First, congratulations for both getting into and completing the GRFSPP program. It is a fine accomplishment, and I wish you the best of luck in the future.
Now, about that recognition.....
Please help me to understand which of GRF's accomplishments you believe deserve recognition. Could it be the Nixon pardon? Maybe the fact that he's the only US President never to have been elected to the office of president or vice president? Perhaps it was an utterly undistinguished multi-decade career as a US representative particularly notable, if memory serves, as having passed without GRF having introduced a single piece of legislation?
Sorry to piss in your cheerios on this one, but we honor GRF because he was a US President (if only for two years) and a U-M alum. I realize you weren't alive to remember, but GRF became president specifically because of his lack of accomplishments. GRF never did anything and, consequently, never did anything to piss anyone off. He was a great team player, so you could always count on him to do what he was told. And this is specifically why Nixon chose him to replace Agnew (at least it's "specifically why" not counting the speculation in the next paragraph). Easily confirmed, non-confrontational, not controversial.
The Watergate break-in occurred in Jun 1972. Nixon kept Agnew as his VP (despite his widely-reported preference for Connolly) and they were re-elected in Nov 1972. Agnew resigned in disgrace in Oct 1973, leading to GRF's appointment. Why GRF and not Connolly, Nixon's presumed hand-picked successor? Well, some speculate that Nixon wanted a VP in place who would pardon him if Watergate went further south, and Connolly might not have been that guy. Watergate did go further south, and Nixon resigned in Aug 1974. GRF didn't disappoint and pardoned Nixon a month later in Sep 1974.
There are many of us who lived through that time that consider the Nixon pardon as one of our country's darkest days. It raised fears that the president is, practically speaking, above the law. Echos of GRF's decision can be seen in the Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, and W administrations, and the reverberations will be felt for a long time to come.
Yes, GRF's presidency should be remembered - so that his most important decision can be undone at the first opportunity and never repeated. Recognized or honored? Not so much.
I wouldn't have taken the time for the historical summary if you weren't so young. (Hey, my oldest daughter is a 2011 U-M grad. That's young, to me.) And please note that this is not a red state/blue state issue. It's about "the process". If you've carefully studied GRF's career and conclude that he was a great man worthy of recognition, I'll respect your position and respectfully disagree. But please understand that many of us worry about knee-jerk reactions that can be summarized as: "Yea, U-M alum", "Yea, President", "USA, USA", etc. The absence of information, study, and critical thought pushes us closer to........Ohio. :-)
..an old, blue-haired, alum who supported RR. And I still found this to be one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. I laughed my ass off. Thanks!
Rodriguez did not have to "go yesterday". He should only be gone if (and it's looking like a big IF right now), DB had a better choice in place. Keeping RR and changing the defensive staff was always a viable option. Releasing RR and replacing him with JH or another solid choice ("solid" as determined by DB, not us) was also a perfectly fine option.
However, it's beginning to look like DB not only didn't have a replacement lined-up, he didn't even have a fully-vetted list. Why do I say this? Because if he did, he would have pulled the trigger by now (unless his choice is working for one of the 6 teams still playing as of Friday night). DB can't sell Hoke as his #2 choice (assuming JH was #1) any longer, because Hoke would have taken the job last Wednesday. Similarly, DB can't sell guys like Wittingham (Utah) or most of the coordinators tossed around as his #2 choice because they were all available on Wed.
UNLESS he signs someone with a post-Jan 4 bowl game, this doesn't look good for DB. It looks like he went into this situation - perhaps the most important decision he will make as AD - unprepared, without a plan, and having to settle for leftovers. And if he does sign someone with a post-Jan 4 bowl game, one has to wonder why he didn't wait to dismiss RR until he was ready to name a new coach. Waiting would have helped on so many levels. This is not good brand management.
There is one possible exception to this and that's the scenario Mgrowold described. I've speculated on this scenario with other old, blue-haired, alum, contributor friends - RR had to go only if he balked at the removal of all of his defensive staff (including, and perhaps especially, his best friend T Gibson). In that case, RR certainly had to go. But DB should have been able to refer to his long list of well-vetted candidates in that case - most of which he was confident would be interested and all of which he knew how much he'd need to spend to get them. Any thing else is not a good job by DB, regardless of how it turns out.
..but it has a serious flaw. When you, I, or DB develop our ranked list of successor coaches, RR with a new defensive staff is on that list, somewhere - maybe #2, maybe #12, maybe #112 - but that choice is on the list.
Dropping RR was not a given. Taking serious action was absolutely necessary. Most everyone would have been satisfied with a reorganized staff; a new, "name", DC (like Shannon or the Miss St guy, for example); and a dedicated ST coach. (If this option was given to RR - and he declined it - well, then, good riddance, I guess).
If you interview RR on Tues, fire him on Wed, and hire JH on Thurs - it's clear that you're prepared and have a plan that everyone can support. If JH stiffs you at the last minute, you can move to the next one on the list. No problem.
But that's not what's happening here.
DB reminded the world on Wed about his business experience; the importance of succession planning; and how he would be a one-person search committee. Then, on Fri, he's reportedly hiring a search firm? Where's the succession list containing already fully-vetted candidates? Where are the estimates of the likelihood of each coach to accept and the $$$ it will take close the deal? Where's the plan?
On Wed at 2pm, Hoke would have crawled through the phone lines from San Diego to take the job. If we end up with Hoke now, it's clear that Hoke wasn't #2, #3, #4, etc. on DB's list. Which means that, as each moment passes, it's becoming even more clear that either DB never had a list or that he has seriously misjudged everyone on that list. That's not leadership - that's bumbling.
There are only a handful of coaches (16?) that had post-Jan 1 bowl games. When you look at that list you can quickly eliminate Tressel; Edsall; Petrino; Sherman; the Pitt, MTSU, and Miami coaches, etc as candidates. If DB hires one of the <9 remaining coaches, then we can credit him with having a plan. If DB hires anyone else, anyone who was available on Wed, Jan 6, then it looks an awful lot like he was not prepared and didn't have a plan. And if he ultimately hires Clem McGillicutty (OC at I-AAAA Little Sisters of the Poor), or another up-and-coming longshot, DB is going to have a difficult time explaining why this reach is preferable to keeping RR with a new defensive staff and at least allowing RR an opportunity to work with a few upperclasssmen.
1. I'm any NFL head coach or executive at any time during the past decade, up to today.
2. Brady is arguably the best NFL QB (maybe the best NFL player) of the past decade
3. I just spent a top draft choice (rd 1-3) and big money on a new QB
4. I need the best QB coach around to develop my new QB
5. I go to the best QB in the NFL - Brady - and ask who helped him. (This is incredibly easy to do because I'm an NFL head coach or executive.)
6. Brady raves about Loeffler and says that, even as a GA, Loeffler did more to develop him than his QB coach.
7. I immediately call Loeffler and offer him the job of developing my new QB at 2x-4x whatever he was making - which is a pittance compared to what I've already invested in my new QB and a nero zero delta over what I'm paying my current QB coach.
Now, here's some critical thinkin' for ya......
Steps 1-4 have actually happened 10-20 times in the past decade.
Why haven't Steps 5-7 happened?
Here are some of the possible answers to that question: (a) every single NFL head coach and executive involved in these 10-20 instances is a complete f'n idiot; (b) Step 6 isn't really true, it's an exaggeration of the facts. As Joe Pesci said in the pool hall (My Cousin Vinny), "I think I'll take (b)".
Some more critical thinkin' exercises:
Why didn't the Lions keep Loeffler and his widely-reknowned talent to coach their latest billion dollar QB - Matt Stafford? They were changing the entire coaching staff at the time, so it wouldn't have been difficult to keep him. Didn't they recognize Scot's talent with young, franchise QBs?
