People are stupid. Don't worry yourself over it.
The nutty Michigan coverage isn't so much about Harbaugh as it is a signal to the Big Ten that Fox wants to party.
People are stupid. Don't worry yourself over it.
I like that he gives a solid 2 pumps on his handshakes. RR was a grab and squeeze kind of guy. Total reflection of his character
It's been a few days since we had a thread arguing about RichRod. I guess we were due.
for playing fucking Score-O, I think we're allowed to complain about that.
I would be extremely happy if this thread stayed on topic, however the trend around here is to turn every single slight of RichRod into a 300 comment argument between the Section 1's and DahBlue's of the board. I guess we'll see what direction this one takes, I just don't have high hopes.
This is worth sharing, though, whether the response gets out of hand or not. This board has proven in the past that it can wield a hefty sword of influence. If enough people are outraged by Spath's shit, maybe he'll face subscription cancellations or well written emails of opposition or something.
I'm surprised nobody has posted Spath's responses. They're fairly entertaining.
Do you not want the fan base to support Hoke?
Hoke is great and people should support him.
Absurdity pisses me off, which is why I posted that article.
He never said anything along those lines.
The OP (much like myself) seems to be disillusioned with how the Michigan fanbase has turned so maliciously on a man who, despite his flaws and shortcomings, was a good man who gave everything he had for us for three long years. He endured a constant stream of shit from all directions. Now to take something as innocent as Score-O and call him essentially an attention whore is insane.
In short, RR deserves better than to be treated like this.
I can't agree more. This is no longer about x's and o's or DB coaching or any of the other gripes people had with Rich Rod. He's no longer the coach and people seem to just want to pile on.
If you didn't like the guy, just let it go; he's gone.
That's right! We don't take kindly to your kind around here.
It's actually... We don't take kindly to your type round here.
How the fuck does Score-O make someone seem like an attention whore? It's Score-O! It's fun! The students love it. And a new coach playing it is just trying to endear himself to the students. It's far less conspicuous than installing countdown clocks or refusing to acknowledge Ohio State by name.
RR, despite his faults and his mistakes was a good man. He deserves better.
How the fuck does Score-O make someone seem like an attention whore? It's Score-O! It's fun! The students love it.
Quoted for truth and emphasis.
Score-O is a classic, there's no reason for the author over there to add this blurb.
Legit gripe. Literally no one was offended by Rich Rod's Score-O appearance. In fact it's impossible for me to fathom how offense could be taken by it. He was the brand new coach at the time. It was a PR introduction. BFD.
Rivals has made no secret of its Rodriguez hatred.
"Rodriguez didn't appreciate Michigan's traditions." What an egotistical bastard.
"Rodriguez took part in a Michigan tradition." What an egotistical bastard.
Well put. Rodriguez could have cured cancer and people would have complained he was taking jobs away from doctors/researchers.
Time for a thought exercise: Switch Hoke and Rodriguez and rewrite the article.
"Rodriguez showed up at a hockey game, but he seemed uncomfortable and may have declined to participate in Score-O when asked to do so. Anonymous observers cited this as evidence that Rodriguez is aloof and self-centered. Contrast this with Hoke, who enthusiastically participated in Score-O. Other anonymous observers commented that Hoke, by his actions, proved himself to be an excellent cultural fit at UMich."
 Freep-style ... fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
 Also Freep-style ... make it up as necessary.
- - -
I'd like to know whose feathers were ruffled by RichRod and how it happened. Was it just some little athletic department gnomes (Lloyd Loyalists)? Or, did he irritate coaches in other sports? I'd believe just about anything.
Charles fucking Manson could be a successful college coach if he follows these rules:
Have a strong, defined jawline.
Midwestern values are important. Very important. Christian beliefs and faith, as long as they are repeatedly mentioned, will get you far in Divison 1 football.
Dominate in-state recruiting.
Doesn't matter how you do it! Go 'head and threaten a kid's family or two to scare them into commiting, because as long as you the coach of an Alaska school while pulling recruits from Alaska, you're set.
Bore reporters and the media to tears.
"Well, I thought we played good fooball out there and we executed. And we scored some points on em, but scoring ponits is all about execution. Points. Execution. Execution. Points"
Have a religious virgin star quaterback
The other rules don't need to be applied if you're doing this
and may God have mercy on our souls
It seems like the media can't get enough of RR. Whether he leaves on his own terms or someone else's, the media seems to just keep writing about him almost as much as if he was still there. They really need to learn how to write the name "Hoke" without feeling like they have an obligation to mention RR.
