Blog

  • This Thing That Is RR







    The house in Morgantown finally sold.  Rich Rod is at Michigan to stay.


    As hard as I try to stay away, I just can’t.  That is the thing that is so endearing about Rich Rodriguez.  Lloyd Carr and Jim Tressel, as the bloggers write, meh.  Jim Harbaugh and Les Miles are too rah, rah and, in their old age, seem likely to revert to the arrogant Michigan ways.  Most other coaches, although I can’t claim to know much about a lot, seem to have lie-to-your-face, bags under their eyes workaholic, too clean to be true, or other qualities.  Mike Leach is another character, although one player’s father and a big head brought him temporarily down.  RR is a character, and if you give him enough time, he will grow on you.

    He too, got too big for West Virginia:  Michigan needed someone, and wanted him, and he wanted change.  No one really stopped to think that it could be different and difficult.  We’re all fools.  The money is big, as is the market and the expectations, and we think the parts are interchangeable; do a huge search and pay the right bucks and everything will be status quo.  Thank God for exceptions.

    The human story started with the downward slide—hard to really follow if you consider it just as a top manager running a perennially successful machine, but it was time for a change.  Good change, and maybe difficult change, was needed.  There had to be modernization.  But it was a couple of years in the making, the switch to RR, and the device wasn’t well-oiled, it wasn’t in top form…

    The “old ball coach” is a moniker that is now floating around and a reference to it was used the other day by RR.  He is a very good coach with an outstanding record of success.  He relates well to today’s players, is plugged into coaching and recruiting circles, and is attuned to the modern college game.  Damn, people can be shortsighted.  Some, many, at Michigan give him a hard time because he isn’t a “Michigan man” and he says “ain’t never.”

    How’s this for a lesson, if not a way of life:  Let’s learn from each other, get along, work at improving, and mature.  RR didn’t inherit an intact pro-style offense or an upper-tier defense.  His immaturity rubbed some existing players the wrong way and that made it worse.  Perhaps people figured that with the big contract he would have a magic wand and it would all improve instantly.  No, it doesn’t work that way and he had to rebuild block by block.  He has, and he is, doing that, and he has never complained and he has never blamed.  The recruiting, even under these circumstances, has been amazing.  The fan base is unquestionably engaged; while the national pundits call for RR’s head most, those who follow (e.g., on the blogs),  see the potential and recognize the situation (i.e., the reasons behind the decline and the signs of improvement).  Under Dave Brandon’s leadership and an immediate challenge almost beyond description, RR is maturing for all to see.  He has to and he will.  Will it show up as wins at the University of Michigan?  He will mature and improve.

    And so, the subject of sanctions…  Ann Arbor is a tough place—the academics, the sports, the size, and even the weather; mostly though, it is the people and the expectations.  In this case, the people—coaches, former players, overseers, enforcers, etc.—and the expectations clashed, and it happened publicly and with penalties.  It is better that it happened the way it did than if it had been repressed, covered-up, stonewalled, paid-off, or whatever else could have happened.  One of the best things to come out of it all is the “transparency” employed by Mr. Brandon and others.  Another is that RR, Barwis, et. al., will not do it again.

    As Rich Rodriguez said recently, “Everything’s going to be OK.”

  • Brian Cook

    Here’s the post that made me think.

    http://www.michigandaily.com/content/2008-11-19/man-changing-way-fans-follow-michigan-football

    http://www.maplestreetpress.com/authors.cfm?author_id=84

    This one I liked.  It helps to explain the enthusiasm, but…  Poorly done, yes, continued improvement (isn’t that what it is all about?), not necessarily great next year, and I don’t like the “Go Blue” at the end.  Reading more, the overall blog is, well, less than attention-worthy.

    *          *          *

    Our brief exchange…

    Brian,   Thanks!  My thoughts, if you are interested follow.  I wonder what would happen if I were to post this as a diary on your site?   Peter

      —————-  

    No no no no, I don’t want to be a blogger.  Brian Cook at MGoBlog is really good at it.

    I never really understand why blogs refuse to repeat information learned from pay sites.  I suspect the sites inform customers that if they do, and it is found, that their subscription will be canceled.  Aside from that, how is it different than re-posting other copyrighted information?  Regarding the pay sites, if you are paying them you should have certain privileges.  Why not write “I learned it from an source I cannot disclose.” 

