Pretty good; short and to the point. Basically he feels like the book kind of neglected to fully examine the defensive collapse during the RR era, which may be the biggest reason for failure.
Ty Duffy reviews Three & Out
I would have to say I agree with much of his assessment. While I don't concur that Rosenberg & Carr are unable to defend themselves (they chose not to) I do agree that the single biggest failing Rich had here was his inability to field even a mediocre defense. If this year has demonstrated anything it's that coaching DOES make a pretty big difference in performance.
If Rich could've fielded a defense he'd have achieved at least a few more wins (presumably) and would still be here (again - presumably). How Bacon could've largely ommitted the "why" for this problem beyond Casteel is a mystery to me as well.
As much as I am embarrassed by the treatment RR recieved from people here I used to respect the plain and simple truth is it just wouldn't have mattered had he won. And with a defense I'm reasonably sure he would've in far greater numbers than we witnessed over the past three years. Duffy is correct IMO in pointing out that the book is flawed for not spending more time and attention on explaining why this occurred.
He at least has a body of work to judge the "voracity" of the accusations laid against him. I'm much less sympathetic to the theory that Rosenberg can't defend himself than I am with Carr. Rosenberg is the media and has a very real interest in maintaining a reputation, Carr just doesn't (and hasn't ever) cared much.
RR asked for more money and guaranteed contracts for his assistants and was denied on multiple occasions.
Mattison is paid more and has a guaranteed contract (I'm admittedly just assuming on the second part since I doubt he leaves Baltimore without one).
Basically my thoughts after reading the book as well, sans the flowery language. I still want the Carr details, his light gets dimmer every day with me. And I want the defensive details what did Shafer try to do, what did RR tell himhe had to do? How did Robinson actually get hired and what did RR say to him after each of those stupidly ridiculous defensive gameplans. Why was Robinson so much in the background and there are virtually no comments or mention of him except that he and RR had some discusssions?
Don't let the book influence your opinion of Carr, for one he is still incredibly active in the community and i have come across him multiple times while doing work with the university. Second, and obviously this is biased but I had a friend who is an athlete and spoke to Brandon and the book came up and he said it was over 50% false, was reporting rumor as fact, and Bacon didn't have the access to actually know the truth of half of what he was writing, which I tend to believe since he wrote about the search despite having his access granted by rich rod who did not participate in the search. Anyways I just wanted to put this out there that the people who still work for the university claim this book is lying and I tend to believe them considering Bacon claims things like athletes didn't have to go to class on rivalry weeks when that is proven to be wrong.
There is one and only one person who I know of, who is taking on all comers, answering questions as they come, and making himself publicly available.
That is John U. Bacon.
If Brandon is going to publicly stand by an assertion like that about Three and Out, I will be asking him just exactly when it is that he found the time to read the book. And the next series of questions ought to be asking Brandon to detail any inaccuracies from his point of view. Much of it took place before Brandon was part of the Athletic Department; but that's okay. If Brandon has a view, I'd like him to have a platform from which to air that view. Just answer questions when you do it, Dave.
I have NO sympathy or understanding for people who criticize the book but who won't answer questions.
And, if that rumored comment from Brandon is true (and that not only did Brandon say it to an athlete, but he really meant it), it defies common sense. Because the things detailed in the book -- Rosenberg and Stretchgate, Brian Cook's own minor role, the Boren story, the Casteel story, Bacon's direct contact with players and coaches -- those are things that most of us know to be true, and have largely confirmed on our own. Brandon is in a really weird fucking position, if he is complaining about John U. Bacon's takedown of Michael Rosenberg, when Brandon himself has said the same kinds of things about Rosenberg!
I can't and won't speak to issues with Mary Sue Coleman, Bill Martin and Lloyd Carr. But really; can Brandon? When, at the time, Brandon was working for Domino's? Is Brandon now just sticking up for Mary Sue, Martin, Carr and the Regents? Brandon would have a powerful interest in doing so.
