Post-Release Three And Out Q&A: Part I Comment Count

Brian

image

The ever-loquacious John Bacon gave me 6k words on the following questions about Three and Out that seemed to touch on most of the questions provided in the comments and via email. As per usual, we'll split that into two posts, the second of which will run tomorrow. Unfortunately, the answer to "why Greg Robinson?" turns out to be "I don't know, either," but some things are just unexplainable.

1) LAWSUITS

The book seemed reasonably two-sided once things got to Michigan. The WV stuff is more one-sided -- just Rich's POV. Did JUB see anything that supported WV's position in those 'negotiations'/lawsuits?

As stated in the book, then-Governor Joe Manchin and former A.D. Eddie Pastilong did not respond to repeated requests for an interview. Ousted WVU president Mike Garrison entertained the idea, and I went so far as to send him several questions in the hopes of encouraging him to cooperate. We talked on the phone a couple times, and at one point he asked if I was for or against Rich Rodriguez. I told him I simply wanted to find the truth. He declined, saying he couldn’t answer the questions if he didn’t know where I stood. That seemed odd—it seems to me you either know what happened and what you think about it or you don’t—but that’s his decision.

I don’t think their silence left much out, however, because we were able to get five other central figures to speak freely, and on the record—and in each case, at considerable personal risk. Ike Morris owns an oil and gas company in Glenville, WV; Dave Alvarez is the president and CEO of a construction company in Meadowbrook, WV; Paul Astorg owns a Mercedes Benz dealership, and Matt Jones owns a handful of convenience stores, both in Parkersburg. Don Nehlen, the former West Virginia head coach, is now a spokesman for the coal industry. None of them have ever been Michigan boosters, but all have been long-time boosters for the Mountaineers, before, during and after the Rodriguez era. They are all private businessmen who depend on their reputations to be successful. They have a deep knowledge of West Virginia football politics, with close ties to all sides, and had no incentive to do anything other than throw Rodriguez under the bus and extoll West Virginia’s leadership. None of them had anything tangible to gain by speaking to me on the record, with a lot to lose. Yet they all did.

So, while I would have liked to get the above three people on the record, the people I spoke to answered every question I had, on the record, which I believe gives the reader almost everything they need to know about what happened in West Virginia.

As for the lawsuit, I assume the reader is referring to the buy-out provision in Rodriguez’s West Virginia contract. While Rodriguez maintained that the president, Matt Garrison, had promised him they’d cut it in half if he wanted to leave, which the above subjects confirmed, the contract was nonetheless legally binding. West Virginia University was well within its rights to sue for all four million, which Michigan and Rodriguez ultimately acknowledged, and paid.

2) LLOYD CARR
If JUB had to make a guess as to what caused in the great Carr switcheroo (from making first contact with RR to the continuous cold shoulder), what would it be? And does JUB think Carr informed the Freep investigation?

Before I delve into this, I’ve noticed some confusion over the timeline in some of the posts I’ve seen. Clarifying the sequence of events should clear up a lot of this.

On Monday night, December 10, 2007, Rodriguez received a call from Lloyd Carr, which marked the first direct contact Rodriguez had from someone representing Michigan. (Rodriguez was my source, and his recollection of it was consistent in a handful of accounts over a couple years.)

On Tuesday, December 11, Lloyd Carr told Bill Martin that Rodriguez would be a good candidate. This marked the first time someone within the department had made this suggestion to Martin, according to Martin himself, whose recollection of the conversation was also consistent over several interviews.

On Friday, December 14, Rodriguez met with President Coleman and Bill Martin in Toledo, and agreed on the basic tenets of a potential agreement.

On Sunday, December 16, the deal was finalized, via phone and fax.

On Monday, December 17, Rodriguez met Lloyd Carr outside the Junge Center for a brief handshake, on his way in to his first Ann Arbor press conference, where he would be named Michigan’s next coach.

After Rodriguez returned to Morgantown that day to start packing, Coach Carr met with his team a day or two later for a suddenly scheduled morning meeting, and offered to sign the transfer papers of anyone who wanted to leave. This has been corroborated by over a dozen people in the meeting room that day – both staffers and players – plus the Big Ten compliance office, Bill Martin, and Judy Van Horn, who spoke on the record about the day and its aftermath. The reporting of these events is air-tight.

-----------------------------------

It’s important to note, looking at this timeline, that all this occurred before Carr got to know Rodriguez, and before Rodriguez met with any of Carr’s assistant coaches or players. Thus, the idea that Carr offered to sign his players’ transfer forms only after he became concerned about how Rodriguez would treat his assistants and players is hard to believe. For whatever reason, before Rodriguez had met any of those people, Carr had made up his mind to help his players transfer.

