Brian - I agree with your assessment, but where do you stand on changes
I agree with most of Brian's assessment of our football program vs. the elite.
I believe Harbaugh is a really good coach with some flaws, but he has restored us to where we essentially were in the Carr years...minus the B1G championships since OSU has gone full on elite, and the changes to conference structure, divisions, etc.
I agree that OSU, Bama, Clemson, UGA, LSU are football factories and Auburn and Oregon will continue to try to replicate the bagmen, no school model. I agree that no coach would be able to consistently go 11-1 or 12-0 at UM given the current administrative hurdles we put upon ourselves in recruiting and academic expectations we have. In many ways, I feel we are in the same boat as Notre Dame and Washington - two teams not willing to go full on football factory, but also not running the Stanford or Northwestern "student first then athlete" model. So we are very much operation in no man's land, hence averaging out to 9-4 or 10-3 seasons, unable to be elite year after year, and hoping to catch lightning in a bottle once every 5 years (2016 we were fully loaded, but Speight got injured and refs jobbed us). Therefore, we are not a "reload" program, but a constantly "retain + rebuild" program.
I did a poll on here about a month back that asked the community if they wanted to go full on football factory to compete with the elite, or if we should continue on our current path, waiting and hoping for the occasional dream season (1997), and accepting that we are a good but not great program. It came out to 60% in favor of football factory, 40% in favor of status quo + whatever we could do to improve within the NCAA guidelines. To be fair, the question was asked the week after another OSU debacle, so that may have skewed the results towards football factory due to our general frustrations as fans healing from a recent dong punch.
My question is for Brian and the writers on this blog, since I hear and agree with much of what you are saying about what college football has become. Essentially, I have 2 questions.
1) Do you want Michigan to go full on football factory and embrace the business that is college football head on, and do whatever is necessary to compete and become one of the top 5 premier programs in the country? Bagmen, online classes, essentially abandon the "student athlete" model, and just win?
2) How easy would this actually be to accomplish? Bama and OSU have been running football factories for decades. I have to believe schools like Tennessee, Miami, FSU, UF, Ole Miss, maybe Texas, etc are trying to run football factories but can't achieve elite status for whatever reason. Why should we believe Michigan would actually be successful (start winning more, and not get caught) if we tried to run a football factory?
And of course, Happy New Year to all.
January 2nd, 2020 at 3:04 PM ^
Why is it in a sport (basketball) that is just as dirty if not more so Michigan has no trouble competing with the best programs in the nation but it's just not possible in football? And by not possible we're talking under this current coach right because Bo Schembechler, Gary Moeller, and Lloyd Carr all had a heck of a lot more success than Harbaugh is having. It's not a noble thing to play by the rules within a system that everyone knows is courrupt. Either Um should lead the charge to change the sytem or get on board with skirting its rules it so very clearly doesn't care about, because the excuse making from academics to bagmen is beyond lame at point.
I think it's pretty clear by now Harbaugh can beat the teams he has more talent than and can't the ones he doesn't, so no amount of coaching and scheme changes is going to tangibly make any difference. So the solution would be get a coach in here who can recruit at a higher level or one that can coach up players better.
January 2nd, 2020 at 3:11 PM ^
It's about depth. A lot easier to recruit 3-5 good players a year than 30. Also, this recruiting phenomenon is just 1 year under new coach Howard. Belein won with good players, but not elite one and dones. This is why, along with the 64 team tournament, college basketball has so much more parity than football.
In football, our 1's are close to elite (not quite Bama or OSU) but definitely some top 4 and 5* talent there. In football, Bama and OSU never have "empty classes" or roster holes...it's just plug and play as they recruit more talent across the board.
Most importantly, I think their time on task (time in football facilities and training facilities) far outweighs what our class attending players experience.
January 2nd, 2020 at 3:30 PM ^
The player pool is relative.
