First, I do not care about the punishments handed down to the Wisconsin coaches, players, etc. I'm concerned with Michigan as a graduate and fan. That being said, I also am a head coach of a collegiate program, and have worked various high school and collegiate levels. I was a former collegiate athlete as well. So for what it's worth:

1) The five game suspension exceeds the Big Ten maximum penalty, which tells you how Michigan administration feels about this action, and they have serious issues with it. 

2) Prior to reinstatement, all parties will meet to make a final decision regarding participation in the Big Ten tournament and any post season participation. This means that the option remains that this suspension goes longer. It gives Michigan wiggle room to make a strong statement now, and build a case for a longer suspension should anything else come to light, or if over the course of the remaining five games, Michigan decides that moving on from Howard might be useful. 

3) Manuel took a page right out of the Canham notebook - don't make a one day story a two day story. The immediate action, as others have stated, draws it to a quick close - unlike David Brandon's handling of the Shane Morris concussion situation. This looks good outwardly and quiets the storm. 

4) The decisions give Michigan time to further evaluate both the situation and Howard, a five game trial period without him, and time to decide and gather what it needs to fire with cause, should they go that route, or even build a case to dismiss Howard without cause. If the team continues poor play, or even sinks worse, you can build a case that Howard's actions doomed the season, and thus his dismissal would be justified from a performance standpoint. 

This is not Howard's first demonstration of lack of self-control. As a coach, we know gone are the days of Bob Knight, Lou Piniella, John Chaney, or countless others acting out of control and it being justified. With constant exposure, everything easily documented, coaches are expected to control themselves and set the tone for their program. We are also supposed to protect the brand. 

Every coach knows that they are to conduct themselves in a manner in public and private with the expectation that they are being recorded. I know as a coach that at any moment during a practice, someone might have their phone ready, or is already recording, and it's very easy to distribute that to large numbers of people and go viral. Juwan Howard knows this, Urban Meyer should have known this, and countless others who have lost jobs over recorded conversations, etc. It's hard to justify these actions. It's hard to explain to parents, recruits, and even students applying to the university, how a coach can be retained when his actions ultimately precipitated players getting into a fight. So much for player safety. 

We expect athletes to conduct themselves with poise during a game. We get mad when a student-athlete makes a dumb penalty for lack of control. We teach student-athletes to think through situations during and outside of practices so they'll be prepared for a game. As coaches we need to do the same as well. How would we handle x, y, and z situation. Howard acted impulsively and could have defused the situation at multiple points. He didn't need to make his comments, he could done a quick handshake, he could have stopped and listened to Gard, he even could have said this wasn't a good time to talk about it and moved on. And when things started to go sideways, he could have regained control and walked away with his team. But he didn't, and he should have learned from prior experiences. 

If these are actually the first steps for Michigan to move forward from Howard, I would support it. I honestly think it should be. We live in a different era, and every coach is going to use this against Howard in some way or another. Do you want your son playing for a coach who has shown that he cannot control his temper and it costs him for coaching games? Do you want a coach that helps cause a post-game fight? When will it happen again? Will he recruit you, only to have another meltdown causing Michigan to fire him, the coach that recruited and signed you? It doesn't take losing that many recruits to set a program back.  

Their legacy is definitely mixed now. Regarding the university and settlements - is the University actively fighting it, or are they working to resolve claims and do so prudently and legally? It would seem as if that would take time, since there are so many victims and over so many years. As horrific as the abuse was, and as serious as the effects can be, there are logical, rational limits to damages, even if the University was utterly negligent. I am not involved in those types of negotiations, it's not my line of work, so I am curious about how long settlements usually take, and what all is involved in the process. 

Their legacy is definitely mixed now. Regarding the university and settlements - is the University actively fighting it, or are they working to resolve claims and do so prudently and legally? It would seem as if that would take time, since there are so many victims and over so many years. As horrific as the abuse was, and as serious as the effects can be, there are logical, rational limits to damages, even if the University was utterly negligent. I am not involved in those types of negotiations, it's not my line of work, so I am curious about how long settlements usually take, and what all is involved in the process. 

Context and culture affect how one perceives and responds to a situation. That which you're not familiar with or cannot conceive of, you have a hard time understanding. Add to that, if indeed in Schembechler's experience, some of the actions Dr. Anderson undertook were consistent with physicals that he's received earlier, what would bring him to alarm? 

Has anyone reported that they told Bo that Dr. Anderson masterbated in their presence or ejaculated in their presence? Sorry to be so explicit, but those are clearly not related to any medical exam. But some of the other actions, could be misconstrued, especially if you're not familiar with the potential for sexual assault during a medical examination. 

And let's just consider that for a moment as well. Going back to Larry Nassar and his treatment of gymnasts - remember, parents were often PRESENT for his examinations, including ones where he sexually abused the gymnasts. Are we to believe that the parents were all just a bunch of depraved, sexual abuse enablers? Or are sick men like Nassar and Anderson very well adapt at making their actions look acceptable to those who might not be aware or are naive to the situation. 

If you work with people from pre-school up to college, we do many trainings regarding sexual assault, physical and mental abuse, etc, what to look for, and how to report it. There are ever increasingly more stringent procedures for reporting. These are all good things. But why do they exist - because in the PAST, and often still in the present, people aren't sure what to look for, and when and how to report things. These very things we take for granted, to know who to report to, when to report, and what to look for, all of those trainings, were not done in the past. In fact, its quite probable Bo never participated in any of those trainings in his life. It's probable most reporting protocols didn't even exist back then, or if they did, few were structured. I mean, I am sure that even the medical protocols that we take for granted regarding a variety of injuries did not exist for much of Bo's coaching career. 

