Three And Out: An Excerpt
Strong language contained herein. Three and Out is a book about the short, tumultuous reign of Rich Rodriguez at Michigan.
[star wars text scrolling]
The week after Michigan collapsed against Illinois in 2009, they prepare to take on Purdue.
A weary Rodriguez wearily surveys his weary troops, because he has to or the media will write about other things…
[/star wars text scrolling]
------------------
The Friday night before the Purdue game, Rodriguez dug at his meal like a hungry prisoner who was sick of eating the same gray food every night. When I told him I was surprised that the guys seemed loose, like they were still having fun and staying positive, he stared at his food, paused, and said, “I don’t care.
“I don’t care anymore about trying to analyze the psychology of these guys, especially for the press. I just want them to freakin’ play. I’m sick of it.”
Sick of what?
“Everything. I’m sick of the situation I’m in. I’m sick of the crap I’ve got to deal with every week. I’m sick of people not taking responsibility.” A case could be made that all happiness is feeling like you have possibilities. When someone wins the lottery, he’s happy not because he won the lottery but because he suddenly has dozens of options he didn’t have the day before.
But the corollary is also true: All unhappiness is feeling like your options are shrinking and the world is closing in on you. That you’re trapped. Rich Rodriguez’s options were shrinking. By the time he arrived in Ann Arbor, it was clear he could not go back the way he had come. But after only twenty-one games at Michigan, it had become just as clear there would be only one way he could stay: winning football games. And fast.
--------
Every Friday night, between the dinner and the movie, the offense and defense met separately with their coaches to go over the scouting report one last time. But this week, instead of reviewing the opponent, they reviewed a tape of their practices that week. The message was simple: The Illini didn’t beat the Wolverines. The Wolverines beat the Wolverines.
Job 1: Hold on to the damn ball. There was a reason John Heisman famously showed his players a football and said, “Gentlemen, it is better to have died a small boy than to fumble this football.”
But John Heisman never met Tate Forcier. On one play Rodriguez showed that night, Forcier held the ball like an oversized sponge and swung it around like he was washing his windows with it. Sure enough, the defense soon forced a fumble.
“High and tight, high and tight, high and tight,” Rodriguez said with relative calm. “Anything else is selfish. It shows disrespect for your teammates, and I know you’re not selfish, and I know you don’t want to disrespect your teammates.”
Here he was, going into the tenth game of the season, reviewing something they had covered on the first day of spring ball, the first day of summer practice, and just about every day since. It was pretty clear Rodriguez was tired of that, too.
But he knew it came with coaching young players, and he usually enjoyed the teaching process. But they were repeating the same lessons too often, which became especially aggravating when he had no idea how many lessons they would get.
Job 2: In the spread option offense, the quarterback has to take three steps and throw it. Not four steps. Not five steps. And no hitches, either. Three and throw. Three and throw. The timing was simple but exact—and it was everything. Any freelancing and incompletes, sacks, and interceptions soon followed.
And that’s exactly what Rodriguez saw next on the practice tape: Forcier taking three steps (an improvement), seeing his receiver open— but then hitching, which allowed the linebacker to cover the receiver. Rodriguez was calm but firm. “I’m sure I will not have to see on Monday any tape of any Michigan quarterback taking three steps and a hitch when he should be taking three steps and throwing.”
Next play, same thing, but this time Forcier threw it behind the receiver. The linebacker just missed making the interception.
“That one’s late. Why? Three and hitch instead of three and throw. I’ve been doing this for twenty years! I didn’t just wake up and come up with this thing. We have refined this over time. We know what works. We’re not guessing! Three steps and throw! THROW! You’ve got to trust the timing!”
But it was really more than that. The quarterbacks had to trust the system—and the coaches who had created it.
The flipside was just as simple: The coaches had to remember that Forcier was still a freshman. And even though Rodriguez’s quarterbacks on every team he’d coached eventually won Conference Player of the Year, not one of them did it his first season.
--------------
If the Illinois game could be reduced to Michigan’s four tries from the 1-yard line, Michigan’s season likewise boiled down to four great chances to win just one game to secure a bowl bid: Michigan State, which ended in overtime; Iowa, which ended one pass short of a winning field goal attempt; Illinois, which broke on the 1-yard line; and Purdue, which looked like an eminently winnable game. But like the fourth-and- 1 play against Illinois, the pressure mounted with each failed attempt. This was Rodriguez’s last best chance at match point.
