Post-Release Three And Out Q&A: Part I Comment Count

Brian

image

The ever-loquacious John Bacon gave me 6k words on the following questions about Three and Out that seemed to touch on most of the questions provided in the comments and via email. As per usual, we'll split that into two posts, the second of which will run tomorrow. Unfortunately, the answer to "why Greg Robinson?" turns out to be "I don't know, either," but some things are just unexplainable.

1) LAWSUITS

The book seemed reasonably two-sided once things got to Michigan. The WV stuff is more one-sided -- just Rich's POV. Did JUB see anything that supported WV's position in those 'negotiations'/lawsuits?

As stated in the book, then-Governor Joe Manchin and former A.D. Eddie Pastilong did not respond to repeated requests for an interview. Ousted WVU president Mike Garrison entertained the idea, and I went so far as to send him several questions in the hopes of encouraging him to cooperate. We talked on the phone a couple times, and at one point he asked if I was for or against Rich Rodriguez. I told him I simply wanted to find the truth. He declined, saying he couldn’t answer the questions if he didn’t know where I stood. That seemed odd—it seems to me you either know what happened and what you think about it or you don’t—but that’s his decision.

I don’t think their silence left much out, however, because we were able to get five other central figures to speak freely, and on the record—and in each case, at considerable personal risk. Ike Morris owns an oil and gas company in Glenville, WV; Dave Alvarez is the president and CEO of a construction company in Meadowbrook, WV; Paul Astorg owns a Mercedes Benz dealership, and Matt Jones owns a handful of convenience stores, both in Parkersburg. Don Nehlen, the former West Virginia head coach, is now a spokesman for the coal industry. None of them have ever been Michigan boosters, but all have been long-time boosters for the Mountaineers, before, during and after the Rodriguez era. They are all private businessmen who depend on their reputations to be successful. They have a deep knowledge of West Virginia football politics, with close ties to all sides, and had no incentive to do anything other than throw Rodriguez under the bus and extoll West Virginia’s leadership. None of them had anything tangible to gain by speaking to me on the record, with a lot to lose. Yet they all did.

So, while I would have liked to get the above three people on the record, the people I spoke to answered every question I had, on the record, which I believe gives the reader almost everything they need to know about what happened in West Virginia.

As for the lawsuit, I assume the reader is referring to the buy-out provision in Rodriguez’s West Virginia contract. While Rodriguez maintained that the president, Matt Garrison, had promised him they’d cut it in half if he wanted to leave, which the above subjects confirmed, the contract was nonetheless legally binding. West Virginia University was well within its rights to sue for all four million, which Michigan and Rodriguez ultimately acknowledged, and paid.

2) LLOYD CARR
If JUB had to make a guess as to what caused in the great Carr switcheroo (from making first contact with RR to the continuous cold shoulder), what would it be? And does JUB think Carr informed the Freep investigation?

Before I delve into this, I’ve noticed some confusion over the timeline in some of the posts I’ve seen. Clarifying the sequence of events should clear up a lot of this.

On Monday night, December 10, 2007, Rodriguez received a call from Lloyd Carr, which marked the first direct contact Rodriguez had from someone representing Michigan. (Rodriguez was my source, and his recollection of it was consistent in a handful of accounts over a couple years.)

On Tuesday, December 11, Lloyd Carr told Bill Martin that Rodriguez would be a good candidate. This marked the first time someone within the department had made this suggestion to Martin, according to Martin himself, whose recollection of the conversation was also consistent over several interviews.

On Friday, December 14, Rodriguez met with President Coleman and Bill Martin in Toledo, and agreed on the basic tenets of a potential agreement.

On Sunday, December 16, the deal was finalized, via phone and fax.

On Monday, December 17, Rodriguez met Lloyd Carr outside the Junge Center for a brief handshake, on his way in to his first Ann Arbor press conference, where he would be named Michigan’s next coach.

After Rodriguez returned to Morgantown that day to start packing, Coach Carr met with his team a day or two later for a suddenly scheduled morning meeting, and offered to sign the transfer papers of anyone who wanted to leave. This has been corroborated by over a dozen people in the meeting room that day – both staffers and players – plus the Big Ten compliance office, Bill Martin, and Judy Van Horn, who spoke on the record about the day and its aftermath. The reporting of these events is air-tight.