About four years ago, I had a student who started to tell me about a sexual encounter they were "concerned" about. Despite all the trainings I had attended, there was still ambiguity regarding how and to whom I should report it, if at all. An hour later I was reading a story about Larry Nassar and starting thinking about how often no one reported something, and resolved to report it even though I wasn't sure if it was something to report based on our trainings. Ultimately I'm glad I did it, and it was something that should have been reported. But I can tell you, I have professional peers who would tear down Schembechler's statue in a heartbeat but when faced with similar situations, have failed to follow appropriate protocol for reporting and ignored red flags. 

So yeah, I'm not convinced that Schembechler really knew what was going on. I'm not convinced anyone really was. I do know jokes about Dr. Anderson and his rectal exams were made my freshman year at Michigan while awaiting my physical. But I'd heard these types of jokes growing up about any physical, or I just thought they were upperclassmen messing with us freshmen. Fortunately, it was an uneventful, standard physical examination. But if it wasn't ... who would I report it to. Would they know what to do? Would they even be able to fully understand what I was alleging what happened (doubtful)? Was their a reporting procedure/protocol in place? Doubtful. 

Sometimes things have happened in the past, and we want to hold people accountable for knowledge, standards, procedures, values, and sensitivities that exist today, but weren't the same, or as well developed back then. And that's dangerous. And sometimes, even worse, we just want to hold one famous, strong person accountable. We want to believe that if Bo wanted to stop it, he had the power to do so. But the reality is, with as many allegations against Dr. Anderson have been made, many others failed at the University as well, and did so for a long time. Some of those who failed cannot tell their story because they are no longer with us. Others are probably unwilling to tell their story because arrogantly too many self-righteous individuals would never listen to them with an ounce of compassion. Would you even be willing to accept that their defense of their actions might not only be genuine and sincere, but given the time, culture, knowledge, and procedures of the time, be justifiable? I highly doubt many of those on this message board would. God help many of you when your actions are judged not in light of the standards when you lived, but based on the ever changing (and sometimes whimsical) standards of the evolving human race. 

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about how athletic departments and college athletics in general work in this post. I could be wrong, but being an insider, so to speak, I think that some of the takeaways are fantasy at best. 

Lets focus on the NIL rights. There is not an unlimited amount of marketing dollars available for individual collegiate athletes, especially when the school can (and will) restrict use of their branding. In addition, lets consider how many individual college athletes are household names across the nation. Not just locally, or not just for a few months out of the year. But year round, household names that will drive revenue for companies looking for athletes to endorse their products? And to do so at a level competitive with professional athletes? Very few if any. 

Student-athletes being able to sign with agents is huge. But how many power agents, those who will bring in the "millions of dollars in endorsement deals", are going to find collegiate student-athletes that will provide an immediate payoff. Again, very few if any (see above). But, they might try to lock them up earlier in their lives. Of course, again, those who will have the ability to draw big endorsement deals will only be interested in a small group of athletes, exclusively football and men's basketball. All other athletes won't be in any consideration, because their stature won't compare. Locking these athletes up early in college (which they won't) will occur only to limit the student-athletes later earning potential (younger - less understanding of what their value is worth). Maybe this is three to five dozen athletes across two sports who are viewed as can't fail athletes, and here is the key - at the next level. Even then, how much marketability outside of their local markets do they have. Sure, every once in a while there is a super marketable college athlete - maybe a Zion Williamson, or a Trevor Lawrence, but that's about it. Nike, Adidas, major businesses aren't going to invest in these potential projects when they can invest in people already with strong national recognition and interest. 

So what does this all mean. Very few if any student-athletes are going to get any serious paydays from this. Controlling NIL is nice when you want to do a charity calendar and don't want to have to sit out a few games. But it isn't much of a cash cow for student-athletes. What it looks more like is this - the top two or three star players on the campus (again - lets be realistic - football and men's basketball) might get an endorsement deal with the local car dealership, or some other business, restaurant or bar. Since they can't represent their school's brand, they have to be recognizable to the public beyond the university ... see why this is so limiting. This will be a positive to some of these businesses, because they can sign a few limited athletes for a few thousand here or there, much less than they'd contribute to the university to be able to use player likeness in their ads. So again, a few student-athletes will have a few thousand dollars more in their pocket, while the rest see no positive gain. Get out of your mind these huge contracts, local/regional businesses know they can exploit these individual athletes well. And even some of the group deals will still be cheaper than paying money to State U for using their brand. 

Now lets look at the impact on the athletic department. In the past, local sponsors shelled out huge amounts of money for the right to use the university's likeness. Well, now that I signed Cade McNamara for a few grand, why would I pay many times more to Michigan so I can use game footage or pictures of him in a uniform in action for my promotional material. I wouldn't. Essentially, businesses can get what they want (star athlete promoting them), at a much cheaper price. The university drives up the licensing rights because well ... they have at minimum 14 teams to fund to stay at the D1 level. That's a lot of money. Now, that money starts drying up, and there goes the rest of the athletic department. Unless the NCAA moves to reduce the minimum number of sponsored athletic teams (this has nothing to do with actual funding teams ... unless they're women's team - Title IX), that could take money away from the actual "revenue sports". So now, Cade is making extra cash, while his teammates might see a reduction in what they actually get because endorsement money to the athletic department is slashed. 

