Red is Blue

August 30th, 2010 at 3:33 PM ^

Actually, no it does not make me wish that we had a "change-is-not-good" AD.  Change is inevitable, the trick is to make changes that improvement your expected outcome.

If it comes to a point where RR has to go, I wouldn't want him sticking around becauise the AD is afraid of change.


August 29th, 2010 at 7:42 PM ^

Being a Michigan Man means standing for things that are good for Michigan, Mr. Brandon. You don't want to make all of us so unhappy with you. I swear you don't.


August 29th, 2010 at 8:07 PM ^

some smart retort about Dave Brandon's "pimp hand"  But it's all in affectionate admiration.  I don't know the man, never knew Bo, I met RR during his first coaches camp at Michigan.  I say that to say this.  I don't kmow what it is but DB has " it" Bo had "it", and I firmly believe after that coaches camp, RR's total record, and how he treated folks at the camp.  Rich Rod has "it" too. 


August 29th, 2010 at 8:23 PM ^

He gave a very diplomatic non-answer about the OSU game. Hopefully the public's reaction to his comment about splitting into different divisions is influencing things in the other direction.


August 29th, 2010 at 8:47 PM ^

for RR as a coach. That in turn tells me that 2010 would have to be some sort of apocalyptic meltdown for DB to fire him after this season.

There are others who just say that DB is saying the safe corporate things and is itching to fire RR if we don't win a specific number of games. We'll see.


August 29th, 2010 at 9:36 PM ^

To be a bit two-faced. I mean, if ANYONE has gone out there and given veiled threats The Game will be moved, it's HIM. He started the whole ball rolling...and very much said that Michigan and OSU should be in different divisions, and that meant the date of the game changing. Which caused a lot of other people to say stuff (down at OSU), and speculate. The most shaky information seems to be coming from Brandon himself. So don't blame it on everyone else...mirror time.


August 29th, 2010 at 9:40 PM ^

comparing being a Michigan Man to porn is sorta out there. The reason people(like me) are outraged thinking it's a done deal to move The Game is because our 1/12th (DB) came out on record in favor of moving the game. Not to hard to read the writing on the wall there. But if he is backpedaling here then I see that as somewhat encouraging.


August 29th, 2010 at 10:03 PM ^

He was comparing attempts to define it to a rather infamous definition of it given when someone asked a judge (District Judge, I think) to define it: "I know it when I see it." It's something that you can't easily define, even if you know what it means.


August 29th, 2010 at 9:56 PM ^

(Though I'm not sure your links are working)
<br>Sounds like he wants to put permanent lights up in the Stadium; he was an advocate of it when the renovations were to be done.
<br>Also sees the need to recruit more (bigger, stronger, faster) talent in basketball to succeed in the Big Ten, and thinks Beilein has felt it out and sees what is needed too.


August 29th, 2010 at 10:41 PM ^

Mich-OSU is worth more if the rivalry remains important, and it's more likely to remain important if it's the last game of the regular season. I don't see any big enough gains elsewhere in the conference that would balance that out, much less override it to the extent that it's worth screwing around with the rivalry.

Red is Blue

August 30th, 2010 at 2:43 PM ^

It is not when the game is played that makes it important.  The game is important if at least one of the teams is in the national championship picture and has a real chance of losing.  Almost by defintion if both teams are in the NC picture it is really important.  Texax - OU is important, but not played the last week of the year.  Purdue-Indiana is not important despite the timing. 

If put at the end of the year, the most the game can be is for is a divisional title or a preview of the Big Ten championship game to be played the following week.  Either way, it won't be the same.


August 29th, 2010 at 10:43 PM ^

It means those things ... Plus ... knowing the school: its history, its traditions, its lore ... and being utterly fired up by it. It's as though he's trying to say that even RichRod is a Michigan Man - or that anyone could be a Michigan Man instantly. Rich Rod is not a Michigan Man - now, I'm saying that as a supporter or his. He's not one. Does that mean that he's not good for the school? Not necessarily ... but it takes time to become a Michigan Man. He may become one some day. It's ok, Mr. Brandon to lift high the traditions and mystique. Please do so! Go Blue

Enjoy Life

August 30th, 2010 at 9:33 AM ^

I do not think Bo became a Michigan Man until about his 3rd or 4th season. Yes, he was successful in 1969 (8-3 and beating osu) but that was with players he did not recruit. Until he had a proven track record, there was no way to know if he was going to be a great coach.

