in town for free camps
"Apparently, the best thing you could do as a new coach is lose all of your games that first year, then you can trumpet about improvement for the next four years."
Thank you! Couldn't have said it better myself. This improvement argument by RR supporters is ridiculous. If you have followed football for awhile, you really don't need statistics to tell you whats going on. Its all right there on the field. The product hasn't been good and it's not getting much better. Parts of it have even gotten worse. RR could've gone 4-8 this year, but if he was doing so while building on a lights-out sophomore and freshman class that showed true ability, toughness, and potential, I'd be in favor of keeping RR. I see none of that. (using 2 or 3 players as counter examples does not impress)
And I still don't think there has been real improvement from 2009-10, aside from the final W-L number
How much thought did you put into this? Please tell me we can turn this statement into an intelligent conversation. Grass is purple, aside from the fact that it is green.
You never mentioned the best teams in the conference in your original post, you just said there wasn't any improvement...aside from wins and losses. Which makes no sense, unless the improvement you're seeking is in team dental hygiene or something of that nature that i'm unfamiliar with. The main objective of the head football coach is to win football games, therefore we had a faily significant improvement from 2009 to 2010. Spin it however you please, but 2 more wins is 2 more wins, a bowl game is a bowl game, whether you like it or not.
....that we beat could have been beaten by a team that you and I could have formed of people we meet on the street (UMass, BG, and Indiana). Against the meat and potatos teams we only beat one team in conference and 2 outside it (UConn and ND and that's being *very* generous). We got clowned by every other actual team we faced.
When RR arrived he had 28 scholarship players on defense instead of the normal 42, and had to play with a walk-on quarterback.
Steady improvement over three years is a cause to change people minds (in a negative way)?
A lot of people take issue with the idea that going 2-6, 1-7 and 3-5 in Big Ten play constitutes "steady improvement" - especially when the team was outscored by 67 points in that 3-5 campaign. Two of the three phases of game certainly are not improved from where they were in 2008. If they were, we wouldn't need to have this discussion.
You repeat the same thing over and over. That is fine if the defense and special teams play is enough to sway your vote, but you cannot simply ignore the offense and overall W-L record and bowl game. You cannot chose to include some facts and completely disregard other facts whenever you choose. That's not how educated arguing works.
jmblue: Your Honor, the defendant should be found guilty for murder.
Judge: But counselor, the victim did not actually die!
jmblue: Nevermind that one fact!
When Moeller was fired after 3 years at Illinois, Bo said he should have 2 more years even though his record was worse in year 3 than year 1 and all three years were losing years.
If that is all it takes, I've been in the wrong place for a long time.
really. Are you sure? Maybe I misunderstood your post. I can count several without even looking at the schedule of the last 3 years:
Threet helmed Michigan over Wisconsin, Uconn 2010, Notre Dame was ranked (I think .. . ), Mississippi State Jan. 1. Maybe there are others if I took the time to look it up.
I"m as disappointed as anyone in our misery against good quality big 10 opponents, geez, let's not make our last 3 seasons worse than they actually were (they're already bad enough).
He did beat a Wisconsin team ranked in the top ten, but that team ended up 3-5 i the Big Ten. I doubt UCONN will be ranked after the bowls.
Teams that do not end the year ranked are not ranked teams, just like Charlie Weis does not deserve credit for beating a "top five" Michigan team in 2005. That is not a good way to think about Michigan's record, even if it is more pleasant.
JH record at Stanford 4-8, 5-7, 8-5 1st 3 years, RR record at Mi 3-9, 5-7. 7-5 with 2 previous BCS bowl wins What has JH done that merits attention?
Who was the first of the run of NFL QB's that UofM has been so proud of?
Answer - Harbaugh
Who is the most loved OfM coach in our lifetimes?
Answer - Bo
Who played for Bo, had a dad who coached under Bo, is seen in a video clip as a kid cheering a Ricky Leach TD, and runs an offense similar to Bo's?
Answer - Harbaugh
Who could boast to recruits about having a lot of contacts in the NFL, can boast to alumni and boosters about having promised to beat OSU and then backing it up, and can also claim to have beaten the hell out of UofM killer USC?
Answer - Harbaugh
Hell of a personal UofM background, hell of a coaching pedigree, and putting together a good coaching resume. His knocks: slammed the academic integrity of UofM football players (how many of you guys have players in your thermo class with you, btw?) and a DUI (not exactly rare). I am not excited about a coaching change, but if we have to go through one, I can't see why Harbaugh isn't way up the list.
for me at least, it's because I don't really give a crap whether our coach knows anything about Bo whatsoever.
