Unverified Voracity, Still Grooming Dogs Comment Count

Brian September 1st, 2011 at 12:44 PM

This was filmed last year. I know this seems very 2008 Ohio, but they're behind the times. It was 2010.

This is also by Pop Evil. They turned into a bunch of hair metal posers just last year. Before that they were were "Muskegon's Menudo," and before that they were dog groomers. They're still dog groomers but now they have a band so they can test out exciting new techniques on each other.

Doubling down on… us? Bill Connolly is a smart person who does good things with stats, so he (and his models) know Michigan had a hugely positive yards per play margin last year and that turnovers don't correlate that well year to year and Michigan finally has a returning quarterback so they could bounce significantly forward this year.

This is a little much, though:

Five Predictions for the Big Ten in 2011:
1. Michigan wins the damn Legends Division. That's right.

5. Oh why the hell not ... Michigan beats Wisconsin in the conference title game. Might as well go all-in, right?

That is all in like whoah. If any part of this transpires Brady Hoke is king and Bill Connolly will be assaulted for lottery numbers.

The main problem with this is his model takes recruiting into account and Michigan's recruiting has been a paper tiger for a while now.

I'll take it! An NFL scout type guy on SI.com drops David Molk on his list of NFL prospects… but only to call him overrated. Still, I'll take this description:

Overrated: David Molk, Michigan -- Molk is considered the top center in the country by a number of scouts, yet in our opinion there are better senior centers in his conference.

I'll take "a number of scouts" believing he's the top center in the country over one dude disagreeing.

This is a fake thing. Iowa graduated leather magnet Tyler Sash last year. They are Iowa so they'll replace him with a walk-on. This is the filthy lie about this walk-on's name that BHGP expects us to believe:

Collin Sleeper (#16, Junior (RS), 6'2", 200, Solon (IA) HS)

We know absolutely nothing about Collin Sleeper.

It's not that we know absolutely nothing.  It's that we know exactly what we're supposed to know.  He's a junior walk-on from Solon who has never played a down of college football and is now the starting strong safety.  He was completely unrecruited and unscouted by the services.  According to him, he's fast.  He played halfback for the James Morris-led Iowa high school juggernaut 10 miles up the road from Iowa City.  He reportedly played Denard Robinson on the scout team last year.  His name is Sleeper, for chrissake.

THAT IS A LIE, SIR. Your walk-on safety is named "Sleeper" and my new running back recruit runs a 4.3 40. Eighteen fakes out of five, you Hawkeye bastards. Eighteen fakes.

This is a dumb thing. WMU beatwriter Greg Couch on the state of Michigan's quarterbacks:

I think Alex Carder is the best college quarterback in the state. Denard Robinson is a great athlete, but I'd bet you if Carder were in that program, they'd find a different role (flanker, perhaps) for Robinson. MSU's Kirk Cousins isn't even close.

That is literally the dumbest thing I have seen written about football in the state of Michigan not related to Rich Rodriguez. In games against ND and MSU last year Carder averaged 5.4 YPA—Threet/Sheridan numbers—and threw two TDs to three interceptions. He had 104 yards on 33 attempts against Idaho in a 33-13 loss. Playing a MAC schedule he finished 35th in passer efficiency. Cousins was 18th and Robinson 20th playing in the Big Ten.

This is not a surrounding talent issue. According to Couch WR Jordan White "would be an All Big Ten wideout." He proved this by averaging a whopping 10.5 yards per catch against MSU and Notre Dame. But sure, a MAC team with a better quarterback than Kirk Cousins and Denard Robinson and an All Big Ten wideout went 6-6 last year in the MAC.

This guy also thinks Denard Robinson is "Juice Williams with wheels," which is like saying "Carlos Brown but fast." Guh. Insert Billy Madison quote here.

I hope Chris Brown didn't get fired… or do I? He's gone from near-hibernation to putting out ridiculously good content consistently. There was the speed option post I linked in a previous UV, then a description of the inverted veer option Michigan tried a couple times last year and Auburn rode to national title. I don't think we're going to see it again, which is sad-making. I was so excited about it last year even though they never quite got it right.

End. The USHL's president is awesome. Some Canadian hockey radio guys were pondering a USHL-CHL matchup as a way to get a true North American junior championship, which prompted USHL prez Skip Prince to write them an open letter that said "Ready to do it" and bombed the CHL's model. This is a dagger. I'm going to quote a big chunk of it:

It’s odd to hear second-tier status ascribed to the USHL, the notion of “Well, if you’re going to go to college, then the USHL is the best place to go.” There’s an implicit demotion there – an implied statement “…because I guess you’ve decided you’re not good enough to go pro.” Really? So that’s an either-or decision?