If any other school was recruiting how Juwan Howard is everyone on this board would scream bagmen. Recruiting is a lot more complicated than that. The same guys for UM are at the top of staff recruiting ranks, because they can recruit (Partridge, Moore, Warinner). It is about building relationships and selling the program, if it wasn't a skill, rankings amongst staff would be more random.
Jourdan Lewis said he wasn't allowed to major in his first choice because it interfered with football. There is no evidence other programs spend more time on football than UM.
January 2nd, 2020 at 5:42 PM ^
So take Clemson for example. It seems that you are putting forth one of two argument to explain their success.
A. Either they were all in on the "Football Factory" and just were really bad at it. Like really really bad at it.
B. All of a sudden, they hire a complete unknown coach who had never even been a Coordinator, and he all of a sudden decides to go all "Football Factory" and they all of a sudden become this massive national power and recruiting juggernaut.
If this is incorrect, please explain the rise of Clemson Football.
January 2nd, 2020 at 5:51 PM ^
I mentioned this in another thread but Clemson always had that hotbed of talent and they were known about a decade or so ago for squandering and underperforming even with such talent. Enter Dabo and after a few years, he figured out how to utilize it. Success breeds success in college football so once they got the ball rolling, it was just that much easier to land big name recruits and I think most importantly they've gotten really good QBs as of late such as DeShaun Watson, Trevor Lawrence, etc.
January 2nd, 2020 at 5:55 PM ^
So Dabo, a complete unknown...just a WR Coach before taking over Clemson's reigns, is significantly better than Jim Harbaugh at identifying talent, developing talent and recruiting talent?
January 2nd, 2020 at 6:18 PM ^
Why are we acting like Dabo is this football God that came out of nowhere? It took him 4 years to get to 10-wins.
Clemson didn’t have as high of expectations, immediately. Dabo built that.
“Win your opener. Win you Rivalry games. Win your conference. Win your bowl game.” His mantra was, ‘if you win all these, chances are you’re going to have a successful season’. Pair this with a significantly weaker conference, as well as the only power in the conference (Florida State) and their main rival (South Carolina) both going through ‘down times’ at the same time created the perfect storm for Clemson.
With all that said, he built a great program, he’s fantastic at preparing his guys. But living in Clemson-territory (Charlotte, NC), the media here rips on them a lot being weak and not playing anyone.
Give Harbaugh the same time and expectations as Dabo, you’ll see similar results. I’m not saying National Championships, but Michigan will be back in the national discussion every November.
January 2nd, 2020 at 6:27 PM ^
I have lived in NC for almost 20 years. I am more than well aware of Clemson and its program.
Furthermore, Harbaugh's expectations are different than Dabo's? Greater than half of the people here on this board believe winning 8-10 games (regardless of who those wins are against), losing 4 of 5 Bowl games, 0-5 against their rival, getting the two most historic ass kickings in the 100+ year history of Michigan football to Ohio State, not developing a single quarterback into a top 3 B10 QB, are completely fine. This is just "who we are" is their belief.
Tommy Bowden got fired from Clemson because Steve Spurrier was absolutely owning him and Tommy Bowden was underperforming with is talent. The expectations at Clemson seem to be higher than Michigan. You lose to SC and can't utilize your talent....and Clemson will fire a big name (at the time) coach.
Tommy Bowden's last 8 years he was averaging around 8 wins if I believe. He was fired because he couldn't get over the hump.
January 2nd, 2020 at 8:25 PM ^
I don’t think that half the board is happy with these results. It’s that half the board realizes that we don’t have any control over this program, and we do our best to enjoy and support Michigan football regardless. The other half of the board thinks (foolishly) that if they bitch, whine, and scream into the void, making fandom intolerable for everybody, we’ll somehow end up with Urban Meyer as our coach next September and multiple NC’s by year 5.
I agree that the expectations are higher at Clemson. But the athletic dept, administration, and regents seem to wield far more power over expectations for the program than the angry mob on this board.