Once the Lions passed on Loeffler, how did the other 31 NFL teams miss him?
We know how Florida fans feel about Brantley, but how do they feel about Tebow's progress during his senior season under Loeffler? Why wasn't Denver interested in keeping the "team" together in the hopes of turing Tebow into the next Brady?
Let's keep an eye out for the next QB developed by Scot. I'll meet you back here, but I won't hold my breath.
BTW, you should be careful on these message boards. You'd be surprised by who you might be chatting with and who they might know that could have been "involved in the situation".
...are VERY generous to Loeffler. Facts often help, so here are the facts:
Loeffler was a UM freshman QB in 1993. He was on the roster in 1994 and 1995, but he suffered a playing-career-ending injury; justifiably received one of those "medical scholarships" we all talk about; and continued with the team as a STUDENT assistant in 1996 and 1997.
Griese was also a UM freshman (walk-on) QB in 1993. He and Loeffler were CLASSMATES as well as teammates. Brady joined the team in 1995 (redshirt); didn't play in 1996 and 1997; then started in 1998 and 1999. Loeffler was Brady's teammate the first year, a student assistant during Brady's second and third years, and a graduate assistant during Brady's last two years.
Now, if you believe that teammates, student assistants and graduate assistants deserve credit for developing QBs over, say, the actual QB coach, actual offensive coordinator, and actual head coach - then have at it. Give Loeffler all the credit you possibly can for developing Griese and Brady. I think it's a stretch - a very big stretch probably measured in AUs or even light years - but what the heck do I know.
Loeffler left for CMU with DeBord for 2000 and 2001. I'll save you the trouble of looking up the QBs that were developed there during that time. None.
Loeffler returned to UM for Navarre's junior and senior seasons in 2002 and 2003 (after Navarre had been coached by Stan Parrish for three years). Did Navarre get better? Yeah, probably. Did he get so much better that he developed into a solid NFL QB as did many of his predecessors? No. That doesn't mean that Loeffler did a bad job with Navarre, but it also doesn't mean that he did a great job developing Navarre. It was Parrish who had the track record of developing NFL-ready QBs - not Loeffler.
Loeffler recruited Henne to UM and coached him all four years (2004-2007). He deserves full credit for Henne's development. Loeffler also deserves full credit for convincing Mallett that UM was a better fit than playing behind Mustain at Arkansas.
Loeffler took a place-holder job as QB coach of the Lions and its lame-duck coaching staff in 2008, then joined Florida for the 2009 and 2010 seasons. If you saw development in Tebow as a senior in 2009, then Loeffler deserves some credit for that. As one of the other posters said, above, Bentley didn't develop much in 2010.
These facts lead many to the conclusion that Loeffler has a solid record as a recruiter, but not much of a track record as a coach. Henne and Mallett were big-time recruiting catches. Loeffler's been around big-name players, but really hasn't been around anyone but Henne long enough to prove he can develop them as QBs.
In re: Brady's and Griese's comments about help from Loeffler: Brady (an NFL MVP) and Griese (a successful NFL QB) say nice things and write nice letters about a classmate, teammate, and friend in an effort to help said friend recruit NFL-caliber players to their common alma mater. Are those comments true? Or are they just the kind of nice thing that anyone is happy to do for their friends - especially when it just might help your college team get better players. You decide.
All that man did was recruit and coach Henne....unless you count the fact that he took over for Stan Parrish and coached Navarre for two years. Maybe that's enough?
Given that "all of his guys" has one name on the list - Henne. And maybe a half-name if you count the fact that he inherited Navarre as a starter and was his coach for JN's final two years.
The West Side Chairbacks do not get access to either the east side club levels or the suite levels on both sides.
The benefits are that they are located between the 20s and, as you indicated, the seat backs, cushioned seat bottoms, and the cupholders (between the seats in front of you).
By the way, I think they've lowered the contribution on these seats next year from $2,000 each to something like $1,250 or so.
Experience is critical. We don't have experience (regardless of who is to blame).
But experience (or lack of experience) isn't the end of the discussion (see Ezeh, Obi; and Mouton, Jonas).
Isn't the question now (and hasn't it been for some time): What should be done about it?
Yes, recruiting. Yes, patience (some posters treat recruits like they're NFL draft choices and should be ready to step in soon, if not immediately). Yes, "coaching up" the players you have. But the question I'm asking is "what should be done about it" on a week-to-week basis.
The answer is, I think, you can't coach/game plan in your "normal" way. I think you have to be desperate about getting your defense off the field and keeping them off the field. Brian has referred to this, in part, as "Stop Kicking the Damn Ball".
With this defense, for whatever reason, there is no such thing as "bend but don't break". This defense is clearly the poster child for "bend until you break". You don't fix it, but you might be able to deal with it. It seems to me you have to gamble regularly. You will get burned, but you're already in the slow roaster. Let's get it over with and move on to the next series where I'll try to create a negative play for you.
For the offense, each drive needs to be called with the same desperation to stay on the field as a fourth quarter come-from-behind effort requires. Every first down marker becomes the goal line. If "going heavy" is the play on third and 1 from the 1, then do the same thing at the 27 - or the 47. If you're going straight ahead, use Hopkins, but don't use Smith unless it's a delay/draw. Third and 8 looks different if you know you've got two plays to make it. If the opposition is playing a position switch in his first game at CB (as PSU did), attack him (as everyone attacks our CBs). If Denard isn't the best guy to do that, then put Tate in. If something works, run it again until they've stopped it twice in a row. The pass, run, pass, pass effort by Denard down 10 with under 6 minutes to go was weak, at best. If this is what you want to do, bring Tate in. I'd prefer that you just keep running the ball with Denard and his 7+ yds per carry.
I'm worried that our staff doesn't realize they're unable to play football as they, us, or anyone else knows it with the defense in the state it's in. It's tennis on a 100yd court. You have to hold serve, and then take some chances to force the other guy into making a mistake when he's serving.
....without a call. I thought Roh was held when I saw it live. I checked the replay on my FanVison and confirmed it. ESPN / ABC didn't have a good angle on the hold, but I did see one view where it was clear that Roh had beaten his block and was well-past the lineman, but the lineman had hooked him. It seemed obvious to me, did anyone else see it that way?
Now imagine paying $55k (or more) for a suite and getting a six-game (not eight-game) schedule that looks like that (Ill, NW, MSU, Iowa) plus the two cupcakes. That's a brutal schedule on many different levels.
The history here seems to indicate that Draper and Labadie were a team. I wouldn't be surprised if Labadie reported directly to Draper, not Rodriguez. As I recall, Compliance DID inform Draper and he didn't follow up. We shouldn't ignore or minimize Draper's role in all of this. At the very least, he should have been responsible for keeping the ship running steady during the transition.
RR arrived amid a boatload (if you'll excuse another pun) of problems - some self-inflicted PR issues and a roster deleted from years of neglect. Keeping Draper and Labadie in place seems like a good decision under those circumstances in the sense that there was no apparent reason to believe there were any administrative issues with the program.
In the end, I'm not sure your incontrovertible fact is so incontrovertible. I'm not ready to concede that RR had carte blanche to terminate Draper and Labadie on Day 1 - or any other day. The incontrovertible fact here is the Martin was responsible - in every sense and at every time. It seems quite clear that Brandon's rapid appearance is due primarily to the need for NCAA damage control - and Martin obviously wasn't the guy for that.
Another reasonably-inferred fact is that Rodriquez trusted Martin to be sure that administration would be properly taken care of - as it had seemingly been done in the past - while RR focused his attention on the real problems. And finally, yet another reasonably-inferred fact is that RR has had it with the Carr-era holdovers and, now that he has Brandon's full support, he demanded that Labadie be terminated and an RR guy be put in that position.
