Three And Out Q&A: Part Three Comment Count

Brian

image53

[ED: Parts one and two here. Book on sale Tuesday. Bacon will be giving his first local book talk and signing at Nicola’s Books in the Westgate Shopping Center on Friday night, October 28, 7 p.m.; other events can be found on his website’s appropriately-named Event page.

Cave people: Three and Out is a book about the Rodriguez era from John Bacon, who was given unprecedented access to the program by Rich Rodriguez because Rich Rodriguez does these sorts of things.]

6. WHAT'S NEXT?

“What books are you going to write about now that Michigan won't let you within a mile of any of their programs anymore? I mean, it's not easy to piss off everybody.”

Well, first: Despite the sacrifices I mentioned in the first installment – time, money, and possibly professional opportunities -- writing it was my decision, naturally, and I don’t regret it. Given my choices, trying to write an honest book is certainly more appealing to me than trying to keep everyone happy and produce a book I could never respect.

Plus, I had the chance to see a big-time program form the inside that no fan, and no reporter, has ever had—and probably never will again. If there was one great privilege that I hope every reader can share, it was getting to know these young man not as gladiators but as human beings, some of the best I’ve met. If you were proud of Michigan football before, I can tell you this: getting to know these guys can erase much of the cynicism we all feel for college football these days. They were, quite simply, the real thing.

None of that, unfortunately, solves the problem in the question. Mr. Brandon and Mr. Carr, through various means and channels, have made their contempt for the book (and its author) plain enough. I have no idea what’s going to happen with my various ties to Michigan, including my teaching arrangement, but I’d probably be foolish to count on anything.

It’s almost impossible to write anything interesting without at least some cooperation and access, and I might find those in short supply under the Brandon regime. I will likely have to go “off the reservation,” if you will, to pursue future projects. And perhaps it’s time.

But I also believe this book would cost me a lot more if I were writing about Kentucky basketball under Eddie Sutton or, say, Ohio State football (as a convenient example). Those schools and fans generally don’t want the truth, and will attack anyone who attempts to deliver it (witness Mr. Herbstreit’s forced move to Tennessee). Michigan football fans are very demanding—they expect a first-class program on and off the field—but they also want the truth, and they can handle it.

I feel the same way. After all, I learned how to do all the things I needed to write this book – researching, writing and thinking critically – from world-class professors at the University of Michigan. But the most important principle Michigan taught me was the central importance of pursuing the truth without fear, wherever it leads.

For those who say this book will hurt Michigan, I can only respond: not the Michigan I know.

7. Does the idea of being a "Michigan man" emerge as tortured shibboleth in need of burial or does Bacon make the case that there is something valuable in it, something RR just really didn't get?

This is why you have to love Michigan fans. What other school’s backers would inquire if their culture’s central concept emerges as a “tortured shibboleth in need of burial”? It was such fans, by the way, that made it easy for me to persuade our highbrow publisher Farrar, Straus & Giroux, that our readers would have no trouble getting through a 438-page book with no photos, nor digesting the word “crucible” in the subtitle. (Arthur Miller, after all, went to Michigan.)

The term “Michigan Man” probably goes back to the day men arrived at Michigan. But it’s taken more than a few twists and turns since.

Fielding Yost gave the term “Michigan Man” a boost when he started using it in his speeches. But the phrase really took off in 1989, of course, when Schembechler announced he was firing basketball coach Bill Frieder on the eve of the NCAA basketball tournament because Frieder had signed a secret deal to coach Arizona State the next season. This prompted Schembechler to bark: “A Michigan Man will coach Michigan!”

Pundits have wondered exactly what Bo meant, but I think it’s pretty simple: anybody coaching at Michigan better be completely committed to Michigan.

The phrase took on more weight four years ago, when a reporter asked brand-new head coach Rich Rodriguez if the Michigan coach had to be a Michigan Man. He joked, “Gosh, I hope not! They hired me!”

He was criticized for that—and not without some justification. The question was inevitable, and it exposed Rodriguez’s superficial knowledge of the program upon his arrival, and the athletic department’s failure to prepare its new coach for his mission.

From that point on, the phrase was used more often to beat somebody over the head—usually Rodriguez—than to underscore the values it’s supposed to represent, much the way extremists use “patriot” to castigate someone as un-American.

