A sobering thought about what RR is up against
As I was LOL'ing through another article on CW, I came across this line:
"Charlie Weis is 35-26 at Notre Dame."
So RR would have to go 8-4, 9-3, 9-3 in the next three years just to have the SAME winning percentage (not including bowls) as Charlie FREAKING Weis.
Going 8-4 next will not be easy by any means. After that we should be rolling, but no coach can guarantee going better than 9-3 any given year and even if he managed to pull it off, he would be no more than 1-2 games better than CW.
Given the amount of disdain for CW around these parts (me included), that is a sobering thought indeed.
I will go find a nice hard wall to slam my head against now.
Glad I could cheer you up : - )
November 24th, 2009 at 8:57 AM ^
While that may be what RR has to do to have the same record as CFB, RR would be on an upward swing. The problem with CFB is he had a winning record with someone else's players, and now in year 5 that he has his own guys, they are going backwards. RR, on the other hand, is having bad years at the front end with someone else's players. If he then puts up 9-3 years, people will point to it as a sign of improvement now that he has his own guys. So while if he has the win totals you said he would have the same total record as CFB, they would be viewed in very different ways, and with good reason I might add.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:07 AM ^
I don't think you can compare records. It is more when the success comes. Charlie had his best year in his first year with the "horrible" talent that Willingham brought in. After his first two years his record went south.
RichRod should show some nice improvement next year and from there he will be alright.
Status of one of my Granger, IN friends on Facebook today:
"Cool Property for sale by us - 8 acres, indoor riding stable with 6 stalls, baseball diamond, heated pool. Owner eager to sell - just ask for Charlie."
November 24th, 2009 at 9:27 AM ^
for the horses sake, that Charlie isn't the rider of any one of those horses.......
November 24th, 2009 at 9:07 AM ^
You have to look at who those wins are over, also. CW's biggest win is a loss against USC. If RR can start pulling off wins against OSU, Iowa, Penn State, and can start winning big bowl games against pac 10 and sec opponents, he will be more accomplished - even if his win/loss isn't better than CW's.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:11 AM ^
...with a decidedly different trend
November 24th, 2009 at 9:12 AM ^
biggest hurdle (or measuring stick) is wins and losses next year. He must have a .500 record, that is about all. If Rodriguez is(was) going to get canned with the quickness it will(would) happen right now. 3-9 and then 5-7 with an NCAA investigation and plenty of mounting bad will, if he was going to be held to a short-term mandate he would already be out. More than anything next year, Rodriguez has to show serious, developing talent on the defensive side of the football and a consistent-coherent scheme to go with it. In addition, the special teams chaos needs to be eliminated and the basics of his offense have to be second nature and instinctive. If(when) Rod gets a third year he will get a sixth and seventh, and the focus shifts to overall big picture growth as opposed to necessarily W-L record and the particular "middle of the road" bowl game that Michigan will go to for the next two or three years. If(when) Rod is the coach next year, he will be for a long time.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:14 AM ^
sobriety is for the weak. give me intoxication. i want rich rod wine coolers.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:14 AM ^
I think Brian should make it illegal to mention Fat Charlie and Rich Rod in the same sentence.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:18 AM ^
The importance of the rivalry games for Michigan is far greater than for many other universities. Record means alot, but performance in the key games is even more important (my opinion)
November 24th, 2009 at 10:31 AM ^
Couldn't disagree more. As a national power, our goal should be winning the B10, playing in a BCS bowl every year and regularly being included in the National Championship discussion. MSU, on the other hand, considers us their annual super bowl, and if they beat us, they consider it a successful season, even if they end up in the Pizza Pizza or Motor City Bowl.
Beating teams like MSU, ND and even OSU is obviously something that we all want, and something that will be necessary for us to have the record to justify being part of the B10 or national championship picture, but would you really be happy to beat MSU, ND and OSU if our final record was always in the 6-6 or even 8-4 range? I think not.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:43 AM ^
Michigan finished the season 5-7, we didn't make a bowl game. Maybe you haven't noticed but there is more than a little work to do here. Step One, eliminate the culture of entitlement (demonstrated aptly by your national championship mandate), I believe that this initial step is nearly complete. Step 2 is now personnel, particularly on the defensive side of the ball, to be able to compete regularly and contend in the conference. We got a while here, if you are thinking national championships quick, I would buy a Gator hat. And yes, 8-4 next year with wins against MSU, OSU, and ND would be very good, count me in.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:46 AM ^
I think most of us will admit that we don't expect a national champoinship next year (or in the next couple years), but eventually our goal should be to win or be in the hunt for the national championship every year.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:09 PM ^
...are right.
