Three and Out: WE WERE RIGHT.

Submitted by Section 1 on October 9th, 2011 at 4:36 PM

For more sepcific summary and discussion of the book, look no further than the series of diary posts being done by MGoBlogger 03 Blue 07.  He's doing a nice job, and his reply-comments are also excellent.

I write this, my fellow Wolverines, because we were right.  We were right all along.  We. Were. Right.

One of the things I expect that you will all find with this book, is that while Rich Rodriguez is the lead character, he is not a dominating character.  This book is certainly about Rodriguez to a great extent; but it is not told from his perspective.  It is not "his" story.  It is "a" story.  Or, more correctly, a series of stories.  You will dig into this book, and you will not put it down.

Here's the thing:  while I am going to leave the field clear for others to read, think about and comment on this book, I want to say right now -- WE WERE RIGHT.

We were right to question the motives and methods of Michael Rosenberg, Mark Snyder and the Detroit Free Press.  Looking back, you all know what was written on this site.  Many of you complained that I in particular went overboard.  And that Brian Cook was too anti-Freep and too lenient in allowoing me to post what I did.

What I expect most of you to say when you've had a chance to digest the book, is that we may have been too easy on Rosenberg and Snyder.

The Free Press is very nearly the lead antagonist in the entire book.  

And what the book makes clear, that none of us on the outside could, is that the Free Press stories were really hurting the program, the coaches, their friends, their families and the Michigan players.

If you've been reading this blog carefully for three years, you will know much of what Bacon is writing about.  You will feel that you have been very well prepared to follow the story.  You'll already know most of the details.  But what you'll see for the first time is how badly our coaches and players were being hurt and distracted by what the Free Press had concocted.

Interestingly, to start with, you'll actuallly see the praise that Bacon lavishes on Rosenberg, as a writer of considerable skill and intelligence.  Rosenberg had a good reputation.  Bacon acknowledges it.

But Bacon also makes it very clear, by the time you get to the end; Rosenberg was no less a villain than that which he was portrayed as on this blog.  And that Brian Cook was an important figure, in trying to clear the air.  Brian, and Jon Chait, were right.  All along.  Asking precisely the right questions, demanding exactly the right answers.

Largely left out of Bacon's book is the other Detroit media, which for better or worse gets portrayed as just sort of following the Rosenberg lead.  Hopefully, this book will shake that up, because the Rosenberg/Freep Jihad has been there for the writing all along.  This blog (which gets healthy mentinon in the book!) has been on the case, and now looks very much the better for having done so.

Many of you, the Michigan cognoscenti, will buy this book and read it and smile quietly to yourselves, thinking, "Yep; just as we had known; I saw this on MGoBlog first."  But I hope you will all do something else.  Get extra copies of this book; give them to your uninitiated friends.  Give them to the other factionalists.

We've talked about the factions; my own thinking on that subject perhaps hasn't been as forceful as my writing about Rosenberg and the Free Press.  But as much as outing the Freep to the general public, this book outs the factions.  We suspected them; they were there.  Worse even than I had imagined.  Everyone needs to read this book.  Lots of people won't like parts of it.  I don't much care.  Everybody needs to read this book.  This book isn't required reading for the In Rod We Trust fanatics.  This book is more than anything required reading above all for the Rodriguez haters.  If you know one, buy him a copy.

Comments

M-Wolverine

October 10th, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^

I just get tired of the "toxic environment" being the be all and end all of excuses. If anything, it's the continuous return to that to cover up some really bad coaching that gets tiring. Sure, if he had a better environment he probably would have had an easier time winner.  And if he had won more, he probably would have had a lot better environment.,  Really, take a look at any of these arguments....how often have they started with someone ripping Rich? (Other than in the most troll worthy way). Certainly not by me. I never take shots at Rich just for the heck of it, and certainly no one starts threads saying "See, it WAS Rich's fault". But we get tons of the opposite.  My problems are two-fold: one, the point wasn't :"hur hur Rich sucked at hiring coordinators", it was that Section 1 has continuously made such claims, and claimed they'd be answered in the book. Which, no. And second, it's becoming very apparent that the book doesn't have the synthesis you want (and is probably very accurate), but completely ignores the coaching side of it, to concentrate on the salacious details.

