Mailbag: QB Is Not The Major Problem, Revenue Increases, Oregon's Thing
[Bryan Fuller]
Quarterback is not the only difference.
Brian,
Something you may not wish to address in season but in watching this team I had this thought:
Solid run defense, inconsistent pass defense, an offensive line with talent struggling to gel, solid backs, receivers and tight ends. Hmmm, sounds like 9 or 10 wins from Carr again. What is missing is a solid, low turnover, accurate, quarterback. Completely unfair?
Thanks
Dunder
Cumong man, that's completely unfair. You're comparing this offensive line to those featuring Jake Long or a half-dozen other NFL players, with zero freshmen of any variety on them unless they're Hutchinson-level talents. The backs don't make the right cuts and almost never make yards on their own. The tight ends are not good right now except for Butt, and Butt is still working his way back from an ACL tear.
There's no part of this team not subject to mental breakdowns that are hard to accept four years in. This includes quarterback, but since it seems like any QB under Hoke goes backwards it all ends in the same place.
BUT IS HE BETTER THAN A WISTFUL ORANGUTAN?
Brian,
In the wake of the ND game i have found my anger directed more at Dave Brandon than anything for whatever various and stupid reasons. The conventional wisdom seems to be, "hey, but revenues are increasing so, even though football is terrible and the stadium experience is horrible, Dave Brandon is great at growing the business." I think that is non-sense. I looked at revenues from 2002 through 2013 (graphs and numbers in attached spreadsheet) and the trendline attached to the revenue data shows Brandon has not out performed Bill Martin. Growth in revenue looks very on trend from Martin's tenure.
If you look at Michigan's AD revenue from 2005 versus some other athletic departments (texas, OSU, florida, Alabama, Oklahoma) our athletic department hasnt outperformed them either. Those five ADs revenue increased 84% from 2005 til 2013, Michigan's increased...83%.
Look, the data i gathered isn't perfect, I don't love the way USA today presented the 2005-2013 data. I've sort of cobbled together the 2002-2004 data from U-M budgets. The way i have presented the data is somewhat problematic (i should index 2005 to 100 then see the changes from there), but I don't think it changes the overall picture.
The point is I am really bothered with the conventional wisdom saying Brandon is doing really well increasing revenue. He is merely riding a wave that started long before here was hired and affects all of college football. Raising ticket prices doesn't make you a business genius. He gets zero credit for increased television revenues, which are the two overwhelming drivers of the whole enterprise.
These are things I am sure you are aware of but i have not seem them articulated on the blog.
Go Blue!
Nate
It should also be noted that the portion of the surge from 2009 to 2011 not due to increased BTN payouts was largely the luxury boxes coming online. Michigan offered them for cheap the first year and then increased the price to the regular level in year two.
So even if you are measuring Michigan athletic department success by revenue—a completely bonkers thing to do—Brandon is completely average in this department while being literally the worst AD in the country at public relations. A wistful orangutan could have been Michigan's athletic director since 2010 and revenue would still be way up. And students would love him!
[After the JUMP: Manning plausible as a CB coach over time? Mysterious red clad team-thing. Where to go in the event of an apocalypse. (The real apocalypse, not bad football.)]
Hi Brian,
There's been lots of talk about coaching issues, from the head coach to individual position coaches. Do coaches get better over time? Do they adapt to new concepts, become better playcallers, become better blitzers, etc.? For example, is Roy Manning a great coach who is new to cornerbacks and needs reps in his new gig to become competent and then good? Or will Roy Manning never be a good CBs coach because he hasn’t played the position and there are things you can only learn by playing the position?
Best,
Stephen Bowie
Manning certainly could become a good CBs coach in time. You see guys flip from one position to others plenty early in their career. Some guys even go from defensive coaches to the other side of the ball—Rich Rodriguez was a defensive back. So it's not out of the question.
Making him a CB coach right before a drastic shift in your defensive philosophy is going to get a cocked eyebrow when it really, really does not work out, as it hasn't. But at least Jourdan Lewis is playing well?
