Trying to twist one in the wind.
CC: "Destroy Harbaugh," from MGoBlog's back pages
Or pissing into it for that matter.
Floundering without a raft?
Dangle in the breeze?
making room for you.
you are going to be out of Bolivia in no time with comments like this and that avatar which as they say, is worth a thousand words. Keep the faith brother!
What the avatar will be when he goes back into positive territory above the Mendoza line. Has it been picked out yet?
You are in the zone this afternoon, my friend. I hereby declare this day: "Posbang FuManBlue" Day!
that when you get here I will be the pitcher and you will be the catcher, If you know what I mean..YA DIG!
isn't all THAT bad when you consider their new retirement age:
Negged to Bolivian...
What MGoBlog pointed out was that Harbaugh's comments were wrong. They were mostly without basis, and they may have been motivated more than anything by Jim Harbaugh's desire to recruit against Michigan, although the two schools seemed to not compete for very many student-athletes by virtue of geography if nothing else.
But, no; Harbaugh did not launch an NCAA investigation against Michigan.
Now, if you think that Jim Harbaugh has been getting a lot of uncritical worshipful reporting lately, I submit that Exhibit A in that brief, would be the October slurpy-love-letter profile of John and Jim Harbaugh in america's leading sports magazine, Sports Illustrated. Authored by... wait for it...
At the time the comments were made (the Carr era), Michigan recruited California pretty heavily.
Jim seems like a "there's a method behind my madness kind of guy." Not really sure these comments and his DUI are that concerning since they happened four years ago. People change, that is a fact.
The comments weren't about recruiting. Harbaugh felt that Carr had twice slighted him: first, by passing him over in favor of Loeffler for the QB coach job back in 2002, and then after the 2006 season when word reached Harbaugh (then coaching USD) that his résumé wasn't good enough to earn him a shot at replacing Carr. Harbaugh then unexpectedly landed the Stanford job not long after that, and took the opportunity to vent.
Neither of these, nor the two combined, were reason enough to "vent" in such a public manner.
The highlight of this post was comparing 9/11 to a report about too much stretching. Might have been worth taking a step back before making that painfully stupid comment, you assclown.
he compared the difference between 9/11 and the 93 bombing with the difference between stretchgate and Harbaugh's comments.
Let me know if you want me to read anything else for you......
Cue: Generic CC thread "Facepalm" picture, "This won't end well" picture and atomic bomb video in 5,4,3,2,1....
Besides his Bo-era Michigan undergrad pedigree
That is your answer. Even if it wasn't great for the program and not the most respectful of statements, a former starting letterman probably has the credibility to criticize stuff like that (especially when he has a history of brash ill-thought statements that helped define him as a Michigan Man, e.g. guarenteeing the win against OSU). I don't want to wade into the CC debate here, I would prefer our new Michigan Man as head coach to transform us into a death star, but you a fucking idiot if you imply a successful former star and fellow alumn isn't a "Michigan Man"
a "fucking idiot" if I think the term "Michigan Man" is a bunch of meaningless twaddle that needs to die an immediate, horrific death?
over played and over used. People need to realize that is almost a selective moniker, not a right with a UofM letterman or degree. Where we saying that about LC when he was coaching? I must of missed that if we were.
Seriously, if DB went after Chris Petersen, wouldn't this board or fan base be totally bumped? To me he might be the best candidate.
Doesn't he have exactly what we are all looking for in a head coach?
I compulsively neg people who seriously use the phrase "Michigan Man."
If you neg anyone on this site, you aren't a real Michigan Man
JH statements were called "arrogant, elitist and self-serving" by Lloyd Carr
I wonder what play he is calling. Either way, this is making me lol. At work. I'm gonna get fired.
Im so confused
How can you possibly claim that MGoBlog has forggoten about this? It's brought up constantly in the coaching change threads.
