Jim Brandstatter on WZAM

Submitted by sheepman on July 23rd, 2010 at 12:24 AM

Good interview with Brandstatter. I like him a lot. He seems realistic and very knowledgeable. And it is obvious he loves Michigan football. 

ALSO - he says this is not necessarily a make or break year for RR, that he has made progress and it is shows. I think this is great news for those of us who support RR and want him to have a chance to make this thing work. 

Sorry, I linked it through BR, but here it is. Nothing ground breaking, but worth a listen: 




July 23rd, 2010 at 12:48 AM ^

Not baaaad, sheepman.  When an insider like Brandstatter says it isn't neccessarily a "make or break year" for RR, it means a little more than speculation from the rest of us.  After all, they were teammates in 1971, though Brandstatter was just a tad higher on the foodchain at the time. 

I still think they win enough this year to make it a moot point, though.


July 23rd, 2010 at 7:28 AM ^

that is exactly what I was hoping for. I thought he had some connection larger than just being a past player. 

I hope you are right on all counts, tater. 


July 23rd, 2010 at 9:45 AM ^

Just to clarify, Brandstatter was a teammate of Dave Brandon back in 1971 when they both played for Michigan.

I know this is obviously what you meant, but the way you worded it made it sound like he was RR's teammate.


July 23rd, 2010 at 8:19 AM ^

Brandy has always struck a chord with me. He's not going to tell you the team has been playing fantastic when they haven't, but he's not going to be overly negative either. He lets his emotions show through just enough that you know he really cares, but not enough that you don't trust what he's saying.

I spent a lot of time listening to him on WOOD-AM 1300 when I couldn't catch games on TV, and every time I hear his voice it brings me back.


July 23rd, 2010 at 8:35 AM ^

doesn't get to (insert your favorite number here) wins are conveniently ignoring the fact that they're not making the decision; David Brandon is. The fact is that nobody other than Brandon knows what his criteria are. It's entirely possible that DB is not going to rely solely on the number of wins, but will also be placing great importance on his assessment of the progress that's being made in the program. Brandstatter essentially alluded to that way of looking at things.

Brandstatter is the insider's insider. In addition to being an alumni player, he's been the color guy on UM radio broadcasts since the mid-80s, and has been the host of the Sunday interview shows Michigan Replay since 1980. It goes without saying that he has access to the inside of the program that few others do who aren't actually coaches or players or part of the AD office. His status as an alumni player and prominent media guy means he has contact with probably hundreds of former players, and has a unique view into the views of alumni Wolverines.


July 23rd, 2010 at 9:46 AM ^

A great reason to have a successful businessman as the AD.  Being able to see the long view and working more on calculation than emotion are two traits that it seems Brandon has in spades; I believe they will serve him well as he continues to move the Michigan athletic department forward.


July 23rd, 2010 at 8:49 AM ^

are great guys.  Fair, level-headed, objective.  I love listening to them, and they are good-hearted and kind people (you can tell).  It's too bad Mike Valenti trashes them every time they come up which is rare, but it happens.


July 23rd, 2010 at 9:10 AM ^

Valenti is a shock artist who rips on his callers if they don't agree with him.  He caters to the uniformed fan whom he can rile up.  While he can be funny and entertaining at times, his schtick is so old that I can predict what he is talking about before I turn the radio on, and then I turn the channel.


July 23rd, 2010 at 10:57 AM ^

and you gotta give him credit because he's good at it, and I'm sure he brings money into the station.  It's just too bad that he is essentially a "typical journalist" (or talking head, in this case) in that he has no problem destroying someone else's reputation (and potentially career) to advance his own carer.

Raback Omaba

July 23rd, 2010 at 9:32 AM ^

I'm a RichRod supporter, but I absolute, 100 percent think that this is a "Make or Break" year for Coach. Anything less than 7 wins (at minimum) and his ass is gone. The past two years have been horrible, and we must see progress in the form of wins - because when it's all said and done, that's what he was hired to do here.


While fans are not the decision makers per say, I think that we (especially grads of the University) have a larger say in it than most people think.


It's David Brandon and the administration's decision ultimately - but don't think that the Alumni base doesn't play a part.


Money talks, bullshit walks.


Hopefully we won't need to have this conversation 3-4 months from now, because I think that RichRod's good for at lease 8 this year. But don't fool yourself if you don't think that  this is a make or break year for Coach Rod - it is.

Raback Omaba

July 23rd, 2010 at 10:05 AM ^

I'm perplexed as to why people negged me on this - RichRod has  to win this year, bottom line. The seat is beyong hot right now - it's scorching. While I know he was dealt a difficult hand from day 1, some of these "difficulties" were brought on by himself.

Don't get me wrong, I'm RR all the way - but at some point, winning matters.

And that point is now - we cannot lose to Sparty, Purdue, and some of the other team's we've lost to in the past two years.

I know the "This is Michigan" meme is played out, but it's true - This is Michigan.

Raback Omaba

July 23rd, 2010 at 10:34 AM ^

I am a huge RichRod fan and supporter - but let's use reasoning and rationale - his tenure here has been a disaster, both on and off the field. Some of it's not his fault, some of it is.


