How about this :
You are an idiot, and I believe it's fair to note that.
How about this :
You are an idiot, and I believe it's fair to note that.
Your sarcasm detector is broken, which makes me stand by my original statement.
It is Jamie Morris' fault.
I don't care if people think RR should be fired, DB is dropping the ball, or whatever anymore. I just want to stop seeing a sea of threads about it and complaining about it, and trying to understand people's opinions about it.
He's still the coach, is going to be until at least late December, at which point he will still be and we rest our 2011 hopes in him, or he isn't and we rest our 2011 hopes in someone else. No questions, no debate, that's the way its going to happen. And before someone says "If you don't like it, why did you click on the thread?", the title is "MGoBubble", which tells me nothing about the content until I read it.
CAN WE JUST TALK ABOUT THE BOWL GAME OR SOMETHING!?
Edit: BTW, what does CC mean? I've noticed this on the front of a couple threads, and I must have missed what the tag means.
I believe CC = Coaching Change. If that's not exactly right, it's correct in spirit. The idea was that anything labelled CC wouldn't be looked at by the people who are sick of hearing about the coaching change. But, it hasn't really worked out so well in practice.
If you have a milkshake and I have a milkshake and I have a straw and my straw reaches across the room and starts to drink your milkshake. I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!
and by that i mean i downvoted this post
when every person needs to create their own threat, the intelligence and information is diluted across 8-10 threads. if someone makes a great point about why a coach deserves four years, it's only in one thread of 10. so if you're going through the first five and think 'aw screw it, i don't care anymore,' the potential of learning is removed. as a result of each person's LOOKATMYPOSTI'MIMPORTANT, no discourse is possible because it's spread across too many threads. and people who would normally have the patience to engage in discussion find that they can't keep up with 8 different convos and just leave. this repeated meme that "people are going to want to talk about it" is asinine. talking about the possibility of a coaching change does need to be talked about. it isn't being talked about in a proper manner because of overposting.
his repeated meme that "people are going to want to talk about it" is asinine.
Like the non-excuseable "excuses" said about RR?
"It's like raiiiiiin, on your wedding day. It's like a thousand spoons. when all you really need is a knife."
But isn't the true irony of Ironic based on the fact that the song was written about irony but none of the situations are actually ironic?
Did Alanis troll everybody?
You think about that for awhile.
Did you ever meet the man of your life, then meet his beautiful wife? Although sad, you may say that is a little ironic.
I wouldn't say that's truly ironic. That would be more along the lines of girl meets man of her dreams but he's married, so they have an affair. By having the affair, the man realizes how much he loves his wife and leaves to reconcile.
The man on the plane is also ironic, but only because he says "Isn't this nice". The waiting his whole damn life part is ambiguous. If he waited his whole damn life because he was afraid of dying because of a plane crash, but suddenly got over his fear and realized planes were actually pretty safe, but then he ends up dying on the first flight he takes, that is ironic. But only if he thinks its safe and got over his fear.
I realize that doesn't fit well into song form.
It is never said in the song that he has an affair with said woman. That is a hypothetical. Even is said hypothetical played out, she would still want more than a bang every once in a while. Then proceeds a messy divorce that leaves the man broke. The man falls into a deep depression because of the lost of his life savings and possible children visitation. This would drive the woman who once thought he was the man of her dreams to drinking. Can you see where this is going? I say still ironic.
If none of the examples in her song are ironic and she sings about irony, doesn't that make the song ironic still?
The situation is unfortunate. Just like rain on your wedding day. If I meet a smart, charming, witty, beautiful woman who happens to be a University of Michigan graduate of roughly the same age, taller but not too tall, and she's married, that is not irony. That is merely unfortunate.
If I were remarking to my best friend that all girls of said type were married, and then happen to run into one, but instead of liking me she ends up falling in love with the best friend and they get married, that would be ironic.
And yes, if all of the situations are not ironic in a song about irony titled Ironic, that is also Ironic. That leads back to the point I made originally. Alanis trolled everybody.
good sir. No, not an english major however.
would have been waaaay funnier if I could actually understand what the hell she was saying in the "interjection" points.
Would have enjoyed it more maybe if it were....CC'd?!?!?
i didn't call you dumb. this is a theme a lot of people don't get. you can say someone made a bitchy comment without calling them a bitch. etc. i called the meme asinine - that you used it is not my concern.
people keep excusing 90 posts about one topic with the strawman argument that people not in favor of 90 are in favor of 0. yes, it's going to be discussed. discuss it in one of the threads already created
I don't know the mechanics -- but wouldn't one solution to the whole problem be the creation of a second forum dedicated to the CC. That is the CC converstation take place in the MGoCC forum and other topics get discussed in the MGoBoard forum. Under such a construct it would be just plain silly to have complaints in the CC forum about the number of CC threads (not that it won't happen). That alone would eliminate a lot of comments.
you're joking with the 'create another board for ( ______ )'
"ppl are going to want to talk about this." watch out!!!
Bottom line: Offense is getting there...(people who refute that...well, i'm not going to change their mind. Defense... atrocious...everyone agrees.
People who want to hold onto the "RR's system won't work" should really stop talking, because that's absolutely ludicrous. If you support firing him, don't base it off opinions like those.
If you think he's done a crappy job developing players.. fine. But damnit, we have a BT Offensive POY.
Just stop to think about what has gone right for M football, and what's gone wrong. In my opinion the good is starting to outweigh the bad. I think people just can't forgive/forget 3-9, 5-7.
That's all I care to say about this topic at this point.
what is CC?
an effort by the "let's create 900 posts" crowd to legitimate making 900 posts
"well it said CC so it's allowed!"
Why then, don't you make a coaching change "sticky", keep it at the top of the board and have everybody who wants to talk about it, use that ?
Nobody wants to post what they consider a fresh idea at the bottom of a post with 100+ reponses on page 3 of the MGoBoard.
in the meantime, i don't see why a fresh idea can't be posted at the bottom. does it need that much attention?
also, fwiw, if you change your viewing preferences to allow 300 (i think) comments per page, this stuff gets way easier
attended, and he is getting tired of seeing it abused here.
You realize that this blog is "the bubble" right? You writing this post isn't going to bring anyone to "reality". The information is out there, and people interpret it how they want. The majority on this site buy into the excuses or explanations. Bringing this up here isn't going to do anything. I'm actually starting to understand the legislative efforts of "profitgoblue".
