Following Up from the Enemy
Just wanted to touch on a few things from my post yesterday and then ask a couple questions.
1. In case it wasn't clear, I didn't attend the UM Spring Game. I'm an obsessed fan, but not that weird. Which leads to the Barwis "attack". Thought most were aware that the UM Womans Softball game went long so that if you tuned in at 8:00pm for the Spring Game you got softball.
2. I didn't make the post to say "we're going to kick your a$$ next fall", but rather to offer an outsider's take on your squad, no matter how uneducated that is. With that said, I promise that Win or Lose in the fall, I will be here to take my licks or bask in the glow of 3 in a row.
3. I think trying to compare Cousins to Tate/Denard is a waste of time. Obviously Cousins isn't the type of QB that would flourish under RRod's offense, but I'll take him to lead our squad. He still needs to improve in clutch situations against good teams, but he had a nice year for a first year starter in the big ten.
4. I guess I am nuts for joining a message board of a rival school, but I enjoy conflicting opinions and can withstand a few barbs and boring/repetative jokes (little brother/jailhouse squad, etc.). That said, I do enjoy the MSU board discussions of "I think we will go 12-0 this year", me too, me three, etc.
Now, on to my questions. I don't know where I heard this, but I'm pretty sure RRod made a comment about facing negative recruiting. I'm also confident that while RRod didn't name MSU, that seems to be the consensus. So, is there any info out there that lead to this feeling? I'm just curious.
Also, what is your definition of negative recruiting?
If MD tells Anthony Zettel (just an example of a recruit both schools are after) that you want to choose a school where the coach isn't on the hot seat, is that negative recruiting? If yes, is that permissible negative recruiting?
Don't coaches that are on the hot seat universally face such tactics?
I'm not saying MSU did or didn't do anything, but I'm just curious as to what rumors/accusations of negative recruiting are out there.
IMO, there is nothing wrong with telling a kid that he probably doesn't want to go to a school where a coach is on the hot seat. While that would work against us in this case, the bottom line is that it's true. A kid who is recruited to play in Rich Rod's system is certainly not guaranteed to flourish in a different system in the case of another coaching change. Negative recruiting, to me, involves making things up that aren't true. And the general consensus (both here and in the MSM) is that Rich Rod is, in fact, on the hot seat.
I would be interested to hear how "Irish" was first received on this board; Irish is now a long time respected contributor on this board and I would imagine that over time people will give you less shit and be more open as you continue to post.
In terms of negative recruiting, I would have to imagine there is an ocean of gray area here. I would not define "you want to choose a school where the coach isn't on the hot seat" as negative recruiting, I would say if it gets specific about a school (in this case UM) and is heavily speculative then it clearly would fall into the negative recruiting realm. I guess by definition, positive recruiting is the WHY you should come to OUR SCHOOL, negative is the WHY NOT THEM stuff.
Your latter point is a good one. We should distinguish between the valence of the recruiting (pro us or anti them) and the fairness or skeevyness of the comments. Saying "come to our school because you'll get blown by coeds every night, a sampling of which are standing behind me right now" would be worse than "don't go to them because their coach is on the hot seat," IME.
April 20th, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^
Said bevy of coeds had made the trip with the coach.
Irish is "a long time respected contributor on this board"
I'm with ya on the "repetitive" thing. One of the things that bothers me about RCMB and/or Sparty posts in UM articles on mlive, etc, is that they are still referencing the Ed Martin scandal over ten years after the fact as though it were yesterday.
They seem to like to call it the "Fab Five scandal" or something like that, even though only one member of the Fab Five was cited for taking Martin's money. At any rate, ten years of repitition is getting kinda old. For that matter, I could do without "scUM" or "DickRod," too. Also, the "cheaters" thing is already old because UM, like many other schools doing the same thing, thought they were in compliance.
Really, being taken to task for the Great Frathouse Beatdown seems to me to be a bit more of a "reap what you sow" scenario than anything else. If MSU people are going to repeat things for ten years, they should probably expect at least a year or two of repetition for all of the misdemeanors and plea bargains.
Why is Dantonio not on the hot seat? He finished 6-6 in his third year, with mostly his own recruits, and has yet to win a bowl game. His best year came with someone elses players and he took a step backward, not foward. The only thing he has actually done well is beat MIchigan two consecutive times, but they happen to be the worst two years Michigan has had in 40 years, and it took OT last year. I am not sure why Sparties are so smitten with this guy, other that he seems to be a dick when talking about Michigan, which Sparties love, but even that is because he is an OSU guy.
Why is SAINT Dantonio not on the hot seat?Asked, fixed, and answered. Sincerely, M. Rosenberg
April 20th, 2010 at 10:21 AM ^
MSU is a basketball school. If Dantonio can either keep getting to bowl games or keep his record versus Michigan near .500, he'll keep his job forever.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:51 AM ^
...consecutive bowl appearances for a program that has been consistently unremarkable?
