...says Denzel Valentine of Big Ten Tourney favorite MSU, which is 5-7 in its last 12 games. Cumong, man.
- Member for
- 5 years 27 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 year 14 weeks ago||Nkemdiche||
Nkemdiche's brother currently plays for Ole Miss, and apparently his mother wants him to join his brother at Ole Miss. That explains Nkemdiche's connection to Ole Miss.
For Treadwell and Green, I have no idea. However, Green does seem to be taking an unorthodox approach to recruiting in the sense that his favorites include a lot of schools that are down (not us, of course).
|2 years 12 weeks ago||You're Making a Lot of Assumptions Here||
I think you're falling into exactly the trap the Braves and Birds poster was talking about, which is to simply put all your eggs in one basket and tailor everything around him. That's pretty much the implication of what you said about getting the sure thing recruit. I disagree completely. You're taking out a fundamental component of sports (or anything) really, which is competition. You need to have competition at every position in order to succeed. The system should be greater than one individual part.
|2 years 13 weeks ago||Additional Arguments||
I agree with those points generally, and I'll only add these additional points.
No one except Jay Bilas will argue that Tommy Amaker didn't get a fair shot here. Even Amaker himself wasn't all that upset when he was fired. The same goes for Ron English. Hermann "moved on" and made way for English to install his defenses here. Both had the full backing of the AD.
However, there's no denying that there were at least SOME detractors and SOME undermining of Rich Rod. You could make a strong argument that Rich Rod would have failed regardless (primarily because he can't coach defense), but there's something rather uncomfortable with a Michigan coach (esp. a football coach) not getting full backing. That has been our tradition, and as much as all his vociferous detractors would like to talk about him undermining our traditions, Michigan violated that tradition as well.
As for Fuller, I'd much rather have him playing for Rich Rod than for Nebraska. He would be an upgrade over Martinez because he has a good arm. Since we play Nebraska every year, that alone makes the post relevant.
|2 years 17 weeks ago||Forget ACC/Big East, What about the Big Ten?||
Agree on most of the points about Ole Miss, but keep in mind that with Texas A&M and Missouri set to join the conference, realigment would most likely move Alabama to the East.
In any event, as uncomfortable as it may be, has anyone thought of who Illinois might hire now that the Zooker is on his last breath? They have a pretty good defense and some athletes on offense.
|2 years 18 weeks ago||I Guess I Can Understand||
Normally, these types of demonstrations in support of someone in JoePa's situation would disgust me as well. But you have to understand, JoePa is Penn State. There's not a single school out there that's defined by football more than Penn State. The school was NOTHING before JoePa's arrival. PA students have many local public options like Temple and Pitt (both in the high density population areas). Plus, the many NJ kids that go there have Rutgers. Penn State only is a desireable option for somewhat above average students who want the experience of being in a big college town.
The scandal will set back the school for years to come, more than imaginable. With all the different types of schools in the area, it's going to be awefully difficult for the school to recover.
It's not a stretch to say that current students and alumni will be tangibly affected by the scandal. That's what happens when one guy builds the school.
|2 years 19 weeks ago||Could We Actually Look at Some Numbers Here???||
Here are some actual numbers about number of fans and each school's following. Some takeaways:
Just 14% of NYC market follows college football (compared to 41% in Atlanta, the heart of SEC country). However, only 19% of the Chicago market (the heart of the Big Ten market), follows college football, which is actually lower than the Philadelphia market, which stands at 20%.
Of the college football fans in NYC, RUTGERS BEATS EVERY SCHOOL BY A SIGNIFICANT RATIO.
1. Rutgers: 20.9%
2. Notre Dame: 9.2%
3. Penn State: 6.4%
4. Connecicut: 5.2%
5. MICHIGAN: 5.0%
6. Syracuse: 4.6%
These numbers debunk anyone who says that no one cares about Rutgers in the NYC market. Now, that doesn't mean we should add Rutgers, or that they would be a good fit culturally. Of course, if you really feel that way, just say you don't think Rutgers will be a good cultural fit. That's better than "No" or "I'd rather than 20 teams than Rutgers."
