Once in a blue moon you go against a team that is just in the zone. Nothing you do will stop them. The fact that it happened this year, for The Game, is a mean joke.
Yea but saying it at this time suggests to me that a thorough evaluation is yet to be done and there was no vote of confidence given. I'd suspect that, if he supported him and wanted to evaluate things per protocol before making it official then he'd either stay quiet or give a word of confidence. He may be trying to quiet the fan base down but I just find it peculiar.
Unfortunately I think it means B - negotiations with future coach are ongoing. Don't forget Michigan was unwilling to wait a month to hire Les Miles after the nat'l title game 3 years ago. I think a head coach deserves at least 4 years (citation: Ty Willingham) but David Brandon's comments sure do make it look murky.
Is RRod actually on a hot seat or do we just want to put him on one? Look I'm just as unhappy with our defense and turnovers as the next guy - but why do we make a story when there is no story. The real story is how does Michigan improve, what our chances are in a bowl game, and what improvements people make in the off-season/recruiting. The Rich Ridriguez hot seat has no basis outside of an angry fan base.
People always called for Lloyd Carr's head the moment we lost our first road game. Yea we always ended in a New Year's Bowl but that didn't stop the fan base from hating on Carr almost like they do against RRod. Difference is RRod isn't a 'Michigan man' so he has less people supporting him in my opinion and we aren't winning. Does anyone besides me think Carr's retirement wasn't coincidental but moreso at a time when the cupboard was drying up?
Mary Sue has said that three years isn't long enough for a coach to turn things around. David Brandon has never given any type of hint that RRod is even on the hot seat much less possibly fired. Where's the story from people who make decisions? Why do we make up a hot seat when there's no evidence of one?
Let's look at the real scenario here. We're 7-5 and lost to three teams who finished 11-1, another who beat/almost beat those three (Iowa) and thanks to our defense lost to Penn State. Not the season I like but not one that suggests impending doom either. We've seen big improvements each season and, since we started from putrid & awful, we've got more climbing to do.
Let's just look forward to our first bowl game in 3 years, extra practices for our young team, and towards a better defense and less mistake-prone offense. I don't think we're that far don't give up hope and don't leave our new Michigan Man out to dry when it looks like he finally has the foundation he needs.
Final note I found RRod's beaten down demeanor after the OSU game somewhat encouraging. It showed me that he understands the rivalry - something I was not convinced of last year.
Obviously a 65-team tournament has been nothing short of perfect. But believe it or not but I'm not totally against the 96 team format IF 2 things happen:
1) They eliminate the NIT (which I believe is the sparkplug for this idea to begin with)
2) They make the bottom 64 teams "play-in" to the real first round of the tournament. This scenario would create more cinderellas and reward the top 32 teams for being good with one less game.
I don't think it would be a huge deal if they do this because it eliminates the most pointless tournament in the NIT and creates more cinderella possibilities in that any of 32 additional teams could get hot and pull off some upsets.
A 38% chance of winning is better than what I would have given us before reading this post. Thanks for getting my hopes up only to be crushed Saturday afternoon.
When did Michigan fans care about the Motor City Bowl? The additional practice time would be awesome yes but why are we judging RichRod on whether or not he goes 6-6?
Perhaps it's that difficult for us to comprehend that our team simply isn't as talented as we're used to being. We need to give RR time to get the ship straight - and I don't think anyone would argue that the team on the field looks drastically better than it did last year - even if it still isn't good enough to win.
I just care about how he performs in the rivalry games and if the team can compete with top tier competition. We have a win against Notre Dame which is mildly satisfying. Now we just need to hope for a 1969-level upset next weekend and get better next year (esp on Defense) so we can move one step further.
Save the negativity for when we're actually expected to do well and field a team that's competitive on both sides of the ball. Hopefully that's next year.
So after today and really our performance for the past month or so I've had a few lingering questions:
1) What happened to our motivation? Freep crap aside, were we honestly that much more motivated to play Western than we are any Big Ten opponent?
