Rich Rodriguez Has Till 2011

Submitted by oakapple on
What I'm about to say will please Rich Rodriguez's fans and frustrate his critics. Barring an off-the-field scandal or significant NCAA violations, Rich Rodriguez will be the Michigan head coach at least through the end of the 2011 season.

Rodriguez was brought in because the administration believed the football program needed to be rebuilt, and not just tweaked. I realize that there are some fans who never agreed that this was necessary, but in hiring Rodriguez, the administration decided to go in a new direction. He made this clear from the day he arrived.

As of today, Rodriguez has exactly one full recruiting class to his name. (The 2008 class was still mostly Lloyd Carr's.) Most of the offense are underclassmen, or upperclassmen who came in to play for Lloyd Carr. It will be 2011 before Rodriguez can field a team of veteran players who were brought in to play his system.

The story on defense is much the same, with the added complication that Lloyd Carr's last few recruiting campaigns were exceptionally poor. No coach could field a great defense with the players Rodriguez currently has to work with. Once again, it will be 2011 before you can expect to see a defense not comprised of walk-ons, true freshmen, or kids forced to change positions.

Now, that doesn't mean the team is going to be awful between now and then. This year's team has already improved on last year's 3-9 debacle, even if it fails to win another game. Next year's team will be better than this one, but it will still play at least a few deeply frustrating games. Not until 2011 can you expect Michigan realistically to contend for a conference championship. Not until 2012 will Rodriguez's first two full recruiting classes be juniors and seniors.

There are a few reasons why Rodriguez is not realistically likely to be fired before the end of 2011 — again, assuming no off-the-field issues or significant NCAA violations. The first is that if you hire a guy on the premise of rebuilding, you cannot expect the job to yield results until a few recruiting classes are in the door and playing with normal depth behind them.

The second is that, as we've seen, transitions are painful. Let's suppose Michigan loses its next three games, and Rodriguez is fired the day after the Ohio State game. Most of the decent athletes in the 2010 recruiting class, if they have any realistic options, would decommit and go elsewhere. The new coach would arrive facing a horrible 2010 class, a 2009 class chosen for someone else's system, and the dregs of Lloyd Carr's last few classes. If you think that new coach could turn this bunch into instant winners, you're kidding yourself.

Since Michigan has already improved on the 2008 season, Rodriguez is a lock to be back in 2010, and unless the team collapses totally, he'll be back in 2011 as well.

By the end of 2011, the administration will have a decision to make. Rodriguez has a six-year contract, which would last until the end of the 2013 season. But it is rare for anyone to coach in the last two years of a contract, because it impairs recruiting. Kids who have a choice don't want to come play for a guy when they're not sure if he'll be around. Because recruiting these days begins in the junior year of high school, it would be very tough for Rodriguez to be the Michigan coach in 2012 without a contract for 2014 and beyond.

So Rodriguez gets four years. Before the end of 2011 (but probably not before), management will have to decide whether to cut their losses or extend his contract.

Comments

ijohnb

November 5th, 2009 at 2:32 PM ^

Look, I think it is simple. Michigan was not great when Rodriguez came in, but they did not suck. Rodriguez inherited a decent class from Carr, inherited a pro or two, and had some upperclassmen talent. The "cupboard" did not contain all the ingredients necessary for a delicous casarole, but it was not as empty as legend would have you believe. Michigan was a year removed from a Rose Bowl birth and had just beaten Florida. This is RR's second year, we sucked last year, we suck again this year, though I guess you can note marginal improvement. If we suck next year, than we officially suck, and Rodriguez should be fired due to his team sucking, be they Juniors or Seniors.

HeismanPose

November 5th, 2009 at 3:51 PM ^

We had just beaten Florida, and proceeded to lose our four year starting QB, our backup 5-star QB, our four year starting RB, our all-world offensive lineman, and our two best WRs. And that's just on offense. That is an exceptional level of attrition. The 2007 team was very top heavy. 2008 would have been a down year even if Carr, Mallett and Boren stayed. You can compare Rich Rodriguez to Zook, Meyer, Saban and Carroll, but each situation is unique. Rod doesn't have a Carson Palmer, Tim Tebow, or even Juice Williams to work with. We are really starting from scratch here.

ijohnb

November 5th, 2009 at 4:16 PM ^

those two wide receivers and our five star backup have to be put in RR's portfolio a little bit too. Granted, the receivers would have likely left anyway, but a big old "I don't give a shit about them" from the new head coach didn't help the cause. And weren't we hearing that RR could run a style of the spread with a non-mobile QB as well at the time of the hire, would have liked to have seen what Mallet could have done. It seems to be that if you are a great coach, you find a way to make it work with talent, even if it is not the talent you are used to.

pullin4blue

November 6th, 2009 at 3:56 PM ^

You're kidding me right? It was all anyone could do to keep the kid on campus before Lloyd even left. He was content here as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. Mallet knew he had a "free pass" with the coaching change and would not lose a year of eligibility. If you were Mallet, and it was taking all you had just to stay under the previous coach, why in the world would you give the next virtual unknown a chance???RR did the right thing not pulling out every stop to keep one kid. Remember this is about the TEAM, the TEAM, the TEAM, not the individuals.