My apologies to those that this will annoy but I simply must do it, if only because I do not like to be told how to proceed in a thread about a topic that has been discussed ad nauseum:
Please be advised that you have violated the Prohibition on Coaching Change Opinions Act of 2010 (hereafter, the "Act"), profligated by Profitgoblue on November 30, 2010. In particular, you have violated Articles 2(d) and 2(e) of the Act.
Please be further advised that, pursuant to Article 3 of the Act, the minimum fine for this violation is the loss of one (1) MGoPoint, with the maximum to be determined by the MGoCommunity.
Please be further advised that, pursuant to Article 5 of the Act, if you dispute the application of the Act to your thread/post, you have twenty-four (24) hours to "file" a formal written appeal by replying to this post. All appeals will be considered on their merits as soon as practical, unless deemed to be frivolous by Profitgoblue in his sole discretion.
You make a very good and well-reasoned argument. However, I think there there are a few problems in the thinking. First, I cannot police all threads about Greg Robinson in addition to the head coach discussions. Second, in my opinion, the head coach discussions were much more vindictive and polarizing to the fan base. As such, multiple posts on the topic, day after day, serves no purpose other than to further polarize the fanbase. This was the public policy behind the creation of the Act.
Although I recognize that the Act is now out of favor, the policy behind it still applies. You may present the discussion differently but the MGoBubble post is no different than all of the other threads on the head coaching job in that it includes all kinds of personal opinion on a subject that has already been hashed and re-hashed.
Geaux_Blue has it right and may have stated it more succinctly. For all those that want a piece of unsolicited advice . . . Before starting a thread, first consider whether any good can come of it. If there is any doubt, don't bother. Why post something that is just going to piss something off for absolutely no reason other than the OP's desire to get something off his/her chest?
but GERG is so unpopular that no one is willing to take his case. He would need a public defender.
I'm glad to have a discussion like this, especially about a topic that many people are unable to discuss in a civil and intelligent manner. Instead of making each other more intelligent and learned, reading posts on this topic has actually made me a very angry person.
I'll be honest - I never even thought about the fact that a "fire GERG" thread might be akin to a "keep Rodriguez" thread.
I agree about the "CC" preface to threads. My problem is that I still cannot avoid them. Yes, I do have mental issues.
I get what you're trying to say, but your blatent disregard for the second bubble has me worried. What about the littany of fans who want him fired NOW, and talk about how great Harbaugh would be etc. etc. etc.? They can't possibly be swayed by the other side either. They already assume RR's gone, and badmouth the guy at will, most especially calling him "not a Michigan Man". Why can't we try and pierce that bubble too?
Is it because, shockingly, you are a diehard Harbaugh guy?
There are many of us somewhere in the middle...at this point I'm mostly a "wait and see what DB does" guy, though hearing RR's comments at the Bust may have solidified my stance that RR should be retained. And what you call "excuses"...many of those are valid reasons, not one single one which absolves RR of any blame but taken together help to show why RR has struggled so far here. They're not excuses. They're reasons. Carr deserves some blame. So does Gerg. So does RR. Let's not sit here and pretend RR is 100% guilty for where the program is at.
Yes there are two bubbles, and you are so far burried in the "other one" that you fail to see the hypocracy of your whole post.
While some important people here on MGoBlog have argued for the retention of RR. The average poster is about split. They both act similarly when confronted with the other view point and refuse to acknowledge that there are any merits in it. They noth accuse the other side of being in denial blah blah blah.
Funny thing is, after you did just what you accuse the bubble people of doing, you turn around and tell a rather level headed poster that he is wrong, that your side does not reside in a bubble. Yourside is 100% correct and the other is 100% wrong (in the bubble) Its classic stuff really.
Certainly not as big of a bubble on this blog here, but it's certainly there in my mind. There are many people who are posting opposing viewpoints with no intention at finding a middle ground...and that's the other side here. Now, many of them are trolls who get negged into "Bolivian" anyway...but there is a contingent on here who have nothing good to say and repeat that they want RR gone over and over again. Like I said, not as big as the bubble you mention, but it's there.
Also, you should distinguish something...the bubbles might not necessarily be pro vs anti RR, but rather the bubble is people who are sick of seeing the same topic discussed ad nauseum over and over again on this here blog vs those that feel the need to post a CC topic with titles that include words like "GHGSHGFCGCAGCG" and want to talk about this topic all day long with posts like "I'm being overly vague here and making no sense, but my conclusion from this story you don't understand is that RR is gone after the bowl game"
If people would be sick of just the whole CC discussion in general then you would expect to see both pro-RR and anti-RR comments on this issue to be negged to death. That's not what's happening--hence supporting the OPs statement.
The one issue i have seen regarding this topic is that those who are bashing individuals who have come to the conclusion that RR might not be the right fit here are lumping them all into one basket. Some have hated RR indeed since day 1, others came to the conclusion he was not a good fit after year 1, others arrived at it after this season ended (myself included). My reasons are purely performance based. For others, they may be more emotional (not a Michigan Man, what's this hick from WV doing coaching here, you name it).
This goes to what the OP is saying - everyone is just resolving to name calling when there have been three years for people to analyze and make their own judgments about the future of this team. Some continue to stick by him and think he will take us where we need to go--that's great. It doesnt make contrary opinions less credible. They are just opinions after all.
I'm glad you posted this notion of a "Fire RR Now" bubble,but I'd include rival fans in there, as well. I've spoke with a few ND/MSU/OSU folks who boast about RR's impending doom as a schadenfreudian statement supporting their respective teams. The unstated upside for our rivals is that UM's program will continue a rebuilding process which sends the Dee Hart's and Terrele Prior's of the world their way. And we can mosey along in ND-like obscurity (which ND fans - every damn one of them - refuse to acknowledge).
The rival fans in this bubble also refuse to hear any arguments (or excuses - whatever) about the roadmap to UM's current situation. But what's worse, they take great pleasure in our pain.
The only thing all of these threads do is give me stabby urges towards all Michigan fans.
I'm not against debate. Really, I am not. I'm against reading and posting the same stuff over and over again.
If you must have your opinion heard, just put it in your signature so that you can post the EXACT SAME content over and over again. That would actually make me less annoyed.
..for the Trailer Park Boys link. But I can't, because, you know, I'm not up to 100 yet.
Answer this question, and then we can frame the debate.
There's plenty of reasons to fire Rodriguez, but is it really in our best interest? The answer to the question I just posed, in my opinion, is that Rich Rod was brought in to completely revamp the program with his players coached his way.
