The end of an idea.
I'm not sure where to start. Maybe it's, "Hi, my name is Todd and I am a Michigan-aholic?"
I am in mourning today. Not for the coaches or the players (maybe a little for Brock Mealer who may be the real loser in all of this), but for the idea of a new dynamic direction Michigan lacked for some time the day Rich Rodriguez stepped onto campus toting a big-time offense.
I found mgoblog after Carr retired. Quickly becoming a daily (sometimes hourly) reader of the blog as the readership speculated and squirmed during the failure of a coaching search played out. I'll never forget the day I found out Rich Rod was coming. I was out shopping for my wife for Christmas, mad about the lack of parking spaces, the number of people shopping at the same time and more so hating the daily speculation of subpar coaches turning down the job when they should be begging to coach at Michigan. Things seemed to be getting pretty desperate.
During my fruitless wandering, I would check my phone from time to time for updates when Brian broke the news of a coach with mutual interest and a successful track record. It’s sad to say this out loud; my mood changed immediately like the scrooge waking up on Christmas morning. I was happy and excited; thankful we waited for a national championship caliber coach. As many did, I pondered what kind of success he would have working with Michigan caliber talent at better facilities.
Days, weeks and months later we learned what coaches were coming and who was not. Many of us poured over the resumes of those assistant coaches and found the strength and conditioning coach who - with a raspy voice and a cage of wild wolves scared and delighted us both. With a mix of wizardry and snake oil, we were on our way.
The first year was filled with disappointment, but in my mind a necessary process in order to right the ship of the old three yards and a cloud of dust mindsets and traditionalist ways. Besides, the talent pool was depleted. The coaches just needed time. Add in public fight between WVU and Rich on a buyout lawsuit. Needless to say, we were all ready for some good news which signing day provided. We already had a San Diego kid who was polished and ready, the biggest recruit in Michigan, plus this unknown guy named Denard who was fast and didn't tie his shoelaces.
Year two was something of fascination. A moxie filled freshman was leading Michigan to big wins in the beginning, only to get nicked up as losses mounted in the B10. A kids shoelaces flopping in the wind as he hit mock 1 headed into the end zone. It was amazing to watch as it was tough to watch sometimes. However, everyone saw a glimpse of what could be starting to take shape. There was a lot to be excited about. On the flip side, another controversy swelled with outside allegations from a local paper and a full blown NCAA investigation underway. Oh yeah, and some bad investment scheme Rich got into.
This year? Well, the expectations were higher and we all know what happened from there. Someone convinced me we had to go another way because it was time for a man from Michigan to come home. After watching a colossal beat down of VT, I was ready for the move only if it was "this guy."
Now, Dave Brandon tells us Rich wasn't good enough and Jim is acting like we aren't big enough. So; I sit here looking like my dog just died. For me, the dismissal of Rich was also the death of an idea conceived three years prior of a new direction in the program and the rise back to national supremacy once again.
Don’t get me wrong; while I am a supporter of the offense of system Rich brought to Michigan, the facts say Dave Brandon had little choice but to make a change. In a selfish way, i was looking forward to seeing the team get better; placing Michigan back on the mountain top of Michigan football - not looking at the possibility of 2-3 years of additional change where the team may get back to where 9-10 wins is considered good enough or where domination by PAC 10 and SEC teams that get explained away due to academic standards.
In the end, I was excited for the next generation of Michigan football to start 3 years ago. Now we'll never truly know if the foundation of the program would have been successful under Rich. It feels like we are stuck in the mud waiting for another coaching search that may require the implementation of another system, a handful of player transfers and a recruiting class that falls apart all together. Are we in for another 3 years of turmoil only to run the coach out of town for not doing well enough again? Time will tell. Dave Brandon's legacy will be written by what happens next. Will he continue what Rich started or look to revert back to the Michigan of old? I hope not the latter. Can you envision a team next year without Denard?
January 6th, 2011 at 10:27 AM ^
Why is Brock Mealer the real loser in all this?
January 6th, 2011 at 10:32 AM ^
Like, are we going to kick him to the curb now? Or is it more "BARWIS IS MY ONLY GOD" love? I mean, Lloyd recruited his brother, not Rich. Rich and Barwis did tremendous work with him, and deserve all kinds of credit, but we're not going to abandon the kid.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:37 AM ^
What Barwis and the team did with and for Brock was tremendous, but I have no doubt that the next coach and S&C guy would do nothing different, nor would the players.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:07 AM ^
The medical center did a big write-up on the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation team that worked with Brock. It is a piece of the story that the MSM didn't look at around all of the (justifiable) hoopla around his leading the team out of the tunnel. Anyway, the work that the PM&R team did sounds amazing.
http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/media/newsroom/details.cfm?ID=1706
January 6th, 2011 at 10:28 AM ^
It will suck when Denard transfers.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:58 AM ^
If this happens, it will be devistating to me. Denard ranks up there with Desmond and Woodson as my all-time favorite Wolverines. Losing him will crush me and I've been trying to mentally prepare for it for weeks now.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:59 AM ^
Let the kid beat somebody..ANYBODY of consequence before you freaking compare him to Des and Charles.
