Great quote from RVB regarding alumni
"You know, it's just kind of unsettling that there's ... it's great that they're back, but it's kind of, where have they been the last two or three years?" Van Bergen said. "We've still been wearing the same helmets since they were here."
This echoes something similar to what Brian wrote last week asking the same question.
it is easy to "turn the page" when you whiff on your first three choices
We have a coach, his name is Brady Hoke. We had a coach, his name was Rich Rodriguez. Two facts. They are not changing. Can we get off of this topic please and focus on, as Bo would say, "The team, the team, the team?"
i think you are misunderstanding me - the idea to "turn the page" was a band-aid for previous AD martin not getting any of his first choices and being forced to make a big splash by getting a fancy name, regardless of "fit"
its ok to talk about history in a productive manner, after all, you are quoting a speech from four coaches ago.
April 18th, 2011 at 10:52 AM ^
Since when do we want to revisit our past? History is old news. Why on earth would we want to relive any of it. I mean, who cares about 132 yrs and 42 conference championships. Michigan has never been about the past, so to bring up the last three years is rediculous.
/s
On a serious note, I think RVB has an excellent point that no matter who the coach was, the players are still Michigan Men that wore the winged helmets. You'd think former players brotherhood would go past some of the petty disagreements in support of the team. I think Mike Hart was trying to tread lightly in his interview, but I felt that I could see the disapointment in the lack of support.
Despite this, I think Brady Hoke is a really good guy and coach, and has brought in some great support staff who will do him well. And, thanks to our previous staff, we have a roster full of great student athletes who represent us well on and off the field, and are easy to support.
Although I am a little irked by the lack of support over three years, I am not going to refuse it now. Alumni support, and past player involvement is a huge plus to our program in particular. My hope is by fall, unity will be back among fans (minus the down in fronts vs stand ups and create noise crowds).
April 18th, 2011 at 11:55 AM ^
Excellent point. We need to put an end to this stand-up vs. sit-down crowd divisiveness. This is what Van Bergen should be addressing:
I'm tired of being told to sit down. I'm gonna stand and be loud. I get excited at football games so deal with it, sit-down people. Watch it in beautiful high-def and give your tickets to your kids of you can't stand up for exciting parts of the Michigan game. ARGGGGH!
/rant over.
that the down in front/ make noise Michigan split will never end. For it seems that alumni with money continue to age, and with that age, brings an unfounded right to sit during a game (except for quarters and halftime when they want to stretch their legs).
I'm all in for RVB. He is spot on with his comments.
That is fine if these crybaby former players did not like RR, but you still support your team, and you still support the current players. They had no say in choosing RR, and RVB was one of the one's that was there/committed before RR.
The team, the team, the team. Period.
but the thing that pisses me off is that I've been here defending people via posting on the internet, and these comments make it sound like I'm sitting on my butt doing nothing.....
Is this sarcasm? Because this is really weird otherwise.
Edit: oops, wrong thread. I have nothing to say here. Sorry.
The guy is a leader.
A-freaking-men Van Bergen!
Several former players I know have stated they felt the previous staff was ambivalent towards them. That RR and his staff tolerated them but never embraced them or what they consider Michigan to be. More than one stated (and I paraphrase) that they were made to feel passe by RR and his staff.
It is not the "break from traditions" that was RR's mistake. No, it was the loss of continuity that permeated the program with each passing day of RR's tenure. RR's decision-making in this regard isolated his program from what is the very strength of the Michigan program.
Hoke has worked hard to bring the boys back to town and not only that, he wants to integrate them into the program. He has embraced the former players in a manner RR was not interested in doing. These recruits talk about the current Michigan players and how they are genuine, humble and sincere. Pay attention because some of them also talk about seeing the former players and how they act the same way.
Continuity. Tradtion, Family. These are the things resonating from Hoke's program and coaching staff. Not just Hoke, Mattison and Mallory,but the entire coaching staff. This is what is being embraced by the former players.
Now, you should not interpret my comments as being anti-RR. While I do feel RR made a poor decision in not educating himself about Michigan and embracing its rich and storied history on a level he might of I also feel Michigan never embraced RR as it might have. The truth is RR is a good football coach, a good man, but a terrible fit at Michigan.