Changes peoples' minds pretty quickly, especially when the comment about the admissions, compared to Stanford, were legitimate. It was added by Rich Rod trying to get guys like Dorsey through admissions. An apology and a win against OSU and no one cares anymore.
Speak for yourself. Personally, I would rather have a coach win 7-8 games a year that lives and dies with the team than someone who bad-mouths the program when it suits him and then apologizes for the comments when that suits him as well. Any effective apology should have come a few days after the statement was made, not in an attempt to be accepted as the head coach.
Very well said.
+1 to you
Thank you, kind sir.
LLoyd Carr was always considered a great father figure and teacher to his players. He had a dictionary outside of his office and expected his players to look up and learn the definition of a word before entering. He never ran up the score, and was classy to everyone but the media. He coupled that with winning 9-10 games every year. What did all of that get him? Non stop questioning of his conservative playcalling and bitching about firing him.
He wasn't exactly classy to Rich Rodriguez, either.
Do you have any actual basis for this?
exactly, the last few years has really let the cat out of the bag concerning us as fans, and we have shown are true colors. We splinter far too often, and have an entiltlement attitude. I though it was more of a HIll and Wastenaw attitude when I was on campus, but I see it runs a bit deeper than I hoped. LC was a very good coach, he wasn't perfect and certainly didn't always do things sqeaky clean; but he won and we played in quality post-season games. Some we had no chance in, some we should of played better by rights and match-up.
Now look at us, the program and our reputation in CFB?
I'm just merely pointing out that if he is indeed named our coach and starts beating our rivals, anybody who had their feelings hurt by his comments or who are still mad at him for them, will be in the extreme minority.
Steady improvement over three years is a cause to change people minds (in a negative way)? Speak for yourself please, and watch you don't twist something while jumping off the bandwagon.....or don't.
Here is my issue with the improvement argument - he is only improving over his own poor seasons. Is he improving from the year before him? The three years before him? The 10 year average? No. Apparently, the best thing you could do as a new coach is lose all of your games that first year, then you can trumpet about improvement for the next four years.
I just don't subscribe to that line of thinking. The past is the past. You cannot judge Rodriguez on what happened between 2005-2008. You simply cannot. If you make a decision on that basis, he should have been fired after his first season. If you are looking at his tenure, then you simply must take into account the improvements over the last 3 years (if you do, in fact, believe there has been improvement).
And what improvements have taken place on defense and special teams over the past three years? Do we really have a head coach, or a glorified offensive coordinator?
Please do not But stand on your soap box and argue that going from 3-7 (his own fault or not) to 7-5 and a bowl game is not improvement simply because the defense and special teams were very bad this year. To do so seems to ignore any and all positives to skew the actual results.
Trust me, it's not worth it. He's a broken record. It may not be as much improvement as we hoped for, but it is improvement. Last year the team was sitting home at this time. This year they're practicing for a bowl game.
Sorry about my posting fail above. I was rushing to finish before I went to put little profitgoblue to bed.
What I meant to say more clearly was that we can agree to disagree on whether the win-loss improvement is enough or whether the offensive improvement is enough, but don't sit there and say the defense and special teams are enough to show no improvement was made. To do so ignores at least 40% of the game on the field.
Also, with respect to Rodriguez being a "glorified OC" I will simply say that the so-called glorified GC won a sh-gloss of games as HC at WVU.
"Apparently, the best thing you could do as a new coach is lose all of your games that first year, then you can trumpet about improvement for the next four years."
Thank you! Couldn't have said it better myself. This improvement argument by RR supporters is ridiculous. If you have followed football for awhile, you really don't need statistics to tell you whats going on. Its all right there on the field. The product hasn't been good and it's not getting much better. Parts of it have even gotten worse. RR could've gone 4-8 this year, but if he was doing so while building on a lights-out sophomore and freshman class that showed true ability, toughness, and potential, I'd be in favor of keeping RR. I see none of that. (using 2 or 3 players as counter examples does not impress)
And I still don't think there has been real improvement from 2009-10, aside from the final W-L number
How much thought did you put into this? Please tell me we can turn this statement into an intelligent conversation. Grass is purple, aside from the fact that it is green.
