And if that's how it went down, then that was the smoothest move by Hackett to take Habraugh off the board before anyone else could get to him. I'm secretly hoping this was the case because if so that a BOSS move and hackett will have already shown himself to be light years beyond DB.
And I hope I'm a better lawyer, I went to U of M for law school! But I agree with your take that he was confusing a lot of issues (and the two weeks notice discussion made no sense to me alhtough I'm an M&A attorney not employment). I think the main thing that I was taking away is that there might be a contract in place between Harbaugh and U of M that is either effective upon his termination/resignation from the 49ers or some other amendment of his contract with the 49ers that allowed him to sign a contract that facially conflicts with what his obligations under a contract with U of M would be.
I didn't get that from the interview. Mark Dotson was simply saying that an employer in this situation rarely seeks damages against the employee because it's so hard to prove what you're entitled to in terms of compensation. I think the inference is (if he didn't outirght state it) that if MIchigan paid something to SF or worked with SF, SF suing Harbaugh would be off the table.
It seems to me that they erected their entire compliance dept with their coach as the filter and in a way committed willful blindness. Not the same but similar to an offer to drive a car for $10,000 but warned not look in the trunk.
I.e. that we as fans can have a reasoned discussion regarding the pros AND cons of the team (of which there are a number).
However, I am uncertain that with "we were 40 seconds away from what would have been a truly horrible loss to a mediocre team that had no functioning QB for half the game." Would the loss have sucked? Yes. Would it have been horrible? No. The Horror was horrible. Getting blown out by Oregon was horrible. Losing by a few points on a rain-soaked day at Notre Dame Stadium with a first year starter, eh I don't think that is horrible. Also, I have no idea if ND is mediocre- seems a little premature.
I believe an eminently reasonable assessment of DRob's upside is that he runs so fast that he reverses the spin of the earth, Superman-style, erasing the past two crapulent seasons. QED
every one of your points is demonstrably false... I'm not as familiar with the USC allegations but here it goes...
"USC's alleged violations involve a single player's receipt of (mostly) indirect benefits, whereas UM's consist of widespread prohibited practices and activities -- many of which probably do not take place at all other Div. I institutions."
False. Reggie Bush, Joe Mcknight and OJ Mayo (that we know of). Also, paying players is a prohibited activity and paying multiple players across sports seems "widespread".
"USC coaches were probably not aware of most, if any, of Bush's benefits, and at the least were probably not involved in procuring them, whereas the UM coaches in this case most likely knew or should have known what was going on with the QC personnel essentially running practices, and other exceedances of NCAA time limits. "
False. There was testimony I believe that Carroll was on the phone when one of Bush's shady agents was describing the shady living arrangements of Bush's parents. Not only that but there have been a host of allegations that agents and various other characters were allowed to hang on the USC sideline. This is not a good practice even if it may not be prohibited.
"USC's alleged violations did not result in a competitive advantage, whereas UM's were specifically designed to do so (ironically, these measures designed to gain a competitive advantage have yet to bear any fruit whatsoever -- at least if we are going to skirt the rules, let's get some wins to show from it!)."
False and Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? The whole raison d'etre of paying players is to gain a competitive advantage. When you have an atmosphere where players can get away with anything and get paid in so doing you can get more players there.
I'm not looking at just one game. I don't think many of Carr's critics are. That App St. game is just particularly emblematic of how Carr approached coaching. Carr's most galling tendencies were:
1. At the beginning of the season, his players would always be out of shape.
2. We were playing what should have been an inferior opponent that we allow to hang in the game.
3. We were not prepared to play a spread team (this was a particulalry vexing foible of Carr).
4. We lose that game but actually beat Florida later in the year demonstrating that we were outcoached, outplayed, outconditioned and whatever else you want to throw in.
These were all the most enraging characteristics of Carr teams, and they were getting more pronounced each year he hung on.
I can affirmatively tell you that if Carr were coaching this year we would not have won MSU or PSU. And it would have been, at best, a coin flip in every other game except for DSU where we would have let them stay in the game and we would have pulled ahead by about two touchdowns in the last quarter.
I know I haven't posted on here long, but if you advocate taking Carr back (presumably at the effort level he was displaying at the end of his career), you are obviously a troll. This is the coach that lost to App. St. with a senior Henne and Hart. This is the coach that lost his last four OSU games. That Carr was leading the program on a downward trajectory is not a debatable point.