If blame must be assigned for RR's failure it needs to be laid at the feet of Bill Martin (and MSC) for hiring him and placing in him an untenable position. Bill Martin should have known better and might well have. To his credit, I believe BM recognized and became caught up in the growing rift within Michigan that swirled about Lloyd Carrs management of the program, but instead of acting decisively as a leader should he allowed that coaching search to turn into a fiasco leading to the cop out hire of RR. And, yes, that is exactly what it was.
However, what needs to be addressed and promoted and even revelled in is this - Michigan is being reunited under Hoke (and Brandon's) leadership. There is a positivity about the program that has been absent since the latter part of the Carr era. The energy is coming back into the program and that bodes well for all of us.
This was an awesome post. You hit the nail on the head - RR is a good coach, good man, etc., but ultimately was a lousy fit at Michigan. I concur that some of the blame lies with BM but RR is not blameless either. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to arrive at Michigan and realize that we are just a bit obsessed with our tradition, past, Bo, etc. RR should have realized this and made more of an effort to bring the former players into the fold.
April 18th, 2011 at 10:23 AM ^
I don't get the whole "fit" argument. If RR had gone 39-0, Braylon would be having snowball fights outside Fort Schembechler and drinking coco in RR's office afterwords. "Fit" is a nice way of saying "not winning enough".
Further (and this isn't directed at you, just in general) why is it that M is the only school to think this way about tradition and connections? I don't follow closely, but I don't see anywhere near the controversy about Florida bringing in Muschamp; I don't see OSU wanting to hire "an Ohio Man" if Tressel gets canned. It seems like every other school just wants the best coach they can get.
April 18th, 2011 at 10:31 AM ^
I agree the whole attitude of "this is how it was. this is how it is. this is how it is going to be." is bullshit.
If RR had come in, and only lost 5 games in his first three seasons, he would have been idolized and there would have never been an issue with some of the "new" traditions he begun, and some of the old ones that fell by the wayside.
Although I wasn't alive during the time, I believe Bo (who lost a total of 5 games his first three seasons) shook up the program a little bit when he arrived. And he was an OSU guy.
The tradition thing is bullshit. The alumni crapped out on Rich Rod because he went 3-9 his first year, and didn't get exceptionally better after that. End of fucking story.
April 18th, 2011 at 11:11 AM ^
Playing devils advocate with your argument:
If RR had come in and only lost 5 games in his first three seasons he would not have felt so threatened by what the former players represent.
I believe RR felt tremendous pressure to live up to Michigan. He came in confident of his methodology and went about molding the program into his vision for it. That was to be expected and was for the most part accepted at first.
RR was also naive and overconfidence, some might say arrogance, can have that impact.
Most, including former players, recognized that change was needed in Michigan football. It is important to remember the change most were advocating -> Les Miles, Urban Meyer, Mike DeBord and even Brady Hoke. What BM gave us was drastic change.
RR was doomed from the moment he was hired in some regards. Being the one to usher in such drastic change he was never, and I do mean never, going to be fully accepted at Michigan. Had RR and the spread enjoyed a bit more early success, had RR been able to field even a mediocre defense, the result would have been positive change in the sense that his successor could have been of his mold. That RR failed and did so on such a grand level gave Dave Brandon no choice but to move the program back towards where it was before.
Will the spread ever make it's way back to Michigan? Only if Hoke fails on the same level as RR failed will there be a chance for that to happen.
But leave no doubt, RR did not fail because of the spread offense. RR did not fail because of not being able to establish a healthy relationship with former players - he would have overcome that with winning seasons. RR failed because he fielded the worst defensive teams in 130+ years of Michigan football. The one thing he never embraced is one of the two things that have permeated Michigan since Bo arrived - Defense Wins Championships.
The other thing, of course, is The TEAM, the TEAM, the TEAM. RR failed here too. This is really where the former players enter the picture. You might need to have been closely associated with the program to fully appreciate what I am about to write - once a member of The TEAM, always a member of The TEAM.
April 18th, 2011 at 11:20 AM ^
"RR was doomed from the moment he was hired in some regards. Being the one to usher in such drastic change he was never, and I do mean never,going to be fully accepted at Michigan."
