December 29th, 2010 at 12:49 PM ^
base it all on one game, but he would put a lot of consideration into it I would think... but I am not DB. The game is very telling in that MSU played well in a strong conference, is ranked, and has a great defense. The team is healthy (or at least more healthy). They have had time to work on tackling (please God, pretty please!). The break appears to be what they needed desperately in order to reboot and refocus.
It appears the game would have a decent bit of weight for DB, but again, I'm not DB. I wouldn't want to be DB.
December 29th, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^
I wouldn't want to be DB.
I would. I'd go all Scrooge McDuck every night, swimming in a vault of filthy bad-pizza lucre.
December 29th, 2010 at 7:13 PM ^
Not so far off from the truth.
December 29th, 2010 at 12:12 PM ^
What if DB is actually telling the truth and hasn't made any decisions yet? The cynic in me says he has made a decision, but that naive part of me that attended my first Michigan game when I was a kid in 1960 wants to believe that DB is being honest and forthright when representing the University of Michigan in public.
Maybe he is used to making business decisions on fiscal or calendar year results, and wasn't savvy enough to realize the recruiting shitstorm that he is risking by tabling a decision until after the bowls. If it wasn't for the recruiting uncertainty, I would be in support of him not making a decision until after the bowls. It would reflect sound business principles.
Sadly, though, he has made the job of whoever the coach will be a lot harder with his insistence of sticking to his timetable and not adjusting or evolving it to the market, which in this case is recruits.
I hope this is all a moot point by next year.
December 29th, 2010 at 12:31 PM ^
What if Dave Brandon books an hour on ESPN on Jan 2 for a show called "The Decision" and after 59 minutes of stalling he just flips a coin at the end between RR and JH.
December 29th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^
Then I'd probably wheel a torch stand and a pitchfork stand right next to West Quad and make my fortune.
December 29th, 2010 at 1:02 PM ^
Let me know if you're looking for investors
December 29th, 2010 at 2:19 PM ^
LOL!!
December 29th, 2010 at 7:15 PM ^
This idea.
December 29th, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^
This is very telling!
December 29th, 2010 at 11:40 AM ^
Balas and Helmboldt are on bended knees praying for this to happen, so of course they will be convinced of it. It would be good for their business if the band got back together.
December 29th, 2010 at 12:44 PM ^
The band got back together? What are you even talking about? Harbaugh hasn't lived in Ann Arbor since Balas and Helmholdt were finishing elementary school. How would that be good for their business?
Your post reminds me of why, sometimes, the anti-old guard/Michigan Man people are just as moronic as the people who explicitly endorse it. What the hell happened to pragmatists?
December 29th, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^
...knows anything. Including DB. This talk is all nonsense until after the New Year.
December 29th, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^
check Josh Grobans tweets, twitter or facial network? He's the only one to confirm this
December 29th, 2010 at 11:49 AM ^
Who cares...its a message board and its not from Dave Brandon.
December 29th, 2010 at 11:49 AM ^
should I start my own CC thread?
December 29th, 2010 at 11:51 AM ^
I would thoroughly enjoy the fanbase shitstorm that would ensue. The RR supporters would of course be enraged, the keep-RR if he makes defensive coach changes-crowd would be angry, and the fire-RR/Harbaugh is our savior crowd would be absolutely apoplectic.
The only groups that would be happy are the Fire-RR/a ham sandwich would be better-crowd and the microscopically tiny segment that actually wants Brady Hoke.
December 29th, 2010 at 12:32 PM ^
December 29th, 2010 at 12:48 PM ^
You would enjoy the death or our program? Weird.
I'm sure a Hoke hire won't happen, but if it did, it would send a message to the rest of the world that Michigan marches to its own beat, and not in a good way.
December 29th, 2010 at 7:19 PM ^
That it would be the death of our program? The last 3 years weren't, so does ANYONE really know if Rich, Harbaugh, or Hoke would actually field the best results? Everyone thought Rich was 2 years and National Championships, and it hasn't worked out that way.
December 29th, 2010 at 1:07 PM ^
I know you say that you'd enjoy it, and maybe on some level I would as well, but you don't really mean that do you?
December 29th, 2010 at 1:51 PM ^
Yes, I am that black-hearted. It's not a personal trait I'm proud of, but what can I say?