Please do not be niave. DB has been involved in the AD Politics since he left as a player. He was a Regent after all. He lived in the area and supported UM. He was, in defacto, the silent AD.
Why do you think Martin was let go (retired) so abruptly after an altercation with a student-security guard? MSC had already tapped DB for AD and she just needed a why to get "rid of Bill". Bill was not MSC's "guy" Bill was AD from 2000-2009. MSC started in 2002.
This is a classic case of politics. RR was BM's guy but not DB guy. BM was not MSC's guy but DB was. So MSC fired BM and hired DB who in turn fired RR and hired BH. Now the associative laws of mathematics (and politics), MSC fired RR de facto.
Your alphabet soup goes to the point that; Brandon knows. Even if he was not an official part of the Athletic Department before January 5, 2010, he knows everything. He's buddies with the Regents, at least the Republicans, since he was one of them a few years ago. And he knows everybody in the football program since he was in it.
All of that does nothing to answer specific questions about a book which, according to the Athletic Department, they have not read and will not comment on. Brandon has to choose. If he is going to attack Bacon's book, he has to answer questions. If he hasn't read the book, and if he won't answer questions, he should just shut the fuck up.
Personally, I prefer engagement, and diaolgue, and debate, and information, and facts, and the truth, to "just shut the fuck up." But that's up to the people who won't talk.
It is always funny, when people at the top of a university won't discuss a book. It's even more ironic when a book is the central element of that university's seal. It's a book. At a university. Fergodssakes.
I have defended you on several occasions where you were being crushed. However, I cannot defend this line of thinking.
Of course DB will not comment, why should he? Do I want to know the truth about DB and LC? Sure. What are you going to do? Kidnap and humiliate them with Cartman's Anal probe?
If DB and LC refuse to comment, that is their right not to do so. They will have to accept the perception from those of us who read it. My opinion of LC has diminished severly due to 3&O. LC refuses to answer questions so he accepts that my perception of him is bad. LC really doesnt care. He is still active in the U, he attends many sporting events and he is still viewed very highly from many people.
DB on the other hand should not comment. He is still the "acting" AD. We all can read between the lines and there is a common opinion of what happend. I think it is the truth and that is why DB is being quiet.
MSC could care less. The money is still flowing in so she is happy.
These people at the top do not care what Section 1 cares about them. You have no real power, only a moniker on an internet blog (not just any internet blog I might add, but still an internet blog). Section 1, if you were Mike valenti's partner and called for withdrawl of support to the U until DB speaks, then maybe he speaks. Until there is an outcry, no one cares.
Let's get some things straight:
Of course I said that the leadership -- Coleman, Carr, Brandon -- could easily choose to not comment. I understand that they might do that. I never suggested anything like a boycott (!?) or withholding donations to protest their silence.
This all started with someone's anonymous quoting of Brandon, with Brandon's allegedly saying that Bacon's book was 50% false and exaggerated. And that, I protested, comes as (a) officially, Brandon has not read the book, (b) Brandon isn't answering any questions about the book, and (c) Brandon works for some of the people who were targets of the book's wrath -- President Coleman and the Regents.
I am not telling anybody what to do. I am only sticking up for the book. If people like Carr, Brandon, Rosenberg or others want to criticize the book, they should just do it clearly and then answer questions about it. Dave Brandon isn't doing that.
He was responding to someone who was qouting a player who qouted DB as saying the book was more than 50% false.
His arguement is if DB is going to make comments like that he should stand up and say what the hell is false. Especially after they said they wouldn't be reading it.
I think his point was more that he wasn't convinced the poster knew what he was talking about than anything to do with DB IME.
that you would suggest a policy of engagement. Just wondering - you must have a serious porblem with the reported NDA forced on Shafer when he resigned then, right?
I mean, it's a major part of RR's tenure. His first major hire, self destructed before 1 season, ousted only to find success elsewhere. Yet there's nothing about in the book, and Shafer can't comment on it. I'm sure you're outraged about the lack of openness on this subject.
