Meta: Michigan fans who think Rodriguez should be fired and their place in this community
In short, what is it? We've had a few users that fit this description, most memorably Tom Hagan and the guy who went off the hinges in the Conway commitment post. Just about all those who come in here with the same opinion sooner or later have pretty big meltdowns and get banned. I'm not sure if that reflects more on the board and the fact that their arguments are scrutinized far more than the average comment or on people who hold that opinion.
Depending on the outcome of the allegations presented today and if the early season goes worse than expected it's not hard to see this board getting pretty divisive and pretty ugly. In the past I think Brian's policy of raising point requirements to post has been useful. Also, a personal suggestion that could be helpful: don't negbang people you simply disagree with, this seems to invite meltdowns. IMO it's important that any Michigan fan with a thoughtful and respectful argument feel welcome on the board.
More broadly should reasoned criticism of Rodriguez be welcomed, viewed with suspicion, or what?
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:30 PM ^
I'm not sure how much these allegations actually reflect on the HC. IOW, how many of these compliance people/ official counting hours people are hold overs from the LC era? also, do they directly report to the football program or compliance? we need a concept map that explains the bureaucracy of the AD.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:44 PM ^
Bingo. IMHO, this is just a result of decades of redtape building up through the CARA system. If you have ever worked for the University as a GSI or any other capacity, you would discover that the University of Michigan and redtape go together like milk and cookies.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:31 PM ^
It's always just come down to courtesy. You're afforded less leniency if you're blasting Rodriguez without cause, and a post titled "Should Rodriguez Be Kept?" is going to get negged into oblivion simply because of the number we've had in the last couple years.
Bottom line: If you have a dissenting opinion and want to be taken seriously, state your case and defend it without losing your cool. Beyond that, we should welcome discussion of opposing views.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:37 PM ^
"a post titled "Should Rodriguez Be Kept?" is going to get negged into oblivion simply because of the number we've had in the last couple years."
Isn't that a problem? For me and you, who both have thousands of points to spare, not really. But I think the possibility of ensuing massive negbang would potentially stifle arguments worth considering for people with more modest totals.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:43 PM ^
But only because of what the blog as a whole has gone through. If someone has a legitimate gripe, they should bring it up as such, rather than extrapolating to Rodriguez's job security.
If someone only has a few points (and even if they have a truckload) they should be thinking at least a little bit about how they're wording things and how they'll be received by the rest of the board.
I absolutely love the threads where there is intelligent, civil conversation about the future of the program, the players, the strategy, and everything that goes with that. (And CHILI!) The whole idea behind the MGoPoints is to do push things in that direction.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:45 PM ^
Right, but in that vein, is there anything left to be said on the subject? Searching through the 50 threads that are on that topic, are there any more deep insights we can find?
Rich Rod will be the coach for sure next year. Beyond that, results on the field will probably be taken into account. None of us have any power, unless Block M is secretly Dave Brandon. Angsty Angst Angst could be vented at Rivals or Scout or somebody's personal blog.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:58 PM ^
Now that the allegations have come out there is more to be said on the subject because the facts have changed. I think M-Wolverine's post below has merit in this regard.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:59 PM ^
New subject. It is what is is. Not my image of UofM sports.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:51 PM ^
True, but the same can be said of virtually every new thread started -- it's a pretty high burden to require all new threads offer deep insights. People only seem upset about redundant threads when the reflect negative opinions on Rich Rod -- no one gets neg-banged for the trillionth "who is going to start in the secondary next year" speculative post.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:57 PM ^
That's mostly because there aren't many arguments for/against RR that haven't been fleshed out in their entirety. Also, people are constantly getting negged for those kinds of threads, but not to the extent of the others because they're not so emotionally charged.
"RR should go." is going to get people out of the realm of the logical just long enough for the down arrow to do its job, while "Who's starting?" will get an eye roll and a quick click of the back button.
February 24th, 2010 at 11:31 AM ^
um. people get negbanged for starting "should we redshirt DG" threads...
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:01 PM ^
I am sick and tired of the same old same old all caps THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE type posts in terms of "defending" the position on criticizing the HC. If there are reasonable points to be made then fair enough but it seems many of those opposing RichRod maybe are not so much angry with him, per se, as they are with what they see as decay and failure within the program. RichRod symbolizes that to them and so you get a meltdown crazy like cabal.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:31 PM ^
I'd like to second your last point. Knocking people down simply for disagreeing with you is childish. Of course, so is being a tool about it.
As long as the board is civil, I'm happy. I only knock people down for posts I generally consider to be derogatory, false, over-the-top angry, or with copious spelling and grammar issues. We don't all have to get along, just be polite about it.
ed: My grammar probably sucks here--sorry.