And really, calling someone petty for supposedly trying to minimize someone else's accomplishments two paragraphs after you do the same thing to Carr makes your point not hold a lot of water.

greenphoenix

October 9th, 2011 at 10:12 PM ^

At some point, M-W, your comments really become disingenuous, because they deny that the toxic environment that existed here for the last three years had a negative impact on the performance of the program.

You keep trying to separate job performance from job environment. That's patently, blisteringly ridiculous and the more you do it, the less sincere you seem to be.

For example, we don't know yet how the Defensive Coordinator search was managed, but it does occur to me that if RR felt like he could have trusted anyone in the existing Michigan community, he might have been able to reach out to someone with roots in this state to do the job and gotten a better coordinator.

Nobody comes into a team as a new head coach and has this kind of success unless the foundation was already laid. Football teams don't work like that. In the same way the mess RR inherited made his job incredibly more difficult because Carr had been mailing it in for two years and then invited many of his best players to get out. Rodriguez had a part to play in this year's success. He recruited, coached, and managed this team for three years, and his example clearly led them to decide to stay instead of running off like the 08 players did.

Of course he had a part to play in his failures. But this environment good lord. It made it so much harder for him to succeed. Try, just try, to admit that, and we can belive that you're willing to have a constructive discussion instead of trying to reconstruct history.

Anyway, Rodriguez is gone, so why do you seem to be working so hard to minimize his accomplishments? It makes you seem incredibly petty.

M-Wolverine

October 10th, 2011 at 10:59 AM ^

But it goes to the "I'm right" aspect. That you've been claiming for months that the book would explain away any and all problems with the program under Rich. And you've made that claim time and time again about the salaries, and said "wait till the book comes out" over and over to prove you "right". And in this case, you're admitting that the book didn't prove you right....in fact, it the only way I "knew" the answer is because it's becoming readily apparent the book glosses over anything to do with the defensive debacle. So, in fact, you "weren't right" as so far as saying your claim based on nothing would be proven in the book. You can't have your answer to sources always be "wait for the book" then when the book doesn't back you up..."wait till someone asks him questions". It may very well have happened. But you claiming it did based on nothing is Freep level.

The only problem I have with you is you've made it readily apparent you favor a coach over the program.  And think that gives you some higher moral ground within the fandom, rather than lower.

Section 1

October 10th, 2011 at 12:47 PM ^

I get it; you don't like me.  Our disagreement over Rodriguez has turned personal between us.  You don't like me, and that feeling is mutual.

Let's just be clear with each other.

I never wrote that "the [Bacon] book would explain away any and all probelms with the program under Rich."  And if you can find such a quote from me, I'll eat those words.  You won't be able to find such a quote, because I never said such a thing.  Not in those words, not in similar words.

I have told you to "wait for the book."

I had hoped, and sort of expected, that the book would likely offer a defintive history of the defensive coordinators'-hiring stories.  I suggested that you and others of a like-mind should wait for the book.  The book is indeed fascinating, but it does not seem to answer the Casteel-as-DC question.  I'm a little surprised, and more than a little disappointed, that I can't say to you personally, "See, I told you so," about that one particular story.  I would take great pleasure in spiking the ball in your endzone.  I very much hope to do so someday.

The story that I have posited about Jeff Casteel and Michigan isn't original to me, and I have never claimed it as any sort of reporting by me.  It originated, as you probably know, on The Smoking Musket with a little bit of corroboration here and there on the 'net.  I have hoped that professional reporters would do the story in depth, but they haven't so far and I still very much want to see somebody do it.  I know I'll be asking a lot more questions, if for no other reason than to see if I can prove a story that you appear to not want to believe.   That would be fun for me.  It might be hard.  I expect that Rich Rodriquez will have a fine new coaching position in 2012 or 2013, and that there might therefore be further rumors about Casteel at WVU.  So that might make it a complicated matter to dig into.  Or perhaps not, if/when Casteel does someday leave WVU.  

This blog was right about the depth and the details of the Freep jihad.  John Bacon's book expands on what most of us already knew.  This blog was right to suspect some very bad factionalism within the football program.  John Bacon's book expands greatly on that subject.  All of that, and more, is cause for a great big MGoBlog Victory Lap.

John's book doesn't say much about Jeff Casteel; that's too bad as far as I am concerned but that doesn't mean it is the end of that story.  My position is that I suspect that the story originating out of The Smoking Musket is probably true; I am waiting and hoping for better confirmation.  That's all.

