Tom Luginbill from Scout .com says he thinks RR will succeed at Michigan. He says the Big Tens 3 yards and a cloud of dust is longer is good enough on the national stage. Luginbill also says RR first two years of recruiting went well and says most of Michigans talent are freshmen and sophomores, singleing out Roh and Stonum as two of Michigans better players. He also says RR will need at least four years to get these players developed and some experience. Agree or disagree with Luginbill?
Tom Luginbill from Scout.com
But it means nothing until he brings in the NC's.
A minimum of 17 straight to be honest. The media will probably start to lighten up on him by then too.
Sorry. Nothing to see here.
if you want mediocrity, go to msu. we should have a higher standard for our team. 8 wins out of 12? in the fourth year? stop selling this team short.
I've seen that word (usually in forum rants by Burgundy Blues or dimwitted Ann Arbor townies) more times in the past year than in all my other years combined. Always capitalized, always with multiple exclamation points...
I would have hit on that myself; I think the cascade down the page adds a little something extra as well. Also, I think it seems way more unacceptable with the third exclamation point.
my definition of succeeding is being the best. NC is the best. strive for the top. if UM goes 10-2 thats great, but the goal should be NC's. RR wasnt hired to have only 8 wins in his fourth season.
Because the success of the football team is predicated on the goals that we, the fanbase, who don't impact on-field results, hold for them. MICHIGAN IS THE BEST AND THE BEST = CHAMPIONSHIPS. Anything else is NOT. GOOD. ENOUGH.
Are really turning into a gaggle of bitches.
You're right. The fans, who get prison raped for tickets, PSL', buy the overpriced gear so they can go around looking like college football clowns, donate money to the athletic department, pay grillions of dollars to be students at UM--HAVE NO FUCKING RIGHT to expect anything in terms of results on the playing field?
Well bah golly, sargint! Cankle this heyah blawg! This whole daym thang is all fer naught!
Yer gott dam right! Rawdriguez is perfect! 8-16 is da bomb! Look out Vanderbilt! We comin' for ya!
His points are often right, even if they're obnoxiously exaggerated.
Even if you are ridiculously obnoxious in expressing said opinion.
8 wins in year 4 is really nothing great to write home about. I have a feeling most people try to lower expectations to such an extent that they won't get hurt if they are not met.
If Lloyd and his consistent 8-9 wins were "just not good enough" and "he was living in the 18th century" (actual quotes from WLA "bitches" ) how is expecting anything more than 8 wins from a team stacked with 3 year starters ( which we will have by year of the RR era) asking for too much.
Note that OP never said NC or ELSE!
And Simi is essentially being negged by other Michigan fans for sympathizing with the common Michigan man. Perhaps it is the tone but we have to keep in mind, as you mentioned, that the coaching change was made to improve on the typical 8-9 wins because those were "just not good enough." Maybe i'm in the minority on this, but I think it is realistic we reach 9-10 wins this year. Or maybe, i'm just being an arrogant Michigan fan and need to keep my expectations in check.
"we have to keep in mind, as you mentioned, that the coaching change was made to improve on the typical 8-9 wins because those were "just not good enough."
Lloyd retired. Your statement has no basis in fact.
MSM seems to perpetuate this myth and we should not repeat it. Lloyd retired. HIS CHOICE (exactly like it is Urban's choice to take a break).
But I think Turbocool was pointing to the reason behind the radical change in coaching philosophy. That was the choice of the administration. BM did not want to continue status quo.
As IRIT said it, was the need for a change in the status quo more than anything else, that I was referring to. And yes, Lloyd did retire but we could've brought in a guy like Ferentz who was a spittin' image of LC. But we didn't. We brought in RR to give us a new look and more success.
wow - you know Bill Martin and Mary Sue Coleman? It seems like you have extreme insight into the specific motives behind BM and MSC making the coaching hire they did. I don't remember Martin or Coleman stating publicly that they hired RR because the job LC had done was not good enough and that the status quo level of success (MNC within the last ten years, bowl streak, etc) needed a boost.
I think the "we" portion of your statements is where the philosophical dichotomy is occurring here:
"Lloyd did retire but we could've brought in a guy like Ferentz who was a spittin' image of LC. But we didn't. We brought in RR to give us a new look and more success."
Martin and Coleman don't listen to "Us", thankfully. They do what they think is best for the program, Athletic Department and University as a whole.
Alright, your pretty adamant that i'm talking out of my ass, okay. I used to work directly under a few of the AD's and grew up very close to the program though so yeah, I guess you can say I do have some insight.