The bottom line here is that Martin, Draper, and Labadie have full responsibility here. To the extent that Rodriguez has responsibility - organizational or actual - it is far overshadowed by the fact that he was victimized by this edition of the Three Stooges.
The game itself was a dull, boring affair with UM playing very uninspired ball and wasting opportunity after opportunity. IU scored very late and played for the tie by kicking the extra point - instead of going for two and the win. There was no OT in those days. UM's final drive came immediately after the IU kickoff and the stadium was emptying out quickly in anticipation of the tie.
Others here mentioned Lawrence Reid's intentional "fumble" out of bounds to stop the clock and the play before the Wangler to Carter pass. During and after the play, the stadium erupted - but that included probably only 70k - 80k fans. The rest were gone.
In the end, Lee Corso - yes, that Lee Corso - got what he deserved by gutlessly kicking the point, but that was NOT a classic game. It was only a classic play (or two plays) at the end of a dull, disappointing game.
...but I liked the 1968 endzone. There were alternating maize and blue stripes, at a 30-45 deg angle to the goal line. The stripes were very wide, probably 15ft wide, and were angled toward the nearest sideline, creating a triangle in the middle of the endzone. As I remember, the triangle was blue, with a maize block M in the middle. I looked for a picture, but didn't find one. I think I remember seeing a picture of Ron Johnson at Schembechler Hall that included the endzone - and there's probably a picture at Bentley.
....you can't and you won't get 50,000 vuvuzela-equipped fans to blow them only when they are supposed to blow them. If it was possible to organize the fans otherwise, maybe the idea should be considered, but that level of fan organization hasn't been possible at Michigan Stadium for decades and it's unlikely to be developed any time soon. As a result, you will undoubtedly experience the constant, annoying drone now being seen/heard/felt in South Africa throughout our football game. Sorry.
1. Go to youtube and get a copy of Woodson's punt return against OSU in 1997.
2. Listen to the crowd noise over Keith Jackson's play call. You'll first hear a collective "ooh" as Woodson makes the first man miss and a block takes out two Buckeyes, then you'll hear a loud, anticipatory, "OOOOO" as the crowd recognizes this return has potential, then all hell breaks loose as Woodson gets past the punter on his way to the endzone.
3. Now imagine the same scene with the drone of vuvuzelas drowning everything out.
Following this short, three-step process should answer all of your questions regarding vuvuzelas at Michigan Stadium - and pre-empt forever any questions regarding same.
1. NFL Scout to RR: "What about Trent?" (A reasonable question)
2. RR to Scout: "Some talent, didn't buy in, didn't work hard." (A reasonable answer)
3. Scout to LC: "What about Trent?" (A reasonable question)
4. LC to Scout: "He worked hard for me." (Again, a reasonable answer).
5. LC to Trent: "RR sold you out." (WTF??!!??)
If this is true - and I stress "IF" - it seems that Brandon should run LC out of town on a rail. I can't find any excuse or reason at all for LC (a current UM employee) to have contacted Trent to have that discussion. None at all.
Exactly. For those too young to know or remember, F1 on the streets of Detroit was an amazing event. Senna was a young, up-and-coming driver for the JPS Lotus team who would race through the field to challenge the leaders. It was better racing than I've seen anywhere, anytime. I caught myself crying a little when he was killed. I've been to Spa and Barcelona, and I'll always look forward to my next F1 race, but I miss Ayrton Senna - the best there ever was.
...something tells me that Kenny would have loved to have a replay system to get the calls right. He didn't and he paid a heavy emotional price for it.
On Sunday night, Gravallese had a chance to use the replay to make the right decision. He didn't do it.
I have a great deal of respect for referees who must make difficult judgment calls in imperfect circumstances. I have no respect for Gravallese - who elevated the sound of a improperly-blown whistle 0.1 second too soon over the right answer - recognizing a goal that was on its way across the goal line and that no one, anywhere, could possibly stop.
Truth and Justice, if they exist, should require Gravallese to alternately watch the replay of that goal, then the look of disappointment and pain on Hunwick's face, for eternity.
And, to be clear, that's not because he blew the whistle early (we all make well-intentioned mistakes, Gravallese is certainly entitled to his share), but it's because he had the opportunity that Kenny never had - the opportunity to make the right call and arrive at the right outcome - and he consciously refused to make the right decision.
The referee in this case had the benefit of a replay. It seemed clear to me that the whistle blew sometime after the puck left Lynch's stick and before it hit the back of the net. I am nearly positive that the whistle did not blow before Lynch took the shot. During the replay review, the referee seemed to be trying to judge whether the puck had "broken the plane" of the goal line when the whistle was blown.
This approach evidences a slavishness to a "rule" that misses the entire point of the replay process - which is to get the call right. The replay shows that the puck was not covered (and therefore "dead", requiring a whistle) and that Miami didn't have control of the puck (and therefore "dead" because of the delayed penalty call).
The ref should have quickly seen that he made a mistake by blowing the whistle too early, that the play should have continued, and that a goal was scored. His very next question should have been whether anyone was prejudiced or put at risk by a whistle that was less than 0.1sec too quick - did Miami stop playing or did they have any chance to stop the goal?
The answer, of course, is no. The puck was already behind the goalie when Lynch took the shot. I can understand calling the play dead if the puck was in front of the goalie (on a shot from the point, for example) because the goalie might have a play on the puck. But that wasn't the case here. It was a bad whistle that was blown hundreths of a second too early. Miami didn't lose an opportunity because of it. The "right" call was to allow the goal.
Instead the ref took away the excellent opportunity created by Hagelin after he took a pretty intentional-looking slash to the head and the goal created by Lynch's hard work.
Hey, the whole point of the delayed penalty call is to let the play continue and give the attacking team additional opportunity because of the penalty - there's no way you should be blowing your whistle quickly under those circumstances - especially when there's that kind of action around the net.
It's difficult to understand the quick whistle to begin with - it's just a horrible job to confirm it after seeing that replay. I'm sure it can't be easy to be a referee and I can't blame someone too much for missing calls or making bad calls in the heat of the action. But I can blame someone for having the benefit of replay, using it, then missing the entire point of the replay process.
....to (a) have one more man back to guard against an easy look close to the basket, and (b) not to foul. You have to concede that a foul in these circumstances leads to a disaster - two free throws to send the game to OT - which isn't likely to end well.
I'm willing to consider other opinions, but I'm just not ready to say it was a bad decision. I think I'd be happy to put every game in the season on the line with the other team's best player taking a shot from 37 to win or lose. I'd probably have a better record than Bobby Knight.
Turner from the 3pt line is 34%. Turner from 37ft is something much less than that (20%?, 15%?, 10%?). Eight plus out of ten times that shot doesn't go, and we're all-of-a-sudden looking at a real (believe it or not) shot at an NCAA berth we have no business getting. If I'm Beilein, I'll take those odds any day.
that someone capable of reading Marlowe would be capable of reading and comprehending that I was spewing much more about Trent than his agenda. So, to answer your question directly: No, we ardent supporters of RR can spew much more than the agenda pursued by the likes of Trent, Sharp, the Freep, and (perhaps) you. See immediately above for examples.
....but I live in a world where I expect all students (including athletes) to go to all of their classes, and where I expect athletes (especially upperclassmen) to lead - not merely attend - "voluntary" workouts.
