Three And Out Takes: Carr, Rodriguez, Martin Comment Count

Brian

imageSo. It's out.

I'm impressed with the large numbers of people who seem to have already blazed their way through Three and Out. It took me a while. I stopped for a few days after "Honeymoon from Hell" because it was too depressing; every chapter featuring a game I knew they'd lose spectacularly required a little bit of willpower to start.

But I'm done and a large number of you are done. It is time to talk the turkey.

We've got this document. What does it say about major players in the saga? I was planning one part here but this got long, so today we'll cover Carr, Rodriguez, and Bill Martin, with various players with less prominent roles in the story covered in a post tomorrow.

Lloyd Carr

55313590F[1]

It says a few things about Lloyd Carr that are not nice, and implies more. Bacon's said he left a lot of things out that he could not get multiple sources on, which is both his responsibility as an actual journalist and horribly frustrating.

The main strikes:

  1. Informing his former players he would sign any transfer papers they wanted at his meeting with them after their bowl game, a marked contrast from the Bo-Bump transition.
  2. Telling Mallett he "needed to leave".
  3. Having zero control over his former players, or—worse—tacitly endorsing their behavior by not jumping down their throats.
  4. Offering something short of the fiery defense Bo would have launched once the program started taking fire.

That's aside from the state of the roster when Rodriguez took over, which wasn't specifically directed at the new man.

Those seem like major strikes. Screw it: those are major strikes, particularly #3. I find it inconceivable that Eric Mayes would made it thirty seconds into the embarrassing "we own this program" speech before Bo burst from his chest like a Xenomorph. Carr does nothing. Multiple former players trash Rodriguez in public. Carr does nothing. The 2009 golf outing that even guys like Chris Balas* come back from disgusted at, naming specific names of players (Marlin Jackson, Dhani Jones) who embarrassed themselves with their behavior. Is Carr even at it? It's worse if he is.

So, like, whatever. Carr doesn't owe anyone anything except the 400k a year he was pulling down as associate AD. But he's no program patriarch. He's just a guy who used to coach here. His loyalty is to an incredibly specific version of Michigan only. The difference between the Bo guys and the Carr guys is obvious. Bo guys organize a weird counterproductive rally for RR; Carr guys go on MNF and state they're from "Lloyd Carr's Michigan" or storm the AD's office to demand RR's firing after every loss**. There are exceptions, obviously. The trend is clear.

I have no sympathy for arguments the guy is being painted unfairly when he was offered the opportunity to tell his side a dozen times. If history is written by the losers here it's because the winners don't care what the public thinks. They can't be surprised when the public thinks they're not Bo.

Carr did a lot of things for the program but his legacy is significantly tarnished by the pit it found itself in immediately after his departure. It was his lack of a coaching tree, lack of serious coordinators, and lack of tolerance for Les Miles that caused Michigan to hire Rodriguez in the first place. It was his lack of a roster—seven scholarship OL!—and lack of support that provided Rodriguez with two strikes before he even coached a game. We can argue about how much is Carr's fault and how much is Rodriguez's, but figuring out the latter is pointless since RR is gone and everyone hates him. The former is "far too much."

*[By this I mean guys who work for publications for whom access is lifeblood. They're naturally more circumspect. The reaction on premium sites to this golf outing was unprecedented, with people moved to call actual former players out by name after years of dark mutterings.]

**[Not in the book; something I got from a good source.]

Rich Rodriguez

123110_SPT_Gator Bowl_MRM

via AnnArbor.com

If you left a goat in the locker room after a Michigan loss and then locked Rodriguez in it for five minutes, you would return to find the walls smeared with blood and feta. There would be no trace of the goat.

Rich Rodriguez was obviously not a stoic guy. His sideline tantrums proved that. The extent of his leg-gashing, table-throwing, goat-cheese-making post-loss hissies is probably the thing that Rodriguez is pissed about. They don't make him look like a stable dude. Neither does his descent into J. Edgar Hoover-esque paranoia, no matter how intent the university was on making that paranoia seems reasonable.

By the time I got through it, my reaction to Rodriguez's portrayal was different than that of the media reviewing the book. It doesn't paint Rodriguez as a guy I would want in charge of my football program. I can deal with one goat-annihilating postgame tantrum a year. Rodriguez seemed to have one after every loss.

So why do most neutral accounts play up the Rodriguez sympathy angle? They do not take the truth that the local media is dominated by agenda-laden twits to be self-evident. When Mike Rosenberg—who comes off as a real winner—bombed Rodriguez with a bunch of half-truths and misrepresentations I bombed back, stating that it was obvious the buyout kerfuffle was university-directed. Surprise: it was university-directed as they tried to get out of their 2.5 million dollar hook. Similarly, Free Press Jihad is re-exposed as a bunch of half-truths at best run by a couple of guys who "had countable hours in there at some point" but had it edited out, no doubt because that's not at all important in a discussion about whether Michigan was more than doubling their allotted time on Sundays.