-----------------------------------

It’s important to note, looking at this timeline, that all this occurred before Carr got to know Rodriguez, and before Rodriguez met with any of Carr’s assistant coaches or players. Thus, the idea that Carr offered to sign his players’ transfer forms only after he became concerned about how Rodriguez would treat his assistants and players is hard to believe. For whatever reason, before Rodriguez had met any of those people, Carr had made up his mind to help his players transfer.

Until Coach Carr speaks, I can’t say why he called the transfer meeting. (As stated before, I made repeated requests to interview him at his convenience. While he declined to respond, I have since confirmed there is no question he received my requests and made a firm decision not to reply.) But I can say that he definitely did call the transfer meeting, that it was a premeditated decision—based on Draper’s call to compliance to have the forms and personnel ready to process the anticipated flood of requests—and it occurred before Rodriguez met any of his assistants or players.

Yes, I have a theory as to why, but it’s just that. Some have suggested that it’s my job as a journalist to fill in the blank with my best guess, but I believe the opposite is true: it’s a journalist’s job not to do so. If my theory proves wrong, it would unfairly influence public opinion, and might be difficult to reverse. (I’ve seen this happen frequently during the past three years.) Until Carr decides to answer such questions, I am going to let the facts above stand, and the readers can come to their own conclusions.

Carr’s speaking on these issues might help his cause, but as we’ve seen with other subjects who were interviewed for the book, it might not. If Carr had simple, innocent answers to the questions above, it would not be hard for him to find friendly journalists in the local media happy to communicate his message, directly or indirectly, as he has done in the past. To date, he has not attempted to do so.

[CARA, Shafer, Robinson (Denard and Greg), and the emotional stability of Rodriguez post-jump.]

3) CARA FORMS
What does JUB think about Labadie and Draper's complicity in the whole CARA affair? It seems that both spoke to JUB, but he never shares his own judgment of what went wrong. Were they just overworked-clueless-frustrated, or were they acting on someone else's orders?

To clarify, Scott Draper declined to be interviewed, but Brad Labadie spoke with me at length. In our interview, he mentioned how difficult the CARA form process was to complete each week, and how he admires Coach Carr like few others. As was my goal throughout the book, I’ll only go as far as my confirmed reporting allows, then let the facts speak for themselves and the readers to form their own judgments. One of those facts is the on-the-record comment from former compliance director Judy Van Horn—a gentle soul, not normally given to criticizing colleagues, and one who had considered Labadie a trusted friend—that Labadie engaged in “out-and-out lying.” This caught my attention, as I suspect it did the readers’.

4) FREE PRESS SOURCES.
Did he ever find out the names of all the players who talked to the Free Press? Other than Greg Matthews & Toney Clemons nobody else was mentioned.

Mathews and Clemons both came forward, which I felt made naming them in the book fair game. As for the rest, I think I have it largely figured out, and in some cases confirmed, but I don’t think it’s good enough to print the names of a couple players who have not come forward, as it puts an unfair burden on a few. In any case, I’m more sympathetic to college students, whatever they might have done, than I am to the adults who were not above manipulating them for their own purposes.

5) DEFENSES 6) GERG INVOLVEMENT.
What was Rodriguez thinking as his defense imploded again and again (and again and again)? On related points: what was his relationship like with Greg Robinson versus the other D-coaches? Was there truth to the rumors that Robinson was an empty figurehead and that "Rodriguez's guys" had the inside track with the Head Coach?

There seems to be some inconsistency with how he portrays RR involvement with the defense. He mentions more than once that RR trusted Gerg and wanted to give him space even though he felt strongly that Demens should play more and Ezeh should play less. I felt like Bacon was implying that RR gave Gerg the slack to hang himself with.....but doesn't that contradict the fact that Gerg implemented a 3-3-5 and seemed to change some of his scheme toward what RR preferred? So how much did RR really influence things on defense?

Taking this from the top, while trying to avoid repeating too much of my last batch of answers for MGoBlog a couple months ago, Rodriguez’s original sin was not getting Jeff Casteel to Michigan—and in the book I explain how that falls to both Michigan and Rodriguez in equal measure. (As I wrote, he was not willing to leave Morgantown without his strength staff, but he did without his DC.) Everything after that was a compromised attempt at retrofitting, and none of it worked.

