I'VE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH OF YOU SONNY
- Member for
- 2 years 5 days
- View recent blog entries
- Karma value
- Michigan State has the #1 rushing defense in the nation; the #9 rushing defense.
- Florida State the #13 rushing defense; the #1 passing defense.
- From Glanville's perspective, and
- From EMU's perspective
|8 hours 17 min ago||Expectations||
I would hope the coaches understand this is pretty much a must-win for Michigan. I don't see how they can limp back from a bowl loss to Kansas State, with all this time to prepare, and claim it's a "coaching problem" or an "execution problem." Not after the show they put on aganst Ohio State.
Michigan can win this ... in fact should win this. If not, then 2014 becomes a pretty stark litmus test for this coaching staff.
|3 days 6 hours ago||I think winning creates the||
I think winning creates the desire to win more.
There are some programs that have been below-average for so long that a 7-5 season is a big thing. But string several of those together and suddenly it's no good any more ... then the expectation is 8, then 9, etc.
The key there is consistency ... an occasional winning season with a reset to historic average means the program remains content with merely good.
In my mind the jury is still out with Arizona (and I live in Tucson so I see up-close how the team is embraced). I just don't sense that much buzz -- good or bad -- with two straight years of 7-5. I think RR could bubble around 7-5, 8-4 and people here would be perfectly happy. Give them the occasional win over ASU and a Rose Bowl every 10 years and people are fine. The buzz about town mid-season was more about the upcoming basketball season than football. The stadium here is rarely sold out; tickets are readily available and advertised on billboards ... in short, Arizona is a program that's relatively happy with 8-4.
Now, give it two or three years of 9-3 and I'm sure the expectations ratchet up to "let's win 10."
|3 days 7 hours ago||I agree there are barriers to||
I agree there are barriers to a new governing structure. Nobody is going to accomplish that without a lot of agreement among some really big players.
Perhaps another thing to ask is this: given the pressure, will the NCAA morph to become this new model for the super schools? In a sense we've seen that -- the severity of penalties seems to have ratcheted down of late (OSU, Miami, Oregon).
|3 days 7 hours ago||All-in||
Let's say the pressure for some schools goes sky-high ... how do those programs respond to the pressure? We're already in a kind of arms-race over facilities at the top programs.
I've often wondered if we'll see a tipping point where the big programs go all-in ... most notably by rejecting NCAA governance and setting up their own standards. Then how many programs will join ... and how many will be allowed to join? (That is, is there the possibility of a single super-conference forming of just the very top elite teams, with everyone else left out?)
nmumike wrote: "what is better, to have sky high expectations, or to be like Washington?"
Play the various scenarios out and that really does become the question, doesn't it? Some programs won't be able to afford to play the game. Do they just accept that and move down into MAC (or AAC) status?
|3 days 7 hours ago||Years ago I recall watching a||
Years ago I recall watching a NOVA program on PBS where some physicist was talking about dropping a stone, which would fall half way, then half again, etc., etc. I recall him saying something about the time increments becoming so small that it would form a black hole and suck in everything around it.
So yeah ... BiSB banning himself has that potential.
BiSB, keep your finger off the banhammer button, please.
|1 week 1 day ago||Money Quote||
Oh man ... this.
The Internet is an odd place. It's provided a lot of positive to the world ... and a whole pile of bad things, most notably a forum for anonymous people to mistake rudeness for "being real."
Still, I enjoy many things about MGoBlog.
|1 week 1 day ago||Agree ...||
MSU earned the respect this year ... they upped their defensive game and they came up with a reasonable offense despite all the question marks to start the season. And they did all this with a minimum of chest-thumping trash talk. They just went out and did it.
|1 week 1 day ago||Interior DL||
As has been said by many above, OSU's running game was at the expense of our interior defensive line. Hyde is a big back and has to be stopped by equally big guys at the line. He gets to the second level and he's getting 5+ yards a carry easy. It's tough to beat a team who can do that consistently.
Now for OSU's real tests:
I think OSU beats MSU, but it'll be another game where OSU's weak links are exposed.
I think FSU torches OSU.
|1 week 1 day ago||Paraphrasing Full Metal||
Paraphrasing Full Metal Jacket -- "Inside every reasonable OSU fan is a Michigan fan trying to get out." :-)
Nice post ... to my eye there are few things better than a hard-fought game with shows of personal generosity like you point out. That's why I think post-game handshakes are a good thing. Not everyone here agrees with that, but I believe it.
|1 week 1 day ago||At that point in the game,||
At that point in the game, I'm not convinced Gardner could have rolled out. He seemed to be limping and hopping around on one leg pretty badly. I wonder if the play calling -- and the decision to avoid OT -- was based in some large part on Gardner's inability to move around?
|1 week 1 day ago||I think Lewan is saying stuff||
I think Lewan is saying stuff here ... Hoke signalled 2 right after the TD, and Lewan would have been on the field at that point. I don't see how Hoke could have polled the seniors -- Lewan included -- at that point.