At the “Victors’ Rally” held in February 2010, Rodriguez wanted to show that he’d gotten the message. So, he closed his speech by saying, “I’m Rich Rodriguez, and I am a Michigan Man.” This time, he was criticized for being presumptuous.

Finally, with great humility, he told the crowd at his final speech at the Bust in December 2011, “I hope you realize, I truly want to be a Michigan Man.” But this time his critics said a true Michigan Man wouldn’t have to ask.

And thus, the silliness of the entire exercise had come full circle. The phrase had become so distorted, Michigan’s critics started using it as a mocking insult. Much like the word “classy,” it seemed, whoever uses it, probably isn’t.

Despite my temptation to chuck this overused and little understood phrase forever, I still think there’s something to it. Everyone knows the values it’s supposed to stand for: honor, sacrifice, pride in your team, and humility in yourself, all in one. But ultimately, to define it, I have to resort to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s description of pornography: “I know it when I see it.”

Pardon the comparison, but when it comes to the phrase, “Michigan Man,” I know it when I see it, too. They might be Big Men on Campus, but they don’t act like it, in college or afterward. The men I’ve been lucky enough to get to know—many as good friends—really do put their team and their school before themselves, and become the kind of adults you want to be your employee, your colleague, your boss, your neighbor, your brother-in-law. Not because they played football for Michigan, but because they represent its values. And they really are different than the players I’ve met from other schools.

I can cite too many men who fit this description, and too many examples of their conduct, simply to dismiss it.

Here’s a small one: a few years ago the football alums of Ohio State and Michigan were invited to an event in Columbus. The Buckeyes showed up wearing everything from sport coats to sweatshirts and jeans. But the Michigan alums arrived wearing coats and ties. No one told them what to wear. Bo had already passed away. But they simply knew, reflexively, if you represent Michigan, this is how you do it.

A bigger example: a few years after graduating, Scott Smykowski, a former backup under Schembechler, discovered he needed a bone marrow transplant, but his health care wasn’t going to cover all his expenses. That’s all Schembechler needed to hear to rally Michigan Men from coast to coast. And that’s all they needed to hear to raise $150,000 in just a few weeks – even though most of them never played with Smykowski or even met him. That’s what being a Michigan Man meant to them.

When I speak at Michigan events, I often end with a quote from arguably the first important Michigan Man, Fielding Yost. Near the end of his life, they held a big banquet for him called, “A Toast to Yost from Coast to Coast,” which was broadcast nationwide by NBC. After all the speakers had paid tribute, he got up in his eponymous Fieldhouse and said, “My heart is so full at this moment, I fear I could say little else. But do let me reiterate the Spirit of Michigan. It is based on a deathless loyalty to Michigan and all her ways. An enthusiasm that makes it second nature for Michigan Men to spread the gospel of their university to the world’s distant outposts. And a conviction that nowhere, is there a better university, in any way, than this Michigan of ours.”

It gets me every time. But what really gets me is the response from the people in the audience. None of them ever met Fielding Yost. Most of them weren’t born when he passed away in 1946. Most of their parents weren’t, either. And yet, when they hear these words, they nod involuntarily, the words resonating with something deep inside them, and they are often glassy-eyed when I finish the quote.

If you could stand on that podium and look out on those faces, you would not have to wonder if the idea of the Michigan Man is for real.

Despite the best efforts to kill it, it is still very much alive.

Comments

maizenbluenc

October 21st, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^

are not likely to black ball Bacon over a well researched book on that mess down the hill on State Street.

I really need to read the book. I am particularly interested in the Carr aspect, because the reviews I have read so far sound much less like active undermining, than they do disagreement with directions taken, and strong support for (and honesty with) the people who worked and played for him, even when not in the best interest of the program.

As for Brandon - Bo would not have liked this book. The past three years are an embarrassment to the program, and anything re-hashing the embarrassment ... I can understand where DB is coming from.

However, painful or not, if the book is truthful and accurate, then the author has acted ethically, and should be respected and accepted.

It would be interesting to know how the players will view this book.

medals

October 21st, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^

The “know it when you see it” expression is about obscenity, not pornography. See Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964). 

