Michigan Museday Finishes That Thought
Michigan is 7-1 right now with four winnable games on the horizon. We have an excellent coaching staff and a team and fanbase united behind them. We have a top 5 recruiting class, yet one of the cleanest programs in the Top 25, and one of the hungriest. A victory over Ohio State this year for the first time seems at least 50% likely. The defense is young but competent, the offense scares people. We have all the Denards.
It took me three sessions to get through Three and Out, and after each one I had to repeat some variation of the above mantra to recalibrate. The book is about the program and the team from the perspective of Rodriguez, it has a hard Michigan bias and got at least one minor fact wrong,* but as an RR-era survivor I couldn't help experiencing it again as a fan. Reliving the Rod years is not a particularly enjoyable experience.
-------------------------------------
* He gives the program credit for giving Kovacs, an out-of-state player, a scholarship despite out-of-state tuition being much higher, but the AD—and I'm 99.999% sure about this—pays the same (full) cost of attendance for every student athlete. Everyone costs the maximum whether they're suburban Toledo defensive backs, underclass volleyball strikers from Algonac, or intergalactic space punters in the B-school.
-------------------------------------
What struck me most when reading Bacon's book was how important those years made this all seem. He mentions match points a lot; there were a lot of match points, and not just the football game ones. Like every article in every rag across the country that ragged on our coaches meant organizing a counter-defense. We were blogging for our very lives!
The second, and longest, of those sessions ended around page 415, or Location 8691 for you Kindle readers. Rodriguez was giving his speech at the infamous Bust, moments before the Great Groban-ing finally tipped the scales. 
I quote the passage:
"We all need to be ONE Michigan. One Michigan. Proud of every era. Proud of every young man, every student athlete who went through this program…
…
After giving a nod to Michigan tradition, he was now speaking of what his coaches were doing to turn their players into a team of Michigan Men. Now that he understood Michigan traditions, Michigan needed to extend him the respect he needed to lead the program…
…
The raw emotion of the speech went up a notch.
"Is this worth it?" Behind that question stood all the personal and professional costs of the past three years. "Is this worth it for your family?" he asked, getting choked up.
The answer wasn't clear-cut. It wasn't a matter of feeling sorry for yourself, he said, though the temptation was always there. It was instead seeing "the pain in the coaches' faces and worry and anxiety in your kids' faces." He wasn't speaking just of the losses but also of the personal attacks and the seemingly endless public trial he and his staff and players had been put through.
But, unequivocally, Rodriguez said, the answer was yes. Yes, it was worth it. It was worth it because the differences made in the lives of everyone attached to the program, said, and because of his unquestioning faith in the future greatness of his players and team.
And right there I had to painfully leave it for a day of work. I knew as well as you do where this was going, but without its infamous conclusion I got to ponder the content of the Bust speech and mentally fill in 
my own ending. In it I had him define "Michigan" and confront the idea of factions…
"If you ask me what side I'm on it's for these players, and the ideals of hard work, excellence, education, loyalty, and honesty which they embody—in a word, 'Michigan.' If you ask our own living legend, Lloyd Carr, who stood as a rock of integrity in a business that makes a mockery of it, what side he's on, it's 'Michigan.' If you ask our millions of fans and alumni what faction they're with, it'll be Michigan! Michigan! Michigan!" etc.
…and then come back to "Is it worth it," where "it" isn't just poor Rich and his staff but the players and the program. This is the thing that Hoke "gets" that Rodriguez didn't: there's nothing that can galvanize Michigan fans like talk about how great Michigan is, and the unity of the fanbase is all-important.
Of course he didn't take that tack but before he Groban-ed himself out of the job Rodriguez did give us a question worth pondering: "Was it worth it?"
Well was it? All the battles, all the interminable defenses, all the GERG and gimpy Gibsonesque defensive backing? The transfers, the divisiveness, the losing, the jihad—were these all worth it if that was the price to chip off the hubris from our program's unique idealism?
The RR years left us with a defense so bad it would literally need the Baltimore Ravens' D.C. and more than one outstanding freshman to even get to okay. It also left a team and a fanbase more united behind our program and our ideals than anytime in recent memory. We may have had to throw one of the rare good guys who can actually coach under the bus to get there, but we did get there. Other than a bit of whining last February, the mistakes made in the last transition have not been repeated, either inside Fort Schembechler or outside of it. The liars and the leaks were exposed. And these players, man. 