But also, why would Martin or Coleman say anything negative about LC? They had no incentive to do so. He was a great coach and most of all, a great guy. There is nothing wrong when an administration looks into a new direction when a coach, such as LC, does retire. You're making it seem as if I wanted LC out and that is not the case.
If Lloyd and his consistent 8-9 wins were "just not good enough" and "he was living in the 18th century" (actual quotes from WLA "bitches" )
Bullshit. Show me these "quotes" on our website, or this one, from one of us.
Every single one of us liked Lloyd Carr.
I may have criticized Lloyd's 4th quarter defenses as "ceding territory so fast Winston Churchill himself would be happy with the appeasement going on", but that's about it.
You're only stating the obvious. The issue isn't the number of wins, the issue is HOW LONG it takes to get there. 7 - 8 wins is acceptable in the short term, not the long term.
Too many people forget that USC, & Alabama, & Texas, & Oklahoma, & Neb., & Ohio State, & ND, were either down for a significant number of years, or are still down.
The biggest disaster, in my mind, would be to panic or be impatient and impetuous, firing RR & his staff too soon. Coaching continuity is critical to developing LONG TERM success.
Not only would it be terrible to let RR go next year, it would make it that more difficult to bring in a good coach, and that much more difficult to recruit and retain recruits.
No, I'm not happy at all with the way things have gone the last few years. But that doesn't imply that I want to get rid of RR. And BTW, he doesn't walk on water, and there prob. are coaches just as good out there. But I will say this. First, he's who we've got. And Second, given the time and the support, I firmly believe he will regularly be in the hunt for the MNC.
Totally agree with this statement, all top programs have been down before and they rebounded. If UM can win 8 games next season and be down for only 2 years it will be a minor miracle. If RR is let go after next season that just sets the program back farther and a whole new philosophy comes in with someone else's players who don't fit their system.
But very few have been brought back by the guy with whom they went down. In fact, I can only think of Penn State as an example of a team that went down the terlet but recovered with the same coach--and of course, we can debate nearly as long as Joe Paterno has been coaching as to how much Paterno has to do with actual day-to-day PSU football.
That's what makes Rodriguez's task so daunting--he is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as the guy who took UM down--he won't be given a very long leash to get them back up and running.
This is exactly right. People argue all the time about whether or not RR is a "good" coach. More important is how he's perceived as a coach by players, fans, assistants. Wins are the currency that pays for being perceived as a good coach. RR doesn't have them here. Like Simi said, it's hard to pull a team out of the gutter when you don't have the image of a winner.
Obviously there's skill and talent involved in coaching, too, but being a winner is huge. Look at Phil Jackson: he rode MJ to the shiniest reputation in all of coaching, and it started a cycle through which his reputation attracted good players and created a winning culture and attitude. For anyone who's played team sports, you know having a winning culture is incredibly important to success. Can RR recreate his image at U-M? If he'd finished out this season strong, I'd say sure no problem. But two losing seasons in a row worries me.
I think you are on to something, but regarding whether fans, coaches and players respect RR, I think only the first of the three might be in question. The coaching fraternity certainly holds him in high esteem, being the inventor of the read option, and I think that recruits are more levelheaded than we give them credit for. Many high school players have played on bad teams at some point during their careers. They know how things can go downhill with a few bad breaks. RR's success at WVU is recent enough that it should still buy him time in kids' minds. Anyway, it's not unusual for coaches to pull themselves off the mat after a shaky start. It's funny that we hold up Kirk Ferentz as some kind of Mr. Dependability; he started out 1-10 and 3-8 after succeeded Hayden Fry.
yes, ive heard it before, however, there are two sides to the coin. assuming RR does not perform next year, it COULD be bad to fire him (see ND who fires a coach every 3 years). however, in the history of the game, there HAVE been coaches to win with other guy's players. just because we would, hypothetically, fire RR does not Gurantee that we would be down for the foreseeable future.
secondly, your assumption presumes that RR will succeed, which is not a given. if, after his third year, there is not progress, how could you say it would be more detrimental to fire him as opposed to retain him? if he is not getting the job done, how long do you keep him around hoping he can turn it around.
like many on this blog, i am frustrated with the on-field results. also like many, i believe the third year is make or break; no more excuses, its not lloyds team anymore. if he cant get it done next year, then i dont see the argument in keeping him around any longer.
people point to amaker as a reason for a coach sticking around, yet i dont understand that analagy at all. amaker consistently underperformed yet we kept tolling around with him. this did not pay off since he ultimatly did not get the job done and we just had additional years of mediocrity. would it have been worse if we cut our ties with him after year 4 instead of year 6 (or whatever year it was...)?
I'll take that one step further.
This team is NOT a prototypical spread team in terms of the talent.