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:01 PM ^
the ALL CAPS.
February 24th, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^
I AM TEMPTING FATE
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:38 PM ^
don't negbang people you simply disagree withThat would be nice. We could change the points system around so that people would lose increasingly larger amounts of points for negbanging, IE if your downvote brings a person down to -30, you would also lose 30 points. If your downvote brings a person to -100, you also lose 100. This would probably eliminate negbanging quickly, while still reinforcing the fact that anybody that gets to -50 probably does deserve it. Other than that, meltdowns wouldn't happen so much if people could let things go. Like em0 used to do, coming back to keep posting on the same topic will only lead to more negging. It would be easier if somebody came in, made a rational argument, defended their argument to the best of their ability, and if the board is still against them, it might be better to just drop the topic. The problem with that is that the FIRE RICH ROD chanters rarely actually put together a cohesive argument and usually use DEMAND EXCELLENCE, NOT A MICHIGAN MAN, and other such caps laden arguments. And now, most everybody knows the pros and cons of keeping Rodriguez. We also know MSC and Brandon are still behind him, so he won't be fired anytime soon. Discussing it further is pointless.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:56 PM ^
I'm not a fire Rich Rod chanter, by any means. But between our record of the last two years and now the NCAA allegations, I think we're nearing the point where the argument for his termination is self-evident. Absent a decent record next year, the burden of proof should shift to those who want to make an argument for keeping him.
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:35 PM ^
We are talking about a coach who has been on the job for two years, and whose first real recruiting class just finished its freshman season. It's possible that he could get let go a year from now, but if so, it will be controversial. Year three is not when it becomes "self-evident" to let a football coach go.
And please, spare us any righteous indignation over the rules violations. Those are bullshit and you know it.
February 24th, 2010 at 10:06 AM ^
Year three is not when it becomes "self-evident" to let a football coach go.
I didn't say it would be self-evident to let him go. I said the argument in favor of his termination (3 straight bottom of the Big 10 seasons and a serious NCAA investigation) would be self-evident. If this unfortunate event were to occur (and I hope it doesn't), Rich Rod defenders would no longer be able to simply scoff at the fire Rich Rod brigade as reactionary idiots.
And please, spare us any righteous indignation over the rules violations.
I'm scouring my post to see where I exhibited "righteous indignation over the rules violations." I must be missing something. Please spare me your righteous indication over something I never said.
Those are bullshit and you know it.
No I don't. Nor do you. I don't think excessive practice hours are the worst violations in the world, but I certainly can't dismiss them as bullshit when I have no idea what happened, Dave Brandon basically acknowledged innocent wrongdoing, and a former player is coming forward and saying we broke the rules. Hopefully it will turn out that we didn't violate any rules, but none of us can honestly say that we KNOW there were no violations.
February 24th, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^
didn't say it would be self-evident to let him go. I said the argument in favor of his termination (3 straight bottom of the Big 10 seasons and a serious NCAA investigation) would be self-evident.
May I assume you work in the legal profession? That's some mighty fine hair-splitting there.
Look, I'm assuming that we violated some NCAA rules, because it's virtually impossible not to have, there are so many and they are so byzantine. The specific rules in question here are ridiculously arcane (we're debating whether or not stretching counts as "countable hours") - we're not talking about things like recruiting violations or academic fraud, we're talking about whether our players practiced 5% longer than they should have.
To claim that these violations boost the case for firing RR is ridiculous. If you want to bitch about RR, stick to on-field results. If you throw in "AND he broke the rules!," you'll probably find yourself getting negged, and justifiably so.
February 24th, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^
The more serious violation, it seems, is that we had more than the allowed number of people on staff performing coaching duties and sometimes in the offseason.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:38 PM ^
I think we are at the point where it's ok for people to express their opinion about Rodriguez's future. I think all the flaming at anti-RR posters is left over anger initially directed towards those lunatic "fans" that were calling for his head after the '08 season. Hell, some were calling for his head before the '08 season. I distinctly remember walking through Ann Arbor after the Utah game and hearing many, many comments how the guy should be fired the next week. If you were one of them, you're forever banned from being called a Michigan fan, and deep down, even while you're celebrating our '11 NC, you'll always know it. I also bet that you got a glimpse of your future self-guilt when we started out 4-0.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:43 PM ^
If you're not planning on drinking the kool aid, I wouldn't post for about the next week. Unless you like getting negged into oblivion. Tempers are going to be high, till this gets lost in the long wait till we hear more. I've read a lot here, and the least bit of questioning, or even just worry, has gotten a pretty bad response.
