What's the Michigan sports-related hill you're willing to die on?

Submitted by Caesar on

Worded differently: what's an unpopular view that you feel very strongly about for Michigan athletics? Gut-feelings are at home here, but bonus points are awarded (not actually awarded) for some evidence. Examples include stuff like, "Harbaugh is overrated," &c.

1VaBlue1

February 21st, 2018 at 8:55 AM ^

My issue with Warde is that he seems like a placeholder, unable to push things to the tipping point, but not over.  He's made some great coaching moves.  But he fumbled the ND schedule, and he continuously fails to backup his football coach when things go to crap (the JH sideline rule, crappy officiating, fines, etc).

Overall, I wouldn't trade him for a minute.  But I think he could do a little more...

Indy Pete - Go Blue

February 21st, 2018 at 9:12 AM ^

ND is back on our schedule because he was explicitly honoring JH's request.  He has always had his back. He just doesn't go out and make a fool of himself by verbalizing every perceived slight (see Gene Smith).  And seriously, do you really think our AD should be complaining about bad officiating and an NCAA sideline rule that we have no power to change individually?

Alton

February 21st, 2018 at 10:01 AM ^

Here's one of my "hills":  He got the ND schedule right, and everybody who is critical of that is wrong.

In 2018, M has 5 Big Ten home games and 4 Big Ten road games.

In 2019, M has 4 Big Ten home games and 5 Big Ten road games.

Now, given these simple facts, let's say you are scheduling a 2-game series with a major opponent.  Now which season should have the home game and which season should have the road game?

 

Tuebor

February 21st, 2018 at 11:48 AM ^

It is important to remember that when the Arkansas home and home was scheduled a 9 game conference slate was a figment of Delaney's imagination.

 

I agree that 7 home games in 2018 and 7 home games in 2019 is better for department cash flow than 8 and 6 and that is how Warde sold the deal.


But it does rub me kind of raw that ND gets two home games in a row and we have to play them in the middle of big ten play in 2019, in fact a week after a tough trip to Happy Valley.

 

And with the way the playoff committee has shown it values overall record (or more precisely fewer losses) over everything else perhaps it will come back to bite us in the ass that we dumped a Post Beliema rebuilding Arkansas for ND.  Our perceived strength of schedule (more important than actual strengh of schedule as proven by the committee) will be fine playing in the BIg Ten East.

In reply to by Pepto Bismol

Raymond_RedWings

February 21st, 2018 at 10:00 AM ^

Have we had a season since 1998 where we have done all three of these things?:

  • Finished with a better record than 11-2.
  • Beat OSU and ND in the same season.
  • Won a bowl game vs. a top-15 team.

If so, I will change my viewpoint. 

In reply to by Pepto Bismol

Raymond_RedWings

February 21st, 2018 at 10:23 AM ^

Those two seasons, 1999 and 2011, both have losses vs. MSU and an irrelevant Big 10 team (Illinois in 1999, Iowa in 2011). We also didn’t win the conference that year as well. Your main argument, that conference championships are more important than victories vs. rivals, bowl victories, and record, is contradicted by your claim that the 1999 season was better than the 2011 season. I didn’t respond to your comment with intention of any disrespect towards you, so why do you choose to disrespect me?

In reply to by Pepto Bismol

Raymond_RedWings

February 21st, 2018 at 12:18 PM ^

Really? Mocking what I said in a previous comment is not disrespectful? Have fun passing on your bully culture to your kids.

In reply to by Raymond_RedWings

Pepto Bismol

February 21st, 2018 at 12:43 PM ^

Because I prefer conference championships?

Buddy, this might not be the place for you. Maybe skip the interneting and, I dunno, call your mom or something. Jesus.

PopeLando

February 21st, 2018 at 10:12 AM ^

I'll play off this. The narrative on Hoke is "great guy, bad coach". I don't think he's a great guy: he ignores injuries, fumbles every crisis put in front of him, and repeatedly puts young men in a position to fail. I'm sure he's nice to talk to, and I don't doubt his Michigan fandom, but I will die on the "not a great guy" hill.

In reply to by Pepto Bismol

ijohnb

February 21st, 2018 at 11:07 AM ^

think the way that a lot of people are starting to feel is that "who cares" if a national title is stripped, you still won it at the time, and that is how other fan bases seem to view the situation.  And it is not as though any NCAA investigations seem to cause any long term damage to a established programs at this point.  It doesn't really tarnish established brands.  Penn State was post-season ineligible for two year and lost a lot of scholarships.  They had like one down year and are now a top 5 team. (Obviously the Penn State thing involved some different stuff, I am not even referencing the underlying conduct here).  Ohio State won 36 out of 38 coming off sanctions in football culminating in a National Title.

I agree, it caused some long-term damage at Michigan, but that had also to do with some structural problems within the basketball program that had become evident even before Michigan was sanctioned.  It was a house of cards already, and it came at a time when people were not yet numb to recruiting violations so it stained Michigan to a degree that does not happen today.

With Louisville, yeah, they lost their NC on paper, but they still got to win it in the first place and I, for one, expect Louisville to be back in the Top 15 in like 2 years, so really, who cares?  NCAA sanctions have no teeth.

That is not my position, but it is a position that is starting to become more commonplace among fans.

