META (sort of): An appeal for more objective analysis

Submitted by ifis on October 5th, 2014 at 5:03 PM

I appreciate that everyone is upset with the state of the program.  I am too.  However, I feel like the boards are getting tainted by negative emotion.  Can we please keep doing analysis alongside the (justified) anger and frustration?

For example, I thought there was a lot of development in the Rutgers game, especially along the o-line.  Michigan owned the line of scrimmage and ran the ball at will on Rutgers in the 4th quarter.  Green, Smith, and Devin were tearing it up on the ground.  It might have been the first glimpse of actual "manball" that we've seen in a long time.  I am not saying that it was.  I am saying that it was noteworthy and it is hardly being discussed at all.  It also seemed like pass pro was a lot better.  There were plays were Devin had 5-6 seconds to pass, running backs were effectively picking up blocks, etc.  Often, it seemed like Devin panicked (understandably, given his experience) unnecessarily when protection was ok or good.  I haven't seen any thing resembling a thorough discussion of these points.

To be clear, I am as upset as everyone else.  I dropped way too much money to fly to Notre Dame and I watched the debacles against Utah and Minnesota.  I don't like the fact that we lost a close game to Rutgers.  However, I saw what looked like development in several key phases of the game against Rutgers and I come to MgoBlog to hear smart people say smart things about that type of thing.  Threads about being upset are fine, but can we also keep analyzing the actual game please?  This isn't about "Hoke is doing a good job" or "Hoke is terrible", I just want to read smart things about Michigan football in additon to cathartic bitching.



October 5th, 2014 at 5:50 PM ^

As I am someone who rarely contributes anything objective or informative, I suggest the following: deal with it.

Feel free to provide suggestions as to what you would like to see. Feel free to complain when you don't receive all the (free) content you have come to expect. But you can only get so pissed at writers (who are all fans) for not wanting to delve deeply into the crappiest parts of their fandom solely because you expect it.

 If you don't like the editoral stance or content, you don't even need to take the nearest exit. MGoBlog doesn't load unless you tell the Internet to load it.


October 5th, 2014 at 6:58 PM ^

It's not so much a complaint as a statement of fact. Someone else said that the front page is objective. I pointed out that it's not.

That's about all there was to it.


October 5th, 2014 at 8:36 PM ^

We'll be fine without you. 

Have a nice life... ? 

/s, kinda

That seems a little harsh for a fairly benign observation. I've noticed "the thing" that they're talking about too, and for me at least, it gives off a bad vibe. That's coming from someone (that would be me)who's been screaming for Dave Brandon's head on a pike for two full years now. I would have thought the blog ownership/management would want to receive this kind of feedback, lest they (very ironically) mimic some of the mistakes of this cursed AD (that would be DB). 

Take that for what you will. 


October 5th, 2014 at 8:44 PM ^

But I know how hard those guys work. And no matter what opinions they bring, SOMEONE gets pissed off. And I've seen people get insanely mad about the content (see: Draftageddon). And at some point, the product is what it is, and reading the same complaints gets old.


October 5th, 2014 at 6:04 PM ^

Magnus, I respect your point here, but that's kinda true everywhere.  Your own blog has your own "takes" and "opinions", which are in many ways full of your own agenda.  

It's a blog written by fans; I don't always agree with what they say but I don't expect them to be wholly objective.


October 5th, 2014 at 6:08 PM ^

There are plenty of places that provide opinion-free content. A fan blog is going to provide opinions, and most would agree that part of what makes MGoBlog MGoBlog is the fact that it is written by fans who see everything through the lens of their fandom.

I think what he's asking is "please have different opinions" or "please have more balanced opinions." Which, sorry?


October 5th, 2014 at 7:07 PM ^

Yeah, but again that's a choice.  And honestly, saying you want guys fired is an opinion, as is saying not to go to games.  Brian has said a number of times his byocitting of games is kind of his choice, and if you agree and want to boycott them as well he has some ideas.

It just feels like semantics at this point.  I miss the UFR, but it will be up in two weeks.  It will probably show Michigan played like shit on offense and got overwhelmed on defense.  Probably with a couple of charts.

I do hope the pity party kinda ends this week; let the board and diary sections be filled with people like me whining about the program, but the front page should hopefully be a step above, especially since this week's game didn't feature damning actions by the coach as much as another crappy game.


