CC: Wojo displays perspective on RR situation

Submitted by wolverine1987 on December 7th, 2010 at 10:06 AM

Although he previously called for RR's firing, Wojo as usual has a reasoned opinion on the situation with the next month or so:


...Rodriguez said. "No matter what I say, it's not going to change people's opinions. So I'm better off not saying anything."

That's probably the truth, as the piling-on piles up. Those who want a change because of his 15-21 record (0-6 against Ohio State and Michigan State) aren't likely to be swayed. Those who support him because of Denard Robinson and the dynamic offense aren't wrong.…



December 7th, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^


I will always support Michigan.  I know that DB has more information than any of us, and I trust his judgment.  However, I want to see what RR will do with an offense of upperclassmen.  I want to see if the defense improves as much as I think they will returning 8-10 starters.

If he's fired, I will be matter who the next coach is.


December 7th, 2010 at 10:19 AM ^

It doesn't.  There is nothing new to add.  There will likely not be any new "news" over the next 4 weeks.  But as so many of us are passionately interested in the topic, the conversation will continue.

Right now, the public conversation has shifted somewhat from the "Fire RR / Don't fire RR" debate to a debate about DB's handling of the situation.  Since that is what is on many people's minds, that is what WoJo wrote about.  And he did so in his usual unbiased way.


December 7th, 2010 at 10:40 AM ^

Again, like a broken record playing the same old song, I can't help interject and ask why people feel the need to start threads when nothing new is being presented.  I am just as passionate about Michigan football as the next person on this Board and am just as interested in the decision as well as the decision-making process.  But reading threads like these add nothing new and merely clog up the Board.  I know, I know, I can simply not read the thread.  But my argument remains - why the need to post a new thread if no new information is added?  Like one of my esteemed colleagues stated previously - opinions are like a-holes, everyone has them and they all stink.


December 7th, 2010 at 10:49 AM ^

Again, like a broken record playing the same old song, I can't help interject and ask why people feel the need to start threads when nothing new is being presented

I am going to guess that it is the same reason that people feel the need to comment on these threads.   It is the most relevant issue facing our team, even more so than the bowl game that is 31/2 weeks off.  And DBs decision may just shape the next 10 years of UM football.  It will be discussed for the next 4 weeks...  decision made...  discussed for the next 9 months...  games start.  Really that simple.


December 7th, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^

I understand your point, but I reject the notion, thoroughly, that this blog-or almost any blog and it's corresponding board-is about "information." Wut? A blog is first and foremost, a venue for opinion-primarily that of it's creator, then (far secondarily), for those that choose to contribute to the board. I came to this board because of Brian's writing about M, his opinions, and then, as a bonus, the actual news or information provided by He, Tom, Tim New information and analysis are critical, but to reject board postings because they add a mainstream, of interest columnist's views on an existing subject of passionate interest is, IMO, completely missing the point about why most of this blogs readers come here.

Waters Demos

December 7th, 2010 at 11:05 AM ^

This is a reasonable view, or, more precisely, reasonable minds could agree or disagree with it. 

Question though: even assuming a blog is primarily opinion-driven, does this conception of the blog call for repeated expressions of the same cluster of opinions, though presented differently? 

I don't mean to accuse you of advocating one way or the other, I'm really just interested in your view.


December 7th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^

The "cluster of opinions," many of them similar, are a non-ideal component of what this board is and functions as. If I was designing it from scratch I may not design it that way. But I'm not and they do not bother me. My personal solution is that I only click on probably 20% of all board posts, judging by title that many may not interest me or are similar to others already posted. Can't remember ever clicking on one and then feeling anger because it didn't add anything new either. But that's me.


December 7th, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^

That is a perfectly reasonable way of "using" the Board and, honestly, the way I would like to handle it.  Unfortunately, I sit at my desk all day long and the one consistently enjoyable outlet from the monotony is MGoBlog.  As such, I have grown physically unable to refrain from reading every post.  I recognize that is not healthy and will immediately being my search for another outlet . . .


December 7th, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^

Look, we get it - you don't like the discussion about the coaching change.  If you feel so strongly about it, then I am curious (serious question, not being dickish) why you feel compelled to click on every single thread about the topic?

Obviously, from the number of new threads and the number of non-joking comments on those threads, there is plenty of interest in discussing this topic.  Like others have said, this is a huge issue for our program.  While we may not have much new information on the topic, people just like to discuss.  And what better place to discuss than on a Michigan message board?

Finally, I hear the "clogging the board" point.  But other than our Bowl Game, what else is going to go on in December that would go on this board?


December 7th, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^

All that you raise above are good points.  Honestly, I don't know why I bother responding as I have come to terms with the fact that people seem to need to post their own thoughts on the coaching situation.  Unlike the above poster, I read MGoBlog for the facts and tangible information that is presented.  As an opinioned person, I create my own opinions based on the facts and run with it.  Like most people, my opinion was formed weeks ago after it was first hashed out.  The repeated discussion is annoying to me but I guess I am adding to the annoying nature of the discussion by repeatedly complaining.  So, with that, I will simply neg away and then move along.  No hard feelings.


December 7th, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^

One thing that I can totally sympathize with is the inability to refrain from clicking on almost every single thread.  I, too, have a job that entails me sitting at a desk all day, and I, like you, am pretty obsessively passionate about Michigan football, so this combo brings me to this site for far too many hours a day. 

Section 1

December 7th, 2010 at 11:49 AM ^

The pair at the Free Press -- Rosenberg and Sharp -- are now acitvely engaged in an all-out campaign to drive Rich Rodriugez out of the state of Michigan and replace him with Michael Rosenberg's favored candidate (and the subject of his worshipful profile in Sports Illustrated), Jim Harbaugh.

