Dear Mr. Woodson; Quit talking to Mark Snyder.

Submitted by Section 1 on

Dear Mr. Woodson,

I see your name in a headline, in today's Detroit Free Press. It probably isn't what you had in mind.

Before saying anything else, however, let me thank you for your great years in Ann Arbor and all of the thrills we saw on the football field. Thanks for all of your hard work. Thanks also for all the time you've devoted to Mott Children's Hospital. You've done so much good, through the hospital and through your foundation.

I presume that as you have been getting ready for the annual Mott Golf Outing and assorted fundraisers, the outreach people have been talking to your agent, and arranging for you to talk to reporters, to promote the event. I presume that that is how Mark Snyder of the Free Press got some of your time in a private telephone interview. As much as you'd like to promote Mott events, it was a mistake on your part to talk to Snyder.

Because while Snyder is willing to throw in a few lines about Mott fundraising, you should have known what would happen; Snyder would ask you all about Mott, get your guard down, and then ask you about Rich Rodriguez. And whatever you gave him, Rodriguez (and not Mott) would become the day's headline.

That is part of the reason that Brady Hoke and David Brandon are not doing any private interviews with Snyder. Your interview with Snyder tore up that page of the Michigan playbook. The other very large part of the story, as you really ought to know, is that Snyder was part of the tag-team that did such damage to the football program. Your Michigan football program. Michigan's NCAA investigation was a wholly-produced effort in which Snyder played a big part. After the harm that was caused by Snyder, why you would give someone like that a private interview is almost unbelievable. There are other ways to get out the news of the annual Mott Golf Outing; in fact, the way that the Free Press goes about its business, it is almost guaratneed to distract from those good works.

There has not been much harm done, by one interview; so that much is no big deal. But put yourself in Snyder's position. He will be at the golf course and the clubhouse that day for the meetings and the dinner, and he will be looking for interviews and stories. You and your fellow football alumni should not give him anything. You all should know that the story that he wants is "the bad old days of Rich Rodriguez" story. He wants to use you guys, to essentially support his story from 2009. You don't have to give it to him. You don't have to talk to Snyder. And if you do, you can say, "All that I have to say about those years, is that the Free Press was awful to this football program.  You want me to go on?"

If anyone wants to say, "Hey let's forget about the past; let's move on," that's fine. Just be assured, that when you are talking to Mark Snyder, his idea of "moving on" is by delcaring that Rich Rodriguez was a personal disaster, because that is what his paper is invested in.  If you think it is time to "move on," then think about making that your answer when Mark  Snyder asks you for an interview.  Because that is the message that Brady Hoke and David Brandon are interested in. Ask them, if you are unclear about this. 

Quit.  Talking.  To.  Mark.  Snyder.

Comments

salami

May 17th, 2012 at 1:31 PM ^

I, for one, find Section 1's jihad against the Freep both comforting and amusing.

Rosenberg and Snyder attempted to smear the program I love for the sake of selling papers and to eviscerate a coach they didn't like.  For that I will never forgive them or the fish-wrap for which they work(ed).

I love Section 1's unrelenting dedication to this cause, it makes me smile.  Keep up the good work.

no /s

 

<<ducks incoming rocks>>

RayIsaac91

May 17th, 2012 at 1:58 PM ^

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with pens. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Section1? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Rodriguez, and you curse the Freep. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Rodriguez's firing, while tragic, probably saved losses. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves losses. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like spread, 3-3-5 stack, hold the rope. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a helmet, and play linebacker. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

 

Section 1

May 17th, 2012 at 7:28 PM ^

If he did read Three and Out, and yet was still willing to talk to Snyder.  Guh!

Alternatively, somebody like Woodson, in his position, not reading the book at all (!?).  I dunno; maybe Charles doesn't read any books anymore.  I wouldn't think so.  I'll bet that his subscription to Wine Connoisseur is current in any event.  I am always astonished by the number of people for whom the interest in Michigan football is undeniable, and yet they haven't read the book.  What the hell do some of those people read?