You never mentioned the best teams in the conference in your original post, you just said there wasn't any improvement...aside from wins and losses. Which makes no sense, unless the improvement you're seeking is in team dental hygiene or something of that nature that i'm unfamiliar with. The main objective of the head football coach is to win football games, therefore we had a faily significant improvement from 2009 to 2010. Spin it however you please, but 2 more wins is 2 more wins, a bowl game is a bowl game, whether you like it or not.
....that we beat could have been beaten by a team that you and I could have formed of people we meet on the street (UMass, BG, and Indiana). Against the meat and potatos teams we only beat one team in conference and 2 outside it (UConn and ND and that's being *very* generous). We got clowned by every other actual team we faced.
When RR arrived he had 28 scholarship players on defense instead of the normal 42, and had to play with a walk-on quarterback.
Steady improvement over three years is a cause to change people minds (in a negative way)?
A lot of people take issue with the idea that going 2-6, 1-7 and 3-5 in Big Ten play constitutes "steady improvement" - especially when the team was outscored by 67 points in that 3-5 campaign. Two of the three phases of game certainly are not improved from where they were in 2008. If they were, we wouldn't need to have this discussion.
You repeat the same thing over and over. That is fine if the defense and special teams play is enough to sway your vote, but you cannot simply ignore the offense and overall W-L record and bowl game. You cannot chose to include some facts and completely disregard other facts whenever you choose. That's not how educated arguing works.
jmblue: Your Honor, the defendant should be found guilty for murder.
Judge: But counselor, the victim did not actually die!
jmblue: Nevermind that one fact!
When Moeller was fired after 3 years at Illinois, Bo said he should have 2 more years even though his record was worse in year 3 than year 1 and all three years were losing years.
If that is all it takes, I've been in the wrong place for a long time.
really. Are you sure? Maybe I misunderstood your post. I can count several without even looking at the schedule of the last 3 years:
Threet helmed Michigan over Wisconsin, Uconn 2010, Notre Dame was ranked (I think .. . ), Mississippi State Jan. 1. Maybe there are others if I took the time to look it up.
I"m as disappointed as anyone in our misery against good quality big 10 opponents, geez, let's not make our last 3 seasons worse than they actually were (they're already bad enough).
He did beat a Wisconsin team ranked in the top ten, but that team ended up 3-5 i the Big Ten. I doubt UCONN will be ranked after the bowls.
Teams that do not end the year ranked are not ranked teams, just like Charlie Weis does not deserve credit for beating a "top five" Michigan team in 2005. That is not a good way to think about Michigan's record, even if it is more pleasant.
JH record at Stanford 4-8, 5-7, 8-5 1st 3 years, RR record at Mi 3-9, 5-7. 7-5 with 2 previous BCS bowl wins What has JH done that merits attention?
Who was the first of the run of NFL QB's that UofM has been so proud of?
Answer - Harbaugh
Who is the most loved OfM coach in our lifetimes?
Answer - Bo
Who played for Bo, had a dad who coached under Bo, is seen in a video clip as a kid cheering a Ricky Leach TD, and runs an offense similar to Bo's?
Answer - Harbaugh
Who could boast to recruits about having a lot of contacts in the NFL, can boast to alumni and boosters about having promised to beat OSU and then backing it up, and can also claim to have beaten the hell out of UofM killer USC?
Answer - Harbaugh
Hell of a personal UofM background, hell of a coaching pedigree, and putting together a good coaching resume. His knocks: slammed the academic integrity of UofM football players (how many of you guys have players in your thermo class with you, btw?) and a DUI (not exactly rare). I am not excited about a coaching change, but if we have to go through one, I can't see why Harbaugh isn't way up the list.
for me at least, it's because I don't really give a crap whether our coach knows anything about Bo whatsoever.