Tater

November 5th, 2009 at 2:47 PM ^

...but a lot of people around A2 haven't realized it yet. Does anyone really believe that RR will fail at UM? RR doesn't fail and UM football doesn't fail. Why would combining them cause them both to suddenly do so? The only thing that has changed is that RR doesn't have the utter impugnity and exemption from consequences that Carr was afforded for about seven or eight years. That, however, won't matter, because the team will right itself soon. And when it does, RR will become as beloved a figure as Bo still is.

SFBlue

November 5th, 2009 at 3:41 PM ^

Gary Moeller got drunk and berated a waitress, and was fired despite a good record against OSU and a Rose Bowl win. Tommy Amaker got an extra year or two because he ran a clean program, and was all you could ask for off-the-court. Too early to say how the "soft variables" come into play with Rich Rodriguez. The Boren "family values" thing is Buckeye propaganda,and I don't buy it for a second. Mike Boren was bought by a scholarship offer for his less-talented son. Butch Woolfolk's kid is a contributor to this team, and more importantly, not even Carr would offer scholarships to kids just because they were decent and their dad played for Bo. Northwestern's teams were full of Bo legacy kids, who were pretty good, but not elite talent. And Bo himself was notoriously curmudgeonly. The Freep investigation will likely be a non-issue, but the negative publicity does not help. One positive thing that can be said is that his teams do not quit. Last year's team came out swinging in the Minnesota game, when they were already ensured a losing season, and lost a tough game against Northwestern. (They do have a tendency to get rattled, and let one bad turn escalate into something worse, like in the Illinois game this year, but that is due to youth and inexperience).

SysMark

November 5th, 2009 at 5:17 PM ^

...that he has at least through 2011. Anyone who doesn't realize that either hasn't been watching Michigan for the last 10 years (see Amaker) or isn't paying attention. They are not going to fire a coach over a 2-3 bad years. For better or worse that is the Michigan way. I for one agree with it. Leave that stuff for Notre Dame. The only thing that would get him out is some kind of scandal, and I just don't much coming from the vaunted freep "excess hours" expose'. Having said that I think it would be a really, really good thing for RR if we win this week.

mr. arbor

November 5th, 2009 at 6:15 PM ^

I think were getting better, although not at the speed RR historically improves teams, but at least we have more than 3 wins. That being said, if we lose the next three games im jumping off the new press boxes in a powder blue onesey. All kidding asside, if were clawing to get into a bowl game again NEXT year... i think my whole RR prospective will change. You really think he'll make it to the end of the '11 season if we havent locked into a bowl game w/ 2 or 3 games left to go next year? I just dont know... I kinda though RR was tied to Billy "the Sailor" Martin who we know is gonzo... so where does that leave the Rod squad?

Seth

November 5th, 2009 at 5:24 PM ^

Long before I give up on RR, long before the program gives up on RR, long before the fanbase has a chance to give up on RR, a few more losses like this one and several already-questionable arteries inside me will give up on RR. Then the question will be moot.

Senator Bluetarsky

November 5th, 2009 at 5:42 PM ^

RR isn't sitting idly-by while his world crumbles down around him. He discerned that Schafer would not fit and canned the guy at the earliest opportune moment. RR may do the same with GERG but I doubt this would occur before next season ends. GERG lacks the tools with which to implement an effective defense and the disruption caused by replacing him would only make things worse. With a sound recruiting class incoming and contained attrition, both RR and GERG look to stick around for at least a few more years. (Special teams, though, is in need of a shake up and I bet RR will do what's necessary.) A 2011 departure date for RR is ... highly unlikely even if he pulls a Ty Willingham ... Martin's successor may disagree with me however. end Rodriguez opinion post/>

