Mandel and College Football at Large criticizes Michigan
Alright, so seen here:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/stewart_mandel/10/18/coll…
Stewart Mandel of SI.com deeply criticizes the dismantling of DSU. While He doesn't come right out and say "Michigan did a bad thing scheduling them, and should be ashamed", that's exactly how it reads to me. His issue appears to be with Michigan scheduling a team that had to forfeit a game to play them. For the record, he does outright criticize DSU's higher ups for accepting.
I have seen similar criticisms elsewhere.
My question is this. What was Michigan supposed to do? Teams move games to accept other invitations all the time. It's regular practice to offer teams, especially lower teams, games that they will have to move their schedule around to accept. Was Michigan supposed to pull the offer after DSU accepted? Were they supposed to say, "No, we won't LET you do that to yourselves. It's our job to think for you, you know."
And if the criticism is that DSU is simply such a lower team, where's the criticism for Florida scheduling Charleston Southern, or any other powerhouse who has scheduled an FBS school lately?
Get over it, people. With an extra game and no bye week, this is how you rest your players. Plain and simple.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:51 PM ^
We needed a 12th game. DSU obliged. We kicked their ass every bit of Florida v Charleston Southern, or Clemson v Citadel, or Florida St v FAMU, or Virgina v William & Mary (oops, sorry). End of story.
Roberts Rules of Order: I move to end discussion of this point.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:47 PM ^
Is there a second?
October 19th, 2009 at 8:27 PM ^
Second
October 19th, 2009 at 12:54 PM ^
Nice!
October 19th, 2009 at 12:54 PM ^
Florida 62
Charleston Southern 3
October 19th, 2009 at 1:02 PM ^
Florida didn't even cover the spread in that game.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:59 PM ^
"College athletes are meant to compete, not serve as sacrificial lambs for their school's bean counters."
Uh huh. What world is Mandel living in?
If this game was played during the beginning of the season when all the other fbs/fcs bloodshed was going on, then no one would be making a fuss. But since it occurred during the middle of the season when conference play is underway, people feel they have the right to jump all over it.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:55 PM ^
The Gators are known for scheduling cupcakes every year to fill its nonconference schedule and no one in these parts complains. And Meyer sure as hell runs up the score on these teams, often posting more than 70. He also keeps his starters in a lot longer than we did Saturday.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:07 PM ^
BUT THE ESS EEE SEE IS TOO TOUGH YOU NEED TO SCHEDULE ORPHANAGES YOU JUST DON'T GET IT FAMILY VALUES!1!!1!1!11!11111!!!!
October 19th, 2009 at 12:55 PM ^
Mandel's tone is definitely more anti-Delaware State than anti-Michigan.
Mandel can't go anti-Michigan here because then he would have to go anti-Florida (last year: The Citadel, this year: Charleston Southern), and you cannot go anti-Florida in the media without Urban Meyer blackballing your access to the team (see: 2007, Shane Matthews).
Yes, let's end this topic. It's Penn State week.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:56 PM ^
I criticize all schools that schedule FCS teams, including Michigan. This should never have been scheduled. Nor should any of the other FBS vs FCS games.
Resting players is overrated. Rest them when you're up on EMU by 25. This isn't about rest, this is about not wanting to "lose money" by playing on the road.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:08 PM ^
FACT: some FCS teams are better than some FBS teams
FACT: Utah State is an FBS team
THEREFORE: your argument is invalid
October 19th, 2009 at 1:11 PM ^
October 19th, 2009 at 1:23 PM ^
That was mostly tongue in cheek. I see your point, I just think there are some FCS teams that are worthy of scheduling. Delaware State is, err, probably not one of them.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:18 PM ^
Yeah, I retracted my response before anything came up because I was making too much out of, as you said, a tongue in cheek remark. I don't disagree that some teams are probably quite a bit better than the bottom of the FBS barrel, but I don't think that justifies DSU, Montana State, Charleston Southern, or otherwise. That, it appears, we agree on.
That said, I think saying that one team being justifiable by rule, makes them all justifiable by rule. That, I don't agree with.