Blow it against the Boilermakers, and the odds would only get taller against Wisconsin, and taller still against Ohio State, still in the hunt for a national title. Collars were tight in Ann Arbor.
The quarterbacks didn’t think Purdue would be a pushover, either. “They’re good, they play hard,” Sheridan said later that night in his hotel room. “Much harder than Illinois.” And then, unable to let Illinois go: “I still can’t believe we lost to those guys.”
“Don’t let ’em beat you twice,” Forcier said, as a half- joking warning they’d all heard a hundred times. “Man, we just got to win again. That’s been driving me fucking nuts. We just got to win again.”
October 28th, 2011 at 11:43 AM ^
clam chower, bam bowder, i hate clam chowder
(going to eat clam chowder for lunch)
October 28th, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^
Let's dig back into the MGoArchives and revisit the Danny Hope stunt in which he "introduced" Zach Reckman to Rich Rodriguez after the 2009 Purdue-Michigan game. The presumption being that it had been Rodriguez, in a fit after the B1G suspended Jonas Mouton, who personally inveighed to get Zach Reckman suspended for what was frankly a very ordinary run-of-the-mill late hit/unneccessary roughness penalty in Purdue's game versus Northern Illinois.
Reckman video*:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-SAV1U8Hl4
And from the MGoArchives, we were on it:
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/danny-nope-no-more-comments
Even some of the faithful here didn't want to believe that Rodriguez had nothing to do with the Reckman suspension. Whatever; as you'll see in Three and Out, it was yet another case of Rich Rodriguez getting raked publicly and in the press with absolutely no reason.
*Re: The Reckman video. So Reckman got suspended one game for that, and yet Sparty is complaining about a suspension for Gohlston?!?
October 28th, 2011 at 11:45 AM ^
On this, I agree with you - Hope proved himself a petty ass, and RR unfortnuately got stupid, uninformed negative press for something that he had nothing to do with and for something where he did nothing wrong.
October 28th, 2011 at 11:51 AM ^
I really don't remember people here arguing that Rodriguez had something to do with Reckam's suspension. I remember most people thinking Danny Hope is a classless asshole, whether Rodriguez had anything to do with the suspension or not.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:29 PM ^
And we were right to do that. And that's one of the great takeaways from all of this. Rodriguez's MGoBlog defenders were pretty much right on every little detailed story.
But if you read the comments in the old Diary that I linked to above, you'll see that it wasn't always an easy sell; even here. You can only imagine what the rest of the Rodriguez-hating world thought.
Oh, and another thing. This is something that I've wanted to say about Three and Out for a long time...
So we are getting all of these stories about how Rodriguez was getting such a raw deal in terms of public relations. Boren... Stretchgate... The Number 1 jersey... Casteel as DC... Danny Hope and Reckman... and on and on. The question really arises: Even if we write off Mark Snyder and Michael Rosenberg as totally biased opponents of Rodriguez, out to hurt him and get him fired, what about all the rest of the press corps? Where were they? Why wasn't anybody else doing these stories? I'm not a reporter and I could have written a lot of this stuff even without interviewing players and coaches and being given access to press conferences. You see, it is not just the plainly false reporting (see, Freep) but the lack of a helpful/clarifying narrative that is so mind-boggling.
What I see in the local media for the most part is a great reluctance to tear into Rosenberg and the Free Press. The few exceptions, such as they are, are really notable. Frank Beckmann should be given great credit. Jim Brandstatter's hear was in the right place, but I'm not sure how vocal he was. As for virtually all of the rest of broadcast media, it just wasn't there. Angelique Chengelis, to her credit, has commented on one very particula thing for which she was an actual eyewitness -- Rosenberg's disgraceful trickery in his Media Day '09 interviews with Stokes and Hawthorne. But as I say, these are the rare exceptions. Maybe there would have been a larger story, if Lloyd Carr and Gary Moeller and every big-name Michigan football alum stepped up. But of course Carr and his guys failed that test.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:41 PM ^
What were Dave Ablauf and Bruce Madej doing as the out-of-control media hit ramming speed and never slowed down?
Don't have the book yet, but weren't these guys supposed to be the pros who guide and keep the message "on-message," inside and outside (outside as much as they can)?
Sorry man...no answers...just more questions!
