The New Phonebooks Will Save Us
If this was an editorial cartoon, Steve Martin would have "Michigan" written all over him and the phonebooks would say "alumni." Also it would be terrible.
You know, my immediate reaction to this AnnArbor.com headline…
Former receiver Braylon Edwards impressed by one Michigan coach, down on another following busy Friday
…was "great, more people talking crap about Rodriguez." Turns out Edwards was just talking crap about Mike Hart. Well played, Bigelow. It's good to know that we've stopped taking hardly veiled shots at Rodriguez and are ready to move on—
“Just more about the tradition,” Edwards said of Hoke’s message. “And he appreciates the alums, and he definitely wants to get us involved and do everything we can to educate the players who play there now.
“Because it’s sad to say, a lot of them don’t know the tradition at Michigan. Back in the day, players knew the former players. They knew the countdowns, the titles, Hail to the Victors. I’m sure if you ask some of the kids on the team now, I guarantee there’s a couple of kids that don’t know all of the words in full.”
Son of a bitch. People are talking crap about Rodriguez not respecting Michigan's tradition at the alumni flag football game he started. In related news, this year's Tunnel Of Victors will feature a special version of the MGoBlue banner that says "F.U. RICHROD."
Meanwhile… Braylon Edwards. He should probably stop talking and doing things. When you punch some dude or say your DUI for blowing twice the legal limit was because of tinted windows or that Cleveland "has nothing" while you have a "New York-type essence" or that your teammates quit and the starting quarterback should be different and your OC is bad or that people on the football team don't know the fight song, that doesn't reflect well on yourself or "Lloyd Carr's" University of Michigan. It's one thing to take swipes at current players who might not be great at football collectively. It's another when they're awesome dudes and you're someone people euphemistically dub "controversial" or "outspoken." Because bitching about Charlie Frye makes you Malcolm X.
Mike Hart also said some things about how Rodriguez didn't value the tradition but prefaced that with a statement about how he always felt welcome back; Breaston dismissed the "he wasn't accepted" bit and focuses on winning games; meanwhile, Ron Bellamy:
“We are ecstatic,” Bellamy said. “We know it’s a process. You can’t build up the program in a year or two. You have to give him a chance to bring his guys in the right way and play football in this conference the way it is supposed to be played.”
Edwards before last year:
"He has to make it work," Edwards said. "If he can't -- me being one of the alumni guys -- I want someone that can make it work. We've been patient. If it doesn't go right this year, we'll have to find a guy that can make it work with that winged helmet."
![Facepalm1[2]](https://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/804d06812199_E081/Facepalm12.jpg "Facepalm1[2]")
Since Michigan's tradition quickly became "screw you, Rich Rodriguez," I can't imagine why there was a disconnect there.
Who cares? We just watched a bunch of guys who essentially never beat OSU and/or quit en masse once they didn't like the head coach blame Rodriguez for the program's decline. Yeah, it declined. Yeah, Rodriguez had a lot to do with it. So did they. Jim Brandstatter of all people:
"He had a lot of strikes against him when he walked in the door and that was sad," Brandstatter said.
Whatever Rodriguez's failings were they were amplified by a culture that immediately rejected him. There was a rebellion the seniors on this year's team are pointing to as a Bad Idea. Someone sold him out to the Free Press. He was treated like garbage at alumni outings.
Meanwhile, the complainers were the reason Michigan had to go outside the family. The Great Tradition of Michigan had recently devolved into a 1-6 record against OSU and The Horror. The Great Tradition had produced zero plausible head coaching candidates to continue it. The Tradition is blaming it all on a scapegoat instead of manning up and looking in the mirror. They are collectively Edwards blaming his 0.16 BAC on tinted windows.
That's not a good way to run anything. Without a serious analysis of what you did wrong other than "hire that outsider," with how your culture is messed up, you become Notre Dame. Some guys were willing to be active with the program over the last few years and plenty more didn't sell it out publicly; the decision not to speaks to the player, not Rodriguez. 
Carr's former players aren't the program. A subset of them think it's about them, but it's about Denard and Molk and Martin and Kovacs, the ones who stayed and worked hard and were emphatically not champions thanks in some small part to people like Edwards. Van Bergen:
"You know, it's just kind of unsettling that there's … it's great that they're back, but it's kind of, where have they been the last two or three years?" Van Bergen said. "We've still been wearing the same helmets since they were here."