October 5th, 2014 at 7:40 PM ^

Saying someone has an agenda is just saying someone has an opinion, except the connotation is it shouldn't be taken seriously. If you have a problem with my opinion, you can argue against it. Just deploying the word "agenda" is not an argument.


October 5th, 2014 at 6:56 PM ^

Yeah, I'm pretty sick of the aggressively and obsessively biased tone of this blog, too. It disturbs me deeply that people have come out in droves, it seems, to downvote you.

No one is happy right now, but it would be nice if we didn't have to put up with a hivemind of MGoBlog minions who seem incapable of any sort of measured response.


October 5th, 2014 at 7:42 PM ^

Yea, I don't think people should downvote you just for having a different opinion. That's clearly unacceptable.

At the same time, calling everyone that supports the view of this blog as a "minion" just following the "hivemind" is not really a measured response either. You're basically saying that everyone that thinks Brandon and Hoke need to go is just blindly following Brian, which is not measured or correct.


October 5th, 2014 at 10:46 PM ^

Eh, maybe minions was excessively negative, but hivemind is pretty accurate.

Sure, there are freethinkers here. There are also contrarians. There is also a hivemind. I have the wherewithal to distinguish each.

But, by and large, you see the same memetic voting patterns and the same memetic comments over and over and over and over. It gets pretty redundant, and it's clear that many comments didn't originate with the poster.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad


October 5th, 2014 at 11:55 PM ^

A few points -

I only downvote for offensive comments, and most time I upvote a differing opinion if it is well stated.

I read the blog for the analysis and the opinions.  It's the most up to date site for inside information into Michigan football that I have access to.  It is well moderated and has some really excellent free content.

If Brian, Ace, or anyone else that writes for this blog  states an opinion, I read it and formulate my own based on that information and all other information available to me - the same way I do with other things I don't have direct access to.

With all that said, I think this season has pretty much poured gasoline over its head and lit itself on fire.  I don't find myself enjoying Inside the Boxscore or Best and Worst as I have in seasons past, because those posts usually add to my knowledge of what happened on Saturday; also adding what to look for next Saturday.  Each Saturday this year, as Michigan football runs around the field on fire, I have found myself a new level of despondence each week.  Even so, I still come here to read thoughts from other Michigan fans.  The Waters Demos diary was a good read and reminded me why I come here - good free content.  I look forward to another week of snowflake "Here's What I Feel" threads that I will need to sift through, all in an effort to stay connected to Michigan football.  Finally, given the current flaming state of Michigan football, if I came here and only read game analysis and UFR's I would think that the authors here were slightly off their rockers.  This program is in shambles from the top of the athletic department on down.  I come here to read about that too, because that has been directly affecting what I have been seeing on Saturdays.

Just one man's take on why I come here.  I felt like sharing since I had more time than I did earlier when I wrote "This."


October 5th, 2014 at 5:15 PM ^

but now even the front page is suffering.  No UFRs and the points I wanted to see discussed, some of which I mentioned above, aren't referenced at all.  I appreciate the hard work everyone puts into the content and I'll take what I can get, but there were a lot of interesting things in this game that are being overlooked.


October 5th, 2014 at 9:03 PM ^

Then the info isn't delivered in an easy to consume fashion.

Agree with the line of thinking that if I don't like the way a site presents info I can respecfully suggest change but then it's up to me to leav if I don't care for the presentation or presenter. If I don't like the food a restaurant serves I won't feature it in my regular rotation.


October 5th, 2014 at 5:54 PM ^

you do know that we played RUTGERS--a team we expected to trounce just a few weeks ago. Slightly better rushing numbers likely reflects more on our opponent than genuine improvements offensively.

And if you take out DG's scramble touchdown and Green's longest run (which, I admit  is a sort of self-serving thing to do), we rushed for 113 yards on 33 carries--3.4 yards per carry.  Hardly running at will or offensive line dominance.


October 5th, 2014 at 7:51 PM ^

1.  DG's scramble was a.....scramble--neither a play drawn or one where the offensive line really deserves credit

2.  Most every team breaks at least one long run--which run also says not much about controlling the line-of-scrimmage--which was the thesis of the OP.

If you add Green's 27 yard run back in, we gained 139 yards in 34 carries--4.1 yards per carry. The point remains--that is at best an average rushing attack, let alone dominant.