If you go into the book knowing Rosenberg and Snyder published an embarrassing hack-job and that a large part of the media firestorm surrounding Rodriguez was a combination of University incompetence and the tiny lizard brains of certain folk in the local media*, the main takeaway from the book in re: RR is the sheer height of the plumes his emotional volcano shoots up. I mean, Bacon spends pages and pages on Rodriguez playing up the traditions of Michigan to his players. That's an obvious reaction to the Michigan Man business. I assumed Rodriguez was not an idiot when it came to firing up his troops, I guess, and that stuff shot by me. Beating a bleating ungulate against the wall of the Notre Dame locker room until it bursts into a kaleidoscope of viscera… that stays with you.

I feel bad for the guy. I'm glad he's gone.

*[The rest a combo of Rodriguez never winning any games and his remarkable ability to stick his leg into the press conference bear trap.]

Bill Martin

University of Michigan Athletic Director Bill Martin watches over Thursday afternoon, August 20th's football practice at the Michigan practice facility outside of Schembechler Hall.<br />
Lon Horwedel | Ann Arbor.com<br />

Good Lord, man. I find it hard to believe that a guy who dragged Michigan kicking and screaming into massive financial success and smoothly hired John Beilein (admittedly after making a questionable hire in Tommy Amaker) was really as incompetent as… uh… I believed he was after the sailboat incident. That's Yogi Berra right there but it's also true.

Here's the the story of the post-Carr coaching search from the perspective of this site:

  1. Kirk Ferentz is reached out to and either is or is not offered; if offered he may have been given an offer that was a paycut. Ferentz fades but it seems like there was truth to the rumors.
  2. Flailing. Miles heavily discussed. ESPN reports Michigan contacts him after Ferentz falls through. They agree to wait until the SEC championship game is over. LSU boards buzz that Les has told his team he's out. I would be "surprised if it was not" Miles.
  3. Infamous ESPN report.
  4. Sailboat. "Have a great day." Sailboat.
  5. Conclusion reached in the aftermath is that M "essentially passed on Miles."
  6. Tedford and Schiano now start getting thrown around along with odder names like Grobe and Pinkel. Also some guy named Hoke. So much Hoke.
  7. Kirk Ferentz momentarily back. Then gone.
  8. Schiano talked to, offered, accepts, changes mind, offered again, says no.
  9. Sean Payton!
  10. Miles again! Seriously!
  11. Miles out again.
  12. Jim Grobe. Jim Grobe does not get an exclamation point.
  13. KC Keeler! Lane Kiffin! Seriously!
  14. Rodriguez out of nowhere.
  15. Sigh… Peanut Butter Jelly Time.

It seemed like a clown show, and behind the scenes… clown show. Martin wants Dungy, has no idea if Dungy—who is a broadcaster and can be contacted by anyone at any time for any reason—will take the job. Wants Ferentz, has no idea that the president of the university will stab him if he hires Ferentz. Wants Miles, has no idea that Lloyd Carr will stab him if he hires Miles. Somehow misses on Schiano, then has Rodriguez fall into his lap and grabs him before anyone can think about it, which sets up the whole buyout fiasco the media will spin for six months. The sailboat incident is even worse since Bacon asserts one of the main problems was Martin had a new cell phone and didn't know how to use it.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh /dies

Martin himself drops out of the story shortly thereafter, which is another indictment of the guy because what enters is a vast institutional incompetence that starts the Rodriguez media cockroach katamari rolling. Everything from the buyout to the Dorsey situation is mishandled not only by Rodriguez (sometimes not even by Rodriguez, as with the buyout) but by the people who should be telling him what is and is not possible. When Rodriguez went to bat for Dorsey with a guy in admissions the guy in admissions should have looked at the guy's transcript before saying yes, and then when he did look at the transcript he should have said no.

Instead we actually sign the guy—opening us up to the most cynical and loathsome of all the lizard-brain media attacks—only to find out he is nowhere near eligible. And don't get me started on the CARA forms, which was a special brand of idiocy all on its own. Martin did a lot of big picture stuff very well, but he was totally unprepared to fix a department that had started downhill long before he arrived.

For all the crap I give Brandon about his failure on big picture stuff, he cleaned out the deadwood with alacrity.

TOMORROW: Players, reporters, me/us(!?).