In reply to by ijohnb

MichiganTeacher

February 21st, 2018 at 11:11 AM ^

My position is that

a) I'm less of a fan now than I used to be in large part because of the NCAA's abdication of its enforcement role;

and

b) I would love it if Michigan just straight up started paying players on the books and waited for the NCAA to come after them. It's the right thing to do. Let's just do it.Make this our 1955. Let's be Rosa Parks. Let's be the leaders and best.

ijohnb

February 21st, 2018 at 11:27 AM ^

schools really can't pay them, on the books.  While it may seem to many that the "student athlete" tag for big time athletes is a farce, paying them turns into actual real employees of the schools and changed the dynamic so much that college sports wouldn't exist anymore.  Would there even be educational requirements?  Why?  Would they only be paid if they remained eligible to play?  What kind of contracts would they be under?  Could they be cut?  Who gets paid and who doesn't?   

I understand when people say "go ahead and pay them, it is the right move."  I even agree to some extent, in theory, but I really don't think it is a feasible thing to do and still have college sports in anything close to the format it is currently in. 

Maybe it is time for that, though.  It is possible that big time college athletics have jumped the shark and cannot really continue with sweeping changes.

In reply to by ijohnb

MichiganTeacher

February 21st, 2018 at 8:59 PM ^

I agree that it can't be done without changing college sports as we know them. They would be professional sports by definition at that point.

But I still think it's the right thing to do. And I think deep down, most people agree. There would be pushback, of course, titanic and painful and powerful. But I think the right side would win in the end, and then in the history books, Michigan would always have that spot as the leaders of the movement. As it should be!

The university might not even lose that much in funding. I could see the huge publicity win generating new revenue to cancel out the 'old guard' money and probably federal funds that we'd have to go without.

As for the player contracts, I'm sure the details could be worked out. I'm also sure that would be a very, very difficult job. But that's the sort of job that the leaders and best take on!

DCGrad

February 21st, 2018 at 7:41 AM ^

To be his own OC and to hell with everyone else. Idk if all the play callers are working off the same call sheet (that doesn’t seem likely based on last year) but I think the offense wouldn’t have had as many WTF calls if Harbaugh was the sole playcaller.

JD_UofM_90

February 21st, 2018 at 10:58 AM ^

Is too busy / distracted to be an effective full time offensive coordinator or play caller. Between podcasts, summer camps, trips, recruiting, family, being the face of the program, etc. The time it takes to properliy scout and prep for another team every week is significant. The big problem is that he thinks he can do it all and as good a job as a full time OC. We will never get to the top of the mountain until he lets go of the reins a little.

MadMatt

February 21st, 2018 at 10:40 AM ^

If he is going to go with his system of non-traditional position coaching assignments, multiple specific "coordinators" of various aspects of the offense, and a crowd of voices having input on game-planning and play-calling, then he needs to realize he is the only guy who can make that system work.  Be the offensive coordinator, be the QB coach, make the game plans and call the plays yourself, and off-load some of the other head coaching responsibilities.  Neither Devno, nor Pep, nor Shark Boy, nor Jay, nor anyone else is enough of a genius to make that offensive system work.

On the other hand, if he has to do all the head coaching stuff, and he can't do all the things his idiosyncratic offensive system needs someone of his ability to do, get a good offensive coordinator, and get the hell out of the way.

I don't ever want to see another Harbaugh coached team get extra time to prepare, and roll out a neo-Debord offense.  The game plan for the OSU game was beautiful.  Find a way to do that on the regular.

4roses

February 21st, 2018 at 7:41 AM ^

Maybe not willing to die on this hill . . . but I thought people were over the top on the whole leaving Morris in situation. Certainly not a fireable offense like some suggested.  

saveferris

February 21st, 2018 at 9:57 AM ^

The Morris situation was certainly amplified by being the final straw in them minds of much of the fanbase, but I always wonder if Hoke could have avoided the entire situation simply by wearing a headset and being in direct communication with his coaches in the press box.

Bottom line, if you want to sit in the big chair, you better be ready to handle everything that comes your way.

PopeLando

February 21st, 2018 at 10:22 AM ^

In my mind, it was two comments (not verbatim) 1. 'Aware but not fully aware.' 2. The 'Shane wants to be the starting QB, if he didn't want to be the starting QB he could have gone down' comment. To me, this is a fireable attitude - the same attitude that didn't want to know about Gardner's injuries, or Denard's. Also, it was a sense that Hoke had no fucking clue what was going on at any given time, that he would willingly lie to the fan base, etc. Finally, the situation never should have existed in the first place. Gardner wasn't injured (that we know about). Hoke benched an obvious team leader in favor of someone woefully unprepared, and it backfired in a huge way. Isolated to just leaving Morris in, it's bad but not the worst thing in the world. In context, it was definitely a fireable situation.

Alton

February 21st, 2018 at 10:29 AM ^

My opinion with zero actual supporting evidence:  Shane Morris only started that game because Dave Brandon told Hoke to start him.

Gardner was Hoke's starter.  Brandon preferred Morris, to the extent that he instructed Hoke to start him against Minnesota.  That's why Hoke put Morris back in so quickly--Hoke was a good "company man" and wanted to show he was doing what he was supposed to do.

Again, zero evidence, but I really do think that's close to what happened.  Otherwise, why make the switch from Gardner to Morris?

ijohnb

February 21st, 2018 at 11:36 AM ^

don't agree with this.  If Garnder was "Hoke's guy," why not get Morris out of the game at the first possible moment that he could justify doing it?  This would have to assume that the relationship between Hoke and Brandon was so bad at that point that Hoke would sabotoge himself to prove a point (and obviously risk the health of a player in the process).  I can't buy that.

I think that the Morris decision was as simple as it looked at the time.  We really, really sucked, and Hoke knew it, and Morris was quite literally a Hail-Mary to see if somehow the light just came on for the kid when he was named started.  That is why I think Hoke was slow to pull Morris, because it was all of the sudden the horrifying end to his last stand to get the team turned around.