You have otherwise done a comprehensively thorough job of misquoting me and attributing false claims to me.

chitownblue2

October 9th, 2011 at 9:26 PM ^

Nobody asked, and it's somewhat off-tangent from this thread, but here it goes:

I'm not going to read the book. The only possibility it contains is avenue for outrage, frustration, and umbrage. Michigan football is kind of awesome now, why ruin it? Why engage in these horrendous debates of 2 years ago, anew? Why read a book that's going to bag on some people I know better than to think are backstabbers?

There is no possibility that this book brings happiness, joy, or positivity. Ats what I watch football for - if I'm going to be outraged, I'll save it for shit that actually matters - I don't need it in my football.

Section 1

October 9th, 2011 at 10:56 PM ^

But in all of the discussions to come re: Three and Out, don't you think it will be better if you just stay out of them?  A position of willful ignorance of the book's contents doesn't make for much a discussion of said book.

Seriously; you'd be better off confining your comments to current recruiting and Al Borges' offense, wouldn't you?  Hockey season will be here soon; you'll be able to comment on that.  

It's a free country and nobody will make you read the book.

But I can tell you that I was there on Saturday in Evanston, rooting for "the kids."  The book didn't interfere too much with that activity; I left it in the car.  It shouldn't interfere in East Lansing either.

Let's dig deeper here, shall we?  You seem to think that any defense of Rodriguez, any analysis of the Rodriguez tenure, undermines the current "kids."  As if we fans somehow need to focus on the next game.  And we must not let anything undermine the current effort.  But I'll let that be the focus of coaches and players.  For me, no level of information is too much.  My fandom and my support for the University's football team isn't diminished by my having more information.

JBE

October 9th, 2011 at 11:50 PM ^

I will definitely stay out of these discussions in the future. They are getting to the point of absurdity.

Also, I wasn't addressing you with my comment, but since you are defender of this text you thought..

Also, you're awesome because you go to games.

But just for the record I don't think analysis of the Rodriguez tenure undermines the current players, nor do I condone willful ignorance of what happened the last three years. I want to know what happened. But then again, soap operas get pretty good ratings, so I understand.

03 Blue 07

October 10th, 2011 at 12:34 AM ^

That's fine, but then you'll have to forgive me for ever remotely respecting anything you have to say about anything that took place before this football season. Actually, no: I won't respect that, either, because the players that play here now were recruited by the previous staff.

And I love it- "Why read a book that's going to bag on some people I know better than to think are backstabbers?" That's awesome. You "know better than to think" Jim Stapleton is a backstabber? Or Lloyd Carr? Jesus, you must be a high roller, hanging with those guys and having such a personal relationship with them.

Couching it in "I want my football to be happy" doesn't get you a pass, either, by the way, as althought I can understand the attitude of "why dig up this old shit," which I can at least understand, if you are to discuss anything from that era, what RR left Hoke, how RR handled the transition to Hoke, how Hoke handled the transition from RR, and make any references whatsoever to comparisons with past transitions, you're going to be doing so from a position of willful ignorance. Or at least willful disdain and disregard for a book that discusses a lot of that stuff. Also, I'm certain you haven't had discussions with the numerous AD employees that Bacon has, nor do you have "access" approaching that of John Bacon. Including with the people who "you know better than to be backstabbers." If you have that many friends in the A.D., whom you've had in-depth discussions about this with (and by "this" I mean "the stuff in the book"...that you won't read), then I commend you. But I feel confident that you have not.  

And for JBE: Of COURSE it won't make it to your shelves. Why on earth would you want to educate yourself when you could find out that the things you're basing your arguments on might, you know, be wrong? Nah.

chitownblue2

October 10th, 2011 at 12:58 AM ^

1. You're free to not respect anything I say. Fine.
2. I don't even know who Jim Stapleton is.
3. You sure blew up that one comment into quite a rant.

If you want to turn your fandom into a this tangential who-dun-it of randoms, that's fine, but I don't share your desire.

Full disclosure: I don't have a personal relationship with Carr, or anyone who is or was in the AD. I am not a high-roller, nor have I claimed to be.

