i refuse to even consider this a possibility
- Member for
- 5 years 30 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|8 weeks 5 days ago||Scholarships, etc.||
You are already receiving health insurance, possibly 401k matching, training in your profession, and office supplies from your job. Why should they have to pay you on top of that? You seem to be making out alright.
|8 weeks 5 days ago||Why is any of this an issue?||
Why does it have to be "closely regulated"? Why shouldn't a player be allowed to accept gifts, and make decisions based off of that? You selected your job based on who offered you the most money, but god forbid a football player with marketable skills worth millions makes the same decision for the same reasons. And again, so what if they hire an agent? They are already making a decision in deciding what school to attend that will effect their future earnings to the tune of multiple millions of dollars, but if they are allowed to seek professional advice on that decision, clearly the world will end.
|8 weeks 5 days ago||Fair Market Value||
What if that player's fair market value, including all of the revenue he generates for his school, is well in excess of even the value of a scholarship? Plenty of private sector companies will pay for employee's tuition as a benefit, plus a salary (and health benefits! and maybe 401k matching!) on top of that, and I doubt you are bitching about it. You are just screaming to under-compensate the players relative to their fair market value because... reasons.
|8 weeks 5 days ago||Analogy||
You're off to a good start, but let's hone that analogy a bit.
Let's say that every car manufacturer in the world decided that they would ONLY compensate their engineers in the form of giving them a free car, and they all colluded to provide no salary whatsoever. And that these companies further colluded to fire any engineer who attempted to sell their free car, or allow others to drive it in exchange for money, or have someone else pay for gas or maintenance, or who accepted money from fans of the car brand, such as Ferrari racing fans. Further, those manufacturers set strict rules about where else those engineers could work in their off time (of which they had little, since they were working for the car manufacturers for 50+ hours per week), such that it was impossible for those engineers to provide for their families, even though they are performing a difficult task with an enormous level of skill.
There, now you have a more apt analogy.
|29 weeks 2 days ago||*cringe*||
That one just hurts.
|49 weeks 5 days ago||Juan Pujol Garcia||
The guy wanted to be a spy for the allies during WWII, and they turned him down. So, he decided to just spy on the Germans on his own. He called up the Nazi's, who told him to move to London to spy on the British - he instead moved to Lisbon, told the Germans that he was in England, and created a whole team of make-believe agents. He even submitted expense reports on their behalf. When the British figured this out, they moved him to England for real, and he kept up the charade - even killing off some of his totally made-up spies so that he could collect a widow's pension from the Germans. He remains the only person during the war decorated by both the Allies and the Nazis.
I'll just let some quotes from article speak for itself:
"Mad Jack was a British soldier who fought throughout the Second World War armed with a longbow, bagpipes, and a basket-hilted Scottish broadsword."
"As the ramps fell on the first landing craft, Churchill leapt forward from his position playing 'March of the Cameron Men' on his bagpipes, before throwing a grenade and running into battle in the bay."
"'If it wasn't for those damn Yanks, we could have kept the war going another 10 years.'"
|1 year 7 weeks ago||Married one||
I married an MSU grad. Sadly, she stopped me from giving our (now 8 week old) daughter the middle name "Harbaugh."
Edit: An MSU grad from Columbus. We'll always have our mutual hate of OSU, thankfully.
|1 year 7 weeks ago||Lincoln Park||
You just described EVERY girl in Lincoln Park/Lakeview.
|1 year 26 weeks ago||Bullshit||
I'm sure those discussions just got into substantial detail about interest and terms of any contract. Sure. And he will never be caught despite blabbing it to randos who post on message boards.
If you have real evidence, put up or shut up. Making the statement you did (serious allegations sof NFL rule violations) requires more evidence than "reliable sources." Name your source, or put up any actual evidence. Or admit you are a lying liar who lies about thing to get attention.
|1 year 26 weeks ago||NOPE||
Through reliable sources Hackett believes that Jim's agent has had direct conversations with at least two NFL teams (Oakland being one) saying that Jim hadn't made up his mind afterall.
Is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Its simply not even possible to be true, per the anti-tamperimg rules discussion below. Teams are completely prohibited from any substantive discussions with JH, or with his agent. So, the odds that (1) they are breaking this rule blatantly, and (2) letting people know about it are nil. None. Zero.