/Michigan Man'ed

 

 

 

Still in AA

October 21st, 2011 at 12:32 PM ^

I started to type up my own explanation but wikipedia is spot on:

 

The most famous opinion from Jacobellis, however, was Justice Potter Stewart's concurrence, holding that the Constitution protected all obscenity except "hard-core pornography." Stewart wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

 

The "shorthand description" and "it" that Stewart was referring to is the phrase "hard-core pornography."

randyfloyd

October 21st, 2011 at 11:57 AM ^

I am really starting to like this novel idea you have, called honest writing. Living in the center of enemy territory, i'm use to writing with a spin. I'm not a guy that normally likes to read books, but I will buy your book, and I will read your book.

Enjoy Life

October 21st, 2011 at 12:05 PM ^

Kudos to John Bacon. I can't tell you how disgusted I am at the vast majority of journalists, coaches, politicians, and private industry managers that are willing to sell their souls and discard any integrity to merely please the masses and keep their jobs.

I never had a job that was so important to me that I would abandon all my principles just to keep that job. Unfortunately, almost everyone on this planet seems to be willing to do just that.

Congratulations to John Bacon for getting it right without regard to the personal consequences.

The world would be a lot better place with more people like him.

 

J. Lichty

October 21st, 2011 at 12:18 PM ^

As an attorney who represents Whistleblowers, I have seen this first hand all too often.  Whistleblowers are often retaliated against by their companies and it doesnt stop there.  The laws are getting better at providing protections for retaliation, but that does not diminish the fact that it takes real courage to blow the whistle.

Tha Quiet Storm

October 21st, 2011 at 12:07 PM ^

I know some have expressed reluctance to read this book on the reasoning that it will "open old wounds," but even if it does, the opportunity to take a behind-the-scenes, day-to-day look inside the football program is absolutely irresistible.

I've read Meat Market and watched some of the shows that used to be on ESPN a while ago (The LIfe, The Season), and thought they were compelling and fascinating, even though I had no interest in the teams being covered. Combining that format with Michigan Football is going to be incredible.


 

jan4a

October 21st, 2011 at 12:34 PM ^

It's all Carr's fault. He spent years of his life representing a great program. He did it with class as far as I can see. I guess I was completely wrong about it all. Coach Carr sunk a program To the depth of college football. It had nothing to do with going 3-9 and having Steven Threet and Nick Sheridon running a spread option. Coach Carr drove down to Toledo and told them how to beat Michigan, as well as everyone else for that matter. I truly do enjoy reading the threads about how bad Al Borges doesn't get how to utilize talent (refer to Threet above).
<br>
<br>I have no problem with a book that exposes how things actually work. But it is just that, how things "actually work".
<br>
<br>I don't buy the argument that there was no talent when RR arrived. Guys left sure, but really? C'mon. RR started, lost, continued to lose, an was fired. It happens. Remember when a 3 loss season was disappointing???
<br>
<br>Sometimes, things don't work out, but I think blaming it all on Coach Carr and DB maybe a bit off. But I could be wrong.
<br>
<br>Go Blue!

jan4a

October 21st, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^

If the book had been written during 2 coaching administrations rather than one, I believe it would carry a bit more weight. I will read it, but I don't think the writings of one individual prove or disprove anything.

03 Blue 07

October 21st, 2011 at 7:13 PM ^

Good to see you'll have an open mind.

Also, that first post about LC going down to Toledo was just really, really bad. Strawman, misinformed (because you've never read the source material), spewing invective, characterizing what people are saying re: LC in a way that is not true (or at best disingenuous and a blatant exagerration) and terrible grammar. If this reply gets me a "pretty pretty princess" sig line, so be it.

Ziff72

October 21st, 2011 at 12:41 PM ^

Bacon has done a fine job on these questions, but aren't we all waiting for the Defense question?   I see he ended on question 7 this week.   Did Brian settle on 10 questions?   Is it over?

I'm hoping this is a 10 part series, but for some reason(maybe 3 and Out as the title or Brian mentioned it in the earlier posts) I thought this was a 3 part series which if it is I say...DANG.

Argus99

October 21st, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^

pretty apprehensive about this book and didn't plan on reading it.  LC is a friend of my extended family. I've met the guy personally. I could give you have a dozen examples of why the he's pretty awesome and will always be a Michigan Man in my eyes.