I have had personal dealings with some of the people who seem to be disparaged in the book - not dealings that make me at all unique, and, i assure you, not at all privileged. I have seen them do things for others that reveal a true quality of character that, for me, matters far more my college football does. I'm not going to bother to relate them, because it frankly doesn't matter to me if you agree. I've profound differences made in people's lives by some of the people in question, and in ways that don't remotely involve football. People can allow football to steer their opinion of the men, but maybe we need to realize that the football is only a part of who they are, and the actions in the book only an incomplete part of their involvement with football.

And no, I don't want to discuss Rodriguez, the transition to, or the transition from.

Seth

October 10th, 2011 at 9:55 AM ^

I have had personal dealings with some of the people who seem to be disparaged in the book - not dealings that make me at all unique, and, i assure you, not at all privileged. I have seen them do things for others that reveal a true quality of character that, for me, matters far more my college football does. I'm not going to bother to relate them, because it frankly doesn't matter to me if you agree.

This is beneath you, chitown. "I know shit that you don't but I'm not gonna say" is beneath you. Obviously "it frankly doesn't matter if you agree" is disingenuous because you go on to write about the good that some of the disparaged have done outside of football -- clearly you are trying to convince us of something.

Just because some people got petty or incompetent at times doesn't ruin that person. We are not Ohio State fans, to speak of "Sacred Brotherhood"s and "Former Buckeyes." I would hope we are not so base as to make lists of people who are with us or against us. I read that book seeing a lot of people doing what they thought best for their definition of "Michigan." I thought a lot about how Bo got Mike Boren to play for Michigan, and how Carr got Justin Boren to play for Michigan, how Bo's arrogance passed to Carr without the necessary filtration of "this is how we choose to build it" as opposed to "this is the way it is," and how that arrogance in turn was passed on to the players so that what came to embody "Michigan" was far more rigid than the builder of that Michigan ever intended.

These are not giant character flaws we're talking about here. It's mostly good people with good intentions and hard heads letting their good intentions and hard heads drive them away from each other.

chitownblue2

October 10th, 2011 at 10:31 AM ^

Lloyd Carr went beyond the call of duty in helping, comforting, and encouraging a good friend of mine during their treatment for an extremely serious medical condition. I didn't make this explicit because it's not my story to tell.

The level, frequency, and involvement of his contact, for someone he didn't know, tells me what I need to know about him. If he told Ryan Mallett he may want to think about leaving, it doesn't matter to me.

Hopefully this satisfies your call out of me. Do you want names? The type of cancer?

And you know very well that people, including many on this blog, will take what you describe as "pettiness" and use it to accuse rank insubordination.

Seth

October 10th, 2011 at 11:14 AM ^

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not questioning Carr's goodness. Even if you're the biggest hater of Michigan out there it should be blatantly obvious even without any personal stories that Lloyd Carr is a good person, a great person, among the best of people.

Sometimes the best of people do things that are petty and arrogant.

I would have told Ryan Mallett to leave too. It's obvious that was what was best for him, if not what was best for Michigan. If I'm the parent of a recruit I would be more likely to favor Michigan because the program believes in doing right by its people. Obviously we don't have Carr's side in these conversations -- with Mallett and the others -- but it's not hard to guess: Carr was trying to do right by the kids he brought into the program.

I agree that people will take what I call pettiness by a good person and turn it into an accusation of "insubordination," or as I put it "loyalty."

I guess what I'm asking is that instead of calling these people out for dissing a good human being, help me call them out for thinking Michigan is only about being loyal to Michigan. It's obvious that many programs have nothing more to them than "this is our school." It's obvious from Bacon's book and every other story about Lloyd Carr that Lloyd always believed Michigan loyalty was to the values that made Michigan good, as opposed to the goodness of Michigan that has these values.

I want you next to me helping people understand the difference between:

  1. Michigan does good, therefore Michigan is good.
  2. Michigan is good, therefore Michigan does good.

And how confusing these two approaches created the rifts between good people. This book is an extraordinary opportunity for our fanbase for some self-reflection so that we can avoid making the same mistakes again. Let's not waste it because some of our fellow fans won't take it the right way.

 

Seth

October 10th, 2011 at 12:10 PM ^

That's fair. I doubt we'll convince everybody. The blog's numbers say there's a lot more readers than writers in these threads. 