Whether or not there were (or were not) major or secondary violations of NCAA rules, my point is that these activities SHOULDN'T HAVE SEEMED like violations to the the student athletes involved. They should expect to work over 20hrs per week, they should expect to work over 10hrs per week in the summer, they should expect to go to every class, they should expect to have their workouts supervised. And they should do these things because they WANT TO do it, not because it is required.
Trent's statements are offensive because - in his own words - he KNEW there were "violations" and that someone (RR) would have to pay for it. The fact that Trent - as a student - considered these activities to be violations speaks to a clear lack of commitment to the program.
The very idea that RR requires a high degree of commitment to the program seems like a good thing to me and it seems like this was too much to ask of the Borens and Trents of the world. It's probably too bad that Trent's family didn't own a snow-plowing business.
We have a winner. My info - such as it is - supports this scenario. Trent has had an agenda since Day 1 of RR's term. We might have been much better off if the Trent family had a snow plowing business.
Morgan Trent, former U-M cornerback, played one year under Rodriguez:
"I'm not surprised because I know what happened, and I know what kind of rules were broken." Really, Morgan? You knew that you practiced an extra 20 minutes one week? You knew that people were monitoring your class attendance when it wasn't allowed? You knew that the QC assistants shouldn't be watching your voluntary workouts? Why didn't you report it - or did it merely chafe you a little that you felt you - as a senior - had to show up for things like class and summer workouts?
"I couldn't see how they were going to get out of that." Get out of what, answering for the repressive regime they were building?
"Whatever steps need to be taken (to restore Michigan's winning tradition), I'm all for it." Do you mean like recruiting players who actually go to class - or who actually want to improve? Remember, Morgan, you were an upperclassman on a senior-laden team that lost to App State and got torched by Oregon - without Shafer as DC. How many of YOUR gold pants are tOSU players sporting these days?
"What is happening right now obviously is not working." Why would you say this, Morgan? Isn't this comment at least one, maybe two years early? Why are you pre-judging the situation, Morgan? The current staff is filling the holes left by the previous staff and clear progress was made in 2009 - despite starting a freshman QB for the second year in a row (at least this one wasn't a walk-on) and despite having a dearth of defensive backs (or did I miss the DB-stocked roster that Carr left?)
"I fully expect I don't know how long they're going to let this last until changes are made." What changes do you want - RR's job? That's preposterous. You should know as well as anyone, Morgan, this team hasn't had a consistent QB since 2006, a consistent CB since 2004, and a consistent safety since god-knows-when. How long should a coach get to build a program, Morgan? One year? One month? Ten minutes? Or as long as it takes so long as it doesn't cramp your style?
"This year is going to be the tell-all what's going to happen." No, it's not. RR's first full recruiting class will be RS Frosh and Sophs this year - 2010. That's all he gets? He has one year to recruit and they have to produce as Fresh and Sophs? Methinks YOU were given many more chances than that - and still didn't perform up to the level most of us expect.
"We can't have three losing years in a row. Not at Michigan." Where does this rank on the list of things we can't have, Morgan? Is it above or below, say, (a) losing to a 1AA team; (b) losing to a MAC team; (c) getting absolutely torched in your house by Illinois and Oregon; (d) spending 4 or 5 years in A2 without beating OSU; (e) etc. - and what was your contribution to this list of things we "can't have at Michigan".
"To lose seven of last eight games (in 2009) is an embarrassment." Sure it is, Morgan. But so are several of the things I listed just above - and you, LC, and Ron English played not-so-insignificant roles in those embarrassments. Your apparent inability to parse the details of the roster of your alma mater leads me to believe that you left A2 virtually unscathed by higher education.
After today's revelations, here's a hypothetical recruiting pitch: "Yes, sir, if your son comes to Michigan we will practice right up to the NCAA-mandated limit - and we might even go a little over the limit every once-in-awhile. We will make sure that your son is always supervised - on the field and in the classroom. If he's not in the classroom when he supposed to be there - there will be consequences. If he's working out informally with his teammates, we'll be sure someone in authority is watching."
As a university administrator or an NCAA regulator, that recruiting pitch would make my blood run cold. As a parent, I'd be begging to sign on the dotted line.
Trent's quotes scream of a player with an agenda - and maybe it's your agenda, too, Magnus. If I ever needed Exhibit A for the lackadaisical country club Carr was running in his last few years - Morgan Trent has provided Exhibit A.
The OSU fan you're speaking about (not a graduate, by the way) did slip and fall into me, pushing me into the people in front of me. It wasn't a casual bump, and it wasn't Stevie Brown laying out a tight end, but was enough to push a 230lb guy into the row in front of him.
There is no doubt in my mind it was an accident. However, it was also clear that his guy had been drinking - and it should have been clear to you, too. Any chance drinking had anything to do with this accident? His "apology" was something less than complete and left room for an unlimited number of "accidents".
My response was, as you said, to tell him not let let it happen again. My issue wasn't the first accident, it was the second, third and fourth accidents to come. I don't know about your world, cargo, but in my world "OK, don't let it happen again" is an appropriate response to an accident.
You apparently missed his response - where he asked me "whatcha gonna do fuckin' asshole". Maybe you couldn't see it because his back was to you. It was a good question. What was I going to do? After quickly considering the possibilities, I responded that I'd get the usher - which is something I've never done in 40 years.
His response was "do whatcha ya gotta do, asshole", several times. Which I did. The guy challenged me, I gave him at least two opportunities to back down and apologize, he didn't, and I responded in a non-violent way. Remember, the guy fell into me - not the other way around - then challenged me. This strikes me as something less than the minimum level of remorse necessary for such an accident.
So, here's the point. In my opinion, the guy didn't apologize. I listened, I heard him, and I didn't hear an apology. A friendly, polite "I'm sorry. I'll do my best to not let it happen again" would have ended it it. I didn't hear anything approaching that. I heard a defiant "it was an accident" - like that somehow makes a difference - as I was staring straight into the maize and blue "screw michigan" sticker he was wearing.
Accidents happen and are quickly and easily excused - as long as there's some kind of commitment to not let it happen again. That's the part that was missing here. According to this OSU fan and his family, and unlimited number of accidents are excused as long as it's an accident. I don't buy that in real life, cargo, do you?
If your recommendation, cargo, is to forget about it, fine - but where do YOU draw the line? The second time? The third time? I understand others may have a different point of view, but I draw the line at the challenge - not at the accidental push.
I've been to Columbus for this game several times and the experience was always fine - win or lose - until this decade. This decade I've had OSU fans get in the faces of my wife and 14yr old daughter screaming "your mother's a fuckin' whore!" because she was wearing maize and blue clothing and I've had another OSU fan apologize to my family in the stands for the obnoxious behavior of his friend (who just happened to be a DOCTOR from Cleveland). I've come to expect this sort of behavior in Columbus, but I'm not prepared to cut much slack for this type of behavior from an OSU fan in MICHIGAN Stadium - especially one wearing a "screw michigan" sticker.
The usher did come and he checked their ticket stubs because he misunderstood his instructions from the section chief, as I learned when the section chief spoke to me after the game. The section chief came down and got everyone off the bleachers (not my complaint and not my issue) after the usher didn't return with the OSU fan.
Just to be clear here - as I tried to be clear in the stands - the issue for me wasn't the first accidental push, it was the challenge. If you're prepared to accept an unlimited number of "accidents" from an OSU fan in Michigan Stadium, more power to you. I'm not. And if that makes me an asshole, I'll proudly wear that label.
On the other hand, cargo, if "I'm sorry, asshole" counts as an apology in your world, and you think I owe someone an apology, I'll happily offer it to you.....
I'm sorry, asshole. (turn on your sarcasm meter).
Thank you, Sec 1, for this excellent explanation. People snatched up the OSU packages (with EMU and DSU) at $165 because they were cheaper than a normal OSU single (usually >$200).