April 20th, 2010 at 11:16 AM ^
lower expectations. MSU beating UM is the equivalent of UM winning a conference title.
Has brought moral principles to an ethically challenged program.
[insert emoticon snicker]
but a few see something Sparty related and start to foam at the mouth.
I like your name. At first I thought it was an oxymoron but I read your post and did not have any problems with it. Did not read any of your other posts though.
Stating the obvious is not negative recruiting however only pointing out our current situation without mentioning anything that your school has to offer is negative recruiting. That being said my hunch is that it was Purdue that is probably the most guilty. Most of your in state recruits didn't have to be told anything negative by Dantonio because their high school coach was doing it for him. MSU has gotten a few big name in state recruits lately but I remind you that there are 49 other states that football is played in and you really haven't done much in those other states. Thanks for the perspective and was your spring game on TV anywhere or has it even been played yet? You will have to forgive me because I don't really keep up with MSU.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^
...is this Saturday. See my post on this topic.
Inventing, spreading and repeating the false notion that Michigan doesn't care about recruiting Detroit PSL kids. Rolling into a school and saying things like, "They'd rather go after Florida kids than a great player right here in Michigan. They don't care about Detroit."
That would be one example of what would be considered negative recruiting. That goes beyond just saying the coach may not be there next year. That aims to damage Michigan's reputation long-term.
Do you think Dantonio would stoop to that level? He might Rabbit, he might.
If I remember correctly, I thought a lot of folks believed it was Minnesota doing a lot of the negative recruiting.
Can somebody confirm/correct me?
April 20th, 2010 at 10:19 AM ^
...negative recruting speculation thread that raged after RichRod's Jan 2010 presser where he mentioned negative recruiting and said it's not coming from OSU.
I guess I would define "negative recruiting" as any time a recruiter from one school tries to sway a recruit from another school by emphasizing negative things about the other school, rather than promoting good things about his own school.
IMO, negative recruiting is "permissible" as long as whatever the recruiter says is true, or pretty much universally accepted as truth. "Impermissible" negative recruiting would be a recruiter stretching the truth or flat-out making shit up.
For example, somebody from another school telling Demetrius Hart that Rich Rod is on the hot seat and may not be here after next year would be permissible in my book; however, somebody telling him that Rich Rod WILL BE FIRED is not cool. Either way, I agree with "nickbob" that it's "an ocean of gray area".
I'm not sure if there are any facts to back up the consensus that it's Dantonio that's doing the negative recruiting against us, but it seems like a logical choice. He's obviously made it his #1 priority to beat us on the field as well as the recruiting trail, and he's said some classless things to the media about us (some provoked, some unprovoked), so it's not hard to picture him being the one RR was referring to. I suppose other candidates would be Danny Hope, JimBob, etc.
ANYWAY (this is already way too long), let me just say that the perspective of rival fans IS APPRECIATED on this board (e.g. "Irish") as long as it's coherently written and well thought-out, so don't be afraid to drop posts like this again...
April 20th, 2010 at 10:02 AM ^
For the sake of generating conversation lets say that negative recruiting is anything a recruiter says that questions the competition or paints them in a bad way.
Examples:
1. The coach is on the hotseat. Do you really want to go to a place where you might not be playing for the coach who recruited you?
2. They run a system there. You are only a piece of that system. That means your development and future is limited.
3. There are rumors that (fill in your rumor here).
4. They are recruiting/ have verbals from X, Y and Z. Where do you fit into that? Do you want to change positions once you're recruited?
Keep bring the posts. If anything MGoBlog always respects honest, thoughtful efforts.
5. There is turmoil in the program and that means big changes coming...
6. Can you really trust them, because...
While these are relevant questions for a recruit to ask, they certainly cast a dispersion on the other program.
Are all of these abusive? Of course not. But they are all negative. I would put up for discussion that (ideally) anything said about another school other than neutral would be some form of negative recruiting.
As a final talking point, let's be honest. ALL school's recruiters have done one or another of these from time to time. It is when you rely on these more than you own opportunities that I have a problem.
Big grey area - because most of us are operating here on assumptions, heresy and innuendo.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:02 AM ^
"Now, on to my questions. I don't know where I heard this, but I'm pretty sure RRod made a comment about facing negative recruiting. I'm also confident that while RRod didn't name MSU, that seems to be the consensus. So, is there any info out there that lead to this feeling? I'm just curious."
I think the consensus, at least on this board, is that Purdue is probably the one to blame here.
