Bring his ass on. He'll see what Michigan is really about, first hand.
Bring his ass on. He'll see what Michigan is really about, first hand.
he kinda already did. albeit the less nice parts.
Michigan is really about TOUGH, physical football. Having a power running game and DEFENSE.
It also seems it's about petty egos, undermining and backstabbing. Unfortunately for RR he wasn't capable of bringing the former and only experienced the latter.
RR not capable of petty ego? You're saying this in a thread about RR being promised to get revenge on his old team? Undermining? I'm pretty sure he undermined his DC and mandated what style he runs despite minimal defensive experience and no B1G experience. And backstabbing? Well that would be less painful than the last three year's win total.
By "former" I meant he wasn't capable of bringing the toughness and power running Devotee talked about. I didn't choose the right way to express that very clearly and knew it before I hit send.
It just didn't work out. It wasn't you, it was us. We'll always have the memories. We can still be friends.
Now please, get the hell over it.
Really, making your new team promise to schedule the team that fired you? Come on Rich, you are better than that. Move on with it.
Because it does come off that way.
If Tony Gibson is anywhere near Arizona's campus, I'd gladly take that challenge and do nothing but pass 100 times that game.
Worst position coach I've ever seen, in my life.
Who cares? If Arizona plays Michigan, Michigan should win. And if Arizona wins, then it sucks because that means Michigan is bad.
Whoever's on the schedule, beat 'em. Winning solves everything.
the storylines and atmosphere around that game would be poisonous for everyone involved, including RichRod and Hoke.
Pretending that AZ is "just another team" is willful denial. Our former head coach works there now, and considering the turbulent circumstances of his departure, I see no good to come of this and a lot of rehashing of a past that most everyone would rather leave buried.
Playing in a Rose Bowl would be fine because that would be a happenstance clash of two teams; scheduling it directly would be tacitly scheduling a grudgematch that has nothing to do with our program and the kids playing and everything to do with personal squabbling and a rehash of a past that, frankly, isn't the most flattering for either side.
Leave it be, DB.
except that Dave Brandon scheduled App State in 2014. That is a perfect example of a game with no upside; if we win then it's ho-hum and if they... I can't even say it.
Similarly, I feel like DB might decide that an AZ-UM grudgmatch game would make for great drama and fodder for casual fans. You can't deny that the national media would eat up that game, though I'd like to think that Brady Hoke would talk Brandon down from that. It's just not a classy move.
All that being said, I think it was hyperbole because I'd like to believe that RichRod is classier than that (and AFAIK did not ask for Michigan to play WVU during his tenure here).
When tennessee gets back to being good again, I bet ya they try to schedule USC.
much about how classy an institution Tennessee is, so I can't comment on that.
But does this kind of thing really happen much in CFB? Our game with SDSU was scheduled years ago and kind of a fluke; I don't recall most programs actively pursuing games against their former coaches.
I don't understand why RR would want to do that to himself. His team would most likely lose, and he would probably not be treated kindly at Michigan Stadium. If he really thinks he'll turn Arizona into a powerhouse within three years, he could be in for a rude awakening.
Call me crazy, but if we did this, and he were still there at the time, I would want us to do something like this when we go back to the the 9-game conference schedule in 2017 (I think that is what it is). That leaves only three OOC games, and I have a feeling that we would have greater incentive to schedule better OOC opponents (like we used to, and I think Arizona is more intriguing than App State). Granted, that's a long way off, but I think it would also give this fanbase a little time to cool off. It seems too soon now.
Why would a nine-game conference schedule spur us to schedule more difficult OOC opponents? I'd think it'd be just the opposite - we'd want some sure victories (and home games) in September.
....I am saying this several seasons before it actually happens, first and foremost, and I freely admit that the current trend may continue. It would be my hope, I should say. I would like for one of the three to be at least one that piques everyone's interest.
Can we do it in November?
I have no huge problems with Rich Rodriguez the offensive mind, so not going to inveigh against his desiring to schedule Michigan from that perspective.
HOWEVA. Within 3 years? Okay. Respect Arizona, but...it's Arizona (wrt recruiting base, prestige, etc). And he doesn't have any roots there that I'm aware of. I sincerely doubt that he COULD have Arizona ready to face Michigan in 3 years, even if Michigan scheduled them.
And they won't.