It's natural to compare, but they could give it a rest once in awhile, too. Really, the only pieces they should be writing are varations of these:
1. Can Borges maximize a great group of players who are just starting to become upperclassmen?
2. Can Mattison turn the defense into a palatable Big Ten defense?
3. Can Hoke lock down a top five recruiting class next year?
4. Lots of fluff. "Getting to know you" posts about the new staff, pieces on players who have overcome a lot of obstacles in their lives or are great students, etc.
I still worry about Hoke's X's and O's on offense, but it has to be obvious to even the most vocal of his critics that he has great leadership skills. I think he can be a very effective head coach in this particular job because he makes a great "front-man" for the program. Hoke projects an image that gives the media plenty of opportunities to write good things about the program.
If Hoke is able to combine his leadership skills with knowing when to delegate authority, particularly on offense, his performance could force the media to do their jobs better. Usually, though, the only way this happens is by creating so many positive things for the media to write about that they forget to be negative.
One can always hope.
Of course they can't let go. What are they going to do to replace the ad clicks from the "Fire Dickrod!" crowd?
They're in a bind now because the public seems to really like Hoke, so they've lost their meal ticket.
RR is a celebrity. Not all football coaches are celebrities, but RR generates publicity, for good or ill, wherever he goes. By running Michigan into the ground (in the eyes of the general public) and getting fired after 3 years on the job, he has "fallen from grace." What happens next? He rises from the ashes, of course. It's a movie; or at least, that's the kind of story-arc the MSM loves to publish because it wins over readers and ad clicks.
I'm pretty sure that Hoke has the ability to "combine his leadership skills with knowing when to delegate authority, particularly on offense."
You and others can continue to bury your head in the sand about Hoke's considerable achievements since the start of the 2008 season, but I won't:
Last year, San Diego State scored more points per game than Michigan, with nowhere near the talent Michigan had on hand. They were not blown out in any game. They only lost to top quality teams.
On recent history, which really is all that matters, Michigan's coaching staff in 2011 will be better than it was from 2008-10.
Watch the highlights of the bowl game, and then hopefully you and everyone else will stop acting like Al Borges's playbook is circa 1934.
They also scored on defenses far less talented than the ones we faced.
I mostly agree with you, apart from being confident that Borges will be able to utalize Denard to his potential. He hasn't coached a quarterback resembling Denard, so I think that remains to be seen.
35 points against TCU, as well as having the ball with the chance to take the lead in the fourth quarter.
Give me the equivalent Michigan offensive performance against a powerhouse defense in 2010. I'm here all day.
As for Borges, he'll better protect Denard (which Denard himself lauded when he first met with Hoke), and he'll make him more dangerous by establishing a downhill running threat while also utilizing play action and the tight ends. This idea that Borges won't have the ability to watch tape and figure out how to use a talented multi-purpose QB is simply asinine. The guy has been a coach for 30 years, but hey, if he doesn't run him 25 times a game, he's probably an idiot, right?
Yes, they had the TCU game. They played very well and showed they had a good offense just by that total alone. I wasn't saying we were better, I'm just saying that you cited ppg and that they were less talented. That evens out when you consider they played less talented defenses than we did.
Personally I think Denard should get multiple carries a game, and I believe Borges when he says he'll rush a lot. However, I don't think it's as simple as Borges reading a book or watching some film. I don't care how Denard gets his yards next year (scrambles, draws, whatever), but it'll be a real shame for everyone if he doesn't.
Thanks for the personal attacks though. I wish you could also tell me my opinion on the coaching change, basketball's tournament chances and Woodson's political remarks; I'm going to need to know how to vote, and I'm not sure I can without you telling me how I think.
Actually, I think you are more of an idiot considering you just rattled off, with certainty, a list of things Borges will do and called everyone who doesn't think exactly that misinformed. You have no idea if borges will give him more protection. You have no fucking clue if he will use more play action. You know why you have no fucking clue....because Al borges still has no fucking clue. What happens if denard can't do play action very well because he is used to reading defenses as soon as he touches the ball instead of turning his back to the defense then reading the defense? You don't know, but we are all idiots for questioning whether borges will be able to utilize him, right? Get some fucking perspective.
Also, by your comments of denard being more dangerous because of hoke, I assume you think DR will break his own records and surpass his numbers next year, right? Or did you mean more dangerous in the "im not going to have as many touchdowns and yards" way?
I agree that this is unfair. But there are probably going to be more of these comparisons made over the next few years. My advice is to shrug it off. People's opinions aren't going to be changed.
Frankly, that's the same way a lot of people deal with your posting on mgoboard.
That's fine with me. I'll get by.
......but I do like Hoke's simple, understated approach to things in general. The fist pumps are a plus as always.