Lynn Henning responds to my note re: his Sunday column and cites this blog
Sunday Lynn Henning, of the Detroit News, like much of the MSM, published a column critical of RR where among other charges, he asserted that the POV saying the cupboard was bare was "baloney." His column is here:
http://www.detnews.com/article/20091107/OPINION03/911070389/1131/sports…
I then fired off an email to him, which was complimentary in general but also pointed out that his assertion was flatly wrong, particularly regarding the defense. I sent him a couple of charts in the email from the misopogon series on the "decimated defense" and linked to the rest. He responded to me this afternoon with the following:
Brian,
Thanks for your note and words. Am sorry for this season. I do believe RR has been paying an unfair price for some departed personnel (I've seen the blog analysis), and I believe I acknowledged that somewhat Sunday -- and, frankly, wish I had gone deeper into that sub-topic -- but it's what has gone on with the existing personnel that has been so troubling. That wasn't a 3-9 team a year ago. And it's difficult to justify what happened the last two Saturdays, to cite two examples from 2009. But I agree that this is more complex than I got into Sunday. I'll make amends there. Thanks again for your note. Much appreciated. Lynn Henning
So, while I continue to disagree, even with his point in his reply, I think Lynn was very fair in his response, and it's good to see that he dug into the information from this blog. I hope he follows through on his word to make amends.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:02 PM ^
I emailed Henning once before (a few years ago). Then, too, he was very polite and explained his position further. I don't agree with everything he writes, but I respect him as a person. He's willing to take the time to respond and entertain opposing viewpoints. A lot of writers wouldn't bother to do this.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:08 PM ^
so I don't know who Lynn Henning is, but that's a classy response.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:16 PM ^
That's actually really nice of him and really classy, as Andrew said. I now feel really bad for some awful thing I have said, albeit mostly in jest. It also sounds like Brian chose the right way to give a journalist feedback. I'm really impressed by Mr. Henning's politeness and willingness to admit that things might be more complicated than he let on.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:27 PM ^
Very impressive. Honest, respectful disagreement. Willingness to considering a different point of view. He would never make it at the Free Press.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:35 PM ^
I actually posted something about that article on detnews's website. I had to blast him for not supporting his argument with actual facts. Now that I see the response, I feel a little shame, but not really. I'm tired of Detroit reporters tossing out these ridiculous statements without taking 5 minutes to actually research what they are saying. Regardless of how 'nice' he was in his response, it doesn't excuse him for rushing out another vilification of the UofM program.
November 9th, 2009 at 6:04 PM ^
FWIW, Henning was on WTKA in the 4-5pm slot Friday, November 6, basically making the same arguments as in his column. He called the losing seasons 'completely unnecessary'. He followed up by saying Carr may have taken a Mallett-led team to a 6-6 record.
I appreciate that he wrote the OP, but I think canards like this are dangerous.
November 9th, 2009 at 6:46 PM ^
an honest, respectable journalist...
...at a Detroit newspaper.
November 9th, 2009 at 6:50 PM ^
Interesting... I did the same. Here's what I got:
Great note. Thanks for your thoughts and words. Am sorry for this season. I do believe RR has been paying an unfair price for some departed personnel (I've seen the blog analysis), and I believe I acknowledged that somewhat Sunday -- and, frankly, wish I had gone deeper into that sub-topic -- but it's what has gone on with the existing personnel that has been so troubling. That wasn't a 3-9 team a year ago. And it's difficult to justify what happened the last two Saturdays, to cite two examples from 2009. Thanks again for your thoughtful note. Much appreciated.
Some copyin' and pastin' there, with which I have no big issues. :)
November 9th, 2009 at 7:02 PM ^
IMO the best writer of any of the Detroit Newspapers. I read his Tigers articles daily throughout the season. Usually very thoughtful about the Tigers regarding anything and everything that has to do with them.
That said, looks like he doesn't put quite as much research into his football writing. Which is understandable when you just got done with covering the Tigers for about 9 months.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:03 PM ^
I emailed him and got nothing.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:01 PM ^
You'll get nothing and like it.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:28 AM ^
Are you gonna eat your fat?
November 9th, 2009 at 7:12 PM ^
Before I have to create my new ID due to the (unfair) negbombing, that, while I am a alum and cheerleader and want this great site to be mostly cheerleading and am happy Brian has created it so I always click on the ads and buy his book just before the football season...
...what Brian is doing, through his smarts, tireless efforts and GREAT TIMING, is building a community of potentially tens of thousands that is the go-to source for all things Wolverines...
...AND, if you negbomb people like me for not always being always a cheerleader, this site will die. Guaranteed. It will be the entertainment section writing about local plays in the Ann Arbor News. No respect, no furious debate, no tens of thousands of visitors.
