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 12:00 PM ^
Do you recall how our run game was run left? That was because the only good players on the OL were Long and Kraus, who were on the left side. They were both gone after 2007, and no one behind them was very good. Shilling was decent but not great. Boren would have been a big help but I can't believe how many blame Rodriguez for Boren leaving. Should he have been held hostage by a player who won't stick around if his brother isn't recruited? What would people say if Roh told Hoke that if his brother wasn't offered a scholarship to Michigan he'd transfer? They'd probably think Hoke should stand by his principles and sign Roh's transfer papers.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:33 AM ^
This whole "the team is so likeable" ruse is really getting old. Yeah, great comparison above. Take the most popular guys on the team now and compare them with guys from the previous team that the fanbase now hates and pretend it is indicative of the whole team. What about Hart, Henne, Long, BG? Michigan has always had great kids. This is not something RR started. Michigan has also had assholes on the team. This is not something RR discontinued.
The whole " likeable" team ruse is something diehard RR appologists emphasize to make up for the lack of actual on-field success. Not to say its not important that the team is composed of great young men, but to act like its some new phenomonon at Michigan that RR brought is disingenuous.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:51 AM ^
I don't think so. I think the reason this group of players is so likeable is that we've had much more access to them than guys like Hart and Henne. Some of that has to do with Lloyd's tightly guarded program, but the explosion of internet content in the last few years, particularly video, has had a big impact.
Just this week we have an awesome Daily article about Molk and the Halloween costume video. We've gotten a much closer look at individual personalities (Roundtree's Donald Duck impression, Taylor Lewan joking around all the time, Denard on the ESPN tailgate show from the Notre Dame game, etc.), and the fact that these players have stayed positive and worked their asses off after having to go through the bullshit of the last few years makes them that much more likeable.
November 1st, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^
I didn't mean to do that, suggest it's Boren versus Ryan Van Bergen and that's that.
Every team is going to have their spread. Damn straight Mike Hart was likeable. Henne was a hell of a team leader. Jake Long was toughness made flesh. Steve Breaston is the Curtis Granderson of the NFL. LaMarr Woodley is one of the most motivated and motivational people on the planet. Carr left his successor with a roster that included genuine personality all stars BG, RVB, Steve Schilling, Moundros, Cone, Marell Evans, Kevin Koger, Terrance Taylor, Ohene Opong-Owusu, Zoltan Mesko, J.T. Floyd, and Troy Woolfolk, among others. However there were an equal number of harder to like guys it's not worth naming. This wasn't a bad group of guys; it was a typical Michigan team worthy of the name.
I think the Barwis-izing, the attacks on the program and its coach, and more than anything else the personality of Rich Rodriguez helped create a group more extraordinary that usual. Under such heavy fire, those who didn't have an extraordinary amount of loyalty to their teammates and their program got out. There's no way to prove this without lining up personality types but we have more than enough program insiders who remark on so many of the current guys that it's more likely to be true than not. In another environment does Brandon Graham become the consummate teammate? Does Denard Robinson find his voice? Is Ryan Van Bergen the face of the program? Every team probably has one Molk or Roh or Martin or Lewan, a Vincent Smith and a Roy Roundtree making Donald Duck noises from the corner locker. But all of them together?
It's a guys you went to war with syndrome I think. I think in another situation, without the pressure and the attacks and the leader they had, a few of the guys who stuck around, and a few of the guys who came in, would have had more space for their uglier sides to come out. The passage about Mouton and Molk's socks was a little throwaway to prove how much they liked the socks, but that's also mild bully behavior there, which in a different environment might maybe become a very different thing than a throwaway joke about sock theft (don't take this as a thing about Mouton -- it's a very slim example about a person I've never met or know much at all about). You witnessed all that went down with Forcier; imagine what he would have been somehwere that didn't hold him as accountable?
November 1st, 2011 at 11:11 AM ^
So you're saying that Taylor Lewan, Will Campbell, Cam Gordon, Craigh Roh, Vincent Smith, Jeremy Gallon, Fitz Toussaint, Jibreel Black, Jake Ryan, Carvin Johnson, Will Hagerup, Courtney Avery, Devin Gardner, Desmond Morgan (committed 12-13-2010), and Brennan Beyer (committed 4-15-2010), to name a few, aren't positive examples? Are you saying they're lousy recruits?
