this guy evidently hired to work for AD
- Member for
- 5 years 34 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 day 18 hours ago||Benefit of the doubt||
People seem to think this is a talented team that was done in by incompetent coaching, but the reality is this team has gotten worse every year and with recent small recruiting classes (and the departure of most of our difference makers like Gardner, Funchess, Ryan, Clark, etc.) there isn't a lot of help waiting in the wings.
This team could very well be really bad next year, especially if Hoke/Borges whiffed on QB recruiting. No one will blame Jim Harbaugh if that is the case. I think just about everybody will happily wait to see what he builds, citing Stanford as the example of where we're headed in year 4 and beyond. Miles may also get some benefit of the doubt. I don't think a guy like Dan Mullen does. RichRod obviously didn't, and he had a stronger resume coming in. A couple of mediocre seasons and he'll be on a rapidly warming seat.
|1 week 1 day ago||They can just ask us||
You don't need ads at all. If Hackett said, "All UM fans need to donate until we reach X dollars so we can afford Harbaugh," they would be flooded with cash. We are happy to pay for the things we love. Just ask nicely and we pony up the dough all the time. You don't need to bilk Stephen Ross out of millions and then try to squeeze a few more pennies out of any available ad space, especially when doing so makes us all feel a little less generous.
|1 week 1 day ago||Where their bread is buttered||
The WWE folks probably look at their balance sheet and see all the Cena t-shirts little kids are buying and make their decisions based in part on that. If they catered exclusively to the "smarks" they would make a lot less money. The most serious wrestling fans loved ECW, but ECW still went out of business. When you are trying to please more people, you have to do things some of them won't like.
Way more people watch The Big Bang Theory than watch Game of Thrones. Just because the latter show is a lot better doesn't mean the former should be in a hurry to change what they are doing.
|1 week 1 day ago||This guy sounds like a dumbass||
But he's not wrong about paying players. If you take away the college football infrastructure, nobody would give a fuck about semi-pro or minor league football. The money is there because of the history of college football and the relationships fans have with schools/teams. Way more people watch Duke/Carolina basketball than watch the D-League, even though the quality of play is almost certainly higher in the latter. Women's college basketball gets higher ratings than the WNBA on a regular basis.
Without college football, only a fraction of these guys would see any benefit and would be forced to compete against much older players for roster spots in some minor league. Way fewer guys would get roughly the same money. You can argue all you want about whether or not guys want to be paid in education, but in terms of dollars the college system provides players with way more than they would get on the open market if that system didn't exist.
|1 week 1 day ago||Not the point||
How many minor league baseball jerseys does anybody buy? Or Arena Football? A lot of those guys are probably better at what they do than Tate Forcier (who sold a few jerseys himself).
If Denard (or anybody) had played for the Ann Arbor Scalawags instead of the University of Michigan, no one would own his jersey or know who he is.
The money comes into college football because the schools and their history provide the value. On the free market, less than 10% of the players would have a place to play and they would probably be making less than $50,000 a year (just like in the XFL or Arena League).
|1 week 1 day ago||A Stanford thing?||
The post-Harbaugh classes at Stanford have been similarly diverse geographically and their basketball recruiting follows a similar pattern. The school is in a unique position in that it is by a wide margin the best spot academically where you can play high level sports. For regular students, Stanford's peers are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and MIT rather than Cal or Michigan, or even Duke.
Anyone serious about academics is going to have them right at the top of their list (which is why they excel at the Olympic sports), but they also have to look a little harder to find folks who can get in and succeed academically. Stanford is both attractive nationally to student athletes and requires its coaches to search nationally for qualified kids.
It does seem like great practice for recruiting at Michigan, a place that has national pull but not a terribly strong recruiting base.
|1 week 2 days ago||Opportunity lost||
If Urban had just smelled burning hair we might have had another chance at a "health scare" retirement. Now we're stuck with this fucker in Columbus for at least another year.
