Ferentz, Alvarez, and Rodriguez
Rich Rodriguez's defenders generally point to Kirk Ferentz and Barry Alvarez as examples of coaches who were given bad situations, struggled enormously at first, but then were able to right their ships and become highly successful. If we only give Rich Rod enough time, the argument goes, he will surely do the same thing. CRex's recent diary includes a helpful chart comparing the initial records for the first three seasons of various Big Ten coaches. Once again, Alvarez and Ferentz are the only ultimately successful coaches on the list who did about as badly as Rich Rod in their first three years.
If you look more closely at their performances, the comparisons break down. Both Ferentz and Alvarez struggled greatly through their first three seasons, but they took huge leaps forward in year four, something that it doesn't look like Michigan will be capable of under Rodriguez.
Wisconsin under Alvarez
I was a kid in the late 1980s. I remember Wisconsin at the time as an absolutely atrocious team, one of the two worst in the Big Ten (along with Northwestern). They hired Alvarez in 1990, as indicated in bold on the chart below.
| 1987 | 3-8 |
| 1988 | 1-10 |
| 1989 | 2-9 |
| 1990 | 1-10 |
| 1991 | 5-6 |
| 1992 | 5-6 |
| 1993 | 10-1-1 |
| 1994 | 7-4-1 |
In short, Wisconsin struggled for three years, with gradual improvement, then won Big Ten and Rose Bowl championships in year four. They did slide back a bit, with a losing season in 1995, then ramped up in the Ron Dayne years and have been a very good, occasionally great Big Ten program ever since.
Iowa Under Ferentz
Ferentz inherited the Iowa program in a very similar situation to what Rich Rod had at Michigan. He replaced a beloved coach (Hayden Fry) who had done very well but slipped a bit toward the end of his career. If anything, Fry had fallen further than Lloyd Carr did, posting a very bad final season before Ferentz took over in 1999.
| 1996 | 9-3 |
| 1997 | 7-5 |
| 1998 | 3-8 |
| 1999 | 1-10 |
| 2000 | 3-9 |
| 2001 | 7-5 |
| 2002 | 11-2 |
| 2003 | 10-3 |
The pattern is strikingly similar. Rock bottom start, gradual improvement, then Big Ten champs in year four. In Ferentz's case, Iowa was 8-0 in the Big Ten in 2002. They didn't play OSU, and their only losses were to Iowa State and to USC's first juggernaut team in the Orange Bowl.
So what does it mean?
I confess that I don't know the details about the circumstances at either Iowa or Wisconsin leading up to the hiring of these coaches. If anyone did follow these programs very closely, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on what their situations were like at the time. But I think it's safe to assume that neither Alvarez nor Ferentz inherited much talent. Iowa was in decline prior to hiring Ferentz, and Wisconsin was terrible prior to hiring Alvarez. Yet these coaches, working with much more difficult recruiting situations than at Michigan, were able to turn their teams into Big Ten champs by year four. Does anyone think Michigan will be close to winning the Big Ten next year?
Can you name any highly successful coach who was unable to build his team into a winner by year four? That's not a rhetorical question. I haven't heard any names mentioned. The usual story is huge success in year two. That's what we see in virtually all the most successful coaches from the last decade: Tressell, Stoops, Carroll, Meyer, Brown, Saban. Am I missing anyone?
It's true, none of those coaches began in as bad a situation as Rich Rod did at Michigan. But Barry Alvarez and Kirk Ferentz did. Highly successful coaches seem to have a very swift upward trajectory when taking over a program. Even if you put them in the absolute worst situation possible, they manage to turn things around amazingly fast. Maybe Rich Rodriguez is an exception to that rule. If he is, he is a rare exception indeed.
November 1st, 2010 at 10:50 AM ^
First of all, the season isn't over yet.
Secondly, MSU is having a peak year, and is nothing like the team Michigan took to OT last year. They were a 6-7 team last year and are now poised to go 11-2 or at least 10-3. So, in the case of the MSU games, you are comparing apples and orangatans.
November 1st, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^
The fact that one loss was to an eventually 6-7 Sparty, and the other to a team currently 8-1, is of course irrelevant and unworthy of mention.
November 1st, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^
2008
O - Sheridan. Need I say more? Offense was terrible, and RR had nothing to work with. A few of the players he did have to work with were freshmen he got in last ditch efforts recruiting in impossible situations.
D - Potentially solid and somewhat veteran-laden unit. They under-achieved from expectations due to the offense constantly putting them in bad positions, it being the 1st year with new d-coord, and some players not having bought "all in" to Rrod in his 1st year.
