..for the Trailer Park Boys link. But I can't, because, you know, I'm not up to 100 yet.
at least it's not just us?
..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?
Sorry, I really don't mean to jump on all your posts. It's just the timing of when I got back online. Anyway, you left out the most important stat (and we both seem to like stats). Stanford went from 1-11 to 11-1. Michigan went from 9-4 to 7-5. (*disclaimer** I am not saying that RR is 100% at fault. I am pointing out stats which will outlive any explanation or excuse).
They aren't similar situations unless we pretend that each program did not exist before JH & RR took over.
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.
The neg is the favorite weapon of the bubble. It's fortunate that mgopoints have no actual cash (or any other) value. Otherwise, "haters gonna hate" could become the richest man in America. Cue a picture of the Monopoly Man...
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.
Hold on a sec. Where did I say that his evaluation should be based purely on record? I didn't. Did I put all of the blame of RR? No. I didn't. Although, the captain generally doesn't blame his crew if he doesn't win the race (or gets hit by 65 cannonballs from Illinois).
You say "most RR supporters want at least 4 years". Ok...Last year, most RR supporters said they wanted at least 3 years. The goal posts seem to move. As for depth...yes...you can point to problems prior to RR, but are you ignoring the fact that 32% of defensive commits have left under his watch? How does that help depth. If you discount his first season, he still lost ~25% of defensive commits. Outside of the bubble, it's reasonable to consider that depth won't improve by hoping.
....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.
The point of the MGoBubble concept (I'll just post here even though it applies to a couple of other posts making comments similar to yours) is not about agreeing/disagreeing or convincing anyone that one side or the other is/isn't correct. Those "in a bubble" are willfully shielding themselves from opposing views. I will use your quotes to demonstrate:
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?
It's almost as if you didn't read anything I said. I specifically refer to RR as a "Michigan Man" because he was "poured his heart and soul into coaching our Wolverines". "Excuses" can be levied by anyone (although I think it unseemly for a coach to do so for himself).
Another of your quotes:
You compare the overall record to years past prior to RR to say he's no good
"No good"? Really? If you weren't in the bubble, you would have noticed what I actually wrote (which includes the word "great"):
There are a number of great things about RichRod. He is clearly doing everything he can to turn our program into a winner; he cares deeply about his players; his offense is innovative and explosive; he produced winning records at other programs; and, he is a Michigan Man.
It's not seeing one thing and interpreting it a different way...The MGoBubble is about refusing to expose oneself to opposing viewpoints. It is often demonstrated as you have done here, by completely making up an opposing argument instead of operating within the bounds of what was actually said.
I do agree with your last bit toward the end though. Essentially, you and other RR-defenders have faith that he will lead Michigan to success (which I think would mean national titles since he wasn't hired to keep us at "very good"). I don't share that faith but do understand how (at least one on side of the ball) you might be so optimistic. As a RR-critic, I am not in a "second bubble" because I am exposing myself to the opposing view all day long.
.......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.
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 ...conveniently not recognizing that what has happened to RR could very well happen to Harbaugh as well, if he came here.
One in a bubble forgets that RR has a three-year track record which factors into an evaluation of his performance here. Again...living in a bubble means that you are willfully refusing to look at facts. In this instance, you are comparing RR to Harbaugh as if neither has a track record running the Michigan program.
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.
the RR detractors claim all these great things about Harbaugh, and refuse to acknowledge that the same was said about RR.
Huh? No one denies that great things were said about RR prior to his hire. I still say some great things about him (read the OP again). I just don't think he's the one for the job at this point. I've never heard anyone claim what you're saying. Nothing even close. And, of course, Harbaugh can fail at Michigan. Absolutely. No one is ever a lock for success.
Should Harbaugh be fired after three years if he doesn't surpass the RR level of success? Yes. If JH can't beat OSU/MSU. If he can't compete with the top half of the conference. If he's losing 32% of his defensive recruits. If his defense is the worst in the nation. If he doesn't field a complete program. Yes. Without doubt. No one is a lock for success, but many feel that RR is not going to raise the program to the level for which he was hired. There's no problem with disagreeing about his potential; that's not the bubble. The bubble is about pretending certain facts, upon which we can now analyze RR, don't exist.
......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).
So, your example of "defensive recruits" who left includes Donovan Warren (wasn't a recruit), Woolfolk (wasn't a recruit...in fact, he's a senior...and he didn't leave), Van Slyke (didn't leave), etc...
Dude, let me restate a fact. I'll repeat...a fact. 32% of defensive commits left the program under RR's watch. That is a fact about the program. Not about RR. He is the coach. He should try to figure out "why" and fix it. Noting a problem is the first step in fixing a problem.
Frankly, I don't know if you're in a bubble or just confused. If we want to build depth on D, we need players. If we're losing players at an alarming rate, we need to accept that there is a problem. You don't seem willing to do so. I trust that those, who have a much larger say than we, are so willing.
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.
An (admittedly) unscientific poll...that you completely agree with...? That is what lost you? Again...the MGoBubble...a fact (even if unscientific) exists that doesn't shine positively upon RR, so you close your eyes and turn away.
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.