CC: The MGoBubble

Submitted by dahblue on December 3rd, 2010 at 11:35 AM

The current uncertainty with the football program seems to have strengthened what I call "the MGoBubble".  This is a bubble whereby those who disagree with the opinions of the vast majority of Michigan fans (roughly 75% of whom want RR fired...if you can believe a highly unscientific poll in the News) and sports media (booooo MSM!  boooo!!!) angrily retreat to avoid hearing that which is not what they want to believe.

I know that I risk an epic negbomb, but I assume the risk in making the present post.  There are a number of great things about RichRod.  He is clearly doing everything he can to turn our program into a winner; he cares deeply about his players; his offense is innovative and explosive; he produced winning records at other programs; and, he is a Michigan Man.  I know...that last one is a touchy point, but to me, if you put your heart and soul into coaching our Wolverines, then you've earned the title.  Rich has.

There are also a number of things about RichRod's performance that indicate he might not be the guy for the job.  In posting this, I merely hope to pierce the MGoBubble.  To take the blinders off of those who would attack any messenger who dare note a problem with the team.  There is no problem with defending the coach, but please, can those in the bubble cease with the:

-My 13 year old gets it buy you don't
-Only an idiot would consider firing RR...he deserves an extension, douchebag!
-You're not a fan; you're an asshole!
-You're not "All In".
-Haters gonna hate images
-Kitten pictures
-Pictures of explosions

Then, there's the litany of excuses:

-"It's Carr's fault (one poster even blamed our current problems on the emotional damage that Carr did to the team in retiring)."
-"It's the media's fault" (and yes, we can still all agree the Freep was well out-of-bounds)
-"It's the fans fault."
-"It's Scott Schafer's fault"
-"It's Greg Robinson's fault"
-"It's Jamie Morris's fault"
-"Things are great now; I don't count the first year"
-"Things are great now; I don't count the first or second year"

Here's the bottom line...If you've raised an excuse (or perhaps, "explanation")...then you, somewhere, somehow understand that there is a problem that merits discussion.  Defending the performance of RR (explosive offense, good guy, etc.) is just as valid as arguing that he hasn't done enough to prove he can lead the program to the NC level (which is what he was hired to do).  If you're defending RR, however, maybe drop the angry attacks and take a peek outside of the bubble to understand that all of those people who disagree with you (there are a ton) might have some valid thoughts.

-It's fair to note that the young defense has no depth as 32% of defensive commits have left the program under RichRod (again, that doesn't mean he's a bag guy, or that there aren't reasons kids left, but it's a statistical reality).
-It's fair to note that we haven't beaten OSU or MSU under RR.
-It's fair to note that our potent offense has not been as potent against top half Big Ten competition. (or that RR hasn't beaten a Big Ten team with a winning conference record)
-It's fair to note that we weren't a garbage program before RR got here and that RR's improvement from 3-9 kinda ignores the lengthy history before that season.

This blog is great.  The bubble is not.  Go Blue!



December 3rd, 2010 at 10:13 PM ^

Did I say any of that?  I'm just checking, I though what I commented on was that I began questioning the post when he appealed to an internet poll as some kind of factual evidence, that is all.  I'm under no delusions here my friend, I believe most Michigan fans want him gone, however much I may disagree with them.  


December 3rd, 2010 at 11:02 PM ^


Nah, and to be fair, I've posted very little (if any) of my opinion on Mgoblog so I'm amazed that you seem so intimately aware of how I've reacted to things.  I applaud your clairvoyance.  

Internet polls are not accurate.  This has not changed since the dawn of interwebbing began.  When you're appealing to something that you admit is not scientific your argument tips off my silly meter, that's all. 

I realize people have legitimate beefs, I've listened to the arguments and I think some of them make sense.  I do not think at this time we can draw the conclusions that either extreme of the debate seems to want to draw.  My biggest concern (and here I'm admitting my bias) is that 3 years, which I really consider 2 years, is not enough time.  We're not Notre Dame.  