The numbers also debunk the myth that UConn or Syracuse would be better additions because they would capture a greater share of the NYC market. As the numbers indicate, Michigan actually captures a larger share than Syracuse and UConn is only slightly ahead of us.
Of course, the Big Ten doesn't have to try to capture the NYC market. The numbers aren't enough to admit Rutgers alone IMO, but if Notre Dame wants an east coast partner (they already have a significant east coast presence), adding Rutgers would capture 30% of the NYC market. Add Penn State and Michigan, and you have over 40% of the market. Add the remaining Big Ten teams, and you really start to make a dent. WIth Notre Dame, Penn State and Rutgers, you also shore up the Philadelphia market, which is the 4th largest in the country.
As an aside, JoePa has been advocating for years to add an east coast school to create a rivalry for them. He has specifically mentioned Rutgers more than a few times, and might try to threaten to leave for the ACC (with ND) if he doesn't get what he wants. If it comes to that, I don't think we can even think about losing Penn State (and ND) to the ACC. So if ND really has to join a conference and doesn't want to lower their standing in football (which is a near certainty if they join the ACC), adding Rutgers as the 14th team is a real possibility, as supported by the numbers.
|2 years 21 weeks ago||Schiano||
Some posters have mentioned the fact that Schiano was quickly offered the job ahead of Rodriguez. Looking back, that's really significant for a number of reasons. First, it's pretty convincing evidence that Martin (and his supporters) wanted a clear break from the past. The direction they were going with Schiano and then Rodriguez is evidence of that.
Philosophically, Schiano is actually very similar to Michigan's current coaches. He's a good defensive coach who's done a good job with limited talent. Offensively, he's a pro-style guy. But I think Schiano would have had the same problems at Michigan because the divide is deeper than just football philosophy, but rather is one of the identity and soul of the university.
Schiano is not from the midwest. He's from Jersey. He never coached in the midwest, unless you count Penn State (where he had his most productive stint as an assistant), as a midwest school, which it is not. He never recruited midwest players. Like RichRod, he likes recruiting Florida. He not only could have left, but many think his dream is to one day take over for JoePa, an in-conference rival.
In any event, I think these attributes would have caused the same problems that occurred under RichRod. The reason why is because many view the coach as a representative of the university, and if you have an outsider, there will invariably be howls of him not having "midwest values." I actually think the NY/NJ students would have loved him, but there still would be that divide.
My fear with Hoke is that he'll swing too far the other way. We need fast players on this team, and most of those players are not from the midwest. There has to be some offensive creativity because we'll never have the insane defensive talent that teams like Alabama and USC can amass. It's a delicate balance. We're already seeing fissures develop with the DR v. Gardner debate, and now with the "what offense do you prefer" debate, and that's after one loss.
I actually don't think the Michigan family is any more united today than they were when RichRod was hired. We're just experiencing a honeymoon period that ends when events like last Sat. happen, or if we get blown out by a spread team, or if Meyer takes over at OSU and we go on another losing streak. The "We are ND" meme is not really a distant memory. It will happen as soon as something goes wrong. Since we are unsure about the identity of the program, and of the university, we will always have these problems.
|2 years 22 weeks ago||That's What I Heard as Well||
FWIW, total hearsay, but I have a good friend who who has multiple legacies at ND and whose family knows a lot of boosters. He told me that Meyer wanted 6 players each year he could override with admissions, and at the time ND was only willing to give him 1, so that's why he didn't take the job. Of course, with guys like Blanton it's pretty obvious they're still making exceptions, but Meyer really wanted to stretch that. It'll be interesting to see if they're making exceptions with Kelly now that they're more desperate for wins.
|2 years 29 weeks ago||Recruiting Angle||
I do think Shannon does bear some responsiblity because the head coach is ultimately responsible for recruiting. Instead of trying to stop Shapiro from steering players the wrong way, perhaps Shannon should have used character as a factor in recruiting. If every player Shannon recruited was like Denard, for example, do you think Shapiro would have been as damaging as he was? Not every player will succumb to the temptations provided by Shaprio, so why didn't Shannon recruit those players. I submit he still could have amassed impressive talent, and not had nearly the problems that have now surfaced. Look no further than what John Beilien has done with the basketball program, with far fewer resources I might add.
