Recent Comments

If Miles comes, and recruits and wins like I believe he can, I don't care about a "spotless" candidate.

I'm curious why you seem to think that RichRod's "major" violations are equivalent to Miles' major violations.  Also, if you don't care if the next coach likes to screw over 18 year olds and then lie about it*, then I'm very very glad you have absolutely no say in The Process.

*seriously, before you submit another comment go do some research on "oversigning."  It is a deeply immoral practice.

You know, Boutros, you can scroll up and look at a guy who freely admits that he was only interested in firing RichRod because he thought Harbaugh would be the replacement.  I'm not imagining this.

The point of my bitching is not because I want to be lauded as some sort of genius who was "right," and I'm sad to hear you say that about me.  The point of my bitching is that I don't want this to happen to the next guy.  The next guy should get 5 years, no matter what, and should not be axed after 3 because his rebuilding job was taking too long.

Firing a guy after 3 years is not a good idea, and is a bad precedent.  And most relevant to the next guy's tenure, since part of the justification for doing this bad thing was illusory (as first choice replacements tend to be), maybe we should all agree to never do this again.  That's my point.

Fine, if you don't think Harbaugh's asskicking this year provided even the tiniest push of you from "I still believe" to "FIRE RICHROD," well I stand corrected.  You're not in that group.

But again, if you think Harbaugh's perceived availability had nothing to do with spurring people on to fire RichRod after only 3 years, I think you're wrong.  For just one example, I'd refer you to the "Attention to Detail" post over at Genuinely Sarcastic.  That post was all about how bad RichRod is in comparison to Harbaugh.  And while I'm too lazy to do the research, I'm assuming based on my vague recollection that there were tons of threads here that were all about replacing RichRod with Harbaugh, and how Harbaugh really really would come, etc.  I don't recall a lot of threads discussing a pool of candidates to replace RichRod.  It was always get Harbaugh or keep RichRod, in the minds of many people here (including Brain).

At the end of the day, I will always sarcastically applaud a program for firing a guy after only 3 years because, barring some ethical problem, that's not enough time.  That's not a good formula for long term success.  I'm pretty sure in 2007 most M fans would agree that the head coach deserves more than 3 years, especially if the program is making progress on his watch.  I'd like to think most M fans still believe that today, though now I'm not so sure.

If we agree the head coach deserves more than 3 years, and progress was being made...then how did we get here?  You may continue to protest my theory that the perceived availability played a part in how we got here, but I disagree.  And watching MGo melt down while Harbaugh slips away makes me think I'm closer to the mark than people would rather admit.

A lot of people desperately wanted to fire RichRod because they thought M could get Harbaugh.  That was a patently stupid idea.

I'm not really sure how Harbaugh not coming to Michigan is some sort of screwup on Michigan's part.  Here's my speculation on what Dave Brandon's plans were:

Plan A:  fire RichRod, hire Harbaugh, build new harem/pimp crib.

Plan B:  "secretly" woo Harbaugh, fail, retain RichRod, buy new riot gear for A2 police.

Plan C (for Catastrophe):  fire RichRod, woo Harbaugh and fail, hire someone else, cross fingers & start drinking.

To me, it looks like all plans are still plausible.  Even if Harbaugh says no (preferably soon), then Plan B is still in effect.  The only problem that might occur is if Brandon officially fires RichRod before locking in Harbaugh (unlikely IME), in which case if Harbaugh says no then Plan C is put in place.

I'm not sure I see any failed 2 inch putt here.  Not one month ago we all accepted that it was either RichRod or Harbaugh (do I need to go find Brain's post on that?).  That still looks to be the case.

Calm down everyone (and especially you Brain).

Hypothetical:  the band marches out onto State Street in January, the week after the bowl game, playing music that no one can hear because they're too damn quiet.  And gets mowed down by a snowplow being driven by Justin Boren.  They're all in traction for at least a year.

Now, love me some band, it's stirring and fun and part of college football, but you can't use that as a rationale to have crappy high school stand-ins do music during TV timeouts.  You gotta pipe in the music to keep the players pumped. It's a big picture decision, not a band decision.  No band is more important than The Team, right?

I'm sorry, I didn't read your epic comment because all I saw was WAAH WAAH WHY DO PEOPLE NEG ME WAAH WAAH.

Defense.  Simply, cannot possibly get worse.  Cannot.  This was the nader.  We will never in our lifetimes see a worse UM D than we saw this year, may it R.I.P.

I'm pretty sure a lot of us thought and said this last year.  Please don't jinx 2011 and 2012 by saying things like "it can't get any worse."  No.  It can always get worse, and I don't want to be proved right on this point.

I remember this type of schism in the fanbase back in 2003, but it was mostly based on geography.  I went back to Michigan for a buddy's wedding and all the talk was about maybe Lloyd Carr should be fired.  I was like WTF?

If you live outside the midwest, you generally don't have the constant discussion about the coach and is he doing a good job and yada fucking yada.  It makes you much more sanguine about it all.  I'm speculating, of course.

I didn't perceive your diary to be a criticism of the offense or of RichRod, so I liked the work you did on it.  Brain could be referring to people who used your work as a launching pad for a FIRE RICHROD screed, so perhaps this is a misunderstanding.

Seriously, if you want to suggest that Dave Brandon will fire a coach after only three years and after his first bowl game (all while returning almost everybody for year 4), then go ahead. Personally, that doesn't strike me as a reasonable projection of the future.  To me that seems more like wishful thinking.

