One question - how much time did you spend on this analysis?
Where to even begin? Front page Freep headlines.
Do you mean to imply by this question that you agree with the Free Press reporting of the situation and are thus jabbing at the OP? Or do you mean to convey the message that the OP posted a very useful thread? This reader, for one, greatly appreciates the post. I will never, ever visit the Free Press website and am continuously disgusted by any articles I see coming out of them that include any kind of editorial or personal opinion of the writers. Posts like these that are thought out and extremely well-written just show how sub-standard the Free Press reporting really is. There are numerous MGoMembers that would blow the writers for that paper out of the water! Detroit metro area residents should be calling for the heads of the editors of that paper and forcing its bankruptcy by not buying the rag. But that's just the humble opinion of an out-of-stater . . . Thanks Section 1.
[EDIT: How can I have a score of "-1 Normal" ??]
Better question: Why are you reading the FreeP?
Just throwing this out there, but "many fans" were discontent with the job RR did. I'm not entirely sure what problem you have with that statement. Did you want them to take a poll and find that more than 5 people were discontented so they could use the word "many"?
I think he's pointing more to the fact that using the words "many" or "some" is kind of a cop-out when it comes to supplying supporting numbers. They can basically mean anything without supplying any actual information.
I'm just wondering what he wanted them to do. Did he want them to take a poll of fans that were discontent? I mean, to me the statement "many fans were discontented with RR" seems like a pretty vanilla and acceptable statement. Would you argue with that?
FWIW it was between 33-66% (1/3 definitely stay, 1/3 undecided and 1/3 definitely fired) between OSU and Mississippi State. Well, actually that was for wanting him fired, but I'd go out on a limb and say that "many" of the people who wanted him fired were discontent with the job he was doing.
There was a discrepancy between respondents' answers about whether he should be fired and whether they liked him or not. The poll found that while 32% of Michigan fans felt RR should be retained for 2011, just 20% of them had a favorable opinion of RR. Apparently, even some of those in the "retain him" corner weren't really fans of his. Perhaps they just feared another coaching transition more than anything.
The poll data:
The only thing about that is I'm not sure how many people answered to "do you like the Michigan head coach" or "do you like RR". To me, the question seems more personal, like a lot of polls have done with Obama: in-office performance vs. liking his personality.
Either way, my comment was more in jest than an actual statistical answer. It always seems like there's a three way split on a divisive issue.
And "many fans" were discontented with the Free Press and thought Rodriguez was being treated unfairly.
They are both true statements.
What David Jess did, was to imply a condition (we'll call it "resolved fan-discontent") which has led to vastly increased giving to the Athletic Department. It is a relationship which the Athletic Department denies. But Daivid Jesse ran with it anyway. So the question becomes, "Mr. Jesse, what evidence is there that the discontent of "many fans" has anything to do with your story about Athletic Department fundraising?"
I would not say many fans blame the Free Press for its report on RR. I would say many fans blame the Free Press for its report on Michigan. So... Should I write an essay about your liberties with language?
"And "many fans" were discontented with the Free Press and thought Rodriguez was being treated unfairly," in the post you replied to, does not say that "many fans blame the FP for its report on RR," which you insinuated. It is possible to think Rodriguez was treated unfairly, with one instance being FP's report on UM. So it does not seem significant liberties were taken.
Many fans admired Rodriguez during his three years commanding the sidelines. They didn't like that he was the main vicitm [sic] of a front-page Free Press story in 2009
I didn't read this but as soon as you noted "its never-ever ending personal vendetta against Rich Rodriguez," I gave it instant credibility. When it comes to never-ending vendettas, you sir are an expert.
Geaux, I hear what you're saying. However, I still believe that people need to be reminded about how the Free Press sucks. I can look past the precise wording of a post as long as the premise is debunking or discrediting the Free Presss.
Um, the NCAA bunked/credited the Free Press, both here and generalized to WVA. Players were practicing too much under RR's coaching staff. It's beside the point whether it, at one time, was normal practice at most football programs. Their story on too much practice at Michigan under RR, to a larger or smaller extent, was found to be credible. This continuing holy war against the Free Press is just masturbatory. It is disillusionment run amuk.
