1. Is David Brandon being honest with us?
As we all know, DB has remained steadfast in his resolve to "evaluate the football program after the season is over." But is that what he is really doing? Or has he already made his decision? The answers to these questions will say a lot about DB's level of integrity.
If, as many Jim Harbaugh fans think, DB has already made a deal with him, it would be against everything DB has said he stands for. It would be in direct opposition to Bo Schembechler's mentoring, because Bo always said that a coach deserves at least four years to get his own people fully entrenched. I really think that in today's climate, a coach needs five years. Most of all, though, if DB has already made a secret deal with JH, it would mean that DB has been lying to us.
Think about that. This would not be a "little white lie" or a case of someone changing his mind. This would be a case of the Athletic Director of the University of Michigan lying repeatedly while representing the school in public. If DB is "taking his time," despite risking the loss of possibly the year's best recruit, I would actually respect him for it.
However, if DB has already made up his mind, has a secret deal with Jim Harbaugh or any other coach, and is lying to the public while being paid by the University of Michigan to represent their interests, I think he should be immediately fired with cause.
Obviously, I hope that is not the case.
2. How "commercial" is the Athletic Department about to become?
Brandon has made comments about "increasing revenue," and is now even looking into making the Big House available for weddings. We all saw the advertisements during the Big Chill. While I am always happy to see the Athletic Department prosper, how much "prosperity" do they really need?
I hope I'm wrong, but I see a very commercial future for the Big House. I can easliy imagine a time, within five years or so, when the end zone walls are littered with advertisements like a minor league baseball park. I can easily imagine flying back up to Ann Arbor to go to the "Domino's Pizza Stadium brought to you by Fifth Third Bank."
I can easily imagine projectile vomiting, too.
3. How 'bout that basketball team?
John Beilein has the Wolverines playing much more like a team than they have so far in his tenure. While I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to Manny and Peedi for helping the team get back on the right track, and helping to make it almost "cool" to play at Michigan again, I have to wonder how true the rumors of "philosophical differences" between Manny and JB were.
Last year, it seemed like most of the team stood around and watched Manny and Peedi try to carry them. This year, everyone seems involved as equals. A different player shines every game, and everyone makes their own unique contributions.
The most encouraging aspect, though, is that Michigan no longer appears to be at a severe height disadvantage to every team they play. I still shudder when remembering the Illinois team of two seasons ago get up to five or six chances on many offensive possessions because they looked like a college team rebounding against a high school team.
Thankfully, even though the team is still young, they have some height, and the guys with height actually have some basketball skills. In a year or two, they could realistically be starting someone 6-9 at small forward. The last time they could do this, with Sean Higgins, they won the NCAA championship.
This leads me into another question:
4. Is Tom Izzo really "losing his mojo?"
I have been on record in plenty of places as saying that I thought Tom Izzo pretty much pissed away his mojo with his prolonged dalliance with the Cleveland Cavaliers. Izzo's main strength has been his ability to wring every last ounce of effort out of his players, using variations of "for the team" or "Spartan for life."
I have also been on record as saying that it will now be a lot harder for Izzo to get that kind of effort out of his teams because his players now know that he is a hypocrite who preaches "Spartan for life" out of one side of his mouth while negotiating with the NBA out the other side. Everyone in EL, from players to trustees to fans, now knows that Izzo was one LBJ signature away from leaving them.
So far this season, I have seen nothing to make me change my opinion. Against Texas, the Spartans were outplayed and outhustled on both ends of the floor, and the scoreboard didn't nearly reflect how Texas outclassed the Spartans. The talent levels still aren't even, but for the first time in a long time, Michigan is playing harder every night than the Spartans are.
Will my predictions of the beginning of a downward spiral at MSU, starting with them being a 5/12 upset victim in the NCAA tournament, prove accurate? We'll see. One thing we do know is that between his own restlessness and Michigan finally shedding the odor of the Ed Martin scandal and once again becoming a viable rival in recruiting the state of Michigan, Tom Izzo's job at MSU has just become a lot harder than it was.
5. What is going on at OSU?
An investigation into free tattoos has uncovered the fact that players, including Terelle Pryor, have been selling their Big Ten Championship rings and other memorabilia. This, of course, is an improper benefit, because the average student isn't awarded a Big Ten Championship ring.
The most hilariously ironic development is that Pryor sold his "Sportsmanship Award" from the 2009 Fiesta Bowl. To me, selling those two awards tells me that Pryor doesn't care about his team, championships, or sportsmanship.
Predictably, OSU players are pleading ignorance. They are saying they didn't know it was against the rules. Inexplicably, the NCAA is buying their "woof tickets," and is only suspending them for five games, starting next year. In the ultimate show of arrogance, OSU plans to appeal.
The real penalty should be that each player should be declared ineligible from the point at which he recieved illegal benefits, and OSU should have to vacate each game they played with an ineligible player. Since it is too late to change the bowl matchups, though, they had to be allowed to play the bowl.
My dream result: OSU appeals after the bowl game is already played and the NCAA takes advantage of the opportunity to increase the penalties: the players are declared permanently ineligible, and they do have to vacate a lot of wins from this year, including the one over Michigan.