But whatever, if you want to continue to wish for someone else and refuse to get the eff on board with the current coach of the team you love, then I can't stop you.  Continue pining away for that NFL Farm Team that is JUST AROUND THE CORNER, if you must.

To all the people who are desperately seeking legitimate ways to express "concern" over RichRod even though he has met expectations while simultaneously fielding a secondary literally full of HS kids:

RICH RODRIGUEZ IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE.  YOUR BELOVED NFL FARM SYSTEM IS NOT COMING BACK.  DEAL WITH IT.

Sincerely,

Sane Michigan Fans

Ever since last year's postgame handshake where Danny Hope "introduced" RichRod to the Purdue player that got suspended for a late hit, I've hated that fucker and that fucker's moustache.

Fuck you Danny Hope.  Regardless of how the game turns out, you're still an asshole that deserves to eat shit and die.

I really don't think Casteel is likely, for exactly the reasons laid out by the OP.  So...do any other DCs with established track records know or run the 3-3-5?

A brief bit of unverified googling brings this up:

San Diego State DC Rocky Long (the inventor...?)

UTEP DC Osia Lewis

Wake Forest DC Brad Lambert

Florida DC Teryl Austin (sort of, he's a multiple guy)

Marshall DC Chris Rippon (maybe?)

Louisiana-Monroe DC Troy Reffett

...and I'm tired of googling.

1.  RichRod is, for better or worse, committed to running a "base" 3-3-5 scheme*.  Argue all you want about whether this is good or bad, but the bottom line is this is the scheme RichRod wants and it's his call (for now).

2.  He is now on his second defensive coordinator that doesn't know and/or like that scheme.  Results from forcing a DC to run this have been obvious and disastrous.

3.  Because of 1 and 2, the quickest and easiest route to improving this defense therefore lies in getting a guy that knows the 3-3-5 scheme.  Casteel is an obvious choice for that.  There may be other guys out there that know this scheme, but Casteel's history with RichRod and the rest of the defensive staff is a plus because then we know we won't have another Shafer personality conflict.

I don't think anyone should get their hopes up for Casteel.  He said no the last time, and if Uncle Stew is sacked he may very well be a candidate to replace him.  It's an intriguing possibility, but not a likely one IME.

I don't mind being committed to the 3-3-5.  I like the additional flexibility it allows in recruiting.  The problem is that so few defensive coaches know it, that committing to it means you're picking your staff from a very, very small pool of candidates.

Having said all that, a lot of the problems I see on defense are basic things, like tackling and coverage.  A good DC with his own staff could/should improve that regardless of the scheme.  I'd be open to a new guy cleaning house, even though that won't be a panacea.

(*yeah, I know the defense is actually multiple, but from a personnel & recruiting standpoint this is a 3-3-5 defense.  That's the "base.")

I've noticed a couple people ask you who should have been FS instead of Cam Gordon.  I've also noticed you studiously avoid answering that question.  I wonder if we wandered over to Touch The Boner whether we would find a post where you actually offer an alternative to Cam Gordon.  Oh sure, now you say Carvin Johnson should have been the guy, but...really?  You've been saying all along that a true freshman should have started FS three weeks after he arrived on campus?  I'd be curious to see where you said that.

(Also, I think that would have been a stupid idea- starting a true freshman with zero game experience and only a few weeks of practice is FAR worse than starting a true freshman with several games of experience and months of practice.  That you can't see or admit this is really quite telling.)

Guys that are so quick to criticize and are noticeably slow to suggest are guys that are just generally not very helpful or productive.  Just an observation.

So why does it take them 7 games to figure out that Cam Gordon can't play FS?  Why does it take them 7 games to figure out that Carvin Johnson can't hack it at LB?

I find it interesting that as a coach, you seem to give no thought to the idea that kids progress and improve over time.  And by "interesting," I mean "horrifying."

Since you insist this was a good idea months ago, then it follows that you obviously see no value in:  giving Cam Gordon the opportunity to improve and learn at FS; giving Johnson the opportunity to improve and learn at Hybrid; giving both Gordon and Johnson more practice time to learn new positions.  No, for you, THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE MONTHS AGO BECAUSE THEY ARE LOST CAUSES WHERE THEY ARE AND THEY CAN'T HACK IT BLER BLER BLER.  Wonderful, dude.  Truly inspirational.

As a coach who is so dismissive of giving kids opportunities to learn and grow, you should be ashamed of yourself.  You have obviously missed one of the biggest joys, if not the biggest joy of coaching:  seeing kids seize opportunities to improve and become more capable in their sport.

Thank God you were never my coach, and thank God you'll never coach any of my kids.

You didn't watch the UConn game, so I'm not sure why your opinion on what should or should not have been done in the UConn game is relevant.

Look, I know that sounds dickish, because I guess it is dickish.  But whatever- how many times must we say BE PATIENT before people understand we're not saying GERG IS AWESOME...?  How many times?  100?  1000?  How many more "OMG what's wrong with the defense?" threads must we endure before people wise up to the reality of the roster?

I have no idea if Gerg is any good (though my opinion right now is that he is).  But I think it is FAR more important for the Michigan defense to have some stability and continuity.  The reason why this defense sucks in the first place is because there's been so much turmoil there*- give Gerg a chance is all any of us are saying.  He may blow that chance, agreed.  But now is not the time to make that judgment.  Now is the time to rebuild the roster, and that can't happen if the DC is being fired every 2-3 years.