November 1st, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^
So the fact that he brought in human beings is an accomplishment? I like all of these guys. They are good players. But the overall recruiting haul during his time (if you remove players that never made it to campus or who left) was not as good as during the prior years. Look at the number of 4-5* players from RR's recruiting classes that are on roster. Now look at the average number of 4-5* players from the prior years. Do you think that he did a good job recruiting?
I listed Denard because he is a specia player, and bringing him in as a QB when no other school would give him that shot was a great move, for which Rich should be complimented. Bringing in V. Smith, on the other hand, was not a huge accomplishment. Not a dig at Smith - I like him plenty - but how is it a big deal that he brought him to Michigan?
So, no, I am not saying that these are "lousy recruits." I am saying, however, that over his tenure, the overall quality of our recruiting - in the aggregate, and with no insult to any individual players - was, lousy.
November 1st, 2011 at 12:42 PM ^
We can't really tell the "quality" of his recruiting till we see how this season and next season play out. Thus far, with "his recruits" in position of at least being juniors, Michigan is 14-7.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:48 AM ^
While I like those guys, that really isn't a killer list. It seems that Lewan, Roh, and Hagerup would be the only guys that would be seeing significant playing time this year with Ohio St, and I would say that C. Gordon, W. Campbell, V. Smith, J. Gallon, J. Black, C. Johnson, and C. Avery would all have trouble seeing significant playing time at any point in their career for Ohio St.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^
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.
Or how we're playing 5 freshmen on defense...
Not sure how full that cupboard is now....or where all that depth is.
People forget we had some good defensive players on 2008's team...and some good offensive ones who didn't stick around. This team has a lot of holes, and it's going to be a couple years of REAL good recruiting classes to fill it back up. So if it's better, it's incremental. And coaching probably deserves a lot of credit for our defense (since we're not suddenly a seasoned unit...playing 5 freshmen).
November 1st, 2011 at 11:47 AM ^
successful in coaching up the defense and special teams and getting the most out of an undersized, inexperienced bunch doesn't mean they weren't left with a couple of dumpster fires.
Big difference between the raw materials left by Rich in January and the coached up product that blew out Purdue on Saturday.
November 1st, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^
and several others should hold off on supporting Michigan until the last Rodriguez player is gone. You know, so you can support it in its pure, flawless, pre-Rodriguez state. It seems only right since you hate everything about him and what he did, that you shouldn't take any satisfaction in the success of a team that will be majority his players for the next 2-3 years.
November 1st, 2011 at 10:45 AM ^
I raced through 3 and Out and found it was a very good (if hard to take at times) read.
One more item for the errata file: There is a paragraph about Devin Gardner being held up for early enrollment and references him attending Romulus HS, 'hard by the airport' or something. Pretty sure he went to Inkster.
November 1st, 2011 at 10:54 AM ^
To the surprise of none, I can't mesh the OP's statement with reality:
In his own completely inelegant way, Rodriguez left a program in better shape than he found it.
Without even addressing the worst defense ever to wear the winged helmets and rather than re-hashing the same, tired arguments, I'll let the words of Brady Hoke speak in response:
The depth on our offensive line is probably as low as I've ever seen at a university.
November 1st, 2011 at 10:57 AM ^
He wasn't here in 2008.
November 1st, 2011 at 9:39 PM ^
November 1st, 2011 at 11:20 AM ^
I think you're confusing the state of the team with the state of the program. The point is that the fanbase has seen how bad it is to descend into inter-factional bitching. The importance of staying on message has been very painfully reinforced and finally there's a lot of dead wood that got cleared out and a lot of people who are more interested in pursuing personal agendas at the expense of embarrassing the program have been highlighted and identified.
I'm pretty sure Rosenberg and Snyder have lost access in subtle, but important ways, so yeah the pain is there and there are still some aftereffects, but the program needed a unifying event in the wake of Bo's death and I think this was that event.
Personally, I think Mispogon has a great point regardless of any remaining roster depth issues, but if you want to see the trees, instead of the forest......Go for it.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:54 AM ^
Hold on then...If we're talking about "the state of the program" as opposed to "the team", then I think the original statement is entirely ridiculous. When RR left, the fanbase was a trainwreck. RR was a part of that (and, as some may claim, also a victim of it). RR didn't unite anyone. RR didn't bring the program to a better place. Indeed, it was only his removal that helped to begin the healing.
