UM Hoops has turned one media hater in to a UM fan
Afraid it is behind a paywall, but longtime UM basher in the media, the Wall Street Journal's Jason Gay does a column saying he simply cannot hate UM for basketball and is rooting for Juwan and the team against UCLA. Says that his past criticisms mostly was aimed at all the UM grads at the WSJ (he is a Wisconsin grad) but his past animosity is just not there when it comes to b-ball.
I don't know if other people around here almost consider Wisconsin a rival, but outside of MSU and OSU there's no one else I hate losing to more haha. They always seem less talented and back into wins by slowing the game down and employing... uh... Brad Davison-esque defensive tactics. Probably the reason I hated this is because this is exactly how UM played until Beilein got the talent to rise above it haha
I think some people will disagree, but I think the same about Wisconsin football. Yes, they will have a monster OL and RB, but also WRs who are slow & uninspiring and a QB who has very obvious holes in his game...a good front 7, but a very beatable secondary, yet every year they are really damn tough.
Isn't Wisconsin basically Harbaugh`s idea of the ideal football team. Not trying to bash him (at least now) but the way they are recruited and how the team is built is what harbaugh originally wanted here
If Michigan’s coaching matched its talent it should never be that tough to beat them in football. It wasn’t an issue under Carr. Neither was beating PSU.
March 30th, 2021 at 10:39 AM ^
Before the Carr regime left, we were eerily similar to the stereotypical Wisc teams you just mentioned. That style may be outdated but it has produced results, boring or not.
We can all conceed that Wisconsin, OSU, and MSU are far better party schools than UM. Probably the best three in the Big 10.
Indiana would beg to differ.
Not all parties are created equal. I always admired what Wisconsin use to bring to A2. Win or lose they seemed to have a good time.
An MSU party is more a trashy one where the cops show up and you wake up with regrets and fines.
I mean, I don’t like Davidson but I really don’t hate Wisconsin overall. Specifically when it comes to football it’s always been a little frustrating that they can be as good as they are with the talent they get. I often think how have they got it figured out and we can’t.
The idea they don't "get" good talent is of course absurd. They've had an unreal amount of talent in the past decade - Russell Wilson, Johnathan Taylor, Chris Borland, the Watt brothers, Melvin Gordon, and all those offensive linemen.
The difference between Michigan and Wisconsin the past 15 years? Wisconsin has one system. They recruit to that system and don't blow it up. They recruit smart kids who know what they're doing. And more important than anything else, Wisconsin keeps its players for 4-5 years. They don't leave after 1 1/2 years and force the coaches to start over again with 18 year olds, which has been Michigan's practice since 2015. You can't underestimate losing the sunk cost of training young players who then walk out the door before teaching the underclassmen what they know. Wisconsin keeps that in house. To me, that's the biggest impediment to Michigan. They start over almost every year teaching the players how to play. It's really not a program anymore.
The reality is....Wisconsin is what Michigan was from around 1970 to 2007. Boringly effective and constantly winning.
He didn't say they don't get good talent though. He said they are better than the sum of their parts, which you cannot argue. They have 5(!) five star commits on 247 "ALL TIME" (since 2000). That's absurd. They had 6 recruits who were 4 stars or higher in their last class. For all that's made about how much rankings matter, the fact that they have won so many games without elite talent says something. And even with the guys you mentioned, I think you could safely say they all exceeded their recruiting rankings? Which furthers his point.
I think the system matters, a little bit, but mostly, like you said...4-5 year guys are huge. And, also, Michigan really has no identity. I like the early Harbaugh years, and while I recognize the need to change/modernize it's just sending us further into no man's land, just wandering. It's almost like Michigan is like the Red Wings a few years ago or an NBA 8 seed, in purgatory. Not good enough to take a step forward good enough to win 7-9 games a year, which isn't bad enough to prompt wholesale change.
But the Wisconsin model, with better players was LSU/Alabama a few years ago, and both of those guys abandoned that system for modern offenses. So there's a ceiling on how good they can be unless they somehow start pulling in elite skill position guys (more than just 1 at a time.) Imagine what KJ Hamler could've done there...Rashod Bateman...both at the same time while Taylor was there.
Sorry...ranting...
Yes, Wisconsin is 2018 Michigan, every year, and in a division without a better program. Not a bad approach if it gets you division championships, and if there's less institutional pressure to beat OSU (which they don't either).
This is the main thing. Wisconsin has their system and they do it very well, which works against the B1G West. When you see them in the B1G Title Game, they're getting blasted off the field because their style doesn't match up to what the more modern offenses are doing. In regards to Michigan, I think Wisconsin's team is set up to really take advantage of the weaknesses Michigan has, the primary one being a D-Line that can't stand up to double teams.
Michigan is trying to modernize and we see the growing pains with that. Should it take this long to figure it out? Maybe, maybe not. But I think the lack of development in quite a few of our players that should be those 4th/5th year starters is really concerning.
You deserve all those upvotes because your points are on the money.
I'll add that Harbaugh likes the stereotypic brand of Big-10 football and if he had his druthers, he'd still be playing that brand as it was in the 1980s,'90s and early 2000s; before the spread offenses arrived. When you take into account what Nick Saban said about how his philosophy has changed in just the past few years-he gets it. That's also the reality when you compare the Michigan program under Harbaugh to Saban's Bama or Day's buckeyes.
March 30th, 2021 at 11:04 AM ^
It's "Davison," not "Davidson." I can't stand the guy either, but I share his last name (he and I are NOT related), and I don't understand why everyone always wants to throw in a second "d." Do you hear a second "d" when they say his name on TV? No. Do you see an extra "d" when they show his name on TV? No.
the extra D is for "dongpunch"
Very insightful, thank you.