October 28th, 2011 at 12:58 PM ^
As far as I know, Bruce Madej was mostly helpful to Bacon in working on the book. Not so sure about Ablauf. I do think that Bacon goes out of his way to include Ablauf in his "Thanks" section of the book.
I'm not if I know of anybody who does not respect and admire Bruce Madej. Now I don't have a direct answer to your question, apart from a complete reading of the book discloses ZERO wrongdoing on the part of Madej and much concern from Bruce about how Rodriguez was getting screwed.
Remember, Bruce is a sports information guy, not a columnist. Madej has been very honest about the Rosenberg story; about how Snyder and Rosenberg came to him on the Friday afternoon before they were going to press on a Saturday/Sunday and basically said, "This is our story; you got any comment?" And you'll see in the book that Madej doesn't go all off flaming Rosneberg, with whom he has worked closely for years, the way that oh some guy on MGoBlog might. But Madej was angered by the Freep reporting and he thought it was erroneous and that nobody could understand the basis and Madej says so in the book.
I suspect that just like Jon Falk had a book in him, and Lloyd Carr has a book in him, that Bruce Madej has a book in him too.
I have nothing but the highest regard for Bruce Madej. I suspect that Madej's book, when and if he does one, won't be any more helpful to the legacy of Michael Rosenberg than the Bacon book.
October 28th, 2011 at 1:49 PM ^
October 28th, 2011 at 1:43 PM ^
Mouton punched someone one week and he got suspended for a game. The same weekend he was suspended, Recham punched someone. In one of the press conferences RR basically said, "yea, I don't get what the difference is between those two events." Then, Reckam got suspended for another game.
I don't think anyone was accusing RR of sending in the tape of Reckam, but I think that a lot of people thought that RR tipped off the B1G office. I haven't read the book, but it sounds like someone from Purdue sent the tape in. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if someone sent it in after RR mentioned it. Who knows, though?
October 28th, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^
That Bacon basically blows off the Mouton punch as just football, with it coming out the week after there was such a big deal made about MSU's punch (and I'm guessing Bacon was on the side of suspension). Sure, at the time there was the fact it was precedent setting, but I don't think too many people thought it was the wrong thing to suspend him for the game. Just the way it was handled might have been shakey.
October 28th, 2011 at 2:17 PM ^
AFAIK, Bakes bigger problem was with Gholstons neck twist. As it should be.
<br>
<br>MSU did a masterful job of managing that story. Not even the B1Gs suspension or any story mentions anything but the punch. And IMO the punch isn't a big deal. The neck twist two seconds after the play?? Bigger deal.
October 28th, 2011 at 2:20 PM ^
I think all the outrage should be over the piling on neck twist. But I really don't have any problem with automatic one game suspensions for punches. Yeah, it happens, and really doesn't hurt anyone, so I don't think a federal case should be made over it. I guess I was saying it's bad timing.
October 28th, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^
This is going to hurt you a lot more than it hurts me joey b. Just wanted you to be clear about that before I began. Okay?
You should have read the book before shoving both feet in your mouth.
Mouton punched someone one week and he got suspended for a game. The same weekend he was suspended, Recham punched someone. In one of the press conferences RR basically said, "yea, I don't get what the difference is between those two events." Then, Reckam got suspended for another game.
I don't think anyone was accusing RR of sending in the tape of Reckam, but I think that a lot of people thought that RR tipped off the B1G office. I haven't read the book, but it sounds like someone from Purdue sent the tape in. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if someone sent it in after RR mentioned it. Who knows, though?
It is Reckman, not Reckam.
Reckman's punch was the week after Mouton.
I do not recall Rodriguez's quote as you cite it. I think you are wrong; I am certain that you've taken it out of context.
When you say that "Reckam [sic] got suspended for another game..." that phrase is so badly written and/or so wrong, that it is impossible to excuse. Zach Reckman was suspended for one game only. There was never "another" game's suspension.
Yes, people did accuse Rodriguez of sending in the Reckman tape. Yes they did. When you say the opposite, you are wrong. People said so on this very Board. They were wrong.
When you say, "...who knows...?" Well, readers of the book DO know. Rodriguez didn't send in the tape. (The game was on the BTN, if I recall correctly.) Someone from Purdue DID send in the tape.
There. You wrote about seven sentences, and managed to say something wrong in almost every one of them.