And if you think that he's had that opportunity, you're wrong. His recruits (save about 6 of them) are only sophomores. Yes, that's right, he's only been recruiting at Michigan for just over 2 years. So his recruits haven't grown up and haven't played to their full potential.
Sure, continue to blindly shit on Rodriguez .. but Brandon's thinking long term and I think we should to. Yes, we could have done without Practicegate and the 3-9 debacle, but going down the road, do we really want to start tossing coaches around like a hot potato, firing each one that fails to win a NC in the first 2 years?
Personally, I'd rather not take a Notre Dame-esque wander through about 20 years of college football obscurity.
"plenty of reasons to fire Rodriguez" and then turn around and write everything else? No wonder I am so freaking confused.
And to pretend to know how Brandon is thinking?
And in answer to your third paragraph; yes, that is exactly where we are heading. Just imagine how much easier it will be the second time around.
.....many times over the course of the last week. By firing RR after only 3 years, in which he hasn't seen the full, complete potential of his recruits, it makes it so much easier to do the next time around. Imagine Harbaugh coming in and not immediately turning the program around into even a B10 champ contender. Do we then fire him after 3 years? Do we even know just how good he will be as a coach here?
Remember, RR had great success everywhere he has been so far, and at a pretty good pace as well. If anything, RR's tenure here so far, particularly with all of the BS he has had to deal with, should be teaching the UM fans a little more patience.
We, as UM fans, do not want to become another ND, always searching for the latest "hot" coach of the moment who will return us to the glory days.
Rich Rodriguez coached exactly one I-A program prior to this. There he was successful. Here he has not been. Instead of automatically assuming that his WVU record portends greatness here, perhaps we should consider the alternative: that his WVU success was due to circumstances that can't be replicated here (like playing in a weak conference, having Jeff Casteel as DC, and coaching at a time when the read option was a brand-new wrinkle in college football). When an elite coach arrives at a big school, he usually achieves his breakthrough in year 2. The RR believers are now hoping for the breakthrough in year four.
I don't understand the "We could become ND" argument. You can't seriously be arguing that they didn't give Davie, Willingham and Weis enough time - are you?
Jim Harbaugh coached exactly one I-A program. There he has been successful. Here he might not be. Instead of automatically assuming that his Stanford record portends greatness here, perhaps we should consider the alternative: that his Stanford success is due to circumstances that can't be replicated here like playing in a weak conference, ect, ect.
Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of RR, but logic like this just annoys me. Especially considering that the situations between RR and JH are so similar. JH at stanford has been, in chronological order 4-8, 5-7, 8-4, 11-1. I guess he had 2 more wins in his first three years, but that could also be an artifact of playing in the PAC 10 instead of the big 10. And where did that "elite coaches make leaps in year 2" thing come from? Examples?
Once again you are only focused on the records of the two situations. Harbaugh actually walked into a much better situation. He had young talent on the team prior to becoming head coach. Stanford had many more returning starters on both sides of the ball and more depth throughout the roster. The previous coach was doing a decent job at recruiting and building a foundation for the team although most of their good players were still extremely young. This will be the same situation Harbaugh walks into if he takes over for RR. It's not about his coaching greatness but the the perfect timing to be taking over.
Saying RR had a better situation because Michigan had a better previous record with all of the players who left for the NFL is just dumb. Rich Rod getting to 7 wins in year 3 is much more impressive than Harbaugh's year 3. Harbaugh walked into a situation where he wasn't starting from ground zero.
That's a good point. Plus 1.
I chose to isolate the coaches from their team's previous seasons because I assumed that the mass exodus of Michigans talent between 07 and 08 put the two teams on more or less equivalent levels,talent-wise. I should have stated that assumption more clearly.
Ed-- with the 11-1 vs 7-5 thing you're comparing Michigan's first three years under RR with Harbaugh's first 4 years. I'm not sure that's entirely fair. Anyways, my point that both coaches showed similar rates of improvement over their first three years s head coaches is still valid, i think.
I keep coming back to this point: I'm not all that torn up about the coaching situation. Worrying about it wont solve anything, and getting into big flame wars on this blog wont affect DB's decision in the least. I just don't like bad reasoning--my point in the comment above this was to point out that certain people are putting JH on a pedestal and vilifying RR despite a great deal of similarity between their previous bodies of work.
so there's that
And where did that "elite coaches make leaps in year 2" thing come from? Examples?
It's ironic that you bring this up because Rodriguez was supposed to do this very thing at Michigan. Why? Because that's exactly what he did at West Virginia. First year at WVU: 3-8; second year: 9-4.
In fact, I distinctly remember during the telecast of the third or fourth game of last season--when the team was still undefeated and it appeared that a year-two leap was in the offing--that the TV crew put a graphic up on the screen with Rodriguez's WVU and U-M records during the first two seasons with a title something like "He's Done This Before."
Also, it's not that hard to find examples of elite coaches making year-two leaps. How about Jim Tressel? Year one: 7-5. Year two: 14-0 and a national championship.
That is one example out of...I don't even know how many. What were urban Meyers first two seasons? Brown? Carrol? Harbaugh @Stanford, Saban? What are your definition of elite coaches?
Here are four more examples, all of whom would be considered "elite" coaches by anyone's definition:
Saban @ Alabama:
Carroll @ USC:
Urban Meyer @ Florida:
Bob Stoops @ Oklahoma:
Mack Brown didn't have a year-two leap, as his first two years were 9-3 and 9-5.
I would guess that almost anyone putting together a list of the top 10 college football coaches of the early 21st century would have Tressel, Saban, Carroll, Meyer, and Stoops on their list. All five achieved a year-two leap, with three of them winning a national championship in their second year. Sounds like a pattern to me.
I personally agree RR should be retained for one more year, but you are really illustrating the OP's point by treating peopel who want to fire RR as foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics.
There are... drumroll... EXCELLENT and totally justifiable reasons for firing RichRod. In fact, there are a lot of them. Dave Brandon agrees (as evidenced by waiting til the bowl game to speak on job security), though I suppose you could call him a lunatic too.
There are also EXCELLENT reasons to retain him... but the operative word is "also."
It is not "blindly shitting" on Rich Rodriguez to note that he has fielded the worst three defenses in Michigan history, or to note that he has beaten around ONE Big Ten team with a winning conference record in 3 years, or that he has yet to beat Penn State, MSU, or OSU, or that special teams have been middling-to-abysmal all 3 years he has been here.