At any rate, I can't imagine Terelle Pryor subjugating his ego or his taste for illegal benefits anymore. I expect him to declare for the NFL draft, where he will be drafted as a TE/H-back in the fifth round.
6. Anything else?
Yes. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
How about Jesus for Michigan's next head coach?
The blogoshpere and Michigan media in general have been polluted with specualtion about the head football coaching position at the University of Michigan. Peering deep into the crystal ball, I have finally come up with the perfect candidate: Jesus.
Michigan fans expect a miracle-worker: one who can turn this team into National Champions immediately. Jesus can do that. A quick look at how he would handle issues related to the team right now:
1. Personnel is undersized due to age.
No problem. With a wave of his hand, Jesus would instantly add twenty pounds of muscle to every player on the team.
2. Injuries.
This one is easy. Anyone who can heal the dead is more than capable of fixing an ankle, knee, or shoulder.
3. Getting everyone on the same page.
This one is a no-brainer. The main reason people still even remember Jesus is because he was able to get everyone on the same page: his page.
4. Confidence against better teams.
Once again, Jesus was the master of making people believe: both in him and themselves. Confidence would be no problem if the team knew Jesus was on their side.
5. Bad bounces.
Really? There is no such thing as a bad bounce when Jesus is in charge. Even if a bounce appears to be bad, it is later proven to be "God's will." and therefore good.
6. Bad calls.
Is any referee in the country going to disagree with Jesus?
7. Why not Harbaugh?
Because I have never seen a "what would Harbaugh do" sign, bracelet, t-shirt, or bumper sticker.
It is for these reasons that, if he is stupid enough to fire RR, I would implore DB to seriously consider Jesus for the head coaching position. I only see one negative aspect to hiring him:
The media would probably crucify him.
Michigan fans expect a miracle-worker: one who can turn this team into National Champions immediately. Jesus can do that. A quick look at how he would handle issues related to the team right now:
1. Personnel is undersized due to age.
No problem. With a wave of his hand, Jesus would instantly add twenty pounds of muscle to every player on the team.
2. Injuries.
This one is easy. Anyone who can heal the dead is more than capable of fixing an ankle, knee, or shoulder.
3. Getting everyone on the same page.
This one is a no-brainer. The main reason people still even remember Jesus is because he was able to get everyone on the same page: his page.
4. Confidence against better teams.
Once again, Jesus was the master of making people believe: both in him and themselves. Confidence would be no problem if the team knew Jesus was on their side.
5. Bad bounces.
Really? There is no such thing as a bad bounce when Jesus is in charge. Even if a bounce appears to be bad, it is later proven to be "God's will." and therefore good.
6. Bad calls.
Is any referee in the country going to disagree with Jesus?
7. Why not Harbaugh?
Because I have never seen a "what would Harbaugh do" sign, bracelet, t-shirt, or bumper sticker.
It is for these reasons that, if he is stupid enough to fire RR, I would implore DB to seriously consider Jesus for the head coaching position. I only see one negative aspect to hiring him:
The media would probably crucify him.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
To all of the "Fire RR" people...
Now that the regular season is finally over, MSM outlets are falling over each other trying to be the first to "break" the "RR fired" story. Many of the media people want him fired so badly that they keep changing the "straw that broke the camel's back" point. And a lot of "Michigan fans" are acting like anything but. A few of the "firing points:"
1. "If the NCAA finds RR guilty of 'failure to provide an atmosphere of compliance,' RR is gone for sure."
Of course, the NCAA accepted Michigan's self-imposed punishment and gave them the extra year that Michigan left room for so that the NCAA could look like they were "doing their job." RR was not personally found guilty of the aforementioned violation.
2. "If the team doesn't show progress, RR will be fired."
The team has showed progress. Michigan has one of the best offenses in the Big Ten, even though they are still young and played a first-year sophomore starter. They won two more games than last year, even though as many as seven freshmen or redshirt freshmen played on defense some games. The secondary, in particular, was too young and inexperienced to play against top-ten ranked teams, let alone start.
3. "If the team isn't headed in the right direction, RR will definitely be fired after this season."
Michigan has won 3, 5, and 7 regular season games in the last three years. The offense is looking like it could turn into one very similar to that of Oregon or Auburn, both of which are indirectly using a lot of RR's playbook. They have played hard until the end of every game, even while getting beaten pretty badly the last two. Players are talking about "the team," and praising their coach for keeping them positive and focused. They are handling both victory and defeat with grace and humility. And something like 19 of 22 starters will be back next year.
There is absolutely no way anyone could say that the team isn't headed in the right direction unless they have already made up their minds that they want RR fired. In other words, this team is definitely headed in the right direction.
4. "If Michigan isn't bowl eligible, RR will be fired."
Obviously, Michigan is indeed bowl eligible.
5. "If Michigan gets blown out by OSU, RR will be fired and Harbaugh will be hired."
Finally, on the fifth try, the OMGFRDKRODNOWPLS people got what they were wishing for. OSU beat Michigan 37-7. This is actually quite similar to the 31-7 score by which FSU beat all-everything coach Urban Meyer three hours later. And Meyer has had five years to build his team.