(Remember Charlie Weis was 9-2 in his first year at ND.)


August 30th, 2010 at 11:53 AM ^

For me, from where i'm standing, i look at the last 2 years and what he has been through. This may not be the popular opinion, but i consider Rich Rodriguez to be a Michigan Man. He's suffered more than any of us in all this, and it has only made him stronger, as it has all of us. Hell, the fact that he has stuck around through all this instead of just throwing in the towel and starting fresh somewhere new with less negativity and more of a chance at a good start is good enough for me.

Having seen how he manages the bad times, and how he is preparing our young team to get to the good times as fast as possible, i look forward to the day where he can "get a good night's sleep" and feel good about what he's done here.

In my eyes, after 2008 and 2009, Rich Rodriguez is a Michigan Man, through and through. Does he have some more things to learn? Sure. Is he the quintessential Michigan Man as seen in most people's eyes? Probably not. But as Don said, when was Bo a Michigan Man? Fielding Yost?

We have seen the bottom. And so has Coach Rodriguez. As he helps restore us to prominence, I'd like him to know that i'm fully behind him, appreciative of the Michigan Man he has so far become, and the Michigan Man he will continue to grow into.


August 30th, 2010 at 12:23 AM ^

are just 2 little voices in the dark and it's the rest of the conference members that are hell-bent on splitting all the big rivals into different divisions.

If you asked the 6 top-drawer B10 teams - Michigan, OSU, PSU, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, (even include MSU if you want) - what rivals they'd want to be paired up with in their division, here's what you'd get:

  Michigan - would want to be in the same division with OSU, MSU

  OSU - would want to be in the same division with Michigan, PSU

  PSU - would want to be in the same division with OSU, Michigan

  Nebraska - would want be to in the same division with Iowa, Wisconsin

  Wisconsin - would want to be in the same division with Nebraska, Iowa

  Iowa - would want to be in the same division with Nebraska, Wisconsin

  MSU - would want to be in the same division with Michigan, PSU and/or OSU

This falls very nicely into a "rivalry-based" alignment of teams (I won't call it geograpy-based).  It's what the fans and the schools want.  Unfortunately it's not what the money-men want.

There is a big difference in philosophies at work here. 

There is the rivalry-based "SEC philosophy", favored by most fans, that seeks to align the teams based on keeping key rivalries together within the divisions, and having new and interesting cross-division match-ups in the conference championship game.

Then there is the "ACC philosophy", favored by the Big 10 money-men that seeks to align the teams by breaking key rivalries apart and putting them in different divisions in the hopes that they will meet in the conference championship game.

The ACC model has been a major disappointment.  Despite the rigged alignments, Miami and FSU still haven't met in the championship game.  The SEC model however, has preserved the passion and interest of all the natural rivalries while still regularly producing compelling cross-divisional championship games.

This is where philosophy stops and emperical observation needs to take over. 


August 30th, 2010 at 10:06 AM ^

I think the other teams see the value to them in getting to the BTC (Big Ten Championship) and are trying to maximizes their chances of getting to it.

I think that the other teams see that having Michigan and OSU in one division makes for a very top-heavy division, and greatly reduces their chances of getting a shot at the BTC.  How many times has it happened that neither Michigan or OSU hasn't been first or second in the Big Ten?  That makes the winner of the "East" division (M,OSU,MSU,Illinois,IU,NW) pretty much guaranteed to be Michigan or OSU.

Splitting M/OSU and making them play anyway is a huge benefit to the "East" conference by virtue of the chance that one team may take out the other, allowing one of the other "East" teams a shot at the BTC game, and therefore, an easier chance for the "West" team to win (NU,PSU,Iowa,Wisconsin,Purdue,Minnesota).

It's "Survivor" mentallity: take out the strongest competitor, in order to give yourself a chance.  And when it's 10 versus 2, the 10 will win.