CC: Wow. My 13 year old gets it. "WE" don't.

Submitted by myrtlebeachmai… on

[Ed-M: knocked down to board 'cause it's not informative (unless you're waiting for a 13-year-old's opinion before casting your vote* on Rodriguez/Harbaugh). That doesn't mean you shouldn't read it.

* you don't actually have a vote.]

I've tried to stay away, or disinterested, from much of the junk on here lately (post OSU thoughts, RR/DB, Dee etc).  It makes me mad at "us".  Now, after a conversation, with an albeit more mature than his age, 13 year old, I'm just sad for us.

He asked me, "What 'decision' are we waiting for DB to make?  It's not like he has to decide whether or not to re-hire RR, he's already our coach."  He gets that a coach can be fired before his contract is up, he also gets that there's been some disappointment this year, in losses to rivals, the defense, injuries, etc.

He compared "the decision" (termed more apporpriately, "the season-ending 'review'") to getting the 30,000 mile maintenance done on our car.  "He's not 'expecting' to find anything majorly wrong, yet it needs done, and if something is, he'll fix it", was his analogy.

He wonders why DB would find anything wrong (at least with RR), mentioning: how everyone loves our players RR brought in; how RR doesn't seem near the jerk he was made out to be by the WVU people, and he's "definitely not Dantonio"; how we've had a better record each year; how much he loves the offense (much more Playstation "big play" condusive than 3 yards and a cloud of dust;  how we have a Heisman potential Denard; how the guys RR brought made Brock walk again, etc... you know all the good stuff.

He also knows it still sucks to be outnumbered around here by OSU fans, and his die-hard PSU aunt.  He can't wait until we can shut them up.  He knows how bad our D was and hopes they get better.  Yet he stays optimistic, and believes in us.

He also loves reading some of this blog.  He follows recruiting fairly closely.  He really doesn't understand how other UM fans want to lash out publicly at DB, coaches, players, or even recruits.  He thinks if he was being recruited, he'd be on here pretty often keeping track of UM.  He says "It all seems like such a confusing mess right now, no wonder Dee left."  Granted, this blog isn't responible for that, yet the crazy and disheartening media/fan reaction likely are.

I told him when we're done with the bowl game, DB will finish his review and we'll find out if any "major" issues popped up that overrode the positives;  otherwise, if there aren't any, we probably won't even heaar anything and RR will continue working daily to make us better.  He's content with that, and to wait and "check back" to see what happens. 

Sadly, I wish more of "us" were too.

Fuzzy Dunlop

December 3rd, 2010 at 9:55 AM ^

how much he loves the offense (much more Playstation "big play" condusive than 3 yards and a cloud of dust

Yes, your 13-year-old certainly gets what's important about putting together a winning football team.  Before I make up my mind, can he explain how Rodriguez vs. Harbaugh's respective offenses would translate to X-Box play?

psychomatt

December 3rd, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^

... the "Playstation" comment is significant and insightful. Higher powered offenses make it easier to recruit top offensive skill players, generate more TV eyeballs, sell more tickets, appeal to bowl selection committees and move more merchandise. All other things being equal, a football program would seem better off with an offense more like Oregon's than Stanford's.

Needs

December 3rd, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^

I'd really like to see some evidence for these ideas before the word "objectively" gets used.

To pick a few examples, LSU, Alabama, and OSU would seem to disprove them. Now certainly, every one of those places comes with built-in recruiting and fan base advantages, but I'm very skeptical that offensive style has anything to do with merchandise or ticket sales or appeal to bowls. At most, I might expect to see spread teams have advantages recruiting players listed as "athlete" as they tend to fit more into the spread player mold. But I'd need to see some kind of evidence to back it up.

octal9

December 3rd, 2010 at 12:36 PM ^

An offense like that is perceived as fun.

The post you're replying to said, "... all other things being equal ..."

Now, I don't know about you, but I know damn well that if all other things are equal, I'm going to the place where I'm going to have more fun. I'd also rather watch Oregon in a bowl game than I would Alabama or Wisconsin.

You won't get "evidence" because you're not going to find a situation where "all other things" are equal.

That's like somebody saying stuff about frictionless motion and you saying "yeah, but there's friction and air drag and blah blah blah" -> you missed the point.