What was the FP's original claim regarding the degree of over-practicing? What was the NCAA's finding? What was the NCAA's finding on the extremely similar case at UMD earlier this year, and what were the violations handed down there?
and can negative sentiment from those who dislike RR be tied to that?
i say yes.
while the Freep has been proven to be a sensationalist messenger, the fact anything did come out of the NCAA is not discredited or removed simply because the original story accused of more. the failure is tying those who dislike RR because of violations to the Freep.
You can believe what you wish. The Free Press had and appears to continue to have a chip on their shoulders as it relates to Michigan football and I, for one, will not put up with it. They have a responsibility for providing fair and balanced reporting (except in the Editorials section) and they lost all credibility when they ran that so-called 8-part expose that they hyped for weeks and that turned out being almost entirely worthless. Maybe "practicegate" had some truth to it and they revealed it, but the rest of the thousands of words were worthless and people paid good, hard-earned money to unknowingly support it.
But you feel free to go on ahead and excuse their misconduct and support them to whatever extent you please.
Since we both strongly believe in the immense appeal, value, and importance of bewbs, I'm ok with just agreeing to disagree here.
as of now, nobody believes RR what Section 1 is cooking. RR received his positive swing back when it became exposed that the only problem was stretching. What Section 1 fails to note is many people are angered regarding RR not because of the implied violations but the real sanctions. Like him or not, RR was commanding the process that led to NCAA violations. They were not as sensationalized as reported but people have a right to be pissed by the violations and that is completely separate from the Freep investigation.
Also: he fails to debunk or discredit the Free Press.
There you go again, getting all technical and making good points. Jerk.
What is the Freep that you speak of? I know of no such institution.
Beaten to the punch. Well played, sir.
Donations may have increased 14% by those hoping it'd help lower the financial burden of firing RR
WHY DO YOU POST THESE RANTS WHEN NOBODY CARES? Make your own blog - if there's an audience for this crap, you'll have a readership. This is not your daily personal soapbox against shadowy press conspiracies. I'm about to go buy a freep simply bc it'd make you cry a single sobering tear like a piece of litter rolling by.
Longtime mgoblogger who rarely "up" or "down" points anybody, but I still want to know how to do it. Since the upgrades to the site and the new "normal" "funny" "informative" tags, I can't figure out how to point anybody but the OP. How is it done now?
And click Moderate
The alternative paragraph sucks. The alternative journalist should be ashamed and take some alternative journalism and/or alternative English courses. Alternatively.
Good grief. I needed an oxygen mask after reading the second (or last) sentence of that "paragraph".
Burn the whiches.
what else floats?
Michael Rosenberg punches Ducks.
You have abilities to foresee the future. /BB
Edit: For those who downvote, a guy on Breaking Bad in an episode I just watched claimed it. I wasn't ripping Shoe.
Rich Rod is gone and he ain't coming back.
what I was thinking.
"a vastly improved economy"
I don't want to get political and all, but...wut?
yeah that one kind of made me go..."huh?"
Let it go, man. Even if all of the increases are not a direct result of the RR to Hoke transition (and I agree with you that they probably are not), one can't deny the new energy he's brought to the program, which naturally will excite people. Yes, the Freep is garbage. Yes, they seemed to be out to get RR, but there comes a time when enough is enough and we have to move on. I like/liked RR, his schemes, his personality, everything, but it didn't work out. Best of luck to the guy.
I'm pretty sure many fans weren't buying seats because they were unhappy with the direction of the program. I know I donated solely to LSA in 2010 due to my feelings on the football program. In other cases donations are up due to economic factors. What is your point? People withheld money for a variety of reasons and the article touches two of those reasons.
Yes the author weights one more than the other, but get over it.