Steve in PA

November 6th, 2009 at 9:26 AM ^

I don't buy the "GERG is a genius" idea. His Denver teams gave up 18 points/game and without Elway&Davis they don't win. As a long-suffering Chiefs fan I know those defenses were god-awful and gave up at least 20 pts/game while he was there and without Priest&Green they lose as well. He wasn't the DC of great defenses. He was the DC on teams that had great offenses that put scoring pressure on the opposing offense. I also don't think you can translate NFL experience into college success. Different game and in college a coach only has 3 years to work with kids, assuming studs come out as Jrs or freshmen redshirt. Recruiting is far more important for college success and if you can't get the players you are gonna struggle as we found out this year. Having said all that, GERG stays at least one more year. We can't keep changing DC's every year unless we were to promote from within and have continuity. I don't see that happening either. I do think that some of the position coaches have to go however. In particular I would say that Hopson is that guy with the decline of Ezeh and Mouton's lack of growth. Searching the mgoblog archive turned up this about his when he was at Southern Miss... "Michigan fans will not like this, but Hopson’s defenses seemed to suffer from complete paralysis, mental and physical, against offenses that require more discipline than baseline reading and reacting." Sounds an awful lot like what we've seen since his arrival in Ann Arbor. Read the discussion when he was considered for DC and you'll see complaints of the same problems we've had all year...http://mgoblog.com/content/jay-hopson-further-dissected

MGrad

November 5th, 2009 at 6:21 PM ^

First of all, I believe in RR, and I think Michigan will return to greatness. So, don't overread what I will ask here, but what if a Shannahan, Cowher, Dungy, Gruden or Billick stood up and said "hey, I'd like to coach college at M"? Would our opinions on the proper amount of latitude for the current coach change? Obviously, this scenario is even less likely than landing S.Henderson as a recruit but, imagine what that might do for recruiting. Just a thought...

cfaller96

November 6th, 2009 at 11:22 AM ^

You're right to say this is a ridiculous "what if"- when has an NFL coach ever publicly lobbied for a specific university job? So if it's a ridiculous and absurd hypothetical, I'm not sure I see the value in exploring our feelings on it. Nevertheless, here's what my reaction would be: said hypothetical NFL coach can fuck off and die for all I care. Michigan has its coach, Michigan isn't firing anyone, and fuck any coach who feels it's appropriate to consciously increase the job insecurity of the Michigan coach. Fuck that guy, I don't want him. And BTW, neither would Michigan- the perceived "availability" of a coveted coach is never a sufficient reason to fire your existing coach. You're asking for trouble if you do that. See: Notre Dame, Ty Willingham, Charlie Weis, Urban Meyer.

Muttley

November 5th, 2009 at 8:09 PM ^

From 2008-2009, we didn't lose a whole lot (Terrance Taylor, Tim Jamison, etc.), and the guys returning came back a year better. From 2009-2010, however, we lose the best of our veteran players (especially if Warren leaves). The year of extra seasoning, IMO, won't make up for what we lose. Fortunately, the losses from 2010-2011 like those from 2008-2009 will be minimal, so I don't think we can expect another significant aggregate improvement until 2011. I hope we're marginally better next year, but I don't see us deserving serious consideration to challenge the top of the B10 until 2011. Contributors by class (ordered by Rivals recruiting ratings) 2005 Grady, Moosman, Savoy, Mesko, Ortmann 2006 Graham, Schilling, Brown C, Mouton (jr), Brown S, Mathews, Minor, Ferrara (jr), Dorrestein (jr), Ezeh (jr), Wright(jr) 2007 Warren (nfl?), Van Bergen, Webb, Williams, Molk, Sagasse, Huyge, Woolfolk, Herron, Watson 2008 Stonum, Fitzgerald, Koger, Shaw, Smith B, Martin, Roundtree, Odoms, Floyd, Omameh, Barnum, Demens, Hill, Mealer, Cox, Khoury 2009 Campbell, Forcier, Roh, DRob, Smith V, Gallon, Stokes, Emilein,Gordon, Lolata, Lewan, Schofield, Toussaint, Washington, Bell, Hawthorne, Jones M, Jones T, Gordon

Monk

November 5th, 2009 at 11:56 PM ^

he should get 4-5 years, mainly because you don't want to scare off coaches who might think that they have to do well in three years or they'd be fired as well. Still, every coach should get at least four years so end-2011 sounds right. I think he would have gotten to 2012 if last season went better.

