Unverified Voracity Catches Up

Submitted by Brian on December 29th, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Hello. Things that transpired in my absence:

Basketball got splattered by Purdue.  Hello, reality. You suck. Michigan hadn't played terribly in a game anyone could see yet this year, but they did so yesterday, and those NCAA bubble dreams should be shelved. From the first Jajuan Johnson undefendable hook shot it was clear Purdue was on another level from Michigan's previous victims, especially on defense. Michigan had far too many possessions where the ball barely approached the three-point line until there were ten seconds on the shot clock. The resulting chuck-fest was reminiscent of Amaker's teams.

Michigan's comeback at the end of the first half was nice to see—Stu Douglass was so on fire he drove to the basket for an easy layup that wasn't blocked into the third row—but even as it was happening I was thinking "this can't last." Lo, it did not.

A side note: Purdue employed a strategy I've long thought is a low-cost way to lower your opponent's efficiency: a token press. Don't trap, don't get yourself out of position for easy buckets, just defend all 90 feet. Michigan crossed the half-court line four or five seconds later than they would have normally and often struggled to initiate the offense when the ballhandler picked up his dribble just past the line. On a half-dozen possessions Michigan had no semblance of an offense until half the shot clock was gone.

A kicker committed. I've searched for this a million times already so I know it's not out there but this, truly, is news that should be met with that bit of Monty Python and the Holy Grail wherein the animated peasants give a desultory "hurrah." The tubes don't have this because if you type "holy grail peasants" you get this a billion times:

Which is fine and all but doesn't have much relevance to Michigan's kicker situation. He's Matt Goudis, Tim all typed him up and stuff, and he should be a massive upgrade for Michigan's national-worst field goal kicking.

I'm most encouraged by the bit of the ESPN profile that says he's a "refined ball striker"—yes, yes, that's what she said—with a "motion that's very repeatable"—ditto—since Michigan went with a guy who didn't have great technique but made a lot of high school field goals in Brendan Gibbons and that didn't so much work out. I don't really care if kickers can hit 50-yarders since in most situations you're better off going for it in that portion of the field; give me a Garrett Rivas any day of the week.

Anthony Zettel committed… to Penn State. Guh. If Zettel was going to wait until the 28th of December, what's one more week to see if Rodriguez is retained or booted and if the latter who his replacement would be? That's a major loss for the class and a guy who will rankle every time he does something for Penn State, and one that would have been averted with one more win somewhere along the way this year.

Tate Forcier said a bunch of stuff. Angelique Chengelis scored an excellent interview with Tate Forcier at some of the Gator Bowl festivities. The bit most directly relevant to the "will he or won't he" stuff:

But not long after the UConn game, a posting on Twitter [ed: by that swimsuit model] said Forcier would transfer.

"That was like the fourth time I'd heard that," Forcier said. "I would have left if I was leaving. You just never know what can happen. It's God's plan. You don't know who's watching, and it's really what you make of it. So I stuck it out. It was actually after the UConn game that I just decided I'm going to stick here at least for this year.

"I think it took time for me. If I were to leave, I didn't realize what I would be leaving. One of the things I noticed, everyone who left would have had a shot to play if they would have stayed."

Forcier also says Michigan's system is "tailor-made" for Denard, that he "knows he can run" the offense but that "Denard is better in it, honestly." All of this sounds like a guy resigned to the idea he's a backup at Michigan if he stays, which is a mature way to approach things… and almost certainly provides strong motivation to depart after the year. He's certainly going to think about it:

"Anytime somebody says something to me about leaving, I say, 'I'm still here, aren't I?" Forcier said, pulling his jacket hard to make sure the Michigan logo is properly displayed. "You still see me with all this Michigan stuff on me. This is me. I'm already acclimated to everything here. The education is something you can't pass up.

"You never know what could happen. I just think it's really about what you make of it. When I get in (games), I try to do what I can do and make the most of it. I'm pretty much going to ride my own road. It's up to me."

