My questions is what made this guy go crazy and write such a piece of junk about Michigan. He consistently proves he is neither and idiot or someone who mistakes his role of writer for moral police. I think RR must have stepped on his puppy or winked at his girlfriend. I honestly don't get what could have turned one of the sane writers into someone who blatantly left out something as countable hours. I am at a loss here.
What should sports fans care about. Rosenberg.
Anyway to quote the article? I'm not clicking on any link that involves in helping Rosenberg/Sharp/Freep. Or make a print only link. Don't want him getting his clicks.
it's not even interesting. he discussed jerry jones, tiger and roethlisberger and asks "what should fans care about?"
it's an exercise of pointing out what's trivial and what's not with lots of rhetorical questions. he brings up condemning evidence just to say "let's not condemn."
i don't even get why it was posted here.
I figured that the article would most likely be the equivalent to a pile o' shit. Which is why I never even clicked on the link, or any Rosenberg article for that matter. The moment I see that it's written by Rosenberg I completely disregard any information (if there is even any) in the article. Rosenberg is a bum and nothing more.
Go back and read his article on why he was "rooting for Calipari" during the NCAA tournament, then come back and tell me he's not an idiot.
I'm totally lost... that article doesn't say a word about Michigan or rich rod.
Seriously though, look at how fucking awful that guy looks. I mean, is he looking at me? Is he looking at the guy next to me? Is there a miniature space ship above my head I don't know about? The guy looks like millions of years of evolution completely fucked up and lost its way creating a horrible fucking monster. I mean this guy makes Larry King look like George Clooney. The guy looks like a model rocket ship aficionado somehow ended up impregnating a sloth. Natural selection should have rocketed this guy off the mortal coil long ago, but no, he remains on Earth seemingly only to annoy a fanbase who has been through enough without his magic pen of stupidity. Here's hoping that no blind women venture themselves a go and this puke never gets the opportunity to spawn.
So you do like him, or you don't? It seems like you contradict yourself here.
for a dolphin puncher.
Another lame, lazy, no-value "article"
Read something more interesting, like the back of a can of spam.
Hey...I'm going to continue to read this article over and over again until I find a connection. I'll get back in a couple hours or so.
I got nothin guys...sorry.
SI's cheerleader of the week.....
I'll make the connection for you fucking Morons. Rosenberg writes an article that is sane, saying why do we care about stupid stuff. He never ever writes a negative piece just to trash someone ala Drew Sharp. 100% of the time he takes a positive stance or a voice almost no other media member takes.
He consistently finds good in sports, he says there are tons of villains in college basketball so lay off Calipari. He talks about Bobby Knight and forgiving and forgetting. He talks about finding something to like about Charlie Wise, even it was tragic.
Time and again he proves to be a good writer, with a take most others can't come up with. In a sports world where writing the negative and screaming the loudest is the norm, he always takes the understated side. He doesn't make a big deal out of stuff, he takes the stance that sports are just sports, it should be about fun, hard work, and positive stories. This article just proves that once again.
It also proves how bonkers the guy went writing the article on Michigan. Look at all his SI articles and Michigan articles, he does a complete 180 on one topic and one topic alone Rich Rodriguez. Its insane.
Just another way to prove or draw a conclusion just how ridiculous all the attention on Rodriguez is. How impossible it is for people to accept change. Smart people lose their minds and refuse to think logically, even if they are logical people.
Everything related to writers such as Rosenberg, current "BREAKING NEWS" about RR being investigated at WVU, or attention of evil recruits from Florida who when they are done with their 4 years will turn the University of Michigan into a community college.
Maybe I need bullet points for you people I don't know.
An inability to read the Topic Creators mind = being a moron. I'll remember that one from now on.
"My questions is what made this guy go crazy and write such a piece of junk about Michigan. He consistently proves he is neither and idiot or someone who mistakes his role of writer for moral police. I think RR must have stepped on his puppy or winked at his girlfriend. I honestly don't get what could have turned one of the sane writers into someone who blatantly left out something as countable hours. I am at a loss here."
You couldn't understand this. Really. Really. So I laid out every single step for you. So you could understand it. I know the most important quality of a writer is to know his audience. Now I know and I will use colors, tables, and bullets.
Sorry for the commotion, I really thought people could read and think. Instead of saying "lazy" "rosenberg fag" "i dont click him or drew sharp" "msm fail" etc. You all sound like broken fucking records.
I didn't get the point either. Maybe the moron here is you, did you think of that? If he has constantly written sane pieces, why would you link to just this one? Why not put a link to all of the numerous other pieces he has written that you loved? Or is this new piece of his just the final piece of evidence that you needed to make your point here on the MgoBoard? Instead,you come off as a douchey condescending dick. Congrats.
No problem I spelled it out for you. I assumed as an educated person who is on a blog, and posting no less, that maybe just maybe you read Rosenberg in the past.
I put too much faith in you and look where it got me. Take some info you have from the past and add something too a conversation. I posted the article and asked a question.