Not to say that ARGHHH FIRE RICH ROD ever has much useful merit. But I wish this blog was a place where you could say "hmmm, maybe he did at least this wrong" without getting piled on. I'm not talking about the Hagen's of the World, but the Bando's and such, some keeping an open mind (you can find them).
And really, been avoiding the particulars today, but since it was just brought up by M.A. - all those Quality Assurance staff cited in the findings were all brought in by Rich. Just look at their bios. And it sounds like, from the report, that compliance was intimidated and/or not getting response to their concerns, and didn't follow-up. Everything may be minor; it may not. I'm willing to wait and see. But whatever is found can pretty safely be put at Rich's feet at this point. Hopefully very little.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:58 PM ^
and that is NOT what i wanted to hear.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:48 PM ^
To me, it looks like the only actual infractions were:
1) the QC guys teaching football and warm-up techniques, and watching film with players, for a max of 2 hours per week.
2) Barwis imposing punishment for missing summer classes, for a max of 2 hours per week.
3) RR thinking that stretching was countable, for a max of 1 hour on 2008 Sundays, for a max of 30 minutes on 2009 Mondays.
Related and encompassing that, you have the compliance system (old guard) that broke down which let these things happen. But those 3 things are the only actual non-bureaucratic damage that was done.
Oh and you also have the guy lying.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:44 PM ^
I disagree with that sentiment. This website has become kind of like the mirror image of listening to Valenti and Foster on the radio. They hang up on people, or read e-mails in a funny voice when it has to do with positive Michigan commentary. When I read the posts here or when we get the latest "directive on future opinions" from Brian, they read in the same funny voice.
I'm not sure why anyone at this point would fight to defend the Rich Rodriguez era of Michigan football. We all hope it gets better, with or without him. I don't want to read posts about how he is the devil, and I don't want to read posts about how he's clearly the victim of some mass conspiracy against hillbillies. I just want my football team to maintain it's legacy of winning football and outstanding principle.
Oh, and by the way. It's all Lloyd's fault, clearly.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:49 PM ^
I also wish that if I have to log in to "Reply", that my comment would be attached to the original message I intended to reply to and not with the first post. I think I'm just some kind of message board "ruh-tard" in the parlance of the day. Maybe I am worthy of some negative spacepoints.
February 24th, 2010 at 8:00 AM ^
That long in thing drives me nuts. Has happened to me a few times, as recent as yesterday.
February 24th, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^
I think the "long in thing" discussions belong on another message board.
February 24th, 2010 at 5:40 PM ^
LOL - your right - shoot, posted on the wrong board ....
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:44 PM ^
I generally agree, though to be fair most of the neg-banging here is directed at obvious trolls and just ludicrous postings clearly intended to incite a response. I do agree that the most childish behavior is to just neg a guy because you don't agree with him, but then again I think most people neg if the point is just dumb or unnecessarily inflammatory.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:55 PM ^
As long as people are civil, it seems like differing viewpoints are generally accepted. However, the situation would have to get quite a bit worse before anyone should consider allowing the "Fire RichRod" crowd to take over. Once they become unchecked, the mentality will spread like cancer.
This board represents somewhat of a united front against all the media garbage. For the time being, I believe it should remain as such.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:01 PM ^
Your first sentence seems at odds with the rest of your post.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:18 PM ^
Generally, arguments other than "Fire RichRod" are going to be accepted as long as they are presented in a civil manner. The assertion of a "united front" is one against an overzealous media and against the "Fire RR" crowd(at this point). Key word in the first sentence was "generally".
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:20 PM ^
I think that's generally fair, but this is where the rubber meets the road: What if the arguments are negative about Rodriguez (as in he's done a less than good job at x) and could be construed as giving support to a "Fire RR" argument, but doesn't itself do so?
In other words should being critical of Rodriguez be welcome on this board?
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:28 PM ^
It's a good question, but it's not welcome. America, love it or leave it.
And by that, I guess I mean to say that the spacepoints are funny in the sense that when you look at people's voting record here, you have supreme haters who just spend there time doling out hate. I think it was nice to help people keep out trolls, because who wants trolls running around eating our children and such. But this is a company line blog with unfortunate amounts of daily information. I think you could get a daily dose of real information from Fox News without looking elsewhere, but you'd have to try twice as hard to sift through the party line.
Personally not knowing what amazing powers spacepoints give me, I'm okay with posting away and not kissing anyone's butt. Until Brian can find a way to block my IP address .