Rodriguez was asking a lot of Scott Shafer to arrive in Ann Arbor without knowing virtually anything about the program, the staff he was inheriting or the 3-3-5 system Rodriguez would eventually ask him to use before the 2008 Purdue game. Not surprisingly, it didn’t work, and while that mostly falls on Rodriguez, Shafer brought his own psychology to the equation. While Greg Robinson got along exceedingly well with Rodriguez’s staff in almost identical circumstances, Shafer did not. The dynamic the reader cites above more closely describes Shafer’s relationship with Rodriguez’s staff than Robinson’s. While I think he is a decent, hardworking man—and the staff could have done a better job working with him -- Shafer kept largely to himself. (I probably spoke a few sentences with him during his time in Ann Arbor.) Further, his stubbornness (or selfishness, take your pick) in continuing to recruit Denard Robinson as a defensive back – against Rodriguez’s wishes—would have cost Michigan its future Big Ten Player of the Year, and is indicative of the poor chemistry between Shafer and the rest of the staff. If Scott Shafer is still Michigan’s defensive coordinator, Denard Robinson is not your quarterback.

Greg Robinson was very well liked, as noted above, but he faced the same problems Shafer did: little experience with Rodriguez’s staff and system. This resulted in the conflict cited above: Rodriguez respected Robinson and wanted to demonstrate this in front of his staff, but he was also utterly frustrated not just with the poor results, but with the passivity the defense often displayed – arguably Rodriguez’s least favorite trait in a player.

As for my reporting on the defense in the book, it’s worth remembering the original idea was to spend three months to produce some magazine stories on the spread offense coming to the Big Ten. A simple, small idea. Well, three years later, here I am. I didn’t have any idea most of the story would take place off the field, not on it. And I certainly didn’t believe initially that the defense would prove to be such a story.

Further, in 2008, because I was largely unknown to the coaches and the players, the conversations I had with them were not nearly as frequent or as fruitful as they were in 2009 and 2010, especially after I worked out with Barwis and company for six weeks, which opened a lot of doors. But even after that, while I had many conversations with Greg Robinson over those two years about the team in general and some players in particular, he was usually as tight-lipped with me about the particulars as he was with the rest of the press.

Also, I spent almost all of the position meeting time with the quarterbacks – which we assumed, correctly I feel, that the readers would want to know about first and foremost. The slices of dialogue readers enjoyed in the quarterback meetings and hotel rooms represent a sliver of the time I spent with them to gain that trust and find those gems. I simply could not be everywhere at once – and in any case, I honestly don’t believe there’s much more to say about the defensive meltdown than what we already know. Whatever could have gone wrong—recruiting, injuries, coaching, and translation problems – went wrong, a perfect storm of failure. Spending more time in those meetings in the hope of hearing an argument or two would have illuminated very little that we didn’t already know.

The defense was historically horrible, but it was hardly mysterious.

7) SELF PITY
Compared to other coaches JUB has been around, where does RR fall on the maturity scale? I feel like we, the Michigan community, treated him unfairly. And yet... Rodriguez's level of immaturity/self-absorption was at times shocking, e.g. the constant mentioning of the cockroaches, the thinking Groban was a good idea, and the overall level of self-pity (fuck ME!).

I don’t think it’s mutually exclusive that Rodriguez faced more obstacles than Michigan coaches have in the past, yet still added to his problems, often at the most inopportune times. As they say, just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. Both can be true.

The above question is also why I do not believe the book is biased toward Rodriguez. I have been gratified to see serious national reviewers describe the book as fair and balanced, invariably pointing out that Rodriguez’s flaws and mistakes are hardly hidden. (You can find their reviews on Amazon, with the longer versions posted at their publications—though perhaps a better gauge of the book’s accuracy can be found by asking the players and parents who saw it all up close.)

