Known Unknowns, Hoke, And Guys From West Virginia
right: Will Moeller/Daily
Nine months ago Michigan fans were suspicious of both of their West Virginia coaching heists. Today one is sitting next to Billy Packer and Jason Whitlock in a suit; the other is a season away from establishing himself for the long haul. Both undertook program-changing measures after a disappointing start, but only one successfully delegated his way to success.
You know who is who. Rich Rodriguez:
- fired Scott Shafer after one year as defensive coordinator,
- hired retread Greg Robinson, and
- forced him to run a 3-3-5-ish defense that incorporated the 3-4 and 4-3 with freshmen everywhere.
He got the sad firing box.
John Beilein:
- literally fired or replaced every one of his assistants,
- hired two up-and-comers from smaller schools, and
- all but abandoned the 1-3-1 defense that was his trademark at West Virginia.
If he can wring the expected improvement out of his 46% freshman usage he'll have Michigan's basketball team in the Big Ten title picture for the first time since Fisher was run out of town.
Both coaches tweaked their specialty offense for different players. Rodriguez coaxed an NCAA-average performance out of true freshman Tate Forcier by relying on his scrambling ability in the pocket and using him as a decoy in the run game. (Or at least trying to—Tate had a bad habit of keeping the ball when his read said hand off.) He improved the offense further with sophomore-who-would-have-been-redshirt-freshman-if-Michigan-had-any-options Denard Robinson. Even the Robinson offense wasn't going back to the old Pat White well. Without a Slaton to put oomph in the read and with defenses far more prepared to deal with it these days, he implemented a rushing game that revolved around the quarterback instead of using him as a "gotcha" thunderbolt. He used the QB rushing staples to implement a terrifying play-action game that often saw receivers open by ten yards.
Terrible defense put Michigan in long-field situations (Michigan led the country in TD drives of more than 85 yards), there was no field goal kicking, and the inexperienced Robinson was a turnover machine. The thing was a bit rickety. It was erratic. It put too much load on Robinson's shoulders. It was also incredibly young and promised infinity when Robinson was old enough to cut out the turnovers. It finished #2 in FEI, which you know because I say it every ten seconds.
Beilein lost his only two upperclassmen from the immensely disappointing 2009 team and returned a collection of role players and youth. He had to know his best player was a point guard who couldn't shoot to save his life. He still had a perimeter four and a spread-the-court offense, but he implemented a ton of ball screens that gave defenses a choice between open threes from guys who shoot at a 38% clip or getting pick-and-rolled to death by Morris and Jordan Morgan. Morgan shot 63% as a result and Michigan vastly exceeded expectations.
This lived up to their rep. Both were regarded as innovators. "Genius" is definitely not a word you want to throw around when you're talking about coaches but their peers seemed to regard Beilein and Rodriguez as people you want to talk to. Beilein doesn't talk but gets the most votes when his peers are asked to judge solely on coaching acumen; Rodriguez does, so he pops up at Oklahoma and his coaches get snapped up two seconds after they're let go. Carr's coaching tree is Brady Hoke and Scot Loeffler, end of story. It's tough to throw a rock in college football without hitting someone inspired by or directly associated with Rodriguez.
But he's not here because he couldn't let go. Of all the numbers associated with his tenure at Michigan this is by far the most damning:
It's the 37 next to Syracuse in the FEI defense ratings. That is a schedule-adjusted, I-AA-ignoring measure of defensive competency featuring Scott Shafer and absolutely no talent a few spots off the defenses of Michigan State and Wisconsin. Last year (Shafer's first) they were 72nd, the year before that 80th when Greg Robinson was the head coach and functional DC.
Maybe that wasn't possible here what with Never Forget…
…and all that. But we do know Shafer, a very good MAC coordinator who Harbaugh picked up and then made Syracuse better than anyone thought possible very quickly, is a good coach. And we know he was undermined and pushed out. Evidence suggests Greg Robinson is a terrible coach but he was undermined, too, and instead of a vaguely worse defense than two BCS teams coupled with Denard Robinson—good for 8-4 at least—we got something that was literally the worst ever in various categories.
Beilein had already scrapped the 1-3-1 before the total program reboot and was rewarded with an uptick in his Kenpom numbers from 67th to 53rd. It's a lot harder to tell who's responsible for what, but Beilein seemingly felt everything was insufficient and blew it all to hell. He still teaches the 1-3-1 but only uses it on occasion; he's left the defense mostly to his assistants. His reward: 35th nationally this year. That's better than his previous three years at Michigan. It's better than he ever did at West Virginia, because he knew what he didn't know.