It's like saying that Matt Millen left the Lions program in better shape because people could really see how far off-track they were. Insanity.
November 1st, 2011 at 12:02 PM ^
The 2008 team had a lot of talent on defense, but it also had a lot of seniors who weren't really on board. After the transfers, the offense had basically nothing except a gimpy Brandon Minor and some talented but young O-linemen and WRs.
I guess you could argue that some of the transfers were RR's fault, more than Bacon contends they were, but if you take those transfers as a given, you see that the 2008 team was a potential 5-7 win team at best. We won 3, and that's on RR, but I don't think that team had a lot of talent or potential, really.
Compare that to the team Hoke inherited: he got most 2010 starters back on both defense and offense, from a team that won 7 games last year. Even given the O-line depth problems, and the arduous task of remolding a "worst in the country" defense into something resembling competent (which we've exceeded, thanks to Mattison), this is a much better situation to come into than the one RR came into in 2008.
November 1st, 2011 at 12:24 PM ^
Whose cupboard was more bare? Awesome...fun times. Look at things in light of one of the favorite RR-defenses/excuses/explanations - "No one could be expected to win playing all those freshmen". Now, contrast that with what Hoke is doing...playing plenty of freshmen...and winning.
I believe there is a huge difference between the team "inherited" versus the team "fielded". The coach has a (sometimes large) impact on that. Further, the coach also has a huge impact on the players he does field. Consider this very basic comparison - Our most veteran secondary defender from the RR era has been replaced by a highly recruited freshman. The highly recruited freshmen secondary players from the RR era? Yeah, they're all gone.
November 1st, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
Umm, Blake Countess committed to Michigan on Dec. 9, 2010. He is a highly recruited secondary player from the RR era.
Troy Woolfolk is a red-shirt senior. He came to Michigan in 2007.
November 1st, 2011 at 1:10 PM ^
It just gets so sad reading the endless posts defending RR to the grave. What you failed to grasp (given your focus on defending RR) is that the comment you're responding to deals with the team fielded. It has nothing to do with which coach recruited which kid. I'm talking solely about what happened on the field with the players available.
As you know, a favorite excuse/explanation for RR's shortcomings was that he had to play so many young players. I'm merely pointing out that Hoke is playing lots of young players. The difference is that Hoke is winning with them. Indeed, where RR couldn't keep highly ranked commits on the team; Hoke is starting them and winning.
November 1st, 2011 at 3:43 PM ^
In other words, "Hoke is winning at a higher rate than Rodriguez, therefore he is a better coach." Your other posts don't seem to support this, where you discuss how Rodriguez failed with coaching the defense and special teams (note that 2009 special teams were actually pretty good).
Personally, I would argue that Rodriguez's failures on defense were the primary reason that he was fired, and that total number of wins/losses should not be the primary factors in deciding whether to keep/fire a coach. If Vince Lombardi coached a middle-school team against Big Ten opponents, he would probably lose every game. Granted, this is a pure bonafide straw man of your argument, but you have to concede that the coach is not the sole proprietor of his own record.
It ultimately doesn't matter what I think about Rodriguez, because he's not Michigan's coach. However, if Rodriguez was running the offense against MSU (assuming Michigan plays defense as well as it did this year; YES I KNOW THIS ASSUMPTION IS WRONG), Michigan beats MSU this year unless lost turnovers are still a problem.
November 1st, 2011 at 3:58 PM ^
What you fail to grasp, with your focus on attacking Rich Rod, is that you used, as an example of his failure, the fact that a (chronically injured) Carr recruit was being outplayed by a Rich Rod recruit.
Rodriguez deserved to go, I've stated that frequently. But attacking him for imagined ills is silly. Basically, you're saying, "there were real problems so we can play fast and loose with the facts, and anyone who denies that that is an idiot DickRod defender".
The RR era is part of Michigan football. Understanding why he failed is important - so if refuting inaccurate portrayals of the era is "defending RR to the grave" then so be it. Certainly better than your approach of demonizing the coach you didn't like sweeping everything else under the rug, and attacking anyone who says "wait a minute, maybe he wasn't the antichrist".
