Bacon's new book not kind to Michigan
Listening to the podcast from the WTKA show this morning and on the segment 07 podcast they were talking about how "the folks in Ann Arbor and Happy Valley aren't going to like it very much".
The title of the book is Fourth and Long: The battle for the soul of college football.
Gaggity gag. My guess is that it is more whining from Bacon about money side of college athletics.
News flash: college athletics is a business. Like what he does with Michigan history and the stuff he has wrote ESPECIALLY Bo's Lasting Lessons. Seems any book of his that has "and long" in the title I need to avoid.
So you haven't read the book because it's not even out yet, and you're already bashing both the book and the author?
uh-huh.
Hmmmm.. so if it is one mans opinion that makes Michigan look good it is a good book (Bo's Lasting Lessons), but if it is the same mans opinion that makes Michigan look sketchy it is a crappy book (Fourth and Long).
Got it. Thanks.
/dies
It's the literary version of the "Recruiting services that rank my team's recruits higher are objectively better" phenomenon.
Shout out to all the Dave Brandon stooges on the board today. Someone needs to hold the guy accountable.
Hold Dave Brandon accountable for what? The guy is probably the best AD we've had in 3+ decades. I hope we have him for at least one more.
The Dave Brandon hate around here is comparable to the tin foil hat faction of our society that thinks Obama is coming for their guns. Manufactured paranoia.
Hold him accountable for wanting to make money.
Because he is mean business man!
isn't about what David Brandon can do for David Brandon. What, does he get compensated with UM stock options or something? And being an educational institution (UM still is one, right?), there are supposedly more considerations for an AD than simply the bottom line. At least in theory. And my guess on Bacon's book is that will likely be the well-worn, but still timely theme.
There's been some good and bad from Brandon, mostly drawn from the same well of unfettered corporatism, but on the whole the athletic dept. seems to be on an upswing, so I figure those of us who aren't his biggest fans can at least admit he's a competent dude.
Let's face it--anyone who can get rich slinging the world's crappiest pizza is probably slick enough to captain this particular ship.
Maybe close to the politics line and still slightly bitchy (although I agree wholeheartedly), but baby steps.
The business man in me loves DB.
The underpaid working man in me hates DB.
And for the time being I don't drive a Lexus...
John U Bacon loves UM. He grew up in A2, has taught here and idolized Bo and all things UM sports. Because of his close affinity for the school, he was given unprecedented behind the scenes access to the football team for his book "Three and Out". But he is a journalist, not a PR guy. His job in writing the book was to synthasize what he saw, not regurgitate what the Athletic Department wanted him to say. Only the athletes come out of that book looking positive - MSC, Dave Brandon, Bill Martin, RichRod all made serious mistakes. UM folk were upset with Bacon re: his unvarnished portrayal and punished him for it - removing much of his access.
I trust Bacon's intentions. He wants UM to live up to our highest standards - both ethically and scholastically.
I look forward to his next book.
I agree that we're not perfect at Michigan but it sounds as if Bacon is making it out to be something that just happens at Michigan when all teams do the same things.
Seeing as no one here has read it yet.
My guess is that he treats it as something that has infiltrated Michigan... and every other major football school.
Because he has notebooks and notebooks full of observations about UM that are also useful for this topic too! I am not shocked that he didn't pitch them all, then invest years into getting unprecedented access AGAIN at a different school, just to use them as his primary source instead. PSU is not only one of the juiciest topics in recent CFB history, he got a lot of info for free from the other billion journalists that parachuted into Happy Valley and wrote about it. And it seems tough for him to find any other evidence for his argument from other schools across the country as they are either
1) not profitable and thus not big business enough
2) not interesting to most fans or their own alums from a potential customer view.
3) very secretive or protected by their local reporters
4) OSU
In listening to the actual segment of the podcast, it seems like this was prompted by a call-in question which mentions a rumor that the book could be damaging somehow. Ira admits to being only ten pages into a draft copy of the book, and is in fact summarizing Dan Wetzel's opinion when he says what it is quoted in the OP.
