To Be the Best, You Have to Beat the Best
I believe it was Lloyd Carr who said recently that he never coached a game at Michigan in which he felt we were the underdog - and I think we've now all had to cross that threshold as fans. Even worse, I was reflecting today on what the "signature win" of this program under Rodriguez has been, what game we won that showed that we can be a great team when all the pieces line up. As WoJo said a bit ago, at some point you have to show you can actually do it once before we can believe you can do it consistently. With this in mind, I compiled the following list of Rich Rodriguez's wins at Michigan and the final season record of those teams we beat (or current record for this seasons' opponents):
2010 UConn: 5-4
2010 Illinois: 6-5
2010 UMass: 6-5
2008 Wisconsin: 7-6
2008 Minnesota: 7-6
2010 Notre Dame: 5-5
2009 Notre Dame: 6-6
2009 Western Michigan: 5-7
2009 Delaware State: 4-7
2010 Purdue: 4-7
2010 Indiana: 4-7
2009 Indiana: 4-8
2010 Bowling Green: 2-9
2008 Miami (OH): 2-10
2009 Eastern Michigan: 0-12
While this could be slightly modified after the end of the season, through 2.85 seasons at Michigan, Rich Rodriguez has not beaten a single team that's finished more than a game above .500. I'm pretty sure this wouldn't have been acceptable to his fan base at West Virginia - it's closer to the historical standard at MSU than it is to anything, in my mind. It's sure not Michigan football. It's not the resume of a coach who is going to be great at Michigan. None of these teams has, or will, finish the season ranked, or anywhere close to ranked.
Against the three ranked teams we've played this year, we have been down 31-10, 28-7 and 24-0, and have lost each by double-digits (although RichRod teams seem to excel at scoring just enough late in games to make it feel "interesting" while being out of reach). For kickers, our fourth loss was by double-digits as well. As a point of comparison, in our "year of infinite pain" in 2005, we lost by 7, 3, 3, 4 and 4 - 21 points COMBINED.
I think we need a change - the only signature wins RichRod has are against paper tigers, and that doesn't cut it at Michigan. Unfortunately, you can probably say that RichRod's signature "win" was the 25-23 loss to eventual #2 Utah in his debut in 2008, much like Charlie Weis. I have hung in there until today as my friends fell left and right, but today was it for me.
Sorry MGoBoard - may the negbanging begin, as it does any time one of us points out the drastic cliff we've fallen off and how far we truly are from re-climbing it.
November 20th, 2010 at 9:48 PM ^
EVERY big game. Not with this team. But one would be nice. I mean, we've lost a few we had no business losing. And that happens. But Great coaches pull upsets too. And you can only pull a true upset when your team is worse. So to completely upset someone would balance the scales some.
The nice thing is he has another try next week.
November 20th, 2010 at 9:53 PM ^
the week after in a bowl. In a bowl. In a bowl. You have to repeat that for some.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:00 PM ^
It might not be anyone all that impressive to be notable. This isn't probably, since most bowl matchups have us way overmatched (Missouri, Oklahoma), so it's likely he gets another shot. I was just going for the guaranteed thing.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:11 PM ^
but it is nice to see Michigan playing 13 games instead of just 12.
November 21st, 2010 at 12:03 AM ^
M-Wolverine, I agree completely. Right now we're a team that wins when we're supposed to, with the exception of Penn State, and loses when we're supposed to. And it's frustrating because we're used to magical things in Michigan Stadium. And over the last three years, the magic is mainly limited to (as the data presented by the OP shows) underwhelming wins.
But that said, winning when we're supposed to is progress, compared to when we couldn't outscore Toledo, couldn't stop Purdue (twice!), and imploded on the goal line against Illinois. And like you say, we've got one more week to truly pull an upset and win a game in conference that we're not supposed to.
Because next season, the expectations are high, and there are no reasons not to win.
November 21st, 2010 at 12:20 AM ^
Weren't we favored against MSU? Seemed like they struggled with Notre Dame just as much as we did. I remember they were deemed the favorite by many after the fact of getting outright embarrassed.
November 21st, 2010 at 1:56 AM ^
Exactly this man. I went to the M-MSU game this year and when Denard scored that 4th quarter TD I regained a small bit of hope for our team. I really thought we could win.
And this is the kid who sat with his head down eating the "buck o fries" through the 3rd and 4th.
After the apocalypse that was that game I just had given up on our team, I was in tears the whole way home. You know what I was saying to my dad? The guy who is always saying that all good programs have down years, to give them time and all this stuff.