It was a absolute joke that he was awarded offensive player of the year in B1G this year.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^
I agree with you that Denard hasn't done enough to deserve DH/CW love yet, but to deride him is unfair. You're lucky negs are still effed up.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:27 PM ^
in the B1G to deserve that award. Enlighten me please....
January 6th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
Well he did have the best statistical season of any offensive player in the Big Ten... Don't know what exactly your criteria for that particular award is (apparently it is very unique), but to say Denard winning it was "a joke", is asinine. You have fulfilled your daily requirement of being a contrarian douche, though.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:50 PM ^
You obviously don't know another way to criticize anyone ecept to call them "douche" I mean, that's OK, that's all Michigan posters know. One syllable, easy enough.
But the Big 10's "Offensive Player of the Year" looked like dookie against Michigan State, Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Purdue. He wasn't around when UM rallied to beat Illinois or made the game against Iowa somewhat respectable.
So yeah, he looked GREAT against...INDIANA! YAHOO! Oh, sorry, he led Michigan to an embarrassing loss to Penn State as well.
Yes, it was a joke to give him that award. I guess Bowling Green would agree with it, though.
January 6th, 2011 at 1:15 PM ^
Tolzien, Stanzi, Persa, Prior (yes, believe it) and Cousins had the top 5 Passer Ratings in the B1G (DR was 6th).
At 18-11 he had the WORST TD-INT ratio in the B1G. So as a passer, I don't see it.
If you consider him a pure runner, YPC wise he was beaten out by Mr.White from WIS. There were 4 other gentlemen who had more TD's than him.
Scoring-wise( fair to to compare RB's and QB's) he was TENTH in the B1G.
I don't see how that adds up to Off player of the year.
As for the std excuses:
1. His OL was pretty darn good.
2. He had plentiful experienced receivers.
3. Not having a great RB only upped his carries and opportunities to score an even then he was not the scoring leader in the B1G.
Let's be clear here, DR was an amazing player on the UM squad but offensive player of the year, he was not.
January 6th, 2011 at 2:45 PM ^
Congradulations! Your post is so incredibly absurd that you are the lucky recipient of my first ever post. Never, in years of reading this blog have I been compelled to actually create an account and post a comment, until now.
First, you might note that profit's original comment named Denard as one of HIS FAVORITE players, along with Woodson and Howard. No one attempted to put Denard's accomplishments in the winged helmet in that category.
Now on to your terrible argument against the B1G Offensive POY...
There's this cool concept football types have tabbed as a "dual-threat" quarterback. Maybe you've heard of it? In short, it means that a player like Denard is neither a pure passer or a pure runner, as you try to categorize him. While he wasn't the hands-down best in the conference, numbers-wise, in either category, the combination of the two certainly makes his numbers better than any other player in the B1G.
January 6th, 2011 at 1:45 PM ^
it says anywhere that only the stats acquired in Big Ten games count toward the award. Also, I didn't say that an argument against it wasn't possible, I just think calling it a joke is an extreme exaggeration.
And I wish I hadn't called him a douche, but I thought he phrased it in a "douchey" way. I think I should get credit for 5 syllables though, because the entire insult was "contrarian douche." I thought that added some elegance
January 6th, 2011 at 1:56 PM ^
Is obvious.
January 6th, 2011 at 1:13 PM ^
Maybe that he set the all time fucking record for an NCAA QB, in his first year as a starter? Maybe?
January 6th, 2011 at 1:20 PM ^
We are talking about the Big Boys from the B1G here not the non-conf schedule.
Again, yardage don't mean squat. If it did, RR would be making 10 million and not be out of a job. Unfortunately the team that ha more points (not yards) wins the game.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:40 PM ^
however, imagine if he had a strong defense. The game would have been completely different from his perspective and the offensive phase as a whole. There is a huge difference playing with a lead and having to come from behind in almost every big game of the year. Hence his Notre Dame Game. Denard is most effective when we are in the game or have a lead. Otherwise, he loses his focus (youth and inexperience) and he tries to make too much happen.