Interestingly, he also mentions that Bacon's access at Michigan was comparatively limited when held against Ohio State, Penn State and Northwestern (I believe those are the other three programs examined). What exactly that means - if it is the case - will probably not be clear until we are in fact able to read the book.
So really, there's not a whole lot to go on here other than what may very well be a paraphrase of someone else's opinion of a draft copy of the book.
But I didn't really like "3 and Out". It wasn't bad, it just wasn't as good as it could have been. I finished it thinking it was kinda meh. To me, it really didn't come across as objective (apparently it did to others, though, so maybe it was me). It seemed more like he was trying to act objective while still pushing his beliefs, which is his right, but it really seemed like it tried to push a lot on the reader, particularly between the lines.
Now, to his defense, he did only have access to one side of things. But I do think he tried to make Carr and Co, and pretty much the whole old staff, look bad. I think he tried very hard to make RR human. But to me, it also came across a bit of "because you gave me access I'll take it a bit easier on you". I for one, would have liked much more in depth talks about what happened with coaching, player coach interaction, team relationships, and the like, and much less "this player was crying at half time". I didn't feel like I really got to know Michigan's program because of the book.
My personal feeling is that he kind of took the easy way out. It was pushy enough but not overly so to become preachy, it struck at a fanbase that wanted all-access and really just got a taste of access, and it had an agenda that many could relate to or that was controversial enough to sell to those that couldn't. No doubt, it was a good book to sell and because of that a good book to write. I also have no doubt that Bacon does love Michigan. I just think he really kind of took an easy way out for what could have been with the access he had. Not that, in reality, more access would have put Michigan or college sports in a better or more positive light necessarily.
But the criticism of Bacon for his stance on Lloyd Carr rarely seems to take into account Carr's total silence and refusal to speak to Bacon about any of this. Whether you agree with Bacon or not, he was put in an uneasy position by this. Maybe there were other ways to handle it, but I wouldn't want to be in his shoes at that point...there's really no winning.
But I also think he inferred a lot because Carr declined to talk. It wasn't an easy position to be in surely, and I think human nature would tend to lead almost anyone to favoring the person that's helping them rather than the one declining too. I just didn't think, in the end, be it with some understandable reasoning, that it came across completely balanced.
Didn't he say elsewhere on the Carr stories that he only included the stories for which he had impecable sources? And that he had quote-un-quote "worse" material that he believed but didn't include because the sourcing wasn't up to snuff? It almost seems like you and some others want to believe that without hearing from Carr there's no way to accurately describe something that happened.
I also don't remember him making a ton of implications on Carr and his reasons for doing things. If one was being generous to your point of view you could say that Bacon allowed the reader to make his own inferrences absent any statements by Carr. But maybe that's really your problem, that really the only fair inferrences from the well sourced stories reflect poorly on Carr. In any event, Carr had the opportunity to set forth his reasons and chose not to do so. I don't know how that is the fault of Bacon.
I don't know if he said he had worse material on Carr or not. If he said what you're claiming, that's possibly even worse. If he doesn't have the sources to say what it is than he shouldn't say it to begin with. That's like me being a credible reporter and saying "I have information that [insert Michigan player here] violated serious NCAA rules but I don't have sources so I won't say what he did". It infers something that isn't necessarily true.
I do think a more balanced story could have been told. It didn't necessarily have to come from Carr (see M-Wolverine's post below), but it could have come from others in his camp and a better effort could have been made to try to justify some of what Carr and others were doing. Personally, if I was Carr and Bacon asked to interview me, I'd probably say something along the lines of "why the hell would you ask me a stupid question like that?" Carr has no reason to set the record straight for something that amounts to hearsay. He has even less reason to divulge what are private and personal relationships between him and his former players and coaches, and the new coaching staff. Many people would rightfully think that is none of our business. I would, and I think it's fair to think that. Right or wrong, pleading the fifth allows people to put words in your mouth, and to a degree I think Bacon did that. However, it's like when my dad used to tell me as a kid "you can do what you want". He said I could do what I want, but he was pretty clearly inferring something else. Bacon seemed to say "you can infer what you want" - like my dad used to - in this book without much effort to give the other side to anything more than a minimal extent.