Slinginsam

November 6th, 2009 at 12:30 AM ^

Mary Sue Coleman was Chancellor at Iowa when Kirk Ferentz was hired. This blurb is from Wikipedia: "On December 2, 1998, Ferentz was hired as Iowa's 26th head football coach to replace the retiring Hayden Fry. The team struggled during Ferentz's first two seasons with a combined 4–19 record, but the Hawkeyes earned their first bowl bid under Ferentz after a 7–5 season in 2001. They beat Texas Tech in the Alamo Bowl, 19–16. The 2002 season would prove to be memorable for Ferentz and the Hawkeyes. The team finished the regular season with an 11–1 record, with the only loss coming to in-state rival Iowa State at Kinnick Stadium. They shared the Big Ten Conference championship with Ohio State, as both teams finished 8–0 in conference play. Quarterback Brad Banks won the Davey O'Brien Award for best quarterback and finished second in the Heisman Trophy balloting to Carson Palmer of USC. Tight end Dallas Clark was that season's John Mackey Award winner, and placekicker Nate Kaeding was the Lou Groza Award winner. Ferentz was named Coach of the Year by the Associated Press for his efforts. Iowa received its first-ever BCS invitation, losing to USC in the 2003 Orange Bowl 38–17." Let's wait around. Be patient. It worked out okay for Iowa.

blueloosh

November 6th, 2009 at 1:56 PM ^

Another helpful Iowa reminder: 2004: 10-2 2005: 7-5 2006: 6-7 2007: 6-6 2008: 9-4 2009: 9-0 Ferentz and co. hit a rough patch for a few years and it looked worrisome...but they rebounded to prove the guy everyone had thought was a great coach really was/is a great coach. I expect we'll have an analogous situation here.

bluebyyou

November 6th, 2009 at 8:30 AM ^

I believe that the average participant/poster on Mgoblog is considerably more sophisticated in the ways of football than is the average fan who may not understand the nuances and subtleties of rebuilding a program which tanked when RichRod came on board due to events which took place over several years prior to his arrival. They may not understand that recruiting was problematic and the cause of the losses. Those "unknowing outsiders" probably represent the majority of Michigan fans and they do donate to our school. The other point that no one has mentioned, and if they have I apologize for not noticing same, is that almost a quarter of a billion dollars will have been spent for Michigan Stadium improvements. My guess is that it will be easier to fill that new prime seating with a winning program. Another intangible that shouldn't be overlooked. The bottom line is that while RichRod should get his five years, I wouldn't take the bet unless next year shows a few more wins than what we see this season. Go Blue!

cfaller96

November 6th, 2009 at 11:27 AM ^

I'm surprised this diary had to be posted, the point being so obvious. Michigan has never had an athletic department with a hair trigger, and probably never will have one either. There are good and bad parts to this trait (my own epinion is that it's generally a good thing), but I fail to see how anyone can realistically think the U-M athletic department is ever going to have one of its coaches on an excruciatingly short leash. I like RichRod and I want to give him time, but that's besides the point- regardless of my feelings, the Michigan athletic department will always give its coaches time. To expect or ask anything different is the equivalent of yelling at clouds.

vbwolverine

November 6th, 2009 at 8:31 PM ^

If you think the Michigan AD has never had a hair trigger you don't know much about the department. Just go ask Gary Moeller or Bump, on how quickly they were moved out. As far as the dickrod, a new AD will becoming in and any AD worth anything will not accept less than full control over the coach of the team that generates 95 percent of the revenue. And as Canaham understood you make money by putting fannies in the seats and keep them coming back. You do this by winning. Once they start lossing revenue because the luxury seats are not being renewed guess who's head is on the block. I would think that another poor season next year and they are going to be a large number of people that will think they can spend their 75 0r 85 grand on something else. I have faith in dickrod that he will have another lousy season next year and then he is gone.

champswest

November 6th, 2009 at 10:06 PM ^

Likely 4 year track record: 2008 3-9 2009 6-6 1010 7-5 2011 9-3 And RR finishes his coaching career here at the time of his choosing. To think that he is going to fail here is only wishful thinking by the haters.

Token_sparty

November 9th, 2009 at 3:07 PM ^

Bullets in the UM administration's gun: 1. The hiring of a new AD gives them an opportunity to bring someone in who will say, "We're going in a different direction." That's would be an opportunity to get rid of Coach Rodriguez without the administration (and, by administration, I mean "President Coleman") taking undue heat for getting rid of him. 2. The NCAA investigation will be complete within the academic year in all probability, and if 'major' violations are determined, again they will have the 'good reason' to get rid of Coach Rodriguez. I'm not saying they will fire him. I'm just saying that a firing decision will be supported by circumstances not normally in play. I'm not even saying they should fire him; I think he happens to be a pretty good offensive-minded coach of a team that plays horrid defense. BUT, when I hear the Penn State QB say that the defense was 'confused', not lined up correctly, and made little effort to disguise their coverages, I wonder. When I hear that the kick coverage team didn't listen to the clear instruction 'See the ball kicked', I wonder. And when I hear their defensive players saying, 'We switched to zone coverages after halftime and UM never adjusted', I wonder. When Brian goes over the game film for the UFR, it would be interesting to see who was actually on the kickoff return team. Coach Rodriguez seemed to blame the breakdown on 'freshmen being freshmen'; I'd love to verify whether that was the case.