"History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake."
so sad. There are disadvantages to hiring coaches that have no loyalty or attachment to a University. Ask LSU about Saban, Tennesee about Kiffen, Cincinatti about Kelly, etc.
under Nick Saban. Something tells me they're probably okay with the decision. Brian Kelly made Cincinnati relevant for the first time in like forever (and is Cincinnati, and will never be able to keep an awesome coach, regardless of his ties to the university).
And the issue with hiring Lane Kiffin wasn't that he didn't have ties to Tennessee. It was that Lane Kiffin is a giant douchenozzle.
Wow, UMdad gets negged for hoping for a coach that has knowledge of Michigan's traditions and respects them. These are interesting times in Michigan football.
I believe he's getting negged (as should you) for the insinuation that someone who didn't play for Michigan and/or Bo can't be loyal and is akin to Lane Kiffin.
did bo, whom he referenced, have ties to UM when he was hired?
Or better ask MSU.We would have been subject to great pain if he would have stayed. Of course they are not exactly a "destination" school in football or academics, so God knows why Dantonio stays, or maybe we shouldn't ask.
LSU won a national championship with Saban, then another one with his players. Cincinatti had its best record in school history under Kelly and now has plenty of solid players. I can see where you're going with Tennessee, but LSU is about the worst example possible.
Edit: Didn't see the post a few up. Beaten to the punch.
You forgot a mark against him: going for two against USC up 48-21 in the 4th quarter. This may make me sound stodgy, but for me that's pretty much a deal-breaker.
I'll tell you what, I used to agree with you, but if RR or Harbaugh want to go for 2 in the fourth quarter of teh MSU game next year to put us up by 60, I wouldn't mind a bit.
That gets a big thumbs up from me because it rubbed Pete Carroll's nose in it and he totally deserved that. USC had destroyed the entire conference for years with no mercy.
So I take it you would have been against Fielding Yost, Fritz Crisler, and Bo Schembechler because none of them either played or coached at Michigan before becoming head coach?
Stop with the stupid Neanderthal tribalist shit.
I agree that hostility toward a coach with no Michigan ties is unjustified and also exhibits an ignorance of the history of past Michigan coaching greats.
However, that's not to say that ties to the program are not a good thing and that, all else being equal, it's not preferable to hire someone who has a history here and therefore has loved Michigan for much of his life rather than someone with no connection to the program. I think Rich Rod has been treated horribly by the "Michigan Man" crowd. But I would still have felt even better about hiring him if he had ties to the program and grew up loving Michigan.
Does that mean you hire a worse candidate just because of his ties to the program? No. But a Michigan connection is definitely worth something.
But I think it's hypocritical and irrational.
What makes you think that a kid who goes to Michigan for four years loves Michigan more than a guy who coaches there for four years?
The coach busts his butt 24/7 for this program in a way that no player ever does. A player gets time off in the summer. Some players aren't all-in for the program.
When he was at WV, RR had his pick of every top job opportunity in the country. He turned down Alabama. He left a place where he was treated like a god to come to Michigan because he thought Michigan was special.
A guy who gives his all for Michigan, as RR has, and who has been here nearly as long as any player played for Michigan, has as much ties to the program as anyone.
Harbaugh started for Michigan for three years. Rodriguez has coached for Michigan for three years. Harbaugh is no more, and arguably far less, of a Michigan Man than Rodriguez is.
That is all.
I wish I could plus this a thousand. Perfect.
I'm not saying that, right now, Harbaugh loves Michigan more than Rich Rod. Of course not. Three years here make Rodriguez's ties to Michigan very strong. But you're talking about after a coach has been here for several years. I'm saying that a connection to Michigan can be a meaningful input in a coaching search. Really no more than that. Not denigrating Rodriguez's love for Michigan now, by any means. But I don't think it's wrong to prefer a Michigan connection to no Michigan connection when you're hiring a coach in the first place.