Can you remember a team more worth rooting for?
I got to the end of the book feeling more favorable toward Rodriguez than I was before, but ultimately, like Brian, still glad we've moved on from all that. But in some ways, I'm also glad he came. Because that subtext, the possibilities left unrealized at every match point, all the stuff that was on the tip of the tongue right before everything went Josh Groban, weirdly enough we got to keep all of that, and move on.
Michigan is 7-1 right now with four winnable games on the horizon. We have an excellent coaching staff and a team and fanbase united behind them. We have a top 5 recruiting class, yet one of the cleanest programs in the Top 25, and one of the hungriest. A victory over Ohio State this year for the first time seems at least 50% likely. The defense is young but competent, the offense scares people. We have all the Denards. Hoke and his staff have a lot to do with that, but a lot of that comes from what was built before them. In his own completely inelegant way, Rodriguez left a program in better shape than he found it. Perhaps that can be my last thought on him.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:55 AM ^
http://johnubacon.com/2011/10/three-and-out-interview-podcasts-and-excerpts/
In this interview with Sam and Ira, John clearly states that according to reliable sources with which he is close, much like the Les Miles situation, Dave Brandon never really considered Jim Harbaugh and that even once he became an NFL coaching candidate JH was still very much wanting to coach Michigan but that Michigan never gave him more than a consiliatory offer and that Dave Brandon never even spoke to jim Harbaugh personally..
November 1st, 2011 at 10:40 AM ^
"In his own completely inelegant way, Rodriguez left a program in better shape than he found it. Perhaps that can be my last thought on him"
I could not disagree more with this statement. Aside from bringing Denard to Michigan, I cannot think of one positive to come out of the RR era. It will take another 2-3 years to rebuild our team from the RR era, as we will continue to be thin and somewhat deficient at several positions (see 2012 D-Line depth chart). That we are 7-1 is a symptom of a weak B10 (wins over NU, Minny and Purdue don't exactly impress) and ND literally throwing away the game - not to take anything away from this team, but just being realistic.
November 1st, 2011 at 10:49 AM ^
There is considerably more talent on this team than the one that RR inherited. Additionally they are all a great group of players who have bought in and stuck around for their new coach, something that can't be said for the players RR inherited.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^
I disagree. The team that RR inherited included one of the top QBs in the country, Mr. Plow (who was considered to be a highly-regarded lineman), and even Arrington (likely gone anyway, so not on RR). It also included a slew of other players who left. So, while RR fielded a team in 2008 with little talent, the team that he inherited when he walked in had plenty of talent.
As to the 2008 players leaving, but the 2011 players sticking around, one could argue that this may have something more to do with Hoke being better than RR at keeping existing players than some inherent characteristic of the players themselves. An example: Hoke came in to a situation where the best player on the team was an incredibly highly rated qB, but one who is completely not suited for his system. Rather than forcing the pro style offense, Hoke said from day 1 that he would gradually incorporate pro style concepts, but that he would work the offense around Denard's immense talents. Contrast that with RR running the spread with Sheridan and Threet. Do you wonder why Mallett left? Has RR said from the beginning that he would run an offense around Mallett (hell, maybe even keep the QB coach for a year or so), maybe Mallett would have stayed.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^
Ahh, but the point to be made back is that many of those who left were encouraged to do so by the fomer head coach who said he would sign their transfer papers. I note at the last transition, the outgoing coach did nothing of the sort.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:32 AM ^
I think that there is a difference between Carr saying "if anyone wants to leave, I will sign your transfer papers" and "encouraging" players to leave. Hell, Hoke has signed the transfer players for a few of the kids he inherited, so I presume that the same offer existed for this new crop, but few have left.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:41 AM ^
WTF? Why would you presume that RR held a team meeting and made the same offer on his way out when it has already been stated that he in fact did the opposite? RR held a meeting and encouraged the players to stay and play for their new head coach, each other, and Michigan.
The meeting Carr held was the first of it's type I've ever heard of occurring in any football program.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:58 AM ^
You're missing a key point. Carr said that he would sign the papers IF the players wanted to leave. RR encouraged them to stay, yes, but he probably would have let them leave if they wanted, because he's a nice guy like that. Who are Carr or RR to refuse a player something they wanted to do?