He absolutely does have the capability to impact the game like the others mentioned. Moreover, the caliber of team altogether was much better for the others...
Just an outside of the box thought...
January 6th, 2011 at 10:29 AM ^
Nice read...thanks, I'm sitting with you.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:33 AM ^
... but as to your last 3 questions.
1. Turmoil? Maybe, only if we hire Harbaugh, who apparently wants the NFL.
2. Brandon continue what RichRod started? WTF? If you watched Brandon's presser, you know the answer. He wants the ball-boys to be defensive-minded! And he is aware Vince Lombardi isn't available.
3. A team without Denard. Hopefully not, possibly yes. Denard is exciting against inferior defensive talent. RichRod took things in 3 years to the point that the offense had to score 67 points to beat Illinois.
Please get some rest and then go outside for fresh air.
Mods set the modes, by the way.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:23 AM ^
As a Packers fan I have to make a comment.
Lombardi was an offensive guy. OL at Fordham, OC with the Giants, HC at Green Bay.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^
I suspect that the turmoil is not over, but we also have some young talent on board if players hang around, and I think most probably will. I also believe it may take more time to get the program where it needs to be, but in two phases of the game, I frankly don't see how things could be any worse.
Sometimes things just don't work out. This is one of those times.
I still find it incredible that Brandon didn't have a plan "B". With the money that Brandon will throw around, I have hopes we will get somebody good.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:44 AM ^
January 6th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^
Bumbling David Brandon has this program perched on a very dangerous ledge right now. If he hires a spread coach, including but not limited to Fitzgerald, Peterson, Patterson, or Willingham, this team full of mostly sophomores and juniors (not juniors and seniors) will have a chance to win ten games. However, if Brandon hires from the inbred Michigan coaching tree, another rebuilding job will be neccessary, and the QB depth chart will look something like "Devin Gardner and three walk-ons."
While I am against hiring Harbaugh because of the present team personnel is not suited for his scheme, at least he went outside the tree for many of his coaching ideas, and thus doesn't qualify for the "anachronistic inbred" list. He is the obvious "compromise" candidate. Harbaugh would be a very good coach at Michigan, but we would have to suffer for at least another year while waiting for this team to grasp his offense.
I would rather watch them win ten next year with an offense suited to their personnel. I would also rather watch the players, who have been through almost a lifetime full of shit in one, two, or three years, be put in a position where they can feel that their time on the football field at the University of Michigan wasn't totally wasted.
Telling kids they are part of building something and then tearing it down before it is finished isn't really much of an idea. Hopefully, Brandon sees this and gets past having to hire from the inbred tree. If he does, he will look like he has a set of cojones. If he doesn't, he will look like he is a hapless but arrogant puppet who caved into the faction that made RR's life at Michigan miserable in the first place.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:12 AM ^
January 6th, 2011 at 11:14 AM ^
January 6th, 2011 at 11:38 AM ^
January 6th, 2011 at 12:55 PM ^
Exactly Three "spread" type players on this team: Denard Robinson, Vincent Smith and Martavious Odoms. The rest? Stonum and Hemmingway? Koger? The offensive line, all of whom are big (except Molk) frames who can add 40 lbs by breakfast tomorrow morning?
The argument that this roster needs to be completely retooled or rebuilt or un-spreadendized is patently false, stupid, ignorant, asinine, stupid, worthless and means whomever says it doesn't know anything about football or anything else.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^
After all those years of bragging about future Rich dominance on MLive, it not working out stings, eh? If only you gave the same consideration to the guys who came before him, and the guys who will come after him (not to mention those who are here now). I get the feeling you're more a fan of being right than a fan of Michigan...inbred as it may be.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:44 AM ^
Manny Diaz, D coordinator for Mississippi St., has jumped ship and will take over the same position for Texas. I would have been extremely happy if we would have kept Rich and brought this guy in along with a new defensive staff except for Bruce Tall who I think did a very good job with the D line.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:00 AM ^
I can't speak to the job Tall has done, but I thought the D-Line collectively underacheived this year. It was the most experienced position featurnig two-seniors and two juniors, plus arguably the most exciting sophomore in Roh.) One of those juniors was the best player on the entire D.
And yet they were unable to dictate the flow of the game. Precious few sacks in conference play. Sustained drives against were the D's unfortuante hallmark, along with a lack of big plays on 3rd down (the Illinois 3OT sack, not actually on 3rd down but equivalent to it, is just about the only exception.)
