You can never go back: the myth of the MIchigan Man

Submitted by StephenRKass on
I just finished reading an article by Jim Litke (national AP writer) in the Chicago Tribune about R. Rodriguez and what it is to be a Michigan Man. (cf. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/sns-ap-fbc-jim-litke-090209,0,6515622.story.) There is much I disagree with in the article. I do not believe that Rodriguez' job is in jeopardy. I don't believe that there is a paper trail of non-compliance leading back to Rodriquez. I don't believe that Rodriquez will be labeled as a cheater.

However, there is one section in his article with which I resonate. Litke writes,

Rich Rodriguez was never going to be "a Michigan man."

Not when he was hired, not when he cried after being accused of pushing his players too hard, not even if he wins nearly every game for as long as he lasts in the job.

That's not a slam on Rodriguez. No one in charge of a topflight major college football program anywhere else qualifies as "a Michigan man," either. The last one, Lloyd Carr, resigned at the end of the 2007 season, when he realized he could no longer be both. Trying to uphold a winning tradition while following both the letter and spirit of NCAA laws finally wore him out.

I think Litke is right. Carr, the Michigan Man,  the man who read Kipling, who retired to travel and do other things, who is a personal friend of Russell Crowe, who required players to look up a new word in a dictionary, is a vestige of a past I loved, but which is no more.

Rodriguez came in, was brought in, to win. No more, but no less. Was I supportive of this move? Yes. Do I continue to be supportive? Yes. At the end of the day, I want Michigan to win. I want MY school to compete for the MNC. I choose Rodriguez, and 10&11&12 wins every year, over Carr and 7 or 8 or 9 wins every year.

However, the romantic and the elitist in me is saddened at the cost. I loved the idea of Coach Carr who read Newsweek and read books and was conversant in National Politics and listened to NPR and cared about his players, loved them, while still competing. I loved the idea that you could work hard, play hard, win, but still have a life. Those days, I think, are over. It's stupid to moon and pine over a lost past. But a small part of me died when Carr retired. Even Bo&Woody had life beyond the gridiron. Nowadays? I don't know.

I think this is why I was not thrilled by the "General Studies" brouhaha of a year or so ago. GS was one more sign that FB players were barely students, were largely segregated from the regular student body, so they could focus on their job of football, and not be bothered by homework and competition with the typical Michigan student.

In other words, I want to have my cake and eat it too. I want a coach like Carr, a well read Renaissance Man, a literate Michigan Man who is also a winner. Alas, this day has passed. Somehow, I wonder if this is what grieved Rosenberg. The reality is that we have entered a New World, and we can't go back home again. This world represented by Carr, by Bo, by Woody, is the past I mourn losing. I wonder if our team is now interchangable with Florida or Alabama or Florida State or USC. I always thought Michigan was "better." Not in terms of wins & losses, but in terms, somehow, of quality.

If there was a way to have it all, I would. But I don't think there is a way to have to all. So, we have Rodriguez, and hopefully, the boatload of wins that come along.

Comments

cp4three2

September 3rd, 2009 at 1:42 PM ^

I'll take a coach who's won BCS bowls and has the team with its highest GPA ever. Being a Michigan Man is about being part of this enormous community we have and embracing its tradition, doing it the right way, and hitting the books in the classroom. That's why Rosenberg wrote that crap piece. He's trying to play up the "he's not a Michigan Man" BS by trying to make it look like Rod's not doing it the right way. That's also why he ignored the GPA and said "it affected classes."

StephenRKass

September 3rd, 2009 at 2:04 PM ^

In my OP, I wrote, and I quote verbatim: "Rodriguez came in, was brought in, to win. No more, but no less. Was I supportive of this move? Yes. Do I continue to be supportive? Yes. At the end of the day, I want Michigan to win. I want MY school to compete for the MNC. I choose Rodriguez, and 10&11&12 wins every year, over Carr and 7 or 8 or 9 wins every year." The game has passed by the man who lost to Appy State & read Kipling. Now, I'm a bit said it passed Carr by. I wish he was still competitive. But the time Carr was truly competitive was probably close to 10 years ago. I believe that RR is very aware of what it takes to win, and has the vision and focus and strength to make it happen. Whether or not I or anyone likes it, he is exactly what was needed.

Ernis

September 3rd, 2009 at 4:10 PM ^

Yost and Schembechler forbade their players to go out to bars (or in the case of the former... drink any alcohol at all, or dance, or otherwise cavort about town like a dandy). Things change. Lloyd could hardly be thought to reign his players in about drinking and bar-hopping and what not. Ever been to Studio 4 or Bar Louie on a given night during Carr's tenure? Does that make them "Not Michigan Men"? Part of the Michigan football tradition of yore was NO DRINKING, NO GOING OUT. Carr was not even close to upholding that standard. I get what you're saying, but standards change. And being a Michigan Man, like any thriving concept, organism, organization, or what-have-you is going to change and evolve. What matters is an internal orientation along the transcendent dimension --like magnetism in a piece of iron, to use an analogy-- that will guide one consistently in the direction of loyalty, truth, honor, severity, and other noble virtues. The context in which this orientation exists will always be in flux and this will effect what we do; it is what we are that matters.

Blue_Bull_Run

September 3rd, 2009 at 10:46 PM ^

I agree with the majority of responses suggesting that the OP has lost perspective on how Bo and Carr really were. I'd like to add that Carson Butler said the time commitment to RR was no different than to Carr, just "structured differently." Moreover, Henne also said that being a D1 QB requires a very large time commitment. So really, I'm not sure that Carr's players had much more of a life than RR's players do. I think that's a romantic notion that not in accordance with reality. On the other hand, it is pretty cool that Carr was very educated and required his players to look up new words before talking to him, etc ... but that's something that's entirely unique to Carr, and I wouldn't consider that trait to be part the "Michigan Man Myth"