I think it's odd that you say it's my problem that I didn't think the book was fair, as if my opinion was less valid than yours (and that line itself is what spurred this too-long post). I didn't think the book was extremely balanced because I think, albeit understandably, like I said, Bacon told the side of the story he wanted and let readers "infer" the rest of it. I don't think that's my problem. I believe many believe his word to be gospal when there were notable errors in the book that have been proven to be errors, I'm just not willing to think that way.
At the end of the day, that was only one reason I thought the book was just alright though. I gave my other reasons above. Just don't claim that others and myself that are a bit skeptical of taking Bacon's word as fact when to at least some it came off as unbalanced. I'm not in the business of defending Carr and Co, but I do believe that claims to tell-all of what actually happened does have that responsibility if it indeed is attempting to live up to what it claims to be.
Dear Leader has no reason to explain himself to the masses because they have no right to know.
I'll read Lloyd Carr's book when and if he writes one. I have a bet going that he will write one.
Then, I'll expect Carr to answer questions about his book the way that Bacon has taken on all comers with questions about Three and Out.
I have deep prejudice: in favor of people who answer questions publicly, and against people who won't answer questions publicly. The notion that Michigan football is above the lowly business of answering questions seems positively Soviet to me.
I bet Carr writes a book eventually, too. I bet it turns out to be much like a lot of Bo's books turned out, in that I highly doubt he answers questions or really even brings up these topics. It'll likely be about leadership, good stories from his time at Michigan, and the things that his Michigan experience has given him and his family (namely Mott). When has Carr ever been one that aired dirty laundry or spoke about controversial topics? It's never been his style to put all that out in public. He surely won't in any book he writes.
The "Dear Leader" thing is hilarious as well. I admit that I like Carr. I think he represented Michigan well during his time as coach in a very unique way, in that there are very few intellectuals that are also head football coaches. But like I supported Carr, I supported RR and I support Hoke. I do fundamentally disagree that everyone's personal business should be our business as well. Calling privacy "Soviet" is laughable at best. Answering questions publically about private matters does not define America, though much of America's desire for TMZ-style intrusion into business that isn't theirs is unfortunately becoming more popular. Still, you clearly haven't worked for government or checked our own history, rights, or freedoms if you think privacy is a communist "Soviet" ideal.
Your insinuation that I don't think Carr needs to speak out because I worship him is idiotic. You can prefer people to release all their information, that's your opinion, but many, many people feel differently and I agree with them. No one needs to speak out just because you want them to, or some auther wants to, especailly about matters that frankly they have no desire to talk about for a wide array of reasons. In fact, almost every college football coach doesn't speak out about these things of this nature. Additionally, most people in public situations don't reveal what goes on behind the scenes and don't feel the need to justify it, so why should Carr?
In the end, I'm not here simply to defend Carr, but other people brought it up and started bad mouthing him purely off of a fairly one-sided account. I think people can have whatever opinion they want. My main point is that Bacon - as much as I respect him - didn't do a thorough job getting both sides of the story, among other things that I had problems with the book. I also feel the people that say "Carr had his chance to talk" are misguided in that thinking. I never said the book was bad, just that I thought it could be better.
I do like, however, that you feel your job on this board is always do tear down Carr and anyone who doesn't hate him and for whatever reason still pump up RR, as if many of the posters here were the ones that didn't support him (which is very false). I've defended you in the past, but you continue to pile on or dig deeper, whichever analogy you prefer.
When did I ever "tear down Carr"? Please give me an example.
When did I ever "build up Rodriguez"? Again, give us examples.
Repeatedly on this Board (unlike most of the rest), I have said that I am not a football coach, and that every man who has coached football at Michigan will have forgotten more football than I will ever know.
My one theory with respect to Coach Rodriguez was that he was treated badly in general, and treated with wild unfairness by the Detroit Free Press in particular. On that theory, I find both Brian Cook and John U. Bacon in agreement with me.
The worst thing that I have ever said about Lloyd Carr is that if he cares about his place in any public debate about these matters, he should speak up.