But wait, that's not all. The fullness of the proposal basically creates revenue sharing across the FBS programs. Read it carefully. First, do all 130 FBS actually generate revenue? Probably not. Even if they do, how many of them use that money to fund the rest of their other 12 athletic teams (assuming men's basketball is self-sufficient)? Most. But the proposal only has cost of scholarships being removed for revenue consideration. Some schools don't even account for scholarship costs the same (some schools athletic departments pay for only the instate component, while most pay the full scholarship cost). Suffice to say, the 65 or so Power 5 schools will heavily subsidize this payment to players. Not only will it hurt funding at Group of 5 schools, but will also mean for a loss at Power 5 schools. So why would P5 schools agree to this. They won't, and they'll finally tell the NCAA to stick it, and will go out on their own. And they'll make their own rules that Senate Democrats won't like. But what about the players? This proposal does nothing to deal with the amateur status of athletes, or them cashing in. Why? Under this proposal, the third string quarterback at FBS Independent New Mexico State would get as much at Alabama Heisman trophy candidate quarterback Mac Jones.  Or Devonta Smith. I'm sure they'll be completely content with that arrangement. But hey, the local TCBY might offer a few thousand for Jones and Smith to toss the football around while promoting their TWO locations. 

Finally, lifetime scholarships. Right now, the P5 conferences provide guaranteed athletic scholarships to their student-athletes. That means that some athletes can take complete advantage of it, not work hard, and guess what, you can't take away the scholarship because they aren't performing. But what is an athletic scholarship. It is an investment in a student-athlete by an athletic department and coaching staff that they'll get athletic results, while paying for part or the whole of the student-athletes academic endeavors. You invest this much time in athletics, and we'll compensate you for your lost time doing other things college students do. Sound like a job. And the more we provide additional compensation for NIL and additional income for revenue sports, the more they become employees. You'd like think student-athletes would be faithful actors in this athletic scholarship situation, and most are. But as with any endeavor, some are not. Students lose academic scholarships with regularity, because they don't meet certain standards (some of which are very hard to achieve). But we don't protect them. But student-athletes, they need that protection. Then they are not employees and don't need the extra compensation. But if they do receive that as a benefit of their athletic performance, how are they not employees? 

The key take away is that for only a handful of athletes will this even bring in the potential of millions of dollars they aren't currently receiving. For maybe three to five dozen, extra thousands of dollars via small promotional deals, and then whatever comes to college football and men's basketball from revenue sharing - which will be small. Athletic departments apart of FBS P5 will crumble under the deals, and the P5 will leave the NCAA, creating chaos, and probably diminishing the cash cow that is March Madness (no Cinderella stories now). 

 

A few have already mentioned quarantine guidelines in Illinois. THIS is the main reason why the Big 10 and Pac 12, and other conferences have had to shut down. Different states have different travel restrictions, and they're not making exceptions. Now, does that not mean you can't get around them? Sure, as individuals, we can probably do that, especially if we don't have government jobs (even then we probably could). But imagine a team from state A travel into state B were state B has a travel restriction. Everyone knows that the team from state A shouldn't be playing a game against the team from state B for 14 days ... but there they for possibly fans, or everyone on TV to see. 

To give you an example of how strict these things are, at least in athletics, I work at a D1 school as a coach (not football). Student-athletes have arrived on campus from out of state. Many have gotten Covid-19 tests after 72 hours in the state. Regardless of results, they're still required to quarantine for 14 days. No practices, no admittance into athletic or academic facilities, no athletic physicals performed, nothing. They passed the test?!? Doesn't matter. 

This, even beyond potential litigation in the small chance that someone gets Covid-19 and has long term complications or misses an entire season, is the reason we can't have football. I don't know how the SEC and ACC or Big 12 plan on getting around it, unless they don't travel to states with restrictions. 

Oh, and we also can't have football because as soon as college kids are getting back on campus, they are going out to huge parties and putting themselves in the highest risk situations for getting Covid-19. 

I have absolutely no problem with a student athlete making the decision to leave school early to pursue a professional career, when their season is over. At that point, they have fulfilled their commitment to their team, and their scholarship ends. 

But I do think it is a signficant issue when these student athletes decide that a game on the schedule, that their teammates are playing in is not worth playing in as they get ready to prepare for the NFL draft. Notice, most of these players are healthy and are NOT citing risk of injury as a reason to not participate. That is because serious injuries that drop the draft status of players in a bowl game are very, very rare. Now, I know that some of you will immediately provide a few examples, and that will go along with the old phrase, "the exception that proves the rule". You remember a few exceptions, but forget the overwhelming number of student athletes who make it through the game without any serious injury and go on to get drafted. 

This is about early preparation for their NFL careers, or hopeful NFL careers. Unfortunately, their teammates, the guys who have blocked, caught passes, made tackles for, thrown balls to, whatever, will be out their competing without them. For many seniors, this will be their last game, EVER. So while for a limited few it is just a worthless game, for the majority, this matters. And that is a terrible way to be a teammate and friend. 

Even more important, THIS IS PART OF THE REASON WHY WE CANNOT WIN AGAINST SUPERIOR PROGRAMS. If you haven't competed at a high level, nor served as a head coach at any level, you won't get this. But at some points, players play for each other. They motivate each other. They sacrifice for each other. Individuals playing for individual goals don't win in team sports. That is reality. Look at the programs where players are are choosing to leave their teams prior to the bowl game. You don't see it with the playoff teams. You don't see it usually with playoff contenders, or consistent conference champions. If a player from one of those schools do happen to leave, it is more of the exception than the rule. For some reason, at Michigan, this program has a me first attitude. Players are more concerned about their draft status than representing their university, and more importantly, playing for their teammates, their friends, and maybe even their coaching staff who has helped developed and prepare them. 