|2 years 33 weeks ago||The Only Explanation||
is that there wasn't as much money involved here as there was in USC. Remember, Reggie Bush alone involved hundreds of thousands of dollars (he was sued for $290,000, there was the nice house etc...). The only accusation here involving a substantial amount of money approaching that is the Talbott autographs for money (ESPN report). I guess the report was either wrong or the NCAA just could not find enough evidence. Taken together, if you believe the number of players involved according to the reports, the money could end up somewhere approaching Bush alone (although it's hard to quantify car discounts), which would justify a failure to monitor.
The fact that there wasn't as much money here allows OSU play a sympathy card about how disadvantaged athletes should have been given stipends blah blah blah...a nice diversion from what most of us think is willful blindness. USC (and Auburn potentially with Cam Newton) could not play that card because the gifts were substantial. I absolutely think that angle factored into the decision because now everyone is talking about stipends.
|2 years 40 weeks ago||He'll Have the Least Competition Here||
because all he has to do to win the starting job is beat Gardner and Bellomy. In order to win the starting job, Gardner has to fit exactly what Borges wants IMO. Borges isn't going to adjust his offense for four years. With Denard, he has a special talent and someone who had a really good season, so he has to adapt for Denard's two remaining years. However, it's unreasonable to expect an OC to adapt for four years, which could be a problem because I don't think Gardner has proven he can make all the pro-style throws yet. If Kiel comes in and he displays a better ability to make those throws, he will start. Competing with someone who was recruited under an old regime and a last minute QB is better than competing against QBs who were recruited for the same system. Bellomy could be a wild card here. He really came on strong his senior season and I'm glad we landed him.
|2 years 41 weeks ago||Your premise would be true||
if you were ONLY talking about the defense. However, if you listen to Carr speak, he wasn't just referring to the defense. He started talking about changing defenses, and then went on to BROADLY, GENERALLY talk about the lack of size.
No one really is going to argue about the defense, but the problem is an offense that did work at times, and probably would have worked even better if there hadn't been enormous pressure to be perfect because they knew the defense would give up 30+ points every game. Are you now going to remove that offense and replace it with zone left plays and other predictable playcalling with an immobile QB and an O-Line that can't block elite D-Lines? Cuz that's exactly what we had under the last 5 (or more years) under Carr. Or, are we going to see a hybrid system like the one we saw in Carr's final game?
It would have been a lot better if Carr was only talking about the defense, but I don't think that's the case.
|2 years 41 weeks ago||Why is He So Sure?||
Carr's statements can be interpreted in two ways IMO. Either he was itching to make these comments during the last three years but held back in deferance to the current regime, in which case he should be commended for his restraint, or he was actively involved from within to try to undermine the program, which is obviously negative. No one will really know for sure unless someone high up (like Martin) releases a tell all memoir about what actually happened.
What really disturbs me about his comments, though, were all the assumptions he made. When he left, the B10 was moving towards spread QBs (Troy Smith, Michael Robinson, Pryor). He talks about smaller players wearing down when it was his teams that couldn't finish games in the fourth quarter. The one image that still stands out from the 2007 season was not the first game, or Oregon, or Florida (where they completely ditched the offense they'd been running for a pass spread), but the last offensive series against OSU, where we saw a hopeless, tired, and beaten up offense wince onto the field with no chance of scoring. He talks about a consistent defense when it was he who change defenses when Hermann "left" and then saw that defense implode against the spread and better pro-style teams like USC.
Completely changing systems probably wasn't the best idea, but having more speed at the skill positions and a somewhat mobile QB is probably better than completely going back to what didn't work.