I really don't understand this line of thinking. From my perspective, if Hoke comes out playing single platoon football snapping to the halfback and brings back the Yost-era pickle salesman, I would be ecstatic if he won the B1G and the MNC and would support him playing that same style next season. I think that says more about the people who would still dislike hypothetically-awesome record RR than it does about anyone else, and I think what it says is that they're very petty. Every instance I can think of leads me to believe that winning = fit.
By the way, if what you're saying is that you lettered in FB, that's really awesome. Hope to see some more good posts like in this thread, because that's really cool.
April 18th, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^
"The other thing, of course, is The TEAM, the TEAM, the TEAM. RR failed here too. This is really where the former players enter the picture. You might need to have been closely associated with the program to fully appreciate what I am about to write - once a member of The TEAM, always a member of The TEAM."
With respect, I disagree.
The TEAM x3 is 99.9999999% about the guys on the field, that team. Read through the speech, it's about the players, here and now. The players under RR, who stayed, were very close. DR, Mike Martin, RVB have all talked about it.
Former players have little to do with it. It's lovely to see them on the sidelines, makes for a nice TV spot, but has little impact on the field. Sure they can offer up their experiences, but when it comes to game day, those doesn't matter.
April 18th, 2011 at 12:36 PM ^
I see you are in agreement with RR's attitude on this. I respect that. Don't agree with it, but are entitled to your opinion.
Respectful debate... That's why I enjoy coming here.
April 18th, 2011 at 10:12 AM ^
all these people who suddenly feel so at home (which to my mind carries more than a trace of revisionism) are going to be two years from now when M is still not on top.
I assume Hoke can make the team a contender again--his humility is a virtue in this regard. But I don't think it happens quickly.
It's quite possible the thing had become so ugly under RR, on all sides, that he had to go. But otherwise, a long wait for Hoke (to my mind) will only strengthen the argument that RR should have had another year. And since even aholes tend to get behind winners, we will always wonder whether RR would have magically become a Michigan man once he started winning.
April 18th, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^
I for one am not epecting a great season from Michigan football in 2011.
There exists a belief that had Michigan fielded even a medicore defense to go with last season's offense that the team might have contended. Now that Mattison is back and a defensive minded head coach is in place there seems to be an expectation that Michigan is back.
Ha!
What we saw in the spring game was very much a work in progress. I anticipate a winning season next fall but not a great season. This team will continue to struggle until the roster is rebuilt.
BTW, rebuilding the roster is the primary reason I was skeptical of the RR hire and yet pulled so hard for him to succeed. For if RR washed out, I knew it would mean another roster makeover and perpetuate the "rebuilding" of the program.
Hoke has a 6 year contract and I fully epect it to take at least 3 years to return to consistently contending for Big 10 and national honors.
April 18th, 2011 at 11:37 AM ^
If you're note expecting much form this team this year, in 2011, it might not get much better with our brutal 2012 schedule, with or without a brilliant recruiting class. And then that makes Hoke's year-3 a make-or-break, because like we all know you only get 3 years, right?
April 18th, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^
I was waiting for you, Section 1 :-)
We all know Hoke will get more than 3 years!
April 18th, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^
The only thing that would preterminate Hoke's coaching tenure would be some kind of front-page scandal; the kind of thing that would lead to an NCAA invetigation, and make the most loyal of loyalists think, "Ooooh, this is not the Michigan Way..."
That, and a losing record. But with the talent that Hoke is lucky to have on hand, I don't expect any losing seasons.
April 18th, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^
Just frustration that he'll get more than three years, pretty much, no matter what.
I know where you stand and, most of time, I'm there with you.
April 18th, 2011 at 12:52 PM ^
Would being found guilty of five major NCAA rules infractions during his first season as coach at U of M limit his tenure to three years?
If for something on par with the "stretching/monitoring" "major" infractions, (but not those, specifically, because we/he ought to be EXTRA attuned to those issues) the answer is an unqualified "no, he wouldn't be fired after year 3 because of said 'major' violations."
Stop making strawmen arguments.
