Hoke was top notch at this aspect of his job.
- Member for
- 6 years 5 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|18 weeks 6 days ago||Wait a minute||
We Knicks' fans are not quite the mostest with the leastest. The Cubs probably have the Knicks beaten by that standard. Not by much, mind you.
|19 weeks 1 day ago||Beilein's not above dealing with shady AAU programs||
He took Carleton Brundage, who played for the Family in Detroit, which has some pretty shady connections, including Worldwide Wes. (Look up Wes' alleged role in helping Derrick Rose qualify at Memphis).
To be fair, Brundage did not work out and Beilein lately seems to be focusing on Indiana kids from a few select AAU programs that seem less shady than run-of-the-mill AAU programs.
I agree that Beilein is an ethical guy. But I don't think he would abstain from taking a kid associated with shady characters from AAU, if the kid was good enough and really wanted to come to Michigan. I don't think any college coach could afford to be quite that "holier than thou."
It's also pretty ironic that you're touting the how Michigan won't "stoop to the level of other programs" while you have a picture of the Fab Five as your avatar.
|19 weeks 2 days ago||That's why Hoke was fired||
Because he couldn't coach up the ACL
|19 weeks 2 days ago||Coaching since 1981?||
If Baxter's 52, then he began his coaching career about age 19.
Either he's quite the prodigy or he started coaching sometime after 1981.
|21 weeks 1 day ago||Consider the source||
Just because Dennis Fithian was dumb enough to take this "report" seriously doesn't mean anyone else should.
|21 weeks 3 days ago||Who is||
More importantly, what is his percentage on whether it's happening?
|21 weeks 4 days ago||Of course one could||
A contract does not necessarily go into effect when pen touches paper. It goes into effect when it says it does. Someone could sign a contract on, say, December 23 that would go into effect at any later date specified in the contract.
Think about it. If you have a job and agree to take a new one, you can make a contract with your new employer that goes into effect on a future date, so you can give notice to your current employer.
You don't even need a full-fledged contract to create an employment relationship. Harbaugh and UM could agree on the essential terms -- salary and period of years are the only absolutely essential ones -- in a letter agreement and execute an agreement specifiying all terms later on. This is why so many coaches don't actually "sign" their agreement until after they've started working for their new team.
|21 weeks 5 days ago||If the Niners fire him||
They only have to pay him for the last year of his contract if he isn't working at all or is being paid less than his Niners' salary. In other words, they have to guarantee he makes his promised salary.
But it doesn't make much sense for them to fire Harbaugh. If they know he wants to go to UM and they don't fire him, Harbaugh probably has to buy out the last year of his deal (unless he has an unusual contract). If they don't know what Harbaugh wants to do, they shouldn't fire him because they could get compensation from an NFL team or from UM.
|21 weeks 5 days ago||I have to wonder||
How much Weiser would have given if he had been elected to the board of regents.
|22 weeks 5 hours ago||Keep Hope Alive||
My son got a deferal email last December. He was admitted in late January.
One difference. We live in Michigan.
|29 weeks 3 days ago||Two legal points||
I have not made my way through the 472 comments that precede mine at the time I'm writing this. So forgive me if I repeat something that someone else has posted.
First, at the end of the post, Brian asserts that "[t]he University of Michigan is the one subject to the penalty, but the employee is the one who committed the violation." In a legal sense, that's not correct. The University is in charge of the computer system that Brandon uses. If it facilitates Brandon's preference to delete his emails after a month, then it is committing the violation by manipulating its email system to conform with Brandon's illegal preference. If Brandon or his subordinates delete the emails on their own accord after a month, then the University is responsible for maintaining a computer system that allows inidividual employees to evade public records law and destroy public records without authority. Either way, the University is responsible.
(As an aside, I'd be surprised if even the deleted emails aren't preserved somewhere. Most sophisticated computer networks image the contents of the system on a regular basis probably daily, maybe more often than than, and certainly more often than monthly, and the images are stored somewhere. Those are public records, too.)
Second, the damages could be more substantial than Brian suggests. There's $500 in punitive damages for each and every violation. A violation is not having the records available when someone asks for them. If enough people ask, you're starting to talk about real money . . .
|30 weeks 4 days ago||Not exactly||
Michigan men's rowing is a club program and does not compete with the elite collegiate rowing programs, like Harvard, Washington, Cal, Brown, etc. Michigan is a member of the American Collegiate Rowing Assocition, with schools like Grand Valley State, and it competed in the Collegiate Eights. The elite programs are part of the Intercollegiate Rowing Association, and its members race in the Championship Eights.
Winning the Championship Eights at HOCR is like beating OSU. Winning the Collegiate Eights is a significant but nevertheless lesser accomplishment, like winning a big 1-AA football game. Or maybe like beating Grand Valley State, which finished third in the Collegiate Eights.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||And who . . .||
is responsible for putting that team together?
|2 years 34 weeks ago||That Werther's has a power arm . . .||
And late movement.
That's the art of hard candy, yessiree.
|3 years 8 weeks ago||Well Said||
I couldn't agree more with your posts about Smotrycz. I only disagree with one thing: he can't play the 3, not even at a low mid major because he can't stay in front of anybody.