I think RR should get 5 years...sue me.  I'm sure some internet poll somewhere will put me in crazyland for this last comment.


December 3rd, 2010 at 11:26 PM ^

I've got no problem with your opinion (5 years for RR) even though I disagree with it and think the "we're not ND" line is off base.   I just thought it odd that you said the thread lost you by citing an unscientific poll even though you agreed with the result.  It doesn't take psychic skills to read what you wrote so I don't really get what clairvoyance you're referring to.  Anyway, the thread isn't about polling; it's about a bubble.  If the bubble wants to ignore an admittedly unscientific poll...that's cool.  No problem.


December 3rd, 2010 at 10:45 PM ^

We might actually be able to get some more "scientific" polling data soon:

The poll conducted in May that was referenced has some startling data:

20% of Michigan voters (as in registered to vote in political elections), describing themselves as fans of the Wolverines, have a favorable opinion of RR.

26% had an unfavorable opinion.

53% had no opinion one way or the other.

This was in May, before the season began.  It goes on to point out that a 20% favorability rating is low, and cited the example of UNC fans having a higher favorability rating for Duke's basketball coach, and vice versa, than RR has from his own fanbase.…


December 3rd, 2010 at 1:01 PM ^

Another example of this MGoBubble is the community's refusal to admit other programs have traditions, winning ways and deserve the wins they get.

Only thing I'll mention directly to Dahblue is that explaining and grasping the reasons for something happening is not the same as making excuses.

Otherwise, thanks for the kind words towards our coach. He deserves all our support until he is no longer our coach

Go Blue. Beat, it looks like, Florida in the Gator Bowl

(the bowl I picked us to go to months ago in HTTV. And, yes, I will remain happy over any other emotion that this team, this season is going bowling. One step closer to where we eventually want to be)


December 3rd, 2010 at 1:06 PM ^

Love it, this guy comes in and posts a nice, well thought out post and immediately gets called an idiot.

Maybe after RichRod is fired the bubble will finally "pop"


Great take OP

Foote Fetish

December 3rd, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^

Why?  Because Kitten pictures are great. 

Like RR, hate RR, doesn't matter to me.  When you start picking on the kitten pictures, though, things are about to get real.


December 3rd, 2010 at 1:57 PM ^

I have to agree with some of the other commenters that there is a double bubble here.   There are cerrtianly people who are so fervently pro-RR that any attempt to convince them is futile.

There are also people who are so fervently anti-RR that any attept to convince them is futile.  I don't know if you saw the "f...spartan bob" mess on the 13 year old thread, but that guy was an idiot, and no amount of logic or reasoning would have mattered in convincing him why RR should stay when his reason for firing RR is "THIS IS MICHIGAN!" (in b4 Leonidas)

I think this is really just a small example of a really large trend in human interaction.  People in ANY argument tend to ignore the other sides reasoning.  Look at politics, religion, sports. Hell, ANYTHING.

Here, just read this:

Conformation bias is basically what you're talking about, and it affects both sides of any argument.  


December 3rd, 2010 at 4:08 PM ^

Certainly, there are two camps.  But the issue is that the average fan - the guy genuinely open to hearing either argument - is definitely moving in the direction of the "fire RR" camp.  You can see this almost anywhere.  This website is about the only left where the "pro-RR" side is a majority.  I was at the Wisconsin game and pretty much everyone around me was pissed off when it was over.  After three years, a lot of people don't want to hear any more stuff about "decimated defenses" and how firing GERG is a panacea.  It would be nice for the true believers in RR to at least acknowledge that people have legitimate concerns.  Instead, it seems like a lot of people here are digging in their heels and just lobbying insults at people who disagree with them.


December 3rd, 2010 at 4:30 PM ^

Do you think the old format--Haloscan--could help this

To me, my problem with the forum is the FREAKING OUT about every gosh darn thing. Good or Bad. There is no middle ground. Denard is either winning the heisman, we're back, we wont ever lose again or the sky is fawking falling, we'll never be good again, unacceptable, this fucking hick is destroying my life

I cant even do the CILs anymore during road games. The other team gets a first down on the opening drive and holy crap it becomes shittastic with complaining, whining, the occassional player bashing, whatever. Cant anyone keep it together anymore as a fan and have some fun watching our guys, who are trying their best?

