And have to say I 100% disagreed with the premise of the article. Conveyed that strongly to the author and will be curious to see what she ends up doing with it. Not sure why she's writing an article like that in the first place - and I did find her smart and amiable so I hope she changes the tone. My argument was that Michigan fans are frustrated. 17 years between B10 titles will do that to you. When a program boasts about its standing atop the college football world in all-time wins and still boasts about more Big Ten titles than any other school, it is cultivated into every Michigan fan that there is an expectation of success and when that expectation is not met over and over again, the frustration mounts.
She also made the argument that "every school in the country" would be happy with Michigan's six years under Harbaugh, which I also disagreed with. Would 80-90% of fan bases be excited? Probably. But not Alabama. Not Ohio State. Clemson. Oklahoma. Georgia. Florida. USC. Notre Dame. You get what I mean. Programs that consider themselves among the 10 best in college football wouldn't be satisfied.
Now, whether Michigan belongs in that conversation still is an entirely different argument, especially with the way that some of those schools have procured their success, but ultimately it boils down to my first point - that the measure for success at Michigan, right or wrong, is not to be a slightly better version of Iowa or Virginia Tech. It's the same frustration shared by fans at Miami and UCLA, Texas and Auburn. Michigan fans were raised to believe differently (especially those in my generation or older who experienced the success of the 70s, 80s and 90s) and no Michigan fan wants to abandon that fundamental belief that this is who Michigan is - a school that should be winning Big Ten titles and making the playoffs.
Anyway, will be curious to see what she does with it. In today's journalism, I'd expect a "hit" piece, but with a young journalist trying to build up her career, I remain a little optimistic that she will see this as an opportunity to be something better than that.
She also made the argument that "every school in the country" would be happy with Michigan's six years under Harbaugh, which I also disagreed with. Would 80-90% of fan bases be excited? Probably. But not Alabama. Not Ohio State. Clemson. Oklahoma. Georgia. Florida. USC. Notre Dame. You get what I mean. Programs that consider themselves among the 10 best in college football wouldn't be satisfied.
Now, whether Michigan belongs in that conversation still is an entirely different argument, especially with the way that some of those schools have procured their success, but ultimately it boils down to my first point - that the measure for success at Michigan, right or wrong, is not to be a slightly better version of Iowa or Virginia Tech. It's the same frustration shared by fans at Miami and UCLA, Texas and Auburn. Michigan fans were raised to believe differently (especially those in my generation or older who experienced the success of the 70s, 80s and 90s) and no Michigan fan wants to abandon that fundamental belief that this is who Michigan is - a school that should be winning Big Ten titles and making the playoffs.
Anyway, will be curious to see what she does with it. In today's journalism, I'd expect a "hit" piece, but with a young journalist trying to build up her career, I remain a little optimistic that she will see this as an opportunity to be something better than that.
