Desmond Howard at the Football Bust

Submitted by KSmooth on

Am I the only one who had a sour taste in his mouth after listening to Desmond Howard's remarks at the football bust last night?  Howard went out of his way to comment on the Rodriguez era, clearly indicating that Rodriguez was a mistake -- he seemed to want to compare the hiring of Rodriguez to New Coke.

Now I was ambivalent about the whole spread option thing myself.  I know a lot of well-meaning people were frustrated with RichRod, and Hoke's successes leave them feeling vindicated.  But if we're being fair I think we have to agree that Rodriguez got some tough breaks (The Freep Jihad) and more to the point, the football bust is a time to celebrate this year, not dwell on the past.  Desmond Howard has ample opportunity to criticize prior coaches and it is his right to do so, but last night was not the time or the place.

justingoblue

December 13th, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^

So Jim Harbaugh was just fine with his academic comments? Braylon has never said anything questionable?

Desmond's play really has nothing to do with how tasteful his comments are. Personally, I wasn't there and I'm not about to say that he should or shouldn't have said anything, but that's some bad logic right there.

justingoblue

December 13th, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^

They incited a lot of controversy with his timing, for one. I know a lot of people here view it as a cheap shot that he took, and I tend to agree. On top of that, I remember hearing that most of Stanford's football team were enrolled in a degree program that wasn't exactly mechanical engineering or mathematics. I'll look for the link here, since I think it was Brian's writing (kind of like he did with Purdue).

If Harbaugh was actually trying to help, I think he could have used other avenues to encourage M football players to study "more useful" fields.

Wendyk5

December 13th, 2011 at 11:32 AM ^

I didn' t know him personally, but Jim Harbaugh was in one of my classes, and he never came to class. Maybe once or twice. It would be one thing if he had been a serious student, but when you don't go to class (and the rumors were that his girlfriend would take the same classes and get the notes), I don't know how you can legitimately call out an institution for its academic shortcomings. Pot calling the kettle black. 

maizenbluenc

December 13th, 2011 at 12:49 PM ^

of the History classes I took. He sat in the back with a few other players, and seemed to generally be there. That said History is what he wanted to major in rather than general studies or whatever he claimed to be guided to do.

While he is egocentric, and does have a fast mouth, I think his point was in the right interest. I hosted a high school baseball player one year, who went on to pitch for Long Beach State, and now in the minors. His other interest was architecture. He wanted to study it, but his mother and his coach made him go through the easy program. I always felt it was a shame, and would really like to see student athletes major in something other than football or basketball.

Feat of Clay

December 13th, 2011 at 1:44 PM ^

Some of that is about being practical, not about having low expectations for your athletes' academic abilities, focus, or dedication.   The reality is, you need to choose a major in which you can be successful despite a constrained schedule which might include frequent absences, the inability to attend office hours, the inability to attend study sessions or workgroups, the inability to be there for extended studio or clinical hours....the list goes on.  

I completely understand the handwringing over it (I am a nerdy academic myself), and the butthurt from people like Harbaugh who feel insulted or cheated when are dissuaded from majoring in what they are passionate about.  But when you talk to a Division I athlete who DID major in something with those kinds of time commitments, the stories are pretty daunting.   I wonder how much sleep Huyge gets.  Yikes.

 

DetroitBlue

December 13th, 2011 at 11:18 AM ^

First of all, we don't know if kids are directed into "easy" majors to keep them eligible.  Secondly, IIRC Brian actually followed up on this at the time and found out that a significant percentage of Stanford football players had the same major, just like they do at U of M and a lot of other schools.  Finally, to wait until after Bo dies to bring that type of thing up is inexcusable.  If he has a problem with the program or the way it's operated, he should man up and say so, rather than waiting until Bo dies so he won't be called out on it.  Basically then, he is either lying or, at the very least, being very disengenous about the whole situation, and being cowardly about it to boot.    

jmblue

December 13th, 2011 at 12:56 PM ^

First of all, we don't know if kids are directed into "easy" majors to keep them eligible.

Actually, we do know that incoming freshman student-athletes who are academically weak are admitted only to the School of Kinesiology. (Stronger students can enroll in LS&A or another school.) From there they are generally "encouraged" into the Sports Management and Communications major. They can transfer into LS&A, but that's not a simple task.

As for Harbaugh not bringing it up until after Bo's death, that's probably just a coincidence, because he didn't get the Stanford job until after Bo died.