You may like RR, but to dismiss everyone questioning him as a wacko is disingenuous. If you were right that RR obviously is a victim of circumstance who just needs more time, Dave Brandon would have guaranteed a fourth year already. I would urge you to show some respect to fans who justifiably have a different perspective from you.
Rich Rod was brought in to completely revamp the program with his players coached his way.
There's simply no evidence to back up this opinion of yours. Bill Martin did not set out finding someone to "completely revamp the program." If that was his goal, he wouldn't have offered the job to Schiano, and Ferentz wouldn't have been a serious candidate.
This idea that many people on this site have that Martin believed the program needed a complete overhaul is the height of revisionist history.
I hate cats, no more pictures of cats. Or if you need to post animal pictures at least mix in some dogs.
Dogs > Cats
There is only one thing to do now...
First of all, no one is saying that RichRod is a genius who deserves to be Michigan's coach until he retires. All we are asking for is ONE MORE YEAR. We see a ton of potential here and know it would be foolish and borderline negligent to let it go.
I said in another post that RichRod needs to beat MSU, OSU and get us to the Big Ten Championship game next year. Anything less and he should be fired, barring extraordinary circumstances. I would think most people here agree with that, more or less. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
To address point-by-point:
-It's fair to note that the young defense has no depth as 32% of defensive commits have left the program under RichRod (again, that doesn't mean he's a bag guy, or that there aren't reasons kids left, but it's a statistical reality).
I agree - he has not done a good job retaining talent, and the defensive recruiting has been lacking. That being said, there is always attrition during a coaching transition, so we are willing to give him a little slack. It's not like anyone who left is tearing it up at other major programs.
-It's fair to note that we haven't beaten OSU or MSU under RR.
This is circular logic. We haven't beaten them because they have been better than us. You shouldn't fire a coach for failing to regularly upset bitter rivals.
-It's fair to note that our potent offense has not been as potent against top half Big Ten competition. (or that RR hasn't beaten a Big Ten team with a winning conference record)
This is kind of a ridiculous argument. Our offense has performed better against bad defenses than good defenses? Obviously. We put up 351 yards on OSU, as much as any other team on their schedule (Miami put up 352). We put up 442 against Wisconsin, as much as any other team on their schedule (MSU put up 444 in Wisc's only loss). We put up over 500 against Iowa and over 600 against Illinois. Those are the top 4 defenses in the Big Ten.
-It's fair to note that we weren't a garbage program before RR got here and that RR's improvement from 3-9 kinda ignores the lengthy history before that season.
Irrelevant. ALL programs go through rebuilding years. There are no exceptions to this. It was going to happen here eventually, and all things considered, 2 sub .500 seasons in 45 years is pretty fucking amazing. Actually, it's unheard of. Give him one more year. If we get 9-10 wins, we're back on track. If not, he's gone.
Our scoring offense is more relevant than yards accrued, and the fact that so many yards convert into so few points only highlights the inefficiency of the offense, tantalizing though it may be in the YPG column.
After all, every top tier team in the Big Ten has scored more points than us in head-to-head match-ups. Part of that is due to defense, but part of that is also our halting-at-best performances against top-tier Big Ten teams, particularly with regard to turnovers.
Not to have this arguement AGAIN, but is it your opinion that Iowa, OSU, MSU and Illinois let us march up and down the field at will because they knew we would turn the ball over or miss a field goal once we got to the red zone?
Of course we scored less points because of turnovers, but that is a stat that will improve as our skill position players get older. And if you don't believe that, you must at least believe that they are random. It is not a product of the system - RichRod's Clemson and WVU teams did not turn the ball over this much.
My argument is that our offense is better judged by points scored than yards, since a positive yard differential does not result in a win, but a positive point differential does. Is it your opinion that yards generated outweighs points scored?
And I'm not sure turnover margins are random-- discounting 2008 (I'll let Rodriguez get a pass on that), we have ranked 100th and 115th annually the past two years. Perhaps Casteel covered him at WVU, perhaps the Big East and ACC competition weren't as defensively-oriented... I don't really know. All I know is that teams like Alabama, OSU, Florida, etc. don't hang out in the #100s in the turnover margin year after year, and if they have somehow found a way to beat the laws of probability, we should find out their secret. RR doesn't seem to know it.
I think yards are as important as points in evaluating the performance of an offense. Points are a function of special teams (field position/field goal kicking) in addition to offense.
Again, turnovers are directly correlated with age/experience, especially at the QB position. Michigan has had an underclassman first year starter at QB for the past 3 years. How can you possibly ignore this?
For what it's worth, Florida had 25 turnovers this year (ranked 93rd nationally). And hey look - they has a first year starter at QB. I guess Urban Meyer forgot to tell Brantly not to turn the ball over. Notre Dame? 24 turnovers. Again, first year starter (a bunch of them, actually). Oklahoma State? 22. First year starter.
We could all just do the mathematician/engineer/super nerd thing and make some weird derivation that includes both yards AND points. Somebody needs to do the math on this one to calculate points per yards from starting field position to endzone, or TDs per drive or some other arcane statistical tomfoolery.
Because yes: our special teams blows. It suppresses our point totals in ways that make the offense look worse than it is.
Because yes: our offense has a problem with efficiency, getting frustratingly small returns on gigantic yardage numbers.
This argument will never end, because neither one of you is wrong.
Brian posted a points/yard "efficeincy" stat someone emailed to him earlier this week. It was long, but the upshot is that if we had an "average" efficiency, we would have scored an extra 110-120 points (9-10/game), which would have put us at 44-45/game. If we were as efficient as Wisconsin, it would have equated to an extra 170 points, which would put us at a Yostian 48 points/game.
Those numbers are probably overblow - RichRod would have probably put in backups and taken his foot off the gas enough to keep the point totals down, but the point remains: the sky is the limit for this offense. It would not be a stretch to expect an Oregon-like jump in 2011.
It's remarkable to me that three people negged you for making the common-sense observation that points matter more than yards. The MGoBubble in action.
Many "UNACCEPTABLE" people say things like "BUT THIS IS MICHIGAN"...because they're utterly spoiled by its past success. They look at the record, unfairly compare it to the past, and say "Fire him now!" Don't you think that's a bit unfair to hold the current coach with a very unique problem of a "bare cupboard" and installation of a completely new system under the same standards the first 2-3 years as the 50 years of contanscy(sp?) before it?
