"The University of Illinois is also in turmoil. The university sports an Interim Chancellor, an Interim Athletic Director, and an Interim Football Coach; the game will be played at Soldier Field, making this an Illini Interim Home Game."
- Member for
- 6 years 49 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|23 weeks 12 hours ago||Stranded - streaming?||
Stuck in a hotel room in Springfield, MO with no FS1.
|25 weeks 3 days ago||Ranking based on offers||
Chaning ranking based on offers makes the MOST sense to me. That is a recruiting service of non-professionals recognizing that the professionals want the recruit.
|43 weeks 3 days ago||Tork or torque||
|43 weeks 3 days ago||Amazing||
Post and comments. Just wanted to say this is why I love this blog.
|1 year 1 week ago||Eloquently stated||
Brian, you have a knack for saying things in a very moving way. I find myself gravitating toward the human stories as often as the statistics. For some reason, this one really gets to me.
|1 year 2 weeks ago||Why I support Hoke||
Did anyone see the ND game - what happens when a QB makes poor decisions repeatedly in a game against good opposition? ND has developed players, gone to an NC, whipped up on us, etc.
I love DG as the teammate, the competitor, the human being. But I think his decision-making has repeatedly crippled the offense. What would UM's record be if our offense mirrored our defense? 9-1? And it all starts with having a solid leader at the most important offensive position - the position that decides when and where to put the ball. The leader.
I support Hoke because I bet UM will be considerably better next year with a different QB running the offense, a couple of solid running backs, a better O-line, and an offense that mirrors the defense - all of which is not only probable but likely IMHO. And in two years, if a good QB becomes a very good one (and we have every reason to believe that Nuss can make that happen), then an experienced Michigan team will contend for a championship.
Hoke is not the problem - he relied on Borges and now relies on Nuss. Nuss is not the problem. He had little choice but to stick with DG and he simply could not get it done this year. Some writer recently wrote that the failure to develop a quarterback may doom Hoke. It may, but I'm not at all convinced that any other coach gets DG to make consistently good decisions.
|1 year 14 weeks ago||Liked the sentiment||
Not a DB hater, but I like the sentiment about Hoke. He seems to be a great human being - to his players, the fans, the community, etc. He has assembled a very good team - all of whom seem to be very loyal to him. He and his team have recruited top tier atheletes at an astounding rate. We have every reason to get behind him.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||Silly||
Women constitute half the population - or more, actually. We have separate locker rooms due to that fact. If the female population were equivalent to the gay population, I bet there would be many more co-ed locker rooms, and who cares? I have three daughters and would have no problem whatsoever were that to be the case. The reality is that there are only single locker rooms for professional sports teams and given that reality any notions of "discomfort" should be completely irrelevant to anything.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||Yes!||
Completely agree and upvoted.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||"Discomfort" is irrelevant to anything||
Westward, you and others apparently think that some amorphous notion of "discomfort" is relevant to anything having to do with Sam's hiring and employment. My god, the same amorphous arguments were made about women in the workplace and blacks, other minorities, etc., etc. A person's subjective discomfort has no place in a discussion about whether someone should be hired. Many are uncomfortable with straight men "looking at their junk" and it would be no different with gay men. Women in the military have no privacy in the field and in many places (e.g., Israel) there is no problem. Discomfort, whatever that means, does not equate to sexual harassment - which is prohibited by policy and law.
|1 year 42 weeks ago||Great comparison||
Comparing OJ and Gibbons. Interesting. Comparing the amount of evidence we actually know about from a months long televised trial and a confidential internal proceeding. Hmm. I think I fee more comfortable expressing "beliefs" about the former rather than the latter. By all means, express your beliefs. The earth is flat, for instance. That was a solid belief for what a millennium? The point is we know next to nothing about the Gibbons case. That is what makes it so dangerous to attach labels.