You can't count 2008, but since he's the HC and he has to take some responsibility, i'll count 2008 as .25 years.
2009
O - Average to above average unit depending on in or out of conference play. Freshman qb's and fresh/soph non-redshirt contributors everywhere. Pretty good accomplishment for 1st real chance to put at least some players into the mix that even somewhat fit the system, especially considering we lose our best player on O (Molk) going into the heart of big 10 play. Still, this unit putting up roughly 30 pts a game is a nice improvement in an otherwise dire situation.
D - Terrible. 2nd year in a row with new D-coord. Walkons and freshmen seemingly everywhere. Secondary depth a huge concern. Graham beats triple teams but one super-human man can only do so much. Brown a nice surprise. Jr linebackers big letdown. Bad, inexperienced unit overall.
I count 2009 as .75 of a year. I cound the offense as .5, and only half of the defense at .25. There were too many things out of Rrod's control that effected how bad our d was in 09. You have to count the Schafer hire on him, and now he's got 1.5 recruiting classes in here, so of course Rrod takes some blame for this def, but poor recruiting before he was here, horrible attrition the likes of what noone has really seen before and generally horrible bad luck and circumstances can not all be put on him IMO. This coaching transition at M is an extreme one, and can not be compared to many, if even any that i can think of in today's media era.
2010
O - Denard. That about covers it. Lots of playmakers at WR. Lack stud at RB but have decent options. Great, better than expected offensive performance overall so far this season.
D - Somehow even worse than last year? AMSHG strikes down the 2nd or 3rd "most important player we can't lose if our D is even gonna have a chance at being mildly decent this year". Senior LBs are somehow still Arrrggghhhh. Many more things Aaarrrrggghhh that you all know and I don't have to type up...
Well, you have to count 2010. He's just been here too long now to put it on anyone else, right?
So, from how i look at it, after 2010 he would have been here 3 years, but i only count 2.
Or, a shorter synopsis: Attrition, Linebackers, Secondary, Gerg, Def, AMHG, Arrrggghhhh, You can't count most of 2008 and some of 2009 on RR and as crazy as it sounds he should get 2011 hands down without thinking about it and probably really 2012 as well if you decide to apply my logic, as messed up as it may be.
Currently i'm inbetween the following 2 scenarios for what I would do if I was the AD, and i took any and all details into consideration over the past 3 years (After this season is completed, assuming we finish 6-6 or 7-5. Yes, it's horrible we're reduced to hoping for a win against Purdue):
1. Fire entire defensive staff now. Rrod has til 2012 to have the D on the same level as the O. 2011 is 1st year with new def coord again. 2012 is the make or break year.
2. Keep GERG and defensive staff on for 2011. If we're not seriously competing for a B10 championship, Rrod and entire staff are let go. Essentially, if Rrod keeps GERG for 2011 and we see anything even close to as bad as 09 and 10, Rrod and his entire staff will pay the price.
Now, for those Rrod haters.... Do you really want to can GERG and give Rrod a built-in excuse for the Def in '11, allowing him to stick around for our Denard and Devin-led 2012 point-a-minute offense to take the country by storm much like Oregon's this year? Because if he makes it that long, it's gonna be hard to get rid of him, assuming we have somehow drummed up a competent d in that same amount of time.
November 1st, 2010 at 12:37 PM ^
I'm on the West Coast and only now able to respond to some of the points people have made.
To Hannibal, I think you're right that the comparison with Iowa and Wisconsin isn't that great because Michigan has better resources than either of those schools, and it should be easier to turn the program around. I chose Alvarez and Ferentz just because those are the two examples people always use of coaches who struggled at first but eventually succeeded. I still haven't heard of coaches at powerhouse programs who had similar delayed success.
As for the people who think Michigan can make the same big leap next year, I imagine that's what we're going to be debating ad nauseum over the offseason. I don't want to go into all the detail now, but I think it's reasonable to think the team will improve on both sides of the ball. With a good running back, the offense under Rodriguez next year should be very, very good. But the defense is so bad now that even a lot of improvement only gets you so far. When I look at Misopogon's breakdown above on defense, I still see a very shaky defense. Not atrocious like this year's but still probably fairly bad.
When I add that up, it looks to me like a Mike Leach Texas Tech team, except with running instead of passing. ("Ground Raid," anyone?) It's a team opponents are afraid to play, capable of beating a great team on any given Saturday, but probably in the 8-4, 9-3 range. To think of next year's team seriously competing on the same level as OSU or Nebraska would require some amazing improvements over the offseason. After the last couple of years, I'm not getting my hopes up. But feel free to disagree if that's what gets you through the offseason.
Comments