[/comments-biakabutuka explosion 3000]
As far as the comment about rest stated further down, I don't think it's necessary that we give our players a week off. They will manage with the games we have. I also mention that they can sit after getting a 3+ score lead against a team like EMU. This week DSU game is no more of a bye week than EMU was.
Our players practice, or at least I hope they do, as if it is any other opponent as to not be embarrassed like the Horror. They work all week. They go through the same couple of quarters of work.
So you'd rather have seen Michigan play a team that would have required Tate to play 4 quarters instead of resting his arm, shoulder, and concussed head?As for this, hell yeah I'd like to see us play a good to great team, especially this late into the season. There's a reason those threads keep popping up. I'm not going to be complacent when we're playing weak FCS teams when we could be trying to schedule something better. Tune ups in week 1-2 with teams that are at least FBS (or FBS worthy a la App State) I can deal with, while still not liking it. This isn't an early season tune up. This was beating up on someone just for an easy win. That, I especially find weak. We didn't schedule this game knowing Tate would have shoulder or concussion issues on this very week. That's just coincidence. I'd love to see Michigan take on a middle tier team, or at least settle for a WAC/SunBelt team over DSU. Yeah, I'm happy we won, but it's a shallow happy.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:16 PM ^
While I agree with not scheduling D-II schools in principle, I'm not sure it's really that much "worse" to schedule, e.g., Appalachian State instead of one of the service academies. ND is one of like 5 D-I schools that's never scheduled a D-II school, but they play the bottom tier D-I schools all the time. I'd bet that 2007 App. State could likely clean the floor with 1/3 of ND's schedule each year. Not to defend UM's scheduling, but the only reason why The Horror was laughed at by the media was because of D-II's reputation, not the actual merits of App. St.
What I'd like to see is to abolish the D-I/D-II designations and just consider everything D-I, like they do (more or less) for basketball. But have strength of schedule play a much bigger role in the BCS formula. "Want to schedule Delaware State? Fine, but it'll tank your SOS." Harm the BCS ranking enough and you'll see teams cease scheduling cupcakes (as often).
October 19th, 2009 at 4:32 PM ^
the difference between D1, D1AA (now FBS, FCS) D2 and D3 before making a point
October 19th, 2009 at 8:14 PM ^
1. I think the terms FBS and FCS are stupid and prefer the older D-I, D-IAA, D-II, etc.
2. Yes, I referred to App. State as a D-II school, when in fact they are what used to be considered D-IAA. Sue me.
3. Thanks for responding to the merits of my post! You added a lot to the conversation.
October 19th, 2009 at 3:32 PM ^
Really?
So you'd rather have seen Michigan play a team that would have required Tate to play 4 quarters instead of resting his arm, shoulder, and concussed head?
The game wasn't just about resting players, it was about getting Denard snaps at game speed. It also gave reps to players that don't get to see the field much in tight games, but need work to be ready later in the season because of injuries.
Extra $$ and a chance to reward some players that will never see a meaningful minute the rest of the year are also nice, but not as important.
This team is even younger than last year's 3-9 team. Michigan still has at least 3 very tough games on their schedule, with a possible 4th tough game against a rapidly improving Purdue team. Bottomline: this game was a nice rest, game rep, confidence boost, scrimmage, and an extra week of practice for PSU.
Not being forced to play a nicked up Forcier, Minor, Brown, Molk and Hemmingway is a GOOD thing.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:56 PM ^
The only thing Michigan could have done is let them out of their contract. But I'm not sure anyone would let that happen. I don't think Michigan or DSU knew that they would forfeit a game when they made the agreement.
The only thing this article sheds light on is the fact that it is not worth reading anything you already know about. You will get mad, because you know way more about it than the person writing it. This goes for national media on practice gate, failed real estate deals, or your team in general.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:59 PM ^
As far as I read it, he didn't seem even remotely critical of Michigan for scheduling the game, let alone saying Michigan should be ashamed. It focused much more on DSU forfeiting a conference game in order to take the paycheck, which is pretty sketchy any way you look at it. He pretty much sums it up with this sentence.