I just think this whole board lacks total context on most days. I've kinda backed off my own participation because I doubt people around here can really have fun watching the games. Does the losing suck? Ah, yes. But, this has also been one of the more fun seasons I've had going up to games and following the team. I just wish more people shared my and my ilk outlook on fandom. I guess I'm in my own jamiemacbubble.


December 3rd, 2010 at 6:06 PM ^

The lack of middle ground iIs an artifact of this being the Internet, I think. Most Internet Debates tend to devolve into opposing camps shouting at each other. Well, Internet debates and. Us politics, apparently.

That's kind of why this OP bugged me. He was complaining loudly how nobody was listening, but when somebody said "woah, this goes both ways" and the OP flatly denied any confirmation bias.

Newsflash: we're all susceptible to bias. Thats why I like how most mgoblog commenters focus on DATA. Data doesn't lie. It can be interpreted in different ways, and you can put different values on different data points (see:points vs yards below) but the data is the data. It isn't just handwaving and band standing.


December 3rd, 2010 at 6:35 PM ^

C'mon man...the OP "bugged" you?  Here is your quote as to how many attention you've paid to that which is the subject of the OP:

I really haven't seen many vicious attacks on the fire RR crowd, but Im a not all that into the debate

So you're not into the debate...but you have a strong opinion about something you aren't familiar with?  You said that I (the OP) complained "no one is listening"?  Incorrect.  The complaint is that the MGoBubble willfully refuses to accept statistical data...where those facts don't shine positively upon RR. 

So, you want to talk about data?  I am happy to do so.  32% of defensive recruits have left the program under RR.  That is a statistical fact I like to point out to those who say, "But our defensive is going to improve so much next year as we'll be older and deeper."  It's also a fact that any mention of that stat garners negative points.  Why?  Because the MGoBubble doesn't like facts that don't paint a rosy picture of RR.  There is no "anti-RR bubble" here.  You can't follow a pro-RR blog and, at the same time, hide yourself from pro-RR sentiment.  There is a huge difference between "hiding in a bubble" and "simply disagreeing".   


December 3rd, 2010 at 8:25 PM ^

And what percentage of those 32 percent that left on the defensive side of the ball would have left for any other coach? Was it only due to RR coaching or would there normally be attrition at other schools? Most schools can afford the attrition at their schools. If there was solid depth already established at the school, a few bad luck examples of players leaving wouldn't hurt Michigan so much. Too bad for RR he has had to build the program from the ground up. Justin Turner couldn't handle college at West Virginia either, should we blame that on RR because he coached there a few years ago? Blaming all of the players lost on defense solely to Rich Rod is dishonest.


December 3rd, 2010 at 10:19 PM ^

Step outside of the bubble.  It's nice here.  You'll notice that I didn't "blame" RR.  There might be (and are) various reasons why so many players left.  That doesn't mean that they didn't leave.  It's a very high number that you can't ignore just because it's bad.  Further, even if you were to subtract those who left during RR's first year (which includes ~2 kids who committed to Carr), RR still lost ~25% of his defensive recruits in year 2/3.  Those are just the facts.  So, if you're hoping that we're going to build this strong, deep defense...we are not on the path.  Schools don't lose players at that rate and become dominant.  "A few players" leaving is normal.  25-32% is not normal.

By the way, RR didn't have to build anything (especially the defense) "from the ground up".  He chose to tear down (and rebuild) the offense to suit his very different style, but three years's that defensive rebuilding look to you?  Ignoring problems because they are not solely the coach's fault will lead to disappointment.


December 4th, 2010 at 1:15 PM ^

Actually the defesnive rebuilding is coming along great. Finally we have some young players with talent on the roster. The future is looking bright to me. How do you see the depth being created on the roster and not see how RR is building for the future? Did you really expect true freshman and redshirt freshman to come in and dominate?