To further that point, there is also no fucking possibility that JH's agent is actually that dumb either. They can maybe back-channel some points, but THERE WAS NOT AND CANNOT BE any direct discussions. And if those back-channel discussions get found out, both SF and whatever NFL team gets spurned will cry foul, loudly and publicly, as it is in their direct interest to do so.
Recall a year or two ago when AP spoke to Jerry Jones directly for maybe 2 min. The Vikings found out despite no intermediaries, staff, or agent involvement, and Jones was fined a substantial amount of money.
To sum up - OP is either a liar or just flat-out wrong about the fact that forms the entire premise of the rest of the post. Move along, nothing to see here.
|1 year 26 weeks ago||Tampering Rules||
Correct - no other team is even permitted to REQUEST permission to talk to Jim (or his agent) until his season is 100% completely over. Any assertion that Jim's agent has actively spoken to other NFL organizations is either patently false, or impermissible tampering.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Gruden||
This is the same guy who said that Oakland offered "double" the reported $8M/yr to Harbaugh, then clarified that he meant $100M/10 yrs, thus $10M a year. Thus, a 25% increase, FAR from "double." Ignoring everything else, how can anyone trust a guy so bad at math?
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Timing||
You are correct. I was limiting this to prior to the NFL season ending, before any other team can talk to him. If he could negotiate with Oakland himself, that completely changes it.
Also, I just remembered that he has a no-trade clause. So he likely wouldn't accept a trade of his 1 year deal to a team that he didn't want to negotiate a new deal with anyway.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Sign and Trade||
[EDIT: Looked at history of past coach trades]
In prior trades for coaches, the team that the coach is leaving simply agreed to release a coach from his contract in exchange for draft picks, then negotiated a new deal with that coach. I don't know enough about this - would that just declare open season on Harbaugh?
Indeed, it REALLY puts the pressure on NFL teams, for the following reason:
1. JH has an 1-year contract with San Francisco. So, in order for SF to actually get anything in return, either a team must trade for the value of that 1 year deal, or SF must sign him to a longer deal prior to trading.
2. What team is going to pony up for one year, knowing that JH can simply walk away before the ink is even dry? Trade value to SF - nil.
3. SF can attempt to sign him to a multi-year deal, and then trade THAT contract to another team. That would require SF to negotiate blindly - if they overshoot and there is no demand, they are stuck with an albatross. If it is too little, there is no value.
4. SF can attempt to act as an intermediary - on one hand, ask Oakland what they want in a contract with Harbaugh, then relay that information to Harbaugh in an attempt to get a deal done. But, why would any side trust each other in this situation? Harbaugh would believe that Oakland and SF are colluding to knock down the value to him, and instead send value to SF; Oakland would believe that SF is screwing them to take a media market rival down a peg; and SF would be at risk of the whole thing blowing up (they sign the agreed-upon deal with JH, then Oakland says no thanks, screwing over a media market rival).
5. A team might trade for JH's current contract with the understanding that they will give him a major contract extension on day 1, on par with UM's offer. The exposure for that team is still huge - JH would have absolultely ridiculous leverage in blowing that new contract completely through the roof, and his new team would be SOL, since the alternative is to have wasted the presumable draft picks it took to get him there.
So, in short, NFL teams wanting his services not only have to figure this out logistically, but have to be prepared to match UM's offer, plus offer compensation to SF, all while being at risk for getting massively screwed if any of the moving pieces falls apart.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Sources / Revenue||
You are missing the point - it isn't their job to be RIGHT. It is their job to (1) drive revenue for their respective media outlets; and (2) carry water for the NFL as to keep the revenue flowing. In that order. These guys didn't fail, they succeeded spectacularly when you think of it that way.
Also, if you ask them, THEY weren't wrong, their sources were, or the facts were, or Michigan fans were and the circumstances changed, they ran out of gas, they had a flat tire, they didn't have enough money for cab fare, their tux didn't come back from the cleaners, and old friend came in from out of town, someone stole their car, there was an earthquake, a terrible flood, locusts! It wasn't their fault, they swear to god!
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Unwritten Rule||
No chance, for several reasons.
