This topic is starting to overshadow the current team
Hockey pet peeve: "when a teammate tips a puck in on you, which is exactly how my first collegiate goal against happened. Thanks, Copper."
This topic is starting to overshadow the current team
saying how annoying it was that some fair weather fans and alums "checked out" the last three years and now are back because Hoke/Michigan Man/Traditions etc... many agreed, but a few said I was addressing a non-existent issue. I think RVB just answered whether it was non-existent or not. If the players noticed it, then the "checking out" process was in fact harmful to team morale.
no, you are seeing whose fandom penis is bigger...yours or people you view as fairweather fans. Its an issue for the players, but what makes you worthy of addressing it and saying its not right what some fans, ex players choose to do...Some who are an integral part of the program from yesterday to today and into the future
Wow, so he can't talk about something he perceived and that at least some players perceived because he's not "worthy"? Not worthy to have an opinion? OK. Ready for a future in which negs matter again - I'll miss your "worthy" additions to the board.
He can state his opinion, but what he did was tell BE to piss off bc he didn't like the fact that he stated his opinion. Do I agree with what Braylon did...No, but he has the right to feel that way, especially after the program and future scholarship receipients (at this University and in urban public schools). Like I said...who are we, mgoblog readers or football fans, to tell them and others how to be a fan? Especially when this guy said it in a way that I am the end all be all fan.
I also wasn't saing VB didn't have a point or that HE couldn't state it
My point on that thread was not to criticize BE for stating his opinion. Feel free to read again and you will see I never said that. My criticism was that people stayed away the last three years--by choice, because they didn't like the coach--and did not lend the program support when it really, really needed it. Now they are back because we are running power football again and they like the new coach. Guess what, that is wrong, and I'll say that all day long because it's right. I don't care how people are fans, but your loyalty is to the school, and that includes when your school has a coach you don't like, or runs a system you don't care for. Your fandom is your own, but as an alum your loyalty is to the school--if you don't like the coach then say nothing like LC did, don't say "I'm from Lloyd Carr's University of Michigan." Donating lots of money doesn't make that act criticism proof.
Personally, I liked Rich Rodriguez and thought he was the best hire we could have possible made in '07/08. That being said, I am an Indiana University Alumni, a huge fan of the IU basketball program and I understand leaving a program over the direction a coach is taking it. I stopped going to/watching IU basketball games when Kelvin Sampson became the coach at IU. He came fresh off committing NCAA violations at Oklahoma and, to me, running a clean program is more important than winning basketball games. When Tom Crean was hired, I came back. I don't think there is anything per se wrong with not supporting your team when they do something you don't agree with. In fact, I think college sports would be a much better place if fans cared more about the reputation of their school than winning games. I was a fan of Bob Knight's Indiana Hoosiers, not the rulebreaking, chronic marijuana smoking group of thugs Kelvin Sampson illlegally brought to IU.
Sometimes coaches clash with people's core values, what they identify with about their school. UM, IU, etc. aren't like schools in the south where all you have to do is win and people won't care how you did it. While I liked Rich Rodriguez and think he got a bad rap, I have alot of respect for the former players that I know and all of them, pretty much to a man, did not like Rich Rodriguez and predicted his demise as a coach. Now, you can sit there and say they're not real Michigan fans or whatever, but they gave everything for Michigan football while we just sat in front of a TV/sat in some cold weather/got drunk to watch them. They won the big ten twice and were 2-3 plays away from a national championship in 2006.
Think they might know more about what makes a good college football coach than you do?
I think there's a big difference between RR and your Kelvin Sampson example. RR never had NCAA violations, and I think most (if not all) of the readers here would agree that RR's "violations" were bullshit, overblown, and not personally his fault. It just seemed like people stayed away because he wasn't a "Michigan Man" or he ran a spread offense, not because of anything he had personally done wrong.