An honest assessment needs to be done with the consistent winning programs in FBS, and those that are pretenders, which right now, Michigan is. We haven't won a conference title outright since 2003. We haven't played in a conference championship game yet. We haven't beaten Ohio State since 2011, and that was with Luke Fickel, and overmatched interim coach. Tressel and Meyer were 16-1 against us. The team, the team, the team means nothing to this program, and that might be a reflection of our current coaching staff, the athletes they choose to recruit, or both. But if a select few continue to leave their team early to prepare for themselves, then perhaps, when things get tough, throughout the spring, the summer, and during the fall, individuals look out for themselves, and that might be why Ohio State, Michigan State, and Notre Dame have held the advantage on us for a decade or longer.  

The invite to the Heisman is based on the votes received by the Heisman voters. Three is the minimum. Depending on how close the rest of those receiving votes are determines how many are invited. So yes, Reynolds could finish 4th, but if he was say, 500 votes behind 3rd place, then he isn't invited.

I kind of like this, because imagine being invited when you weren't even close to being 3rd place, but started wondering if you could win it, because after all, you were invited. 

Plus, not everyone gets an honor, a trophy, a participation ribbon, etc. 

That's actually quite false to say that kids go to JUCO's because they can't meet NCAA standards for eligibility. 

Again, this might apply to all sports, not just football, but JUCO"s are a great way for a kid to develop with some solid coaching and attention, learn how to grow up a bit, and maybe catch up by competing for a few years, when maybe they were a bit behind their peers in high school. 

In a number of sports, this is what college coaches are looking for. Kids that have proven they can a) handle college life, b) have continued to develop and compete, c) are able to step in right away and compete. This is a huge advantage over incoming freshmen who might not be able to do any of the three listed above.

As for KU and KSU, they have a very extensive JUCO system, much like Texas and California, so I'm not surprised that both KSU and KU use JUCO's like they do. Those kids coming out of Kansas schools get to compete with kids from around the country and get up to speed to be D1 athletes.

Sure, are their a lot of guys who need help to qualify - sure. Are some of them just kids that didn't mature as fast, and realizing they are in the middle of nowhere Kansas or wherever, they might start taking studies seriously, sure.

But lets not make widesweeping generalizations regarding kids in junior college. 

When have we fallen behind in track and field? US sprinters and field event athletes can and still compete with the best in the world, and usually win (okay, with the exception of one Usain Bolt). And in the longer races, American runners, both male and female have become competitive and are actually beating Kenyan and Ethiopian runners, FWIW. 

But there is a strong point to be made about individual sports needing Americans to win for Americans to care.

Yes, college football is a different experience than professional sports, but college football is still about entertainment. At Michigan, it has been and still is entertainment that is based on ritual and tradition. But ritual and tradition are losing pull in our culture rapidly. We have an entire generation that has been raised on electronic devices and quick, rapid forms of entertainment. 

The Michigan experience is amazing. For us who grew up in a simpler time. We go to the game, we tailgate, we walk to the stadium, we watch the game, and we go home. But that could be anywhere from a 4 to 8 hour ordeal depending on traffic, tailgating, etc. For kids who entered college in the last decade, to those who will continue to enter, they will rapidly become a significant portion of the fan base. They are very commercialized and see this as the norm. They need quick entertainment. 

I remember when people complained about putting video scoreboards in Michigan stadium because it might take away from the game experience. In fact, I found myself sometimes lulled in my attention knowing that there would be a video replay if I missed something. 

I guess my point is this, we are seeing a shift in how the public and even those who went to Michigan view the experience. I think Lochmann understands the reality of college athletics all to well, that it is just one of many experiences people can have on a Saturday afternoon, and that we, as Michigan fans, are forgetting that the world is evolving around us. At some point, the great traditions that are in places like Michigan and Notre Dame will not be able to sustain an overly commercial, short attention spanned, consumer driven fan base that wants the same things whereever they go. 

It's not a question of if Michigan stadium will have advertising in the stadium, it's when, and how will it have. 

Someday, Tom Herman might prove to be a very, very successful head coach. He might even end up being a better success in the long-term than whoever Michigan hires soon, but right now, he's not the right man at Michigan.

In justifying the hiring of an assistant coach at a power 5 school, Brian tosses out a number of names to try to support the notion that we might not necessarily need an experienced head coach. The analysis is surface level at best, and doesn't reflect our situation at all. Michigan has struggled the past two hires, yet still has had one of the most electric players in college football (Denard) and has a BCS win in the midst of a mediocre stretch of football. Translation: we never became irrelevant. Michigan football is still big news, and if the wrong hire is made, we will sink further and really, really become irrelevant, not to mention continue futility at the hands of OSU. The new coach needs to be ready to handle the realm of being a head coach. In fact, it's one of the biggest knocks against Brady Hoke - that he wasn' head coach material at a major program, and this isn't a job of on the job training. The next coach needs to come in and win quickly, needs to be savy with the media, and needs to do things the right way. He can't come in and shred documents, screw up paperwork leading to an NCAA rules violation, or anything like that. He has to be pretty damn near flawless. It's just the way it is. 

When you look at the list that Brian provided that supposedly supports the idea that assistants with no head coaching experience can be successful it seems solid. But lets look at most of the supporting evidence to see that it isn't.

