Is Rodriguez failing because the Big Ten is tougher than the Big East?
One of my fears is that Rodriguez failing because the Big Ten is a lot tougher than the Big East and the ACC. Under this theory, the Big Ten is a lot closer to the SEC than people credit us for, and the Big East is a lot farther away.
I have never been all that impressed by Rodriguez's record at WVU because I don't believe the Big East is anywhere near as tough as the Big Ten. (Same argument applies to his experience at Tulane and Clemson/ACC).
I am wondering if the problem is that he hasn't coached enough against talent at the Big Ten level, both on the field and off.
He and his coordinators have frequently appeared out-coached. His key hire, Scott Shafer, has not impressed many people. Giving up a fake punt with 5 minutes left in the game is being out-coached.
The quick skill players he loves have done a lot of good things, but they have also looked overmatched at times against Big Ten size. Their running game has been best with big, strong Brandon Minor, a prototype Big Ten back, not a speedy WVU back.
Did we just give too much credit to the Big East?
--Fred
*Note: this theory has the advantage of auto-disrespecting all West Virginia loons.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:19 PM ^
Well, if I'm the typical politician that's at the top of most big corporations, I'd do exactly what you are suggesting, and blame everyone and everything except myself.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:27 PM ^
Except RR isn't doing that.
"I am perfectly willing to believe he has good coaching skills and may produce good teams eventually, but he has dug himself a huge hole in this results-based business."
This is somewhat lame, and the criticism we hate around here. It's the Drew Sharps of the world that do this. Precondition the argument so they can later pretend they didn't say it or to argue that they knew all along it would work out. Don't be wishy-washy about it. If you think he's bad, then say it. Own your comments.
And for the record, the previous coaching staff left him in the huge hole. The best available QB is a walk on. Let me restate that. The best available QB is a walk on.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:49 PM ^
I don't know if he's bad or not. What I know is that he has a six year contract, and almost nothing good has happened in his first year. I'll never know to what extent that is his fault, but I wonder, as I said, whether he was really up to the job.
A reasonable estimate would be that he has somewhere between three and five years left here before he gets Tommy Amakered. What's our standard for success over those years? I would say beat Ohio State more than half the time; average at least nine wins; and prevail in at least one BCS game.
To average nine wins over six years, he would have to win 51 games in the next 5 years, or 10.2 per year. So far, he's 3-8.
I am perfectly willing to stand by this standard five years from now, if anyone remembers (which is what we Drew Sharps count on ;-). Check back with me then.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:04 PM ^
The dude does not need to average 9 wins including this year. Basically, you're saying that he should be fired if he doesn't win 10+ games for the next five years, regardless of the fact that even next year, the majority of our offensive players will still be underclassmen and we'll have new starters at CB, DE, DT, DT, SAM, SS, and maybe another DE.
I'm glad you're not my boss.
"You left the coffeemaker on all night? You're fired!"
November 17th, 2008 at 3:20 PM ^
So he needs to average eight games a year over six years?
Then he needs to win 45 more games in five years, or 9 games a year. That seems doable. That would give him an average of 8 wins every year in his first contract term.
But wait a minute, didn't we all hate going 8-4 every year?
So do we apply a weighting factor--wins in the second half of the contract are worth twice as much? 1.2 times as much?
November 17th, 2008 at 5:14 PM ^
You can't say he has to win X number of games in his six years for him to be successful. Let's say he goes 3-9 this year, then 7-5 next year, then 8-4 the following year. Then what if he wins the NC in 2011 and then drops back down to 8-4?
Not only has he been handicapped by a poor roster this year, but next year he'll be handicapped by a miscast RS sophomore (Threet) or a true freshman QB. It has so many variables that it's kind of dumb to put a number on it.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:54 AM ^
if you want to add a "national championship forgives all" clause to my wins quota, that's perfectly reasonable.
