Lowering Expectations
We've seen some interesting things with the arrival of the Brady Hoke Era. Perhaps the most interesting things have occurred in the intersection of Coach Hoke and the local media that had declared War on Rich Rodriguez at the end of 2010.
The year began with Michael Rosenberg declaring on January 4 that he had "zero doubt that he [Jim Harbaugh] wants the Michigan job." Those were the days when Rosenberg had long since ceased answering questions about his vendetta against Rodriguez, and was openly campaigning for Harbaugh to be Michigan's next head football coach. A couple of months before, Rosenberg had written a worshipful puff-piece on the Harbaugh brothers for Sports Illustrated. Rosenberg's big concern appeared to be whether or not David Brandon would do a satisfactory job of courting Jim Harbaugh.
Rosenberg was all wrong, of course; Harbaugh didn't want the Michigan job.
Brady Hoke was hired, and the pivot on the part of the Free Press was so dramatic that it gave its critics many more months of good reason to laugh at the corruption of the newspaper's sports editors. Hoke-worship became as obvious as the Rodriguez-hatred of just a few weeks earlier. All of it, naturally, continued to sell newspapers and page-hits for the Freep.
The high level of enthusiastic cheerleading for Hoke has continued, for the past seven months. Plenty of time, in campaign terms, to set up the narrative; that Michigan is back to being tough and tremendous and all of those things. Which is fine, until expectations run into reality, head-on.
The expectations game is big in campaigns, and so now the question becomes, will we see yet another pivot, to "reduced expectations" for Michigan's 2011 season from our friends Rosenberg, Snyder and Sharp at the Detroit Fish Wrapper? I say yes, and that in the next two weeks, as the preseason punditry begins to spill out, that is exactly what we will get. Time will tell. Very soon. Like a countdown clock.
In the meantime, it has already started. Rosenberg's latest is to declare that Michigan "will struggle early" this season, and then will end the season with a win over Nebraska or Ohio State. He doesn't say which one, which sort of makes it sound like flipping a coin, and then writing your coulmn before picking up your check from the Gannett Company. Except that Rosenberg didn't even bother to flip the coin. He's just saying that Michigan will beat one or the other because, well, it sounds sort of good to say it that way. Give the folks a little Hoke, er, hope, and don't get anybody too excited because then people might start thinking about the fact that Michigan was 7-5 in last year's regular season and went to a bowl game and hey what's the difference?
Rosenberg's latest column is so completely devoid of any real information it is something that any blog-reader could have phoned in from the comfort of their own toilet seat at home. There is literally not a single item of news, not a single original thought, not one thing that isn't the sort of routine garbage that you might hear two guys discussing at a bar. In fact, if the bar was Fraser's Pub, you'd probably get a lot better news and information than from a Free Press sports columnist. It really poses the question; now that Michael Rosenberg has cut himself off from the Athletic Department and all personal interviews with anyone who isn't already doing the run of the mill press conferences for Mark Snyder to cover, what does Rosenberg even have to do with Michigan athletics anymore?
Nothing, I'd say, other than what he seems to be doing now. Managing expectations. Keeping it real, so that no one gets agitated or disappointed if the 2011 Michigan Wolverines look like the 2010 Wolverines with a slightly more sluggish and sloppy offense, and an improved defense.
August 15th, 2011 at 1:39 PM ^
This post lacks importance.
August 15th, 2011 at 1:36 PM ^
For the record, I think the Free Press sucks too. But forgetting Freep for a moment, it is a good question. What should we realistically expect from our team this year? In my opinion, Western, Eastern, SDSU, Northwestern, Illinios, Minnesota and Purdue should all be fairly easy wins. ND, MSU, Iowa, Nebraska and Ohio are tough opponents but I think all these games are winnable. Also ND, Nebraska and Ohio are at home.
I would be pretty dissappointed if we didn't go 7-5 in regular season play again this year. I know its a new coach, new system, new personel etc...but on paper, this team looks pretty good with a lot of talent returning from last year. Eight wins would be great. Nine wins would be pretty friggin awesome. Anything above nine would be truly amazing.
Managing expectations is one thing, but this is Michigan we're talking about. My late grandfather used to say "We don't rebuild, we reload!".