November 1st, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^
According to the book, Carr basically told Mallett to leave. He never even met with RR. So, to say RR ever had this top QB is just plain wrong and wrong because a person Michigan was paying $400,000 a year to remain as an associate athletic director directed that QB right out the door. It also appears he was pretty instrumental in Boren's departure. What Carr did was inexcusable.
November 1st, 2011 at 12:51 PM ^
Don't leave out the fact that leaving was the right move for Ryan Mallett, if not for the team. Guys who stuck by their teammates should be praised, but it's not wrong to do the right thing for yourself. He had future teammates and his hometown school to stand by and made his decision. Since that had as much to do with who was coming in at Arkansas as who was coming in at Michigan, I don't think Mallett leaving, considered from his perspective, is that crazy of a thing.
November 1st, 2011 at 12:56 PM ^
There's an equally huge difference between being willing to sign transfer papers after sitting down and talking with a player and offering an entirely unprompted "If you want to leave I'll sign your papers right now" to the whole team.
EDIT: this was meant as a reply to michgoblue a few posts up
November 1st, 2011 at 1:27 PM ^
What about the reports the Carr told Malletts Dad that he needed to get out of Ann Arbor? As well as the fact you do not A. introduce him as a possiblity just b/c you have beef w/ Miles and B. Hold a meeting in the 1st place and tell them I will sign your papers, you tell your team when your still the HC that you fully expect them to give the new HC the same respect they gave you.
Carr did a disservice to the team in that respect, the man has done many many good deeds but when the team needed him the most he remained silent because thats what he has always done.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:33 AM ^
I'm not sure how people can blame RR for Mallet, Arington or Manningham considering they were probably leaving anyway. We all know Mallet could easily have left if Carr had stayed on, and without him I see no reason for the 2 WRs to stick around. It's not like it would have helped their draft stock any with the QBs left on the roster.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^
If Mallett had stayed, Arrington would have stayed. Breaking in a new QB was not going to help his draft stock. Have a big armed thrower might. Manningham was gone either way.
November 1st, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^
and remember nothing positive about him and this helps feed their negativity.
Fools will say "Aha! see, Hoke must be better at keeping players in the program because he got Denard to stay, while Rodriguez couldn't get Mallet to stay!"
Right.
So now we're comparing an incoming sophomore quarterback who was unpopular on the team, had at least 2 televised moments where his receivers were screaming at him in a manner much more than "get your head together!" (Illinois and Wisconsin), who was homesick and who was the exact opposite of Pat White and who did nothing to disprove any of the negatives about his character leading up to the NFL draft....to Denard, the reigning BT Offensive POY, probably the most popular Michigan athlete and someone who - unless you're Desmond Howard - no one has a bad word to say towards. Man, something tells me one had a little more incentive to stay at the program than the other, but it is neck and neck.
Manningham. Gone. People seem to forget he was projected as a first-rounder for much of the season.
Arrington came off his best game in college, with his options being new coach, new quarterback, new running back, 3 new offensive linemen or take his chances in the NFL. Yeah.
Boren. Family Values, aka wanted a bigger allowance that Sugar Daddy Tressel would allow him to have down at Tat U.
The fact is, unlike say Brandon Graham, no one on Michigan's team this year really lit it up in an NFL manner last season. Mike Martin was probably the man who could go the highest and he had an average second half. Unlike in 2008, when many of the guys could look around and easily say "yeah, things are probably going to slide now that we've lost Henne, Hart and Long", this season most guys could easily look around and say "Yeah, everyone is coming back, we should definitely have more going for us than 7-6".
The situations are completely different. In all honesty, and I will maintain this till the end of time, Rodriguez just wasn't the right guy to bring in as head coach in 2008 given the roster we began with after his hire.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:37 AM ^
Did you read the book?
If you had, you would know that Lloyd (for whatever reason) offered to help players transfer as early as December 2007, and in the cases of Boren and Mallett, actively encouraged them to leave.
As far as the adapting offense thing goes, that was discussed in the book, as well as on this blog for the last 3 years. If you haven't gotten it through your head by now that an offense with one returning starter and freshmen and walkons at nearly every position was going to struggle no matter what system they ran, then you never will.
November 2nd, 2011 at 12:23 AM ^
What does it matter if he "inherited" a full team but "fielded" a team with fewer players? Add Mallett and Boren and Arrington to the team, and we still have far less talent than every team Lloyd Carr ever fielded.
