Random: "Insider" info is all over the place these days...
Not OT, but not necessarily insightful either.
Just an observation, but "insider" info seems to be more contradictory now than ever before.
The Harbaugh/Vikings saga had some sites reporting it was a done deal, while others said it was a legitimate interview and Weiss was helping prepare Harbaugh for multiple hours. One site says Hart was the internal candidate, another says that's crap and it was Gattis. Another said Bill O'Brien was a frontrunner while a different site called that bullshit and said Rhule was getting the first call.
On3, the one reporting that Hart was the internal candidate and Gattis didn't get through a screening process (or something to that effect)...which resulted in getting called out, twice by this site...seems to be letting the rumor of Gattis and a recruits mom run without any denials. Obviously, it supports their "inside info" of Gattis and the screening process. To be fair, they haven't confirmed it either.
At the same time Seth has been adamant that it's all made up or it's just bad info. Which, means the rumor also isn't true?
I don't know what to believe anymore...I just know Michigan needs to get its shit together.
That said, I'd be interested to know who, in the end, was most accurate on all of this stuff.
February 7th, 2022 at 12:04 AM ^
More of a desire to be first with the information rather than taking the time to verify if the information is accurate. This is not just a problem with "insiders" but also major news organizations as well.
February 7th, 2022 at 7:17 AM ^
Speculation + rumor + innuendo + malice? Welcome to today's "news." Journalistic verification? There's no time for that, especially in the days of corporate legal shields, responding to valid questions with spin, and verbally attacking interviewers. Gone are the days of direct answers, or simple and polite, "No comment" responses.
February 7th, 2022 at 10:31 AM ^
I strongly disagree.
Journalistic integrity has been strong with real journalists like Seth, Sam, Chengalis, Bacon, etc. Their reporting have been consistent and accurate.
This is a problem with listeners, not with reporters. You should not take every rumor as "news". It is your fault for giving any value to some random Internet posters. I am not sure why OP thinks this is a problem with the system when it really is the problem with the OP
February 7th, 2022 at 11:39 AM ^
God, I hate lazy takes like this one. The "media" isn't some monolith. There are legit reporters on one side and internet hacks on the other. You will find that most (but not all) reporters from legitimate news organizations tend to report far more responsibly and accurately. They tend to separate out reporting from speculation. Nick B. does that. The beat writers at the Detroit papers usually do that. They were far more circumspect in their reporting -- when they were speculating, they said as much. And they acknowledges that speculation is just speculation. And they mostly used sources that were close to the situation.
The writers here on the blog engage in speculation all the time. Sometimes it ends up correct, sometimes not. But few people here rail at them. All in all, the legit reporters mostly got the story right -- except for the final twist, in which Harbaugh returned. This clearly seems to be connected to the fact that "sources close to Harbaugh" -- which probably means Harbaugh himself, or his designated media conduit -- said he was going to take the new job. Harbaugh acknowledged as much later. You can't blame the reporters for the fact that Harbaugh said one thing, then did another thing. Blame the internet hacks who clearly just make shit up or piggyback off each other. Random hacks with no access to the program tend to be highly unreliable. But people here post every random tweet from nobodies as if these "reports" mean anything. So posters here bear equal responsibility for slinging fake news.
February 7th, 2022 at 11:47 AM ^
Not sure what your point is. You are saying exactly the same thing i did...
February 7th, 2022 at 10:38 AM ^
"Gone are the days..."
To be replaced by what? It's can't be what we have now, which is everyone having their own facts stridently voiced. A society based on that, folks, is not sustainable.
February 7th, 2022 at 11:27 AM ^
I think this is where an old-timer is supposed to chime in to talk about how great the days of Walter Cronkite telling everyone the news were.
February 7th, 2022 at 11:35 AM ^
Clicks before facts.
February 7th, 2022 at 12:56 PM ^
Ah yes. The almighty dollar.