I keep seeing people talk about Shafer having "success" after leaving Michigan. When exactly did this happen?
Serious question, snark free, has Bacon responded to the factual inaccuracies regarding the Purdue game and the story about Steven Threet crying over getting "pulled" at half time of a game in which he actually started the second half?
You could have asked him yourself, yesterday, at Nicola's Books in the Westgate Mall. Bacon probably talked to 200 people. You could have bought the book and been one of them.
Now, I am just trying to figure out when Mary Sue Coleman, Lloyd Carr and Dave Brandon are doing their next Q-and-A sessions. Anybody have that calendar?
They might be busy you know, running a major university, running an athletic department and not want to get dragged into a he said she said pissing match they can't win? Bacon is willing to do this because it helps sells his book and makes him money. Everyone else has better things to do on your list.
They can comment on anything they want to, and praticularly if Brandon is going to say things about Bacon's book, he ought to, you know, answer questions about what it is that he is saying.
For Mary Sue Coleman and Lloyd Carr in partucular, I submit: They not only had the right, to denounce Rosenberg and the Free Press at a very early date; they had the duty and the responsibility to do so. Carr, at the time, was a Senior Associate Athletic Director. Mary Sue Coleman, as President, made at least a couple of appearances and statements, specifically in relation to the NCAA investigation.
Carr is now retired, and spends his time going to speeches and dinners. Don't pretend that anyone will believe that Carr is too tied up with business to answer questions.
And as always; they are all free to shut up if they choose. But if Brandon is going to stand by an assertion that 50% of Bacon's book is false and exaggerated -- and I don't think that Brandon will stand by such an assertion -- then he had better answer questions.
Are you serious? They literally have nothing to gain from comments? Brandon made a comment to an athlete friend of mine in the course of a conversation, not some official statement, why should he have to do anything? He is intentionally doing in the media. As far as MSC denouncing that is just incorrect, just look at how dumb Gee made himself look by immediatley denouncing all the allegations, MSC doesn't know the ins and outs of the football team or NCAA rules why should she comment strongly against something that for all she knew could have been true? I'm gonna let you in on a secret everybody knows, nobody liked rich rod so nobody was going to go out an a limb and risk themselves for him. Bacon exxagerated the truth to sell a book and now we have this situation.
This... is Exhibit A in What Has Been So Fucked Up at The University of Michigan and Why Bacon's Book Is So Brutally Necessary.
A University President, worried about political correctness, afraid to attack a (fellow-traveling) liberal-leaning state newspaper, not well informed about what she is tasked with administering; an Athlietic Director speaking out of both sides of his mouth to different constituencies; and an inuslar university community lined up against the new guy.
Mind you, those aren't my allegations. The preceding paragraph is the logical extension of what you wrote.
YOU cited Brandon. You used an anonymous Brandon quote, to assert that probably the book isn't all that it is cracked up to be, because Brandon said so. That's garbage, unless people are willing to be accountable and answer questions. If it was a private off the record conversation and nobody is willing to own up to it, you shouldn't write it.
Two things, first what does liberal-leaning have anything to do with what it is being talked about? Just so you know because of that comment I am officially ignoring everything else you say after this because that is just assinine. Secondly, what? Granted I may not be wording myself correctly as I keep coming back to mgoblog to avoid studying for finals and my brain is fried but seriously, what? Do some things need to change about the Michigan fanbase? yes. Was Rich rod given fair treatment? I don't personally think so but I'm also not upset because I don't consider him a good coach and don't trust any coach that has come out of the big east, brian kelly and edsall aren't helping that out. But just because these things might be true that doesn't mean that the book is accurate or necessary. I don't believe Bacons book will have done anything to actually improve the culture sorrounding michigan football and the misinformation could possibly alienate people within the fanbase.
with you on this point. I do not want this to be a political statement. Only that politics should NOT influence MSC (or others).
MSC has an obligation to defend the U. I could care less about her politics but if it interferes with her duties then she must go. The U comes first. Politics comes second.