November 1st, 2011 at 12:56 PM ^
We had something like 8 returning starters on defense in 2008. there's no way it should have performed as bad as it did.
November 1st, 2011 at 1:29 PM ^
QB 10Steven Threet
Nick Sheridan 8
Actually, I don't think the defense was so bad in '08, given how bad the offense was. I thought it odd, that Schafer never seemed to progress much with that defense. I didn't shed any tears over Schafer's departure.
And like Brian Cook, I never really understood the hiring of GERG.
November 1st, 2011 at 2:16 PM ^
You get beaten down and frustrated over time when you are let down by your teammates. Anyone who has ever been on a team in any sport where you feel you are carrying others knows this.
In 2008, I imagine thats what the defense felt like knowing that no matter how well they played, the offense wasn't going to be able to hold up their end of he bargain.
In 2011, you could probably say the same thing about the offense having to carry the carcass of the defense/special teams.
Look at the Colts this year: earlier in the year, the defense had some good performances that gave themselves a chance to win. But the last few weeks, they look like they've been going through the motions, probably because it has set in that there is nothing in it for them this season....due to the Painter era.
November 2nd, 2011 at 12:29 AM ^
I am guessing when people said the defense was supposed to carry us in 08, they didn't know veterans on said defense would actively rebel against the new coach. Hell, Morgan Trent went so far to undermine RichRod that Lloyd Carr called him out. That speaks volumes.
November 1st, 2011 at 10:51 AM ^
Let's line up 2008 Michigan vs. 2011 Michigan and play a football game.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:05 AM ^
What you should be saying is the 2008 team without departures due to the coaching change vs. the 2010 team as the addition of Hoke/Borges/Mattison most likely changed this team (mostly defense) from what it was going to be into something better.
I would wager a team that fielded Mallet at QB with Manningham and Arrington at WR with an OL that would have been better in a Hoke-type system that year with Boren (just being realistic here) and a competent downhill runner in Brandon Minor would have been able to shred a Rich Rod team with whatever 3-3-5 defense that is being fielded.
I can't personally say that Rich Rod left the program in better shape than when he arrived. We had major NCAA violations, a stain on the program that will be there forever, in addition to two bowlless season. Did Rich Rod's last year appear more successful than his first? Definitely. But was the entire program better off by having Rich Rod as a coach for three years? I'd say no.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:10 AM ^
Those guys were gone regardless of who the coach was. This is per Bacon and, I think, common sense. Arrington had the game of his life in the Capital One Bowl. Manningham was chafing under the restrictions of college life. Both would have lost Jake Long, Chad Henne, Mike Hart, etc. no matter who the coach was. The stock of each was in all likelihood at its highest point at the end of 2007.
I don't care to get into a debate about whether a hypothetical 2008 team could beat a 2011 team, but blaming Coach Rod for losing Manningham and Arrington always bugs me.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^
You are probably right, but we can't say for sure. Either way, my point was that the measure of putting the two teams against each other and detrmining who wins cannot accurately access the progress of a program as a whole.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:14 AM ^
They were major violations in the same way that driving 28 in a 25 mph zone is a felony.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^
Sure, I agree with you. That said, Michigan was still hit with major NCAA violations. I don't care if it was exceeded practice time by 1 minute. The University of Michigan should never be sanctioned for breaking major NCAA rules. That is the standard I hold for the University of Michigan.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:23 AM ^
I bet that line sounds pretty awesome in a vacuum.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:28 AM ^
Which line? Are you saying you disagree?
November 1st, 2011 at 11:37 AM ^
The University of Michigan should never be sanctioned for breaking major NCAA rules. That is the standard I hold for the University of Michigan.
Uh, okay, I agree. The University of Michiga should never commit, and never be sanctioned for, major violations of the NCAA bylaws. You should tell that, to the University of Michigan. The address is 1000 S. State St., Ann Arbor MI 48109-2201.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:48 AM ^
That was a response to Don, who made it appear like the major violations were nothing to be concerned with as it was like exceeding the speed limit by 3mph.
Also, I am aware that I can contact the University of Michigan by sending a letter to the aforementioned address. I attended the University and am familiar with the locale. Thank you for that information.
That said, as you agree with me and share the same sentiment, you can join me in constructing a letter and we can send it in together. What do you think? Does that sound like something you might be interested in?
