rethinking RR's firing. . . and Brandon's thinking, too
I wanted another year for Rich Rod. But I kinda think that Rosenberg--god bless his annoying behind--nailed it on the Hoke hire: Brandon wanted Hoke all along, performed the necessary genuflections to Harbaugh and Miles, then got on with business, increasingly pleased. . . as the feedback came in. . . that he was doing the right thing.
A lot of what we saw, or thought we saw, was Kabuki theater.
In assessing RichRod's future, Brandon also had to consider what would happen if he succeeded. There were pretty good odds he WOULD win nine games last year. But what then? Would the atmosphere remain poisonous? Was the situation, behind the scenes, beyond redemption?
I disagree with Brandon's decision to fire Rodriguez, and I am very much with Brian when he says that the Hoke hire could have been made next year. But given the odds for Rodriguez's SUCCESS, I think Brandon may have decided he needed to pull the trigger now.
Meanwhile, I am more and more happy with the Hoke hire, and I hope that Brian comes around, too. Because he risks--as I said in another post--harming all he has worked so hard to build here. That doesn't mean not continuing to tell the truth as he sees it. But it does mean tempering the bitterest--sometimes brilliant--snark and giving the new guy a chance. The fact that players adore Hoke, that he's intent on their well-being, is huge for me. Success may not be immediate, but if Brandon is willing to outfit him with the best coordinators, a guy who manages the program well may be of pre-eminent importance at a big complicated place like Michigan.
Finally, Tate. Isn't there a chance he fits better in the new offense than Denard does? Or at least that he gets a chance to compete for the job? I would love to see both he and Denard in at QB sometimes next year. And as long as Hoke is willing to have an adventurous offense, I will be happy. It's the prospect that, like inbred children, we would retreat to deadly conservative playcalling as the rest of the world flowered into ten million variations on the spread that has scared me most.
Somebody cue up some video of San Diego's o and d, analysis of the coordinators Hoke's bringing with him. We've got work to do.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:39 AM ^
January 12th, 2011 at 10:49 AM ^
you're at the top of the delta pledge class
January 12th, 2011 at 10:28 AM ^
Tate = Epic Fail in Class.
We're a University first, people. If a guys not taking care of business off the field he shouldn't be taking care of business on it. Too bad he didn't take advantage of the opportunities presented to him at our school. My memories in AA will last a lifetime, but so will my degree.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^
I have liked Tate from the get go and wish him well whether he stays or goes somewhere else. But you are dead on here.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:40 AM ^
I've seen it posited as fact elsewhere that Tate didn't make the grades and is out of UM for at least a semester.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:48 AM ^
he can't or won't come back. . .
January 12th, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^
January 12th, 2011 at 10:25 AM ^
The way this was handled is going to KILL recruiting!
January 12th, 2011 at 10:55 AM ^
If RR was a dead man walking and Brady Hoke was the choice all along, then this all should have started after the OSU game.
DB got a break in that he had plenty of ammo to pull the trigger on RR after Wiscy and OSU. The situation fell right in his lap. He could have done his theatre (and that's all it really was) with Harbaugh and Miles in late November and early December and gotten it out of the way.
Then he could have announced Hoke mid-December and let him get some buzz during all the bowl games, assemble a team of assistants, and shore up the recruiting siuation.
Brian made an excellent, lucid comment that hit the nail on the head: We gave ourselves a year of USC-level recruiting reductions, and we did it voluntarily. Why?
January 12th, 2011 at 9:51 AM ^
So you are saying the AD had to fire the head coach because he might actually succeed? That makes a lot of sense.
/holyfuckingshitkillmekillmekillme
January 12th, 2011 at 10:07 AM ^
that Brandon was hired with the express mission of getting rid of Rodriguez. Those that put him in the position of AD didn't care about wins and losses, they wanted Rodriguez gone.
It was something I felt, too, for most of the season - that there were forces pushing to get rid of Rodriguez for personal reasons that had nothing to do with football, and allowing him to become successful was going to screw their plans.
It seems kind of cloak-and-dagger, but there are a lot of rich, powerful egos involved here. It's always about far more than just football.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:08 AM ^
I refuse to believe that, but if that is what happened then may we be cursed forever.
January 13th, 2011 at 2:47 PM ^
"May we be cursed forever?" WTF? Are you a Michigan fan or a Rich Rodriguez fan?