Am curious why he wants to schedule Michigan. If...it is as a means of mitigating his chagrin (and we know he's a proud man), try taking Arizona to the Rose Bowl instead. Might not be all of the validation he desires, but if he can turn Arizona into a perennial Pac-10 contender? It'll be enough.
Michigan would schedule Arizona not the other way around. The only teams Arizona can schedule are MAC or Mt West teams looking for a pay day.
This only means Devin or Shane - depending on year - will have 700 yards passing and 350 yards rushing. The Michigan RB will have 539 yards or so also. And Michigan will win 172 to 35. But the 35 Arizona puts up will be FEI spectacular.
transfers to Arizona, sits out a year and is the starter for Arizona and RR Year 2, I say we do it. but I am not sure where there is room to make it happen.
This was a HS coach in New Orleans talking up the Tulane HC job. One of only 2 reasons RR chose Arizona is that they agreed to schedule UM... Why wouldn't Tulane agree to do this?
Shit. You're right. It might as well have been RR up there saying that he wants to go in to Michigan Stadium, drop his pants on the block-M, and give 110k people something to kiss.
This is probably the worst thread of all time. It won't happen.
This post is all kinds of ignorant. Have you read Three and Out? The guy was never negative. Even when the press and administration was bearing down on him, he never quit. He cared about his players and probably still does.
It's also not fair to accuse a single man like this of disproportional self interest. Hoke's "dream" wasn't Michigan winning ten straight national titles. No, it was Hoke coaching Michigan. Every person thinks like this. Rodriguez is not abnormally selfish or anything like that.
To add a bit more, your post is about self-vindication: "I said this after the initial presser". This creates some truly epic hypocrisy.
I'm well aware that Rodriguez did not necessarily use optimal tactics ("Even Vince Lombardi couldn't...). But I don't think he was being negative. As far as cockroaches, I don't think that's a harsh enough word. I don't think calling members of the media (or traitorous program insiders, pulling in different directions) cockroaches is negative. I thought it was more of an "us against the world" mentality. "Prove the doubters wrong. They're all out there" (quotes are mine to provide example thought patterns). Again, it's still not optimal. But what would you have done? Hoke?
I don't think Hoke would address the issue to the media. I think he would address it in order to dismiss it with the team. Am I wrong? I think Rodriguez calling them cockroaches also does this. He was also defending some of his players, too. Players who spoke to the Freep could be viewed by other players as sabotaging the team in some manner. Rodriguez did not allow that. He created another enemy for the team to focus on. I do not think it was "negative," however unwise it may have been.
A coach saying "Vince Lombardi could come in here and couldn't fix some of the things that are wrong with the defense" isn't being negative? Are you suggesting that somehow constituted positive reinforcement? Publicly bemoaning the placekicking situation and joking about finding a new kicker on the way to Pennsylvania wasn't very positive either. If you want to contend that this was simply a beaten-down coach who wasn't feeling himself by that point, okay, I could perhaps buy that. But to say he was "never negative" is a reach.
You're absolutely right. I suppose it's not always clear (especially in this instance (to me at least)) what "negative" means. He certainly was negative in at least those above examples. My initial qualm was with the guy accusing him of propagating a negative atmosphere. I think that is untrue. Thank you (and the guy I originally responded to) for the discussion.
what you thought was so terrible about his initial press conference? I watched it and he was never negative about Michigan, only that he was happy his guys were doing well and that he wished he could be apart of it because he thought this was going to be their year.
I mostly agree with this. Rodriguez can be a very charismatic man and he might well be the offensive genius some believe but when times get tough I think he has a history of painting himself as the victim. I don't necessarily though think he's negative, that kind of stuff comes out only when he's the subject of criticism, he deflects it with comments like the Lombardi line.
Don't like the idea. Take a gander at our attendance numbers. We don't really need to use marketing ploys like this. It can either end badly for us, or neutral. It won't make us look good. Schedule them if they become a ranked team and only once all his recruits are gone from here. We don't need to risk what we have going here by bringing that story back to life.
Playing App State is a marketing ploy. Playing a Pac-12 school is not. It'd be a nice break from the ND/MAC routine we're in right now. I think playing this particular school would be a little awkward given the coaching situation, but still, it's better than say, Bowling Green or UMass.
I don't have a big problem with this from our perspective. I don't think it makes any sense from RR's perspective, though.
