good luck with that
...what this particular story reminds me of is the recent story about a computer program that was fed some game-stats data and churned out a print story about that game. NPR did a nice job with it:
I presume that the 'bot that did this story was Larry Lage, the AP sports stringer for Detroit. Larry, there's no byline! Is that you? Why would the AP deprive you of a byline?
Anyway, I guess there's no stopping these stories. Even though they are boring tripe that hardly scratches the surface. Easy, uncomplicated narratives are apparently what a lot of sportswriting is about these days. Let's at least give Larry Lage a little credit for giving Rick Leach a paragraph. As always, a dedicated college sports fan could learn 10,000% more about Michigan football from this blog, than from all of ESPN and the Associated Press put together.
You didn't "learn" any of that here. Reading Brian Cook, you'd have seen FAR more criticism of the Threet/Sheridan fiasco here, than just about anywhere else.
Here at MGoBlog, you'd have learned FAR more about the real Boren story, than anywhere in the mainstream media.
At MGoBlog, you would have read detailed, performance-based anguish over the performance of the defense under Scott Schafer, and the quandry over whether to fire him or not. ALL sides were expressed. And to his eternal credit, there are few Michigan-centric writers anywhere who expressed greater doubt and caution about the hiring of Greg Robinson, than Brian Cook and his MGoColleagues. Robinson was a classic cautionary tale from BEFORE the time he was announced. It was all here, for people with some semblance of reading comprehension, which apparently excludes you.
Of course my personal favorite moment in MGoHistory (and I mention this only in the hope that it will piss you off), was when, at the conclusion of the Monday Press Conference on August 31, 2009, when Rich Rodriguez was responding to the previous day's Sunday Free Press story, Brian Cook was in attendance, and was asking Mark Snyder, as the presser broke up, how exactly Snyder and Rosenberg had come to the conclusion that practice time had been exceeded by vast numbers of hours; Snyder turned his back on Brian and walked away, wordlessly.
... that Brian's pre-season reviews of our defense were alarmingly pessimistic, and everyone forgot that by week 4 of the past two seasons only to have it come crashing down around them in the Big Ten schedule.
There is a lot of homerism, but Section 1 is right - the level of analysis around every game (openly critical of coaching many times), all aspects of how we got to the level of depth we have on the team, various views on our odds of winning, etc. make this blog one of the deepest places to get information on Michigan Football. (I'll bet our opponents' GA coaching staff use MGoBlog as an information source in preparing for games.)
Here we go again....
You would think people would learn after the first 50 articles like this. Also, what's with the people angry about Hoke getting positive press? Who cares if it's not fair, positive press is something that has been lacking of late.
I don't think anyone's angry about the positive press (at least, I'm not... I'm all for Michigan being built up instead of torn down), but at the same time, contrasting it with all the negative reporting that RR received is just mind-boggling. I don't understand how two men can receive such different initial treatment. So basically, I'm not mad that people are (probably) over-inflating Hoke, but I'm still kind of mad that people worked so hard to tear down RR. Sure, the guy dug his own grave, but he was treated like crap from the beginning. I think I'm within my rights to still be pissed that the "Michigan family" could be so closed-minded (considering I'm a part of it).
Good points, and it was an unfortunate situation, but I'm just past the point of caring. I just feel like many mgobloggers are unable to move on, and that is why posts like these come about. I don't think I can take another 5 months of talk about RichRod. It just doesn't matter anymore.
The problem is -- what can we talk about for the next five months? That spring game did nothing to calm the fears some of us have about Borges and Hoke. (Even RR fans wanted the D situation to be addressed; Michigan finally opened the checkbook and it looks like it's addressed.) Hoke's resume (and the resume of guys like Hecklinski and Ferrigno) isn't going to change over the next five months. And we have Brandon in our face about how now we're going to play Michigan football, and the media telling us that Hoke will recruit tough players (anyone here think Vincent Smith isn't tough? Taylor Lewan not tough?) -- it makes me want to vomit.
To building a football program is getting the players to buy into it. That's what he's trying to do, why do you have a problem with that?
They shout Hoo-ah all the time. In basic, when they are running they have their running songs. This is no different.
I really want to talk about this more.