Michigan is truly unique in that regard. And you are absolutely correct...every program goes through lulls. Heck, look at Texas, prime example. Mack Brown had something like 12-straight seasons of 9+ wins, and suddenly his highly-talented team shows no heart or development and goes 5-7. Should UT fire Mack suddenly? You bet your bottom dollar some people in Texas see it that way...but isn't that ridiculous? What if Mack Brown only goes 7-5 next year? Fire him then? Certainly no one's satisfied with the situation...but it's hard to suddenly let go of someone who has had so much success recently.
What I hate to see from the second bubble of "Fire RR" is people saying "his success at WVU doesn't mean anything, it was the Big East". Come on now. That's silly.
First of all, no one is saying that RichRod is a genius who deserves to be Michigan's coach until he retires. All we are asking for is ONE MORE YEAR.
I don't understand this thinking at all - if this is truly what you believe. If you really believe in RR, then you should think he's a genius who should coach here until he retires. To make a dating analogy, you sound like you want to break up with your girlfriend, but not until you have one last fling. If you don't think he's the long-term answer, then you shouldn't want him at all. Keeping a coach just because you think you might be marginally better in the short term (as opposed to the long term) is extremely foolish.
I have no problem with the fact that people believe Rich Rod is not the answer at coach. Everyone has an opinion but to say that his evaluation should be based purely on his record only is a bad idea.
Is the fact that we are rebuilding a valid excuse to you? There is something wrong with the program but this started well before RR ever arrived in Ann Arbor. To attribute all of the blame to RR is just making an excuse for the past management of the program as well. So you argue that there is a litany of excuses on the pro RR side of the argument. Well I can say the same for the anti RR side of the argument as well. You are excusing the poor depth that was in place on this team when Rich Rod was hired.
Most RR supporters just want at least 4 years to be able to judge him. It's not that unreasonable to allow a coach to at least have a fair chance of gathering a group of his own players before firing him. I don't like the idea of prematurely firing a coach who has a proven history of success when he has time to build a program. This could come back and haunt Michigan when RR lands successfully at another program and they go and win big. It makes the University of Michigan look ridiculous for not being patient enough to wait until the coach had a senior of his own.
....the people that believe as you do is, "why do you keep moving the goalposts in regards to firing him"?
I hate going through all of this crap, as it seems this board, the rival's board, and other UM themed blogs have become more of a bitch-fest in relation to everything bad that happens to UM football. And, what's more, those who bitch about everything seem to conveniently lay all the blame onto RR's shoulders.
Typically, the RR detractors wish to have a change in HC to Harbaugh, always citing his record of turning programs around. Guess what? RR had that same history prior to coming here. What those people fail to acknowledge is that if the "excuses"(your words, not mine) have happened for RR, why could they also not happen for Harbaugh? Because he's a Michigan Man? All that is is some abstract way of determining who you like better, kinda like saying someone is "cooler" than another person.
As for me, RR IS a Michigan Man. He chose to come here to be the HC of UM football. He has done what he could to turn the program into a winner again, a thing that will become a perpetually top-ranked program.
You want to claim a "bubble" exists for us fans wanting RR to remain as coach, but totally disregard the other "bubble" that exists for fans wishing he were fired already. You claim we have "excuses", while we see them as realistic reasons. We claim to see the potential, while you only go by the strict conventions of overall record and the record against our rivals. You compare the overall record to years past prior to RR to say he's no good, while we see the improvement from year one to two and to this year and know where UM football is headed.
The "bubble" as you call it, is nothing more than another attack on RR and the program by deriding anyone who supports RR as unwilling to acknowledge the failures in the past three years. It's almost as if you believe that we fans that support RR have been "ok" with what has transpired during his time as HC. Far from it, in fact, but not that you would believe it. The main difference then, is the potential of this team, and the future, that we see under RR. You, and fans like you, discount the extreme amount of yards gained and only quantify the losses(and even the wins) by the final scores. We see the ease of yards gained, and the potential for scores, even against the top defenses in the conference, and know that when the players become older and more disciplined, the scores will come, faster than opponents can keep up with.
.......done(making a general statement about the topic and choosing to respond to me), so I have done.
I apologize if you think the "you" I was referring to was to you, in particular. It wasn't meant that way at all.
It is beyond belief though that you(and I do mean you, yourself) can claim that I, and other RR supporters, are living in a "bubble", but cannot see that you, and the other RR detractors, are living inside one as well.
I do not neg anyone for their opinion. Indeed, most of the time I choose not to respond to what I see as something that isn't very constructive, in regards to a debate. I do, however, respond at times to those postings, or topics, that I believe are inherently wrong, or at least uninformed, to some extent. For example, you raised a point in the OP that assumed that points made regarding the failings of the team under RR so far are "excuses" and that by doing so, we RR supporters acknowledge a problem that merits discussion. What ends up happening though, is that RR detractors acknowledge our explanations or reasons for the problems and simply state them as "excuses", like you did, and imply that no further discussion is needed on the particular issue.
My post was a refutation of being deemed to "be living in a bubble". What's more, I agreed with others that if you believe that we RR supporters are living in a bubble, you must acknowledge that the RR detractors do as well.
A simple test is to read all the post topics related to Harbaugh by the RR detractors and realize that they are claiming the same positive things for Harbaugh that were applied to RR(prior to his becoming HC). For example, RR detractors point to Harbaugh's success at turning around programs into winning teams, conveniently forgetting that RR had similar success in that regard, and conveniently not recognizing that what has happened to RR could very well happen to Harbaugh as well, if he came here.
Two of the main Harbaugh "positives" that were applied to RR:
-Success at turning teams into winning programs
-Success at turning middling athletic recruits into very good players and claiming that if he did it at Stanford, the results at UM, with it's recognition, would be much higher.
And the implication, by the RR detractors, is that Harbaugh would succeed where RR has "failed". Really? We know this for certain? What happens when Harbaugh is brought in, yet has failed similarly to RR at the end of his year three? Do we fire him as well?
One must simply ask the question: Has RR's tenure here, counting only his time here, had the program on an upward trend of competitiveness? If one then recognizes that in the year prior, the team went 9-4, but fell to 3-9 under RR, then they must also recognize that in RR's subsequent years the program has went 5-7, then 7-5(so far). The upward trend is there. And given that, where will the team be next year? Then the year after that?
You can state that I live in a "bubble" if you like, as I don't really care about your opinion on the matter, but if you cannot see that you live in one as well, then you are just being intellectually dishonest with yourself.
I am stating explicitly that the RR detractors claim all these great things about Harbaugh, and refuse to acknowledge that the same was said about RR. If the worst can happen to RR, it certainly can happen to Harbaugh as well.