If you see national scandals and protests like under RR and Hoke, maybe you’ll see the powers that be take action. But right now things are under control, and the school likes it that way. Harbaugh will stay.
January 2nd, 2020 at 10:28 PM ^
Definitely not “happy” with these results... but also not crying because Michigan lost to the preseason favorite [to win the National Championship] by 12/19 points.
Bowden resigned because he was losing games he shouldn’t— Maryland and Wake Forest [the game(s) that ended it for him]. He averaged 8-9 wins his entire 9/10 year tenure. I’m not sure he was a “big name”, really... he wasn’t on the “Rodriguez/Miles” level that Michigan has established as the “Top”, and that was the offseason prior.
I think most fans on this blog see progress. Michigan isn’t going to go from 3-9 seasons and 5-7 seasons as the ‘norm’ to just, “Here, we’ll hire Jim Harbaugh and ::snap:: we’re a National Championship program immediately.” Instead, Coach Harbaugh comes back to Ann Arbor and immediately changes the culture and it’s 5-7 into 9-4 and consistently getting 9/10 win seasons. He’s elevated QB play from RB’s at QB and Whatever Hoke decided to do at QB. Harbaugh has yet to get QB recruiting to where, at least I believe, he wants it until now. He wasn’t gifted a ‘Denard Robinson’ level athlete immediately; Instead he brought in Grad Transfers and tried to piece together a Stanford-style offense, that wasn’t going to do in the Big Ten what it was able to in the PAC-12. So in year 3(?) he started to adapt and here we are with the new style and OC Josh Gattis. Harbaugh isn’t going to immediately make a 5-7 team a playoff team, but his teams will continuously get better. We’ll see where this argument goes in 3-5 years.
January 2nd, 2020 at 10:52 PM ^
I agree or am neutral on much of what you have put forward. What I would disagree on is that "his (Harbaugh) teams will continuously get better". That simply has not been the case at all.
What seems most concerning with Jim Harbaugh is his talent development. Specifically at the quarterback position. It is a failure that we have yet to see one single QB that he has recruited be developed into an adequate starting quarterback. One that would be considered a top 3 QB in the B10.
Jim Harbaugh is, after 5 years, a very bad evaluator or QB talent, a very poor developer of QB talent, or both.
January 2nd, 2020 at 10:57 PM ^
Dang, totally agree with all of that. However, the thing I agree with the fire Harbaugh crowd about is this--we're not doing enough to win.
Hiring Gattis was a step in the right direction, for sure. I don't think it's as much about the bagging and academics as some would say, but it's like a culture thing. You saw it yesterday: we kick field goals and think people are going to play our game, nickel and diming and leaving points off the board. In reality, teams like OSU take touchdowns in huge chunks and big plays. They create takeaways on defense and then throw a bomb the very next play on offense. They've got a ruthless attitude of "just fucking score," and we are still saying "after this punt, we'll have them right where we want them." I think that attitude extends to game prep, workouts, the recruiting trail, and more. That's why we don't have the 1400 yard rushing or 1250 yard receiving playmakers we used to, and most of our 5* guys end up looking like misses (DPJ was rated ahead of Jeudy, for context). At the end of the day, that's on the head coach.
January 3rd, 2020 at 1:03 AM ^
This is an interesting comment. I think there might be something to the notion of being averse to aggressiveness on offense. In my 40 years of watching Michigan football, I've often felt that the program has "conservation and control" in its DNA. Recall the Bo (Woody) mantra: "When you throw the ball, three things can happen, and two of them are bad." Part of the reason RR was resisted and criticized--not the whole reason, but part of it--was a deep skepticism about and even fear of losing control, taking risks, etc.--and looking bad--even undignified. Every coach has a legitimate worry about ball security and throwing INTs. But their response to that is to scheme, design, and practice to minimize the risk--not avoid it by stubbornly committing to Manball and Three Yards in a Cloud of Dust.