November 1st, 2011 at 12:16 PM ^
The NCAA investigation of the University of Michigan's football program was media-driven. It was PC. It was a witch-hunt aimed at Rich Rodriguez and Mike Barwis. It was a joke. It was hyper technical. It was silly. It was much ado about nothing.
Don's right. It was very much like 28 mph in a 25 zone. It was like being accused of racketeering, only to find out that you didn't have reciepts for some of your business lunches. It was like being accused of dealing heroin, but determined that you merely borrowed somebody else's Viagra.
I think the University knows all of that, although they were excrutiatingly deferential to the NCAA.
So that was the point I was making, perhaps with a little more edge than Don.
I wouldn't have too much else to say to the University about that, although I'd like to know why certain individuals -- Mary Sue Coleman, the Regents, Lloyd Carr, all of Michigan's past football letterwinners -- didn't come right out and forcefully and angrily condemn the false and exaggerated reporting of the Detroit Free Press. I am not aware of any of those people having condemned the paper. And indeed, the University's official response, crafted by superb lawyers and under David Brandon's capable direction, DID say that the paper had gotten it very wrong. So "the University" is probaly okay. I just want(ed) to see it personalized, and i wanted to see it coming from the individuals who form the University's top echelon.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:52 AM ^
The book makes it clear that the CARA forms were an ongoing issue with the football team, and were screwed up by staffers who RR inherited from Carr.
Had the Freep Jihad been initiated in 2007, it's likely that violations of a similar magnitude would have been discovered. Certainly, most everything in Rosenberg's origninal article could have been said with equal truth about Carr's teams (or, frankly, most teams).
This doesn't excuse the violations, but it does make it harder to pin them on Rich Rod as a unique stain on Michigan's legacy.
As for player transfers, Manningham and Arrington were always likely out, Mr. Plow left because his brother didn't get offerred a schollie, and Mallet left without even speaking to RR (his decision was probably informed as much by the opening at Arkansas as by the regime change in AA). These guys were all a high flight risk, and Carr didn't help the situation. And RR was a spread coach, and was hired to be a spread coach - if players don't want to play in a spread, that's on Martin for making the hire. RR's hire may have been the catalyst that sped them out the door, but it's not really his fault if players leave before he has a chance to work with them.
November 1st, 2011 at 1:42 PM ^
^ this comment end discussion.
Mistakes made ALL around coupled w/ media bias = shitstorm
November 1st, 2011 at 12:39 PM ^
Is that you hold up the NCAA as a body that demonstrates logic and fairness when governing amateur sports?
November 1st, 2011 at 1:07 PM ^
Given the broad scope of NCAA violations that fall under the definition of "major", I guarantee you that if investigators came and went over Hoke's program with a microscope, some "major" violation would be found. Would've been found during Schembechler's regime, Moeller's, Carr's, any program in America. The question is were the violations commited malicously and intentionally (i.e. Tressel) or inadvertently as in our case? I think it's been pretty well documented here if the U of M compliance office had done their job correctly, none of the NCAA investigation would have ever taken place and that the lionshare of the blame lies with them, not Rodriguez.
Honestly, using the NCAA Practicegate situation as the justification for getting rid of Rich is the crutch of the run-of-the-mill uninformed fan. This is what the "Get Off My Lawn" guy two rows in front of me in Section 39 says about Rodriguez. As a reader of this blog, you are automatically better informed than that guy. Adopting such a simplistic black and white assessment is just lazy arguing on your part
November 1st, 2011 at 1:35 PM ^
My statement was never about getting rid of Rich Rodriguez and I'm afraid people are miscontruing my statements as reasons to have fired him. The point I was trying to make was whether or not the program itself is better off after his tenure than when he arrived. Unfortunately, due to the NCAA violations, blemishes like that affect the program. The attrition, the W-L record, the negative public stigma that surrounded the program all became factors that, in my opinion, made the program worse off than when Coach Rod started in 2008. That said, all of this is mostly not the fault of Rich Rodriguez nor do I blame him for any of the circumstance.
I still stand by my statement that the program isn't better off by having him as coach from 2008-2010.
That was the point I was trying to make.
November 1st, 2011 at 6:05 PM ^
We're currently sitting on a Top 5 recruiting class for 2012 and making a great head start on 2013, so I don't think the blemish of our "major" NCAA violations has had any impact our image nationally. I think the whole Practicegate episode has settled into it's proper perspective in the collective fan consciousness, just a minor footnote in Michigan football history and really much ado about nothing. In the grand scheme, the scandals swirling around USC, OSU, Miami and the like are events that will have more traction with the media and will have much longer lasting repercussions for those programs.