Rodriguez's problem was never his selection of defensive coordinators, it was his refusal to trust them to do their jobs. The thing about Hoke is this: he does. At SDSU he hired Rocky Long to run a 3-3-5; Rocky Long ran a 3-3-5, and it was pretty good, and now he's the head coach. He hired Al Borges to run a passing-oriented West Coast offense; Borges ran a passing-oriented West Coast offense that wasn't quite as good as Michigan's in FEI's eyes but was still top 20. If he "gets" anything it's that he's a former defensive lineman with a narrowly defined set of assets that does not include being a genius of any variety—he's never been a coordinator. So he's hired two guys with very long, very successful resumes to do that stuff for him. That's an upgrade over Rodriguez, who had one—himself. It's an upgrade over Carr, who had zero*.
When I am trying to be cheerful in the face of Hoke's indifferent record I think about the vagaries of MAC budgets and what Hoke did the instant he escaped them. Mattison is the third excellent hire Hoke's made. That's a trend, one that suggests he, too, knows what he doesn't know. Since I'm a Michigan fan I'm bracing for a fatal flaw, but at least it won't be the same one that sunk Rich Rodriguez.
-------------------
*[Ron English masterminded The Horror and does not count. Before his elevation at Michigan he had never been a coordinator. After he left he led the weak unit on the last Kragthorpe Louisville team and has started the slow process of dying at EMU. The only thing he's proven is that he can yell at several future NFL stars effectively.]
Title disclaimer: hate on Donald Rumsfeld all you want—just not here—but the bit about known knowns and known unknowns and unknown unknowns is a useful bit of language. Not intended to endorse or unendorse anything about Rumsfeld. Disclaimers uber alles.
West Virginia, 9-4 (not 5-7) his second year...8-5, 1st place in the conference his third year...so 20-17 (a winning record!), not 15-22. With Championships! (That's not even comparing his conference records...which, ouch). Safe to say if he had done what he had at WV at Michigan, he'd still be the coach. Sounds like maybe you should be giving more credit to Casteel.... But in any regard, the rate of improvement there was far different than it was at Michigan. So what you were seeing, and what you wanted to see were two different things.
(Glenville State, 15 years ago, has about as much as much bearing on Michigan as GERG's Super Bowl wins did).
What everyone else was worried about was 3 more bad years, with the program even harder to dig out of the hole it was in. No one wants to sue you. Just for you to get over it, and admit you were wrong. He's gone.
The point of my post was to say that there was a point at both jobs where the overall record wasn't good at all, but because there was progress he was given latitude. The overall record is what people point to when they say Rich Rod failed at Michigan. They don't argue that his progress each year wasn't big enough, they say he was 15-22. That's why I cited the overall records at the other two schools and not the year to year records.
If anything, the stint at Glenville State is more impressive than WVU. He took over a program that was not only winless the year before, but was so bad they were shut out 8 times. They had starters who hadn't played football in highschool. And you don't have coordinators at that level like you do in the FBS, so it was all Rich Rod.
There is just as much need to worry about the next 3 years being bad as there were before Rich Rod was fired. We're entering into an unknown right now. There is nothing that has happened that ensures we won't keep losing. To say there is probability either way is pointless.
How do you admit you were wrong that the upward trend would continue when the trend was cut off?
Because if he had won 9 games last year, there's no doubt he would have been back. Heck, 8 would have probably done it. He might even have had a chance with his record if he could have been close in at least a couple of his last games.
When the trend doesn't match the previous trends, then you can really use it as a view of the future anymore, because they don't correlate anymore either. But you're right, there's no real assurances either way. But I never said Hoke was going to succeed for sure. Just that Rich had failed.
What makes it more likely to get better, than get worse? Well, we don't have a cloud over the program, the stink of failure on it, and recruits actually taking a strong look at us, and not worried about "is he going to get fired"? and 9 more months of negative talk. Which means we are more likely to get a much better recruiting class, which means we actually start getting the players we need to win vs. the big boys. Which every game against them in the last 3 years has shown we're sorely lacking. If we have another middling recruiting class, than yes, things might not be turning around. But our odds of landing one just went up, not down.
but when I get into a debate about Rich Rod anywhere, I get the same response: 15-22. 0-6 against MSU/OSU (it was 0-3 and 1-5 against ND/MSU/OSU up until this year, when people started dropping ND, presumably because 0-6 sounds worse than 2-7.) When I mention the offensive progress, they say that stats don't matter, wins are all that matters. Yet when I bring up the progressing win total, they start talking about the defense getting worse each year. Yes, the same people who just discounted the offensive numbers because "stats don't matter."