College athletes are meant to compete, not serve as sacrificial lambs for their school's bean counters.I don't know how you somehow interpreted this to mean that Michigan was the sacrificial lambs. And he's not wrong on his point in the article, even pointing out how North Carolina A&T was affected too.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:05 PM ^
That's the part I interpreted as anti-Michigan though. He would never even mention DSU if they weren't playing Michigan, so mentioning how they had to forfeit a game reads to me very much like he's insulting Michigan for even offering.
That said, it definitely is more critical of DSU's administrators, as I said.
Just annoying. Either way, yeah.... Penn State.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:00 PM ^
retarded look what qualifies Mandel to write a column at SI? Why are you even reading him? Someday some major outlet is going to figure out that they could pay Cook to put his stuff on their college pages and have some quality material out there at a fraction of the cost of maintaining Mandel's forehead.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:12 PM ^
Unless they want me to write about 90% Michigan, I'd be a terrible hire. Because I'd just write about Michigan.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:25 PM ^
That would only improve their publication.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:30 PM ^
ok who are the losers voting up this post?
October 19th, 2009 at 1:31 PM ^
Me! Me! I'm a loser! Me!
Seriously, who DOESN'T think more M coverage would spruce up any media outlet?
October 19th, 2009 at 1:35 PM ^
not your post Brian's.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:39 PM ^
than 100% crap.
Boom Cook'ed.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:33 PM ^
What language is/was in your agreement/contract regarding what types of things you write about? Or is that a private matter?
October 19th, 2009 at 1:43 PM ^
They already write about 90% Florida and Tebow.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:51 PM ^
90% Boston seems to have worked pretty well for Bill Simmons.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:02 PM ^
Michigan has done nothing wrong here. I almost feel like these discussions are making me dumber (not a jab at anyone on this board, only media that dwells on this crap). I just want to talk about Penn State and my 12 hour drive to see the game!!
October 19th, 2009 at 1:09 PM ^
I read Mandel's piece also and while it wasn't outworldly critical of Michigan, it did have that tone of "OMG civilization is ending b/c some small school took a money grab from a big school that's going to womp on them"
HOWEVA... In Mandel's pre-season "mailbag" column he writes this:
"Nobody's unbeatable in college football anymore; but on paper, these Gators have as good a shot at running the table as any team in the last four years. Heading into the season, Florida reminds me very much of USC's 2005 squad (minus the "greatest team of all-time" nonsense) -- a defending BCS champ returning its Heisman-winning quarterback and a boatload of other stars, playing a schedule that, as of now, seems inordinately favorable (no Alabama or Ole Miss in conference play; Charleston Southern, Troy and FIU in nonconference)."
So an "inordinately favorable" schedule is a good thing for a national title run. I guess color me OK with what happened this weekend.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:21 PM ^
If we want to have 7-8 home games every year (read: make a profit/pay off the debt on the construction) then we cannot schedule more home/home series in addition to ND. Even the mid-major conference teams are starting to ask for home/home instead of just a 1-game agreement in many cases today.
In addition to the above any team we decide to schedule would have to happen to have the same mid-season open date as our big ten by-week happens to land on in order to make it work (and not once but 2x in the home/home case) as we typically easily fill the "pre-season" games up with three teams before the B10 season starts anyway.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:37 PM ^
how has that had to have that happen here?
October 19th, 2009 at 2:00 PM ^
it was a joke about dude's sentence:
any team we decide to schedule would have to happen to have the same mid-season open date as our big ten by-week happens.it sounded a lot funnier in my head.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:01 PM ^
Things always sound funnier in my head too, but that's because the voice that lives there likes to breathe helium a lot.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:22 PM ^
that we didn't schedule a team quarterbacked by Armanti Edwards
October 19th, 2009 at 1:24 PM ^
I agree with some of the points Mandel is making, but not in the way he makes them. Quite a few months ago there were a good number of decent teams who could have filled the then open date DSU filled, (at least based on the discussions I was reading on this board).