Carr was not a merely retired football coach at the time of the Free Press Jihad. Carr was the Associate Athletic Director for Development. Carr had that official position, and his bully pulpit position (he was unlike any other associate athletic director in name-recognition) from which to denounce the Free Press. He failed to do so. Why? Maybe Carr has a real answer to that old question. Whatever he thinks, whatever he may have done, he should answer that question.
And I do hope that Bacon's excellent book puts pressure on Carr to do just that.
Really -- the MGoBoard is becoming more and more like an internet 97.1 of Michigan Fanz.
Like me, as someone that have never been labeled as making succinct posts, you leave a lot of your opinion between the lines. Much of that comes from the fact that whenever someone even attempts to support Carr you automatically have to refute it and bring up how Rich Rod was treated unfairly. Yet still, even in this post, your direct claim that "Dear Leader" (with two words, essentially trying to tear down both Carr and readers of this Board) is obligated to tell his side because you think he should supports my claim, you insinuate over and over that because he doesn't, because he "failed" to do so, he is not up to Michigan snuff.It's happened time and time again. And, some how, despite my history and what I've even said fairly directly in posts above, you act like I think Rich Rod deserved to get his ass sent to the curb as soon as he arrived at Michigan. You act like you're the only one on this entire board that agreed with Brian and John U. Bacon that the media and the Freep treated Rich Rod poorly. And you're absolutely wrong about that, particularly on this board where people defended him to the end. Yet you get on your soup box and give your arrogant pretension about how somehow you are more enlightened than essentially everyone else, when in reality it comes off as either petty ignorance, or an inability to move on like everyone else. And it's all because someone (me in this case) has the audacity to want a little more of the story before claiming Carr needs to tell his side or otherwise desrves to be damned.
I don't think Rich Rod's time at Michigan was handled how it should have been, by the media, by people surrounding the program, and by Rich Rod himself. What I do think, is that a book that claims to be a objective work that covers the whole story of that time at Michigan should make a better attempt to get at least half the story, rather than the one side. I'm sure Carr has answers. I'm also sure he has every right, despite your claim that he has some sort of obligation because of what his position was in the AD, to not talk about things that are none of our business. I think he could have at least came out and supported it a bit more, I think it was totally overblown that he wasn't going to every corner of the world to defend unjustified attacks, both on him and on Rich Rod.
And your last line is beyond lame. Michigan fans are generally smug and arrogant. I'm smug and arrogant. But you take the cake. The problem is you actually think that you're better than everyone else but you're so damn ignorant of every POV that isn't yours, somehow even when that POV has many similarities as yours.
\ I'll hang up now and listen, since you're essentially a well read, literate version of "Huge"
I'm not going to ask you where I suggested that I was "better than everyone else." Don't waste your time on that wild goose chase.
I'm sure Carr has answers. I'm also sure he has every right, despite your claim that he has some sort of obligation because of what his position was in the AD, to not talk about things that are none of our business.
It is not, and never has been, a question of Carr's "rights." He has every right to say nothing. Which is what he has done. Nothing. He hasn't lifted a finger. For me, I think the NCAA investigation of Michigan football was a public matter. The Freep sure thought so. They created the story.
What I do think, is that a book that claims to be a objective work that covers the whole story of that time at Michigan should make a better attempt to get at least half the story, rather than the one side.
What is Bacon supposed to do, to get a "Lloyd Carr side" to any story? Other than, you know, repeatedly asking Carr for an interview?
I'm sure Carr has answers.
Fabulous. Do tell us what those answers are.
"Soup box" - I made a typo. I understand it's soapbox.
Where you insinuate you're "better than everyone else" - Perhaps a generalization, I said above that you think you're better than almost everyone else. The evidence is obvious with the claims that most of this site is now "fan boyz" and "Michigan fanz" and the other sophomoric insults you launch at anyone who has a differing opinion that you.
Carr's "rights" - He has the right to say nothing. You have a right to an opinion that he should have done more. I agree he should have done a little more. We both have opinions. Alrighty then.