The math doesn't lie, though. Either you say "forget about the first X years of the contract, we only care about the trend at the end," or you count every year of the RR era (not just the ones you want to ;-), and going 3-9 in the first year means you have to win a hell of a lot of games in the next five years to have a decent average wins per season.
November 18th, 2008 at 10:39 AM ^
Wait a minute...you have to win a lot of games to get a higher average number of wins per season? Wow. Thanks for the math lesson.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:43 PM ^
You simply can't win with 33.6%.
Bacher was 17/29. Threet and Sheridan combined for 12/36.
RR was doomed from the start this season. You can not have an offense that doesn't require passing without a mobile QB. An immobile inaccurate QB is death on wheels.
Next year Threet will be 3rd on the depth chart and Sheridan will be 4th. The offense will actually improve a ton because the QB will be willing to run if he can't throw the ball.
Expect two more years of growing pains for the offense, but a significant improvement in the W-L column.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:15 PM ^
"An immobile inaccurate QB is death on wheels."
Death on concrete blocks.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:26 PM ^
about our performance this year vis a vis RR's coaching is this. It looks pretty clear to me that for the most part, we are making the same mistakes (slants, drops, missed tackles etc) 11 games into the season. We do not seem to be improving at all. Now, RR says that we are Monday through Friday and its not showing on Saturdays. I sure hope so. Because I believe even young, inexperienced and yes, poor players can improve with good coaching. Am i missing some improvement?
November 17th, 2008 at 5:10 PM ^
I've seen a lot of improvement in the offensive line. Our corners have played better in recent games. Mouton has improved also.
I think the large number of slants is due to the fact that it's a pretty easy pass to throw (second only to a hitch) and Sherithreegin is incapable of throwing accurate posts, fades, etc.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:20 PM ^
That's fair. I don't think it invalidates the concern though regarding why the great majority of our players aren't improving--or don;t seem to be on the field
November 17th, 2008 at 5:29 PM ^
Rodriguez was barely over .500 at WVU before Pat White and Steve Slaton came along. Including: home losses to Temple and CUSA era Cincinnati, 3 blowout bowl losses, 0-3 against Miami, and 1-4 against Maryland. It wasn't until he had the two best players on the field every week that he had much success.
So hopefully Forcier or Beaver are as good as Pat White.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:39 PM ^
They were also lowly regarded prospects that he turned into Heisman contenders. It's not like they were 5-star infusions. And by the way, Slaton is being pretty successful with the Texans right now. He's come a long way from being a 3-star recruit.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:51 PM ^
Not to totally take credit away from the strength staff as they were certainly a big part of WVU's success, but Rodriguez can't really take much credit for developing Slaton. The guy was awesome as a true freshman. He scored 6 or 7 TDs in his second start. I can give credit to the coaching staff for finding him and bringing him in, but this was certainly more a case of a recruit being overlooked than a big time Barwis-ing.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:47 PM ^
When you conflate seasons it looks that way. To say that "he was .500 until he got Pat White" is misleading - he was under .500 once - and was well below .500 that year. For the three years before White and Slaton arrived, Rodriguez was 25-13 - well over .500. Also, that was against Miami, BC, and Va Tech.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:59 PM ^
Throw out his first season then. He was good for 8.3 wins a year, 0 conference championships and 0 bowl wins before Pat White.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:27 PM ^
Who recruited Pat White to play QB when no one else wanted him?
November 17th, 2008 at 10:36 PM ^
Timothy, your argument essentially boils down to "Except for the years they were good, Rich Rod's teams were not good."
November 18th, 2008 at 1:22 AM ^
More than anything else my point is that RR didn't appear to be a genius until he had superior talent (particularly in the backfield) to everyone on his schedule for a 3 year span outside of maybe Louisville (Brohm) and Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. Perhaps I should've directed my comments at those that suggested he beat teams with equal talent when he was in the Big East.