October 28th, 2011 at 4:26 PM ^
Readers of the book don't "know" anything more than they did before. Many of the errors posters have pointed out call into question even the most basic new information revealed. It's a great and entertaining read, nothing more, nothing less. And yes, I have a copy on my nightstand and bought one for a colleague who is a huge Michigan fan.
October 28th, 2011 at 5:19 PM ^
I don't generally agree with your stances on this issue, but I admire your doggedness (if that is even a proper word) with respect to your views, Mr. Butterfield.
October 31st, 2011 at 1:31 PM ^
"It is Reckman, not Reckam." I honestly have no idea what the kid's name is, so you have me there. I just pulled his name from somewhere else in this thread and even spelled it two different ways in my post.
"Reckman's punch was the week after Mouton." That's what I said, even if it wasn't clear. "The same weekend [Mouton] was suspended, Recham punched someone." Mouton's suspension came the week after he punched someone, so we are saying the same thing.
"I do not recall Rodriguez's quote as you cite it. I think you are wrong; I am certain that you've taken it out of context." I don't know exactly what he said, but that was the general tone of it. Someone asked him about it and he just said "I don't really care, but I don't see the difference"
"When you say that "Reckam [sic] got suspended for another game..." that phrase is so badly written and/or so wrong, that it is impossible to excuse. Zach Reckman was suspended for one game only. There was never "another" game's suspension." Yes, you are right. This whole post was poorly phrased on my part because I was trying to get it out quickly. What I meant was that I had already brought up 3 games (mouton punch, mouton suspension, reckman punch) and the "another" was meant to allude to a different game than had already been discussed.
"Yes, people did accuse Rodriguez of sending in the Reckman tape. Yes they did. When you say the opposite, you are wrong. People said so on this very Board. They were wrong." I don't remember anyone accusing RR of sending in the tape. I remember them accusing him of tattling in the press conference, thinking that tipped the B1G off about the incident. As far as I knew at the time, no tape was even sent in; the B1G just reviewed it themselves after learning about it.
"When you say, "...who knows...?" Well, readers of the book DO know. Rodriguez didn't send in the tape. (The game was on the BTN, if I recall correctly.) Someone from Purdue DID send in the tape." I wasn't saying who knows if Purdue sent the tape. I was saying who knows if they sent it in before or after RR mentioned it in the press conference. They could have sent it in on Saturday after the game to get ahead of it, or they could have seen is press conference, said "Oh shit", and reacted to that. Again, I haven't read the book, but I doubt that Bacon has any first-hand knowledge of that.
Sorry for confusing you with the compact form of what should have been written, but I'm reasonably sure that most of your criticisms were just misunderstandings.
October 28th, 2011 at 6:49 PM ^
What got Rodriguez in trouble was that he referenced the Purdue incident in his own press conference, including physically demonstrating the move. Did he directly send in the tape and cry about it to the Big Ten? No. But come on, when the TV cameras are rolling you have to know that you are on a stage and you are accountable.
Now I can look at the incident and try to think positively about Rodriguez trying to demonstrate that what Mouton did was a penalty, but not worth a suspension, and in his mind was referecing another incident which was a penalty on a "football move" and probably didn't think anyone was going to be suspended. But Rodriguez is still niave for thinking that description wouldn't come back to bit him. I mean my exact thought when he demonstrated with his elbow was, "oh crap, why did he do that, he's actually giving out free stabs for the press to use?!?"
And I think that is all the MGoBlog community is reacting to as well. That it was clear Rodriguez was referencing the penatly at the Purdue game. And I think that demonstration made it diffictult for the Big Ten to ignore it. So really I believe he is responsible, and what Danny Hope stated was correct, despite being a huge ass about it.
But then again, Dantonio was correct that Mike Hart is a short person, and he was a huge ass about trash talking with a player. But I still wish to this day that Hart wasn't such a loud mouthed braggart that he had to put that statement out into the media. I mean it's on a freakin' T-shirt.
It's tough to remain classy in the face of asshattery, but don't you really feel better that Hoke's response to the recent round of MSU penalties was, "hey they beat us, and they were playing tougher football". Cause now it's done, and there is nothing to talk about that includes "what an ass/naive idiot Hoke was after the MSU game"
I mean we can't even have a t-shirt with "this is Michigan for Gawdsakes" on it. That's how classy the guy is.
October 28th, 2011 at 11:43 AM ^
To echo Brian's closing remarks in his post from Wednesday on this book:
Happy he is gone.