I support the U in most every aspect. I am a conservative but I typically support the U as an independant institution of higher learning. This includes both sides of the political spectrum. The only issue I did not support was that of affirmative action. I voted no and urged all my friends and collegues to vote no on the Constitutional Amendment (which passed by a substantial margin).
Wait do people think MSC didn't attack the free press sports writes because it is a liberal leaning paper? people need to step back a little.
she did ENOUGH to counter the claims. I do not know MSC or claim to know anything about her personally.
Maybe she is not a fighter, but rather an intellectual not capable of a good, hard fight. But that is what a good PR Dept is for. I dont think anyone at the U did a good job to fight back.
I honestly think she didn't want to be what Gee was. He immediatley and strongly jumped to the defense of tressell and got destroyed for it, I don't think she played it well, but thats what I think the thought process was, nothing political about it
be right. I doubt we will ever know the truth.
After the NCAA investigation of Michigan was complete, and after the NCAA had essentially accepted Michigan's self-sanctions, and had withdrawn the Failure to Monitor charge originally made with regard to Rodriguez, and after the University's official response had noted the gross variance between "the media reports" and the "twenty minutes" per week of stretching, and after the University had finally determined, in writing, that the [Free Press] reporting had been "greatly exaggerated if not flatly incorrect..."; after all of that, do you still think that Mary Sue Coleman would be going out on a limb, a la Gordon Gee, to point out what wrongful damage the Free Press had done to the University?
It appears to me that Mary Sue Coleman has never said much of anything, other than to say how very sorry she is on behalf of the University. That's not a good record for the President; failing to make the good case in defense of the University under an unfair attack.
For the record I did say I understand there is some bias. The line from Brandon also said 50% false meaning not everything was wrong just a lot was trumped up for a better book. I personally tend to believe Brandon on this considering 3rd parties without a bias have pointed out problems with some of Bacons facts already. Do any of us know for sure? of course not, but many people are taking Bacon as gospel and fact because it "proves" the rumors they heard to be true. Maybe all those things did happen, but this book is certainly not going to be what convinces me this is the case based off of what other people with access to the department have told me.
What troubles me about these kinds of assertions is that Bacon is putting the information out there, with the invitation for anyone to confirm or deny it. It's all there, the dates, facts, and figures. The fact that the only thing anyone has found so far to criticize are small errors in the narrative of a couple of games (out of over 35 over the course of the book) suggests that the information is more right than not.
All we've heard are second-hand assertions from the AD about the book being false, or, from Rosenberg, basically ad hominem attacks against Bacon's skills and character. This is exactly the kind of undermining I would expect from people who want to weaken the messenger because they can't deal with the message.
If Brandon can't address the book directly, then to tell people in private that the book is "false" seems like sheer dishonesty and political backstabbing. Thumbs down.
Well there was also the assertion that players were allowed to not go to class which is innacurate but at this point its just a he said she said thing that the university can't win. I don't know what happened, I just happen to believe that Bacon doesn't either.
I don't buy into the people on hear questioning Bacon's credability. Bacon is a VERY credible authr and journalist.
Does that include not taking calls during his WTKA radio appearances?
You might want to check with Brian Cook on that one.
As I've suggested before, let me know when the next Q-and-A is with Rosenberg, Snyder, Carr, Mary Sue Coleman and David Brandon.
That on the radio Sam slips and starts to give out the number, then says "what am I doing, we don't take calls during Bacon...". Why?
As for MGoBlog questions, he's not "answering questions"; as stated in the first segment, he's picking what question he wants to answer, and HOW he wants to answer them. He's not subjecting himself to a rough interview, or follow up. The fact that he completely passed on answer the A1 question, the defense, the FIRST time says his views on things that need to be answered are horribly skewed.
Answering convenient soundbytes in a bookstore where no one will here them isn't opening himself up to anything. Luckily for him no one cares to do an interview, because no one cares about the contents of a book that's sold 30k copies, except obsessive mental masturbators on the Internet.
our interaction is over.
