- Member for
- 4 years 24 weeks
|16 weeks 3 days ago||Uninspriring Play||
And what is your reaction to the defense lacking inspiration? Doesn't that bother you? What consequences should be metted out by Hoke for that lack of urgency?
|2 years 21 weeks ago||"Worst Nightmare" a little over the top||
Recall the bowl game he lost, where our offense was virtually unstoppable. And that was Mike Debord's offense. Plus, don't we have his DC from that 2006 NC team? He probably knows a thing or two about the offenses he'll field. I respect Meyer, but Jim Tressel staying at Ohio was really our worst nightmare.
|2 years 27 weeks ago||Yes, that was good counter to the blitz||
I would have liked to have seen more of those responses to what MSU was doing.
|2 years 35 weeks ago||If Martin was a "booster", why isn't Sarniak?||
Specifically, within the definition of a representative of schools athletic interests (i.e., a "booster"), what distinguishes Sarniak from Martin (especially taking into account the 4th and sixth bullets below)?
• You have participated or are a member of an agency or organization promoting the school's athletics programs.
|2 years 43 weeks ago||Anyone know the status of the AP's legal||
challenge to OSU's failure to release the requested documents?
|2 years 43 weeks ago||Not a Booster????||
His claim that Talbott is not a booster is absurd. Following is the relevant NCAA Bylaw that defines "a representative of the institution's athletics interests" (i.e., a booster)
13.02.14 Representative of Athletics Interests. A “representative of the institution’s athletics interests” is an individual, independent agency, corporate entity (e.g., apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization who is known (or who should have been known) by a member of the institution’s executive or athletics administration to:
(a) Have participated in or to be a member of an agency or organization promoting the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program;
(b) Have made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that institution;
(c) Be assisting or to have been requested (by the athletics department staff) to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes;
(d) Be assisting or to have assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student-athletes or their families; or
(e) Have been involved otherwise in promoting the institution’s athletics program.
13.02.14.1 Duration of Status. Once an individual, independent agency, corporate entity or other organization is identified as such a representative, the person, independent agency, corporate entity or other organization retains that identity indefinitely.
Don't see how he doesn't get squeezed in to (e). Bottom line, if Ed Martin was a booster, Dennis Talbott is a booster.
|2 years 44 weeks ago||Probably started feeling unsettled in March||
Guessing that he signed on February 2, a full month before the disastrous March 8 press conference. Things probably started to feel "unstable" then. Tressel resigned two months after that.
|2 years 44 weeks ago||? for the OP||
Were those Brandon's exact words?
|2 years 45 weeks ago||Not a lawyer, but I work in||
Not a lawyer, but I work in tax. Therefore, I have a lot of legal colleagues. I recall a saying that one imparted on me that went: say it, forget it; write it, regret it. Cicero should have had NO expectation of confidentiality when he put his message in an e-mail. It sucks for him that the consequences of his choice may be catastrophic, but his eyes were wide open when he made that choice.
As for Tressel, I agree that he has put in a very awkward position that was not invited, certainly one that really had lots of potential negative outcomes for the parties involved. But that's why he (was) paid the big bucks. His employer valued his judgment and expected that good judgments would be made in his employer's best interests if he was ever put in a pickle. Sometimes people in power have to make decisions that produce negative consequences to others. Again, his eyes were wide open when he made his choice. If you can't stand the heat, ...............
IMO, at the end of the day, both made choices that conflicted with their primary responsibilities. The pressure and consequences are heavy indeed. However, that's because the legal system needs lawyers that look out for their clients above all and coaches that look out for their institutions above all.
|2 years 45 weeks ago||Should be an easy case to prove||
I just don't know if the dollars involved will get anyone excited about pursuing an investigation. There are bigger tax cheats out there to occupy their time.
|2 years 46 weeks ago||Maybe Spielman's Views Were Formed by Michigan||
Perhaps his comments around senior accountability and responsibility were formed by his encounters with Michigan. Specifically, in his sophomore year (1985), Michigan played OSU without Mike Gillette, instead going with backup place kicker Pat Moons. This was because Gillette was suspended for the game. His suspension came about because the senior captains went to the all the bars on the Thursday before the game to make sure no one was partying. Upon finding him, they went to Bo and asked that he be suspended from the game. Moons was two for three on field goals and made all his extra points. Michigan 27-17.
|2 years 46 weeks ago||Big Deal||
A Buckeye has high personal regard for another Buckeye. What was that bible passage: "Even sinners love those who love them".