The poster soon to be formerly known as bhallpm
November 9th, 2009 at 7:19 PM ^
No it wont. It was fine without a message board for several years. And the message board has nothing to with how sucessful the site is. Nice try though.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:47 PM ^
Yes, you have a different opinion than many other people, that is true and it's not popular with many people. Yes, you got neg-bombed. But, as Brian likes to say (or maybe just has mentioned once), causation does not equal correlation. A well-thought-out, posting with a new perspective would not have been neg-bombed. A ridiculous posting with nothing new might be, the fact that it's a topic that has been worn out and that we're tired of didn't help but it wasn't the root cause. And "Les is gettin in done at Alabama" and "Harbaugh is gettin it done at Stanford" half an hour apart from each other were useless posts that deserved a way bigger neg-bomb.
Also, I wouldn't be too surprised if Brian figures out you're the same person and doesn't give you a new ID. Particularly since you've announced your plan to try doing that.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:31 PM ^
You were negbombed. We don't like you. I hope Brian never lets you post again.
Damn, some people are just dumb. Or too weak to take hearing what they don't want to hear.
And as I said before, my posts on two great Michigan men, Harbaugh and Miles, were partly to show how ridiculous it was to banish me from stating my opinion while other opinions on things like Gary Moeller's wife (!) were kept in.
ANd to the previous poster who thought the site was fine without the message board. Perhaps. But my point was that with this message board, the traffic has radically increased, leading to more coin to Brian, whom I think deserves it.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:02 PM ^
I'm sure you're a nice person, I hope you continue to post, but I also hope that you learned a lesson from the negbanging and I hope that lesson was less "people don't like opposing viewpoints" and more "people don't like many repetitive board topics that offer nothing new."
And my point was actually that you should keep posting under your current ID and that ditching a user id and starting from scratch might be viewed poorly. That's just a guess, though, I'm sure people have tried it and quite possibly been permitted to do so but I'd be surprised if Brian would be thrilled about the concept. A better idea might be to contact him and let him know that you feel like you've learned a little from the experience and asking if he would mind terribly resetting your points to zero?
November 10th, 2009 at 10:49 AM ^
I'm a firm advocate of picking your spots, especially on a message board where you can post using a somewhat anonymous identity. Sure, I feel all of the same frustrations that Wolverine fans do at this point in our season, but I know tensions are high right after a loss so I just shut the computer off on Saturday and call up a friend or my Dad to bitch about our mistakes and come back Monday or Tuesday after watching the game again with a little clearer and certainly calmer perspective. Easier said than done sure, but if you're looking to avoid a negbang this is about as easy as it gets.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:16 PM ^
Oh no, that's Doug Henning. Wrong guy, sorry.
"It's all an ILLUSION!"
November 9th, 2009 at 7:27 PM ^
was gracious in his responses but what other choice did he have when some of the things he said weren't accurate? He should have done his homework first.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:52 AM ^
There is always the Colin Cowherd route. Douchenozzle. How I hate him.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:29 PM ^
Did geography, competition and the economy lead to the hiring of Rich Rod.? Did Bill Martin after trying unsuccessfully to lure Schino and Miles to Michigan, sit back and look at Michigan’s economy, the population move from the state and the competitive landscape of college recruiting as a need to get a coach who’s system can be competitive even with lesser talent.
Folks, I love Michigan but how many five, four and three star talents does this state produce? Michigan as a state is not considered a “Football” state to begin with and it has to share the talent with Sparty. If you look at the landscape of college football, Michigan is one of the only “traditional” powers whose state cannot support its program, let alone two programs when you add Michigan State. I don’t think I need to discuss the long term economic outlook for Michigan. While I hope it gets better, this state has been losing population and hence talent for a while.
Does the system switch, while painful in the evolution process eventually help Michigan regain or even reach greater heights? I don’t know but think about this…Ohio State can pretty much recruit its state and be a top 10 football program. Penn State while it has Pitt has a population and geographic proximity to a ton of college football talent. Both Ohio and Pennsylvania are considered “football states” and they produce a lot of talent. Florida, Florida State, Miami can all be sustained by the state of Florida. USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Cal can all be sustained from three cities…LA, San Francisco and San Diego. With all of these great programs, with all of that talent so close to sustain them…the sales job to lure these kids away from Florida, California, the SE to Michigan gets a lot more challenging.
Rich Rod system has worked in areas very similar (without the great tradition) of Michigan: Boise State, Utah and WVU. While we at Michigan have traditionally always had very highly rated classes… RR teams have been very competitive with few of his recruiting classes breaking into the top 20. While he would get a Noel Devin once in a while, getting a recruit like that at WVU was few and far between. Same deal with Boise and Utah. RR has a much greater opportunity to lure top kids to Michigan but he can sustain a very competitive program with kids that fit his system and might not be the “big time” recruit. With the talent pool in the state declining, coupled with the fact that Michigan, while its produced some great talent, does not consistently produce a ton of D1 prospects...incorporating a system that dosent have to rely on "5 and 4" star recruits could be a good thing...I hope?