Humen

December 3rd, 2010 at 3:45 PM ^

Micheal Vick. After all of the controversy surrounding him, he finds support in that he is a spotlight in a league of boring offenses. This isn't the type of situation where you are going to find the evidence you are looking for, but you can understand simple concepts such as general audiences preferring an offensive shootout versus a showdown of defenses. That's all he is saying; it is fairly obvious and fairly simple.

UrMyBoyBlue

December 3rd, 2010 at 11:45 AM ^

Does anybody realize anymore that its not the type of offense that makes it so explosive. Its how you EXECUTE it. Any offense can be dynamic if you execute it the way its drawn up. Nobody runs an offense saying, "hey we"ll take it real slow and not score as much today." Correct me if im wrong but hasn't Stanford done a hell of a job scoring? At the end of the day if you recruit the right players, execute the plays, and run an offense like its meant to be then your going to put up big points.

MGoDC

December 3rd, 2010 at 9:57 AM ^

This post might make even a lick of sense if recruiting weren't essential to college football.

Since it is essential, your argument is invalid. Insert funny cat picture here.

MGoDC

December 3rd, 2010 at 10:10 AM ^

I would've found the OP to be more endearing if it were titled something along the lines of "My 13 year old and I have cool moments together -- here's one where we talk about the coach." Instead it insinuates that the 13 year old "gets it" and "we dont" when it comes to coaching changes in college. In reality, the 13 year old is not factoring in recruiting whatsoever in his line of reasoning. That's cool because most of his reasoning is pretty decent for a 13 year old, but I'd rather not hear about how a 13 year old with a flawed understanding of college football recruiting "gets it" more than people who actually follow the sport closely.

MGoDC

December 3rd, 2010 at 10:58 AM ^

Uh, I was talking about it in the context of the OP, which was not written by a 13 year old. I'm assuming he can choose NOT to tell his 13 year old some random dude (me) was "insulting" him on Mgoboard. If you really think the point of my post was to degrade a 13 year old I'm not really sure there's anything I can say to change your mind. The point of my post was that, while its great his 13 year old was talking Michigan football, I'd rather the OP not act like his 13 year old "gets it" and "we dont" when he clearly is missing the extraordinarily important factor of recruiting in his line of thinking.

profitgoblue

December 3rd, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^

Insulting a kid to the parent's "face" is worse than insulting the parent him/herself.  I completely understand the point of your post.  I am simply trying to point out that you did/are not going about it in the right way.  Maybe its just be being overly sensitive since I, too, am a father.

Fuzzy Dunlop

December 3rd, 2010 at 11:32 AM ^

He didn't insult the kid at all.  He disagreed with the parent's premise that the kid "gets it" more than posters on this board do.  Speaking as a father as well, I think you are being a bit oversensitive here.

Though this does give me an idea -- in all future posts I will express my opinions through the prism of conversations with my three year old daughter, thus immunizing myself from criticism and negs.  (By the way, my daughter asked me to post this, so bear that in mind when responding).

jtmc33

December 3rd, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^

Why in the hell are you letting your 13 year-old drive a car?

And why a car with only 30,000 miles!?!?   At least get him a beater in case he crashes it

 

(Sorry mertlybeachmaize, I'm just lashing out because I have two daughters and will never, ever, have a conversation with my girls that is nearly as sports-related as you get to have on, probably, a daily basis.)

f...spartan bob

December 3rd, 2010 at 10:06 AM ^

Wow you obviously do not get it and you have made your 13 year old son look like an idiot to all of his friends who have parents that have raised them to be real Michigan Fans. Our recoord over the last 3 years is a disgrace and RR needs to be held responsible. I have never seen someone tear a program down and many former players agree. Try and read facts and pay attention! DB please save this program before it is too late!

f...spartan bob

December 3rd, 2010 at 11:05 AM ^

the point of this board is to read messages not worry about handwriting style. You should know that as much time as you have to sit on this board. I can tell your 7 years of higher learning form k-6 has kept your reading level at 6th grade, because you still can't read and understand that you are an idiot just like the 13 year old's parent. How can you call yourself a michigan fan when you clearly accept being mediocre and being 0-9 against teams that matter. get a life learn how to read and quit worrying about writing skills on a message board you dumb f***  

f...spartan bob

December 3rd, 2010 at 12:09 PM ^

F is for FIRE rich rod

F is for u r a Freakin idiot

F is for im sick of Fu**ing losing to MSU and OSU

and since you know nothing of the history of our program against sparty. F*** spartan bob is to the cheating sparty jackoff who kept one second on the clock so they could actually beat UM.