No. It’s not. Our website equally celebrates the 165 NHL alumni we sport and the 283 college commitments we have in hand. They go together. It’s our pyramid at work. The fact is, 35% of the young men wearing an NCAA Division I sweater this past year – more than one out of every three rostered players in college hockey – is a USHL alum. That’s extraordinary. That 3% of those kids make it to the NHL is also extraordinary. The fact that’s right on par with the CHL is not extraordinary – not to us – but somehow that gets lost in translation.

So we are damn proud of that special 3% - and the other 97%. Every ­– every – player departing the USHL this year, who was eligible for NCAA play, had a Division I commitment in hand. Last year we were one short of perfect, a great young man who chose Division III instead. Match that.

Sure, there are those who depart from the USHL-to-college-to-NHL route, and take the CHL direction instead. We’re well aware of the four well-publicized de-commitments this past month. Point given. The CHL gets four great players. Hey - we celebrate them, and hope they all do well. That’s American freedom of choice.

We just think it’s a risk they didn’t need to take. Each and every one of those players had just as great a chance of making the NHL playing college hockey, lifting and getting better, over a time period they control, as they do with the two-year bet they’ve now made. But we know each of those young men, and our competitiveness does not stop us from wanting that bet to play out for all of them.

About 95% of the CHL would be better served in college. There's not enough room for all of them, unfortunately, but unless you're getting a massive under the table payment or can't hack classes you should probably go to college.

Flyover spoilers. Stop reading now if you like your planes all surprising. Notre Dame is going to be overkill city:

10 Sep vs. Notre Dame: The Yankee Air Force's C-47 Skytrain "Yankee Doodle Dandy" will conduct a pregame flyover and a two-soldier parachute team from the 101st Airborne Division (The Screaming Eagles) will drop into the stadium during the halftime program (one each in the two end zones). Prior to the game, the Michigan and Notre Dame NROTC Units will contest their annual flag football game on Friday, 9 Sep at 7 pm at Oosterbaan Fieldhouse. Stop by and cheer on your fellow students.

Nebraska and OSU will also have flyovers; Purdue(?!) is tentatively scheduled for one as well. Not sure why they'd do one for Purdue unless they're bombing the World's Somewhat Large Drum.

Etc.: Jason Whitlock writes a panting piece on Hoke day after he writes one of his odious race-baiting idiot columns, this one directed at the incredibly irresponsible Charles Robinson. Yes, that Charles Robinson. As a result I can't really take the former seriously. The lesson is always that Jason Whitlock is an asshat.


Blue in Yarmouth

September 1st, 2011 at 1:08 PM ^

I enjoyed all of this except the piece on the USHL and CHL. Not that I didn't enjoy that too, but having played in the CHL I have to wonder where all the venom comes from when you write about it.

I understand that college hockey has lost out on some players that preferred to play in the CHL, but by the same token I know some guys here in Canada that could have played in the CHL but chose the NCAA, but I don't know anyone here that speaks of the NCAA with the distain that you do the CHL.

The insinuation that when chosing between the CHL and NCAA you are choosing between playing hockey (if you go to the CHL) and playing hockey while getting an education (if you choose the NCAA) is flat out wrong. You can do both in the CHL.I spent 12 years in university becoming a cardiologist after hockey and the CHL payed a good chunk of that.

My point is by choosing the CHL players are not giving up on their education. 

Blue In NC

September 1st, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^

I am not an expert here but if you can't see the reason for the disdain from the Michigan perspective (with recruits being "swiped" at the last minute), then you just have not been paying attention to the games played by the CHL (drafting methods, under the table payments, etc.) and the "CHL is always the best way" mentality.  You don't see the NCAA/colleges ridiculed because most everything is above board.  That is like saying you don't understand what a school that commits NCAA violations (let's say Miami) is ridiculed even though some recruits choose to play for Miami and some for Michigan.  Even Michigan is subject to ridicule when it does not play by Danny Hope's unwritten recruiting rules.

Also, I don't understand the "I spent 12 years in university becoming a cardiologist after hockey and the CHL payed a good chunk of that."  Is the point to make us believe that getting your education completed 12 years after hockey puts you in the same position as someone that had already/mostly completed it?

I frequently enjoy the things you post but stating "the CHL payed a good chunk of that." while promoting the educational benefits of the CHL education is not helping your case. :-)

Blue in Yarmouth

September 1st, 2011 at 1:40 PM ^

I was drafted by the CHL when I was 16 and playing when I was 17.  I enrolled in university at age 20, so it isn't like I really put my life on hold that long. I don't know what it is like in the USA but in Canada you need 4 years undergrad, 4 years med school and then 4 year to specialize in cardiology. I don't think many guys playing college hockey would be mostly done by the time their 4 years of eligibility were up.

