RichRod and Tressel

Submitted by Blue Blue Blue on June 1st, 2011 at 8:34 AM

so now that we know what was really going on,  I feel for RichRod.

Lets put the defensive implosion aside for a moment, and reflect on a guy who went down with his morals intact.....and our cheatin' bastid of an opponent, who paid for and lied for his success.

Lets reflect on RR's handling of Tate (lookie, no wings!), his concern for Denard vs Illinois, when his job was clearly on the line......even suspending the punter for the OSU game for violating team rules.......did I hear that Tressel once punished an offender by "suspending" him for the first series of the game?

How 'bout the story about Tressel rigging raffles so the big-time recruits win the goodies at a kids summer football camp?  We learned plenty about RichRod in his time here.....and he certainly seemed a "stand up guy" to me.

So if you were a college athletic director looking to elevate your bs school with a higher profile in football, who would you hire if the choice was RichRod or Liar Liar Vest on Fire?

 

Comments

ItsaDamnGame

June 1st, 2011 at 8:51 AM ^

If RR has learned that defense wins championships, he'll be better at his next stop.  Its too bad he couldn't adjust faster to that reality.  Tressel is a whore.

Hoke uber alles.

jg2112

June 1st, 2011 at 8:53 AM ^

I would not hire Jim Tressel, ever.

I would only hire Rich Rodriguez as an offensive coordinator, because he displayed questionable leadership skills and decisionmaking (in balancing his roster, in disciplining his players, in recruiting decisions, in installing schemes during bye weeks, and getting badly outcoached against coaches not named Zook, Lynch, Brewster, Edsall or Weis) while in charge of a premier, national college football team.

maizenbluenc

June 1st, 2011 at 9:39 AM ^

I agree that Rich did several right things in disciplining his players.

Perhaps jg112 was referring to the whole wingless helmets thing. I believe we have discussed it on this board and feel that while earning your way onto the team / into the lineup is good leadership, publicly identifying your situation was poor leadership.

jg2112

June 1st, 2011 at 10:05 AM ^

The whispers about a "secret" suspension for Brandon Minor in 2008.

Suspending Will Hagerup for the most important game of the 2010 season when other more appropriate disciplinary options (during the bowl season) were available. Bad punting and kickoffs helped dig Michigan's first half hole in that game.

The whole "earning your wings" situation. Just silly - the implementation of a weird program given that the coach was 8-16 at the time.

 

 

BiSB

June 1st, 2011 at 10:21 AM ^

Suspending Will Hagerup for the most important game of the 2010 season when other more appropriate disciplinary options (during the bowl season) were available

Really? Taking a principled stand in the most important game of the year shows a discipline PROBLEM?
I hate everything.

jg2112

June 1st, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^

There was no reason Rich Rod couldn't have taken that "principled stand" in a different way, without taking one of the team's most important special teams players off the field for a game not only all those players, but all Michigan fans, wait for each year.

BiSB

June 1st, 2011 at 10:40 AM ^

That seems a lot like suspending some players for five games from the next season, but letting them play in a bowl game.

This one dude once reminded us that justice delayed is justice denied. Some guy named Glenn once said, no player is more important than the team.  No coach is more important that the team.  The team, the team, the team. Between the two of them, the answer is pretty damn obvious.

Geaux_Blue

June 1st, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^

and is exactly what did tressel in: Favoritism.

Hagerup's violation was a repeat offense of the stupidest kind imaginable (I know what it was). He repeatedly chose to do something he shouldn't have and thought he was bullet-proof. He let his team down, not RR. 

You used to be pretty well-reasoned.

jg2112

June 1st, 2011 at 11:39 AM ^

I'm arguing that some other form of punishment might have been appropriate, I'm not arguing for punishment to be ignored, or delayed. If he did what we all think he did, punishment was appropriate. I saw no reason at the time why Hagerup couldn't have been suspended for the bowl game. I highly doubt anyone here would have been outraged if his suspension was moved for a game - isn't that what Lloyd did with Mario Manningham in days gone by, and the program still existed?

BiSB

June 1st, 2011 at 12:00 PM ^

First you were all:

I'm not arguing for punishment to be ignored, or delayed.

Then you were all:

I saw no reason at the time why Hagerup couldn't have been suspended for the bowl game. I highly doubt anyone here would have been outraged if his suspension was moved for a game.

...and then my head asploded

His Dudeness

June 1st, 2011 at 11:28 AM ^

Only discipline them if they are not important to the win, that'll learn 'em!

Way to derp yourself into derpland, derp-tard.

Your arguments are no longer valid. Not that they were anyway.

Wasn't it you that was teaching us all about how Michigan Football is different?

CRex

June 1st, 2011 at 9:00 AM ^

So basically your question is:

Would you hire a spread guru who couldn't get it done in the Big 10 or a guy who is likely to have a show cause levied against him?

I'd go with neither, since I enjoy having integerity and a functional defense.

