Football Display Case
national champs baby
Patrick Hruby is doing God's work.
first comment: "EVERY ATHLETE HAS ASPIRATIONS OF WINNING AND WE HAVE OUR FAVORITES BUT IT IS ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO OTHER STUDENTS ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS, TOO!"
stupid Pistons and their refusal to tank properly
rundown of Michigan's riser
needs moar usage
so much for that
This list is completely arbitrary and not a genuine analysis of the relative merits of state fossils.
will be michigan's highest pick in a while
money has to go somewhere
I am only motivated by people who have no opinion about me.
the just released schedules were a flat-out statement that the B10 doesn't believe SOS will matter in playoff selection
but I thought that draft was supposed to be incredibly loaded?
If you're gonna go please be in the first round.
another delightful side effect of a 14 team conference
The "D" in "D-day" stood for "day" -- when planning an operation, you didn't know when, exactly, it would take place (that decision came later, and/or was secret), so the date and time were referred to as D-day and H-hour. I believe it was standard practice throughout WWII, even after Overlord (for example, for landings in the Pacific) became popularly known as "D-Day."
I imagine Brian, et al., are thinking "decision day" or something like that, but the correct usage also works, if you think in terms of D-day and H-hour being the unknown day and time in the future when the era of the new coach begins at Michigan. Is today D-day? That's top-secret, mister. We'll know only when the invasion begins! Leakers will be hanged.
Maybe the D in D Day stands for Dave.
...in joint doctrine and operational planning.
The official defintion of D-Day in the Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (Joint Pub 1-02) is: "The unnamed day on which a particular operation commences or is to commence."
This is distinct from C-day, which is: "The unnamed day on which a deployment operation commences or is to commence. The deployment may be movement of troops, cargo, weapon systems, or a combination of these elements using any or all types of transport.
So, a campaign starts with C-Day when forces begin their movement toward their staging area(s). The movement from staging area to the objective commences on D-Day (at H-Hour).
In reality, D-Day has already passed and Brandon is smack dab in the middle of phase 3 (seize the initiative) and maybe phase 4 (dominate) of his campaign. The new HC announcement will actually signify the cessation of tactical operations and the move into phase 5 (stabilize) and finally, phase 6 (enable civil authorities) -- in this analogy, this would be turning over the program's reins to the new HC (phase 5) and allowing him to run the program (phase 6).
LSA '89 - MBB Natl Champions, Big 10/Rose Bowl Champions | @MGoShoe
from the sound of it it seems to be between Miles, Hoke, Gruden, and maybe Patterson.... and Miles appears to be the frontrunner, and while Miles is too unscrupulous for my taste he does produce some good teams, and more importantly the Big Ten doesn't allow oversigning.
With the exception of Hoke I can live with any of these options... Patterson seems to be a long shot, Miles is a good coach, for the first 58 minutes anyway, Gruden... well the guy has a superbowl ring (as a Head Coach, not a coordinator), is probably the most sought after former coach right now, and has shown a strong interest in the Michigan Job (please, please, please, please, please, oh please let it be him).
Last week our options looked more like this:
Hoke: 48-51, nuff said
Petersen: No way he's leaving Boise St.
Random guy we found walking around Ann Arbor: Admittedly the most promising candidate
Now we have actual candidates who are actually interested. I was not a supporter of his decision last Teusday, but If he can bring in John Gruden he'll be a god among men in my eyes.
Posted from my Dell Venue Pro
"There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine" - K
Les Miles is God. You're just lucky you said that before he got here.
It is spelled HOKEAMANIA. Our coach is an ass-kicking American citizen, not one of the Beatles, for Christ's sake!
maybe he'll cut me in favor of a more talented incoming poster... oh man, what'll I do?
Please identify, with source or link, a single, solitary statement directly from Jon Gruden's mouth or keyboard that indicates "he has shown a strong interest in the MIchigan Job."