*and yes, I realize that some of that turmoil is RichRod's fault.  I believe firing Shafer after only one year was RichRod's one and only true mistake so far.  Then again, it was his call so eh we just gotta roll with it.

Brain does interesting analysis, finds an astounding comparison, and presents a logical conclusion that says (again) "BE PATIENT WITH THE DEFENSE."  And all the Gerg and RichRod haters go strangely silent.  Funny how that works.

Brandon spoke to the recruits this past weekend.  He didn't have to do that.

Unprompted, Brandon unequivocally stated that RichRod's going to be here for a long time.  He didn't have to do that.

Oh, and this wasn't in public.

I really don't get how Dave Brandon going out of his way to tell recruits that RichRod is safe can somehow be interpreted as him being "forced" to do this, and it's kind of weird that you're asserting Michigan's AD is lying.

He didn't have to do any of this, but he did.  It seems like the only people who are interpreting this as nothing are people who want it to mean nothing.  Good luck with that.

I have never seen someone so contort an AD's (semi)public statement of support for a head coach to mean...nothing.  We can only go on what Dave Brandon says, but you want to extrapolate it to represent what he can or cannot imagine.  It's almost as if you don't want that public statement of support to mean anything.

I wonder why.

Lloyd's not coming back.  Get over it.

FUN IS FOR PUSSIES.  DEPRESSION IS FOR REAL MEN.

Recipes are meant to be an appropriate response to something.  Generally I only do them for threads, but occasionally comments will go so far off the deep end that they beg for a recipe.

If they get a laugh, then great.  But the primary purpose is to let the poster (or commenter) know that I think s/he is so far off base that it doesn't deserve a serious response.

You need to let go of this notion that every comment/thread deserves a serious response.

If people can't root for progress and improvement, then I think they're going to be very unhappy with M for awhile.  If he can't accept that 7-5 or 8-4 would be a tremendous success, then yeah he absolutely should go root for somebody else.  He's not just being critical, he's being unrealistic and unfairly negative.

I think you're crazy and I don't think you pay attention to anything, but even in your dull and stupid world surely you'd have to admit that Michigan starting 5-1 is better than Michigan starting 4-2.

If you can't tolerate having to endure a few rebuilding years and being forced to be happy about 7-5 or 8-4, then go away.

I can think of a few examples off the top of my head...

Well, then why don't you name them?

If you post in good faith and you're not egregiously stupid, then there will be no recipe.

It seems like the poster is trying to build up the importance of Iowa because he thinks it'll be a win.

This team needs to show progress, which essentially means 6 wins and a bowl.  Losing to Iowa doesn't doom those chances.

Stop moving the goalposts.  If M loses to the top three or four teams in the conference (OSU, MSU, Iowa, Wisky), then it will still be a successful season.

Dave Brandon did not have to speak to all the recruits in this past weekend, and he did not have to mention RichRod's job security.  Yet he did do those two things.

It's not "AD speak" if ADs normally don't do this.

I don't get this "what else is he going to say?" meme.  Brandon went out of his way to personally speak to the recruits.  And he explicitly told them that RichRod is going to be here for a long time.

He didn't have to do that.  But somehow in your mind "didn't have to do that" is equal to "he had no choice."  This is very weird thinking.

Brandon made a special effort to speak to the recruits in this weekend.  He could have not done that, or he could have still spoken to them by talking up M without even addressing RichRod's job security.

But he didn't do that.  He made a special effort to tell recruits that RichRod is going to be here for a long time.

Cam Gordon is a redshirt freshman, and as a result is being a little exposed.  He'll be fine.  He's not as slow as people think, and his tackling and angles will improve.

Just off the top of my head:

Brandon Herron

Kenny Demens

JB Fitzgerald

Isaiah Bell

Jake Ryan

...and I'm sure there are a bunch I'm missing.  There is depth here, I believe, so I'm not that worried.

eom.

I think the porster is spot on and this is an extremely compelling thread.  Thank God somebody thought to ask the MGoCrowd what they think is wrong with the defense.  This post will NOT get recipe'd because my God what a unique question

I guess when I look at it I don't see that huge lack of expereince that most here describe (except in the secondary). I do see a lack of talent at some positions though.

So, you don't see a lack of experience and/or talent, except where you do.  Got it.  Oh, and, what do others think?

If there was a serious question in there, then I missed the serious aspect to it.  Come on.

Under those circumstances, I feel equally confident that both Henne and Denard could drive down the field and get a touchdown.  WE JUST SAW Denard do close to that and in less time, for crying out loud.

BUT...

Just epinion, but I feel that Denard would leave less time on the clock than Henne.  And, well, I prefer that.  So I guess I'd go with Denard.

Engineering 2 game-winning drives to end games (in only 5 games no less) somehow doesn't cut it with you, because A) one of them was within 3 minutes instead of 2 (which LOL), and B) the other drive doesn't count because...just because.  I love that last- a completed pass to the goalline with only a few seconds left in the game in your mind only counts if it "looks" right, and, well, that pass thrown by the black QB just doesn't quite "look" right, now does it?

I have news for you:  the NFL offense that Michigan used to run is gone.  It's not coming back.  Deal with it.

Your "criteria" for measuring a QB are either too subjective to confirm/refute (making your favoritism towards whitey kinda suspicious), or your "criteria" actually make Denard look like a very, very, very good QB (making your denial of Denard's greatness a product of your stupidity).

