Warde did convince Red Berenson to stay

let's' all jump off the ledge.  

we're all experts on the day-to-day job of athletic director, after all, and we've read one item about warde manuel selling his house.  i'm sure that was literally the only thought / conversation that's ever occured in the department regarding the eventual transition to the next hockey coach.

that's all we need to know.  

I'm in this camp.  I don't care if the choice is "obvious" to fans, I've seen obvious choices crash and burn before.  Warde needs a chance to do the right due diligence.  Better to have one more crappy year than eight crappy years because you made too quick of a decision.

Red himself proved over and over that it's possible to replace an entire 1-2 lines of nhl draft talent in a single year. The problem is as it says, what 10th grader will commit to a 77 year old? A transition should've been announced if not immediately taken effect, like Pearson will join the following season. Of course, that'd be up to Tech as well

As it stands, the recruiting class for next year looks botched as well. I almost think Berenson should've gone past his boss who couldn't have cared less and negotiated with Mel and assured recruits he'll be here after another year, when the shitty AD has "settled down" Likely would not have salvaged this season but next year would be viable. But now i'm not sure Mel would even take the job and if not, looks like dark days ahead as i have 0 faith Manuel can conduct a national search to hire a hockey coach, or any other probably

I'm pretty confident that Mel left because he was told, at the time (the time being the tenure of DB) that he would not simply inherit Red's job when Red retired. He was not at all certain about the move to Tech, but wound up making it, and he's done decently there.

I think if Michigan wants him, they'll get him. I'm just not convinced that he's the direction that they'll go. Among other reasons, we know that Warde didn't want to do an extensive coaching search, and a search for Mel isn't difficult at all (the "moved into his house thing" wasn't referring to what Warde was spending his time doing, just how new he was on the job when he spoke with Red, FWIW).

So, at least at the time, I don't think Warde was sure that Mel was his guy. If he was, he probably just gets him then. Whether he just wanted more time to evaluate Mel among other options, or whether he considered the possibility of doing a national search for someone a bit younger with a higher ceiling, I don't know. 

Mel is performing at Tech in a way that would make him a rising star if he were 15 years younger, but he just turned 58. Now, he's proven that he's a good hockey coach--a huge part of Michigan's recent dropoff not coincidently occurred when he left, and making Tech competitive is no small feat--so I won't be disappointed if we hire him. But I wonder if Warde might try to turn up the money howitzer and try to get a guy like Nate Leaman from Providence or Jim Montgomery from Denver. I have no idea if these guys are interested, but if you point BTN money at them, that's got to make them think, right? 

Warde was at UConn, so he might have some connection out east. Leaman built a winner at Union, went to Providence (which was irrelevant for decades), built a consistent winner, and won a national championship. I'd enjoy seeing Warde go after him.

Dr. Zoidburg:

Thank you for the time you took from your busy gynecology practice this morning to set some things straight that had been going awry without your input.

I had thought I was too busy, and made the mistaken assumption that a point-by-point response to your premises was so painfully obvious, and might tend to publicly embarass you, and because I felt like Rev. King's "reductionist" comment was discretion being the better part of valor, I declined to respond. But after you spelled it out for us, I figured, oh hell, I'm semi-retired, I got time…

Your Claim---Manuel is not up to the task of being a good UM AD

Your premise #1---you are not opposed to ND as long as there is at least 1 other major opponent each year.  Playing them 10 years in a row is boring to you.  

Counter-argument---Are you aware, good Doctor, that UM and ND are perhaps the two most storied programs in college football history, both now and in the past?  Are you aware that they are geographically proximate to each other, and have rabid fanbases who interact quite frequently in all walks of midwest life?  Are you aware that Manuel did not schedule them 10 years in a row?  You may be aware, but evidently not fully aware.  You might want to consider that YOU are not the entirety of Manuel's constituency at UM, and that you are in the minority with your "observations".

Your premise #2---You are against announcing these rare match-ups and backing out of it.  You are against giving $2 million to other teams and then whining to fans for more money because of their bad decision making.  

Counter-argument---Are you aware, good Doctor, that it was Dave Brandon, and not Manuel who announced this rare match-up with Arkansas, and not Manuel?  You might not of noticed, but it was Brandon who f'd up a lot of things around the AD, and finally he resigned before he was canned, and perhaps lynched by angry students and fans alike, and so this decision to put ND back on the schedule at the buyout picked by Brandon obviously was felt to be worth the money to UM.  The only decision made by Manuel was to resume the series, the rest were made by Pizza Boy.  And we don't see Manuel "whining" for more money.  UM's ticket pricing compared to other popular, storied, and big-time programs, say for example Ohio State, Alabama, Notre Dame, or Southern California are a value.  And nothing was raised as the result of the resumption of ND, frankly.

Your premise #3---You are against a lot of the things about the schedule and how the resumpton of the ND series affected that.  

Counter-argument---Just because YOU are against things like giving them the first home game, having the game in October, and jeopardizing scheduling another SEC West team in the future does NOT mean that the decision was not in the best interests of UM, and UM football.  While I am certain the whole Department values your opinions, again, there is more that goes into their decision-making than its effect on the esteem in which you hold them and Manuel.  

In sum Doctor, before you anonymously call or imply that other good people, your fellow Michigan fans, are "ignorant", you would be well advised to consider looking inward first.

I don't care about the money (we run a profit), or playing Arkansas - the only thing about that game that interested me was playing Bielema again.

The schedule rotation thing I can see, but we've always played ND at home on odd years and away even years.  The real problem is MSU being off-schedule, which is bad for both schools.  Both have the game and OSU at home the same year.