Hi Brian et al,
Not that it's really relevant to anything, but I was wondering if you noticed that blotch of fans adorned in red in the southwest corner of the stadium, about halfway up. There must have been 30-40 of them all uniformly wearing red. It seemed like they sat there as statues do, and then left in unison with about 10 minutes left in the game.
Any idea what that was all about?
Thought you might know.
Best,
Ryan
That was the Fairfield lacrosse team, which was in town to play Michigan and stuck around to watch the football game.
Brian,
Longtime read and great blog. I like UM's tradition uniforms and not a big fan of Oregon or Maryland craziness, but a recent "conversation" offered a different view.
My son (8) and nephews (8 and 11) are really into sports. I asked one of them (who's really into football) who his favorite team is? Answer: Oregon. Why? They have the coolest uniforms - it's all "swag" (the kids term for bright colored tees, shorts, socks - and they HAVE to be UnderArmour or Nike, no Adidas or Reebok) color. I saw some link on your blog mentioned the disadvantage of being Adidas, but didn't have to read. Anyway, hooking kids early like this surely can't hurt a program. BTW - we're in the Chicago area, where ND and B1G alum rein supreme. Didn't matter to these kids.
When I flipped on the Boiler/Sparty game on I thought it was some sort of Oregon/MSU rematch when I saw their unis.
Chris
Oregon's marketing works for Oregon. They should do what they do; they had no identity before they became the truck-bed digital-clock-with-wings swagmasters. It makes sense for Oregon.
But if you look at most places that have an identity, they don't do this stuff. The NFL outright prohibits frequent uniform changes and their throwback uniforms actually have to be throwbacks. Meanwhile, alternate uniforms for the college football old guard are either nonexistent or rare and subtle: Texas, USC, Oklahoma, Alabama, Penn State… IIRC these teams have almost never deployed alternates. It is a viable alternative to be you as hard as you can be you.
Michigan's got a thing. Hit up a poll about the best uniforms in college football—hell, in sports—and Michigan's home blues will be high up the list, often #1. They should emphasize their thing, because I've yet to see an alternate uniform that looks as good as the real McCoy.
I asked this question on a thread on the board but I thought I'd asked you directly. Maybe you could shed some light for me.
I know he's been around UofM since Mo, and I'm sure he understands the whole "Michigan Man" thing and what Bo meant to this program, but I'm just sitting here watching the weekend highlights of the different Michigan schools and I see Thomas Rawls. I know he's playing MAC schools and what not but why all of a sudden is Rawls breaking off 121...155...220...229 and 270 now that he is at CMU? When he was even given the chance to be on the field, this guy couldn't find a hole to run through for Michigan.
Another guy, Mike Cox, couldn't make his way on the field either. Then he played his last year for UMASS, put together a good enough season to get a look from the pros and now has been playing for the Giants, off and on the practice squad, since he graduated.
Put that with how we haven't had a great running back here since Mike Hart and I wonder if Coach Jackson is really not what he used to be or was he ever that good of a coach? Don't get me wrong I love the quotes over the years you've had had fun with (Jackson talking up recruits), but what keeps him here? Is he that good of a recruiter?
Do you want to see him retained assuming Hoke is canned? Thanks for any insight you can shed on this.
-RuebenRileyonRye
I don't know what it is about Fred Jackson that makes him unkillable but I do know that when the zombie apocalypse happens I'm driving to his house and pledging my fealty to to him.
As far as your question, yeah it's looking like he's hung around long past the point at which he's an asset. Tailback performance has been general dismal since Hart's departure and development just about impossible to see in anyone aside from Chris Perry. Meanwhile, the guys Michigan has gone out and recruited have been disappointments since Hart. Drake Johnson can't see the field at all even after Green got knocked out; he was a total flier with an EMU offer before Michigan stepped in for some reason. That Rawls and Cox have performed after leaving is another strike.
There would appear to be no reason to retain him in the event of a changeover, especially with Ty Wheatley and Mike Hart waiting in the wings. But keep him in the athletic department so it survives nuclear war.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:46 PM ^
I'm including everyone after Henson too.