2) Our O-line was thin, but was losing Molk THAT big a deal?
3) Is it just me or is Forcier trying to be the hero way too often?
4) If you are going to run it 4 times on the goal line - shouldn't Denard be put in for at least one of them?
It's not really the number of wins, but actual predictions. He predicted we'd lose to Western simply because we lost the last 2 openers and Western has an experienced team.
Then they predicted MSU would beat Penn St and get an at-large BCS birth.
I guess it makes money to go out on a limb rather than be conservative in your predictions. No the numbers of wins aren't necessarily that far off, but the game by game predictions have some pretty obvious outliers.
It only costs $5/month for Big Ten Network on Comcast in ACC Country. They charge $2 to activate it and $2 to cancel it but it's all very inexpensive.
Plus don't forget the online streaming.
Random thought - is there any council to verify journalistic integrity? Are journalist somehow licensed with an oath of objectivity and professionalism?
The Free Press (Rosenberg, editors, and everyone else) should be investigated for behvior such as this.
If no such body exists - I guess I know why I read blogs and watch television news instead.
So after reading the article and thinking about what it "alleges" they basically seem, to me, to have one thing of any substance. Having the staff at the 7-on-7's, if it's really not allowed and if we really did break the rule, seems to be the only point of substance they have.
They calculated 21-24 hours a week of practice. Considering their bias to count to the higher end, that means we're probably below the 20 hour limit.
The Sunday thing says players were there for 10-12 hours. But with treatment time, lunch, time between actual sessions in the day, etc they must have found a way to make it 4 hours of actual time.
The workouts are about as weak sauce as ever. Especially if the workouts are approved by the NCAA already.
Regardless this will hurt though. An inside view into our program, everything they dislike about it, will definitely hurt recruiting. If you're a big time recruit you want to go to a program that says the workouts are SO awful and you don't do well in school because of them?
This is a really cool analysis. Honestly one of the best thought out predictions I've personally ever seen.
I'd be really interested to see what this formula predicts a few games into the season when we find out 1) how good our qb's really are gonna be and 2) how overrated ND really is.
One point I slightly disagree with though which has nothing to do with your calculations - I don't think going from 3-9 to 9-3 under RRod is exactly what the fan base is looking for. Let's be completely honest losing to OSU 5 times in a row is what we're hurting about. Now being good enough to beat OSU means you get more wins, yes, but I really think he has to beat OSU sometime within the next couple years for the fan base to have any real satisfaction.
Oh one other thing I meant to mention. If you have people paying all this money for a suite - shouldn't they expect the majority of the season to be at the Big House (7 or 8 games a year at least right). That would justify Bill Martin's scheduling practices in the future if he does that. I wonder if people will be disgruntled when we go to UConn - assuming we don't buy ourselves out of that contract first.
Kinda funny but when I saw the sketches of this project I wanted them to make the new structures go all the way around the stadium - kind of like Lambeau Field. I found it funny that I wanted more when there are so many people who want less.
Also one other thing to mention is the POTENTIAL for more games being played at the Big House. If we actually get the world cup game, for example, wouldn't that be significant revenue for athletic department? Events like that want high quality press boxes and lots of suites so perhaps that's a beneficial side effect of all this we haven't even thought of.
Rankings don't matter! They're subjective crap meant to hype games for TV. All that matters is who finishes #1 & #2. Since Notre Dame already has one slot and Florida the other it's a moot point.
Divisions are a scam. It's really no different than having another conference. It also opens the door to having so-so teams win a conference title (Kansas State, Virginia Tech...) They also diminish the importance of inter-division matchups since they have no implications on anything except for conference title game tie-breakers and BCS standings (which only matter for the nat'l title obviously).
Look at the Big 12 North. You could also go the route of the ACC divisions which make no sense geographically and they don't factor in program ups and downs over time (so eventually one division could become like the Big 12 north).
Adding a 12th team is fine. Having 9 conference games would be awesome. I hate divisions though and a conference title game, although profitable, is something else I hate.