BTW, the guy in your avatar is a big fan of the new hire.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:13 AM ^
I agreee completely. Initially I thought DB liked RR and the direction he was taking the program. Now I am wondering if he had every intention of firing him this year unless he did spectacularly well. He never gave him a vote of confidence. The fact that he hired someone who is going to take the program in a completely different direction only confirms my suspicion.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:12 AM ^
I was a strong supporter of RichRod until the last half of this past season. What did anybody see in the Michigan State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio State or Mississippi State (lord help me, Mississippi State) games that gave you any reason to believe? Hello? The defense was beyond awful. Three years in and that is the defense you put on the field? There was no excuse for it.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:17 AM ^
Did you even read the OP?
January 12th, 2011 at 11:06 AM ^
This is a legitimate point of view. I would have given RR another year (with the possible exception of the off chance that Harbaugh was in the bag). However, I get your analysis and respect it. What I don't get is that those who question DB's "national search" for "the best coach" rhetoric are being called haters of the program.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:27 AM ^
yeah--that's the point. Rodriguez might have gotten to 9 wins and the atmosphere and long term prospects--in Brandon's view--might have still remained poisoned. Therefore, pulling the trigger now.
January 12th, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^
RR would have a good chance on going 9-3 next year. Losing to MSU, Neb and OSU. The fan base will still be complaning about our rivalries. So it makes sense firing RR before been too successfull specially if you did not believe on RR philosophy,style.etc. Could DB fire RR with a 9-3 record? Not sure if DB has the cojones.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:56 AM ^
wake up and rethink your post
January 12th, 2011 at 10:29 AM ^
that if RichRod was going to get to 9 wins next year--and the whole atmosphere still remain poisoned--that he needed to fire him now? I know it's subtle, but YOU may need the coffee.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:57 AM ^
if a coach only has a three-year leash to get things turned around and build a winning program, I think Brandon's timing is a disservice. Hopefully they can tape a recruiting class back together this year. But if you only get three years and DB's timing crashes the recruiting class in year one, that is a little bit of DB whizzing on your leg and then telling you it's raining. But let's hope for dry legs and lots of wins.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:57 AM ^
DB hired Hoke because he's Lloyd Carr 2.0. If we give him the time he deserves (like RR should have had), he'll be successful. If we show him the same patience we did for RR, he'll be gone in two years.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:03 AM ^
DB will give Hoke much more time than RR to show consistent success if Hoke wants it. I think he, (like RR should have gotten),deserves 4 years, but the way this whole hire went down I'd bet DB let's Hoke get away with more "failure" than RR.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:26 AM ^
DB will stick with Hoke longer because of two reasons: He hired the man and his job will ultimately depend on the success of this hire.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:01 AM ^
Dave Brandon has been on a pretty long honeymoon. Can anyone explain why? The timing of the firing and the announcement in January of a "nationwide coaching search" strike me as capricious as opposed to carefully planned, unless he decided months ago to can RR and hire anyone, and when Harbaugh was unavailable, to choose Hoke, and the rest was just theater.
I would also like to see a detailed explanation (not a set of conclusions) why RR was making progress and would have been a success soon. Really, I would.
Any takers?
January 12th, 2011 at 10:36 AM ^
His offense went from 100th to 60th to 8th last year. He has a Sophmore starting and 10 returning starters on offense. Is it possible for you to be objective for a second and we can agree that the offense should be better? So potentially we should have and possibly the best offense in the nation. I think that is fair. That is making progress.
Defensively we were among the worst in the nation. No hard evidence to give you on why we should be better other than the history of college football. When you return 10 starters they tend to get better. So you will respond with well they didn't get any better over the last 3 years. You are correct there, but consider.
2008-Veteran d that under performed, but in hindsight was not that great talent wise. Generally considered a failure due to veterans resisting change and infighting on the staff of direction of defense.
2009- New coordinator, but now we have no talent or really young talent. Walk ons playing, true freshmen playing, d line consists of Graham and frosh and sophs
2010- What many predicted as a real problem became a disaster when the secondary all decided to die.
2011- Why should they be better? D line Senior Martin Senior RVB Junior Roh and Soph Black should be excellent. Demens as a Junior now flashed potential. The secondary is now filled with 10-12 guys who have played, were on scholarship and are no longer true freshmen. So now we have no postions on the 2 deep where a true freshmen or walk on would be forced to play due to a lack of bodies.
Special teams-Kickers lost confidence and were a disaster, rest of them were blah , but agains when you have frosh's playing even on special teams you were going to suffer. They couldn't get any worse.