Fuck you, Instagram!
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Last time||
I've always wondered if we talked to him about the job opening in 2011. At Hoke's introductory press conference, Brandon talked about other candidates who "made it all about them" or something to that effect (as opposed to Hoke who would walk from San Diego to take the job).
At the time, there was a rumor about the M plane or Brandon being in the same town as Gruden while he covered a game and Tirico had an awkward on-air moment where he basically asked Jon if he was taking any other job and Gruden sort of sheepishly shook his head "no". Pretty sure Hoke was announced shortly after that.
It would be great to know more inside details of what went down with the last search. And if Gruden was interested then I'd hope we ask again and this time don't act shocked when the Super Bowl champion coach with the sweet job maybe thinks we need him more than he needs Michigan.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||The abyss||
If you're right and Hoke has us on the verge of success, we'll be fine. Letting Rodriguez go didn't stop us from going 11-2. Maybe Paul Hackett deserved to coach a team where Carson Palmer and Troy Polamalu were upperclassmen, but it didn't stop Pete Carroll from having incredible success. A good team will be good, no matter who coaches it.
We don't, in my opinion, have a very good team right now (hence the 5-7 record with the same coach who went 11-2 in year one). You say we had an elite defense but advanced stats put us more in the middle of the pack. We also lose a four year starter who was 1st team all B1G at middle linebacker and who is a Butkus finalist, plus three year starters at both DE spots who earned all-conference recognition.
On offense, there is no evidence that we have a QB, anyone other than Funchess at WR (and he very well might be gone), or a top-notch RB. Maybe a guy like Isaac emerges. Maybe Canteen just needed a year to adjust to college and becomes a legit weapon opposite a returning Funchess next year. Maybe Shane is a bit of a late bloomer or Speight is ready early. The line may continue to improve, or it may top out at mediocre at best (it is possible they are now getting in the right spots but also just aren't that good). We have a lot of maybes there, and that is just to get better than 5-7.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Another factor||
Leaving Luck and those guys he recruited in the middle of their careers to go coach another college team would be a lot different than taking the Michigan job four years later when they are all gone.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Candidates||
I agree with your reasoning, but I think there is a little more to the situation. If you are looking to bring in Harbaugh or Miles, you want somebody who has their phone number or at least has the number of another guy who does. If you search the viable AD candidates with that kind of access to those particular guys, you come up with the guys you mentioned and maybe one or two others. Bringing in any of those guys requires an immediate decision and a long term commitment. If Schlissel and Co. aren't ready to make that decision or just don't want to jump the gun, Hackett is a nice solution.
He has access to Harbaugh/Miles because of his history with the program but he doesn't require a significant financial commitment or a long contract from the university.
I think we'd all be pretty happy if we got an elite coach and then went out and conducted a thorough AD search that included guys who didn't attend or work at Michigan at some point. Hackett provides a chance to do that, or at least that could be what the powers that be are thinking.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Fez rules!||
Stop being mean to him.
Far as the defense goes, I just think they're almot impossible to evaluate because the offense has been so shitty. Much like the 2010 offense, it is really hard to figure out how they would perform under remotely normal circumstances.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Downvoted||
This post contains no information about World Television Champion Arn Anderson.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||"didn't perform as well"||
I would have to think literally not being permitted to play in half the games due to an NCAA suspension for taking money from an agent had more to do with his struggles as a senior than losing Woodson.
Hard to play well when you aren't in fact playing.
|4 weeks 1 day 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.
|4 weeks 1 day 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.
|5 weeks 4 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.
|5 weeks 4 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.
|5 weeks 4 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.
|6 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.
|7 weeks 1 day 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.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||Dia de los muertos||
Get out, you fucking ghoul.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||Don't you mean...||
"Stay gold, Ponyboy."
|7 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.
|7 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.
|7 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.
|7 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?
|7 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.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||Or JT Floyd||
He missed the last 5 games of the season with an ankle injury.
|7 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.