October 16th, 2014 at 3:04 PM ^
October 16th, 2014 at 3:18 PM ^
October 16th, 2014 at 4:51 PM ^
my uneducated views of Henne, which was that he was decent, but not that great, and Gardner, which is that he is better than many give him credit for.
October 16th, 2014 at 8:34 PM ^
the question was intentionally open to exploring what all the other factors are and
submitted prior to the second loss of the season!
And, seeing the other chatter this brought up, I really want to apologize for any notion that it was targeted at Gardner. A more accurate expression of what I was trying to get to would have pointed to the coaching of the quarterback position. In retrospect, I find myself thinking Carr handled quarterbacks very well, even across changes in coordinators.
Also, I would maintain that the talent level (still think Hoke has recruited well) does not seem all that distant from many Carr teams. The performance... yeah well, I can't defend it as more than a stupid question when I think about that!
October 16th, 2014 at 12:15 PM ^
I watch college football for at least 12 hours every Saturday, and I think our RB position is a real weakness. With the exception of Deveon Smith, it just looks like other running backs in college football just run "harder" than our guys, it seems like our guys are either missing the hole (don't see it or too slow to get there) or are waiting around for one that is never going to open up in the first place.
October 16th, 2014 at 12:22 PM ^
Green clearly separated himself from Smith in the past couple of games, and now of course he's injured. I guess Smith runs "hard," but that doesn't seem to help him all that much.
I think speed is the bigger issue. Green was getting a bit better at capitalizing on his speed, but Hayes typically only gets carries on 3rd-and-punt, and we don't have anything resembling a home-run threat. You are correct that running back isn't a strength.
Also, don't be too fooled...OL quality isn't always obvious, and a good OL can make a mediocre RB look excellent without making their dominance clear to the audience.
October 16th, 2014 at 12:32 PM ^
I think Fred Jackson has zero value as far as teaching technique, but Wellman has zero value at building them up. He's regarded as the best in the business by Hoke and Mattison and. . . that's it, as far as I know. He's certainly no Barwis.
I have no idea what goes on in the weight room but the result is head-scratching. He's pretty good at getting linemen to meet their weight targets but positions players seem to go nowhere and with the exception of guys who showed up ridiculously talented (Funchess, Willie Henry), these guys seem to meet their match against undersized players. Frank Clark seems to be the only player who thrived under Wellman; Green pretty much put himself on a diet to gain back speed he had all along. Some of us were asking, as long as these players were raw, why couldn't they just pack together and bull rush the likes of Akron or Connecticut? Hell, it took them three and a half quarters to realize Rutgers' D-line was undersized and pretty much any unit of near-equal weight can push these guys around. As I said last year, our RBs can neither juke the D-linemen nor push the DBs and they're completely helpless against 2-star linebackers.
What is it about Wellman that he can get four-star players to gain 20-50 pounds but not gain an ounce of strength or speed? We don't have a Hutchinson-level talent because no one's developing into one.
Is there ANYONE Hoke brought on board besides Mattison who's even decent at their job?
October 16th, 2014 at 12:51 PM ^
As much as we made fun of Gittleson, the results on the field of having a cadre of NFL caliber lineman who you'd without a doubt say "yep, we'll get the 3rd and 1" speak for themselves. And its not the "we don't have talent" meme... I would wager our lineman recruits in the past 4 years have been about equal in star ratings to what we were pulling in during Carr's prime. Some of it is Funk, some of it is Borges's grab bag schemes, and some of it is definately NOT being able to be outmuscled on the OL. I think if you look at the RR era folks, we were generally not outsmuscled (outside of OSU, and maybe MSU-- but I tend to chalk the MSU stuff up to not being able to pick up / coutner a jailhouse blitz in the A-gap multiple years) and if you look at the Mike MArtin / David Molk season, we were pounding people away in the running game from a spread offense because our linemen were nimble and strong enough to redirect the DL's to where we wanted them to be.. Sometimes, as much as our tendency in this modern day to be all spreadsheet and scheme centric wants to deny it, you just can't beat real beef pushing other beef around.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:55 PM ^
I remember in the Lloyd Carr era during one Iowa game it was 3rd-and-1 and (on replay) Carr was shown to pound his fist into his open hand. That was the playcall. We were going to stampede like a herd of cattle and there was nothing Iowa's D could do to stop it. I knew what was coming, everyone knew what was coming. On the snap all 11 Iowa defenders converged on the ball.