    But back to blogging.  It is fun, entertaining, and a way to share and spread information.  MGoBlog has a tremendously devoted fan base and large U-M-based market, as can be seen in the minute-by-minute comments and posts.  That, the forum, is a real asset but is also something that could quickly leave and make a home elsewhere.  Brian’s blogging holds it all together.  Personally, once in a while I find a post (e.g., the one on Morgan Trent et. al.) I like but the rest I just scroll through.  Football and basketball recruiting is something that is fun to watch:  the unpredictable if not irrational hype over sixteen and seventeen year-old kids and the even more curious attention they receive.  Brian’s “signature” (his word) is a play-by-play regurgitation of Michigan football games, which is something, like so much else there, that I have very little interest in.  Again, Brian’s role is to be the glue that holds it together and keeps traffic up.  It is a perilous role because so much of the content is not original, the market (if not the won-loss record) is fickle, the competition is omnipresent, and the overall concept is easily imitated.

    MGoBlog is and will be fun to watch.  They-Brian, TomVH, and the gang-are riding a large crest.  Theirs is a big and growing-at-the-moment, market; but it is, per Brian, an immature product if not category.  I remember the online forum with “Angelique S. Chengelis” of the Detroit News when people wrote in with questions about Michigan football.  It was terrible.  In her writing she exhibits no particular flair or talent nor does she display an above-average knowledge of her subject matter.  Nonetheless, she is a trained and experienced journalist and the large newspaper needs a beat reporter to cover Michigan sports.  She has a role and a function.  What will it be with MGoBlog and how can one characterize the professional accomplishments of its proprietors?

    Back once again, this time to Morgan Trent.  There was the SNAFU over comments allegedly made by Rich Rodriquez, relating to the NFL draft, which were less than complimentary.  Lloyd Carr joined the circus by apparently doing who knows what.  Brian wrote a great piece recognizing incomplete information and a call for employee loyalty; he didn’t say it, but he strongly implied the truth:  ‘Carr, you had your chance, for whatever the reasons you stepped aside, and now it is RR’s turn.’  Then the News publishes a brief quote from Carr saying the original book quote is a “distortion.”  In response, Brian fires off a complete, seemingly sobbing, retraction.  Why?  His original post suggested this is nothing really new and there are probably kernels of truth in it.  The bigger point still holds:  Get Out of the Way!  (To me, somewhere in it, Brian is saying something along the lines of ‘I don’t want to alienate anyone because these people are my bread and butter.’  I admit, I don’t know, but that is my inference).

    Is that the lesson?  Is that really all a blogger can do?  A blogger can point to the bigger picture, bring in some history, write with nice flair, and suggest that there is probably some truth in it.  Me?  I use my blog as a filing cabinet; I do it to collect my thoughts for my real ambitions, such as my business and my hobby of writing.  So what if the blog is your business and your ambition?  Some of us question an ambition based on stealing (okay, using, repeating.) content from elsewhere.  Some of us question a business based on oddities like selling for $20 t-shirts that compliment your business or prohibiting users-customers-from posting new topics on a forum.

    As I wrote, I am curious.  Just like recruiting, I am as interested in watching the process as I am in seeing the actual content.

    —– Original Message —– From: Brian Cook To: pcpfeiffer@msn.com Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:51 PM Subject: Re: Just Curious
    If you’re talking about the text, that’s like 1,000,000% fair use in all cases. A model so replicated across the internet that suing me is suing the universe. It might happen, but it’s kind of a risk I have to take. I never take more than a couple paragraphs from an entry and believe that the increase attention for the articles is compensation for the quote; I get enough emails these days asking me to mention something that that seems more than reasonable.

    The images… problematic. I don’t have a way to pay anyone a reasonable amount without individually emailing photographers, which I don’t have time for. As the industry matures, I likely will, and I will do so.

    On 5/11/2010 12:18 AM, pcpfeiffer@msn.com wrote:

    Hi Brian,   I’ve been reading your blog for a couple of years now–like many others, I am energized by the RR era.  Your post on Morgan Trent made me think and I’m going to put something on my site.  It is excellent.  But, a limited blogging approach, $20 t-shirts, the business possibilities, the career “enhancement” potential (e.g., reporting), etc.  And I remember “On Writing Well.”  So, unlike, again, your strong piece on Trent, I haven’t put my thoughts together…   Anyway, one thing in particular has stuck in my brain since I first read that you make money at it and do it full time.  Aren’t you concerned with all the proprietary, copyrighted information on your site?  I mean, how can you get away with–is it ethical and is it right–to reprint or repost content from elsewhere?   Just wondering.  Thanks in advance for your attention.  I hope you will respect my desire not–at this time–to see this posted in a “mailbag” post.   Peter Pfeiffer Evergreen, CO www.theResearchSource.net/columns www.theResearchSource.net/12days.htm   (my site is more like a filing cabinet; very low traffic; very weak, I admit)  

  • Better

    Attentive, compassionate, empathetic, faithful, truthful, loyal, honest, sympathitic, available, nice, generous, thoughtful, communicative, trustful.