I'm not sure which you are.  To a certain extent I don't care, except that I think you're wasting pixels that could be better used for pron.  Please stop.

I'm just wondering if this "waaaaah people negged me waaaah" thing is exclusive to talking on the internet about MICH football, or if this is how you are about everything.  Please advice.

Your "concern" is duly noted, poster.

What I said:

I don't see these RBs every day in practice, and neither do you.  Thus, I assume that RichRod knows more than you and I do.  So I accept his decision, unlike you.

What you heard:

In other words, the coaches are always right.  They should never be questioned.

Um, "always being right" is not the same as "always having more information than you or me."  RichRod always has and always will have more information than you or me about the RBs.  Or the quarterbacks.  Or the wide receivers.  Always he will have more information than you or me.  Using hindsight to question a decision is pointless, so I won't get into whether a given decision ends up being "right" or "wrong."  The only issue is whether he made the best decision given the information available to him.

From that perspective the question is, do I feel justified in arguing the decision of someone who always has and always will have more information than me?  For me the answer is NO.  For you the answer is, obviously, YES.

And I reiterate that attitude is the height of arrogance and folly.

I think RichRod had his reasons for having Vincent Smith in as the goal line RB against Indiana, and I assume they were good ones.

I don't see these RBs every day in practice, and neither do you.  Thus, I assume that RichRod knows more than you and I do.  So I accept his decision, unlike you.

That you can't accept RichRod knows more than you about the RBs is the height of arrogance and folly, IME.

Hair is what makes a defense not only effective, but full of swagger and bounce.  Let's run down the list:

DC Gerg:  pert, sheen, and vitality.  HAIR OF A CHAMPION.

JT Floyd:  dreadlocks.  HAIR OF A CHAMPION.

Jordan Kovacs:  crewcut.  NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS.

Mike Martin:  close-cropped, curly.  NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS.

Craig Roh:  sexy eyebrows, hair is a little limp.  NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS.

Jonas Mouton:  close-cropped, buzzcut.  NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS.

Obi Ezeh:  meh.  NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS.

James Rogers:  crewcut.  NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS.

Cameron Gordon:  fluffy, but nondescript.  NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS.

Carvin Johnson:  mystery.  PROBABLY NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS.

Ryan Van Bergen:  crewcut.  NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS.

Gregaldo Bangesse:  half crewcut, half nondescript fluffyness.  NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS x 2.

...

Now, there's how you transform a defense into a championship defense.  BOOM PROBLEM SOLVE'D.

The fun part of dealing with Magnus is that he's so stubborn about his beliefs that you can present facts to him and he'll ignore them, thus exposing himself as an ass.

Because Denard running the ball 30 times a game is bound to get him dinged up?

Uh, playing Denard for 60+ plays a game is bound to get him dinged up.  I think what you mean to say is "Denard running the ball 30 times a game is bound to get him dinged up <i>more than a normal QB</i>."

But in fact, there's no evidence to suggest such a thing.  Once again Magnus clings to his gut, the facts be damned.

I find it interesting that while the OP will respond to my (and others') half-assed responses to nitpick and correct and whatnot, this well-reasoned and well-written response is ignored by the OP.  He'd rather correct the little things wrong in other meh posts rather than wholeheartedly debate with someone who has demonstrated a good faith response.

Perhaps that means the OP 1) isn't really willing to consider the possibility that he is wrong, 2) is overly negative, and therefore 3) is kind of a dick.  Just thinking out loud here.

Seriously, did you honestly expect the crowd to say "oh look this guy thinks our superexciting and statistically dominant offense has room to improve and would like us to NOT be so excited about the offense WHAT A GREAT IDEA I LOVE CONSCIOUSLY NOT BEING OPTIMISTIC AND EXCITED I LOVE WAITING FOR BAD THINGS TO HAPPEN!"...?

Stubbornly pessimistic people are no fun.  You have every right to be stubbornly pessimistic, just don't expect praise for it.

Expectations are what they are, but when someone shows me a way to effectively contain Denard for 60 minutes and it results in a loss, I'll start worrying about the offense.

This.  Right now the burden should be on a team to show that this offense can be stopped.  Each week is a new opportunity for a defense to stop MICH, and so far it hasn't happened.

There is always uncertainty about a unit's "true" capabilities.  Always.  So while it may not mean much that MICH is statistically one of the best offenses right now, it is EQUALLY meaningless to point out that we don't truly "know" as much we need to about this offense.

This week it's "we haven't started conference play."  Next week it'll be "that was just Indiana."  And the week after that it'll be "Sparty's defense isn't very good."  And on and on and on.

I will remind the poster, though, that there is at least one meaningful fact that gives confidence to the idea that the 2010 offense is better than (and not much like) the 2009 offense:  2009 Purdue was the first game MICH outgained an opponent, whereas 2010 UConn (aka the first damn game) was the first and it has continued on in the next three games.  This is different.  Really it is.

I'm trying to figure out why it's sooooo effing important to get the ball out of the hands of the most exciting player MICH has seen in years.

If we're going to be honest about reality, I am wondering why your reality excludes the 2 most recent games MICH has played.  Just curious.

We have had trouble at times running the ball with our running backs consistently.

Reality disagrees with you.

That didn't sound sarcastic, so kindly go fuck yourself.

If we can't keep Gerg, then I think we should at least keep his hair.