You bring up an interesting point. Maybe this article would have been more effective if it had compared donations from other parts of the university. Are LSA/Ross/Mott donations up more than 14% or less? Less would indicate that maybe Hoke has something to do with the increase, but if the other departments (or schools or hospital) are above or near 14% then it probably means nothing about the coaching change.
I will say that I believe it's the latter. I don't think it's worth discussing daily, but it does seem to be clear that the Freep isn't a RR loving organization, and would use the other data if it helped bolster the article.
Even if it's NOT the case, so what if income and donations are up because we fired Rodriguez and hired Hoke? So what if that is the ONLY reason? You're upset that we replaced a coach where after three seasons I can count the number of conference wins he had on one hand and then hired someone that has excited the fanbase and provided more funding to the student athletes by way of facilities, etc?
Rodriguez is gone, get over it already!
So...you suffer from polydactyly?
(UM was 6-18 in Big 10 play under RR)
No, but after extending five fingers out for each win, I then start lowering them from 6-10. I then extend them again for 11-15.
Either way, I'm still only counting his wins on one hand.
appendages did you use to count losses?
Why is everyone reading the free press? I thought Brian said we aren't allowed to do that anymore.
Freep.com is not one of the sites I ususally visit on a daily basis, so I would have missed it had you not pointed it out here, S1.
And I believe Section 1 has done a great job in deconstructing the nature of the Freep's coverage of RR's tenure. However, I think it's silly to assert or imply that the coaching change has had no role in increasing donations, just as it would be silly to claim that there weren't many thousands of Michigan fans who were eager to see RR let go, for reasons that were based on the results on the field and for reasons that were rooted in irrelevant and frequently fictitious off-the-field mythology.
As for Michigan's "vastly improved" economy playing a significant role in the improved financial picture, I don't see any evidence of such an improvement in general across the state. Whatever improvement has been spotty and weak, compared to the large majority of post-WW II recoveries from typical business-cycle recessions. This recession is a different animal.
"Vastly improved" was a head-shaker....
"This article isn't an outrage; it's common sense - people invest more in a program when they see success on the horizon."
You hit the nail right on the head, hence the Lions selling something like 11,000 season tickets since the lockout ended.
That there's a correlation, I think your example isn't great. Ticket sales for every NFL team saw a considerable uptick when the lockout ended as both renewals and new buyers were waiting to make sure there would be football. An overall increase in season tix, sure, but let's not confine it to this short, accelerated ticket market.
Where would your alternative paragraph even fit into the story?
Certainly it's circumstantial that the donations are up and it started right about the time Rodriguez was fired. And Ablauf offers an alternative theory that it's related to premium seats. But isn't it possible or even likely that they are both right: people plunked down money for premium seats because of Hoke (or, alternatively, because Rodriguez was fired?)
By the way, I liked the part where you seem to doubt that "Ted Walls" exists and lessen his fandom because he sunk a large chunk of money into half a premium seat. A man can't be "All In" unless he's paying for games against Western AND Eastern. And what about that closet Spartan who gets tickets through his wife's family? What a pussy, right?!
Misopogon will undoubtedly threaten me with some sort of awful consequence for piping up here, but let it go already.
You are all right.
I don't know what possessed me, to post a thread, about a front-page story in Michigan's largest daily newspaper, concerning Michigan Athletic Department fundraising (along with Brady Hoke and Rich Rodriguez as story-props), when I could have posted a thread about...
Casey Anthony in Ohio:
Because thinking this thread is mind-numbingly pointless is a tacit endorsement of that thread.
Both threads make me want to gouge eyes...
This one because of the obsessive rant (not so much pointing out the article)
That one becasue... well... Casey Anthony.
this story affects... nobody. Fundraising gains = yay. the fact you are now waging campaigns based upon an arguably factual and fair article against RR just shows you're obsessed on a topic nobody cares about. again, create a Michigan blog and write in it. if there's an interest, you'll have a readership. the fact you have about a 95% negative response (many, not some!) to your post(s) should not be met with ridicule and obnoxious elitism. instead you should ask yourself "why am i spending time writing something nobody wants to read?"
long and short of it is this: you're not winning people over with your posts. nobody is canceling their subscription because of this. fight the good fight elsewhere - you, in my opinion, make the fanbase look petty and obsessed by posting such content on the blog.