Forcier is more of a passer. Two tight ends that can block and get downfield to catch passes (insert joke). Running backs don't appear to be home-run threats. Outside receivers are tallish (and the ones coming in 2010 are as well), lacking the speed to blow things up in space. The slots are more possession receivers.
Of course, X Factors would be Stokes, Gallon, and Dileo. What types of receivers are they?
Denard Robinson would be the main concern. Would he bolt? Would he welcome a move to halfback, receiver, or even the defensive backfield, where he was regarded as a Top 10 recruit?
And the guys on the OL, plus the ones in the wings are BIG. We have yet to see if they are or will be the more athletic type that RR seems to favor.
I don't see a tough transition to a more passing oriented, pro-style, or even run-based attack such as under Lloyd.
As for defense--well, I don't know what the hell is going on there, and Michigan has already had a lot of turnover with DC's, sooooo....
When I paid OOS tuition(meaning that in one year, my family paid the university what many kids pay for 4 years) I paid for my education, not for football wins. Had that been my priority, I probably would have gone to USC or maybe Ohio State.. (this was back in the early 2000s)
Today, when I donate money to the university, I do not donate because I want the sports teams to win more. I donate because I want the university to continue being a top tier research institution. Football is secondary.. please do not speak for me or others who think just like I do.
The voluntary decision to spend money on entertainment = forced, violent sodomy. It makes perfect sense as an analogy.
Chitown, I respect your opinions but I respectfully disagree here. I don't know why people get negged when they say 7, or 8 wins is not good enough and they would like to see better results on the field. For starters, I guarantee that 7-8 wins isn't 'good enough' for RR and the players just like it isn't for us. They are playing for conference titles and eventually national titles. Whether they achieve these goals may or may not happen but I have no doubts that they set the bar higher than we do.
And no, the fan doesn't impact the on-field results directly but that doesn't mean the Michigan fan must only have modest expectations for their team. We expect to win and that has made this program what it is today. We consider ourselves the 'leaders and the best' are for that to hold true we must succeed and be superior to our opponents.
I don't even see how this is an issue. I would think all Michigan fans would hold our team to a high standard because you know the current players and staff, in addition to former players and staff, are doing the same.
What I lose with all the hyperbole--you speak'um great with plain English.
Go to ANY university and the fans expect results. So do administrations.
The kids at the WLA can bark all they want, but if RR flops this year--he is gone.
Do I or any UM fan hope that happens? NO WAY.
But, it is what it is M-effer.
Parity renders the whole exercise known as the WLA irrelevant? No more expectations, no more "We Will be a Machine"--no more Barwis Porn, and in effect, no more Michigan Football?
I think the SEC begs to differ. And so does Pete Carroll and USC over the last decade. And oh yeah! Mack Brown and his decade-long run of 10 or 11 win seasons.
Parity is an excuse for mediocrity. HEY! We had that under Lloyd, didn't we? And WHOOPS The cupboard was bare. Poor Richie Rodriguez.
Don't give me "parity" until you tell me that over the last 20 years, 20 different teams have won national championships. Don't give me "parity" until you show me the national champhionships won by Boise State, Purdue, Louisville, Oregon, TCU, etc.
But, you can't.
Boise State, TCU, Louisville, and Oregon actually help the parity argument because they've taken on the big boys and beat them. Not mention Orgeon winning the Pac 10 which seems to be a nail in USC's coffin (not the final one mind you). Your hypebole overextended the tenuous logic you had going.
USC being a model program of success isn't a great argument because on the next thread someone will point out the fishy smell coming from the stagnant NCAA investigation which got held up because Bush settled out of court. I doubt anyone at Michigan would be willing to buy NCs.
And maybe there hasn't been 20 different National Championship winners in the past 20 years, but there's been 16 if you're willing to accept the nation recognizing two number one teams.
The problem with your analysis is that the environment has reached the point that everyone feels that their head coach is a failure unless he wins a MNC every three years are so. It does not work that way. You mention the SEC. The following SEC schools' fan bases will consider their coach unsuccessful if he has not won a MNC in the past five years: Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, LSU, Auburn. Add the rest of the major programs in the country and you probably have fifteen to twenty fan bases who feel that way. Tuberville was run off from Auburn three years after going unbeaten. There is griping among their respective fan bases about Carroll, Stoops, Tressel and Miles, all of whom have recently won MNC's. Expecting success at elite progams is reasonable. Thinking your school is somehow ordained by the almighty to win championships is just silly.
In this day and age you have to be very good and very lucky (injuries as well as breaks) to have a chance to win it all. Sustained success is what we should be looking to have. Unreasonable expectations (We are Michigan fans, therefore we deserve more championships than anyone else.) is foolish. Expect continuing success and with the right breaks, we will get out share.