Carr at the beginning of his Michigan coaching tenure is another matter but a hypothetical one of unproductive fantasy.
Also, I know you're an OSU troll but couldn't you at least proofread your inane postings so that you disguise that fact.
Yes recruiting rankings should be predictive -- in the long run. But here we are talking about young players not yet performing up to their potential, which like yeah, that's par for the course. Further, those with lower recruiting rankings probably have more upper classmen and therefore more experienced players. So I would expect them to play better than us right now.
One example does not a trend make. Cissoko was highly recruited, I grant you. But getting one good recruit does not mean that we recruited well for the defense as a whole, as evidenced by the fact that we are now playing three walk-ons. Also, the two players you are citing as evidence of our recruiting prowess are a sophomore and redshirt freshman, respectively. If we had recruited appropriately during Carr's tenure, we would have upper classmen manning these positions. There is no debate on this point.
1. The fact that we are playing three walk-ons completely refutes your point vis-a-vis our prior recruiting and talent level. That is a proof positive that we did not recruit adequately. There was also already a post that MichiganDan did regarding our recruiting versus Iowa. At best, we have similar talent, and we have had three coordinators in three years. Why am I sill arguing this point?
2. We were outplayed by Notre Dame? Really? And let's not forget that both the Indiana and MSU game were after Molk's injury.
I guess it's all about perspective and looking at the team and taking into account certain qualifiers and nuances, but I just think that you are extrapolating inaccurately.
Please elaborate on these "troubling signs" for the "future of the program". Are they any of the following?
Sign 1. We have not played well on defense? This is debatable given our talent level (which can be traced back to Carr), and one could argue we've coached around our deficiencies on D.
Sign 2. Our offense sputtered (in one game only)? There will be growing pains and our offense will progress in fits and starts. The other games demonstrate the efficacy of the offense.
Sign 3. An article of dubious credibility was written by a known Rodriguez detractor? This subject has been beaten down enough.
Sign 4. ?????
You suggest that the program is going in the wrong direction when the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.
I see MGoPodcast on iTunes, but I only see the first two podcasts. I have subscribed, and no new podcasts have been added since those first two. Please help me indulge my fetish and bask in the demise of the Irish. What am I doing wrong?
Recent Comments
And if that's how it went down, then that was the smoothest move by Hackett to take Habraugh off the board before anyone else could get to him. I'm secretly hoping this was the case because if so that a BOSS move and hackett will have already shown himself to be light years beyond DB.
DP
And I hope I'm a better lawyer, I went to U of M for law school! But I agree with your take that he was confusing a lot of issues (and the two weeks notice discussion made no sense to me alhtough I'm an M&A attorney not employment). I think the main thing that I was taking away is that there might be a contract in place between Harbaugh and U of M that is either effective upon his termination/resignation from the 49ers or some other amendment of his contract with the 49ers that allowed him to sign a contract that facially conflicts with what his obligations under a contract with U of M would be.
I didn't get that from the interview. Mark Dotson was simply saying that an employer in this situation rarely seeks damages against the employee because it's so hard to prove what you're entitled to in terms of compensation. I think the inference is (if he didn't outirght state it) that if MIchigan paid something to SF or worked with SF, SF suing Harbaugh would be off the table.
The French call a cheesemaker a fromager , and they know a thing or two about cheese.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fromager
No. The dolphin doesn't die. In fact I'm pretty sure the dolphin in the movie is the actual dolphin the movie is based on.
It seems to me that they erected their entire compliance dept with their coach as the filter and in a way committed willful blindness. Not the same but similar to an offer to drive a car for $10,000 but warned not look in the trunk.
Feats of strength to come later.
Drugs?
I.e. that we as fans can have a reasoned discussion regarding the pros AND cons of the team (of which there are a number).
However, I am uncertain that with "we were 40 seconds away from what would have been a truly horrible loss to a mediocre team that had no functioning QB for half the game." Would the loss have sucked? Yes. Would it have been horrible? No. The Horror was horrible. Getting blown out by Oregon was horrible. Losing by a few points on a rain-soaked day at Notre Dame Stadium with a first year starter, eh I don't think that is horrible. Also, I have no idea if ND is mediocre- seems a little premature.
PS "Fuzzy Dunlop" is an awesome name.
So what you're saying is that Denard should wear short shorts to play in?! I like it!
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
I believe an eminently reasonable assessment of DRob's upside is that he runs so fast that he reverses the spin of the earth, Superman-style, erasing the past two crapulent seasons. QED