Until Coach Carr speaks, I can’t say why he called the transfer meeting. (As stated before, I made repeated requests to interview him at his convenience. While he declined to respond, I have since confirmed there is no question he received my requests and made a firm decision not to reply.) But I can say that he definitely did call the transfer meeting, that it was a premeditated decision—based on Draper’s call to compliance to have the forms and personnel ready to process the anticipated flood of requests—and it occurred before Rodriguez met any of his assistants or players.

Yes, I have a theory as to why, but it’s just that. Some have suggested that it’s my job as a journalist to fill in the blank with my best guess, but I believe the opposite is true: it’s a journalist’s job not to do so. If my theory proves wrong, it would unfairly influence public opinion, and might be difficult to reverse. (I’ve seen this happen frequently during the past three years.) Until Carr decides to answer such questions, I am going to let the facts above stand, and the readers can come to their own conclusions.

Carr’s speaking on these issues might help his cause, but as we’ve seen with other subjects who were interviewed for the book, it might not. If Carr had simple, innocent answers to the questions above, it would not be hard for him to find friendly journalists in the local media happy to communicate his message, directly or indirectly, as he has done in the past. To date, he has not attempted to do so.

[CARA, Shafer, Robinson (Denard and Greg), and the emotional stability of Rodriguez post-jump.]

3) CARA FORMS
What does JUB think about Labadie and Draper's complicity in the whole CARA affair? It seems that both spoke to JUB, but he never shares his own judgment of what went wrong. Were they just overworked-clueless-frustrated, or were they acting on someone else's orders?

To clarify, Scott Draper declined to be interviewed, but Brad Labadie spoke with me at length. In our interview, he mentioned how difficult the CARA form process was to complete each week, and how he admires Coach Carr like few others. As was my goal throughout the book, I’ll only go as far as my confirmed reporting allows, then let the facts speak for themselves and the readers to form their own judgments. One of those facts is the on-the-record comment from former compliance director Judy Van Horn—a gentle soul, not normally given to criticizing colleagues, and one who had considered Labadie a trusted friend—that Labadie engaged in “out-and-out lying.” This caught my attention, as I suspect it did the readers’.

4) FREE PRESS SOURCES.
Did he ever find out the names of all the players who talked to the Free Press? Other than Greg Matthews & Toney Clemons nobody else was mentioned.

Mathews and Clemons both came forward, which I felt made naming them in the book fair game. As for the rest, I think I have it largely figured out, and in some cases confirmed, but I don’t think it’s good enough to print the names of a couple players who have not come forward, as it puts an unfair burden on a few. In any case, I’m more sympathetic to college students, whatever they might have done, than I am to the adults who were not above manipulating them for their own purposes.

5) DEFENSES 6) GERG INVOLVEMENT.
What was Rodriguez thinking as his defense imploded again and again (and again and again)? On related points: what was his relationship like with Greg Robinson versus the other D-coaches? Was there truth to the rumors that Robinson was an empty figurehead and that "Rodriguez's guys" had the inside track with the Head Coach?

There seems to be some inconsistency with how he portrays RR involvement with the defense. He mentions more than once that RR trusted Gerg and wanted to give him space even though he felt strongly that Demens should play more and Ezeh should play less. I felt like Bacon was implying that RR gave Gerg the slack to hang himself with.....but doesn't that contradict the fact that Gerg implemented a 3-3-5 and seemed to change some of his scheme toward what RR preferred? So how much did RR really influence things on defense?

Taking this from the top, while trying to avoid repeating too much of my last batch of answers for MGoBlog a couple months ago, Rodriguez’s original sin was not getting Jeff Casteel to Michigan—and in the book I explain how that falls to both Michigan and Rodriguez in equal measure. (As I wrote, he was not willing to leave Morgantown without his strength staff, but he did without his DC.) Everything after that was a compromised attempt at retrofitting, and none of it worked.

Rodriguez was asking a lot of Scott Shafer to arrive in Ann Arbor without knowing virtually anything about the program, the staff he was inheriting or the 3-3-5 system Rodriguez would eventually ask him to use before the 2008 Purdue game. Not surprisingly, it didn’t work, and while that mostly falls on Rodriguez, Shafer brought his own psychology to the equation. While Greg Robinson got along exceedingly well with Rodriguez’s staff in almost identical circumstances, Shafer did not. The dynamic the reader cites above more closely describes Shafer’s relationship with Rodriguez’s staff than Robinson’s. While I think he is a decent, hardworking man—and the staff could have done a better job working with him -- Shafer kept largely to himself. (I probably spoke a few sentences with him during his time in Ann Arbor.) Further, his stubbornness (or selfishness, take your pick) in continuing to recruit Denard Robinson as a defensive back – against Rodriguez’s wishes—would have cost Michigan its future Big Ten Player of the Year, and is indicative of the poor chemistry between Shafer and the rest of the staff. If Scott Shafer is still Michigan’s defensive coordinator, Denard Robinson is not your quarterback.