August 15th, 2011 at 1:56 PM ^
August 15th, 2011 at 1:37 PM ^
Yeah, talk about a jihad. First off, the paper as a whole did not make it its mission in life to destroy RR. Rosenberg and Snyder ran a story that was overcooked (though not entirely so). Definitely true. But RR did plenty to destroy himself. And, anyway, it was quite a while ago. So let it go already.
Second: It's been fairly widely established that Harbaugh wanted the M job, then changed his mind when the NFL offers proved too enticing. It seems likely that the respective camps had signaled Harbaugh's interest to the media/Rosenberg. A paper should never report a "done deal" until its actually done, of course. So Rosenberg was certainly wrong to do that. But no doubt either Harbaugh or M pulled the rug on that one.
August 15th, 2011 at 1:38 PM ^
Michael Rosenburg
Section One hates you ... a lot
angioplasty
August 15th, 2011 at 1:53 PM ^
Can we get a t-shirt in the MGoStore that says "Section 1 is my homeboy"?
August 15th, 2011 at 2:08 PM ^
Either that (what you took 1,278,321 words to try and say) or he simply thinks Michigan will struggle early and get better as the season progresses.
Hmmmmmm..............................
August 15th, 2011 at 2:27 PM ^
Look , I usually disagree with Section 1 on all things relating to the RR era. He is still very supportive of RR, whereas I am happy to see him gone.
That said, I think that this is actually a good point. The Brady Hoke hype machine - which I am a part of and which I am enjoying ecvery second of - is running rampant. People are expecting 10 wins or more. Not going to happen. Why?
Because, as Sec. 1 points out, the hype must meet the reality, and the reality is that we are not a 10 win team.
Sure, we return a lot on offense. But:
1. We still don't have a feature RB. RB is sort of an important position.
2. Denard is going through a transition and will take time to adjust. He will be better off long term, but the first few games may be rough, and one of those first few is a tough ND team.
3. Our O-line depth is scary thin. If one of our starters goes down, we could be in trouble.
4. Our WRs should be fine, but are still getting used to a new system. See #2 above.
Now let's look at our defense. 1. We return just about everyone from last year. And while those players age a full year, consider that:
1. No amount of aging is going to make some of these guys top level talent to keep up with the offenses of ND, Neb or even OSU.
2. Another new system - the third in three years for some of these kids. I do think that this system is infinitely better and G. Mattison is way better of a teacher than GERG, but still. Transitions, and all.
3. Scary thin at LB.
4. Scary thin and young and somewhat low on talent in the secondary.
Not trying to be a Debbie Downer, but the reality is that the talent on this team is such thatwe are 1-2 years away from being a 10-win team. The hype has been pretty insane, it may not live up to what the reality is.
I think that the media does, actually, realize this and as Sec. 1 says, is probably doing their best to manage these expectations now that the season is coming. But, I don't think that there is anything wrongh with this. Their job is to sell papers and get clicks - so long as they are not trashing our program in the process, I could care less where they set expectations.
August 15th, 2011 at 2:48 PM ^
Well-stated. But actually, you've said much, much more than I originally intended. Those are all judgments (about the team's future success) that I am leaving to others.
Now this part is especially funny: There is a better rebuttal to my OP, than anyone has yet suggested. So I'll do it for you. It is this; that even David Brandon is moderating his expectations for the team this year.
I don't know how many of you guys get The Wolverine, but you should if you don't. And the current issue has one of the longest interviews with Dave Brandon that has yet been published by anyone. It's a really, really good interview. INCLUDING, I'd like to note, a rather pointed question about a certain local newspaper. (And people think this is my private obsession?!?)
Anyway, the interivew also included Brandon's comments on the future expectations for the football program. To which Brandon commented generally, that he expects the team to be competing for the Big Ten Championship in "three years." (Is there a link online? If so, I'd appreciate it, because I'd like to get Brandon's words just right. He should not be misquoted.) Brandon, I would think, would very much want to "manage expectations." It is what guys in his position, with a particular vested interest, do.
August 15th, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^
You know things have reached a sad state when you post a rant and no one cares... to the point where you have to rebut your own argument just to try to get a discussion going. Wow.