BDW

May 17th, 2012 at 1:43 PM ^

are we still talking about Snyder and Rosenberg? You are only increasing the hits to thier articles with your weekly rants

LSAClassOf2000

May 17th, 2012 at 2:02 PM ^

"There are other ways to get out the news of the annual Mott Golf Outing; in fact, the way that the Free Press goes about its business, it is almost guaratneed to distract from those good works." - Section 1

Giving an interview in a paper with a daily readership in the neighborhood of 500,000 and probably twice that many unique page hits per month is a pretty good way to get the word out, especially if you have the local renown of Charles Woodson. Considering that the article stayed mostly with the Mott Golf Outing, I am guessing his good works continue unabated and without distraction.

However, I will also check yellowpages.com in case there is a blurb there, if you would like, or I could always "Like" the Facebook page (not yours, but Woodson's). It's a little late for word-of-mouth since it is a popular event for an outstanding cause, but perhaps you can ask Charles if, next time, he would do truckside advertising instead, or even paint the time and place on the side of his own car.

Section 1

May 17th, 2012 at 2:07 PM ^

Considering that the article stayed mostly with the Mott Golf Outing, I am guessing his good works continue unabated and without distraction. 

That's the point! Snyder could have done an article promoting the Mott Outing. But that wasn't the lede, or the headline. Snyder USED the Mott Outing for his access to Woodson (I presume). It was the pretext for the interview. But the money quote, what Snyder wanted and he got, was the garbage about Charles recovering his sense of Michigan Man pride, post-Rodriguez. Mott found its way into print, at Paragraph 8! All that I am saying, is let that be a lesson to everybody else who gets interviewed by Mark Snyder in the next four days.

LSAClassOf2000

May 17th, 2012 at 2:47 PM ^

"For me, sitting and watching games this year, watching the defense function the way that it did and really play, with Brady implementing his system, and having the guys play that had (been in) the other system the past three years -- that was special to watch. I was absolutely proud to be a Michigan Wolverine once again." - Woodson, from the article

I dare say that Charles was not implying that, at any point, he was not proud, but instead, he is talking about something that had been missing for three years - the energy and enthusiasm that went with Michigan football. Even if Griese, Hutchinson any other former players at the Outing this weekend said the same thing, it would be a non-story at this point. The story would be the golf outing.

That being said, I really don't understand why you would rail against Woodson expressing his opinion about the current state of the program by contrasting it with the previous state of the program. There is an exceedingly long German word - Vergangenheitsbewaeltigung - that might be of use to you. Granted, you're not coming to terms with quite the same things they were in the post-war period but certainly the principle of learning how to deal with the past and face the present in a far healthier state of mind is similar.

 

jmdblue

May 17th, 2012 at 2:09 PM ^

We have a great coach, a fine former coach who did not succeed here, but will likely do well in his new home in the southwest, and a local paper that delivered unto us a hit job that we may now easily ignore if not forget.  On with the rest of my day.

Section 1

May 17th, 2012 at 2:19 PM ^

1.  The new coach seems like a great guy, who is doing a good job.

2.  I appreciate your generous comments about the previous coach.  I think generous comments like yours are a good idea; I notice that on the very rare occasions that Hoke or Brandon say anything at all about the previous coach, they are usually generous in nature.

3.  We agree about the malevolence of the local paper.  Very much unlike the previous coach (who is gone), and the current coach (who had nothing to do with the 2009 controversy), "the local paper" is still here, still in business, and ought to be treated with the suspicion and contempt that it has earned.

jg2112

May 17th, 2012 at 2:50 PM ^

The new coach seems like a great guy

What world are you living in, Hoke is a great guy.

I appreciate your generous comments about the previous coach.  

They were directed at the previous coach, not you. You are not Rich Rodriguez, though you both may have the same persecution complex.

I hate to have to re-introduce you to this theory, but here goes. Rich was fired because his teams were 15-22, and suffered as many 20+ point defeats in three years as Michigan had between 1963-1997.

That's called results-based firing.

MaizeMN

May 22nd, 2012 at 11:56 PM ^

...or are you?