Comments

snoopblue

October 26th, 2011 at 2:48 PM ^

Right after the violations, not a lot of people would have taken the job. In retrospect, yeah he probably wasn't  the greatest coach but in my opinion you still have to give him a pass for the first few years. Maybe Martin should have fired him SOONER.

03 Blue 07

October 26th, 2011 at 7:56 PM ^

With respect to Mary Sue, she did exactly what you suggest- she called Martin to the carpet for how piss-poor his handling of the search was, and she took it over from then on, or at least played a much larger role (I'm talking right after his regatta/out-of-touch weekend). For example, Miles wouldn't talk to Bill Martin after that, because he knew (from his sources, or perhaps straight from her telling his agent) that she was essentially in charge after the whole sailboat fiasco. Which is true. She reached out to Miles again after she took over the search, after the sailboat fiasco/"damn strong team" thing. That being said, it still didn't prevent Bill Martin from offering Schiano the job of his own accord during this same time, which was probably him acting on his authority as AD but it is not mentioned whether MSC was on board with that or not. Basically, he was running the search, fucked it up, she had to come in and take a hands-on role in it, and handled it at best (for Martin) jointly with Martin from then on or (at worst for Martin; hard to deduce from the book) she was running the show from then on. But yes, after the sailboat fiasco, she made sure BM knew she was not at all happy and she took a very active role.

Promote RichRod

October 26th, 2011 at 2:52 PM ^

that would have ensued if RR had invited to sign transfer papers at his final team meeting and encouraged Denard and Devin privately to leave UM for another school?

I'm trying to reserve judgment until I read the book but LC is quickly reaching Braylon levels on my Michigan hierarchy.

JClay

October 26th, 2011 at 3:03 PM ^

The thing that stuck out to me about the book was: a few juicy details, but if you've been reading this site for the duration of the RR administration, you knew the majority. And, no offense to Bacon, but 3&O is only going to re-enforce whatever people's opinion already was.

If you believe the Free-Press is terrible, and wholly to blame for RichRod's troubles, you will come out still thinking that. If you aren't boycotting the paper, you'll probably note that every time Rosenberg says something, it is refuted by exactly one person; it sets up sort of the exact definition of a "he-said/she-said." Brian is spoken of as confronting Rosenberg at a press conference and depending on your viewpoint, Brian either called him to account awesomely, or comes off like a crazy person who refuses to give his name despite being asked "who are you?" repeatedly. The book is an everything-for-everyone entity that people are inevitably going to grab little pieces from to confirm their beliefs.

I wrote up about 2,000 words all term paper style with citations about this earlier in the week, but ultimately did not want to step into the ridiculous quagmire that posting it as a diary would be. If you want to blame Lloyd, great, there's lots of stuff he never responded to that'll allow you to do that. If you love Lloyd, well, he didn't respond to anything so we don't have his story.

I think ultimately, serious criticism (as in "literary criticism, or discussion," not "you suck, Bacon") needs to focus on Bacon's obvious and inherent conflict between "I really like this guy, he's letting me follow him around for three years and giving me a potentially career altering opportunity" and his obligation to be unbiased. He does a merely decent job, in my opinion. He is obviously sympathetic to the tough spot RichRod fell into in the post-Bo Michigan world. He seems to want to paint all of RichRod's media snafu's on a lack of preparation by Bill Martin to get him ready for press conferences or university edict. At the same time, he never raises the issue that the head football coach of Michigan should probably have acquired in his career some media savvy at some point. He says on the bottom of page 206 (i think) that he's never heard RichRod tell a lie or be duplicitous, then on the middle of the VERY NEXT page recounts RichRod saying something he knew to be untrue at a press conference, but argues Rich had no other option. He rightly crucifies Rodriguez for his post-game implosions and the final football bust and towards the end makes it clear he had 7 "match point" games in 2009-2010 that could have saved his job and came up 0-7. The head football coach at Michigan can not go 0-7 in pressure games. And yet, at the end, all his criticisms seemed smoothed over, whereas his criticisms of Lloyd, Martin, MSC and the Free-Press have bite. Chapters on them are ended with snarky comments. I'm not sure it's possible for even the most hardened journalist to not feel some sympathy, connection to the person they followed around for 3 years, but its obvious Bacon does. I don't know how to judge that.

So, in summation, I do feel like the book gave us some interesting behind-the-scenes details, but I have little doubt that the people on this site aren't going to have their individual opinions (whatever those opinions are going in) changed. We will all take away the details that confirms our worldview, and ignore the rest. Then again, I'm not really sure if the hardcore Michigan fan IS really the target audience. Surely little I read left me shocked. I just sort of nodded for 450 pages an went, "Mmmhmm,... that's right." To the person who doesn't visit MGoBlog and just watches the games on Saturday, well, that's the people who are going to find this book salacious.