It's been my understanding that none of us pass the saint test under scrutiny.  Whatever perceived sins LC committed in your eyes...I'm 100% positive he did them because he thought it was the right thing to do for him and for Michigan.

I've changed my mind on John's book and plan on reading it....but keep it in mind when you do page through that LC may have made some mistakes..but his overall legacy at UofM is that of a Michigan Man who continues to represent our University well and gives way more than he has ever taken.

Looking forward to your book John...you're right.  The truth only helps. 

WindyCityBlue

October 21st, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^

"I'm 100% positive he did them because he thought it was the right thing to do for him and for Michigan."

If what you say is true, then LC is coming off pretty selfish here.  There are much I could to that is better for me, but not for the greater good.   Perhaps you didn't mean that way.  Perhaps you did.  Either way, I think its evident that LC should put aside what he thinks is best for him and focus on what is/was better for the Michigan program as a whole. 

 

03 Blue 07

October 21st, 2011 at 7:15 PM ^

I will say this, and I put it in one of the replies to the three diaries I wrote about the book: I am very confident that everyone- including LC- was doing what they thought was best for those they care/cared about. In LC's case, he was doing what he thought was best for Michigan in the beginning by pushing for RR to get the job over Les Miles, and then doing what he thought was best for his players and/or the school with his subsequent actions. I do not at all doubt his motives were based on his principles of loyalty and doing the right thing, I just don't necessarily agree with his actions.

El Jeffe

October 21st, 2011 at 12:45 PM ^

Haven't read the book yet (it's on order), but I'm starting to feel bad for Lloyd. For all the bad (or non-) advice RR got, Lloyd too has been failed by whatever people he has. The truth is that these days, it is almost never a good choice not to "take the stand" and defend yourself in the court of public opinion. Here is my argument:

People of Lloyd's age were raised not only in the literal and figurative bunker of Ft. Schembechler, but during a time when there were three newspapers who covered Michigan (A2 News, Freep, DetNews) and that was pretty much it. No sports talk radio, no blogs, no Sports Center. Back then, if you wanted to ignore a story, it pretty much stayed ignored. This is why everyone stonewalled everything back then (with Watergate as the signal example of this strategy). Information was just too hard to get, too costly, and too easy to miss if you didn't happen to read the sports page that day.

But over time, that changed to a 24-hour saturation, where news was not only available all the time, but in multiple formats, and on the internet, easily accessible in perpetuity due to archives of links and google searches. In this regime, you can't ignore stories anymore because there's so little cost to people endlessly trotting out theories to explain your silence and to people finding old theories to explain your silence on the internet.

My guess is that the truth is that Lloyd mostly acted honorably w/r/t the treatment of RR, and feels he doesn't have to explain himself. But, it doesn't appear as though he acted completely honorably, and moreover his silence allows people to think there's more to the story than even JUB knows. Even if he did as little as issue a LC standard-issue terse press release that praised the book generally but specifically refuted certain points, I think that would serve him well in terms of people debating his role.

After all, one of the most counterintuitive consequences of the glut of information we swim in is that people seem to care less and less about finding or knowing the truth. As long as there are two (and more typically nine) points of view proferred, most people shrug their shoulders and conclude that the truth is something like the average of the available stories. Lloyd's problem is that he isn't providing that counternarrative, and as a result I think the reputation of one of the great lions of Michigan football is being tarnished unnecessarily.

BlueVoix

October 21st, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^

I'm inclined to agree with you, though this comes with obviously not having read the book.  We'll clearly see in the book, but I have to wonder the extent in which Carr acted improperly.  He is and always was curmudgeonly.  Expecting him to angrily defend the new head coach at every turn was naive.  But did he actually work to discredit RR internally?

I've met Bacon several times, took his class, and genuinely like his books.  He's also a very good person.  My one concern with the book is that it's going to become mental masturbation for "The Rebellion."  It will just confirm to them that Rodriguez did very little to cement his fate, further entrenching their position that Hoke shouldn't be here.  Whether intentional or not, that will continue to split the fanbase.

Still, the truth should be out.

El Jeffe

October 21st, 2011 at 1:10 PM ^

There's a rebellion? Does His Dudeness know there's more of him?

I keed, I keed...