First, as indyblue states, there is no comparison between Samspson and RR. Second, players stayed away not for any moral or ethical reasons, since it is fact that RR had zero ethical or moral transgressions. What "core values" or identity of M did RR "clash" with? None. Some former players did not like his system or the fact that he was not the mythical "Michigan Man." Neither is a legitimate reason to anonymously criticize the staff (yes, this happened) or the program. IF there had been moral or ethical problems, you are correct that they would be perfectly justified in withholding support. There was not. Lastly, none of the players knew a thing more than any knowledgeable fan about RR before he came here. None of them predicted he'd fail because of some supposed knowledge of what makes a good college football coach. Come on, you can't believe that.
Every fan has an investment in the team. They support the program by buying merchandise, buying tickets, and watching/listening/blogging about the team. I think we have the right to feel irked by the bewildering contempt of the past
Without the school, students, and fans, there is no football team to play for the University of Michigan. Fans have the right to ask why former players checked out for three years.
I seriously hope that's what Hoke said to them on Friday and why it was a closed meeting for former players. It's not like it's hard to notice this behavior. Glad alumni are coming back, but some of them have been real douches the last three years.
You were venting and addressed the issue in terms of who "deserved" to be a Michigan fan. It was designed to be a virtual pissing contest. Don't act like you had any sort of rational motive.
You really need to pay attention when you read. Whoa.
then since he brought it up?
Give me a break, this is a blog not the locker room.
I'm not sure who's more to blame for that one - RR or the players. Seems like quite a few still hung around during RR's tenure so it's not like they weren't welcome there.
said many times that they were not welcomed by the former staff. It seemed to be an attempt to separate that regime from the Bo era. Something like trying to create a new and different history. Whatever it was, it's over and let's all move on.
Who started the alumni game- RR. Which staff had numerous players working out with the S&C staff during the summer. Were the former players you talked to named Boren, Clemons, or the like.
to quit making things up
Even Mike Hart's sideline interview at the practice suggested that more football alumni are back than previously... he also suggested that he felt comfortable in 2008-2010, but others didn't.
I look at some of the pettiness in my own family and really it's usually over stubborness and miscommunication, so this rift doesn't surprise me. I'm sure something about RR set a few people off, but overall, no one can say that RR didn't reach out to alumni. As is already stated in this thread, the Alumni game was a RR contribution.
RR was a quality guy, he's a successful coach, and I wish him the best wherever he winds up. Michigan just turned out not to be the place for him.
Completely agree. You took the words right out of my mouth, but you missed one thing. RR is still a quality guy.
Random speculation from web posters is different then what is being mentioned above. In this case, it is pretty apparent that the players were more than welcome to visit by RR, and some chose not to. Quit being a douchebag for the sake of being a douchebag.
I know someone who is close to former players, too! Most of them said that they were welcomed by RichRod. How 'bout that!
Your post, reduced:
"ARGLE BARGLE SLANDER PRIOR REGIME."
Then (and this is really awesome):
"Whatever it was, it's over and let's all move on."
* * *
You know, it's probably true that RichRod rubbed a few former players the wrong way. PR clearly wasn't one of his strong points. But, you're ignoring the possibility that a subset of the subset was just miffed that one of Lloyd's boys didn't get the job.
Anyway, as 'blog readers are fond of saying "RVB HAS DONE MORE FOR THE PROGRAM THAN ALMOST EVERYONE HERE!!!" So, there. I think we should take his remarks seriously.
Alumni players need an invitation to come back?
Do they need a pat on the back saying "hey buddy, you're always welcome here, we love you, we want to kiss your ass and have your babies"?
That's crap and it's insulting to the fans.
They should be coming back and supporting the program because it's Michigan and it's much bigger than any former player.
You think Mike Hart came back because RR was calling him up asking for him to support him and the team? Hell no! He came back because he bleeds Maize and Blue, and no one was going to keep him from here.