He didn't have to rebuild the defense?? Are you crazy or is it this outside bubble world you live in? Name some of these great seniors on the team that Carr left behind. Is it Obi Ezeh, Adam Patterson, Renaldo Sagesse? Oh wait it must be James Rogers! That is some really good talent in the senior class that was left for RR to work with!

So you aren't blaming RR for all of the players that left? Only some of the losses. And you admit the depth was thin to begin with on the roster? So why would you fire him because he had has had issues with player retention when you admit it wasn't completely his fault? That is not grounds for firing a coach. Schools don't USUALLY lose players at the rate he lost them but there are unusual circumstances and things happen with 18 year old kids. It's not all on RR that he lost players and it's not like he hasn't put some good young talent on the roster on the defensive side of the ball. The problem is they are all too young to do much with their talent yet.

It would be a poor move to get rid of a coach who had an unfair shake at using his own players to succeed.  How can you justify firing a coach when you admit that all of the player retention issues were not his fault? And you admit the team he inherited was bad on at least one side of the ball. So how do you expect to do so well in the Big Ten when you admit that he has had to do rebuilding because of the past roster management. Three years only gives him juniors on the roster and not all of those juniors were even recruited by him. He had to patch together Carr's class. I mean basically he has 2 and a half years of recruiting to turn around a program that was bare in talent. He's not a miracle worker.


December 3rd, 2010 at 11:50 PM ^

I don't have a strong opinion on whether RR stays or goes, but I that doesn't mean I can't point out that bias exists on all sides of any argument. For what it's worth, I lean toward keep, but I can understand the reasons for wanting a new direction. My twin sis and her fiancee are MSU grads and CHRIST am I sick of their gloating.

My point here is not to try and convince you of whether RR should be kept or not. But You're accusing a large group of people of bias. I think it's probably fair to say that there is no small number of people who DO have such a bias. There are also a similar number of people on the other side of the argument who have an equally strong bias. Denying that this affects both sides is unrealistic.

This is something all humans do. We invest ourselves into one side of an argument and then ignore date that contradicts our previous assumptions. in fact, those assumptions are STRENGTHENED if anything. Read the blog post I linked. Look at any political debate--nobody comes to any conclusions, they parties involved simply shout their talking points past one another without making any kind of compromise. Christ, look at any debate on religion, and you'll see the same bubble effect you're talking about on both sides.


December 3rd, 2010 at 4:34 PM ^

these people are not looking at anything beyond W's and L's, isn't it?

No one in their right mind that is familiar with the team, the roster and the injury situation would pick M to beat a team that at the end of the season is a legitimate top 10 program on their way to a BCS bowl.

Isn't the program supposed to be about more than that?


December 3rd, 2010 at 6:10 PM ^

1. That there are two opposing camps is not the point. That there May or may not be reason to fire RR was not the point. The point i was making is that the OP is accusing one side of a complicated argument of confirmation bias while adamantly denying that any such bias exists on HIS/HER side. It certainly does exist on both

2.I've had the opposite situation. Most people I know are adamant RR supporters. This illustrates the problem with small, anecdotal samples. Other sources of data, namely Internet polls are plagued with issues. First, they tend to be self selecting. A Freep poll is probably much more adamantly anti RR than the mgoblog poll. Second, most of these polls are untrustworthy due to being onn the Internet, subject to all kinds of shenanigans, like pharygulation.

Anyways, I really haven't seen many vicious attacks on the fire RR crowd, but Im a not all that into the debate, so maybe I'm just missing them. I've noticed a few people join the mgoboards just to make making ridiculous claims about "This is MICHIGAN" but Not much outside of that.

If you think this debate is heated, look up the comments to any anti--vaccination post. THAT is a war zone. In comparison, this is just laser tag. :)


December 3rd, 2010 at 6:21 PM ^

Whoa there...Did you really say this?

I really haven't seen many vicious attacks on the fire RR crowd, but I'm a not all that into the debate, so maybe I'm just missing them. 