Bob Stoops: Bob Stoops had been a high level assistant coach under two legendary, highly successful coaches Bill Snyder (1989-1995) and Steve Spurrier (1996-1998) at programs that became high profile. Oh, he also was a GA and position coach under one Hayden Fry. That's an impressive group to learn from. In addition, he took over a storied program, Oklahoma -but one in a much different situation than Michigan is in now. Barry Switzer left after 1988 with the program beset on all sides by trouble. Oklahoma burned through three coaches in between, Gary Gibbs (44-23-2 - no higher than 3rd in a conference), Howard Schnellenberger (5-5-1) and John Blake (12-22 no higher than 4th in the B12 SOUTH). That's 11 seasons with no better than 4th in the conference. 11 years, and this after Switzer had gone 55-5-1 over the prior 5 years with 1 MNC and 3 top 5 finishes. So clearly, Oklahoma was desperate and beyond a cross roads. There crossroads were set. If Stoops failed, well, it was par for the course at this point. We've struggled, be we're not that bad ... 

Charlie Strong: Experience as a DL coach at Notre Dame in the 1990s, then worked as a DC under Steve Spurrier and Urban Meyer in the SEC (South Carolina and Florida). So he had significant experience in major programs (ND and UF) and worked for multiple high profile coaches. Then, he got head coaching experience at ... the 'Ville. That's right, Louisville, a Big East school. This wasn't a pressure cooker. The school was in the Big East and Kragthorpe hadn't been successful there ... but the resources and ability to dominate a post Miami/BC/Syracuse/VT Big East wasn't too hard. So he learned at a middle of the road Power 5 conference school. Winning immediately and facing huge scrutiny wasn't necessarily one of his challenges. Let's see how this plays out at Texas.

Jimbo Fisher: QB coach at Auburn (undefeated season to boot), OC at LSU under Saban and Miles, OC at FSU under Bowden. That's 4 major programs and 3 pretty successful coaches. High pressure situation to succeed at FSU, but he'd been there.  

Bielema: Had a very successful program at Wisconsin and was groomed for that job. He also was a DC under Hayden Fry at Iowa and Alvarez at Wisky ... so yeah, he had big time experience under two very, very successful coaches (and a bit under Ferentz). Not similar to our situation either during the hire. Keep big OL, a mobile QB and fast running backs and you'll win. 

Bill Synder: Groomed under Hayden Fry and walked into a situation where he had nothing to lose. If he lost big - well everyone did that at KSU. He milked JUCO's out of Kansas' very successful JUCO system, played cupcakes and as Oklahoma and Colorado weakened, he filled the void to contend with post Osborne Nebraska. But how would he have done in a pressure cooker instead of a no lose situation.

Richt: A decade of amazing success at Florida State, working with two Heisman winning QB's and a number of other high profile gunslingers. A few national titles, and walked into Georgia. Yeah, not the same pressure cooker situation, nor the need to win immediately with all the attention. 

Tom Herman: 3 years OC at Ohio State under Urban Meyer. Prior - no experience with other high profile coaches. No other power 5 schools. Pressure cooker at Michigan - about as high as you can get. 

If you don't see how he doesn't compare favorably to the other elite assistant coach to top Power 5 school hires, well, you just don't get it. He doesn't have the pedigree nor long term exposure to big time coaches and big time schools to make it worth the risk. Find me an assistant with exposure to multiple big time coaches at multiple major programs and then turn down the heat at Michigan and I might be interested in an assistant coach with no HC experience. 

If you have been paying attention, team can and so score on Alabama. It's called going deep on them. If your quarterback moves around and gets outside of the pocket and goes deep, the 'Bama secondary goes Derp .. Derp and gives up big plays. We experienced it a bit when we played them a few years ago, and nothing has changed. 

Watch the game against Missouri, while it was their only offense, going deep against Alabama showed their weakness. Now, you hit a couple of big plays, they make adjustments, and suddenly your solid running game starts to become more effective. 

I don't get the catagorization of Todd Graham as a job-hopping mercenary? 

He spent a year at Rice and went 7-6. This, a Rice program that, despite dropping from the SWC to the WAC, to CUSA, had averaged 4.7 wins/year under Ken Hatfield, had only 3 winning seasons in 12 years, and is the second smallest D1 school. So when the time came to move up, he did. Again, I look at the Gary Blackeney situation at BGSU. If you stay too long at a small school, not only do you end up losing your opportunity to move up, but you might see other schools catch up, and you get wacked.

He spent five seasons at Tulsa and did about all you could do there. Nothing wrong with that.

At Pitt- this is where the controversy starts and is highly blown out of proportion. The reality is he was hired late after Pitt had to part ways with Mike Haywood because Steve Pederson (yes the guy who fired Frank Solich and replaced him with Bill Callahan at Nebraska) had fired the Moustache even though Pitt tied for the Big East title and then didn't check out Haywood really well. So while Todd Graham might have wanted the job, I have a feeling when he got there, he realized what a sh!t show Pitt was. 

Also, lets keep in mind that prior to his departure, a number of his staff, which had been with RichRod at WVU and Michigan, left after the regular season end to go join him in Arizona. So, here he was at a shitshow school, with a baffoon of an AD (Pitt is around .500 since then) and his staff departing for arizona. He had ASU calling, they refused him the right to talk to ASU (douche move), and so he took matters into his own hands.

Yeah, the players were pissed, and he did text them, but sometimes you don't get a chance to meet with them in person. I believe St. Hoke also did this at SDSU, and I think we know he cares about his kids (so much so he didn't want Michigan to play SDSU that next fall). 

