Michigan
Comments
-
No way. He has failed at Michigan.oregonblitzkrieg said:Harbaugh will be USC's next coach
-
Sark failed at Washington.creepycoug said:
No way. He has failed at Michigan.oregonblitzkrieg said:Harbaugh will be USC's next coach
-
oregonblitzkrieg said:
Sark failed at Washington.creepycoug said:
No way. He has failed at Michigan.oregonblitzkrieg said:Harbaugh will be USC's next coach
Big if true -
You make a good point. Is Pat Haden fs still there?oregonblitzkrieg said:
Sark failed at Washington.creepycoug said:
No way. He has failed at Michigan.oregonblitzkrieg said:Harbaugh will be USC's next coach
-
Be surprised at how many Wolverine fans may be down this way..
May be becaus Harbaw spent night on couches but the more misery they get, the better.
Thank God for Gamecocks last bowel season -
Quit being a Michigan doog. They play in a bad conference. How many of those teams in the Big 10 are good on offense. They are irrelevant and haven't had a good QB yet under Harbaugh.FremontTroll said:
Yes because their offense sucked.Mosster47 said:
Michigan just played a nail biter with Northwestern.FremontTroll said:
True, despite Brian Kelly and Brian Kelly's best efforts.Mosster47 said:
Notre Dame might not suck.jhfstyle24 said:Their defense was so fucking good coming into this season. I thought they'd be best in the country. Two elite corners in Long and Lavert Hill, and Hill was the highest graded PFF returning DB in the country. Third DB, Brandon Watson, is a 5th-year senior, with 38 games under his belt coming into this year. Ambry Thomas looked great as a freshman last year. The safeties, Tyree Kinnel and Josh Metellus, were both alright, and Metellus was honorable mention All-B1G.
At linebacker they had a preseason all-American in Devin Bush, and a returning all-B1G player in Khaleke Hudson (who plays the Jabrill Peppers "viper" position). Then there was Josh Ross, Devin Gil, and Drew Singleton fighting for the third spot. Their linebackers looked fucking great.
Then on the line, at SDE and WDE respectively they have Rashan fucking Gary (no explanation needed) and Chase Winovich, who had 8 sacks and 18.5 tackles for loss last season. Then at DT there's Aubrey fucking Solomon and Michael Dwumfour, who kicked ass all spring. Their backup DE's are also excellent.
They legitimately have 2 top tier guys at each defensive group, and they still gave up 9,000 points to Notre Dame. That's on the coach. That defense should be tops in the country. Harbaugh should be in a much hotter seat than he is right now.
I would also point out that the Michigan defense tightened up after giving up TDs on 3 of the first 4 drives against ND. The first two drives were aided by 15 yard personal fouls and the third was twice extended by penalties on failed 3rd downs. There were a few big pass plays allowed there but for the game Notre Dame only averaged 4.4 yards per play. Only 2.8 on the ground.
I know these statistics go against the popular Michigan sucks narrative but on the season Michigan is easily leading the nation at just 3.4 yards per play allowed (UW allowing 4.2) Since going down 21-3 four drives into the season against ND they've allowed just 10 plays over 15 yards in 4.5+ games (6 pass, 4 rush.)
We are talking about the defense here.
I know you were only talking about the defense, but still. -
Miami is irrelevant too. Enough.creepycoug said:
I was talking about overall university resources.GreenRiverGatorz said:
What the fuck universe are you living in? OSU, Bama, and LSU are all in the top 10 of AD revenue. FSU is top 15, and I’m sure USC would be too if they released their financials. Meanwhile no one would ever try to make the case that Miami is anywhere close to a blue blood - their success was brief and was 98% due to location. Money is and will forever be the #1 deciding factor in college football. To try to argue otherwise is mind-bogglingly stupid.creepycoug said:Womp. Christ.
Ohio State, LSU, Bama, USC (historically), Miami, Florida State, most of the SEC don't have money. Texas, ND, Stanford, Michigan and Northwestern have $$. I'm not seeing the importance of that variable.
Location. Many programs are in much better locations nearer to fertile recruiting grounds.
Tradition. That's the point of my poast. Only lasts so long. As evidenced by Michigan's drought.
That's a lot of ifs in your poast. My aunt and my uncle are different people. Nuff said on that.
He didnt' whip anybody. He was gifted a title on a bad call.
Really disappointed in your effert here. I've come to expect moar.
I'm also not sure what you mean by blue blood. If you want to compare entire histories, then no, other than producing some great players, Miami was not consistently good prior to the late 70s. Maybe it's selective application about when football was invented, or recency bias. But I think you're sweeping Miami aside with hyperbole when you say they aren't 'anywhere close to a blue blood." If you meant on a revenue basis, then sure, they are not a super rich program.
If you meant on an accomplishment basis, then I think you're stretching unless you are putting a lot of weight on program accomplishment from - I don't know - a long time ago. They've won 5, come within an eyelash of three others, and won every major bowl outside of the Fiesta. They've produced a slew of All Americans and other major award winners, they've littered the NFL with impact players like no program in the country over the last 25+ years, they've fielded some of the best teams the game has seen, been part of some of the most legendary games and rivalries and streaks, and have stamped themselves as a fixture in the sport. And they've added traditions that are uniquely known for, and often copied.
I can count on 1 finger the number of great Michigan teams I've seen the last 20 years. LSU was a middling program forever.
And how is the fact that "98%" of Miami's success is due to location a problem exactly. I would score that as a big advantage. Their location isn't changing anytime soon, nor is the demographic of that location. What's the point of that as a criticism?