I don't have respect for teams who play weak schedules, I hated the prospect of ND playing a weak schedule this year, which I am very happy has not panned out that way. There is only like 5-6 teams in D1 who have never scheduled an FCS opponent, was that the NCAA's intention when they expanded to 12 games? I honestly don't know, but the result has been pretty hollow and disappointing.
I don't understand UM seemingly getting targeted on this type of article, as others have posted, there are much worse examples of pathetic OOC schedules. I understand the circumstances that lead to DSU making it on UM's schedule, but there is nothing good from adding them. This is what kind of press you will get if you win no matter how convincing, no matter how soon you take out your starters, no matter how respectful you treat them. The only headline that can come out of games like these, are upsets.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:47 PM ^
I didn't see a smiley face so I'll assume you were being genuine with this statement:
"I hated the prospect of ND playing a weak schedule this year, which I am very happy has not panned out that way."
Your schedule is comprised of USC, Michigan, MSU and a bunch of cupcakes. And even though they beat us, MSU is still a cupcake IMO. A 10-win season would mean nothing.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:07 PM ^
Nope, no sarcasm intended. Our schedule to date is the 13th strongest in the country per Sagarin's rankings, and records of the opponents we are yet to play,
BC 5-2
WSU 1-5
Navy 5-2
Pitt 6-1
UConn 4-2
Stanford 4-3
Thats 1 team already bowl eligable and 4 teams are in very good standing to be as well. Plus 3 more teams that should be in the same category that ND has already played (USC, MSU, UM) , Nevada is finally winning, UW is much better than they played this week but I can't really complain about anyone else.
8 out of our 12 opponents in bowl games at the end of the year, and both Nevada and UW could be there at the end as well, not even close to what it looked like in preseason
October 19th, 2009 at 2:02 PM ^
would advocate the addition of Purdue to your list of non-cupcakes on the ND schedule.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:44 PM ^
If we don't pummel them by 20+ then I will revise that comment.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:32 PM ^
I found no problem with what Stewart wrote. First of all, he doesn't really criticize Michigan. He did downplay the excitement of the players for the chance to play in the Big House on national TV. DSU did kind of sell its soul by doing this (it's also kind of disrespectful to their own conference). I mean, they forfeited a game in which they would actually be competitive (we hope) just so they could be embarrassed on national TV for $550k. That's not in the spirit of competition, but this is the world we live in.
There was an interesting article about cupcakes and how some non-BCS and FCS teams are kind of whoring themselves out for tons of money, which can then be used to build, say, a practice facility. I think that some writers are especially disappointed with DSU because it went a step further and actually forfeited a conference game, in a sense going out of its way for a big payday. Stewart gives little indication, if any, that this is Michigan's fault, because it isn't at all.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:56 PM ^
So now we'll have de-facto Bye Weeks in our strange new world. Starters still get some "practice" in, then get a rest. Only now it pays the Athletic Dept.
Kind of a shady system, but you play in the system you have, not the system you wish you had.
So what to do? Make it fun for everyone. If it is such a thrill for our 4th stringers to take the field in the Big House in front of 110,000, has it occured to anyone that it may also be the same thrill for a 1-AA kid that only plays in front of 7,000?
Just treat the opponent with respect, don't rub it in, help them up after a tackle, show them around, cheer for their band, make it a fun once-in-a-lifetime experience for them.
I think Michigan succeeded in doing just that.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:18 PM ^
I'm only sorry I could merely give you just one +1 on that post.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:26 PM ^
Seconded.
October 19th, 2009 at 3:51 PM ^
"If it is such a thrill for our 4th stringers to take the field in the Big House in front of 110,000, has it occured to anyone that it may also be the same thrill for a 1-AA kid that only plays in front of 7,000?"
And not just the players...their band received a standing ovation that followed them all the way around the stadium as they came off the field.
A buddy of mine at the entrance said the DSU players were slapping hands with the fans after that game and his kid had a game glove tossed up to him by one of their receivers.
This was still a huge thrill for many of them and definitely have a few points of pride. DSU had a 4th down stop, only gave up 14 points in the second half, and executed a few big plays.
They aren't going to a bowl anytime soon and this is something they'll never forget.