Greg Robinson was very well liked, as noted above, but he faced the same problems Shafer did: little experience with Rodriguez’s staff and system. This resulted in the conflict cited above: Rodriguez respected Robinson and wanted to demonstrate this in front of his staff, but he was also utterly frustrated not just with the poor results, but with the passivity the defense often displayed – arguably Rodriguez’s least favorite trait in a player.

As for my reporting on the defense in the book, it’s worth remembering the original idea was to spend three months to produce some magazine stories on the spread offense coming to the Big Ten. A simple, small idea. Well, three years later, here I am. I didn’t have any idea most of the story would take place off the field, not on it. And I certainly didn’t believe initially that the defense would prove to be such a story.

Further, in 2008, because I was largely unknown to the coaches and the players, the conversations I had with them were not nearly as frequent or as fruitful as they were in 2009 and 2010, especially after I worked out with Barwis and company for six weeks, which opened a lot of doors. But even after that, while I had many conversations with Greg Robinson over those two years about the team in general and some players in particular, he was usually as tight-lipped with me about the particulars as he was with the rest of the press.

Also, I spent almost all of the position meeting time with the quarterbacks – which we assumed, correctly I feel, that the readers would want to know about first and foremost. The slices of dialogue readers enjoyed in the quarterback meetings and hotel rooms represent a sliver of the time I spent with them to gain that trust and find those gems. I simply could not be everywhere at once – and in any case, I honestly don’t believe there’s much more to say about the defensive meltdown than what we already know. Whatever could have gone wrong—recruiting, injuries, coaching, and translation problems – went wrong, a perfect storm of failure. Spending more time in those meetings in the hope of hearing an argument or two would have illuminated very little that we didn’t already know.

The defense was historically horrible, but it was hardly mysterious.

7) SELF PITY
Compared to other coaches JUB has been around, where does RR fall on the maturity scale? I feel like we, the Michigan community, treated him unfairly. And yet... Rodriguez's level of immaturity/self-absorption was at times shocking, e.g. the constant mentioning of the cockroaches, the thinking Groban was a good idea, and the overall level of self-pity (fuck ME!).

I don’t think it’s mutually exclusive that Rodriguez faced more obstacles than Michigan coaches have in the past, yet still added to his problems, often at the most inopportune times. As they say, just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. Both can be true.

The above question is also why I do not believe the book is biased toward Rodriguez. I have been gratified to see serious national reviewers describe the book as fair and balanced, invariably pointing out that Rodriguez’s flaws and mistakes are hardly hidden. (You can find their reviews on Amazon, with the longer versions posted at their publications—though perhaps a better gauge of the book’s accuracy can be found by asking the players and parents who saw it all up close.)

When a reasonable reader can pull out all of his shortcomings above exclusively from the book (which I’ve listed below), it suggests Rodriguez’s warts were not concealed. In fact, Rodriguez’s main complaint with the book is that I produced a case to justify why he was fired. While I disagreed, in some ways he read the manuscript more closely than many readers. His list included my descriptions of the following:

-Not preparing for his first press conference, which could have gone better;

-The way he fired Carr’s assistants and failed to connect with the 2007 senior class before they left;

-His inability to convince Michigan he needed Jeff Casteel, while persuading Martin he needed Barwis, his staff and a new, million-dollar weight room;

-His many botched press conferences, including the behind-the-scenes lead-up to them;

-His post-loss tantrums, which display his almost pathological hatred of losing, going back to putting a blanket over his head as a pee wee football player (not uncommon among the highly competitive);

-The seven missed “match points” I identify in 2009 and 2010, any one of which, I argue in the book, would have been enough to keep his job. (This counters the claim that he never had a chance, something I never believed and have never stated);

-The Final Bust. That chapter was by far the most painful for him. He was very displeased with my take on that, as I wrote that it revealed he had still not learned essential things about being Michigan’s head coach, including establishing a circle of trusted advisors, and knowing his audience. As I report in the book, even some of his most loyal supporters leaving the banquet hall thought that night marked the end.

-The biggest obstacle any A.D. would have in retaining Rodriguez, in my opinion, is presented for the first time in this book: after a while his problems became his players’ problems, and his pressure became their pressure – including the frequent talk of cockroaches, and the overdeveloped sense of “Us versus Them.” The players grew weary under their weight, something you can see evolving in the book. Despite coming back for more, again and again, the players finally broke at the Gator Bowl, where some of them came out of the tunnel for the second half laughing—a clear sign that they had had enough.