Everyone else has taken care of the substance of your post, but when you say things like

when Tate came in for Denard, our offense took on another look for our opponent to defend.

I feel like you need to stay away from sharp knives.  And dull knives.

I am wondering how stupid you are.  Can you please quantify your stupidity by elaborating on your unimaginably stupid comment?  It would also help if you used more vague/intangible descriptors in order to cover over your secret preference for white QBs.

P.S.  Did you hear our president is actually Kenyan and we have yet to see his birth certificate?  OMG!

The physical for an athlete is pretty basic and is just provided as a precaution.  It is not designed to find stuff.

  And IIRC, an eye exam is not part of it.

So, to answer your question:  no.  It's up to coaches and teammates to notice the symptoms of poor eyesight, and then it's up to the athlete to get it checked out and taken care of.

Many other fanbases have commented on the weirdly depressing relationship M fans have with the team (which BTW preceded The Horror, 3-9, etc.).

Most other fanbases aren't like this.  We're a kooky emo bunch.

I guessed I picked the wrong week to quit drinking, sniffing glue, smoking, and having anger sex.  Yes, I did all of those things, 3-9 and 5-7 consecutively will do that to me.  WHAT?

So basically you're saying that it's OK because everybody does it, and accusing Bando of "whining" by saying that "everybody does it" isn't a valid defense. Gotcha.

No. What I'm saying is (and I went into it in detail in the post I wrote a long time ago) is that "everybody does it" is an explanation for why everything is voluntary. There seems to be this misconception that "voluntary" is some sort of loophole that everybody uses to get around practice restrictions. This is not true- the voluntary aspect of training is necessarily a part of every college athlete's experience. "Everybody does it" is an explanation for why all these hours are voluntary, and not "voluntary." Bando doesn't seem to get that. Maybe you don't either, I can't tell.

No one has ever said there's something wrong or unethical about practicing a sport...Again, no one has ever claimed that practicing a lot is unethical.

On the contrary, the original Freep article expressed Grave Concerns about the amount of practice M players were putting in. Parents expressed concern about it taking time away from schoolwork, and anonymous players were quoted saying they frequently fell asleep in class. That looks like a lot of concern to me.

You should perhaps go back and reread the article. To a former college athlete, nothing there was surprising or alarming. To an uninformed fan/reader, however, it probably looked like RichRod was running a Win At All Costs regime. There is no strawman here- the Freep expressed concern (and prematurely passed judgment), and attempted to pass those concerns and judgments along to readers.

If coaches require players to be at a practice, and have coaches monitoring the practice in violation of NCAA rules, the practices are not "voluntary" just because the players are happy to do it.

I never said any such thing (strawman?), and this isn't what happened at M (strawman?). The NCAA has guidelines that determine whether a practice is voluntary or mandatory. As we just learned, Michigan's practice schedules are not abnormal in any sense or in any kind of consistent violation. Michigan coaches do require players to be at practice, but only for 20 hours a week during the season. Beyond that it's voluntary, and it's up to the coaches to make sure they meet those voluntary guidelines (which it appears they accidentally didn't do early in the RichRod era).

The only problem I see is in how the QC staff were operating, and how they may have (accidentally IMO) thrown a whole bunch of voluntary hours onto the mandatory side of the ledger. These are not black and white issues, however, and some of these guidelines are ever changing- accidents will happen. That is not cause for some M fans to show their moral superiority by expressing OUTRAGE that RichRod "didn't follow the rules." Bando is pretty clearly doing that, and it's tiresome.

Getting back to the original article, the original point, and the original concern about "everybody does it," however: all those hours cited by the Freep actually were voluntary in the eyes of the NCAA. Period.

This is what I've been saying all along- succeeding in high level sports demands a lot of work, regardless of what the coaches do and what the NCAA says you can do. So of course this is going to end up being voluntary, not "voluntary." Further, this "everybody does it" competitive pressure directly contributes to the nature of a lot of these practice hours- increased competitive pressures will lead to increased volunteerism. Thus, you cannot separate "everybody does it" from analyzing how these practices will be classified by the NCAA.

So I return again to some people's misconception that this voluntary classification is somehow a loophole in the rules. It is not, and "everybody does it" is an integral part of that truth.

And is it unethical to practice beyond what the NCAA allows under the rules the University of Michigan has accepted as a member institution of the NCAA? Yes, it is, as breaking rules by definition is usually unethical, if you want to bring "ethics" into the debate.

I think you totally missed my point, both in my piece and in my original response here. Direct quote from my piece: "this isn’t a defense of whatever’s been going on in the offseason because "everybody does it." This is a defense because "everybody wants to do it, and thus no one can stop it."

I was responding to your whine that "everybody does it" isn't a valid defense for what went on here. That's way too simplistic a viewpoint, because with regards to practice, everybody does it. There is nothing wrong or unethical about practicing a sport. That's how you get good. Everybody knows this, which is again why everybody does it.

Regarding the violations, if everybody wants to do more practice (in part because everybody else is doing it oops there I go again), then in some way shape or form these extra hours are voluntary and are not a violation. This is pretty much exactly what we learned at the presser (depending on how one defines stretching).

You've changed your argument midstream. You started by saying "please stop saying 'everybody does it'", but now that I've pointed out that there's nothing wrong with the fact that everybody does it, you're saying "if they broke the rules then it's unethical." But the fact that everybody does it makes everything voluntary which makes it not against the rules which makes it not unethical. Round and round we go.