February 7th, 2022 at 6:27 PM ^
February 7th, 2022 at 12:08 AM ^
That's all old history now. I'm waiting for the big news as a big name is reported to be coming to AA as our new OC.
February 7th, 2022 at 12:13 AM ^
Aside from Andrel Anthony, where did you see this?
February 7th, 2022 at 4:01 AM ^
Andrel Anthony. AA. Ann Arbor. Was spotted at the wbball game with JH. I think he is validated. Let's go with it.
February 7th, 2022 at 9:36 AM ^
Most of the insiders agree that Weiss is getting promoted to co-OC with Moore and Weiss will call plays. So I’ll be really surprised if Michigan hires a big time OC.
February 7th, 2022 at 12:10 AM ^
Given that Harbaugh didn't leave, how many people even know whom Manuel considered as a possible replacement? I think it must be few.
February 7th, 2022 at 12:28 AM ^
Nice try, buddy. That's way too much of a logical take.
February 7th, 2022 at 8:49 AM ^
Also... proper use of who/whom??? Erik do better next time.
February 7th, 2022 at 12:06 PM ^
Unless you were being sarcastic, I think that Erik did properly use "whom" in that sentence. The general rule is that "who" functions as a subject and "whom" functions as an object. Because "whom" is the receiver of the action in that sentence and not the doer of the action, it's an object and "whom" is correct.
February 7th, 2022 at 12:10 AM ^
I think Gattis’ text(s) to players is strong evidence that Balas was right about someone other than him (Hart, Moore) getting the HC promotion over him if Harbaugh did sign with the Vikings.
February 7th, 2022 at 12:33 AM ^
I agree with you but I interpret those texts as the administration favoring an outside hire. Seth is pretty adamant that Hart wasn't jumping Gattis which is logical and there were reports that the AD reached out to external candidates (Matt Rhule for instance). I think Gattis knew that they'd gun for an external hire and it rubbed him the wrong way because he assumed he was the guy on deck
February 7th, 2022 at 5:47 AM ^
Gattis, Hart, and Moore have one thing in common: zero head coaching experience. It's no surprise that the AD would consider external candidates for the top job. There is an element of risk in turning over the keys to the program to an inexperienced driver.
February 7th, 2022 at 8:42 AM ^
It's not so much turning it over to a first time head coach, but turning it over to a relatively young and inexperienced guy. Neither Gattis nor Hart have all that much experience with being senior management at a place like Michigan. Carr was coordinator level at Michigan for a decade. Moeller took a smaller program (Illinois) before getting UM's job. The thing about going young is relatively new - and Michigan does very little that can be considered 'relatively new'. If Gattis and Hart were going to be jumped, it's because they don't have a decade of experience at the top of a blue blood like Michigan. Not because they'd be a first time head coach.
February 7th, 2022 at 10:37 AM ^
Carr was an interim quite some time. So was Steve Fisher. They had to prove themselves, they did, they got the permanent job. Mel Pearson had to go off to Michigan Tech to get HC experience in hockey, too.
Juwan didn’t have HC experience but he was literally ready to step into a HC job in the NBA, and given the unusual circumstances of that search and the connection his hire made lots of sense. But Michigan doesn’t generally want guys learning on the job.
February 7th, 2022 at 11:01 AM ^
Meh, Fisher was an interim for only six games. It's not like he won the national championship in that brief period.
Oh, wait he did, never mind.
February 7th, 2022 at 8:10 AM ^
I don't know about this. If the money numbers from Miami ($1.9M) are true, he could have asked UM to match and they told him to pound sand. It doesn't have to be about HC job at all. Plenty of disgruntled sports figures have been created simply by contract dispute.
February 7th, 2022 at 8:50 AM ^
You could be absolutely correct that he left for more money. That being said, you would've hoped he would have left on better terms vs burning a HUGE bridge. At this level in CF, it is a pretty small group of jobs, etc.
February 7th, 2022 at 9:08 AM ^
Where did the $1.9 million rumor come from? This is the first I've heard of it.