I've heard some pretty good arguments on the both sides of the Rich Rod debate. But all of the completely stupid arguments I've heard came from the anti-Rich Rod side. I don't know what that means, but it's true to my experience.
Aren't really trashing ANY Michigan Football coaches, or taking sides.
Most of my debates are on here, and for the most part, even if I disagree, and think they're misguided, they're fairly well reasoned out, like your arguments. Though there are exceptions. And yes, if I thought about it, I could think of some really dumb pro-Rich arguments I've heard...but I'll just concede that more were against, because they got a lot of their talking points from radio, papers, etc., which is filled with stupid people...and not just Michigan fans, but people who aren't Michigan fans too. I wonder how many stupid anti-Hoke arguments we'll hear as gospel once people start listening to the Valenti's and Sharp's of the world, and use them against Brady too. (I mean, we already have the "just wants to win the Big Ten, not a National Program" meme out there).
My answer - hang out with less stupid people, spend more time on MGoBlog. Though I know that's not always possible. Sometimes one is related to them.
Perhaps this is lost on you.
When the incline of progress starts at 3-9, it can't just be SOME progress that is acceptable. It has to be remarkable progress.
Because the "progress" you mention didn't pass the eyeball test, even on the offensive side of the ball. Everything about the team looked and felt stagnant. I'll credit Coach Rodriguez for assembling a group of guys who are very likable and easy to root for, but he just couldn't get the job done.
you make a great point about stats not mattering and applying it to the defense. I typically found myself in the same circular argument with the anti-RR folks. I should've used that one.
I don't know the stats from Rodriguez's other coaching tenures, so I could easily be wrong about this, but...
The offense was getting better, without a doubt, but the defense and special teams were an absolute disaster and on a clear downward trend (I guess, technically, they were at rock bottom, so I guess the trend had stopped). I'm not saying that Rodriguez couldn't have turned it around, but to say that it was bound to happen at Michigan is as much conjecture as people who say it wasn't going to happen.
He put together an offense that could generate huge amounts of yards, but not necessarily a lot of points (at least due in part to horrible kicking, necessitating a lot of going for it on 4th down). He also let the D decend into a total failure and the special teams turn into a non-existent facet of the team on his watch.
I really, really wanted Rodriguez to succeed, but as I've gotten more distance from last season, it's clear there were serious problems that time alone might not have fixed.
We said the defense was at rock bottom the year before too....and the year before that...and, well.... (Kinda the same thing, though not as bad with Special Teams....Turnovers....)
I thought the only stats that mattered were wins and losses? What does it matter that the offense was super duper if the record sucked? Well, what does it matter that the defense was worse and worse every year if the record was getting better and better?
You can't have it both ways.
No one said that the defensive numbers meant they were going to keep trending down. You don't need any stats to see the onfield results of the defense have been putrid.
And why does it matter? Because you hit a ceiling. Which showed up in the game results. Sure, we were suddenly able to beat the Toledo's of the world, even with a worse defense, but that improved offense had gotten us no closer to beating Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, Michigan State, and the like. Our results were very 2008 in those types of games. There's a limit to what the #1 offense and the #111 defense can do. The next step wasn't winning more games...it would have to be getting close in some games against good teams. And really, we were a lot closer to losing the ones we won than we were to winning the ones we lost. So where was the progression going to come from to continue?
Good question. Here's another: why would you expect a coaching change to result in a miraculous turnaround on defense next year? We still have most of the same players who can't play.
to expect the defense to have a turnaround year.
1. The defensive coordinator is a bonafide stud. Pedigree for miles.
2. The defensive scheme will be simpler.
3. Players returning from injury.
4. The poor production last year was more likely a result of confusion and youth than the result of being a bunch of kids "who can't play."
5. The focus of the head coach has switched to defense.
I'm already tired of listing stupidly obvious reasons, so I'm just going to stop.