November 1st, 2011 at 7:14 PM ^
Yes, Michigan is looking at two very good recruting classes, 2012 and 2013.
When you have an NCAA "scandal(?)" wherein the outcome is uncertain, and when that scandal, and the rumblings of insiders have put the head coach on the "hot seat," those are things that make recruiting difficult, and it is very nice indeed for Brady Hoke that he does not have to face those kinds of problems.
Even better for Brady Hoke is that our main recruiting rival IS experiencing all of the very bad things that dogged Rich Rodriguez through 2009-10. NCAA, coaching "hot seat," uncertainty, etc.
So yes; you make some good points, and very nicely worded at that. I particularly liked this:
"...the whole Practicegate episode has settled into it's proper perspective in the collective fan consciousness, just a minor footnote in Michigan football history and really much ado about nothing."
And yeah, in the past, those weren't minor things like they are (correctly) now. But while they lasted, they certainly were part of the devilish off-field unfairness that dogged Rich Rodriguez
November 3rd, 2011 at 12:23 PM ^
I agree with your point that at the time of the investigation, the brouhaha around the program was much louder than it is now. I was really just trying to put kev's point in perspective whereas he's all Lady Macbeth, "garggg! The stain will be with us forever!!!!" and I think the majority viewpoint on is much more "yawn, what? Michigan football got sanctioned? When? Oh yeah, that bullshit practice thing".
Bottom line, Rodriguez and the whole NCAA investigation thing was unpleasant but by now means crippled this program long term in any way, shape, or form. OSU is in much worse shape {cue requisite gif of guy eating popcorn}.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:32 AM ^
they are classified as "major". The example you gave was a civil infraction.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:37 AM ^
is farcical, especially since it means they're lumped into the same general category as the far more important and serious crap going on at other programs. But if you prefer to believe that overpracticing minutes per week and having some junior assistant flunkies attending practice when they shouldn't be is truly "major" and constitutes a true stain on the program that all UM fans and alumni should be embarrassed about, that's up to you.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:06 AM ^
Oh snap. michgoblue? Rebuttal?
November 1st, 2011 at 11:59 AM ^
There were only 2 losing seasons. Other than that 33.3% misstatement of the RR record, good points!
November 1st, 2011 at 11:20 AM ^
2008 Michigan with Mallet would be pretty close, IMO.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^
Denard? Martin? Kovacs? Roh
There are a lot of good, likeable guys on this squad. Watch the halloween costume video again. Yes, he left the program a little thin at some spots, and with a cloud over the program, but the guys who stayed...they are great.
No offense to Mallet, Arrington, Boren, etc but those guys weren't as likeable IMO.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:23 AM ^
I like the players on this team as much as any group of Wolverines since I started watching. Denard is right up there with Woodson in my book. Also, don't leave our Lewan, Molk and V. Smith - those guys are awesome.
So, if we are asking did RR leave the program with more likeable players? Yes although we have always had pretty likeable guys with the few exceptions that you noted.
But, from a football perspective, did breaking our 33 year bowl streak, having 3 losing seasons, leaving a paper thin roster due to poor recruiting and player retention, NCAA violations (BS or not, they exist), public mockery, worst defenses ever and Grobin (kidding on this last one), I would have to say no. RR inherited a program that, while definitely in decline, was still nationally respected. When he came in, nobody would say "RR has to repair a broken Michigan program." The same cannot be said for Hoke.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:37 AM ^
The only reason no one would say he had to repair a broken program is because people didn't see the crap he had when he got there. And as we can see with OSU, the possibility of NCAA sanctions can have a pretty powerful impact on recruiting. I just don't see how RR can be held accountable for either of those things. Blame him for the terrible defensive coaching, the constant mistakes when he was in front of a microphone and the Groban thing, but not for the shit he had dumped on him while he was at Michigan.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^
But really, the team wasn't doomed when he got here. If (possible a big if) Mallet had stayed and we got a Lloyd-type guy in 2008, We probably would have been a decent bowl team. The D was actually pretty good, but they suffered from the offense going 3 and out every other drive. It's not RR's fault that a lot of the guys left, but to say that the 2008 squad was doomed no matter what is probably wrong.
Comments