RR Named Pac-12 COY

Submitted by UMFanstuckinOhio on

On the same day Hoke gets fired. What has happenned here. Could we look any more dumb today. This is not ment to to start a RR argument, just pointing out that it does not make us look good as a program for potential CC.

 

Edit: ESPN just put this little nugget into their story.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11968463/brady-hoke-mich…

"In a stunning coincidence, Hoke's ouster comes on the same day that it was announced that his predecessor in Ann Arbor, Rich Rodriguez was announced as the Pac-12 coach of the year."

lbpeley

December 2nd, 2014 at 3:00 PM ^

We pissed, shit and set our bed on fire and now we're lying in it.

RR may not have made it here in the long run but some real selfish, arrogant, bigoted assholes made fucking sure he wouldn't.

East German Judge

December 2nd, 2014 at 3:33 PM ^

Football Karma Baby!  And that would be one Lloyd Carr.  He was Assistant AD when RR was coach, and he NEVER, EVER said anything positive about RR in public and he encouraged players to transfer.  The egomaniac wanted to make damn sure that his successor would not succed and that people would pine for him.  Go ahed a neg me if you want, but the truth hurts!  Hope we get Jimmy to bring us back up!

Cali Wolverine

December 2nd, 2014 at 2:38 PM ^

No. I watched him coach Michigan...it was not pretty. Just because Hoke sucked at Michigan, does not mean Rich Rod didn't suck at Michigan. Hoke may be more disappointing because he had more support and recruited better at Michigan...but they both sucked and were bad choices that were reflective of poor coaching searches by the AD.

wolverine1987

December 2nd, 2014 at 3:52 PM ^

is always relevant to an argument. 

Look, at the time he got fired, most people including me felt it was inevitable after that bowl game. i would have preferred one more year--and no one knows what would have happened if RR fired Robinson and replaced him with a new DC. One thing I do know--Denard in RR's fourth year would have won the Heisman going away.

 

xcrunner1617

December 2nd, 2014 at 3:03 PM ^

I think this highlights a lot of the discourse and disagreement between the pro- and anti-Rich Rod crowds.  I think most people can come to terms with the fact that Rich Rod needed to be relieved after his third year. Losing the last few games we played the way we did, along with the cratered recruiting made it close to an impossibility to keeping him. Thats fine.

My issue is when people say he was a bad hire from the start and Michigan needs to learn from their mistakes this time around. See, I just don't think that is true in the slightest. Hiring Rich Rod was a great coaching hire and his work at Arizona continues to show he knows what he is doing in that regard.  It is everything that came after the fact that led Michigan to the point where he needed to be fired after year 3. Sure, some of that was on Rich Rod but I think most people can agree that most of it was outside his control and led to a situation where very few coaches could have thrived. 

I hope Michigan has learned a lot from the last couple of coaching searches, along with the handling of the coach once they are employed, but going out of ones way to not hire someone like Rich Rod again would be a disservice to Michigan football and its fans. 

CalifExile

December 2nd, 2014 at 5:02 PM ^

Dave Brandon completely undermined RR during his last year. Despite that, RR secured commitments from Blake Countess, Desmond Morgan, Jake Fisher, Dee Hart, Kris Frost and others.

Your assumption "that Rich Rod needed to be relieved after his third year" is false. There is every reason to believe that he would have continued to increase victories the following year and made Michigan competitive for B1G and national titles.

xcrunner1617

December 2nd, 2014 at 5:17 PM ^

I think if you live in a vacuum you are correct, but Dave Brandon was still the AD and there was a sizable contingent of influential alums pissed off and wanting a Michigan Man.  Maybe Rich Rod could have succeeded, but the probability of it getting worse and even more toxic I think is greater. Its a shame for sure, but thats it was so important to get an AD in there with some brains and common sense. 

Mr. Yost

December 2nd, 2014 at 2:20 PM ^

There isn't one...he didn't work out at Michigan. He worked out beautifully at 'Zona.

End of argument.

But hats of to him, congrats...I hope they take down Oregon this weekend and put a wrench in this CFB playoff. The man can coach some football.

The_Mad Hatter

December 2nd, 2014 at 2:22 PM ^

Are we ever going to let this go?  I could not care less what RR is doing.  He's winning at Zona?  Great, good for him.  Doesn't change the fact that he SUCKED at Michigan.

 

Mr. Yost

December 2nd, 2014 at 2:30 PM ^

You realize they aren't mutually exclusive? Saying Rich Rod sucked doesn't mean you think Hoke is good. Or vice versa.

Neither worked out at Michigan. It's really not that hard to comprehend.

You can sit here and debate who was better if you'd like...but in the end, neither worked, so you're wasting your time. 