Barking Sphincter/KoB/whoever else you want to call yourself,
I'm merely pointing out the absurdity in us, as fans, setting the goals for an organization over which we have no control, influence, or impact on. It's one thing for RR to say "Ten wins is not good enough". For us, as fans, to say it - is utterly meaningless.
The level of enmity you hold for us is staggering, however. Perhaps you should release your stress by using your myspace profile to pick up some boys.
absurd for an I-Phone user to "expect" that the 100+ bucks AT&T charges per month should be at least worth some 3G coverage?
I mean we have exactly the same control over UM football as AT&T right (the right to not buy the product)??
The control you exert is whether or not you decide to purchase the product. You exert no control over whether Michigan wins a NC, or whether IBM improves their service.
you were the one calling it "Absurd" to expect anything. Whether the expectations are reasonable or not is a different question, but your argument was that it is absurd to expect anything since we do not control anything. Do you deny that this was your argument?
I personally watch Michigan football because I like football, I went to Michigan, and I had many good times watching them play. I still like watching them play - admittedly less so when they lose. I try to not place "expectations" on outcomes I can't control. If people want to say "Michigan football needs to _____", my contention is that such a statement is meaningless.
to "I do not have expectations", which is fine and we don't feel any need to conform to your methods. Everybody has expectations, except maybe mindless worker drones(think Ixian suboids from Dune). I don't see how they are meaningless....I mean anything that has an effect is not meaningless by definition right. If ND fans were Ixian suboids wouldn't Fat Charlie still have a job? So the expectations did have an effect right?
Why is it okay for you to bitch and moan about the Lions and Tigers but not okay to have SOME expectations for Michigan. Note that even those who do have expectations aren't suggesting anything radical if said expectations are not met.
So "if RichRod doesn't win at least 8 games next year he should be fired" isn't radical? That is the expectation quite a few have put forth on the board.
and certainly not by me. I just resent that I am not allowed to even have expectations.
a lot of this comes from the fact that people were upset or disappointed or whatever you want to call it with the amount of times that lloyd "underachieved" when he ONLY went 8-4 or 9-3.
its interesting to note the same people who wanted lloyd out because "the game passed him by" (im looking at you bouje) are the same ones who say we shouldnt expect greatness year in and year out in college football.
if we wanted "mediocrity" (if thats what you called what we had under lloyd) why did we have to destroy the whole system and rebuild it with RR?
saying 7 and 8 wins on a yearly basis are good enough. What people are saying is that 7 or 8 wins next year isn't the end of the world, and may be realistic given the situation in the secondary. I think most everyone agrees that Michigan needs to be competitive in every game in RR's 4th year or he may lose the supporters he has.
This was a more painful transition than we had hoped, but if you look past the fire in your eyes, you can see that the pieces are falling into place. Demanding 10 or more wins right now "just because we are Michigan" is both absurd and arrogant.
not the next year. You need to learn how to count me thinks.
My response is to turbocool and his (7-8 wins) discussion. I am yet to see anyone post that they look forward to 8 wins in RR's 4th year.
My response has nothing to do with Simi or his opinion, but I'm sure he appreciates you having his back.
1...2...3... ah F it.
"RR will be judged on his fourth year, where I think he has to win at least 8 games."
All I'm saying is that our expectations are meaningless. And if they're "multiple NC's", even moreso, because how often does that happen? Meyer has 2. Either Brown or Saban will walk out of this year with a second. Any other active coach reach that? No.
I hear ya and that makes sense. Ultimately, our expectations are meaningless, however fans have the right to want a winning program. And at Michigan we have been spoiled over time so that has heightened our expectations going forward. That's all i'm saying.
You guys have taken some abstract self-righteous high road since Rich Rod has gone 8-16. Yes, you guys are so wonderfully aloof, and just watch football for the gol' darn sake of watching it. Win, lose, or overtime--you ol' boys just sit around in your velvet smoking jackets, downing cognac, smoking long Cubans, and chat about the good ol' days in Tappa Kegga Bru fraternity.
Meanwhile, the minions, the dinizens, the lesser people expect something from Michigan football like--GASP! WINS! A competitive product!
Oh for shame.
And as for "enmity"--you brats deserve every bit anyone tosses your way. You're hypocrites. YOU have been the ones pounding out ridiculous BarwiS Porn, saying how much better Michigan will be, and how great Michigan will be under Rodriguez.
Kind of sounds like--yup! Expectations.
Now maybe challenge yourself a lil bit and come up with a new line other than "go looking for boys, Simi"