Beating ND, Sparty and tOSU are huge and go a long way to speak for the success of our season. Hearing BGraham and co talking about the Ohio State game and what it would mean for the season demonstrates that. But it's also not everything.
And while yes, there is an air of entitlement at Michigan, it is justifyable so...it is what separates us from the Purdues, Illinois and Indianas of the conference. What we have realized is that we now have to earn it. There is no reason why Michigan cannot be in the Big Ten title hunt or National Championship discussion like tOSU, USC's, Florida's and Texas.
IMO opinion that's part of why RRod was brought in - to be in that discussion. I think fans were realizing that in order to do that, we had to alter our schemes and coaching philosophy to adapt to a new era of football. While the last two years have been a rough transition phase and made us realize that this will take time, I hope we don't lose sight of the ultimate goal in mind.
So yes, being in the Big Ten and National championship picture are definitely the long-term goal and can be attained. But rivalry games are also a part of that goal - not to the extent Little Brother takes it, but how can one be in the Title hunt if we do not consistently win against the Big Three? They go hand in hand.
And yes, there is an air of entitlement, but you would be kidding yourself if you thought there wasn't something special about playing here. Michigan football is special from the traditions to the history - I think the difference is realizing that this must be earned and not to taking it for granted. The expecting to line up and win with frosh QBs and a walk-on defense simply because we have winged helmets line of thinking must be replaced...but to think we can no longer compete at a national level is also for fools.
We will always be the Victors and IMO we must not lose sight of the long-term goal that Rodriguez was brought in to achieve.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:33 PM ^
...is unrealistic given that OSU and PSU are in our conference. They will always have comparable talent and good coaches, so we cannot expect to beat at least one of them and not lose to anyone else *every single year*, even if God is our coach.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:21 AM ^
because he's not Charlie Weis.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:33 AM ^
after 5 years because the team would be back to it's winning ways. Their might be some grousing, but for the most part I feel we would be at least satisfied with that trend. Personally, I find 9-3 seasons not just acceptable, but good; regardless of what the rest of the football world thinks, I know the Big Ten is a good football conference with good coaches and guys that play passionate football.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 AM ^
...their advantage because Rodriguez came into recruiting late - well it's x's and o's time. Let's see who has the advantage now! Wait, I mean, er, oops.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:02 AM ^
As long as RichRod has the team getting better every year, I don't care about his overall winning percentage. We know it is going to be low but let's judge his winning percentage on what he does with his own recruits. It is a small thing (maybe I am grasping here) but last year's team didn't blow ANYONE out. Like I said, small steps but at least this team pretty much destroyed the MAC schools and DII school. Last year, they would have been in a dog fight with almost all of those teams. That is, by definition, improvement.
Not to mention, Fat Jesus started great and then went downhill in a hurry.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:05 AM ^
The most sobering thought is that Weis provides ND with a decided schematic advantage. RR will never be able to provide that!
/sarcasm
November 24th, 2009 at 10:20 AM ^
where was that "decided schematic advantage" when they met earlier this year????
November 24th, 2009 at 10:08 AM ^
I'd gladly take a few 9-3 seasons with big bowl games. And winning those bowls would put us at 10-3 and show that RR could do what Weiss couldn't.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:10 AM ^
Weis came in with a bunch of upperclasmen who had already been taught fundamentals and such. All he had to do was install his playbook, and the falloff occurred once he had his recruits that actually had to learn the basics of football before learning an advanced pro-style playbook. RichRod came in with a vastly different offense and a bunch of UNDERclassmen who had to not only be taught a brand new playbook but also learn fundamentals and basics.
And aside from that, if they go 9-3 next year, and 10-2 or 11-1 (or better) the year after, I really won't care what RR's overall record is. Besides, if he retires at the same age Lloyd did, he'd be our coach for 21 years. That's enough time for the records to balance out.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:09 AM ^
Fans' memories are much shorter-term than you'd think, IMO. If Rich Rod suddenly starts winning big, he'll be the toast of the town. Look at the first 4 games of the season as an example. The unwashed masses were all about him, while the reasonings of Brian provided us with a sobering look at our true performances.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:12 AM ^
Charlie Weis won because of the players the previous coach left him. Simple as that.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:25 AM ^
a hypocrite, he said so himself.