There are many reasons for the red in the stadium on Saturday - from red is a brighter color, to the seats we give to OSU each year, to UM season ticket holders selling tickets, to the athletic department selling these packages. As you noted, the AthDept had a very good reason for selling these packages, but to the extent that anyone is to "blame" (and I'm not sure any blame is necessary) the AthDept probably gets a share of it, too.
Here's a breakdown of the two-deep (NT is three), by class (1s/2s):
RSr 0 / 0
Sr 2 / 0
RJr 0 / 3
Jr 2 / 1
RSo 3 / 2
So 2 / 0
RFr 1 / 3
Fr 1 / 3
A few highlights:
5 of 23 (> 20%) are suicidal kittens.
8 of 23 (~ 35%) are RFr or Fr
8 of 23 (~ 35%) are upperclassmen.
RR wants to have three guys actively competing at each position. When there are 5 walk-ons in your two-deep, there's a long way to go.
I understand your point, but I don't have a big problem with this decision. There were only 4.5 minutes left and he was within striking distance. The 2pt conversion is a toss-up, whether it happens here or later. I can't criticize him for taking a chance here.
If I wanted to quibble about anything, I might quibble about the 3 and 10 play call. If you know you have two plays to make 10 yards, I might be looking for some run-pass rollouts to try to get the 4th down to a makeable distance.
And, hey, he damn near got flat-ass lucky. I understand the ruling was Brown's pitch was forward. I haven't seen it, but I'd rather have them make that ruling than have them try to figure out if Brown was down because he was lying on a Purdue player who was o-o-b.
I'd love to get into the definition of "kind of a shady guy", but Ponypie has already pointed out the problems with your post. Allow me to ask you to ask yourself the following question: "What, exactly, do I believe is 'shady' about Rodriguez?". I suspect you'll have a very hard time answering that one. Beyond that, I'll just add a postscript.
I think "frustrated" might be a better word, but we can use "angry" if you like. Here are just a few of the things that might make me "angry".
I can get angry about imprecise, unsubstantiated allegations of any type. (search this site for "Free Press jihad" for some wonderful examples).
I can get angry about coaches who put themselves ahead of the kids. (see D Hope regarding Roundtree)
I can get angry about coaches who are so damn stupid that they can't seem to distinguish between comments directed at an administrative system and personal comments (see D Hope regarding Reckman)
I can get angry when posters go on any site and pontificate regarding matters of which they know little and are too lazy to research (see YOU regarding Rodriguez).
And just so you know I'm not picking on you, Hope and Purdue.....
I can get angry when coaches reinstate convicted felons to scholarships and football teams with no regard for the victim (see Dantonio/Winston).
I can get angry when it appears that football coaches may be willing to put their friendships and relationships ahead of the best interests of the universities that employ them (see Carr and Debord, Miles, etc.)
These are just a few of the things that might make me "angry", but since this is only about my fifth post, I don't seem to get so angry that I'm willing to waste much time writing about it. You, sir, and your asshole have moved me today.
I suspect this is a hopeless exercise, but let's try anyway.
1. Why does Hope hate Rodriguez? Because Purdue lost a recruit? What difference does that make? If losing a recruit makes a difference, Hope is going to be living the rest of his short-ass life as Purdue's head coach with a long list of enemies.
2. Where is your evidence for "basically everyone" hates Rodriguez? There are many people in WV who are mad-as-hell that he left. There are some people at Michigan who are disappointed in the results so far. And there are many people throughout the Big Ten who are scared-to-death that he'll be given the time to build a program here. So, unless "basically everyone" means everyone who couldn't get into Michigan and went to Michigan State, you're flat out wrong - which seriously diminishes any credibility you might have.
3. "...even Michigan fans know Rodriguez is pretty much a jerk"? Where do you get this? What, specifically, has Rodriguez done to anyone to be a "jerk"?
4. Is it possible for you (or Hope, or anyone) to comprehend that the Reckman situation had NOTHING to do with Purdue or Reckman? It has EVERYTHING to do with the Big Ten very publicly, and without any due process, setting itself up as a kangaroo court to judge unsportsmanlike conduct. Rodriguez's point was that the same standard should apply to everyone. Period. That's a reasonable complaint, regardless of who's making it. If Hope is too stupid to understand that - and it appears that he is - good luck with your new coach, buddy. If Hope has an argument with anyone, it is Reckman for his actions or the Big Ten for its action - not with Rodriguez for asking the the same rules apply to everyone.
5. What is with this whole "commitment" thing - regarding Roundtree or anyone else? National signing day is in February. Nothing counts until then. Isn't it possible that Roundtree visited Ann Arbor, loved it, and changed his mind? What's wrong with that - and why wouldn't you or Hope respect the kid's decision? The only point you could possibly have is that Rodriguez lied in some way to the kid about academic support, playing time, etc. Do you really think that happened? The real issue here is that this situation makes it appear that Hope and Purdue do NOT have the best interests of the kids in their program in mind. Roundtree appears to be very satisfied with his decision - and for many good reasons. If Hope and Purdue can't accept that, and remain focused on what's "best" for the Purdue football team and not the individuals on the team, I would very quickly steer any kids I know away from Hope's program. Your asshole appears to be a very big and stupid one.
I have 4 available, but at least two are yours if you like. They are Sec 108, which looks like G-10 yard line, closer to the field, but row number is double digits so they can't be too low. How do you suggest we get in touch? If you're going on Sat, I can meet you before the game.
Let's give Catholipistimiad until this afternoon to take the first shot at it. If I don't hear from him by this evening, I'll look for you (or you can look for me) . In the meantime, I'll see if I can get the location info. They only arrived last Friday and I took a quick look before leaving for the game on Saturday. They seemed fine for visitors tickets.
I have four and will give you the same deal. They are in UM section, but I'm in Europe now (returning Friday), so I can't confirm exact location until then.
I would want a strong university response only if the program interferes with the students' academic progress.
Unfortunately (or intentionally), the article failed (or refused) to report that the team's GPA last year was the highest it has been in over twenty years - and maybe ever - which includes the entire Moeller and Carr era. That seems like a very good thing to me - not a bad thing. I'm willing to support a coach like Rodriguez that delivers that sort of progress. It is possible that this kind of discipline (self-imposed or otherwise) actually spills over to other areas of the student's life?
I think the walk-on program is the largest it has every been - another Rodriguez policy. Why would anyone put themselves through that kind of work if they didn't value their participation? These players are going through the same grind, despite the fact that they have little or no chance to play. Their actions speak loudly - very loudly.
If the players are doing better in the classroom while preparing long and hard for the field, I have no problem with that - and the seven other members of my family who are also alums have no problem with it either. I'm sure we're going to find out that the vast majority of the players and their families support it, too. If and when we ever learn who the six "current or former" players are, we're likely to find another piece of the puzzle that was last season.
The truth is that "mandatory" is a very fuzzy concept. Is it "mandatory" to study an extra few hours for a calc exam? Is it "mandatory" to go to your professor's office hours? Is it "mandatory" to get to work early tomorrow morning? Is it "mandatory" for your doctor to read that JAMA article this evening? Is it "mandatory" to go that extra mile to treat your customer well? No, these things aren't mandatory - but they are very, very good ideas.
The kids in Rodriguez's program who learn these lessons about "mandatory" at this early age will be well-served in the future.
I call BS on this article and the "legend of Loeffler".
Loeffler was a UM freshman in 1993, was redshirted, did not play in 1994, and took a few snaps in clean-up duty in 1995, then didn't play again in 1996. His shoulder injury cost him his playing career and, as a 5th year senior in 1997, he was a "student coach".