ONLY 1 GD MONTH!! !
Shouldn'y you and "His Dudeness" be off somewhere watching highlights of the fabulous 3-9 season and high-fiving yourselves?
You are the herpes of this board.
point of view on the annarbor.com and thought we'll be hearing from Section 1 today. I click back over and there is the Freep post on the board. Open it up and there is Section 1.
First, I should say what a sensationalist claim by the Freep.
Second, Section 1 is right to call them out on it.
Third, there really are fans like Ted Walls out there who just couldn't handle Rich's West-Virginian-non-Midwestern-ness. They really are eating up Brady Hoke, who is about as polished a speaker as Rich is, but his unpolished speak is in Midwestern vernacular with the added benefit of having been on Michigan staff in the past and knowing what syrup to feed them. (It should be known that I am a Fierce Pragmatist, and fawning over any coach makes me ill.)
So, I am sure that some of the increase in sales have come from "Hoke-is-so-awesome" wide eyed fans. But I would imagine more come from year two of premium seating. The word has gotten out that watching the game from an actual seat where you don't have to turn slightly sideways and overlap your shoulders with the person next to you is actually an enjoyable experience, even from way up high. And the economy was looking better for a while anyway.
Thus, I wasn't going to post up on the topic, but it is perfectly fine for Section 1 to point out the latest proof of the Freep's bias against Rich Rodriguez.
Holy shit! You mean some big money Michigan fans weren't happy with the on-field results and showed their displeasure by NOT donating to the school? Proposterous!
Give me an f'n break. The results on the field sucked ass and if someone didn't want to buy a suite because of it, that's their perogative. Get off your soap box. The Rich Rod era is over.
We'll know a lot more about all this and what is actually going on down the road after a couple of seasons.....How will the football team do this fall? How many games will we win? How is the economy in Michigan? There are no facts other than giving is up, everything else is ancedotal. WAIT FOR MORE DATA!
Meanwhile, in time, the 3 years of RR may well be seen as a blip on the radar of Michigan football history.......
As always, there are many contributors to an outcome. Some are independent and some are correlated. Do we know exactly what factors contributed to the increase? No. Will we ever know? No. Of course that doesn't stop the media and bored people from speculating and spining the story in the most provacative/controversial way possible. That's just the way it is, and is why I don't read media articles or get caught up in the controversy.
FREEP logic != causation
I am not from Michigan, so forgive me for not knowing. But why do I always here a collective GROAN everytime someone mentions the FREEP? Are they anti-UM or just prickly journalists?
Not as much Anti-UM as they were Anti-RR. The Freep's ridiculously unprofessional tactics were a main factor leading to the firing of RR.
and maybe main factor is too strong. That would be giving the Freep too much credit.
I think it is safe to say the Freep had a serious journalistic bias (and editorial bias) against Rich Rodriguez, and sensationalizing otherwise minor stories did a lot to feed the split in the fan base, donor base, a football alumni base of the program. Those actions did bring an NCAA investigation down on the program, did make recruiting more difficult, and did cause other distractions that eroded team focus. (All the while the Freep had an opposite benefit of the doubt bias with Dantonio.)
In short, the Freep at the very least help to destabilize support for Rodriguez, perhaps to the extent that he was fired rather than given the chance at one more year with a new defensive staff. Whether he could have made hay of a theoretical one more year is a separate debate (I think not by the way).
I think it is extremely unlikely that we would have had to deal with violations absent the Freep. Absent violations, the drumbeat wouldn't have been as loud. RR would have had more energy to focus on the team, Brandon wouldn't have had to spend energy on the violations and could have spent more of it helping RR and the team. I think it could have made a difference
Even if all that is true (and it's grasping at straws as it is), it doesn't change the fact that we did break NCAA rules. Anonymous players blew the whistle. You can argue that the Free Press overhyped the whole thing, but it had a right to report on the story. We ultimately brought it on ourselves. This is like blaming that lawyer, or Sports Illustrated, for OSU's scandal.
