Mitch Albom gets it mostly right about Rodriguez
Mitch Albom addresses RR's job security in the Freep today and actually gets it mostly right. In case you don't want to link, the main quote goes as follows:
"But I will say this to the Maize-and-Blue Nation. Be careful what you wish for.
And ask yourself who you want to be.
Do you want to be a program that hires and fires football coaches with the frequency of a lousy NBA franchise? Remember, every time a college coach is fired, dozens of players who had a personal commitment from the man are left hanging. You don't trade them. You don't buy new ones. Meanwhile, dozens of high school recruits are tossed into the air of uncertainty. And money -- which could be going to academic resources -- is instead paid to men who are no longer on the job."
The rest of the article is here:
http://www.freep.com/article/20091120/COL01/911200348/1354/SPORTS/Shoul…?
November 20th, 2009 at 7:47 AM ^
ended up with the phone getting smashed by Bo's foot." Pretty good stuff from Album, he's due I guess. I think the only rebuttal to the overall tone of the article would be how long do you maintain status quo if the product is not improving. I guess that firing Rodriguez for performance alone would be premature this year, but only if there is are real prospects of improvement. I know that maybe too much is being placed on the game this weekend, but I do find it to be a pretty good measuring stick for a lot of things.
What this game will test is fight. Will this team fight, for their university, for their coach? With everything on the line, will they fight or fold. RR has been here long enough to for the most part instill his persona, his character into his players and this team. With all the cards down and really, really needing a win, if Michigan cannot manage a competitive performance, it is time to ask if time will, in fact, change anything? I don't think the entire answer is ascertainable from this Saturday, but I think this game means a lot, and I believe the team will respond with fire, because I believe there is a lot of fire in Rodriguez. With about ten four star recruits in the stands and the big house in rare form, win or lose, I believe there will be a message sent this weekend by then men in blue to the Buckeyes and the entire Big Ten... beat Michigan while you can, because those days are numbered.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:32 AM ^
Generally I think Albom is a complete idiot but, for once, he makes a bit of sense.
This is Michigan, not Alabama.
November 20th, 2009 at 7:57 AM ^
This sounds a lot like Albom used to before he started drinking his own kool-aid. I wonder if he has been going to an ego detox program?
November 20th, 2009 at 7:58 AM ^
7-5 season, which breaks down like this
1)a 3-1 out of conference record (I'm assuming a loss to ND as they will have lots of people back, and M sucks in southbend)
2) a 4-4 conference mark with...
3) One of those wins required to be vs. MSU (he cant lose 3 years in a row to sparty)
6-6 or worse, I'd say he is gone...
November 20th, 2009 at 8:19 AM ^
this far out, but I wouldn't assume a loss to ND. Claussen and Tate will likely be gone as will most of their O line. The D sucks and they could have a brand new coach running a brand new system.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:30 AM ^
Before the start of the season, I wanted at least .500. I may get that yet, but pretty damn close otherwise. After the 4-0 start, I got over excited. Oh well, I should listen to myself.
Last year, we lost to teams we shouldn't have outside the big 10 (toledo). This year, we spanked the out of conference, lost to teams we shouldn't have in conference, and beat one of the rivals (...so far...). I'm not happy, but I understand it and see the improvement.
Next year, I expect at least 8 wins, with wins over the low rent big ten teams. And at least 2 rivals down (of ND, MSU and OSU). That puts us square in the Carr years. The naysayers may not be happy, but I think (hope) that puts this team on course for a NC run year 4.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:18 AM ^
Any person with even a little football sense would realize that you can't fire Rodriguez after two years, especially when you look at who he's had to play the quarterback position - a RS sophomore walk-on, a RS freshman pocket passer, and two true freshmen.
November 20th, 2009 at 9:05 AM ^
is the people that do have football sense throw it out the window when teams start losing. people were jumping off of the ledge last year because they didn't want to give RR a chance. then michigan starts 4-0 and all of those jumpers come back, michigan loses games and they are all start jumping again and are calling for his head. as i've tried to explain to few of my friends that want him gone, i've had to tell them that by firing him it won't help and it will make things worse. i've been using the lions as an example, they've had 6 coaches in the last 8 years. and just because you changed coaches every 2 or 3 years your team will never get better it will either stay the same or get even worse.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:45 AM ^
i also wish people also would put into perspective(and this is also maybe why they complain). in the hiring of RR(in whom i trust) the last 100yrs of mich. football changed and went in a different direction. you are not gonna change that much history in just 2yrs. anything less than his 4 yrs before any talk of dismissal is crazy IMO.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:30 AM ^
... Mitch understands Michigan football; he was probably closer to Bo than any other journalist.