ADDITIONAL NOTES: I loved his chapter where he broke down it costs UM almost $600,000 per student athlete over 4 years and said how ridiculous paying the players would be since virtually none other than Denard make the program anywhere near that amount. The economic reality that most athletic departments aren't pulling in cash hand over fist and that Title IX exists slaps back against the absurd populist outcry. ... The part where Devin and some teammates are discussing what SEC schools offered them on their recruiting trips and Devin lamenting not taking any official visits other than UM is hysterical. ... Tate Forcier comes off even more spoiled than we could've ever imagined. And I think even those of us who adored the kid imagined alot ... Also, I noted he claimed Glenville State played the 1993 NAIA Semifinal at Summersville High School instead of their home campus. This is inaccurate. It was at Nicholas County High School in Summersville, WV.

Section 1

October 26th, 2011 at 3:19 PM ^

I'm not sure I understand this paragraph:

If you believe the Free-Press is terrible, and wholly to blame for RichRod's troubles, you will come out still thinking that. If you aren't boycotting the paper, you'll probably note that every time Rosenberg says something, it is refuted by exactly one person; it sets up sort of the exact definition of a "he-said/she-said." Brian is spoken of as confronting Rosenberg at a press conference and depending on your viewpoint, Brian either called him to account awesomely, or comes off like a crazy person who refuses to give his name despite being asked "who are you?" repeatedly. The book is an everything-for-everyone entity that people are inevitably going to grab little pieces from to confirm their beliefs. 

I do believe the Free Press has been terrible, and almost wholly to blame for Rodriguez's troubles, and yes I do still think that.  I am now not sure why anybody would not think that.  Rosenberg does like to do that "Who are you?" and he did it to me in front of a roomful of about 200 alums when I questioned him and he wanted to know if he was being cross-examined.  He didn't have any good answers to my questions, and he's never had any good answers as far as I am aware.  He scarcely answers any questions.

So if there are any defenders of Rosenberg and the Freep, I'd urge them to step up and be counted.  Make the case.  Has anyone ever done that?

JClay

October 26th, 2011 at 3:28 PM ^

I think there's a pretty sizeable percentage of the Michigan fanbase who do not hold the Free-Press, and Rosenberg, personally accountable for 2008-2010 and "wholly to blame for Rodriguez's troubles," and aren't today, in 2011, boycotting the paper, refusing to post links from its website, and writing bizarre missives against them. In fact, I'd respectfully wager that those people make up a majority of the Michigan fanbase (albeit, not the majority on MGoBlog).

Section 1

October 26th, 2011 at 6:38 PM ^

I do think that much of the Michigan fan base swallows what they read in the Free Press, and have never fully understood how the Free Press screwed Rodriguez.

I do think that much of the Michigan fan base has wholly swallowed this "Brady Hoke = MICHIGAN MAN" thing.

I do think that much of the Michigan fan base's mood is totally swung by the last game we played, or the last Michigan State game, or the last Ohio State game.

I do think that much of the Michigan fan base lags far behind the MGoBlog membership in terms of information, knowledge and passion for the program.

So, I really don't hold out "much of the Michigan fan base" as a measure of anything in particular.  It isn't impressive, to be honest.

I've spoken with former Michigan players who really didn't understand much about how badly their beloved program was screwed by the false and exagerated reporting in the Free Press.  They are good guys for the most part, but lacking in information, at least on that subject.  Which ought to have been important to them.

But back to your response, JClay:  You took my question, "Are there any DEFENDERS of the Free Press?" and answered by essentially saying that most of the Michigan fan base doesn't care about the Free Press anymore.  Which isn't really an answer.  I do understand that for most, it is all history now and the ordinary fans are moving forward.  What bothers me is that Rosenberg and the Free Press have paid no price, haven't really been called to account, and they are still doing what it is that they were doing when Rodriguez was the coach.  I don't think the Freep has any real defenders, just 'consumers.' 

uncleFred

October 27th, 2011 at 4:58 PM ^

I formed my opinion of Rodriguez based on what I saw on the field and in those interviews that I happened to catch. He was 44 and a former head coach when he arrived. He should not have needed nor expected coddling. He should have expected high pressure and a lot of politics. The menagerie surrounding his hiring should have made that obvious.

I have a close friend who is an assistant coach. He has coached at the high school, small college, and minor league levels. His tales of the politics that abound in what are all much less prestigious programs show the worst side of human nature at every turn. One of the first thing that any coach does when considering a job is to take the political pulse of that prospect and learn about the culture. 

It is utterly inconceivable that Rodriguez was too naive to understand what he was walking into.