Maybe . . . maybe he could play the 3 in someplace like the Ivy League. But he's a real defensive liability at any position, especially the 3; and I think that's true at any level. At the 3, he has to move his feet and he just can't seem to do that.
As you said, he's got to realize who he is as a player, not who he wants to be. He's going to struggle anywhere until he does that.
|3 years 8 weeks ago||I know what "Life Evaluation" is||
It's what newly-minted humanities Ph.Ds from Michigan call the period that they are living in Ann Arbor after graduation, applying to non-tenure track jobs that have 500 other applicants and wondering why they went to grad school in the first place.
(I say that as someone with a humanities Ph.D from Michigan.)
|3 years 15 weeks ago||Not just a "strong Christian"||
He's a "damn strong Christian"
|3 years 22 weeks ago||Burke will be better . . . soon||
I agree with just about all of your assessment of both Burke and Morris, although I'm not sure that the Trey Burke of December 2011 is better than the Darius Morris of December 2011, if Morris had stayed. Burke still has some growing to do, but hecould be better by the end of this year.
As much as he contributed to Michigan last year, Morris had some significant weaknesses, especially the ones you mentioned. I also think he's not a good finisher at the rim. He's tentative about going through defenders to finish right at the rim; he will pull up short and shoot a finger roll or a half-hook when he should go strong. Or even worse, he stops in the lane and pivots until he finds a passing lane. If he tries that in the NBA, he'll be sitting on the bench right quick.
From what I saw last night, Morris will not be a regular contributor at the beginning of the season. He will get some run, but I think his defense and decision-making are going to keep him on the bench most of the time. And given how compressed the season is, and given the possibility that the Lakers will struggle, he might not get much of a chance to develop as the season goes on.
In the long run, he will be fine, probably something like a poor-man's Andre Miller.
|3 years 22 weeks ago||You should hear those cranky meatheads do h.s. basketball||
It's far worse than their studio show, if you can believe it. In terms of production values, as well as the quality of the play-by-play and commentary, a high school station would be immeasurably better.
I was listening last Friday because my son plays JV for an Ann Arbor-area high school and I had to leave after his game, but I wanted to find out how the varsity was doing. Those two clowns were unbelievable. They talked over each other constantly, they interrupted their guests during the pre-game interviews, and they could barely describe what was happening on the court. At one point, they said that the ball went out of bounds off a player who (a) is not on the varsity roster; and (b) is out for the year with a knee injury. I have no idea what they think they saw. It's like sitting next to two drunks in a bar who are discussing the game on TV and are mistaken about which teams are playing.
And the sound quality of the broadcast is just as bad, if not worse.
The amazing thing is that McDonald's apparently pays for this production to be called the "McDonald's High School Game of the Week." If I were with McDonald's, I'd sue.
|3 years 23 weeks ago||"Homies . . . wearing Red Wing jerseys"||
I don't think anything more needs to be said.
|3 years 23 weeks ago||I know who made the arrangements||
The guys at the tattoo parlor.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||I'm worried||
about Carrie Fisher. I hope she doesn't get RichRod with that RPG.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||I pray for your health||
If you eat cheese popcorn every time someone posts something inane here.
Like this post, for example.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||By the same token||
How many different ways can Sam find to describe the seats in his Cadillac, its traction control (winter's coming! in case you didn't know), or his how much his mother loves Suburban Cadillac.
I know that it's an ad and that same has to be enthusiastic, but, boy, does he beat that sh*t to death.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||I don't care about the book tour||
John Bacon can give a thousand interviews in which he assigns equal blame to Rodriguez, disloyal insiders, and the press. But those interviews don't determine the meaning of the text that he wrote.
When I look at the text itself, I don't get the sense that Bacon blames those three things equally. The structure of the book and the themes that Bacon reiterates throughout that structure emphasize public opinion and institutional dynamics as the two primary causes of Rodriguez's failure. To the extent that Bacon blames Rodriguez, he blames him for not being better at managing public opinion and, to a much lesser extent, for not being good at institutional politics. And, with respect to this last point, Bacon even seems to indirectly laud Rodriguez, implying that Rodriguez just wanted to coach football, not to play politics, and, who could blame him?.
Nothing in the book suggests that Rodriguez had any significant shortcomings as a football coach, not with strategy, not with managing his staff, not with dealing with his players, not with anything that took place on the field, in the weight rooms, or in the meeting rooms. And that's my main problem with the book. I don't believe that Rodriguez was 6-18 in conference because of Mary Sue Coleman, Lloyd Carr, Bill Martin, and Michael Rosenberg.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||You put your finger on something||
that really bothered me about Bacon's "sourcing." At various points, he takes great pains to point out that he had multiple sources to verify certain factual statements that were not within his personal knowledge. But he cheerfully reports on the substance of meetings that included only Rodriguez (sometimes with Rita), Martin, and Coleman. He even attributes direct quotations to persons in the meeting. Did he have multiple sources for these things? I cannot believe he did. It's impossible to think that Martin and/or Coleman would have confirmed the story about agreeing to pay part of Rodriguez's buy-out without approval by the regents. So Rodriguez must be Bacon's only source for this. Are we really supposed to believe that Rodriguez and/or Rita had a perfectly objective, perfectly accurate recollection of precisely what was said -- accurate enough for Bacon to attribute quotations to the participants?
