he grew a beard
- Member for
- 5 years 31 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 day 23 hours ago||Notre Dame||
I'm pretty sure the issue there isn't with respect to admissions entirely, but rather the curriculum. From what I recall, everybody there has to take calculus (certainly not the case for people like myself at UM) and that puts a strain on who can get in and/or stay eligible.
|1 day 23 hours ago||Witty||
He didn't qualify initially. His case was weird because he only became eligible after a semester of what would have been his freshman year went by.
Don't know if he was considered a transfer or something like that by admissions, but he's literally the only person who met the minimum NCAA requirements and didn't get admitted to UM. We haven't had any other recruits fail to get in here but enroll at another D-1 school instead.
|1 week 5 days ago||Hoke didn't recruit Jake Ryan||
In fact he didn't offer him, even at SDSU.
Obviously the "hood" comments are dumb. That doesn't mean there isn't a major issue with talent identification on this staff. And it's an issue that doesn't magically go away if we bring in a new coach next year. Just because Larry Foote is not so great at diagnosing the problem, doesn't mean he's missing the point entirely.
|1 week 5 days ago||Two things||
Obviously the wording is silly and Foote is making dumb generalizations with respect to race and class. But I'd disagree about a coach instilling that toughness in players. So would the guy everybody seems to want to be the coach at Michigan.
Jim Harbaugh made it a point at Stanford that the first thing he looked at when evaluating a recruit was toughness, presumably both mental and physical. Obviously he didn't focus exclusively on inner city kids, but he didn't bring in kids expecting to change them. He prioritized the traits he wanted his players to have coming in.
That differs a bit from "The Profile" we've been hearing so much about the last few years.
|1 week 5 days ago||For Magnus||
I don't really see how that refutes Foote's point. Frank Clark is the best player Hoke and Co. have brought in, probably by a significant margin. If Foote is saying "We need more guys like Frank Clark on the team" I don't know that he's wrong.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Not just Luck||
Stanford got good, and stayed good after Harbaugh left, because he recruited Luck and Martin and DeCastro and a bunch of defensive players.
Coaches don't make teams good. Especially in college. They can make them better, but they can't make them good. Harbaugh's record at Stanford was shitty his first 2-3 years because of what he inherited. It was awesome his last year and for three years after that because of what he built (shocking that things have started to slip now that the Harbaugh recruits are leaving campus).
Who knows what would happen in the first three years if he comes to Michigan. And nobody should fucking care. In year four and beyond we'd probably be awesome, because that is what the guy does. As long as we don't fire him like we did the last good coach we hired, we'll be fine.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||What are you talking about?||
State comes in at #18 in both polls. In the last 7 years, they've made at least the Sweet Sixteen 6 times (including an Elite Eight last year, a Final Four appearance, and a national runner-up).
Doesn't seem like some crazy romance is required to expect they'll be pretty good at basketball again.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Dia de los muertos||
Get out, you fucking ghoul.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Don't you mean...||
"Stay gold, Ponyboy."
|3 weeks 2 days ago||#12 in the country||
Highest winning percentage of any coach since they joined the Pac-8 once upon a time. WIth a freshman QB in year 3, after inheriting a 4-8 team that lost an NFL QB, top rusher and top three WR. Yup, mediocre.
I'm glad you find it so easy to "get over it" when Michigan football is in the gutter. You must be a model of mental health.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||History||
The Big Ten hasn't been consistently good for 40+ years. Since Bo got hired, OSU won a title in 2002, and Michigan split a title in 1997 (and under even the old BCS format I doubt we're favored to beat Nebraska). You could argue that whoever got put in the playoff in 1973 would have had a shot (M/OSU tied, OSU smoked USC in the Rose Bowl while undefeated ND and Bama played for the title with ND winning it all). Other than that we're done for the old guard, and that is from the days of the Big 2 Little 8 when racking up regular season wins was pretty easy..
Obviously PSU has had great teams throughout the years and Nebraska had a great run in the '90's, but they would have to improve signficantly to compete for a title now.
The dominance of the top SEC schools, FSU/Miami, USC, and OU/Texas is nothing new.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Funny||
I bet before the season (when you were operating under your now banned name) you were arguing that Arizona would not be better than Michigan for the third year in a row and the foreseeable future. Was that revisionist bullshit when I said that would happen? Or when I said Hoke would win 10+ games in year one and then slowly deteriorate?
How'd that work out for you?
You were wrong about everything. Your opinion now doesn't mean shit.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Close losses||
I could give two shits about what Arizona does. I just remember idiots going on about how because of what happened here with a depleted roster Arizona would never be able to compete with elite teams. The facts show they've been quite competitive. Those same idiots are still babbling about how pissed off they are that DickRod ruined Michigan football, and that firing him was a great idea even though four years later we're in the shitter (with a lovely stop in New Orleans along the way thanks to his positive stamp on the program).
Do you seriously think Hoke has just gotten worse at coaching the last two years? Or that RichRod is just making better decisions in Tucson? Do you seriously see no difference in the roster of the 2010 team and the 2011 team? More importantly, did you predict we'd win 10+ games in 2011 and then slowly descend into crapitude?
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Pretty sure he was banned||
Not positive about his former identity since I don't frequent the board nearly as much as I did back in those halcyon days you speak of, but I think ol' Baloo was operating under a different name up until fairly recently.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Or JT Floyd||
He missed the last 5 games of the season with an ankle injury.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Again||
No one is saying we were good from 2008-2010. I'm well aware that we lost a bunch of games. When the last of those losses occurred when the head coach's first recruiting class were RS freshmen, then blaming him is dumb. Jim Harbaugh posted two losing seasons at Stanford. In year three he lost to 5-7 Wake Forest and had an atrocious defense. He shouldn't have been fired, and it worked out great for them when he wasn't.