I really hope Hoke can take some positive lessons here. We really can't see him fail.
|2 years 44 weeks ago||They're Screwed Either Way||
Even if you assume that no one in compliance, the coaching staff, or the general administration knew anything about these purchases (unlikely given what's happened so far), it still casts the compliance department in a suspicious light. To not require a player to submit documentation for every auto purchase by the player or a player's relative (that occur in Columbus or the vicinity), is negligence IMO. The entire point of compliance is to stop potential problems, and a simple rule requiring documentation from every auto puchase (like the contract, title, registration) would have prevented any of these problems. It's just another piece of evidence suggesting willful blindness by all layers of the university. That's pretty much exactly what USC was punished for, except Carroll didn't knowingly lie to the NCAA on top of that. I think we'll see at best a USC-style punishment, because you have to tack on Tressel's lies to the punishment. If something comes up suggesting that anyone in the university knew about these transactions, then we're edging toward the death penalty.
|2 years 46 weeks ago||I Would Go One Step Further||
The current system really doesn't matter to me because I don't think any school should offer any scholarships to "athletes" who play sports with zero chance of playing professionally. Let's be honest. Football and basketball subsidize everything else. Why should rich kids get into good school through the backdoor with lesser credentials playing some sport (for purposes of ease, let's call that sport "lacrosse") they have no shot of making a career of. It's a waste of time. The commitment required to play any sport on a D1 level is immense. There's just no way you can get around the simple fact that someone who has more time to study is going to do better. Look, I work out at a gym that produces a lot of D1 talent. I understand the benefit of athletics, but only to a degree, only to the extent that it helps you focus. When you spend too much time on it, with no benefit on the horizon, you're wasting your time. At the end of the day, rich kids who never should have gotten in, except that they can play lacrosse or squash or field hockey or whatever, are the ones who are hurt by this. When you mismatch students, the weaker ones will struggle, and they will struggle even more with a sports commitment. If the NCAA really wanted to help kids, they should do away with all these useless addendums and just focus on the revenue sports. At least with football and basketball (and to a lesser extent hockey and baseball), you can make the argument that providing a base education as a backup or addendum makes sense for those athletes.
|3 years 1 day ago||Quality of the Team At the Time You Played Them||
I agree that the entire body of work should count, but I also think you can't look retroactively at a win. The win has to be based on how good the opponent was at the time you played them. Look at Illinois. They have ONE quality victory, against North Carolina, but that was before Kendall Marshall was inserted as a permanent starter playing significant minutes. North Carolina was 4-3 after the Illinois game and had already lost to Minnesota and Vanderbilt. They went on to lose to Texas and Georgia Tech, with only a close win against Kentucky as a good win in between, before making a run where they've won 14 of 15. Illinois has not won 2 straight since Dec. 29 - Jan. 6. They're 6-10 since then. They have no other significant non-conference victories. Their victory against fringe tourney team Gonzaga was more than offset by a loss to Illinois-Chicago.
When placing the NC win in context, this is an incredibly bare resume.
|3 years 7 weeks ago||The Only Way Either One of Them Becomes DC||
Is if Mattison was the first choice, was given an opportunity to mull over the job following the Ravens' loss, and is still thinking about the position. Austin would be the #2 guy and would only be offered if Mattison said no. Therefore, that's why Austin isn't the DC yet.
I find this scenario highly unlikely. First, IMO the only way Mattison leaves is if he gets a pay raise, and since Michigan should not pay Hoke a high salary (as he doesn't deserve one), a pay raise for Mattison would probably mean he would only be making a little less than Hoke. Second, there's no reason why he would leave, the reasons for which are obvious and already mentioned by several posters. Austin is available. We can only hope they are ironing out the details.
But given the time lapse, it really doesn't look promising.
|3 years 8 weeks ago||It's Over...Let's Unite Behind Hoke||
Brandon's comments came off as extremely defensive. When you attempt to rebut the other side at the beginning of your introduction of the new HC, which Brandon did with his "all that glitters is not gold" comment, you pretty much know there's going to be criticism out there. He's trying to protect Hoke, who for all we know was option #5 or option #1 because Brandon is with the old guard.