I worship at the altar of the Law of Unintended Consequences, or more colloquially, the altar of Be Careful What You Wish For. The coaching situation is rife with the possibilities therein. Those who I am most suspicious of are those fervent true believers who are absolutely convinced that their favored candidate or approach cannot fail. When those folks get their pet theories rudely shoved back in their faces I get all schadenfreude-y.
December 29th, 2010 at 2:06 PM ^
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to somehow have all of the nay-sayers have their "ghost of Christmas past" moment, so they could see just what they'd get if they got their way, but at this point I just want RR to succeed. That, in and of itself will shut them up, and that's enough for me.
December 29th, 2010 at 7:21 PM ^
The team, and started winning? Or do the results only make you happy if it's Rich?
December 29th, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^
I heard that Dave Brandon might poop soon. Still, he's not telling anyone that it's a definite thing. According to inside sources, he ate at Chipotle yesterday, which is very telling. Furthermore, the poop wants to get out of his butt, and the Chipotle is just sweetening the deal. He won't tell the toilet though, and is just leaving it hanging in the wind.
December 29th, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
little dude gett'in some faux-tang.
December 29th, 2010 at 12:36 PM ^
NSFH. Commencing hard-drive formatting to insure no fragments of this salacious picture survive.
December 29th, 2010 at 12:48 PM ^
That's what you get for marrying a data-recovery expert.
December 29th, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^
December 29th, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^
since they are just trying to generate subscriptions with criptic info that isn't based on the only person who knows the decision (obviously DB).
Honestly, those guys aren't any better than rosenberg and the freep. They all just want eyeballs and money.
December 29th, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^
Really? Jim Harbaugh? Michigan is pursuing him? Wow, thats some breaking news. Never saw that coming. Thank gawd we have insiders keeping us informed
December 29th, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^
Book it.
What the hell, two weeks is enough to get the ole cardiovascular muscles back in the game, right?
December 29th, 2010 at 1:20 PM ^
December 29th, 2010 at 12:41 PM ^
December 29th, 2010 at 12:45 PM ^
I don't see how DB has made his job harder if JH is his man (which is probably the case). He can't get the guy until next week. And, anyway, this road saves DB a load of cash. And we're in a dead recruiting period. And he wants to let our team play their bowl with this year's coach. Makes perfect sense. I'd be calm, too, if I'd already made the choice.
December 29th, 2010 at 12:48 PM ^
Speaking of JH talk blowing up on message boards, 110 replies and counting...
December 29th, 2010 at 12:53 PM ^
+1 just for the blue lime-cat.
December 29th, 2010 at 12:50 PM ^
comparison of W-L records as a HC. You have to look at the circumstances around each schools's season. You can make convincing cases for each coach to be here based on their individual situations, Where I lose interest in someone's argument is when they say JH hasn't done any better than RR in their current coaching situations. RR has had no signature wins in his three years and has struggled mightily against the better teams in the conference. There are circumstances that have contributed greatly to those results, but they(the results) are still there.
JH has had several signature wins in his four years in Palo Alto, and they did not all happen in year four like some RR supporters attempt to point out. winning on the road at USC while a huge underdog was a big deal and having an 11-1 season is huge regardless of what school or conference. I think overall the comparison of the two coaches is a fair one and JH seems to have the edge for several reasons. Mainly it's because he has mad a solid defensive team despite having several DCs over the last three years and he turned that prorgram from a perennial loser to a tough opponent for every team, every week.
December 29th, 2010 at 2:05 PM ^
In year three, Harbaugh's defense finished 9th in the Pac 10 in total defense and 8th in scoring defense. Only in year four did his defense become solid. In year three, Harbaugh beat three bowl teams (UCLA, Oregon, and USC) the same number that Rodriguez beat in year three at Michigan (UConn, ND, Illinois), though Rodriguez still has a chance to add a fourth. In contrast to his signature win in year three over Oregon, Harbaugh lost to a 5-7 Wake Forest team and blew a shot at the Holiday Bowl and a second place Pac Ten finish by losing to archrival Cal at home. Would Rodriguez's critics really be happier if he lost to Indiana but managed to spring an upset somewhere along the way?
Stanford is not a perennial loser by any actual measure. Historically they have won 59% of their games (Harbaugh's winning percentage through four seasons is 57%). During the period of the Ten Year War, Stanford won twice as many Rose Bowls as Michigan and Ohio State. Combined. Among their competitors in the Pac 10, only Washington and USC have been to and won the Rose Bowl more times than Stanford. By any measure they are the third best program in the Pac 10 historically. Prior to the bad five year stretch with Teevens/Harris, Willingham took them to the Rose Bowl, Dennis Green went 8-4 in his third season before leaving for the NFL, and Bill Walsh had a ten win season.