"Dad there ain't no magic left in Michigan. We've just ran out. The Big House magic is just gone. There's no more Wangler to Carter, no more Braylon hail mary's or :01 wins over Penn State, none of that exists anymore. Hell we haven't returned a punt in god knows how long"
Imagine some kid in tears saying that. My weekends are influenced by these games. They influence my family because- like today- I was just in a terrible shitty mood that made everyone hate me. I spent all day in my room watching college football.
Fuck you David Brandon, Rich Rod, and Greg Robinson, I've tried too many times to be All In.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^
And never forget the effort and hard work that makes the magic possible
November 20th, 2010 at 9:55 PM ^
If we're "right there" or just "inconsistent," then we should be winning SOME of these, or at least, one? My challenge to the blind followers: what performance this year (complete performance) makes you think we can turn the corner with this group of coaches?
Denard is an amazing talent, but the record he broke today was an Air Force QB's record (which most of us didn't know existed until this year, if we're honest). Denard is also the first 1,500/2,000 QB, which is great, but really, he's also the first 1,500/1 QB. Denard being good at football is not reason enough to keep the coach. If so, you'll never make a change.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:09 PM ^
Many people on the blog have made the comment that "with this offense, we can beat anybody on any given day," and then those same people say, following a loss, "we were supposed to lose to that team." At some point, you'd hope that our prolific offense would beat a good team, even when we're not favored.
I'm not sure why this isn't happening, but it's worth talking about. And it's completely fair to raise criticism in a thoughtful way, as you're doing here.
November 20th, 2010 at 9:41 PM ^
the single strongest argument for those favoring his dismissal. I just think that with an offense this good, and this young, and a D this incredibly young--with the many blows it has suffered personnel-wise--an equable assessment sees plenty of reasons we're likely to be better. And that that buys him another year.
November 20th, 2010 at 9:47 PM ^
November 20th, 2010 at 9:51 PM ^
I just did some research and discovered that in Rodriguez's entire coaching career, not just at Michigan, NOT ONCE has he beaten a team which finished the season undefeated.
OUTRAGE!!!
November 20th, 2010 at 9:59 PM ^
Beating a team that only lost five times would be nice, though. Even vaunted I-AA UMass (who we were all claiming was one of the "better teams in FCS" just like App. St., or better than, earlier this year) is 6-5. Just read that sentence - a team took us to 42-37 in the Big House that is 6-5 in FBS. In year three. With our "unstoppable" offense.
Our unstoppable offense put up 10, 7 and 0 points in the first halves of each of the MSU, Iowa and Wisconsin games, too, BTW. Statistics don't tell any story completely (final score, tons of yards, etc.).
November 20th, 2010 at 11:01 PM ^
.....has said our offense was "unstoppable". They clearly are as they shoot themselves in the foot way too much. Against MSU our first drive ended in a bad pass that was picked, two drives ended by penalties putting us in 3rd and long. Against Iowa it was much of the same. Wisconsin is the only one I feel comfortable saying that they stopped us, but even then we had an overthrown pass(most likely for a td), and several dropped passes.
Neg away all you want on RR and the team, but the future looks very good for UM football IMO.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:47 PM ^
RABBLE RABBLE RODRIGUEZ RABBLE
November 21st, 2010 at 1:34 AM ^
If I was able to pos vote you I would. This comment and your picture made me crack up. Sarcasm like this helps lighten the blow of a 20 point home loss.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:10 PM ^
We fell off the cliff three years ago. We went 3 and freaking 9 and lost to freaking Toledo at home. You may argue that this happened because Rich Rodriguez is a bad head coach (though the fact that the team has improved every year since that point and his prior extensive track record of success would make it pretty definitive that the problem had more to do with the roster than with the guy in charge).
By the time Rodriguez coached his first game at Michigan, the wheels had completely fallen off the program (and teams with no wheels go 3-9). You can blame whoever you want to for that happening, but it was a done deal. Since then we've seen a team get markedly better two years in a row, a team poised to improve for a third straight season with 19 starters and virtually the entire two-deep returning next season. Not to mention the team now has some legitimate star players for the first time in Rodriguez's tenure (aside from Brandon Graham and the best punter ever).
Maybe the rebuild isn't going as fast as you'd like, but teams that go 3-9 and lose to Toledo do need to be completely rebuilt, whether you like it or not. We've finally got the wheels back on the car and the doubters need to just shut up and give Rodriguez one season to drive the damn thing.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:19 PM ^
The OP makes a point about Rodriguez's teams not raising up to beat a supposedly superior team once in almost three seasons. You respond with the company line response that everyone has heard a millions times that speaks in generalities instead of specifically addressing what he says.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:24 PM ^
We aren't a good team yet. 3-9 teams don't beat anybody, much less good teams. 5-7 teams don't do much better. We've just gotten to "competent" and the OP is complaining that the results aren't better. That isn't being specific in your complaint, it is just whining.
