Rawls if he can hang onto it, I'd guesss
wolverienstra
History
- Member for
- 3 years 45 weeks
Karma
- Current value
Recent Comments
| Date | Title | Body |
|---|---|---|
| 14 weeks 2 days ago | This must be bumped |
to the front page. srsly. |
| 22 weeks 15 hours ago | A monetary motivation for dragging out RichRod's firing? |
Re: JUB's response to question 8) the Firing Process, JUB says "So, why drag it out?... Since this boils down to speculation, something I’ve tried to avoid, your guess is as good as mine." One possible reason that has not been mentioned so far is that by waiting to fire Rodriguez until after the Jan. 1 Gator Bowl, Brandon saved the school $1.5 million. As JUB writes at the end of Chapter 7: "Coleman and Martin agreed to adjust [Rodriguez'] contract to provide for a $4 million buyout from Michigan if they let him go during any of the first three years, instead of his original buyout deal, which diminished by $500,000 after each year. After January 1, 22011, however, it would fall to $2.5 million." (emphasis mine) So, in addition to all the other reasons put forth why Brandon may have waited until after the Gator Bowl to fire Rodriguez, it seems logical to me that -- being a business man first -- Brandon would have taken that $1.5 million savings into consideration, as well. Even if Brandon had already made up his mind to fire Rodriguez before Jan. 5, there probably was not enough upside to firing him in December, if by waiting until January did help Brandon set the stage for Hoke -- plus all the other reasons JUB cites -- and saved a bunch of money, too.
|
| 1 year 27 weeks ago | Dang, thought I was the only one here old enough to remember him |
Dennis Franklin would have killed teams running this offense. The UM teams in the early 70s when he was QB were already loaded enough, and given his mobility, they would have been almost unstoppable. |
| 1 year 28 weeks ago | Carl follows this blog |
...so why not ask him? I think he'd probably love the idea. |
| 1 year 31 weeks ago | True, but don't forget stadium is losing capacity |
when they finish the final phase of the original project and widen all the aisles and when (or if) they widen the space between each seat by ~1". We lose >3K seats that way, if not more. Brandon's not blind to the fact that in the alumni survey that preceded this expansion, one of the top requests (besides more + better bathrooms) was that the Big House stay #1 in capacity. I think we may lose that distinction when this last phase is completed. Plus, demand is still high enough that UM could sell out 115-120K. Anyone have a SWAG as to how many more seats UM could gain by building up, say, another 20 or so rows on either (or both) ends of the stadium, and what the new capacity would be, if you assume we start from 108,000 based on the above? |
| 1 year 31 weeks ago | Home-and-homes hard to justify vs. more tomato cans at UM |
That's a great idea, but issue UM has with scheduling home-and-homes is re: the revenue from these games. I read in another thread (re: the 'Bama game in '12, IIRC) that revenue gets split between all the Big 10 teams. (Or is that just for the away games?) So there's not as much incentive to schedule h-&-hs with big-name schools vs. bringing in more tomato cans / Baby Seal U's to the Big House b/c not as much revenue benefit. From revenue standpoint, best alternative is seemingly to go the neutral-site route, a la selling our souls to play Nick Satan's team in Dallas in '12, b/c I think UM gets to keep their half of the revenue from this game. Would be interesting to see if UM ever pursues holding a neutral-site game at Yankee Stadium, like ND is, given our large alumni base there and Delany's lusting after that TV market. |
| 2 years 22 weeks ago | Wait -- What? |
Brian writes: "You also can't keep all the rivalries together if Pitt is indeed the pick. You try to split this into six team divisions: Michigan-OSU-MSU Wait -- you just *did*, Brian. Put those first two triplets in one division; the last three pairs in the other. There are exactly zero meaningful rivalries lost with this arrangement, and UM v. OSU is retained and could still be the final regular season game; it would probably be for the division title most years, with no repeat matchup in the conference title game. Granted, this arrangement makes the division Michigan is in a bit more loaded for football & hoops, but shouldn't we be OK with facing a tougher schedule / better teams, anyway? This arrangement works because, even though Ohio is somewhat out of place in either of those directional scenarios, well, who the hell cares where Ohio is, anyway, except south of us (geographically and in every other sense)? So, if you must have some kind of division naming convention, North - South or East - West works if you ignore Ohio, which is a good m.o., regardless. I really cannot see any other acceptable way of splitting up the conference into divisions if Pitt is indeed the 12th school. |
| 2 years 27 weeks ago | I have found peace... |
by accepting the fact that, this season, we are in essence fielding a JV team (+ 1 or 2 Varsity guys) on each side of the ball. So, Brian, don't check out emotionally; simply readjust your mindset: Michigan has no Varsity football team this year; it's the JV team only. Go ahead -- say it: WE ARE A JV TEAM. And the JV is putting up a good battle against these much tougher Varsity teams, but no JV team is likely to beat a good Varsity Big 10 squad. Any win is like the intervention of the hand (or foot) of God in a Monty Python film. You can expect it to appear once, but for the remainder, it's "Run awaaaaaaay!" All we can hope for is the hand (or foot) of God to make a cameo again this weekend. Amen. |
| 2 years 28 weeks ago | Amen! |
And speaking of God -- for good measure, I've decided to join all the world's religions for the next two weeks. Hedging my bets... |
| 2 years 30 weeks ago | 2009 == WIP |
+1 on this post I admit I also found myself guilty of some "irrational exuberance" about this team after the first couple games. But, you are spot on -- this team is still a work in progress, and we just can't expect a team this young to have it all together every week. It's also unfair -- and unrealistic -- to expect the kind of 2nd-year turnaround in W-L record RichRod had at WVU, etc. This team *is* still making progress, but that may not translate into more wins this season. Sure, 8-4 is still a possibility, which ain't shabby, but 7-5 for this team would still be a big step forward. All they really need is 1 more win to get into a bowl game, and that would still be huge -- 4-5 additional weeks of practice with RichRod's system will do a world of good building toward next season. |