Anyway, after making the parameter more ridiculous five times, the maggots, leeches, and parasites finally got what they were looking for. So now, they use the loss to OSU as "justification" for an irrational decision that some of them had already made almost three years ago.
As for Harbaugh, he won 4, 5, and 7 games in the years preceding this year, and he took over a team with better personnel. So, this begs a question:
Why are people willing to accept Harbaugh's nearly-identical pattern of growth and hail him as the second coming while simultaneously vilifying RR's pattern, that actually shows even more growth because he lost one more game his first year?
Obviously, the "prodigal son returns home" story would be a great one. And, if he ever does, I will support him fully and be happy for him. But the timing is not right.
Fans are pissed because the team isn't winning. They conveniently forget that the first four losses of the OSU streak were courtesy of Lloyd Carr. They refuse to look at the players Carr left for RR and realize that RR took over a team with personnel more on the level of a MAC team than a Big Ten one. But it still comes down to winning.
So, if the whiners get their way, and Michigan does indeed fire RR and replace him with a pro set guy like Harbaugh, it will mean at least one more year and possibly two more years of losing. Does anyone who is the least bit rational want to risk firing a coach who could get ten or eleven wins out of this team next year for someone who is going to retool again and finish around .500?
The rebuilding job isn't complete yet, but it is close. Michigan will have something like 19 starters with experience next year. The offense is close to becoming one of the best in the history of the Big Ten. The defense is laying the foundation for finally breaking through and being able to stop elite competition.
All that is needed is more time and more experience. Both will happen on their own. Firing RR and changing systems again would be one of the most stupid moves DB could make. Firing RR and replacing him with someone who runs RR's offense wouldn't be a pathetically bad move, but it would be rather pointless.
If DB has as much integrity as a Michigan Man should, RR will at least get to work the length of his contract. It would totally suck for RR if he rebuilt the team, was vilified for the down years during the rebuilding, and then had to watch as someone else won with the program he rebuilt and took credit for his work. It would also suck if RR was fired and came back to win National Championships with another team.
In other words, it would suck if RR was fired before he is given the opportunity to finish what he has started at Michigan. Hopefully, DB ignores the media and the naysayers and realizes what a great coach he has working for him right now.
If he does, and RR wins a National Championship or two at Michigan, his present critics will all be saying "I told you so" and bragging about how they had his back from the start. I could handle that.
1. "If the NCAA finds RR guilty of 'failure to provide an atmosphere of compliance,' RR is gone for sure."
Of course, the NCAA accepted Michigan's self-imposed punishment and gave them the extra year that Michigan left room for so that the NCAA could look like they were "doing their job." RR was not personally found guilty of the aforementioned violation.
2. "If the team doesn't show progress, RR will be fired."
The team has showed progress. Michigan has one of the best offenses in the Big Ten, even though they are still young and played a first-year sophomore starter. They won two more games than last year, even though as many as seven freshmen or redshirt freshmen played on defense some games. The secondary, in particular, was too young and inexperienced to play against top-ten ranked teams, let alone start.
3. "If the team isn't headed in the right direction, RR will definitely be fired after this season."
Michigan has won 3, 5, and 7 regular season games in the last three years. The offense is looking like it could turn into one very similar to that of Oregon or Auburn, both of which are indirectly using a lot of RR's playbook. They have played hard until the end of every game, even while getting beaten pretty badly the last two. Players are talking about "the team," and praising their coach for keeping them positive and focused. They are handling both victory and defeat with grace and humility. And something like 19 of 22 starters will be back next year.
There is absolutely no way anyone could say that the team isn't headed in the right direction unless they have already made up their minds that they want RR fired. In other words, this team is definitely headed in the right direction.
4. "If Michigan isn't bowl eligible, RR will be fired."
Obviously, Michigan is indeed bowl eligible.
5. "If Michigan gets blown out by OSU, RR will be fired and Harbaugh will be hired."
Finally, on the fifth try, the OMGFRDKRODNOWPLS people got what they were wishing for. OSU beat Michigan 37-7. This is actually quite similar to the 31-7 score by which FSU beat all-everything coach Urban Meyer three hours later. And Meyer has had five years to build his team.
Anyway, after making the parameter more ridiculous five times, the maggots, leeches, and parasites finally got what they were looking for. So now, they use the loss to OSU as "justification" for an irrational decision that some of them had already made almost three years ago.
As for Harbaugh, he won 4, 5, and 7 games in the years preceding this year, and he took over a team with better personnel. So, this begs a question:
Why are people willing to accept Harbaugh's nearly-identical pattern of growth and hail him as the second coming while simultaneously vilifying RR's pattern, that actually shows even more growth because he lost one more game his first year?
Obviously, the "prodigal son returns home" story would be a great one. And, if he ever does, I will support him fully and be happy for him. But the timing is not right.
Fans are pissed because the team isn't winning. They conveniently forget that the first four losses of the OSU streak were courtesy of Lloyd Carr. They refuse to look at the players Carr left for RR and realize that RR took over a team with personnel more on the level of a MAC team than a Big Ten one. But it still comes down to winning.
So, if the whiners get their way, and Michigan does indeed fire RR and replace him with a pro set guy like Harbaugh, it will mean at least one more year and possibly two more years of losing. Does anyone who is the least bit rational want to risk firing a coach who could get ten or eleven wins out of this team next year for someone who is going to retool again and finish around .500?