Despite what they think, the alumni are just fans now. It's hard to imagine a big chunk weren't the loathsome sort glorying in a season-ending blowout.
So you'll have to excuse the rest of us who stood in those stands during the Fandom Endurance III game and are terribly sad about how the last three years worked out: we've got a phonebook to care about instead of Braylon Edwards's glorious return to the program.
[ROTE DISCLAIMER THAT WILL BE IGNORED: This is not a defense of Rich Rodriguez. Rodriguez should have been fired. It is not a criticism of Brady Hoke. I wrote a big long post about how Hoke's three non-MAC coordinator hires constitute a real reason for optimism. Early indications are this staff is taking advantage of the opportunities placed before them in this year's recruiting class, and with what's going on at OSU the hypothetical ceiling on the program could blow off.
I look forward to this being interpreted as an attack on Hoke in the comments. Bring it, reading comprehension failures of America.]
IIRC the whole #1 jersey thing wasn't even a tradition until Braylon asked for it and Carr told him to earn it. Which was what - '03? '04?
Which makes the "tradition" all of what - 6-7 years old, tops?
when the worse coach in Michigan history had endeared himself so greatly to a portion of the fanbase that some fans were pissing all over former players to protect the guy. Yes, Brian, you can say this is not a defense of RR all you want but that's only true in one sense: it's not a defense of the claim that RR should still be Michigan's coach. It is a defense of how RR ran the football program, or at least a defense of an aspect of how he did so.
Let me be clear. I think that Braylon Edwards is wrong about most things. I wouldn't take his advice on most issues. I also think that it is fair for us to ream the Freep, because we have access to all the same information to which they had access, or to which they would have had access if they actually investigated. However, I think in the case of former players, it seems likely that they have access to information that we do not. In particular, we do not know the nature and extent of their interactions with RR. What we do know is that many of them did not like him. From this we could conclude that these players were being irrational dicks, if we assume (1) that the information we don't know shows RR being a gee-golly good guy with them. However, we could also conclude that RR was being a dick, if we assume (2) that the information we don't know shows that RR gave the players a good reason to dislike him.
It's not clear to me why we should favor (1) over (2), especially given the number of former players who seemed pissed. It's possible, of course, that these players are just being dicks. This may seem especially likely in the case of Edwards, but even that claims is unsubstantiated. Why would Edwards stupidity with respect to drunk driving and leaving Cleveland make us think he i stupidly came to hate RR or anymore than RR's stupidity with respect to choosing defensive coordinators and monitoring practice hours would make us think he is likely to stupidly piss of alumni?
But even if you have reasons to favor (1), it's simply a load of bullshit to act like those of us who stood in the stands in the rain are somehow better fans than people who actually, you know, practiced and played for the team, who give substantial sums of money to the program. As somone below mentioned, this is classic "my fan-dick is bigger than yours" because I stand and yell AS LOUD AS I CAN rhetoric.
These former players may not have ever beaten OSU, but they did beat MSU, and Iowa, and PSU, and Toledo. They may not have won a National Championship, but they didn't crater the team into national embarassment either. I don't think that any of these things make them any more a part of the Michigan family than other players, but judging by your OSU comment, apparently you do.
And one more thing: Did you ever stop and wonder whether the fact that whole senior class decides to "rebell" is part the fault of the coach? Or did you just assume that these players were just being irrational dicks, just like all the other alumni who didn't like RR?
While I don't always agree with the former players I know, I respect their opinion a great deal more than Brian's. That isn't intended as a slight to him or mgoblog (I love this site), just an acknowledgement that guys who spent their entire college career living and breathing Michigan football might know more about what makes a good college coach than a blogger who I don't think has ever even played a down of organized football. Brian is great at what he does, but there has to be a reason beyond petty animus that every (and I do mean every) former player I know cannot stand Rich Rodriguez. I might not always agree with those guys, but here's guessing they know more about what it takes to be successful at UM than I do.
Saw this graffitied on a stop sign a few days ago and think it is great advice: "Think that you might be wrong." We all could stand to do that a little more often, Brian Cook included.
Al Bundy, high school football star.