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:29 PM ^
It would be ridiculous if we were to disallow all criticism of RichRod. However, if we are in the midst of a four game losing streak, criticism tends to snowball into "Fire RichRod" rather quickly. I believe we should refrain from being overly-critical of him before allowing him the opportunity to succeed. In my opinion, the upcoming season will be the first in which he will realistically have that opportunity.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:55 PM ^
It's a tough place around here if you aren't 100% on the company line. This is a great place to get good information and links to anything that's even remotely relevant, but it's not a balanced "community." It's one that has a slant and is not particularly open to other view points.
I think brianshall is a good example of someone who's been negged to obvlivion for being a dissenter. In general, his posts are not offensive grammer, language, or content wise, but he gets negs like you wouldn't believe. He can be repetitive for sure, but I don't think he deserves the negs he gets.
Personally, I have soured on Rodriguez mainly for on field performance and underwhelming representation of the University, but I still truly hope he succeeds and would love to be proven wrong. I don't think he should be fired at this point, but would almost certainly feel differently if there isn't significant improvement in 2010. I'm not in favor of a 5 year window.
That being said, I've gotten through being critical of Rodriguez's handling of the Dorsey situation, taking a unpopular stand today, and generally telling everyone to forget about the Freep on a regular basis and still have a relatively healthy point total. So it can be done if you choose your words carefully. It also helps that pos bangs count twice as much as negs.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:15 PM ^
No, Brianshall's grammer is not bad but his grammar is atrocious.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:48 PM ^
Hall is a dick and gets negged for being a dick. His opinions are part and parcel of that but not the only thing that causes the negging.
If Michigan goes 3-9 next year people calling for an RR firing won't get negged as extensively.
That's why pos is worth 2 and negs are worth 1, and you get points for posting. If you are really truly getting negged to hell you are at worse than .300 and if 70% of the people hate you it's your damn fault.
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:18 PM ^
Screw the football team and Michigan athletics, when do I get my ticket to Australia
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:58 PM ^
Isn't part of neg-ing to express disagreement with the point being made, not just for inflammatory or over the top? I mean, I assume we +1 the posts we agree with, why not -1 the ones we disagree with?
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:02 PM ^
I guess the negger needs to be sensitive as to the situation of the neggee. If someone's making a point you happen to disagree with and only has 6 points, refrain. If they have 600, it's not so big a deal. -1's in theory should only be going to posts that are in some way detrimental to the board.
I might at some point try to work through my MGoPoint/Board philosophy... could be interesting.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:06 PM ^
Interesting thought. I guess part of the reason I'm okay with giving a neg because of basic disagreement is I see it as cutting down on extra, space-filler comments of "agreed" or "I don't agree" when we may not have time to post a rationally laid out explanation of why we disagree. It's convenient.
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:44 PM ^
To neg is human, to refrain divine?
I think we've entered stage 3 of Kubler-Ross.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:07 PM ^
Negative. It is about keeping out trolls. If something is inflammatory, over the top, or repetitively or bombastically redundant with posting depth charts over and over again until you're sick of seeing them again and again, then you should use a neg. Also, use on anything related to politics, as that's strictly verboten.
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:37 PM ^
How do "negs" keep out the trolls? By flagging them for the mods to make the call on removing them?
Second on the politics, I wonder some days if religion should be on there too.
February 24th, 2010 at 8:13 AM ^
What you said is not comprehensive. A more accurate statement would be neg-banging is typically reserved for someone perceived to be and unreasonable dissenter.
That said, most of the negs I've taken have been for double posts, or posting a thread on MGoBoard that was somehow covered in another thread that I didn't see even after looking first.
Then there is:
- the all caps neg
- the I don't agree with your opinion neg
- the you can't spell or have poor grammar neg
- the this thread has been covered a million times neg
- and the "dude, what you just posted was totally stupid" neg
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:00 PM ^
Anyone saying he should be fired over the next few days is overreacting. We've known what's been coming and most of this stuff doesn't seem overly major.
If anything, they should be waiting for the season. Then it depends on how the team does as a whole. Rodriguez has been running his program a bit tighter than most others in terms of discipline, and he's working on improving long standing issues that he's being somewhat unfairly picked on about. To what degree you find it unfair is in the eye of the beholder. That should be remembered.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:35 PM ^
That sums it up, the focus needs to be on the 2010 season and the team. At the end of the day the impact these penalties have on the product on the field will be minute. We will not have a good or bad season because the NCAA finds fault with our ability to follow these particular rules. I really think the frustration being expressed is a result of all the build-up to the findings, i.e. the negative slant to the media coverage, rather than the findings themselves. We are a community very used to success so this has been a very humbling time for us all, but ultimately we will be better for having gone through this adversity and if we aren't then that's on us and no one else.