Football Myth's
Yesterday's thread meltdown all over the site lead to some posts that I could not really believe people were still clinging to. It was like we were back in a time warp and people were clinging to the earth is flat. I thought most of the people on here were aware the info they got from reading the Freep was garbage and they needed to do further research to understand what is going on with their favorite team. Apparently MGOBLOG has gotten so popular that this is not the case and we have some very misguided members.
There are a lot of great points to debate in football, that is why this site is so fun, but we can't bog down a lot of good threads with garbage from people that are simply misinformed. I'm going to list some of my favorite myth's and I invite you to add your own so we can rid ourselves of this clutter. I think the coaches names cloud peoples judgement so please be generic and don't mention any current or former Michigan coaches.
1. The spread/ spread/option is a flawed concept that doesn't work in the Big Ten- Seriously?
2. Big Ten Style of Football- If you believe certain schemes work because of geography than you need some help. Teams have won the Big Ten playing all sorts of styles. It's talent and execution that win not schemes and teams can win with almost any scheme if run correctly with good talent.
I could go on, but I'll leave the floor clear for your favorite.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:11 AM ^
Are you trying to start yesterday's meltdown all over again?
March 25th, 2011 at 10:28 AM ^
Muahhhhahahahaha
March 25th, 2011 at 11:46 AM ^
What'd I miss?
March 25th, 2011 at 10:13 AM ^
but an excellent myth is that an apostrophe makes the word myth plural rather than possessive.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:52 AM ^
http://www.apostropheabuse.com/
I'd love to know how that got started (the practice, not the site).
March 25th, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^
Don't forget the myth that 'loose' and 'lose' have the same meaning...
March 25th, 2011 at 10:26 AM ^
You speellt MITH rong
March 25th, 2011 at 10:52 AM ^
Izz yoar shure?
March 25th, 2011 at 11:16 AM ^
Know me izz know
March 25th, 2011 at 11:47 AM ^
Your uncorrect. Victors_Valiant are write.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:30 AM ^
football myths own?
I find it amusing that you went with "myth's" for the plural and then "peoples" for the possessive.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:29 AM ^
My favorite myth:
That anyone sitting at home watching a football game cares as much as the team, or knows 1/100th of what the coaches know about football.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:31 AM ^
and I find myself guilty of it often.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^
Unless that coach is GERG.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^
I do like how fans think they are more dedicated than the players and if only these young kids cared about Michigan or the rivalry as much as they do they would get it. We don't sit back and think about it logically, but I think many of us think that. The best part about it is 90% of us couldn't come close to putting the amount of work they put into it without quitting.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:56 AM ^
I'll add a couple.
1. Winning in the Big Least = winning in the SEC, Big 12 , Big 10 or Pac 10. Once Va tech and Miami left the conference it became exeptionally weak, allowing teams like WV and more recently Cinci & Uconn to acrue records that were not reflective of the overall quality of their respective teams.
2. Spread offense teams have won a lions share of National Titles over the past 10 yrs, therefore spread offense is the way to go. This is blatantly wrong, those teams won with superior defense. Look at the NFL talent they produced on D and it becomes blatantly obvious where the foundation of their success was.
3. All offenses utilizing "spread" formations are the same. Nope, they are as varied as can be, some being based on zone read style run first while others are clearly pass based. Equating the Rodriguez spread to what say Urban Mayer was running is just intellectually dishonest. With Leak at QB(National Championship season) Tebow's read option was a diversionary situational scheme and the lions share was pass, power combo with Leak at the helm.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^
You are a bitterman but these are pretty good.
1. Winning in any conference where you have similar talent is an accomplishment. Since the Big East champion you speak of defeated Georgia and Oklahoma.
2. You are absolutely correct. Pro Talent on defense is a key to winning the MNC. Any style can win.
3. Correct again. Though you broke my rule about coaches and Florida did win the MNC again with Tebow as the main qb and exclusively running zone read and qb power runs.
Beating a team in a one-off winner take all competition in which both teams do not have the same levels of motivation in no way means that same team would be capable of winning week-in, week-out over the course of a grueling conference campaign.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:02 AM ^
are obscured by the miasma of myst.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:15 AM ^
MYTHICAL. If you preferred RR fired you detest the spread.
Only thing RR spread was losing
March 25th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
I touched on it before. It pertains to the presumption that we are good as long as Hoke doesn't try to coach too much and just delegates to superior football minds.
The myth that just a guy's W-L record at a smaller school tells us much of anything about what caliber a coach he is. There are many considerations regarding scheduling, the state of things at his entry point into the program, the resources he is allowed to utilize at that program, location, and relative performance v. the prior coaches, the improvement of the program, how that coach is percieved by rival coaches, that all need to be factored in.
Plus there are over 10 national championship coaches who had a middling or worse W-L at smaller programs. Gary Moeller was a guy we watched do really well here but had an abysmal W-L as a head coach at Illinois.
Not saying it isn't a factor to look at. But when I see it being cited as primary evidence of a guy's ability to coach or his unworthiness to lead Michigan, it grates me.
I agree that the "Hoke sucks because he was sub .500" meme is overused, you can't ignore the fact that he was underwhelming as a HC compared to other candidates. People kill RR, but the guy has won over 100 games as a HC, and UM did show steady improvement during his three years here. His inability to get a decent DC was what really killed him.
Hoke's success will hinge on fielding a good defense immediately and not screwing up a decent offense until he is able to recruit kids that better fit his system. If he does that, he'll succeed. If this defense doesn't play well this year, we'll see the people applauding Hoke attack him for failing to be "fundamental."
And one quick note - sure Moeller was better as HC at UM than at Illinois, but after that 1992 season (with 3 ties!), he definitely started to display the type of degradation you expect to see when Bo's kids graduated and Moeller's kids weren't quite as good/coached correctly. So unless you want to paint Hoke as the holdover until UM hires another coach who will win them a MNC, I'm not sure that is the best career arc for Hoke.
being hesitant about his previous record.
I just don't understand them not being totally turned on by his philosophies. I don't mean that to bad mouth philosophies they support or ones they see as different. I actually don't understand.
I've been a bruiser in all sports I've played and have seen a lot of success, have been on teams that have talked and followed through with "toughness," outworking opponents, and fundamentals, defensive-first philosophies and teams that haven't. I'm absolutely thrilled over everything he has ever said since he got here. And I was underwhelmed by initial reports but am now over. I just believe what he has said is so crucial to success in any sport that he gets what I believe is most important in football.
Could you explain to me why others don't latch onto these mindsets/statements? Is it that they don't see what he's saying as any different than what anyone else does? Because I want to see other people's perspectives.
I know I've always been in the minority because I'd rather bleed than not and rather hit someone than score, but I want to understand the majority's opinions if I'm not in it.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
Myth: it's made out of a pig's skin. Fact: it's made out of a cow's skin.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^
how about the myth that any offensive system, the spread including is a pancea and is, categorically "the right way"?
This blog, and many commenters, act as if not running the spread consigns a team to archaic schemes, and the dustbun.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:50 PM ^
Sounds tasty.
"Michigan was finally coming into the 21st century with RR. Now they've completely gone back to the stone age with the Hoke hire."
Ummm...not really buying it. As has been mentioned numerous times, defense wins championships. This is what Hoke brings to the table. If he can hire a better OC than RR hired a DC, Michigan should do well.
Dave Brandon is a good AD.
Until every team is playing in a domed stadium, geography will always play a role.
In other words, geography will always play a role.