This man knows who has and has not played organized football. This man also knows "every (and I do mean every) former player" at Michigan.
know "every (and I do mean every) former player" that he knows. I think that's what logicians call a tautology.
"every player I know" actually means "every player I personally know."
Great writing. Well then, every player I know--and I mean every player--I personally know loved RR.
Usually the "non-personal" sense of know that you thought he used is marked in English with "of", e.g. "Every Michigan player that (I know of/of which I know) thinks that RR sucked."
April 20th, 2011 at 10:52 AM ^
Do you dispute that a large section of football alumni didn't like RR? I don't have some huge rolodex of former UM players I talk to, but I was struck by how much the guys I did know hated him. They couldn't stand (their words, not mine) how sloppy practices were, how much disrespect there was for Michigan's tradition and how he viewed everything that happened before him as something that had to be torn down and remade. He was drunk at a number of events with former players and (again their words) didn't carry himself the way you would expect a Michigan coach to. Further, (their words) his assistants were complete buffoons who didnt teach technique and turned Michigan into an NFL black hole. They also mentioned that no one on the coaching staff coached the specialists, the older guys (players) just taught the younger guys. Again, I don't know if this is true, but the fact that I heard it from so many guys at least makes me wonder. Listen to Mattison talk this year and you'll hear all you need to know about RR's buddies. Mattison is having to teach separation and delivering the blow (!!!!!!!!). That's stuff you learn in middle school. The fact that RR allowed that kind of massive inattention to detail to thrive on his staff is a pretty damning critique of him as a coach.
Anyway, who knows whether those criticisms are accurate or not, they're an opinion and hearsay. My only point is that former players' opinions shouldn't be dismissed so casually as petty and vindictive. They know a great deal more about football/college football than myself, anyone posting on this board or Brian. Again, I personally liked RR, I'm just willing to admit that I was wrong and that those guys appear to have been right.
but there has to be a reason beyond petty animus that every (and I do mean every) former player I know cannot stand Rich Rodriguez.
Well then, you clearly don't know Mike Hart, Larry Foote, LaMarr Woodley, Rick Leach, or a whole host of guys who still play for Michigan, so your Rolodex is less impressive than you think it is.
And the idea that Braylon Edwards is incapable of petty animus is a bit hard to swallow.
April 20th, 2011 at 10:33 AM ^
You have no idea what those guys privately said about Rodriguez. At least one guy on that list I know for a fact wanted him gone after the first year. Most former players weren't making public asses of themselves about their distaste for RR and the way he ran the football program. Again, I didn't necessarily agree with them, but they know a hell of a lot more about college football than I do.
April 20th, 2011 at 11:02 AM ^
Also: I don't personally know Braylon Edwards, so I can't speak to the depth of his character in particular.
April 19th, 2011 at 10:07 PM ^
...and I think the whole heart of the matter, is...
WHY don't they like him?
Did he demean their coach(es) and Michigan's tradition when he came in?
Or is he a hick from West Virginia that runs a finesse offense?
The why is the most important piece of knowing who is doing right for Michigan.
April 20th, 2011 at 11:00 AM ^
I posted a list of the complaints I heard. IMO, they all center around being sloppy and I obviously can't verify any of them, so take them for what its worth.
I see that you are acknowledging Brian's caveat about this not being a defense of RichRod.
That said, I think what you are missing his real point. Whatever RichRod's failings personally or as a coach, his problems were also based on former players, coaches, alumni etc. who wouldn't give him a chance. There were folks who insisted he wasn't a "Michigan Man" after his first press conference.
I'm sure that he mishandled some personal interactions, or offended some people unnecessarily, but a lot us also suspect that the real reason the ex-players didn't reach out to him was that he was a force of change (coaching staff, workout techniques, offensive style etc.). Bo did a lot of that too, but he also went to the Rose Bowl his first year.
I'd love to know if RichRod did anything specifically to make the players who stayed away feel unwelcome. At this point, if so, I wish they would say what it was and why other players did workout at U-M, attend the spring game etc.
I think the utlimate point of Brian's piece is that anyone ex-player, columnist etc. can dump on RichRod with impunity even if what they are saying is, on its face, absurd. The best example can be found when he points out that Braylon is simultaneously dumping on RichRod for not valuing former players or tradition while participating int the alumni game RichRod started.