1. If JH stays in the NFL next season, San Francisco still controls his rights. They can trade his contract as-is, or they can sign him to a new contract, then trade it. It is entirely possible that San Francisco is negotiating with Oakland on one hand to find out what they want the contract to look like, and with JH on the other hand to see what is acceptable to him, but the idea that they are playing intermediary is a bit far-fetched.
2. They could do a trade-and-sign with Oakland, but the risk that the Raiders assume there is absolutely massive. Harbaugh could walk away *after* the trade but *before* the signing. So unless there is a contract to sign a contract (unlikely, IMO), this option must be ruled out.
3. Oakland has separately negotiated a new contract with JH, requiring him to quit his job at San Francisco, without San Francisco's knowledge. In addition to the tampering violation, the Raiders would also be civally liable for tortious interference in contract, and would owe San Francisco a boatload of money, including possibly punitive damages.
4. 3. Oakland has separately negotiated a new contract with JH, requiring him to quit his job at San Francisco, WITH San Francisco's knowledge. This presumes that Oakland has, in writing, a covenant not to sue regarding tortious interference. That is seriously unlikely. In addition, it would still be tampering, which cannot be waived by the clubs (it's an NFL rule).
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Tampering Rules||
They can't even request permission until San Francisco's season is over.
Head Coaches. These rules govern cases involving head coaches:
Under Contract. During a club’s playing season, including postseason if
applicable (excluding Pro Bowl), the following actions are prohibited
concerning a head coach who is under contract, unless the involved head
coach has been dismissed by his club: (1) No head coach may discuss or
accept employment for the current or a future season with another club in the
League; (2) no club may request permission to discuss employment with a
head coach for the current or a future season; and (3) no employer club may
grant another club permission to discuss employment with its head coach for
the current or a future season.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||Considerations||
Yes, clearly if he doesn't feel the "tug" of Michigan strongly enough right now that he can leap at an opportunity without even knowing, let alone considering, his options in the NFL, that means that its all over. Everybody panic!
Also, the guy is so busy and focused that he hasn't been able to take the time to decide where he wants to go.... but I'm sure he's got time to read the comments section of mgoblog! And THAT, more than anything else, is going to take precidence over what he wants his legacy to be, compensation, control, etc.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||Honecker||
Is Erich Honecker really your avatar? Bravo for choosing the third most obscure communist leader of the 20th century. Nowhere but a Michigan blog...
|1 year 29 weeks ago||21st Century||
Les Miles' record in the 21st Century: 131-49. Just sayin'. 21st Century is not ONLY equatable to Oregon/Arizona/Baylor/Auburn offense.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Disagree with Premise||
Major schematic changes in year 4 don't give the HC a "reset" button on what happened in the past under his purview. If major changes are instituted that late in the game, they have pay immediate dividends, otherwise, why not give everyone a mulligan so long as they make changes later on hoping to fix it?
Seriously, if I just absolutely tanked a project at work for 3 years, then on the verge of complete collapse, I choose to take it an entirely new direction, I can't tell my boss that my new changes wil eventually work, give me time! I'd be canned for failing for 4 straight years.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||Top Secret Plan||
This could totally be the case! Hoke is playing the long game rope-a-dope. He has purposefully instructed the team to play terrible football in 2014 in hopes of putting future opponents off their guard!
|1 year 33 weeks ago||Philosophy||
I agree with you generally; it would be an interesting debate over how much Hoke's philosophy has been to the credit or detriment of the offense as a whole, and one of the questions I would like answered most is what level of control Hoke exercises over the offense, and how that effects the play calling. For example, is Nussmeier constrained in the formations/plays he is permitted to call on game day? During practice?
In short, my response was generally meant to point out that individual coaches CAN be credited for things that they individually did correctly, and this does not necessarily mitigate any criticisms of Hoke, especially as their responsibilites differ drastically. I personally feel that in the case of the 2-point conversion, Mattison does deserve significant credit, and this doesn't lessen any criticism of Hoke regarding the issues that are in his domain.
