later, in the era were Wisconsin (a team that used to be worse than Northwestern, regularly), Purdue, et al., got decent to real good, it because a lot harder to dominate the Conference. Throw in Penn State, which happened before Lloyd took over, and you're looking at a MUCH tougher conference (along with the more tight scholarship restrictions...that not only doesn't allow you to keep all the talent, but they have to go somewhere...you're rivals). Along with that, tv was different. Michigan and OSU may have been on tv regularly, but now EVERYONE is regularly.
I mean, Bo's Bo. And Lloyd had a great run too. But to compare who they played during their times is hard, because it was two truly different eras. (Especially the early part of the career of Bo).
With Magnus is the circular arguments, it gets old sometimes.
You never offer up any content, but by golly, you sure are good at ad hominem attacks. You're like MGoObes, except his comments are useful.
Magnus. I'll go sulk away now...
Actually, I won't. Other than my last comment to you, since when do I offer up ad hominem attacks? I'd like to think I'm fairly level-headed, I just get tired of your whole devils advocate schtick sometimes. And I may not offer up "content" in the form of breaking down a players strengths/weaknesses, because I don't know what I'm talking about. Why don't you tell me what I should do to be of more value to the community? Stop posting? You've never heard me attack Carr, Trent, or anyone associated with the program like all the panicked posters the last few days, and you won't. Please Magnus, tell me how to be a better poster...
You've done it a handful of times. I can't point out the last time, because I don't keep track. But you've made several comments calling people (including me) dickbags, douchebags, assholes, stuff like that.
You can call me what you want, but I don't make it a habit to go around calling people names on the board. That's just childish. In fact, it probably annoys people more that I argue with fact and opinion rather than petty insults. Names are pretty easy to let roll of your back. When the integrity of one's thought process is put into question, then that's probably more difficult to deal with.
How can you be a better poster? I don't know. That's for you to figure out. Not everybody on here has to be knowledgeable about football to "add content." You can post all you want. You get tired of my "circular arguments," but at least they're usually discussions and don't revolve around one-liners that add nothing to the conversation. AFAIK, in this entire thread, your only comments revolve around me being a dickbag and that you find my "circular arguments" annoying. And that's fine. Being called a "dickbag" by an online poster named TIMMMAAY isn't going to make me curl up into a ball, cry my eyes out, and stop posting. But I don't see why you would consider that a productive use of your time.
I didn't call you a dickbag, I said you were "being" a dickbag. There is a subtle difference. And I don't make a habit of calling people names, I just don't, it is childish. Find an example, and I'll retract.
There are many times that I agree with you, but I don't think I'm the only one here who gets tired of you arguing in circles, even when you're wrong.
As far as "a productive use of your time" goes; uh, yeah. I don't spend my entire days on this board commenting on every damn thread because I have a busy schedule, and a life. That's also part of the reason most of my comments are short, and to the point. Also, the reason my only comments on this thread "revolved around" you being a "dickbag" was because I don't have all of the facts about the situation, and I don't rush to put in my two cents on this type of thing without knowing what actually happened. Anyway...
One more thing. When I do call someone a douchebag etc... it's generally deserved.
Also also, I generally appreciate your perspective, and I often agree with you (probably more than not), but you do make some unreasonable arguments. I'm not saying that this particular point was unreasonable, it's the way you go about it...
I didn't call you a dickbag, I said you were "being" a dickbag.
And I don't make a habit of calling people names, I just don't, it is childish.
One more thing. When I do call someone a douchebag etc... it's generally deserved.
You're accusing someone of making circular arguments.
You're taking one example here, and they're not even similar situations. I'd really like to spend a while explaining my point further, but I have to get some work done right now. I'll further my response later...
Well, whether you're saying I "am" a dickbag or that I'm "being" a dickbag, there's not much of a difference. So forgive me for not making the distinction.
You might say I "argue in circles" but when I do that, I'm generally trying to clarify my point. There are some people here who deliberately choose not to accept facts for truth, and that boggles my mind.
If you don't have all the facts about the situation and the only thing you have to offer is "________ is being a dickbag", then wouldn't it cross your mind just to move on to another thread?
Anyway, you can disagree with me all you want. You can neg me all you want. You can even keep making silly, one-liner comments. I can't stop you. I just don't see the point of some of them.
I rarely neg you, and I didn't on any of the above posts. Gotta go...
Oops, there's that one line post again.
Look, I had an intern who did a half-assed job for me. Had he have been foolish enough to use me as a recommendation, I'd have said he did a half-assed job. He was, however, self-aware and did not ask me to be a recommendation. He is apparently doing a good job as a professional at another university.
Would it have been dickbaggy for me to say, "I do not think his heart was in our internship"? I think not. You have to know that any time you are performing for someone, someone else may ask for their opinion. It may just be opinion, and it should be taken as such, but you shouldn't count on the world to sing your praises 24-7.