There is nothing inherently unethical about practicing a lot, which is the whole point of this faux scandal. Everybody does it.

Before we can engage in any discussion on what is "bad" or "not bad" in terms of NCAA violations, I think we first have to come to agreement on what are "ethical" and "unethical" activities inside a football program.

Nothing I've seen since Day 1 of the Freep Jihad constitutes unethical activities, on the part of RichRod, his staff, or the Program. Period. So if these violations are not unethical, and the violations themselves are minor in quantity and in nature, then...this isn't bad.

People need to calm down, nothing is going to happen here.

The entirety of the result of this is that Free Press will have a small circulation boost, get some notoriety, and put itself up for some awards, while many Michigan fans will have permanently lost their respect for that section, its editors, the writers involved, and the paper in general.

In a way, you just contradicted yourself- many Michigan fans are/were, after all, subscribers to the Freep.

The Freep will only get a circulation boost if their biased anti-UM coverage manages to lure previous non-subscribers in while simultaneously managing to convince Michigan fans to not drop their subscriptions. And this has to happen over the long term- if in 2-3 years the Freep's subscriber base is less than it was when they wrote their story, then there was no boost.

I speculate this is a bad bet for the Freep, and one they don't even realize they're making. IMO long term the Freep's credibility took a hit. A newspaper cannot maintain its business long term without simultaneous maintaining its credibility. Just an awful gamble by the Freep.

To me it sounds like Compliance was operating off of some offseason assumptions developed during the Carr era, and caught on too late that RichRod was doing things differently. Note the allegation period starts in freaking January 2008, right after he was hired.

RichRod comes in, hands out offseason workout routines with undoubtedly new/different stuff to the kids, and has some assistants help instruct them on how to do it. Compliance realizes, too late, that having those assistants guiding the kids may constitute "mandatory" workouts, and then tries to get a handle on it. And ends up as a minor bureaucratic clusterf**k for awhile, but eventually gets straightened out.

Meanwhile, some kids have not taken to this new workout regime. They bristle at the presence of staff at these workouts (that I baselessly speculate they probably blew off in years past) and start heading for the exits. At some point one of them realizes that the presence of staff is in some way not kosher, and on their way out the door tells somebody outside the Program. Chaos ensues.

This is all speculation on my part. But IMO it fits. If we apply the term "rough transition" to not just the kids, but also the support and admin staff, then I think this all starts to make a little more sense.

The point being made is that if you don't do voluntary workouts then you won't play.

That's completely voluntary. Nobody is being forced to get playing time. They can choose to earn playing time, or not. There is nothing involuntary about anything there.

Here, let me demonstrate:

The point being made is that if you don't stop eating Krispy Kreme Glazed Fruit Pies, then you won't be thin. That doesn't sound very voluntary, does it?

Is it your contention that in the above sentence, people are being "forced" to be thin, and thus are not allowed to eat Krispy Kreme Glazed Fruit Pies?

I'd like to see Kovacs move down to OLB, because I think he's a good tackler and he's athletic enough to be able to handle RBs and TEs (as opposed to WRs).

Of course I say this without knowing how hard it is to move someone down from S to LB, so this could be the stupidest idea ever.

Technically Marvin Robinson is a safety, but I think all the scouts and coaches evaluated him based on his ability to move down to OLB. I wouldn't count him in the secondary.

Then again, I don't follow this stuff closely, so maybe you're right.

You mean as opposed to the groupthink mentality at this internet site which willfully ignores the irony of lauding one troubled athlete for receiving a "second chance" while condemning another for the same?

You do understand that the biggest problem we have with this is not necessarily with MSU or Dantonio, but with the Freep's explicit double standard in its reporting on troubled athletes, right? Please tell me you're not this dumb.

Nobody rational, here or on any other fanblog, is going to pretend that every team member is a saint and every team member of the opposition is a devil. There's good and bad everywhere, and it's all in how the coach deals with it. Everybody (rational) here understands that, and there's nothing in the comments here to suggest otherwise.

But you can't tell me with a straight face the Freep understands the above. That's the problem. This is a conscious decision by the Freep to hold RichRod and Michigan to a different, higher, and arguably unreasonable standard than it holds Dantonio and MSU. Dorsey is the latest example, and there are plenty others.

I'm wondering what kind of thrill travels up your leg when you argue in bad faith, as you've been doing on this thread all freaking day. Could you describe that feeling to me, and why you like it?

If we want to compare Feagin and Winston (which is far more apt), then I think that Dantonio letting Winston back on the team pretty clearly implies that Feagin would have been let back on the team as well.

Equivocating on the two offenses isn't necessary, but I'll do it anyway- if violent assault isn't a dismissable offense, then I fail to see how committing fraud is. Feagin would have been welcomed back to the MSU football team.

It's good that you broke up the issue into two questions:

Q1: Doesn't the fact that Winston spent time in jail mean that he paid his dues?

Yes, and with "paying his dues" comes rewards- not being physically confined, ability to pursue an education, careeer, etc. In short, in exchange for "paying his dues," Winston was given back his "freedom."

Q2: And if he paid his dues, shouldn't he be allowed to play football again?

Not necessarily. Playing football is a privilege, not a right. And this is a school program, not an employer, so the standards applied are always going to be coach- and university-dependent. Theoretically, a kid could get kicked off the team for much less than a criminal conviction.