There are a lot of people who don't yet know what to think. You have an eloquence in these matters (e.g. you can say with a hash tag what I needed 900 words plus graphs and quotes to say about Kovacs) that is much needed in helping the undecideds rectify the events described in Bacon's book with what they know to be true about Carr. If you don't read the book and comment on it, you're depriving the fanbase of one of its best opportunities for perspective.

JBE

October 10th, 2011 at 1:01 AM ^

I haven't made any arguments.

I relayed a personal preference not to read this book based on your notes of its content. I really don't read about football, and I thought this might be worth the time. Then I was disappointed after the synopsis. Now I'm just playing contrarian to Section 1 because, well, I've been around this blog too long and I have a bit of free time today.

BRCE

October 10th, 2011 at 12:44 AM ^

It is beyond convenient that you along with some other Lloyd Loyalists on this board are saying you don't want to read the book after you made a habit of dismissing anyone who dared question Carr's loyalty to the program as a proverbial tin foil hatter. Now that the rumblings have some degree of corroboration from a respected journalist, you choose to ignore it, saying that you "know better" than a man who had reportedly unprecedented access in Schembecher Hall over the past three years.

Your reasoning for not wanting to read the book is otherwise sound, but as someone who arrogantly talked down to subscribers of these rumors, you are neglecting to take your medicine now that there seems to be a lot to suggest that they were based on merit and not wild imaginations.

 

 

 

Section 1

October 10th, 2011 at 1:09 AM ^

I have a mere curiosity about Carr.  I've written on this blog many times; I was good with Carr as head coach.  I remember defending him many, many times.  The depths of my Carr-defense even extended to my defense of Jim Hermann.  

Still, I was very much ready for Carr's retirement; it really was time, not so much after App St. but moreso after that Oregon debacle that followed. And the notion of Ron English taking over the program seemed like a real "Horror" to me.

I've been very slow to criticize Carr for anything; mostly, all along, I have just had questions.

I've offered a very, very few criticisms of Carr, but only for the obvious -- for his not denouncing the Free Press when every right-minded Michigan Man did so, from Bill Martin to David Brandon to Rick Leach to Jon Chait.  I'm waiting for Carr's answers to those questions.  What possible reason could Carr have had, for not denouncing the Free Press?  That's really hard to fathom.

But that's merely tangential.  You simply can't find any examples of my launching any unfounded whispering campaigns against Carr.  I just have not been "worked up" about Lloyd Carr.

Seth

October 10th, 2011 at 9:28 AM ^

I understand your point -- it's about inviting negativity.

I read and respected Rosenberg for a long time before PracticeGate. Watching him detonate his credibility over a personal vendetta was painful for me to watch. But I watched. And now I know. I think it's better to know.

Bacon's not prone to lying. His book will be biased as any work by a human will be, but not the kind where the author is consciously pushing an agenda. There's a ton of good information there about Michigan, and as a fan of Michigan, I can't resist such an opportunity to KNOW MORE. If I don't read it, I WON'T KNOW.

As much as it will sting, I am constitutionally incapable of having such knowledge about Michigan out there and not accessing it. To me that's like sticking my hands over my ears and yelling "la la la la."

If Bacon's book was merely a reality show about the Michigan team that sought to make the characters something out of Jersey Shore so the reader could feel superior, I wouldn't bother. It's not that. The book is a documentary. The author trustworthy enough as authors go.

Carr still makes my list of favorite human beings on the planet, and still does no matter what's in that book about him. It's going to sting, just like it stung when I first started reading MGoBlog and Brian (paraphrasing) called Carr the worst sort of poker player. If I refused to pay attention to negative things concerning the people I admire, I wouldn't have much basis for admiring anybody.

I won't be reading it the way Section 1 reads it. What bothers me (and I'm guessing the other snide commenters in this thread) about his take is that it comes off like he opened Bacon's book not to learn more about Michigan, but to find confirmation of his biases. I have more admiration for someone who tries to falsify their biases than someone who's constantly looking for confirmation of them.

I have a tremendous (drink!) amount of respect for Section 1's loyalty to the program -- it's that loyalty to the program that gets him some leeway around here that other posters might not. However I don't believe for a minute that he will read Bacon's book with objectivity, and I highly doubt, had Three and Out largely exhoneratred Snyder & Rosenberg, we would be reading a Diary by Section 1 right now titled "We Were Wrong." When you come from a position of loyalty rather than objectivity, and you end up getting it right, you basically got lucky. That's hardly reason to gloat.