Oh, and Mr. Deren looks like Mark Wahlberg with an endocrine problem:
Some open issues:
* "When we spoke, I brought it up to him, and he said he had heard some of the same things." Umm, OK. Did Morgan ask Lloyd who said what? Did Lloyd tell him anything specific about Rodriguez? Who TF knows? I think it's too early to exonerate Lloyd. To put it another way, he still may have exercised poor judgment. (How? By taking the chance that he would, for all practical purposes, end up publicly bad-mouthing one of his fellow employees. He should be above that. Why not keep it internal? He doesn't have to keep completely quiet.) Aside: I didn't realize how tasty Deren's description of the encounter was. Lloyd's worst-case scenario has certainly improved.
* "The comments attributed to me are inaccurate and absolutely ridiculous," Rodriguez said in the statement. "I said just the opposite about Morgan Trent to NFL scouts and wish him well with the Bengals." I'd like to believe that. I _really_ would. But, I don't.
so you'd rather believe Bobby Deren who paraphrased a game of telephone over Rodriguez who has done nothing and said nothing to cause you to doubt his honesty in this situation?
No, Deren looks like a buffoon of the highest order. I'm just having a hard time believing that RichRod's remarks were spun 180 degrees. I'd guess more like 120 degrees. Does that make sense? I'd guess that he made some neutral remarks and let the scout(s) read between the lines. Admittedly, all guesses on my part...
I am soooo glad that I refrained from commenting on this one until all shoes had dropped. My opinion never changed though. Lloyd Carr is a good man that loves Michigan. Rich Rod might very well have said things he felt when he shouldn't have, but no where near the hearsay reported in the book I would guess. Morgan Trent is a douche bag of the highest order and would have made a better Spartan or even Buckeye, hindsight being 20/20.
It sounds like a passive-aggressive response to a poor work ethic.
Shut up Trent.
Remember the phrase, "It is better to say nothing and let those around you think you are stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Good for Coach Carr - let the nay sayers hang their heads. Carr is a Michigan Man.
It's time to sit down and go away.
Everyone in the room is now dumber for having heard you speak. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
this was soo not worth 2 threads of 250+ comments of pure, unadulterated meltdowns.
At least it gave us something to talk about for a few days. I suppose.
and yet here you are, posting again.
Michigan Men's rowing won the men team points trophy at the ECAC championships this year. A nice accomplishment for a club team rowing against varsity teams.
Michigan showed good depth this weekend. Hopefully the V8 is able to bounce back at ACRA (natl club championship coming up). Should be tight racing, but FWIW I'd say we're favored slightly to edge out the field in the V8, the points title should be Michigan's in a landslide as it has been the last two years.
And even the Buckeyes recognized it:
So he got drafted where he deserved to - as a risk/flyer in the late rounds. Now he's whining publically about his own doing. (And Bo would have never allowed any of this to happen.)
Ah, yes. Bo was a saint. None of this would have happened two years after his watch.
Of course you know this because Bo coached in the time of blogs and internet speculation run amok. Right?
Good to see Carr address the situation. Trent is still dead to me. And the author of this book is an asshole of Freep proportions.
This is exactly how it is supposed to work.
- Totally unsourceable but plausible shit gets thrown out by unreliable hack (Deren) and understandably self-interested aggrieved party (Trent);
- Potential bad guys (Rodriguez and Carr) shoot down story, leaving unreliable hack to twist, and teaching an important lesson to understandably self-interested aggrieved party.
Bravo, Lloyd. Bravo, Rich. Fuck you, Bobby. Fuck you, Morgan.
I am very glad that Carr stood up and said something to defuse the situation. He has finally given me faith that he is still a Michigan Man, and that the team is still more important to him than any personal agenda. I am equally glad that it was Angelique who reported it. She is still the only person in the media besides Wojo that we can trust to report accurately and with no hidden agenda.
Angelique, of course, loves UM and would never hurt it, but has the ethics to tell the truth. She is sorta the Walter Cronkite of UM sports. Wojo, on the other hand, distances himself from all stories he writes, and never seems to have a stake in the outcome. As a result, his only agenda seems to be having fun. He makes fun of UM sometimes, but he makes fun of everyone, and it's never malicious like most things published by the freep.
It's sad that you would require anything from Lloyd Carr to "give you faith he is still a Michigan Man." I'm sorry.
The idea that LLOYD FUCKING CARR needs to give TATER, scion of MGoConspiracies, faith that he "is a Michigan Man" is possibly the most fucked up think you have typed here.
And that's saying something!
So how are we going to get Magnus back the 400 points you monkeys negged him for having his head screwed on straight?
Magnus is perhaps the most maligned of people who actually have reasonable opinions, but gets squashed because it often clashes with the masses. There have been literally dozens of topics where otherwise legitimate, well-thought-out posts he's made have been negged in the double digits. I really think people see Magnus and hit -1 without even thinking about it.
If anything, he should be getting back about 4000 MGoPoints.