I do have a credible-seeming email in the inbox about Montana getting a big time I-A QB transfer from a "west coast kid not on the west coast," FWIW, but even if that points to Forcier no names are in it. Since Forcier has a redshirt available it would seem to make more sense for him to transfer to another D-I school, anyway.

I hope he stays but you can't blame him for leaving. We'll always have triple overtime against Illinois.

Old man yelled at cloud. A guy in the News who literally writes Gil Thorpe wrote some thing about how Rich Rodriguez is a slippery money-grubbing so-and-so with a distinctly Hun disposition that's about what you'd expect from Gil Thorpe:


wsg Ming The Merciless

I'm not going to rehash the usual defense of Rich Rodriguez's contractual whatnot—in brief it's "John Beilein, saint"—but here's an oh snap from MVictors in response to the assertion that "Fielding Yost didn’t sign contract extensions and then flirt with other schools to extort raises":

“No matter how long Yost’s contract was (one-year, two-year, five-year) in his first decade, it was always a source of relief in Ann Arbor every late-Nov/early-Dec when he announced he was for sure coming back. Occasionally, there were reports he was considering an offer from, say, Wisconsin — or from the East. One year he even boldly and publicly disputed the wording of his contract as to whether he’d be allowed to coach elsewhere if he opted out of coaching Michigan.   Another year he threatened to retire, he was so discouraged.  Yost worked it masterfully to his own advantage."

If you think the response to this column has been harsh check out the comments on any Gil Thorpe online, wherein a bunch of snarky hipsters snark at each other about how terrible Gil Thorpe is.

Jim Harbaugh was like "oh no he di'in't." The report about Harbaugh signing an extension and staying at Stanford from the Stanford AD—always questionable—was obliterated by one Jim Harbaugh:

Harbaugh has yet to sign with Stanford, and when asked about his supposedly pending contract extension he stated:

"I haven't even discussed it."

Perhaps more interesting, when asked to respond to remarks from the Stanford AD implying that Harbaugh will sign the contract, "Maybe he misspoke."

On the other hand, his brother thinks he'll stay on the Farm and Harbaugh himself thinks Andrew Luck is staying in school. So there you go. We are inside of a week until we know.

Denard said he was "100 percent." Eeeee:

“He’s not banged up anymore,” receiver Roy Roundtree said. “He’s ready to go and he’s just getting the offense ready.”

Robinson didn’t divulge how much of an impact the injuries had on his performance, but he said while speaking at the team’s hotel that he was now “100 percent.”

Martavious Odoms became available for the Gator Bowl. Michigan's wide receiver depth gets a boost:

"Rodriguez says Odoms has been able to do everything in practice and should be good to go in the bowl game."

7-5 Iowa, fresh off a loss to Minnesota, beat Missouri. Good start for the Big Ten and a reason for the conference to be thankful the bowl matchups shook out the way they did—would Michigan have any chance to stay within two touchdowns of Blaine Gabbert and company with their secondary? Probably not.

The big story as far as 2011 goes was Marcus Coker bulldozing the Missouri defense for 200 yards and establishing himself the next obvious target for the wrath of Angry Iowa Running Back Hating God. If he's not struck down by providence, it looks like Iowa's got themselves a version of Beanie Wells the next few years.

Billy Sauer fought Bobby Goepfert. Seriously:

Billy's in the ECHL now. This kind of stuff happens.

Etc.: Ryan Mallett is an "overrated prospect who definitely should return" to Arkansas because he's got a bad case of the Stanzis (Stanzi as a junior, anyway). A few players had trouble getting to Jacksonville because of weather. There was also an "impromptu dance-off." Smart Football emerged from hibernation. Michigan will not have Jon Merrill and Chris Brown for the GLI (which starting tonight with a game against Michigan Tech) as both made the World Junior team. Craig Roh is a nice dude.


Section 1

December 29th, 2010 at 4:25 PM ^

Am I not "man enough to admit when [I'm] wrong"?

