For comparison, Kirk Ferentz's third year
Although we've gotten to the bowl-eligibility threshold and beyond, there is a school of thought that believes "we haven't beaten anybody of substance, so 7-5 is meaningless, so RR should still be fired."
Kirk Ferentz's first season in 1999 was a 1-10 disaster; his second in 2000 was marginally better at 3-9. His third season in 2001 was 6-5 in the regular season, with a victory over Texas Tech in the Alamo Bowl. Here's the rundown of who Iowa played during the regular season in 2001, with the opponent's season record in parentheses:
W Kent State (6-5)
W Miami OH (7-5)
W Penn State (5-6)
L Purdue (6-5)
L MSU (6-5)
W Indiana (5-6)
L Michigan (8-3)
L Wisconsin (5-7)
W Northwestern (4-7)
W Minnesota (4-7)
L Iowa State (7-4)
So, in his third season at Iowa, the only teams with winning records that the Hawkeyes beat were two MAC teams, and they lost to their instate rival Iowa State for the third year in a row. While it certainly represented progress from years one and two, it was hardly a scintillating record. I wonder if there were Iowa fans clamoring for his dismissal after the regular season. Ferentz was following the legendary Hayden Fry, and while Fry's last season in 1998 was disappointing, he nonetheless was the guy who had resurrected Iowa football and made it truly competitive in the Big Ten. I have to believe there were Hawkeye fans who were wondering if Ferentz was going to be able to get it done.
In Ferentz's fourth year in 2002, Iowa went undefeated in conference play, shared the Big Ten title with OSU (who they did not play) and played on New Year's Day in the Orange Bowl.
I'm not saying that RR = KF or that UM football = Iowa football or that Ferentz's record is all that we should hope for. What I am saying is that focusing solely on who we've beaten in RR's third year, and deciding that the coach should be fired on that basis, is likely to be as short-sighted as firing Ferentz after his third season would have been. Brandon has said repeatedly that the number of wins and losses will not be the sole measuring stick in his season-end review.
November 17th, 2010 at 11:13 AM ^
You mean a new coach takes more than one year to progressively get better? Poppycock. He should have been fired after his first loss.
November 17th, 2010 at 11:13 AM ^
Well I guess it's a good thing they fired him then,
November 17th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^
We have got to stop trying to prove what we are doing is right or wrong based on other programs. I have set my feet firmly in the keep RR, get new defensive staff camp, so I am not arguing against keeping RR. To compare the two, though, is to assume the two teams started out in the same situation. Hayden Fry's last three years were 9-3, 7-5, 3-8. Lloyd Carr's last three years were 7-5, 11-2, and 9-4. Iowa is not Michigan, then or now. Other schools should compare themselves to us, not the other way around. Hopefully, in 10 years, we will be reading other teams referencing the steady improvements of RR teams, but I could care less what Iowa decided to do with their program.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:27 PM ^
Lloyd Carr's last year we lost our QB, HB, top two WR's and top 2 OL after losing to App State and getting crushed by Oregon. Jus sayin... Stop acting like Richrod inherited Lloyd's previous team.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:35 PM ^
Although Carr's last three years ended with respectable records (7-5!), Michigan was 0-3 against OSU, lost to an FCS school, was 1-2 in bowls including a curb stomping by USC in the 11-2 season, and was embarassed by every mobile QB they faced in that three year span.
In a utopian world, Michigan goes to bowl games every year and never has a losing season, and Michigan fans strut about pretending that their shit doesn't stink. But back in reality, Michigan isn't immune to adversity. We have an occasional bout of transition and hardship, and we measure ourselves to programs that are currently experiencing success.
November 17th, 2010 at 2:01 PM ^
and was embarassed by every mobile QB they faced in that three year span.
It goes waaayyy further back than that. Tony Rice, D McNabb.
November 18th, 2010 at 8:24 AM ^
I'm not sure why you think I was implying that Michigan didn't have trouble with mobile QBs prior to 2005. The three year period was singled out by UMDad, so my response focused on that timeframe.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:33 PM ^
Thanks dad.
November 17th, 2010 at 9:13 PM ^
I know you're not out to crucify RR here, but I have to bring up that we also can't ignore the fact that KF didn't radically change the offense or defense like RR did, it could be argued that he didn't change their style of play at all since he kept the same OC and DC (and they are still there to this day), I just think we need a competent DC and we will be back stronger next year, it has become apparent that Greg Robinson is not the answer...
November 17th, 2010 at 11:14 AM ^
The difference is that Iowa fans are less impatient than UoM fans. If I was an Iowa fan, I wouldn't look too kindly on 1-10... But Michigan fans tend to be on a WIN NAO bases. I think this is the direction we're going, but the fanbase might not be patient enough to believe that.
November 17th, 2010 at 11:24 AM ^
less impatient = more patient
just sayin'
November 17th, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^
We ain't not got no double non-positives here.