I believe the theory is a coach who knows the system, the culture, and the tradition is an easier transition and fit. Not really at the heart a "Michigan Man" issue. At this point, Rodriguez's team is different enough that the transition idea is irrelevant. Other factors might make a guy previously in M's system a wise choice if that eventuality should come about. That's all. I really think that's the only wisdom behind the M Man talk. It's not M Man really. It's just the same wisdom as apprenticeships, why companies do internships, why pastors or coaches groom successors. To maintain what's been accomplished. All support to RR and our future. I think that's what's behind the M Man talk.
I think RR was hired to be an outside influence. What Carr was doing at the time was not beating OSU and our bowl record was OK but not stellar. Recruiting was not going well. The world seemed to be leaving the Big Ten behind. What worked to win the conference did not translate to wins out of conference. We did not want more of the same. We wanted change, and boy did we get it ! Now we want to go back to The Same Old %$#@ ? I for one am willing to give The Grand Experiment more time as it's too early to reach a conclusion. Eight years at the U gives you independent thought !
Bravo! Totally agree with you
absolutely on the money. Thanks
No offense, chewie, but this hit a nerve:
"... his teams play in a hallway and bash people ..."
Does anyone honestly feel that (to take two obvious examples) Mike Martin and David Molk aren't "hallway bashers?"
Where did this "UMich under RichRod = pu$$ies" idea get started?
is where the softness term originated.100 some ranked defense does not help.
Understood ... thanks.
- - -
I still don't see a chasm (in the *smashmouth* category) between Michigan and its Big Ten peers. Our O-line seems generally big, strong, and effective to me. Hopkins, at least, is a power runner. Indeed, look at the yards-per-carry numbers for all the games. Look at Denard's season.
When, exactly, does an offense become smashmouth? (A question for the gallery, not just the OP ...) Why do the Old Blues give a @#$%? What is it we're really lacking here? I'd say it's an experienced QB. And, look at what he's accomplished as a true sophomore and 1st-year starter.
Too many murky boundaries on this issue ...
You become smashmouth when you use a fullback, or at least a lead blocker of some sort, and run blocking tight ends IME. We use none of the above.
I seem to recall Martell Webb clubbing some people this season.
That's the sort of technical definition I was seeking.
- - -
Another follow-up question (not necessarily for UMdad): When running, why is the smashmouth approach considered superior to what UMich has been doing lately? Aside: I personally think it's an emotional issue for many Michigan fans. They've watched older, more experienced teams running that offense and have declared it the winner.
the 6 yds per carry kind of sux. 3 yds and a cloud of dust is much preferable.
The players you mentioned certainly play smashmouth football and many more do as well. M's offense plays very physical football. However, Wisconsin would not be able to successfully run on 33 straight plays against a physical defense. When the D turns it around, M will be playing physical football as a team.
For a while, I thought I was the only one who remembered this. Fact of the matter, if DB fires RRod this year we become Notre Dame. One of the reason I am such a die hard Michigan fan is that I always think we are different than other institutions, but DB is flirting with turning us into your run of the mill anything for wins school (i.e. Ohio State, Alabama, Michigan State, etc.). How can you hire someone who has stabbed your company in the back so many times? I don't want Harbaugh or anyone who needs a ridiculously pretentious bathroom in their office. Harbaugh's bathroom situation is similar to a CEO getting new furniture in his office when the company is running a deficit (Stanford's athletics are running at a deficit).
I want the right man, I don't care if he played for Bo. I have fond memories of the late 60's and 70's Bo Football. I also remember an unwillingness to change which was fine when you always had more talent. But it morphed into Lloyd (who I liked) and the playing down to your opponent with extreme conservatism where we would boringly squeak by inferior opponents. I don't want a blast from the past,except the winning part. I want RR to get a defense to go with his offense, or someone who coaches like Lloyd let it all hang out in the Bowl Game against FL. I don't want to be MSU, I don't want to be Wisconsin.