And the question still stands. If Harbaugh isn't any more successful than RR at the end of his year three, do we fire him? The precedent will have been set, and we then become another ND, continually searching the cfb world for the coach with the magic touch to take us back to the glory days.
One more point. You speak of RR's track record at UM. What has that track record been? 3 wins to 5 wins to 7 wins(possibly 8) to.......... Do you see how we RR supporters would like another year for him?
Just because Harbaugh was successful at Stanford, doesn't mean he will be at UM, just like one can say that because he was successful at Stanford, he WILL be at UM. How long do we give a coach? When do we determine that his track record isn't what it should be? These are important questions to be answered by DB and no one else. The detractors can state their opinions on the matter, but in the end, thats all they are. Opinions. Just like the RR supporters.
......is why you, yourself, are living in a bubble, my friend. To simply state certain facts about RR, as if he is at total and complete fault for them, and then to deem that as reason enough to fire him, is asinine. You do not take into account those factors about which RR has virtually no control over.
Example: The theme that he's losing a certain percentage of the defensive recruits. Warren leaves for the NFL on very bad advice. Woolfolk has a season ending injury. Vlad is no where near his pre-injury athleticism after re-hab, buried on the depth chart, wants to go somewhere he will see the field. Justin Turner - not going to speculate on the reason for leaving(some place blame on RR, others on Turner, not fair to either without knowledge of the situation). Jones, injury. Herron, injury. VanSlyke, injury. Williams, injury. Yet they are all held against RR when the team was fielding first-year players and wasn't very good.
The bubble you live within only mentions the state of the defense and lays it all on RR's shoulders. An excuse? Maybe if it was only a few and the D was still bad. When it is as many as there are, it becomes a reason(although we can accept that it's just one of many).
Hold on a sec. So you didn't put most of your emphasis as to why he should be fired on his record? You mentioned his overall record, his record against Big Ten rivals, his Big Ten record. Basically you are firing him for his record. If you aren't focused mainly on his record then you are firing him because he lost a few players through academic or off the field issues that, in most instances, had nothing to do with him and more to do with kids either making mistakes or not being ready to thrive at a difficult school like Michigan.
If you are going to hold his record against him as a reason to fire him in 3 years then he better have walked into a really strong program. He didn't. Michigan had horrible depth when he began here. You can recruit so many areas at once. Sure he lost some of his recruits which you can blame on him completely(if you are part of this rational outside the bubble place) or you can acknowledge that there was also bad luck and injuries involved. How can you build a team when you have to bring in and replace nearly every position on the entire team with someone who can play at a decent level. If the program was nearly devoid of talent on both sides of the ball then how fast do you think he should have rebuilt the team? 3 years doesn't even give him a senior of his own on the roster. It's not long enough, I would never have said 3 years. I've never moved the goal posts as you say. I personally would give him 5 years with what he inherited on this roster but 4 years will be enough to prove he can field a an upper echelon Big Ten team.
"Outside the bubble" depth will improve because you can simply look down the roster and see that it is loaded with freshman and sophomores waiting to play in the future. I mean if you can't see how Ohio State and Wisconsin actually have upperclass players for most of their positions then I don't know what your non bubble world is like. You people outside of this so called bubble must ignore silly things like talent and experience when you factor in how well a team performs.
You lost me when you appealed to an unscientific poll on a news website.
I'm sorry, but if you believe that there is a "silent majority" that favors RR, you'll probably be sorely mistaken.
I know plentttyyyy of people who support RR. We hear from many more critics through the media because that is what generates interest from the masses. Most people who read newspaper opinion pieces and radio talk shows thrive on controversy. Do you think people want to get on the radio and talk about what a great coach Mike Babcock is or would they rather talk about the horrible coaching of Kuester? Sensationalism sells unfortunately. A silent majority of supporters would never need to boast about their opinions on RR. They sit back and patiently wait for the results as the team gets older.
I know plentttyyyy of people who support RR.
Big deal. That doesn't prove that a "silent majority" of Rodriguez supporters exists. I don't know anyone who thinks he should be back next year, but I'm not going to conclude from that that everyone holds this same opinion.
What difference would a silent majority of supporters make anyway? I thought the MGoBubble consensus was that the only person's opinion that matters is Dave Brandon.
Did I say any of that? I'm just checking, I though what I commented on was that I began questioning the post when he appealed to an internet poll as some kind of factual evidence, that is all. I'm under no delusions here my friend, I believe most Michigan fans want him gone, however much I may disagree with them.
Nah, and to be fair, I've posted very little (if any) of my opinion on Mgoblog so I'm amazed that you seem so intimately aware of how I've reacted to things. I applaud your clairvoyance.
Internet polls are not accurate. This has not changed since the dawn of interwebbing began. When you're appealing to something that you admit is not scientific your argument tips off my silly meter, that's all.
I realize people have legitimate beefs, I've listened to the arguments and I think some of them make sense. I do not think at this time we can draw the conclusions that either extreme of the debate seems to want to draw. My biggest concern (and here I'm admitting my bias) is that 3 years, which I really consider 2 years, is not enough time. We're not Notre Dame.
I think RR should get 5 years...sue me. I'm sure some internet poll somewhere will put me in crazyland for this last comment.
We might actually be able to get some more "scientific" polling data soon:
The poll conducted in May that was referenced has some startling data:
20% of Michigan voters (as in registered to vote in political elections), describing themselves as fans of the Wolverines, have a favorable opinion of RR.
26% had an unfavorable opinion.
53% had no opinion one way or the other.
This was in May, before the season began. It goes on to point out that a 20% favorability rating is low, and cited the example of UNC fans having a higher favorability rating for Duke's basketball coach, and vice versa, than RR has from his own fanbase.
Another example of this MGoBubble is the community's refusal to admit other programs have traditions, winning ways and deserve the wins they get.
Only thing I'll mention directly to Dahblue is that explaining and grasping the reasons for something happening is not the same as making excuses.
Otherwise, thanks for the kind words towards our coach. He deserves all our support until he is no longer our coach
Go Blue. Beat, it looks like, Florida in the Gator Bowl
(the bowl I picked us to go to months ago in HTTV. And, yes, I will remain happy over any other emotion that this team, this season is going bowling. One step closer to where we eventually want to be)
Why? Because Kitten pictures are great.
Like RR, hate RR, doesn't matter to me. When you start picking on the kitten pictures, though, things are about to get real.
I have to agree with some of the other commenters that there is a double bubble here. There are cerrtianly people who are so fervently pro-RR that any attempt to convince them is futile.