During 2009, many on these boards and elsewhere commented that the team seemed beated down, lost its confidence and just didn't have the mentality to win that final game to become bowl eligible.
This quote:
“I don’t care anymore about trying to analyze the psychology of these guys, especially for the press. I just want them to freakin’ play. I’m sick of it.”Sick of what? “Everything. I’m sick of the situation I’m in. I’m sick of the crap I’ve got to deal with every week. I’m sick of people not taking responsibility.”
. . . to me, shows that the mental attitude of the team came from the top. "I am sick of it" from a guy who is being paid $2.5 million to . . . coach football . . . bothers me. Sure, RR dealt with a ton of shit - more than any coach I can recall, some of his own making , but much of it not - but come on, man. You are a coach of 18-22 year olds. It is YOUR job to shield these guys from this crap, and not let it permeate the team. That's what great leaders do.
And this quote: "I’m sick of people not taking responsibility": Really? Brady Hoke lost one freaking game and said in the presser that the loss was on the coaches. Sure, players didn;t execute, but he and Borges and Mattison all said that the coaches need to do a better job of recognizing the players' strengths and putting the players in a better situation to succeed." THAT is taking responsibility. Contrast that with RR's pressers, and he has the nerve to talk about taking responsibility.
October 28th, 2011 at 11:48 AM ^
Bacon was reporting what Rodriguez had said privately. And speaking privately, Rodriguez was right. As for the three years of Rodriguez press conferences, versus nine months of Brady Hoke press conferences, there isn't much difference.
October 28th, 2011 at 11:53 AM ^
It's not the comment - made privately to Bacon - it's the attitude, which I feel permeated the team. Defeated. We will probably disagree on this.
As to whether RR was right about having to deal with a lot, I actually agree that he was right - he was forced to deal with so much shit it was insane. But, as a leader, his job was to shield the team from that shit and not let it affect the team, to the best of his abilities. With a woe is me attitude - even if justified - I don't see how he could have done that effectively, and ultimately, he didn't.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:05 PM ^
I am just guessing that you may not have ever been in the position RR found himself in. RR was venting privately to a friend at lunch... this is not where leaders are born or die.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^
No, I have never been in a position where I am getting paide $2.5 million to COACH FOOTBALL AT THE GREATEST UNIVERSITY IN THE WORLD. All the woe is me crap, all of the "he had it so hard" and all of the "he dealt with so much" nonsense doesn't change the fact that this guy - who was feeling sorry for himself - was getting paid a shit ton of money for a job that most would dream of.
And, as to RR venting privately at lunch, you are missing my bigger point that the private comment pretty much summed up his attitude, which, even if not spoken, was obvious to every single fan who watched a presser or his sideline demeanor, let alone to his players.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:25 PM ^
Your view is jaded due to the fact that you dislike him because in your brain he owed you something. In fact he didn't owe you anything aside from maybe the benefit of the doubt on his first step into Schembecheler Hall. That which you and many like you did not provide.
His failure has much to do with your failure as a fan and as a conduit of change (which we deperately needed).
October 28th, 2011 at 12:41 PM ^
your comment certainly earns its insightful tab, but that "attitude" in the private lunch conversations did come through during press conferences and his media relations. He seemed defeated from the get go, even before he realized that the athletic department was as competent as Bud and Kelly Bundy. From the first moment he addressed the media in Spring 08, he publicly commented on the lack of talent at quarterback, how hard of job he had in front of him, and how he was confident about the year "until he got here." This kind of defeated attitude continued, sometimes without explanation or provocation, "there are only so many hours in the day" when addressing the defense. He almost always seemed overwhelmed by his job, incapable of handing all it entailed. I think that his statement "I don't care," while made privately probably was actually true at close to that point in time. I really don't think he cared, beginning at about the Purdue loss in 09.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:50 PM ^
I guess I just disgree with you.
I know he cared about the kids until the very end. I am certain he had little talent at QB his first year and a freshman his second year AND a freshman his third year.
All the while being beaten down by the media when normally a new coach would be ushered in with an aura of welcoming (as we have seen with Hoke) rather than the opposite of that as we can't deny happened with RR.
Your arguments are valid and you have an opinion that isn't mine. I can respect that. I just disagree.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:51 PM ^
He didn't have a freshman his third year.