Bring em on. I'm sick of MAC Snacks, Directional Schools, Delaware States, etc. At least Arizona is in a major conference. And the RR story line makes it interesting.
Anyone who wants to avoid Appy State, or Arizona, or Boise State, 3 competitive schools who will come here without a return trip, doesn't really want Michigan to play a tough schedule. If you want to be the best, you need to play the best.
I also want to quote a former favorite mgoblogger of mine who left mgoblog over this issue when Brandon scheduled Appy State, mgoshoe:
You whiners are still pussies. I don't really give a rat's ass if you think this makes me not "good" anymore.
I'm sick of the criticism of Dave Brandon. I'm sick of the criticism of Hoke. I'm sick of the willful dismissal of clear evidence that doom is not upon us.
Some of you will never be happy. Not with Brandon, not with Hoke, not with Denard, not with scheduling. You whine that the schedule is too easy, then you whine when we schedule Appy State or Arizona. Some people just aren't happy unless they're whining. Get over it and grow a pair.
[quote]You whine that the schedule is too easy, then you whine when we schedule Appy State or Arizona.[/quote]
I don't think you said that right... you think that scheduling App State makes the schedule harder?
Let me turn it back to you: who is easier?
I think that in some years (most years?) Appy State would beat all of the above teams. But given that we lost to them, I think that it is time to play them and put them to rest.
because it will just make us a punchline.
We'll probably win and then we'll have to hear about our lifetime record of 1-1 vs. Appy State.
And if we were to lose? Good God...cancel the rest of that season.
But hey, if watching that blocked field goal for a month beforehand is something that gets you going, then I can see why you'd be excited.
Exactly. We'll see that damn kick replayed over and over and over before the game.
And it's still a lose-lose situation. If we win, everyone will say 'so what you finally beat a team you should have beaten the first time'. If we lose, well, filling the stadium in with cement and burning the university down would be more enjoyable than to listen to all the bitching that would go on.
I look at it like the male wrestlers who forfeit to female wrestlers. If you win, you beat a girl. If you lose you lost to a girl. For the guys that forfeit, there is no glory in winning. For the guys that don't forfeit, they risk embarrassment for their pride.
There is no right answer as it is a subjective topic.
it pains me to hear you say "If you want to be the best, you need to play the best" and then suggest App State is a benchmark for us.
If you seriously think that they are a team by which we should measure ourselves by, I think you need to think with something other than the pair that you're urging me to grow.
It's a no-win game and I would derive no pleasure even if we beat them by 70, because even scheduling them is a tacit admission that we regard that loss as a benchmark.
It would be like Dwyane Wade losing a 1-on-1 basketball game against a high school kid and then after 7 years demanding a rematch. Just weaksauce. Respect to 2007 App State for being a very good team, but I really don't think that is the kind of rivalry we should be building at Michigan.
LeBron getting dunked on by a kid, then having Nike try and suppress the video?
I do not appreciate your language. Even in quotes it is disgusting.
a random potty-mouth generator?
Please stay away from "blue collar" and armed forces jobs/people.
Also David Molk likes to hit people really fucking hard.
I can see why Rodriguez would want to do it, because he feels that he got the shaft and was treated like shit and nothing would prove that Michigan got it wrong like beating us. It's just human nature to want "revenge" if that's what you would want to call it.
I wouldn't like this game for several reasons. If we lose, we'll have to hear about it for a couple weeks afterwards and it will be miserable.
If we win, I'd be happy for the team and coaches, but it would be tough for me to be totally happy knowing how much extra joy it would bring certain segments of the fairweather fanbase who abandoned the team then joyously jumped back on this year, the media who created a hellhole to coach and recruit in and the conniving members of our athletic department and university.
If we were to face Arizona, I would rather have it be in the Rose Bowl, because it would mean that Michigan was enjoying a period of sustained success and that Rodriguez found a better fit for his style after a miserable experience here in Michigan. Until then, it'd be best just to let it go.
Just because some of us didn't think that RR was a good hc for Michigan does not make is fair-weather fans. I still rooted for the team like I always did.
But I was in the stadium plenty of times to hear the boos.
And whether you liked the coach or not, when the kids on the team have to hear how terrible they are collectively over and over again - despite many personnel holes that people can't seem to fathom - you are not supporting the team.