The rebuilding job isn't complete yet, but it is close. Michigan will have something like 19 starters with experience next year. The offense is close to becoming one of the best in the history of the Big Ten. The defense is laying the foundation for finally breaking through and being able to stop elite competition.
All that is needed is more time and more experience. Both will happen on their own. Firing RR and changing systems again would be one of the most stupid moves DB could make. Firing RR and replacing him with someone who runs RR's offense wouldn't be a pathetically bad move, but it would be rather pointless.
If DB has as much integrity as a Michigan Man should, RR will at least get to work the length of his contract. It would totally suck for RR if he rebuilt the team, was vilified for the down years during the rebuilding, and then had to watch as someone else won with the program he rebuilt and took credit for his work. It would also suck if RR was fired and came back to win National Championships with another team.
In other words, it would suck if RR was fired before he is given the opportunity to finish what he has started at Michigan. Hopefully, DB ignores the media and the naysayers and realizes what a great coach he has working for him right now.
If he does, and RR wins a National Championship or two at Michigan, his present critics will all be saying "I told you so" and bragging about how they had his back from the start. I could handle that.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
What a week
Various thoughts about the week that was:
1. The Freep was officially wrong.
The NCAA agreed with Michigan's appeal of the charge of "Failure to maintain an atmosphere of compliance," lowering the charge to "Failure to monitor." This was the big one as far as Rich Rodriguez is concerned. Speaking of atmosphere, the one around the program suddenly "did a 180." Finally, after all of the negativity involving the program, they got positive news from the NCAA.
Of course, the Freep didn't see it that way, but pretty much everyone else in the media did. That constitutes a major victory, not only for the school, but for RR. Many hold his job security in question, but I don't, and I think the decision handed down this week "iced" it for RR being able to stay and finish what he has started at Michigan.
More on RR later, but the best part of the whole thing was when Dave Brandon spoke of the need for an apology from the Freep. He may not have named them, but it was obvious who he was talking about. Brandon knows that the Freep fabricated much of their "evidence," and that Rosenpuke's hatchet job was just that: a hatchet job.
2. A Big Win at the Big House.
If there was ever a time for Michigan to pull off a big win, it was this week. Fresh off of the good news from the NCAA, the team won a wild one against Illinois in a game that had a higher score than each of the last three basketball games between the two schools. This game had everything that ESPN Classic likes: lots of points, lead changes, big plays, and a thrilling OT finish. We may see this game on ESPN-C for a long time if we are lucky (and Illinois isn't).
This was a game of vindication. The team proved that it wasn't going to have the same record as last year. Tate Forcier came off the bench to lead his team to victory against a team that trounced him last year. Most of all, the defense came up with a big stop when it really, really needed one. And it "only" allowed 14 points to Illinois in the last half of regulation: seven of them resulting from a Tate Forcier turnover deep in his own territory.
If the school gave game balls to everyone who deserved one, the Freep would probably call it a major NCAA violation.
3. RR does the right thing: again.
Last year against Iowa, RR pulled quarterback Tate Forcier in the fourth quarter. There was no information available during the game, but RR was roundly criticized for it after the game. It turned out that Forcier had sustained a concussion, but some so-called "fans" still ragged about it for the rest of the year.
Fast forward to yesterday: RR pulled quarterback Denard Robinson from the game in the fourth quarter. There was no information available during the game. Unlike last year, Michigan pulled this game out, and RR won't be criticized for it. But the reason was the same: Robinson was exhibiting concussion symptoms, and RR held him out for his own safety.
RR has been a lightning rod for criticism since he arrived in Ann Arbor. One of the most common criticisms both the media and the fanbase like to level at him is that he is a "win at all costs coach." For them, I have one question:
Is there any other coach in America who would have made the same decision in crucial games where his job status could be on the line not once, but twice?
AFAIC, most coaches would have found a way to get the star QB back into the game with some bogus question to "prove" that he was OK.
Other coaches talk about family atmosphere, and how the health and safety of their players is paramount, but RR walks the talk. RR wants to win as much as anyone on the planet, but he won't compromise the well-being of his players to do so. I can only hope that the same "fans" and media that have trashed him for almost three years will finally give him credit for being the kind of man and coach that he is.
4. About that job status...
I think it can be safely said that the "RR hot seat" rumors can officially be put to rest. Michigan has shown improvement this year despite the woeful lack of age and experience on defense. He has built the offense into a potential video game, and has rebuilt the team in his own image, laying the foundation for Michigan to truly arrive in the currrent millenium.
Hopefully, the so-called "fans" who have been bitching and whining about RR ever since it became evident that he couldn't snap his fingers and turn Threet or Sheridan into bona fide D-1 QB's in 2008 will finally give it a rest and stop their chronic complaining. RR is here to stay, and the school will be much better off for it, possibly as early as next season.
5. What: me defense?
Defense is a question that will be answered during the off-season. GERG's days at Michigan may be numbered, or he may get a pass for having to play so many new players this year. At any rate, they played a lot better when they were allowed to be more aggressive yesterday. The play that saved the game was the old "jailbreak" (at least that's what they call it at MSU) blitz. Almost everyone rushed the QB, and someone got to him before he could hit a wide-open reciever in the end zone.