Courtesy of poster skwarosh (sp?) yesterday, this is what Jon Gruden has written himself about the Michigan job, in his book Do You Love Football?!
"In the Dayton football media guide, players had to list their ambition in life. I put down that I wanted to be head coach at Michigan by the time I was thirty-nine. Don’t think I’m going to reach that one. Why Michigan? Because at that time I was still that divorced-from-Notre Dame, pissed-off kid, so I wanted to go to Michigan and kick the hell out of Notre Dame. I really wanted to be the head coach at Notre Dame, but at that time I just couldn't make myself state that as an official goal."
In case this didn't sink in, reread this line:
"I really wanted to be the head coach at Notre Dame,..."
Unless you can produce something factual and tangible, Jon Gruden has never expressed for public attribution any concrete strong personal interest in being the head football coach at Michigan. He has, however, in print, expressed a specific personal desire to be the head coach at Notre Dame.
I was scouting the Rivals 100 last night for recruits who have yet to commit, trying to find players that had interest in LSU - but weren't from Louisiana. There were quite a few (some even had interest in Michigan as well). Hopefully Les might be able to convince some of these undeclared recruits to join him in AA... Any thoughts?
Keep it together, keep it together, keep it together.
Happy premise #1: We will get a coach.
Happy premise #2: There is no Angry Michigan Hating God trying to squash us.
Happy premise #3: Even though I feel like I might ignite, I probably won't.
Look, I have to show it to the Laker girls!
Intensity is a lot of guys that run fast.
We know Miles has been shady, deceitful, and sometimes stupid- the over-signing, the 'clock it' call, the lying about the 'clock it' call, the clock mismanagement, possible NCAA sanctions coming, etc.
So what is the appropriate response if he's hired?
Do I support him because he's our coach but dislike him for his practices at LSU?
Or, do I support him as if it doesn't matter until it happens at UM?
Short of him coming out and saying (which will never happen) that he knows he needs to do things differently at UM, I don't think I'll ever be able to get it out of my mind.
What does an upright and 'All In' Michigan fan say about this?
-Formerly known as Richrodiculous
"Not tricks, Michael, illusions. A trick is something a whore does for money...Or cocaine!"
How's about you support the coach of UM for the good of the program, and so what happened to RR doesnt happen again. What the hell is wrong with our fanbase?
It's like, if you want to use logic or have a conscience or pretty much do anything besides blindly support anyone who associates with Michigan Football find something else to do!
GO MICHIGAN ROBOT FANS!!!!
That's just like your opinion man...
This is an entirely appropriate response to a completely asinine comment. It's kind of disgusting how quickly everyone wants to ignore anything remotely negative about Miles know that there's a solid chance he's the next coach.
I'm just having a very hard time believing that Michigan, having just been placed on probation for the first time in the history of its football program, is going to hire someone who is currently in trouble with the NCAA and has been widely criticized for oversigning.
The problem here is that:
We obviously did not get harbaugh. Hoke would be a disaster of a hire and lead us into years of mediocrity at best. Miles is the best chance we have of winning, which should be the only goal of a Football Program. All this nonsensical bullshit about winning the Michigan way and blah blah doesnt mean shit in the grand scheme of things. The only thing that matters is that we win, and win a lot. If that means Miles is our coach so be it.
The college football landscape is different than it was when Bo took over, or even when Carr took over. It is a business today. The NCAA is a business that makes millions off these college athletes. Pay the players, let coaches oversign, then let the players transfer and play right away when they do. Start treating this whole operation as what it is. This is ridiculous.
Those who stay will be champions!
With all due respect, I totally disagree about winning at all costs.
Everyone looks at USC with disgust for what happened.
I think you're mixing two different topics: Ethics & CFB as a Business
I played at a small school, and when we beat shady teams, I loved being able to look them in the eye and know that we did it with integrity.
Call me naive, but winning only matters when it's clean.
I am not talking about two different things. I am saying that it should not be unethical to oversign players and it should not be labeled as winning at all costs either. It should be looked upon as being a strategy to win the most games possible, which is every coaches goal.