I think Mike Hart came back because he still had friends on the team that he played with as much as for his love of Michigan football. I can understand why some of the alumni didn't not feel as welcomed back because for the first time since 1969, there was an almost entirely new staff (minus Coach Jackson). So...were they not welcomed back, not recognized when they did come back, did not feel as close to the program because they felt like outsiders that lost the inside connection, etc. I am sure it is a combination of things. To assume that we the fans are more invested in Michigan football then the men who gave their blood, sweat, tears, joints and limbs for the program is insane. Some may have been bitter due to feelings of betrayal because coaches they loved and had bonds with were not considered for positions (I know that RR interviewed them...but were they really considered?)...I would think that is a fairly natural reaction. Whether you agree or disagree with this sentiment, at least try to be empathetic and view it from multiple perspectives.
I should have said that it's insulting to the program.
I do not empathize. Michigan is so much bigger than any friendship, coach, player or fan. You come back because you support the program.
Maybe I'm being naive about the politics involved, but that's no excuse to stay away.
with your post is that you felt necessary to throw in the possibility that they were not welcomed back. There have been several players who have said otherwise, not to mention the annual alumni FF game. It is absolutely ridiculous to assume that certain players were welcomed back, while others were asked to stay away.
It is most likely that they didn't feel a connection with the staff and so they stayed away, which was certainly their prerogative and even understanable to a point.
The problem that I have is that there are statements by former players circulating that would try to lead us to believe that a feeling that they weren't welcome was due to the current staff not wanting them around instead of their own insecurities.
I was not trying to say that they were told they were not welcomed back. I am talking about perception on their part. They lost their connections to the inner sanctum of the program. It doesn't matter if RR was wide open with the program, he could not welcome a player back the way a former coach could. If part of the aura of alumni coming back to AA was catching up with an old coach who helped develop them into the men that they are is gone...and when they show up to AA and everyone there is a stranger, they don't have an idea of who an alumnus is (by no fault of their own) then some alumni aren't going to feel the same about returning, or may feel disappointed that they lost a connection to the program. I was not trying to place blame on the RRs staff, simply give my insight as to the loss that some of the alumni might have felt and why it was so emotional for them.
I'm pretty sure many alumni gave sweat and tears trying to graduate. Some in paying for tuition maybe even gave blood.
It's insane to assume the converse: that the players invested more into Michigan than we alumni did. Yes they studied, but presumably most studied less challenging subjects than the average graduate. Some players don't even graduate. And some students do challenging work outside of their studies.
If the players were hurt b/c they didn't get their way, well screw them. It's impossible to please every person with an interest in Michigan. No person is bigger than the team/program. And no player is automatically more invested than any alum.
To assume that we the fans are more invested in Michigan football than the men who gave their blood, sweat, tears, joints and limbs for the program is insane.
This is obviously talking about the Michigan football program and NOT the University as a whole. Also, I'd be interested in finding out what the graduation rate at the University of Michigan is, as well as what the average course of study is for students attending. Finally, screw the players because you don't have to cheer for them any more right? You have used them for what you needed from them and they are no longer required, so their feelings about the program that they represented don't matter. Does that about sum it up?
Not quite sure how I got a double blockquote
but I can't think of Michigan w/o thinking of Michigan football and vice versa.
I did not write "screw ALL THE PLAYERS." I wrote that if their feelings were hurt, then screw them. The word "if" carries some significance, nay much significance.
I thus say no to your question. You summed up nothing of what I wrote.
Nor did I state that you said screw ALL THE PLAYERS. You are obviously having difficulty staying on point. We are talking about Michigan Football and the players who felt like they were not welcomed back to the program during the RR era. I am not talking about the struggles and sacrifices students at the University of Michigan make to complete their degrees.
I would venture to say that most fans of The University of Michigan football team have virtually no knowledge of the University of Michigan as an academic institution. They have never set foot on campus, been to the Big House, etc. You hear recruits all around the country talk about growing up watching the football team, but they have no idea of how much prestige a degree from the University of Michigan carries. So I would say that most people can and do think of one without the other.
Unless you have all the facts, in every single situation involving alumni players and the Rodriguez staff, you probably shouldn't be using blanket statements to cover your sweeping generalizations. I think there is a large enough sample size of players who have made comments that they didn't feel welcomed back that we probably shouldn't assume they are all fabricating a story. To say screw them because you don't agree with them is irrational. They are not rooting against the team, they are not trashing the University, they merely made remarks critical to RRs staff...and I think they earned the right to do so. On the other hand RVB, if he and his teammates felt abandoned by those alumni have the right to express those feelings as well. I think all comments are better dealt with in private.