Nobody should read Three and Out because Section 1, or Misopogon, or Brian Cook was "right" about anything. Michigan fans ought to read Three and Out because knowing what happened during the Rodriguez era is worth the pain of experiencing it again.

Ultimately I think if you read this you'll appreciate even more what kind of shape the program is in now, especially considering how bad it could have been. That outrage, frustration and umbrage is going to be there. But how right Section 1 et al. were about Rosenberg is the least important takeaway from the book. Mostly what this book is about is the overriding theme, from every character in it, that Michigan is different from other programs. It's about how the villains set about acting as if that were a given, and the heroes set about trying to live up to it. This is the core of Michigan fandom. It's worth the umbrage.

chitownblue2

October 10th, 2011 at 9:41 AM ^

I don't think Bacon is lying. I'm sure that people have told him everything he includes, and I'm sure he's done his best to corroborate it.

But when a book describes a meeting between 3 individuals that reflects badly on two of them (and those two happened to not speak with Bacon for his book) I think you need to realize that you're getting one person's perspective of events. That's not to say Rodriguez lied, but that people can see things differently.

M-Wolverine

October 10th, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^

But I don't know how and when we judge someone to start having that bias. Rosenberg was as much a Michigan slappy as Bacon, if not more. Until he proved himself to have personal bias and motivations.  Did anyone know Rosey was going to slant things badly someday, until the day came the Athletic Department did something he thought was wrong, and he (in his mind alone) righteously was going to fix it? How do we know that Bacon wouldn't do that, because he's pissed about the way Rich was treated (that he's gone on the record as saying he thought was wrong and he deserved a 4th year)?  I don't know (or really think) that Bacon would outright lie about stuff, like MR did (though I wouldn't have thought it of him either, till he did it). But slant things to suit his viewpoint? Oh, hell yeah. Because that doesn't make him "evil", it just makes him human.  So for all those who say "he'd never give anything but straight facts"...how do you KNOW this about Bacon, but didn't KNOW it wasn't going to be true about Rosenberg? Because if the Freep stuff should have taught us anything, it's that people will play with facts to make themselves or whoever they like look good.

InterM

October 11th, 2011 at 3:14 PM ^

If you've read Rosenberg's and Bacon's relevant body of work and you're having trouble distinguishing them, I feel sorry for you.  In the very first Practicegate article, there was a studied indifference to the central concept on which the "scandal" was built -- namely, what constitutes a countable hour.  That article was the most slanted piece of trash since . . . well, since Rosenberg's take on Justin Feagin's dismissal from the football team.  If you'd care to point me to anything comparable Bacon has written, I'd like to see it.  If you're suggesting this book (which I haven't read yet) might be the first step of Bacon's journey down this road, I can't say for sure, but I highly doubt it.  I'm guessing if Bacon only has one side of the story as to any particular incident, he openly discloses this fact to the reader.

As to your larger "lesson" that "people will play with facts to make themselves or whoever they like look good" -- a correction, that's what "ethically challenged slimeballs" will do, not "people" in general, and certainly not actual journalists.

M-Wolverine

October 12th, 2011 at 11:30 AM ^

What BEFORE the practicegate articles told you Rosenberg was going to become a slimey goodfornothin'? (Ok, maybe before the "he swears too much...waaaaaa" article). All his prior work, he was pretty much a slappy for Michigan. So when beforehand did you know he was bad...till he started doing bad things? I said I didn't expect that of Bacon; but just saying that because one has never done it before is no indication they won't do it in the future, as Rosenberg has shown.

Section 1

October 10th, 2011 at 1:19 PM ^

I don't much like the idea that all that I am good for is repeating a bias-hate message along the lines of, 'Rosenberg is a douchebag.'  I've steered clear of short Twitter-style insults of the guy.

All I have wanted to do is to give this select group of readers a clear basis for understanding what Rosenberg and his paper have done wrong, with careful summaries of the facts, not name-calling.  I wanted the facts to show that Rosenberg was a douchebag without my having to say so.

If Three and Out had proven that Michael Rosenberg was a journalist-hero to the Michigan football program, it wouldn't just have been me eating crow; Brian Cook would be dining with me.  But we weren't wrong; we were right.  And I never had the slightest doubt that the book would show us to be right.  I'm sure Brian had no doubt as well. 