It's interesting to me, because I rarely make predictions; and I never criticize any of the coaches or players, presuming that they all know more about football, etc., than I'll ever know.  You won't see me speculating or predicting what will happen on January 4 at 10 am, or when such-and-such recruit has just got to commit, or whether a call on 3rd and 7 was dumb.  I'm an ardent, loyal supporter of our Head Football Coach, and at the same time you'd spend days searching for any bad word I might have uttered regarding any other candidate for that job.

I am a determined and consistent critic of the press, and especially the Free Press and most especially Michael Rosenberg.  And even in all of that, it is a basic position that I expect about 80 or 90% of the Board membership agrees with.  I generally document my arguments with some care.  Mine is a position that I expect most of our fellow participants think should be given a wider audience.

So I don't think that there's a great deal of controversy that I've generated, and I don't recall where I've not been "man enough to admit I'm wrong."


December 29th, 2010 at 5:11 PM ^

If the Harbaugh rumors prove to be true. You won't admit to any overreaction for attacking someone who called it using "anonymous sources". You cherry pick which "anonymous sources" info to attack; there was no reaction to say, the Alabama in 2012 sources being RIGHT about the game. And on Lloyd Carr blow up day, one that went so far BRIAN felt the need to apologize, you were adamant demanding am explanation that you were somehow owed, and how wrong he was for not saying more (while having little issue with the sources of that kerfluffle), and the next day when almost everyone was sheepishly backtracking while making the walk of shame, YOU were declaring victory, and smug that everything had been taken care of to your satisfaction.
<br>The thing is, you're as much a nobody as any of us. No one owes you anything. No one appointed you anything. And considering the overall effect you've had, apparently no one but you cares. It's not just the tilting at windmills that galls; it's that you act like you have higher moral ground because of it. As GB said, if you feel that strongly about it, create your own blog. And we'll see if there's a readership for it. Or if any media source actually takes it seriously (ESPN get back to you yet?). Otherwise, if you're going to take shots on how everyone else handles things, be prepared to get "baited" back.

Section 1

December 29th, 2010 at 7:34 PM ^

And not one of them made any sense to me.

Is this waht you are referring to?  A post by me, one of many, in that long Adam Schefter thread?

I didn't claim superior knowledge to Schefter.

And I didn't claim that he's usually wrong, or that he's going to be wrong this time.  So no, I have nothing to apologize for.  I'm not the guy claiming to have inside knowledge, from anonymous sources.  I'm not predicting any particular future course of events.

But Schefter is, and he's now done it in precisely the same way (via anonymous sources) that some others have, and have been shown to be disastrously wrong.

If Schefter has indeed "heard" wrong, I'll, uh, remind him and everybody else.  If that press conference in three weeks is a happy vote of confidence for Coach Rodriguez, and the welcoming of a Top-20 or Top-10 recruiting class, then I hope very much that there'll be a shitstorm for all of the Schefters (not to mention the Rosenbergs) of the sports world.

My position is the easiest and the least controversial.  I'm not claiming anything.  All I'm doing is asking how it is that Schefter knows anything about the immediate future of the Michigan football program.  Do you have that answer?

Because, as usual, I stand behind every word I wrote, and I make no apology.  I never claimed Schefter was right, or wrong.  I never predicted anything.  I asked how would a guy like Shcefter would know what is going to happen at Michigan.  I asked if he had a source, and if so, who that source might be and why we should believe him/her/it.  And I asked (and then explained why the question needs to be asked) for the basis upon which the source might be "anonymous."  Those were all good questions.  I seemed to be just about the only person asking them.

I don't like rumors.  I like facts.  And I like to know where facts are coming from.


December 29th, 2010 at 7:44 PM ^

"I didn't understand what you wrote". Same thing over again and again. Broken records get old is the whole point.

But you illustrated it beautifully for me. You demand sources because you don't believe them to be true. You can SAY you're not predicting anything, but by not believing them, you must think them meritless and false. But if they're proven correct, you refuse to take back your criticism of their nameless sources, even after the sources are proven accurate. You can hide behind "I didn't claim anything". But it doesn't fool anybody.