  • RR, the Infractions, and the Future

     

     

    Detroit News article

  • ADHD

    I was so pleased to see this ad on television recently.

  • Repeat, Signed by the Governor 6/1/09

    APPROVED by Governor June 1, 2009
    EFFECTIVE June 1, 2009

    S.B. 09-24 Game damage – eligibility for prevention materials – timeliness of response by division of wildlife – liability for claims – issuance of permits to take wildlife – annual report on game damage issues – appropriation. Makes every landowner in the state eligible to receive temporary game damage prevention materials from the division of wildlife in the department of natural resources (division). Allows a landowner to obtain permanent game damage prevention materials if the landowner does not unreasonably restrict the hunting of species likely to cause damage, and:

    The landowner charges not more than $500 per person, per season, for big game hunting access on or across the landowner’s property; or

    If the landowner charges in excess of $500, the landowner has requested and been denied permanent game damage prevention materials from the habitat partnership program administered by the division and the division determines that excessive game damage is occurring, and may continue to occur in the future.

    Requires the division to contact a landowner who has submitted an inquiry related to game damage within 2 business days of receiving the inquiry. Mandates that, within 5 business days after receiving a request for game damage prevention materials, the division shall consult with the requesting landowner about sufficient and appropriate game damage prevention materials. Unless otherwise agreed to by the landowner and the division, requires temporary game damage prevention materials to be delivered within 15 business days of the consultation. States that permanent game damage prevention materials shall be provided to an eligible landowner within 45 days of the landowner’s request for such materials.

    Clarifies that the state shall be liable for any damages attributable to insufficiency or unsuitability of the game damage prevention materials provided by the division or the inappropriate or insufficient erection of game damage prevention materials.

    Increases to $500 the maximum amount of a fee, beyond which the state is relieved of liability for damage caused by wildlife, that a landowner may charge per person, per season, for big game hunting access on or across the landowner’s property.

    Requires the division to consult with the property owner when determining whether the owner’s property has sustained excessive damage due to wildlife. Encourages the division to issue permits to take wildlife when the wildlife causing the damage exceeds the objective set for that geographical area for that year. Adds designees of property owners to the list of persons eligible to receive a permit to take wildlife when excessive damage occurs. Allows a property owner to request the wildlife commission to review a denial of a request for such permit to take wildlife. Prohibits such permits from being issued or used in violation of local firearms restrictions.

    Commencing with the 2010 legislative session, requires the division to report annually to the senate agriculture and natural resources committee and the house agriculture, livestock, and natural resources committee on game damage and game damage prevention issues. Specifies the minimum information to be included in the report. Sets January 31 as the annual date by which the report must be made.

    Appropriates $600,000 from the wildlife cash fund to the department of natural resources, division of wildlife, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2008. For the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2009, appropriates $1,450,000 from the wildlife cash fund to the department of natural resources, division of wildlife, special purpose, game damage claims and prevention, for implementation of the act.

    *          *          *

    Yeah!  This is quite startling.  In this time of extreme budget and economic hardship–read, “every landowner,” “encourages the division to issue permits to take wildlife,” “clarifies that the state shall be liable for any damages.”  (Note:  firearms restrictions DO NOT apply to appropriate law enforcement (e.g., DOW) personnel.)  (LINK)

  • Wildlife Law Books

    Wildlife Law:  A Primer

    I have to paraphrase this because Google books won’t let me see the same thing I could read yesterday:

    A state has no general or innate duty to be responsible for “game” damage.  Such liability is based in tort law and is either nuisance law or negligence, AND the state is responsible only it agreed to be liable under a (specific) tort claims statute or other law that waives sovereign immunity.

    With respect to the state of Colorado I believe it has both created a nuisance situation and is negligent.  Potential sources of negligence are:

    1. Responsibility to manage in the best interests of the people (33-1-104);
    2. Responsibility to provide sufficient and appropriate game damage prevention materials to every landowner (33-1-103.5);
    3. Failure to protect habitat (33-1-110);
    4. Failure to maintain adequate and proper populations of wildlife to preserve the proper ecological balance of the environment (33-1-106); and
    5. Provide required data to the Colorad general assembly (33-3-111).
    6. Failure to meet herd management objectives–ANALYSIS PENDING.

    Some more information on changes to requirements surrounding damage prevention materials:  a Google search on the law and a Google search  on Senate bill S-09-024.  This is important in that it shows 1) clear intention away from sovereign immunity and 2) a revised, current change of mood and intention.  Here, Colorado General Assembly “sesssion laws.”  Again, a key is a desire for change and greater accountability on the part of the DOW.  Budget appropriations are included.

    The Evolution of National Wildlife Law (Third Edition)

    American Wildlife Law by Thomas Alan Lund (1978)