"The University of Illinois is also in turmoil. The university sports an Interim Chancellor, an Interim Athletic Director, and an Interim Football Coach; the game will be played at Soldier Field, making this an Illini Interim Home Game."
Please don't kill me for this, just read the article!!
I would suggest changing your post title to reflect the subject matter of the article (I'm assuming its a "CC" topic without reading it). Then give your "don't kill me" disclaimer in the post.
Just a suggestion.
EDIT: Browsed the article a bit, I just found this funny:
Stanford’s existing pro-style system was a natural transition for Harbaugh, but Rodriguez faced a greater challenge. Many of the players he inherited at Michigan were inappropriate for his innovative speed-oriented system.
As if it was an "easy" transition to take over a 1-11 team. I'm not saying whether Harbaugh had a harder task than RR, as there has been plenty of debate here about that before, but the language "natural transition" makes it sound like everything was just set up for him to come in and win.
It is easier in that it was a pro style to pro style transition where he didn't need to overhaul the offensive mentality, practice techniques and find players that were suitable to run the offense in a pool of unsuitable players.
How is that not obvious to you when you read something like that? The team did not perfom well before Harbaugh, but Harbaugh didn't have a QB who could only run a 5.2 second 40 when he needed a QB who could run a 4.5 second 40. He had players at his disposal who were capable of running his system. That is what the article says when it says "ease of transition." That is really not that hard to understand.
EDIT: You can neg me all you want, but your constant backing of the coach at Stanford and comment bias againt the coach at the University of Michigan is really grinding. Old act.
I don't want to argue with you, I get the point. My point was that in the paragraph that quote was located in, they were comparing the 3 year records of the two coaches. Basically concluding that RR acheiving that record was harder b/c of the change in style. As if there were not other factors involved in a 3 year record.
Also, those are incredibly large blanket terms, "pro-style" and "spread". Harbaugh's offense now looks nothing like what was run under Harris.
Like I said, I don't want to argue with you and it was "obvious", I just thought it was funny that they were comparing records based only on style of offense. Not to mention they didn't even mention defensive transitions.
I totally agree on that point, Stanford was dead before the new coach and actually had more wins the next season and got better every year. RR actually took the team to it's first losing season in almost EVER, but then again we did lose practically every important player we had to transfers, graduation or the NFL. Regardless the research in the article on this topic in particular and the logic is weak!
precisely because the AD felt the team had far more talent than a 1-11 record reflected, as they'd been 5-7 the previous year and were bringing nearly everyone back. That, plus everyone hated him. Harbaugh's job was helped enormously by Harris recruiting a Heisman-caliber running back (Toby Gerhart).
Claiming Stanford was devoid of talent as evidenced by their 1-11 record is not justified by the actual facts. Stanford's talent was about average from all I've gleaned - they were far from dead.
Have friends in the Stanford community, they hated Walt Harris, and had high expectations going into that season, 1-11 floored them, this from a guy who had just made Pitt relevant again, with a pretty high octane offense to boot.
"You are what your record says you are." ;-)
no??? I didnt either with all that damn crying!!! lol
Says the anonymous internet poster
Who is this guy Your?
I came here to kill you. But when I got here I saw you linked to a bleacher report article and now I want to torture you instead.
When you title your thread "Please don't kill me for this..." it's all fair game
drink bleach erreport
Not your best effort... unless that was the point... I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say it was funny because of how not funny it actually was... +1 mgopoint.
Anything his avatar says is funny.
As soon as I saw the link was from bleachereport.com I hesitated to click on it. But I did because I am bored. It was actually a decent article and I agree with mostly everything written in it. We are a decent defense away, not even a good defesne, to be a 9-10 win team. I believe once we get a new DC we could win the Big Ten next year. You know the offense is going to be even more deadly next year. The possibilities are endless. Just hope DB makes the right decision and keeps RR.
Non informative title + bleacher report link = Bolivia
That's right, nmajali! For your post today MGoBlog is sending you and your new bride on a beautiful honeymoon to Bolivia and Negaragua! You'll get to meet the beautiful locals such as emo and bouje, but watch out for those nasty Spartan trolls!
All of this and semi-sarcastic personal attacks are yours for posting bleacher report on MGoBlog!
Mrs. Rodriguez is a decent writer.
I'm not being pro Harbaugh here, but what the hell does this sentence even mean? Could they have offered even one bit of evidence to back up what is probably the most gereic sentence ever written?
Harbaugh’s traditional, pro-style strategy is unlikely to bring any national titles to Ann Arbor.
I've heard it before here. People always say that Harbaugh's system will win 9-10 games a year and never a national championship, while RR's is guaranteed a NC. There is absolutely no logic behind that, considering Harbaugh is essentially a half of a football game (this year at Stanford) from playing in the NC game. I just don't buy that at all. Both coaches (RR and Harbaugh) could, but may not, win a NC.
The last time we won a National Championship (1997) we utilized a Pro-Style offense and the last time we challenged for one (2006) we utilized a Pro-Style offense. Frankly the style of offense does not matter as we have seen from the last 10 National Champions with a nearly equal mix of spread and pro-style.
Either offensive strategy can win, but you also need a complete team with good special teams and a good or excellent defense if you want to win it all.
Don't let your 5-year watching streak end. I went on my honeymoon and unknowingly "missed" the first game of the season a few years ago. I just happened to need a break from the beach and Bermuda sun and went back to the hotel room. Conveniently, I was able to catch a significant portion of that game. Sure, I'll never live it down but it was definitely worth it.