This is the year 2020. Everything moves fast (too fast, for some of us...). Think of other games, like hockey: much less dump and chase, a lot more European style skate and finesse. John Wooden transformed basketball with his zone presses and fast-breaking transitions. College football has been heading in the same direction. It's just where we are. We're doing the right thing (for our time) by spreading the field and emphasizing speed in space. That's the game now. You can't build your program, your offense, and your weekly game plans around nostalgia for risk-free, ball-control, conservative instincts. Go for the jugular--relentlessly.
January 3rd, 2020 at 10:05 AM ^
"I think there might be something to the notion of being averse to aggressiveness on offense."
It's the NFL.
Everything is so closely matched that mistakes kill you. The game centers round "just stay in the game until the end" and then make the last play/drive.
Harbaugh is NFL levels of risk averse, and it doesn't work in college.
January 3rd, 2020 at 1:12 AM ^
I didn't say that at all. I'm saying Clemson always had a litany of talent, they just needed someone to step in and mold it and it helped that Deshaun Watson ended up rolling through. I didn't say Harbaugh couldn't do it but it's troubling to me that we haven't had an Elite QB thus far and that was the problem we thought we would have the least with Harbaugh. It is necessary to have one to get over the hump, especially if you are running an offense with RPO's and such. The whole offense hinges upon it.
January 3rd, 2020 at 10:01 AM ^
Now? Absolutely.
Then - probably not.
Things change. Some coaches progress, some regress, and some stay static.
January 2nd, 2020 at 7:01 PM ^
Clemson has several things going for it:
1. They play in a weak conference and the traditional powers in that conference are currently struggling.
2. They built this ridiculous football facility where the players can live in 24/7 (and hence spend more time focused on football).
3. They're not much of an academic school and any black athlete willing to go to a school centered around Calhoun's plantation obvious doesn't know a damn thing about history (same goes for Ole Miss).
4. The religious thing Sweeney sells works with parents. It's the same reason Freeze sold religion. Overt piety works.
January 2nd, 2020 at 11:03 PM ^
Re: #4 - I'm not sure you can get more overtly pious than this:
January 3rd, 2020 at 9:38 AM ^
#3 is just flat out wrong. Clemson has a very solid reputation for academics. Not saying it is anywhere close to Michigan, but it is SOLID.
Furthermore, #3 perpetuates the myth that the school you go to influences your ability to earn and build a career. For some paths (engineering, Medicine, Law) I totally agree that the school you go to can have a major impact (especially on the front end) of landing a job and early earnings.
I have worked in the Biotech / Pharma space for 20 years. 90% of the people I work with got a degree from a school you wouldn't be impressed by (myself included). Don't make the mistake of placing too much value on where you went to school. The vast vast majority of cases it isn't applicable.
January 2nd, 2020 at 3:17 PM ^
Your statement on Bo, Mo and Lloyd is not accurate...please look through the history of our beloved football program.
January 2nd, 2020 at 3:33 PM ^
I have, but you clearly haven't...
Bo Schembechler: 13 B1G titles, 17 top 10 finishes, 11 wins against OSU
Gary Moeller: 3 B1G titles, 3 top 10 finishes, 3 wins against OSU
Lloyd Carr: 1 national title, 5 B1G titles, 6 top 10 finishes, 6 wins against OSU, 20-8 against top 10 teams
Jim Harbaugh: 0 B1G titles, 1 top 10 finish, 0 wins against OSU, 2-11 against top 10 teams
January 2nd, 2020 at 4:07 PM ^
While the other coaches have had greater success in the Big Ten ( the ridiculous B1G name didn't apply to those prior coaches), they did not have to face an OSU machine that Harbaugh has faced over the past 5 years. Or another top 10 level power like PSU in the Big Ten. Or a Wisconsin which has reached a similar level. They are different eras. I highly doubt Bo, Mo or Carr would have any more success than Harbaugh is having right now. As for the bigger picture, Michigan had only one national title over four decades with those coaches and that was an anomaly due to a generational talent in Charles Woodson. As for winning percentages at Michigan, they are Schembechler (78%), Carr(75%), Moeller (73%) and Harbaugh (72%). That's not a world of difference, especially considering the much greater competition in the Big Ten.
