1M1Ucla

October 3rd, 2014 at 2:11 AM ^

Oregon would beat Michigan by 4 touchdowns -- Arizona would beat Michigan by more than that. But, boy, if Michigan had just executed better, that would have been something. Maybe only beat by 14. I've been a Michigan Man since before I was born, but I've moved on until Michigan does.


Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

CoverZero

October 3rd, 2014 at 2:21 AM ^

Im beginning to realize that Hoke was hired simply because Brandon wanted a head coach that he had 100% control of and could live though vicariously.  I didnt want to accept that this was possible before, but events of this week show otherwise.  Hoke is merely a puppet.  RR wasnt going to be that guy, and no Harbaugh or Les would be either...

Mr. Yost

October 3rd, 2014 at 2:25 AM ^

...but it didn't mean that Hoke wasn't going to succeed. So people were willing to live with it.

Even with the no headset. No one cared when they thought he had good coordinators. They just wanted Hoke to manage the team and let the coordinators do the work.

But no way Brandon was going to have a coach that outshined him. It's just not his style.

Then again Rich Rod didn't have anything to do with that part of it...Rich Rod just wasn't his guy, and if he could hire his guy, and his guy succeeded when Rich Rod failed. That makes Brandon look like a hero.

Mpfnfu Ford

October 3rd, 2014 at 2:28 AM ^

F ALL Y'ALL who got mad at RichRod over Josh Groban. Every time I listen to Groban's version of Anthem from the musical Chess I get a bit dusty. IT'S OKAY TO BE MOVED BY THE ART OF MUSIC. 

csam14

October 3rd, 2014 at 3:37 AM ^

#272, I signed up for an account to respond to your stupid stupidity specifically. In short, you are dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb. As a 2002 UM grad and a resident of Tucson since 2003, I have seen what it means for a college to both subvert and support RichRod. At UM, they poked fun of his *wife*. Here, the Arizona Daily Star posts Rita's recipe for nachos (nachoes?). Here, five losses with a win versus Oregon (the premier team in the conference) and a bowl win is cause for celebration. At Michigan, we believe anything less than 9 wins is cause for concern. Remembering that RichRod lost five games in 2013 is irrelevant without context: that was at ARIZONA. Arizona wants a good, tough team that competes. UM, as evidenced by your post, wants a team that is historically competitive with ghosts of Michigan past that may not even *exist*. How are your perspectives or your closely-held beliefs advancing our position? Your perspective keeps us mired in a past where lack of improvement on a false standard (championships when UChicago was a B1G team) creates the bar to hurdle. That is dumb. You are dumb. Please create something positive in your comments. Your contribution to this point is lacking, you dumb, motherless, mother[...].

csam14

October 3rd, 2014 at 4:09 AM ^

Mr. Yost, your comments are all worthless. Worthless. Nice try though, trying to sound judicious. Yes, stupid, RichRod and Hoke can fail, objectively, equally at UM. That does not mean both failed equally for the same reasons. And "results based" decision-making with regards to retention does not automatically make sense when you are assessing repeat players over time. Your posts, Mr. Yost, project a false sense of equanimity when the real conclusion from the empirical results is clearly RichRod gave UM reason for hope, whereas Hoke and similarly-outdated-dinosaur-decision-tree-makers give us reason for despair. An upward trajectory offers nothing other than a sunny outlook. How you can continue to believe a loser continuing to lose is equal to a winner continuing to win is beyond me: it makes me wonder whether you might actually be Steve Ballmer trolling our board for fun and $Profit.

ghost

October 3rd, 2014 at 4:31 AM ^

This puts a big dent in MSU's playoff hopes.  They Pac12 champ is still getting in, but Oregon hammering them looks worse and worse.

For Oregon they still need to beat Stanford and win the conference.  This doesn't change their outlook that much.

Watch Arizona get upset by USC next week and lost to the Leach in 2 weeks, who with a way way worse team than Rich Rod almost beat Oregon.

People were overrating Oregon largely based on them hammering MSU.  Both were overrated.

Webber's Pimp

October 3rd, 2014 at 7:17 AM ^

UM had it everything it needed in coach Rodriguez. An offensive minded coach for the offensive game of football that is played in the 21st century. And then we fired him because he wasn't a "Michigan Man". Simply put - we BLEW IT! And we will continue to pay a heavy price as long as this nostaligic and antiquated concept continues to dictate the conversation. God speed boys.

UMtradition21

October 3rd, 2014 at 7:40 AM ^

Rich Rod was fired due to the fact of:

2008 - 3-9 (2-6 in B1G)

2009 - 5-6 (1-7 in B1G)

2010 - 7-6 (3-5 in B1G)

The 52-14 loss to Miss St. sealed the deal. Its easy to look back now and say what if. But im sure you werent saying that when we were raising the Sugar Bowl trophy in 2012.... I wish Rich Rod would have succeeded. His offense was fun to watch and brought excitement. 

Mr. Yost

October 3rd, 2014 at 9:31 AM ^

Those always get lost in the shuffle.

49-137. 

That mighty offense put up 16.3 points per game in the last 3 games. Everyone forgets that...they talk about the promise and how they loved the offense. No, they loved it when it WORKED. In those 3 games, we scored 16PPG! That's absurd.

Meanwhile, we gave up 137! That's just as mind-numbing.

This was in Rich Rod's 3rd year and at the end of the season. This was the portion of the season where you needed to see some progress, some light, some of the future. 49-137 isn't going to cut it. I'm sorry.

It doesn't make him a terrible coach, it doesn't make me a Rich Rod hater, it's just facts. He's a very solid coach and a very good offensive mind. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't have gotten fired for failing to do his job successfully. 

16.3 points per game, for a Rich Rodriguez coached team. Then turn around and allow a combined 137. I just don't see how other people can't see it. 

I know the ND games were excited and 67 in 3(OT) was awesome and Denard was Denard...but damn, we forget about bad it really had gotten that year.

And he wasn't doing anything to show anyone it was going to get better. That's the problem. Maybe if he starts the year with those numbers and finishes the year strong, it's a debate. In fact, I honestly think it would be. But you can't finish your 3rd year like that after doing nothing in year's 1 and 2 and expect people to feel good about the direction of the program.

McSomething

October 3rd, 2014 at 6:02 PM ^

So why didn't a downward trend in record, coupled with an embarrasing blowout loss in a bowl game of his own cost Hoke his job? Oh right, he piggy-backed his way to an 11 win season on a weak schedule and the players of the previous coach in his first year, and he was a "Michigan Man." The latter qualification being the only reason he looks like he has even a remote chance at holding onto the job at season's end.

Mr. Yost

October 3rd, 2014 at 9:14 AM ^

He gave up 137 points in his final 3 games and got destroyed in each of them.

The promising offense scored 14 points in his final game. He blew it.

There was no bright future...and this doesn't change that. He never won in conference and never won past Oct. 1.

But cry some more, I hear it's healthy for you.

klpatty

October 3rd, 2014 at 9:10 AM ^

I still think we need to clean house, granted RR sucked here but i think the AD & the coach need to work together. RR might have been successful here but changing the offense was to much.

ford_428cj

October 4th, 2014 at 8:39 AM ^

Just watched this game last night. Damn RR looked good as a coach. Looks like I  was wrong about him. Congrats to him.