Doug Gottlieb... Michigan hating dochebag

Submitted by chewieblue on March 5th, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Anyone listening to Gottlieb this afternoon must have had similar feelings to mine when hearing this dote yet again express his obvious hatred for us.  I was driving in my car and wanted to scream while listening to his idiotic reasoning for why we really didn't deserve to win a share.  

He was talking to Mike Conley and asking him if he watched the tOSU-MSU game. He then went into typical "I'm Doug Gottleib so I have to say something stupid about Michigan" mode.  Paraphrasing here....

... did you see Michigan jumping all around because they won a three way share of the Big Ten title?  Someone should tell them it doesn't count because they didn't even have to play at Wisconsin.  I mean how do you win a share of the Big Ten and not have to play at Wisconsin?  

He's always getting his little digs in on us.  What does he have against us?  He's unprofessional, even by ESPN's standards.  Last year at tourney time he was bashing us on SC and saying we should really have been in the play-in game and picked us to lose "big" to Tennessee.  He also took many opportunities during bowl season to express his expert opinion on our football team and why we shouldn't be in the Sugar Bowl.  Him bashing us has become so common that I think it may actually be a well-devised joke.

You would think a former player who excelled in college and was short on next-level talent would have some appreciation for a group of guys who are a bit short on talent but long on heart and effort.  Doug should get back to criticizing NBA players who get paid to play half-ass and steer clear of a group of hard-working and selfless kids who brought a once proud program back from the dead.  Rain on someone else's parade Doug, Michigan basketball is on it's way back.

Comments

Callahan

March 6th, 2012 at 7:06 AM ^

The beauty of most sports is that games are won and lost on the field, and not in commentators' heads. It's a waste to get all worked up over what one commentator says. 

stmccoy

March 6th, 2012 at 8:12 AM ^

I don't listen to ESPN radio.  It is terrible radio.  Few interviews, a bunch of idiots ranting.  I can take Van Pelt.  The rest are terrible.  Gottlieb is one of the worst. 

lonewolf371

March 6th, 2012 at 8:17 AM ^

I automatically switch the radio station/TV channel if Gottlieb or Cowherd ever come up. Those guys make every dime they have based on making sports fans angry, and I'm not going to help their salaries by getting suckered in.

TexanGOBLUE

March 6th, 2012 at 8:29 AM ^

Now that we are getting back to Michigan excellence in every sport, all the haters come out. This is routine shit that is just going to get worse. Cowboy up, because it will get worse. Just know we are Michigan and our W's will make them all shut their mouths.

HermosaBlue

March 6th, 2012 at 8:40 AM ^

It's not like MSU didn't get some breaks - they played the Huskers twice, we only played them once, in Lincoln.  I'm pretty confident we would've beaten them in Ann Arbor.  No one's suggesting MSU got a free pass to the B1G title by beating up on Nebraska 2x.

It's a fact of life that 1-plays happen in basketball.

Hell, how many times did Wisconsin win the Big Ten in football when they missed Michigan and/or Ohio State?  It happens.

 

UMFootballCrazy

March 6th, 2012 at 9:49 AM ^

If you are expecting national radio personalities to love your team in the same biased, passionate way you do, that is not going to happen.  The farther you get from the epicentre of any fan base the more perspective you get.  Getting a share of the Big Ten title was an awesome stepping stone for this program and all the Beilein is doing to build the program.  But when you pull back and step away from the emotion of our rabid fanbase, we had a solid but not great season.  We had trouble at times winning on the road, especially against elite opponents.  We needed help to get a share of the title.  We needed one rival to lose and another to win and we were in a position where we had to cheer for our most hated rival.  That is not an ideal space to be in. 

As for Gottlieb, I hate to tell you this, but controversy sells.  Radio hosts are not there to stroke the egos of passionate fan bases.  They do not want nuance.  They want bold opinions stated without any subtlety.  If they can exploit Gottleib's own biases against Michigan to create controversy and sell ad time, then ESPN wins. By falling for it, Gottlieb wins and ESPN wins.  Every time one of us starts a thread like this, ESPN wins.

The lesson in all this is to have perspective and not get caught up believing your own rabid fanbase hype.  The other lesson is not to get bent out of shape when some national media host spouts what you see as outrageous opinions about your home team.  That is what he is paid to do.  The fact that you let you Gottlieb get you all stirred up, stirred up enough that rather that deal with his opinion as opinion, you instead attacked him as a person (He is Domer who got kicked out of school for stealing), simply demonstates that you are an irrational homer with no perspective.  If his opinion is so idiotic that its not worth dealing with, then why would you spend time dealing with it? 

Protip: Just because someone has biases, has youthful sins and indiscretions, and rubs you the wrong way does not mean they cannot be right.  If they are wrong, they prove them wrong.  Demonstrate it with facts and data (this, btw, is the heart and soul of what MGoBlog is about...proving that MSM types are idiots through the use of data...UFR anyone???).  When you start ranting about how Gottlieb is a "hater" and making ad hominum attacks, you expose yourself as just another stupid, irrational, homeboy fan, not unlike your typical Bucknut, Sparty, or Domer. 

Every time one of these Gottlieb or Cowherd is an idiot threads pops up, I end up feeling like we have embarased ourselves as a fan base.

Carcajous

March 6th, 2012 at 10:03 AM ^

You had a lot in your post but I'm going to zero in on one pet peeve:

"We needed help to get a share of the title."

