CC - Why the delay by Dave Brandon?

Submitted by Knappster on December 1st, 2010 at 7:56 PM

For those that DO want to discuss the biggest topic at hand, consider this...

Dave Brandon has stated many times that he will wait until after the bowl to make any decision.  This could be 100% wrong but here's my theory behind it...

-RR and the players have "earned" the bowl and deserve to play in it no matter what.  Good move

-Harbaugh (yes) and his players have earned their bowl and deserve to coach/play in it.  Good move

-RR will be fired or resign as coach of UM after the bowl, and Harbaugh will be named coach after his bowl game. 

If you think about it, it's the best way to go about the process without ruffling too many feathers.  Stanford won't be pissed about UM "stealing" Harbaugh before their huge, potential BCS bowl.  RR gets to cap off the season with his players, as he has earned it.  It will appear that DB went through a full evaluation process, which I am sure he has done anyway by now.  And as we know, the buyout is lower.

Sure recruiting might suffer, but with the dead period beginning on Dec 20, it's not as bad as some may think.  And IF Harbaugh is the guy, he will likely bring some recruits.  Going through his current commits, some are from NJ, NY, IN, PA, GA, LA.  Like him or not, we know that he is a great recruiter.  Not to mention, this is obviously a long term move and not just about one season or recruiting class.

I just keep thinking that if DB really wanted to keep RR, he would say it now publicly for many reasons. 

Again, for those that DO want to discuss, what are your thoughts?  I think it's already a done deal. Please no facepalms, atomic bombs, etc.  Boobs are okay.  We are ALL Michigan fans and support the team no matter what. 



December 1st, 2010 at 9:31 PM ^

Tom Goss was the man.  We sat on the 50, for ND in 1997, and he walked right by us, and he oooozzzed success.  It was awesome.  He was 6'5 of complete failure.  Thank god for Martin.  He fixed the shit that loser left.  Bitch at Martin all you want, at least he wasn't Goss.


December 1st, 2010 at 8:01 PM ^

So since your whole post makes it sound like it's a forgone conclusion that RichRod is gone. I take it your in the Harbaugh camp. Good luck with that hope it doesn't ruin your new year if your wish doesnt come true.


December 1st, 2010 at 8:44 PM ^

I am honestly on the fence. I can see a lot of improvement in the offense that will only get better. But a defense that is horrible and people are praying will get better. My thought is if Brandon thinks the D will improve he keeps Rich Rod if not he is gone and Harbaugh or whoever it is gets there shot. At this point its a crap shoot as to what is the better choice.


December 1st, 2010 at 8:40 PM ^

I was actually a HUGE defender and supporter of RR.  I cant even tell you how many time I defended him to old school UM fans who hated him.  If he is coach next year, I will be pulling for him and the team non-stop.  I dont think he has every been given a fair shake, but that's not a reason to keep him.

I will always support the coach.  However, I think his time is up.  Some of it is his fault, some of it isn't.  Whether we want him here or not, he has looked like a bad fit and especially now the pressure is on.  No wins against MSU or OSU in 3 years will do that.  Even though, we all have reasons he has struggled, 90% of the world doesn't know and doesn't care.  This is the Big 10,  This is Michigan.  You just have to win.  89......Bottom Line.


December 1st, 2010 at 10:45 PM ^

There is nothing logically inconsistent there.  I feel the same way.  Contrary to what some want to claim, not believing in RR's ability to win a championship does not automatically make you a "hater."   If my son were on a sports team, I'd cheer like crazy for him, but I don't have to automatically think he's the best player.  RR is part of the Michigan football family, so I cheer for him.   If Brandon decides to retain RR, I'll root my heart out for him next season.  But I don't have to blindly believe he's the best man for the job. 


December 2nd, 2010 at 9:33 AM ^

developments that have ever occurred in the english language IMO. Talk about an all purpose word that low IQ types can use to shut off all rational, critical conversation immediately. There is actually a way to discuss pros and cons about any subject rationally, including RR, but some asshat pulls out that word and everything devolves. Ugh.


December 1st, 2010 at 11:44 PM ^

Who says Harbaugh is going to beat MSU and let alone OSU? mSU is no longer the walkover that they were for decades and OSU is just plainly way better than us. I can easily see him losing at least 5 of those first six games against the rivals and then suddenly he's on the hot seat too...


December 2nd, 2010 at 8:19 AM ^

Like Jim Tressel and Mark Dantanio, Harbaugh gets it - no matter what the monkey said, the past and the rivalries matter at Michigan.

