Thoughts on the RichRod Interview

Submitted by FrankMurphy on

Thought I'd start a new thread about this since the original article has been expanded to cover more of the interview.

This quote in particular caught my eye.

"Everybody's got their own theory of it. My personal theory -- and this is talking to people that were there before I got there -- is that when Bo Schembechler passed away that driving force to get everybody pulling in the same direction may have gone with him. I think there were some battles that were being fought even before I took the job," he said.

I think Rodriguez is partly right here. There was too much skepticism and negativity directed toward Rodriguez from the moment he was hired, and there were too many whispers about various factions close to the program trying to undermine him throughout his entire tenure. If Bo were around, he never would have allowed the rifts and divisions to develop the way they did. Everybody would have supported Rodriguez because Bo would have demanded it.

Having said that, Rodriguez wasn't fired because there were people who never accepted him, he was fired because he didn't win. It's as simple as that. If he had won, the divisions would have evaporated and he would have ended up redefining Michigan Football. It wasn't the drama that made him hire and fire Scott Shafer, it wasn't the drama that made him hire Greg Robinson, it wasn't the drama that made him implement the 3-3-5, it wasn't the drama that made him waste time and manpower recruiting Demar Dorsey, it wasn't the drama that made him force a 6'5" slow kid and a walk-on to run the spread option, and it wasn't the drama that made him neglect special teams to the point where we only made 4 field goals the entire season. No one forced him to make any of the poor decisions that led to his demise.

But on the whole, it was a classy interview. He spoke highly of the position, he didn't take shots at anyone, and his criticism of Brandon is a fair one. The timing of the decision didn't benefit anyone. I still think he's a stand-up guy and I'd love to see him land a good job somewhere next season. I hope he'll learn from his mistakes. He'll always be a part of our history, and the Rich Rodriguez era will forever stand out as the brief period during which Michigan Football unfathomably stepped outside of its comfort zone and tried, but failed, to reinvent itself.

HoldTheRope

February 2nd, 2011 at 3:44 AM ^

While I disagree with a couple of your points arguing against RR..."it's in the past," and that is coming from a "In Rod We Trusted" clan member. Most importantly (and I don't care who you are) RR has handled this blow to his ego and career with class (like you said), something that can't be said for many people who have faced adversity. I'm sure I'm not alone, but I will be rooting for him wherever he ends up in 2012. 

I wholeheartedly wish it had worked out, but it didn't. Fin

BigBlue02

February 2nd, 2011 at 3:45 AM ^

Could we please stop acting like running a pro set with Threet and Sheridan at QB would have gotten us many more wins. Not only did we return 1 starter on offense in 08 but Threet has gone on, in his 15th season as a college football QB (after all the transfers), to pass for 2500 yards and almost as many interceptions as TDs. At what point does he go from being misused in RichRod's offense to just being a below average QB?

wolverine1987

February 2nd, 2011 at 7:51 AM ^

at best--you still don't ask a below average guy to do things that he is clearly uncomfortable doing. At least, if he's dropping back or straight handing off, he's not thinking about all the spread stuff he hasn't done while still trying to, you know, complete a pass. If you have a below average guy, have him think less, and put him in a comfort zone if you can. Then maybe he will be simply below average- instead of awful.

willis j

February 2nd, 2011 at 8:21 AM ^

plays a more pro style set. Then what? Your behind even more nowr because next year you have a better QB come in and you have to teach the other 80+ players, not just the QB, the new offense. So now you have a fresh QB who cant look to his teammates for knowledge or support because it's all new to them too. 

Look if they cant complete a pass after faking a hand-off I don't know what to tell you. I think RR did a good job catering to their strengths as much as he could. 

It sucks but they were bad QBs. Its a shame that is all that was on the roster for RR to work with. 

maizenbluenc

February 2nd, 2011 at 7:57 AM ^

... that Tim Tebow is a 6'-3" white kid, and he did pretty well in the spread. Maybe it has less to do with being white, and more to do with specific athletic ability.