When a reasonable reader can pull out all of his shortcomings above exclusively from the book (which I’ve listed below), it suggests Rodriguez’s warts were not concealed. In fact, Rodriguez’s main complaint with the book is that I produced a case to justify why he was fired. While I disagreed, in some ways he read the manuscript more closely than many readers. His list included my descriptions of the following:

-Not preparing for his first press conference, which could have gone better;

-The way he fired Carr’s assistants and failed to connect with the 2007 senior class before they left;

-His inability to convince Michigan he needed Jeff Casteel, while persuading Martin he needed Barwis, his staff and a new, million-dollar weight room;

-His many botched press conferences, including the behind-the-scenes lead-up to them;

-His post-loss tantrums, which display his almost pathological hatred of losing, going back to putting a blanket over his head as a pee wee football player (not uncommon among the highly competitive);

-The seven missed “match points” I identify in 2009 and 2010, any one of which, I argue in the book, would have been enough to keep his job. (This counters the claim that he never had a chance, something I never believed and have never stated);

-The Final Bust. That chapter was by far the most painful for him. He was very displeased with my take on that, as I wrote that it revealed he had still not learned essential things about being Michigan’s head coach, including establishing a circle of trusted advisors, and knowing his audience. As I report in the book, even some of his most loyal supporters leaving the banquet hall thought that night marked the end.

-The biggest obstacle any A.D. would have in retaining Rodriguez, in my opinion, is presented for the first time in this book: after a while his problems became his players’ problems, and his pressure became their pressure – including the frequent talk of cockroaches, and the overdeveloped sense of “Us versus Them.” The players grew weary under their weight, something you can see evolving in the book. Despite coming back for more, again and again, the players finally broke at the Gator Bowl, where some of them came out of the tunnel for the second half laughing—a clear sign that they had had enough.

You have to admit, that’s a pretty weighty list, enough to keep his critics busy for months. However, I told Rodriguez I was not trying to justify his being fired  (nor argue for his retention) but simply trying to explain how it all got to that point. Which, to me, is fundamentally different.

In fact, I’d say, just about every reason you can think of to retain him is in the book, and every reason to let him go is, too—including the ones listed above, giving his detractors ammunition they could never have wished for before the book’s publication. How many of the items above were readers aware of before reading the book? The list of revelations does not suggest the author is trying to protect or promote Rich Rodriguez, but simply trying to identify the many factors that led to his demise.

I’ve also noticed readers who believe the book tilts toward Rodriguez usually didn’t like him before picking up the book (or still haven’t read it). Studies show we are naturally reluctant to change our minds after we form our first impression – and Rodriguez’s were not good.

That said, many of Rodriguez’s most prominent qualities, I believe, are endemic to big-time coaches. They have egos, they are loyal (often to a fault), they are quick to feel disrespected, and they feel losing is not merely a professional setback but a personal failing. Schembechler’s post-loss tirades were legendary. He was inconsolable for days after a defeat to the Buckeyes. Moeller’s implosion at the Southfield restaurant has been covered ad nauseum, while Carr’s mindset is documented in the book.

In short, to paraphrase a great line from “Casablanca,” I’d say Rodriguez is like every other big time coach – only more so.

Comments

Needs

December 22nd, 2011 at 9:44 AM ^

I agree completely about the "Tressel cheated" whining, but generally disagree with the "consistently outschemed" part. In my mind, Tressel definitely outschemed Carr in only one year, 2004, when we were not prepared at all for how to counteract Troy Smith's scrambling. Let's look at Carr's losses to Tressel...

2001: Bad INT on the first series sets OSU up for an easy TD and kills sophomore Navarre's already shaky confidence in first half. Furious comeback falls short in second half with dropped TD pass. OSU is able to dominate the ball once they have a lead with conservative running attack. Verdict: maybe outschemed, but loss more attributable to early INT and deficit.

2002: Loss to #2 OSU 14-9 with pass knocked down in end zone on final play. Tightly played game on both sides decided by OSU scoring TDs and UM scoring FGs, with offensive PI call costing UM a crucial TD. Verdict: Not outschemed.

2003: Win

2004: Outschemed

2005: Talented, but underachieving UM team leads OSU by two scores in fourth, collapses. Carr punts on 4th and 4 at the 35. Verdict: Not outschemed. Poor game theory, though.

2006: Defense crippled by early injury to Jamar Adams, leaving limited secondary no way to match up with spread passing attack. Poor CB/S recruiting bites otherwise dominant defense. Offense moves ball consistently all day and scores 39 points. Verdict: Maybe outschemed? But what scheme was going to make up for the choice between Chris Graham/Johnny Sears. Drop off in recruiting raises its head.

2007: Team crippled by injuries to Hart/Henne. Poor depth becoming more clear.