I'm not trying to be rude, but you're naive if you don't think the infractions didn't play an enormous role in RR only getting three years. Not just the infractions themselves, but the overall tumult they caused in 2009 into 2010, the emotional pleas which hit RRs image, etc.
If Hoke was to face similar charges ("minor" major violations if you will), I would hope he would handle the situation in a stronger manner or else he'd face the exact same credibility loss that RR did.
Uh, not this again. Read the NCAA report. No findings "stretch" back to the Carr era. Not a single one. The cited dates never go back further than January 2008.
Thank you for that, but I think I'll go with the official NCAA report which is available here: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/b2798f804490f660b2ddb6c8c7999200/20101104+Univ+of+Michigan+report.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=b2798f804490f660b2ddb6c8c7999200
I urge you to read the entire document and see if you can find anything indicting a regime other than RRs in there.
The beauty of your citing the full text of the NCAA report, is that it is devoid of any allegation, or any proof, of any active wrongdoing by Rich Rodriguez, other than a single mention of a "failure to supervise" a couple of graduate assistants, who were themselves accused only of the astonishing NCAA-crime of insisting that some players, who missed summer-term classes, push a weight on the practice field.
And so, compare, to the original newspaper story that implied an abusive atmosphere, endangering the best interests of student-athletes, and which prompted Drew Sharp to ask Michigan's Athletic Director, "You were cheating, weren't you? Isn't all of this cheating?"
We don't typically agree on RR issues, Section 1, but I'm in 100 percent agreement with you on this one. Rich, as the man in charge at the time, has to accept responsibility for all of the violations, however my reading of the report shows there was clearly no evil intent or even an attempt to gain a competitive advantage and that the violations were more matters of ignorance and misunderstanding.
Just wanted to chime (back) in. I guess I don't think the violations played as much of a role as you do. I'm not sure either of us can or does really "know." FTR, I didn't think you were being rude using "naive." Perhaps I'm underselling the role of the violations, but I got the idea from DB that he thought it was utter crap, mostly, and a witchhunt due to the Freep's exagerrations.
April 18th, 2011 at 12:20 PM ^
while I would have preferred a dynamic spread attack to manball, if it works out that way--and Hoke is on track to success--I will pull for that fourth year for him, too.
This kinda crystallizes my feelings about the coach change: if Brandon honestly felt the atmosphere had become so poisonous that a change was necessary, cool. If it was just to get a Michigan man back in, play to the stodgy alumni, or get his old boy network back in place then. . . woe betide us. Because this thing is likely to be another slow build.
P.S. I should stop calling it manball; the whole meme is wrong. We didn't play manball under Lloyd, either.
April 18th, 2011 at 12:32 PM ^
1) Hoke wants to play "man ball" or power football and this roster has been built for the spread.
2) Depth along both lines is very thin. A significant injury or two in either of these units, but especially the DL, would be disasterous. And unfortunately injuries are common in football.
3) We were 7-6 last season and our best win was probably over UConn. Looking at the 2011 schedule I believe we should win 7 with a couple of games being toss ups and probably 3 losses minimum. I would take 8-4 going into the bowl game. A good season, but not a great one.
I'm glad RVB said this, we have all known that *some* fans/alumni/former players were just looking for a reason to say FU to RR.
Probably 2/3 of my friends who are M fans did the exact same thing, before the '08 season started it was oh yea! I love RR and as soon as we started loosing it was fire him right away he sucks and that attitude prevailed through his tenure.
I do not have any inside knowledge of the program or know any former players but I find it hard to believe any college coach would turn down former players that wanted to stop by and say hi/watch practice. Why? because when you have Chuck or Mike Hart standing on the sideline, it gives you more motivation to become that 100% badass that both of those players were.
RR's record and style of coaching made it easy for everyone to check out, which they did. The players like Hart that did show up seem to have gelled well with the staff.
Saying none of this stuff happend and saying move on is just pulling the wool over your eyes. If the players noticed it then it indeed became a problem that is worth talking about.