This reflects a more general problem with Bacon's adherence to the standards governing his writing. Sometimes he insists on multiple sourcing; sometimes he's wiling to rely on a single source. Sometimes he tries to look behind the scenes to identify the reasons for events; sometimes he takes stuff at face value. And, most of the time, when he deviates from his purported standards, he does it in a way that's flattering or beneficial to Rich Rodriguez.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||To your points||
First, I think that it's fair to say that Bacon's only substantial criticism of Rodriguez in the book itself is that he stunk at PR. Bacon pointed out other small flaws, but no others that would have materially affected Rodriguez's position. My position is, of course, a statement of opinion, not of objective fact. It's your prerogative to disagree with it (although I'd be interested to learn what you saw in the text that's inconsistent with my opinion). But it's not your prerogative to say that my opinion is "false."
Second, I don't have a "source" about Rodriguez comandeering the defense. I don't need one. The commonly accepted story of the Michigan defense is that Rich Rodriguez compelled his subordinates to run a scheme with which they were neither comfortable nor familiar. I am not aware of any evidence to contradict this, and there is much evidence consistent with it. For example, it cannot be disputed that Michigan began running a 3-3-5 at midseason, during the tenures of both Scott Shafer and Greg Robinson. It is also undisputed that neither of those coaches ever ran a 3-3-5 before. The head coach of the Michigan Wolverines did have experience with such a defense before coming here. There are numerous unrefuted reports (including by Bacon) that Rodriguez decided that Michigan needed to run a 3-3-5. It is reasonable to infer that neither Shafer or Robinson would have made this decision on their own. That inference is supported by the fact that, as Michigan ran it, the 3-3-5 was structurally flawed. Under Robinson, the linebackers were misaligned, among other things. (See numerous UFRs from 2010). If you have a better explanation of why Michigan's defense failed, or of why the 3-3-5 was used and used badly, let's hear it.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||Bacon's editorial choices||
are the problem with the book.
For the reasons M-Wolverine points out, Bacon's analysis of Rodriguez's tenure is enormously frustrating for the reader and, at least for me, completely incredible.
Bacon wants to make the point that Rodriguez failed because the football program, the Athletic Department, and the University as a whole all failed to give him the uniequivocal support and the room for discretionary judgment that Bo and Lloyd enjoyed. The only fault that Bacon will attribute to Rodriguez is an inability to make good PR decisions.
Well, maybe. But if Bacon is going to succeed in making that point, then he has to explain why those institutional factors and clumsy PR made the defense suck. Instead of doing that, Bacon just skates over all of the most essential problems with the defense. It's as though Bacon did not want to address the problems with the defense at all, which only detracts from his credibility. Rodriguez made a lot of mistakes as coach -- and not only PR mistakes. But without any analysis of Rodriguez's obvious shortcomings, Bacon can't really prove what he wants to prove -- that Rodriguez would have succeeded if Lloyd Carr and the former players had behaved decently, if Michael Rosenberg did not have an ax to grind, and if Bill Martin were better at his job.
Bacon's approach has the additional defect of making Rodriguez look ineffectual, as you pointed out. Bacon portrays him as a pawn, robbing him of most (or all) of his agency. If I were Rodriguez, this is what would most irritate me about the book.
[EDIT -- You are also right to point out that Bacon only had so many pages to work with. But there's a lot of fat in the book. Did he really need to quote so many pre-game speeches at such length? Did he really need to include the functional equivalent of an AP game story for virtually every game? Did he really need that long first chapter on the history of college football? (Moreover, as someone who wrote a dissertation on the history of higher education in the US at the turn of the 20th century, I can tell you that Bacon's history is grossly distorted by an apparent desire to prove that all good things in college football began in Ann Arbor.) One can't blame page limits for Bacon's failure to address important issues in the book.]
Maybe Bacon's book "succeeded" in a commercial sense. But the sales figures alone don't prove that his chosen narrative was the right one. Many people bought this book because it dishes dirt, because it has behind-the-scenes information that is exciting to read. You can enjoy this book on a superficial level and put it down feeling like something big was missing. And readers who don't follow Michigan closely can accept Bacon's analysis because they probably don't know much about Michigan football between 2008-10, besides the team's won-loss record and the Free Press scandal. They don't know about Rodriguez comandeering the defensive strategy decisions, year after year. They don't know about Shafer and Robinson. They don't even have questions to ask about these things.
Deeply flawed books often sell. This is a deeply flawed book. And the flaws begin with the narrative that Bacon chose, which is not well supported by Bacon's own evidence and which just does not correspond some of the most important events of Rodriguez's time as coach.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||Too late||
The Lions already are known as a dirty team. Suh's stunt today will make that reputation almost impossible to shake.
|3 years 26 weeks ago||That's absurd||
Belichick would be the DC, just like he was under Parcells for Giants and the Patriots.
Try to be more realistic next time.