Would anybody really be happier if we'd lost by 20 to Illinois but beaten Wisconsin in triple OT? No, they wouldn't. The same people would want Rodriguez fired and the same people would want him to stay.
November 21st, 2010 at 4:00 AM ^
I have to disagree. I would definitely prefer losing to Illinois and beating Wisconsin. That would show a young and inconsistent team, but one that had the guns to compete with the better teams occasionally and offer a glint of hope.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:21 PM ^
"the wheels coming off" was not a "done deal." Michigan had just completed their previous campaign by defeating a Heisman Trophy-winning Tim Tebow's Florida in the Capital One Bowl when RichRod took over. In nine months, he had us losing to Toledo.
I'd even mind it less if the Defense had improved from 2008; they got worse in 2009, and (shockingly, due to the history of the whole thing) even worse now in 2010. Blame coordinator changes, but RichRod hired the first guy, fired him, hired the 2nd guy, and has made both work with his assistants from WVA. Blame recruiting, but this is RichRod's 3rd year, meaning even starting from scratch we should have at least ONE sophomore contributing (let alone a junior?) - so that's on him, too. Injuries aren't preventable, but he's not the only coach to deal with those. Obi Ezeh hasn't improved since his 2007 campaign. Who on defense has? This is ultimately the head coach's job - it was forgivable in 2008, questionable in 2009 and unexplainable (other than responsibility by him) in 2010.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:31 PM ^
And not like losing Long, Hart, Henne, Adams, Arrington, Manningham, Crable, Kraus had anything to do with 2008.
November 21st, 2010 at 12:50 AM ^
But the fact remains that in December 2007, no one would have ever imagined that the last three years would go as they have. You can look at the archives of this site and see the comments. Entering the 2008 season, Brian predicted a 7-5 record. The general consensus going into that year was that it would be a rebuilding season by traditional U-M standards - not a horrific abyss from which we wouldn't emerge for years.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:32 PM ^
Winning the Capital One Bowl with a roster full of NFL players has nothing to do with what happened in 2008. Like I said, you can blame Rodriguez for what happened in that offseason if you want to (though those subjects have all been beaten to death here and largely decided in Rodriguez's favor) but by the time the season actually rolled around we were a 3-9 team.
Craig Roh has started basically every game since he's been year. Jordan Kovacs is also a two year starter. Courtney Avery is starting as a freshman. Cam Gordon is starting as a RS freshman. Carvin Johnson started the season opener as a true freshman. Thomas Gordon has played extensively and started games as a RS freshman. Jibreel Black has seen significant playing time as a true freshman.
Do I need to keep going in my quest to find one underclassman/RR recruit who is contributing on defense? Brandon Grahma, Stevie Brown, Mike Martin, JT Floyd, and loads of other players have improved under Rodriguez as well. Jonas Mouton has doubled his TFL's from a season ago and has made 36 more tackles in the same number of games.
Just because Obi Ezeh isn't terribly good at playing football doesn't mean the staff is screwing up.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:19 PM ^
God forbid our team of mostly freshmen and sophomores isn't challenging for the Big Ten title. Yes, our defense needs to get better, and that likely means that GERG gets shown the door at the end of the season. Realistically though, how many teams with our lack of experience at so many positions would be expected to be any better than Michigan is this year. OP, you need to sit back and have a little patience. Let our young guys grow into their roles on the team. If we haven't made progress next season, then that would be the time to bring up this subject again.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:37 PM ^
"If we haven't made progress next season, then that would be the time to bring up this
Thats what RR supporters said last year.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:40 PM ^
I think you could agree with that
November 20th, 2010 at 10:42 PM ^
And they went from 5-7 and losing 7 straight to being 7-4 with an elite offense and a chance to win 8 or even 9 games despite fielding one of the youngest and least-experienced defenses in the country. To me, that is progress. 7 wins won't cut it next year, but 7 this year isn't that bad.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:50 PM ^
This is Michigan football. We have built-in advantages over every team in the Big Ten except maybe OSU. We're expected to beat average and poor teams. We're judged against how we perform against the good teams. How have we fared against good teams?
November 20th, 2010 at 10:53 PM ^
Enlighten me.