While most fans, even the most loyal and learned, seem to think that GERG's dismissal is a fait accompli, I am not so sure yet. The defense does have four games left to improve enough to justify keeping him. "Only" allowing Illinois fourteen points in the second half and making the key stop in OT indicate some improvement to me. We will see how it plays out.
6. David Brandon is THE MAN.
During the season, and especially this week, David Brandon has shown the strong leadership skills that got him the AD job at Michigan. He has come out with strong statements regarding RR, the NCAA investigation, and the Freep this week. I have no idea what he is going to do in the offseason, but I do trust that he will make the right decision. It seems like the athletic department is finally in good hands again.
It is about time.
1. The Freep was officially wrong.
The NCAA agreed with Michigan's appeal of the charge of "Failure to maintain an atmosphere of compliance," lowering the charge to "Failure to monitor." This was the big one as far as Rich Rodriguez is concerned. Speaking of atmosphere, the one around the program suddenly "did a 180." Finally, after all of the negativity involving the program, they got positive news from the NCAA.
Of course, the Freep didn't see it that way, but pretty much everyone else in the media did. That constitutes a major victory, not only for the school, but for RR. Many hold his job security in question, but I don't, and I think the decision handed down this week "iced" it for RR being able to stay and finish what he has started at Michigan.
More on RR later, but the best part of the whole thing was when Dave Brandon spoke of the need for an apology from the Freep. He may not have named them, but it was obvious who he was talking about. Brandon knows that the Freep fabricated much of their "evidence," and that Rosenpuke's hatchet job was just that: a hatchet job.
2. A Big Win at the Big House.
If there was ever a time for Michigan to pull off a big win, it was this week. Fresh off of the good news from the NCAA, the team won a wild one against Illinois in a game that had a higher score than each of the last three basketball games between the two schools. This game had everything that ESPN Classic likes: lots of points, lead changes, big plays, and a thrilling OT finish. We may see this game on ESPN-C for a long time if we are lucky (and Illinois isn't).
This was a game of vindication. The team proved that it wasn't going to have the same record as last year. Tate Forcier came off the bench to lead his team to victory against a team that trounced him last year. Most of all, the defense came up with a big stop when it really, really needed one. And it "only" allowed 14 points to Illinois in the last half of regulation: seven of them resulting from a Tate Forcier turnover deep in his own territory.
If the school gave game balls to everyone who deserved one, the Freep would probably call it a major NCAA violation.
3. RR does the right thing: again.
Last year against Iowa, RR pulled quarterback Tate Forcier in the fourth quarter. There was no information available during the game, but RR was roundly criticized for it after the game. It turned out that Forcier had sustained a concussion, but some so-called "fans" still ragged about it for the rest of the year.
Fast forward to yesterday: RR pulled quarterback Denard Robinson from the game in the fourth quarter. There was no information available during the game. Unlike last year, Michigan pulled this game out, and RR won't be criticized for it. But the reason was the same: Robinson was exhibiting concussion symptoms, and RR held him out for his own safety.
RR has been a lightning rod for criticism since he arrived in Ann Arbor. One of the most common criticisms both the media and the fanbase like to level at him is that he is a "win at all costs coach." For them, I have one question:
Is there any other coach in America who would have made the same decision in crucial games where his job status could be on the line not once, but twice?
AFAIC, most coaches would have found a way to get the star QB back into the game with some bogus question to "prove" that he was OK.
Other coaches talk about family atmosphere, and how the health and safety of their players is paramount, but RR walks the talk. RR wants to win as much as anyone on the planet, but he won't compromise the well-being of his players to do so. I can only hope that the same "fans" and media that have trashed him for almost three years will finally give him credit for being the kind of man and coach that he is.
4. About that job status...
I think it can be safely said that the "RR hot seat" rumors can officially be put to rest. Michigan has shown improvement this year despite the woeful lack of age and experience on defense. He has built the offense into a potential video game, and has rebuilt the team in his own image, laying the foundation for Michigan to truly arrive in the currrent millenium.
Hopefully, the so-called "fans" who have been bitching and whining about RR ever since it became evident that he couldn't snap his fingers and turn Threet or Sheridan into bona fide D-1 QB's in 2008 will finally give it a rest and stop their chronic complaining. RR is here to stay, and the school will be much better off for it, possibly as early as next season.
5. What: me defense?
Defense is a question that will be answered during the off-season. GERG's days at Michigan may be numbered, or he may get a pass for having to play so many new players this year. At any rate, they played a lot better when they were allowed to be more aggressive yesterday. The play that saved the game was the old "jailbreak" (at least that's what they call it at MSU) blitz. Almost everyone rushed the QB, and someone got to him before he could hit a wide-open reciever in the end zone.
While most fans, even the most loyal and learned, seem to think that GERG's dismissal is a fait accompli, I am not so sure yet. The defense does have four games left to improve enough to justify keeping him. "Only" allowing Illinois fourteen points in the second half and making the key stop in OT indicate some improvement to me. We will see how it plays out.