EDIT: By "turnaround", we're not talking top 20. Most of us would call 75thish a "turnaround". In my personal opinion, I think 25 points a game is realistic and anything better than that would be gravy. Then again, if pressed, I really am just pulling numbers out of my ass because the circumstances with returning starters, coaching changes, scheme changes, etc are just too much for my little head to track.
I don't think there's going to be a miraculous turnaround. I think the 10 win hopes were pipe dreams with either coach. The defense is just too bad. I don't see this as a 1 year turnaround. It's as much or more of a rebuilding project as we had in 2008 on offense. I just have more confidence that the current staff can recruit great defenders, then use them properly, than the last staff. And on offense they probably not be as good as the last staff, but a hell of a lot better than the last defensive staff, so an overall improvement.
I could be wrong. They're 0-0. But I just see us in a better spot, emphasizing defense (rather than seemingly not knowing what to do on defense while emphasizing offense) in a few years. But at least I'm rooting for Michigan to succeed.
Actually, yes. People can have it any way they want it since the wins and losses stat firmly falls into "suck."
Well, when I said "rock bottom" I meant that in a literal, national ranking kind of way. I guess technically Michigan's D could get worse, since they weren't ranked 120th, but they were very close.
The only measurable difference between this stop and the first two: entitlement and a lack of patience because of it.
You left out a little part about a local media that had completely lost it's shit on the guy, a national media that was absolutely eating up the negative stories that emanated forth because of it, and the man's bankrupt public relations toolbox could never kill the tidal wave that had formed.
You saw a situation like that and you are honestly pulling Glenville State out of your ass? Incredible.
I'd argue that it takes a greater amount of "genius" to be a head coach who shows effective leadership, delegation, inspiration, direction, game planning, etc. That's why there are fewer head coaches than there are coordinators and assistants. Beilein's "genius" goes well beyond scrapping the zone (which isn't exactly accurate). He also added to his offense, during the season, identified a couple of 3* players in Hardaway and Morris who were either under the radar or riding JB's system, figured out a way to get maximum results out of a couple of lightly thought of guards (Novak and Douglass), etc. He also had some multiple of the obstacles Rodriguez faced in terms of recent program success and facilities.
Maybe Rodriguez failed because he didn't realize what he didn't know, but I don't think that completely explains his time in Ann Arbor. Missing something because you didn't see it coming or hadn't thought of it is one thing, missing it because you are firmly entrenched in a point of view that excludes all other considerations is something entirely different. One is out of innocence or inexperience, one is arrogance.
I'm setting the over/under that Brian is able to go two consecutive weeks without bringing up Rich Rodriguez or "the process" at 1 year.
I am taking the over.
Has Brian gone two consecutive weeks without mentioning Carr since he retired? And were people upset about him still being mentioned the spring after he retired?
Like it or not, things that happened in the past three years while Rodriguez was here will be relevant for quite a while. I don't get the purpose of bitching about it after this post, which is just pointing out that Hoke is very unlikely to repeat one of the biggest problems that prevented Rodriguez from having success.
Here's another over/under: How many recent MGoBlog enrollees will, after reading columns that contain "Rodriguez" and "Hoke," refer to Mr. Cook by his first name like they're longtime buddies? I say 5/column.
Check out DoctorBlue17's sign-up date. I believe there's a 3.7% chance that he's an Athletic Department gnome dispatched by DB to astroturf here and on other places where Michigan fans are likely go get news about the squad.
I have more than 100 times as many points as DB17 (and not even 10% of the high-pointers here) and you'll *never* see me directly address the 'blog owner. Poor form.
But no one can respond to them? Even though a big part of the Blog is commenting on other media, be it papers, or other blogs? So they can be criticized by the blog, but no one can react? It's a blog, it's not the White House. Get over it.
And really, if "Brian" doesn't want to be addressed as "Brian" on the site, or on other sites, maybe he should label his posts as by "Mr. Cook", instead of..hmmm..what's at the top of the page...? Oh, right. "Brian".
The AD Gnome thing is so silly it's not even worth the tin foil hat pic embed.
I indirectly referred to you as a high-pointer and this is the thanks I get? :)
Seriously, where did I say that no one can respond? Lousy reading comprehension ...
I said nothing of the sort. I was picking on DB17's (just now noticed the initials ... maybe it's DB himself) use of Brian. Makes him seem like one of the guys, doesn't it?
As for the AD Gnome idea, did you see the 3.7% figure? I'm not completely serious, but there were an awful lot of Hokemaniacs strafing the board in late January.