November 18th, 2008 at 10:10 AM ^
This argument also gives Rodriguez no credit for somehow finding "stars" in a 2-star WR recruit changed to QB (Pat White), a 3-star RB recruit (Slaton), a walk-on FB (that white FB, who's name escapes me) and a top-10 defense who's most recruited player was Michigan's abject failure, Ryan Mundy.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:03 PM ^
Owen Schmitt.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:05 AM ^
RR won two big east titles before Pat white came to WVU. The first was a co-champ with Miami,FL before the canes, hokies and BC fled to the ACC.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:01 PM ^
im so sick of all the rich apologists on this blog, i had to go and create my own account and im not very happy about it.
everyone has said "give him time give him time" but honestly, what has he done this year that is giving you confidence. the only thing he has going for him is his past record. so he won a few bowl games with wvu? im sorry, but success in one program doesnt necessarily translate to success at another.
and dont tell me the cupboard was bare. it would have been a down year, but it wouldnt have been 3-8.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:44 PM ^
OK, I have been a Michigan fan since the ripe-old age of 11...and I am not 28. I have loved every second of Michigan football until this year. I thought that a few years ago when the team went 7-5, that was the worst that I was ever going to witness in my lifetime. That was until this year. I was all for Rich Rodriguez (although I would have prefered Les Miles), but THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. Being 3-8 heading into the Ohio State game is just totally unacceptable. Michigan is not a program that has up and down years...every once in a blue moon they put together a 7-5 season, but the very next year they are in the top 15 and ready to compete! I just can't believe they didn't think about this more before going with RR.
The second point I wanted to make was about the hiring of RR. There has to be some sort of process as where the AD asks the question during the interview, "what do you know about the UM-OSU rivalry and what do you plan to do to keep the rivalry alive and bring the shift in power back to Michigan?" I don't believe that this question was ever asked to RR...when he talkes about the game, it just seems like it is another game to him. Does he not unstand that there is only 1 game each year that TRULY matters...and that game is OSU? This isn't just another game...this is life for Michigan! I'm not sure that he will ever have the mentallity and shear determination to destroy OSU...which was evident from when he was introduced in Crisler Arena and continues to be evident in his interviews.
I am just an outraged fan who has truly lost sleep and who is totally consumed by what has become of his beloved Wolveries...we are not the Hurricanes, Florida State, or even Notre Dame! We don't fall off the map, not even for a year! It is truly too Great, to be a WOLVERINE!
November 17th, 2008 at 7:48 PM ^
It's utterly hilarious that someone creates a handle as Drew Sharp, posts an idiotic rant on the handle (keeping in character) and some complete fool actually takes it seriously, and posts their own.
Well played, Drew Sharp creator, well played.
November 23rd, 2008 at 6:51 PM ^
I've long believed that the programs who decide that one game is their season (OSU before Tressel, MSU before Dantonio, etc.) are setting themselves up for failure. OSU is a great game to win and its certainly the biggest game we have on our schedule in terms of intensity, tradition, rivalry, etc. But it's not worth anything more. Give me 11-1 and a loss to OSU and a BCS NC game bid and I'd be happy every single year. It's just like the program with Bo, don't get me wrong, I loved Bo but playing for the Big Ten title as your goal is just weak sauce, dude. We're MICHIGAN not Northwestern or Iowa or Minnesota or Purdue. We're the winningest program in the history of college football. Our goal every year should be NC. Not beating OSU. If that's not what you mean, okay I apologize but to flame a guy because he doesn't see THE GAME as the biggest thing in the history of the world and all that matters every year is seriously missing the big picture. OSU and MSU hires and fires guys for not winning rivalry games, Michigan should hire and fire guys for not winning NCs...we want to be a class of the NCAA and having low goals won't get us there.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:43 PM ^
I haven't read all the posts but enough to get that there are a lot of people on here that are tired of Rich Rod all ready and want him out.
