Revisiting "The expectation is for the position"
It's a simple statement with which Michigan fans are well familiar: The expectation is for the position. I know the adage best for its use by players, coaches, and football program hangers-on during the Carr era. Somehow it became somewhat of a hot-button issue. So what's your opinion of the best translation? Do note that while I'm typing this for the sake of open conversation, some of my notions here are preconceived. And self-evidently irrepresible.
- Interpretation #1 implies that the coaches who espouse this slogan have at the heart of their coaching philosophy one rigid system and intend to bend the players to fit that mold rather than bend the mold to fit the players.
- Interpretation #2 holds that players are expected to rise to the occasion for their starting position no matter their inexperience because this is Michigan.
I believe interpretation #1 is wrong in ways that are sensational. I believe the more straight-forward and less inflammatory comprehension sits with #2. And what is more "Michigan" or more "Bo" than demanding players succeed--no matter the distractions, drama, circumstances or excuses--in the positions they find themselves?
And if you choose not to give Carr the benefit of the doubt and grip to #1, what is it, specifically, outside of confirmation bias and correlation/causation fallacies about this adage and the unmet goals of the second half of Carr's career, that makes you so confident?
December 12th, 2013 at 7:14 PM ^
December 12th, 2013 at 8:42 PM ^
Well, considering our AD thought the Carr era was so special he hired our current coach largely because he was popular with figures associated from that time, I'd say it's relevant.
December 12th, 2013 at 9:01 PM ^
December 12th, 2013 at 10:55 PM ^
That's not an era, it's a season.
December 12th, 2013 at 11:13 PM ^
I tire of the incessant Lloyd bashing by a segment of the MGoBlogosphere.
Carr posted a .500 or better record against two of Michigan's three top rivals, going 5–4 against Notre Dame and 10–3 against Michigan State. Carr also recorded a 9–2 record against Penn State.
Bowl appearance in each season as head coach.
Michigan was ranked in the Associated Press Top 25 for all but 14 of Carr's 162 career games, including 65 appearances in the Top 10.
Five Big Ten Championships
1997 National Championship
That's an era.
December 13th, 2013 at 1:20 AM ^
Honestly, there are two Carr eras. The first one (1995-2000) was pretty great. The second one (2001-07) was not. The man became a joke of a big game coach from the very minute Tressel showed up (1-6). This extended to bowl games (1-5) and road openers (0-6 in one stretch).
So if you think Brandon was wise to pay homage to something that Carr himself proved incapable of reliving in the last seven years of his career, that's your privilege. But there will always be people like me to point out the not-so-pretty facts about the latter half and what a foolhardy endeavor it is to try bask in what is becoming ancient history instead of embracing new directions.
December 13th, 2013 at 11:08 AM ^
The other thing about Carr that bears repeating: in 13 seasons, he never had a losing Big Ten campaign. His worst Big Ten record was 5-3, and that only happened a couple of times. Most years we went 6-2 or better.
December 12th, 2013 at 11:49 PM ^
Brady, Woodson, Hutchinson, et al. We understand that your knowledge is supreme.
December 12th, 2013 at 8:52 PM ^
This community loves ripping off scabs and turning them into deep scars.
I don't know what would be the neosporin of this metaphor.
December 13th, 2013 at 11:25 AM ^
Can someone explain Bump's defensive gameplan in the 1968 Ohio game? I still cannot believe we gave up 421 rushing yards in that game. We were ranked #4 coming in. It was embarrassing and needs to be discussed.
/s
December 12th, 2013 at 7:16 PM ^
This is quite a piece of inner dialouge right here. I miss the late 1990's, and in particular Michigan football during that era.
December 12th, 2013 at 7:16 PM ^
I would guess number 2 but would add that with the expectation for the position maybe it also has to do with keeping the kids focused on doing their job and learning "the team the team the team" concept brought by Bo. I personally never played a team sport growing up but I love how Michigan seems to do everything to keep the kids grounded and working hard or maybe every team has that as its focus I don't really know.
December 12th, 2013 at 7:18 PM ^
The phrase is something said by coaches to players to get the players to push themselves to play as best as they can. I'm sure other coaches, outside of Michigan, use that phrase too.
Former players repeat the mantra during interviews and what not because they heard it for 4 or 5 years.
But IMO it's just a motivational tactic and nothing more. If you've got Jake Long one year and then you've got me behind him, once Long graduates you can tell me I have to play as well as Long did all day long, (no pun intended) it won't change the fact I'm just not as good or athletic as Long was.