DetroitBlue

December 13th, 2011 at 1:24 PM ^

If you really believe his statements were a coincidence, I just don't know what to tell you.  Why did he stay mum about the topic for 20-some odd years and then just have to blurt it out.

Why didn't he bother to point out that fact that the vast majority of his own players at prestigious Stanford University either majored in "Undeclared" or communications?  

I'm not going to bother to look this up, but I'm pretty sure this was all said during some head-to-head recruiting battles between the schools.  If you can somehow reconcile these facts with your image of Harbaugh as a stand up guy, good for you.  I cannot.  Fuck Harbaugh.

jmblue

December 13th, 2011 at 5:04 PM ^

He stayed mum because there was no reason for him to say it.  When he got the Stanford job, he then had a reason to make a comparison. 

I'm not sure where you got the idea I think Harbaugh's a standup guy.  I said nothing of that sort.  Of course he only said any of this to gain a recruiting advantage.   But there is a lot of truth to what he said.  Most of our football players are in Kinesiology, with the SMC major. 

evenyoubrutus

December 13th, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^

It's not what he said, but the context in which he said it; less than a year after Bo's death in a press conference at Stanford.  It was basically like slamming your family behind their backs. I'm sure there was validity to what he said, but he simply shouldn't have said it then and there, and that is what pissed everybody off.

bluenyc

December 13th, 2011 at 11:18 AM ^

Someone correct me if I am wrong about Harbaugh.  His comments were detrimental to the school.  Implying that kids were pushed to easier majors.  It was an insult to the whole athletic department.  While desmond's comments, the little i heard, were saying how Rich was the wrong choice for Michigan.  2 very different things in my mind.  the second is his opinion.  whether the first one is true or not, you dont bring it out in public and try to address it in private.  JH had enough visiability to do it.  There is no reason to insult the school that gave him an education and allowed him to show off his talents. 

Desmond's comments while I am not happy, are completely his opinion.  Didnt JH also say he would have gone to Stanford, if he made it in. 

maizenbluenc

December 13th, 2011 at 4:34 PM ^

it is not OK for Section 1 to write a letter supporting John U. Bacon because it re-hashes old wounds, and the Rodriguez era should just be put to bed and forgotten, and it might be embarrassing to people present at a luncheon (Lloyd Carr was suggested to be attending a luncheon that Bacon was un-invited to speak at)

but, it is OK for Desmond Howard to re-hash old wounds and the Rodriguez era, (aptly) comparing it to the "New Coke" debacle even though that would clearly be embarrassing to the players present who were recruited by, and played for Rodriguez?

No, it was an awkward topic at best, and Desmond should have steered around the elephant.

MGoblu8

December 13th, 2011 at 11:00 AM ^

I agree. He had the floor and had every right to share what was on his mind. However, after seeing what Molk had to say, you would think guys who are so close to the program would understand that the players don't want to hear it anymore.

EnoughAlready

December 13th, 2011 at 11:02 AM ^

Since there remains a cadre who feel they have a "right," if not a damn calling, to vindicate RRs stint at Michigan, then people of the opposite opinion (who point out the consistently terrible special teams, and not just bad defense) also have the "right" to celebrate the fact that RR and his crew are on the other side of the continent.  Maybe Howard was untactful.  But the man is eyeball deep in Michigan football and lore.  If his comments seem out of place, plug your ears.

unWavering

December 13th, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^

I didn't listen to the speech, but I can't say the analogy to New Coke is a bad one.  However, that doesn't change the fact that he probably could have picked better subject matter.

M-Wolverine

December 13th, 2011 at 11:10 AM ^

Because I thought he was making some bad pun with "Hoke" and New "Coke". Till your post made me realize Desmond literally referenced New Coke.

Desmond deserves points off for that just because no one on the team probably has any die what the hell New Coke is referring to.

ChiBlueBoy

December 13th, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^

New coach, new team, so much to be thankful for. Why re-hash it all? If Desmond needs catharsis, he can talk to friends. The players are the ones who have been through hell, and they deserve to enjoy this season, not wallow in the past.

Same for alot of us on this board. Nothing wrong with celebrating this season, and even comparing to the prior season to note areas of improvement/backsliding. But attacks on the prior coaches don't help us now.

johnvand

December 13th, 2011 at 11:20 AM ^

Everybody in that room remembers 08 - 10.  I see no need to piss on a man's figurative grave, especially while 90% of the players in that room were recruited by that man, and played their hearts out while the fake Michigan Men shot cannon balls over the walls of fort Schembechler.