6. David Brandon is THE MAN.
During the season, and especially this week, David Brandon has shown the strong leadership skills that got him the AD job at Michigan. He has come out with strong statements regarding RR, the NCAA investigation, and the Freep this week. I have no idea what he is going to do in the offseason, but I do trust that he will make the right decision. It seems like the athletic department is finally in good hands again.
It is about time.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Joe Pa is right, or at least halfway there
Joe Pa wants to remove facemasks from helmets to reduce concussions and other injuries? I have a better idea: ban helmets, cleats, and shoulder pads altogether. Helmets and pads are supposed to be protective, but end up being used as potent weapons. Cleats provide leverage for hits that injure both the hitter and the "hittee."
Those who run football are between the proverbial rock and hard place right now. Studies are showing that their sport causes an inordinate amount of concussions, and that those concussions aversely affect the quality of life of participants, years after the damage has already been irrevocably done.
They know something needs to be done, but they won't want to detract from the "tough" nature of the sport. Telling players not to hit when they have been trained to do so their entire careers, as the NFL is attempting to do, is a losing proposition. It will bring nothing but controversy, and enforcement will go back to current levels after awhile, much like hockey did after a year or two of trying to call Stanley Cup Playoff games tighter.
It works for awhile, but the game always tends to go back to its inherent nature. With this much protective equipment, the inherent nature on defense in football is to use yourself as a weapon with which to destroy ball-carriers and recievers. The gains made in conditioning and technology were supposed to prevent injury, but have just made players more likely to injure both themselves and others within the natural flow of the game.
Football is an aggressive sport, and equipment enables players to be more aggressive. So, the only way to change the culture is to change the nature of the game. And the best way to do that without sacrificing any of the toughness, integrity, or effort players put in is to simply ban protective equipment. Knee pads and cups are appropriate because neither gives a player any leverage that can be used to hurt themselves or an opponent. Shoulder pads and helmets only help players get hurt.
Besides, players of this era would like it because we would be able to see their faces while they play. It would be easier for players to "brand" themselves, even before they are allowed to take any money. And they would have more brain cells left when it is time to hang up their shoes, relax, and spend some of the money they earned.
Those who run football are between the proverbial rock and hard place right now. Studies are showing that their sport causes an inordinate amount of concussions, and that those concussions aversely affect the quality of life of participants, years after the damage has already been irrevocably done.
They know something needs to be done, but they won't want to detract from the "tough" nature of the sport. Telling players not to hit when they have been trained to do so their entire careers, as the NFL is attempting to do, is a losing proposition. It will bring nothing but controversy, and enforcement will go back to current levels after awhile, much like hockey did after a year or two of trying to call Stanley Cup Playoff games tighter.
It works for awhile, but the game always tends to go back to its inherent nature. With this much protective equipment, the inherent nature on defense in football is to use yourself as a weapon with which to destroy ball-carriers and recievers. The gains made in conditioning and technology were supposed to prevent injury, but have just made players more likely to injure both themselves and others within the natural flow of the game.
Football is an aggressive sport, and equipment enables players to be more aggressive. So, the only way to change the culture is to change the nature of the game. And the best way to do that without sacrificing any of the toughness, integrity, or effort players put in is to simply ban protective equipment. Knee pads and cups are appropriate because neither gives a player any leverage that can be used to hurt themselves or an opponent. Shoulder pads and helmets only help players get hurt.
Besides, players of this era would like it because we would be able to see their faces while they play. It would be easier for players to "brand" themselves, even before they are allowed to take any money. And they would have more brain cells left when it is time to hang up their shoes, relax, and spend some of the money they earned.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Questions on the alleged MSU sexual assault case, or lack thereof
In the case of the alleged sexual assault of a coed by two Michigan State University basketball players, there are currently more questions than answers. Here are my opinions on a few of them:
1. What did the prosecutor mean by "mutual decision?"
It sounds to me as though the prosecutor pressured the victim not to pursue this case. If the prosecutor doesn't want to pursue the case, he could easily remind the victim of the long, arduous process and the "difficulty" of convincing a jury that their basketball heroes are guilty of sexual assault.
2. Is the prosecutor a basketball fan?
If the prosecutor is a basketball fan, it could indeed have a great impact on his decision whether or not to pursue charges. It would be difficult for him to prosecute someone he cheers for on a nightly basis.
3. Is there a different standard of "justice" for MSU basketball players than there is for other citizens of East Lansing?
Often, the accused's criminal record or lack thereof is taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to prosecute. Also, outside factors such as playing varsity basketball at the local school is also taken into consideration. Sometimes, if a potential defendant is seen to have professional potential, prosecutors are less likely to "ruin this kid's life" than they are that of an average citizen.
The problem with this approach is that the victim's life, at least in East Lansing, is already ruined. The name may not be public, but I can state with confidence that it has more than likely been "grapevined" to a point where everyone who knows her and many who don't know what happened. She is more than likely the target of scorn by many fellow students who are more concerned with the performance of "their" basketball team than with what she has gone through, or the concept of the perpetrators being held responsible for their actions.
At this point, it does not appear that justice is applied equally to all citizens of East Lansing.