(I probably violated a board rule by interjecting religion into my comments. Sorry.)
|3 years 6 weeks ago||Let's Win the B1G tournament||
and get a higher seed. I'm sure they're feeling it. And they can do it!
|3 years 10 weeks ago||I was specifically referring to the defense||
What gives you confidence that that unit wouldn't continue to be awful under RR/GERG's leadership?
|3 years 10 weeks ago||Just to be clear ....||
You believe what Rich Rodriguez did at Michigan was impressive? That was the thought uppermost in your mind as you watched the last three games of the year?
I won't take issue with your review of the past and conclude that 3<5<7. However, Brandon had to make a judgment around the future. His judgment was that the number for the foreseeable future wasn't going to be much better (or any better) than 7. For various reasons, he felt a plateau had been reached and was not confident of reraching a championship level. While my crystal ball isn't any better than his or yours, I happen to agree with his assessment.
Seriously, you really believed better days were ahead for that defense, one that was led by Greg Robinson? You ascribe no credibility to the comments from the national media around the talent level being recruited?
|3 years 16 weeks ago||Casteel?||
I realize this is off the subject of the thread, but I was struck by your comment around Casteel as DC. Do you truly see that as a realistic possibility? Rich has asked him (and been turned down) twice. Help me understand how current circumstances make it more favorable for the third time being a charm.
|3 years 19 weeks ago||I think we're all looking at||
I think we're all looking at the same glass, which is limited to publicly available information like wins and losses and hard statistics. You perceive it to be at least "half full". Many are justified to pereceive it as half empty.
My issue is that the guys with more information than us, and that are responsible for maintaining the Michigan brand, are projecting anything but confidence in the future. Dave Brandon certainly isn't confident enough to hitch his wagon to Rodriguez, which is why we're in this unsettled situation. I'm mindful that he is at practice, watches film, talks to current and former players (which he is one himself) and gets input from other key stakeholders. Stuff that you and I are not privy to. If he ain't confident about the future, then why should we be?
Regarding the maintenance and enhancement of the Michigan brand (something that Brandon puts at the center of his mission), I think RR showed a collosal lack of judgment with his little stunt at the Bust. Do you really think he helped the stature of the Michigan brand that night?
|3 years 19 weeks ago||Help Me Understand||
If that's the case, then help me understand how Brandon's unwillingness to publicly endorse RR provides a benefit to RR and supports his efforts as head coach? What is his incentive to make the job (and life) of a valued employee so much more challenging?
Do you think RR feels as reassured by the timeline as you do?
|3 years 20 weeks ago||Absolutely Agree||
with the Shotgun Wedding metaphor.
I mean, if the idea behind the hire was to "drag Michigan football into the 21st century", why did Martin offer Schiano (and possibly Ferentz) beforehand? It doesn't compute.
|3 years 20 weeks ago||Not Entirely Absurd||
I agree that his track record made him attractive to Michigan. However, I think our decision to offer and his decision to accept had more emotion than reason. Rodriguez wasn't even on our radar until he had his falling out with West Virginia (we had offered Schiano beforehand). He was wounded by West Virginia not accepting his demands. I certainly think Martin was anxious (maybe desparate) for a good outcome given the circus that was happening around him. So everything came together in Toldeo over the weekend.
Hindsight being 20-20, perhaps both parties are wishing they had slowed down and really thought about the transition process before pulling the trigger. In that context, Brandon's deliberate process seems entirely reasonable.
|3 years 20 weeks ago||Do you really think those||
Do you really think those data points have escaped DB and that he’ll all of a sudden have an epiphany that we’re loaded with underclassmen? He knows that. And after 8 months on the job, he knows a lot of other things about RR and has made informed judgments about where this program is headed. I don’t see how anyone can look at his public statements and actions and not conclude that, at the very least, he has serious misgivings about allowing RR to continue his stewardship of the Michigan football program. I don’t see how you can conclude at this point that he “will” be back.
|3 years 20 weeks ago||Strike 3????||
Seriously? You think RR looks at all of Brandon's public statements over the last 48 hours and confidently concludes (as you do) that he'll be roaming the sidelines next year? I'd be stunned if he's feeling reassured about his job status, especially after reading what Brandon said to the Detroit News earlier this afternoon.