November 20th, 2010 at 11:10 PM ^
Lets see, Michigan's football facilities, tradition, alumni base, academics, national TV exposure... It's these types of things that should be allowing you to go head to head with the Buckeyes for recruits and future NFL talent. Instead, we're butting heads with the Cincy Bearcats and WVU's of the world.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:53 PM ^
You just woke up from a coma? Right? Because that argument died about two years ago.
November 20th, 2010 at 11:54 PM ^
Dude, if you really have 7000+ Mgo points, then you're the one thats been in a coma. Run over to chuck-e-cheese, see if you can exchange them for tickets, and then buy your sweetie something nice.
November 20th, 2010 at 11:09 PM ^
What built-in advantages?
Talent? The state of Michigan is not a hotbed of football talent, and UM shares it with another B10 team.
Facilities? They are very good, but I'm sure OSU, PSU, Wiscy, etc. all have similar-enough facilities.
Location? Madison is a fun college town, Happy Valley seems like a cool place, Champaign has its charms, Northwestern is near Chicago, etc. Ann Arbor is great, but Michigan is cold in the winter, doesn't have the best track record for employment opportunities, lacks that "cool" big city, etc. I love the state and the city, but it is not a slam-dunk.
Academics? Top notch, and that might be the only ace in the hole because really only NW has a higher profile academically, and even that can be debated in certain fields.
Tradition? Yeah, that exists, but I don't think that resonates with recruits like it used to. Even if it does, every school has its die-in-the-wool fans and recruits that will sign with them.
So while there are some intangible advantages for UM, the overwhelming schematical advantages that you claim UM possess don't jump to mind.
November 20th, 2010 at 11:22 PM ^
"Tradition? Yeah, that exists, but I don't think that resonates with recruits like it used to."
You're kidding me, right? There are about a dozen schools in the nation that have the college football "it" factor based on tradition alone. I promise you the schools who possess it consider it to be golden and priceless. Almost any bowl would love a matchup between any two based on ratings alone. USC, Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, Alabama, OSU, Oklahoma, ND, to name a few. These names alone will make a recruit's ears perk up. Yes, even in 2010.
November 20th, 2010 at 11:45 PM ^
that "IT'S MICHIGAN FOOTBALL DAMNIT!!!" doesn't take anything realistic into account. RR is recruiting top-notch talent, and the offense is already torching people...but they're still sophomores and freshman. Unfortunately, talent doesn't instantly translate to wins. Remeber 2005? Hart and Henne were sophomores (like most of our offense right now), and that team ended up 7-5.
The recruiting is fine, but you have to allow it to fully develop. Next year, RR will start to have some upper classmen on his roster, as well as more experience on defense to make it average, and we adjust expectations accordingly.
And one more thing, "IT'S MICHIGAN FOOTBALL!!!" isn't an argument.
November 21st, 2010 at 12:06 AM ^
"that "IT'S MICHIGAN FOOTBALL DAMNIT!!!" doesn't take anything realistic into account.|"
So I guess not having a losing record even once from 1969 through 2007 wasn't "real"? See, I'm comparing 2010 to the very "real" seasons of Michigan football BEFORE rr arrived. Comparing 2010 to '08 & '09 and deeming it progress is fine, if you're happy with mediocrity.
November 21st, 2010 at 4:18 PM ^
What built-in advantages?
Oh, give me a break. We're the winningest program in history. We've won 11 national titles and 42 conference titles. We've led the nation in attendance 36 of the past 37 seasons. We have arguably the most popular fight song in the country. We have perhaps the most popular uniforms and helmets in the country. We have one of the best combinations of academics and athletics in the country.
If you want to defend RR and argue that the future is bright, fine. But stop trying to act like we're just another program. This is a special place. Don Nehlen said as much to RR when RR asked him for advice. It really bothers me that it seems like in order to defend our current staff, you basically have to trash our school and its tradition.
November 21st, 2010 at 12:56 AM ^
And they went from 5-7 and losing 7 straight to being 7-4
Just how great is the difference between five and wins, anyway? Consider this: in each of the last two seasons we've played an overtime game. I think you can agree that OT is pretty much a crapshoot, with the team that wins the coinflip having an edge. Last year we lost our OT game. This year we won. If simply the results of those two overtimes were reversed, then we'd have won six games last year . . . and six games this year. And just like last year, we've lost four conference games by double-digit margins.
If we can knock off OSU, then we will have indisputably seen progress made. Right now, I feel like we're just taking halting steps.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:21 PM ^
.....hold water if RR was coming to a team that suited his offense better his first year. Or if he was coming to a team that didn't have a serious lack of overall talent on D.
I have serious reservations about firing a coach after only 3 seasons, or even 4, particularly when the team has shown progress towards something special happening soon. Anyone who cannot see the potential for greatness in our offense, or realize that our D is severely hamstrung by the lack of experience, probably never liked the hire in the first place.