And that tells you how much I really think of points....
But in my defense, GoBlueinTX got a similar impression, and he's much more reasonable and level-headed than I am. :-P
How's the view from that high horse of your's?
Personally, I beleve everyone under 5,000 points is a troll in disguise, just waiting to hijack threads and subvert our way of life.
n00b.
You've adapted quite nicely to your way of life in 5 months.
Hi Blue, this is the US in the twenty-first century. In these parts, it's customary to address each other by first name.
How does Mr. Cook refer to himself in the "byline" of his blog entries?
In the last 40 years, the best UM football coaches have either been an unheralded MAC coach or little-known (nationally) coordinator. But, both took UM either almost to, or to, the top of the mountain nationally. In short, neither Bo nor Lloyd had national "buzz" prior to taking the UM job, and in each case, their coaching stint had less to do with them personally than with coaching at block M Michigan.
For better or worse, Michigan remains a brand, and a powerful one at that. Look at the last 3 years, specifically the number of nationally (ABC/ESPN) televised games we have appeared on regardless of our record or the quality of the team we have put on the field. Coaches in the past who have recognized and embraced this, and "meshed" their egos within the brand - Bo's most famous quotes, put on T-shirts by Beilein, are of "The Team, the Team, the Team" - have been very successful here.
I believe Hoke is from this same vintage. He has a similar pedigree to both Bo and Lloyd. Moreover, he hired a DC with far more pedigree, and perhaps more UM roots, than himself. He does appear to be more of a delegator than inventor, and that is quite fine with me now. I will miss the dynamic offense of the last 1 1/2 years. I will miss MGoBoard discussions of Florida High School electrons potentially darting across Michigan Stadium for future years. But, I will not miss the 3-3-5; I will not miss special teams ineptitude; and I will not miss a 7-6 record as the zenith. I am excited for the coming year and years to come. I think Hoke will turn out to be a far better recruiter than initially presumed, and under Mattison I see our defense becoming frankly nasty within 2 years, if not less. Further, our enemy in Columbus has been up to a great deal of malfeasance, a recruiting and competitive bonanza in the right hands (and I believe Hoke/Mattison fit that bill).
I am glad that I had the opportunity to see UM become a spread offense at some point in my life. It didn't work, unfortunately, and now it is time to go back to the "old days' when we will (hopefully) bemoan the aesthetics of 31-14 victories vs MSU (ytMSU). I look forward to the road ahead.
Hail!
Rodriguez's problem was never his selection of defensive coordinators, it was his refusal to trust them to do their jobs.
I think his problem was that, quite simply, he didn't know anything about defense. From scheming it, to staffing it, to delegating it, (arguably) to recruiting it. These were all failbombs.
Brian's running theme here is that coming to grips with what you're not good at, and delegating accordingly, is a good trait for a head coach. I fully agree. But I'd like to ask everyone what they think--realistically--we'll be saying about Borges and Mattison come January next?
As I see it, reviews of Mattison should be glowing. Why? Because after the collosal failure of the past 3 years on the defensive side of the ball, fielding a sure tackling, disciplined and generally well schemed unit of average effectiveness will seem like a godsend. We allowed an average of 35.23 pts/game in 2010, vs. 14.31 for Big 10 leader OSU. If we can get that down to 25 pts/game we're going to be much more competitive. I think this is realistic for us, provided our offense becomes more efficient.
Borges has a tougher job winning public opinion by next year. Why? Because we scored 32.77 pts/game under RR. So, really, it's going to be very difficult for him to make the impression that our offense improved with raw scoring numbers. I don't think topping that is realistic, and think our pts/game will decline, perhaps to 28 pts/game.
But he has a chance to demonstrate other positives besides raw scoring. For me, those are limiting turnovers, keeping Denard healthy, better 3rd down efficiency and improving our pts/drive ratio. That wouldn't make the offense higher ranked than RR's, statistically, but it might help the team win just as much or more.
Of course, our 2010 scoring average was inflated by a 65-point outburst against a MAC team and a 67-point showing in a triple-OT game. In our other 11 games we averaged 26 ppg.
For a lot of fans, the point totals that matter from last season are these: 17, 7 and 14. Not what we racked up against Indiana or BG.
You don't think our cupcakes this year will inflate it yet again? Or that other teams' scoring averages are not similarly inflated?