February 7th, 2022 at 10:47 AM ^
I saw it on twitter, so clearly it is true:)
I have seen $1.6-1.9M quoted. Either way, both would be a tremendous raise over $900K. Miami is private, so we will likely never know the true number, but I could see a Brolye's award winner getting something in that ball park.
February 7th, 2022 at 2:40 PM ^
Strange that Miami could come up with that kind of dough. They haven't been relevant for years and even when they were they couldn't fill a stadium.
February 7th, 2022 at 10:59 AM ^
Word is that he felt more disrespected by the salary differential between his and Macdonald. He was probably expecting a pay raise that would match what they gave Mac last year and it was probably well short and that led to the animosity.
February 7th, 2022 at 9:40 AM ^
If Warde was even considering internal candidates as anything other than a last resort he should be fired. There is no one on this staff qualified to take over Michigan right now.
February 7th, 2022 at 11:29 AM ^
Seemingly it's strong evidence, but all it's really evidence of is that Gattis felt that way. Who was he referring to when he wrote "administration?" Warde? Regents? Interim Pres. Coleman? Harbaugh? This is unknown. Also, did he hear that straight from "administration," or did he get that second hand by someone who was trying to sabotage him? Who the hell knows. One can only know if a) one is in the building, and b) in the inner circle of the building to know first-hand.
One thing does seem clear: people in the building have different perspectives and agendas, and so people like Sam Webb and Chris Balas (whose sources are likely not entirely the same) can get conflicting information.
I think it best we all just take this stuff with a grain of salt, do our best to not get swept up in inter- and intra-office politics, and focus on cheering on our Michigan, no matter who the coaches and players are.
February 7th, 2022 at 12:13 AM ^
Reporters often seem to be guilty of reporting the one part of the story they're familiar with as if it was the only part. Reporters with connection to Michigan may have been correct in the belief that Harbaugh was going to take the Vikings job if offered it, and thus from their point of view it was a "done deal". However, reporters who are familiar with the Vikings are indicating that there was an internal debate among the Vikings leadership, and ultimately Harbaugh was not offered the position.
Regardless, too many people, even supposedly legitimate reporters, are presenting personal options and unconfirmed rumors as "facts" on twitter or other social media so they can pull in all the attention of us regular shmucks who are just trying to figure out what the hell is going on.
February 7th, 2022 at 12:47 AM ^
The other part of it is that to some extent reporters are only as good as their sources. Of course they can cross check that with other info and do that more often then we might credit them for, but if all they have is an opinion or secondhand factoid from a source, that’s all we have.
February 7th, 2022 at 6:13 AM ^
I think it has more to do with there are no editors on Twitter and the desire to be first. If the reporter doesn’t care to fact check there is no failsafe to question it before it goes live.
February 7th, 2022 at 7:28 AM ^
Desire to be first and the clicks that generate cash.
February 7th, 2022 at 9:20 AM ^
True, although I think that more reporters than we might suspect are pretty good about doing their due diligence, although certainly not all. And again they are still ultimately constrained by the reliability of their sources. The problem is that, often times, we plebes may not know which reporters are doing their homework, coupled with the fact that it’s literally their job to put “news” out there at a rapid pace because things do evolve rapidly.
February 7th, 2022 at 7:34 AM ^
Half the posters here post as though they somehow know the reasoning for certain decisions that are made or they otherwise postulate as though they share the same brain of Harbaugh, Ward, whomever.
February 7th, 2022 at 12:15 AM ^
It was John O'Neil pulling the strings. He's the orchestrator of all Michigan's pain.
February 7th, 2022 at 12:35 AM ^
That bulbous-nosed bastard is too dumb to be the mastermind. I think Pete (Dumbo) Finebum is the puppet master.
February 7th, 2022 at 12:16 AM ^
Random on randomness? You don’t say. Just like Harbaugh, all of this insider, outsider crap means nothing. How could anyone know what’s going on,”if they don’t even know? Amaizing!!!