As jmblue points out, he was a grad assistant in 1998 (Brady's senior/junior year) and 1999 (Brady's 5th year) before moving to CMU with DeBord (yes, THAT DeBord). I'm willing to stand corrected, but I don't recall any great QBs coming out of CMU during the DeBord / Loeffler regime.
When Loeffler returned in 2002, Navarre was already a senior/junior. Loeffler then recruited and coached Henne for four years. That's his resume: Navarre for 2 years, Henne for 4.
If one believes that Navarre improved significantly in his last two years, or that Henne was much better as a senior than he was as a freshman, you're in the camp that thinks Loeffler did a great job.
If one believes that Navarre was a serviceable QB before and after Loeffler returned; that the QB opportunities and careers of Gutierrez and Richard were mismanaged to a fare-thee-well; and that Henne left UM as essentially the same QB that came to UM, then you're in the camp that cannot begin to comprehend the Loeffler hype.
None of this should be taken to imply that Loeffler isn't an excellent person, good coach, or doesn't have "great potential". It is offered only to clear up the record. This article, and the ability to access similar articles on the "internets", has led to the development of the "legend of Loeffler" to which jmblue refers. It is an excellent object lesson in how sloppy, non-fact-checking sources in the internet age can eventually lead to a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
I can't tell you the number of times I've seen the "facts" set forth in this article perpetuated on various UM message boards (but seldom here, I should add, probably because this is the most intelligent UM board out there - by a damn sight).
To give Loeffler credit for the development of Griese, Brady or Henson, you have to believe that Loeffler was doing it as a bench-warming, injured player, a "student coach", and a first year grad assistant - instead of giving credit to an established and well-respected QB coach (Parrish). To give Loeffler credit for Navarre, you first have to establish that some credit is due, then you have to conclude that Loeffler's two years with Navarre overshadowed Parrish's three years with JN. And when you give Loeffler credit for Henne, you have to ignore his role in the "development" of Gutierrez, Richard and Mallett (and, perhaps, Forcier).
Hey, I watched LBJ get off a plane in 1966. That doesn't mean that I advised him on US policy in Vietnam.
In my experience, the Maple Leaf Pub, one street south of Covent Garden shows college football every Saturday. I can't promise they'll have the Western game, but if you're there you can stop by, have a pint, and discuss it with them.
Warner did begin 1973 as a starter, but Bo did find his replacement. Warner started 4 games that year, but was quickly replaced as a starter by Tim Davis, a soph MG from Warren, Ohio. Davis started 7 games in '73. Davis went on to at least 1 All-Big Ten year, I think, after splitting time with Warner and ultimately earning the starting job. It shouldn't diminish the story of Warner's pluck and perserverence, but it's not exactly Cinderella, either.
Recent Comments
First, congratulations for both getting into and completing the GRFSPP program. It is a fine accomplishment, and I wish you the best of luck in the future.
Now, about that recognition.....
Please help me to understand which of GRF's accomplishments you believe deserve recognition. Could it be the Nixon pardon? Maybe the fact that he's the only US President never to have been elected to the office of president or vice president? Perhaps it was an utterly undistinguished multi-decade career as a US representative particularly notable, if memory serves, as having passed without GRF having introduced a single piece of legislation?
Sorry to piss in your cheerios on this one, but we honor GRF because he was a US President (if only for two years) and a U-M alum. I realize you weren't alive to remember, but GRF became president specifically because of his lack of accomplishments. GRF never did anything and, consequently, never did anything to piss anyone off. He was a great team player, so you could always count on him to do what he was told. And this is specifically why Nixon chose him to replace Agnew (at least it's "specifically why" not counting the speculation in the next paragraph). Easily confirmed, non-confrontational, not controversial.
The Watergate break-in occurred in Jun 1972. Nixon kept Agnew as his VP (despite his widely-reported preference for Connolly) and they were re-elected in Nov 1972. Agnew resigned in disgrace in Oct 1973, leading to GRF's appointment. Why GRF and not Connolly, Nixon's presumed hand-picked successor? Well, some speculate that Nixon wanted a VP in place who would pardon him if Watergate went further south, and Connolly might not have been that guy. Watergate did go further south, and Nixon resigned in Aug 1974. GRF didn't disappoint and pardoned Nixon a month later in Sep 1974.
There are many of us who lived through that time that consider the Nixon pardon as one of our country's darkest days. It raised fears that the president is, practically speaking, above the law. Echos of GRF's decision can be seen in the Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, and W administrations, and the reverberations will be felt for a long time to come.
Yes, GRF's presidency should be remembered - so that his most important decision can be undone at the first opportunity and never repeated. Recognized or honored? Not so much.
I wouldn't have taken the time for the historical summary if you weren't so young. (Hey, my oldest daughter is a 2011 U-M grad. That's young, to me.) And please note that this is not a red state/blue state issue. It's about "the process". If you've carefully studied GRF's career and conclude that he was a great man worthy of recognition, I'll respect your position and respectfully disagree. But please understand that many of us worry about knee-jerk reactions that can be summarized as: "Yea, U-M alum", "Yea, President", "USA, USA", etc. The absence of information, study, and critical thought pushes us closer to........Ohio. :-)
Four of 14 games over 150 yards is "not bad"? And four of 14 games under 100 yards is "not bad"? AFTER you add back sacks?
We, sir, need to compare definitions. I'm worried that, in your next post, you'll describe Rosie O'Donnell as "not bad". :-)
....from one man who, like you, personally watched everything you described.
..an old, blue-haired, alum who supported RR. And I still found this to be one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. I laughed my ass off. Thanks!
Rodriguez did not have to "go yesterday". He should only be gone if (and it's looking like a big IF right now), DB had a better choice in place. Keeping RR and changing the defensive staff was always a viable option. Releasing RR and replacing him with JH or another solid choice ("solid" as determined by DB, not us) was also a perfectly fine option.
However, it's beginning to look like DB not only didn't have a replacement lined-up, he didn't even have a fully-vetted list. Why do I say this? Because if he did, he would have pulled the trigger by now (unless his choice is working for one of the 6 teams still playing as of Friday night). DB can't sell Hoke as his #2 choice (assuming JH was #1) any longer, because Hoke would have taken the job last Wednesday. Similarly, DB can't sell guys like Wittingham (Utah) or most of the coordinators tossed around as his #2 choice because they were all available on Wed.
UNLESS he signs someone with a post-Jan 4 bowl game, this doesn't look good for DB. It looks like he went into this situation - perhaps the most important decision he will make as AD - unprepared, without a plan, and having to settle for leftovers. And if he does sign someone with a post-Jan 4 bowl game, one has to wonder why he didn't wait to dismiss RR until he was ready to name a new coach. Waiting would have helped on so many levels. This is not good brand management.
There is one possible exception to this and that's the scenario Mgrowold described. I've speculated on this scenario with other old, blue-haired, alum, contributor friends - RR had to go only if he balked at the removal of all of his defensive staff (including, and perhaps especially, his best friend T Gibson). In that case, RR certainly had to go. But DB should have been able to refer to his long list of well-vetted candidates in that case - most of which he was confident would be interested and all of which he knew how much he'd need to spend to get them. Any thing else is not a good job by DB, regardless of how it turns out.
..but it has a serious flaw. When you, I, or DB develop our ranked list of successor coaches, RR with a new defensive staff is on that list, somewhere - maybe #2, maybe #12, maybe #112 - but that choice is on the list.
Dropping RR was not a given. Taking serious action was absolutely necessary. Most everyone would have been satisfied with a reorganized staff; a new, "name", DC (like Shannon or the Miss St guy, for example); and a dedicated ST coach. (If this option was given to RR - and he declined it - well, then, good riddance, I guess).