Section 1

December 29th, 2010 at 8:58 PM ^

By reducing this to, "It's all okay, if the sources turn out to be right." 

I fully acknowledge that Adam Schefter might be right.  Who would doubt it?  At least the possibility?  Of course it might turn out to be true.  I said so; how could it be made any clearer?

I didn't criticize Adam Schefter's anonymous sources, as such.  I criticized Adam Schefter for not making them known, and for not making the basis of his story clear.   If I knew who his sources were, then I might have a better basis to criticize them.  We would all have a better basis on which to judge the information.

Of course all the time, the trafficking in these rumors, unproven as they are, is corrosive and harmful to our Head Football Coach. 

I happen to be right about the technical issues as to the proper use of anonymous sources.  You can look up any respected media outlet's style manual, ethics policy, or procedural rules.  I cited the exhaustive New York Times Guideline on anonymous sources as just one example.  And if those rules can be employed to put a guy like Adam Schefter on the defensive, I am delighted to do that.

You're right about one thing -- if Adam Schefter turns out to be right, and if a deal has been made to replace Rich Rodriguez with Jim Harbaugh, I won't have much to say.  I've said it all here; it might be true.  I don't know.  And at the same time, you are also correct that if Adam Schefter turns out to be wrong, and Rich Rodriguez is retained, I will be back on MGoBlog howling about it.  I'll be inviting Adam Schefter to suck my dick on ESPN-HD.  Because he's the guy who's paid to be the reporter, and he's the guy who is reporting on national tv what he is "hearing."

I'm not a neutral observer.  I support Coach Rodriguez, just as the guys at the Free Press, and elsewhere, hate him.  This ain't tiddlywinks.


December 30th, 2010 at 2:53 AM ^

You're right about one thing -- if Adam Schefter turns out to be right, and if a deal has been made to replace Rich Rodriguez with Jim Harbaugh, I won't have much to say.  I've said it all here; it might be true.  I don't know.  And at the same time, you are also correct that if Adam Schefter turns out to be wrong, and Rich Rodriguez is retained, I will be back on MGoBlog howling about it.


My Italics

See, if you've called out a guy's sources, publicly, and demand to know how verifiable they are, and then are ready to howl some more if they prove to be wrong or false, but aren't willing to say "I was wrong to question you, you had it right" when (and IF) they're proven to be right, to me that seems self serving, hypocritical, and not willing to be man enough to take it when you dish it out.  But you don't see it that way.  And that's where we differ.

Section 1

December 30th, 2010 at 8:36 AM ^

The reporters are supposed to be right.  We're not supposed to be amazed when they are right.  And when reporters rely on anonymous sources, and the they get it wrong, it should be a big deal.  I'm not satisfied that it was a big enough deal when they reporters whom I cited, were found to have falsely reported or predicted transfers of our players.

To avoid those kinds of problems, the reporters are supposed to follow some carefully prescripted journalistic rules.  I tried to educate you just a bit about what those rules generally include.  In order to avoid those kinds of reportorial mistakes.  Anonymous sources are a real problem when they are used indiscriminately.  They've been used so indiscriminately in sports broadcasting in recent years that even Don Ohlmeyer voiced his concern.  I gave you that link, too.  Which was particularly on-point with regard to Schefter, because Ohlmeyer complimented Schefter, by name.

The case of Adam Schefter was actually a miniscule example.  The Rosenberg/Snyder for the Free Press was a large example, with awful consequences for the University of Michigan. 

If you don't like hearing this from me, look it up for yourself.  Or don't read.

What would anybody rather hear from me?  My uninformed opinion on when David Brandon might decide something, and what he should say?  That's what the other 90% are already doing.

st barth

December 30th, 2010 at 9:23 AM ^

Section 1 is making some good points about journalistic integrity.  Integrity that seems to becoming more loose in the traditional media outlets (is it any wonder they are losing relevancy?) and that has been a strength of blogs like this one thus far.

Section 1

December 29th, 2010 at 3:42 PM ^

I threw an exceedingly careful and explicit shot at a lot of other reporters.