 

EVERYONE needed help to get a share of the title, which is basically always true unless a team goes undefeated in conference.  As soon as a team loses a conference game, no matter when that happens, that team "needs help" to win the title outright, and usually just to get a share.  MSU lost five conference games.  They beat us once.  That means they needed four other teams' help to win their share.  OSU lost five conference games and beat us once.  That means they needed four other teams' help as well (as did we).  

The fact that a particular win or loss comes during the last game is totally irrelevant to the point.

UMFootballCrazy

March 6th, 2012 at 10:27 AM ^

You make a good point, and what you say is similar to someone complain that one blown play or one blown call by the ref cost them the game.  What about the remaining plays?  While what you say is true, as the season unfolded, the truth is that we did not win enough games when we needed to in order to control our own destiny on that last day by our play on the court.  If we can point to a late season loss that cost us the outright win it was the egg we laid at home to Purdue.  Champions don't lay eggs like that when all the marbles are at stake.  We didn't win and as a result we needed help to secure a share of the title.  Had we won at home on that day we could have been outright champs with an undefeated home record.  The only team in control of their own destiny in terms of winning the Big Ten outright on that day was MSU and they laid an egg.  At that point all that we and OSU could do by winning was gain a share of the title. We did win and we could not have had a share of that title without the win.  But after that win, it still does not change the fact that we had to wait for our most hated rival to beat our second most hated rival in order to capture a share of the title.  Not the best place to be in.  At that point in the season we did indeed need help to win a share of the title.  While securing a share of the Big Ten title is a great stepping stone for the program, we could have, should have had it all.  For me it was bitter sweet success, knowing what could have been.

Carcajous

March 6th, 2012 at 10:36 AM ^

"But after that win, it still does not change the fact that we had to wait for our most hated rival to beat our second most hated rival in order to capture a share of the title.  Not the best place to be in."

Are you saying that if our game with PSU was at 4 pm and the MSU-OSU game was at 1 pm (instead of the other way around) you'd have felt differently about the outcome(s) because of the illusion that we won our way into the position we ended up in as opposed to having to watch our rival "win it for us?"  That make no sense to me at all and I am going to respectfully submit that is an insane way to approach this.  That way of thinking really seems like a desperate attempt to find a way to NOT be thrilled with the accomplishment (hadn't been done since 1986--shared or otherwise) by this team.

BigBlue02

March 6th, 2012 at 12:12 PM ^

You know what's not a good place to be in? Losing 2 straight games, one by what seemed like 40 points and the other on senior night, to end the season. Another bad place to be in: losing at Illinois (which both other teams we tied with did and we didn't) and losing to northwestern on the road. Or how about losing on senior night (did I already say that? Oh yeah, that's because all 3 B10 champs did it). All your rationalizing of needing things to happen is complete bullshit. We all lost 5 conference games and split against each other. We all lost games against teams we shouldn't have. Who cares when we played each team. We played Indiana on the road and Ohio State at home earlier in the year, so that means when MSU loses both at the end of the year it takes away from our championship? Ridiculous.

death by trident

March 6th, 2012 at 10:00 AM ^

I heard his comment.  He was pure trolling and laughing about it later.  He couldn't contain the laughter as he said "Michigan fans are blowing me up on twitter."  He did try to bait a former Ohio State player into saying Michigan didn't deserve it, but he wouldn't take the bait. 

He did toss in that he thinks Trey Burke is a great player and that he wasn't trying to take anything away from Michigan - bringing it full circle to one of my biggest pet peeves.  Oh and by the way, the correct form, Doug, is this -

"I'm not trying to take away from Michigan, but they don't deserve to be Big 10 Champions."

Grrr....If you are going to say something then just say it.  Don't tell me that I should interpret your statement any different than it's true meaning - simply because you prefaced it with a disclaimer.  Because in the end, he was simply trying to get a reaction in a day filled with nothing exciting to talk about.  I agree with lonewolf371 here, trolling is pretty common on ESPN Radio.  No need to feed the trolls on twitter.

Having said all that, Michigan deserves to hang a banner because we earned that right.  Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to ruffle your feathers.  Be proud guys, Michigan basketball is on a huge upswing right now.

 

93Grad

March 6th, 2012 at 10:20 AM ^

just another irritating douche of a talking head who thinks that he needs to always be critical or controversial to get ratings (see, e.g. Coling Cowherd, Skip Bayless, Drew Sharp, Mike Valenti, Rob Parker, etc.)

bronxblue

March 6th, 2012 at 11:36 AM ^

This is why I don't listen to sports radio - it's just filled with idiots who like to start crap. 

MSU fans say the same thing about not playing at Wisconsin, as if MSU getting to play Nebraska twice didn't help their cause as well.  It's a conference schedule, and sometimes you miss a school and sometimes you get a nice break.  MSU could have won the title outright by not blowing two games at the end, and OSU could have done the same by beating Illinois. UM blew out Wiscy the first time they met, and while I definitely think Wisconsin would have been a tough game on the road, who knows what would have happened.

Gottlieb has always been a bit of a whiner and an attention-monger, and ranting about college basketball teams seems to be his go-to move.

Tater

March 6th, 2012 at 2:14 PM ^

Most radios come with variable tuners.  All you have to do is push a button and you get to listen to somebody else.  In a world rife with choices, it is really pretty easy to avoid those with whom one doesn't agree.  

When I really don't like a writer or a TV/radio personality, my choice is a simple one: I don't give them clicks, views, or listens.  With the exception of the Freep, I usually don't even do it out of spite; I just don't bother listening or reading people or subjects that don't draw my interest.  

The only thing I will say in ESPN's "defense" is that they have hired quite a few Michigan alums, so at least we get some counterpoint to the Gottliebs of the world.