Michigan got the first down.
In the past five years I have never felt that level of confidence. Wellman's program seems to be an unmitigated, undiscussed disaster. When your four-star recruits can't get you a yard don't talk to me about toughness. The late 90s teams played on dead offenses you could limit to 2-3 yards per play (we got really sick of Carr punting on 4th-and-2) because they were so predictable, but flip that around: they could get 2-3 yards even when the defense knew exactly what they were going to do. When's the last time we felt that could happen? Now I can understand the linemen getting split through technique or getting stood up because of bad pad level, but I've seen what should've been cupcake opponents win plays because individual players were physically overmatched in situations where raw physical talent should've been an advantage (namely Miller getting put on skates by DTs despite not even being outweighed by them). The conclusion is that whatever physical talent Michigan's players have, Wellman is second to none at removing it.
October 16th, 2014 at 1:14 PM ^
I agree that conditioning seems to be a big problem with Hoke's tenure. We all know how good Barwis was under RichRod, or at least we have a lot of evidence and testimony about how good he was. However, the team seems to be getting weaker under Hoke, with several guys being carried before tackling an opponent, a lack of push on the OL, RBs falling down after being barely touched.
A friend of mine at a law firm has a new associate who was on the Michigan team under Lloyd (as a freshman) and then under Rodriguez. He has friends who continued on under Hoke. (The guy was a scout team sort of guy. I didn't recognize the name.) He reports that Wellman's conditioning program is terrible and that while the team got much stronger under Barwis, there is no serious conditioning improvement under Hoke.
If true, it would make sense that Hoke's best year was his first while he still had guys bulked up from the previous regime. It also might explain why injuries have increased since 2011.
I'm sharing hearsay here. However, I do think it is interesting and frustrating. A change at strength and conditioning would be very welcome. Also, it might mean that results will take several years.
October 16th, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^
The other thing I've noticed is that other teams players just look bigger than ours. I know a lot of our guys are young, but other teams' RBs legs always look like tree trunks compared to our guys' legs, their linebackers look bigger, and their OL and DL look bigger too. I mean if you watch some of the SEC teams and compare their players to ours, it looks like high school kids vs grown men.
October 16th, 2014 at 2:07 PM ^
Is Wellman also the S&C coach for basketball?
October 16th, 2014 at 2:18 PM ^
Jon Sanderson is the basketball S&C coach. And people raved about his work with Caris LeVert and Nik Stauskas last year.
October 16th, 2014 at 1:21 PM ^
Agree. And it's not even just the current squad. There seems to be something about our RBs over the last decade or so. (I was spoiled, watching Biakabutuka and Wheatley growing up, so maybe it's just me...?) Dudes just never break tackles, never hit the hole with "whoa..."-type power and quicks that you routinely see elsewhere, and if they ever DO manage to get loose in the open field, they invariably get hauled down at the 4 yard line resulting in an eventually missed FG or some other incredibly frustrating turn of events. And I don't know why Deveon Smith wasn't the go-to back since the Appy State game; to my eyes, he looks way more likely to break a play or shake off a tackle than the other fellas.
October 16th, 2014 at 1:27 PM ^
Yeah I don't really remember the last time I saw a Michigan RB carry a pile of tacklers, or you know, not go down on first contact.
October 16th, 2014 at 2:21 PM ^
to me is the poor oline. When you're getting hit at the line of scrimmage or in the backfield, you don't have a ton of momentum built up yet. Wheatley, Touchdown Timmy, etc. had the benefit on that a lot of their runs they weren't getting touched until the second level of the defense and at that point, they have a decent amount of momentum built up and can deliver a blow.