Today, I am being consistent.  Cautioning Brian, about what I found to be worthy of criticism elsewhere.  Sports reporting seems to be filled with anonymous sources these days.  There's so much of it, that few people remember to keep track of all of the wrong predictions and false rumors.  I think it is worth remembering that just about 16 weeks ago, we had not one but two reporters falsely reporting that Tate Forcier would be transferring.  Based on anonymous sources.  And before that, the ever-ready Drew Sharp predicting that Denard Robinson would be transferring, based on his position on Michigan's offensive depth chart.

This too:  I expect that no less an authority than Brian Cook would agree strongly with each and every one of my criticisms of the awful use of anonymous sources by the Free Press in the 8/30/09 Stretchgate story.

Honest question for you:  What is there to like, or even defend, about the rampant use of anonymous sources in sports reporting?  Even Don Ohlmeyer, ESPN's Ombudsman is uncomfortable about it.


December 29th, 2010 at 4:14 PM ^

I do have a credible-seeming email in the inbox about Montana getting a big time I-A QB transfer from a "west coast kid not on the west coast," FWIW, but even if that points to Forcier no names are in it. Since Forcier has a redshirt available it would seem to make more sense for him to transfer to another D-I school, anyway.

I assume you're referring to this.  If so, in the same breath Brian discounts the information and implies that the rumor is probably false.  He's "reporting" nothing other than he has an email and that he doubts its content is true.  It's way short of: "ZOMG!  Forcier's outtahere!  I'm tracking flights to Billings!"

Section 1

December 29th, 2010 at 4:24 PM ^

Which is why I didn't lash out at Brian, accuse him of unethical reporting, blah-di-blah-blah.  I did nothing of the kind, because Brian deserved nothing of the kind.

I simply tossed out a friendly cautionary reminder as to the recent bad history for people trafficking in Tate rumors.  Which IS true.


December 29th, 2010 at 4:46 PM ^

I can see how that might have been what you meant, but considering I wasn't the only one confused by your post, and reading your other posts in other threads, I can confidently conclude that while you're a poor writer and a bag of douche, you're not an idiot.


December 29th, 2010 at 5:17 PM ^

"Melanie Collins.
<br>Katrina Hancock.
<br>Drew Sharp."
<br>Which is basically equating him with them. If that isn't at least insulting, if not lashing out, then you're not consistent with your opinion of them.
<br>I'm no homer, and will caution and disagree with Brian. But he'd have to do something really Drew Sharpish to liken him to that. (Which as far as I can remember, he's done once, and apologized for it, unprompted).
<br>(Sorry for no yellow box, I'm on the App).

Section 1

December 29th, 2010 at 7:10 PM ^

No.  Those are the names of the people who have wrongly predicted or reported on transfers.  Of Michigan quarterbacks.  This year.  Based on anonymous sources, in the case of Ms. Collins and Ms. Hancock.

I didn't "equate" Brian with those people.  I cited them, as cautionary tales.

Fuzzy Dunlop

December 29th, 2010 at 5:51 PM ^

What you failed to realize last time, and you still ignore, is that not all references to anonymous sources are created equal.  If someone like Adam Schefter or Brian is generally proven to be correct when they cite an anonymous sources, they should be given more leeway than a Drew Sharp or Colin Cowherd or Herby or some other schmuck who regularly throws out bullshit rumors that don't come true.

Brian had an anonymous source who told him about the Alabama bowl game.  He was right.  When he tells us that his anonymous source is someone with credibility, he's earned some trust.

I particularly don't understand why you're harping on this now.  It's not like Brian said "Tate to Montana, OMG!"  He specifically said that, while he received an indication of this possibility from a trusted source, he does NOT believe it to be true for other reasons.  He is discounting the rumor, not promoting it.


December 29th, 2010 at 1:39 PM ^

We are inside of a week until we know.


Is there any backing to this?  Evaluations taking place "after the season ends" (i.e. after the 1/1 bowl game) have been stated, but has any timeline been identified?