I watched two nights of the Stanley Cup when the Red Wings won it a few years ago on my honeymoon. It's my honeymoon too, so some nights we do what I want a.k.a. I watch hockey and she goes to bed early. Keep your pimp hand strong
HMMMM, its going to be hard to keep that streak going and keep the romance there, I will have to present it as a bonding opportunity, ya ya, that would be a crazy idea!!
Never (ok - rarely) a big sporting event before noon. If you can develop a morning game, the world can be your oyster !! Plus you'll be all relaxed for your weekend tee times !!!
Go Blue !
I hated that part in the movie. Ricky was going to be a star at USC. I blame Ricky's death on dough boy aka ice cube. Great movie by the way.
I blame the game.
going to stay eligible, and lets be honest, his game film was not all that. Also, Dough Boy did nothing but love his brother, sure they had some problems, but look at their mother. Dough Boy was the family enforcer, only reason Rick was able to say above the fray as long as he did.
It was a tragic event, but lets not go blaming Dough Boy here.
his 40 speed, as evidence aboved, was less than impressive and his legs were too stubby. sure he would be a decent signing day flyer if we missed out on somebody else but he isn't big enough for Pac 10, or Big 10, play.
Subject says it all :)
Either they don't know, don't show, or don't care what's goin' on in Ann Arbor.
who want to discuss the most important news (or the lack of it) that is currently affecting our program, your asinine thread with a
1. useless title
2. link to Bleacher FREAKIN report
is going to be thrown in my face. I will have no choice but to hang my head in shame and concede defeat.
In short, you just lost us the war. I hope you are happy in Bolivian.
I wasn't going to read the article, but then I saw not one, but two exclamation points!!1!
with my comment.
"John Lennon is dead Butters"
This article actually has a lot of good points... which is surprising for the bleacher report... I guess even a blind squirrel...
This line stood out:
A “Michigan Man” (or “Michigan Woman”) is simply someone who is a loyal and positive representative of the University of Michigan. Fielding Yost, the Wolverine’s greatest coach and ultimate “Michigan Man” came from a small town in West Virginia, just like Rich Rodriguez.
Just because I'm sick of the BS "Michigan Man" argument.
And Yost also came to Michigan by way of Stanford.
PS... I am in the camp that Coach Rodriguez IS a "Michigan Man".
If that wasn't completely clear, I apologize.
I've never cared for Bleacher Report, nor recommended an article. But today is the day, because I really like that article. For the most part, I agree with it.
- RR bldg a championship team. Agree
- JH wrong guy. Don't know this for sure. But, do think RR is a great coach.
- Witch Hunt over. Disagree. Won't be over for several years, if ever.
- Michigan Man myth. Agree. RR is a Mich Man.
- Anon blog posters have no cred. Agree. But Brian, Tom, myself, et al are not anon.
- Other coaches. Agree, but irrelevant.
- Future looks bright. Fully agree.
- Coach passionate about team. Fully agree.
- Team passionate about coach. Fully agree.
- Time to act is now. Meh. DB has to keep word, don't think this is huge.
I haven't read BR for a long time, but if this is a typical article, I don't see what all the grief is about.
I agree. While all of the points have been said before, this is a pretty good summary of why to keep him.
- RR bldg a championship team. Agree
Why? Going 15-21 in three years is not a normal progression along the way to a national championship program. Pretty much every coach who's won a national title over the past 10 years achieved a major breakthrough in his second year at that school. We're now reduced to hoping for the breakthrough to occur in year four.
I happen to think that with (if?) RR at the helm we will win a Legends Division championship next year (at least I hope, and think that is reasonable).
And you are basing that on what?
Hiring a Defensive Coordinator and changing the scheme up for the 3rd time in four years (not counting the mid-season scheme changes)?
The Defense getting a year older, freshman becoming Sophmores, etc?
Special Teams improving from from abject failure to adequate?
The offense making huge improvements again in the off-season so that they can carry the team for the entire season?
I am sorry but don't think the defense improving from piss-poor to merely acceptable gets us a divisional championship. Nor do I think this offense, even if it improves has shown the ability to be compeitive against good teams.
1) If Casteel comes, we wouldn't be changing schemes again.
2) Look how much better Avery got in the course of the season. I am excited by the potential of a lot of the freshman. Woolfolk will be back as well.
3) I got nothing except that Hagerup won't have a repeat of the first half of this season again.
4) The offense will have a 2nd year starter at QB (for the first time), who happens to be one of the, if not most, exciting players in college football. If the defense improves to a middle of the road scoring defense, the offense will score more than enough points to win a lot of games next year.
1) Big IF, very big if. Plus we have two guys (half the defensive staff) who coached with and under Casteel. You would think they would be able to impart their knowledge of the 3-3-5 onto this team. Even if Casteel is the DC next year a meteoric improvement is not guarenteed.
2) Yes the younger players will get better, but by how much? There are many freshman who look like they could be very good players. But, a new DC comes in, potentially more position switches...
4) Yes the offense will improve next year, but is it enough to not only be competitive against MSU, Iowa, Nebraska, & OSU but beat them. One player does not make an offense. Our RB's need to improve and the WR's need to be more consistent. Frankly a lot of things have to happen for us to get to 7 or 8 wins next year, let alone talk about championships.
are you going for? I'm not sure if you are
1.) Pointing out that there is very little hope next year to do well considering all the problems we had, so we should get rid of RR
2.) Pointing out that there is very little hope next year to do well considering all the problems we had, so we should keep RR and keep our expectations low
Just wondering, because, according to you, our defense is still going to be bad next year, because we are going to have a new DC, and our offense can't play against the big boys, and has a small chance of improving enough next year to do so. If this is true, are you saying that a switch of coach (DC and OC) would put us below .500?