Skapanza

December 2nd, 2014 at 2:35 PM ^

It didn't work out, and I was employing some gallows humor. But since you seem to want my take, I'm bummed RR didn't work out. He ran a very fun offense and seemed out of his element with no Casteel to run his D. I wish Michigan had given him some support and enough money to bring in Casteel. RR was a good coach in a bad situation and in my opinion more of that was on M than on Rod.

If Hoke goes on to be named Pac-12 COY I will take you to Blimpie's and buy you a quint in his memory.

Mr. Yost

December 2nd, 2014 at 2:42 PM ^

I think we ALL wish Rich Rod would've worked out, lol

I think we ALL wish Hoke would've worked out.

We just want to WIN football games, be elite, play in games that matter late in the year and run a respectable football program.

I don't think anyone cares if that program is led by Rich Rod, Brady Hoke, or this post-lunch shit I'm going to take in about 45 minutes.

My point was Rich Rod didn't work...period. Hoke didn't work...period. My shit likely would never work.

Let's stop comparing and trying to pick the best, when in truth, their tenures at Michigan were all shit.

See what I did there?

MileHighWolverine

December 2nd, 2014 at 2:43 PM ^

Kind of important to know why it didn't work though, don't you think? Because if it's in anyway our fault, and we don't make changes, it won't matter who is coaching - we are going to suck. His success elsewhere leads me to believe it really was at least 50% UofM at fault and I pray we made the necessary changes or we are headed down familiar terrirtory - Suckville, population: us.

 

Mr. Yost

December 2nd, 2014 at 3:54 PM ^

Some people says it's Michigan's arrogance, some people say it's Rich Rod's fault because he was too arrogant to think he could win without his other half...Jeff Casteel.

Again, what if both are right?

Just like Rich Rod sucked a Michigan and Hoke sucked at Michigan...what if Michigan was too arrogant AND Rich Rod was too arrogant?

It just sucks because it always has to be one or the other...especially around here. But the truth is, no one knows and all I'm saying is that it IS possible that both are correct or both are bad. That they're not mutually exclusive. It's possible.

Mr. Yost

December 2nd, 2014 at 3:54 PM ^

Some people says it's Michigan's arrogance, some people say it's Rich Rod's fault because he was too arrogant to think he could win without his other half...Jeff Casteel.

Again, what if both are right?

Just like Rich Rod sucked a Michigan and Hoke sucked at Michigan...what if Michigan was too arrogant AND Rich Rod was too arrogant?

It just sucks because it always has to be one or the other...especially around here. But the truth is, no one knows and all I'm saying is that it IS possible that both are correct or both are bad. That they're not mutually exclusive. It's possible.

MileHighWolverine

December 2nd, 2014 at 4:12 PM ^

Can't speak for anyone else but for me, the fact he had success at WVU (including bowl wins over big time programs) and now is having big success again at Arizona (including multiple wins over top programs with a young roster) is a pretty big flashing sign that maybe the problem wasn't entirely him.....and yes, he certainly was arrogant and pissed a lot of people with his style but I would have expected a competent AD to take him under their wing and smooth out the rough edges. Kind of like what was done with Bo when he first got here....

RockinLoud

December 2nd, 2014 at 2:27 PM ^

People keep bring it up because the dude is a proven very good to great football coach, and while he shoulders some of the blame for how things went down at UM, it's become more and more clear that the large majority of why he failed was because of Michigan, not RR.

Class of 1817

December 2nd, 2014 at 2:38 PM ^

No. It actually is quite far from "more and more clear that the large majority" of his failings were the fault of the university.

Two wins vs the top 20 in 3 years is not some sort of institutional admin affair.

The worst record, and consistently worst defenses in the entire history of Michigan football aren't institutional issues.

The problems were MANY...and RRod was responsible for MANY of those. Good lord...Can we please stop with this flawed argument?!

Mr. Yost

December 2nd, 2014 at 2:38 PM ^

It's no more clear than it was when he left.

Why? Because there are a bunch of differences between his time at Michigan and his time at Arizona that go beyond just the two schools, the fans, alums or admin.

You can argue on whether or not those things matter. But it's not like all of the variables are the same.

Him failing at Michigan never meant he was a bad coach. That's like saying Belichick sucks because he failed with the Browns.

He doesn't play the same teams, he doesn't play in the same weather, he doesn't play the same systems, he doesn't play in the same years, he doesn't have the same assistants, he didn't inherit the same talent, etc.

None of that really has anything to do with Michigan or Arizona...except maybe the coaches if you believe the whole Jeff Casteel thing (which is fine if you do - remove that one). 

The point is, everyone wants to compare...but it's just not the same...and it's not just because it was Michigan that failed him. There are so many differences.

It's not apples to apples or even apples to oranges. It's like apples to french fries.

UMFanstuckinOhio

December 2nd, 2014 at 2:46 PM ^

coaching football to say............coaching football. I guess I do not follow your logic. Regardles what are your thought on if this has any influence on a CC considering taking this job?