dnak438

September 11th, 2014 at 1:04 PM ^

It's basically a distillation of the last week of the front page on MGoBlog for people who don't read MGoBlog. I like Hinton, a lot, but his contribution to this piece seems minimal to me.

mgoBrad

September 11th, 2014 at 1:37 PM ^

I'm going to re-iterate what I said in a comment below - this article's intended audience is not you and me. It was written for those who are not necessarily M fans but are wondering what the deal is with our team. In that respect, I thought it was excellent. Basically it's taking what we all know about the program and giving it a wider audience. This is great in my view, because in the past the national media has reported whatever narrative the Freep or Detroit News was spinning. At least the truth is out there. The fact that the following is in a story that will be read by a national audience is the best part to me:

"The undisputed leader of the online hordes is MGoBlog, which has dominated its niche by remaining equal parts articulate, exhaustive, and irascible for nearly a decade. ... Over time, as [Cook] has cultivated sources within the athletic department to go with a devoted audience, his opinion has gained the potential to shape the hive mind as much as it reflects it."

Thank God we no longer live in a day where Michigan's football hive mind is exclusively the domain of Rosenberg, Snyder and their ilk. The more stories like this out there, the better.

gwkrlghl

September 11th, 2014 at 2:01 PM ^

Still pretty fascinating to me how a regular CSE major turned his project blog into a Michigan news source probably more trusted amongst Michigan fans than any other source. I'd be willing to bet he's much more well connected than most of the big newspaper guys anyway

Guys like Sam Webb, Mike Spath, etc are in the same boat. Blogs have far surpassed MSM sources in the last decade

champswest

September 11th, 2014 at 2:46 PM ^

more a piece about Brian than it is about Michigan or Hoke.

And as to your main point, I was thinking earlier this week that Brian seems to be writing more to reflect the readers views than his own.

stephenrjking

September 11th, 2014 at 1:42 PM ^

Well, if he had written it for Mlive or The Wolverine, that would be a legit beef.

But he's a national writer on a rather significant website writing for a national audience. And, surprising as it may be, most national college football fans are not checking Mgoblog all day.

So, in a gesture that can only be considered high praise, he consults Brian for insight. And the result is pretty good. Honestly, people will complain about anything. Are we just upset that our best blog comments weren't block-quoted? C'mon. It's a good article written for people who don't have four-digit MgoPoint totals.

dnak438

September 11th, 2014 at 1:47 PM ^

Don't you think it's weird? Hinton watches a lot of college football and is normally very good on his own. I've been reading him for years and I never recall him writing an article like this one.

"Honestly, people will complain about anything" -- llke you complained about my non-complaint?

stephenrjking

September 11th, 2014 at 1:55 PM ^

It's the volume; my apologies for singling you out. McMurtry is less balanced here.

Hinton holds Mgoblog in the highest regard and evidently considers Brian an authoritative voice on the subject. Given the scope of the topic (Michigan facing more mediocrity, and the fanbase's reaction to it), why not lean on Brian's thoughts? Brian does some of the best single-team work of any writer of any team.

There are a lot of comments here taking shots at the article for no reason, and I really think they're being unfair. Hinton is giving Joe Average College Football Fan in Texas or North Carolina or Oregon an interesting Cliff's Notes-writeup of what is happening with one of the sports's (traditionally) premiere teams.

dnak438

September 11th, 2014 at 1:59 PM ^

Hinton's great, and of course he writes to a national audience. Clearly it makes sense to lean on MGoBlog, I agree. The piece felt so odd to me, though -- but maybe that's how Texas fans feel when they read Hinton on Texas. In the past I haven't felt that when reading Hinton on Michigan, but maybe it's because this is more a piece about the reactions of the fans than it is about the on-the-field product per se.

alum96

September 11th, 2014 at 1:49 PM ^

Yep.  Hard for people who visit MGo daily or often to read it and visualize how it will be viewed by a national audience.  

Thought it was a fair minded, realistic take and for someone reading it in Nebraska or Florida or New York it states the current state of things well, borrowing a lot from "insider" Brian.  Who has the pulse on the program more than Wojo or Angelique or whomever.

Can't argue with much in the article... it is what it is.

Tater

September 11th, 2014 at 6:34 PM ^

I have lived in SEC country since four days after the 1998 Rose Bowl.  Sorry to say it, but there is absolutely no respect for the Big Ten down here.  The consensus seems to be that watching a Big Ten game is like watching an SEC game, but in slow motion.  In the eyes of the national fan, at least those in Florida and Lousiana, Michigan is rapidly becoming, like Nebraska, "a team that used to be good a long time ago." 

We've all heard ESPN's month-long string of insults regarding the quality of football in the Big Ten, ranking it the last of the Power Five Conferences.  Last weekend didn't help the perception of the Big Ten or the University of Michigan.  

My hope is that one of the oldest adages regarding relative conference strength in college football is true: "It runs in cycles."