January 2nd, 2020 at 4:46 PM ^
This is ridiculous. PSU was a power under Joe Paterno when they joined the Big Ten and Lloyd Carr beat them 9 straight times. Wisconsin has been what they've always been for the last 30 years under Alvarez and now Chryst. And OSU was a machine under Woody Hayes and they always had amazing teams under Cooper who for whatever reason could not beat UM at the end of the year. Harbaugh isn't facing any set of circumstances that any other UM coach hasn't. Quit frankly I'm tired of all the excuses at this point. It's not the academics, it's not the bagman, it's not some insane big ten, it's a Michigan and Harbaugh problem.
January 2nd, 2020 at 4:57 PM ^
OSU winning percentages since 1969:
1969-78 (Woody) : .806
1979-87 (Bruce) : .754
1988-2000 (Cooper) : .716
2001-2010 (Tressel): .810
2011 (Fickel) : .462
2012-present: (Meyer/Day) : .912
This is their best era in history. Tressel was one of their best up to now and Meyer/Day have him beat by ten percentage points.
January 2nd, 2020 at 5:00 PM ^
This would be relevant if we were only losing to OSU every year.
January 2nd, 2020 at 5:07 PM ^
It's relevant because they've been the barrier to the success the fanbase was hoping for under Harbaugh. Michigan beats a less nuclear version of OSU in 2016, and regardless of whether we still lose in Columbus in 2018, a less nuclear version of OSU loses that OT game against Maryland the week before. That would be two B1G title games, likely two B1G titles, and at least 1 playoff berth.
That would be right on even the highest expectation.
If you thought Michigan was going to go 11-1 or 12-0 every year from Day 1 Harbaugh you're a lunatic.
January 2nd, 2020 at 6:45 PM ^
So OSU is truly a powerhouse unequaled in their history. I think what the fanbase is simply asking for is give us 2-3 wins in the last 15 years. Asking for a win every 5 years is not crazy.
January 2nd, 2020 at 6:53 PM ^
It's not crazy but 2-3 wins in 15 years shouldn't make anyone happy. It's Harbaugh's job to compete with OSU regardless of how good they are and these games aren't even competitive.
January 2nd, 2020 at 6:53 PM ^
It's not crazy but 2-3 wins in 15 years shouldn't make anyone happy. It's Harbaugh's job to compete with OSU regardless of how good they are and these games aren't even competitive.
January 2nd, 2020 at 10:38 PM ^
The first one and the last two games haven’t been competitive. What about 2016 (OT) and 2017? Both pretty decent games... could’ve won both. “Could’ve, Would’ve, should’ve.” Michigan hasn’t been on the same landscape as Ohio State in nearly 10 years at this point and that’s Harbaugh’s fault? The guy was at Stanford for 4 of those years and the NFL for another 4. 8 years of recruiting is supposed to just get wiped out in one hire. This is incredible. The ‘instant gratification’ crowd has taken over.
January 3rd, 2020 at 2:01 PM ^
Did you forget the 2018 ass blasting? He's lost 4 times to OSU by double digits and three of those were blowouts. And get the fuck out of here with this instant gratification shit. He's been here 5 years that's more than enough time to build a program and compete with OSU. In fact his closest games against OSU have been with mostly Hoke players. What's incredible is the portion of the fanbase that expects fans to be happy with how things are going because we're back to beating Rutgers and Maryland finally. I mean my god this Michigan.
January 2nd, 2020 at 10:36 PM ^
And that win percentage for Meyer/Day would be less than .850 had Michigan been winning at their historical rate against OSU. So a large part of the difference contributing to OSU being elite, and the best era in their history, is that Michigan is not holding up their endo fo the bargain in the rivalry.