 

So, I'd argue that the early losses were less matters of scheme than close games that didn't go our way (2004 excepted, which was a relative blowout and we were not prepared for how OSU would use Smith, who had looked awful to that point). What burns in those years is that we lost twice as favorites (2001, 2004) while failing to pull the upsets we were in position for in 2002 and 2005. You can put 2005 on Carr, as has been repeated ad naseum. The latter losses owed largely to holes in the roster as recruiting and backup development in key positions fell off.

Awesome, that's been an effort in pain that no one will read.

lunchboxthegoat

December 22nd, 2011 at 11:38 AM ^

You're saying that we lost based on holes on our roster and Ohio State exploiting our weaknesses. Isn't that outscheming us?

 

Look, I'm not a super educated Xs and Os guy but even I saw the schematic stupidity that was the 2006 game in leaving LBs on the slot WRs that OSU put out in that game. They largely put 3 and 4 WR on the field, forced our LBs to cover the slots and burned us up with it. That's outscheming. I'm confident that the more learned people in regards to Xs and Os could tell you other years we were outcoached.

UncleLeo

December 22nd, 2011 at 11:52 AM ^

To me, that is outrecruiting/preparing/maybe even simply outcoaching, but not outscheming. Outschemeing is done on the field with gameplanning and X's and O's which is what BRCE seems to have been directly referring to by saying that Tressel outschemed us up and down the field.

And I agree it was dumb, but when you have little to no depth in the secondary, then one of your starters goes down, then the opponent keeps running out 4 wide sets, you don't really have any options left that don't make you look dumb (though, yes, this goes back to Carr's recuiting failings towards the end).

Needs

December 22nd, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^

On the last point, I'd welcome it, so I could learn more. But I don't know why you would be confident in something that you admit you don't know much about. My memory of those games (and they're a long time gone) was that they were close games that came down to a couple decisive plays and decisions (and in 2005, a decision to punt). I don't remember coming away thinking, "Man, we were strategically overmatched there," and I normally think of scheme as relating to game planning. My memories of those games could very well be wrong, though.

On the OSU game, we had a way to match up with their spread passing attack until Willis Barringer (note: thought it was Adams until I checked) got injured on OSU's first possession. Barringer had been great all year and had the ability to cover slots or play zone as a safety. We had a decent nickle secondary of Trent-Englemon-Barringer-Adams-Hall, with Mundy coming in when they went five wide. Who knows whether it would have made any difference, but that injury made us noticeably weeker, forcing Mundy onto the field as a deep safety and the Sears/Graham non-coverage choice. OSU immediately took advantage.Maybe that is being outschemed, but we did have a plan for dealing with their spread-passing attack. It just got blown up when Barringer went out. From then on, it was pure triage.

Gary_B

December 22nd, 2011 at 11:40 AM ^

Your injection of what you think is unbiased, insightful gems of truth serves no purpose on this site. You have just as little basis for argument in the matter of Tressel cheating as those who believe it was the sole factor in our losses over the years. You have no idea what the man did or did not do while he was a coach at Ohio.

What you fail to realize is the effect of incentives on people, especially 17-22 year old kids. You also fail to realize that star players, who were/are ineligible to be on the field, were key to many wins over the years.

Do us all a favor and quit resonding to what you think are homer comments with even worse rationalizations and defenses on behalf of our rivals.

ESNY

December 21st, 2011 at 5:56 PM ^

But he offered to sign the transfer papers before they even met the new coach.  How could he know what RR would've done for them or used them in his system or even adapt his system for their strenghts?  Perhaps Carr's motive was geniune concern and was totally honorable but it was handled incredibly poorly and you can't deny it gives the whiff of spitefulness.

If Carr really did feel that strongly about protecting his players (and i'm sure he did), he simply could've offered his counsel to them and if they decided to transfer after taking with RR and not seeing how they fit in, he could've offered his support in getting Michigan to release them from scholarship. 

Not to mention, you hear again and again during the recruiting process (esp during coaching turnovers) that many players signed to play for a school, not a coach or a system.   For a very recent example see Robinson, Denard.   they love the school, the students, their fellow players.

michgoblue

December 21st, 2011 at 6:07 PM ^

"But he offered to sign the transfer papers before they even met the new coach"

Like I said, I don't think that LC offered to sign transfer papaers because of a concern about RR or anything like that, at all.  I think that his only reason was that the players promised to play for him, and his departure was a significant event that might make some players want to change their mind.