If you are not all that into the debate and you haven't noticed that anything on MGoBlog critical of RR gets a neg bomb (with a smattering of vitriol), then I'm at a loss for how you can attempt, in any manner, to refute my (the OP's) point.  If you aren't noticing it; you're clearly in that bubble as well.  

Is there an occasional, "Fire DickRod" post?  Yes, but those don't come from folks (like most all of us) who've blown many an hour posting here. 


December 3rd, 2010 at 6:46 PM ^

Serious question - why did your posting become nonexistent after the Illinois and Purdue games?

You are in a different bubble - the "We are Michigan" and we should win every game bubble. If you don't recognize that then you clearly are in that bubble.

It is pretty sad that so much of your self worth is tied to the result of the football game. I call it the reverse Enzyte syndrome. UM loses and poor little dahblue's manhood gets smaller.

It was a great two losses for you, congratulations on that. Maybe RR will get fired so you can move on to whining about something else.


December 3rd, 2010 at 7:14 PM ^

Serious question - Why did you not notice that my postings are fairly consistent whether we win or lose?  It's funny though that you think I didn't post after the Illinois and Purdue games.  You're entirely wrong (why would you even make that assumption knowing you'd be called out?)...I wonder what your thinking is...were those wins so magnificent and my "hatred" for RR so great that I went into hiding?  Was our 3OT thriller over lowly Illinois the highlight of the season that promises greatness to come?  Dude, you just don't get it.  I'm a fan of the team.  I love the good and recognize the bad.  Enjoy life in the MGoBubble. 

Nice penis joke though.  You stay classy, San Diego.


December 4th, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^

You are such a great fan that you were hesitating to renew your season tickets because you didn't want to pay the PSD. You weren't going to give the athletic department another penny until something was done. Dude, you just don't get it.

You are in your BoGoBubble - we are Michigan, we must win, blah blah blah unacceptable.


December 5th, 2010 at 4:58 AM ^…

While not a big donor, I do donate annually to the University.  My athletic department donation is done through the PSD.  I can tell you that the timing of the PSD mailing this year was terrible.  I received it today when I checked my mail at the half.  Maybe they should've sent it out during the Illinois-Purdue stretch.

Yeah, I'll renew my PSD and keep buying tickets, but it's the first time I've ever hesitated.

You can get the rest of the context from the thread.

You can't even keep your own bullshit straight. Dude, stop lying it's creepy and weird.


December 5th, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^

Hey creepy stalker.  Thanks for posting my old quote which does not come close to what you claim it did:

you were hesitating to renew your season tickets because you didn't want to pay the PSD. You weren't going to give the athletic department another penny until something was done. 

You should have listed the date posted as well, considering that the comment was about the PSD mailing arriving the same day we got crushed by OSU (or maybe it was Wisc...I don't remember).  Did I say, I "wan't going to give the athletic department another penny until something was done"?  No.  I clearly said the opposite.  

Anyway, keep up the creepy factually incorrect stalking.  Maybe next time I hear about you will be on "To Catch a Predator" when you appear at a little kid's house, drinking the prop lemonade and telling Chris Hanson, "Um...She said she was eighteen and I just have condoms and porn in the brown paper bag so that I can demonstrate how people on the internet can be dangerous."


December 6th, 2010 at 3:16 AM ^

God I love it when people bring up his previous posts and call him out when he contradicts himself.


Especially sweet when he accuses you of making things up and being creepy and weird, then has the link to exactly what he said right under it.

Now he has to backtrack and try to make it look like what you put there is taken out of context, when anybody that bothers to read what he wrote can see that it isn't.

Apparently, being right makes you creepy and weird. You MUST therefore be living in a DAH-bubble ;)

So of course his response is to make an entirely specious argument that you are somehow now a pedophile because you actually pointed out that he is a liar. Uhm, duh-blue, 'To Catch a Predator' isn't a bout stalkers, it is about people that seek out and try to meet up with underage parties for illicit purposes...not stalking. Clue: people calling you out on a college football message board for stuff that you actually wrote and then denied does NOT equal stalker. Stalker is not equal to pedophile.