November 17th, 2010 at 12:56 PM ^
Assuming you're saying that "less impatient" is a form of double-negative and thus wrong, I'd like to point out that there's nothing grammatically incorrect about a double-negative. There is a connotative difference between saying "less impatient" versus "more patient."
November 17th, 2010 at 1:23 PM ^
No, it's not ungrammatical, but its use is often discouraged because it can lead to a lack of clarity, as in:
The use of litotes is not ill advised especially by those who are not unwilling to expend the requisite untrivial effort for clarity and thereby avoid not inconsiderable confusion for not even the least uninformed listener.
November 18th, 2010 at 1:04 AM ^
The difference is that Iowa fans are less impatient than UoM fans.
You'd be surprised. Ferentz was regularly booed at Kinnick Stadium his first three years. Not until their 2002 BCS season did their fans finally embrace him.
I don't understand why people feel this constant need to trash our own fanbase. Year after year we sell out the largest stadium in the country. There are a whole lot of fanbases who would have given up after the past two seasons. Truth be told, our fans have been more patient with RR than just about any other elite program's fans would have been. If he were coaching in the SEC, they'd be burning his effigy.
November 18th, 2010 at 1:28 AM ^
Not that I disagree with what you are saying, but you could say the UM fanbase gave up last year. UM was 5-6 and looking to pull off a miracle to go bowling and half of the fans in the Big House were osu fans. That was almost as gutwrenching as the 5 turnovers that game.
November 17th, 2010 at 11:14 AM ^
but DB makes this call and he has repeatedly said he takes much into the eval and it starts at the end of the season.
Brandon is an empty canvas and everyone has their own opinion of what he will do. No one has any real idea and everyone is just guessing.
We'll find out soon enough.
November 17th, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^
In 2001 Iowa missed that year's Big Ten champion, Illinois, and Ohio State.
Replace the putrid Minnesota (4-7) and Northwestern (4-7) teams that Iowa played that year with those two powers and Iowa probably goes 2-6 in the Big Ten and misses their bowl eligibility.
November 17th, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^
I don't really think they are good comparisons to be fair...
Here is why
1997 Iowa's record was 7-5 (4-4 in Big Ten) Michigan's record was 11-2 (7-1 in Big Ten)
1998 Iowa's record was 3-8 (2-6 in Big Ten) 2007 Michigan's record was 9-4 (6-2 in Big Ten)
As you see, Ferentz took over very different expectations and at a University that historically had a good, but not great football program. Rich Rod took over one that was 2 years removed from going for a NC and has a stellar football program. Not hating on RR or you, just saying that the facts show it is really a poor comparison and that you shouldn't try to look for comparisons just to justify a forth year. RR earned it this year with a step forward judged by both on the field display and wins. He will need to earn a fifth
November 17th, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^
Thank you DON.... that write-up you did, to me, was very informative, and puts things in perspective.
I do, however, want at the very least, them to bring in a defensive coordinator from the Michigan family coaching tree, because our storied history and old ways are just too important to let go away...and far better to merge Rod's offense with M's defensive tradition.
November 17th, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^
I'd much rather them focus on bringing in a DC who's good, regardless what tree he hails from.
November 17th, 2010 at 11:53 AM ^
what are these michigan defensive traditions you say are too important to let go away?
November 17th, 2010 at 3:18 PM ^
excellence. have we not have had a great tradition of good defenses?
November 17th, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^
YEAH BUT STEVEN THREET WAS A 4 STAR AND SAM MCGUFFIE WAS A FIVE * LOOK AT HOW MANY TALENT HE HAD LOYDD CAR RECRUITED TOP 10 CLASSES EVERY YEAR AT MICHIGAN WHY WOULD HE NEED TO REBUILD MICHIGAN WAS GREAT BEFORE HE GOT THERE AND LOOK AT US NOW HE DOESNT KNOW WHAT ITS MEAN TO BE BIG BLUE
November 17th, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^
I have to neg you for using the term Big Blue even though it was used in jest within a terrific post. I have to stick to my principles, I hope you'll understand. :)
November 17th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^
I pos'ed you because I agree with your principles :)
November 17th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
UNACCEPTABLE \s
Moving on, I also recall a certain coach in Northern California who went 8-5 in his third year after two losing seasons.
Edit: my UNACCEPTABLE was to the first post in all caps.
November 17th, 2010 at 11:24 AM ^
How was Wisconsin in 2008 not a team of consequence?
I was at that game. They were good. They had us beat at half big time.
Also I know we didn't win, but to almost beat Utah Aug. 30th 2008 is "of consequence." That team ended the year ranked #2.
Haters gonna hate.
November 17th, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^
i think UM wins that game if threat starts.
November 17th, 2010 at 12:11 PM ^
Threats won't win you ball games. You have to follow through on them and perform on the field.
November 17th, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^
Interesting that you use Ferentz as your comparison point Don. He was given a contract extension by Iowa in the middle of year two when he was clearly still failing. The Iowa AD saw the value of locking him up and sending a message to the recruits that Ferentz was the coach for the forseeable future.