Next time you get your feelings hurt, just take your own advice, OK?
Actually, yeah, just about every player is more invested than a regular Alumni. Because almost all of the time when discussing their greater voice, we're talking about the team or athletic department. No one is saying that player consensus is how we should determine fiscal year funding for the Philosophy department.
And it's really not insane at all. Actually, the opposite, completely rational. To think otherwise comes off as "jock stole my girlfriend" mentality. I'm sure you think you put in blood, sweat, and tears...but you mean it metaphorically. Try running for three hours, then run into a brick wall a dozen times full speed, and then have to go take a midterm exam. Then, yeah, you've give your bleeding your own blood, actually broke a sweat from more than fighting over the last slice of pizza, and experienced real, tangible tears...where unlike when you screw up and no one knows about it but your professor and MAYBE you're parents, you don't have the whole campus saying YOU SUCK then next week.
You never read Bacon's Blog reference to what he learned in his new book, did you?
The coaches have to ask their players to work almost as hard -- not just on the field but in the weight room and in the classroom. I followed Michigan’s Big Ten MVP quarterback, Denard Robinson, for one day, which started at 7 a.m. with treatment for his swollen knee, followed by weightlifting, classes, an interview with ESPN Radio, more treatment, meetings, practice, a third round of treatment, dinner and study table. When he walked out of the academic center at 10 p.m., two middle-aged men who’d been waiting all night asked him to sign a dozen glossy photos. I went home exhausted—and I hadn’t done anything more than take notes. Conditioning, however, was even harder. I worked out with the strength coaches for six weeks, just to see what it was like. They doubled my bench press and tripled my squat – and also showed me I could throw up from running or weight lifting. I had not known that. After each workout I collapsed on my couch for an hour or two —not to nap, mind you, but to whimper in the fetal position like a little kid. How those players got any school work done at the end of those days is a mystery to me.
So yeah, going to college is tough, but almost no students have full time jobs where in the job you get the crap physically beat out of you while you're trying to do your classwork.
And I like your knock on "they're just dumb jocks, they don't, like, graduate", but really, it's not that different. Athletes graduates at a 79% rate over a 6 year period (http://www.michigandaily.com/content/u-par-national-student-athlete-grad...), whereas the student body (over the same time periods graduated anywhere from a 81-89% rate over 6 years, with them touting an amazing 3% jump the final year. (http://house.michigan.gov/hfa/PDFs/grad%20rate%20sub%20memo.pdf) So, it's really pretty comparable. And I bet the percentages of those who leave to go get a job in their field of study mid-study aren't really close. And the majority of Athletes are studying the same courses as the majority of non-athlete students. The minority are those in the truly more difficult programs, throughout the whole University.
So yes, players don't really have any more say than you or I (which guess what..in non-existant too) on how hospital construction is going to go. But a say in how the Athletic Department represents them? It may not be much, but it's a hell of a lot more than the average student or Alumni who just claps and buys a ticket (sometimes...I mean, do we give special say to the 20,000 who bothered to show up for the Spring Game? Because I wasn't seeing a lot of dedication there...). The fact that you think otherwise is immense hubris, blindly ignoring what a student-athlete goes through to be a student-athlete. It's nice that you worked hard too. But really, you didn't walk a couple of steps in their shoes, no more miles.
Your last paragraph could easily be put in the people who are unhappy now, and complaining about people not complaining anymore, and who are longing for the continuation of the last 3 years. But it's all relative....if "I" don't agree with it, it's justified, but if "he" didn't agree with it, well, "screw them". If you don't like how it is...well....your words....
Patently false assertion.
because when I was sitting in the stands during the Michigan State game this year, Lamar Woodley (a...get this...Lloyd Carr player!!) was on the SIDELINES cheering on a Rich Rod team with his face painted maize and blue.......