Soon after Rodriguez replaced retiring coach Lloyd Carr, some former players returned to campus but a slew seemed to stay away.
"I can't tell you why, but I think it's because he didn't value the tradition like coach Hoke does," said Hart, an Indianapolis Colts running back. "Rich Rod let you come back, but he never really valued the tradition of Michigan. Coach Hoke is all about tradition."
Huh; that's an interesting theory, Mike. That Coach Rodriguez "didn't value the tradition..." Or even, "he never really valued the tradition..." "Never"?
What I'd expect, is for some decent, ordinary reporter to simply ask: Mike, we've heard that sort of comment from a small number of guys who played under Coach Carr. It would be helpful to everybody, if we could understand what you are talking about. Which "traditions" did Coach Rodriguez not "value"? How should he have "valued" them more? Do you agree, Mike, that there were some inexplicably damaging and self-defeating things said, along the lines of Braylon Edwards' "Lloyd Carr's University of Michigan" line? What do you say about those things? Did those statements "value the tradition"?
Well, half of what you propose is leading, and the writer (you) inserting themself into the question, putting words into his mouth, then asking him to accept or reject them.
Further, asking him to confirm your negative words for a team-mate of his and possible friend will never happen.
Third, you seem to think that Hart had any interest other than advancing boiler-plate, AD-approved talking-point that you'll hear almost anyone with a Michigan polo spout with a dead look behind their eyes.
You're angry because the media reported a point of view that you happen to disagree with, and you wish that you had a similar microphone.
"Mike Hart, when you claim that Coach Rodriguez didn't 'value the tradition,' what are you talking about? Can you please be specific?"
what's not fine is the portion where you propose a denunciation of Braylon Edwards be ventriloquized for him to accept or reject.
"Lloyd Carr's University of Michigan"?
And if Mike Hart doesn't like the question, he can always decline to answer. But the reason it becomes relevant, and the reason to at least ask the question, is to compare the understanding of "tradition," between a Coach who allegedly didn't get it, and a player who is now central to the supposed new-old family feeling.
I'm merely saying that no trained journalist would ask a question that ventriloquizes the answer they want to hear.
You're really big on being a watchdog for the media, so I'm amused that you're advocating it.
Since you seem to be confused about what part I'm referring to, it's this:
Do you agree, Mike, that there were some inexplicably damaging and self-defeating things said, along the lines of Braylon Edwards' "Lloyd Carr's University of Michigan" line? What do you say about those things? Did those statements "value the tradition"?
Journalists ask more leading questions than lawyers do! And they should!
Now I suppose, that if I were a simple wire service beat-writer, the questions might be:
If I had a bylined article or a column to write, I'd personally want to see if I could isolate Braylon Edwards and see to what extent I could get other players to condemn those comments. Journalists do that all the time; asking people to stake out a position, or to condemn an outlier position, by inquiring for a statement on the record, about what somebody else said. Not a single day in the media goes by without that occurring.
To what purpose, other than to perpetuate this asinine fight? Do you wish people would be rough on Hoke?
I do wish people would be rough on all of the individuals who made life much more difficult for Coach Rodriguez. Be rough on Rosenberg, and Snyder, and Drew Sharp. I wish people would be rough on Braylon, and on Stan Edwards. I wish people would not give a pass to statements like those from Morgan Trent, or these statements from Mike Hart. How "rough" to be on those guys just depends. Just ask good, hard questions. I cannot think of a more vague, question-begging assertion than, 'Coach Rodriguez just didn't get the tradition.' That's lame.
I will always like the stand-up guys. The guys who stood up to be counted for Coach Rodriguez. The Rick Leaches. The Larry Footes. Brandstatter and Beckmann. I'd love to have a complete, exhaustive, honor-roll of those guys. The other guys would probably be too chickenshit to allow themselves to be on an opposing list.
who simply thinks that in the best interest of the University, we treated Coach Rodriguez badly, and that the University made a mistake in terminating his contract early. I enjoy Michigan football, and it's just my opinion (everybody gets to have an opinion) that Michigan football did the wrong thing by firing him.* I appreciate the fact that David Brandon has publicly recognized that Michigan had made mistakes in the past, in failing to offer enough money to attract top assistant coaches; Brandon is right about that.