Another fun debate would be whether having a head coach be 90-100% hands-off to an entire facet of the game is a good thing or not, e.g., what is the success rate of "delegator" coaches in the long and short term compared to "control freak" coaches who interject themselves in every possible area. My personal opinion is that the "delegator" coach may achieve short-term success, but ultimately his fate rests on continually making good hires for the area in which he is not involved, which may lead to lack of long-term stability due to successful coordinators being hired away for bigger and better things (if that coordinator isn't getting offers elsewhere, that head coach likely isn't very successful).
|1 year 33 weeks ago||Coaching Responsibility||
I think this misses the point - no, Hoke can't be blamed for specific bad play calls on offense (nor credited for good ones), but what he CAN be blamed for is the offensive philosophy generally (barring evidence that he is 100% hands-off, which we have not seen), and his retention of position coaching staff, who are largely responsible for invidual player development; thus, Hoke bears significant responsibility for the lack of player development himself.
Speaking for myself, I do not think that specific offensive play calls are that big of a problem this year, e.g., no "throw the damn bubble screen" issues. Instead, I think that the offense is permeated by a general malaise, lack of identity / trying to force an identity that they truly are not, and lack of improvement at the individual level. I believe that those items can be laid at Hoke's feet.
However, in the instance of the 2-point conversion, it was a specific play call that had it dead to rights - such play calling being the sole responsibility of Greg Mattison. Therefore, it is proper to credit Greg Mattison for making that play call. Likewise, Hoke can be credited with player development, general philosophical issues, and morale on the defense. IMO, credit for that last play goes 40% to Mattison (right players in the right place); 50% to the players (made the play that they were put in a position to make); and 10% to Hoke (general good defensive juju + good defensive philosophy).
|1 year 33 weeks ago||None||
Dammit, I'm a doctor, Jim, not an Athletic Director!
|1 year 33 weeks ago||Changes||
I am in no way advocating keeping Nuss, just pointing out that bringing him in for year 4 doesn't erase the results of years 1-3, or reset the clock for Hoke so his players can "learn a new system." The responsibility for the installation of the first system lies with him, and he doesn't get a full blown mulligan to try something else.
Also regarding the earlier post's comment about "mostly underclassman" - that would be more powerful if the players on the field were not making the same mistakes that have been endemic for 4 straight seasons. There is no evidence at all that these linemen, for example, will magically acquire the ability to block someone simply by being one year older.
|1 year 33 weeks ago||Fault||
Even if that is the problem, that doesn't absolve Hoke in any way. The reason that they are learning a whole new system this year is due to Hoke's decision to hire and retain Al Borges and the offensive position coaches for three years. I agree that hiring Nussmeier was the smartest thing that he could have done, but it has been proven that it was too little, too late. This staff change just doesn't reset the clock on the whole experiment.
|1 year 35 weeks ago||What Should Happen vs. What Will Happen||
I agree with all the points made in this post, but it doesn't address the major issue - what WILL happen? I understand that reading tea leaves isn't an exact art, but just because an echo chamber of "small time" (read: not major donor/former player/VIP) fans believe that he should be gone does not mean that he will be.
Brian made the point yesterday that season tickets are on a knife edge - I believe that the desirable home slate next year can superficially cover that wound. On top of that, Sam Webb (who has been touted by Brian as being the most plugged-in guy around) has been continually beating the "Hoke ain't being fired" drum, up to and including a blog entry last night.
In the last half-decade, there are many many things that UM SHOULD have done, or should not have done, but for some reason, took the opposite tack. I sadly see no evidence at all that this time will be different.
|1 year 36 weeks ago||Program Attrition||
We see this argument against change over and over, but it makes no sense. Programs suffer attrition when they make a BAD coaching change, or the program was insanely weak beneath the surface to begin with, not just when they make a coaching change. For god's sake, look at OSU (Meyer), TA&M (Sumlin), Ole Miss (Freeze), Arizona State (Graham), Penn State (Franklin), or MSU (Dantonio). Did any of them suffer massive attrition, with loads of transfers? Absolutely not! In fact, OSU pulled in several players who they wouldn't have BECAUSE they made the change.
The danger isn't in changing coaches, it is making a stupid hire. Make a good hire, and none of what you mentioned holds true at all. Make a bad hire, and transfers/attrition/recruiting for 2015 are only scratching the surface of the problem.
|1 year 38 weeks ago||Someone that can win now||
Please name that person who can win "NOW." Difficulty: must be actually willing to take the UM job.