He was incompetent. He damaged the program. He was a horrendously bad hire. We are better off that he is gone. Now lets focus on mending the program. 

 

StephenRKass

October 26th, 2011 at 3:21 PM ^

What Bacon has done has moved me from being a staunch Carr supporter to a very different place.

I have always thought highly of Carr (not that what I think matters a hill of beans.) Still, I loved the relationship portrayed between LC & his players, I loved that he was well read and had other interests, I loved that winning wasn't the ONLY thing for him, I loved his resistance to the monetization of the game.

Now, the bloom is off the rose, and Carr is tarnished for me. I always thought that Carr needed to speak up publicly for RR, and could probably search and find posts where I said just that. I get why Carr wouldn't want Miles, and whether I agree or not, I can accept that. However, to bring RR into this situation, and then not support him but let him twist in the wind, is unbelievable and deeply disappointing.

I also am very unhappy with Martin and his lack of action at a critical time.

I am still undecided on Brandon, but that doesn't appear to be a major focus of 3&O.

909Dewey

October 26th, 2011 at 3:28 PM ^

He says on the bottom of page 206 (i think) that he's never heard RichRod tell a lie or be duplicitous, then on the middle of the VERY NEXT page recounts RichRod saying something he knew to be untrue at a press conference, but argues Rich had no other option 

 

I literally just finished that part on my lunch break and it jumped out at me like a whoah. 

JClay

October 26th, 2011 at 3:34 PM ^

Do you happen to have the correct page numbers for that in front of you? The paper I wrote is on another computer (not where I'm at) and I can't find it offhand in my copy.

M-Wolverine

October 27th, 2011 at 3:40 PM ^

I'm not sure I'd qualify them as "lies" myself, but coach speak (which is all lies, but come on, expected lies).  I think it's more jarring in proximity, maybe, but I didn't make the original claim. Just noted where the passage took place.  I find Bacon's statement....interesting...but don't know if that's the best example.

t0nic

October 26th, 2011 at 3:29 PM ^

<quote>He seems to want to paint all of RichRod's media snafu's on a lack of preparation by Bill Martin to get him ready for press conferences or university edict. At the same time, he never raises the issue that the head football coach of Michigan should probably have acquired in his career some media savvy at some point.</quote>

I take these portions slightly different as Bacon through the book really lays out that Rodriguez never reached out the Michigan Men or leaned on them for advice and was ill prepared to handle the high level of political games being played at Michigan.

Rodriguez's fault is naively believing that he was going into a situation where he wouldn't have to be looking at his back and that he would have the support of the University family (Martin, Coleman, Athletic family, etc). He was just not ready or prepared for level of scrutiny Michigan football entails in addition to the internal politics. 

<quote>He says on the bottom of page 206 (i think) that he's never heard RichRod tell a lie or be duplicitous, then on the middle of the VERY NEXT page recounts RichRod saying something he knew to be untrue at a press conference, but argues Rich had no other option. </quote>

The press conference in question was an answer to if the Freep Investigation was hindering his team and publically Rodriguez said "no". Bacon's quote was in reference to conversations he personally had with Rodriguez, "From everything I've gathered, he told me the truth every time - even when it was not flattering, including his description of his coverastion with Delany the previous week."

<quote>And yet, at the end, all his criticisms seemed smoothed over, whereas his criticisms of Lloyd, Martin, MSC and the Free-Press have bite. Chapters on them are ended with snarky comments. </quote>

The criticisms of Martin/Free-Press are pretty hard to refute as multiple sources have come forward against them. The real difficult part is reading into Lloyd Carr as he never agreed to be interviewed and also he's always been a private individual so we will never know that side of the story.

There are ton of questions left on the table about what Carr did or didn't do and Bacon acknowledged he could get no sources to come forward publicaly so we are at impass as to finding out his real motives.

Bacon does comes across as seeming to have foundness for Rodriguez but he also does lay out Rodriguez's faults throughout the book. Having met both Carr and Rodriguez there is no question that Rodriguez seems to be a "nice guy who you'd want to hang out with" and Carr was always cordial but politically savvy with his words.

Rodriguez was just the wrong guy for Michigan and I think the book highlights that.

 

JClay

October 26th, 2011 at 4:05 PM ^

Ultimately, I think your last sentence sums up the book. RichRod walked into a weird situation, and he had absolutely none of the tools needed to overcome his problems. He literally DID NOT possess the skills, savvy, or personality needed to keep his team cohesive. He went 0-7 in games in which if he'd gone 1-6 he probably would still have a job (and at 2-5 definitely would). At the end of 2009, the associate AD interviewed  the players and "not surprisingly, these interviews focused on the central question: Should Rodriguez stay, or should he go? Their views were mixed" (419).