April 11th, 2011 at 11:50 AM ^
Test
April 11th, 2011 at 11:52 AM ^
test
How lucky that bastard Brandon is to have so many useful idiots in this fanbase. All I can recall from the mere mention of Hoke as a potential candidate for the Michigan head coaching job was teeth gnashing as everyone looked at his appalling mid-major coaching record or asked a combination of "who / WTF?!?!." The guy does a press conference and declares that Michigan will now be "tough," and all of the sudden, most fans, who were disappointed and recognized the need to make a change, but were despondent at the choice of Hoke, somehow transformed their opinions of Hoke from massive embarrassment to second coming of Bo. I cannot believe how gullible you people are. You have taken the PR bait hook, line and sinker. It's pathetic.
I think Hoke can do well here. But if he does, it is just as much on the players, you know, who are actually playing the game, as it was on them when Michigan failed to live up to its standards under Rod. All of the new-found supporters of Hoke are giving this guy way too much credit in the face of a poor career coaching record while at the same time attributing all of the ills of the world to Rod when, at the time he was hired, had a record that promised much more.
Rod made a lot of mistakes, but he had no support from his administration, the local media and half of our jackass fans who don't like people who don't talk good. He failed. No need to dance on his grave. At the same time, Hoke hasn't done anything. How about we not buy the hype until his coaching actually wins us a game. Nothing he has done to date has been as impressive as you all let on. Try to think for yourselves.
I highly doubt a majority of readers here regard Hoke as the "second coming of Bo".
Yes, when Hoke was named head coach I facepalmed. I banged my head against the door shouting obscenities to the Angry Michigan _____ Hating God. He had a sub-par record at "weaker" schools and the transition back to a pro-style offense scared me into thinking it was going to be another 2008.
When Hoke had his first press conference, he let everyone know he "gets" Michigan. What does that mean? He knows the rivalries. He knows the goal (Win the Big Ten. Something I personally agree with. You're not getting to the NC game without it). I'm not saying the speech made me turn into a Hokeamaniac where I would profess my love for RAWRMANBALL, because it didn't. Hoke knows he's not going to unite the fanbase unless he WINS. What he did do was brilliant: He convinced the fanbase to give him a shot.
The leash is very, very short, but the overwhelming "OH GOD NO"s from a lot of people are gone. Simply put: He has to thrash Western. Anything close is going to turn people against him. A loss will cause me to invest large amounts of money in the Ann Arbor Torch and Pitchfork co.
The ND game puts him on the big stage: national TV in Michigan's first ever night game. The team MUST show up. If we get blown out, the doubters call for his head. If we keep it respectable (hey, ND DID look better towards the end of the year) but lose, we'll get a few grumblings and 2-3 "FIRE HIM LOL" threads, but nothing catastrophic. A win keeps the Hoke train going strong, and might see a few bandwagoners hop on. The rest is easy: win all the OOC games. Soundly beat the poor Big Ten teams and beat MSU (the importance for this cannot be understated. It's a bit personal, because I don't want to graduate UofM with an 0-4 record against those twats), OSU is the cherry on the Hokeasundae.
It's not unreasonable to think we could jump towards the top of the Big Ten. It's also not unreasonable to see a 5-7 or 6-6 season with the transitions. Hoke has shown that he knows what needs to be done. Whether or not this gets done is yet to be seen, but his spirit and enthusiasm has given him the shot he needs.
BEFORE any press conferences. So at least I'm not easily swayed.
But yes, it will be the players who get it done or not. And hopefully we're going to be recruiting a lot better players now, too. If we don't, yeah, Brady, won't be long for the world....
is what DB was being told privately by major athletic dept donors and premium seating/suite buyers. I don't think it's any secret that a large portion of them hated RR from the beginning, and with the way the season ended against Wisconsin, OSU, and in the bowl game, I would be very surprised if there weren't plenty of them bitching up a major shitstorm and threatening to pull back on their financial support if RR wasn't booted. I know Brandon issued a lot of tough talk about how nobody was going to influence his decision, but I believe that's just for public consumption. We'll never know the inside situation from Brandon's lips, but I think eventually other insiders will spill the beans if in fact there was private pressure on DB to make a move. There are those who think that rich Michigan fans would never issue any demands on an AD because we're allegedly above that. I think that's naive, but I admit to great cynicism when it comes to money, winning football, and passionate fans.