So if you are the most jaded RR hater. You have to say the offense, defense and special teams all should improve next year barring a complete disaster. That is how they are making progress.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:53 AM ^
I totally agree here. The negative RR posts in this thread seem to focus on the poisonous atmosphere. How horrible is it that a great coach didn't get four years because crotchety old grandpas and the freep decided to never give him a fair shake, no matter what.
The anti-RR group is like a 6-year old at the store who got the wrong toy. He will pound his fists, hold his breath, and make such a scene that eventually his mom will get him the one he wanted rather than be seen in public with the kid any longer.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:02 AM ^
It's always nice when someone agree with you. Hhaving a 5 yr old girl of my own though, your example was correct/classic/perfect.
January 13th, 2011 at 2:56 PM ^
Yes, because nothing could be more irrational than being opposed to the continued employment of a man who posted the worst record in school history and landed the program on probation for the first time.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:00 PM ^
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I really was looking for information because I am genuinely befuddled as to how the program sank so far so fast.
Is it possible for you to be objective for a second and we can agree that the offense should be better?
I think it very possible that the offense will be at least similar to what it was considering the number of players eligible to return. As for making progress, I think "objectively" a great deal of the statistics rung up were directly attributable to the remarkable individual talent of Denard Robinson, and, no, I don't expect he'll get worse. I also think that the offense had a lot of trouble scoring against better defenses (something hardly unique to Michigan's situation, true), even to the point of near ineffectiveness (Ohio State, Mississippi State), How was that problem on its way to solution?
So if you are the most jaded RR hater. You have to say the offense, defense and special teams all should improve next year barring a complete disaster. That is how they are making progress.
What I am reading is that (1) young players will get better because growth and experience will make them so, and (2) injuries to defensive backs are largely to blame for the defensive problems of last year. What I was looking for was an analysis of what it was that RR was doing, as opposed to a general maturation process, that would lead to better things. Where did I miss it?
And, no, I didn't want him to fail, much less am "the most jaded RR hater." That would have been unfair to all those kids who deserved to have the best coaching they could get. My real question is whether they got that during the past three years, and, if not, why not?
Thanks again for your reply.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:24 AM ^
I really don't understand all of the sentiment towards Rich Rodriguez. I don't have anything against the guy and I certainly wanted to see him succeed. However, he failed and he Brandon made the decision that he had to. RR really didn't leave him any other choice.
How can the OP possibly think that RR was on track for a nine win season in 2011? He was under .500 against BCS teams (5-6) with all loses by double digits. The losses got progressively worse as the season went along. The team lead the league in fumbles for the third consecutive year!
Contrary to what Brian has published, I think that the schedule is possibly harder in 2011. MSU, Iowa and Illinois are all on the road. ND seems to be significantly improved. That's what a team looks like when they actually get BETTER during the course of a season. Brian Kelly did an impressive job in 2010 (minus the off field issues). Nebraska jumps onto the schedule and OSU is still OSU....especially if the Tainted Five return. It's not an easy schedule and I don't see any reason to think that an RR coached team would have matched up well against them.
The change was made because it had to be. Now we just need to sit back and see what Brady Hoke is able to do.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:32 AM ^
coming back. Not super-tough. But then, I haven't see a lot of good thinking around here during all the lemming-like comings and goings for the last week. So. . .
January 12th, 2011 at 10:32 AM ^
Think that Hoke is going to do better if the schedule is harder? With RR team and players perhaps minus DR? I do not get your post. RR had a better chance with his returning team than I think Hoke does trying to get rid of the spread that he has said on record that he hates. How will he fair better than RR?
January 12th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^
How can the OP possibly think that RR was on track for a nine win season in 2011?
Uh, perhaps because the statistical likelihood of teams returning 18 starters (most of whom were freshmen and sophomores) improving is very high? Just a guess.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:11 AM ^
We have 8 home games as opposed to 7 last year.-Duh
We replace Penn St and Wisc with Minnesota and Northwestern-Duh
OSU, NEB, ND at home instead of ND, OSU, PSU on road.-Duh
Iowa is on road next year, but they will be worse they lose a ton of talent.-Push
MSU is on road but they too lose talent maybe a wash.-Little harder
OOC games are a joke who cares.
As for getting waxed in games the previous season. Please inform Michigan St., Auburn, Arkansas and Stanford that they need to return their BCS titles, conference championships and 11-12-13 win seasons because they were mediocre the year before and got blown out in several big games so they are not allowed to improve naturally as a team and get better.
Have a little freakin perspective. I hate everyone.