Most of all I don't want to put winning above all else and fire someone after three years who is showing some (slow) progress, so I can be like OSU. I don't aspire to be like OSU.
playing down to your opponent with extreme conservatism
I'm not sure it's even theoretically possible for the Stanford program to play "down" to anyone else. And I like Stanford - I'm not trying to be mean. The reason people are impressed by what Harbaugh has accomplished is because he has accomplished it at Stanford.
Let's practice our analogies:
in 2007, App State was to Michigan what Stanford was to USC
Michigan "played down" to App State's level
Stanford (fill in the blank) to USC's level
Fact of the matter, if DB fires RRod this year we become Notre Dame.
Notre Dame was bowl eligible the last 3 seasons.
Not quite. If DB fires RRod this year, and Harbaugh disses us and signs with Florida instead,
then we become Notre Dame.
I for one would like playing Army,Navy, and Air Force each year, though this year may be an exception.We could usually manage three wins right away with that schedule.Only 3 more and Bowl bound we are. The Big Ten are usually their toughest opponents.
I hate this stupid argument that we will turn into Notre Dame if we fire RR. Firing an unsuccessful coach is not the same thing as tossing someone out after a 9-3 season (Nebraska). What did ND do that was so wrong for firing their coaches? Willingham deserved the axe after he gave up on recruiting and bowl games for two years in a row, and Weis didn't deserve the fifth year he got (and that's not just in hindsight).
There are also a lot of factors that differentiate us from ND, such as NOT BEING NOTRE DAME. If I believed in god(s), I'd thank them for than.
Ignore this comment. Pretend it was about bacon.
I refuse to ignore bacon; I eat it.
is the pick if I had only one food to pack for a desert island.
Another pro-Bo era post about John U. Bacon's book?
"(To pursue the analogy to its ridiculous conclusion, if the Freep's Stretchgate kerfuffle was "9/11," then the AANews series was the 1993 WTC bombing.)"
Not my analogy. It's been made on this message board before (and is implicit in the continual reference to the Freep coverage as a "Jihad"). Perhaps I should have added the word "ludicrous" before "analogy" to distance myself from such a sentiment, though I thought I'd already done that with the word "ridiculous" and my obviously unsuccessful use of ironic quotation marks. Having lost a good friend from my Michigan days on United 175, as well as many neighbors on that day, I'd never make light of the seriousness of 9/11. That was certainly not my intention, and my sincere apologies if that's what came across.
on RR vs Harbaugh are pointless.
Only DB will decide.
He doesn't care what you or I think or about things that happened years ago or freep articles or blog boards or Michigan men vs Bo men vs whatever.
He has personnally talked to RR eye-to-eye with no press and perhaps has done the same with Harbaugh. He therefore knows more about them than anyone on MoGoBlog or any media outlet will ever know - people that only get press conference snippets.
DB also has the inside information on the $$ and the ear of the university president. He also has a personal vision for the program and will recruit personalities that match that vision - this is what any leader would do.
This post and all CC posts are idol chatter.
I am having a little debbie christmas tree cake right now with my coffee.
Your right. No reason to talk about anything we have no direct control over. You should probably jump on hte thread discussing tonights BB game and mention the same thing. I would hate to have them wasting space with idol chatter. They are not coaching or playing so they should probably not talk about it. Same thing goes for the bowl game. Oh, make sure no one mentions the FREEP unless they are an editor, and stop that guy from discussing if Manny Harris shoudl play more unless he is the new coach in cleveland, too.
Let's talk about hockey instead.
it is not what you don't have control over - my point is that no one has any knowledge of what is in DBs head any more than they know what he ate for lunch.
We have lots of knowledge on players, stats, positions, plays, matchups, recruits, injuries etc. that all a pertinent to bowl games and basketball games.