Harbaugh's whole issue with academics was that Jim wanted to be a History major, and Bo made him do General Studies. Jim Harbaugh embraces and uses the past - and that is important to many Michigan fans, especially the inner circle. So, I see no reason why Jim would treat OSU any different than he did USC.

My point: if Jim Harbaugh comes to Michigan, there is no way OSUs streak goes on for five more years. Every OSU alumn I know, knows this and outwardly hopes we keep Rich until we've missed on Harbaugh.

That monkey story at the first press conference, and firing the entire staff probably did more to unravel Rich Rodriguez than anything else. (Want to know why Lloyd Carr hasn't outwardly shown much support for Rich - he fired everyone. I wouldn't support someone who fired everyone I had hired either.)

Rich threw out the past, and in the process made a lot of enemies. This equals a bad fit.


December 2nd, 2010 at 8:27 AM ^


3-9 and 5-7 and all the losses to MSU and OSU are what "unraveled" RR. The off-the-field stuff only is "important" because of the losses. If RR had gone 9-3 and 7-5 with victories against MSU and OSU, Harbaugh wouldn't even be a topic, nor would who RR hired and fired, nor his monkey stories, or any of that crap.


December 2nd, 2010 at 10:08 AM ^

Coach Rod made some mistakes, but you are blaming him for firing the coaches under Carr.  Carr expected this to happen, which is why he got them new contracts.  This has been noted before. 

Also, interesting, you complain about him firing everyone.  What did you expect.  I guess you are ok with Coach Rod telling GERG to keep all of Rod's people instead of getting his own staff.  Look how that has worked out.


December 2nd, 2010 at 2:21 PM ^

Ah - but it is not that you do it, it is how you do it. You don't bash a fan base steeped in tradition and history in the face with "it doesn't matter, it's in the past" on the first day.

The the announcement that he was "firing" everyone, and then interviewing and maybe rehiring some, was sure to hit the press with Rich Rod fire's everyone headlines. How many old guard and Athletic Department enemies did he make in that act--enemies that would later happilly pass on any negative information to prying yellow journalists outside the fort?

While we're at it, you can't tell me we didn't have a better linebacker coaching under Lloyd.

Yes, his W/L record sucks / is historically bad for Michigan, but how much more support could he have for a 4th year given the reasonable explanation of offensive improvement, and all the attrition, recruiting non-arrivals, and injuries on defense?


December 2nd, 2010 at 3:13 PM ^

I agree with you that he does bare responsibility for the way it was done.  Perception overtakes reality, and perception was that he didn't know what Michigan was about.  I wish Martin or people in the AD would have helped him with this(maybe they were, I have no idea).  It's like he should have had a handler.  This is all damage that may have been averted and has indirectly affected now just his W/L record here but the program as a whole. 

As far as the coaches, absolutely, I wish he kept more guys around.  But, when you hire someone, you give them full power.  Then, there are no excuses.  You ride with the horses that brought you.


December 1st, 2010 at 8:07 PM ^

It was brought up in a board post earlier today as a label for Coaching Change topics, to be used like OT.

Unfortunately, like the OT label, this seems to have given people the false idea that these posts are perfectly welcomed on the board and that as long as they are labeled they do not clutter up the board and are not a waste.


December 1st, 2010 at 8:18 PM ^

I guess the CC designation protects you from being negged by Those Who Don't Want To Talk About Harbaugh At All -- they have been warned after all.  But among those of us who are open to the idea, if your post is asinine enough you might still get dinged so you really should have something new to say -- or at least something that hasn't been said for at least a few days and bears repeating.


December 1st, 2010 at 8:25 PM ^

It may have given the said false idea, but guess what? With that in there you can now recognize, with certainty that it is a coaching change topic. Now, since it is recognizable, if you would not like to read or discuss it you can then bypass it without trouble. Novel, I know. Also, if you would prefer not to talk about a coaching change I would direct you to an Oregon, Boise State or TCU board. I bet they are not talking about coaching changes there.


December 1st, 2010 at 8:44 PM ^

When are people going to realize that it's not simply frustration with having to read all of these (mostly asinine) posts about the coaching change (as you've said, the CC tag shows clearly what the topic is about allowing anyone to bypass it)? It is that the multitude of posts that purport to be novel takes on a topic that has been hashed and rehashed by everyone and has been sufficiently covered by the AD push all other topics down on the board. What we are left with is a front page board filled with posts about the coaching change when really no one has any new information or insight and an abysmal signal-to-noise ratio.