What I would prefer instead is a financially absurd but still awesome idea. How about a game where, if 2 teams who didn't play each other and are tied in the standings, then have a neutral site game to decide the champion. It'd be like a tie-breaker game in baseball.
Another possibility is to just have the top 2 teams square off (forget divisions). The issue there is you might, and likely will, have Michigan-OSU playing twice in a row.
Furthermore, although we know it's BS, look at the "playoffs are too hard on the athletes" argument. We've since added a 12th game, conference title game, and extended the bowl season till mid-January. Tell me how those three games are less academically distracting than a 3-game playoff??? If you want to make a BS argument at least make it less obvious you're lying.
I'm limiting my list to games I've seen live because, let's face it, the memories are that much stronger when you see it in person:
#1: Michigan vs OSU 2003 (only time Tressel lost to us - many more to come)
#2: Washington @ Michigan 2002 - my first game at the big house and a game-winning field goal to end it
#3: Michigan State @ Michigan 2004 - record setting comeback
#4: Penn State @ Michigan 2002 & 2005 - OT game and Manningham last second catch
#5: Texas vs Michigan 2005 Rose Bowl - we lost by a last second field goal but what a fantastic game.
I vote for a re-match with Appalachian State. It's a game that generates tons of national interest and it's a game that we are still supposed to win. Just don't let them block field goals.
Recent Comments
Once in a blue moon you go against a team that is just in the zone. Nothing you do will stop them. The fact that it happened this year, for The Game, is a mean joke.
Yea but saying it at this time suggests to me that a thorough evaluation is yet to be done and there was no vote of confidence given. I'd suspect that, if he supported him and wanted to evaluate things per protocol before making it official then he'd either stay quiet or give a word of confidence. He may be trying to quiet the fan base down but I just find it peculiar.
Unfortunately I think it means B - negotiations with future coach are ongoing. Don't forget Michigan was unwilling to wait a month to hire Les Miles after the nat'l title game 3 years ago. I think a head coach deserves at least 4 years (citation: Ty Willingham) but David Brandon's comments sure do make it look murky.
Of course right after I write that post this article comes up: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5862202&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines
I guess David Brandon has hinted that RRod is on the hot seat.
Is RRod actually on a hot seat or do we just want to put him on one? Look I'm just as unhappy with our defense and turnovers as the next guy - but why do we make a story when there is no story. The real story is how does Michigan improve, what our chances are in a bowl game, and what improvements people make in the off-season/recruiting. The Rich Ridriguez hot seat has no basis outside of an angry fan base.
People always called for Lloyd Carr's head the moment we lost our first road game. Yea we always ended in a New Year's Bowl but that didn't stop the fan base from hating on Carr almost like they do against RRod. Difference is RRod isn't a 'Michigan man' so he has less people supporting him in my opinion and we aren't winning. Does anyone besides me think Carr's retirement wasn't coincidental but moreso at a time when the cupboard was drying up?
Mary Sue has said that three years isn't long enough for a coach to turn things around. David Brandon has never given any type of hint that RRod is even on the hot seat much less possibly fired. Where's the story from people who make decisions? Why do we make up a hot seat when there's no evidence of one?
Let's look at the real scenario here. We're 7-5 and lost to three teams who finished 11-1, another who beat/almost beat those three (Iowa) and thanks to our defense lost to Penn State. Not the season I like but not one that suggests impending doom either. We've seen big improvements each season and, since we started from putrid & awful, we've got more climbing to do.
Let's just look forward to our first bowl game in 3 years, extra practices for our young team, and towards a better defense and less mistake-prone offense. I don't think we're that far don't give up hope and don't leave our new Michigan Man out to dry when it looks like he finally has the foundation he needs.
Final note I found RRod's beaten down demeanor after the OSU game somewhat encouraging. It showed me that he understands the rivalry - something I was not convinced of last year.
This Big East ultimatum about ND is the first I've heard of it. Can someone please provide greater evidence of this rumor?