Rich Rodriguez wasn't terrible for three years. Michigan football was, for reasons that had nothing to do with a lack of quality young players (in fact some of the guys Rodriguez brought in were already stars by 2010).
You being butthurt that the team wasn't winning is not a substitute for level-headed analysis of where the team was going. When your best players are freshmen and sophomores and you only lose one good player from either side of the ball, it looks like things are going up. It went up, right after the reason for the rise got pushed out the door. And now we find ourselves here again.
Brady Hoke isn't getting worse at coaching every year. Rich Rodriguez doesn't suddenly know what he's doing outside of Ann Arbor. Anybody can win a national title (Larry Coker, Gene Chizik) and anybody can have a shitty season (Gary Moeller for three years at Illinois, Harbaugh at Stanford, Beamer for quite a while at Virginia Tech, Gary Patterson last year).
Building a program is what matters. People didn't want to see what Rodriguez was building because they were mad we were losing (as you just illustrated). As a result we are currently in the toilet. Arguing so passionately in defense of such a dumb decision by an athletic director everyone seems to hate to hire a coach everyone seems to want fired (I think I'm the only person who has suggested he should be retained unless a surefire better candidate can be found) is fucking baffling at this point.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Saved||
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Moving the bar||
The same guys were saying when he got hired that UA would never even compete with teams like Oregon (2 wins), SC (1 win and 2 close losses), and Stanford (OT loss on the road in only game).
There is literally no world where these people will concede that maybe it wouldn't have been a complete disaster to wait one offseason just to be sure about what Rich Rodriguez was building here at Michigan. They were pissed and Michigan wasn't winning. That is the extent of the analysis and it will be indefinitely.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||No||
I don't give coaches credit for players being good. I give coaches credit for building a program and bringing in talent. Rich Rod didn't make Denard good at running. Neither did Hoke. Same goes for Taylor Lewan and blocking.
The problem with Funk/Hoke is that the guys coming in aren't as good as the guys leaving. When we had talent, Funk/Hoke couldn't screw it up. They haven't changed, the players have.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Not true||
I wanted RR back, even after the Gator Bowl. I also wasn't sold on Hoke simply because he did what I predicted he would do before he even took the job.
The same people who argued every prediction I made (we'd win 10 games in 2011 no matter the coach, Hoke would be our Charlie Weis, Arizona would be a much stronger program than us with Rich Rodriguez) are the same ones still making these arguments now.
The fact that people who were wrong about everything are still running their mouths is surreal.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Better players||
Countess as a freshman was better than James Rogers the year before. Morgan was a better player than Obi Ezeh. Ryan pretty much negated the loss of Mouton.
Freshmen can turn a squad around if they are better than the guys they replace. If you are better at every single position your defense is going to be better. That is what happened at Michigan in 2011.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Funk was here in 2011||
When he had 4 NFL players on the line, we had two 1,000 yard rushers and won 11 games. Saying "Michigan has plenty of talent" based on nothing but Rivals rankings doesn't make it true.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||So...||
Yours is based on ratings of high school players put out by non-football people who have a lot of bandwidth.
My definition is based on people being good at playing college football. Utah has a better line, better skill position talent, and a comparable defense.
Again, do you think Brady Hoke is getting dumber every year? Or is it possible that the guys he brought in aren't as good as NFL guys like Omameh, Lewan, Schofield, etc.?
|3 weeks 3 days ago||It gets better||
Spending two recruiting cycles telling kids you have no idea who the coach will be if/when they arrive at Michigan makes even less fucking sense.
Thanks, Dave Brandon.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Yes||
Utah is more talented than Michigan. Or do you just think Hoke gets dumber every year?
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Four starters||
Heininger (back from injury), Countess, Ryan, and Morgan were new additions to the roster. We also got Woolfolk back from injury. Also everybody gained a year of experience/strength/etc. This was offset by pretty much just losing Jonas Mouton.
There's a reason we've been at about the same level defensively every year since then. Once it was fixed it was fixed.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||What?||
No shit. A 7-6 team wasn't that great. We weren't good in 2008 either, because Rich Rodriguez inherited a broken program.
The question wasn't "Are we good yet?" but "Will we be good soon?" I thought we'd win 10 games (no matter who the coach was) in 2011 because we lost very little (Mouton and Schilling) and a bunch of young players could be expected to improve.
You got the answer wrong. If you and others had waited one offseason we would have been fine. Instead we're in the toilet. Thanks for the contribution.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Borges and Nussmeier||
Are they competent offensive coordinators (both have had plenty of success elsewhere and Borges had his share here)? If so, why has Michigan been so bad on offense the last two years?
Gary Patterson went 4-8 last year. Did he just start coaching shitty for one season?
Talent pretty much determines the outcome. Your dumb analysis completely ignores it.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Dumb debate||
The 2010 defense sucked because the roster stunk. No coordinator changes that. People arguing on either side of this issue are being dumb.
You weren't interested in finding out what RR was building, but no coach has "failed" if he gets fired when his first recruiting class are RS freshmen.
You got what you wanted. It's worked out fucking great, hasn't it?
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Gary Moeller||
He went 6-24-3 at Illinois.