RR bullshit excuse making has hit a whole new level with that line of reasoning. The Freep had nothing to do with RR getting fired. Going 15-22 over three seasons and going 0-6 against our two main rivals is what did him in. He also broke NCAA rules and the program was put on probabtion because of it. These are facts! You can't blame a newspaper (!) for a head getting fired when he couldn't field a defense or win games in the Big Ten.
While RR was fired because his record was dismal, I can see the paper playing a role in splintering the support and the fanbase.
Although, just by reading the articles and no influence of MGoBloggers, I always got the feeling they were trying to get in Dantonios shorts if anything and trying to stretch the truth about UM's recent issues like the violations and the coaching change.
You're giving that paper way too much credit. Most of its readership is in the Detroit area. Did you ever detect a greater amount of support for RR outside Metro Detroit than within it? Me neither.
RR's bad record caused the fanbase to turn on him. No coach - Hoke included - will be popular here if he goes 15-22. If that's Hoke's record three years from now, no one will give a shit that he never wears red or has our total number of championships memorized. People need to let go of their man-crush for RR and stop trying to find alternate explanations for his dismissal.
So I assume you were on board with firing Hoke at BSU for having a losing record after year 3, right? And I bet you were just as livid after years 4, 5, and 6 when he still had a losing record, right? Or are those not the FACTS about our current coach you wanted to focus on?
I also notice quite a few people leaving out beating Notre Dame twice when they mention our rivals. Or the fact that OSU was was cheating (as RichRod didn't go 0-6 against OSU and MSU) or the fact that MSU, in 2 out of the 3 years RichRod was here, had better seasons than most of the past 30 years. Just funny what type of facts people concentrate on to make a point.
I'm not sure Ball State fans give a s**t about their coach. Why would any U-M fan care whether BSU's coach deserved a 4th, 5th, or 6th year? Frankly, you're delusional if you think that coaching expectations are the same everywhere across the board. Your post implies that you think they are, or at least that you think they should be. U-M is a pressure cooker. Ball State is not. It's as simple as that.
P.S. if it makes you feel better, RR went 2-7 against our rivals.
I don't know - or care - what Ball State's historical standards are. I do know what Michigan's historical standards are, and 15-22 is light years beneath them.
Not as much Anti-UM as they were Anti-RR
I don't know about that. They've written some asinine stuff about our basketball program as well.
Section 1, your obsessive-compulisve, dim-witted rants are starting to make me appreciate the Freep all the more. I am not sure if this is your intended effect.
I wish would stay away from the program permanently. Anyone that "gave up" on the program because we had three down years and wants to return because they like the new coach is a turd.
As I've posted elsewhere, I supported the team during a slew of miserable losses to Tressel, losses to teams that had no business being in the game (looking at you, Appy St), etc. To imply that I wouldn't buy a PSD because I didn't like LC (or Debord, or Herrmann, or English) is, put simply, moronic.
If I had another $500 or $1000 to give, and knew the economy and job would still support it going forward, I'd bump my PSD for my seats. At this point, I can't, so I didn't. If I could have, it would have had nothing to do with the coach, and everything to do with improving my vantage and sightlines... I can imagine Club Seat sales being of a similar line of thought/impact.
Why does this matter?
Wouldn't most schools get a bump in sales after a new coaching change and 3 years of misery?
Indiana has a new coach and a top notch QB...would it be odd to see them get a spike in sales this year and next?
...I don't see the point.
Oh, and we have a kid, his name is Denard Robinson that everyone wants to see since they didn't expect his performance last season.
I find it amazing that the additional $5 million in lacrosse donations during the year were barely mentioned in the article when the total donation increase was $5.3 million.
and i'm only asking, is it possible they only came from 1-2 sources and don't show a trend versus big chunk donations? still very glad to hear the news!
There were a couple main donors, however the entire purpose was to endow lacrosse scholarships to raise the team from club to varsity status. That fundraising effort began in the fall and would have happened regardless of hoke or rodriguez.