 

I agree with Rich's statement, the loss of the guiding influence of Bo (Bo's pimp hand was bigger than Brandon's?), definitely created a vacuum of alignment over a direction in Ann Arbor. We have "thrown out the baby with the bath water" twice (at least) at this point.

Jasper

February 2nd, 2011 at 9:32 AM ^

"At what point does he go from being misused in RichRod's offense to just being a below average QB?"

But he was a 4-star recruit!!! Rivals said so!!! RichRod failed to "coach him up!!!"  "Look at how he turned around Arizona State!!!"

/s

SFBlue

February 2nd, 2011 at 3:45 AM ^

Typically understated, conversational RR truthspeaking.  The light went out when Bo died and it hasn't been re-ignited.  RR always conducted himself in an honorable fashion, even when he was making historically stupid decisions with defensive coordinators, and this is refreshing candor. 

To say he "didn't win, it's as simple as that" glosses over any number of inherited issues, change-over in ADs, and ignores the fact that he was set up for (1) a top 15 recruiting class this year and (2) an experienced and talented team returning for 2011.  RR gets another year under most objective measures.  Michigan went in another direction, I get it, and I am moving on, but his firing can't be attributed solely to wins and losses. 

MGlobules

February 2nd, 2011 at 8:35 AM ^

killed in its bed (like a half dozen other phrases around here). Where the program was headed and what to do NOW was the question facing Brandon, and to me a simple, ineluctable answer is: better next year, in terms of those damned wins and losses everyone says they care so much about, than it will be under milquetoast Brady Hoke (god bless him and the boring football we are going back to). We are destined for the second tier in perpetuity. 

MGlobules

February 2nd, 2011 at 10:24 AM ^

Don't you really, really need to lose that avatar with those homer posts of yours? It kind of gives away what a "whichever way the wind is blowing" thought process that keeps you warm at night.

If I ever need a lynch mob, however, I will call you first. You won't hold the rope, but you will stand in the crowd and mumble "peas and carrots" until we get a good take. 

MGlobules

February 2nd, 2011 at 1:16 PM ^

and you're telling the lie now, too. I said that Hoke's hiring meant I would spend more afternoons with my daughter, nothing more, nothing less. Nice to know someone's following, however, even if their comprehension is impaired. 

M-Wolverine

February 2nd, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^

You wouldn't watch games, and would come back when the next guy took over, which you obviously think will be soon. And you had the tearful I won't be around to post much speech that never comes true. You back tracking on your selective fandom as you criticize someone else for flip-flopping is hilarious.
<br>
<br>It's not comprehension problems; I fully understand a hypocrite when I see one.

MGlobules

February 2nd, 2011 at 4:13 PM ^

you're talking silly. Watching fewer games because you are disenchanted doesn't mean you have stopped loving your university, even among stupid people. Like I said then, no cretinous lame-o on an internet blog gets to decide who's a fan and who's not. Your sig line suggests you're not up to much when it comes to brainpower; why don't you rest that poor overheated thing? 

M-Wolverine

February 2nd, 2011 at 4:40 PM ^

Insulting intelligence. Usually reveals more about the person insulting's brain power. You can cover up that you had an online drama queen meltdown, making all these bold claims, that you backtracked on in like a second, and then get upset about people pointing out what you know to be true. But it just makes you the Internet cliche', not me. At least when I get upset I'm smart enough not to make proclamations I know won't be true. You might try the same; or actually back up what you say, and stop spouting stuff till the next coach comes along...in 3 or 15 years. Or at least not call other people out for their flip-flopping fandom, when you couldn't jump ship fast and easy enough.  Which is where this all started.

Greg McMurtry

February 2nd, 2011 at 10:56 AM ^

Why is everyone still talking about the offense. We (as in Michigan) is/are going back to fundamentally sound defense. Boohoo the offense will be boring. How about a defense that doesn't give up 30 points a game. That was the problem. I couldn't care less if every play was a handoff to the fullback as long as the box score says that Michigan had one more point than the opposing team.