You have to admit, that’s a pretty weighty list, enough to keep his critics busy for months. However, I told Rodriguez I was not trying to justify his being fired  (nor argue for his retention) but simply trying to explain how it all got to that point. Which, to me, is fundamentally different.

In fact, I’d say, just about every reason you can think of to retain him is in the book, and every reason to let him go is, too—including the ones listed above, giving his detractors ammunition they could never have wished for before the book’s publication. How many of the items above were readers aware of before reading the book? The list of revelations does not suggest the author is trying to protect or promote Rich Rodriguez, but simply trying to identify the many factors that led to his demise.

I’ve also noticed readers who believe the book tilts toward Rodriguez usually didn’t like him before picking up the book (or still haven’t read it). Studies show we are naturally reluctant to change our minds after we form our first impression – and Rodriguez’s were not good.

That said, many of Rodriguez’s most prominent qualities, I believe, are endemic to big-time coaches. They have egos, they are loyal (often to a fault), they are quick to feel disrespected, and they feel losing is not merely a professional setback but a personal failing. Schembechler’s post-loss tirades were legendary. He was inconsolable for days after a defeat to the Buckeyes. Moeller’s implosion at the Southfield restaurant has been covered ad nauseum, while Carr’s mindset is documented in the book.

In short, to paraphrase a great line from “Casablanca,” I’d say Rodriguez is like every other big time coach – only more so.

Comments

gobluednicks

December 21st, 2011 at 7:17 PM ^

the truth is Carr wanted ANY coach that followed him to fail.  Yet he is considered a "Michigan Man".  yeah right.  

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

December 21st, 2011 at 7:25 PM ^

Some have suggested that it’s my job as a journalist to fill in the blank with my best guess, but I believe the opposite is true: it’s a journalist’s job not to do so. If my theory proves wrong, it would unfairly influence public opinion, and might be difficult to reverse.

A journalist who is sensitive to the idea that his opinions would sway those of others; and not only that, doesn't even want to sway them.  He prefers to report only the facts and let the reader decide, rather than try and hide his opinion in among the facts so they both look the same.  I feel like we've just had a yeti sighting.  Is this "John U. Bacon" in fact a real person?  If so, I propose every journalism professor in the entire country be fired and replaced with Bacon.  In this way perhaps we can one day have stories we trust in the newspaper and on TV.  How refreshing.

Elmer

December 21st, 2011 at 7:47 PM ^

Yep.  Bacon is someone I trust.  He doesn't appear to have an agenda (see Roseberg), other than making sure he gets the facts straight and reports them fairly.  Was the book perfect?  No, everyone views events through their own eyes.  That said, Bacon was not trying to manipulate the events and he tried to get everyone's opinion, like the WVU brass and Lloyd.

MGlobules

December 21st, 2011 at 7:29 PM ^

GERG just flat-out failed, for a whole lot of reasons. Picking through the entrails would not only not have proved unedifying, but pointless.

Decent people sometimes fail for a whole lot of reasons. It's to both Bacon and Rodriguez's credit, I'd say, that they didn't beat up on the guy. 

Bacon's comment about Carr's turnabout on Carr also TENDS to corroborate my thesis about the antagonism between the two: Carr just thought that offering to release the players was the gentlemanly thing to do; it wasn't that he had suddenly turned on RR. But it PO'd RR, and the two developed a mutual enmity from there. 

MGlobules

December 21st, 2011 at 11:15 PM ^

on GERG"?  RR was his boss, so. . . of course. But GERG was his third choice, and GERG DID fail, epically. This kind of thinking is right up there with the repeated assertions that RR didn't care about defense. Right--because you get to be a DI coach not caring about defense (though you played defense in college). 

My point stands--picking through the entrails would not have been interesting. I'm not sure why people keep asking why Bacon failed to do it. 

James Howlett

December 21st, 2011 at 7:35 PM ^

to Barwis transition.

I was never a fan of Gittleson and welcomed the change. I'm wondering if some of the Carr-RR camps conflict was over the perception that Barwis was much higher thought of by many fans/media than Gittleson.

Wonder if the players expressed a preference in S&C coaches and their respective styles.

theanimalfrom

December 22nd, 2011 at 9:57 AM ^

by giving  phone numbers to them of players he knew were disgruntled by the new work ethic required. He has been selling sporting goods equipment throughout Big Ten schools in his new job & went out of his way to trash new coach.