October 16th, 2014 at 1:38 PM ^
Deveon runs hard. I wish he would run hard into the ass of one of his offensive linemen less frequently. Dude, I know the play calls for you to run through HERE, but I'm sure everyone would forgive you if you bounced a few feet to your right or left, especially if it means turning a loss of 2 into a gain, or even, you know, not a loss.
October 16th, 2014 at 12:19 PM ^
I'm far from the target market for such things (I'm 47) but I'm not a fan of altering uniforms randomly at all. I definitely agree that it is a thing that works for Oregon, but I look at changing uniforms to draw recruits and/or fans kind of like Rodriguez and the 3-3-5: the thing that really works for Oregon is that the kids wearing the horribly ugly uniforms are also in a system that is churning out top-10 teams with offenses that are extremely fun to watch. Put MSU and South Florida in uniformz and that game is still one of the worst "football" experiences that have ever occurred. (Were they wearing uniformz? I can't even remember.)
I will also note that Purdue's dalliance with uniformz is not causing five-star talent to commit to West Lafayette. (It's also an odd thing for Purdue to do, because Morgan Burke usually won't spend a dollar unless he has a 50% off coupon and can haggle you down to 20 cents. Uniformz may be mostly free for the school - although I think there'd be a marginal cost in terms of storage and such for keeping an entire extra set of uniforms around - but it isn't as though the Boilers are good enough to get people to rush out and buy new jerseys just because they're different.)
October 16th, 2014 at 12:22 PM ^
i'm not in the target demographic either.
the purdue thing mystifies me as well...and they are jumping in with both feet. check out the upcoming "crowdsourced" helmet design: http://petapixel.com/2014/06/04/purdue-football-team-crowdsourcing-helm…
October 16th, 2014 at 1:18 PM ^
Yeah, we posted about that when it came out: http://boiledsports.com/2014/heres-a-helmet-idea-that-wasnt-stolen.html. BTN had a follow-up post, and the final product apparently didn't look awful. I could go on at length ...
Michigan has a significant advantage in that the helmet design does not lend itself to Brandonesque clown games. OTOH, maybe a stunt like that would have gotten him fired sooner. (At least other big-money donors are stepping up to oppose Ross now - at least that's how I interpreted Denise Ilitch's public comments. Regent + Ilitch name/money = influence.)
October 16th, 2014 at 12:22 PM ^
Fred Jackson is that old guy in the office who's nice, likeable, gregarious, generous, been there forever and yet. . . when something needs to be done, he's suddenly "busy" or nowhere to be found. The kind of guy you eventually ignore unless he's brought donuts or pizza to the office. In a workplace you need people to do their jobs, not be your buddy.
His entire job security seems to stem from having allies. This is the sort of person who's difficult to fire because the higher-ups like him (even though they don't know why) but is an anathema to anyone who needs some goddamn work done. There are some guys at the office with cheerful voices, warm handshakes and bags of goodies and I HATE them because they're often the reason I have to work 12 hours a day instead of 8. Yeah, that's Fred.
I'm starting to put Manning, Hoke, Wellman and Funk in this category as well. Obviously Brandon knows which crotches to kneel before. Mattison is quite serviceable but the luster is fading on the 2011 turnaround. The entire department is a nepotistic, sycophantic collection of legacy-killing, vampiric trust fund babies boasting of past success (some theirs but mostly others) and present progress that doesn't exist. Burn the whole goddamn house down. They keep talking about what a tremendous job they've all done but the team looks terrible.
October 16th, 2014 at 12:40 PM ^
michigans defense in the top 10 in the NCAA right now???
October 16th, 2014 at 2:47 PM ^
but isn't michigans defense in the top 10 in the NCAA right now???
Realistically - no.
In Defensive FEI (adjusted for opponent strength) Michigan is #50/128.
We're 11th in the B1G behind:
Penn St. (#5)
Iowa (#17)
Nebraska (#20)
Rutgers (#23)
Minnesota (#26)
Ohio State (#38)
Michigan St. (#39)
Wisconsin (#44)
Maryland (#45)
Northwestern (#49)
October 16th, 2014 at 12:48 PM ^
I think Funk is OK though. The line this year is not great, but doing OK, especially given youth and inexperience. He's like a lot of our recent linemen, actually- does well with zone schemes, but don't run power if you want to gain yards.