Cheese and Rice; we've seen this post, ad-infinitum.  Can we put the RR experiment behind us and just get excited for the the Hoke era, Fergodsakes!.

 

FREEP=evil: we get it.

Carr= devisive; maybe.

Former Players=Michigan tradition; Absolutey!

GERG=Crappy D-Coordinator; YEP!

Section1!=Beating A Dead Horse Into The Ground, Driving A Steak Through Its Heart, Conducting A Seance To Revive It, Creating A New Issue Based On The Purported Rise Of Said Horse and then Causing MGoBlog Universe to Bomb Said Post...

Wait for it...

PRICELESS.

 

bjk

May 17th, 2012 at 5:49 PM ^

about "forget"; the guys over at the Freep are still pretty much the same and apparently still stirring stuff up. This is up to personal choice, but I have trouble forgetting. This next point isn't directed at you, but I'll just stick it here anyway rather than post another comment: I get a sense that a lot of the energy being expressed here is not of the "forgive and forget" variety; it's a little too vehement for that. Why can't we all just get along?

Section 1

May 17th, 2012 at 6:47 PM ^

I get a sense that a lot of the energy being expressed here is not of the "forgive and forget" variety; it's a little too vehement for that. Why can't we all just get along? 

It really is odd.  I've never said much of anything that wasn't favorable to Coach Hoke.  The guys that I save my hatred for are the guys that everybody has long had good reason to hate -- Rosenberg, Snyder and their editors.

That much is certainly all that I advanced in this Diary.  Criticism of Woodson?  Nope.  Criticism of Hoke?  Nope.  Criticism of Brandon?  Nope.  Praise for Woodson's charity work with Mott?  Yep.  Heckling of Mark Snyder?  Yep.  Fergodsakes, yes.  Timed right before one of his biggest interview days of the summer.

It is almost as though any statement of support for the plight of former Coach Rodriguez is seen as undermining of the current regime.  There is a Soviet quality to that.  As though all comrades must not only praise the Current Dear Leader but you must also condmen the Past Infidel Leaders, because all our misery may be blamed on Them.

 

jmdblue

May 18th, 2012 at 7:53 AM ^

simple misunderstanding here....I didn't say "forget"...I said "if not forget"....I also didn't suggest "forgive".   I did say "ignore".  How better to combat Rosenberg and Snyder?  Screw 'em.

The Geek

May 17th, 2012 at 3:59 PM ^

I could go the rest of my life and never hear the words Rich Rodriguez again and die happy. The man nearly destroyed our football program, there is no argument.

 

 

jackfl33

May 17th, 2012 at 4:05 PM ^

I think Woodson promoting Mott might take precedence over RR's beef with the Freep. Children's Hospital>Years old dispute that honestly didn't harm the program that much

Section 1

May 17th, 2012 at 4:29 PM ^

Do your realize, Jack, what a non-issue and a non-sequitir you've raised?

From the outset, I presumed that Woodson was interested in promoting the Mott fundraiser.  Frankly, I expect that while kicking back at home in Atlanta, Charles might not be accepting any calls at all from Mark Snyder on stray topics pertaining to Rodriguez.

But Charles probably took this call following arrangements with his agent and the development people.  Specifically related to Mott.  Promote the event, and as part of that, talk to the guy from the Detroit Free Press.

Your complaint about what is more important -- Mott Chidlren's Hospital or "the Rich Rodriguez era of Michigan football, when the program was spinning its wheels or backsliding ," might be better directed to the Free Press and Mark Snyder.  "Mott" didn't make it into any headlines.  And Snyder buried the Mott information in the eighth paragraph, after, uh, dealing with Rodriguez.

jackfl33

May 17th, 2012 at 6:06 PM ^

I'm just saying that, like it or not, the Freep has a huge readership. And you have repeatedly mentioned that Mott was his motivation for getting the interview. Any mention in the Freep is, in fact, a big deal. So if he was just chatting away with Mark I see your point. But he didn't... I don't get how promoting Mott is a non-issue. 