"And one more thing: Did you ever stop and wonder whether the fact that whole senior class decides to "rebell" is part the fault of the coach? Or did you just assume that these players were just being irrational dicks, just like all the other alumni who didn't like RR?"
No. And yes.
The players rebelled because they were immature and didn't like the way the new guy ran things. There was zero fault with the new coach--why am I confident in this? Because the players themselves from that time say they were wrong.
The Alums that didn't support RR from the beginning (I'm not addressing here those that simply tired of the losing) had reasons--not a Michigan Man, did not agree with his system, did not like when they heard he swore and yelled, did not think a guy from WVA had anything to contribute to Michigan, criticized his performances at press conferences--that had little to do wit rationality and a lot to do with prejudice. Not the racial kind, but the class based kind, and the insular kind. But it was just as wrong.
that whenever someone says that something they did was wrong it implies that no one else was at fault. That the players regret rebelling doesn't mean that RR was not at least in part responsible for their rebelling. The theory that RR was just a great guy but the upperclass men decided to sabatoge their last season anyway seems too bizarre to be believed.
Also, it's not all clear how many of the players who actually rebelled regretted it. The quote says "'We kind of rebelled and it was like whatever." But there may only be a few of the rebels included in that "we." In fact, you could read it as a team wide "we", meaning, "we, the 2008 team rebelled." Only the freshmen from 2008 are still around.
You have none. Why would you assume that 19 year olds that don't buy in to a new coach had cause? It is far, far more likely that they did not, since we see this from time to time with new coaches--and their "rebellion" consisted of not buying into the program and therefore not giving full effort. Hardly the stuff that tyrannical or unfair coaching is made of. There hasn't been one piece of evidence, or even rumor, anywhere, even during the heights of the Freep scandal, that pointed to RR doing anything that would cause such a rebellion.
April 20th, 2011 at 11:06 AM ^
It is RR's job to get them to buy in. Of course 19 year olds are going to be stupid. RR is paid to motivate them.
chuckle
April 20th, 2011 at 12:11 PM ^
sorry
April 20th, 2011 at 12:10 PM ^
sorry
April 20th, 2011 at 12:09 PM ^
"It is far, far more likely that they did not [have a good reason], since we see this from time to time with new coaches--and their "rebellion" consisted of not buying into the program and therefore not giving full effort"
That's just you asserting that your hypothesis is likely. I suppose it may be the case that we see this from time to time with new coaches, but you haven't even suggested a single example. Moreover, the evidence you need is not merely (1) that from time to time players "rebel" against a new coach, but (2) that from time time to time players rebel against a new coach FOR NO REASON.
You haven't given any evidence of (1), and you're nowhere close to (2). All you have is an inference based on the absence of evidence that RR did nothing wrong. It's possible that this inference is correct, but you should note that it implies that a large portion of the team was engaged in concerted action for no reason. You can just say "oh you know those kids, they're crazy!" but that's just a stereotype. They may do some things for no reason, but I don't see any evidence to justify supposing that they all engaged in deliberate and concerted action just on a whim. You don't see any such evidence either, but you'll cling the presumption that RR is gee-golly-good guy.
April 20th, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^
Triple post ftw
April 21st, 2011 at 10:20 AM ^
I said I had some, based upon what we've seen from past coaching changes and player comments, but that you had none. Which is and was true. In the complete absence of any evidence, you assume that RR was somehow at fault for the players not buying in. Fair enough. But with some evidence, I assume that the players were at fault. I'm much more confident in having some evidence than you should be in having none.
But even if you have reasons to favor (1), it's simply a load of bullshit to act like those of us who stood in the stands in the rain are somehow better fans than people who actually, you know, practiced and played for the team, who give substantial sums of money to the program. As somone below mentioned, this is classic "my fan-dick is bigger than yours" because I stand and yell AS LOUD AS I CAN rhetoric.
That line from Brian bothered me too. I think a former player can have some room to talk, and Brian's comment reeks of "who are YOU to say such things?" when the answer to that is he's the guy whose ability to jump really high and catch things caused Michigan to beat State in 2004, and this made my life very much better for that year and since.