"you hear again and again during the recruiting process (esp during coaching turnovers) that many players signed to play for a school, not a coach or a system.   For a very recent example"

You are correct, and presumably those players would not transfer.  But, there are SOME players who sign on to play for a coach, or a system, and those players might want to accept an offer to transfer. 

 

DelhiGoBlue

December 21st, 2011 at 7:04 PM ^

Are on record stating that they sought Carr's counsel about Ryan while they were in Florida for the bowl game.  Whatever Carr might have said to the players in mid-December, two weeks later Ryan Mallett had not yet decided to transfer.  Moreover, even with that conversation Debbie Mallett was reluctant to have her son being coached by Bobby Petrino so she called the mother of Brian Brahm (former QB for Petrino at Louisville). 

It seems to me Ryan Mallett and his family did a much better job figuring out what and where Ryan's football career should be than did RR.  Or, as I said in the other post, maybe RR just didn't want him.

BRCE

December 21st, 2011 at 8:10 PM ^

"Besides, while we on MGoBlog have become somewhat obsessed with the details of this whole issue, the general M fanbase really doesn't care. The overwhelming majority of the Michigan fanbase is just happy that RR is gone, and thinks favorably of Carr."

Tell me why the avid MGoBlog reader should respect the opinion of the "general M fanbase," which is significantly more casual and less informed. That's like saying "UFR is so nit-picky. Besides, newspapers don't care about that stuff."

michgoblue

December 22nd, 2011 at 10:21 AM ^

I never said that "an avid MGoBlog reader should respect the opinion of the general M fanbase."

I simply said that LC likely chose not to defend himself in this publication because HE has never cared about what the media says about him personally, and even if he did, HE would not care about this because the overwhelmiing majority of the fanbase thinks well of him. 

I agree with you that the MGoBlog readers are more informed on many matters.  But, we still represent a small percentage of the overall fanbase (although probably a large percentage of the fanatics). 

On this whole LC issue, I honestly found Bacon's book to be very one-sided in defense of RR and anti-LC, likely because RR gave unfettered access, whereas LC blew him off.

 

J. Lichty

December 22nd, 2011 at 7:50 AM ^

read the book before you pass this off as a one off incident. not only the transfer incident, but here is a list of some others from the book you obviously did not read. he told recruits to go to state. he held meetings with HIS players after rr started coaching, he was frosty I'm the media, it was believed, and expressed by rr that it was Lloyd loyalists who were working with media to destroy rich leading to a frosty lunch meeting between the two at which rr asked Lloyd to call his dogs off to silence by Lloyd.

Lloyd was a great coach for our school, but he has not covered himself in glory and he contributed to the misery of that era we would all like to forget.

chitownblue2

December 22nd, 2011 at 9:15 AM ^

The degree to which you've created things from whole cloth or just mis-represented things in the book is hysterical.

he told recruits to go to state

Whether it's true or not, this isn't in the book.

he held meetings with HIS players after rr started coaching

This is true, but unless you can say what occurred at these meetings (Bacon doesn't claim to know), it's pointless.

 he was frosty I'm the media

As he was for over a decade prior.

it was believed, and expressed by rr that it was Lloyd loyalists who were working with media to destroy rich

This is insinuated by Rodriguez, yes. But it's worth about as much as your knowledge of #2.

frosty lunch meeting between the two at which rr asked Lloyd to call his dogs off to silence by Lloyd.

Wrong/incomplete. There was not "silence" by Lloyd, according to Bacon (who wasn't there). According to Bacon, Lloyd response was to ask Rodriguez to make HIS people stop insinsuating that Lloyd was running a shadow government.

J. Lichty

December 22nd, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^

 

Your ad hominems are some of your finest work.  Before I address your post, its funny how for someone who stomped up and down on every 3&O thread that they would never read the book and that they had no interest in the subject you have become one of the most prolific posters on the subject.

First, it is great that you credit the book to my imagination rather than Bacon.  Hopefully I will get some of the residuals.

The issue is whether the only thing Carr purportedly did to undermine the program after he retired was his "transfer" meeting.  He did far more as documented in the book, the public record, which I guess according to you, I made up and then somehow got Bacon to pretend that he was imbedded in the program for 3 years and write a book about it.  I havent been accused of having that much power since I was accused of controlling the banks and media and leading us to the Iraq war, but thanks.