But whatever. It's over. Hoke is the coach. The last thing this program needs is yet another faction that becomes strong enough to undermine a coach from within. Rodriguez wasn't given a fair shot, though he did make some critical errors on his own. We cannot do the same thing with Hoke. He's been pretty flexible so far. Let's hope he keeps it that way.
|3 years 8 weeks ago||Here's the Problem with That||
Let's say Hoke/Brandon had some ideal candidates out there (good track record, Michigan ties etc...). Then they offer and the guy says yes. We have a DC. You really don't need to wait. The fact that the process has taken so long suggests to me that the opposite has happened, which incidentally is exactly what happened with the HC search.
FWIW, i don't think we'll land a big name. First, he'll have to share responsibilities with Hoke because Hoke will be involved with defense, so that eliminates a strong, established coordinator who would be given all the keys. Second, he has to clean up the utter mess we have now, in addition to fierce recruiting to immediately upgrade the talent. It's a daunting task and I don't think many big names will want to walk in on that.
|3 years 8 weeks ago||Where In-Staters Go After Graduation||
I graduated a few years ago as an out of state student, and one thing I noticed was that virtually all the in-state students left for either Chicago, New York or DC. In fact, out of the few that stayed, a lot of them left after a couple of years. I think that's a reason why this is being considered. Why fund the school at all if most in-state students leave?
|3 years 8 weeks ago||Philadelphia Eagles/Mike Vick Comparison||
Borges runs a west coast style offense and talked about Mike Vick's role in the Eagles offense. I think that's a good comparision because the Eagles continue to run the west coast offense with Vick. Here's Vick's stats for this year.
Notice the remarkable consistency in rushing attempts. Every game, Vick would average between 8-11 rush attempts, with zero deviation. I believe that's a bit too low for Denard given his running ability, but adapting the scheme to allow 12-15 rush attempts for Denard while still incorporating the west coast offense would be a nice compromise. Plus, I think it's a good sell to tell Denard that an improved passing game means he can be a high level QB in the NFL.
|3 years 9 weeks ago||Could Brandon At Least Try to Land Mullen or Patterson||
before settling on Hoke?
Hoke means at least 2 more years of losing. Denard and Tate would almost certainly be out, and if Gardner leaves it would be 2007 all over again. Even if Gardner doesn't leave he's still a first year QB. Does anyone have any confidence at all that Hoke and upgrade the talent on defense, or that he can bring in a strong DC who can teach fundamentals?
This is really starting to get ugly.
|3 years 9 weeks ago||He's the Best Choice Now||
Count me in as someone who absolutely opposes the idea of a "Michigan Man" being a requirement for the job. Since when did ties to the university have anything to do with performance on the field? If there was any credance attached to loyalty associated with being a "Michigan Man," Harbaugh would be here by now.
I am an alum of the school, but I don't expect someone to get a preference just because they have some tie to the university. Hoke did not even play here; he just coached here as an assistant. For the life of me, I can't understand why he's being considered just because of that. Obviously, his thin resume speaks for itself. Miles is a loose cannon, has committed violations, makes on-field coaching mistakes, and is lucky to field a good team because he has a great DC and good recruits.
I think the idea of a "Michigan Man" masks a greater danger, which is idea of bringing in someone with "midwest" ties that would turn the program into a "midwest program," whatever that means. I think it means returning to the pro-style offense, which would mean Denard and Tate leaving for sure, and maybe Gardner leaving as well. All three were recruited as dual threat spread QBs. With a depleted defense, that's 2-3 more years of misery. I also think it means recruiting more locally to make these people feel better, except that the rivals, ESPN, scout etc... rankings all clearly indicate that the best talent is in FL, TX, CA and the South.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't want success but then foreclose recruiting a significant percentage of talent. This year's "midwest" schools did well only because they had an unusually large number of seniors. Wisconsin will not be the same next year with their O-line depleted. MSU was a complete mirage, as they did not play Ohio State and were absolutely thrashed by a legit team. Did I mention the off-the-field problems and the fact that some of these players would not qualify to play here? Ohio State is the only midwest school who can survive only recruiting locally. Tressel recruits Ohio very well, which hurts Michigan and everyone else. As we know, Ohio State is not a clean program either.
