if you seek an image of the most Wisconsin OL ever, enter here
Rivals has a teaser headline on Antonio Kinard working to get back to Michigan. That's great news. It sure doesn't seem like the recruits are as stirred up as the fanbase (about RR & the current season.)
While I know that recruits read some of the boards, I haven't yet seen any fallout from the season in terms of recruiting.
I'm curious why Kinard isn't listed in the 2011 Recruiting Board. Regardless, I don't think we can have too many linebackers, and would be thrilled to see him as part of the incoming class.
A popular post on Michigan Rivals message board has been circulating via email and was reposted by genuinely sarcastic and discussed on mgoblog. The author made the case that RR should be fired and did it in a way that came off as thoughtful and balanced. It was the best case I've heard and it was an entertaining read albeit extremely long-winded and tangential. What I've tried to do is condense it into the author's core reasons for firing RR. I have many qualms with the post, but thought I'd open it up for MGoBloggers to discuss. Are these valid reasons to fire RR?
Here's the core of the Fire RR Rationale:
1. Vanity. RR took “special joy” in dismantling the program [tradition] in order to fully rebuild it in his own image. Contrast with Bo, who had his own way of doing things, but understood doing it within the context the Michigan tradition. Rich doesn't seem to understand that Michigan is bigger than him.
2. Lack of Diplomacy. RR criticized Lloyd's program, antagonizing Carr-era holdovers. RR established a tone from the start that opened himself up to being undermined. RR did little to earn respect and support from Lloyd Carr.
3. Recruiting Decline. Average rank of player has declined.
4. Diminished Academic Culture. RR recruits too many academically borderline players. “While Lloyd used to get his one or two exceptions a year for borderline kids, we take more of them under Rodriguez”. RR does not take “academics seriously beyond lip service”, and runs UofM no different than he would an SEC school.
5. Defensive Approach. “Rodriguez views the defense as a sparring partner for the offense [and primarily] there to get our offense ready. Stopping other teams is the secondary objective.”
6. Inability to Manage. It is “beyond [RR’s] management and leadership abilities” to run a program like Michigan. “Michigan is simply a bigger, tougher job than West Virginia” due to Detroit market size and conference strength of the Big10 (i.e. need for excellence on both sides of the ball, not just one). RR is “not a strong enough manager and leader to cope with the events of the day and halt a critical downward spiral.”
7. Lack of “attention to detail”. RR has failed to create a winning culture that exhibits attention to detail. As a result, breakdowns in execution, fundamentals, concentration, and ball security occur. (7a) Exhibit A: Fumbling “On 7 of Rich's last 10 teams fumbling has been a major problem” across different programs and players. (7b) Exhibit B: The defense is awful. Casteel, Shafer, Robinson have all been successful without RR, so RR is responsible.” An overhaul of the defensive staff will not fix the problem, since two competent coordinators have already failed. (7c) Exhibit C: Special teams. “Special teams is ALL about coaching and attention to detail.” Ohio State and Va Tech special teams are always better than us because of “attention to detail”.
Note: To people griping about all the redundant threads - save it. I clearly labeled the thread and anyone who doesn't want to discuss this topic is free to ignore it. I starting a new thread because I think its an interesting topic to discuss, I think I added something worthwhile to the conversation, and its entirely seperate discussion from the other thread which seemed to focus on genuinly sarcastic's personaility or the validity of the "what if Mike Debord was coach" conjecture.
Surprisingly, it's Pete Bigelow, at AnnArbor.com.
"It's not an easy call, but Dave Brandon should give Rich Rodriguez another year with the Michigan football team"
It's a lot of annoying, one sentence paragraphs, but at least it makes the case that he should get one more year. Even if it doesn't paint a rosy outlook that it will be the case. A short read.
2011 is my senior year at U-M and I am pondering the idea of attempting to attend every game next season. I figure this will be my one real shot to try and pull this off and the schedule sets up very nicely: 8 homes games, a game at MSU, a game at Northwestern (which I've been to before) and then games at Iowa and Illinois and a bowl (hopefully in California... wink wink).
Have any of you pulled this off before? Any stories or advice on traveling to Iowa or Illinois (I've been to MSU and NW before)?