There are also people who are so fervently anti-RR that any attept to convince them is futile. I don't know if you saw the "f...spartan bob" mess on the 13 year old thread, but that guy was an idiot, and no amount of logic or reasoning would have mattered in convincing him why RR should stay when his reason for firing RR is "THIS IS MICHIGAN!" (in b4 Leonidas)
I think this is really just a small example of a really large trend in human interaction. People in ANY argument tend to ignore the other sides reasoning. Look at politics, religion, sports. Hell, ANYTHING.
Here, just read this: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/
Conformation bias is basically what you're talking about, and it affects both sides of any argument.
Certainly, there are two camps. But the issue is that the average fan - the guy genuinely open to hearing either argument - is definitely moving in the direction of the "fire RR" camp. You can see this almost anywhere. This website is about the only left where the "pro-RR" side is a majority. I was at the Wisconsin game and pretty much everyone around me was pissed off when it was over. After three years, a lot of people don't want to hear any more stuff about "decimated defenses" and how firing GERG is a panacea. It would be nice for the true believers in RR to at least acknowledge that people have legitimate concerns. Instead, it seems like a lot of people here are digging in their heels and just lobbying insults at people who disagree with them.
Do you think the old format--Haloscan--could help this
To me, my problem with the forum is the FREAKING OUT about every gosh darn thing. Good or Bad. There is no middle ground. Denard is either winning the heisman, we're back, we wont ever lose again or the sky is fawking falling, we'll never be good again, unacceptable, this fucking hick is destroying my life
I cant even do the CILs anymore during road games. The other team gets a first down on the opening drive and holy crap it becomes shittastic with complaining, whining, the occassional player bashing, whatever. Cant anyone keep it together anymore as a fan and have some fun watching our guys, who are trying their best?
I just think this whole board lacks total context on most days. I've kinda backed off my own participation because I doubt people around here can really have fun watching the games. Does the losing suck? Ah, yes. But, this has also been one of the more fun seasons I've had going up to games and following the team. I just wish more people shared my and my ilk outlook on fandom. I guess I'm in my own jamiemacbubble.
The lack of middle ground iIs an artifact of this being the Internet, I think. Most Internet Debates tend to devolve into opposing camps shouting at each other. Well, Internet debates and. Us politics, apparently.
That's kind of why this OP bugged me. He was complaining loudly how nobody was listening, but when somebody said "woah, this goes both ways" and the OP flatly denied any confirmation bias.
Newsflash: we're all susceptible to bias. Thats why I like how most mgoblog commenters focus on DATA. Data doesn't lie. It can be interpreted in different ways, and you can put different values on different data points (see:points vs yards below) but the data is the data. It isn't just handwaving and band standing.
And what percentage of those 32 percent that left on the defensive side of the ball would have left for any other coach? Was it only due to RR coaching or would there normally be attrition at other schools? Most schools can afford the attrition at their schools. If there was solid depth already established at the school, a few bad luck examples of players leaving wouldn't hurt Michigan so much. Too bad for RR he has had to build the program from the ground up. Justin Turner couldn't handle college at West Virginia either, should we blame that on RR because he coached there a few years ago? Blaming all of the players lost on defense solely to Rich Rod is dishonest.
Actually the defesnive rebuilding is coming along great. Finally we have some young players with talent on the roster. The future is looking bright to me. How do you see the depth being created on the roster and not see how RR is building for the future? Did you really expect true freshman and redshirt freshman to come in and dominate?
He didn't have to rebuild the defense?? Are you crazy or is it this outside bubble world you live in? Name some of these great seniors on the team that Carr left behind. Is it Obi Ezeh, Adam Patterson, Renaldo Sagesse? Oh wait it must be James Rogers! That is some really good talent in the senior class that was left for RR to work with!
So you aren't blaming RR for all of the players that left? Only some of the losses. And you admit the depth was thin to begin with on the roster? So why would you fire him because he had has had issues with player retention when you admit it wasn't completely his fault? That is not grounds for firing a coach. Schools don't USUALLY lose players at the rate he lost them but there are unusual circumstances and things happen with 18 year old kids. It's not all on RR that he lost players and it's not like he hasn't put some good young talent on the roster on the defensive side of the ball. The problem is they are all too young to do much with their talent yet.
It would be a poor move to get rid of a coach who had an unfair shake at using his own players to succeed. How can you justify firing a coach when you admit that all of the player retention issues were not his fault? And you admit the team he inherited was bad on at least one side of the ball. So how do you expect to do so well in the Big Ten when you admit that he has had to do rebuilding because of the past roster management. Three years only gives him juniors on the roster and not all of those juniors were even recruited by him. He had to patch together Carr's class. I mean basically he has 2 and a half years of recruiting to turn around a program that was bare in talent. He's not a miracle worker.
...included Brandon Graham, Ryan Van Bergen, and Mike Martin (who committed when Lloyd was coach).
It also included Troy Woolfolk and Donovan Warren and Jonas Mouton. Where there holes? Yes, but Lloyd left RR more than enough to produce better results than he has.
I don't have a strong opinion on whether RR stays or goes, but I that doesn't mean I can't point out that bias exists on all sides of any argument. For what it's worth, I lean toward keep, but I can understand the reasons for wanting a new direction. My twin sis and her fiancee are MSU grads and CHRIST am I sick of their gloating.
My point here is not to try and convince you of whether RR should be kept or not. But You're accusing a large group of people of bias. I think it's probably fair to say that there is no small number of people who DO have such a bias. There are also a similar number of people on the other side of the argument who have an equally strong bias. Denying that this affects both sides is unrealistic.
This is something all humans do. We invest ourselves into one side of an argument and then ignore date that contradicts our previous assumptions. in fact, those assumptions are STRENGTHENED if anything. Read the blog post I linked. Look at any political debate--nobody comes to any conclusions, they parties involved simply shout their talking points past one another without making any kind of compromise. Christ, look at any debate on religion, and you'll see the same bubble effect you're talking about on both sides.
these people are not looking at anything beyond W's and L's, isn't it?
No one in their right mind that is familiar with the team, the roster and the injury situation would pick M to beat a team that at the end of the season is a legitimate top 10 program on their way to a BCS bowl.
Isn't the program supposed to be about more than that?