We need to give him time to get his "style" of players in here. He took over a program that did not suite his style of offense. He needs at least three years to get guys in here that can run his offense. I am tired of listening to all the whining and complaining of this season. We all knew it was going to be a long long year this year. Next year will be better and in three years we will be contending if not winning the Big 10 again. We have to give it time Rich has proven that his offense works but he takes the right players to make it work. He does not have these players right now but in 2-3 years he will. If you are just going to complain then about this team you are not a true fan, a true fan will support their team win or lose.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:55 PM ^
just because im complaining doesnt mean im not a fan....ive sat through and watched every bubble screen, fumbled kickoff and missed tackle since utah, and i still wear my michigan clothes proudly.
but you still didnt answer my question, why should we just ASSUME hes been successful before he can be succesful again?
success doesnt always translate.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:02 PM ^
For the same reasons the state didn't make your mother abort you despite all evidence saying she should.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:49 PM ^
There is no way to prove the Rich will be successful with Michigan. All you can do his look at his track record with the previous teams he has taken over, his first year at Glenville State he went 1-7-1 and finished there with 4 WVIAC championships in his last four years, his first year at WVU he went 3-8 and left with 6 consecutive bowl games and 4 big east championships.
There is no way to tell if this will translate into big ten titles except for giving him time. Lots of times when coaches switch teams are run a completely different offense than they run prior to arrival there is a rebuilding stage so that coach can get their players in. June Jones will be a prime example of this going from Hawaii, to SMU there will be a rebuilding stage but i'm sure SMU will begin to contend very soon.
You just have to give him some time, one year is not enough especially when he does not have a spread option QB, does not have a very good O line, is lacking in big ten quality receivers. Once we have a QB who can accurately throw the ball and tuck and run we will see a big change in this team. As Mcguffie and Shaw will really start to toast some defenses. If there is not a change in our offense in the next year or two than we can start discussing a coaching change until then give him some time.
Scott Schafer is a different story, he took over a veteran defense and they should not be struggling like they are.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:19 PM ^
RE: #59- OSU has 4 BCS wins in 6 games (4-way tie for most appearances in BCS era), A&M in '98-'99 and Miami in '02-'03 (that one mattered) along with the two Fiesta Bowls you mentioned. Also, I'm not sure "coming out spanking them" refering to UGA in '05-'06 is accurate to describe a 3 point win. More on UGA '05 (#1 in SEC, 10-2), I'm not so sure on their undeniable "stacked" quality. I think this year's two loss UGA in a much tougher SEC is substantially more "stacked" (albeit schizophrenic).
RE: 60- Two BCS wins IS including the 2007-08 game. WVU has been to two BCS games in their history, 05-06 and 07-08, both wins.
If BCS wins are the standard, RR took a side-step to a program with as many BCS wins as he already had (and presumably would have exceeded had he stayed). Keep in mind, this BCS victory argument is not very promising for UM fans, a PSU win this year would put UM 4th in BigTen BCS victories (tOSU 4-2, UW 2-0, PSU 2*-0 [with win this year, not a given] and UM 1-3).
Check your basic facts if you are going to base coaching success/failure/general strugg-el-ing on them.
I'm sorry but I had to create an account to correct your collective inaccuracies. Terrible historical knowledge of your program leads to bad fans. Arguments should be based on facts not "I've watched College Gameday like, every Saturday since 2004".
November 17th, 2008 at 8:22 PM ^
ERRRR RE: post #'s...
@ sedieso
and
@ evenyoubrutus
November 17th, 2008 at 9:11 PM ^
He hasn't been in the Big Ten and he doesn't know the coaches or teams well at all. After a few years he'll understand rivalries, team philosophies, and other things Lloyd knew that helped him win. Same with the rest of the staff.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:30 AM ^
The Big 10 is barely better than the MAC. Even the bad MAC teams can beat the powerhouse Big 10 team with the greatest coach in the world. Iowa couldn't even beat Pitt but beat Penn State, Ohio State plays a real powerhouse and look what happens, they get creamed.