November 1st, 2011 at 4:44 PM ^
And then you make up this:
Basically, you're saying, "there were real problems so we can play fast and loose with the facts, and anyone who denies that that is an idiot DickRod defender".
So, when your argument consists of making up a bullshit statement never uttered by the other party...well, you're merely clarifying that you've got nothing. Didn't call him "dickrod". Didn't call him the "antichrist". Merely said that his defenders here said he couldn't be expected to win with freshmen, yet his replacement is now winning with freshmen.
Here's a really short version - the team is better without RR; the program is better without RR; and no one gives a shit about RR outside of this bizarre mgobubble. If it makes you feel better to say that he never had a fair shot; the dog ate his homework; whatever floats your rickety boat.
November 2nd, 2011 at 12:48 AM ^
You are the worst Michigan fan and the type of fan everyone hates. You should probably quit chearing for Michigan until all of RichRod's recruits, you know, the ones who the program is better off without, are no longer on the team.
November 2nd, 2011 at 10:39 AM ^
Are like opposite sides of the same coin, don't you?
November 4th, 2011 at 1:31 PM ^
No thanks for that comment. I don't make things up. I don't constantly insult those who I disagree with. I don't defend the indefensible. Most importantly, I don't dive into the you're-not-a-real-fan nonsense. So no, I'm not on the same coin...nor am I in the same roll of coins as the lifelong RR defenders.
November 1st, 2011 at 12:52 PM ^
Avery, Countess, Kovacs, Marvin Robinson, T. Gordon, J. Furman, C. Johnson - all recruited by RR.
If you read the book, unless you simply discount everything Bacon says that you don't like, you can see that there were huge improvements in the team between the time that RR arrived and the time he left. Even players he inherited, like Brandon Graham, benefited tremendously from RR. Ask BG if you don't believe me. Or read the decimated defense.
A huge difference between what Hoke got and what RR got can be seen by looking at our QB depth. RR got Threet and Sheridan, neither having ever started a game. Hoke got Denard and Devin. Can you spot the difference?
November 1st, 2011 at 1:09 PM ^
What sort of credit can we give Rodriguez for recruiting Kovacs when Kovacs only made the team after earning a walk-on spot on the team through open try outs?
And, at this point, I will be very surprised to see Avery, Robinson, Furman, or C. Johnson start for this team. In fact, I would be surprised to see Robinson, Furman or Johnson see many minutes at all.
November 1st, 2011 at 1:11 PM ^
If you're intending to actually provide a response to the content of my comment, read my reply above to gbdub.
If you want to talk about the "huge improvements in the team between the time RR arrived and he left"...consider that our defense got worse each year, our special teams got worse each year, and that total yards by offense does not make a "team".
November 2nd, 2011 at 12:51 AM ^
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when your hate for RichRod makes nearly every one of your statements laughable. The 09 defense and special teams were both better than the 08 defense and special teams. I am guessing you won't respond though because you thought you were right. Just look at the numbers.
November 1st, 2011 at 2:05 PM ^
That the "bare cupboard" explains away RR's problems on defense. They were fundamental, deeply ingrained, across the board and possibly insurmountable, given loyalty to poor position coaches, bad judgement in DC hires, a long line of disappointing recruits, etc.
We can agree on that.
But that said, I think you can look at what RR started with--basically no one on offense and a defense full of seniors who weren't "all in"--and see that 2008 wasn't going to be a great season, even if all the balls rolled our way. I think that team's ceiling was 7 wins, and 5-6 its natural endpoint, when considering the talent and experience it had.
Our 2011 team has a higher ceiling, talent-wise, and its "natural" endpoint is probably 8-9 wins. We may exceed that, and if we do, credit will go to the coaches. Our ceiling is probably 11 wins. Though that's unlikely, it's possible...and a 9 or 10 win season is a distinct possibility.
...and that's not even going in to the fissures in Schembechler Hall (which aren't there so much anymore).
