- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 47,473
Wait, what did Billy Corbin do to Miami to get put in the same bin as Luke?
He's had beef with UM for awhile. Some of it seems legit but a lot of it comes off as petty. When he's outside of a UM audience he doesn't care to rip the school.
His primary beef is with UM not cooperating/trying to impede the filming of The U parts 1 and 2.
Billy loves UM, but if any UM alum is ever honest and makes a legit criticism, somehow that becomes something more than it actually is.
To clarify: Luke and Billy are not in the same "bin".
I didn't say there was more, I said what's there simply comes off as petty. Which, when he's on Cowherd days after the Shapiro story broke saying UM leases its offices to pyramid schemers, rings pretty true.
Having an issue with UM is good. Necessary. Common. Football fans, of all people, have boatloads of complaints. But airing those grievances in the wake of a scandal that could bury the football program is petulant, and that's what I take issue with. No school in America would endorse a film that included and celebrated what The U did. Zero surprise they were anything but cold or hostile because even giving him freedom to use the logo can be seen as an endorsement. It's spineless and petty on their part, but not surprising.
Guy has done incredible work for the legacy and heritage of the program and the school has benefited mightily, even as they've shut him out. But if it's fair for Billy to criticize the school on occasion then it's fair for us to criticize him on occasion. There's nothing more than that.
Again, I don't really think we are disagreeing here, it's just a question of perspective.
As someone who went to school at UM in the 80s and 90s, the experience wasn't just "players dancing" or "wearing gold chains". What happened in Miami was a combination of South Florida (particularly the Marielitos) embracing UM as an emblem, and the players from poor backgrounds embracing the joy of football played well (both in overall excellence and in a rejection of the Wishbone and other antiquated styles of play).
Maybe some people watch The U and think it's about celebrating UM and the (bad) reputation that we built, and that's certainly how UM administrators see it, so they choose to reject it. The reality is that Billy shows HOW it happened, how players came to enjoy a more wide-open style of play and fans came to embrace players who celebrated.
Do Michigan adminstrators have to be proud of a Fab 5 documentary? Will Georgetown administrators be happy to re-confront issues of race that John Thompson raised in a G-town documentary? You can pick a few dozen stories that have been (or should be) documented that will involve the resurrection of old wounds, but that doesn't mean you have to either be "with" or "against" the person making the documentary.
Billy is Billy. He's a person just like any one of us, capable of mistakes. And don't get me wrong, I was very upset with LeBatard when he decided to pull his years-old notes from his Miami Hurricanes days out of the closet so that he could make his bones at the Herald and hopefully get a national job.
But I do think there is something fundamentally different between what Corben has done and what LeBatard has done. Billy has tried to tell a story that is complex, that has both good and bad. On the other hand, Dan took things that had been told to him in confidence, when he was a student, and he parlayed that into a career stepping-stone. There were many of us who knew the players, who wrote for the Hurricane, and/or were otherwise close to the program who knew specific facts, but only LeBatard chose to make a national name for himself with that information.