And for those thinking it, people like me are not happy, or even content with, a seven win regular season. We do, however, see the promise in this team, and we can place our expectations on the side of realism based on the team's shortcomings.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:29 PM ^
RR should be fired if and when it becomes clear the program is 1) not at the level of expectations and 2) unlikely to improve beyond the current level with the current players. It's unreasonable not to expect the team will improve next year. Complaining about the quality of wins to date is akin to the economic fallacy of focusing on sunk costs. In order to beat a far superior team they obviously have to play worse than they usually do, and a collateral of being Michigan is that nobody's going to overlook you on the schedule. You can't hope for someone to bring their B game like you could if you were rebuilding at Minnesota.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:52 PM ^
we have been piss poor on ST (except punting) 3 years in a row. What is taking so long for this team to figure out how catch a kick, how to kick a FG longer than 20 yards out, etc? This is the part that is most baffling to me.
When can we expect improvement in ST?
November 20th, 2010 at 10:54 PM ^
November 21st, 2010 at 12:00 AM ^
but I feel like the expectations are being adjusted (read: lowered) every year. Be honest, what were your expectations for our record in 2010 when RR was hired in 2007? Answer honestly.
I fear we're getting into the habit as a fanbase of a mythical great season being either one or two years away.
November 21st, 2010 at 12:06 AM ^
Of course, I thought we'd be better. But I also thought that if Steven Threet were a reasonably enough talented quarterback he'd probably do just fine in RR's offense. It's not a readjustment of expectations so much as a readjustment of our perception of what was true in the past.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:55 AM ^
I just really disagree with you. It's not all Steven Threet's fault that we haven't beat a good team in three years. As for what was "true" in the past, maybe RR didn't insert enough I-form packages into the offense to accommodate his personnel in 2008. Maybe he made bad hires that didn't develop his talent. There are a lot of variables that come in to explaining why we are going to the Insight Bowl (thanks to two last-minute heroic drives by a quarterback that is more insanely naturally gifted than anyone could have imagined) in year three instead of sitting at 9-3 or 10-2 or 11-1 like most people would have expected upon RR's hire. We can readjust our perception of what was true in the past until our faces turn blue, but when you evaluate something, you set target outcomes at the beginning and then you evaluated those outcomes at the end.
RR has not done a good job as the head football coach at U-M. That doesn't mean that he's a bad guy or that he's a cheater or that he deserves the ridiculously unfair shake he's gotten from the local press. He just hasn't done a good job and that will bear out in his evaluation. I want him back for one more year but at this point it's only for the reason that it would be arduous to rebuild in a new direction, which is a bad reason.
November 21st, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^
That's not to be taken as "it's Steven Threet's fault", it's to be taken as an example of what we thought was true, wasn't true at all.
If you can point to things that RR has done or hasn't done and you think that means he's a bad coach, well, that's your opinion. But comparing the record now to our 2007 opinion of what it should've been is way oversimplifying the matter. In January 2008 I thought we'd be "back", sure. In January 1998 I thought we'd repeat as national champions; that wasn't a good reason to fire Lloyd Carr when it didn't happen.
If you want him back for one more year, surely that means you think next year will be better than this one. If you think next year will be worse, there's no logic at all in wanting him back. And if you think next year will be better than this one, that's not a bad reason to want him back.
November 21st, 2010 at 1:01 AM ^
RR should be fired if and when it becomes clear the program is 1) not at the level of expectations
If that's the criterion, do you think he should be fired then? Surely, three years ago, no one expected this. Two years ago, no one would have expected us to win only one more conference game than 2008. Even last year, I'm not sure people would have been happy if you'd told them we'd have seven wins this year. The "Rodriguez leap" has never really happened. It always used to in year 2.
November 21st, 2010 at 1:33 AM ^
Well, c'mon, man. There's a reason why I said "and", not "or."
Because that's what I mean about readjustment of perceptions of the past. As long as the program is on a noticeable upward slope, and you can reasonably expect that to continue, it doesn't mean that the problem is that Rodriguez can't fulfill expectations. It means that the problem was that the difficulties in doing so were greater than we thought they were before. If you're taking steps every year, why throw everything back into chaos? As punishment for losing to Toledo? If next year is 7-5 or 6-6 and the defense sucks equally and it looks like it'll still suck in 2012, by all means pull the trigger. If next year is better than this year the same way this year is better than last year, what do you gain by firing the coach? But at this point, any reasonable person would see we've improved from year to year and any reasonable person would see a lot of potential for that to continue.