I'm sure now that I wrote this every other team in the B10 will be thrown in as the offender.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:14 AM ^
would be a candidate to negative recruit, we simply don't recruit against them that often. When we do, the results are often hilarious. See, e.g., spherical trees.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^
Yes, Dantanio is the presumed perpetrator of a lot of the negative recruiting. This has been hinted at by the mods of both Rivals and Scout. But you can dismiss that as just spin by them, and I wouldn't necessarily blame you.
As to specific instances or "evidence", I think it's mostly circumstantial. If you read articles after certain recruits visit MSU, they're comments are interesting. For example, Kevin Williams had a top 2 of Nebraska and UM. He takes a visit to MSU and all of a sudden, UM is no longer being considered and he has serious questions about the NCAA allegations. It's just a little bit curious timing. Not that the questions aren't necessarily warranted.
Do I consider any school raising the NCAA issue as negative recruiting? Yes. I consider any recruiting that puts down another school as negative recruiting. So yes, suggesting that a certain coach might get fired is negative recruiting.
Is it permissible negative recruiting? I really don't have a problem with it. As long as you're not straight up lying to the kid, I don't have an issue. There's a difference between "RR is on the hotseat" and "We've been told that RR is going to be fired if they don't win 8" or some bullshit like that.
But while I think negative recruiting is permissible if true, I would prefer that the coach of my team talk about and focus on the greatness of his school rather than the negatives of another school.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:11 AM ^
If you happen to win this year, don't "come back to bask in the glow of 3 in a row." We aren't very rational over here when we lose and you will probably get banned. Feel free to high five each other on a Sparty board though - RCBM or whatever. I've never been on an opposing team's board or website so I honestly don't know what the names are.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:20 AM ^
Dear rationalMSUfan,
I for one am happy to have your input on this board. Your original post started off very troll-like, but ended polite and balanced.
It is good to have alternate opinions, especially people who "enjoy conflicting opinions and can withstand a few barbs and boring/repetative jokes (little brother/jailhouse squad, etc.)". That is good news. There are too many fans who "hate" eachother - which is absurd. One of my favorite posters on this board is IRISH. Though I can't stand the team, he always has great things to say.
So, welcome aboard and glad to have you.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:22 AM ^
...but Nichol sure as hell is, and I think him going to MSU was a horrendous decision on his part. He played in that offense in high school, and if he's a good enough athlete to get PT at WR at MSU, he's a good enough athlete to run the spread as a QB. He would have probably started all 12 games at QB last year and would have been very difficult to unseat this year. Who knows? With him entrenched as the starter and Tate and Denard competing, who's to say Devin Gardner comes to Michigan?
I digress to my point that I believe Nichol is prime example, exhibit A of Dantonio and MSU folk negatively recruiting Michigan.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^
Nichol was always Green. He committed to play for John L. Smith, and upon Smith being fired went to Oklahoma. When he announced that he was transferring he listed M and MSU as possible destinations, but there was never really any doubt where he was going to end up.
April 20th, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^
Given: HS spread QB
1. John L MSU = spread
2. Sooners = spread
3. UM = pro-style
4. HS spread QB chooses MSU
5. MSU fires coach, hires traditional run-based coach
6. QB transfers to Sooners
7. Sooners pick Bradford (the rest is history)
8. UM coach retires, UM hires spread guru
9. Nichol transfers
At this point, everything points to Nichol picking Michigan. I see no logic in him choosing MSU. It has to be either a) he loves MSU or b) he's being dissuaded from UM.
If he always loved MSU, why would he have transferred away in the first place?
April 20th, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^
With regards to negative recruiting.
As a coach, if you are completely confident in your program, and in your school, and in where your program is headed, the players you have, the staff you've surrounded yourself with, etc....Then there is no reason to talk about another school.
A coach has no reason, when recruiting a player, to talk about other schools. Talk about YOUR program, what YOU can offer the recruit. There is no need to drag other schools into the conversation.
Plenty of coaches, when they recruit a player (coughDantoniocough),like to talk about other schools that the player might be considering, because maybe they aren't entirely sold on their ability to bring kids in without bashing another school, or maybe they aren't completely sold on their program.
Other coaches, might have an amazing program, but just do it because they've always done it, and are douche-bags, incapable of change (coughSabancough).
IMO, there is no reason to talk about another school when you are reciting a player. The only reason a coach should talk to a recruit about another school is if the recruit ASKS the coach about another school, and even then, there is a huge difference between saying, "Oh, they've got a solid program, they're a good team, but I think we're better," and "Their coach is on the way out, they're not a good fit for you."
There are no rules against it, so there's no one to say you can't do it. And obviously, it sometimes works. But to me it says more about your program than the ones you talk about. I don't have enough to convince you how great my program is, so I have to tear down these other ones to my level.
And for the smart recruit, if someone needs to talk about another program that much, you have to ask yourself what they're afraid of, and what's the big deal over there that everyone keeps talking about them.