That's shocking. A sizeable portion of HIS OWN TEAM were ready to cut-bait. It's amazing that issue got exactly three sentences of coverage at the end despite the fact that Bacon's review of 2009 and 2010 involved RichRod seeming incapable to pull his team out of a dark funk (yes, Section 1, a dark funk THAT THE MEDIA SURELY CONTRIBUTED TO, for the record) leading them to spiral into losing streaks. The ability to do that, to not lose your team, is something a coach must have. He just must. And for many reasons, RichRod didn't have that at Michigan. Brian's glad he's gone, and so am I. And I think people who aren't, should take a long look in the mirror and see what them writing up "omg evil free press/lloyd carr/bill martin, richrod should be winning national championship #3 right now!" missives are doing to the Michigan community's cohesion. I think, ironically, it contributes to the same sort of poisoned atmosphere they accuse Lloyd et al of creating.

El Jeffe

October 26th, 2011 at 4:35 PM ^

Hold up. Bacon referenced that in the Huge Show podcast and was talking about exit interviews with SENIORS. Seniors in 2010 would have uniformly been Lloyd recruits. True, they would have been the non-Boren types who stayed, but it is unsurprising to me that Lloyd recruits after 3 rough seasons would have been "mixed" on RR. The real question is what RR's players thought, and unless that's a different anecdote, we don't know about that.

JClay

October 26th, 2011 at 4:44 PM ^

Oh, that's kinda ridiculous. They played (read: sat on the sideline, for the most part as freshmen) for 1 season with Lloyd, then have the majority of their career with RichRod, but they're still loyal to Lloyd after all that time? Does Lloyd secretly have the most magnetic personality in history? If that version of events IS true, I don't think it speaks well for RichRod that after three seasons of these guys being in the trenches with him, many had built up no love for the guy.

Also, I think it's WILDLY unfair to act like every player who ever spoke to Lloyd became a lifelong subterfuge agent for Team Lloyd. A player can see what's going on with that team, and in that lockerroom and make an informed decision that Michigan -- that they fought and got injured and sweated for -- was better off with someone else.

El Jeffe

October 26th, 2011 at 8:40 PM ^

I'll see your ridiculous and raise you a preposterous. Look, in 2010 Michigan had 12 seniors. TWELVE!!!

They were:

  • Banks
  • Dorrestein
  • Ezeh
  • Ferrara
  • Moundros
  • Mouton
  • Patterson
  • Rogers
  • Sagesse
  • Schilling
  • Webb
  • Woolfolk

Assuming Woolfolk was interviewed, the anecdote that among the 12 (TWELVE!!!) seniors, reviews were "mixed" on whether he should be retained, that might mean as many as 6 of the 117 players didn't want Rodriguez back.

So, that's like, 5%. I say you're making a bullshit out of a molehill.

JClay

October 26th, 2011 at 9:53 PM ^

I guess it seems like common sense to me that if 40% of the senior class (who presumably are the leaders of the lockerroom) didn't want him back (I took mixed to mean, a mix of yes'es and no's, not some players were mixed in their personal feelings), then that precentage would roughly carry over to the other three classes. Its unfair to say because only 12 people were interviewed that the other 105 players who didn't have an opportunity to speak on the matter were ALL IN FOR RICHROD. But you are entitled to your own interpretation of the account.

Either way, I still maintain giving that entire process 3 matter-of-fact sentences only under-played what obviously was an extremely interesting (and debatable) account.

El Jeffe

October 27th, 2011 at 8:18 AM ^

I agree with your interpretation of "mixed." I also agree that the other 105 players weren't inteviewed and some of them might not have liked RR either. We'll probably never know. I also agree that it merited more than three sentences, though I haven't read the book to see the larger context those three sentences were embedded in.

But here's what we don't know: on any team, what is the support for a coach's retention after three tough years? I would think there would always be some chinks in the armor, which says much more about human nature and competitiveness than some particular weakness of RR vis-a-vis his players, which is what you (and some others) seem to be implying.

And, despite what you and jmblue say, a number of those players were 5th-year seniors. That means they would have been recruited in 2005, redshirted in 2006, played under Lloyd in 2007, and played under RR in 2008-2010. If even half of what Bacon is reporting regarding Lloyd's attitude toward RR is true, then yeah, I could see that affecting what they thought of RR, which probably would have been less true of the Odoms/Robinson/Demens types.