This post and all CC posts are idol chatter.
You mean like this?
idol chatter >>> idle chatter.
Great, one of the message board "geniuses" that abruptly realizes that message board conversations have no impact on real world administrative decisions. If you don't like it, don't post. I'm reminded of Plato's allegory of the cave, except in this case the person who looks outside discovers something blindingly obvious and should be beaten to death for wasting everyone's time (metaphorically; I don't actually encourage violence, if that wasn't obvious).
Also, you used "idol" instead of "idle". If you're going to condemn pointless arguments, you should at least work on your own grammatical skills - since that has a very slim chance of actually mattering in the real world.
Dude, I was pissed at the time and think we'll have to deal with some minor embarrasments when Harbaugh sticks foot in mouth if he's hired, but if your best argument contains "what has he done other than have an 11-1 season at Stanford?" it's not a very good argument.
I think "he seems like kind of a jerk" is a pretty valid argument. I wouldn't want Urban Meyer or Nick Saban as my coach even if I knew it would bring national championships, just because rooting for a guy like Meyer or Saban doesn't seem like very much fun.
It's the Terrelle Pryor versus Denard thing as applied to coaches.
but they're wrong.
"just because rooting for a guy like Meyer or Saban doesn't seem like very much fun. "
Fun? Okay, lets go get carrot-top to be our coach, that would be fun. As for me, I think a hard-ass type coach whose attitude rubs off on his players would be fun.
Are you suggesting RichRod isn't a hard-ass type coach whose attitude doesn't rub off on his players? Wasn't one complaint against RR back in the day that he swore and treated his players too harshly? I swear, the guy can't catch a fuckin break. Swear your ass off and be a dick in practice and people bitch about how hard you are on the poor college students. Sing Josh Groban and you become a pussy who isn't a hard ass. Fuckin ridiculous.
Also, I have no reservations about RichRod and his attitude rubbing off on the players. They wouldn't be tweeting and showing their support if they didn't think he was a positive role model.
Hey blowhard, the hardass team I imagine doesn't let Wisconsin run the ball down their throats 33 out of 34 plays. Yeah, thats real hardass football. Apparently RR's hardass ways didn't rub off on the defense. And dropping the F-bomb just makes you sound like a teenager.
Yup, good times.
(1) I'm a RichRod suppoter. Hope he's retained.
(2) I was and am pissed about Harbaugh's comments. They were wrong and incredibly gutless. If he had UM's best interests at heart, he could have told Bo, you know, while Bo was alive. Not wait until Bo died and then score some cheap recruiting points.
(3) BUT, be that as it may: (a) Rosenberg caused a black cloud over the program by inducing the NCAA investigation with scant evidence. That's enormous. Harbaugh embarrassed a few people (mostly himself), but no real damage came out of it. (b) The intent of Rosenberg appears to have, in fact, been to cause said black cloud over the program (given the journalistic malpractice he committed). (c) Harbaugh can - as coach - actually help the program as a coach. I don't care if Rosenberg commits to writing unicorns and sunshine stories about UM for the next 10 years, he can't undo his damage. The NCAA investigation hurt his program, caused a ton of money, and may contribute to costing RichRod his job. Sports reporters carry far more weight when they are negative... being positive does very little (query why they choose, then, to write so negatively).
You are right, Rosenberg has done more damage, but I feel that Harbaugh's words hurt more. This is just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth. I know Rosenberg graduated from Michigan, but he never played football and had his own agenda. Not sure why graduates would do what he did to their universities, but you never know. He may have been upset over a final grade or something else. Maybe he has no loyalty and never professed his love for our school. I dont know.
Harbaugh's actions hurt alot more. This man was the face of Michigan football. He has the pedigree and everything. I grew up as a Irish fan, but my favorite player was Harbaugh. His dedication and loyalty to the school was unmatched. After he said what he did, whether true or not, it felt like betrayal to me. He hurt alot of people in the AD, but he really hurt Bo, the man he supposedly loves. I am willing to forgive him, if he is willing to apologize to the department or at least clarify things more.
