OT: Is there any journalist following the Brady Hoke era?

Submitted by mgoblue No.1 on January 17th, 2012 at 10:02 PM

After reading Three and Out, and watching this years team, it got me wondering whether there was any journalist following this years team or if it was just a one time thing with RR?



January 17th, 2012 at 10:04 PM ^

I think it was a one time thing with John U. I mean this was a one in a lifetime chance, and it's doubtful something like that will ever be done at any football program ever again

Wolverine In Exile

January 17th, 2012 at 10:09 PM ^

After the way the Ath dept freaked out about 3&O, the only journalist following Hoke around would be a feature writer for Hot Dog Afficianado Weekly. Good magazine, check out the expose on "Chicago style dogs... is the celery salt really necessary"


January 17th, 2012 at 11:00 PM ^

Not that I suspect you care, but you're one of the few posters I go out of my way to read and I'm surprised, actually fairly dismayed you'd say that. Rodriguez had his faults, but I'm glad his time was documented by the author, and I'd love to see a similar document on Hoke's first years. I don't see the harm in transparency and openness. 

snarling wolverine

January 17th, 2012 at 11:26 PM ^

Can we really call it "transparency and openness" when the book makes some nasty allegations against Car, Martin, Brandon et al. without giving them their side of the story?  The book felt very one-sided to me.  Rodriguez gets portrayed as a 3-dimensional human being, but a lot of other guys practically come off as cartoon villains.


January 18th, 2012 at 12:36 AM ^

Carr was asked for his side of the story. He preferred to continue his game of shadows, as did Brandon. Martin was interviewed for the book.

To say that Carr looked like a "cartoon villain" in it is patently absurd. Many who know a lot (presumably, more than you) about what went on feel the book if anything could have been a lot harsher on Carr than it was.

Space Coyote

January 17th, 2012 at 11:58 PM ^

I would love to see a similar documentation as well, as only an interested fan.  However, I don't think Three and Out gave a great portrayal of Michigan.  I suspect you go to many other programs and you would get a nearly equal number of negatives (though probably of varying natures) out of their programs as well, but there is a reason that access isn't typically allowed to programs.

Again, as a pure fan I think knowing all these things is great.  Some of the player stories were very nice, reading it was interesting even though the book was clearly not without bias (and I'm not even talking simply RR-bias, but it also had a fairly clear pro-Michigan-football-bias, which to credit JUB, is probably the right move considering the majority of readers.  And as for the RR bias, he gave him access, you would suspect him to have an inherit bais there).  I just think maybe it's best for all these things to not come out to the public.  Maybe it's better not knowing a player had a very hard time after being pulled from a game.  Maybe it's better not getting a 3D picture of a coach that often times lost it in the locker rooms after loses, acting no better than I as a fan on my couch sometimes act (but how I would never act as a coach).  

There are some team things that I think deserve to stay just within the team.  As a coach, I would never want that complete of access to my program, because in all honesty fans can never really understand it all, and neither even do players of other teams, coaches of other teams, media, or anyone outside that very team, no one else can't truly understand all of it and it all quickly becomes misconstrued and meaning is added to certain things that really don't mean as much and things truly significant are missed altogether.  A certain amount of access is good, too much can be bad.  Every fan would love to be more a part of the team, which Three and Out did, but I'm not sure that's the best thing for the players, coaches, program, and school.

Picktown GoBlue

January 18th, 2012 at 12:04 AM ^

terrible things that happened to the kids (all but one) who got into Willy Wonka's factory?  Swollen into a large blueberry, shrunk, drowned in chocolate, and nearly incinerated.  Beware the golden ticket...or the golden Bacon.

As someone who has helped to make sausage - We like the end results, but sometimes you don't like to see how it's made.


January 17th, 2012 at 10:41 PM ^

I doubt Hoke would encourage or permit it.  His personality is quite different from RR's.

But if so, I think the title for 2011 should be: "First and Goal."

Section 1

January 17th, 2012 at 11:05 PM ^

...in the history of Michigan football; that the one coach who came in with the least natural antipathy toward the press, and who was the most open and least guarded (to start, anyway) was the one who was treated the worst by that same press corps.

Someday, somehow, Hoke will probably need to find his Boswell.  Perhaps some years from now. 

Schembecheler, by virtue of his longevity, actually had three, carefully chosen and cultivated -- Joe Falls, Mitch Albom and John U. Bacon.  One more, if you count J.P. McCarthy.  Moeller had none of his own to speak of, which might have cost him when he needed one.  And Carr is a real question mark.  If Carr's Boswell is in fact Michael Rosenberg, I'm not sure what I'd do.

Section 1

January 18th, 2012 at 1:04 AM ^

And although Carr wasn't really on the bench (those are regular seats, essentially Brandon's courtside seats), he was there with Al Glick.  (Glick and Alro Steel have some other courtside seats as well.)  It was like the senior managing partner, taking the biggest client out for dinner.  I was thinking Roger Sterling of "Mad Men," with one of the tobacco company execs.  Which is probably way too harsh (I hope so at least) a judgment on two men who have given so much to the Athletic Department and the University.  Just a pity, that Carr has so much to answer for and he won't say anything.


January 18th, 2012 at 1:23 AM ^

Is it really ironic? The old adage about giving someone the rope to hang you with seems appropriate.