The problem with Braylon's comments is that they're disingenuous, but he has definitely earned the micropohone.
This shit makes me shake my head wistfully and wish Bo could have stayed amongst us bit longer. Would he have provided some insight into the Great Coaching Search of '07 and made it less of a circus? Who knows. One thing is for certain; he would have been doing some dong punching and ho card pulling of certain members of the fan/alumni base. You don't become ashamed of, abandon, or withhold donations to the university or program because of some losing seasons, or because you don't like the coach. That's a bitch move. And to think that some of these people refer to themselves as Michigan Men (despite their off the field behavior) is repulsive. People look to The Horror, or even Dec 17 2007 as a day that lived in Michigan infamy, but I truly believe that it was Nov 17 2006. To say that that man the the glue that held this thing together would be the understatement of the century.
It sure seems that the wheels came off after the Old Man died......
More importantly, what does that statement have to do with the op? There are many flavors of stupid, which one are you? Did you not read Brian's piece, yet still reply to it, or are you the latest reading comprehension fail? I have a lot of questions for you.
He is all 31 of them.
April 20th, 2011 at 12:36 PM ^
I want ice cream now
You're a dumbass. He is not defending RR you ignorant twit. Brian is calling out fairweather alumni.
Another member of that "special" group. RCFOA.
April 19th, 2011 at 11:01 PM ^
It's pretty clearly a defense of RIch Rod, regardless of what the disclaimer says:
Whatever Rodriguez's failings were they were amplified by a culture that immediately rejected him.
Since Michigan's tradition quickly became "screw you, Rich Rodriguez," I can't imagine why there was a disconnect there.
Whatever Rodriguez's failings were they were amplified by a culture that immediately rejected him.
April 19th, 2011 at 11:27 PM ^
See in those boxes I see a person admitting that RR had failings that were the reasons for his firing, but the alumni and other outside forces amplified them beyond what any other coach would have had.
That makes total sense. RR deserved to be fired. He did not deserve to have every little thing he did wrong amplified because of some pouting former player goes to the press to bitch about how he doesnt get it and they dont feel welcome. Judge him for what he actually did wrong:
15-22
Worst defense in Michigan history
0-6 against OSU and MSU
Those are legitimate reasons to judge him. Braylon making an issue out of the jersey is purely childish bullshit. The former players not giving RR a chance because he was an outsider and someone they were not familiar with is bullshit. Anything other than RR's actual performance should be off limits to judgment.
April 20th, 2011 at 12:02 AM ^
I'm just calling a spade a spade, not backing Braylon or any of his nonsense. When one deflects blame onto the alumni for part of Rich Rod's public perception, that's a defense. I'm not saying it's not correct, I think it is and they are more than a little to blame.
You're a moron....and probably a troll. But definately a moron.
If you look about 4 inches on the screen you'll see that Brian wrote -- this is not a defense of RichRod. Subtle I know.
Right, because simply saying something isn't an attack means it isn't so.
April 20th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
Thank you. Is reading that hard these days?
of Brians "Reading Comprehension comment".
Thanks for fufilling the prophecy!
Incorrect. There are soooo many loyalists to MICHIGAN. You're inability to understand that makes you seem like you're a loyalist to Michigan--when it's a winning.
April 19th, 2011 at 11:03 PM ^
April 20th, 2011 at 12:34 PM ^
Your* not you're*
I'm recalling the day when Braylon and the University announced he was endowing the scholarship (which is STILL given each year, whether or not the #1 jersey is worn), and hearing unadulterated praise being heaped upon him for giving back to his alma mater. When it was announced, there was a really great event with Anthony Carter, everyone smiled and clapped and the fanbase was pleased.
And I'm wondering what has changed in regards to that scholarship.
Braylon has no veto power over it, he's been on the record saying it's the coach's decision to give it out, and, as I said earlier, it's given out regardless of whether or not someone is wearing #1. The only time it has ever been an issue was when RR gave it out to a defensive player, something I'm still confused about, because it seems to me that should never have gotten past Jon Falk to begin with.
So I guess I'm at a loss as to why the scholarship endowment is now being used as a shot against Braylon. Take shots at him for anything else, he's definitely earned some. But why is the scholarship part of the discussion?
As far as I'm concerned, if you're so angry about Braylon endowing the #1 scholarship, feel free to step up to the plate and endow one yourself.
