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.
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.......
Was a good review of the book. He touched on some things that left me "wanting" more from 3&O as well. I would also love to see a book by Moeller, but realize that probably won't happen.
Even Harbaugh had a DUI, and Brandon pursued him until he was told "NFL baby, NFL".
Gary Moeller remains one of the finest HC's of all time at UMich. Our '97 team was Mo's boys. Okay, stepping back from my dead horse, Gary Moeller's raw deal....
Just echoing others views in that I'd love to see a book by Moeller. I suspect it wouldn't be a lot of pages as he would get to the point pretty quick!
"The absent Rosenberg cannot raise his arms to defend himself."
Poetic justice. The poor dolphin couldn't raise any arms to defend himself either.
Except for this part:
This is felt most keenly with Bacon’s treatment of Detroit Free Press columnist Michael Rosenberg. He lands blow after blow, accusing the silent columnist, more or less blatantly, of unprofessionalism. Rosenberg is quoted second-hand saying “I don’t like that guy. I don’t think be belongs here” after Rodriguez’ initial press conference and threatening to run former AD Bill Martin out of his job. He’s publishes stories about swearing in practice, without having attended practice. He fails to distinguish between countable and non-countable hours to inflame his practice expose. The absent Rosenberg cannot raise his arms to defend himself.
Why oh why does Rosenberg still get the benefit of the doubt after what happened?!? Bacon was actually relatively tame in his treatment of Rosenberg...but good God, after what happened with it all, how can you NOT accuse the guy of being blatantly unprofessional? I mean, sheesh. Rosenberg was a journalist...he very well could have defended himself, and he was one of the few fricking guys who actually DID, given the chance (in the book)! He was interviewed! What more do you want?!? I just can't help but get infuriated at this.
Yeah, that sucks.
I think there are a handful (not several, just a handful) of UMich fans who, if tied to a chair, would admit that they have mixed feelings about Rosenberg. After all, he did contribute to what is, in their view, a favorable outcome (getting rid of Rodriguez, costs and program damage be damned).
haven't put two and two together by now regarding the defenses during the RR era. There was a real lack of talent and GERG failed utterly; Bacon's only choice, and RR's too, would have been to crucify the guy. They're all being painfully polite and their silence speaks volumes.
There was a real lack of talent? Almost the entire defense this year was comprised of the same players as last year.
Secondary has improved with JT and Blake.. Other than that you are right
established fact. We've got a bunch of freshmen playing THIS year, and both Mattison AND Hoke have as much as admitted that the players on hand, great guys all, were not at the talent level they hope to make a regular thing. And you completely ignore my point--GERG f'd up what he had, mightily; Bacon and RR have gone out of their way to avoid saying it straight out.
So you think that GERG just suddenly decided, on his own, to run the 3-3-5? Or that it was his call to keep Tall, Braithwaite and Gibson on staff?
The defense bore a lot of RR's own fingerprints.
The defense was a car wreck the first year, before GERG got there, and there was talent on the roster.
(Though saying freshmen had to play THIS year as a defense of talent acquisition the last 3 years in...an interesting ...take.)
It says something that the only choice you can imagine for RR is to throw Greg Robinson under the bus, instead of, perhaps, taking responsibility for the hire, for the choice of scheme, for the choice of position coaches, or just taking responsiblity on general principles since he was the head coach.
I hope it says more about you than about Rodriguez.
It was a decent book review, but it still plays up the usual talking points about RR/Carr/Brandon/Freep that have circulated since he showed up. Yes, RR had trouble selecting a defensive coordinator and then following through on that plan, he had trouble with the media, etc. But I thought the book basically pointed out how unprofessional Rosenberg was - and he had ample opportunities to defend himself - and how the old guard at the University either conciously or unconciously undermined RR's tenure early on, especially when the losses mounted. RR definitely deserves some blame for that, but look at this year - with basically the same offense as last year but with a much-improved defense (by finally hiring a good DC and the simple maturation of all those young players RR brought it) the team won 10 games and made it to a BCS bowl game.
So to say that if RR had just won he would have stayed seems myopic - RR needed time and a better approach to/plan for the defense, and one led to the other. It is RR's fault about not enabling his defensive coaches to do better, but some blame also fell on Brandon and the rest of the AD for not paying enough to get the top coaches that we now see maning the sidelines. And I honestly do believe that with another year of development, this team would have won 9-10 games under RR (especially if a new DC had been brought it), and all would have been forgotten. I love Hoke and think he is a good coach, but to say that RR should have just won more games because Hoke did (and that was not a point made by Duffy but is one I've seen around) his first year ignores the chasm of differences between the two situations and reinforces some of the false equivalences that littered the whole RR/Hoke debate. I think RR needed to leave because the situation was forever toxic, but in no way should we feel "sorry" for guys like Rosenberg, Carr, Martin, and Brandon simply because a book pointed out how they acted during RR's time at UM.