October 28th, 2011 at 1:09 PM ^
You are correct. First year QB.
October 28th, 2011 at 1:41 PM ^
October 28th, 2011 at 2:05 PM ^
When I first learned that this book was being published, back when the wounds were still very fresh, I was like "uh oh, that's going to be trouble." But, honestly, it seems like the release has come at the near-perfect time. Hard feelings still exist on both sides, but I think the wounds have healed enough so that intelligent people <cough, us> can discuss the merits intelligently and civilly. Its pretty impressive, actually, and a real testiment to the MGoCommunity.
October 28th, 2011 at 2:14 PM ^
Funny you should ask, but yes. I also quit drinking, but that is for other reasons and I plan on going back to it. I don't know if that is helping or not.
Also, thank you.
October 28th, 2011 at 2:26 PM ^
Just that I've noticed it for a good period of time now, and if there was EVER a time for you to be going off on the board, this book would be the time....and while we're not on the same page (maybe not the same chapter...not literally), here's a guy who I could at least argue with, because he's making sound points, without getting nasty. And really, that's what I remember. So if anything, you're proving me wrong, and more importantly, proving a lot of mods right who gave you a long leash, hoping for the real H.D.'s return. And I'm fine with that. So yeah, I'm in no position to judge anyone on a message board...but if I can say "this stuff is BS", I damn well better say "keep it up...." too.
And welcome back.
October 28th, 2011 at 2:35 PM ^
Congratulations to you, Dudeness! Good stuff. Its great to have you back, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:47 PM ^
Look, we obviously disagree - that's ok, I respect your view and I never neg your posts because, hey, we are all entitled to our viewpoints - but WOW. Some brief responses:
1. "you dislike him because in your brain he owed you something"
Nope. I disliked him because he was a poor football coach for a team that I like to see win. That's the primary reason. The secondary reason, I don't think that he conducted himself well as a representative of our school at times, and I really didn't like him blaming 18 year old kids (and berating them publicly) a la brian kelly. Also, I liked our bowl win streak and our whole never getting NCAA violations before. But, he owed me nothing.
2. "That [benefit of the doubt] which you and many like you did not provide."
Wrong again. Read my posts circa 2007, 8 and even 2009. Total defense of RR. He lost me mid-2010 when I realized he was just not doing a good job and that my defenses were just excuses.
3. "His failure has much to do with your failure as a fan."
No, his failure has 100% to do with him not winning . I didn't choose to run the option spread with Sheridan and Threet, I didn't say that Vince Lombardi couldn't win with our defense, I didn't say that I hoped to find a kicker on the way to the 2010 Wisco game, and I didn't have anything to do with the NCAA violations. Hell, all I did was consistently support the guy until doing so meant delving into denial.
4. "change (which we deperately needed)."
You realize that in 2006, we were 1 score away from playing for the NC? And you realize that in 2007, while we had some tough losses, we beat the FLorida team that had just won the NC (and which won it again the next year) in a bowl game? Sure, Lloyd was getting tired and needed to retire, but we did not need to rebuild. Just minor tweeks.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^
Whoops that above comment was meant for you, but now I take it back because I just think you are flat out wrong. Sorry.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:57 PM ^
poster.
October 29th, 2011 at 12:37 AM ^
of whether the poster was michgoblue or ijohnb their posts were very similar in terms of how RR's comments exposed his pervasive attitude of defeat. Now it's one thing to bitch about things and be negative fresh off a disapointing loss it's another to display that the night before the next game. The fact that he was still dwelling on that kind of crap at that point in the week tells me he's immersed in it and can't get his head right and focused on the task at hand. Winners in life shrug off the adversity, put their heads down and plow on. Others let disdvantage consume their thoughts to the point that they become incapable of succeeding. Their failure becomes an inevitability and then victimhood sets in. Yeah he got a raw deal some of it deserved some of it not but you have to rise above that crap. You have to keep getting up after you've been knocked down. I can't imagine Bo would ever have done what RR did had he found himself in a similar circumstance.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^
Thank god that you don't have anything to do with Michigan football. You're as dumb as the ass clown that hired dick rod in the first place. RR couldn't coach. End of story.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:25 PM ^
I would hate that job, money be damned. The amount of time, pressure and stress that go into that job isn't worth the $2.5 million to me. I woudln't do it even if the media was gushing over me more than they currently do Hoke. I'm just saying it isn't any easy job. I can see where it would wear on you.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:27 PM ^
=money buys happiness amirite?