My guess is Lewan didn't form his comment well ... what he meant to say was that the seniors agree with Hoke's decision; that is, if they'd been asked, they'd have said yes.
|1 week 1 day ago||Agree||
I agree with you. But I'm presently engaged in a debate on another site with someone who insists its a set-in-stone rule that a team never goes for two at home in that situation. That person then cites the Auburn win over Alabama as proof of that. The two situations not being comparable doesn't seem to matter. It's a cosmic law, I guess.
|1 week 1 day ago||Not even 50/50||
Given all the factors you cite, I think Michigan's odds in OT are more in the low double digits. It would have required a mistake on OSU's part and near perfect play on Michigan's.
|1 week 2 days ago||Jake Butt||
+1 on your first bullet point. And from what I understand, incoming freshman Ian Bunting may be even better. Let the O-line mature and put a QB back there that can hit those guys on their TE routes (Gardner, Morris or Speight) and look out.
|1 week 2 days ago||Quadruple post -- OK, what's||
Quadruple post -- OK, what's going on?
What?! Is Al Borges your post coordinator? Why didn't you go for five!!
|1 week 2 days ago||"If my whole life is riding||
"If my whole life is riding on whether my team wins on a Saturday, I've taken a wrong turn somewhere."
Amen to that.
I have a buddy who's a big Florida fan. He's in a real funk because of Florida's season. He was spoiled during the Tebow years, and since then he's been expecting Florida to bust out and win it all just like before. It's not happening, and he's really bummed out by it.
Earlier this year I decided to let go of my 40-year obsession with Michigan football needing to win every game. I'm 54 years old and you know what? It just doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. If on my deathbed I say the best thing in my life is the outcome of some football game, then I can say with all sincerity I have failed in life.
|1 week 2 days ago||Freeze the sign-up process to||
Freeze the sign-up process to keep new trolls from coming on ... and then yield a viscious ban-hammer for miscreants. That'll clean things up pretty quickly.
I can say this because (a) I'm already registered, and (b) I'm a choir boy, all sweetness and gentleness. ;-)
|1 week 2 days ago||Green||
I find myself relishing a small thing I saw in today's game ... Derrick Green got the ball and took a step towards the line, then he held up for a half tick. Then in a blink of the eye he took off through a hole that opened up. That hole wasn't there a half tick earlier. He anticipated the blocking and saw the hole before it occured.
It was a beautiful thing. It was as if I was witnessing a glimpse into the future.
|1 week 2 days ago||From Tucson ...||
I'm in my living room in Tucson, watching the Alabama / Auburn game and anticipating the upcoming Clemson / South Carolina and Arizona / Arizona State games.
I hate Notre Dame ... can't stand watching them. Doesn't matter the opponent.
I have no dog in the UA / ASU game, but beware the Sun Devils ... they're pretty good. I suspect UA is going up to Tempe (100 miles north of Tucson) and is facing a pretty tough game.
|1 week 2 days ago||Grow and get better||
We had 158 yards total offense against Iowa just one week ago.
We had 603 yards total offense against Ohio State this week.
My, oh my ... they grew and got better in a damn hurry.
|1 week 2 days ago||No trust||
"Unless he calls games like this, yes."
Do you trust him to not revert to his old ways?
Neither do I.
|1 week 2 days ago||"Catch-22 for Borges. He has||
"Catch-22 for Borges. He has to explain why he didn’t do this all year."
He'll come up with some double-speak to justify. But it's all BS.
He called this game as if he had nothing to lose. It showed the potential this team's offense has had most of the season. They play this kind of game and they beat Nebraska and Iowa.
|2 weeks 6 hours ago||Time will tell||
I'm not trying to argue that Hoke is superior to RR, or that RR is bad or anything of the sort.
I'm simply saying I don't believe RR is going to achieve anything approximating national significance at Arizona**. I could be wrong, but I suspect I'm not. This weekend's game against Arizona State is going to be interesting, and will be a test of how good Arizona is at following-up on a big win.
** I live in Tucson ... and it's hard to describe the level of indifference there is to this football program. I barely knew last weekend was a home game. It wasn't the best weather day here, but the stands were half-empty for the biggest game in the Rodriguez tenure. USC and a newly ascendant UCLA will suck the talent out of California, and a resurgent Arizona State program is going to compete hard for what little in-state talent there is. UA has never been a football power, and without a Phil Knight or Boone Pickens benefactor I just don't see how UA maintains its position within the increasingly hostile arms race that is top-tier college football. But again, time will tell.
|2 weeks 8 hours ago||Two ways to approach||
Two ways to approach this:
From Glanville's perspective it may just be that he wishes to get back into the game in a low-profile sort of way. He may entertain no illusions of building EMU into anything more than competent. He may simply be doing it for the love of the game and the opportunity to coach up young players. If so, then good for him.