August 15th, 2011 at 6:55 PM ^
Fight on, Section 1. Fight on. I've said it before, I'll say it again: I love that you don't let the snarky and sometimes downright mean, personal, and childish comments deter you. And thanks for the head's up re: DB in The Wolverine.
Never forget. I won't even click Rosenberg's links on SI.com. Principle, man.
August 15th, 2011 at 3:19 PM ^
On paper, friend. We are not a 10-win team on paper. Hype isn't about what's on paper.
August 15th, 2011 at 8:44 PM ^
QB: Denard (4-star Jr., returning All-American, 6th place Heisman finisher, leading rusher in the Big Ten) backed up by Devin (4-star RS freshman)
RB: All the top rushers from the position from a year ago, 5 (including multiple blue-chip recruits) who have combined for over 2,000 career rushing yards and 24 rushing TD, plus two talented recruits
WR: Roundtree (4-star RS Jr who was the third leading receiver in the conference a year ago), Hemingway (4-star senior with 940 career receiving yards and 7 TD), Odoms (senior with 956 career receiving yards), backed up by two 4-star juniors (Robinson and Stokes), plus Kelvin Grady. And that is after losing Stonum to suspension/redshirt (another 4-star senior with loads of prior production
C: Molk (four year starter, returning Rimington award finalist)
T: Lewan (4-star beast, returning starter, Adam Claiborne's dad) and either Huyge (senior returning starter) or Schofield (4-star RS sophomore)
G: Omameh (returning starter, Manti Teo's dad) and either Ricky Barnum (4-star RS Jr) or Elliot Mealer (4-star RS Jr)
DT: Martin (4-star senior, fourth year starter, returning all-conference performer, strongest human ever) and Campbell (5-star Jr) backed up by Washington (4-star RS Soph) and Ash (4-star RS Frosh)
DE: RVB (4-star senior, third year starter with 9 career sacks) and Craig Roh (4-star Jr, third year starter)
LB: Kenny Demens (4-star Jr, returning starter, averaged over 10 tackles a game last year), Cam Gordon (4-star Soph, returning starter, freshman All-American, made 77 tackles, three picks, recovered two fumbles and took one to the house last year), and choice of Fitzgerald, Herron, Evans, Ryan, Jones, Bell, or many freshmen at the other spot.
CB: Woolfolk (Sr returning starter, T-Wolf) and Avery (Soph returning starter) backed up by Floyd (played a ton), Talbott, and four talented freshmen
S: Kovacs (third year starter), Johnson (returning starter), and Tom Gordon (returning starter) battling with young studs Furman and Robinson
That looks pretty good to me. At worst, it is a hell of a lot better than any time in recent memory. At best I think it is the most talented and experienced team in the conference.
August 15th, 2011 at 8:58 PM ^
I like the cut of your jib.
August 15th, 2011 at 10:00 PM ^
I agree that there is more talent on this team than is generally acknowledged, especially on defense. But none of that speaks to wins.
You really think Michigan is a 10 win team based on what you've listed?
August 15th, 2011 at 11:25 PM ^
Experienced, blue-chip talent at virtually every position on the field. Four year starters and All-Americans anchoring both lines. And the best player in college football running the show on offense.
Yes, this is a team that can/will win 10 games. The last time Michigan won 7 games, lost little/nothing to the NFL draft, and brought back this many talented/experienced players was 2006. That worked out nicely as well, and I bet few if any people (especially outside the program) would have predicted double digit wins for that team.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:50 AM ^
The critical difference is that the 2005 team lost it's 5 games by 21 total points; in 2010 Michigan lost 6 games by 125 total points. That's a per loss scoring differential of 4.2 vs 20.8...c'mon, man. The 2005 team was disappointing but way closer that the 2010 team was.
I think the offense will be fine -- not as prolific as last year but more effective. No worries there. In order to get to 10 wins, however, our defense will have to be top 25; I just don't see it. Not on paper.
Tell you what: we win 10, I'll buy you a beer in Indy.
Run down the schedule and tell me which 10 games we win... uh, please.
I see 7, think we get 8, and hope we get 9. That's all I can do...
August 16th, 2011 at 1:38 AM ^
This team is going to be better at basically every single position on the field, has a coaching staff everyone is raving about, not to mention the conference isn't as strong (no way teams like MSU or OSU or anyone else win 11 games next year), and yet you see us winning the exact same number of games (as the guy who just got fired for not winning more). Wisconsin is the only team on the schedule that remotely scares me (and a big part of me doubts they'll catch lightning in a bottle two years in a row).