The other Free Press columnist, Mitch Albom, is caught in defending his own paper's malfeasance in the issue (see, Rosenberg and Snyder).

Over at the News, we now have Lynn Henning (he, of the Monday press conference to fire Rich Rodriguez) now engaged as "co-counsel" alongside Rosenberg in openly campaigning against Michigan's head football coach in the court of public opinion.

There is NOBODY in the local printed press, in radio, or on television, who has done the basic due diligence reporting on what is going on with the press campaign against Rich Rodriguez.  Nobody, that is, apart from the forces gathering in the blogosphere.  Brian Cook, Jon Chait, and a handful of others.

Bob Wojnowski may win, by default, the title of "least offensive local columnist."  But it ain't sayin' much.

And indeed, this shouldn't be a battle of competing opinions.  There is, or at least there was, real reporting to be done.  99% of Michigan fans never knew what to think of the "family values" press release from the Boren family.  And that is a story that has festered to this day.  Few Michigan fans can correctly recall what drove Rich Rodriguez close to tears in his first press conference after the Sunday Free Press "Stretchgate" story.  (It was the outrageous abuse of Je'Ron Stokes and Brandin Hawthorne by Rosenberg/Snyder.)  How many Michigan fans have really read, and truly understand, the NCAA Notice of Allegations, the University Response, and the final resolution of the investigation?  And in particular, how the Free Press had concocted its own inaccurate series of allegations?  The Free Press never gave that story any ink; the Free Press rather pointedly laughed that story off.  There are almost too many good stories to list, all of them completely overlooked by the local press.

The newspapers have become the last, and worst, place to get information on the University of Michigan football program.  And yet, that is where most casual observers in the state get their information, and some of the stories get national play through web hyperlinks.  And in the case of Mark Snyder and Mike Rosenberg, it is not merely a problem of slow or slanted stories; it is a real problem of active misinformation.

In all of that, if Bob Wojnowski gets praised as the best and fairest example, it is really not saying very much.


December 7th, 2010 at 10:51 AM ^

Then I would check the comments section more often, but instead of "boobies" and "atomic bombs" I get the same Sparty and OSU trolls saying "DickRod" this and "RichFraud" that, and Michigan fans saying UNACCEPTABLE while spouting the same recycled crap.


But, if there is a different comments section with boobies (and atomic bombs, I guess), kindly point me in that direction.

Feat of Clay

December 7th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^

You are brave man for wading into those comment sections.  I have to ask, how f*cking 6th grade is it for those morons to still be using "dickRod" as a HARDEE HAR HAR slam on the coach?  

I swear 80% of the people who use the internet should be permanently banned from everything but bidding on ebay auctions.


December 7th, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^

This piece sits in contrast to Drew Sharp's piece (Yes, I know, it's Drew Sharp, we can dismiss it, but that's not the point I'm making) in that Wojo makes a genuine effort to be balanced and acknowledge the many reasons why the decision hasn't been made yet, whereas Drew Sharp said "OK, Rodriguez's career in Michigan is a flaming pile of rubble, let's move on to going after David Brandon."

By the way, not that I want to get this deep in to it, but when you hear the phrase "dreaded vote of confidence", it's usually that an owner or AD has just said he supports his coach, only to be fired just down the line.  Wade Phillips, Josh McDaniels, Bill Lynch all got the vote of confidence, and none of them are now employed as the coach of the team they were coaching in September.  So why are people (well, OK, the media) clamoring for a vote of confidence when that's usually the kiss of death, unless they're actively rooting for the kiss of death?


December 7th, 2010 at 10:50 AM ^

Wojo provides the best--and most succinct--summary of the situation that I've seen:

This isn't about one bowl game, or one banquet, or one quarterback. It's fraught with complicated issues...


December 7th, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^

making it so. The ultimate criteria is simply this;

Is the program headed in the right direction considering the disparity in talent between OS, Iowa, Wisconsin, MS, PS and next year Nebraska? But for Denard, would we have won the ND, UC, Indiana or even the U. Mass games? I don't believe so. He is prone to injury and I doubt going forward he will withstanding the BIg Ten punishment. It is highly unlikely he will finish the bowl game.

Let's face it this is the state of Michigan football. If your happy with that then I can understand why one would want to keep RR. I suspect the above mentioned teams would also like Michigan to keep him.


December 7th, 2010 at 12:44 PM ^

Suggest instead that the real question is not past performance, but future performance.  And to gauge future performance, one must look at past performance and the specific set of circumstances behind that past performance and determine whether the circumstances have changed or not.

Thus, you can cite the record and say you are not happy and get rid of RR.  What you assume is that there is another coach whose past performance and circumstances dictate that he can provide a better future than RR.  Others can review the entire circumstances surrounding that performance and come to a different conclusion that the same circumstances that surrounded this team in 2008-2010 will not occur and that the best path forward is with RR.

So, it ain't as simple as you make it out to be......


December 7th, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^

I think what bothered me most about what Wojo said was how Brandon's decision must take into account what Jim Harbaugh's thinking is.  In my opinion even if Harbaugh accepted the Michigan gig, he would not be loyal to the program like Bo or Lloyd.  When the right opportunity came up in the NFL he would go off to join his brother John.  Remember, Stanford was the "jumping off point" for Bill Walsh's career and I see Harbaugh, with his giant ego wanting the same.


December 7th, 2010 at 9:07 PM ^

if DB has confidence in RR rebuilding our defense! Most likely RR will have to hire a 3rd DC. The biggest problem is that the DC needs to hire his own coaches. Hopefully Casteel will be available and defense will turn the corner next season and be good in 2012. I'm starting to think RR is still on the table and has a good chance being our coach through 2011.