I certainly hope Michigan wins tomorrow, and definitely hope if they don't cooler heads prevail and RichRod gets the necessary time. The NCAA stuff is the only wildcard in the "3 years minimum" general rule.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:43 AM ^
http://www.freep.com/article/20091120/COL01/911200348/1354/SPORTS/Shoul…
Print version if anyone wants to read this without giving the Freep click revenue.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:53 AM ^
"Be careful what you wish for"--a familiar line. He also used it when Carr retired. And when Rodriguez was hired. Now, he uses it yet again to warn about losing patience with Rich Rod.
And call me a skeptic, but money that could be put "toward academic recourse"? Really? Fuck that. Didn't Rodriguez just have to practially apologize for the team achieving a new standard for high team GPA? Besides, the guys who would be paying for any buyouts either already have given money for academic resources, or they never will, because they give money for athletics.
I hate when these guys write about academics. Really, Mitch, then go cover the Yale-Harvard matchup.
November 20th, 2009 at 9:51 AM ^
well, actually i like it when they discuss academics. now i think he's wrong about how this money would go to academics becaue that is not what happens especially after bill martin has saved the budget; however, as being both an udergraduate and graduate alum of the univerrsity i take great pride in our academic reputation. wuite frankly, i think it is our ability to be both world class in academics as well as sports that separates us from all others. over the past century no other school can make the claims of consistency in achievements in both academics and athletics that michigan can. some were hot, some are hot, no other has been as consistent.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:04 AM ^
There are rules that must be followed when replying to my posts.
Number one: When using the gratuitous "Um Alum" insertions, if they are offset by a post that resembles the text message of an average 8th grader, well, go ahead and just fuck the fuck off.
That's about the only rule, really. You resemble a Michigan grauate like the fucks on Scout do. They claim it, but really, it's about as believable as when coming from you.
Graduate alum, indeed.
Putz.
Edit: You're goddamm right this post is a blatant ad hominem attack, and I'm proud of it.
November 20th, 2009 at 12:25 PM ^
I love, "...just fuck the fuck off.". I'll have to use that this weekend!! Thanks for making me laugh at lunch - I needed that.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:28 AM ^
I think you're right to be skeptical. I have no idea what Albom means.
If he means U-M would spent the salary money on general undergraduate education, then he misunderstands the budget and the fact that Athletics is an auxiliary unit. U-M never faces the choice of "do we spend this dollar on coaches, or the library" because they're entirely separate.
If he means that Athletics might use that money to beef up the academic center or athletic tutoring or something, then I guess that's credible but I'm not sure it's a particularly strong argument.
If he means that big donors who donate to the athletic department to help buy off an old coach (or pay for a new one) would otherwise be giving money to U-M's educational enterprise--that's no sure thing.
Either way Albom is taking a good point (why tie up resources on paying off coaches you discarded too quickly) and muddying it up with vague references to "academics."
November 21st, 2009 at 12:30 AM ^
The bit about do you want to be known as an institution that goes after coaches under contract, which was a complaint he had about Rich's hire too (but not, curiously, Beilein). Aren't ALL coaches under contract, other than the unemployed? Who are unemployed for a reason, generally. Or wait till their contract is up? Before they sign an extension? Assistants only? Don't they have contracts? Can only hire from within? How does that work anyway? And does that no hiring anyone under contract only apply to coaches? Or journalists too? Was he fired when he took the Freep job? Is he a freelancer now? Or is he stuck in that job?
November 20th, 2009 at 8:57 AM ^
by two scores. The "fighting uhhhhh?" will get it done this weekend.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:00 AM ^
I have managed to live without any Mitch (columns, plays, books, radio, etc.) since he contrived that column about the former MSU players at the Final Four, then had the temerity to act like it was no big deal. He has also disrespected the owner of dis here blog, also an egregious act.
Avoiding Mitch and the Freep are two things I'm doing to make the world a better place. What are you doing?