In 2010, all that I did was to choose to support our current head football coach (Rodriguez), over the disloyal and disruptive comments of some ex-players. Some immature and not particularly bright ex-players at that.
The rightful verdict on Braylon as a football player is that he's brilliant. The rightful verdict on Braylon's off-field judgment is that he's a prick.
*It is amazing to me, the extent to which people are swayed by events. Just a few short months ago, in December, there was wild enthusiasm for Jim Harbaugh and an overwhelming sense of expectation that he'd be hired as the next Michigan Head Coach. Michael Rosenberg in the Free Press and Lynn Henning in the Detroit News were practically guaranteeing it. People on this Board were speculating about everything from how much we'd be paying Harbaugh, to how many Stanford recruits he'd bring with him. And in all of that, the subtext -- at least here -- was that clearly, if Michigan didn't hire Harbaugh, the next best thing would be to retain Rich Rodriguez, with (finally) a new quality DC who was not a third- or fourth-best choice. It was basically:
That wasn't my choice; I was always in favor of retaining Coach Rod. I had nothing against Harbaugh, as I have nothing against Hoke. But that was the "popular" state of affairs, then.
And just reflect now, on how much things have changed, with nothing more than a few press conferences, and a million dollars for a new Defensive Coordinator. And, most of all, an adoring press.
And no reporter, by the way, would insert the adjectives you used to describe Edwards' statement. They would quote it, and ask for a response.
Biased reporting and leading questions are OK, just so long as the reporter shares your views.
fact remains people didn't like the fact RR treated the OSU game to be 'as important' as any other. he knew we cared but he didn't jump up and down about it. simple as that. people want a cheerleader of core elements of the school. RR acknowledged them but didn't cater to them. simple as that. consider it dumb, i dont gaf. the fact your incessant drivel is forcing me to defend a comment i don't even fully agree with shows just how far you've gone with this incessant crap.
oh and btw - Hart wasn't even one of "those guys." he even poked at them a bit with his comment by noting he never distanced himself in those 3 years unlike others. yet he owes you an explanation. wtf?
Thanks for calling it OSU. Getting sick of the "scUM"-esque "Ohio."
scUM is just troll-y and immature. "Ohio" or tsio isn't much different than Woody Hayes calling Michigan "that school up north." You may be sick of it, understandably, but it's nowhere near the trolljerk status of scUM, Spartina, or O$U.
If the point of it is to needle or irritate our rival by using an incorrect name for them, well, I'd rather just let our play on the field do the talking. That's what I was getting at.
Wow! You play for Michigan. Cool!
like how their own band spells it?
Yes, I consider all of that dumb. Thanks anyway.
I agree. I'm sure he's relieved to not have to deal with the full of shit AD and former players who abandoned Michigan in its time of need.
So can Braylon. They should just be clear, and be specific. Braylon has said, and done, such a variety and volume of dumb shit, one might think he'd just want to shut the fuck up for his own sake.
These are highly visible guys, who should be used to answering questions and appearing in front of the press. They're not particularly good at it; hell, they are just football players. But they aren't immune, and they really ought to know by now, that they will be scrutinized very carefully when they comment on controversial matters.
They don't need to ask my permission to say any damned thing they want to. But why wouldn't Mike Hart expect a follow up question, to ask what he means by Coach Rodriguez "not valuing the tradition"?
Who's embarassment was it? Yours? The dudes in the NFL? Fuck no.
I guarantee you that their level of embarassment was nothing compared to the people that fucking lived it - which is precisely why it's shitty that they had people turn their backs on them.
This is what RVB was talking about - where was "the Micigan family" then?
None of that was as embarrassing as that fiasco of a two weeks that was the start of the 2007 season. I get way more shit about losing to App State than about 3-9, Miss. State or anything that happened under RR.
So now we're bashing Lloyd Carr? Really? Give me a fucking break. There's a reason you have negative points.
Everyone has a scapegoat.
Nobody can accept the fact that everyone tried their best, and it didn't quite fucking work out.
We need conspiracies and asinine witch-hunts, and assignations of blame to non-sporting-entities like the FREEP.