December 29th, 2010 at 2:24 PM ^
So, it's not so hard to win at Stanford, go figure.
December 29th, 2010 at 3:30 PM ^
I'd gladly take a loss to IU this year or last year if it meant we would have beaten either MSU or OSU this year or last year.
December 29th, 2010 at 5:28 PM ^
I wouldn't want to lose to teams we are supposed to beat. We are better than Indiana and I'd hope Stanford was better than Wake Forest. Getting lucky against a team that's much better means nothing. To me it says more about the lack of execution on the team that was clearly a better football team. If MSU or OSU loses to a team that is starting a large portion of freshman then I'd be outraged if I was on their side of the fence.
RR has done a better job with what he was left than Harbaugh. Stop looking at the schools they coach and look at the rosters they were left. Stanford was left with a lot of young talent and depth. They didn't have a chance to develop under Walt Harris because he was fired before many of them were even sophomores. Stanford had a much deeper team by year 3 of Harbaugh's tenure. Many of the players left behind by Harris were starters for Harbaugh's team in year 3 including Toby Gerhart. RR did not have the luxuries that Harbaugh was given.
December 30th, 2010 at 12:28 PM ^
I would gladly take a loss to indiana if it ment a win over osu.
December 29th, 2010 at 3:50 PM ^
The Pac-10 as it is today has only had 10 teams since 1978. Since then the only Pac-10 schools to win the Rose Bowl are USC, UCLA, Washington and Arizona St. Stanford only has one appearance in the Rose Bowl since they expanded to 10 teams. Oregon has more appearances so since they expanded to 10 teams Stanford is in a tie for 5th with most Rose Bowl victories - 0, and is 6th in Rose Bowl appearances.
The Pac-8 wasn't formed until 1964. Previous to 1964 a lot of these schools were in the Pacific Coast Conference from 1915 to 1958 - members are various times included Cal, Stanford, Oregon, what is now Oregon St, Washington, Washington St, USC, UCLA, Idaho and Montana.
From 1959 to 1964 Stanford played in the AAWU which was comprised of Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA and Washington. Washinton St joined in 1962.
December 29th, 2010 at 1:09 PM ^
interested in. Nobody ever tests the waters to find out where they stand , but may not have the aspirations at that time. /s
No one but JH can say if he really wants to be an NFL HC some day. I believe he has the Michigan HC job next on his list of goals to accomplish. That is not to say that he may want to be an NFL guy some day, but I doubt that time is now. If RR stays and succeeds here, JH will probably got to the NFL sooner, but if UM calls, I thnik he'd take the call and if he's ready to leave Stanford, he takes the UM job.
December 29th, 2010 at 1:18 PM ^
Dave Brandon was quoted as saying, "I don't listen to the radio; don't read blogs." That caused Brian Cook to express a minor, "Ouch."
In fact, I can confirm at least one small bit of evidence that Dave Brandon does occasionally read MGoBlog, but threads like this make me think, conversely to Brian, "Ouch," if this is the kind of stuff he sees.
December 29th, 2010 at 1:19 PM ^
How long until someone from the Rivals board sees this thread then runs over there to post "JH to Michigan talk blowing up on Mgoblog board"?
December 29th, 2010 at 1:31 PM ^
Mark Snyder, writing for Freep.com, has just posted an article headlined, "Rivals.com weighs in on Rich Rodriguez' future." In which Snyder does nothing, other than to pull several quotes from the Rivals transcript of an online Q-and-A with Tom Dienhart. That Freep.com story, by the way, is Number 1 or 2 on the Freep.com realtime/running "Most Popular" stories list. Nothin' sells the Freep like "Michigan." Michigan is money, baby.
And yes, this is all a self-fulfilling prophecy. Tom Dienhart reads some stuff about Rich Rodriguez. (Has Tom Dienhart ever been in Ann Arbor?) Tom Dienhart talks about what he's "hearing." A few of the MGoBloggers get excited. The Free Press reports on the Rivals excitement. Rinse, and repeat.
Without one, single, named, credible source with any real authority saying a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g.
December 29th, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^
What you have just accurately described is nothing more than the journalistic equivalent of a circle-jerk. Snyder, Dienhart, et al have a very firm grasp of one another, giving it a twist, as it were.