Remember that "paying your dues" simply means you get to reenter society. It does NOT mean you get to reenter society AND get back everything you had before you "paid your dues." There are consequences to convictions.

You really need to stop characterizing Dorsey as a criminal. He is not. Go get a dictionary.

I hate people who think that contrarianism (i.e. being contrarian just for the sake of it) is some sort of virtue, as if being an obtuse douchebag entitles them to sit on a pedestal and look down at the rest just because we've taken a side (and are angry about it too, heavens to murgatroyd!).

But to answer your question would be to accept the premise of your question (that the Glenn Winston and Demar Dorsey situations are similar/the same), which I don't. And Clarence Beeks below explains why:

Winston committed and was convicted of committing a violent crime. Demar Dorsey wasn't convicted of any crimes and never committed a violent crime.

The kind of ignorance it takes for you to equate "convicted adult criminal" and "juvenile not convicted of anything" has to be willful, IMO. Stupid like that doesn't happen by accident, you worked hard to be this stupid. Heckuva job.

Not one, but two ridonkulous videos about a bear with a proclivity towards blowing s--t up with a hockey stick? Someone in Hollywood's digital effects sector is bored.

That's not just below those predictions, but quite far below them. Wouldn't that be the very definition of "unexpected?"

Quite simply, no. One more time- "not predicting" and "not unexpected" are not mutually exclusive. You can predict something but not feel very confident in that prediction, so that when things don't turn out the way you predicted you're not surprised.

I don't know why "not unexpected" is continually challenged with examples of predictions. The two concepts don't necessarily contradict each other. Why is this so hard to understand?

Let's review the questions that are still on the table:

1. What rate of progress should you reasonably expect? Seriously- starting from scratch on offense and dealing with serious depth problems on defense, how much time do you think it should take to turn that ship around?

2. Referring to the "big picture," do you really think the future is going to be the same or worse than it is now, given what you see on the roster and what you've seen on the field? Be honest.

and since I suspect this is the core disagreement we have (as it always ends up being with RichRod critics), perhaps you should answer this question first:

3. How much talent and experience is required on the 2 deep (on both sides) for Michigan to have a reasonable chance to win 7-8 games? Be specific. Did RichRod have that requisite talent and experience when he walked in? Did he have that this year?

I'd love to see you work through the logic on these questions.

Again, you seem to think that a prediction is binary, without context or nuance. I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that Brian said something along the lines of "I fully expect Michigan to win a minimum of 7 games in 2008 anything less is a disappointment," and "I fully expect Michigan to win a minimum of 7 games in 2009 anything less is a disappointment."

This wasn't desired or predicted, but neither was it unexpected. You seem to think that "not unexpected" and "not predicted" are mutually exclusive. That's incredibly dumb.

nt.

Is this what any of us really expected? At any time in the RR regime? Ever? Saying there is improvement is like saying Jennifer Granholm brought in good high paying green tech jobs to the state of Michigan. It's a true statement on its face, but, in fact, meaningless and worse, ignoring that whole big picture thing.

Well, this wasn't unexpected, not by me, Brian, or a lot of other people. Honestly, before the 2008 season began none of us had a clue how it was going to turn out, because A) there were almost literally no returning offensive starters on which to base expectations, and B) the defense had been shitty/inconsistent the previous year. So with the benefit of hindsight, we see that A) the offense needed a complete overhaul, more so after transfers and injuries, and B) the defense had zero depth, little talent, and little development.

With all that in mind, what rate of progress should you reasonably expect? Seriously- starting from scratch on offense and dealing with serious depth problems on defense, how much time do you think it should take to turn that ship around?

If you thought the program was humming along at peak efficiency when RichRod came in, then of course this has been an UNACCEPTABLE!! shock and disappointment to you, and more progress was expected. But for those clear-eyed fans who saw The Horror as merely a continuation of a disturbing trend at M understood that RichRod would need time and space to rebuild the program.

This program was in desperate need of a change, and some people were/are just unwilling to accept that. So be it- there will always be people who deny facts and reality simply because it undermines their faith in something. The world is flat, evolution is just a theory, global warming is a myth, M always has enough talent to win 8+ games, etc.

You speak of the big picture, yet strangely you ignore the future in this "big picture" of yours. That's an odd way to look at things. Do you really think the future is going to be the same or worse than it is now, given what you see on the roster and what you've seen on the field? Be honest.

With that said the thesis of Brian's post is old news. Rosenberg is biased = old news. Winston and Feagin incidents = old news. The Freep is doing what it can to exploit situations to save itself = old news. D'Antonio is a douche = old news.

Agree with everything up there. But you're ignoring the fact that there has been a development in most/all of those "old news" storylines. In other words, when a new, more damning piece of evidence appears and makes your "old" case even stronger, well how can you ignore that?

The Potluck Assault is a de facto "new" piece of news, and the Rosenberg bias was made new when Rosenberg opined on that "new" news.

I understand and will grudgingly admit that maybe this whole storyline shouldn't get much more play, but let's not pretend that there is "nothing new here." Things did happen recently, and those things did impact old stories.

I love Barwis and I think he deserves the hype, FWIW. But...

I am bitterly and (perhaps unrealistically) disappointed that the injury rates have not gone down yet. It's not just the obvious guys like Brown and Minor, who I don't blame Barwis for. It's all the others- Forcier, Shaw, Threet, Odoms, Hemingway, Stonum, Omameh, etc.

