|04/26/2012 - 2:48pm||No, it's the exact opposite.||
The Carr approach (as reported) was a challenge - you have the tools, not the focus. Since you're not focusing here, I'm thinking that you might want to be somewhere else. Put another way, you will be able to play if you decide that you want it.
This approach (again, as reported) is the opposite - you don't have the tools. You never will play. Eat bench or go away.
Now, one guy's unhappy story about a coaching staff he didn't mesh with is just an anecdote. It shouldn't move anyone's needle on Rich or Calvin by itself.
|04/23/2012 - 10:07am||I think that the analysis||
I think that the analysis here is missing a few points.
One, home games versus Alabamas have to be factored into two-game sets, one of which yields $0. The real comparison is between a hypothetical $9.4 million (Jerry-world's $4.7 million doubled) against the value of a home-and-home. The Jerryworld game has higher associated per-game travel costs, of course.
Put another way, the line "sold a home game for no financial benefit whatsoever" is correct only if the home game is a MAC opponent. If the point is to play a fellow big boy, then there was no "home game" to sell, at least not by itself.
Two, games cost money to host. Not a lot compared to the ticket price, but something.
Three, I'm not sure why donations are being factored in. Is there some thought that Michigan is losing donations (even PSL "donations") as a result of the Jerryworld game? That seems far-fetched.
Four, the commenter's point above about the ESPN publicity machine is valid. Not sure how much it is worth, but there is more than marginal publicity value to being ESPN's game rather than the comparable PSU-Alabama home and home mentioned.
Five, assuming that Michigan is able to resell the band tickets, rather than comp them to the band, the question is whether Michigan is better off placing the tickets in the hands of paying fans or in the hands of the band. My personal calculus, like most non-administrator's, favors the band. But it's not a sure thing that the band gets the seats rather than, say, season ticket holders.
As a season ticketholder who cannot go to Dallas, I'm as bummed about the game as anybody. And I'm enough of a fuddyduddy to dislike the increased commercialization of any college sports, much less Brandon's Michigan trendline. I'm just not buying this economic analysis.
|04/23/2012 - 9:48am||I'm not sure that I read the||
I'm not sure that I read the same article as the OP or many of the posters.
I have no personal or emotional interest in defending Greg Robinson, but it seems to me that Martin's comments were referring to two coaches: Tall (not knowing d-line) and Rodriguez (the overall team concept, the "backyard defense").
I know that it is longstanding board policy to blame GERG for all defensive shortcomings and to curse at the Freep and the other gods that bedeviled the '08-'10 teams (and there were many). But I'm not seeing that in this piece. This piece - and Martin's words, as best as they are represented - are aimed at the overall team architecture and the defense's role in it.
|10/10/2011 - 6:36pm||"Adjustments"||
Agree with the commenter above - "adjustments" is more than schematic changes (though even there it was more than just Ryan-not-nickel). Getting off blocks, leverage, responding to technique all are part of adjustments, and all improved.
I also think that the "game theory" on the field goal is forest-and-trees point. At some point, Gibbons will be called on to make high-pressure field goals. It is better for Gibbons, and better for the coaches, to give him some more-than-chippies opportunities. That point of the game was perfect. Some pressure, but not game-deciding. Good distance. Presumably some coaching and/or positive reinforcement afterwards, as well as lessons about FG protection. The coaches also now have more data, earned essentially risk-free, on whether to call for FG attempts in the future.