|1 year 42 weeks ago||Difference||
I would think there is a big difference between being expelled from a University and incarceration for many years. Please. Using the appropriate terminology actually matters. A lot.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||Children's schools||
UNC - Chapel Hill is amazing and it is a great University. The BBall fanbase is second to none, too.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||Not the entire board||
Just OSU haters who do not understand anything about internal investigations, FERPA, etc. Why are some around here making the same mistake with regard to Hoke whom we have good reason to believe is an otherwise honorable guy. I don't get it.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||Irresponsible||
Your comment about expulsion "for rape" is irresponsible and revealing. He was expelled for violating a University policy that prohibits sexual harassment, sexual misconduct and retaliation. We don't know what part of the policy was implicated. And because you are convinced that Gibbons is a "rapist" (without any legal finding that that is the case) you apparently believe that all those with knowledge of his expulsion obviously have knowledge he is a "rapist" and should have publicly stated such. Which, of course, would have been per se defamatory unless demonstrably true. But knowledge of an accusation, an internal finding of a policy violation, an expulsion, and the nature of the policy violation are all different things that do not necessarily overlap. Hoke's choice of vague wording is not only defensible but required under the circumstances. I'm quite certain you would not be any happier had Hoke said "for personal reasons" or any other vague and perfectly defensible words.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||Meyer raising alleged impropriety of the Michigan staff?||
It is certainly possible. But I am trying to envision how the conversation goes - and would be received. It is not as if OSU has squeeky clean record. And it is well documented that negative recruiting can boomerang. Hoke seems to be universally loved by players and recruits. I don't think you are giving enough credit to the McDowell family.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||Jurisdiction||
I think you are missing the fundamental point relating to jurisdiction of various committees on campus and the confidentiality that goes with those bodies. Again, as a Higher Ed lawyer, I can state with certainty that internal investigatory bodies have strict rules regarding confidentiality that very often require those bodies not to inform others of the fact or status of pending investigations. Would such a committee notify faculty members who are teaching students of a pending investigation relating to such an investigation? Of course not. The same likely holds true of investigations relating to atheletes. Among other things, the reason why others are not advised of investigations is to prevent retaliation. The accused is also protected by rules against disseminating information. You would be amazed by how confidential these kinds of investigations can be. Once a decision is made, the decision is communicated to persons on a need to know basis. To assume Hoke or any of his staff knew anything material about the internal investigation prior to the decision is speculation.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||My beef with Brian's post||
My beef with Brian's post has nothing to do with his not saying that rape is reprehensible. The moral depravity of rape was not his subject. My beef with the post, or the title, is that untruths abound. Do we really know that? Sure, this is a blog, a forum for opinions. But as the creator of this blog, I think Brian should be particularly circumspect before reaching conclusions about something as significant as being untruthful about a student athelete's status vis-a-vis an internal investigation of violations of the University's sexual misconduct policy.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||I am a Higher Ed lawyer||
and I offer this thought. What WE know is actually very little. As I understand it, Gibbons was found by an internal University investigative body to have violated a University policy. That policy presumably prohibits both assault and retaliation. No one seems to be talking about the latter. Is it possible that there was inconclusive evidence of assault, but sufficient evidence of retaliation? Retaliatory action would presumably carry just as heavy a potential penalty. Is it possible that some retaliatory action happened long after the sexual interaction? Sexual assault is by definition criminal; retaliation is not necessarily criminal but it would most assuredly violate University policies.
I know as much and as little as everyone else. My questions are speculative - just like the vast majority of comments. We may never know the facts, the reasons for the delay, the reasons Hoke said what he did because of a variety of confidentiality requirements. But to brand Gibbons or Hoke as criminal seems to me to be irresponsible.
The same can be said about Hoke's conduct. We really know next to nothing about what he knew, when, and how. Branding him as a liar (someone who said something he knew to be untrue at the time he said it) also seems irresponsible given what I understand the facts to be.