It's not just that injuries happen, that I understand. I was hoping that injuries wouldn't linger like they did under Gittleson (e.g. 2005), and I haven't seen improvement there yet. I'm a little concerned that for two years of the Barwis show seemingly every damn game somebody got dinged and then stayed that way for the rest of the season. Maybe this is unfair, I don't know.

S&C has dramatically improved, IME, and overall Barwis deserves the hype. The fitness, speed, and strength of the players is at the very least no longer a liability, and pro players coming back to work with him is a very big deal.

I just wish the injury bug would go away.

My own theory is that Rosenberg sees bashing U-M as an opportunity for him to get ahead in his chosen profession. Or, more cynically, he's a typical modern journalist- willing to sacrifice everything in order to make his job easier and/or more profitable.

I think Rosenberg has made a mistake, FWIW. Over the long term his reputation will be shit and ESPN won't view him as indispensable. He will be gone and forgotten within a decade, IME.

According to Sparty/Rosenberg, everyone deserves a second chance except:

- Justin Feagin
- Pat Lazear
- Rich Rodriguez
- any M football player that likes Rodriguez
- etc.

RichRod is a guy that is always angling and scrapping for points and big plays. He will never turtle, no matter the situation.

In general, I like that attitude, but this is the downside. He sometimes gets greedy and takes an unnecessary risk. You take the good with the bad, and you learn to live with it.

I appreciate the breakdown of the who and what went wrong on this play, but I'm interested to see the why as well. Ezeh seems tentative and indecisive...why? What's the hangup here?

I'd be really interested to hear a coach talk about how they communicate with defensive players to get them be more "instinctive" and decisive on plays. What could be going on behind the scenes that has Ezeh possibly cowed?

For those who still want to criticize the coaching staff, I challenge you to find one example of a team with a more depleted depth chart that had success...

That's just it, that's the core of the disagreement. A lot of M fans absolutely refuse to admit how bad the depth chart on defense is. They're willing to admit that M is a little "down" talentwise, but they absolutely refuse to believe that M is right now regularly operating at a talent deficiency against most of the Big Ten. That's just unpossible to them, and so they reject it out of hand without looking at the facts.

Faith-based reasoning exists in the sports world too, so if you can figure out a way to get people to abandon it, let me know.

This is just awesome. THE KNOWLEDGE has become such a self-parody that I can't help but laugh at this post. Welcome back, THE KNOWLEDGE.

If you're so troubled by someone on the internet calling you an insane douchebag, then I suggest you do one of the following:

1. Stop being an insane douchebag.
2. Quit being a whiny pussy.
3. Get off the internet.

Math is useful, perhaps you should brush up.

Seriously, ask around and everyone will tell you that I try and win arguments by overwhelming you with my massive tl;dr comments. Utilizing large volumes of words is the only way I know to compensate for my incredibly disappointing 2 inch penis.

Raging Cox FTW.

When Brian refers to roster issues, I assume he's talking about the following:

1. Little to no offensive line talent
2. No offensive line depth
3. No safety talent
4. No safety depth
5. No linebacker depth
6. No quarterback depth
7. No quarterback "fit" for his offense

Everything listed above are issues that RichRod inherited. He did not cause any of those issues, and note that none of those issues involve Mallett's transfer. There is a lot more going on here than just that.

Now, we can yell at RichRod for apparently not making inroads on solving issues 3-5 because of his hiring/firing of Shafer and his hiring of Hopson. Fine, he lost a year on fixing the defense and BOOOOOOO. But you're a fool if you think those issues were going to be magically solved in a year or two even if RichRod had hired Will boommotherf--ker! Muschamp. Even with a great DC and staff continuity on defense, we'd still have these problems at safety and linebacker. Those problems will be solved after 2-3 years of good recruiting and solid development. This isn't going away overnight.

What part of "we're in a hole and it's going to take time to get out" do you not understand?

But who says that a team full of young players necessarily gets much better? Is there evidence for this?

Um, I'm pretty sure, without looking anything up, that every single young player on a team improves as he gets older. So it follows that if you have a disproportionate # of young players on your roster, that a disproportionate part of your entire team will improve as that disproportionate group of youngsters gets older. Am I going too fast for you?

We have some highly recruited players on D right now, so why haven't they improved in 2 years (see Mouton, Williams)?

WRT to highly rated D recruits not being good, this is another thing that I'm pretty sure of without looking anything up- sometimes highly-rated recruits are busts. That's why coaches generally don't bet an entire position on just one or two highly-rated recruits. Read Misopogon's post again. It's not just quality, but quantity as well. M has been struggling with defensive recruiting since 2005 (i.e. since well before RichRod got here).

Also, though I doubt there's empirical evidence of this, you greatly increase your chances of having recruits go bust if you change your coordinators a lot. On defense, M has had 4 defensive coordinators in 5 years. If you want to criticize RichRod for the hiring/firing of Scott Shafer, knock yourself out because I and many others won't disagree with you. But at the end of the day, the problems you see with the defensive personnel are connected to things that have been happening for years. The blame can and should be spread around to all the people involved in those years.

I'm looking for a little more analysis to what I consider to be the most common apology for the Rich Rod regime. You can't just say, well they are young.

I think you need to reread the post. Several times. Do you see those bolded parts? Do you see how there's several bolded parts, i.e. not just one "well they are young" statement? Reading comprehension is fun! I don't think "well they are young" is the crux of this post, but again that's because I actually read and understood the post. I'm weird like that.