If you interview RR on Tues, fire him on Wed, and hire JH on Thurs - it's clear that you're prepared and have a plan that everyone can support. If JH stiffs you at the last minute, you can move to the next one on the list. No problem.
But that's not what's happening here.
DB reminded the world on Wed about his business experience; the importance of succession planning; and how he would be a one-person search committee. Then, on Fri, he's reportedly hiring a search firm? Where's the succession list containing already fully-vetted candidates? Where are the estimates of the likelihood of each coach to accept and the $$$ it will take close the deal? Where's the plan?
On Wed at 2pm, Hoke would have crawled through the phone lines from San Diego to take the job. If we end up with Hoke now, it's clear that Hoke wasn't #2, #3, #4, etc. on DB's list. Which means that, as each moment passes, it's becoming even more clear that either DB never had a list or that he has seriously misjudged everyone on that list. That's not leadership - that's bumbling.
There are only a handful of coaches (16?) that had post-Jan 1 bowl games. When you look at that list you can quickly eliminate Tressel; Edsall; Petrino; Sherman; the Pitt, MTSU, and Miami coaches, etc as candidates. If DB hires one of the <9 remaining coaches, then we can credit him with having a plan. If DB hires anyone else, anyone who was available on Wed, Jan 6, then it looks an awful lot like he was not prepared and didn't have a plan. And if he ultimately hires Clem McGillicutty (OC at I-AAAA Little Sisters of the Poor), or another up-and-coming longshot, DB is going to have a difficult time explaining why this reach is preferable to keeping RR with a new defensive staff and at least allowing RR an opportunity to work with a few upperclasssmen.
....32 out of 32 NFL teams are equally skeptical.
Let's role play.....
1. I'm any NFL head coach or executive at any time during the past decade, up to today.
2. Brady is arguably the best NFL QB (maybe the best NFL player) of the past decade
3. I just spent a top draft choice (rd 1-3) and big money on a new QB
4. I need the best QB coach around to develop my new QB
5. I go to the best QB in the NFL - Brady - and ask who helped him. (This is incredibly easy to do because I'm an NFL head coach or executive.)
6. Brady raves about Loeffler and says that, even as a GA, Loeffler did more to develop him than his QB coach.
7. I immediately call Loeffler and offer him the job of developing my new QB at 2x-4x whatever he was making - which is a pittance compared to what I've already invested in my new QB and a nero zero delta over what I'm paying my current QB coach.
Now, here's some critical thinkin' for ya......
Steps 1-4 have actually happened 10-20 times in the past decade.
Why haven't Steps 5-7 happened?
Here are some of the possible answers to that question: (a) every single NFL head coach and executive involved in these 10-20 instances is a complete f'n idiot; (b) Step 6 isn't really true, it's an exaggeration of the facts. As Joe Pesci said in the pool hall (My Cousin Vinny), "I think I'll take (b)".
Some more critical thinkin' exercises:
Why didn't the Lions keep Loeffler and his widely-reknowned talent to coach their latest billion dollar QB - Matt Stafford? They were changing the entire coaching staff at the time, so it wouldn't have been difficult to keep him. Didn't they recognize Scot's talent with young, franchise QBs?
Once the Lions passed on Loeffler, how did the other 31 NFL teams miss him?
We know how Florida fans feel about Brantley, but how do they feel about Tebow's progress during his senior season under Loeffler? Why wasn't Denver interested in keeping the "team" together in the hopes of turing Tebow into the next Brady?
Let's keep an eye out for the next QB developed by Scot. I'll meet you back here, but I won't hold my breath.
BTW, you should be careful on these message boards. You'd be surprised by who you might be chatting with and who they might know that could have been "involved in the situation".
I'll bring the pitchforks.....let's meet at Pizza Bob's.
...are VERY generous to Loeffler. Facts often help, so here are the facts:
Loeffler was a UM freshman QB in 1993. He was on the roster in 1994 and 1995, but he suffered a playing-career-ending injury; justifiably received one of those "medical scholarships" we all talk about; and continued with the team as a STUDENT assistant in 1996 and 1997.
Griese was also a UM freshman (walk-on) QB in 1993. He and Loeffler were CLASSMATES as well as teammates. Brady joined the team in 1995 (redshirt); didn't play in 1996 and 1997; then started in 1998 and 1999. Loeffler was Brady's teammate the first year, a student assistant during Brady's second and third years, and a graduate assistant during Brady's last two years.
Now, if you believe that teammates, student assistants and graduate assistants deserve credit for developing QBs over, say, the actual QB coach, actual offensive coordinator, and actual head coach - then have at it. Give Loeffler all the credit you possibly can for developing Griese and Brady. I think it's a stretch - a very big stretch probably measured in AUs or even light years - but what the heck do I know.
Loeffler left for CMU with DeBord for 2000 and 2001. I'll save you the trouble of looking up the QBs that were developed there during that time. None.
Loeffler returned to UM for Navarre's junior and senior seasons in 2002 and 2003 (after Navarre had been coached by Stan Parrish for three years). Did Navarre get better? Yeah, probably. Did he get so much better that he developed into a solid NFL QB as did many of his predecessors? No. That doesn't mean that Loeffler did a bad job with Navarre, but it also doesn't mean that he did a great job developing Navarre. It was Parrish who had the track record of developing NFL-ready QBs - not Loeffler.
Loeffler recruited Henne to UM and coached him all four years (2004-2007). He deserves full credit for Henne's development. Loeffler also deserves full credit for convincing Mallett that UM was a better fit than playing behind Mustain at Arkansas.
Loeffler took a place-holder job as QB coach of the Lions and its lame-duck coaching staff in 2008, then joined Florida for the 2009 and 2010 seasons. If you saw development in Tebow as a senior in 2009, then Loeffler deserves some credit for that. As one of the other posters said, above, Bentley didn't develop much in 2010.
These facts lead many to the conclusion that Loeffler has a solid record as a recruiter, but not much of a track record as a coach. Henne and Mallett were big-time recruiting catches. Loeffler's been around big-name players, but really hasn't been around anyone but Henne long enough to prove he can develop them as QBs.
In re: Brady's and Griese's comments about help from Loeffler: Brady (an NFL MVP) and Griese (a successful NFL QB) say nice things and write nice letters about a classmate, teammate, and friend in an effort to help said friend recruit NFL-caliber players to their common alma mater. Are those comments true? Or are they just the kind of nice thing that anyone is happy to do for their friends - especially when it just might help your college team get better players. You decide.
All that man did was recruit and coach Henne....unless you count the fact that he took over for Stan Parrish and coached Navarre for two years. Maybe that's enough?
Given that "all of his guys" has one name on the list - Henne. And maybe a half-name if you count the fact that he inherited Navarre as a starter and was his coach for JN's final two years.
No.
The West Side Chairbacks do not get access to either the east side club levels or the suite levels on both sides.
The benefits are that they are located between the 20s and, as you indicated, the seat backs, cushioned seat bottoms, and the cupholders (between the seats in front of you).
By the way, I think they've lowered the contribution on these seats next year from $2,000 each to something like $1,250 or so.
Hope this helps.
Experience is critical. We don't have experience (regardless of who is to blame).
But experience (or lack of experience) isn't the end of the discussion (see Ezeh, Obi; and Mouton, Jonas).
Isn't the question now (and hasn't it been for some time): What should be done about it?
Yes, recruiting. Yes, patience (some posters treat recruits like they're NFL draft choices and should be ready to step in soon, if not immediately). Yes, "coaching up" the players you have. But the question I'm asking is "what should be done about it" on a week-to-week basis.