It is clear, however, that there is an epidemic on university campuses of binge drinking and misconduct related to or arising from impairment. That is the larger issue. How do we protect students when students - male and female - continually make poor choices that change their lives forever? How do we, or can we, change culture, attitudes, and behaviors in a meaningful way?
|1 year 45 weeks ago||GRIII||
Watching the '89 team last night made me think of this team's similarities. Very tough conference, other teams favored, but a Michigan team with great passion and leadership. GRIII seems to be the key. Ever since Mitch went down he seems to be on an absolute mission. Probably an unfair comparison but he reminds me of Rice - someone who can dominate any game when he puts his mind to it. I would not be at all surprised if they had a tough go in conference and then went on another run in the tourney.
|2 years 2 weeks ago||Perspective||
I rarely post (obviously) but was very moved by your post. It sure puts things in perspective. I'm confident the entire MGo community is behind you and your wife. Games are games. Life is not. Best wishes times a thousand.
|2 years 3 weeks ago||Really dumb, conspiratorial question||
There is still talk in St. Lou of Belichick stealing signs, cheating, etc. against the Rams. Poor excuse, I know.
Is there any possibility that opposing teams, especially in their stadiums, get our offensive plays at the same time our offense does?
OK, pathetic question. Sorry.
|2 years 3 weeks ago||Matchups||
It seems like Mattison is most concerned by our secondary. MSU had some big, fast, athletic wideouts - or so it seemed. How does our secondary matchup against the Nebraska receiving corps?
|4 years 46 weeks ago||Dee is terrific, but||
I'd love to have Dee but he has seemed so conflicted for so long. I long for crazed, committed, passionate players who love Michigan. I know, Dee's just a kid, etc. But I really think kids who are single minded are better for programs. No questioning themselves or what needs to be done when doing the hard work, practicing long hours, or in the huddle. No proof, of course, just a hunch.
|4 years 46 weeks ago||Great news - and thanks Justice!||
This is very good for the program. Kids love Coach Jackson and he is a genuinely good guy. He will help stabilize recruiting. I also appreciate Justice's frequent support for the team and his steadfast committment. Looking forward to seeing him compete for UM.
|4 years 46 weeks ago||What do you mean, we should jump off?||
I don't understand. We should not "jump on the bandwagon" because of Hoke's record at . . .SDSU, that traditional football powerhouse? Come on, please. He has done really well at really bad places. How do you think UM would have done this year against TCU and Mizzou with our defensive situation. And as Coach said, "this is Michigan for God's sake."
|4 years 46 weeks ago||Feel much the same||
Wrote a few days about the same feeling. Read alot and don't post alot. But the negativity can be really bad around here. My wife actually noticed and commented on it. Life is short. I'm amazed at how many people are so purely negative and willing to trash. I think Brian must be simply exhausted at this point. But he needs to get alot more positive about this stuff. I mean, this is college sports, not life and death. Let's have some fun, right? Brian, please lead us to a happier place with inspiring, supportive stuff, not the nearly constant downer stuff.
|4 years 46 weeks ago||Have to love to inspire||
Disagree totally with this. Don't think Bo loved Michigan. You can't inspire unless you are passionate.
|4 years 46 weeks ago||Totally agree||
It is easy to say "he's our coach so let's support him." But I genuinely thought Coach Hoke was terrific during the press conference. You can see passion, sincerity and love for all things Michigan. He killed it. I don't think it is fair to bash Brandon by contrast. Brandon is sleep deprived and justifiably sick of the media nonesense. I think Brandon was fired up by Coach and thought this is the time to send the message that this is Michigan. We run things, not the Detroit press.
|4 years 46 weeks ago||Miles is the next coach and let´s support him||
Don, it became clear to me as all of this was playing out that we should have seen this coming sooner. I think Miles has been the guy from day one. Probably planned since December or earlier. The way DB has done his ¨succession planning¨ it really makes sense to me that this has been lined up for a long time. The fact that DB and LM know each other really, really well tells me that DB did not just happen to call LM this week. This has been packaged for a long time. The rest has been a play out required to save face of good folks like RR, JH, BH, Fitz, etc. Higher ed and corporate types often conduct ¨searches¨when the winning candidate was selected in a board room or clubhouse months before. I am not being conspiratorial, and I´m not being critical of DB. I just think this is the way things are done. I simply refuse to believe that a corporate warrior like DB would let the single most important job of his tenure get started on January 1, 2011. This was ready to go, with a timeline planned out, weeks if not months before. Now the press would never approve of that, and various consituencies (like the pro RR faction) would never abide this kind of thing. So that is why a ¨search¨has been conducted.