I Only Post About Coaches Who Coach For Michigan

Submitted by Brian on December 14th, 2011 at 12:37 PM




Citizens of the planet, I come before you today to make an announcement. That announcement is: I do not give a microdamn about the things 1) Rich Rodriguez or 2) Michigan alumni such as Desmond Howard have to say about Michigan and Rich Rodriguez, respectively.

My interest levels are declining into femtodamn levels. On message boards I now flip past entire threads in which the same tired debates are brought forth with the speed and determination I ignore threads about politics on the internet. Let that sink in. Yeah. That's right. I have as much interest in this topic as I do Herman Cain.

So I don't want to dedicate yet more time to a guy who was fired a year ago except to talk about the things that made his offense very effective and his defense very ineffective. Those things affect Michigan's fortunes on the field and are interesting examples of the ever-evolving college football metagame. Also interesting, if slightly depressing, is the pickle Rodriguez's last couple recruiting classes have left Michigan in, especially on both lines.

Talking about other aspects of Rich Rodriguez's tenure makes me want to claw at my face. But I will do this for you, like I will eat a lemon if Yuri Wright picks Colorado over Michigan. So here is a handy chart for you to follow.


EVENT: Rich Rodriguez has said something.

1. Is it about Michigan? If yes, go to 2. If no, go to 3.

2. Is it really about Michigan or is it a paranoid delusion? If paranoid delusion, go to 3. If still about Michigan, go to 4.

3. Don't care.

4. Still don't care. However, this incident is further evidence that Rodriguez is deservedly bitter about his three year tenure at Michigan and impolitic about discussing it.

Yes, it is further evidence that Rodriguez's maturity level and ability to play "the game" are low. Yes, it reminds me how nice it is to have a guy like Brady Hoke, who says all the correct things in all the generic ways possible. Yes—

What? Where am I? Why am I upside down in some sort of river valley? Why is there a bridge above/below me?


I was probably bungee jumping at the time in an effort to prevent the inevitable—this is the level of my dedication to you, reader—but this topic was still massively boring enough to result in nappy times. I apologize. I'm so, so happy to be talking about this, no, serious—


EVENT: A program alum or Lloyd Carr has said something.

1. Is it about Rich Rodriguez? If yes, go to 2. If no, go to 3.

2. Is it really about Rich Rodriguez or is it more of a rapturous thing about Brady Hoke that sets the lack of support given during the Rodriguez tenure in stark relief? If rapturous thing, go to 3. If actually about Rodriguez, go to 4.

3. Yes, that is annoying but let's just suck it up because it's in the best interests of the program.

4. Yes, it is extremely disappointing that certain program alumni appear to be jerks. What can you do, though?

To take one example, when you're so dim and callous as to deride Rodriguez as "Cherry Coke"—probably meant "New Coke"—in front of 60-70 players who were recruited by Rodriguez, are the living embodiment of that change, and went 10-2 and reached the Sugar Bowl, well… that's hopeless. Anyone who would trash-talk Denard, even indirectly, is never going to Get It.

It's further evidence that several recent program alums' maturity levels are low. It reminds me of how nice it was to have Bo around. There's nothing to do about it but wait. Eventually the Rodriguez recruits will be out of the program and the Rodriguez years far enough in the—

Right, this again. Upside down in a river valley.


If I can remain conscious long enough to respond to these things in the future, all future events will be filed "3" or "4". This, people of Earth, is my sacrifice for your well-being. Let it not be in vain. File these things 3 or 4 and live your lives without Rodriguez-Michigan-induced narcolepsy. You, too, can live—

An upside-down Brian Cook who would greatly appreciate being reeled in now

PS. Many of you have passed out in front of your computers and are in danger of entering an infinite loop wherein you wake up, forget what you were reading, begin reading again, and fall asleep. In an effort to prevent the thousands of deaths that may result, here is an animated GIF of some levitating cats.


Hopefully this will catch the newly-awakened reader's eye sufficiently to prevent them from entering a fatal boredom loop.



December 15th, 2011 at 2:55 AM ^

     But when someone exhibits this degree of irrational hatred for David Brandon.  To the point where they are pissing all over a singular event like Under the Lights.  When someone is pitching a fit about bowl uniforms which are BARELY different(although objectively kind of superior) to Michigan's normal road uniforms.  When someone promotes a diary to the front page that suggests, however mockingly, that David Brandon is a homophobe throwing around words like "faggy"...

     One has to wonder if this hatred has occured in a vacuume.  One has to wonder if said person has really forgiven and forgotten all these topics he has now sworn he doesn't care about.

     Please answer honestly.  Taking all of this into consideration Profit, do YOU think Brian has gotten over it?


December 15th, 2011 at 9:13 AM ^

 *Sheilds head with hands and speaks in frantic tones*

I'm so sorry Sister Elizabeth.  Please put down that ruler Sister Elizabeth.  I promise, 5 Hail Marys and an act of contrition Sr. Elizabeth.  I'm sorry!  I'm sorry!

*picks up head and looks around sheepishly*

Sorry, bad parochial school flashback, what were you saying again?