If the NCAA actually recognized what they are, instead of living in denial, then college athletes could be paid and if a school did oversign they could move on and play that same year. In other words, it would be a job like environment which it should be.
Dude- cool it.
I am not starting a fight- I had an honest question about things that I will find hard to stomach if Miles is hired.
I supported LC, I supported RR (obviously), and I will support the next guy.
I just feel weird about acting like it didn't happen just because it wasn't at UM...
For example, how would you feel about Lane Kiffin? Ya, I thought so...
I am not a member of the moral police for the NCAA. He is a douche, however he has no bearing on UM. As for Miles, he played here and coached here. Stop acting like he is some cheating SEC scumbag. Oversigning is not against the rules in the SEC. If the NCAA was so worried about it they would outlaw it. The B1G has a rule against it, so guess what? You don't have to worry about that here.
Let's also notice that he 'could careless about Lane Kiffin'.
I think he's missing a helping verb...maybe 'be'?
But then I'd have to assume he's indifferent about Mr. Kiffin, which, of course, contradicts his later statement that he's a 'douche'.
I think people have seen a pattern of behavior from Miles that makes them uncomfortable. He has been caught lying and his oversigning (albeit not against SEC rules) is unethical; especially the way he has gone about it.
It is okay to use logic and reasoning to determine whether a new coach is the right fit for this job. I don't know who told you you had to fall in line, but they were wrong. Figure things out for yourself. It's much better that way.
What I meant was how would you feel if Kiffin was up for the job?
I assume, because you called him a douche, that you'd prefer to pass on that based on what he's done at other schools.
I'm not trying to zero in on over-signing- I'm trying to make a point about true character.
I am not acting like he's a scumbag, but he's given us material that can be read into, has he not?
And as for having played/coached here- there are plenty of douches that have played/coached here- I could care less if someone has ever been officially associated with the program or not. That doesn't make them immune to poor decisions, and it certainly shouldn't be a prerequisite.
First things first: stand strong in character. We can worry about if someone has coached/played here after that.
Take a breath and read the posts to which you're responding.... I don't think there is much debate that Miles is sort of a douche-ey SEC scumbag. I don't think anyone is 'acting' like that; he routinely goes into ethical grey areas that would be illegal, or at least looked down upon to the point where people don't practice them, in the Big Ten.
Oversigning and greyshirting may be within the SEC rules, but that doesn't make him any less slimey.
If we hire him, it sounds like most will support him because at that point, what good does it do to be derisive? I'll support whomever we hire because I want Michigan to be great again. But at this point, he's not our coach and it's fair to voice concerns about past conduct, whether they're illegal or not within the Big Ten.
Keep it in perspective: Yes, its January 11 and we don't have a coach, but whether we had one yesterday or get one the 13th, this is a dead recruiting period and if it takes DB two more days to find the best choice, I don't see why we shouldn't fully vet our candidates.
Lane Kiffin is different. Lane Kiffin hasn't won a national title (actually, he hasn't won anything). That makes things a lot different.
supporting or not supporting is a false choice. If he does something that makes him not worthy of your support, it is not unreasonable to express your misgivings. It's like being a patriot; it doesn't mean blind allegiance.
Right- what I'm saying though, is do I give him support while in the same breath saying that I don't like the way he did things at LSU and I hope he's not doing them here?
Or, just support until it happens here (if it does, I know) and then throw in the caveat?
He may be a scoundrel, but he's *our* scoundrel.
He's a moron, but our moron.
We're hiring a coach, not a saint.
Last week I saw a woman flayed, and you will hardly believe how much it altered her person for the worse.
on a "win-at-all-cost" veneer if we hire Miles. Part of my love for Michigan is my belief that we believe in sportmanship as much as winning. The basketball debacle and the minor, but embarrassing football training time scandal, should make us all ultra-sensitive to this aspect of the game.
Your opinion has no value.