December 3rd, 2010 at 11:31 PM ^

I've normally tried not to get to involved in the great MgoBlog Schism of 2010 except when somebody makes a really egregious post that defies all reasoning (like claiming confirmation bias exists on only one side of an argument), so...yeah.

I'm not saying they aren't there, just that I've not been looking for them.


December 4th, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^

But the issue is that the average fan - the guy genuinely open to hearing either argument - is definitely moving in the direction of the "fire RR" camp.

SFW. Argumentum ad populum makes sense in some limited sense, like when you're talking about what people will do, or who they will vote for. But it's no method to determining the correctness of a matter that isn't inextricably tied to whether the option that people like the most is the most correct one. And if we agree, and we should, that the "average fan" will move in whichever direction that correlates to the most wins and to the most positive press coverage, then we should agree that the average fans opinion, in the longterm, is subject to what happens on the field regardless of who's the coach. I hold that the opinion of the "average guy" on anything of any importance is generally one founded on limited information and a limited capacity to understand the context and consequences of their opinion. I'm here largely because I don't think Brian or the bloggers and commenters here tend toward the "average" but actually because they tend toward the unaverage end of a the fanbase; they are more informed, evidence based, and generally more intelligent. If more fans here feel differently than the "average fan," then I'm more inclined to find this as another of the many, many failures of the "average guy" rather than as proof that the average guy is correct. 


December 3rd, 2010 at 4:30 PM ^

the OP has been on this site all year, quite literally providing nothing beyond uninformed anti-RR comments to to the tune of 'unacceptable!', 'first sanctions ever!', with ne'er a contribution having anything to do with actual football, beyond adding a 'me too, what he said' to other posters that do provide actual football reasons to justify a more reasoned rationale for RR possibly not being the best fit as head coach. I have posted links to his comments before, so if you are so inclined I would welcome you to go back a year or so and familiarize yourself with his sophistry. In short, he is the poster child for what I will call, in his own parlance, the 'the Anti-RR Bubble', those being people that do not, in any way shape or form, contribute to a reasoned discussion of the topic at hand, except to support the agenda of removing RR as coach.

For him to post here about a closed-minded group of people on the board that only accept positive feedback in support of the coach, is so beyond pharasaical that we would need a whole new term to describe it accurately.

So to paraphrase his post:

There are a lot of people on here saying that the kettle is black that refuse to listen to any argument at all that the kettle might be white. These people are blind and in a bubble. All their rationale only amount to excuses and are patently incorrect. I, however, am not blind and see clearly, so everyone listen to me please when I suggest that these bubble-people be prohibited from providing their point of view.

Paraphrase of his follow up comments:

What? People that are anti-RR may be similarly closed-minded and perhaps have been employing specious, baseless arguments since day one of RR's hire in an attempt to undermine him? Well, no, of course not, that would be ridiculous, we have been unbiased from the beginning and have just waited until now to make our views known. 


December 3rd, 2010 at 4:42 PM ^

However, I am starting to have doubts. It's not 3-9 or 5-7 that has people upset. It's the 0-3 to OSU, and especially to MSU. Fair or not... the MSU loss this year, is what turned a lot of the fanbase against RR. If Michigan had beaten the Spartans, there wouldn't be any posts starting with CC.


December 3rd, 2010 at 8:36 PM ^

Should we have beaten the Spartans just because we beat MSU regularly in the past? If we are rebuilding an entire roster I wouldn't just expect us to beat one of the better teams MSU has had in years.

It just doesn't make sense for so many of the fans outside of this bubble to expect Michigan to be a powerhouse just because they were at one time in history. It is a rebuilding project that coincided with a coaching change, not an excuse, just history. Check the roster that RR inherited if you feel like he was left with a lot of talent. You will notice even more wins when RR is brought back to coach next year. Why? Because he will have even more experience and depth due to being in the program longer. He will win big, don't hold his record against him in the years when he was establishing depth that was nonexistant prior to his arrival.