OK, so I am confused. Is it OK or not to bring up comparisons between this team and RR's teams? Or, is it only OK if the comparison defends RR? The same people that will chime in pisitively on this thread were slamming earlier threads for bringing up RR. How about we just stop all comparisons and move foward. I think it has been well established that some people are still pissy that RR got fired and feel the need to defend him. It is also apparent that some people never liked the RR hire and feel the need to blame him. Neither case helps get us all on the same page so lets give it a rest.
Eh, this is a quote from a very respected leader of our current team. I think discussion about a topic brought on by him is valid.
And yeah, I'd admit that you have a valid point; my great complaint has been that if anyone wants to attack Rodriguez at this ex post facto point, I am more than happy to defend Rodriguez. And the tone of the Rodriguez defenders (I am a proud and unabashed Clan member) needs to be toned down quite a bit if Rodriguez isn't being attacked.
But remember, there's no real corollary: Nobody (at least not me) is attacking Brady Hoke. I might be less than enthusiastic, but I'll be goddamned if I'd stand for a-n-y-b-o-d-y attacking Coach Hoke the way that Coach Rodriguez was.
And most of all, Ryan Van Bergen, bless his cotton-pickin' maize-and-blue heart, wasn't even remotely attacking any Michigan coach. Ryan made an observation of fact from his perspective; in the middle of a massive p.r. rush of "homecoming" type feelings, where were all of those former letterwinners three years ago? It's just a comment. It's clearly not universally true. Ron Kramer came back. Rick Leach came back. Larry Foote came back. There's three whole generations of ass-kickin' Michigan Men. Who made a public show of their support for Rich Rodriguez. But of course there were some real notable outliers. People whose disloyalty was historic, whether the coaching change involved Bump Elliott, Bo Schembechler, Gary Moeller or Lloyd Carr. And Number 1 on that list was... oh, never mind.
Good for Van Bergen. This is the type of thing that leaders address. I wouldn't be surprised if he's a captain when the season rolls around.
The coaches have been talking about his improvement in terms of being a vocal leader. He's one of my favorite guys on the defense. I'd love to see him become a captain.
Agree completely. I believe this team is very close and has great leadership. Everyone checks their ego at the door.
All of the recruits are saying the same type of things regarding how down to earth they are.
The players will play for each other. The Team The Team The Team!
I distinctly remember that he called himself out on the long Indiana TD run 2 years ago.
Those who are critical of the previous staff need to remember that nearly every member of this team originally committed to play for that staff. While I appreciate the excitement that former players have for the future of the program, it would be nice if they would keep this fact in mind when they decide to be overly critical of the previous coaching staff.
Van Bergen committed to - and played for - Coach Carr, so I think his word carries a little more weight than guys who committed from 2008-2010.
that the admin itself seemed to be trying to turn a new page with RR--and many in the media (including some who speak out of the other side of their mouths now) were saying that the program was full of dead wood, etc. It's CYA coming and going. . .
I was an RR supporter, but you can't blame some old players if they took a wait and see stance. Considering all the BS the former players might have been hearing, also coming from both sides. (Better than those herd animals who simply slammed Rich, tho it's also not so surprising he threatened some people.) Now everyone is trying to clean up the mess which. . . tends to throw more light on the mess, but is also laudable in many ways--if the debacle showed anything it was the old "house divided" message.
I'm just not sure we get a winner any time soon. We'll cross that bridge, of course, but I wonder where all these people are two more years down the road, when and if Hoke is where RR was the last few years. . . begging for patience, etc.
it is easy to "turn the page" when you whiff on your first three choices
We have a coach, his name is Brady Hoke. We had a coach, his name was Rich Rodriguez. Two facts. They are not changing. Can we get off of this topic please and focus on, as Bo would say, "The team, the team, the team?"
i think you are misunderstanding me - the idea to "turn the page" was a band-aid for previous AD martin not getting any of his first choices and being forced to make a big splash by getting a fancy name, regardless of "fit"
its ok to talk about history in a productive manner, after all, you are quoting a speech from four coaches ago.