Miami has been up and down since really arriving as a nationally-relevant program because of coaching. They had three very successful coaches leave for unique professional football opportunities, and each man eventually publicly admitted that they regretted leaving (including Jimmy Johnson). Each one of those coaches could have run Miami for a DJ-like tenure and kept them stable and winning for years. They didn't lose those guys because of money; they lost them because they were presented unique opportunities in their profession that they didn't think they could pass up. And still, with all those coaches, Miami still found a way to come back and win. 4 coaches winning 5 titles in 25 years. If that's what a poor program can do in Miami, then I'll take being poor, and you can focus on athletic department income statements and balance sheets.
Put it this way. If as you say USC has a healthy AD revenue number as compared to Miami's, which I assume they do, do you think that has made a huge difference between the programs? We all know they got lucky af with Carroll, who was like 5th on the list when they got to him. So $$ didn't make that happen. Miami has better facilities now than they ever have.
How specifically has Miami's relatively modest AD revenue kept them 'down' and the higher revenue of the blue bloods, like Texas, kept them 'up'? I don't see it.
Sure, Bama has revenue, but they also have tradition and location, the latter two draw players in. Nobody would ever argue Miami can't get top-drawer talent. The proof is there. I can see how Bamas tradition and location feed their success. I'm not sure I see the $$ part of it as clearly as you seem to.
So what the point of your post? Miami's a JC program because the Athletic Department revenue is pedestrian? That seems like a mind-bogglingly stupid argument. -
It's clear the national media wants them to be great but Richt is not the guy.RoadDawg55 said:
Miami is irrelevant too. Enough.creepycoug said:
I was talking about overall university resources.GreenRiverGatorz said:
What the fuck universe are you living in? OSU, Bama, and LSU are all in the top 10 of AD revenue. FSU is top 15, and I’m sure USC would be too if they released their financials. Meanwhile no one would ever try to make the case that Miami is anywhere close to a blue blood - their success was brief and was 98% due to location. Money is and will forever be the #1 deciding factor in college football. To try to argue otherwise is mind-bogglingly stupid.creepycoug said:Womp. Christ.
Ohio State, LSU, Bama, USC (historically), Miami, Florida State, most of the SEC don't have money. Texas, ND, Stanford, Michigan and Northwestern have $$. I'm not seeing the importance of that variable.
Location. Many programs are in much better locations nearer to fertile recruiting grounds.
Tradition. That's the point of my poast. Only lasts so long. As evidenced by Michigan's drought.
That's a lot of ifs in your poast. My aunt and my uncle are different people. Nuff said on that.
He didnt' whip anybody. He was gifted a title on a bad call.
Really disappointed in your effert here. I've come to expect moar.
I'm also not sure what you mean by blue blood. If you want to compare entire histories, then no, other than producing some great players, Miami was not consistently good prior to the late 70s. Maybe it's selective application about when football was invented, or recency bias. But I think you're sweeping Miami aside with hyperbole when you say they aren't 'anywhere close to a blue blood." If you meant on a revenue basis, then sure, they are not a super rich program.
If you meant on an accomplishment basis, then I think you're stretching unless you are putting a lot of weight on program accomplishment from - I don't know - a long time ago. They've won 5, come within an eyelash of three others, and won every major bowl outside of the Fiesta. They've produced a slew of All Americans and other major award winners, they've littered the NFL with impact players like no program in the country over the last 25+ years, they've fielded some of the best teams the game has seen, been part of some of the most legendary games and rivalries and streaks, and have stamped themselves as a fixture in the sport. And they've added traditions that are uniquely known for, and often copied.
I can count on 1 finger the number of great Michigan teams I've seen the last 20 years. LSU was a middling program forever.
And how is the fact that "98%" of Miami's success is due to location a problem exactly. I would score that as a big advantage. Their location isn't changing anytime soon, nor is the demographic of that location. What's the point of that as a criticism?
Miami has been up and down since really arriving as a nationally-relevant program because of coaching. They had three very successful coaches leave for unique professional football opportunities, and each man eventually publicly admitted that they regretted leaving (including Jimmy Johnson). Each one of those coaches could have run Miami for a DJ-like tenure and kept them stable and winning for years. They didn't lose those guys because of money; they lost them because they were presented unique opportunities in their profession that they didn't think they could pass up. And still, with all those coaches, Miami still found a way to come back and win. 4 coaches winning 5 titles in 25 years. If that's what a poor program can do in Miami, then I'll take being poor, and you can focus on athletic department income statements and balance sheets.
Put it this way. If as you say USC has a healthy AD revenue number as compared to Miami's, which I assume they do, do you think that has made a huge difference between the programs? We all know they got lucky af with Carroll, who was like 5th on the list when they got to him. So $$ didn't make that happen. Miami has better facilities now than they ever have.
How specifically has Miami's relatively modest AD revenue kept them 'down' and the higher revenue of the blue bloods, like Texas, kept them 'up'? I don't see it.
Sure, Bama has revenue, but they also have tradition and location, the latter two draw players in. Nobody would ever argue Miami can't get top-drawer talent. The proof is there. I can see how Bamas tradition and location feed their success. I'm not sure I see the $$ part of it as clearly as you seem to.
So what the point of your post? Miami's a JC program because the Athletic Department revenue is pedestrian? That seems like a mind-bogglingly stupid argument. -
Talked with a Michigan grad yesterday about his thoughts on Harbaugh. Loves him. Everyone he knows loves Harbaugh. Better than Lloyd Carr, he says. He hasn’t been at Michigan long enuff to evaluate, yet.
- drumroll -
HE JUST NEEDS MORE TIMe
