Wojo Gives His Epinion
I posted this in another thread, but noting wrong with giving it it's own thread.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090831/OPINION03/908310415/
I disagree with his claims of "desperation", but an okay overall take. Plus, support the News, yo.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:08 PM ^
although it would be out of character for Wojo, this is what is wrong with MSM... no one polices their own. Joint Operating agreement aside, this would be the place for the News to step up and do some real investigative journalism, but nobody wants to tkae on a colleague. I'm waiting for someone to step up and say, 'no more of this half-assed journalism'. It seems that the times people bring up these things (see: Bernard Goldberg), the recoil from the rest of the media is worse than any supposed "blue wall" people try and peg on cops.
oh well, this is why well written blogs and alternative media are carrying the day.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:10 PM ^
and supported
August 31st, 2009 at 6:17 PM ^
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think that one of the more reasonable takes by someone who hasn't been defending Coach Rod was Lou Holtz, who said that there is a problem either way: Either U of M has violated some rules or U of M has (at least some) dissent in the locker room.
I am big supporter of Coach Rod, but this article does remind me of one thing I've thought all along: I don't think that he came to U of M quite ready for the public relations part of the job. The reason you saw Coach Carr shut the media out and the reason Jim Tressell gives uber-bland answers to everything is that they want(ed) to avoid a media fire-fight over every little thing. (I know, I sort-of praised Jim Tressell. Sorry.)
Brodie - I thought you did a good job of playing devil's advocate on the board this weekend.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:24 PM ^
Thank you, good sir. I'm just glad we can all agree that this is bullshit now. I think devil's advocates are always important, they make you reevaluate your positions and come out with perhaps a more valid and accurate epinion... so when the opportunity presents itself I'll take on the role. Certainly, I'd like it to be known I've agreed with the majority of you from the start, this was a poorly researched hatchet job with the singular aim of destroying RichRod.
I wouldn't say RR wasn't ready, it's just he entered an environment 180 degrees different than the one at WVU... we're probably the only school in the country with supporters who expect coaches to quote Kipling and not not let the press talk to players. He brought a stereo into Amish country, in a sense.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:30 PM ^
He brought a stereo into Amish country, in a sense. -- That really did make me laugh.
Your point is well-taken, and it's not any different from what I meant to get at. What I hate so much about the anti-Rodriguez stuff (well, part of what I hate so much) is that it seems to be based on aesthetics. I feel like the equation at the Free Press is: Coach Rod = kind of cocky guy w/ Appalachian accent = bad; Dantonio = guy with northern accent who glares at everybody and is kind of morose = good.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:39 PM ^
It's more simple than that. Dantonio is a guy who's probably read all three of Bo's books cover to cover multiple times. He has a lot of Carr, Mo and Bo in him from a personality, background and coaching standpoint... he is familiar.
Rodriguez walks in with a southern accent quoting the Lion King and changing things (if only in the most minor of ways) and starts running an offense modern than Michigan has seen since the forward pass was invented. He's scary and different.
It's idiotic, and sadly it happens in everything from sports to politics.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:31 PM ^
really pissed me off. You're lucky I didn't pass by you when I was carrying my pitchfork and torch to Rosenberg's house on Saturday night.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:48 PM ^
I also appreciate that in playing Devil's advocate, you did not get personal, you merely challenged the conventional wisdom and the biases. The reality is, we want to believe that the allegations are not true because it is what is best for the program, but we also probably know that the reality is and that while there will likely be few or no violations found by the NCAA (I hope), we also probably know that the players, the ones who we want to go, fight, win and give their all for Michigan do put in a huge time commitment to be the best, and that's the crux of the problem.
Because "voluntary" is so subjective, because the perception of how one will be treated if one does not show up for something that is voluntary will affect one's standing within the program, we're in such a gray area that it makes it really hard to get one's head around this. It also makes it really hard to explain to someone how it could arguably true that the players probably did put in more than 20 hours a week (something closer to the 45 hour number that the NCAA survey found) and it's probable (OK, I'm hopeful and projecting) that no violations will be found. So how can both things be true?
It's the Fitzgerald paradox (from F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Crack-up):
"Of course all life is a process of breaking down, but the blows that do the dramatic side of the work - the big sudden blows that come, or seem to come, from outside - the ones you remember and blame things on and, in moments of weakness, tell your friends about, don't show their effect all at once. There is another sort of blow that comes from within - that you don't feel until it's too late to do anything about it, until you realize with finality that in some regard you will never be as good a man again. The first sort of breakage seems to happen quick - the second kind happens almost without your knowing it but is realized suddenly indeed. Before I go on with this short history, let me make a general observation - the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise."
August 31st, 2009 at 7:03 PM ^
The NCAA rests on a contradiction: The desire to put the best possible athletic teams on the field is inherently in competition with the desire to create the best possible learning environment...I went to the Univ. of Kansas for undergrad and lived for two years in a dorm with a bunch of athletes. I knew the women's basketball team the best. There's no doubt in my mind that they did not get the education I did and the reason for this was b/c they played basketball. Now, their overall experience may well have trumped mine but they didn't get as much out of classes as I did as a non-athlete b/c of the time commitment owed to the team...The reason I feel like I can support college sports in good conscience is that I think the world is a better place with guys like Vincent Smith getting the chance to escape Pahokee, Florida and be part of a structured, positive situation (the football team) and get a (somewhat watered down) Michigan education, where he likely would have had neither without football.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:33 PM ^
Same Shit Different Paper:
"The bigger issue for Rodriguez is the splintering around his program, even inside his program." There is no evidence of this. The largest number I have heard of players within the program is exactly "1".
"I don't know if Rodriguez and his staff willfully broke the rules. I don't doubt that a desperate Rodriguez pushed hard, possibly too hard," Again, this site has totally debunked the Freep article. Did WoJo not read the Freep article? Is he incapable of independent thought?
August 31st, 2009 at 6:52 PM ^
Same Shit Different State
I feel like I just stepped out of Doc Brown's DeLorean. I grew up in WV and remember when everyone wanted to run the new 3-8 loser coach out of the state. The no-huddle didn't "fit" at WVU...how could we hire this bum...? And so on and so on.
However WVU never had the sense of entitlement that (some) UM alumni/boosters seem to possess until...you guessed it...RR had WVU winning 10+ games a year and winning BCS games. Some people even considered UM a step down(!).
I have to say I'm disappointed that this is still going on during year 2. Les Miles is never coming here and RR given a chance WILL WIN.
These whiny, entitled ex-players should have stuck it out. It seems like they would have had a lot in common with some other (though not all) alumni.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:49 PM ^
+1. Sense of entitlement says a lot, and its really coming out now that I've even seen fellow students jump on the anti-RR bandwagon, even though they can't name any players on our team besides Sheridan.