My feeling is, if you're Michigan, you don't need to and should be above negative recruiting. Other programs would look better to follow the same example. But no one is going to recruiting jail.
These are my feelings precisely.
It tells me exactly what kind of program you have when the first words out of your mouth are, "Don't go to Michigan because X, Y, and Z" rather than, "Come to our school because X, Y, and Z."
It's not illegal, and it probably never will be, but I hope that we never partake in that sort of recruiting. It's bad for kids, it's bad for schools, and it's bad for the NCAA.
I know some coaches feel it is necessary to use negative recruiting because they feel it is necessary to "get ahead in the game," but I feel that if you are confident in you program, your school, and what you have to offer recruits, then there is no need to ever mention another school's name in the recruiting process.
It's naive, I know, but it's one of the very few things that I'm old school about.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:27 AM ^
I honestly feel Dantonio probably does use negative recruiting tactics a little bit more than other coaches in the Big 10. But why wouldn't he? He's trying to do whatever it takes to win games, His campus is 60 miles away from the greatest University in the world, he has to use whatever will give him that inside edge. It adds fuel to the rivalry and if these recruits buy the negative BS then I guess I don't want them here.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:28 AM ^
Why isn't MD on the hotseat?
Matt Shepard brought this up and I think it is a pretty dumb question to be honest.
The answers are obvious.
1. He took over a program in shambles and has gone to 3 straight bowl games.
2. He has beaten his arch rival in back to back years.
3. Recruiting is trending in the right direction and there is reason for optimism in the future.
Was I happy with 6-6 and another bowl game loss last year? No. However, I think MD overacheived in his first two years, so most MSU fans are willing to cut him some slack.
With that said, I don't think MD is beyond reproach. I have some serious questions regarding his in-play coaching decisions, but I don't think he is or should be on the hot seat.
I'm a realist, we are talking about MSU football. 3 straight bowls games in a step in the right direction. When/if MD has steadied the program to where we are consistently going 8-4/9-3 I might at that point raise expectations.
I'm not saying it is a perfect comparison, but if UM hoops went to the tourney 3 straight years but got bounced in the 1st round, would Beilen be on the hot seat? I doubt it. At some point you want more, but you have to walk before you run.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:31 AM ^
He's not in the hot seat, because expectations for MSU football, as well as MSU academics, are quite low.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:32 AM ^
Good work. Lets wait around until we finally have a non-troll msu fan on the board, and then act like a dick to him.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:35 AM ^
Why would you make the assumption everyone wants a non-troll msu fan on the board?
April 20th, 2010 at 10:42 AM ^
Because we respect all opinions here. There are several well respected posters who happen to be fans of rival schools. Poguemahone and Irish would be two of them.
We don't just run people off because ZOMGZ O$U.
Personally, I'd rather have intelligent OSU or Sparty posters on this board than unintelligible and unintelligent Michigan fans.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:44 AM ^
I'm a Michigan Alum, not a fan.
Am I not welcome here, because I prefer discussing Michigan athletics with other Michigan fans/alumni?
April 20th, 2010 at 10:53 AM ^
You aren't going to be welcome here if you are moron and/or a jerkwad. Does that answer your question?
April 20th, 2010 at 10:55 AM ^
why bother posting at all then?
April 20th, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^
Than be a Michigan Man and speak in a manner that warrants your degree. Making insulting remarks such as, "... as well as MSU academics, are quite low.", does nothing but insult both those who graduated from MSU, as well as, those who graduated from the University of Michigan.
April 20th, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^
It's cool that you're a MICHIGAN ALUM. I'm a MICHIGAN ALUM too. I am also a fan.
Did you attend MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL by any chance?
April 20th, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
I thought Lawyers know better than to make invalid assumptions.
I suppose I'm only entitled to my own opinion on this board if I went to Law School?
April 20th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^
(WHOOSH)
You missed the joke.
April 20th, 2010 at 11:34 AM ^
TheLastProphet.
Intelligent and informed fans of other programs are hard to come by. They can be a good resource for a different perspective and can actually be fun to watch a game with.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:36 AM ^
Your name is befitting of the way you post.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:38 AM ^
I just don't think that's a valid assumption. Am I wrong?
April 20th, 2010 at 10:57 AM ^
If it's not it should be. I stumbled onto this board while looking for UM football news and found that it is by far the best place to go for great conversation on Michigan football. I fail to see how you could come to the conclusion that it does not benefit our dialogue to have calm and reasoned fans from rival programs contribute. I think you'll find the vast majority of people here welcome outside views and perspectives, especially when they aren't just some random troll spouting ridiculous things. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that the willingness to learn(ie hear opposing views) is what makes the parent university of this great football team, and its' alumni, such an outstanding educational institution.