Having said that, I don't think it's out of line to say that in 2020 "Winning Matters"


That's not negative at all - Winning matters.


July 23rd, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^

Your assertion reeks of arrogance. You presume to have better insight into the situation than Jim B (see Don's post for why this assunmption is ludicrous).

Also, you should know how much we like stats around here -- 100% certain? Really? That's just archaic. Jump on the post-modern bandwagon, ye dinosaur!


July 23rd, 2010 at 9:49 AM ^

I was reading the defensive summary in HTTV last night - it does not fill me with confidence. While Rich could have done more filling out the defense in the 2009 recruiting class, I think he gets one more year to fix the defense. If the offense comes alive  this year, the special teams gets a passing grade (very few to no fumbles with an acceptable fall off in kicking and punting), and the defense is still a disaster - then one more year. Next year you could have expected Rich to have recruited (and matured) his way in to an effective defense.

Basically, if the offense really clicks, but we still only win 5 or 6 - its still a work in progress.


July 23rd, 2010 at 9:50 AM ^

"I think you're going to see more of Denard Robinson at quarterback. This past spring, he had an outstanding spring, and I think he showed he can handle the passing game, which was the only thing, really, he had trouble with (last season).

"And I think that you're going to see a great receiving corps, and I think, offensively, they'll be able to move the ball and score points."

Elno Lewis

July 23rd, 2010 at 9:57 AM ^

seriously, is the dude a michigan man or what?  You know, he is from lansing and his entire family are sfartan fans of the die hard mentality.  He said, I'm goin to MICH!  No question, jim! 


July 23rd, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^

You may see something that you label 'infinity' - but infinity is only that - an abstraction from your perceptual flux (a label). That is what the term 'construct' means, and that is what 'infinity' is - a noun. If something 'happens', it has a beginning and an end, and thus cant be infinity. 

Or put it this way - what you all are calling infinity is always happening, it never simply happens


July 23rd, 2010 at 11:04 AM ^

Eternity can be examined in much the same way.  Yet my view of eternity differs from your view of infinity inasmuch that I think eternity does not happen so much as it already is.  For example:  before the creation of the universe and space/time as we know it.  There was no measure for the passing of time.  There were no seconds, no hours, days or years.  There was only the eternal.  The only unit of time that existed was eternity. 

To my way of thinking, infinity is similar.  Space/time had not been created, so there were no measures of distance to speak of.  No inches, no yards, no miles.  Only infinity.  Infinity was the only measure of existance before creation.

Before the big bang, these two planes of existance were singular.  There were no other.  I also hypothesize that before the creation of the universe, eternity and infinity were not separate entities at all.  I believe they were a singular existance.  All space and all time. One existance.


Elno Lewis

July 23rd, 2010 at 11:04 AM ^

Because humans have a finite mind, they are actually unable to concieve of infinity.  Just because we are unable to concieve of infinity, doesn't mean it can't exist. 


July 23rd, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^

I agree about having a finite mind - for example, we carve entities out of a reality that is essentially a pure duration, an undifferentiated 'much at once' perceptual flux (James, Bergson). And that is what the term infinity is - its a finite, entitative way of understanding the pure duration that continues after we perish, that we cannot understand. It is an abstraction used to attempt to understand the unknowable of time and space. There is no infinity, there are only ways of understanding our undifferentiated world of flux. To assume that infinity exists - from our finite mind as you say - is to assume some teleological knowledge given to us outside of our own ability to know. You are making the error of 'misplaced concrescence' (Whitehead), ascribing a reality to what is a concept, and thus verging into the theological. Its there that I abandon the debate.

Elno Lewis

July 23rd, 2010 at 11:32 AM ^

and some other stuff, per Oprah Winfrey, and then you cook part of it, per Martha Stewart.  Betty White says to serve it cold.  Cold. think about that. a dish served cold. I contend that Betty White kilt off the other Golden Girls. 


and, i would also like to sign up to the newsletters of all those other HUMAN BRAINS you name dropped in your post. 


July 23rd, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^

I think this is great news for those of us who support RR and want him to have a chance to make this thing work.

Good to hear. I think you at least need to give RR the opportunity to develop DG. At least let him coach him during his soph/red shirt frosh year. Absent a collosal disaster of a season this year (and I'm talking getting blown out by Bowling Green or something), I can't see how making a coaching change before then.

I fully expect our QB play to be much better this year since we'll be starting guys with a year in the system under their belt for the first time since RR arrived on campus. And if that turns out to be the case, RR is unlikely to be going anywere. But if the QB play doesn't improve, he needs to be given an opportunity to coach DG.


July 23rd, 2010 at 2:11 PM ^

I would be pretty bummed out by another losing season, but M's destiny is tied together with his. Even if they only win 5, I would like to see him stay. We're still so young, 4 years is the minimum time needed for an accurate assessment.


July 23rd, 2010 at 6:47 PM ^

I love Brandy, but he's not going to ever publicly admit that a coach's job is in jeopardy.  This is definitely a critical year for Rodriguez.  I don't profess to know where the bar is set, or whether anyone knows that at this time.  But it's not hard at all to imagine a scenario in which RichRod gets fired this year.  I think that a losing record will do him in.