Here is reason number 12b why Braylon Edwards is a jerk.
That "Number 1" kerfuffle with Rich Rodriguez could have been handled with a phone call. Braylon could have gotten Stan to make the call for him; Stan does that a lot these days. And without serving up a tasty, stupid, irrelevant story as to how 'Rich Rodriguez just doesn't get Michigan tradition' to the press. To needlessly, and probably falsely, paint Rodriguez as a heartless monster, and Braylon as a victim. (Braylon seems to have a whole lot of Chris Webber-victimization in him.)
No has ever complained about the Braylon Edwards Foundation's endowment of a football scholarship, because endowing the scholarship was a laudable thing.
And in fact, nobody really should complain too loudly that Braylon has too much interference in football operations because I don't believe that there is any formal legal condition that limits a Head Coach's handling of players on the Michigan football team. I don't really think that Braylon has any formal legal power over assignment of jersey numbers.
Braylon might well have an informal understanding with the Athletic Department about "his" scholarship, and a jersey number. And even that is okay. Informal understandings are fine. Between gentlemen. Like the handshake between Bo Schembechler and Don Canham.
What people like me complain about is that Braylon clearly and unequivocally acted like a petulant child when it seemed to him that a defensive back might be given the Number 1 jersey. And instead of a phone call to Falk, or Madej, or Martin, or Joe Parker, or Rodriguez, or Carr (Carr -- God bless him. There's at least one guy who could, for a short time, impose some civilized discipline on Braylon), Braylon went to the press. Where Braylon has had soooooo much success in explaining himself in recent years.
Yes, Bando. Braylon Edwards was a brilliant pass-catcher at Michigan. Yay. Who endowed a scholarship. Kudos!
But who now has shown himself, repeatedly, to be an off-the-field prick. No mistakes; no misunderstandings, no errors, no miscommunication. Those were all crappy excuses. Braylon's a prick. Which he is allowed to do if he wants to. It's just something I hope no other Michigan football player aspires to.
Well, someone took that pretty seriously.
I know you have an axe to grind with Braylon, but seriously, man, get over it.
It's a little fucked up that a lot of people on this board forget that Michigan Football is the football program of the University of Michigan, and not the other way around.
Brian, like many of us, is an alum. It is well within his right to call out football players for not representing our university well, and for generally behaving like children. They may be football players, but they are first and foremost Wolverines.
It just sucks.
I liked RR; I like Hoke and I think that he's proving more and more that he's going to turn out a great hire. Yeah, everyone needs to move on.
But hell. Forget the coaches for a second. You have all these people who sat through that Northwestern Game, or the people that wore their M around town knowing that they were gonna catch shit from the State fans and the OSU fans and the freaking Illinois fans, and they all stayed. No matter how awful and ridiculous it was, they stayed because they're loyal and proud and that's what Michigan men are supposed to do.
Now here we are - we morons that love Michigan because we cannot help ourselves - and the awfulness is gone because the perception has changed and suddenly all these people are flocking back. How can we not look at all these people who deserted Michigan when things got tough and ask them 'Where the hell were you?'
And it's just worse that we're talking about some of the former players. Because for us fans, they're not just like us. They are supposed to be people that know more than anyone else how special Michigan is, and if some of them can just turn their backs then what the hell is the point anyway?
Anyway, whatever. A few months from now, it'll be football again and we can worry about something else then. I'm just cranky.
Thank you. That is exactly how I feel. It doesn't matter who the coach is or how things are going, if you truly are a fan and love the team, you'll still support and cheer for them as much as ever through the bad times. Sure, it's perfectly fine to think that changes needed to be made, but you don't desert the team. What you said about the players and how they should be the ones that know more than anyone how special Michigan is is what really disheartens me. They have every right to be disappointed in the last three years and how things have gone, but they are the absolute last people that should have not supported their team and the school that they gave so much to.
If we're not careful, we're gonna be the posterboys for the Offseason TWIS award. We should jointly be laughing at all the tOSU/Tress double speak. The ship is getting turned around and the god damn plan is not going to crash into the mountain. Lets save the he said/she said for Jerry Springer reruns and tOSU explanations of what St. Jim did or did not do.
Comments