I did not make up that Lloyd told recruits to go to State, although if you claim it wasnt in the book you have repeatedly stated you have refused to read, I believe you because I read the book right after the first Chicago event in November right before the NW game.  I recall that it was in the book, but if it was another source, it does not change the substance and even if it is not true and you disregard, there are things other than that transfer meeting that I apparently imagined.  I think Brian's take was pretty much the same I had with respect to Carr.  http://mgoblog.com/content/three-and-out-takes-carr-rodriguez-martin#comments

With respect to the meetings with HIS players, I recall that Bacon did discuss the substance, and again while not sinister in and of their own right, given the circumstances it served to undermine the program.

Regarding the frostiness with the media.  I was referring to his frostiness regarding the new coaching regime, not his frostiness in general.  He had plenty of opportunties to help the program with a few simple words of support or encouragement in the media when he was asked - he had opportunities without even seeking them out.  Look at the support Moeller gave.  That was the minimum for a former coach who was not fired, much less one who remained as a paid Assistant Athletic Director.  His general silence in the face of the shitstorm, his attendance at Iowa in an Iowa box taken in isolation may not have been a big deal, or if the team had been successful at the time Lloyd Carr's words would have meant far less, but to an uncertain fanbase, an avalanche of media opprobrium and a shit product on the field, Lloyds acts and ommissions worked to undermine the program.  The transfer meeting alone showed that Lloyd was putting whatever interest (self-justified or not) he was hoping to promote over the good of the program and over the players who were commited to the U of M and not just Lloyd.  If that was made up, it was not made up by me, but rather by Bacon and all of his sources.  But you know better.

Your weak fisking attempt to parse the lunch meeting into two components does not prove your point.  As Bacon reported the lunch meeting (yes from RR - but that is the source he had) Lloyd started by telling RR to stop insinuating that he is running a shadow program - it was then that RR responded that Lloyd should call off his cronies.  Bacon reports that Lloyd remained silent.  That is what I am referring to.  My knowledge of that came from the book.  I did not make it up.  Does Lloyd didnt deny it - he remained silent.  Perhaps you have more to add to the story.  Maybe you were the bus-boy filling Lloyds water glass at that lunch meeting and you know more, because I know you wouldnt profess to state something that you made up.

I am not a Lloyd hater or a Rodriguez lover.  But this to me is about how Lloyd the ordained-by-many heir to Bo, the patriarch of the M family and a paid Asst AD harmed the program for his own reasons (whether he believed them to be altruistic or not).  I am glad the RR era is over, but I will never forget how Lloyd and some of HIS former players behaved -- the opposite of Michigan Men.

gremlin

December 21st, 2011 at 7:28 PM ^

No they do not.  Lloyd Carr gets respect because he gave 27 years of his life to Michigan.  Rich Rodriguez gave us three.  He gaves us arguably the worst three year period on the field.  He gave us the first sanctions ever off the field.  And he gave us Groban.   

bjk

December 22nd, 2011 at 1:51 PM ^

it was Carr's faction that conspired with Rubinstein to give us the first sanctions ever off the field. And it appears the Carr faction's non-support of the team, extending to endless betrayals and intrigues, contributed heavily to the worst three-year period on the field. Groban is all on RR. This is the real crux of the issue. I think the dyed-in-the-wool RR haters really hated him all along for being more country than country-club. There is also no question that more wins would have held them at bay. Among the many double-standards and inversions of common sense RR haters deploy to rationalize their spleen beyond W-L is their overlooking the fact that, if Elliot had treated Bo the way Carr treated RR, then Bo might have ended the same way.

chitownblue2

December 22nd, 2011 at 1:57 PM ^

your point would be better made if you didn't give the appearance of being an anti-semite by "jewing up" Rosenberg's name as a means of insulting him.

Section 1

December 21st, 2011 at 8:09 PM ^

If (and it is a very, very, big IF) it is revealed that Carr somehow cooperated with, aided, or otherwise abetted Michael Rosenberg, then Carr should never again be regarded as any sort of a legend.  Carr's M ring ought to be forcibly pulled off his finger and melted down over an open flame in the middle of the diag.

Again; it is a very big "IF," but it is not a wild stretch, given that Carr has missed every opportunity to disown Rosenberg and condemn that story.  Carr is friends with Jim Stapleton, and Stapleton is a self-avowed friend of Rosenberg's.  I'm not entirely clear on Carr's personal relationship with Rosenberg.