The answer is, I think, you can't coach/game plan in your "normal" way. I think you have to be desperate about getting your defense off the field and keeping them off the field. Brian has referred to this, in part, as "Stop Kicking the Damn Ball".
With this defense, for whatever reason, there is no such thing as "bend but don't break". This defense is clearly the poster child for "bend until you break". You don't fix it, but you might be able to deal with it. It seems to me you have to gamble regularly. You will get burned, but you're already in the slow roaster. Let's get it over with and move on to the next series where I'll try to create a negative play for you.
For the offense, each drive needs to be called with the same desperation to stay on the field as a fourth quarter come-from-behind effort requires. Every first down marker becomes the goal line. If "going heavy" is the play on third and 1 from the 1, then do the same thing at the 27 - or the 47. If you're going straight ahead, use Hopkins, but don't use Smith unless it's a delay/draw. Third and 8 looks different if you know you've got two plays to make it. If the opposition is playing a position switch in his first game at CB (as PSU did), attack him (as everyone attacks our CBs). If Denard isn't the best guy to do that, then put Tate in. If something works, run it again until they've stopped it twice in a row. The pass, run, pass, pass effort by Denard down 10 with under 6 minutes to go was weak, at best. If this is what you want to do, bring Tate in. I'd prefer that you just keep running the ball with Denard and his 7+ yds per carry.
I'm worried that our staff doesn't realize they're unable to play football as they, us, or anyone else knows it with the defense in the state it's in. It's tennis on a 100yd court. You have to hold serve, and then take some chances to force the other guy into making a mistake when he's serving.
....without a call. I thought Roh was held when I saw it live. I checked the replay on my FanVison and confirmed it. ESPN / ABC didn't have a good angle on the hold, but I did see one view where it was clear that Roh had beaten his block and was well-past the lineman, but the lineman had hooked him. It seemed obvious to me, did anyone else see it that way?
Now imagine paying $55k (or more) for a suite and getting a six-game (not eight-game) schedule that looks like that (Ill, NW, MSU, Iowa) plus the two cupcakes. That's a brutal schedule on many different levels.
Call Big Brothers
www.bbbswashtenaw.org
734.975.0933
"the fact still remains that the whole stinking mess was agonizingly avoidable but for a few folks who were too lazy to do their jobs."
Well said, sir.
The history here seems to indicate that Draper and Labadie were a team. I wouldn't be surprised if Labadie reported directly to Draper, not Rodriguez. As I recall, Compliance DID inform Draper and he didn't follow up. We shouldn't ignore or minimize Draper's role in all of this. At the very least, he should have been responsible for keeping the ship running steady during the transition.
RR arrived amid a boatload (if you'll excuse another pun) of problems - some self-inflicted PR issues and a roster deleted from years of neglect. Keeping Draper and Labadie in place seems like a good decision under those circumstances in the sense that there was no apparent reason to believe there were any administrative issues with the program.
In the end, I'm not sure your incontrovertible fact is so incontrovertible. I'm not ready to concede that RR had carte blanche to terminate Draper and Labadie on Day 1 - or any other day. The incontrovertible fact here is the Martin was responsible - in every sense and at every time. It seems quite clear that Brandon's rapid appearance is due primarily to the need for NCAA damage control - and Martin obviously wasn't the guy for that.
Another reasonably-inferred fact is that Rodriquez trusted Martin to be sure that administration would be properly taken care of - as it had seemingly been done in the past - while RR focused his attention on the real problems. And finally, yet another reasonably-inferred fact is that RR has had it with the Carr-era holdovers and, now that he has Brandon's full support, he demanded that Labadie be terminated and an RR guy be put in that position.
The bottom line here is that Martin, Draper, and Labadie have full responsibility here. To the extent that Rodriguez has responsibility - organizational or actual - it is far overshadowed by the fact that he was victimized by this edition of the Three Stooges.
It was Lawrence Reid, not Lawrence Ricks, who threw the ball to Corso.
Reid (#23) was a senior in 1979 and had 12 carries for 99 yards in the IU game.
Ricks (#46) was a freshman in 1979 and did not have a carry against IU.
Stats are available at www.mgoblue.com in the football section.
It was Lawrence Reid - not Lawrence Ricks.
Reid was a senior in 1979 and had 12 carries for 99 yards in the IU game.
Ricks was a freshman in 1979 and did not have a carry against IU.
Stats available at www.mgoblue.com, in the football section.
I PUT THIS IN THE WRONG PLACE - SORRY FOR THE DUPLICATION.
IU was actually pretty good in 1979.
The game itself was a dull, boring affair with UM playing very uninspired ball and wasting opportunity after opportunity. IU scored very late and played for the tie by kicking the extra point - instead of going for two and the win. There was no OT in those days. UM's final drive came immediately after the IU kickoff and the stadium was emptying out quickly in anticipation of the tie.
Others here mentioned Lawrence Reid's intentional "fumble" out of bounds to stop the clock and the play before the Wangler to Carter pass. During and after the play, the stadium erupted - but that included probably only 70k - 80k fans. The rest were gone.
In the end, Lee Corso - yes, that Lee Corso - got what he deserved by gutlessly kicking the point, but that was NOT a classic game. It was only a classic play (or two plays) at the end of a dull, disappointing game.
...but I liked the 1968 endzone. There were alternating maize and blue stripes, at a 30-45 deg angle to the goal line. The stripes were very wide, probably 15ft wide, and were angled toward the nearest sideline, creating a triangle in the middle of the endzone. As I remember, the triangle was blue, with a maize block M in the middle. I looked for a picture, but didn't find one. I think I remember seeing a picture of Ron Johnson at Schembechler Hall that included the endzone - and there's probably a picture at Bentley.
....you can't and you won't get 50,000 vuvuzela-equipped fans to blow them only when they are supposed to blow them. If it was possible to organize the fans otherwise, maybe the idea should be considered, but that level of fan organization hasn't been possible at Michigan Stadium for decades and it's unlikely to be developed any time soon. As a result, you will undoubtedly experience the constant, annoying drone now being seen/heard/felt in South Africa throughout our football game. Sorry.
1. Go to youtube and get a copy of Woodson's punt return against OSU in 1997.
2. Listen to the crowd noise over Keith Jackson's play call. You'll first hear a collective "ooh" as Woodson makes the first man miss and a block takes out two Buckeyes, then you'll hear a loud, anticipatory, "OOOOO" as the crowd recognizes this return has potential, then all hell breaks loose as Woodson gets past the punter on his way to the endzone.
3. Now imagine the same scene with the drone of vuvuzelas drowning everything out.
Following this short, three-step process should answer all of your questions regarding vuvuzelas at Michigan Stadium - and pre-empt forever any questions regarding same.
+100 to you, sir.
Hypothetical Summary
1. NFL Scout to RR: "What about Trent?" (A reasonable question)
2. RR to Scout: "Some talent, didn't buy in, didn't work hard." (A reasonable answer)
3. Scout to LC: "What about Trent?" (A reasonable question)
4. LC to Scout: "He worked hard for me." (Again, a reasonable answer).
5. LC to Trent: "RR sold you out." (WTF??!!??)
If this is true - and I stress "IF" - it seems that Brandon should run LC out of town on a rail. I can't find any excuse or reason at all for LC (a current UM employee) to have contacted Trent to have that discussion. None at all.
Exactly. For those too young to know or remember, F1 on the streets of Detroit was an amazing event. Senna was a young, up-and-coming driver for the JPS Lotus team who would race through the field to challenge the leaders. It was better racing than I've seen anywhere, anytime. I caught myself crying a little when he was killed. I've been to Spa and Barcelona, and I'll always look forward to my next F1 race, but I miss Ayrton Senna - the best there ever was.