His wife placed on her facebook the day RR was fired "Now Mike will root for Michigan again"

This guy had 30 yrs at UM under three head coaches and was given a one yr full pay severance. What the H did he have to be bitter about

HighSociety

December 21st, 2011 at 7:44 PM ^

"Further, his stubbornness (or selfishness, take your pick) in continuing to recruit Denard Robinson as a defensive back – against Rodriguez’s wishes—would have cost Michigan its future Big Ten Player of the Year"

 

 

 

In what world does a defensive coordinator have the right to overrule the head coach on the recruiting of an offensive player?  It seems like in most functional programs the head coach would be calling the shots and not having assistants recruiting players to positions the head coach doesn't want them playing.

If true, this seems indicative of a massive lack of communication between RR and the defensive staff or more evidence that the previous regime didn't know what the hell it was doing.

 

 

 

 

sports fan

December 21st, 2011 at 7:47 PM ^

I have a hypothesis.  Carr was initially supportive of Rodriguez.  Then all his friends, (powerful University of Michigan supporters), not knowing of Carr's initiall support came out strongly in opposition to Rodriguez.  Carr was pulled in two different directions.  Support Rodgriuez, lose your friends; or side with your friends and lose his credibility as a TEAM person.  Carr chose neither and remains silent to this day.

jmblue

December 21st, 2011 at 8:23 PM ^

In short, to paraphrase a great line from “Casablanca,” I’d say Rodriguez is like every other big time coach – only more so.

He's not like Brady Hoke. I don't think a lot of those character traits apply to Hoke, and I'm glad about that.

Cope

December 21st, 2011 at 9:03 PM ^

but this reference to Casablanca doesn't reflect on RR exactly as Bacon intends. Renault was in a man-crush moment about Rick and to make this connection is to imply similarly about one's subject. Granted, notorious masculine qualities could be inferred from the remark, but it was unquestionably one of worship. Not especially apropos.

G Money

December 21st, 2011 at 8:53 PM ^

"The book seemed reasonably two-sided once things got to Michigan. The WV stuff is more one-sided -- just Rich's POV. Did JUB see anything that supported WV's position in those 'negotiations'/lawsuits?"

 

Given that neither Bill Martin or Lloyd Carr's point of view are presented in the book, this is not a 2-sided (or even 3-sided) version of events at UM. Those are probably the 2 other biggest parties from UM's story.

 

Reading through the book, it is almost entirely from Rich Rodriguez' point of view. And that's not a surprise. Mr. Bacon was given access to Rich and his program. It SHOULD be a description of Rich's perspective on the situation.

It should NOT be considered a balanced view of the situation. It is what it is.

Section 1

December 21st, 2011 at 9:02 PM ^

I think that John did have some access to Bill Martin.  John repeatedly asked Carr for interviews, and Carr refused.  The book is clear about that.  I'm not sure why anybody would presume that a wholly different and more favorable view of Carr would have emerged if he had talked.

After all, Rosenberg agreed to be interviewed.  And I suppose credit is due to Rosenberg for doing that.  Bacon interviewed Rosenberg for nearly 3 hours.  But Rosenberg's answers just weren't very good, as is evident in the book.  Absolutely no surprise to me, since I questioned him publicly too, and the answers weren't very good then, either.

Again for the umpteenth time, I agree that the book is what it is.  But to the extent that there are valid questions about Lloyd Carr, and Carr won't speak to anyone, I'd say that I respect Carr's right to privacy but it doesn't help clarify the situation and I have little sympathy for a public figure who refuses to discuss public matters.  And I have no sympathy whatosever for any supposed Michigan Man who won't stand up against what Rosenberg and Snyder did to our program.

hart4eva

December 22nd, 2011 at 5:45 AM ^

Bacon didn't interview Martin?

Then how could he say this in the Q&A?

On Tuesday, December 11, Lloyd Carr told Bill Martin that Rodriguez would be a good candidate. This marked the first time someone within the department had made this suggestion to Martin, according to Martin himself, whose recollection of the conversation was also consistent over several interviews.

 

XM - Mt 1822

December 21st, 2011 at 8:56 PM ^

Greg was hired because of what Syracuse nearly did to WVU when RR was coaching them 2 years prior to his hiring, and GR's Syracuse team (with no talent thanks to departed coach Paul P.) nearly beat WVU at WVU.  The essence of RR's comment to Greg at the post-game handshake was 'How did you almost beat us with no talent?'  Greg out-schemed them and RR knew it.  They had further discussions at the Big East football meetings.

Greg's problem upon his arrival at our beloved Michigan was two-fold.  First, when he showed up to start he had a grand total of 29 scholarship ballplayers on defense.  Second, he was not allowed to run his defense.  He was required to run that ridiculous 3-3-5. 