BigBlue02

February 2nd, 2011 at 11:33 AM ^

I agree. We all know that the offense and the defense are inversely proportional. So as we get back to "fundamental" defense, we are forced to take s step backwards on the offensive side of the ball. It's sound logic. Also, you know another way to have more points than the other team at the end of the game? I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with "shunshtoppable shoffense."

M-Wolverine

February 2nd, 2011 at 12:47 PM ^

Will get worse under Brady. Even though his last offense scored more points than our "unstoppable" one. Funny how those unstoppable offenses got stopped more than they tore things up in the National Championship game.

Rabbit21

February 2nd, 2011 at 11:54 AM ^

I think it's more down to HOW he lost when he lost than how many L's were on the record. There was no glimmer of competition against teams with any sort of defense, to say the team was destined to be better next year when even the offense was ineffective when it counted isn't particularly realistic.

M-Wolverine

February 2nd, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^

And 1 and 2 are debatable, so not so "objective". Are class ranking wasn't anywhere near top 15 when he was here, and was falling apart before he was even fired. And he was bringing back an experienced team, for sure. How talented it was is up for debate.

M-Wolverine

February 2nd, 2011 at 1:14 PM ^

And is littering the NFL with plays in 2 years, I'll be GLAD to say I'm wrong. Means we're probably kicking ass and taking names. It's not about scheme, it's about talent.
<br>
<br>Though I get the feeling a lot of people won't credit Hoke for coaching them up (the same people who think Graham became a beast because of Barwis, but then think our current players will get better just because they're older).
<br>
<br>The difference between you and I and some people on here is that we'd be glad to be wrong if it means we're winning again. Some (on both sides) seem to rather us lose do they can be right.

Eye of the Tiger

February 2nd, 2011 at 4:34 AM ^

Whatever one thinks of Rich Rod's tenure, he handled the interview well, and the Bo quote was quite perceptive.Of course, it wasn't what got him fired, but many of his problems began with these internal battles. He couldn't overcome them, and made mistakes of his own, but he's right that this was a factor. As for Threet and the system...huh?? I don't think anyone claims RR "misused" Threet. People claim the radical transformation to spread-n-shred and 3-3-5 inhibited our ability to keep players like Mallet and Boren, keep stability in the running game and use our strengths on D. Whether that's fair or unfair is another story, but that's, at least, not a strawman.

Bando Calrissian

February 2nd, 2011 at 4:40 AM ^

I think it's pretty indisputable that when Bo died, a really major component of what held a rather fragile Athletic Department together died with him.  And I don't think people realized just how much having Bo down the hallway impacted how Lloyd Carr ran his program.  

I've told this story here before.  The year before Bo died, my parents were running an auction for a local Alumni Club, and had left some things for Bo to sign at Schembechler Hall.  Bo had left for vacation, but before he did, he signed the items and left them in his office.  My parents got a call to come by and pick them up, so they went.  They go to Schembechler Hall, and meet with Bo's secretary, who takes them up to Bo's office to get the items, which he had left on his desk.  Lloyd saw Bo's office door open, and came down the hall to talk.  Instead, he found my parents and Bo's secretary.  He was cool about it, and stayed to talk for a while, but I think the story tells a lot about their relationship.  Lloyd lost a lot when Bo died, and the fact that Bo's office stayed intact for years after he died, under lock and key, says a lot about what his presence in that building meant.

If Bo had held on another month, hell, another week, things would have been drastically different.  

A really, really big part of this University died with Bo, whether we want to acknowledge it or not.  All sorts of things unraveled almost instantaneously, things were said that should never have been said, things were done that never should have been done.  And I think the most obvious casualty of the entire thing, from Day 1, was Rich Rodriguez.   He didn't do much to help his cause, but the kind of infighting that emerged without Bo's looming shadow to dissuade it didn't help.