4. Why have the major media outlets been so slow to pick up on this story, especially the two major Detroit outlets?
Apparently, the media don't see two Michigan State University basketball players being accused of sexual assault to be important enough to cover, or at least to feature it as prominently as they would if it happened at the University of Michigan. This leads to my last question...
5. If the accused had been football players at the University of Michigan, would the coverage be different, especially in the Detroit outlets?
This has been a major point of contention for me for a long time. The media is always quick to smear the University of Michigan's athletic programs for far less than what is alleged here. The newspapers will probably say that they considered the story less than newsworthy because no charges are being filed, but the Justin Feagin story was bludgeoned to death by freep.com nearly two months before charges were filed. In addition, the Demar Dorsey story was smeared all over the sports section of the freep, when supposedly sealed juvinile records were involved.
When one adds into the equation the amount of man-hours and print that freep.com put into the "expose" of twenty minutes of "extra" stretching by the Michigan program, and the constant framing of anything negative that happens at Michigan as "proof" that "Rich Rodriguez runs a dirty program," or "the University of Michigan has a 'win at all costs' mentality," it is difficult not to draw conclusions as to the motivation of the major media outlets in Michigan.
What it comes down to is that the coverage of the major media, but especially freep.com, is driven by a pro-MSU, anti-UM agenda. This would be OK if the media were calling themselves "entertainment," but they are not. They are portraying themselves as "objective" news sources.
Wrapping it up...
It is time for the media in the state of Michigan to cover the story of the Michigan State University basketball players' alleged sexual assault with the vigor and enthusiasm with which they cover negative stories concerning the University of Michigan. Right now, a very good case could be made that the instate media care more about smearing the University of Michigan football coach and his program than they do about the rights of a young sexual assault victim to justice.
The media should be asking why there is no justice for this young woman. They should be asking why MSU basketball players are not being charged in this case even as experts in the field say that the police report in question is some of the most valid evidence for sexual assault that they have seen.
Ultimately, the media should be asking themselves if their covert agenda to act as shills for Michigan State University while attacking the University of Michigan is worth denying justice to a young victim of a sexual assault. Maybe they should all ask themselves one question:
If this happened to your daughter, sister, or anyone else you were close to, would you want this story covered up? Or would you want it to see the light of day so that a young victim could have justice?
The truth, as it was once said, is self-evident.
I would like to thank WTKA, Sam Webb, and Ira Weintraub for their coverage of this issue on Michigan Insider this morning. A few of my opinions strongly echo those of Webb. Though I didn't "borrow" any material from him, I felt that he should be acknowledged for his efforts to bring this story into the "light of day." A podcast is available at www.wtka.com
1. What did the prosecutor mean by "mutual decision?"
It sounds to me as though the prosecutor pressured the victim not to pursue this case. If the prosecutor doesn't want to pursue the case, he could easily remind the victim of the long, arduous process and the "difficulty" of convincing a jury that their basketball heroes are guilty of sexual assault.
2. Is the prosecutor a basketball fan?
If the prosecutor is a basketball fan, it could indeed have a great impact on his decision whether or not to pursue charges. It would be difficult for him to prosecute someone he cheers for on a nightly basis.
3. Is there a different standard of "justice" for MSU basketball players than there is for other citizens of East Lansing?
Often, the accused's criminal record or lack thereof is taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to prosecute. Also, outside factors such as playing varsity basketball at the local school is also taken into consideration. Sometimes, if a potential defendant is seen to have professional potential, prosecutors are less likely to "ruin this kid's life" than they are that of an average citizen.
The problem with this approach is that the victim's life, at least in East Lansing, is already ruined. The name may not be public, but I can state with confidence that it has more than likely been "grapevined" to a point where everyone who knows her and many who don't know what happened. She is more than likely the target of scorn by many fellow students who are more concerned with the performance of "their" basketball team than with what she has gone through, or the concept of the perpetrators being held responsible for their actions.
At this point, it does not appear that justice is applied equally to all citizens of East Lansing.
4. Why have the major media outlets been so slow to pick up on this story, especially the two major Detroit outlets?
Apparently, the media don't see two Michigan State University basketball players being accused of sexual assault to be important enough to cover, or at least to feature it as prominently as they would if it happened at the University of Michigan. This leads to my last question...
5. If the accused had been football players at the University of Michigan, would the coverage be different, especially in the Detroit outlets?
This has been a major point of contention for me for a long time. The media is always quick to smear the University of Michigan's athletic programs for far less than what is alleged here. The newspapers will probably say that they considered the story less than newsworthy because no charges are being filed, but the Justin Feagin story was bludgeoned to death by freep.com nearly two months before charges were filed. In addition, the Demar Dorsey story was smeared all over the sports section of the freep, when supposedly sealed juvinile records were involved.
When one adds into the equation the amount of man-hours and print that freep.com put into the "expose" of twenty minutes of "extra" stretching by the Michigan program, and the constant framing of anything negative that happens at Michigan as "proof" that "Rich Rodriguez runs a dirty program," or "the University of Michigan has a 'win at all costs' mentality," it is difficult not to draw conclusions as to the motivation of the major media outlets in Michigan.