It was low class.  I'm glad Molk spoke up the way he did.  He's the definition of Michigan Man.

Catholepistimiad

December 14th, 2011 at 12:01 AM ^

Specifically said that unless you are a fifth-year senior, you have no idea what the last few years were about. There was not one person that dared even make a noise at that point of the speech, because no one-not fan, nor former player, nor "Legend"-could question his experiences, and we were all taken to task. The collective "Michigan" had put themselves before the needs of 132, and it was a remainder of what the focus of college athletics should truly be.
<br>
<br>http://espn.go.com/colleges/michigan/football/story/_/id/7347219/michig…

WhoopinStick

December 13th, 2011 at 11:18 AM ^

I thought Howards remarks were in poor taste.  Most of the guys at the bust were recruited by RR.  To bash the coach that brought those players to UM is not OK.  He should have saved those remarks for another time and place.

CRex

December 13th, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^

I don't think Desmond's statements were needed.  We are at 10-2, Sugar Bowl Bound, and have a lot of hype around recruiting.  Everyone is very happy with Hoke so far.  So Desmond's comments were unneeded, but I can understand why he might set his sites on RR after some of the recent comments RR made (like how he'd have gone at least 10-2 and thinks he could have done better).  

I'm mostly just unhappy he did it in front of guys who soldiered through the RR era.  If he wants to support Hoke I'd rather Desmond do it by building Hoke up instead of tearing RR down.

yoopergoblue

December 13th, 2011 at 11:33 AM ^

Well said CRex.  It wasn't needed, especially at a banquet that was honoring most of the players he coached for the past few years.  Desmond should have waited and spoke in another venue on this topic.

kehnonymous

December 13th, 2011 at 11:41 AM ^

"...I'd rather Desmond do it by building Hoke up..."

More like RAISING Hoke up, amirite?  Seriously, I agree 100% with you.  It's bad form to bash Coach Rod, especially in front of so many kids who played their hearts out for him.  God knows we don't need another debate about RichRod's legacy, but if there's one thing we can take away from the RichRod years (besides stuffed beavers = bad), it's this:  the more dirt Michigan men pile on his grave the more they forget about the role they played in the fiasco of the last 3 years.  Coach Rod is hardly the only person who didn't live up to expectations at Michigan.

As an aside, I am curious who reprimanded RVB for his infamous but spot-on comments about "where were all the alums 2-3 years ago"  RVB's comment needed to be said, but was admittedly impolitic

Speed Kills

December 13th, 2011 at 11:26 AM ^

Love Desmond, but his poor timing & equally poor choice of forums for making certain inappropriate comments are all well documented. (i.e, comments he made about Denard last season).

But hey, it's like, whatever. He's an all-time great playing the game, I don't take his words or opinions as gospel.

burtcomma

December 13th, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^

Must we pick apart the speeches or comments made by everyone and anyone associated with our program to the Nth degree to determine whether they have the proper respect for our previous coaches?

Are we doomed to try and make everyone speak Michigan football on a politically  correct basis about the past, the present, and the future?

I think our football team, our university, and its alumni and friends can take a little reflection on the past few years and some differences of opinion without further turmoil. 

We are not that weak, and we can see that the chain is being relinked to a continuous whole from Yost to Crisler to Elliot to Schembechler to Moeller to Carr to Rodriguez to Hoke.   All these men are a part of the woven web and story, and each had their own unique and particular story to tell and part to add to the tapestry of Michigan football.  None were perfect, and in RR's case his ultimate teaching for all of us was that we must be careful to nurture and teach the Michigan football traditions of excellence and team and Michigan first, last and always to any newcomers in our midst and not assume that we can count on others amongst us to do this job and to understand that we each are responsible to carry on this teaching to our children and our players forever!

 

Michichick

December 13th, 2011 at 11:40 AM ^

Time and place. Nothing wrong with visiting where you've been but not at the Bust. The Bust is for celebrating the seniors on the team and to give them their M rings, which Desmond should know. Many of those seniors were brought to Michigan by Rodriguez, and for that, we should be grateful.

Just because 21 had a platform doesn't mean it was appropriate to use it. This wasn't the time or the place.

Gitback

December 13th, 2011 at 11:31 AM ^

I couldn't figure out why he was bagging on"Cherry" Coke so much. That stuff's stood the test of time sells just fine. Then I realized he meant "New" Coke... then the analogy hit me. I didn't pay attention much after that, kept wondering how he could use that comparison as the main thrust of his analogy and not realize that he wasn't even referring to the right product.