Rosenberg and Sharp are nothing. They might have graduated from here, but they didn't bleed for this school like Jim did. I don't expect anything from them, but I expect everything from Jim. His betrayal hurts more than anything. Sorry for being overdramatic.
Obviously, an 11-1 season at a place like Stanford is a remarkable achievement, but what I was trying (and I guess failing to do persuasively) to say in referencing it is that it's not a long track record of on-field success at program-building. Wasn't the whole "wow, he's a winner at a place like Stanford!" rationale one of the selling points for hiring Tyrone Willingham at Notre Dame job?
Ultimately, my "best argument" was Brian's original screed itself, and the intention of my post today was simply to point out that well-argued essay to the MGoBlog community (which has grown in size exponentially in the years since). In the fog of confusion and occasional despair that has been the last three seasons, I'd forgotten just how damning Brian's "Destroy Harbaugh" piece was, and rereading it this morning, I found myself squirming anew at what seems like the inevitability of our Harbaugh hire. If Brian himself has squared away his considerable misgivings towards Harbaugh from the time (perhaps I should have realized just how long ago that post was in Internet years when Brian quoted Malcolm Gladwell without disdain), well, then, I take that under advisement, and as a devoted reader of his blog, join him in crossing my fingers and hoping for the best—much as I did in the chaotic days following the Miles/Herbstreit/Schiano/Hoke/Aaargh! meltdown when this blog gave the Rodriguez hire its blessing and allowed me to finally sleep peacefully and dream of unicorns and fully mature Death Butterflies.
Sorry if I've caused any face-palming/mushroom-clouding this afternoon. As I said, I was reluctant to wade into the volatile message-board minefield of the CC debate. I will now quietly resume my 24-hour vigil of hoping that Dave Brandon has better instincts about what makes for a successful college athletic program than he had for what makes a good pizza.
Wasn't the whole "wow, he's a winner at a place like Stanford!" rationale one of the selling points for hiring Tyrone Willingham at Notre Dame job?
Contending that Tyrone Willingham was a good "fire" by Notre Dame actually argues against keeping RR. Willingham, one could say, demonstrated evidence of strong success (10-3 in first year) and a trend of improvement over his last 2 years (5-7, 6-6). He also never lost to Navy, which is something neither Charlie Weis nor Brian Kelly can say.
Charlie Weis, by the way, is a good example for how contract extensions do not definitively determine a coach's future.
Just 'cause "Brian Said" doesn't mean its right or true. I think his 2007 essay contains many errors that we can now clearly analyze three years later...
LOL, Jim Harbaugh can coach my team any day
Those comments from a few years ago? How silly. Only elitist UM peeps who feel their parchment is somehow made of golden paper have their panties in a bunch over it.
Total non issue in my book
Not being snarky, I am glad it is a non-issue for you about what he said. But, to people that care about his statement and won't overlook it, then those people are elitist.
Do you also think that Rosenberg should get a pass in due time, or are those people who won't overlook his comments elitist as well.
I remember hearing Jack Harbaugh say a year or so after Jim made those comments, that Jim deeply regretted making them. I can understand someone saying something in haste. In 2007 he was anxious to prove himself and develop his program at Stanford, and he ended up rubbing people here the wrong way while trying to elevate his program at Stanford. If you pay attention to any of his comments for the last year and a half, not only is he complementary towards Michigan, but his love, admiration, and respect for Bo and the program seems evident. I really think this is his dream job.
He needs to sign that Extension/Raise now. I do not want him coming here and ruining what Rodriguez is building from the ground up. The critics will die down when they see how a team consisting of 2nd year starters on both sides of the ball makes a huge difference in the progress of this team.
Harbaugh for the next coach. Rich Rod is a good man and good coach. He was just in to much over his head.