"My questions is what made this guy go crazy and write such a piece of junk about Michigan."
So now I now you never read another Rosenberg article. You don't see his pattern as a general sane person. You did't read him before RR got here, you havn't read anything he wrote at SI. And you didn't read my question when I prefaced it with: "He consistently proves he is neither and idiot or someone who mistakes his role of writer for moral police."
Now I get it.
I still don't get it. Could you please respond to this particular post, being more of a dick this time, so you can keep the negbang party going.
when you joined MGoBlog?
Better email or think to Brian (Brain) that you want one.
Maybe reasonable people could disagree about RichRod, the direction of the program, and that's just that.
You're the moron if you thought you could just throw off a few hasty sentences to make that point, around here or anywhere. If you're going to write a post on Rosenberg not actually being a complete crazy in matters other than Rich Rodriguez and/or Michigan football, you've got to make a decent argument -- this comment of yours would be a good start.
Plus, you ignore the fact that Rosenberg's obsession with Rodriguez began long before the infamous "investigation" -- the first thing that got my attention was a bullshit piece on how Rich and his coaches cuss too much, right around the time Boren was mouthing off. Brian's "jihad" term for it came about sometime around then, and Rosenberg was always in the middle of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his attitude toward Rodriguez has been quite consistent.
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his attitude toward Rodriguez has been quite consistent."
NO SHIT!!!!! hence i said this: "he does a complete 180 on one topic and one topic alone Rich Rodriguez"
You didn't mean he did a complete 180 on the topic of Rich Rodriguez, which is, technically, what you said. You meant that his unreasonable attitude toward Rich is the opposite of his reasonable attitude toward everything else. You should have said that, instead of this:
It also proves how bonkers the guy went writing the article on Michigan. Look at all his SI articles and Michigan articles, he does a complete 180 on one topic and one topic alone Rich Rodriguez.
Forgive me for thinking you were saying that he only went bonkers when he was "writing the article on Michigan." You make it sound like you think he did a 180 in that article, and his "Michigan articles" before that weren't bonkers. Excuse me for not knowing that by "the article on Michigan," you meant all of his columns and articles on Michigan football under Rich Rodriguez.
He never ever writes a negative piece just to trash someone ala Drew Sharp. 100% of the time he takes a positive stance or a voice almost no other media member takes.
I recall a certain Jihad...
In a sports world where writing the negative and screaming the loudest is the norm, he always takes the understated side.
Remind me who said that "Players spent at least nine hours on football activities on Sundays after games last fall." I believe that is on the 'overstated' (or 'bullshit') side of the ledger.
He doesn't make a big deal out of stuff, he takes the stance that sports are just sports, it should be about fun, hard work, and positive stories.
I think it's safe to say your argument has...
You are really this retarded. Seriously. I am comparing normal Rosenberg to CRAZY RR Rosenberg. Obviously he took the negative, and made a big deal out of nothing with Practice gate.
THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT!!! HAHAHA. Seriously you just make my point for me. I don't know if this is some bizzaro world where you are helping out the post by being a complete idoit or if you are honestly that slow.
but your argument is... oh, what is English word... bad?
You claim that he "never, ever" attacks individuals, with the one exception being the person in the most prominent position within his coverage area: the head football coach at Michigan.
You claim that he doesn't exaggerate, except for that time he sprung to national prominence by using quotes from freshmen out of context and citing "anonymous sources" to thoroughly indict a program, and by bolstering his career of the controversy HE created.
I'm compelled to ask, "But other than than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"
All it shows is that you failed to make your point effectively in the first place. Stop blaming everyone else for your fuck-up. It's a valid point (I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of Rosenberg's larger body of work, but it's a good question), but you didn't make it clear, even though surely you knew it would be controversial.
good god, you really are like 16 aren't you.
my whole point of "why was this posted here" wasn't that i couldnt follow the INCREDIBLE LOGIC that you utilized. it was that i... couldn't give less of a shit. the idea of linking to a piece by someone the board doesn't like reading and saying "hey read this and then realize how weird he is for being a dick" has... zero discussion value. at best it will make people go "oh. interesting." at worst you're going to have people basically not like the fact he's getting more attention by your post.
the fact you've absolutely flamed out into OMG CAPS!!! HAHAHAHAHA should show you're probably the least logical person in this thread right now.
Take a breather and come back a little stronger from the experience.
Work on that for a bit of time? Nice little narrative? Beginning, middle, and end? Some friends become enemies, some enemies become friends? At the end you become richer from the experience? Yeah? Yeah? No, no, you deserve some time off.
Could bcsblue's indictment of everyone here as "morons" be the first big mgoblog meltdown of 2010?
More at 6 and 11.
It's coming Tater.
Note when he started writing for SI (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/writers/michael_rosenberg/archive/): August 2009.
Note when the paperback of his book released (http://www.amazon.com/War-As-They-Knew-Schembechler/dp/0446698652/ref=sr...): September 2009.