1. That there are two opposing camps is not the point. That there May or may not be reason to fire RR was not the point. The point i was making is that the OP is accusing one side of a complicated argument of confirmation bias while adamantly denying that any such bias exists on HIS/HER side. It certainly does exist on both
2.I've had the opposite situation. Most people I know are adamant RR supporters. This illustrates the problem with small, anecdotal samples. Other sources of data, namely Internet polls are plagued with issues. First, they tend to be self selecting. A Freep poll is probably much more adamantly anti RR than the mgoblog poll. Second, most of these polls are untrustworthy due to being onn the Internet, subject to all kinds of shenanigans, like pharygulation.
Anyways, I really haven't seen many vicious attacks on the fire RR crowd, but Im a not all that into the debate, so maybe I'm just missing them. I've noticed a few people join the mgoboards just to make making ridiculous claims about "This is MICHIGAN" but Not much outside of that.
If you think this debate is heated, look up the comments to any anti--vaccination post. THAT is a war zone. In comparison, this is just laser tag. :)
Serious question - why did your posting become nonexistent after the Illinois and Purdue games?
You are in a different bubble - the "We are Michigan" and we should win every game bubble. If you don't recognize that then you clearly are in that bubble.
It is pretty sad that so much of your self worth is tied to the result of the football game. I call it the reverse Enzyte syndrome. UM loses and poor little dahblue's manhood gets smaller.
It was a great two losses for you, congratulations on that. Maybe RR will get fired so you can move on to whining about something else.
You are such a great fan that you were hesitating to renew your season tickets because you didn't want to pay the PSD. You weren't going to give the athletic department another penny until something was done. Dude, you just don't get it.
You are in your BoGoBubble - we are Michigan, we must win, blah blah blah unacceptable.
While not a big donor, I do donate annually to the University. My athletic department donation is done through the PSD. I can tell you that the timing of the PSD mailing this year was terrible. I received it today when I checked my mail at the half. Maybe they should've sent it out during the Illinois-Purdue stretch.
Yeah, I'll renew my PSD and keep buying tickets, but it's the first time I've ever hesitated.
You can get the rest of the context from the thread.
You can't even keep your own bullshit straight. Dude, stop lying it's creepy and weird.
God I love it when people bring up his previous posts and call him out when he contradicts himself.
Especially sweet when he accuses you of making things up and being creepy and weird, then has the link to exactly what he said right under it.
Now he has to backtrack and try to make it look like what you put there is taken out of context, when anybody that bothers to read what he wrote can see that it isn't.
Apparently, being right makes you creepy and weird. You MUST therefore be living in a DAH-bubble ;)
So of course his response is to make an entirely specious argument that you are somehow now a pedophile because you actually pointed out that he is a liar. Uhm, duh-blue, 'To Catch a Predator' isn't a bout stalkers, it is about people that seek out and try to meet up with underage parties for illicit purposes...not stalking. Clue: people calling you out on a college football message board for stuff that you actually wrote and then denied does NOT equal stalker. Stalker is not equal to pedophile.
I've normally tried not to get to involved in the great MgoBlog Schism of 2010 except when somebody makes a really egregious post that defies all reasoning (like claiming confirmation bias exists on only one side of an argument), so...yeah.
I'm not saying they aren't there, just that I've not been looking for them.
But the issue is that the average fan - the guy genuinely open to hearing either argument - is definitely moving in the direction of the "fire RR" camp.
SFW. Argumentum ad populum makes sense in some limited sense, like when you're talking about what people will do, or who they will vote for. But it's no method to determining the correctness of a matter that isn't inextricably tied to whether the option that people like the most is the most correct one. And if we agree, and we should, that the "average fan" will move in whichever direction that correlates to the most wins and to the most positive press coverage, then we should agree that the average fans opinion, in the longterm, is subject to what happens on the field regardless of who's the coach. I hold that the opinion of the "average guy" on anything of any importance is generally one founded on limited information and a limited capacity to understand the context and consequences of their opinion. I'm here largely because I don't think Brian or the bloggers and commenters here tend toward the "average" but actually because they tend toward the unaverage end of a the fanbase; they are more informed, evidence based, and generally more intelligent. If more fans here feel differently than the "average fan," then I'm more inclined to find this as another of the many, many failures of the "average guy" rather than as proof that the average guy is correct.
of overused girl gifs and these
the OP has been on this site all year, quite literally providing nothing beyond uninformed anti-RR comments to to the tune of 'unacceptable!', 'first sanctions ever!', with ne'er a contribution having anything to do with actual football, beyond adding a 'me too, what he said' to other posters that do provide actual football reasons to justify a more reasoned rationale for RR possibly not being the best fit as head coach. I have posted links to his comments before, so if you are so inclined I would welcome you to go back a year or so and familiarize yourself with his sophistry. In short, he is the poster child for what I will call, in his own parlance, the 'the Anti-RR Bubble', those being people that do not, in any way shape or form, contribute to a reasoned discussion of the topic at hand, except to support the agenda of removing RR as coach.
For him to post here about a closed-minded group of people on the board that only accept positive feedback in support of the coach, is so beyond pharasaical that we would need a whole new term to describe it accurately.
So to paraphrase his post:
There are a lot of people on here saying that the kettle is black that refuse to listen to any argument at all that the kettle might be white. These people are blind and in a bubble. All their rationale only amount to excuses and are patently incorrect. I, however, am not blind and see clearly, so everyone listen to me please when I suggest that these bubble-people be prohibited from providing their point of view.
Paraphrase of his follow up comments:
What? People that are anti-RR may be similarly closed-minded and perhaps have been employing specious, baseless arguments since day one of RR's hire in an attempt to undermine him? Well, no, of course not, that would be ridiculous, we have been unbiased from the beginning and have just waited until now to make our views known.
However, I am starting to have doubts. It's not 3-9 or 5-7 that has people upset. It's the 0-3 to OSU, and especially to MSU. Fair or not... the MSU loss this year, is what turned a lot of the fanbase against RR. If Michigan had beaten the Spartans, there wouldn't be any posts starting with CC.
Should we have beaten the Spartans just because we beat MSU regularly in the past? If we are rebuilding an entire roster I wouldn't just expect us to beat one of the better teams MSU has had in years.
It just doesn't make sense for so many of the fans outside of this bubble to expect Michigan to be a powerhouse just because they were at one time in history. It is a rebuilding project that coincided with a coaching change, not an excuse, just history. Check the roster that RR inherited if you feel like he was left with a lot of talent. You will notice even more wins when RR is brought back to coach next year. Why? Because he will have even more experience and depth due to being in the program longer. He will win big, don't hold his record against him in the years when he was establishing depth that was nonexistant prior to his arrival.