If I wanted to play in the NCAA I would have had to play crappy ass junior b or c until I was 19 and able to attend university.  Perhaps the NCAA should think about allowing people who play in the CHL to play in the NCAA when they are old enough to enroll in university. 

edit...LOL- I read your post and when I got to the bolded "payed" I thought: if you're going to qoute me at least spell the words in my qoute the right way! Then I reread my post and saw I spelled it that way...and now it is even bolded in your post :S


September 1st, 2011 at 2:04 PM ^

Hey Blue, we are fellow CHL alums and I have enjoyed many of your posts.

However, you don't have to become a CHL crusader every time something bad about it comes up on this site. Don't worry about it. Your points have validity, but we are on a University of Michigan website and there is to be some bias expected in the same way that it would be expected on an OHL website.

I can see both sides of the coin, there are points to be made both ways. I totally understand why fans on this site get upset, especially with the Gibson thing, which was a bitch-move to say the least.

Congratulations on all of your professional success, it is good to see a fellow hockey player doing so well. We aren't all meatheads, after all.

Blue in Yarmouth

September 1st, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^

I wasn't trying to be a crusader so much as genuinely trying to figure out where all the CHL hate is coming from. Where I live we don't get televised NCAA hockey and to be honest I don't follow it at all (probably would if it were carried here). Unlike you I don't have the knowledge of the NCAA and how it operates where hockey is concerned so it was really just trying to get some information.

I am not against a kid going the NCAA route, so I find it weird why everyone is so dead set against others choosing the CHL is all. I can understand being upset when a recruit commits only tohave them head to the CHL (I get that way when it happens in football), but this really seems a lot bigger than that.

Also, coming from Canada there wasn't people preaching to me that CHL was the way to go and not university (because we can do both here, I played college hockey after the CHL) so I wasn't aware of that and have never experienced that type of thing. 

Anyway, not trying to be a crusader, just looking for some answers.

Blue In NC

September 1st, 2011 at 3:53 PM ^

No problem.  I know you are a good poster so I only tried to give you a bit of grief. :-)

Makes sense on the 12 year timeline.  But are you saying that the CHL paid for your med school and cardiology specialization?  If not, I read your post as implying that the CHL paid for most of that (maybe I read too much into that).

And remember, some college players have the opportunity to play for the US Development Team for 2 years in high school before going to college.  Obviously not too many get that chance but I am sure the % of players with NHL careers from that program are very high.

Most of the college players would be done with their 4 year education at 21 or 22.  At that point, they have a solid basis to pursue either hockey or another career.

Obviously, you had the drive to make your situation work.  In the past I have not argued that the CHL and OHL are not right for some, I just dislike many of the methods they use to recruit players into those leagues and the "pressure" and "negative recruiting" that goes on.

I do think it's very interesting about the 3% statistic cited (assuming that has some validity).

Blue in Yarmouth

September 2nd, 2011 at 8:40 AM ^

sorry, I should have been more clear about that. The CHL paid for my undergrad, but not med school. 

This is good discussion and what I was genuinely looking for. I don't have a much of a clue as to how hockey works in the USA and had no idea they had this development team for highschool age kids. Thanks for the information. 

Blue In NC

September 2nd, 2011 at 9:43 AM ^

Yes, from what I have heard the USA Hockey development team is a very good option for those that are chosen.  Spots are very limited as there is one u-17 and one u-18 team.  Michigan tends to get about 2 kids per year on average from that program.  Players like Jack Johnson, Patrick Kane (I believe), Van Reimsdyk, Jack Campbell, etc. have come from that program in recent years.  Michigan has one guy from the u-18 and 3 guys from the u-17 team committed right now.

Edit: Actually, I found a list of "notable alumni" from the team:


Notable alumni:

STW P. Brabbs

September 1st, 2011 at 1:14 PM ^

I really haven't ever read much of Jason Whitlock's stuff, so I took this opportunity to see what the fuss was about. I read exactly one sentence in that entire, meandering piece that looked like 'race-baiting' (the 'mandingo athletes gone wild' outburst.) Dude definitely needs a more exacting editor, but to me he raised some good points about thinking about Robinson's piece more critically. YMMV there, but there's no way you can argue that race was central to his argument, still less that charges of racism against blacks are.

tl;dr Based on this evidence, Whitlock may be getting slammed for craven racial muckraking more than he deserves. Bit of herdthink, I might venture.