I will spare the link, but his infamous "broke rules, players say" Freep expose came out August 29, 2009.
That story was part of a well-executed Fall 2009 roll-out campaign of Michael Rosenberg, national sportswriting personality.
Why did an opinion columnist get put on the byline of an investigative story? Because it was big PR and a good-looking credential for Michael Rosenberg, national sportswriting personality. The Free Press would love for him to become a Mitch Albom. Rosenberg is not evil; he's ambitious and callous. His reporting on practice time was sloppy, and disingenuously framed, but our athletic department now concedes there was at least some truth amidst his chaotic, oddly-sourced hyperbole. Anyway, that story didn't go to print to do a truth-seeking service to the public of southeast Michigan. It was framed to build a star.
And national sportswriting personality Michael Rosenberg is now in a position to write reasonably good columns for the second best online sports site.
Forgive me if I don't raise my glass to his success.
But you forgot pompous and condescending.
I think that it goes back to Jon Chait's article: what Michael Rosenberg did was reprehensible, but a good amount of the blame goes back to his superiors who authorized publishing his story. I wouldn't say that Rosenberg is a pawn because he's the asshole who wrote the article (along with Mark Snyder). That that this may have all been part of some planned "roll-out," as you propose, shows that the editors at the Freep are not nearly as irresponsible as much as they are conniving.
And the worst part of all is that the bad guys won, for now. But I guess we should already be used to that by now.
His puppy and girlfriend are actually one in the same.
In the immortal words of Ty Webb (not related to Sam Webb, is he?), "Your uncle molests collies."
I boycott everything Rosenpuke does and refuse to give him a click. I guess it restores my faith in human nature when he continues to be an asshole, though.
I guess Rosenpuke's lasting "contribution" to humanity is that he has proven that it is possible to be ugly both on the inside and on the outside.
Don't link Rosenberg. You're just giving him more visibility.
"I guess it restores my faith in human nature when he continues to be an asshole"
"Why are you reading this guy?
Read something more interesting, like the back of a can of spam."
"I guess Rosenpuke's lasting "contribution" to humanity is that he has proven that it is possible to be ugly both on the inside and on the outside."
Another lame, lazy, no-value "article"
"but no, he remains on Earth seemingly only to annoy a fanbase who has been through enough without his magic pen of stupidity."
"I figured that the article would most likely be the equivalent to a pile o' shit. Which is why I never even clicked on the link, or any Rosenberg article for that matter. The moment I see that it's written by Rosenberg I completely disregard any information (if there is even any) in the article. Rosenberg is a bum and nothing more."
This is just the point. He is none of these things. If the stuff written about RR was all by people like Drew Sharp it would be nothing on or below the surface. It would be contained to people who just go after negative.
The fact is, RR is getting beat down by usually normal and sane people for some reason. I don't know what it is, change, profile, losses, accent. I have no idea. Thats why I posed the original question. Look I just watched Outside the Lines, they were framing RR as having baggage and questioning him. Another outlet that is normally fair. Detnews and Angelique always normal, until it comes to RR, just recently she pened her hit piece on the Victors rally. Birkett stomping on recruits. Why?
There is much more to all this than "michigan haters" "he is a hack" "loser lolz".
Whatever the reason is, it must be petty and small. Because if there were more compelling reasons to hate RR, then I'm sure I would have heard about them by now.
Sources other than the Free Press have mostly been fair to RR. No one expects the coverage to be 100% positive. I hardly consider Angelique's article to have been a "hit piece," and even if it was, she's written far more positive than negative articles about the program. Likewise, even if that OTL story was a little negative, ESPN's Rittenberg has been very kind to RR.
The Free Press is another animal entirely. They have an agenda, and it almost certainly has something to do with the wife of Jim Stapleton being on its editorial board. Stapleton is a disgruntled ex-administrator here who hates Bill Martin for firing Brian Ellerbe and Tommy Amaker and for not hiring Ron English as our head coach.
I don't know if Rosenberg was forced to take an anti-RR stance by his Freep bosses or did it by his own volition, but regardless, he has established himself as an enemy of the program. I feel no sympathy for him.
It is to be expected. Smart and influential alumni like Dhani Jones are frustrated. I can respect that. There's no mystery there.
What isn't to be expected is what Rosenberg went off and did -- bitching and moaning about Rich before he had even lost a game, and then throwing any sort of journalistic ethics or integrity to the wind in trying to stretch a somewhat sensational but isolated and minor story (the graduate assistant Alex Herron breaking the rules by attending voluntary 7-on-7 drills) into a career-making story about a program riddled with large-scale abuse.
bcsblue is right. It is a sane article. And totally, unabashedly hypocritical coming from someone who took it upon himself to dig up the sordid details of 20 extra minutes of practice.
Don't even waste your time with this guy. He couldn't write a article that was intelligent if his life depended on it.
Aw snap you got him bad.