You will note that this year's Michigan D has thankfully made great strides.  Many of the key players are Greg's recruits.  Greg is a winner and a great guy.  If he was given greater latitude, he would indeed have run a good defense.  Obviously Matteson has done a fine job, but Greg walked into an impossible situation and wasn't given the time or discretion to fix it.

That is the answer to the Greg Robinson question. 

chatster

December 22nd, 2011 at 1:13 AM ^

"Greg (Robinson) is a winner." Huh?  Robinson’s record in four seasons at Syracuse was 10-37 (3-25 in the Big East). He is the only head coach in Syracuse football history to have any seasons with double digit losses (two). His defenses at Syracuse were ranked 57th in 2005 (using Paul Pasqualoni’s players),107th in 2006, 111th in 2007 and 101st in 2008 in NCAA FBS stats.

As for "out-scheming" Rich Rodriguez when Robinson was Syracuse’s head coach and co-defensive coordinator, here’s what really happened in those four WVU wins.

2005: West Virginia 15 - Syracuse 7; Syracuse had 103 total yards and 7 first downs on offense, compared to WVU’s 339 yards and 16 first downs in Robinson’s first game as SU's head coach. Pat White had not yet become WVU’s starting QB.

2006: West Virginia 41 - Syracuse 17; WVU had 552 yards and 23 first downs on offense; Pat White ran for 247 and Steve Slaton ran for 163 yards; Syracuse "exploded" for 227 yards and 14 first downs.

2007: West Virginia 55 - Syracuse 14; WVU had 486 total yards and 25 first downs on offense, while Syracuse finished with 202 yards and 11 first downs.

2008: West Virginia 17 Syracuse 8; With Pat White sidelined due to injury, Syracuse caught WVU napping and held the Mountaineers to 268 yards and only 13 first downs while the Orange had 346 yards and 20 first downs on offense. Robinson’s "schemes" held WVU’s RB Noel Devine to 188 yards on 19 carries, including a late 92-yard TD to ice the win. 

As for Greg Mattison doing wonders with Robinson's "recruits" at Michigan, isn't it true that Robinson was kept out of Michigan's recrutiing during his two seasons as the worst defensive coordinator on Michigan football history?

XM - Mt 1822

December 22nd, 2011 at 5:45 AM ^

See your analysis of the 2008 game, a game that was 10-8 until the last minute run, right?  Wasn't WVU ranked something like 5th at that time?  Paul P. had left an empty cupboard at the Carrier dome.  You will again note that Greg's Syracuse recruits have had some decent success too, and Syracuse isn't one of those places that kids dream of playing at.  You are also forgetting Greg's 2 superbowl championships, and some very good years at UCLA and Texas, among other places.  

chatster

December 22nd, 2011 at 8:51 AM ^

Is your point that Syracuse played well in 2008 against a West Virginia team that was playing without star QB Pat White who’d been injured the previous week? Or that Greg Robinson would’ve had success at Syracuse and Michigan if he’d been coaching against an inexperienced backup QB every week?

Yes, the Broncos won two Super Bowl championships when Robinson was defensive coordinator there from 1995-2000 and his Denver defenses had some very good years. The Broncos also had some guy named John Elway at QB in those two seasons. NFL.com shows that Denver was 15th in NFL total defense in 1995, 4th in 1996, 5th in 1997, 11th in 1998, 7th in 1999 and 24th in 2000.

As for Greg Robinson's "success" in the NFL after 2000, the rankings for his NFL defenses were: 2001 Kansas City Chiefs - 23rd; 2002 Kansas City Chiefs - 32nd; 2003 Kansas City Chiefs - 29th.

Robinson’s "success" at UCLA? He was defensive line coach at UCLA from 1982-1988 when UCLA had some very good, highly-ranked teams and regularly made major bowl games. But he was a position coach. Terry Donahue was UCLA’s head coach. When Robinson became offensive coordinator there in 1989, UCLA went 3-7 and missed a bowl game for the first time since 1981.

Granted, when Robinson was Co-Defensive Coordinator at Texas in 2004, the Longhorns were ranked 23rd among FBS defenses, but Texas ranked 25th among FBS defenses in 2003, and 10th in total defense in 2005, after Robinson left.

As for his Syracuse recruits, I don’t believe that any of them other than Tampa Bay’s WR Mike Williams have enjoyed "decent success" yet in the NFL. And Williams, a pretty good AAU and high school basketball player was recruited to SU more by assistant basketball coach Mike Hopkins than by Robinson. After Scott Shafer became Syracuse defensive coordinator in 2009, he took a couple of Robinson’s RB recruits and made Doug Hogue and Derrell Smith good enough linebackers to make NFL rosters this year. 