On top of that, I don't think you'd see the kind of knee-jerk reaction against the term "Michigan Man" you see these days if Bo were still here.  I feel like we've transitioned into a reactionary, alternate universe in an attempt to rebuild our identity Post-Bo.  5 years ago, people would have defended the idea of a "Michigan Man" to death.  Now?  Don't bother using the term if you don't want to get negged.

bluebyyou

February 2nd, 2011 at 7:18 AM ^

I read something this morning on ESPN's Big Ten Blog which I think relates to what you wrote.  http://blog.pennlive.com/pennstatefootball/2011/02/transition_from_joe_paterno_to.html

The piece basically states that the coach who succeeds Paterno at Penn State will probably not enjoy stellar success due to the shadow of JoePa, but the next coach would not be coaching in Paterno's shadow.  Carr was in many ways just an extension of Bo, and RichRod was the unlucky coach who followed.  

At some point, though, you need to move on, and that is hopefully where Michigan is now - hopefully.

RichRod had one strike against him the day he showed up - anyone outside the Michigan family would have had the same issue.  Beyond that, there were some bad hiring decisions and some bad recruiting.  While I supported Brandon's decision to replace RichRod, I didn't feel good about it in the sense that that Rich deserved a better fate; hopefully he will end up in another program without the baggage that accompanied him at Michigan. 

STW P. Brabbs

February 2nd, 2011 at 8:40 AM ^

This is a very well-written post, and I agree that the loss of Bo is difficult to overstate.

Still, the characterization of a "rather fragile" department strikes me as over the top.  Was there more "drama" surrounding Rodriguez than there would have been with Bo around?  I'm sure.  But did the department become something that was nearly coming apart at the seams? 

I think we became spoiled, under Bo, having an incredibly stable athletic department (or at least the appearance of lockstep stability - see: Fort Schembechler).   When even the rumors of dissension and intrigue started to come up about Rodriguez, it felt like some new, ominous phenomenon.  Still, I don't think everthing was up in flames, or about to be.

Rabbit21

February 2nd, 2011 at 12:00 PM ^

That's another thing. Didn't it feel like everything that can go wrong will go wrong for the past three years? RR was snakebit here for whatever reason and I think that greatly impacted the entire program. If nothing else maybe he got all his bad breaks out of the way here so he can have success wherever he goes next.

SC Wolverine

February 2nd, 2011 at 7:09 AM ^

Interesting thoughts.

As for Rich Rod, I hope his time at UM does for him what his experience coaching the Browns did for Bill Belicik.  BB really reflected on his convictions and where he had failed and made himself a much better coach.  I don't know if RR will do that -- he doesn't seem that reflective when it comes to himself.  But I hope he does grow from the experience.  If RR does not become more than the guru of the spread-n-shred, his value will diminish in the coming years.  In that respect, I see this as an important crossroads for him professionally.

As for UM, sometimes you have to try to be someone else in order to remember who you really are.  If RR served that purpose for us, it was worth it, however painful.

PurpleStuff

February 2nd, 2011 at 11:38 AM ^

Talent matters.  Whatever lessons he learned in Cleveland didn't mean anything when he got to New England and started 5-13.  Then Bledsoe got hurt and the best quarterback of the current era fell into his lap.  The rest is history.  He still is/was a very good coach, but the guy with the best players is the guy that wins just about every time in this game.  A great coach can't make the Browns any good and a bad/average one can't screw things up if they've got guys like Brady or Manning.

As for Michigan, I think the worry some have is that "who we really are" is a program that had fallen far behind the best teams in our conference (Ohio State) and around the country (USC, Texas, Oregon, etc.).  Luckily, Hoke appears to have rejected Dave Brandon's hiring philosophy and has gone out and found the most qualified guys available for the job when looking for coordinators and assistants, regardless of any prior affiliation with Michigan.  Hiring Borges and Mattison (in 2011 rather than 1995) is a far cry from the days when every single coordinator hired by Lloyd Carr was a promoted Michigan assistant (I was pretty shocked that I couldn't find a single counterexample) rather than a guy who had proven they could do the job somewhere else.

 

 

bryemye

February 2nd, 2011 at 8:11 AM ^

Classy interview. I will say I'm glad it seems his staff landed mostly on their feet, yes?

His handling of the defense on just abou evert facet was bad but then he's an offensive coach with an AD who doesn't pay coordinators (or didn't).

I feel the anger coming again so I'll end there. Go Hoke.