I recommend that you go back and read Brian's post on his assessment if the situation. There are no done deals at this point and Brandon is trying to be as flexible as possible. He's certainly hedging his bets. But he's not hedging against a bad bowl outcome; he's hedging against not landing Plan A (Harbaugh).
|3 years 21 weeks ago||I can't embrace the view that||
I can't embrace the view that the players are only going to get better. Getting older and seeing the field don't necessarily translate into playmaking, and your mention of Ezeh as someone who never got better "through no fault of his own" is a perfect example of that. He's an upperclassman with loads of experience who is not an effective contributor. If someone never became an effective contributor through no fault of his own it's either because (1) he didn't possess the required skill set or (2) he wasn't adequately coached. You know where Brian and the other moderators stand with respect to the coaching acumen of our defensive staff. If the staff stays intact, and runs the same scheme, I don't think you can take it for granted that our defensive underclassmen will be effective playmakers when they become upperclassmen.
You also take it as a given that these talented underclassmen will still be at Michigan when they are upperclassmen. Given that significant attrition is occurring with Rich Rod's recruits three years into the regime, I'm not comfortable believing it will suddenly stop.
Finally, you'll get some pushback around your assertion that we're "loaded" with talented underclassmen. I'm not ready to dismiss out of hand the comments from Spielman, Blackledge and other seasoned football analysts (and former players) regarding the drop off in defensive talent at Michigan relative to the past.
In summary, the defense needs much more than the passage of time to get better.
|3 years 21 weeks ago||How confident are you that||
How confident are you that we'll win 9 or 10 games next year given the state of our defense?
|3 years 22 weeks ago||I'm all ears||
I'd love to hear an objective assessment about the very positive upward trajectory of the defense. Does it assume that the offense will be so unstoppable as to protect the defense by keeping it on the sidelines? Does it assume that the passage of time is the only thing needed to make our 18 year old freshmen into effective 20/21 year old upperclassmen? Does it assume GERG, Gibson, et al will coach them all into a high functioning unit? If, on the other hand, you advocate for change among the defensive staff, does your assessment assume that the third time is the charm for Rich Rod hiring defensive coordinators and that the players will experience a seamless transition to the third DC in four years?
You recognize that our defense is in a bad place. I'm not clear, however, why you seem so confident that it will get to a good place. I respectfully disagree with your "very upward trajectory" assessment. The fact that we're able to earn hard fought wins against UMass, Indiana, Illinois and Purdue and can get lots of yards and points against good teams after falling behind by three scores just doesn't feel "very upward" to me.
|3 years 22 weeks ago||We're all ears||
Fine, balance us out. Let's hear some of those good things that have occurred during RichRod's tenure. What specifically happened during the 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons (and off the field as well) that have enhanced the stature of college football's winningest program?
|3 years 22 weeks ago||Misinterpretation?||
Not sure where you're going with this. Are you saying that I should conclude from those comments that Brandon has made up his mind to bring RR back next year? I was responding to someone who was absolutely convinced that Brandon won't let Rodriguez go. What does that quote do to support the assertion that RichRod isn't getting fired? If Brandon has already made up his mind, why doest he say "Rich is the coach in 2011"? He won't say that because he hasn't made up his mind.
Are you saying that how we performed today, and how we perform next week, is not at all relevant to Brandon's decision because "we're just so young"? If that's really the case, then why doesn't Brandon publicly say that RR is coming back?
|3 years 22 weeks ago||Rather Cavalier Comment||
I don't know how you can be so confident in your assertion considering that he hasn't exactly received ringing public endorsements from Dave Brandon and Mary Sue Coleman. Coleman clearly stated that it's Brandon's call and Brandon's statements strongly indicate that he is undecided on whether to bring RR back in 2011. He has also publicly stated that our performance in these last two games will be very important in his decision. You honestly think that being uncompetitive against Wisconsin and OSU will not impact Brandon's decision?
|3 years 27 weeks ago||I fear we are like Notre Dame by not pulling the trigger||
I think we risk being like Notre Dame for the opposite reason. They should have fired Weis after 2007 but they let their fans stay another two years in football purgatory while they hoped for the promise of an offensive "genius" to bear fruit.
If Michigan "improves" to 6-6, 7-5 because they now have the ability to beat Illinois and Purdue, but is uncompetitive in a seventh consecutive loss to Ohio State, then I've seen enough. In that case, I hope we're not like Notre Dame.