January 2nd, 2020 at 5:04 PM ^
The last 8 years has been THE best stretch for OSU, record wise, in their entire history. The last 5-6 years has been THE best stretch for Wisconsin, record wise, in their entire history. During Bo's entire time at Michigan, Wisconsin was either middling or a cupcake and they finally started righting their ship at the end of Carr's tenure. PSU joined the Big Ten just after Bo retired - so he never had to contend with Paterno's monster teams in the conference. They had a nice stretch in their first decade in the Big Ten, were middling on and off for awhile and then resurged under Franklin to be a very formidable opponent the last 4 years. They were only middling in Harbaugh's first year when he was still getting Michigan back on its feet.
January 2nd, 2020 at 5:15 PM ^
Wisconsin righted itself well before the end of the Carr era. They went to 3 Rose Bowls in the 90s.
January 2nd, 2020 at 8:42 PM ^
Barry Alvarez had a career winning percentage of .609 at Wisconsin. So miss me with the BS that he was some crazy good coach. Harbaugh would wipe the field with him.
January 2nd, 2020 at 11:27 PM ^
You have put the .609 winning percentage in the context of Wisconsin football. From 1931-1989 (Alavarez first year was 1990), Wisconsin football had a winning percentage of .43
Alvarez won 3 Big Ten titles in the 90s. From 1913-1989 Wisconsin won a total of 3 conference championships.
January 2nd, 2020 at 10:32 PM ^
Good point but also very impressive cherry picking. Those 3 Rose Bowl years were sandwiched between poor and piss poor seasons. In the 1990's they also had 3 losing seasons (!) and no more than 8 wins in a non Rose Bowl year. They then played only slightly better than .500 football for 5 more years before they "righted their ship" in 2005. They have had nine 10 win seasons over 14 years compared to only 3 in the previous 15!!!
Wisconsin has been a much better program year in and year out in recent years than any other prior period.
I rest my case.
January 2nd, 2020 at 11:23 PM ^
If you're familiar with Wisconsin football that isn't a very good case. Yes, Barry Alvarez had some losing seasons in the 90s. He also had 6 winning seasons in the 90s. Before Barry Alavarez you know how many years back you have to go to find 6 winning seasons for Wisconsin? 27!! From 1962 to 1989 Wisconsin had a total of 6 winning seasons.
Barry Alvarez's first three seasons had a losing record. Dave McClain had some decent success in the early 80s with Wisconsin but between McClain and Alavarez Wisconsin had 2 coaches over a 4 year span. Those two coaches went: 3-8, 3-9, 1-10, 2-9. Beginning with the '93 season Wisconsin had a winning record in 6 of the next 7 seasons. You have to go back to the late 50s/early 60s to find the previous time Wisconsin had winning record in 6 of 7 seasons.
January 2nd, 2020 at 6:35 PM ^
Stating that facts I like.
January 3rd, 2020 at 1:22 AM ^
Yes, but... The difference I see is how much more important it is today to recruit nationally with success. PSU, OSU, and UM can't rely chiefly on recruiting high schools in northeastern Ohio and southwestern Pennsylvania, like they once did. You've got to get good players from areas like Florida, Georgia, Texas, and California. True, UM has landed good recruits from those states. But things have changed. UM has to compete for recruits not only with PSU and OSU, but with programs that have the natural advantage of being close to home for many of the best high schoolers. In Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana, we have to compete with the entire SEC and half the ACC. In Texas we have to compete with the Big XII and the SEC. In California, we have to compete with the Pac 12 schools and the programs that currently have cachet nationwide: Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, LSU, OSU, PSU, Notre Dame.
Then there are considerations like this: Ohio has a population 50 percent larger than Michigan, but supports only one top-25 program, while Michigan supports two.