I don't know anyone who thinks Hoke should be out and Rodriguez restored like Charles II. My angar at what went down was entirely about two things (1) I am an inveterate optimist, and I thought M would improve this year and next and I wanted to see Denard at the controls of a fully-functioning RR spread n' shred; and (2) I hated the fact that, at the time, the Hoke hire seemed to confirm only the things I hated about Michigan football--the stodginess, the slavish adherence to tradition at the expense of innovation, the snobbiness, the belief that invoking the phrase "Michigan Man" actually meant something substantive.

Basically, all of the things I learned to value while actually going to school at Michigan were being trod upon, or so I thought. I now think that I was wrong about a lot of those things, and that Hoke may be simultaneously old and stodgy enough to appeal to the portion of the fanbase that likes that shit, but also flexible enough to understand that football ain't like it was in the good ol' Bo days.

As Engels would say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so we shall see. It strikes me that Hoke wants to build an LSU/Alabama/Carroll-era USC/Tressel-era OSU type program; that is, relatively conservative pro-style offense (crazy Miles fumblerooski plays notwithstanding) paired with a killer defense. I can get behind that idea, certainly. However, whether he will able to pull that off just remains to be seen. Part of me doubts that when you don't have the recruiting base of LA, AL, or OH, it's hard to make it just on talent and execution, so you have to turn to scheme to make up the difference (a la Oregon or Boise St. or, uh, RR-era WVU...).

Tacopants

October 21st, 2011 at 5:04 PM ^

Although I don't get why people think the "Pro" system is still an immobile artillery piece at QB with a TE and FB.  You can see that some of the most successful offenses in the NFL are spreads - passing spreads, not spread n shreads, but the NFL is clearly a very passing friendly league at this point.  Installing an old school I form offense that runs a ton of POWER and Isos seems to be moving further away from what the NFL truely values.

If Hoke/Borges are smart, they shape Michigan like Oklahoma - spread passing with a killer defense, and not like Alabama, which just has unfair amounts of talent.

BluByYou

October 21st, 2011 at 1:04 PM ^

LC could have done to alter RR's fate one way or another.  I believe the bottom line is LC was pissed he did not influence the pick of his successor, validating rumors that LC & Martin did not get along and that LC did not leave entirely of his own will.  Sorry if this was discussed here before.

J. Lichty

October 21st, 2011 at 1:13 PM ^

Lloyd could have told his players to get behind RR instead of telling them all to transfer.  He could have not had behind the back sessions with his players undermining the new coach.  he could have publicly stated that the new coach has his support and that he will do anything he can to help the new coach.  He could have met with RR and helped him navigate the waters in an unfamiliar place like Bump did for Bo. 

There just is no gray area here.  Part of being a Michigan Man is not being for the UM when you are there, but how you conduct yourself after you leave.  Many failed this part.

BluByYou

October 21st, 2011 at 1:20 PM ^

say is true.  My point was that RR was doomed to fail even if Bo was reincarnated and held pep rallies for him.  It was a bad fit, a bad choice from the get go, a panic hire.  RR was in no way a B1G coach who could win no matter the support.

J. Lichty

October 21st, 2011 at 3:50 PM ^

but my recollection of the book (and its been a few weeks since I have read it) is that Lloyd told them all as a group that they should all consider transferring and that he would sign releases for anyone who wanted to transfer (Which is as close as you can come to telling them to transfer)  Moreover, he did also advise specific players who are named in the book  to actually transfer, I think this was in the book as well, he also advised at least one recruit to not to go to Michigan and to go to MUS instead. 

That is not simply being crumudgeonly - it is undermining the program and the new coach.

Contrast that when RR was fired he told all the players to stay and support the coach.

BRCE

October 21st, 2011 at 1:08 PM ^

Interesting and impassioned post, but I think it is being far too easy on Carr.

To excuse Carr's silence on him playing by the old rules when he saw the media world change drastically in front of him during his years as a head coach is unrealistic. Carr is many things but a bumpkin isn't one of them, which he'd have to be to act so obtuse. Hell, my father is Carr's age and knows how people need to act in the 24/7 news cycle age. Hard to believe that someone in Carr's position never learned.

 

BRCE

October 21st, 2011 at 12:51 PM ^

Lloyd going through back channels instead of actually being up-front? NEVER!

Seriously, the guy is a sneaky, political, grudge-holding son of a bitch. Can't stand him.