EDIT: Wisconsin ain't on the schedule it turns out (derp), so yeah, make mine a Bud.
August 16th, 2011 at 1:59 AM ^
Purp... we got blown, the fuck, out every time we lost, brother. Jail sexed. In the boot. No lube. It is possible to improve substantially and not win any more games. Yes, that is beyond the comprehension of mainstream folk, but that ain't you.
I see 7 teams I know we can beat. I'll patiently accept 1-4 in the others, and be a mo'fo'ing peacock at 2 - 3. I'm too sober to contemplate beyond that. If we had been competitive losers in *some* of our losses I might be of a different mind, but we weren't. So hard, we weren't.
My offer stands: We win 10, and we drink together in Indy. I'll push it up to three drinks on me. Hold me to it, mgohonor style.
August 15th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^
Last year, when the Freep writers didn't predict Michigan to do much, people just said they were biased.
I guess one man's "attempt to lower expectations" is another man's irrational bias.
August 15th, 2011 at 2:36 PM ^
C'mon now, you read the Freep religiously so I don't have to. Do you really expect anyone to buy such nonsense. Now you come out with a PSA, warning at some point in the future, the Freep is going to feature an article tempering expectations. Great, thanks for bracing me for the dastardly article that will at some point be forced upon you by the Freep. I couldn't face such a calamitous article without you're humble forewarning.
August 15th, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^
Story Bro
August 15th, 2011 at 2:47 PM ^
I was hoping this post to be about the expectations M has this year in comparison to what they have returning from a 7 win team from 2010:
1) 9 starters returning on offense, a extremely rare number. The offense is experienced, fairly talented and lost only Shilling, Stonum & and returns a starting QB.
2) 9 starters return on defense, including the entire DL and a player who was out with an injury from last year. Our only losses were LBers who were fairly bad most of last year.
3) a much easier schedule than last year, missing out on [whatever] division favorite Wisc and dark horse PSU, with home games VS OSU, NEB and ND.
4) a roster as close to 85 s'ship players as one could expect, allowing for decent depth at most positions. by decent, I mean at least we have guys with D1 offers on the 2 deep and very few freshmen being asked to start or even contribute significantly.
5) kicking can't get worse, right?
6) TO's can't get worse, right?
7) a better coaching staff, at least on D
I can't imagine people expecting less than 8 wins from this team.
August 15th, 2011 at 3:43 PM ^
Some of your critics undoubtedly possess far more insight than I do. Still, like you, I remain skeptical of the efforts of Freep writers, like Rosenberg, to provide more favorable coverage of UM. Although I am not sure that you are making this point, I cannot understand how a UM grad like Rosenberg could have suddenly changed "his stripes" after having attacked his school so unfairly. I question whether it was simply because he wanted the best for UM---because he thought RR was a bad coach and wanted Harbaugh. I question how his bosses at the Freep have influenced him. If the Freep bosses and owners wanted the best for UM---or even tried to be neutral---why would the paper have subsidized, for over a decade, the nasty and demeaning attacks of other “writers” like Drew Sharp?
I cannot fairly evaluate your theories about Rosenberg and the Freep. Are you suggesting that the Freep intentionally raised expectations only to later dash them? No longer being a Freep reader, I cannot evaluate this hypothesis. Yet, some do feel that the Freep has viewed UM as an "opponent;" and one way to make an opponent look bad is to raise expectations about him, then crush him under the weight of those expectations.
In any case, your post does remind me about what the Freep has done in the past—causing so much unnecessary legal expense, collective grief and adverse publicity for UM. Your post does give me pause about becoming a Freep reader at any time in the near future. Prior to your post, I did not realize that Freep writers, like Rosenberg,have tried to seem as though they are “changing their stripes,” If one thinks about the selfish economic viewpoint of their struggling newspaper, one can easily imagine why they would do so. Still, I cannot forget they have done in the past---although, perhaps, your critics are much better, more forgiving people than me.
August 15th, 2011 at 4:00 PM ^
In fact, the two-year anniversary is the very day that Brian Cook speaks to the U-M Club of Detroit's Kickoff dinner.