From EMU's perspective the calculus is a bit more dicey. To take on someone like Glanville could signal that EMU views their football program worthy of a placeholder coach only. That may well be exactly what EMU thinks of their football program, but to imply it so strongly is risky. On the other hand, if Glanville does pull a miracle and EMU becomes a solid 8-4 type team then when Glanville decides to step away EMU's in a better position to bring in a young up-and-comer.
|2 weeks 10 hours ago||There's a tremendous risk of||
There's a tremendous risk of opening up the whole RR debate here, which I don't wish to do.
My basic argument is this -- beware the tendency to rely too heavily on what once was, because what once was may not be effective in what now is.
Hoke seems to look back to his days at Michigan back in the late 90's and see a pattern for today, but that's a mistake. Today is what today offers, not what 1997 looked like.
Al Borges seems to look back to his formative years learning the "West Coast Offense." There's a reason almost nobody is running that offense in the form it was from back then.
Rich Rodriguez's mistake was thinking the spread model he had at West Virginia translated exactly to the Big 10 or into the future. The game is changing; it's not 2006 any more, the WVU model with Pat White was great but isn't the game-changer today that it was then.
(Please, nobody cite the Arizona win over Oregon ... it was one game, Oregon is beat up and dispirited, and Arizona is hardly a dominant force ... and probably won't ever be. They may well be better than Michigan, but that's something quite different from better than Alabama, FSU or even OSU.)
The common pattern is that all three seem to look back to what might be called glory days thinking that success today can be had by repeating things from the past. The great coaches don't fall into that trap. They adapt and take what the present affords.
My hope is Hoke wakes up and realizes the folly of chasing a ghost from the past.
|2 weeks 11 hours ago||History||
"Because there was no Florida 40 years ago."
Those eight words pack a profound truth.
Michigan is rightfully proud of its legacy, but such a thing can become a blind spot. And it has.
The blind spot is not so much the Yost years -- that's ancient history; a nice bookend at the start of things, but too far removed to be a hinderance.
The blind spot is the Schembechler years. Those were good years, but they are in the past. They should be properly remembered, but not revered. Misplaced reverence is a blind spot.
The game of football is fluid, and the good programs move with the current. But the Michigan program seems to hold a stubborn eye on the picture of the Schembechler years, and that is hurting the program.
Place the picture of Schembechler in Michigan's hall of fame. Pay it proper homage. Then turn and face the reality of now.
I've been following Michigan football for 40 years now. I've seen ups and down. I was supportive of the transition away from the previous coach for the same reason I am now concerned about the present -- a stubborn insistence to cling to what was.
That's the off-season challenge for Hoke -- prove that he's not a man who has the stubborn insistence gene in him. I'm not calling for Hoke's dismissal; I am hoping for an indication he understands the problem.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||"I don't envy his current||
"I don't envy his current position"
Hoke's head coaching mettle will be tested this week, that's for sure.
Best he can do is minimize lingering damage from previous games and get their focus on the upcoming game. Win or lose, if they play with intensity and focus then Hoke will have succeeded in that goal. But if they play as if they don't care, then Hoke will have failed in that goal, and that will be a very big problem for Hoke.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Full Throttle Shoot Out||
The strategy of keeping the ball out of the hands of the OSU offense depends on Michigan getting first downs ... which they're awful at ... so that strategy won't work.
Borges's best hope is for a shoot-out. Gardner is more comfortable in that kind of game anyway. So go wide-open and live or die on that. Any other approach fails.
(Predictor: if we see Gardner under center even once, game over. I'm totally serious.)
Go down swinging.
PS -- Am I the only one on this site who sees every click result in "Connection Timeout" ... every action requiring 30+ seconds of waiting and retries? It's almost unusable lately.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Yeah, agree ...||
At some point both Hoke's and Brandon's job comes into jeopardy if this is allowed to continue. Both are going to be motivated to do something to at least appear like they're trying to right the ship. The question that remains is when that might happen. Carrying Al Borges into next year puts the target squarely on Hoke's back if we see more of the same in 2014.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Maybe ... but I wonder||
Maybe ... but I wonder whether that matchup makes sense from a fanbase point of view.
Which bowl are you thinking of? Where it's held will determine how many fans will travel to it.
The lesser bowls are mostly interested in getting as many people in the stadium as they can and providing a decent matchup. Michigan and Arizona are on opposite sides of the country. If the game was held somewhere on the east coast it's unlikely AZ fans would travel, in any number, to the game. Ditto Michigan fans traveling the west coast for a bowl game.
(Did you see the stadium shots for the Oregon game? Many empty seats. Bad weather here in Tucson today, but the problem is mostly a largely apathetic football fanbase. Most homegames are undersold, and there's absolutely no buzz about town on gameday.)