At least one Columnist thinks Rich should get another year

Submitted by M-Wolverine on

Surprisingly, it's Pete Bigelow, at AnnArbor.com.  

 

"It's not an easy call, but Dave Brandon should give Rich Rodriguez another year with the Michigan football team"

http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/making-the-case-for-rich-rod…

It's a lot of annoying, one sentence paragraphs, but at least it makes the case that he should get one more year. Even if it doesn't paint a rosy outlook that it will be the case.  A short read.

bleuadams

November 30th, 2010 at 4:05 PM ^

*****THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POST TO READ BECAUSE IT'S 'THE' TRUTH*****

#1) Michigan is NOT Jim Harbaugh's 'dream job.'  He wants an NFL job, because him and his brother are so competitive.  SD, SF, Oak and Car (and maybe even Dal and Min) are all going to be fighting over him this off-season.

#2) Dave Brandon is going to be doing absolutely everything he can to convince him to come to Michigan over the next month.

#3) In all likelihood, Rich Rod will be brought back (signing a two year extension after the bowl game), and Greg Robinson will be replaced (along with the 3-3-5).  Ron English is supposedly an early DC candidate. 

NewBlue Era

November 30th, 2010 at 5:32 PM ^

We could argue until we are blue in the face about what RR "should have" have done while he was restocking his cupboard. I guess all I can say is my belief is that RR is a "different" kind of coach. Sure Jim tressel can take any team of 4-5 star kids and average 10.5 wins/year (maybe luck into a MNC 1 time per decade)...but I still think RR, after givin time to fill the team with his specific talent (he is very specific in what his O is designed to be) he cou;ld even more succesfull than that. I cannot get angry at him for having so much confidence in HIS system...he created it and it worked for him everywhere he has coached.

I do, however, think that he may have been a little cocky and thought that it would work much faster here at M and I believe this is why he has not cltered his system. I also think that if he had to do it all over again he would do things differently, but I'm not concerned about how he did things over the past three years AS MUCH as I am concerned about what will happen going forward.

Let's think of this hypothetically

Dec 2007 - Lloyd Carr resigns and UM hires some random spread guy, say...Gary Pinkell

Gary Pinkell goes 3-9 5-7 7-5 in three seasons at UM and gets run out of town, but michigan has the exact sme roster as they do now.

RR meanwhile is still completely dominating the shitty Big Easy Conference at WVU

Wouldnt you consider him the absolute best fit to take over this team? I know you are probably gonna say no (because of the history of the last three years) but My point is this - RR fucked alot of things up in his first three years at M - but if he learns from his mistakes (and I think he has done that to an extent--his recruiting has stepped up in the D catagory particularly in this and last-years class-but it's gonna take a little time to develop these players) he could be truly special here at M. Just because he didnt make the adjustments that you talk about, doesnt mean that he is a shit coach, but that he did not understand what it was going to take to win here until after that 3-9 wake up call. He has a brilliant football mind (i will argue that with anyone any day, although I suspect you wouldn't argue that point) but he has had to learn how to apply that mindset to the big ten....he didnt play big ten football....never coached it....he had to learn it first hand. And now that he has, I have the faith that he can do the things that he (and I) thought he could do with M level talent.

qbyrd

November 30th, 2010 at 9:07 PM ^

Good to hear someone supporting our coach.  I am behind him and the team.  I haven't looked at any games from L. Carrs years since he left, but i wonder if the team put up such a fight all the time (by that i mean no plays off or half hearted play).  I am not knocking our history with L. Carr at all, but I think RR has brought something to AA that some have over looked and that is a never die attitude.  When we get this baby up and going and we are in a tough game for BCS suprmacy we know what they will do....they won't fold like the BAMA's of the world!!!!!!!!

profitgoblue

November 30th, 2010 at 2:47 PM ^

"Neg All Coaching Change Discussions" (NACCD) Policy violated.  1 MGoPoint subtracted.  No offense intended - it's a non-discretionary policy.  Although, I will reconsider all rulings if a formal request for appeal is "filed" in writing and clear states the grounds for appeal.

BlueFish

November 30th, 2010 at 4:10 PM ^

Technically, the Bigelow article was already discussed today, albeit buried in a different thread:

http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/how-bad-michigan-program-would-it-be-if-rr-went-miami

I don't find PGB's policy (or the restatement thereof) to be any more annoying than opinion postings every five minutes about the coaching situation, particularly the ones that add no new information or insight to what we already know and have discussed ad nauseum.  Personally, I find his restatement of the policy to be amusing; a necessary contribution to the user-policing of this blog.

And plus, I always tear up at the end of Gladiator (and A Beautiful Mind), so I got his back.

mschol17

November 30th, 2010 at 2:47 PM ^

I still think this is a reasonable point: "Every Wolverines football coach has gotten at least five years to prove himself since Elton Wieman only received two in 1927 and ’28."

Bo said it takes 5 years to build a program.  Give Rodriguez the same chance every Michigan coach for the last 90 years has gotten.

profitgoblue

December 1st, 2010 at 10:19 AM ^

Please be advised that you have violated the Prohibition on Coaching Change Opinions Act of 2010 (hereafter, the "Act"), profligated by Profitgoblue on November 30, 2010.  In particular, you have violated Article 2(b) of the Act which states, in part:  "Thou shalt not, under any circumstances, lobby for or otherwise argue in support of the firing of Rich Rodriguez until at least the end of 2011."