"History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake."
so sad. There are disadvantages to hiring coaches that have no loyalty or attachment to a University. Ask LSU about Saban, Tennesee about Kiffen, Cincinatti about Kelly, etc.
under Nick Saban. Something tells me they're probably okay with the decision. Brian Kelly made Cincinnati relevant for the first time in like forever (and is Cincinnati, and will never be able to keep an awesome coach, regardless of his ties to the university).
And the issue with hiring Lane Kiffin wasn't that he didn't have ties to Tennessee. It was that Lane Kiffin is a giant douchenozzle.
Wow, UMdad gets negged for hoping for a coach that has knowledge of Michigan's traditions and respects them. These are interesting times in Michigan football.
I believe he's getting negged (as should you) for the insinuation that someone who didn't play for Michigan and/or Bo can't be loyal and is akin to Lane Kiffin.
did bo, whom he referenced, have ties to UM when he was hired?
Or better ask MSU.We would have been subject to great pain if he would have stayed. Of course they are not exactly a "destination" school in football or academics, so God knows why Dantonio stays, or maybe we shouldn't ask.
LSU won a national championship with Saban, then another one with his players. Cincinatti had its best record in school history under Kelly and now has plenty of solid players. I can see where you're going with Tennessee, but LSU is about the worst example possible.
Edit: Didn't see the post a few up. Beaten to the punch.
You forgot a mark against him: going for two against USC up 48-21 in the 4th quarter. This may make me sound stodgy, but for me that's pretty much a deal-breaker.
I'll tell you what, I used to agree with you, but if RR or Harbaugh want to go for 2 in the fourth quarter of teh MSU game next year to put us up by 60, I wouldn't mind a bit.
That gets a big thumbs up from me because it rubbed Pete Carroll's nose in it and he totally deserved that. USC had destroyed the entire conference for years with no mercy.
So I take it you would have been against Fielding Yost, Fritz Crisler, and Bo Schembechler because none of them either played or coached at Michigan before becoming head coach?
Stop with the stupid Neanderthal tribalist shit.
I agree that hostility toward a coach with no Michigan ties is unjustified and also exhibits an ignorance of the history of past Michigan coaching greats.
However, that's not to say that ties to the program are not a good thing and that, all else being equal, it's not preferable to hire someone who has a history here and therefore has loved Michigan for much of his life rather than someone with no connection to the program. I think Rich Rod has been treated horribly by the "Michigan Man" crowd. But I would still have felt even better about hiring him if he had ties to the program and grew up loving Michigan.
Does that mean you hire a worse candidate just because of his ties to the program? No. But a Michigan connection is definitely worth something.
But I think it's hypocritical and irrational.
What makes you think that a kid who goes to Michigan for four years loves Michigan more than a guy who coaches there for four years?
The coach busts his butt 24/7 for this program in a way that no player ever does. A player gets time off in the summer. Some players aren't all-in for the program.
When he was at WV, RR had his pick of every top job opportunity in the country. He turned down Alabama. He left a place where he was treated like a god to come to Michigan because he thought Michigan was special.
A guy who gives his all for Michigan, as RR has, and who has been here nearly as long as any player played for Michigan, has as much ties to the program as anyone.
Harbaugh started for Michigan for three years. Rodriguez has coached for Michigan for three years. Harbaugh is no more, and arguably far less, of a Michigan Man than Rodriguez is.
That is all.
I wish I could plus this a thousand. Perfect.
I'm not saying that, right now, Harbaugh loves Michigan more than Rich Rod. Of course not. Three years here make Rodriguez's ties to Michigan very strong. But you're talking about after a coach has been here for several years. I'm saying that a connection to Michigan can be a meaningful input in a coaching search. Really no more than that. Not denigrating Rodriguez's love for Michigan now, by any means. But I don't think it's wrong to prefer a Michigan connection to no Michigan connection when you're hiring a coach in the first place.
I believe the theory is a coach who knows the system, the culture, and the tradition is an easier transition and fit. Not really at the heart a "Michigan Man" issue. At this point, Rodriguez's team is different enough that the transition idea is irrelevant. Other factors might make a guy previously in M's system a wise choice if that eventuality should come about. That's all. I really think that's the only wisdom behind the M Man talk. It's not M Man really. It's just the same wisdom as apprenticeships, why companies do internships, why pastors or coaches groom successors. To maintain what's been accomplished. All support to RR and our future. I think that's what's behind the M Man talk.
I think RR was hired to be an outside influence. What Carr was doing at the time was not beating OSU and our bowl record was OK but not stellar. Recruiting was not going well. The world seemed to be leaving the Big Ten behind. What worked to win the conference did not translate to wins out of conference. We did not want more of the same. We wanted change, and boy did we get it ! Now we want to go back to The Same Old %$#@ ? I for one am willing to give The Grand Experiment more time as it's too early to reach a conclusion. Eight years at the U gives you independent thought !
