Three and Out: 100 Pages In

Dude. I am wrapping my head around what I'm reading, and my head is spinning. Like Brian said, no one comes out of this (so far at least) looking too good. Martin, who was an outstanding AD in all other respects, essentially lost all clout and credibility with his handling of the RR hire. I mean within the AD, and within the inner circle of the U of M higher-ups. My head is spinning, and I'm only a quarter of the way through the book. It's hard to even grasp everything in here. It's just...yeah. Head asplode. This book is beyond a must-read.

It really is like the patriarch of a family dying, the one who essentially kept everyone in check, and then everybody goes batshit crazy...

Essentially, so far, the book makes it seem like after Bo's death, there was sort of a vacuum in the Michigan Man community, so to speak, and everyone seemed to think they were more important than perhaps they really were.

Rodriguez said almost the EXACT same thing in the first interview he gave after his firing:

"Everybody's got their own theory of it. My personal theory -- and this is talking to people that were there before I got there -- is that when Bo Schembechler passed away that driving force to get everybody pulling in the same direction may have gone with him. I think there were some battles that were being fought even before I took the job," he said.

Thanks. I imagine that will come tomorrow, over the weekend. . . or at 3 am. I don't know how I'm going to sleep without reading this. I imagine, though, I won't have the blocks of time to sit down and read this over the next few days like I have right now (work, party to go to tomorrow night/NLDS, game on Saturday in Evanston) so I may not retain as much. But man, this is an incredible read.

Actually, who am I kidding? I will finish this book in 5 days, max. It's really, really, just...gripping.

Will be interesting to hear Rosenberg's reaction to the book.

Rosenberg.....man. Seriously. You'll hate him even more (as a journalist) after this book. If that was even possible for some of us. He looks baaad. Blatant vendetta bad.

Hmmmm, I wonder who is going to show up in this thread?

Dude, I like your comments, hate your icon and name. You put that ugly pea green G in the same pic as that magnificent M.  <shakes head>

Lets hope it costs him his career after this book.

Fuuuuudge ... 

Isn't there some policy about not posting deliciousness before noon?

Unless someone of substance wants to speak out publicly against it, this is the go-to book. John Bacon had incredible access and has earned a reputation as a journalist of very, very high integrity.

-- If Rosenberg wants to take issue with anything, and if he'll answer questions publicly, as you know Bacon will, I'd welcome it.  But Rosenberg hasn't explained anything yet.  And he's had two years.  His paper won't even publish any criticism of him, much less answer hostile questions.

And lots of people are naturally asking the question, "What will Rosenberg and Snyder say about this?"  I really don't know.  If past performance is any indicator, they would just ignore it in print.  Say, and write, nothing about the book as if it didn't exist.  Some time ago, I had thought that that is what they'd do.

But now I think differently about it.  I think they'll have to address it.  Sportswriter and journalist egos are too big.  I suspect that Rosenberg (whom I have always declared was as smart as he was evil) will have a rebuttal of sorts.  I suspect that Rosenberg's angle will be, "Bacon was an embed."  That Bacon was co-opted by the people he got close to, and who gave him special access.  If there are specifics beyond the general questioning of Bacon's motives, I'll be interested.  And pretty surprised.

If that's the case, I don't mind.  (I really don't think that Rosenberg's got any surprises, although he's had the better part of a year to craft his defense to Bacon's book, which is more than the 12 hours or so that he gave the University to respond to his Freep front-page broadside.)  But if Rosenberg is going to enter the fray in that fashion, then he has got to answer questions.  He's got to be put on the spot about specifics, not general motivations.  People will be able to make up their own minds, when Rosenberg and Bacon each get questioned closely about what they have written.  John U. Bacon should, and I suspect will be, questioned about his book.  My money is on John handling it all very admirably.  Just as my money has, all along, been on the ultimate humiliation of Rosenberg. 

Fair, but everything I know about Bacon makes him credible to me - he's not just some Internet poster or MSM hack.

AK47- that's very valid, IMO. I think that it will be hard not to realize that this book inherently is going to be somewhat sympathetic to RR, given that Bacon spent three years with him...also LC's not cooperating and not going on-record is biggest thing missing so far. Bacon tries to defend him and says that even he thinks that there are contradictory pictures painted, but the facts are facts, too... sources- his own players- that validate the story that he held that meeting before RR got to campus. Five of them who were in the meeting. And Judy Van Horn goes on record about it. And Mallett's dad, etc. I'm just saying, read it and make your own conclusions, but there are a lot of sources here. Now, don't get me wrong; so far, it paints RR as walking into a total shit-storm, and him not necessarily being ready for it, and not a lot of it being his fault. That being said, I am sure he looks bad in the book  as well, especially as it progresses.The thing is, at this point in the book, it's not really a ton about RR that jumps out at me; it's about how U of M handled the search and the early (pre-season, spring of 2008) days of the RR era. And it ain't pretty. Bacon seems to be giving the unvarnished truth, no matter who he pisses off. And he is pissing off the entire U of M establishment, I can guarantee you.

I haven't read this particular book yet, but John has a reputation of being a stand-up guy and a top-notch journalist.  He checks his facts, he tells you what their provenance is, and when he believes but can't confirm something, he tells you that too.

There aren't many other people that I'd give as much leeway to, but I'd give John the benefit of a big ol' scoop of doubt.

I really never suspected Carr of much of anything.

Carr didn't need to "push" anybody out the door.  And there has never been any good reason to suspect that an inflexible attitude or foul language by Rodriguez had anything to do with anything.

Mallett was a bit of a head case.  Boren had a football-freak father who wanted a schollie for little brother Boren.  Clemons wanted to play more, and in a different scheme.

I never saw any reason to pick on Carr or Rodriguez for any of their departures.

I feel like outside of the elephant in the room, there are plenty of reasons to not like Miles.  I think unless there are specific things in the book, I think its at least as probable that Carr didn't think Miles would uphold the standards expected as a Michigan coach and would be bad for the program.   But I guess its hard to say.