I don't see much point in wondering about 'what if Section 1 had been wrong?'  Because I wasn't wrong about Rosenberg; I've never been wrong in my attacks on him.  

As I said in the original Diary post, we will have much more, substantively, to say about the Bacon book.  This Diary, by its explicit opening terms, wasn't a book review, nor a Defensive Coordinators debate, nor a Chapter-by-Chapter summary.  This post was only what it said it was; a celebration of how right we have been here at MGoBlog in complaining about the Free Press' war on Rich Rodriguez.

And I'll repeat the most important part here:  For your friends and family who might get their news about Michigan football from the Free Press or television or sportstalk radio, buy them a copy of this book.  For their benefit and yours.

 

BRCE

October 10th, 2011 at 4:17 PM ^

Do you ever notice how many times you reference that you and (first and last name for effect) "Brian Cook" are on the same page of an issue? You hide behind it as validation for your opinions and hold him up as an infallible messiah.

In addition to your completely obsessive behavior and intellectual ego tripping, you are also a first rate sychophant. Seriously, you're a psychologist's personality disorder wet dream.

 

 

Section 1

October 11th, 2011 at 2:01 AM ^

I reference Brian whenever somebody is flaming me over an opinion that I know is in agreement with Brian's opinion.  It's hard to be a troll or an outlier when you are in sync with the blog's owner and proprietor.  

I actually don't agree with Brian all the time and he knows it.

But on the subject that I have been interested in -- the unfair treatment of Rich Rodriguez -- not only do I think that I've been habitually, routinely right.  I also think that I haven't been terribly creative.  Brian is ahead of me most of the time, whenever he chooses to devote his attention to the subject.  Brian has been right, in what he has been writing.  And so have I.

As for your personal attack on me, I am letting the mods handle those for me at this point.

 

 

 

wile_e8

October 10th, 2011 at 11:46 AM ^

I think it would probably be worth it from a "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" perspective. It is fairly likely that we will go outside the family for another coach sometime while most of us are still alive (after many Rose Bowls and National Championships), and this will be a shining example of how not to support the coach when that happens. Reading this might help everyone that supports the program act like the mythical Michigan Man next time instead of undermining the program because they didn't get their version of the Michigan Man. It didn't ultimately doom Rodriguez, but it left him with no margin for error. And boy did he err on defense.

Magnum P.I.

October 9th, 2011 at 10:54 PM ^

Brian called for any real Michigan fan to boycott the Free Press until Rosenberg and Snyder no longer work there. I continue that boycott. The most egregious aspect of the entire episode to me was their malice. In a time when Michigan, as a people, needed things to feel good about, these pricks spent months of their life and career grasping at straws in an effort to submarine one of the only perenially joyful aspects of being a Michigander. Ethical issues (of which there are many) aside, the fact that they, as servants of the State of Michigan, made the decision a priori to besmirch Michigan football is just disgusting. After clinching the AL Central, Jim Leyland shed tears describing the importance of sporting success to Detroit and to Michigan. Rosenberg and Snyder tried to deprive Michiganders of one of the few things to feel good about. Fuck them for that.

lexus larry

October 10th, 2011 at 10:39 AM ^

Another big, fat lie spread by both Snyder and Rosenberg was the depth of their "journalistic integrity."  Both, at different times, loudy proclaimed they couldn't be fans of the teams they covered, that they had to be unbiased in their coverage.  (I think Snyder said so in the Daily article about modern web journalism vs. print media, and Rosenberg cried about it when the Wings lost Game 5 of the 2008 Stanley Cup at home, forcing a late flight to Pittsburgh for the eventual Cup win...he was among several journos who didn't want to fly, work late, wasn't a Wings fan per se, etc. for that Cup activity.)

Why then, the glee at the presser announcing RichRod's dismissal?  Why the Herculean effort to smear RichRod, his style and his Michigan football team?  If these gentlemen were truly unbiased professionals, they would have performed actual investigation and fact-finding, not yellow, tabloid journalism.

Very happy to read that the mask is being pulled, and these tools are being shown for the deeply pathetic individuals they truly are...

Section 1, continue to be the flag-bearer of the fight against those who would tear down good men, honest young men of character and our beloved football program.