What it comes down to is that the coverage of the major media, but especially freep.com, is driven by a pro-MSU, anti-UM agenda. This would be OK if the media were calling themselves "entertainment," but they are not. They are portraying themselves as "objective" news sources.
Wrapping it up...
It is time for the media in the state of Michigan to cover the story of the Michigan State University basketball players' alleged sexual assault with the vigor and enthusiasm with which they cover negative stories concerning the University of Michigan. Right now, a very good case could be made that the instate media care more about smearing the University of Michigan football coach and his program than they do about the rights of a young sexual assault victim to justice.
The media should be asking why there is no justice for this young woman. They should be asking why MSU basketball players are not being charged in this case even as experts in the field say that the police report in question is some of the most valid evidence for sexual assault that they have seen.
Ultimately, the media should be asking themselves if their covert agenda to act as shills for Michigan State University while attacking the University of Michigan is worth denying justice to a young victim of a sexual assault. Maybe they should all ask themselves one question:
If this happened to your daughter, sister, or anyone else you were close to, would you want this story covered up? Or would you want it to see the light of day so that a young victim could have justice?
The truth, as it was once said, is self-evident.
I would like to thank WTKA, Sam Webb, and Ira Weintraub for their coverage of this issue on Michigan Insider this morning. A few of my opinions strongly echo those of Webb. Though I didn't "borrow" any material from him, I felt that he should be acknowledged for his efforts to bring this story into the "light of day." A podcast is available at www.wtka.com
Two Michigan State University basketball players accused of sexual assault....
...and nobody cares.
We all know many of the details already. According to the police report, on the night of August 29 and early hours of August 30 after an orientation meeting, two unnamed MSU basketball players brought a young woman up to their room. After turning a miniature basketball hoop into a vehicle for "strip poker," the players intentionally missed shots as an excuse to remove all of their clothes.
The victim said they then blocked her from leaving and, according to the Michigan Messenger, "penetrated her in various positions." To make a long story short, when she finally began to protest, one player stopped and one continued. The player who stopped later corraborated her story to the police.
So, in this day and age, when sexual assault is now taken very seriously, and "boys will be boys" is no longer a valid defense, one would think that the combination of the victim's statement and the corraborating statement from one of the players would be a "slam dunk" to prosecute. Inexplicibly, the prosecutor decided not to file charges. Here was his excuse, according to a phone interview with the Michigan Messenger:
"After reviewing everything with the young lady, this was a mutual decision," Dunnings said in a phone interview Monday. "She [the victim] fully understood and agreed, is what Ms. Bouck [Ingham County Prosecutor assigned to review sex crimes] related to me."
Since then, the victim has come forward and told Michigan Messenger the following"
"I worry about what would happen if it didn’t go through and having to deal with all the publicity and everything that goes with pursuing charges," she said. "But also I am angry. It’s just that everybody looks at them as heroes and they’re so excited for basketball season that [the players] get off without anybody caring. They haven’t even been punished."
This raises myraid questions. Among them:
1. What did the prosecutor mean by "mutual decision?"
2. Is the prosecutor a basketball fan?
3. Is there a different standard of "justice" for MSU basketball players than there is for other citizens of East Lansing?
4. Why have the major media outlets been so slow to pick up on this story, especially freep.com and detnews.com?
5. If the players involved were from the University of Michigan football team, would the coverage be different, especially in freep.com and detnews.com?
I will give my opinions on these questions in my next post.
We all know many of the details already. According to the police report, on the night of August 29 and early hours of August 30 after an orientation meeting, two unnamed MSU basketball players brought a young woman up to their room. After turning a miniature basketball hoop into a vehicle for "strip poker," the players intentionally missed shots as an excuse to remove all of their clothes.
The victim said they then blocked her from leaving and, according to the Michigan Messenger, "penetrated her in various positions." To make a long story short, when she finally began to protest, one player stopped and one continued. The player who stopped later corraborated her story to the police.
So, in this day and age, when sexual assault is now taken very seriously, and "boys will be boys" is no longer a valid defense, one would think that the combination of the victim's statement and the corraborating statement from one of the players would be a "slam dunk" to prosecute. Inexplicibly, the prosecutor decided not to file charges. Here was his excuse, according to a phone interview with the Michigan Messenger:
"After reviewing everything with the young lady, this was a mutual decision," Dunnings said in a phone interview Monday. "She [the victim] fully understood and agreed, is what Ms. Bouck [Ingham County Prosecutor assigned to review sex crimes] related to me."
Since then, the victim has come forward and told Michigan Messenger the following"
"I worry about what would happen if it didn’t go through and having to deal with all the publicity and everything that goes with pursuing charges," she said. "But also I am angry. It’s just that everybody looks at them as heroes and they’re so excited for basketball season that [the players] get off without anybody caring. They haven’t even been punished."
This raises myraid questions. Among them:
1. What did the prosecutor mean by "mutual decision?"
2. Is the prosecutor a basketball fan?
3. Is there a different standard of "justice" for MSU basketball players than there is for other citizens of East Lansing?
4. Why have the major media outlets been so slow to pick up on this story, especially freep.com and detnews.com?
5. If the players involved were from the University of Michigan football team, would the coverage be different, especially in freep.com and detnews.com?
I will give my opinions on these questions in my next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)