Nobody says that Carr has to say anything.  He can choose to remain silent.  That's his right.

Just as it is our right to ask, "Why?  Why remain silent, with regard to Rosenberg and the Freep?"  Is there anything to defend when it comes to what Rosenberg did?  Is it not inarguable, that Rosenberg did massive and needless harm to the football program?  Why would anyone in a leadership position with the prorgam not condemn it?"

That Carr has been this silent is a rather serious mystery.  Thank God that John U. Bacon has at least raised the correct issues.  No other writers have given this entire story its due.  The entire local sports journallism enterprise has been a massive failure, or worse.

Section 1

December 21st, 2011 at 8:41 PM ^

I'd just like more, and much better, proof.  One way or another.  I'd have been so happy, to hear Carr take down Rosenberg.  I wouldn't mind a bit, if we could learn somehow that Carr has an excellent and credible side of the story to tell.  I'd love it, if Carr would answer all questions, clearly and concisely.  I get zero pleasure in questioning Carr, who I admired for so many years.  I just don't understand him at this point.

uminks

December 22nd, 2011 at 4:30 AM ^

back in '82, I doubt he would have wanted his players, who he recruited to play at Michigan, to go elsewhere because he was leaving. Bo would have wanted Michigan to prosper and for his players to play hard for their new coach and finish their degrees at Michigan!

Though Carr may have been upset that Debord was bypassed as HC after he retired. He did not want Miles here and he was probably luke warm about RR getting the job and probably knew RR would bring in his own staff. I think Carr was just tired after the '06 season and may not have worked as hard as he should have recruiting during the '07 season.

But overall, Carr is my second favorite coach. I really like what I see from Brady Hoke and his assistant coaches and in a few more years we should have a top notch defense and a good offense.

MileHighWolverine

December 22nd, 2011 at 9:11 AM ^

In our greates hour of need, he turned his back on the program and (in essence) the University. Sitting idly by while Rome burned would be enough for me to excommunicate hime and have ample evidence he did far worse than just sit idly by.

You think Bo would have allowed any f the BS that happened over the last 3 years to happen?

LC failed his duty to Michigan over petty disagreements - the program is greater than ANY 1 man.

 

Cope

December 21st, 2011 at 8:23 PM ^

History has shown Carr was wise to offer the players a chance to choose their futures, because the new regime did not adapt well to talent from other systems, while the curent regime has. So from an omniscient viewpoint, it was good for the players for Carr to offer this, but not for Rodriguez to do so. More realistically, however, I think the choices each made highlight the character of the two men in the circumstances they found themselves- Carr, who was a father figure to provide them with wise options and Rodriguez, who was unsupported to encourage them to support the new coaches. This reflects well on two very different, but honorable men.

J. Lichty

December 22nd, 2011 at 1:45 AM ^

did anyone really think a new coach is going to make a kid stay. I forgot, notebook, mallett and clemons were all forced to finish out their careers at Michigan because rich. rod made them stay. I bet the same people who are defending Carr's transferapaloooza, are the one who decried Rich rod because he r-u-n-o-f-t mallett and boren.

michlaxref

December 21st, 2011 at 7:52 PM ^

I respectfully disagree.  There is something wrong with that. They aren't HIS players.  It's not about Lloyd Carr.  It's about the program, it's about Michigan, it's about the TEAM.  The players got recruited to play for Michigan, not Lloyd Carr.  Llyod Carr coaching at Indiana wouldn't get nearly the players he did at Michigan. 

Noleverine

December 21st, 2011 at 6:03 PM ^

Thanks, JUB.  Always have enjoyed listening to (reading?) you.  Your class was my favorite in college, and I truly appreciate the time and passion you put in to this book.  I could always tell you truly loved Michigan, and I could feel your pain at times reading the book; we all hurt.

I would be interested to know how much access you were given after RR was let go.  Was your access immediately revoked, or did you get a chance to see how the more recent coaching change was handled, versus the previous one?

 

 

Noleverine

December 21st, 2011 at 6:07 PM ^

Enough people on the board were interested (myself included) and were looking forward to hearing a bit more from him.  You should email Brian and ask him for permission before he posts anything, to make sure you're OK with it.  God forbid you click on an article with a title that tells you exactly what it's about.