November 17th, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^
Interesting point. Do you know any Iowa people who were close to the program at that time? Were there Iowa fans/boosters/alumni calling for KF's head on a platter?
November 17th, 2010 at 11:39 AM ^
I wonder if the Freep-inspired NCAA investigation might have constrained Bill Martin's or David Brandon's hands during the last two seasons. While they might have been privately confident that the actual misdeeds were far less than Rosenberg's allegations, it's possible that they didn't want to give an extension prior to the final NCAA findings.
November 17th, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^
I'm sorry I don't know anyone connected with Iowa so I can't even speculate on the atmosphere there in 2000. And I agree with you on the possible reasons for hesitation on the extension.
Here's a question for you though - my post on the possible RR extension just got pulled down. I wonder why?
November 17th, 2010 at 12:12 PM ^
I was wondering the same thing—what the hell? I think we're entitled to an explanation from the mods. It's a reasonable topic to discuss, and a hell of a lot more relevant and meaty than yet another post about how we need to have a hard edge and who Rivals is picking.
November 17th, 2010 at 12:30 PM ^
Bouje probably bitched enough about his tickets post getting pulled and so the mods had to make it even and pull your thread. Thats the only logical explanantion.
/s
November 17th, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^
patience is a virtue
November 17th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
With reasonable continuity.
November 17th, 2010 at 11:54 AM ^
... the saintly Dantonio went 6-7 in his third year including a loss to Central Michigan and the MSM still can't say enough good things about him.
November 17th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^
Michigan is "Michigan", therefore we will always be more scrutinized by the MSM than, say, Michigan State. It's just what more people want to read about. Goliath falling draws more attention than David winning.
November 17th, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
He also went 9-4 in his 2nd year, had RR done that last year this conversation wouldn't be happening.
November 17th, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^
Rich Rod's 3rd year is already guaranteed to have a better record than Dantonio's 3rd year.
November 17th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^
But obviously, we want a lot more than just to be a little better than Little Brother. The expectations will be, and should be, higher.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:24 PM ^
but the way the local media and MSU fans talk about and defend Dantonio, you would think the guy has won 5 National Championships in his 4 years. I'm just giving some perspective.
November 17th, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^
is people saying 7-5 sounded good at the beginning of the season for this team, but since they haven't beat any good teams it is now no longer acceptable. This seems nonsensical to me. A 7-5 record means that you are not at the top level yet, doesn't it? So wouldn't beating a team like Wisconsin but losing to a team like Purdue indicate that the victory against a "Big Ten Elite" was a bit of a fluke? Kind of like, oh I don't know, 2008? If a team isn't at the top level yet, which a 7-5 record would indicate, how do you expect them to beat top level teams?
It's a silly argument and to me one that only someone who wants Rich Rod gone because they don't like him would make. It certainly isn't based on any kind of sound logic. To me, progress is exactly where we are now. And I think we'll make the big leap next year.
November 17th, 2010 at 12:48 PM ^
It is fascinating how 7-5 in the preseason was a god send. 7-5 now is a noose. That is even if we end up 7-5. They play games for a reason. With enough hard edge we could at least finish 8-4. A game above expectations.
GO BLUE!!!
November 17th, 2010 at 1:27 PM ^
Football teams are not grouped into tiers, where you can only beat teams in your tier or below. Any decent team has a chance against every team they play, even if it's a very slim chance. I'm sure that your mentality that beating a team better than you is hopeless serves you well, but it sounds pretty silly to me.
As for the beating Wisconsin in 2010 = winning in 2008, that's dumb. Wisconsin has a sufficient body of work that even if they wet their pants and lose the last two games, they will still be a good team. Wisconsin in 2008 was propped up by its preseason ranking with no body of work to show that it was a top ten team - and it showed up later on.
RR will be around for 2011, barring some weird unseen development. People don't need to justify this with silly arguments.
November 17th, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^
Kirk Ferentz is an elite coach? How many Big Ten titles has he won in over a decade at Iowa? When did he sniff at a National Title exactly? If the argument is RR is on the Kirk Ferentz trail, we need to question what we want for Michigan football.
The more interesting, albeit depressing, comparison is to look at the coaches who won National Titles in the last fifteen years and see which year of their tenure at that school they won it. I bet it would suprise you; the slow and steady progress plan is pretty much completely debunked as outdated.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:02 PM ^
That you'd rather see someone come in and work magic the first two or three years, only to falter later? (Look at Florida now that Tebow is gone, they're off the radar).
November 17th, 2010 at 3:27 PM ^
Michigan's arc to a team that has won 2 of the last 4 national championships, did you?
<br>
<br>Yes, I will gladly take a down season after 4 years like that. Especially since their defense will probably be good again before ours.
<br>
<br>I mean, come on. You can think Rich is on the right track without saying perhaps the best coach in college football isn't doing it the right way.