"What was Bacon supposed to do" - Read what M-Wolverine wrote. He didn't need to go directly to Carr. He didn't get all his info directly from Rich Rod. There are lots of sources he could have tried to get that could support, clarify, or at least give another point of view.
"Do tell us what those are" - How the hell should I know what his answers are? Of course he has answers, he's part of the damn story. It doesn't mean he needs to tell them to everybody. Just because I'm sure he has answers doesn't mean I know. Geez, you're dense.
Good lord, give it a rest already. This stuff was tiresome when you were doing it three years ago. It's a flat-out exercise in absurdity now.
I didn't begin with any attacks of any kind, on anybody.
I'm responding to what The Board has started.
Bando, I think it is both curious and funny, to see the change, however subtle, in The Board's view of Bacon's two books and his upcoming book.
Before Three and Out, Bacon was widely regarded as an admirable Michigan sports historian; Bo's collaborator and personal archivist. Everybody loved John U. Bacon. Then Three and Out was published. That book vindicated much of what had been written on this blog, and it eviscerated Michael Rosenberg and the Free Press. There was lots of division at the time, but not about that. People disagreed about the fate of Rich Rodriguez; not about whether Rosenberg had committed journalistic malpractice. (Unless perhaps you are still prepared to defend Rosenberg on that front.)
And now, it seems, anything less than total commitment to the future with Brady Hoke (including, it seems any continued loyalty to the work of John U. Bacon) is an unacceptable form of Michigan fandom.
You have never made it really clear -- are you still a Freep defender?
I, surely, am not one of him. I love a lot of his books as easy reads. I thought Three and Out could have been better for several reasons, some agreed with that. Overall, it just wasn't one of my favorite books of his, other agreed that it was alright, but not great. I'll leave judgement to his next book up to when/if I read it.
Very few have said they flat out reject him now (outside of possibly the OP and maybe a few others). You're reading what you want into this.
Try it.
As for Bacon's next book; I'll tell you about it this fall if you don't have the time to read it.
Though, you are correct, in that more prefer j-u-d-g-m-e-n-t. You can, however, find the variant spelling that I used even in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Colour me shocked that you'd nitpick spelling though.
I'll look for your review of Bacon's next book regardless of if I read his book or not.
Section 1, always vigilant.
I love you.
I could not care less about what people on this Board call me. Anything, that is, except "wrong."
As "stupid" and "fanz". I've never claimed you're wrong. You have your opinion. But you are pretentious in that you can't even accept well-though opposing point of views.
I can readily accept "well thought-out" [I think that is what you were trying to write] opposing points of view.
Indeed, that is why I am having a great deal of difficulty accepting yours.
Again, you show just how dense you really are. I refute your opinions with opinions of my own, you insinuate that I'm incapable of having a well thought-out point of view because part of it differs from yours.
You're right. You and I have similar feelings on the issue.
People here are more and moreof the all for Hoke ilk, which is fine (he has done well early) and I like Hoke too dont get me wrong. I just feel RR should have been given 5. All coaches should be given 5 unless they do something xcompletely out of line off the field.
I agree with you on this, but it was more his writing that I didn't love. He took a subject that had the potential to be very compelling and made it bland. It was filled with sports cliches, and was about as riveting as the Saturday evening news. Sports writing has come a long way - just not his.
I'd definitely agree. I was close to some people in the program during the Carr to RR transition. Some of them said the things that Bacon eventually published, but many also had credible sounding other sides of the story. I was definitely dissappointed that Bacon's book mostly told one side of the story and as such is only part of a definitive account of that era as opposed to the definitive account.
I realize Carr wasn't talking and likely never will (not surprising), but even on the board we had a lot of people who could provide views from the 'Carr camp'/'anti-RR camp'/'whatever you want to call it camp' and that led to some really informative (and intense) discussions on the boards. Bacon should have gone out and interviewed enough people to accurately portray all the forces at play surrounding RichRod as opposed to just saying "Carr won't comment and Moeller won't say anything really substantive, so I'll only tell you what I learned while embedded with RR." We might have come out looking worse, but at least we'd be closer to having a formal account of that era.