Please be further advised that, pursuant to Article 3 of the Act, the minimum fine for this violation is the loss of one (1) MGoPoint, with the maximum to be determined by the MGoCommunity.



Please be further advised that, pursuant to Article 5 of the Act, if you dispute the application of the Act to your thread/post, you have twenty-four (24) hours to "file" a formal written appeal by replying to this post.  All appeals will be considered on their merits as soon as practical, unless deemed to be frivolous by Profitgoblue in his sole discretion.

NathanFromMCounty

November 30th, 2010 at 6:38 PM ^

...the modern era of college football pretty much demands that you get 3 and done.  That's the real reason Notre Dame has struggled as much as it has because it made the Colossaly stupid decision to stick by 2 failed coaches for 5 seasons each (Bob Davie and Charlie Weis).  If they'd given them the customary 3 and out (especially in Davie's case where the writing was really on the wall) then Notre Dame would be a better place today presuming that they had handled the replacement with better judgement.

Engin77

December 1st, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^

if you were an up-and-coming coach, would you prefer to go to a school with a history of three-and-out or one with a history of abiding by their 5 year contract? Obviously, a school's coaching history impacts the quality of coach it will be able to attract.

ND has struggled because not enough elite athletes want to attend ND, not because previous coaches were retained past some arbitrary limit.

Six Zero

November 30th, 2010 at 2:47 PM ^

ENOUGH!  Brandon's thoughts are his own!  He's doing the right thing and playing this extremely close to the vest.  None of us will know anything until it has happened, if it does at all.

Why is everyone so intent on borrowing trouble?  If he stays, he stays.... if he goes, he goes.... all this hot air is stifling.

mich_engineer

November 30th, 2010 at 2:50 PM ^

The "one more year" argument fails to take one thing into account: what if it fails?  Every time this argument comes up, it comes with the assumption that next year is going to be awesome fun happy win time, but no one has answered the question: what if next year, the results are no different?  Is subjecting the program to a flailing, directionless coaching search with no clear front-runner candidates a good choice?  Must RR be kept around until the next time a perfect coaching candidate becomes available?

mich_engineer

November 30th, 2010 at 3:20 PM ^

That is a fair point.  Conventional wisdom is that he's gone, to Michigan or to an NFL team, but that likely can't be relied upon.  Personally, I don't think he's at Stanford for 2011, one way or another, and therefore, "not available" from that point on.

IF that is true (which I think it is), the real question is "is giving Rich 2011 to prove himself worth the chance that Michigan will have a head coaching vacancy with essentially no one to replace him?"  That question touches on this year as well; if Jim Harbaugh isn't available, Rich would likely not be fired.

It's just a matter of weighing the what-if's; what if Rich is fired and he's successful elsewhere / Jim Harbaugh comes here and is not successful?  Compare that to if Rich is kept, fails, and Michigan has to embark on a wild coaching search?  2007 wasn't all that peachy, if I remember.  Just my opinion, but I think option 1 carries less risk; if Rich is successful elsewhere, good for him!  If Jim Harbaugh fails, then we are officially Notre Dame, where the tailor-made coach could not turn things around.  I don't see that as being likely.  On the other hand, I'm not as confident as other posters here that next year is going to be the best season ever, and I think that a frantic coaching search would be far more damaging in the long run.

Derek

November 30th, 2010 at 5:13 PM ^

If Harbaugh wants to be the long-term coach for UM, won't he still want that next year? If he wants to be an NFL head coach, on the other hand, won't he still want to do that if he's hired here? If he wants this job, I think he feels comfortable in a holding pattern at Stanford to keep proving what he can do in a major conference.

NathanFromMCounty

November 30th, 2010 at 6:43 PM ^

...he knows he'll never have the type of offers he has now because Stanford *always* comes to Earth (if Bill Walsh couldn't make them a consistent winner, no one can).  So he's going *somewhere* after this season, the question is where.  So if we wait one more year he won't be available.

Blue in Yarmouth

November 30th, 2010 at 3:12 PM ^

it sounds a lot like a rhetorical question. Here, let me show you: I think RR deserves one more year to prove, with his players, whether he can compete in the big ten or not.

That implies (deserves one more year) that if he doesn't prove it, you fire him. Do you think maybe that is the answer to your question....I'm just throwing that out there.

mich_engineer

November 30th, 2010 at 3:28 PM ^

It isn't rhetorica, it's asking to look at the consequences of a choice.  There's been a ton of discussion about what the consequences would be of a Jim Harbaugh hire.  I haven't seen a discussion of the consequences of keeping Rich Rodriguez for "one more year," beyond how the defense would be better, etc etc.  I'm trying to point out that "one more year" may not be as feasible as people think, especially if the University wants an orderly transition, and not a repeat of 2007.

M-Wolverine

November 30th, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^

Completely justified.  I posted this checking to see if it had been posted, but not how ad nauseam the whole subject had been. I thought someone actually saying "More time!" in the media was a unique occurrence, but it did add to the overload. Mock away. 

34Hybrid

November 30th, 2010 at 4:20 PM ^

his only problem is not establishing an identity on defense in AA. Lets hope he gets one more year and doesn't look back...Lets shock the world next season and bring Michigan back!