December 15th, 2011 at 11:35 AM ^

Don't be sarcastic.  That's not semantics at all.  Semantics is "puppy" instead of "small dog."  You say something like "objectively superior" you are telling people that the only reason they would not like those jerseys is because of a bias.  And from the rest of your post it sounds like that's exactly what you mean, too.  Words mean things.

Undefeated dre…

December 14th, 2011 at 1:03 PM ^

Premise: A true "Michigan Man" would never publicly criticize or mock another person for not being a "Michigan Man" (or something along those lines)

Conclusion: When you hear someone being labeled as not a Michigan Man, or something similar, it says much more about the mock-er than the mock-ee.


December 14th, 2011 at 1:49 PM ^

It's really dissapointing to see Howard or any self proclaimed Michigan Man say things like that.

I kinda hate the whole 'michigan man' thing, I get what it's supposed to stand for and I agree with those values, but it's just stupid.  I come from a family of Michigan grads (me, two brothers, dad, two aunts and an uncle, and a host of cousins), and before the RR fiasco I had never once heard that term.  And now my aunt says she loves Brady Hoke because he's a 'true michigan man'.  Whatever the hell that means.


December 14th, 2011 at 7:53 PM ^

i've always thought of this as the original quote, from yost:

"But do let me reiterate the Spirit of Michigan. It is based on a deathless loyalty to Michigan and all her ways.  An enthusiasm that makes it second nature for Michigan Men to spread the gospel of their university to the world’s distant outposts.  And a conviction that nowhere, is there a better university, in any way, than this Michigan of ours.”

not that the spirit didn't similarly get perverted like bo's quote. somewhere it seems to have picked up the idea of having been previously associated with/graduated from/started a coaching career at michigan, which mystifies me, as that means yost, crisler, bo, etc were not michigan men. 


December 14th, 2011 at 9:00 PM ^

Being a MIchigan man (or woman) is about one hell of a lot more than just not letting a guy coach because he accepted a new contract. 


In that instance Bo spoke only to one aspect ( loyalty ) of the commitment to the standards to which Michigan men ( and women) hold themselves. There is much much more than just that.  I suspect I am one of the older commenters here.  I can only speak to what this meant when I was at the U. Commitment to excellence in all aspects of one's life. Putting 100% into every challenge that life sends your way. Graciousness in victory and defeat. Conducting one's life with honor and humility. Doing what one understands to be right even when it is difficult. Bringing integrity to all aspects of one's life. Most of us, regardless of our background, never achieve that, but it is a goal well worth pursuing. The reason that Hoke is the perfect guy to right the previously listing ship of our football program, is because he understands that this is about teaching young men, often from difficult circumstances, about the value of striving to live an exemplary life with accountability to each other and their goals.  Being a Michigan man is not about granting yourself some superior status, it is about recognizing that you have accepted the oblgation to try to meet a higher standard and holding yourself accountable. 



December 14th, 2011 at 3:50 PM ^

The Michigan Creed used to be we were above worrying about the "others" outside the program. The arrogance of tradition was edified by not sweating the outliers but to be solely about preserving the Michigan idea. Des seems to be a signature composite of these similarly situated "Bo's Boys" who have decided to be self-anointed keepers of the flame but without the requisite discretion or fortitude to not be petty about the past regime or perceived slight. Rich Rod wanted to win badly here and tried his best; respect that and don't go spider monkey on the revisionist ancillaries like "OMG, END OF THE YEAR CAPTAINS!" Brother's gone...

I was two years behind Desmond and will always love his contributions to the U and I don't doubt his sincere love of Michigan, but he seems to be shrinking every time he puts a skin in this game. For a small dude, that ain't good.



December 14th, 2011 at 1:02 PM ^

But Brian.  Didn't you read this article about this guy that said this thing about RR.  This is unacceptable, let me go on for 200 words about my opinion on this matter.


December 14th, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^

Topics in need of further clarification (OK or not OK?):

1. Rita's nacho dip
2. Demard Dorsey's grades
3. "The Barwis Effect"
4. Rod Smith's fupa
5. "Lloyd Carr's Michigan" on MNF 
6. Mark Snyder's fupa
7. Nike vs. Adidas
8. Rojo
9. Whitney (the television show)
10. Les Miles boning Moeller's wife


December 14th, 2011 at 3:49 PM ^

Sure, but you must also bring up the hotness of his wife at the same time.

Arguments go like this:

"Gibson is terrible... the secondary is lost out there!"
"Is that Gibson's wife?"
"Not sure. Must be. Um... what were we talking about?"

03 Blue 07

December 14th, 2011 at 1:25 PM ^

Didn't  Brian post yesterday or the day before seeking additional questions to ask John U. Bacon with respect to "Three and Out?" Wouldn't the edict outlined in the OP be essentially directly violated by any comments on the subject of that future post, once it is posted, if the comments are related to what I expect the content of the post will entail? Or will that post get a one-time waiver from said edict?


December 14th, 2011 at 1:36 PM ^

I think it is one thing if you're discussing this in some kind of formal and constructive manner, like surrounding the book (which is a recent work).  It's another thing when we get a thread of the usual suspects flinging the same old stones at least other.