January 12th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^
"We have 8 home games as opposed to 7 last year.-Duh"
That one is pretty funny. RR won three home Big Ten games in three years and you're talking about the big benefit of playing at home. Priceless.
You also make it sound like it's a benefit to play OSU at home. RR was going to lose to Tressel wherever the game was played. RR owns two of the three biggest losses to OSU 100+ year history of the series.
RR was fired because he had to be. He earned it. I just don't get all of the post-firing love. I don't have anything against RR, he just couldn't stay any longer. Michigan's long term chances to compete in the Big Ten are MUCH better under Hoke (who's actually been on a coaching staff that won some Big Ten games. Personally, I'll stick with the opinions of Steve Hutchison, Dhani Jones, Aaron Shea....
January 12th, 2011 at 10:32 AM ^
We have 8 home games instead of 7. We drop Wisconsin and at Penn St for Nebraska and at Northwestern. Moving the 2010 games around, they line up as below (hope this comes through):
| 2011 Dates | 2010 | 2011 | |||||||
| Sept. 3 | Bowling Green | WESTERN MICHIGAN | Push | ||||||
| Sept. 10 | at ND | NOTRE DAME | Push - home but likely better team | ||||||
| Sept. 17 | Umass | EASTERN MICHIGAN | Push | ||||||
| Sept. 24 | Uconn | SAN DIEGO STATE | Easier | ||||||
| Oct. 1 | at Indiana | MINNESOTA* | Easier - home | ||||||
| Oct. 8 | at Penn State | at Northwestern* | Easier - worse team | ||||||
| Oct. 15 | Michigan State | at Michigan State* | Harder - road plus returns many players | ||||||
| Oct. 22 | Bye Week | ||||||||
| Oct. 29 | at Purdue | PURDUE* (HC) | Easier - home | ||||||
| Nov. 5 | Iowa | at Iowa* | Push - road but high loss of seniors and others due to issues | ||||||
| Nov. 12 | Illinois | at Illinois* | Harder -road | ||||||
| Nov. 19 | Wisconsin | NEBRASKA* | Push to maybe easier - Nebraska was falling apart at the end. | ||||||
| Nov. 26 | at OSU | OHIO STATE* | Push | ||||||
We should win 5 games easily - WMU, EMU, SDSU, Minn, Purdue.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:10 AM ^
I think the last thing Brandon wanted was a successful season next year under Rodriguez to cement him as the long-term face of the football program. I can also see the wisdom in making the move now to start fresh. The big problem I have (with Brandon, not Hoke) is that he rejected a fresh start in favor of Lloyd Carr-light to appease the same shitty people who have been tearing at the foundation of the program the last three years.
If he gets Harbaugh, Miles, Gruden or another prominent outsider, things are set up for immediate success and the air is cleared. Instead, he decided to give a coach with a losing record every benefit of the doubt because of the bullshit "Michigan Man" mantra while refusing to do the same for the universally respected head coach who has been wildly successful whenever he's gotten the chance to build a program in the past.
Brandon basically told everyone who has actually been supporting Michigan football the last three years that their patience was for nothing and that they could go fuck themselves.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:12 AM ^
We came off as insular dinosaurs in a meteor shower, who are stuck forever in 1997 and can only deal with a "Michigan Man" from the previous regime.
We really are ND. And Alabama post-Bear.
It all works out if you happen to have some good candidates on your little shelf of Bo/Mo/Lloyd assistants, but sooner or later the family tree thins out.
Who would ever want to come here from the outside? We've made it clear that you will not be fully welcome and will be held in suspicion because you're a foreigner.
What kills me is that this kind of blind cronyism is what we crucified RR for.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:31 AM ^
Is exactly right except we didn't just come off as insular dinosaurs, the program actually were insular dinosaurs.
The outsider coach was never accepted by the old guard and there's no indication that an outsider will for the foreseeable future. For all the fans who wanted us to look at another outsider like Patterson, Petersen, Malzahn, Mullen--how were those guys supposed to get that support? It wasn't going to happen.
I'm hopeful that Hoke can develop some capable assistants so that there will be more Michigan coaching bloodlines going forward.
January 12th, 2011 at 12:28 PM ^
Lloyd never supported RR except to fire him. It was clearly a way to get rid of RR. DB worked with LLoyd on whether to keep or fire RR. Then fired him. Lloyd was upset at the way he was let go and took it out on RR. I feel bad for RR but this infighting amongst the Lloyd cronies has got to go.
January 12th, 2011 at 1:08 PM ^
I perfer Noh Theater.