So let's review.
The story appears to have been the idea of Rosenberg alone. Somebody, Rosenberg or Snyder, got thier hands on a copy of the limited-distribution CARA memo of July 27, 2009. That memo, despite not ever being much of an indication of any serious NCAA violation (on its face, no violations were indicated) gave them the idea to start calling "current and former players" to ask questons about practice time.
The Freep's violations of journalistic ethics over the course of the next month in 2009 were breathtaking.
They had no good, serious reason to grant anonymity to any "former players," but they have kept those names secret ever since. Toney Clemons, one of the sources, says that he never asked for anonymity. And then he quit answering the press' questions soon after the story broke.
Rosenberg also sandbagged the two freshmen, Stokes and Hawthorne, with their quotes on pracatice time. Even Angelique Chengelis has answered questions about that session, saying that she was deeply concerned about how that went down; it was Media Day, 2009.
Rosenberg and Snyder did everything they could to conceal their investigation, including never talking to anyone in any position of real authority at Michigan about their story, until the Friday afternoon before they posted the story online on the following Saturday. (Hitting print in the Sunday paper.) They called Bruce Madej, asked for a meeting, dropped their bombshell on him, and told him they'd like a statement from the Athletic Department right away, because publication would be imminent. The Sunday before the following- Saturday home opener. Against Western Michigan. A game that Mark Snyder predicted Michigan would lose.
Only AFTER publication, did the Free Press begin any serious look at the story, including a FOIA request (by Jim Schaefer) in the week AFTER the publication.
It was a hit-job. Carefully intended to cause the greatest possible havoc for Rich Rodriguez, at perhaps the most fragile time in his coaching career, coming off a 3-9 season of doom. Crafted to make sure that no one at Michigan would know, until the last possible moment. A story in which the reporters appear to have deliberately avoided asking all of the people (coaches, Complaince Services, the AD office) anything at all about the story, not wanting to blow their cover.
It gets worse; the evidence of Free Press malice towards Rich Rodrigez continues and grows from there. In the months that followed, the anti-Rodriguez bias just grewa dn built upon itself, until even the national media was commenting on the Free Press' personalized war on the Michigan coach. There is no reason to suspect that anyone other than Michael Rosenberg hatched the original story idea, but it is beyond any doubt, that the entire staff of the newspaper circled the wagons around Rosenberg. And just as clear, is the fact that "Michigan and the NCAA" became "m-o-n-e-y" for the Freep. With entire special sections devoted to the topic. The paper had struck gold, in the form of maize. Which is what the paper is all about.
As for Rosenberg, I actually don't waste too much time wondering about his motivations; why he hated Rich Rodriguez or was so determined to do what he could to undermine him. Whether it was his love for Harbaugh, or his elitism, or his rage that the Free Press no longer had a special line into Schembechler Hall that went back to the days of Joe Falls and Bo Schembechler... I don't know. And it doesn't matter to me, since I don't care much about what motivates Rosenberg.
All that I know, and all that I care about, was that Coach Rodriguez was treated unfairly, and that the people responsible for that unfairness are still lurking around our program, armed with press passes.
August 15th, 2011 at 3:22 PM ^
Hoke-worship became as obvious as the Rodriguez-hatred of just a few weeks earlier. All of it, naturally, continued to sell newspapers and page-hits for the Freep.
So wait...if it's all equal, why didn't they just Rodriguez-worship and Hoke-hate? If it's just to garner page hits, why is one more likely to do so than the other?
Sounds like either way they're going to get the pagehits from you, so mission accomplished.
August 15th, 2011 at 4:32 PM ^
Agreed, thanks for your opinion. I read what you had to say and think you're spot on. I'll be expecting the lowered expectations coming from that corner very soon.
August 15th, 2011 at 4:36 PM ^
I just don't really read his stuff seriously anymore. What else can you do?
August 15th, 2011 at 4:41 PM ^
It's underwhelming. I don't look at Brady Hoke's career and resume and say to myself now there's guy just waiting to explode on the national scene going 10-3, 11-2, 11-2, 12-1 and 13-0 at Michigan over the next five years. That doesn't make sense to me.
Rodriguez didn't "get it" in the eyes of many fans, alumni and the press, and obviously he didn't win games.