And, the press killed Rich because he lost. And because he said wierd things. But I think those wierd things would have been forgotten if he had won, c.f. Lloyd being respected by the same members of the media that he accused of asking "stupid questions".

Section 1

January 18th, 2012 at 2:20 AM ^

Not mysterious in the "unknowable" sense, but in the "somebody's not telling us" sense.  Like why Rosenberg and Snyder hated Rodriguez.  Did they (and the Freep) enjoy special access under Schembechler, Moeller and Carr?  Did Rosenberg feel as though he had a special relationship with the position of the Michigan Head Football Coach?  One that was lost under a Rodriguez administration?

No one can ever seriously imagine that Rosenberg would ever have pulled the stunt of canvassing some former players, misquoting some current ones, and dumping that stinkbomb of a story about supposed NCAA rules abuses on Carr.  The Friday before a Saturday publication.  It beggars reality.

It was a hit-job, and it had nothing to do with wins or losses.


January 18th, 2012 at 10:47 AM ^

I still don't think it's ironic. The coaches who are most open with the media are always the ones who get hammered the hardest when they fail. Look at Rex Ryan in New York; the media loved the fact that he was such a 'good quote', but now they are using his brashness against him. Compare that the Bill Belichik, who is the worst quote in sports and an all around dick (personality-wise, he seems like a decent man), but who wins all the time. The press just fawns over him.

That was the point of my post. I am not attacking Rich or supporting Carr (this time), just commenting on the nature of sports media. I really believe that if Rich had won and the fans were happy, the press would have taken a different tone, even Rosenberg. He might have still felt the same abot Rich, but he would know he wouldn't have an audience for such a piece (because he knew it wasn't really a story).

The only mystery in this affair is Carr's involvement with the Freep piece. But I don't find it mysterious that the most open and engaging coach in Michigan's recent history was abused by the press. I think that is standard operating procedure.

Section 1

January 18th, 2012 at 11:43 AM ^

Rosenberg clearly got wind of the July 27, 2009 CARA memo within days of its distribution.  At that time, the Rodriguez coaching record was nothing if not incomplete.  Rosenberg completed his written assasination within the next four weeks, in August, before the 2009 season began.  Before 5-7, before 7-5 and a Gator Bowl bid; Rodriguez was under a full-scale attack.  And once that attack had been launched, the Free Press and their colleagues never let up.  Almost NOBODY criticized the Free Press from within the media.  We can count on the fingers of one hand the sources that did; all the rest of the media world joined in, or circled the wagons around Rosenberg.

[Incidentally, note that Mark Snyder won the Michigan Sportswriter of the Year award last year.  It was a year in which he published no noteworthy features to speak of.  All that Snyder did for the entire year, was routine beat-reporting.  It was also a year in which one Michigan sportswriter -- John U. Bacon -- published a groundbreaking book which will be read and studied for years.  It was a year in which Snyder's paper, the Free Press, has gotten absolutely no special access to Michigan sports, most likely as a consequence of an edict from David Brandon with the purpose of punishing the Freep for the depredations of Snyder and Rosenberg.  It seems to me that the sportswriters' association was simply raising a middle finger to the critics of Rosenberg, Snyder and the Free Press.  We ctiticized somebody in the union, and the union said 'We'll show you; we'll make him the man of the year!'  Because by any reasonable measure, John U. Bacon (and not Mark Snyder) was Michigan's true sports writer of the year for 2011.] 

You speak of the sports media as if it were some wild, counterintuitive force of nature.  Like an earthquake or wildfires.  Yes, the press will fawn over winners.  And they will study winners.  And the writing on losers is often limited to the offball human-interest angles.  It is all true.  Your example of Bill Belicheck is an intelligent and illustrative example of press behavior.  I think my example of Rich Rodriguez is likewise a good example of how the press, having chosen a victim, engages in feeding frenzies entirely apart from any self-examination.  The press, in cases like Rodriguez, operates like it was a school of sharks.  And the award to Mark Snyder is like an award of Teamster of the Year.


January 18th, 2012 at 10:32 AM ^

I don't disagree with you, but do you think he would have written that piece if Rich had gone, say, 8-4? I don't think they would have.

And, when I say "the press", I don't mean "Michael Rosenberg alone". Rich got a ton of negative press. Like Bacon said in Three and Out, the "Get a life quote" wasn't that bad in the context of which it was said, but the press put out headlines like "RichRod to UM fans: 'Get a life". The losing made the fans unhappy, and this gave the press license to pile on.


January 17th, 2012 at 11:45 PM ^

While obscure, Trout expects this title to be his big break into sports journalism. He also doubles as photographer of Hoke's golden poops, capturing glory at only the finest angles.


January 18th, 2012 at 1:18 AM ^

For the simple reason that Hoke is not an egomaniac.

There used to be a sign in the team meeting room that said, "What you see here, what you say here, let it stay here, when you leave here." Ah, the good old (and present) days.


January 18th, 2012 at 5:14 AM ^

Hoke would never let a author inside the program for a whole season. I think Rodriguez has a huge ego and granting Bacon full access was selfish. I could be wrong, but that's what I think.


January 18th, 2012 at 6:33 AM ^

To answer's OP question:  maybe, but it probably won't be John Bacon, considering the fact that he's been "banished" to the far upper corner of the press box; and certain people in the athletic department aren't very happy with 3 & Out.