The PTI program on ESPN is going to discuss who they think would be a better coach at Michigan. Just thought I would let you guys know so you can watch and laugh at their absurd comments.
frank beamer #1
But whether or not Harbaugh would be more successful at Michigan is not the same as whether or not he'll replace RR.
What did PTI say? Everything in this post says what Around the Horn mentions?
Anybody have a video or any info of what the guys on PTI said?
About as dumb and uninformed as I expected.
If they pick RR... I'd be shocked. It's en mode to bash RR, because they only have about 20 seconds and can't get into the heart of the matter. They also don't chronically read up on Michigan like us.
They also don't chronically read up on Michigan like us.
Hello, my name is Clarkie and I'm an MGoBlogaholic.
Seems we've got a whole lot of MGoBlogaholics, but I've ever seen any MGoBlogahol.
Around the Horn Summaries:
Fire him even if he wins, Harbaugh is the hottest name anywhere.
Fire him if he loses, 0-6, only .333 in Big Ten.
Fire him, their fans don't even like it when they win because their defense sucks.
If they are informative and clued-in to what's going on here and if they can present their arguments logically, then I have absolutely no problem with their opinions. If they yell, shout, and rabble, just recycling old, tired (and often incorrect) arguments without analysis or original ideas, then it's drivel that appeals to the lowest common denominator.
RR is teh awesome!
Both are appealing to the lowest common denominator and are equally as irrelevant and moronic. Back up an argument with facts and logic, fine, but these talking heads on ESPN are idiots who do no more than read of a teleprompter and maybe take 30 seconds to read up on what happened last week. Uninformed, idiotic.
Are you related to Stefan from Northwestern? Can you kick for us???
You should have just had Lloyd's arm and shoulder showing, and move it so that it looks like he's trying to choke him out.
they've gone from 3-9 to 5-7 to 7-4. I don't know why anyone else doesn't see it, but they're getting better. It's already proven to me, but if they can shock the world this saturday, it may silence some people.
our boys kick some ass this weekend because it will definitely hush the RR haters. When a coach has his players thinking of the 'Team' and giving it their 'all' on every play, then the coach is doing his job. RR is doing just that. These boys play hard every game, they might not look like they know what they're doing at times, but they play hard and that is all you can ask for. The future is so bright (for the Wolverines) the players will have to wear shades...
"they might not look like they know what they're doing at times, but they play hard and that is all you can ask for"
Are you kidding me? A coach is there to teach players to improve and win games. A major part of this is "knowing what to do".
"When a Cheerleader has his players thinking of the 'Team' and giving it their 'all' on every play, then the Cheerleader is doing his job"
Fixed it for you.
Assuming that he's talking about very young players (many fresh out of HS and normally wouldn't even be seeing PT) than there's nothing wrong with what he said.
I know assuming the obvious is hard for certain "fans".
... Yeah, I use "fans" in these cases.
Well hello there, nice to meet you.
What these buffoons think? They get paid to say stupid shit.
yea. espn is the same company that pays its broadcasters to proclaim how glorious the bcs is. whetev
Sorry guys, I meant Around the Horn
Hearing them talk like that so uniformally made me sick. Every single one of them said Rich Rod should be gone without giving it a second thought. Whether we like it or not, national perception on ESPN matters....gross.
I want Rodriguez to succeed so badly, but fighting the "he should be fired" mantra is hard to overcome (see Weis but with less digested pizzas). Even if Michigan wins Saturday, people can still say he's only 1-5 against MSU and OSU.
Winning is the cure-all. So let's keep winning.
I know they are all dumbasses, but all of them said fire RR? Wow, I thought most people realized what has happened the last 3 years has sucked, but it would still be completely ignorant to fire him after 3 years.
Pretty much they all agree because on that stupid fuckin show they have to score points with that idiot that hosts it.
So basically if they all agree with each other, and bash RR they get more points.. Most of these idiots probably don't know anything on what is actually going on with the program so they have nothing good to say.
If someone were to say keep him they probably wouldn't have earned any points
They're incapable of seeing things in the long-term. Right here and right now, they see a Michigan team with the worst defense its ever had, and rather than to divulge into why this is and whether it can be remedied, they resort to "RR should be fired". Because, at the end of the day, the casual observer doesn't want to hear logical things like "at least let the guy develop one full senior class on his own" (which would be next year), they want to hear the sensationalist controversial views. Heck, I enjoy watching PTI and Around the Horn occasionally...but not when they talk about anything related to Michigan/Detroit sports.
The 2008 class was mostly Carr recruits. Rodriguez's first full class was the 2009 class, who are now sophomores. Thus it will not be until the 2012 season that he will have his first full senior class.
I've found that he usually doles out points when someone supports their argument. He doesn't take sides generally, he just asks a question and two of the meatheads take different sides yet both earn points.