December 29th, 2010 at 1:45 PM ^

Great question, Mat.

Everyone who comments on the CC topic appears to believe that we will know by 1/2 (or if not, by 1/4) who our coach will be.  I have never heard DB say this, so I am curious as to what the basis for this statement is.

DB keeps saying that after the bowl, he will do a "full evaluation."  Not sure what that means, but a full evaluation to me sounds like more than a 1-day affair.  Also, if DB turns around and makes his decision only a day or so after the season - after repeatedly mentioning  his full evaluation - doesn't he lose credibility?


December 29th, 2010 at 1:47 PM ^

full simply meant academics, coordinator performance, on-field results, off-field transgressions, compliance, etc.  i don't see that as something that would take more than 3-4 hours to be thorough. the use of full and post-bowl game seems to push the idea only that he should be assessed based upon a full year's performance and not an incomplete product.


December 29th, 2010 at 2:02 PM ^

I never thought DB would be coming out in the Post-Game press conference and letting the world know. I assumed they'd get back to AA, have a bunch of meetings with various staff members, gather reports about everything related to football then maybe a week later have a decision. Although, I see no reason why he couldn't have gathered all of that information and be ready shortly after evaluating the bowl performance


December 29th, 2010 at 1:58 PM ^

but given the notion that a hasty assessment will be expected and that RR and DB meet every Sunday to review football, etc, this meeting would take place the 2nd/3rd and, should JH be the coach, it would be announced after his game. 

the above is how the chain of logic has been constructed around 1/4 being the day and not my own personal opinion/idea


December 29th, 2010 at 2:06 PM ^

I'm having trouble differentiating between "personal opinion" and the "chain of logic".

Assumption: Expect a hasty assessment.

Why? DB hasn't been hasty thusfar.  Its clear he's in no rush to appease public frustration with a suboptimal timeline.

Assumption: Should JH be the coach, it would be announced after his game.

If DB is true to his word, he's making an assesment after the bowls.  If your previous assumption about a meeting and full evaluation taking place as early as 1/2 is true, wouldn't JH have to be offered the job, at the earliest on 1/2?  Wouldn't he need a few days to consider the offer, negotiate the salary, speak to his wife and children (and ex-wife?).  Not to mention the little distraction of coaching a BCS Bowl Game? 

It seems extremely presumptious to think these sort of major decisions can be made nearly instantaneously.  The timeline last go round was nothing like that.

It seems that you think DB was lying.  The only feasible way this goes down as you suggest is if it was all orchestrated in advance. 


December 29th, 2010 at 2:59 PM ^

it likely was orchestrated in advance on some level. If it was orchestrated, it was for everyone's good. Likely  to avoid getting in the way of what Stanford is doing, and also avoid the media from nixing what was orchestrated.

It was probably done weighing the positive and negatives of each approach.  The big positive is to get the coach the AD wants. If that couldn't be done before Stanford's season is totally over, then this was the best route.   It definitely isn't perfect though. It has been real hard on the fans. Especially the hard core fans that hang out on here.


December 29th, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^

You seem to have an odd sense entitlement and your own importance in this process.

If I'm going to sympathize with anyone in this matter, it's going to be the coaches and players whose lives are directly affected.

Brandon told everyone the timeline. That's all we need to know. The idea that the AD would make or announce a decision before he was ready to make the fans more comfortable seems a little silly to me. 


December 29th, 2010 at 4:48 PM ^

Why does he seem to have an odd sense of entitlement?  He isn't saying that DB should make the decision quickly to make him feel better.  All he is saying is that this process has been difficult for the most die hard amongst us.  This is a true fact.  As he said in the first part of his post, this is understandable, if it is being done for a good purpose such as getting JH (not commenting if this is a good or bad decision).  But, if it is being done for no purpose, then I don't see why you would drag your loyal fans - many of whom contribute financially to support the university and team - through the process.

Also, I don't think that saying that it is hard on the fans implies that it is NOT hard on the coaches and players.  It is obviously harder on them than it is on all of us.  But, just because the players and coaches have it the worst doesn't mean that it is not hard on the fans.  The two are not mutually exclusive.