November 1st, 2011 at 11:03 AM ^
I was amazed and appalled at the behavior of some Michigan people while I read the book. It's time to move on, though, and I say that as someone who likes and respects Coach Rod a lot. I don't think he would want us to dwell on the past or be divisive.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:06 AM ^
I'm at the ND game in the 2010 season in my progress through the book. To this point, Bacon has made 2 singular points, and omitted a significant 3rd:
1. Rich Rodriguez simply got suckered into believing people would have his back if it meant they had to put their own necks on the line. He became the pinata, and didn't help the situation due to his own character flaws (integrity, honesty, and being simply gullible). I am feeling a lot more empathetic towards the man and his history prior to Michigan is quite remarkable. I wish him only the best.
2. The athletic director position at Michigan needs to be either renamed or split into a Business/Marketing position and a Day-to-Day operations position. Bill Martin made a great contribution to the University, but had no clue how to deal with basic athletic responsibilities. Dave Brandon may have more of a clue, however, his blanket approach to "selling" Michigan to the world is beginning to make us look cheap (ala Starbucks - you lose your uniqueness when you start popping up in movie theaters). Almost invites a Michigan Marketing is simply a victim of Globalization debate (talk amongst yourselves).
3. The glaring omission is any discussion of what the hell was going on on the defensive side of the ball. He alludes to GERG only 2 or 3 times. I'm sure it will be covered more as I get through the 2010 season in the book, but WTH? RR certainly kept his nose out of the DC's business, but is not held accountable to any degree by Bacon. This so far is the most glaring misfire in the book. A clearer understanding of the relationship between RR and GERG woud be appreciated... Hopefully a discussion of stuffed animals is still to come in the last third of the book.
Good write up Misopogon.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:18 AM ^
let's face it--that's what he's spent his life doing. And unless I'm missing something, that is his brief.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:26 AM ^
It doesn't get covered.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:27 AM ^
RR certainly kept his nose out of the DC's businessBoth Shafer and GERG would disagree with that. RR didn't do a lot of day-to-day stuff with the D, but the 3-3-5 was his baby.
November 1st, 2011 at 4:02 PM ^
I'm actually curious about that, and sad that Bacon didn't give us more. The impression I got was that in 2008, nothing was working, RR was being criticized for not being involved in the D, and he panicked and installed the 3-3-5 for Purdue in a misguided attempt to "do something".
I've always wondered if the 3-3-5 push came more from above (RR) or below (RR's assitants that followed from WVU). RR seemed very loyal to his assistants though so maybe that's a distinction without a difference.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:12 AM ^
He definately could have been helped greatly by a little guidance on his way into the program.
Those calling for the heads of those who the book represented as being "sabotours" within the program need to take a step back from the edge and get a little perspective.
If someone comes into your family and begins by saying that your father is a worthless drunk, you and your brothers might get pissed. Even though your father might indeed be a drunk and it may be spoken out loud by those in the family, when an outsider points it out its going to raise some feathers. This is how RR got off on the wrong foot, it was percieved by those within the program, coaches, players, assistants etc that RR was saying that everything they were doing/had done was wrong, archaic and simplistic and that only he and his methods could fix it.
I dont care who you are, whether at your job or a head coach of a major program, you are not going to warm up to the idea that everything you've done for the past however many years was worthless and needed to be overhauled. So, when some players, ex-coaches etc. started to take their opportunities to "smack" the new guy, keep in mind that in their mind they were just returning the "smacks" that he'd already given them. I'm not forgiving them, or excusing them for their misdeeds, merely pointing out that people are only human and react in typically human ways.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:36 AM ^
Has been extremely successful for almost 40 years.
November 1st, 2011 at 12:34 PM ^
I think you are missing the one singular point of the RR hiring. He ran a system. His system was the spread option. He specifically points this out to Bill Martin and to Coleman several times. He spells it out to Carr (who should know...). He stresses that it will take 3 to 4 years before he has the guys to fit his system. They all say, "yes, yes" without much consideration as to the patience of the environment to which he was thrust.
Remember, Carr/Martin/Coleman came to RR for the job, not the other way around. He had never stated that what they did was "archaic and simplistic." He ran an offense. The only offense he ever ran since Glenville. He did not seek out the Michigan job, and if WVU had agreed to improving their facilities and paying his assistant coaches, I think he'd still be there today.
The problem was this: Martin hired him because of his success, but failed to see why he was successful. College ball is a win now or get out sport. The offense had progressed like all his previous offenses. His defense (and this is why he was fired) did not. The spread option is a very effective scheme, but it takes years to get the right players. There is not much more to it than that.