Demographics, climate, and academic requirements work against us. I don't think we can ever get over the hump and into the rarefied atmosphere where the oxygen is being sucked up by Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, Ohio State, and a handful of other programs. I really think we're stuck where we are--unless we want to change our spots...
January 3rd, 2020 at 4:37 PM ^
Moeller would do pretty well in today's age, he knew modern offenses and how to recruit.
January 2nd, 2020 at 4:34 PM ^
It must be noted that Big Ten title no longer can be shared, like it often was before 2011. Under those rules, our 2018 team would have been a co-champion.
I'm also not sure how Bo/Mo/Lloyd would have done against this version of OSU. I'd rather face late-era Woody, Earle Bruce, and John Cooper over the Meyer/Day program we're going up against right now. I'd probably rather face Tressel, too.
At any rate, Lloyd went 1-6 against Tressel. In Lloyd's last five years we went 46-17. Harbaugh is 47-18.
January 2nd, 2020 at 5:05 PM ^
This is not meant to be a snarky condescending response - the effects of the legislation limiting scholarships started to take shape in the late 70's/early 80's....we went 8-4, 10-2, 9-3, 8-4, 9-3, and 6-6 the following six years and as someone mentions below - the Big-10 was a shell then to what it is today excluding Penn State and Nebraska. I am no fool and I certainly give my due respect to Bo but once the wealth of athletic aid began to balance and spread out evenly over the college landscape, particularly down south, UM felt the effects. One of the consequences of this was the rise of FSU, UF and Miami and one of the unintended consequences was traditional powers like UM, Alabama, Texas and Oklahoma all struggled to keep up with the more challenging and competitive landscape. IMO, this is the first major cultural shift that took place in the Big-10.
As for Mo and Lloyd - they both struggled at various points - GM lost 3 or more games three out of his five seasons as Head Coach including two straight 4-loss seasons to close out his short tenure which leads us to the second cultural shift in the Big-10 which is when Penn State joined. LC went 8-4 in his first two years then surged from there until later on in his career when the Big-10 went thru its latest culture shift which was the rise of OSU, Wisconsin and MSU as powers (OSU has taken it to another level since and Penn State is a few steps behind).
Bottom line - to say that all three coaches are far superior to Harbaugh is a bit short-sided. I am not marginalizing any of their accomplishments - it is a fact that they have won more titles than JH but it was also in a vastly different climate than what the B10 is today. I want Harbaugh to succeed as I think we all do - he has been presented with challenges that his predecessors did not have to cope with. I am still willing to give him a bit more time but my leash is getting shorter.
January 2nd, 2020 at 11:30 PM ^
How many shared BIG titles? No such thing anymore.
January 2nd, 2020 at 3:18 PM ^
Are you the Section 1?
January 2nd, 2020 at 4:15 PM ^
This.
IIRC the original section 1 went out in a fairly epic manner.
Correct me if my recollection is wrong.
January 2nd, 2020 at 4:33 PM ^
I remember him having a long-going conflict with the site runners, and Seth openly telling him to just go make his own blog without specifically naming him pretty much every time he'd make a long winded diary. I think the Bolivia strike was for a "F you, no F you" fight he had with people on a politically charged comment he made. Seemed to be a pretty quick tap out. Always expected him to re-surface, was surprised he didn't back then. There was no mistaking his takes and writing style, so I think the board would've found out quickly if he did.
January 2nd, 2020 at 5:18 PM ^
He resurfaced as Section1.1, Section1.2, ... up to Section1.8, IIRC. Seeing “Section1” had me feeling like I was watching “Nightmare on Elm Street Part 7.”
January 2nd, 2020 at 8:20 PM ^
You mean to say he's living in my neighborhood?? That's just great ???
(Elm Street is only two blocks away from me
January 2nd, 2020 at 6:13 PM ^
I don't know. So far, there isn't enough fawning over Rodriguez or enough attempts to engage people in lawerly trolling over his various pet subjects, but then he has only had the account for a day. Give it time to develop...