Some people thought we took on a "win-at-all-cost" mentality when we hired RR since he was an outsider from a different conference and ran an offense we weren't used to. They would think that someone like that doesn't understand all that about sportsmanship on par with winning.
To them, Les Miles is a return to the sainted Michigan ways and they have no idea of these things the insiders on this board pick up on.
Excellent point- it's easy to forget there are thousands of fans who get all their news at 6 o'clock from the local guys who don't even scratch the surface on these types of things...
even if Miles is a "win-at-all-costs" guy, the media might choose to play down that angle because they're happy with the hire. Just like they made s**t up in order to pin the "win-at-all-costs" label on Rodriguez. My advice -- do your best to discover the true facts and make up your own mind, and don't worry about the "veneer" that the media and outsiders place on the program.
Hope it's just an SEC thing to stay competitive (as they have won line 17 straight MNC).
It's okay for Miles to be shady as long as he's doing it for compettive reasons, I suppose. What we really don't want is someone who is dishonest to teenagers just for the sport of it - that ain't Michigan Manly.
I just can't use the ends to justify the means...I want to win the right way.
If the deck is stacked against us and we have no chance without compromising, at least we've still got our integrity.
That's worth more than shady wins to me.
Whether I failed to convey sarcasm in my post.
I'm wondering if I was too slow to pick up on it...
Sorry about that- either way, I wasn't attacking you.
Sometimes you have to read post or twelve before you can learn someone's humor...
+1 to you sir.
I appreciate your diplomatic and honest questions regarding Michigan fanhood, hiring Les Miles, and coaching ethics. There are too many smartasses like me on this board, to be honest.
Was not implying it is ok to be shady as he cleary has been in some cases. The problem it seems in the SEC is that if you are honest to a fault you may not last long. Again "everyone is doing it" does not make it ok, but it is what it is. I would hope/assume that all that crap is in the past if when he gets up here.
I guess more then anything I am desperate to get back to watching us dominate Saturday Afternoons again and based off the realistic coaching candidates available I think LM gives us the best chance to bring in the top notch recruits to do this.
he'll be told he needs to do things differently at UM.
He says, "Hopefully we can be done with the 'All In' phrase. It's become extremely divisive as it'd been used (the last few years) to signal support (or lack thereof) for RichRod rather than for the program as a whole. Let's start fresh with the new coach and not push back into that wound."
I may be in the minority on this, but to me it had no connection to any specific coach.
To me, it was a theme- a principle that we could abide by to give our team the best chance of success no matter who our coach was.
If it was used just as much with the new coach, I wouldn't have thought twice about it.
I still consider myself 'All In', and it has nothing to do with RR because he's not our coach.
That's fair. The phrase used to refer to being "all in" for Michigan (the program), but it seems that "all in" became a line of division at some point where any critique of the coach meant the speaker was not "all in" for RR, and thus not "all in" for the team. It had a nice ring to it, but I'd be happy to see it disappear.
Allen took care of that yesterday by getting rid of all the old coaching staff's merchandise.
LSA, Class of 2009
Does no good to whine and complain before he even gets here. That's where all the negativity towards RR started. I've been completely opposed to the idea of Hoke being our HC and will continue to be until a new one is announced. But if it does end up being Hoke, I'll shut my mouth and hope for the best.
Does no good to whine and complain before he even gets here. That's where all the negativity towards RR started.
Does no good to whine and complain before he even gets here. That's where all the negativity towards RR started.
I think it's fair for folks to raise concerns with any of the possible hire selections, and disagree with the notion that the RR negativity started prior to his hire. Maybe that's the case among a small group of very connected insiders, but the general public was either curious, supportive or noncommittal. I fell into the supportive group at the start and moved (as did many) to the "not supportive" group after the 3-9 season. Might there be some legit reasons for that terrible year? Possible, but if Les goes 3-9, you'll see the exact same phenomenon. It's all about producing a solid team, rather than making 100% of the people happy on day 1.