Much can be blamed on the deficiences of the LBs and DBs, but the DL was never -- never -- able to make up the difference.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:34 AM ^
great point
if you had the illusion that the defensive issues were simply a function of an inexperienced secondary, the second half of the Wisc game should have smashed those thoughts. The RRod defensive issues were much deeper than simply playing underclassmen.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:26 PM ^
The problem wasn't just with the defense. They couldn't kick a field goal, could rarely got a kickoff past the 7 or 8 yard line and even had trouble kicking the ball in bounds at times.
The offense didn't score past the first quarter in the last two games and was fairly inconsistent against teams not named Bowling Green, Indiana or Illinois.
Decisions regarding when to execute onside kicks, fake punts and fourth down conversions were questionable all along the way.
Manny Diaz wasn't going to fix this and Dave Brandon did what he had to do. We're all a little dismayed that we won't be able to see "what might have been" with the offense next season. However, the offense was too inconsistent to be called "good" this season (regardless of how many yards were racked up).
January 6th, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^
What high profile D coach would take a job that was going to be a only a 1 year job under a dead-man-walking-in-2011 coach? Under a coach, who's past two D coordinators ended up cast away? With a group of players that have one borderline NFL prospect? Answer: none
January 6th, 2011 at 10:44 AM ^
It's only football. That's what I keep telling myself. Alas I am more emotionally invested in this team than I should be. I share the OP's sentiments, but I feel less dismay than confusion. Our ship suddenly seems rudderless and there's no clear path ahead. I'm somewhat confident that a week's time will change all of this into rapid speculation about our new coach, but I'm finding it difficult not to wonder why our program is such a mess at the moment. I'd like to trust in Brandon's confidence, but then I think about Dominoes, the failure to secure Harbaugh, and a whole month of useless indecision. Hopefully all will work out.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:59 AM ^
I'll admit I've been upset the past few days. I think all Michigan fans are upset. But I think we're more upset that 1) RR could not succeed; and 2) that JH is so self-absorbed that he's essentially using his "beloved" Michigan to get god money. It sucks where we've come to. I was an RR supporter from the beginning but I really started having my doubts after Penn State. By Wisconsin, I knew it was over. Brandon had no choice but to let him go.
Now as for how Brandon has handled this so far, I don't get all the complaining. Option A was to fire RR before the bowl game and get a coach before the game. This would have meant (most likely) that none of the quality canidates that Michigan fans "demand" (i.e. coaches in an acutal bowl game) would have been interested. Did we honestly expect Patterson or Harbaugh to leave their respected programs before huge bowl games just for the "honor" of coaching Michigan? Option A would likely have resulted in a medicore candidate being hired, probably Hoke (who I don't think is so terrible by the way). It might have been better for recruiting.
Option B - fire RR before the bowl game and wait until after the Orange and Rose bowls to take our shot at JH or Patterson or whoever. No coach in the bowl game. Recruits leaving probably en masse. Not a good option.
Option C - Wait until after the bowl game to make a decision. Give RR a chance to show he could get it done. Wait for top tier coaching prospects to be done with their bowl games in case it became necessary to fire RR. This was the approach taken by Brandon, and if we are going to get the best coach possible, it seems the most logical. Sure, recruiting will hurt, but would we rather have a better recruiting class and mediiocre coach or a (we hope) great coach and poor recruiting class? I'll take the latter and I'll wait until the hire to judge Brandon. If it's Hoke, I'll admit that the pain was for nothing since he could have been hired in December. If it's someone better, then Brandon's approach made sense.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:15 AM ^
I don't have any problem with the timeline. I (potentially) have a problem with letting Rodriguez go without hiring an equally proven head coach to replace him. If we end up with Harbaugh or Miles, I see it as a move that silences the noise and gives us a chance to be good next year and going forward. If we hire Brady Hoke I see a mediocre head coach who will be lauded for his amazing "turnaround" next season before settling into the sort of predictably stale above averageness that has plagued the program.
If Brady Hoke is Brandon's answer to Jim Tressel, then he needs to get his head examined.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:59 AM ^
At this point, I'll take the above averageness over the last three years. I know we all want MNCs every year, but at this point not to suck would be great. When I consider the Hoke option, I see the following:
1. A good (not great) coach who can teach fundamentals and has turned around poor programs. SDSU had its first winning season in 12 years with Hoke. I realize that does not mean he's Michigan-caliber but he's a good coach. All analysts say that. And he knows - and loves - Michigan.
2. Probably a quality staff of former Michigan coaches. At this point, names like English, Loeffler, etc. don't sound so bad. We can probably poach some of the Florida coaches as well.
3. Sounds like Barwis is staying, so our S&C should be superior (one of the big weaknesses of the LC era).
4. Excellent recuiting. All the talk about Hoke is that he's a great guy and great recruiter. That should improve recruiting and get us in the top ten (recruiting wise) in the country each year.