Desmonlon Edwoodson

September 1st, 2011 at 1:27 PM ^

I can only assume that Brian was talking about other race-related Whitlock pieces.  The race in sports conversation is always going to be there, whether we actually have it or not.  As long as I'm getting Peyton Hillis in the third round you wont see me complaining.


September 1st, 2011 at 1:53 PM ^

I agree that the piece doesn't indulge in race-baiting (save the "mandingo" reference).  It's logic is poor, though.  No drug dealer or mobster would ever be convicted if Whitlock's logic ruled the legal system.  Many witnesses against drug dealers and mobsters are themselves drug dealers and mobsters. 

STW P. Brabbs

September 1st, 2011 at 4:10 PM ^

What I got was that Whitlock was upset about the prostitution and abortion stuff because it was the most inflammatory, site-generatin' aspect of Shapiro's story - and it also wasn't backed up by much corroborating evidence at all.  

Whitlock didn't really articulate that very well, though.  It was a column that was at least 200% too long for what it said. 


September 1st, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^

I think Bill Connolly may have stumbled on the solution to our embarrassing division names.  We just need to sprinkle a bit of profanity into them.  It's the Damn Legends versus the Damn Leaders to determine the Big Damn Champion of the BEE-ONE-GEE. 


See?  Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

marco dane

September 1st, 2011 at 1:32 PM ^

...seen him on various award shows. Has completed his return of being in the media good graces,and the darling of his fanbase. He's featured on a joint by The Game called *Pot Of Gold*...def beat.


September 1st, 2011 at 1:47 PM ^

I think you are vastly underrating our 2008 and 2009 recruiting classes (as most people seem to do for some reason).

The 2002 class (5th year seniors went to three Rose Bowls) produced 8 starters (5 of whom were 3-star recruits) and 4 NFL draft picks at Michigan (Breaston, Avant, Watson, and Harris).  Of the elite guys in the class, Watson and Harris didn't start until their junior year and Harris wasn't the All-Conference killing machine we remember until his 5th season on campus.

The 2003 class (went to three Rose Bowls) was a little heavier on star power (Hall, Long, Woodley among 6 draft picks) but still only produced 9 starters (7 of whom were 4-star recruits or better).  One was a kicker (Rivas) and another (Mundy) transferred before his eligibility expired.  The 2004 class produced 5 NFL draft picks.

Those classes had their share of attrition, but they were also smaller (21 in 2002 and 17 in 2003 as opposed to 24 in 2008 and 22 in 2009) so the number of guys leaving wasn't as high.  Still, teams are as good or bad as the guys who are here, not the guys who leave.

The 2008 class has given us 7 guys (all rated 4-stars by Rivals except for Omameh, who we know is pretty good) who are clearly at the top of Saturday's depth chart (Patrick, Barnum, Martin, Demens, Koger, Shaw, Roundtree).  That doesn't include an 8th blue-chip starter who is only missing the year due to suspension/redshirting (Stonum), and a bunch of guys who may or may not start going forward (some have in the past), but will certainly contribute at Michigan this year and beyond (Odoms, Khoury, Mealer, Moore, Floyd).

The 2009 class (guys who are basically RS sophomores) gives us 6 starters this year (Gordon, Gordon, Jones, Denard, Lewan, and Roh) along with a bunch of highly rated guys who are near the top of the depth chart, certain to contribute this year and likely to start going forward (BWC, Gallon, Schofield, Smith, Toussaint, Washington).  It also gives us Brendan Gibbons who seems likely to kick field goals this year.

That is as good a two-year recruiting haul as any we've seen here since Rivals and others started following the subject closely.  Add in a really nice group of 5th year seniors (Hemingway, RVB, Molk, T-Wolf) and you have a team with plenty of talent to rival recent successful Michigan squads and compete with the best in the Big Ten.

Magnum P.I.

September 1st, 2011 at 2:18 PM ^

Okay, but saying that a class yielded X number of "starters" is not really a meaningful metric, if you ask me. There will be 22 starting spots, at least, every year whether the talent is sublime or abysmal. We'll see how many NFL draft pick emerge from those classes, or how far they take us on the field now that they're upperclassmen. 


September 1st, 2011 at 3:13 PM ^

I think the number of starters is relevant when the key criticism of both classes is attrition.  People list off a bunch of guys who left (ignoring how often guys left from prior classes) and decide this proves the class is a disappointment.  The number of starters aspect shows that the losses haven't prevented either of these classes from having the kind of typical impact any good class would (as you said, only so many guys can start at a time).  I also tried not to include guys who just fell into a starting spot in my count (Odoms as a freshman, Floyd, etc.).