Hoke and his "pro-style" is a lot more flexible to personnel. But it relies a lot on downhill powerball. Whether you like one system or another, you need the style of players to run it. The RR experiment may be over, but I think it's a bit unfair to say that he came in with anything other than great expectations and a high regard for the University of Michigan. He valued tradition, but I believe he felt that with that tradition came support. Unfortunately, he found out that tradition usually means stubborness and pride much more than innovation and acceptance.
November 1st, 2011 at 2:34 PM ^
That was very well said Dr. Now, if only all RR haters & supporters alike could JUST leave it there & look to the future. Seriously, when csn the healing take hold? Next year? After a victory over tsio? Would said victory only cause more vitriol to be spewed over whether RR could have done it with more time/support/Mattison?
November 1st, 2011 at 11:16 AM ^
the reason comes, I believe, several paragraphs earlier, where you quote him asking whether the game is worth the candle. And--this is my reading--there's more than a subtle insinuation there, to Mr. Brandon sitting at the back of the room, that Rich isn't getting the support he needs, taking for granted that THE PLAYERS KNOW IT.
Hanging it all out there with the kids, who have experienced it and know, as witnesses.Rubbing the institution's nose in its failure where THE KIDS were concerned.
I believe that this was red meat to Brandon, for whom it is obviously hard to own up to the collective failure. They were just a few more backstabbings away from a full-on player revolt and mass exodus. Which may be (as others have suggested) why Brandon didn't pull the plug until very late.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^
Perhaps a better way to look at the RR years and this book is to see what the various groups inside Michigan football learned and how that was applied to 2011 and the next coaching change.
It seems to me that both the athletic director, the players of today and yesterday, and the supporters of Michigan football all learned a lot of important lessons from the 3 years of experience detailed in the book. Without Bo around, we all together must be the keepers and guardians of Michigan's unique football tradition and we must march together to keep that going.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:31 AM ^
I can't agree that RichRod left the program better than he found it.
Michigan is facing some big time roster problems on the lines, is starting a walk-on and three freshman on defense, and their best player on defense seems to be more of a miracle than a Rodriguez product.
If it appears that Rodriguez left a better program, to me that is a mirage that comes from Hoke being the perfect gold-pooping Michigan man, the new coaching staff getting far more from the players than the old staff could (JT Floyd is quality?), and Borges offensive schemes working far better with the talent on board than RichRod's did.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:40 AM ^
"Borges offensive schemes working far better with the talent on board than RichRod's did."
Wow. You are so very high and I am so very jealous.
November 1st, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^
I mean first years.
I feel that Borges is far better at adapting the offense to fit Rodriguez's spread personnel than Rodriguez and Magee were at adapting their offense to Carr's pro-style personnel.
November 1st, 2011 at 12:05 PM ^
I feel that Borges is far better at adapting the offense to fit Rodriguez's spread personnel than Rodriguez and Magee were at adapting their offense to Carr's pro-style personnel.
The comparison isn't really fair, because the talent that Borges is working with in year 1 is exponentially better than what RR had when he came in. Better (and more experienced) players are likely to produce better results, regardless of the system.
November 1st, 2011 at 1:03 PM ^
You're not suggesting that you would rather have Denard than Threet? Toussaint than Minor? /s
We have a far better team this year than RR was left with in 2008. When RR left, most people thought his offense would be good enough to win at least 9 games this year with almost every starter returning. When RR came, there was no offense and no starting offensive players returning.
November 1st, 2011 at 4:37 PM ^
Of course, but that is beside the point. I wasn't comparing the two offenses, I was comparing the clashes between talent and system.
Two thought experiments here:
Suppose Rodriguez was a gold pooper and got Mallett to stay. Do you think he would have been as effective at using Mallett's unique gifts as Borges has been at using Denard's gifts? Remember that Michigan's principle offense is still run with Denard, or fake the other team into thinking you are running with Denard.
Assuming equal talent levels, which would you rather have: a) Rodriguez and Magee coaching a team of pro-style players (pocket passer, power running/blocking), or b) Hoke and Borges coaching a team of spread-option style players (option QB, zone run/blocking)?
Comments