The transition from being a student to being a professional has caused me even more perplexity re: all the time spent (and the logistics) on a website about topics that pale in significance compared to most things, including the pressures of a working professional life. This topic and exchange fit squarely within that, but your post appears to implicitly acknowledge what I find so perplexing.
Because he's too busy running and crying to a mod or something, but I fully include myself in that category. I'm on here, arguing about it. I have an MGoPoint or two. But we're the only one's that care. Bacon himself said he broke 30,000 copies. Actually pretty good in book terms. But perspective wise- less than a third of people in the Big House every Saturday read it (and if it was literally ONLY them, then NO ONE watching on tv opened a page). A drop in the bucket of Michigan fandom. What does the average fan care about? 10-2 instead of 7-6. Beating Ohio State. They don't obsess over it like some people around here do, me included. What Bacon wrote isn't Watergate. It's not even the college football equivalent. Bacon himself says his interviews dried up and the book went off the Nationsl radar because of the Penn State scandal.
It did exactly what the Michigan fandom chart said it would...changed no one's mind, and just continued arguments. And I've avoided them here, sticking to claims about Bacon, and his book. What changed things? Hoke and Team 132 winning games. In the end, that makes all the difference.
plus 1000 imaginary MGoPoints for the UHF reference.
As much as I am embarrassed by the treatment RR recieved from people here I used to respect the plain and simple truth is it just wouldn't have mattered had he won.
The "plain and simple truth" is that Lloyd Carr and his sycophants made it impossible for RR to win his first year, and very difficult his next two. The most important part of this story isn't RR's "collapse," but the fact that "Michigan Men" sabotaged the University of Michigan football program.
Funny how all of those "Michigan Men" agreed with Bo that a coach deserves and needs five years to finish his job until Lloyd Carr started his campaign of sabotage, but suddenly changed their stories.
Actually, it's more sad than funny.
The RR "horse" crumbled to dust long ago. We're now taking baseball bats, then garden rakes to clean the mess, to the ground he walked on for 3 years.
I just can't agree that the head coach is some passive figure who has no control over his team's success or failure. Having said that, the absence of editing in Duffy's piece makes it difficult for me to praise it, however much I might agree with some of his conclusions.
Lloyd Carr is solely responsible for Nick Moore catching 20 passes against Michigan and Steve Threet's pick 6.
You mean when he was talked into coming back for another year when he tried to resign at the end of '06?
in the preceding posts. I don't care to expend much more energy worrying about it.
Thank you to Team 132 and the 2011 Michigan Football Staff
I'm always concerned about forming opinions based on public information since we never really know how selective that information is. Having said that, we can only form opinions on the information available. Three and Out obviously presented a different perspective on the RR years than we had seen in prior public writings. I don't know if that means it's completely accurate or a possible distortion to counter all that had already been written. None of us will ever know that. All that said, the two things that really stand out for me are these. First, the book didn't present Rosenberg's or Carr's side, however as MGrowold pointed out, it appears they were given the opportunity but declined. If that's truly the case, they simply have to live with whatever is reported. Second, the thing that has really stuck out for me is that the players comment so much on how they are actually being "coached" now vs what they experienced under RR. That speaks volumes to me. Regardless of the type of defense played, whether it was mandated by RR, who was DC etc, that is all secondary if players weren't executing fundamentals properly. I know that wasn't a point of the book or the review but is related to the defensive issues commented on.
In the end, the book was entertaining, presented a perspective not previously seen and was enjoyable. However, like all public writings, it just has to be taken within the context of the view of the writer.
I don't think we're ever going to know there. That guy can keep his mouth shut. I think the best we can hope for is that Moeller writes something. I doubt Moeller would ever directly attack another Michigan coach, but he could definitely drop a few hints to suggest either Carr wasn't as bad as 3&O says he was or that Bacon is spot on.
Is Gary writing a book? Wow would he ever have some stories to tell and rumors to either confim or refute.
What's the old Chinese curse? "May you live in interesting times"? Looks like our HC's between Bo and Brady were very interesting.......