JClay

May 17th, 2012 at 4:26 PM ^

I'm embarassed a so-called Michigan Man has as poor of a grip on how a semicolon is used as Section 1 displays in his title.

I'm also embarassed a so-called Michigan Man has as poor of a grip on reality as Section 1 displays in every one of his thousands of bizarre, delusional missives. But mostly the semicolon usage is what embarasses me.

bjk

May 17th, 2012 at 5:33 PM ^

I had to recheck the title; the semi-colon is really there. Good catch. This part:
I'm also embarassed a so-called Michigan Man has as poor of a grip on reality as Section 1 displays in every one of his thousands of bizarre, delusional missives.
I don't understand as well. Are people saying the Freep Jihad didn't really happen, or what is this overwhelming outpouring of hostility all about?

Butterfield

May 17th, 2012 at 5:51 PM ^

Most people are saying that the freep jihad was real, but that it happened 3 years ago and it's time to move on.  Many are also saying that the program is in a good place and there is no reason to keep harping on the same topic over and over, especially since that topic is becoming increasingly  irrelevant and not impacting the current state of the program.

Matthew

May 17th, 2012 at 4:30 PM ^

Hey Section 1 who are you to tell Charles Woodson what to do?  I thought you were one of the more respected posters on this site but you are becoming a joke.

An Angelo's Addict

May 17th, 2012 at 5:22 PM ^

Did you email or mail this letter to Woodson or was this just posted on mgoblog as a way for you to vent at your screen? Either way, this is just like scratching a scab posting it here, let the shit heal son

Butterfield

May 17th, 2012 at 5:59 PM ^

One man's amateur diagnosis of Section 1:  Like an ex-athlete who is suffering withdrawls from retiring after a long career (lets just say Brett Favre), Section 1 draws his identity from a single source (railing on freep, Rosenberg, Snyder, etc.) .  Just as the football player struggles with what to do after he can no longer do what he is revered for, Section 1 fears an inevitable loss of fame/notoriety, a world where he becomes just   another anonymous, faceless mgoblogger. 

I think he would benefit from someone sending him a funny cat picture starter kit so he can begin to diversify and adjust to life in a happy Michigan universe. 

Section 1

May 17th, 2012 at 7:05 PM ^

Mark Snyder could have written 500 words , about Woodson, Mott Children's Hopsital, about the Packers, the NFL, about Lloyd Carr, etc.  And I wouldn't have written one single thing about it.

But he didn't.

And note the order of importance for Mark Snyder:

  1. First and foremost, Woodson's terrible shame as a Michigan Man from 2008 to 2010;
  2. The upcoming Mott Charity;
  3. Concussions in pro football, safety, his future, yaddy yada yada.

 

==========

MODS - Any one of you care to count the number of personal attacks on me in this thread?  How do you, Mods, propose that I respond?  My current stance is "no response in kind."  Which does not mean that I wouldn't like to tell Butterfield to go fuck himself.  -9400 MGoPoints did it for me.

Butterfield

May 17th, 2012 at 7:31 PM ^

So you just told me to go fuck myself, masked in another holier than thou plea for mod help.  Mods, he just cursed at me!!!!  Ban him!!!

EDIT:  I just wasted way too much time at my desk re-reading the thread and I counted three posts that attacked you "personally".  Plenty more attacked your post, don't confuse the two.  And incidentally, I wasn't one of the three - unless you think trying to determine an underlying reason why you can't let go personal.  It's only natural that a message board full of intelligent people, many of whom are alums, would try to get to the root of an intriguing "condition" that you seem to be exhibiting. 

His Dudeness

May 17th, 2012 at 6:37 PM ^

Why is there something wrong with a person voicing their opinion? This is a Michigan blog, sure, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be differing opinions. I mean do you want it to be censored to the point that every diary and post is the same old ra ra bullshit that is meaningless? Hey Hoke sure knows how to mail a letter to a recruit. Let's all get boners about it.  At least this has some sort of point rather than inflating all of our egos about something that is cursory at best.