April 18th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^
Absolutely. Fans from different schools have varying levels of patience. I remember this quote RR said (please correct me if i heard wrong, but paraphrasing) at the airport when he was leaving WV for Michigan : RR said fans at the airport in WV told him he better not start the same way at Mich that he did at WV and that Mich fans will not have the same level of patience. RR said something along the lines of I know I won't have the same leeway.
leadership by RVB. I am happy that he said what clearly was on some of the team's minds.
where is the link to this quote? When did he say it, to who? where? etc.
Overall I think everyone is placing too much of the recent good PR on the coaches. David Brandon is a marketing expert and is ramping up this kind of awareness. Rich Rodriguez didn't invent the spring game. The spring game open to the public in The Big House didn't happen his first season, it happened after the locker rooms were upgraded and enough of the stadium was constructed to make a visit impressive.
If I were a player who had worked hard during three years of a fired coaches tenure, I would be feeling very similarly to Ryan. Even the most neutral comment is being cast in the context of "everything sucked last year but now it's awesome". How else could you take that as a member of the team if not very personally?
Watching all the interviews of Spring Practice I think the present coaching staff is tired of these questions also. Even Brandstatter's questions are not answered directly, and just given the, "these guys are working hard, they need to keep working and there is more time to practice in the summer/fall before the season starts", "Oh and also, Water is wet, Go Blue!"
Anyone who wants to create a discussion about how the increase of support now for Hoke is crap and the non support of Rodriguez is crap is just as annoying as the simple minded press casting this coaching staff change as "the rebirth of tradition" and all the fair weather fans chiming in.
What excites me about this quote, if it's true, is that it demonstrates the bonding that still exists in this team, and the leadership that Ryan Van Bergen will be showing next year. That is a statement meant to own whatever success or failure happens next season.
You are as good as your last game, and the game is played by the players.
Linky:
http://detnews.com/article/20110418/SPORTS0201/104180345/Michigan-recei…
Yay DetNews. Boo Freep.
/ obligatory
April 18th, 2011 at 10:02 AM ^
Because someone read it at the Freep. If I were you, I would occasionally go to the Freep & Detnews websites and click on their Wolverine coverage. While people are free not to like a particular writer or editorial board, sometimes, you need to let things go and move on. (Hopefully Section1 doesn't read this post.)
April 18th, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^
I don't. Even more than taking stock of what appears in the local papers for informational purposes, we (the Wolverine cognoscenti) need to take stock of the fact that the local papers drive the Michigan football narrative for everybody who isn't a member of the MGoBoard. Particularly in an internet age wherein 800 papers, websites and news services across the country will pick up something like a completely erroneous Mark Snyder story about how "Rich Rodriguez compared the team's season to Hurricane Katrina." And how local sportstalk radio mostly just echoes the sports writers and the conventional wisdom.
Undoubtedly, some of the former players felt they were being pushed aside or ignored.
By the same token, it is obvious that some of the current players (the team, the team, the team) feel that they were abandoned by some of the very people whose images adorn Schembechler Hall.
At this point, the why hardly matters. They do need to come together and hopefully learn from this.
April 18th, 2011 at 10:20 AM ^
I have heard from more than one person I deem credible that Rodriguez' staff had no interest in Lloyd Carr being around, and were openly disrepctful to much about his tenure. I find it hard to believe that RR could really have been disrespectful (or so stupid to say it aloud) -- to someone who put as much time and effort into the program, kids and the University as Lloyd. If true, tho, it's certainly not hard to predict that former players of Carr wouldn't go out of their way to show up.
April 18th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^
Mike Hart was one of the players that came back when RR was here. He said as much in his interview and Mike loved Carr.
April 18th, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^
Lloyd Carr "being around" is ambiguous and possibly loaded - did RR ignore him completely and act rude? Or was Lloyd too intrusive, trying to run things? Maybe RR was irked players were going to Lloyd instead of him. Having the old guy around if he's not 100% supportive of the new guy can definitely be a huge and insidious negative influence in an organization. Lloyd never said anything bad about RR but he was never openly supportive either - maybe it's RR who really felt unwelcome.
Not saying that's what happened, but it could be an explanation for RR giving Lloyd the cold shoulder.
Unfortunately we'll never know, since there are no unbiased observers. Someone like RVB, who's on coach #3, is probably as close as we'll get, and he probably didn't see the whole story either.