February 7th, 2022 at 12:18 AM ^
Follow the money. It’s all about getting clicks. The insiders are not often held accountable for getting it wrong. They can either rationalize it away to their audience or just move on to the next rumor. They just need to be right often enough so that they keep a some credibility. It’s probably not intentional on the reporters part, but rather working off incomplete information, which is their job. They always need to weigh the truth of their claim vs moving first. Generally being the first mover is more valuable. At this point, it’s fair assume that most of the Inside info is false until it is confirmed by multiple sources willing to provide names. This is not a unique problem to Michigan. All news has the same basic incentive structure.
February 7th, 2022 at 12:56 AM ^
Amen to all of this.
You have to take a lot of this with a grain of salt. Now often times, this is all perfectly fine, but in anything involving a job change (NBA free agency is a notable example), it’s lying’ season. Generally when you hear that someone is a potential candidate or that talks were had re: whomever, that may be true, but the only thing we know for sure is that someone wants that information out there.
Like, if you read a tweet saying ‘MGoUser kehnonymous was mentioned to be the possible next victim for FauxMo’s murderclown basement’, that may mean FauxMo is legit trying to imprison me, that may mean someone else thinks I’m gonna be clown-napped, or idle speculation on my part, OR neither of the above but the only thing it definitely means is that *someone* wants that narrative out there.
February 7th, 2022 at 8:50 AM ^
Yes. Here's just one example of how a single good call can make a career:
Not sure what the batting average is in that case, but it's not close to perfect.
February 7th, 2022 at 9:13 AM ^
I don't know her reputation in the industry, so I'm wondering--which one is the single good call? Her page says "She is credited with predicting the bear market bottom in the S&P 500 price index in 1982, the top and bottom in 1984, the crash of 87 and the upturn that followed, and the top and bottom in stock prices in 1990. She warned of overvaluation and problems with “phantom” company profits versus tax return profits as early as 1996, several months before Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" speech. She was bullish from early 1997 until December 1999. Her indicators showed an overvaluation in the S&P 500 of more than 40 percent in late 1999. In May 2000, her indicators fell to a bear market signal of below 30 percent. Her indicators were bullish at the bear market bottom in late 2002. She predicted a market top in January, 2008 and turned bullish in March, 2009."
February 7th, 2022 at 9:34 AM ^
Her page says ...
Really -- would you expect her page to highlight all her calls? :)
She's most famous for the '87 call. She's maybe less famous for what happened immediately afterward:
Garzarelli's fund, Smith Barney Shearson Sector Analysis, was established just before the crash. Thanks to all the free publicity she got from being interviewed as a prognosticator, investors soon poured $700 million into this fund. In 1988, Garzarelli's fund was the worst-performing fund among growth stock funds. From 1988 to 1990, Garzarelli's fund underperformed the S&P 500 average by about 43 percent. Even the few investors who were in her fund before the crash in 1987 (when Garzarelli's fund outperformed the S&P 500 by about 26 percent) still lost. What she saved her investors by avoiding the crash she lost back (and then some) in the years that followed.
Source (as always, for what it may be worth): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Garzarelli
As I said earlier, she's merely one of thousands. Make all kinds of calls, get a few key ones correct, and you have a career.
February 7th, 2022 at 9:49 AM ^
Thanks for the clarification about her being most known for the 1987 call. (For those of us not in the financial industry, your link to her page didn't specify which was the "one call" that made her career. I appreciate the follow-up.)
February 7th, 2022 at 10:03 AM ^
I don't know that her own website is really a good source for her good calls. She lost her job (after her 'famous' call about the 1987 crash) due to poor long term performance. From reading about her she sounds like the type of analyst who makes lots and lots of calls, and then trumpets the ones that happen to be right. A simple index fund has probably crushed her performance long term.
February 7th, 2022 at 12:31 PM ^
That's a fair point, but blueheron provided a link to her website when asserting that one good call made her career.