You can argue we have a well travelled coach that has had plenty of short stops along the way in John Belein, but no one seems to call him a mercenary. (again, I don't question his character at all). But I do think we look at Graham and forget that he a) wasn't Pitt's first choice, b) bailed Pitt out allowing them to have a big name hire to cover up for there poor firing of Wannsted and botched hiring of Haywood, and c) his staff left immediately to join RichRod. 

Just a thought. 

When I continue to see the love that Hoke's players had for him, the continual stories of how he helped mold them, remembering back to tough decisions like sitting Fitz for the entire Alabama game (and the comments he made to the media about the fact that someday these sons will be husbands and fathers ...), I really think we had something special in Brady Hoke that is so rare in college football, or any big-time athletics. 

I realize that it's important to win, but the job he did with making these men better ... amazing. Sometimes I wonder if his conduct and the way he cared about the university, and sought to do things the right way, if that maybe didn't merit another year, where you'd be more prone to fire someone who was about themselves, always complaining, and getting investigated for NCAA violations. 

Make no mistake, going to the football banquet had to have been very trying for Hoke. It's his dream job, it's a place he loves, and its only a week after they dismissed him. Few coaches would show up, definitely not his predecessor. 

I hope our next coach is an excellent coach, but an even better man. That his will to win is only exceeded by his will to be a father to young men who need one, and to help guide these men through a period of significant change in their lives. 

When he was on WDFN in the late morning hours (translation - when few were listening) he was quite hilarious. Not the best with his sports opinion, but entertaining, and yes, he did need someone to aggitate him or to aggitate himself. 

He used to play a game that required you to get 3 questions in row correct to win. Besides almost always throwing in questions about the Canadians, when running out of time to get a winner, would ask the callers for one ingredient of cheese toast (otherwise known as Grilled Cheese). To this day I'd laugh at how many callers would get this wrong ...

As for sports, meh, I wouldn't take much with his opinions. 

UCLA is in a beautiful location in Southern California. With proper recruiting, prestigue and the playing in the Rose Bowl, this school should easily be 9-10 wins a year and challenging USC for the Pac 12 lead. Compared to facilities in Tempe and Tucson, and heck, Tempe and Tucson, UCLA is much, much better.

Word out here in Pac 12 country is that Mora, as a competent coach should have won the Pac 12 south this year, but lost to schools he had no business losing to. Combined with the soft wins versus dreadful Colorado, and improving Cal (which you still shouldn't lose to), and it's no surprise that no one in the Pac 12 is hailing Mora as a great coach. The coaches in this conference who everyone thinks has done a great job are Graham, Rodriguez, and of course, everyone is always talking about Mike Riley doing more with less than everyone (lets see what he does at Nebraska).

I'm underwhelmed with Mora as a pro coach, his college track record is very thin, and is one of those candidates that makes me think, meh - should have given Hoke one more year. 

Patterson, Mullen, Richt, Pinkel, Briles, Fitzgerald, Cutcliffe, Johnson, and Whittingham, with all their warts and unlikelihood to come to Michigan would still be better than Mora. Maybe even the horror, Schiano too. 

All he needs to do is start each answer with, "Well ..."

I am beginning to believe that most of this board has forgotten the RichRod years. Now living in Arizona, let me explain one common theme of Rich Rodriguez. Anytime things went wrong for him in a game, he had that look on his face like he was about to wet himself. Go watch the Pitt-WVU game in 2007 when Pat White got hurt. The whole game he looked like, "What do I do, what do I do? Why is this happening to me ..." Which is what he constantly seemed to say during his years at Michigan (per JUB 3 and Out). 

The 2008 and 2009 teams were god awful and worse in many ways than this team. In 2009, when we lost, we got wacked, and weren't even in the games. Revisionist history sucks, and Angelina should know better. 

People are forgetting that Nebraska has flirted with parting ways from Pelini in the past. There were the tapes of his ripping the fan base, the consistent truculance toward the media, his temper tantrums on the sidelines, etc. 

All of the above are tolerated when you are winning, or the hope that you'll break through and win the big ones still exist. But by year 7, it was clear that Pelini was much like Solich - good enough get 9 - 10 wins a year, but not win a title and get blown out by the best competition. Of course, that was always the knock on Tom Osborne until the mid 1990s. 

Anyhow, there decision was made over the course of years, not just a few games or days. The Hoke decision isn't a simple no-brainer. How he's fired might even affect how attractive this job is to some of the former players who are candidates, as well as some of the up and comers from smaller schools who might think twice about how we depose of Brady Hoke. 

How is Wisconsin NOT a better job right now. 

1) Program stability: Wisconsin has had 3 coaches since 1990 and the last two have been to multiple Rose Bowls. Alvarez was considered one of the best in the country, and if it wasn't for Lloyd Carr, he'd probably have had more than just Rose Bowl wins (we owned him while everyone else in the B1G struggled against Barry). 

2) Consistency: Over those three coaches, Wisconsin has relied on a very stable formula of strong offensive line play, running backs who can follow blocks, and consistent defense. As long as their quarterback play was better than a dead stiff, they were a 9 to 10 win team and always in the hunt for a conference championship. Again, this is more than Michigan can say over the past decade.