That is why I also included Rivals recruiting rankings.  When people see that the 2002 class produced fewer blue-chip starters (3) than the 2009 class has already produced (4, including an All-American QB, a freshman All-American LB, and a future All-American LT), some bells should go off about how good the more recent group is.  I also included the draft numbers to show that a steady state for really good, Rose Bowl bound Michigan teams is about 5 draft picks per recruiting class.  I don't see either one of the classes discussed having any trouble reaching that number.

And I didn't even get into roster strength issues like "Who are these guys beating out?"  Demens beat out a senior, 4-star recruit (Fitzgerald).  He beat out a multi-year starter last year.  He beat out another senior (Evans), plus all the young guys.  This works in reverse for young guys who haven't seen the field.  Mealer is behind two better players in his own recruiting class (Barnum and Omameh).  BWC and Washington are behind blue-chip, multi-year starters. 

Obviously we don't know for sure what will happen going forward but we have ever reason to believe this is a very talented group that will produce great things over the next year or two.


September 1st, 2011 at 1:41 PM ^

Dude, Brian, when is the last time you wrote an article without at least alluding to the injustices suffered by your beloved Rich Rod.  We all get it dude.  It didn't work out for a myriad of reasons, but can you please write one entry without bringing him up.

You are a good writer, but I think we are past the point where you need to feel obligated to bring him up in every post as some sort of tangent stand in.  We know, you liked him, and you feel he wasn't given a fair shot.  Others feel he was inadequate and didn't "get" Michigan.  Great, we can debate until the end of time, but for whatever reason his tenure was a miserable failure in terms of wins and losses.  You were wrong, I was wrong.  We expected success he never achieved.  Let go of the man crush.


September 1st, 2011 at 2:04 PM ^

The reporter in question is actually Graham Couch from the Kalamazoo Gazette and he's the homliest homer in the history of journalism.  He was beating the drum for years that Hiller was better than CMUs' Dan LeFevour, 15,500 total yards of offense, three conference championship and four straights wins over WMU be damned.  

In short, any he says is best ignored.  He makes Drew Sharp seem reasonable and sane by comparison. 


September 1st, 2011 at 2:26 PM ^

I want all the fucking credit when we win this Big Ten.. Bill Connolly is a johnny come lately.

In all seriousness Brian I don't understand the complete lack of faith.  We don't have to beat the whole Big Ten.  If we do reasonably well and beat MSU the Nebraska game will be a virtual play in game.   They have no passing attack and we'll be at home.  We have a decent shot  to win this division.

MSU and Nebraska are the 2 favorites and they have brutal schedules.  They both have Wisconsin and we avoid them.

People not giving us a decent shot at winning our division

a) Not looked hard enough at the schedules

b) Broken from the last 5 years worth of disappointments.

In the 1st 3 weeks of the season Neb and MSU play OSU and Wis and each other.  1 or both could be in turmoil off the bat. We have the best player in the league on offense and maybe defense.   Time to get the tail out from between your legs and do your best Brady Hoke.   Grow a pair people.   We're Michigan. 

Michigan 2011 Big Ten Champs








September 1st, 2011 at 2:58 PM ^

Does the author of the article think that Rich Rodriguez is the greatest coach in the history of college football?  The author trys to sneak a pro-rodriguez comment in every article he posts.  Sometimes it's at the expense of Brady Hoke or other former Michigan coaches.   Anyone that thinks that Rodriguez did a good job a Michigan is a fucking idiot.  Anyone that thinks that Rodriguez is a better coach that Carr, Moeller, or Schembechler is a fucking moron.

Desmonlon Edwoodson

September 2nd, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^

Brian is neither an idiot nor a moron. I would definitely go with equal parts stubborn and delusional. Rodriguez was grossly incompetent at at least 60% of his job, and I dont think anyone is going to argue with that. They've just become so infatuated with that other 40% that they think its all that matters.

Blue Durham

September 1st, 2011 at 3:44 PM ^

confirmed that John Cooper is still coach at OSU (1:33-1:36 and 2:01-2:02). 


I had this terrible nightmare that OSU actually fired Cooper and hired this evil, sweatervest wearing guy that proceeded to beat us like a drum.  To add insult to injury, in Lloyd Carr's last season, we actually lost to a division 4 team.  But things were only to get worse...


Whew, Long live John Cooper at Ohio State!

Hillbilly Jihad

September 1st, 2011 at 5:58 PM ^

... but you are wrong about jason whitlock. when you refer to his column as race-baiting you reveal your own bias. stick to michigan and things you are brilliant and leave the social issues to those who are more on top of them than you are. i love you brian. not in a gay way but in a michigan fan way. but jason is legit. rasta.