December 29th, 2010 at 10:34 PM ^

Negative Ghostrider, the criticism is warranted.

I feel for the poor die hard fans that all this waiting has so tortured but their feelings are of no consequence in this decision. You knew from the beginning that the decision would be made after the bowl game.

Clearly, Brandon has a plan and a purpose. You just don't know what it is. You are entitled to find out when everyone else does and not a second sooner.

st barth

December 29th, 2010 at 3:15 PM ^

...involves too many assumptions.  Correct me is I'm wrong but the only thing Brandon has said is that he will evaluate the team after the season.  For all we know, he might sit down on monday afternoon.  Do his evaluation.  Decide that everything looks good then head out the door to join Bill Martin on a two week sailing vacation without telling us anything.


December 29th, 2010 at 3:25 PM ^

why people came up with the 4th. i see it as early as the 2nd or as late as 2-3 days before tMNC in order to kill attention of a change. the idea of it being the 4th has some merit but i don't believe it. a hasty assessment = everything leading up to the bowl is known and ready for review. he's already been slammed for taking too long, i highly doubt Brandon then waits ANOTHER week. then it becomes more absurd. waiting until the season is over? ok i get it. waiting until mid-January, roughly 2 weeks before signing day? no. giving RR, or the new coach, four full weeks to recruit and settle things before signing day = a quick decision.


December 29th, 2010 at 3:42 PM ^

Now we're progressing down the "logic chain"...

The process that DB has managed has already been absurd, but after the magical 1/4 date "it becomes more absurd"?  Or is it TOO absurd.

DB is (to put it kindly) not helping recruiting and seems only tangentially concerned with it (at least publically).  DB is not succumbing to public pressure to make a decision. DB is sticking to an unstated plan, one with a timeline that appears, at the surface at least, to be damaging.

Yet, you have faith that all this will all change immediately after the Orange Bowl.  The faith seems borne out of little more than hope.  You want DB to act, you think DB is intelligent, and you hope that your desires and assesement will come together seemlessly before this situation becomes too absurd for your liking.

This is your perogative.  I think your view is shared by most/many, including (apparently) Brian and Tim.  I just think it should be recognized as a hope and not asserted as fact.


December 29th, 2010 at 3:55 PM ^

That David Brandon is not monumentally stupid and has actually formed some kind of opinion one way or another and isn't just waiting to hold to some nonsensical timeline, or because he's really clueless. Which you are correct, might be an erroneous assumption. Which would be a really scary thought.


December 29th, 2010 at 4:05 PM ^

How is waiting until all the games are played a "non-sensical timeline?" A non-sensical deadline would be making your decision by Thursday, October 4th at 3:26 AM. After all the games are played makes perfect sense.

Most coaches are fired after the season. That doesn't make anyone "monumentally stupid" or "really clueless."

It's not scary at all.


December 29th, 2010 at 4:44 PM ^

In an ideal world, waiting until "all the games are played" might make sense.  But, we live in reality. 

RR has coached M for 36 games.  Presumably, DB knows RR's overall record, his record in the B10, his record against MSU / OSU, the performance of the offense, the performance of the defense, the performance of the special teams, how RR has recruited over the three years, how RR has managed his staff, how RR has represented Michigan publicly and how the players, alum, former players and donors are thinking.  He also knows about the NCAA violations and how that issue was ultimately determined. 

In light of this multitude of broad factors, what further information would a single bowl game provide?

If DB doesn't have enough information before him to make this decision now, then he has some serious "shit or get off the pot" issues.  If he is waiting for other reason, this I can understand, but if he is waiting for the result of a bowl game, at the great expense of recruiting, negative public perception, increased pressure for our players and increased frustration for our fanbase and alum, this I cannot.

Also, in D1 college FB, almost ALL firings are done after the REGULAR season, and not after the bowl.  Why?  Because most ADs recognize that recruiting is the life blood of a team's future.