Also the writing style actually felt lower level than many things I read on the board. Although I suppose his publisher wanted that since the average person reads on a low level, if they can get them to read a book at all.
But, like you said, I can't really blame him for that. In fact, you could consider that good writing because it makes it much more available to a much wider audience. So while I found it bland, simple, and safe, I understand why he (or his publisher) chose to have it written* it that way.
*edited it to avoid having a stupid spelling error while critiquing someone for dumbing down their writing
Saying that "Carr won't talk to me" is a bit of a co-out. A number of the attacks against Michigan aren't made by Rich himself, but guys in his camp. (The whole Casteel claims are made by people other than Rich, for example). There certainly had to be lots of people, from assistant coaches, to friends and players, who would talk about what was going on if Carr didn't. But he doesn't seem to quote any of them to any great length.
Isn't it hard not to feel a little dirty about the money side of big time college athletics? The hypcrisy of calling them amateurs gets harder to ignore when every year another $10-20 million is added to the bottom line of major athletic departments like UM.
And after seeing what many in the UM administration and booster groups did to undermine RR from the minute he got here, I don't have the same faith in those institutions that I used to.
The UM Football program, while great in many respects, is not immune to pettiness or serving self interests above all else.
How on earth can we hope to form an opinion on an unreleased book that none of us have read yet? To say "the folks in Ann Arbor wont like it much" is a bit vague for my liking as it raises more questions than it answers. What wont we like? Why wont we like it? What is he saying that we're not going to agree with our want published? I'm a bit unclear on those pesky detail things.
Look - John U has already penned a book that a lot of people in Ann Arbor "didnt like". Either because it made one side (the anti RR folks) look mean spirited and petty while painting the other (the pro RR side) as powerless victims of the evil cabal aligned against poor Rich. And both sides didnt like the dirty laundry aired out so widely for all others to see.
So what's one more book people won't like in his quiver?
Transparency, accountability ... it's what Michigan says it's all about. Easier to say than do. Bacon put his livelihood on the line to tell the truth as he saw it from an insider's viewpoint. I'll put my money on Bacon's side.
I can't create my own thread (at least I don' think) but UCONN is sending season ticket holders a one time use code for a $120 three pack (Blue Mini Plan Package) of tickets including the Michigan game. The tickets are in section 231 and include Michigan plus any two teams on the schedule. It appears there is no limit to the # of tickets that can be purchased with the unique code. I don't need the code so I am happy to share it with someone that does or to coordinate tickets for a group of people. The ticket price is $120 for 3 + $6 Fee/Ticket (3 Pack) + $5 1st Class Mail (per order) + $7 order charge (per order). The current minimum price is $138 per ticket on SeatCrunch plus whatever fees they add on.
Never heard of him.
So, we have an OP basing his opinion on a few comments about the book, then several people jumping on him because omg! John Bacon luvs Michigan! Everything he reports is so totally true and free of any possible bias!
.i agree with those who say let's just wait and read the book, then we can pass judgment (and probably end up right where we started).
I supported the RR hire. The guy is an offensive genius that just proved it again at Arizona. He absolutely sucked at coaching the defense or putting together a coherent defensive strategy, but he was and is a very, very good offensive coach, and most believe him to be a good motivator.
I really liked 3 and Out. We all know the story of the defensive failures, and that was hinted at (though certainly not thoroughly discussed) in the book. The reason I liked it was that it gave me the other side of the story--the part I didn't know.
I don't think Bacon is just a money-grubber. I think he tries to find some truth in his work. I'm not going to pretend 3 & Out wasn't imbalanced--it was. But Bacon's access probably showed him something that I also believe to be true: RR is a good coach and a good man, but was in the wrong place and made some stupid choices. It's probably hard to be critical of someone that you've come to admire, esp. when that preson has already received plenty of criticism.
Don't get me wrong--I was glad to see RR go. He blew his opportunity and deserved to be fired. But I like getting both sides of the story, and I'm grateful for Bacon's perspective. I don't have to agree with everything he writes to like it.