October 16th, 2014 at 12:59 PM ^
October 16th, 2014 at 2:25 PM ^
Which is bad considering when Hoke showed up for his first spring practice and was asked what the offense will look like and he says, "well, we're gonna run power."
Funk has been with Hoke since Ball State. That's why he's still here.
October 16th, 2014 at 1:12 PM ^
This is among the most offensive things I've ever read on this blog. This staff might not be getting it done on the field, but there's no evidence whatsoever that they are doing anything other than working their asses off to try to get better at what is a dream job for most of them, only to get railed on message boards and in the media all day long.
Are you posting from work? Maybe you're the one who needs to do your job.
October 16th, 2014 at 1:27 PM ^
dragonchild, you nailed it.
October 16th, 2014 at 12:23 PM ^
has been the elephant in the room in many regards. Seems people think it but don't want to say it. Good question and response. I vote for cleaning that part of the house, if there is a house cleaning.
October 16th, 2014 at 12:24 PM ^
Anybody who was at the stadium for games during the 80's and 90's knows that the atmosphere durint the UTL series far and away eclipses anything ever experienced at the stadium. The piped in music and the night game concept has enhanced the game viewing experience.
Moreover, Michigan's stadium and Crisler coliseum, as well as the practice facilities for the better part of 3 decades were antiqauted white elephants that were clearly behind other lesser caliber universities. Brandon oversaw massive renovation and improvement projects during his tenure and Michigan is better for it.
The only thing that hasn't worked during the Brandon's era is the hiring of our football head coach. If this team were undefeated we would not be reading anything about concussions, regent board meetings, and/or the AD's job security The Morris incident is a complete farce that has been overblown beyond belief. We need to get behind our school, our coaches and our AD! Bringing a new AD won't solve a thing.
October 16th, 2014 at 12:54 PM ^
October 16th, 2014 at 12:30 PM ^
It seems we're still stuck in this mindset that we have to hire someone with Michigan ties. That "Michigan Man" mantra.
Haven't we learned?
How about we start going after the best person for the job. Not the best person for the job with ties to Michigan. And that goes for coaches, etc, as well.
Get ON my lawn.
/rant
October 16th, 2014 at 12:47 PM ^
i think the difference with the AD search is that all those being floated with Michigan ties would be competent hires. It's also a reason why they might be interested in coming back as someone with no ties here may not want to step into the situation. It's not a bad thing to have ties to Michigan, it just shouldn't be the deciding factor.
October 16th, 2014 at 12:36 PM ^
Some of the Uniformz haven't been awful, that's true. But I agree completely with Brian's sentiment here:
I've yet to see an alternate uniform that looks as good as the real McCoy.
October 16th, 2014 at 1:28 PM ^
I always thought the black ones that the Lions pulled out a few years ago looked legitimately badass.
October 16th, 2014 at 1:53 PM ^
I was referring to Michigan's specifically - why not wear one of the best jerseys in sports?. Some general Uniformz have worked, but those are most often more legitimate throwbacks - Chargers baby blues, Rams royal blue, Bears with no white/helmet logo, etc.
October 16th, 2014 at 12:36 PM ^
fred jackson at... but the rumors around the stadium while mike cox was here, was that he didn't give shit at all... he thought that he could get by on talent alone and didn't feel that he had to put any work in... i guess something changed when he got to UMASS...
October 16th, 2014 at 12:51 PM ^
you might be able to get by on talent alone.
October 16th, 2014 at 1:01 PM ^
but he wouldn't have been able to make an NFL roster based on talent alone... so he had to of changed his way of thinking at somepoint... RichRod was throwing anything out on the field in his 3 years to see if it worked and because of that you'd thnk that cox would have seen more time than he did... the only time he did anything at Mchigan (when playing for them) was against baby seal U...