December 12th, 2013 at 7:20 PM ^
So this saying can only have two meanings....?
December 12th, 2013 at 7:24 PM ^
Interpretation #3 We're totally screwed, but we can't hardly just cancel the season. So we're going to start this guy and hope for the best.
December 12th, 2013 at 7:25 PM ^
that the staff at Michigan will always look at the holistic performance of a given player to decide if they will be on the 2-deep or not instead of looking at seniority, etc.
We hear it often in the context of some highly touted recruits so I think it's more of a way to assure them that they will get a chance to start...if they live up the expectations that the coaches have.
December 12th, 2013 at 7:55 PM ^
I believe this is more or less what it has always been taken to mean, although we should always be cautious when interpreting coachspeak. I seem to remember that the statement itself goes back to the Schembechler years as well.
Jim Herrmann has said in interviews recently that he actually uses "the expectation is for the position" in his duties coaching LBs for the New York Giants. As I recall, he explains to them he tells them it isn't about the person but indeed the position, or rather, go and do what a linebacker would do for the Giants, in this case, on Sunday. He ties it into the notion of getting guys to play as a unit and function better as a team. I thought that was a pretty decent way to look at it myself.
December 13th, 2013 at 7:58 AM ^
It's a good question. My understanding of it comes from years of hearing it in interviews and the like. I've always assumed it went beyond Michigan, but it seems likely it originated with Bo. He had a knack for expressions like this. If you've ever taught undergraduates, you know what this is about.
We have expectations for each position. We convey those expectations to you (the players). The player who best meets those expectations will play. There is no seniority system, and it doesn't matter what your recruiting profile was.
Players who do their homework and understand what is expected (i.e., what to do) at their positions will get a chance to play. Yes, there might be someone else who does this better than you. That's life. But if you do the work, you will get a chance to show what you can do. If you don't do the work, you won't see the field. Simple as that.
December 12th, 2013 at 7:26 PM ^
some people on this site think a lot
A LOT
December 12th, 2013 at 7:30 PM ^
December 12th, 2013 at 7:32 PM ^
TWSS.
December 12th, 2013 at 7:36 PM ^
December 12th, 2013 at 7:40 PM ^
The expectation is for the coaches to get the kind of player that will meet the expectations of the position. Then when he arrives, the two work together to transform to the set standard.
December 12th, 2013 at 7:42 PM ^
it would become clear. In the meantime, while speculation is fun, it seems a bit silly to try to make something about which we know nothing into a "hot button topic".
December 12th, 2013 at 8:36 PM ^
Come on, we know the answer to this. It's #2. If you're on the field at that position -- regardless of your class, pedigree, or spot on the preseason depth chart -- you're expected to produce at at the Michigan standard.
Regarding your comments after the question. I choose not to partake and any microanalysis of coachspeak. That's how you end up with religious wars.
December 12th, 2013 at 9:28 PM ^
December 12th, 2013 at 9:48 PM ^
As I recall the question is not asked "XXX is injured do you think YYY can fill his shoes?". Rather it is something like "How will you deal with the fact that XXX is injured?"
The answer is to prevent specific questions about who is going to step in for XXX. Then in the locker room after someone has earned the right to step in for XXX, that player understands that he must give his very best no excuses. It's not that he has to be as good as XXX, because if he was they'd have been splitting timeand if they were then the debate is moot, rather it's that the position demands 100% on every snap.
December 13th, 2013 at 5:36 AM ^
December 13th, 2013 at 7:19 AM ^
"IIRC, the actual saying from Bo was that "the expectation is for the position, not the player," meaning that the coaches didn't change their expectations based on who was playing; if you didn't have the same skills as your competitor, you'd better hone the skills you have to meet the expectations for the position, rather than expecting to out-compete your opponent based on your relative abilities. I think that he was talking about guys like Donny Warner, who was a walk-on who ended up starting at nose tackle, because, while he lacked the skills of the other nose tackle prospects, he was better at honing those skills needed at the position. He was the Jordan Kovacs of his era.
December 13th, 2013 at 11:30 AM ^
I always took it to mean that the player in a certain position is expected to perform certain feats on certain plays in order for those plays to work. For instance, the tackle is expected to neutralize the pass rush of the DE on a given play. The coaches draw up the plays and expect the players to execute their assignments. They don't change their expectations for play execution based on personnel.
If it is Green or Fitz, they are supposed to pick up the blitzing LB in pass protection. That is the expectation for the position. If a player cannot meet the expectation for the position, personnel changes will be made.