UMxWolverines

December 21st, 2011 at 9:06 PM ^

What really pissed me off was how Les Miles' representatives were trying to get in touch with Bill Martin but he was in Florida and took the cell phone that he didn't know how to use. And obviously Kirk Herbstreit made up the bs story that Miles had accepted the job.

Good quote by Jamie Morris:

"Bill was totally oblivious to everything," Morris said. "Finally Mary Sue [Coleman] calls Bill after he gets home Sunday night, and she's pissed off. So now he's finally getting it. He finally figures out he's in deep shit."

NoMoPincherBug

December 21st, 2011 at 9:39 PM ^

There is a section of Michigan fans and alumni, such as myself.....that would rather forget the whole Rodrigez era, than to see it get rehashed over-and-over....and as such are not huge fans of the book's timing.  However we do understand the need to release it for maximum profitablity and in the middle of an important Michigan season, which would be a peak interest period, as opposed to say... releasing it in March.  In addition, the 10-2 season behind an excellent defense, a very respectable new coaching staff, combined with a recruiting class ranked near the top of the country and BCS bowl....all work soften our dislike for the Rod era rehash as we now know that objects in the mirror are not always closer in the mirror than they appear.

GoBlueinTN

December 21st, 2011 at 9:53 PM ^

I believe the average fan is ready to move on
I know I am

Personally, my problem with all of this is still RR himself

Even if, and that’s a huge if, everything he claims was exactly the way he claims it

RR still failed the Fans

He was at the helm when the sanctions were passed
The  exact same infractions as at his old school (Not too many He can blame for this one)

Even that doesn't bother me as much as his on the field mistakes

There is no excuse for his record

There is no excuse for his failure to coach a defense

There is no excuse for his failure to coach and recruit special teams

 

And lastly the thing that bothers me the most is his arrogance

He honestly still believes that an offense can score so many points a defense is unimportant

And to claim He could have won 10 games with this team is the Icing on the cake

 

 

BigBlue02

December 21st, 2011 at 11:32 PM ^

Why wouldn't he think he could win 10? -the big 10 was much, much worse -we brought back 20 starters from a 7 win team -2 of our losses from last year were to teams we didn't play this year (Wisky, Penn State) -we lost to 2 of the same teams we lost to last year (MSU, Iowa) -Ohio State was 6-6 and worse than Purdue, not 11-1 Co-B10 champs Considering everything, we should have won 10 games. They would have been higher scoring games, but 10 shouldn't have been a huge surprise with our schedule and returning talent

GoBlueinTN

December 22nd, 2011 at 12:21 AM ^

We won 10 because of an improvement in RR's worst areas, special teams and defense

I am hard pressed to see RR win 7 this year had he stayed
RR would have scored, no doubt, but he would not have been able to stop the other schools from scoring.

as I said earlier my whole problem with this is, RR's attitude that his offense could rack up enough points to make a defense unimportant

Ohio state would have run the score up on us again as we failed to stop them

Our D line has always had the tallent, they lacked coaching
How else do you explain the drastic improvement in one years time?
 

Blame RR's coordinators all you want but ultimately the head coach has to be responsible

 

 

BigBlue02

December 22nd, 2011 at 3:34 AM ^

If you think a 7 win team from last year returning 10 starters, including the B10 offensive player of the year, with a much easier schedule in a much shittier Big 10 would get 7 wins again this year, I don't know what to tell you.

BigBlue02

December 22nd, 2011 at 11:41 AM ^

This is why this board is becoming nearly impossible to read and why I don't post much anymore. Anything positive said about RichRod means you dislike Hoke. Any mention of an easier schedule or Nebraska not being as good as their record would suggest or Ohio State having a worse year than purdue means you don't support the team or are Hoke-bashing. I didn't even mention Hoke in my post and now I am insulting him and his staff. I said this team should have won about 10 games and somehow, if I don't add a disclaimer that I was very pleased with Hoke this year, it means I am somehow diminishing his accomplishments. You are the reason you hate RichRod posts....because you think it is impossible to support the team (you know, the one with all of RR's recruits) and coach Hoke while objectively looking at our situation and saying this team was good enough to win 10 games. Was I very happy with Hoke this year? Yes. But you wouldn't care about that....I mentioned why RichRod thought the team was good enough to win 10 games therefore I insulted Hoke. Grow up. It is possible to support Hoke and the team while also supporting a coach who poured his heart and soul into the program for 3 years while employed here.

chitownblue2

December 22nd, 2011 at 11:43 AM ^

Please, put down the violin for a second.

Your post robs the current staff of any agency - your argument is that anyone could have taken this roster, with this schedule, to 10 wins. Be honest.