October 16th, 2014 at 12:42 PM ^
October 16th, 2014 at 12:45 PM ^
It seems that every time we roll out an alternate jersey there are comparisons to Oregon. Here are our alternate jerseys since 2011:
- 2011 ND
- 2011 MSU
- 2012 Sugar Bowl
- 2012 Alabama
- 2013 Outbak Bowl
- 2014 PSU
By my count that is a total of six since 2011, and really only one in the last two years. That’s not really Oregon-like.
Sure our home uniforms are awesome, but with the infrequency that we roll out these alternates I don’t see any issue or threat. This whole uniform thing is getting blown way out of proportion. We can debate whether or not the alternates look good, but rolling out one uniform a season does not make us anything close to Oregon.
October 16th, 2014 at 12:55 PM ^
michigan HAS to pay adidas for the alternate uniforms, they don't just get them because they ask for them so that probably part of the reason why michigan doesn't do it as much as other schools... and you can't compare something like this to what oregon does because you know that uncle phil is just handing them over and calling it a "donation"...
October 16th, 2014 at 12:52 PM ^
Thanks for the post--great stuff.
While revenue is an important measure of an AD's success (money matters, whether we like that or not) it's pretty damning that Brandon's success in that department is just okay. Given the messes he's created elsewhere, I'd say it's time for Dave to go.
Soon, please.
October 16th, 2014 at 2:06 PM ^
I felt those charts actually showed the Brandon has had great success in revenue. Im not sure how the guy writing the letter came to his conclusion..maybe the charts could be interpreted in different ways.
Those charts could easilry be interpreted as favorable for Brandon:
-Under last couple of years under Martin, the AD revenue was well below that trend line..not its well above under Brandon
-Michigan looks to have gained relative to other schools on the second chart. Look at Florida/Alabama...in 2009, Michigan was below both Florida and Alabama in revenu and now it is higher in both
I understand there is a lot of other noise (like BTN revenue) but those charts actually made it look like Brandon was making a mark on the revenue side. Im not ready to conclude that but I think the interpretation of those charts was bizarre by the writer of the question.
October 16th, 2014 at 12:53 PM ^
It's the MAC. Look what green did against appy st and miami (ntm). If you put him in the MAC and gave him almost 40 carries a game he would put ups the same if not better numbers than rawls has and what Cox did at UMASS.
October 16th, 2014 at 12:57 PM ^
But as a by-and-large traditionalist, I have to admit I really, really did like the solid blues against Penn State. I thought futzing with the helmet to any degree (matte finish, chrome finish (?), schizophrenic decisions on what color yellow we're using) and whatever we're barfing onto the white jerseys is shameless overkill, but I do think there's something to be said about going monochrome during a night game.
Related: I'm also an Eagles fan who would love to see them bring back the kelly greens, and I thought the solid black look against the Giants this past Sunday night was terrific. I think there's something to be gained from the monochrome look if we do it once a year for UTL.
The striped numbers were hideous, I'll just put that out there.
October 16th, 2014 at 1:09 PM ^
No, QB is not the *only* difference as you rightly say, but then you say the comment is completely unfair. Have to respectfully disagree. Maybe it's slightly unfair--no, our backs aren't very good (/thigh is slapped //back fall down ///back go boom), and the TEs have been spotty--but inadequacy and inaccuracy at QB is definitely the biggest problem with the play of the team and all you have to do is watch the games to see it, IMHO. But of course, it's also true that Devin's physical abilities and courage have also kept us in--and won us--games. But that's the problem in a nutshell: he's completely inconsistent. In the time it's taken for me to write this, Devin Gardner has thrown two picks--but one wasn't entirely his fault.
October 16th, 2014 at 1:10 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 16th, 2014 at 1:17 PM ^
Fred Jackson knows where the bodies are buried. Or he's actually a cockroach that can survive nuclear apocalypse. He may even be a robot, given that he hasn't appreciably aged in 20 years. Actually, yes, I'm going with the "Fred Jackson is a robot coaching genius."
Nothing that a little Just For Men didn't cover up. This man is not human. Therefore, we are at a decided schematic advantage by having a glitzy, sputtering series of circuit boards coaching our running backs. The whole "let's let him fail at OC" experiment was merely a smokescreen.
Gary Moeller Invented the Future.
Comments