Bravo! Totally agree with you
absolutely on the money. Thanks
No offense, chewie, but this hit a nerve:
"... his teams play in a hallway and bash people ..."
Does anyone honestly feel that (to take two obvious examples) Mike Martin and David Molk aren't "hallway bashers?"
Where did this "UMich under RichRod = pu$$ies" idea get started?
is where the softness term originated.100 some ranked defense does not help.
Understood ... thanks.
- - -
I still don't see a chasm (in the *smashmouth* category) between Michigan and its Big Ten peers. Our O-line seems generally big, strong, and effective to me. Hopkins, at least, is a power runner. Indeed, look at the yards-per-carry numbers for all the games. Look at Denard's season.
When, exactly, does an offense become smashmouth? (A question for the gallery, not just the OP ...) Why do the Old Blues give a @#$%? What is it we're really lacking here? I'd say it's an experienced QB. And, look at what he's accomplished as a true sophomore and 1st-year starter.
Too many murky boundaries on this issue ...
You become smashmouth when you use a fullback, or at least a lead blocker of some sort, and run blocking tight ends IME. We use none of the above.
I seem to recall Martell Webb clubbing some people this season.
That's the sort of technical definition I was seeking.
- - -
Another follow-up question (not necessarily for UMdad): When running, why is the smashmouth approach considered superior to what UMich has been doing lately? Aside: I personally think it's an emotional issue for many Michigan fans. They've watched older, more experienced teams running that offense and have declared it the winner.
the 6 yds per carry kind of sux. 3 yds and a cloud of dust is much preferable.
The players you mentioned certainly play smashmouth football and many more do as well. M's offense plays very physical football. However, Wisconsin would not be able to successfully run on 33 straight plays against a physical defense. When the D turns it around, M will be playing physical football as a team.
For a while, I thought I was the only one who remembered this. Fact of the matter, if DB fires RRod this year we become Notre Dame. One of the reason I am such a die hard Michigan fan is that I always think we are different than other institutions, but DB is flirting with turning us into your run of the mill anything for wins school (i.e. Ohio State, Alabama, Michigan State, etc.). How can you hire someone who has stabbed your company in the back so many times? I don't want Harbaugh or anyone who needs a ridiculously pretentious bathroom in their office. Harbaugh's bathroom situation is similar to a CEO getting new furniture in his office when the company is running a deficit (Stanford's athletics are running at a deficit).
I want the right man, I don't care if he played for Bo. I have fond memories of the late 60's and 70's Bo Football. I also remember an unwillingness to change which was fine when you always had more talent. But it morphed into Lloyd (who I liked) and the playing down to your opponent with extreme conservatism where we would boringly squeak by inferior opponents. I don't want a blast from the past,except the winning part. I want RR to get a defense to go with his offense, or someone who coaches like Lloyd let it all hang out in the Bowl Game against FL. I don't want to be MSU, I don't want to be Wisconsin.
Most of all I don't want to put winning above all else and fire someone after three years who is showing some (slow) progress, so I can be like OSU. I don't aspire to be like OSU.
playing down to your opponent with extreme conservatism
I'm not sure it's even theoretically possible for the Stanford program to play "down" to anyone else. And I like Stanford - I'm not trying to be mean. The reason people are impressed by what Harbaugh has accomplished is because he has accomplished it at Stanford.
Let's practice our analogies:
in 2007, App State was to Michigan what Stanford was to USC
Michigan "played down" to App State's level
Stanford (fill in the blank) to USC's level
Fact of the matter, if DB fires RRod this year we become Notre Dame.
Notre Dame was bowl eligible the last 3 seasons.
Not quite. If DB fires RRod this year, and Harbaugh disses us and signs with Florida instead,
then we become Notre Dame.
I for one would like playing Army,Navy, and Air Force each year, though this year may be an exception.We could usually manage three wins right away with that schedule.Only 3 more and Bowl bound we are. The Big Ten are usually their toughest opponents.
I hate this stupid argument that we will turn into Notre Dame if we fire RR. Firing an unsuccessful coach is not the same thing as tossing someone out after a 9-3 season (Nebraska). What did ND do that was so wrong for firing their coaches? Willingham deserved the axe after he gave up on recruiting and bowl games for two years in a row, and Weis didn't deserve the fifth year he got (and that's not just in hindsight).
There are also a lot of factors that differentiate us from ND, such as NOT BEING NOTRE DAME. If I believed in god(s), I'd thank them for than.