So, in conclusion, it's not that I think RR had the unanimous support of his team. It's that I think these very selective interviews reveal very little about whether or not "RR had lost his team." I also think they reveal little about his particular relationship to his team; that is, they don't strike me as revealing some huge character flaw of RR (kind of like the yelling on the sideline--have people never seen football coaches before? Hoke is the weirdo with his placid look, not RR with his yelling. But I digress...).

jmblue

October 26th, 2011 at 5:02 PM ^

I don't know about that argument.  Wouldn't those seniors, having experienced two different coaching staffs, have more insight to share than those who only played under RR?  Not to mention that, having graduated, they no longer had anything to gain (in terms of playing time) from the coach being retained or not. 

wesq

October 26th, 2011 at 3:49 PM ^

Journalism school might say otherwise, but biased reporting doesn't bother me, to me its the most honest way to report something. Particularly if they are honest with themselves about a bias. To that end, this book does change my opinion of Carr/others. Are saying that Bacon is so biased that he would change facts?

JClay

October 26th, 2011 at 4:03 PM ^

No, for the record, I don't think he's lying about anything. I think his 100% natural biases naturally lead him to soft-pedal when it comes to pointing out certain people's faults, and hammer others. As I wrote in an above comment, he covered exit interviews in which a sizeable portion of RR's own players suggested to the Assoc AD that RR should go. Three sentences is how much Bacon covered that in. 3. No quotes. No comments, no editorializing. He had lost a large percentage of his team and that's related in 3 sentences like he was telling us what snack RR ate on the plane home. We got 3 PARAGRAPHS on the Delaware State game. We got an entire page of Brian refusing to identify himself while questioning Rosenberg about countable hours. Which of those three events do you think is most telling about the RR administration?

El Jeffe

October 26th, 2011 at 4:37 PM ^

Now I'm even more sure you're misleading the troops here. Exit interviews are, by definition, when SENIORS leave. Seniors in 2010 were all Lloyd recruits, so we don't know anything about what RR's recruits thought of him.

I know you're not trying to be misleading here, but your anecdote proves nothing.

The Bugle

October 26th, 2011 at 4:49 PM ^

I guess I got a different message from the exit interview situation.  From my perspective it said that the administration was bringing up the question "Should RR go?", not the players.  I don't have any insight into how these interviews are conducted.  However, if you take this viewpoint to the exit-interview situation I don't think it is damning at all, and just shows that there seemed to be indecision on the part of Brandon.

JClay

October 26th, 2011 at 4:53 PM ^

Yes, absolutely, Bacon reports the Assoc AD asked the question to them each. Bacon says "the answers were mixed." I would argue that if theres even 30-40% of players wanting him out, he had a major problem with his team. That alone is reason to switch coaches, imho. Many accounts in the book gave off the scent of "Rodriguez lost his locker room, especially after a loss or two."

But as I said in my initial post in this thread, if that wasn't your impression coming in, its not going to be your opinion now. Everyone will look for every line that supports their view, and glaze over ones that don't. (Including myself.)

JeffB

October 26th, 2011 at 6:33 PM ^

To me (as a RichRod supporter to the bitter end) this might have been the most surprising passage in the whole book. That a sizable percentage of his seniors (yes, they were Carr recruits but RichRod coached them for all three years) thought he shouldn't be coach makes me look twice at what I had thought.
<br>
<br>I agree with previous posters that wish this would've been expanded on - when did he lose the team (or at least a portion)? Midseason, with the losing? The banquet?
<br>
<br>JeffB

JClay

October 26th, 2011 at 10:05 PM ^

The fact a player wasn't interviewed doesn't mean they were on-board with him coming back. Other than the Lloyd-Carr-is-the-most-magnetic-man-in-history theory, why would the seniors be alone in having a faction that did not want him back? Isn't it far more likely that that sentiment existed in the freshman, sophomore, and junior classes as well?

Your logic is sort of like going Rasmussen polled 10,000 Americans and asked who they're voting for in 2012 and 55% said Candidate X, so clearly only 5,500 people in America are voting for Candidate X and 299,994,500 people are voting for Candidate Y.

mtzlblk

October 28th, 2011 at 1:19 PM ^

We don't know the question or how it was framed, nor the nuances of the responses received and how a ~30% number was tallied based on those responses. 

The seniors may have been indicating that the situation was so bad that RR woulds never be given a fair shake and that it was irreparable, we really don't know enough about this to make anything more of it than that. 

JClay

October 26th, 2011 at 5:13 PM ^

Thanks. I've said it twenty times and I'll say it again: the new post moderation is a blight on this board. Anytime someone doesn't agree with something, they label it "trolling," "flamebait," or "redundant" until it gets gray'ed out and people have to click to read it. I thought the point of a messageboard was discussion and differing opinions, but some people seem to only want homogenized groupthink.