Also RR won't lose to Navy two years out of three.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:28 AM ^
And losing to Illinois and Purdue two years out of two is vastly less embarrassing how?
November 24th, 2009 at 10:30 AM ^
When you're not the overwhelming favorite (like ND vs Navy), there isn't as much to scowl at afterwards.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:40 AM ^
Unless the NCAA unearths some truly damning information, there is no question RR will coach next year. There's no "If" about it. That doesn't guarantee squat in terms of his longevity. If, God forbid, we should go 3-9 or 4-8 next year I think there's an excellent chance that would be his last season in Ann Arbor, regardless of whether it would be a dumb move or not to fire him at that point. It would take a resolute upper administration to stand firm in the hurricane of anger that would result from a third straight losing season.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:28 PM ^
"the ncaa unearths some truly damning information, there is no question RR will coach next year" are you saying something different then "RR may not be the coach IF the ncaa unearths some truly damning information." So, you admit that there is an IF. Alright, just sorting that one out.
Next, you will notice that what is required in my post for RR to stay past the three year mark is a .500, thereby rendering us in agreement as to a possible 3-9 or 4-8 as to RR's future.
Lastly, if RR signs four or five of the remaining unsigned recruits Michigan has been courting, and D. Gardner comes to Michigan as planned, why would you believe that RR would be fired before his first true, full recruiting class had seen any action. I think you will find that firing RR will make little more sense(if any more at all) after next year than it does after this year regardless of the record.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:11 PM ^
If you really think going from 5 wins to 6 is going to constitute enough progress for Rich to still be around, I've got a bridge I want to sell you...
(Unless the 6 wins have OSU in there...and probably needs MSU, ND, and PSU...lol).
November 24th, 2009 at 10:29 AM ^
I think the same record as Weis after 5 years with a National Championship and some BCS wins would differentiate the two enough.
Like it has been stated above. Overall record doesn't matter, especially when we live in a "what have you done for me lately" sports world.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:38 AM ^
The trouble with Charlie Weis is not that he’s 35–26, but that his best years were the first two. Now in his fifth year, his Irish squads are moving backwards. As it is, they’re lucky to have just five losses, as quite a few of their wins went down to the final moments.
If Rodriguez goes 8–4, 9–3 and 9–3 in his next three seasons, all but the most cynical fans will say that he has the ship turned around. Of course, he can’t keep going 9–3, but to get there by his fourth season would not be a bad result.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:08 AM ^
Overall record is a tricky statistic. John Cooper was 111-43-4, still didn't save him. If RRod has some good 9 and 10 win seasons no one is going to care what his overall record is.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:17 PM ^
Lloyd Carr had a ton of 9- and 10-win seasons, and many (perhaps most) fans considered it not good enough. Obviously we'd be delighted to see that in 2010, but long-term he will need to do better than that.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:21 AM ^
If you flipped Chuck's season at ND. Meaning his first years record was this year, this years record was his first year. If that were the case, Wies would not only have a safe job, he would be talked about as one of the great coaches in the country. Its not about overall pct. It's about how your program is doing right now, and the trajectory its on. Sort of like Fulmer at Tennessee. Still had a great pct. but the last few years were getting weak.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^
I do not think that the situations at notre dame and uofm are at all comparable. ty willingham ran pretty much the same offense as weiss. i think that weiss even had most of his success there with ty's players. here at michigan, the situation is the exact opposite. rich rod is a great coach. hes going to start winning big soon enough.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:32 PM ^
...went through and negged everyone, so i put the scale back where it belongs
November 24th, 2009 at 1:38 PM ^
South Park reference. Sorry but you set me up for this one.
------------------
Another name for a person that is annoying
N_GGER
......
......
......
The correct answer was Negger, that's right Negger, as in someone who goes around negging people on MGoBlog.
I love South Park.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:07 PM ^
...but I don't think I'm allowed to say it."
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1612143/south_park_wheel_of_fortune_n_gge…
Love it.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:31 PM ^
Every situation is different. Kirk Ferentz started out 4-18 at Iowa. He didn't break the .500 barrier until his fifth year on the job.