Haha... I just spit out my coffee. Yes, Brad Davison should be referred to as Brad Davidson because he gets an extra "d" for "dongpunch."
March 30th, 2021 at 10:59 AM ^
As a resident of Central Wisconsin, I completely endorse this post. For me, Wisconsin is my second most hated rival with msu close behind. I really can't stand Wisconsin fans and their "we're so disrespected and underrated..." when they've never won anything outside of a conference championship in the weakest division in a college football conference. They hang their pride hats on Russel Wilson and JJ Watt like they are homegrown Wisconsin products.
Funny quote from Jason Gay in the article, "It bears mentioning that the Wolverines are the only Big Ten team left in the tournament - they were the only Big Ten team to make it out of the opening weekend. In fact, if you remove Michigan from the equation, the Big Ten had a worse March than that boat in the Suez Canal."
I feel the same. I have loathed Wisconsin basketball since Dick Bennett was their head coach.
Jason Gay sounds like a jealous, petty bitch. How about being a professional when you work for an outfit like the WSJ?
Fuck him, fuck Wisconsin and he can go fuck himself.
Take it down a notch, SDM. I've read a lot of Jason Gay's articles. He is quite a good columnist. Gay's articles are professional, often humorous, and generally relevant. Yes, he is a Badger fan and he doesn't root for Michigan (essentially because Michigan's elite journalism school has funneled a lot of alums into the WSJ and we got him surrounded.) But he approaches the rivalry in a good-natured way, unlike the blokes from East Lansing and Columbus. There's room in the universe for fans of other teams like these.
Yes, he's funny and his comments about Michigan are always good natured and filled with an acknowledged sense of inferiority. And it's good to see Big Ten coverage in an East Coast establishment paper.
I don't even know who you are.
It's a Phrasing Phield-Day!
That's great that Jason is now in a gay mood for Michigan. We are all gay for Michigan!
I lived in Milwaukee for 6 years. Even though they'll never admit it, Wisconsin fans use Michigan sports as their measuring stick. They've got quite a complex, almost like a lil brother complex, and they carry grudges for a long time. The big thing when I moved there in '97 was their Rose Bowl appearances. The UW grads I worked with would crow about how good their football team was, but they lost to Michigan on their way to the '98 and '99 Big 10 championships. That bothered them to no end.
A lot of Big Ten schools feel that way. And so we get these one-sided “rivalries” where everyone in the stands is wearing “Muck Fichigan” shirts while we are just like “Huh?”
Was able to read with a free account.
I also thought you were referring to UMHoops.com in the title. Great blog btw.
I'll have to find out about getting a free account too.
I'm still curious as to why UMHoops.com would nab some guy who hates the media and hand him over to a random UM fan?
Contracts. Ransom money. It's real greaseball shit, let me tell you. People that do the 30 for 30 on this need to watch their backs.
So, he hates UM, because there are too many at the WSJ? He can go to hell.
March 30th, 2021 at 10:20 AM ^
I read him a lot and can't say I've picked up he's a UM hater. If so, he's the Brady Hoke of UM haters.
I've never heard of Jason Gay, and I don't read the WSJ for it's sports section. Not that I read the WSJ, anyway - but certainly not for sports.
Sports is obviously a limited back burner in the wsj, but the articles are normally very good, just like the rest of it.
March 30th, 2021 at 11:07 AM ^
I try to stay away from partisan-centric outlets, of which the WSJ is decidedly one. You want me to read your news outlet stories? Then stay in the middle and don't pick a side...
March 30th, 2021 at 12:55 PM ^
That leaves...
(crickets)
Although I think the Economist and Reuters does OK in staying in the middle, sometime is clear where their bias is. The point? Its damn hard to find a "stay in the middle" source.
That's a huge cop-out and typical of namby pamby "bothsiderism." Just because reality has a well known liberal bias doesn't mean that reporting that reality makes it wrong or not in the middle.
I'm not sure reality has a liberal bias, but open news is by definition about other people and other things, so in that sense open news is somewhat liberal and progressive by definition.
Which is almost always a good thing in the long run.
March 30th, 2021 at 10:31 AM ^
I just read it for the pictures.
Good column. I've never really hated Wisconsin per se, but as others have said, they kind of nag you to death and all of a sudden, they win games. I think any dislike is the fact, as someone else pointed out, is that they have such a strong system, players that fit, an identity everyone's bought into, and if you don't out-talent and out-scheme them (obviously this can be said about a lot of teams, but if you just have one of these things against Wiscy, it usually gets dicey), a very difficult team to play against in both football and basketball. So contrasted against the turnover and chaos that is Michigan football, it's pretty damn annoying.
Oh my. Sounds like a pretty shallow fella-plain and simple.
"I've always hated Michigan teams and I've tried incredibly hard to hate this Michigan team, but I can't so I guess I'll cheer for them."
Fuck off.
bless his heart
I'm surprised a journalist would admit that anything he wrote negatively about Michigan in the past was more about petty office rivalries than the actual subject. Then again, he went to Wisconsin. (rimshot)
It's called accepting reality. Give him credit for owning up.
The Howard effect!
I’ve read his stuff in the WSJ in the past. He’s a dumbshit. There’s a reason he writes a sports page for the WSJ.
March 30th, 2021 at 10:32 AM ^
So are you saying that the WSJ sports page is like an appendix, a useless organ that you can remove and no one would notice?