How hard would it have been to ask, do some "investigative" journalism or ask "leading questions" to get this information.
Regardless, thanks for the update...really good info, and great news for U-M's newest varsity teams!
If this isn't a nonsensical diatribe about a generally unacceptable topic here I don't know what is. Let us remove ourselves from this before people begin removing themselves from MGoBlog.
Someone pass me the Tylenol.
Let's just cheer Brady Hoke and gaze upon the awesome scoreboards. Ooo-rah. Oh, and Casey Anthony.
Never mind a front-page story about Athletic Department fundraising. Such an "unacceptable topic here."
The perfect summation of today's comments comes in the form of fresh humor from The New Yorker:
You still seem to not get it (maybe on purpose??). The Casey Anthony thread sucked. So does yours, not because you are pointing to a relevant article about UM athletics, but because you went off on a ridiculous rant. It ain't the "topic" that sucks, it's your tired approach.
And, yes, let's cheer Brady Hoke. And the scoreboards are pretty cool, too.
You know what, there's no reason to bash Casey Anthony. She has a very nice chest and I, for one, am appreciative of all that point me in the direction of pictures thereof.
P.S. These kinds of threads are what make the off-season fun. If you don't like it, stop reading until the season starts.
"there's no reason to bash Casey Anthony"
Except the killing of her child thingy...
Yes, except for that. Boobs on attractive women have a strange effect on me - they cause me to overlook pretty much anything negative that might be attached to them. Its a problem that I have to cope with every day so show a little sympathy!
Or you're just not?
I don't know why you are getting negged. This proves that the Freep has and always will have a vandetta against RR.
has a cardetta against OSU
(TWO PUNS IN ONE!)
.... Administrators at the U cringe when David Jesse is doing a story. He is considered to be underinformed about U-M and higher education and the various issues involved. One hopes this will improve with time and experience.
The Fr**p has had a long and unhappy effort to try to appear "snarky" in their coverage of things U-M.
Some fat, balding tool in the sports section (Steve Schneider? Steve Shelton?) spent a lot of time trying to take cutesy one or two sentence jabs at U-M football (similar to douchebag Mark Dantonio), seemingly every Sunday paper. Don't remember who he is, because I haven't read their tripe in a year or two.
There was also the pathetic and flimsy riposte about MSC making less the E. Gord down at OSU on the left column of the front of the Op/Ed section.
The jihad was all that, exponentially raised and with a far less significant basis for doing so.
Just sayin' the Fr**p has spent an inordinate amount of time throwing zingers at a significant proportion of the readership, and it's time for U-M alums and fans to take their dollars elsewhere. I have.
Michigan's Ath Dept. hired a new guy, dont' recall the name, to do public relations and promotions.. He's sold out the suites and he's helped make sure all the games for this year are sold out or nearly sold out.
Of course the freep must justify the RR bashing by heaping the difference in sales on RR.
Move along, nothing to see here, except yellow sports journalism..
I think most of us can agree that 1) the Free Press has a weird editorial agenda regarding Michigan and 2) in spite of that, not everything they've written is wrong.
What I find odd is that you keep on reading a website you claim to hate. I don't even think of ever visiting their site.
I'd agree that the Free Press has a pathological agenda with respect to Rich Rodriguez. Nowadays, despite the fact that their staff writers are very clearly getting a strong stiff-arm from Dave Brandon, no doubt for their sins in the very recent past, they seem to now be relentlessly sucking up to Michigan.
With the Free Press, it seems that almost everything under Rodriguez was a disaster and everything under Hoke is wonderful. But more than anything, the very specific story of how Rosenberg and Snyder did their August 2009, and the long and intense trouble they caused by that, is an evil that should not be forgotten.
And yes, I do hate the paper. And I hate Rosenberg, and Snyder, and Sharp in particular. David Jesse, by virtue of this latest missive, seems to be a tool that fits right in with the two columnists and the Michigan beat-writer.