3) Expectations vs. Reality: This is part of the quality of a job. Michigan fans have become delusional over what can be done. Tantilized by a football past and reality that no longer exists, we expect to run over the B1G every year like Bo did. But we don't have unlimited scholarships, the state and it's football talent is in decline, MSU has risen, as has Wisconsin, and Ohio State will almost always be good because they are the only show in a state that is football rich, even in a declining rust belt. Meanwhile, Wisconsin fans are a bit more realistic - which means an off year or two won't lead to everyone calling for your job, or laughing at you for clapping or not wearing a head set. 

4) Your athletic director is the football coach who built the damn program. Translation, yes, that's a lot to live up to, but he knows what it takes to make the football team successful. Other athletic directors can do a good job overall, but might not understand the specific support the coaching staff needs. Alvarez does, and seems to do it without interference. That's key! Meanwhile, Michigan continues to move through athletic directors with limited athletic experience, and eventually, the CEO as AD doesn't work, because they need to understand how athletics works internally. 

5) Madison is a great town, even in winter. It's not inferior to Wisconsin, and again, Wisconsin isn't a state in decline. I love Michigan, but Detroit has hit rock bottom. It might be approaching turn around status, but Wisconsin hasn't been hit like Michigan. Advantage Wisconsin.

When you start looking at it, the only advantage that Michigan provides over Wisconsin is alumni with deeper pockets and tradition, that anyone under 30 knows little about. Our last national title was 1997 - when I graduated from college. That was 17 years ago ... in today's world, that might as well have never occurred. 

Sorry, Gary Anderson, with no natural ties to Michigan would be making a lateral move into instabiltiy, whereas he has a prime program with stability and no reason to risk it. 

 

Okay, don't support Michigan football anymore. Fine. But the one question everyone keeps forgetting is this: Who is out there that would be a better hire than Hoke that you KNOW you can get.

This is the scenario Michigan fans are ignoring or are just delusional with. Look at most of the major college football hires over the last decade and ask - who got their big splash hire? Or how many had to settle. And how many big splash hires actually panned out?

USC has twice hired since Carrol left for the NFL. Hires: Kiffy-Cakes and Sark. Neither very impressive - but rather, lets go and hire a former Carrol assistant and hope it works out.

Texas fired Mack Brown and got ... Charlie Strong. This is one of the premiere jobs in all of sport, and no offense to Charlie Strong - not the big hire the fan base nor alumni wanted. Swing and wiff.

Miami - Well, they used to be good, but in their two hires since firing Coker - Randy Shannon and Al Golden - coaches who had ties to the U - but not a homerun hire. 

Oregon - I know the timing wasn't great, but they were essentially forced to hire within. This is basically a school where money has become no object and uniformz galore. Yet they hired an assistant on the staff. Swing and miss - they still can't get over the hump.

Penn State - James Franklin. That's it, the coach at Vanderbilt. Meh. 

Tennessee - Lane Kiffin and Butch Jones. The first all flash and no substance. The latter, meh. 

Notre Dame - Brian Kelly. So you essentially hired a former D2, MAC and Big East coach at minor schools. Not the big hitter they hoped for. 

The home run hires: OSU - Urban Myer. But this was as much fortuitous as it was anything else. Urbz gives up on Florida a year later or earlier, or Tressel survives one more year, or Fickle is even halfway competent and this never happens. Lucky. Urban was out of a job (how likely was that to happen) and Ohio State needed a coach. Besides, if things went differently at Penn State, it's not crazy to think he'd be there. 

Alabama - Saban. Lets keep in mind, they lucked into this too. Saban had turned them down, repeatedly. And in the meantime, who accepted the job - Rich Rodriguez. And then he pulled out, and that gave them one more shot at Saban. But prior to that, look at the struggle they had landing a big time coach. 

Arkansas - Landing Bielema was a bit of coup at the time. 3 straight rose bowl appearances. But it took how many years for him to just win his first SEC game. So much for the big splash.

UCLA - Jim Mora, Jr. - he was a pro retread. Yeah, nice, but not splashy or a huge name. 

Louisville - Petrino. Uh, who else was going to hire him out of WKU after the mess at Arkansas and the Atlanta Falcons. And the way he left the 'Ville the first time. 

The bottom line is this, Harbaugh probably isn't coming. Miles isn't coming. Stoops isn't coming. Neither is Mullen, nor Patterson (he's a Big 12 coach now - he has a seat at the big boys table), nor Briles (not while Texas is down), nor any other big names. So which mid major head coach is up to the challenge, and that you fans won't go all Hoke on? 

Hoke gets another year. Yeah, he might suck, but it provides a bit of a chance for some more stability in the program before a change. It allows a new AD to really get an idea of what are the main problems with Michigan football (like the university, a decaying population base and wealth base in the home state, and a challenge recruiting football players and top faculty to a crumbling location), and then make an intelligent hire. 

Another year of Hoke is not as bad as going for a home run hit, striking out badly, and then limping to a mid major coach who is as bad or worse than Hoke ... killing this program for another decade. 

Besides, even if Harbaugh came here, who is the say he'd stay more than 4 years, or that he wouldn't alienate everyone in four years (winning or not)?

I'm not surprised to see ignorant comments about non-revenue sports perpetuated on mgoblog, but that doesn't stop me from commenting on them either.

Non-revenue sports are a recruiting tool to the larger mission of the university, which is attracting the best possible students. By offering competitive varsity athletic opportunities, you and attract and retain some very bright, engaging and successful student-athletes who might have decided to go elsewhere for their undergraduate education. Competing at division 1 athletics, regardless of revenue-generating or non-revenue generating athletics better prepares you for balancing the complexities of post-graduation life, and helps improve connections and obtaining desirable jobs. 