The review cited hits one of the main points that many people hoped would be answered (even partially) by the book - why the defense performed badly and for so long. Bacon gives one possible explanation and it probably plays a role but not the whole story. RR would have liked to have Casteel on board, but because of money and perhaps Casteel thought he had a good chance as the next HC at WVU, it didn't happen. As the reviewer and many others noted, where Bacon's account weakens is what happened next with Shafer and Robinson. He probably was at attendance at some meetings and probably caught a sense (even as a fan) of what the team was trying to do on the defensive side to shore things up. We really don't hear much of it. Which leads to the broader problem with the book - again many others have noted this: the incomplete nature of the information. We don't really hear from Carr, Brandon, Robinson, Shafer, Martin, etc. We don't really know what they thought or what over moves were happening. Maybe Bacon did know more - a lot more but chose not to write it. Maybe this was all he knew. Remember he took on the task from a particular point of view - inside RR's team of coaches.
Sometimes it takes decades for the main details to come out. Sometimes we (the public) never really know.
1. An unique insider view.
2. Humanizes the time under RR. He actually comes across better than his general public relations image - no one is going to forget the record, but it shows that he wasn't insensitive to the losses and definitely hurt him a lot. It is worth remembering that while the typical super fan may be down in the dumps after a bad loss, he hurt just as much if not more because we all had our "real" lives to go back to whereas this was his real life and it turned from a dream to a nightmare.
3. Actually an interesting book for non-FB fans - shows what can happen when one steps into a job with a long historical legacy and a lot of the "old hands" still around. A practical lesson for anyone coming as an outsider. Were there people against RR from the beginning? Probably but there were plenty of missteps as well on his part: bad advice, bad decisions, and trusting too much the wrong people. Maybe it was the way Bacon chose to portrayl him but he comes across as surprisingly naive in many of his dealings. We'll get to see if he learned anything from his time at Arizona.
Less good parts:
1. Inside view - but either heavily self-edited or lacking in crucial details (e.g. a good discussion of the whole defense situation)
2. Missing information and details from other major players - granted this was after all from the POV of someone "embedded" with RR's coaches.
3. After this book, we'll probably never see another one like this for decades unless Moeller, Carr, Brandon or RR write something. After Season on the Brink came out, it altered how these books were perceived. It showed the negative side and not the usual hagiography, but it also made future subjects very wary and cautious.
It's amazing Michigan or anyone else has ever won a game without Casteel to man their defense. Because he's apparently the only good coordinator in the Country.
I must have missed the massive pay cuts Rich staff took to come to Michigan; because Michigan couldn't have been winning for 40 years with underpaid coaches, they were obviously all paid market value while they were winning. Salary = talent.
The new fragrance that you can't let go.
Brought to you by Rich Rodriguez.
Maybe its my poor reading comprehension, but nothing in the book changes my opinion of Rich Rodriguez's performance as head coach. What could Lloyd Carr have done that caused poor fundamentals, game planning, and in-game adjustments? The off the field distractions could have been handled better, but don't excuse the poor on-field play. There's a reason college coaches make millions. Its their job to get their team ready to play no matter what.
Basically Bacon wrote a book telling us one side of the story. It was interesting, but I'm sure he could have easily wrote another book telling the other side of the story that would have been just as compelling for the case against Rich.
I thought the review was right on except the parts about Carr and Rosenberg. As others have pointed out, they could have responded with their take. But it didn't take the book to lower my opinion of Carr and Rosenberg. Carr's silence as the alumni fractured spoke volumes – at the time. He could and should have been leading the all in for Michigan charge, but he did the opposite. I knew that two years before Three And Out came out.
As for Rosenberg, I don't think Bacon charged him with too much more than had already been established here at MGoblog and elsewhere. Bacon went into more detail, but the general point of Rosenberg's ethical sloth was established well before the book.
So basically, Ty Duffy feels the same way most of us do about the book. OK great, now let's move on.
Rich Rod told us everything we needed to know about the defense last year and Bacon figured everyone got it. Vince Lombardi couldn't have fixed that D. No need to write anything else.
seriously though I haven't finished the book yet, but Bacon has wrote at least five times so far that Rodriguez always took the blame and put everything on himself....and everytime I read this I just keep thinking about Rodriguez saying Lombardi couldn't fix the D.