And yes, I read the paper because I dare say it is one of the two or three most-consumed news sources for Michigan football, despite the paper's dismal record for accuracy and fairness. I mention the Free Press whenever I think it worthwhile, to make the case that the paper's staff has conducted a vendetta against Coach Rodriguez.
I ask you; what better place is there, to make that case, than MGoBlog? This is of course Brian Cook's web-space, to do with as he sees fit. Shall we ask Brian about his views on the Free Press? Perhaps we can ask him about the term --perfectly appropriate in my view -- "Jihad."
Fighting fire with fire I see.
Hey Section 1.....why don't you and Dudeness just makeout and get it over with.
Never give up on Michigan. They should never have to "come back" to Michigan. Those "fans" interviewed aren't real Michigan fans. Being a Michigan fan is much more than just having tickets.
As I pointed out in one of my posts above, and elsewhere previously.
Not only that, but, how does a "journalist" go about finding not one, but TWO, people who claim to have bought/upgraded/donated to the Athletic Department as a result of BH being hired? Not to say I'm obsessed with this, but I want to know who these people are, and how they were found by the Fr**p. Looking at the Victors Club Honor Roll 2010, they're not listed (though one admitted that he was going halfsies with someone else). Maybe the family friend/seat holder was pestering one or both of these guys to go in on a season ticket for a single, and they dropped the money. A pretty amazing happenstance for the Fr**p to find 1-2 people who didn't want to join the activity the last 2-3 years, but now are drunk on Kool-Aid and willing to drop the coin...though, the amazing home 2011 home schedule makes you stupid NOT to take advantage of this opportunity.
A pretty amazing happenstance for the Fr**p to find 1-2 people who didn't want to join the activity the last 2-3 years, but now are drunk on Kool-Aid and willing to drop the coin
There is another possibility: that it's not an amazing happenstance, and that many fans have responded this way.
Don't you see? If there were any easy, clear indication to help prove David Jesse's stubborn, evidence-free thesis (that firing Rich Rodriguez unleashed a wave of pent-up U-M athletic donations) he would have published it.
Jesse didn't have any such evidence.
Instead, Jesse first gave lip service to the one main, authoritative viewpoint; which was the Athletic Department's principal public relations officer, Dave Ablauf, who said essentially that no, the Rodriguez-to-Hoke change had little to do with the bump in donor revenue. Followed immediately by Jesse contradicting that, with.... nothing. Nothing but two Jesse-selected fans. Two! One of whom shares tickets (and, one might guess, the cost of a PSD) and one of whom goes to games on his wife's family's tickets. Wasn't there one single big donor whom Jesse could point to? One significant group of donors, who would have said, "We made a large donation because we liked the change in head coaches..."?
Here's the part I like: Anybody want to guess why Dave Ablauf would have said that the rise in 2010-11 donations largely had nothing to do with the coaching change? Was Ablauf lying? Did Dave Ablauf, the Athletic Department's Director of Communications, somehow have less information than David Jesse? Why would Ablauf conceal a reason for increased donations, the very lifeblood of the Department that employs him? Unless, of course, Ablauf was just supplying true, accurate information? Information that didn't fit a narrative that the Free Press has found profitable for more than two years.
This is not just bullshit from the Free Press; it is laughable bullshit. Garden-variety, failing-Journalism 201 bullshit.
Don't encourage him...
do not go on a rant, do not go into a speel. Simply answer succinctly and even handedly, perhaps only two sentences?
What is your point in writing these posts? Not just this one - all of them.
Find someone who doesn't know 'the truth' and that they will cancel their subscription? Be the only voice in a hurricane that is willing to 'dig for what is right'?
i genuinely just don't understand because other than a couple people, you seem to get an overwhelmingly disinterested response and your snarky comment above is confusing.
Sometimes when you post I get the feeling that you are generally a pompous ass in real life.
Haha I stand corrected.
The value of this thread aside, the 'facepalm' or 'double facepalm' thing is sooooo overplayed. Its use deserves its own facepalm-type response (but something new).