But I don't think it is true. I know some very big donors. I am not aware of a single one of them who would have complained to Brandon about the HC position. All of the people I know, would say something like, "What do I know about football? That's what we hire coaches and Athletic Directors for..." I think of donors like Al Glick, John Junge, Stephen Ross, Fred Wilpon, Dick Kughn, Joel Tauber, Tom Maentz; they are all busy people with no serious football background. I think they'd all be embarassed to be thought of as telling David Brandon how to get a better defense on the field, or else no more money. It's ridiculous. Actually, Tom Maentz played football with Ron Kramer, and neither one of them were ever lacking for opinions. But Tom Maentz is almost 80 years old.
No; I don't believe that donor/endowment money had anything to do with the firing of Rich Rodriguez. I'd actually encourage anybody to ask those questions, of the people who count. I am willing to bet on the answers.
Section 1 has it right - most of the biggest donors to the University would not demand any coach be fired - that just isn't how they operate. Some may voice concern about the team's performance or the negative press but it is in the interest of protecting an institution that they identify with.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If this shadowy myth of the old, tradition-bound Michigan booster who pulls all the strings behind the scenes was true, Rodriguez NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN HIRED.
I think people have to finally realize is that no matter what people say or comment, Brian will write whatever he wants. It is his blog afterall. Don't be surprised if this sort of topic comes up again, in which case it's probably best to not read it if you don't like it.
Personally, I think this particular post was informative and a slight change from the anit-Hoke sentiments.
This thread hurts my head. What we need is RR to get hired, install his "genius" again at a school with WV like expectations and see what happens. My prediction, failure. I could be wrong and if I am I'll eat the crow that goes with it. I see a man who created an offensive scheme that, for a time, gave him a decided advantage and used it to its fullest(no national championships). Then, as the world around him adjusted to counter this new threat he did not adapt. He tried to simply repeat his success at WV when he came to UM, using the exact same methods. Theres a couple of old sayings that, while cliche, do apply pretty good.
1. Lightning in a bottle(Pat White/Slayton era at WVU)
2. You can go to the well 1 too many times(RR era at Michigan)
Credit the man, his scheme will live on in football in various forms for at least another decade and possibly more. As we have seen and will continue to see, other coaches will adapt it, revise it and improve it. Some with great success, some with less. I hope Al Borges does just that next year at Michigan.
Maybe I'll be wrong, maybe RR will indeed adapt and adjust his scheme at his next job and have great success. If he does I'll tip my hat, as he will have learned from his time at Michigan where, from what I saw, he simply tried to rinse & repeat what worked great for him in 2005 and the world had evolved past that.
Sorry, no matter what FEI says, an offense thats as "great" as some would have the stats let them believe does not get stuffed like ours did against a middle of the pack SEC defense. Especially when the genius inventor of said offense has 15 practices to prepare for the one game that could save his job.
Tell that to Oregon.
And for the millionth time: He was building programs and winning conference championships well before he ever ran into Pat White and/or Steve Slaton.
On this thread. It ignites discussion (sometimes stupid), and I don't see why people think these comparisons and topics aren't relevant to the current history of UM football. If anything, it would be worse if these things weren't talked about and RR's name was just stricken from the history books like some want it to be. We learn from our mistakes and that's the great thing about history (the trouble starts when you try to forget about it and it repeats itself).
He writes this stuff, then just sits back and laughs at the added page hits it gives him as we all go ape-shit over the same old stuff.
In my opinion, the delegation of duties on defense or offense by a head coach is akin to an executive delegating the governing of certain areas of an entity (corporation, government, etc.). The first and most important question is how does the chief executive run the business - does he/she set certain criteria/requirements that all subordinates must follow or does the chief simply let their delegates run with their specific area of expertise?
In Rodriguez's case, he had a vision for the defense and his greatest fault is being unable to hire the right man for the job. He wanted to run the 3-3-5 (or whatever you want to call it). It was a requirement and you could see him forcing the application. Unfortunately, it appeared as though neither Shafer nor Robinson could run it.
In Hoke's case, it appears as though he has been willing to let his defensive coordinator choose the schemes.
At the end of the day, I do not care which management style is invoked as long as the team is successful. I don't think either style can truly be criticized for anything other than the end result. There are many successful executives that dictate general terms and let subordinates go from there, similar to what Rodriguez did. On that point, I disagree with Brian's seeming assessment that Rodriguez's failure was his mandate that his defense be run. That was not the problem.
Comments