I know a lot has been made of losing Wolfork..er..woolful...um...T-Wolf from the secondary this year, and how he could have really helped this defense. I also have heard a lot about Turner, and Dorsey, and hence why our defense was so thin and weak. I disagree that this is why we only were able to meet our 7-5 expectations rather than win a national championship.
I think our greatest loss was a transfer on the offensive side.
Wait what? what you talkin' about Hail storm?
I'm talkin about the transfer earlier this year of Tacopants. I know he transfered because he thought he couldn't work in this spread system, and although it was a slim chance to keep him, I think RR should have done anything try to get him to stick around. I think RR's failure to keep him around is the best reason to get rid of him.
You could see where he could fit in on many accounts when Denard (obviously used to training with Tacopants, and not used to the short and slow (in comparison) recievers he had to work with) over threw wide open recievers on multiple occasions.
Just wondering what other's thoughts were.
Sorry in advance to those wishing this was another thread about RR staying or going.
The season is starting to wind down, so rather than trying to pick some bad games out of the dwindling pool of options, I will instead take a look at the Big East playoff picture, which is Ugly unto itself. When there is a four-way possibility that the winner will have four losses, that deserves a look. But first:
Akron wins a game! Akron wins a game! Oh my God, Akron wins a game! The Zips beat Buffalo 22-17 to get their first win for the season. Akron's QB, P. Nicely, was 13/24 for 193 and 3 TDs. I really only mention it to say that his name is P. Nicely. Buffalo was making a game of it, until a late fumble gave the ball back to Akron to run out the clock.
North Carolina almost blew a 24-10 lead to Duke in the 4th quarter, but Duke ran out of time on their last drive. Not sure why Duke threw a 6 yard pass to the 41 as the last play, but they are Duke. Laettner must not have been open at the free-throw line. They did manage to score 19 points with 275 total yards and a 0.8 YPC rushing average. I'm sure they're happy it's basketball season.
Last, Vanderbilt dutifully lost to a 3-9 Wake Forest team 34-13. Vanderbilt's AD issued a statement saying he and Caldwell reached a "mutual agreement that the university and the football program needed to go in a new direction." Well, from where they are, there's only one way to go: up. Vandy actually had more offense than Wake, but missed two field goals (I know how that feels) and turned over on down five times to give Wake short fields.
We do have the Washington/Washington State mess, but nothing holds a candle to the impending Big East Trainwreck, so without further ado I present:
aka the "Big" East preview. There is no scenario in which the Big East winner will have fewer than three losses. First off, UConn controls their own destiny. Win and they are in the BCS. At 8-4. And probably unranked. They are 4-2 in conference, with key wins over the other contenders West Virginia, Syracuse and Pitt. They play one of the other possible title contenders, South Florida this weekend. I'm assuming here that the first tie-breaker is head-to-head, then overall record, which gets them in a head of 8-3 West Virginia, because West Virginia is also 4-2 in conference.
That's the easy part: if UConn wins, they get it. But if they lose, here come the scenarios. If UConn loses, they are 4-3 in conference. West Virginia is the next most likely winner, as they are also 4-2. They play Rutgers this weekend, who is 1-5. West Virginia has beaten USF and Pitt, so that gives them the edge in the head-to-head. So if West Virginia wins and UConn loses, they're in. Notice: after this point it starts to get meteor-hitting-a-lottery-winner level of likelihood, but I'm going to do it anyway.
If WVU loses, unlikely, though it may be, next in line is Pitt. Pitt plays on the road at Cincinnati, and is coming off a stretch versus UConn (loss), USF (win), and WVU (loss). A win would put Pitt at 7-5 overall and 5-2 in conference. And in a BCS bowl. A Pitt loss really throw a wrench in the works by making 5 teams 4-3 in conference: West Virginia, UConn, Pitt, Syracuse and USF.
I think maybe Syracuse gets the title since they beat USF, who will have beaten UConn, so by transitivity they win? Does UConn win by virtue of beating WVU, Pitt and Syracuse? I hope the Big East has enough tie-breakers to handle this, and I really hope one of them involves a 100 yard dash between the mascots to decide it. I don't know what else to do in this scenario, other than declare TCU the winner a year in advance.