All time bowl records by conference, based on winning percentage:
#1 SEC 55.4%
#2 Big East 54.3%
#3 Pac 10 52.7%
#4 ACC 50.6%
#5 Big 8 50.0%
#6 Big 12 48.2%
#7 Big 10 47.8%
#8 Southwest 44.4%
#9 WAC 43.2%
November 18th, 2008 at 9:54 AM ^
There are so many problems with this statistic, I don't know where to start:
1) It completely ignores the quality of opposition in the bowl games. To whit, the water-shed year for the Big East in bowl games was 2007, when the conference went 5-0 in bowl games by doing the following:
USF beat unranked underdog Eastern Carolina.
#12 Rutgers beat unranked underdog Kansas St.
#10 WVU beat unranked, underdog, Georgia Tech.
#6 Louisville beat underdog, #18 Wake Forest.
Cincinatti beat unranked, underdog Western Michigan.
By comparison, the Big 10, that year:
6-6 Minnesota lost to unranked, favored, Texas Tech
Unrankend Purdue lost to unranked Maryland.
6-6, unranked Iowa lost to #13 Texas.
#24 PSU beat #25 Tennessee.
#7 Wisconsin beat #15 Arkansas.
#4 Michigan lost to #3 USC.
#1 OSU lost to #2 Florida.
If you can't see the difference between those matchups, I don't know what to say.
2) It attempts to make a blanket conclusion based on the results from games that some of the teams from the conference play once a year.
3) It compares 80+ years of Big 10 results to 10+ years of Big East results
4) It acts as if results from Big 10 bowls 30 years ago, when the Big East didn't exist, are somehow relevant to a discussion about the relative strength of the conferences today.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:35 PM ^
The Big East stats don't say much to me, but the SEC plays a similarly difficult bowl schedule. If you take out the Rose Bowl years from the Big Ten record, I we likely get a little closer. I think the SEC gets a Bowl Game advantage by nature of the fact that a lot of those have been de facto home games.
The best conference-to-conference matchup statistics are the annual 1v1,2v2 etc. rankings, where the final rank of the conferences best team, 2nd best team, etc., and the rankings of the conferences' worst team, 2nd worst team, etc. put against each other, with the middle teams averaged to make up for the disparity between the number of teams in each conference. When that is accomplished, the stats have shown the Big East consistently at or near the bottom, particularly after Miami/BC/VT left. It's varied from year to year, but in general, the Big Ten and SEC battle for the top two spots, with the Big XII and ACC and Pac Ten bouncing around from year to year. The last three years have been SEC, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac Ten, ACC, Big East, in that order.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:17 PM ^
Fold up your life and move to Canada. When the Motor City bowl and Sun bowl's outcome start meaning anything, please alert me. Clearly, from your statistics, the Big East is BADASS! How relevant! If you think B10 football so shitty just do everyone a favor and gargle drano.
"Even the bad MAC teams can beat the powerhouse Big 10 team with the greatest coach in the world."
I hope your whole post is a joke. In case it isn't, you should call sylvan learning center and demand your money back.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:29 AM ^
Toledo has to be considered a bad MAC team and isn't Michigan a powerhouse Big 10 team with the greatest coach in the world?
I guess you have to be eligible for the Motor City Bowl or the Sun Bowl in order for those games to have any meaning.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:33 PM ^
I think this was posted in jest. Had to be.
Slaton is a more prototype Big 10 back than Minor
November 19th, 2008 at 12:16 PM ^
The simple answer as to just why Rich is failing? Maybe because he has freshmen at just about every relevant offensive position, an offensive line with no cohesion learning a new scheme, uber injury problems and a defense that is underachieving like whoa. Maybe that's the problem.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:11 PM ^
didn't start until Miami Fl, Va Tech, and Boston College left for the ACC??
Comments