October 28th, 2011 at 12:51 PM ^
You are missing my point. My only point on his $ is that, sure it is a damn difficult job. That's why it gets paid the big bucks. Implicit in a job that pays you $2.5 million is that it is a tough job. But also implicit in that is that you are up to the task, which he wasn't.
October 28th, 2011 at 1:13 PM ^
I forgot what section of the book (perhaps about 1/2 way through) where Rodriguez was describing not getting to sleep until four every night and not having slept really well since he moved to Ann Arbor. Plus the extraordinary number of hours worked per week. He is probably enjoying his money a lot more than when he was working 100+ hours of week + travel.
If you can't enjoy the money it does not matter how much you make.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:28 PM ^
Could your feeling come from the fact that the team actually was defeated most of the time? So when Carr was telling Bill Martin that he couldn't do it anymore after '06 and wanted to quit does he take the blame for the first two losses of the '07 season? I just want to be consistent.
I think it's ridiculous to begrudge a person for being frustrated with not only losing but all the crap that went with the losing the last few years. You're extrapolating an attitude from one comment that I just don't agree was there. All of the interactions with the team and quotes from actual players just don't support your theory.
October 28th, 2011 at 1:58 PM ^
desire to retire and his heart not being as in it anymore for recruiting at the end, and the lack of preparedness at the start of the '07 season. And it's probably fair. (Even though we won, look how our recruiting picked up after Bo retired and Mo took over...recruiting is a young man's game, and it's usually the thing that coaches hate first when they're getting close to hange it up. A hungry up and comer recruits great....a 60 year old man who's accomplished a lot kissing the ass of 17 year olds is hard).
The difference is (and not really a knock on Rich) is what Lloyd may have been better at than anything is stopping snowballs from turning into scenes from Raiders of the Lost Ark. He manage to take bad, really down situations, and keep them from tanking seasons into losing efforts, where streaks are broken. It was just 2007, where we were at the lowest of lows, won 8 straight till we didn't have any more arms or legs to play, and pulled off a bowl victory, but many a season. 2003 is looked on as great, but before Minnesota (till the 4th quarter) the environment was HARSH. '98 didn't start off that great either. He obviously did a lot of good things as a head coach, but the thing he probably did as well as anyone else was rally the troops when things were looking their bleakest, and stopping 4 loss seasons from becoming 7 loss seasons, and bowl streak/non-losing record breaking disasters, that have befallen just about every other program. Us too, now, but that doesn't make Rich any different than guys who coached at a lot of other big time schools and had it befall them.
But there is something to being able to do it. Maybe it would have taken a lot to rally things in '08. But 1 more win in '09, or non-utter collapse in '10? With Bacon's "key games" I'm not sure even he thinks that it wasn't possible to flip one of those, and make all the difference. Illinois prior to the story in this post is a great example. Losing to them with some bad breaks is one thing...to end up getting your ass kicked in a game you were in complete control of (to a not very good team) means the players thought they were done. Rally fail.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^
It's called leadership.
Positivity can create success. Or at least, keep kids motivated. I know he was dealing with a lot, but come on. It's not like it was his first year coaching - you have to know how to lay a foundation for the next game (and next year) and get the kids to buy in... especially when you're losing. The fact that he said that in private makes no difference - everyone could tell the guy was frustrated as hell.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:10 PM ^
October 28th, 2011 at 1:57 PM ^
October 28th, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^
What about positive messages from former players and the rest of the athletic department? What do you think RVB was referring to when he was kind of pissed at all the former players now rushing back to the program when Hoke was hired? You think those negative attitudes don't affect 18-22 year old kids? Don't think they don't hear them with the media and internet the way it is now you can't stay in a bubble anymore.
Again I'm not saying RR was blameless or didn't deserve to be let go, but I do think the harping on this point is idiotic.
October 28th, 2011 at 1:38 PM ^
What does that have to do with anything? He was disciplined because he said it to the press that doesn't mean he suddenly realized he didn't feel that way.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
I disagree completely. RRs press conferences were often full of excuses and lowered expectations. From day one, BH has said that if these kids arent challenging for championships that is a failure on him. And I used to defend RR on that stuff, but the differences are striking. This excerpt just reinforces that - this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that Brian Kelly is doing this year.
Comments