Back to business.

I've been neglecting you, dear reader, all week long.

It comes from a combination of me not wanting to think about the Buckeyes for a couple days, as well as me being busy with all the other stuff (two-plus jobs, family stuff, etc.) that keeps me too busy for my own good.

Brandon asked in a comment field below what I thought about the status of the Michigan program right now, vis a vis (I used to know how to spell that-- now, I'm not sure that's right) Lloyd Carr's job status.

Basically, outside of the occasional disaster (you had a couple in the mid-90s), and the occasional spectacular season (1997), Lloyd has been good for winning about nine games pretty much every year. He and his staff are good recruiters and have enough talent on campus that they don't need to do anything too crazy to win nine games and play in a New Year's Day bowl game pretty reliably. (They'll lose that game pretty reliably, too... but that's another story.)

OSU, by comparison, has had a few more peaks and valleys in its recent history. Michigan hasn't had a year like the 1999 Buckeyes (6-6) in more than two decades (although this year isn't over yet), but they haven't put up a one-loss season in quite a while-- I could dig up a media guide when I get home, but I don't remember one since at least the early 90's, and that's only if you count the 9-0-3 thrill ride that passed for a 1992 season. Since that year, the Buckeyes finished with one loss in 1993 (plus a tie), in 1996, in 1998, and a perfect season in 2002.

Lloyd's teams seem pretty consistently "good", but almost never "great."

I think it's very, very unlikely that Michigan will change that pattern unless they go outside the program (and I'm including "Michigan Men" as part of the program). Everything is very ingrained in that program, from the kinds of kids they recruit, the kinds of plays they call, etc. Yes, things change (4 wides!), but they do so on a glacial scale-- witness the still non-existant use of the shotgun formation. That's a result of the almost cult-like loyalty that's displayed to those in the program, which tends to keep everyone on the same page, but which can sometimes look like an almost xenophobic view of outsiders.

There are times (during weak moments during seasons like 1999, 2001, 2004) when I think I would rather have a Michigan-like consistency. But Earle Bruce did that at OSU, and look where it got him.

This year's Michigan team was not nearly as good as their preseason rank would have indicated. That created some unreasonable expectations, which isn't really fair-- this was a 9-2 team from the get-go (the defense is not good... at all), and would have needed to catch some serious breaks to finish the regular season 11-0. Unfortunately, the breaks have been almost exclusively bad. I can't remember a year when a team got violated by the injury bug as severely as this year's Michigan team has been. To get back to where they were, they need to get a little more speed on defense and do a better job of developing their offensive linemen, and they'll be fine.

I guess the answer to the "should Michigan fire Lloyd" question is, "it's irrelevent because it will never happen."

If I was in the position, I would have a hard time canning him right now. You're coming off back-to-back Rose Bowls, and at least a share of five Big Ten titles in eight years. No matter how this year ends, Lloyd should get another season if he wants it (and I can't imagine him leaving off of this debacle). If you're looking at another 4 or 5-loss season in 2006, then you can talk about applying pressure to get him to retire.

Michigan and Ohio State didn't get to where they are by canning coaches after one crappy season.

(Dear Holy God, this was a rambling diatribe. Sorry it's all over the map.)