Lloyd lost some games. I'm sure he didn't want to. I'm sure he wanted Michigan to continue to win after he left. I'm sure RR wanted to win, and did everything he could to do so - it didn't work, he's gone.
Nope, just saying that losing to App. State and then getting crushed by Oregon was more embarrassing. Didn't even mention Lloyd Carr. You see, games are won and lost mostly by players and only somewhat by coaches. If the former players were so embarrassed about losing 9 times, etc. under RR, well, they still owed RR their support. Because some of those former players were mostly responsible for the worst loss in program history. I didn't abandon Michigan then and they shouldn't have abandoned Michigan during the RR era.
1)they were national champs in FCS and
2)who is giving you shit? Notre Dame or MSU fans? Pretty sure they lost to that very same Michigan team. OSU fans? Why would they need to gloat about Appy State when they can just bring up their own head-to-head success
1. And Michigan was returning most starters from a team that spent most of 2006 ranked #2 and was ranked #3 to 5 depending on what polled you looked at going into the App. State game. There was no excuse for what happened in that game. None. It wasn't the loss that was embarrassing so much as the arrogance, laziness and sense of entitlement that led to it coupled with the failure to get up to play Oregon after getting knocked the f out the week before. I don't know about you, but the Oregon players taking their sledgehammer to the block M at the end of 5 touchdown drubbing was about the most embarrassing moment I've ever experienced at Michigan stadium. Well, it would have been were it not for App. State.
2. Who gives a f*** what ND fans or MSU fans think? It was every fan of every team in the country for the whole f'n season and people still bring it up. But now that you mention OSU, it was pretty embarrassing to have lost to them 6 out of the last 7 [EDIT: actually I think it was 5 of 6 by that point, sorry] games by the time that water-logged mess of a game was played in which we put up about 70 yards of total offense.
Look, my only point is that losing is always bad, but there are degrees of bad and the losses in 2007 stick out in my mind. The wins were all the sweeter b/c of them, just like they were in 2008, 2009 and 2010. All I know was I supported the team and the coach every single year I was a fan, student and alum, even when we punted from the opposing 35 and even when we decided without the use of any common sense to install the 3-3-5 midseason. Supporting the team, no matter who is the coach, is the least that should be expected from any fan, former players included.
We'll have to agree to disagree about what was more embarrassing. But here are some facts for you. Michigan was a top 5 team when it suffered that loss to open 2007. VT was ranked 13 coming off of a loss to Boise, before which game it was ranked 10.
And we won by 6 points in an exciting game that was pretty close. I don't think we throttled Florida.
We way overlooked App State, and it was the definition of why people wanted Lloyd Carr to move on. The Horror, the Oregon game, and the Rose Bowl against USC: we didn't open up and score enough points to win. The Cap One Bowl is exactly how we should have played against USC, App State, and Oregon ....
Anyway, outside the State of Michigan, the last three years are looked at as the direct result of the loss to App State. The most embarassing loss ever causes huge upheaval where the winningest program lurches around for three plus years. Any kid on a ski lift in Boone will tell you that they staggered the giant (and they do often).
Sure there have been highights (beating MSU in '07, ND in '07, '09 and '10, Wisconsin in '08, and Illinois in '10), but by and large Michigan football has been in the mud since The Horror, or maybe the Rose Bowl before that. To state otherwise would be revisionist history.
Let's be clear here. The reason App State seems more embarrassing is because we were a good team had high expectations. Even though we lost, we still finished with what a 8-5 season. The reason you don't get shit about the Miss. State game or 3-9 is because our rivals feel pity for us because of how far we have fallen. It's funny how a lot of people here think we were one or 2 seasons away from being great, but the perception from fans of other teams we played were that we were a long ways off. So basically I will take embarrassing over irrelevant anyday.
My thoughts exactly. A strong opinion is hardly ban worthy....
As such I propose a "New Rule": When someone calls it (The Ban Hammer) out by name I think we should damn well give it to them. Just out of common courtesy!
In the immortal words of Sergeant Hartman - "If God would have wanted you [banned] from here he would have [banned] your ass by now, wouldn't he?"
To you. I support the team no matter what. I supported RR. But the last three years were embarrassing. Fact.