However, I do hate when they talk about us, because they're really uninformed. The reporters are all from distant cities. Though thank god none of them is a detroit reporter, cause it'd probably be the freep
God I hate the msm.
remember when everyone wanted Brian Kelley last year??
Do we need a separate thread for what each commentator believes will happen to RR after the season?
as to why anyone watches ESPN for anything other than live sports.
I'm just waiting to see if Holly Rowe will take her top off. Bound to happen one of these days.
There's children afoot, man. There's jokes, and then there's statements like that. I dry heaved the second I read that.
Total crap, not worthy of this board. The thing to not lose sight of though is that the users on here are some of the most dilligent and dedicated fans you'll find. But this isn't close to the bulk of Michigan fans. Most of them get their info from MSM, if at all. The economic interests of the progam don't rest on pleasing the hardcore fans of Mgoblog, rather the average lesser informed fan.
They matter more because there are more of them. Pleasing them by having a program that they believe strongly in, is a big factor working against Rich.
Willingham was a genius for winning at Stanford also. We all know how his next two jobs went.
This comparison is overblown. The PAC-10 is much better now than it was in the late 90s (when there were 0 dominant/powerhouse teams). Plus TW's best Stanford teams were 8-4 and 9-3. Their nonconference records were atrocious. Harbaugh's team this year is much better than any of Ty's Stanford teams.
The Pac 10 is atrocious this year. At most they will have 4 teams that finish with a winning record this year. A USC team with 4 losses, less than 70 scholarship players and a coach everyone makes fun of is probably the third best team in the league.
Where are the "powerhouse teams" in that league? Harbaugh has never won a bowl game and OSU easily handled Oregon last year in the Rose Bowl.
That is not a good conference by any stretch of the imagination.
Maybe you should watch more PAC-10 games. Say what you want about USC only having 70 scholarship players, but that's 70 4-star or 5-star players. And yes I think the PAC-10 is deeper than most conferences. The reason they may only have 4 bowl eligible teams is 1) they have 2 less team than other conferences (one less than us), 2) one of their teams who would make a bowl is on probation, and 3) they play a round robin schedule where each team plays all the other 9 nine teams, which means 1 less cupcake to play in nonconference, which makes it much more difficult to make a bowl. The 3rd reason is really something that is handcuffing the conference from having more bowl teams (if you look at their teams nonconference schedules, they're pretty difficult, such as Washington OOC schedule of BYU, Syracuse, and Nebraska - not an easy out there).
And I was making a reference that there were more powerhouses during JH's tenure with Oregon and USC at the beginning, than Ty had during his whole time (USC was down).
But hey don't let a little research come in the way of your statements.
I'm a USC season ticket holder. I watch plenty of Pac 10 football. The league is terrible this year and was pretty bad last year too. No one in the league has beaten a quality OOC opponent this year (the Washington win over Syracuse is probably the closest thing to a good win).
Last year USC was just as mediocre (though they did spring the upset in Columbus and produced a stirring victory over Boston College in the Emerald Bowl), Oregon and Stanford lost their bowl games to lower ranked opponents, and Arizona got crushed by Nebraska. This despite the fact that, as you may have found in all your research, the Pac 10 has a terrible bowl alignment setup so they are constantly matched up against lower placing teams in other conferences. They also rarely get two teams into the BCS which exacerbates the mismatches in their favor.
Before that, USC was really good, Oregon had a great 2007 team until Dixon got hurt, and Cal has had some quality teams, but I don't see how that is relevant to Harbaugh's success since he had a losing record at that time and probably would have no matter what those teams were doing.
As for TW's time in the Pac 10, yes USC was down (though they still won the Rose Bowl in Ty's first season), but Oregon, Oregon St. and Washington all won BCS bowl games around that time. ASU was one defensive stop away from winning the national championship. Wazzu lost by 5 to the national champions in the Rose Bowl. UCLA won 20 straight games with Cade McNown at QB. No one in the conference has been close to accomplishing any of those feats the last two years at a time when the bottom 2/3 of the league has been abysmal as well.
No one in the league has beaten a quality OOC opponent this year (the Washington win over Syracuse is probably the closest thing to a good win).
Granted the wins over Tennessee and Texas have been devalued, but Arizona's win over Iowa doesn't count?
While I wouldn't consider the Pac 10 to be particularly good this year, I wouldn't lump them into the same category of terrible as the Big East or even the ACC.
Had 3 ranked teams in 2001.
Has 3 ranked teams in 2010.
I really don't see THAT much of a difference between the two.
It's not like Stanford has beaten anyone amazing. They have one win against a ranked team. Oregon is great but I'm not that impressed with anyone else.
Oregon has also only beaten 1 team with a top 40 Defense and im assuming that was Stanford.
at 11:00 a.m. on Saturday.
When Rich Rod was hired, all the MSM could say was how "inspired", "out-of-the-box", and "revolutionary" it was for Bill Martin to bring him in. Now, they're ready to kick him to the curb.
I frankly don't give a sh-t what they think. They can go straight to hell.