Therefore, having successful non-revenue sports gives Michigan an advantage of recruiting the female athlete who has a 34 ACT, 4.5 weighted GPA, and is a standout cross-country/track and field athlete who wants to study civil engineering, over say, Northwestern, which barely offers a program, or Rose Hulman, in which her athletic career would essentially come to an end.  When she graduates, with an engineering degree, and starts working, her ties to the university will be stronger than many of the general population at Michigan because of her athletic experience - therefore, more likely to make donations and contributions to the University. 

 

The jersey's were okay. The striping on the numbers were a bit different, as were some of the other effects. The Blue pants were okay ... but here is my biggest concern,

Watching the game, I couldn't tell if that was Michigan out there, or the University of Toledo, or some other blue and yellow school. Lost in this whole uniform craze thing is the distinctive look of a school. 

We played Penn State. Penn State has had that classic, sharp, nothing changed about it look for decades. Why not just have us match up with them in a classic looking game. If you're playing a school that doesn't have the same tradition, then sure, maybe that is a game to trot out something new. But when you play a school that is steeped in a traditional look, or a traditional rival, why do you think you need some new uniform that ultimately detracts from the clear recognizable look of the team. 

Just a thought. 

If you would actually read my post, I made a number of observations based on my coaching experience and compared to my days as an athlete. I'm hardly an old man (mid 30s), so perhaps you can go re-read my comments.

I never advocated blindly following anyone, but there was a certain amount of respect athletes had for coaches. Did I ever question my coach, yes? Was there a right way to do it? Absolutely. I never upstaged my coach, a trainer or staff during practice. I knew I could talk to them after practice. I'm not sure that Barker did that at.

As for stereotyping, I'm in the classroom daily and on the practice field. This is what I see. And from fellow coaches, many from 30 and over, they've noticed much of the same things. You see, sometimes us "old men" actually have something called wisdom. It comes from experience. You see things. You can track trends. You notice how things change over time. Sure, we're succeptible to comparing things to the days of old (these student-athletes are very fortunate today and I wish I had much of what they had ...). I realize that many of them have it harder in some respects - much of my friends grew up in stable home environments, which many of these athletes don't have.

BTW - I've shared this view with one of my friends who has done multiple tours, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he'd agree with the generalization. You might want to consider what a generalization is, and why people use it, effectively. I didn't say everyone was like this, but when I read the comments by the athlete in question, I instantly begin to wonder what his motives were, and if he's correct.

Post Script - we see Jerry Kill's response. He wasn't being a jerk by not rewarding the kid a scholarship, there was a time limit. Oklahoma had a similar situation with a running back a few years ago, and consider the walk on wide receiver at Michigan State a few years back. I believe he initially started when John L was there, and bridged over to the Dantonio era. Can't remember the name right now, but lets not assume the coach is a jerk because most kids today have been told they are great since day 1.

Kids are much different these days, and it's mostly NOT good. 

There was something about the old days in terms of responses to an authority figure. One - in an age when sports medicine is so advanced, techniques for warmup and post-workout recovery is so high, yet athletes don't seem to want to put the time in doing it right. they're too damn worried about the latest video game, who's tweeting what, and the bs that goes with life these days. 

Two - injured athletes in general, don't approach rehab work the same way they do training. The best do, but most use it as an opportunity to slack. I've watched injured athletes skip rehab sessions, not fully stretch, ignore warnings, and even goof around and work the injured areas in non-workout activities, only to watch them complain about it later. I adopted a simple policy this year - if you skipped going to the trainers room before school for rehab (we have 3 certified AT's on campus), you're healthy enough to practice without restrictions. This generation thinks because they can google stuff that they are suddenly full of wisdom. Forget the fact that most of them don't actually do much research, but even when they do, that means they have information. They can't synthesize, analyze or evaluate worth anything and might be a generation dumber than any other in time. 

Three - everyone always says they work hard and are dedicated. Well, I started to hear that too much by athletes skipping rehab, skipping practices, eating poorly, etc. So I've put together a list of "What you'll need to do when you say, 'I want to get better'". This list is quite exhaustive, but it embodies the person who really means "I want to get better". That phrase is as trite and overused as "I love you". Okay, show me. I've adapted it to the classroom as well. Most athletes won't do half of what's on the list, so It's a good reminder of what they really need to do. 

Four - coddled. As a teacher/coach, these kids are the weakest and laziest I could imagine. They all think they are good because they are told that and they have the participation ribbons to show it. I had one of my senior athletes tell me in a written post-race evaluation that they were proud of their last performance because, even though they missed their PR by over 2 minutes, they fought hard on the course and attacked the tough parts, oh and finally beat a teammate that they never beat before in a race, but beat regularly in practice. Great, because there is nothing more that I want then you being happy with a horrible race performance and focusing on finishing ahead of teammates. 

I don't know Jerry Kill, and he might be an ass, but honestly, I know too many of these athletes today are spoiled, coddled, and their comments should be viewed with MASSIVE amounts of skepticism. My high school coach in one of my sports was a jerk. And yet I made sure that I ran for my teammates and myself, and I learned to deal with it. My parents supported me, but never offered to get involved. I confronted my jerk coach, and he listened, he made some changes, even though much of the damage was done, but we handled it like two adults.

Maybe that's the lesson here. Sack up, confront Coach Kill and deal with it. Great job quitting on your teammates. And then publicly crying about it during the season, not waiting until the season was over. Great way to rip your team apart.

Two words for a kid like that: Selfish d-bag.