Add that up and it's a receipe for lots of very good teams with the occaisonal great team laden with upperclassmen. I'll take that over the last three years.
I think reality is, there are no truly "elite" jobs anymore. All programs are on TV and you can get paid good money anywhere. If I'm well paid, on TV a lot, like where I live (quality of living) able to recruit well, and have OK faciliites, why do I give that up to go to Michigan? I hope for the home run, but I don't think that's realistic. Too many high profile jobs have come up with less than spectacular results in recent history. Coaches just don't seem as inclined to move anymore.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
Makes me completely nauseous.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^
Clean-up on aisle 3!
January 6th, 2011 at 1:33 PM ^
I hadn't realized that Mike DeBord had moved to South Florida and was posting on Michigan message boards?
January 6th, 2011 at 11:15 AM ^
This is the sanest stuff I've read here in a month. There are so many Chicken Littles out there are. How has Dave Brandon handled the non-conference schedule, the NCAA investigation, maintaining the OSU game, dissension in the Athletic Department, etc.? Why does everyone assume that he's totally messed this up when we're only half-way through the process?
...Dude's kicked ass from day one. In his pimp hand I trust.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:59 AM ^
Martin performed brilliantly, in matters of our athletic finances, fundraising, physical plant, and general morale.
Martin has been hammered mercilessly, and unfairly, for his hiring of Rich Rodriguez.
So, yeah.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:52 PM ^
Having multiple factions warring against the head coach, is not evidence that Bill Martin performed brilliantly insuring general morale of the department was high. I would place Bill Martin as one of the worst AD's Michigan has had in terms of his handling of personnel matters.
January 6th, 2011 at 1:11 PM ^
Martin deserves high credit for pulling the department out of the mess that Tom Goss created, but it ends there.
From John U. Bacon:
When Michigan's 63-year-old head coach, Lloyd Carr, announced his retirement in 2007 after 13 seasons, athletic director Bill Martin seemed genuinely surprised. At the outset of a monthlong search for his successor, ESPN reported what just about everyone suspected: former U-M player and assistant Les Miles, who was about to lead Louisiana State to a national title, would succeed Mr. Carr.
But contrary to popular belief and published reports, Michigan never tried to contact Mr. Miles, and his calls to Ann Arbor went unreturned. (Mr. Martin, who's now chairman of Bank of Ann Arbor, said Wednesday that he had been traveling in search of a coach.) Mr. Martin instead offered the position to Rutgers' Greg Schiano, who turned Michigan down.
I'm going to guess that the only person "genuinely surprised" by Carr's retirement was Bill Martin. The rest speaks for itself, and hindsight doesn't make it ok.
January 6th, 2011 at 2:30 PM ^
people are complaining just to complain. I remember tracking the last coaching search, and at that time the complaining was that Lloyd had announced his retirement too early and was making it difficult for candidates to admit their interest because they had to finish coaching their teams in the bowl games. Then we get Rich Rodriguez to abandon his team, he comes to Michigan, attends the Michigan bowl game watching Lloyd Carr coach Lloyd's team, instead of coaching his own players in their last success.
Now that it's different people are complaining the opposite way. The bottom line is, firing someone sucks, finding a new candidate is hard, and no one wants to wait to see what the decision becomes before they start criticizing what actually hasn't happened yet.
I'm stunned that so many people have already decided Brandon has failed before he's started. None of these people are explaining how it's possible to actually interview new coaches for a position that you haven't yet fired the present coach from.
Other than the fact that Brandon has close personal ties to Harbaugh, there is no one else he could have started contacting without creating a whirlwind of chaos. Just because this is college football does not change the fact that you can't offer a job to people that isn't open yet.
In my opinion this is the best way to find a coach. Will it hurt recruiting, yes of course. The only way to save the recruiting class that Rich Rodriguez is bringing in is by keeping Rich Rodriquez.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^
i don't want DR to transfer but I have all the faith in the world in DG, after all, he was very highly rated and did see the field last year and has one year of practice under his belt.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^
No offense to you or Gardner, but he hardly looked like a starting QB in 2010. Maybe he'll turn into a super-stud (and hopefully so - I'll cheer him on like crazy) but I definitely would not put all my faith in him yet. KEEP DENARD!
January 6th, 2011 at 11:51 AM ^
My memories of Denard from the 2009 season were also of a player not looking like a starting QB. It wasn't until he worked hard in the off-season that he improved his QB abilities. Devin is his roommate. Devin was witness to this.