Puget Sound Blue

September 11th, 2014 at 11:05 PM ^

My hope is that one of the oldest adages regarding relative conference strength in college football is true: "It runs in cycles."

Mine, too. You look at schools like USC and Alabama and you can point to years in which they were really down. 

That said, these cycles don't run of their own accord. They change because of decisions made by people in a position to influence the situation (and yes, some good or bad luck, too).

As an aside, it it just me or has "conference consciousness" really grown in the past 10-15 years? Before that, I don't recall it being so strong. You might compare conferences somewhat during bowl season, because they had specific ties to conferences (that have weakened since then), but I don't recall this consciousness being so strong throughout the season until relatively recently.

JClay

September 11th, 2014 at 1:08 PM ^

I'm happy for Brian basically getting an essay written about him on a big site, but I agree with the idea that Matt Hinton really said nothing of his own.

Marley Nowell

September 11th, 2014 at 1:11 PM ^

I wonder what Brian thinks of this.  It is nice to get national recognition but this dude basically just ripped off Brian but covered himself by linking MGoBlog constantly.

unWavering

September 11th, 2014 at 1:12 PM ^

The rushing yards per game analysis is garbage. We went from Denard to Not Denard. After Denard, our offensive line depth was in shambles. What did people think was going to happen?

MGolem

September 11th, 2014 at 1:17 PM ^

How did we run for over 300 yards in the first game yet only have an average of 100 yards per game (as listed in the article)? Even if we forfeited against Notre Dame our average would have been somewhere in the neigborhood of 150 yards per game, right? Where is this guy getting his stats? I am no math major but this seems obvious.

KodiakGT

September 11th, 2014 at 2:09 PM ^

Apparently there is a two year re-classification process.  Even though App state will play a full FBS schedule this year as part of the sun-belt, they are not bowl-eligible and considered officially an FBS team until 2015.  For all intents and purposes I would consider them FBS, but technically he is correct (which, hey it fits the narrative of his article, so why not use it)

Ziff72

September 11th, 2014 at 1:31 PM ^

We returned that whole line from Denard's sophmore year and Denard was a year older.....and the rushing efficiency started to drop.

Everything has things they will never forgive or forget when it comes to sports.

Rich Rod and Denard being forcibly divorced is a huge one for me.  They had I think 10 returning starters coming back on offense and were in the Top 10 nationally in offense by most advanced metrics.   Denard behind that line with a year of starting experience in RR's offense would have been historic.

 

aiglick

September 11th, 2014 at 1:54 PM ^

Oh what could have been if RichRod had gotten a defensive coordinator he trusted and/or Jeff Casteel.

Again if you want to use the statistics from our ND game to feel better you also have to acknowledge that by advanced statistics our offense in 2010 was elite mainly because of a certain QB in dreadlocks with untied shoes and the progenitor of a modern college football offense.

Ziff72

September 11th, 2014 at 2:15 PM ^

Review the box scores of those games.  We were not shut down, we couldnt keep up with a defense that was a rumor, because sometimes a 1st year qb with little help would commit a turnover.  That's not a predictor of future offense.  

I'm sure your a fan of T.O.P.

   

Reader71

September 11th, 2014 at 2:08 PM ^

Didn't 2012's running game just feel a lot worse? It did to me. I'm actually really stunned by that YPC number.

Context, though. 2012 felt bad because it came after a couple of good rushing years. And 2009 felt better because it came after a few bad rushing years. It's just strange to realize that because I always try to be as rational as possible and be as grounded in fact as can be.

Yeoman

September 11th, 2014 at 3:49 PM ^

...by some massive rushing performances against terrible teams in '09. The 461 against Delaware St. is netted out of these stats but even if you know to discount it it's probably in your memory, clouding perception. And the nonconference schedules were not at all similar. '09 played a 6-6 ND, two bad MAC teams and a bad FCS opponent; '12 played a 12-1 ND, a bad MAC team, Air Force and Alabama. And then Clowney et al.

To be honest I think these numbers don't quite do justice to how much better 2012 was. Here are the two seasons, game by game, with sacks removed.

2012:

  • Alabama 28-79
  • Air Force 31-214
  • UMass 42-301
  • Notre Dame 38-182
  • Purdue 54-304
  • Illinois 51-353
  • MSU 32-163
  • Nebraska 35-112
  • Minnesota 38-178
  • Northwestern 31-135
  • Iowa 39-199
  • OSU 23-137
  • South Carolina 42-163

2009:

  • Western Michigan 50-242
  • Notre Dame 36-199
  • Eastern Michigan 37-399
  • Indiana 48-156
  • MSU 24-67
  • Iowa 44-205
  • Delaware St. 54-461
  • Penn St. 35-136
  • Illinois 39-138
  • Purdue 39-240
  • Wisconsin 30-91
  • OSU 30-85

That's no contest. Looking at conference games to get a fair comparison:

  • 2012: 303-1744, 5.8 ypc
  • 2009: 289-1118, 3.9 ypc