Dan Mullen has not cheated, he has won at the highest level, at a program where winning is almost impossible. He would not run Denard out of town. In fact, there's every reason to believe he would improve the offense with both Denard and Gardner. He needs a strong DC with good recruiting ties, and whether it's Randy Shannon or someone else, that DC needs to be given the keys. Mullen has shown a willingness not to meddle on defense, so we can work that out.
Michigan cannot afford 2-3 or more years of backsliding. We just had a bad transition and we're setting ourselves up for another one unless candidates like Mullen are seriously considered. We could do a lot worse than Mullen.
|3 years 9 weeks ago||How About a Dan Mullen/Randy Shannon Combo?||
Mullen just lost his DC to Texas, and MS. St. won't be able to pay a lot to a new DC given Mullen's new contract. Why doesn't Michigan go after him. Not only would his hire pretty much ensure that Denard doesn't transfer, he won't cost a fortune (compared to what Miles might demand and what Harbaugh got). He has proven his worth in a tough league despite being at a program with huge comparative disadvantages. Hiring him might allow more money for a high profile DC like Randy Shannon, who would instantly improve recruiting, which is the single greatest reason why our defense is so poor now IMO. Even better, Mullen was one of Urban Meyer's guys at Florida, so he may be able to bring a couple of those assistants along with him.
|3 years 10 weeks ago||Illegal in California||
Negative/Restrictive covenants (ie, preventing you from working for a rival employer as a condition in the contract for your current employment), is not enforceable in California, where Stanford is located. Other states allow it in limited circumstances and only for limited durations and restrictions, but California bans it altogether. FWIW.
|3 years 10 weeks ago||That's a Really Interesting Comment||
Because it means that Harbaugh will run Denard out of town. Make no mistake, if Harbaugh asks Denard to switch positions, Denard is gone IMO. He wants to be a QB, and he's been a good one at that.
That means starting ANOTHER first year QB with NO PLAYING EXPERIENCE, who was recruited as a dual threat, but somehow will magically become Andrew Luck once Harbaugh arrives on campus.
Look at it this way, I'd rather have a flexible Hoke who will adapt to Denard than an inflexible Harbaugh who will run Denard out of town. Why? Because sudden change didn't work the first time and won't work now because the defense is so bereft of talent that's it's going to take anyone 2-3 years to slowly build it back up. In the meantime, we need an explosive offense, and Denard gives us the best chance for that IMO.
|3 years 10 weeks ago||Those Were Pro Style Guys||
We have two spread guys right now (Denard and Gardner). As I am totally against starting over (as that would set the program back another 3 years), you have to look at what's he's done with spread guys because that's what he's going to have to work with for the next 4 years (2 with Denard, 2 with Gardner). Tebow's mechanics did not improve and he's still working on that release. Brantley was a disappointment. So even though he's done well with pro style guys, his track record with spread guys (which is what we have) is questionable.
|3 years 10 weeks ago||Old Florida Coaches||
There are quite a few former Meyer assistant that will probably be looking for a job because they aren't retained. I wouldn't mind Heater as DC (though my first preference is Randy Shannon), though I would be against Loeffler because he did not improve Tebow's mechanics nor did he groom Brantley well.
|3 years 10 weeks ago||Personality Clash||
I don't see Denver for Harbaugh because it would pit two strong personalities with each other and I don't think that would work. The only way Denver has a chance is if they somehow find a way to get that #1 pick and draft Luck with that pick, and I think that's a longshot.
Besides, Elway might want to bring back the GERG. After all, he was Denver's DC during his two super bowl runs.
|3 years 10 weeks ago||It's Over||
Let's be honest, Rich Rod needed to either win the game or show improvement in areas of weakness, namely the defense and special teams. It did not happen. He's gone. In fact, the weaknesses we saw during the season were highlighted to an even greater degree. The defense is a complete mess, with poor fundamentals and poor talent.
It's time for a fresh start. I just hope whoever comes in doesn't change the offense much or run Denard out of town.