Props to Rosenberg
There are very few people I hate more than Rosenberg (I am looking at you Drew Sharpe) and we never miss a chance to hold him over the coals for his usual BS columns so I thought it is only fair to also point out a sensible column that he mistakenly wrote:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/michael_rosenberg/04/23/p…
I am VERY happy that he seems to be moving on to bigger fish ( Goodell) and will hopefully leave RR alone.
Watch it man, Goodell will not think twice before letting the dogs loose on you, not everybody plays nice like UM.
Clever name.
Am I nuts or does Rosenberg look like 1984 ghostbusters version of Harold Ramis ...
I tried to make an MSPaint side-by-side comparison but I couldn't get a good pair of images with the same expression. There's something of a resemblance though.
EDIT: Dunno if you fixed it, or if the mods did. Either way, the children thank you.
just now.
Your wit is befitting of a University of Michigan blog.
Leaders and best!
Seriously...
I feel as if I'm in high school again.
And Rosen is no Redacted!
No, wasn't your redacted. It was the other one.
It is now changed.
No problem. I don't have a problem with profanity, but other higher ups in the corporate ladder have set the policy. I just wanted to avoid controversy.
corporate ladder?
His mentor Leo is not going to be happy man...
Anything that makes the guy look like a credible journalist is possibly bad for the RichRod regime.
Imagine the wheels turning in the heads of the less-gifted UM fans. "Hmm... Rosenberg is a respected national journalist. What was it he wrote about Michigan football? Oh, yeah -- RichRod is an evil hillbilly who does not believe in Family Values. If he has a column on the SI site, it must all be true, right?"
MGoBlog thread titles I never thought I'd see for $100, Alex.
Proof positive that the Irony Meter goes to eleven.
arg why don't they allow comments on those articles!
I see no reason to give Rosenberg credit for anything in particular.
In any event, it isn't Rosenberg's ability to create readable sentences and paragraphs and string them together in a column, that is in grave doubt.
The issue with Rosenberg (columnist) is the work of Rosenberg (investigative sports reporter). The issue is Rosenberg's undeniable animus toward Rich Rodriguez and everything surrounding Rodriguez. And, to be sure, the related issue is that Rosenberg's animus has been, and is being, used to generate revenue for his failing newspaper. At the expense of the Univeristy of Michigan football program.
Journalistic malpractice.
Yes, the article is well written, but I noticed a pattern:
He is attacking Tom Cable, who recently took over a once-proud team, has been accused of misconduct, and is losing at an alarming rate.
Sound familiar?
If Tom Cable had won a few more games, is this article even written?
Please note: I am NOT comparing Rich Rod to Tom Cable, I am just noticing Rosenberg's pattern
for not coming down hard on a scumbag like Cable.
Forget comparing RR and Cable, did you just equate UM with the Raiders??
Who is our Al Davis I wonder.
Loves our SPEEEEEDD
everyone knows it's really hard to kick someone while they're down.
the last 3-5 articles Rosenberg has written have been posted here saying 'look how reasonable he is.'
i think the horse has been beaten that he's a bipolar writer
new meme.
Props to Rosenberg? Um, no. Look, I respect that you're trying to give the devil his due, but that selfish rat bastard piece of shit has done too much damage to the football program's reputation (and by extension, the program itself) just for the sake of his own stupidass career for me to ever say anything positive about him whatsoever, EVER.
No offense to the OP, but this article is NOT worthy of praise just because Rosenfuck just happens to be ripping somebody other than Rich Rod.
MOTHERFUCK MICHAEL ROSENBERG. PERIOD.
No disrespect to the OP, but this is no great column. It took a stance we can all agree with (punish Cable). Beyond taking that popular stance, I don't see its value. He is shoehorning Cable into a column theoretically about Roethlisberger, which I guess is about the only way to make the Cable episode newsworthy in late April 2010, but...I find the parallel discussion strained. There are dozens of punishments / non-punishments you could select to second-guess alongside the Roethlisberger suspension. He chose this one. I happen to agree, but I don't see how any decent writer at a college newspaper could not have written the same thing.
It is amazing how low the bar is for sports writing these days. "I don't hate this person's conclusion" = "good piece of writing."
So I don't just look like a snarky critic of everyone who is out doing the job I secretly wish I was doing...here is an example of sports writing this week that I thought was excellent http://www.mensjournal.com/the-nfl-draft-decoded
Props and Rosenberg should not be used in the same sentence.
I suppose if John Kreese held the door open for an old lady that would be ok, but I wouldn't go around giving him props.
John Kreese: Bobby, I want him out of commission.
Bobby: But, Sensei, I can beat this guy.
John Kreese: I don't want him beaten.
Bobby: But I'll be disqualified.
John Kreese: Out of commission.
high, or just really forgiving? I neged you with pride.
Rosenberg.