So what are the chances that Brady Hoke arrives, kicks ass in recruiting, "get's it" but also doesn't win enough games at Michigan? Seems to me people are dismissing this possibility out of hand.
Early this morning I watched the 2009 Wyoming (6-6) at SD State (4-8) game.
SD State actually led 27-6 going into the 4Q, then went conservative trying to "run out the clock" with off-tackle runs with the tailbacks. Wyoming then proceeded to rattle off 21 unanswered points and then blocked an SD State FG attempt.
I thought to myself, "Gee, where I have seen that game scenario before!"
Wyoming kicked a winning FG as time expired, 30-27 win.
My expectations are tempered. They would have to be if you're a Michigan football fan.
Hoke is recruiting well and has people excited, but let the guy coach a game or twelve.
August 15th, 2011 at 6:10 PM ^
I don't see that as a coaching blunder. That's playing the percentages. The vast majority of teams that go into the fourth quarter up 21 points will try to kill the clock, and all the moreso if they're crappy teams (4-8 certainly qualifies), because a bad team will want to shorten the game as much as possible when it's ahead. Ask ND fans what happens when you get too cute with the lead in the 4th quarter. They effectively lost the 2009 game to us by "going for the jugular" when they could have burned clock.
August 15th, 2011 at 8:06 PM ^
The wins will come.
<br>
<br>And, Uhm, what jmblue said.
August 15th, 2011 at 11:10 PM ^
The clock-killing doesn't concern me as much as how the defense lined up and played to protect its lead. Your analogy works better if the SDSU defense went into a shell with a lead, allowing the opposing team to move right down the field with 10-yard out routes (a la 2005 OSU, PSU, Wisconsin, App State), or if the SDSU defense puts in its 2nd-string after 2 straight long TD passes, allowing Wyoming a free chance to tie the game (a la 2006 Ball State). If the defensive alignments are anything like they were during those losses, you may be onto something. If Wyoming simply flipped a switch that SDSU couldn't match up against, it can be written off as coincidence.
August 15th, 2011 at 11:35 PM ^
If you're an overmatched defense (and they probably were, given their lousy record), protecting a large lead, conceding medium yardage in what you do in that situation. The worst thing you can do is give up a 50-yard TD. I think you're being a little unfair, expecting Hoke to have coached as though he had great talent when he didn't.
I agree that some of Carr's later defenses were overly passive - but that's because they had future NFL talent on them. That defensive philosophy would have made perfect sense on a bad defensive team like Indiana. Not all defenses benefit from aggressive blitzing and tight coverage. If you don't have the personnel to pull those off, you'll give up lots of big plays.
August 15th, 2011 at 8:02 PM ^
Good topic. Good post too. Section 1 sticks to his guns and is bright. The media likes Hoke better probably because he has done a way better of handling them and projecting what they want to see then Rich did. Part of the job of head coach at a program as big as Michigan's is being on top of that. The freep report was sloppy and probably the result of a vendetta. But the product on the field is the trump card. Win and they are probably spread converts on blather fests like Valenti and Foster. Three seasons with more 35 or more points allowed games than in the Bo, Moeller and Carr years combined. Look it up.
They'll dislike Hoke if he loses too. It's the W-L.
I think it is reasonable to expect noticeable improvements in all areas including wins and to compete for the league title. That's what Michigan does and the talent is never worse than average in the league. I talked with a guy that played for Air Force and saw SDSU the year before and the year after Hoke took over. His words were "drastic" in the improvement. Like all the elements were being taught the right way, the players were together, and the overall energy of how they executed was across the board improved. That was without Greg Mattison.
Like the previous coach didn't know what he didn't know. I won't go there, but let's grab the popcorn and see where this goes.
August 15th, 2011 at 8:56 PM ^
Actually I sat next to Jim in an airport in the spring without realizing that it was him until he said something to me. He asked what year I graduated, as he noticed the Michigan Alumni t-shirt I was wearing, and then began to say " I was this close to taking the job" as he held his hands about a half inch apart.
Sounds like you are quite mistaken how much Jim wanted the job.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:58 AM ^
Did you just rant about something you "expect" to happen? It'd be one thing if the Freep did lower their expectations, but to trash them because you suspect they will? A little premature expectation, if you ask me