Section 1

October 26th, 2011 at 3:06 PM ^

Lloyd Carr:  I agree with what you wrote.  And more than anything (I very, very much like John U. Bacon's comments on the Huge show today, where he goes out of his way to praise the long and positive record of Carr, pre-Rodriguez) I agree with you that if Carr has a story to tell, he should tell it.

Rich Rodriguez:  My disagreement with you, based on my own reading of the book, is dramatic.  You can say, "I'm glad he's gone," if you mean that, "I'm glad that we are no longer gnashing our teeth over the latest outburst from Braylon or Dhani or Morgan or Eric (Mayes -- since nobody else would know who "Eric" is)."  If you are glad that the "Rodriguez problems" are gone, that's okay.  Understanding that most of the Rodriguez problems were not much his fault.

Bill Martin:  Let's be fair.  I know you are fair.  There is precious little in this book about Martin outside of the coaching-search and coaching change fiascos.  There are an awful lot of nice things to be said about Martin, apart from handling coaching contracts.  All of which, I suppose, may have been outside the scope of Three and Out.

Moreover, re: Martin... hindsight is a wonderful, brutal tool.  I look back on 2007 and wonder who we should have hired, if hiring Rich Rodriguez was supposedly such a dumass mistake.  Miles?  Ferentz?  Schiano?  Even hindsight doesn't much help with those guys.  (Jim) Harbaugh?  Hoke? English? DeBord? 

I am not buying it.  No sir.  John U. Bacon is being asked a lot these days, "So which loss do you think it was, that sealed his fate?"  And John is giving a standard, thoughtful answer in which he describes the series of four mid-season losses in 2009, and the late-season losses in 2010.  And that is all fine; we all saw those games, and can understand what John is saying about them.

But I'd ask a different question -- If we want to talk hypotheticals (which imaginary win would have changed the outcome) I'd ask: If we take away all of the things that were demonstrably not Rodriguez's fault -- the 2008 roster, Jeff Casteel as DC, the buyout litigation, the Free Press and the NCAA investigation fallout -- would Rodriguez have won an additional game or two, would he have produced a few better recruits and would he have been given a fourth year?  I say the answer is yes.

JClay

October 26th, 2011 at 3:14 PM ^

Basically: if he had better players to start with, better assistant coaches, and avoided media firestorms would he have had more success? Yes. Also, if typhoid wipes out all 118 FBS schools other than Michigan and North Texas, Michigan will win the 2011 National Championship.

What an absurd, and obvious, hypothetical to raise.

Section 1

October 26th, 2011 at 3:30 PM ^

The 2008 roster explains underwhleming records in 2008 and 2009.

"Jeff Casteel" explains many of the defensive problems.  That's according to Bacon, and also the inside people he talked to.  Why that would suprise anyone is what is more strange to me.

And by all accounts, the Freep and the NCAA investigation caused distractions, cost us recruits, and generally poisoned the atmosphere.

Section 1

October 26th, 2011 at 3:51 PM ^

John U. Bacon says that in hindsight, everything might have been different if we had gotten Casteel.  John's sources told him everything might have been different if we had gotten Casteel.  Somewhat obliquely, David Brandon confessed that before he had arrived, Michigan football had a problem with how it offered and paid football assistants and coordinators.

JClay

October 26th, 2011 at 4:10 PM ^

Everything might have been different if an asteroid hit Columbus! I don't know why you keep going on about these hypothetical situations. Yes, if things were completely different, they'd be completely different. RichRod exists in this universe, not some other multiverse. I judge him by what ACTUALLY happened, in this reality, not what might have happened in Bizarro Michigan Reality.

How would RichRod have faired if we beat OSU in 2006? DISCUSS!

OysterMonkey

October 26th, 2011 at 4:13 PM ^

He's a good coordinator, and would have almost certainly been an improvement over the tire fire of the last three years, and I don't need "sources" to feel pretty confident about that.

But you essentially claim above (and also in every other thread that is remotely related to the topic) that almost nothing that went wrong in the last three years is Rodriguez's fault-- that the AD's inability  or unwillingness to pony up the dough to get Casteel absolves Rich of the responsibility for getting the defense right. He didn't get his top choice, so therefore, "Let's hire a guy that doesn't run the defense I want and then make him run it anyway. Then let's do that again after it fails the first time." How is that part of the DC situation on the AD?

Even if Casteel couldn't be gotten for what the AD wanted to pay, that doesn't mean there aren't other candidates available. And more importantly, the option of letting the person you hired do what he knows how to do was on the table. The saddest thing is that he might have gotten the first hire right in Shafer if he'd have let Shafer do what he knows how to do. That Syracuse D looked pretty decent on Friday night.