BigBlue02

December 22nd, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^

Of course you know what I meant....why would I actually know what I am thinking. Why wouldn't you take what I said, change it around and tell me if I am honest, that is what I really meant? Nowhere did I say anyone could win 10 games with this team. I said we were set up for a 10 win season because of the circumstances of not only our team but the circumstances of the Big 10. That Hoke did it and made it look as easy as he did is an example of why I was so pleased with what he did. I actually don't think many coaches could have gotten 10 wins out of this team (again, one of the reasons I was so pleased with this staff and year). With RichRod's familiarity with the players and his offensive schemes, I think he could have gotten to 10 wins. I explained why things were set up that way(you know, in the post yoy said I was insulting Hoke in). Not every coach could come in and adapt as well as Hoke did. Things had to go right for him and they did, partly because of the team he inherited, partly because the Big 10 was awful this year, and partly because I think he is a really good coach. To point all of these things out doesn't mean I am robbing the current staff of anything. It is looking at the way the season played out and having an opinion about our team. Although feel free to continue to tell me what I am thinking

GoBlueinTN

December 21st, 2011 at 10:13 PM ^

My bad for the capitals in the wrong place

As for moving on my point was no matter how bad it was behind the scenes there are enough things RR was directly responsible for

We can judge him on those points alone and then move on

 

 

DefenseWins

December 22nd, 2011 at 1:45 AM ^

I finished the book a couple weeks ago and my comments then were a bit raw because it was such an absurd experience reading that book as someone obsessed with M football.

Reading the comments now and then, I'm baffled that LC gets the support he is getting during the time period detailed in 3&O.  I think LC was generally a person that the players looked up to. I have no doubt that he successfully helped his guys to mature into grown men.  I've always contended that and am proud of that.  So many of the players from the LC era are successful in and out of football.  They represent M with class.  And so much of that is due to LC.

But I don't think we should excuse him for how he handled the situation detailed in 3&O.  The Team The Team The Team.  That is all you have to say to realize that what he did was completely against the values of M athletics instilled by Bo.  Of course, he had loyalty to the players that he recruited.  But as the HC at M, his main loyalty was to the program, and he failed miserably in that regard to me.  He could have made things so much smoother, but he deliberately chose to make things worse.  I was incredibly disappointed in how he reacted because I thought he always had the program's best interests at heart.  But in that situation, in my opinion, he clearly didn't.  He let personal issues get in the way of the success of the program, and that is unforgiveable to me.

My take on Lloyd has nothing to do with RR whatsoever.  It has everything to do with how he did not do everything in his power to support the program.  It is clear that Lloyd did not live up to Bo's standards during this time.

MICHfanINsecLAND

December 22nd, 2011 at 8:39 AM ^

I personally can't think of a scenario or circumstance where it would ever be a better life option to get your degree from from places like Ohio or Colorado, over the University of Michigan but thats just my take on it.

 

 

MileHighWolverine

December 22nd, 2011 at 9:56 AM ^

+1

I keep going back to his speech after the Cap 1 bowl where he implores the kids to stay and get their degrees.......then a few months later he is happy to let them transfer anywhere they want?

So I guess the lesson was to get your degree - just not from the University of Michigan? The place he supposedly loves?

 

 

chitownblue2

December 22nd, 2011 at 10:01 AM ^

Or, as he did with "Carr told his players they could skip class the week of OSU" (which was a sarcastic joke Carr would tell players, meaning the precise opposite", Bacon completely flubbed the tenor of the meeting by relying on second and third-hand reports.

What we know is that nobody transferred withing MONTHS of this meeting, and everyone that did had some experience with Rodriguez.

In other words, in the grand scheme, the meeting, regardless of what transpired, was utterly meaningless.

Yeoman

December 22nd, 2011 at 11:41 AM ^

It's not hard to imagine a version of this meeting that fits the raw facts of Bacon's report but turns it upside down:

"I think this is a tremendous hire for Michigan. Rich Rodriguez is an outstanding coach who's had success wherever he's gone.

"As you know, Coach Rodriguez runs a very different offensive system from what we've had here. Some of you on the offensive side of the ball may be worried about that, may be wondering if there will be a place for you in the new offense.

"Give it a chance. Remember what we did to Florida using a spread offense. You may find that Coach Rodriguez can use your talents in ways you never imagined.

'There's no need to decide anything right now; you won't be trapped here. If you're still convinced after you've thought it over carefully and discussed it with your families that you need to make a change; I'll still be around to sign your papers."

Total speculation on my part, but consistent with the report of Mallett's parents, and consistent with the fact that nobody transferred right away. It was obvious from the moment RR was announced as coach that some people who didn't feel like the spread offense was a fit for them would consider transferring. LC letting them know he had their back might have discouraged some hasty decisions.