I don’t know, maybe I’m reaching here… it’s just a thought. Maybe a few too many Corona Lights after the Illinois and Purdue game has killed some brain cells. We won’t know for a couple of years but I do believe that RR and his system will work here at Michigan and potentially take us to greater more consistent heights.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:46 PM ^
I think that's an interesting idea. There's no question that UM is at an increasing disadvantage (for now, at least) when compared to Florida, Texas, and USC.
Back in the '70s, the whole conference took a hit when the Deep South pipeline was closed (thanks to Sam Cunningham, to here some people tell it). The Big 10 went 1-9 in the Rose Bowl during the mysteriously beloved "Ten Year War."
November 10th, 2009 at 9:59 AM ^
I respect your point, but do you have any proof that the 'brain drain' in Michigan has caused a decrease in the amount of 4 and 5 star talent this state has to offer?
This post doubles as argument against your post and to the stance that MSU is now 'owning Michigan recruiting' because they snag more of the top 15 in-state recruits than UofM. As far as back as I can remember (and definitely since Rivals and Scout have tracked this stuff), UofM has used its brand name to recruit nationally and focused on getting a small number (2-3) of top in-state kids that they seriously wanted. That hasn't changed in the last decade when the Michigan economy has steadily declined. The decrease in population is coming in the form of 18-24 year-olds leaving the state to find their first job, start a career after college, or simply to go to college. Your argument may hold water 30 years down the road when those young adults are old enough to have 18 year-old football player children....but I highly doubt Bill Martin was thinking that far ahead.
UofM's recruiting has not changed, and will not change, from the days of Bo and Lloyd. To your point on 'proximity', doesn't our position as neighbors to PA and OH provide a benefit? If you win, players will come, from all over, just like they always have.
The thought that RR's system doesn't 'need' top talent to succeed is a little off. Take a look at the last two years. Yes, the system is good enough (or tricky enough) to win game any given day (Boise v. OU, etc) but to consistently win the talent has to be there.
Just an opinion...I don't really think the economy has anything to do with the decision to hire RR. Interesting though...
November 10th, 2009 at 3:08 PM ^
like the recruiting sites and magazines you can see that Texas, California, Florida -- the whole of the SEC pretty much -- is the hotbed of recruiting talent.
You coach at Michigan you better be in the running for top talent from around the country if you want to compete. Same for Notre Dame, for example.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:10 PM ^
Utah over Alabama, Boise over Oklahoma, WVU over Oklahoma...Hopefully our first bowl game in the RR regime will be against Okalahoma. I would put Oregon in the same argument. I think the point about MSU getting more in state talent even strenghtens my point. What have those recruits done for MSU...not much. Michigan State plays the "we care more about our in state recruits than Michigan card" but some of that talent 1.) dosent fit the RR system and 2.) Michigan can get better talent else where. But Michigan still needs talent from this state and it is waining. I also did make the stance that MSU is "owning" in state recruiting...I said "Michigan has to share the talent with a in state rival...and with a talent pool as small as Michigan high school talent pool...that's a disadvantage to other top tier programs.
While Michigan will always recruit nationally...my point is,it is becoming increasingly difficult to lure this talent to places like Michigan. Look at Brians five star recruit graph...we have a very low number of 5 star recruits over the past few years. Can it increase...yes...will it...I don't think anyone knows. While our classes historically have ranked high...our recruiting does not compare either in talent or depth with Florida, USC, Florida State, LSU, Georgia, OSU, Okalahoma, Texas or Alabama. And while our proximity is close to PA and Ohio...most of the "Top" talent goes to OSU, PSU and Pitt and we and other programs poach what we can.
While we have had our share of talent coming from these states...the depth and level of talent that OSU, Florida, PSU, Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, UCLA and others have coming from their states pales in comparison of what Michigan gets from its own state or either PA or Ohio. Michigan has to recruit nationally, always has, always will but that is getting more difficult. Given time RR system could hedge against this more challenging landscape of recruiting and help sustain and regain Michigan dominance. I just hope people give the man at least 5 years.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:30 PM ^
I guess I still fail to see your point.
1) We consistently nab a 5 star talent (maybe two) every year. This has not changed since the bottom fell out of the state's economy. The only teams grabbing more than that consistently are USC, LSU, and Bama (just recently) and that's because they either recruit 350 kids every year (Bama) or have won a TON.
2) Do you honestly think high school football players care about the relative economic health of the areas where they are committing to play football? Why on earth would a kid commit Ole Miss or LSU if they were looking to go to college in an area with a vibrant expanding economy? Blue-chip recruits commit to schools that win, can provide exposure to the NFL, have good tradition, good facilities, and a good campus life (probably sort of in that order).
All the points you've made haven't changed in the last 3 decades and I agree with them. The problem is you are using these points to argue that RR was a hire based on the poor economy, which is a total reach.
And lastly...we don't just get scraps from OH and PA that PSU and OSU don't offer. Ask Justin Turner, Steve Breaston, Chad Henne, Prescott Burgess, to name of few from the last 5ish years.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:15 PM ^
nice to see a guy so open to criticism. most of the time when you write these guys, they either don't respond, or send an a-hole response.