Bill in Birmingham

June 1st, 2011 at 9:18 AM ^

Please stop. I love RR. But he's gone. When we bring these things up, it just makes some of us feel worse for the guy and others insult him. It's not productive. I frankly share some of your feelings. But bringing it up here is not going to do anyone any good. Hoke is the coach, and so far he is doing a hell of a job.

profitgoblue

June 1st, 2011 at 9:25 AM ^

I agree with most of the posters that its all water under the bridge.  That said, its nice to see some positive words about Rodriguez.  Maybe he didn't fit at Michigan and needed to go, but many of us enjoyed having him there and the positives that he brought.  And I don't think many doubt that he could eventually win in Ann Arbor.  There were just too many growing pains that people were unprepared to experience to give him more time.  But whats past is past.  More importantly, we need to bask in the glory that is Tressel's demise.  (Picture the munchkins dancing around the Wicked Witch of the West's dead body)

 

STW P. Brabbs

June 1st, 2011 at 9:31 AM ^

It's a pointless thought experiment, of course, but I personally came to believe that 8 wins or so was the ceiling for Rodriguez at Michigan. 

He certainly didn't seem to know how to hire a defensive coordinator, and his recruiting was not entirely impressive - and trending in the wrong direction.

I have no doubt that if he stayed our offense would have consistently ranked in the top 10 in total offense every year, though.

profitgoblue

June 1st, 2011 at 9:56 AM ^

For better or for worse, I just loved watching the spread option offense.  It was so exciting when it worked, and the potential for excitement was enough to get me through the games where it was not working.  I think that's the part I'll miss.  I am indifferent about Rodriguez as a person and won't necessarily miss him being on the sideline.  I'll just miss the "new age" offense and the excitement it brought.

 

profitgoblue

June 1st, 2011 at 10:12 AM ^

Hence my statement that the potential for excitement was enough for me to get through games where it stuttered.  Nevertheless, I have no doubt that Rodriguez had the ability to adapt the offense to compete better against stronger B1G defenses.  Alas, it was not to be.

 

His Dudeness

June 1st, 2011 at 10:14 AM ^

This has been disproven so many times it's to the point of stupidity.

He never had a second year QB at Michigan. The system works. You can witness it against OU. If he had been given time to get his players into a second year in the system it would have been able to sustain against "good defenses."

It nearly beat a Utah team that finished the year ranked #2. Pretty good defense on that team.

When you remember only the bad parts the history of everything seems pretty shitty.  

jg2112

June 1st, 2011 at 10:18 AM ^

You have to go all the way back to game #1, when Michigan scored a grand total of 23 points, to prove your point.

Name me the game in 2009 or 2010 where Michigan's "system" was efficient against a good defense. Note: being "efficient" does not mean "getting 80% of your yards because your team is losing by 14+ points and the other team is playing prevent defense."

I can think of one: 2010 v. UConn.

And I'm not sure where you've been, but Rich Rod was coach at Michigan for 3 years. They ran his offensive system for 3 years, you might recall the angst about Threet and Sheridan running his system.

BigBlue02

June 1st, 2011 at 11:47 AM ^

So Iowa doesn't count? I guess being down by 1 score in the 4th is a good time for the opposing defense to put subs in and drop into a prevent defense. I'm sure iowa just gave up. Also, don't tell SDSU fans and hoke fans that because they like to point to TCU last year as hoke going up against a good defense and doing well. Also don't tell the national champs as they wouldn't be national champs if not for a comeback down 3 scores at the half.

MGoNukeE

June 1st, 2011 at 9:35 AM ^

Rich Rodriguez is as polarizing of a figure as politics when it comes to Michigan football. Even though Rich Rodriguez' tenure at Michigan is directly related to Michigan football, the underlying purpose of this blog, I think there'd be less flaming on the board if we have a discussion of who we voted for in the last presidential election and why. Since it seems like 80% of the replies in this thread just want the topic buried for now, it makes sense to simply make it a website policy to not bring him up until next year at the earliest.

Njia

June 1st, 2011 at 10:06 AM ^

Maybe not more than a "RR vs. X" thread. I figure we'd have 400 responses, at least 10 ban hammers drop, 6 "goodbye cruel world" posts, 5000 neg votes, new swear words invented, 40 days of darkness, rivers and seas boiling, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

Oh, what the hell ... It sounds like fun. Let's do it! It'll be one for the ages.

Hardware Sushi

June 1st, 2011 at 9:27 AM ^

I wish there was a line of code Brian could put into the posting script that would ban the use of repeating Rs, if simply because I've had enough RR-compared-to-[insert name here] posts.

He's gone, he was a nice guy, he'll get a new job next year. Please, please, please, enough is enough.

bronxblue

June 1st, 2011 at 9:48 AM ^

I'm tired o the overwrought morality play that the OSU/Tressel situation has taken on with respect to UM.  Yes, OSU ran an overtly dirty program with lots of issues, but I for one do not want to start comparing the "morals" of the coaches and players.  UM may have never had someone as sociopathic at Pryor, but there have been bad apples here who in a different context could have caused some siginficant trouble.  And while I believe that Carr, RR, and Hoke do have high standards, they are also big-time coaches who expect to win, and sometimes that pressure can supersede your better judgment.  And let's not forget that Gary Moeller was fired basically for drunkenly embarrassing the university in a restaurant.  So while it is sweet schadenfreude to see Tressel get his comeupance, it doesn't need to be a referendum on the morality of both programs.  

profitgoblue

June 1st, 2011 at 10:06 AM ^

In common law there is a concept called the "Doctrine of Unclean Hands."  In short, it goes that an aggrieved party is not entitled to recover from a defendant if that aggrieved party contributed to the event that caused the damage.  In the present case, it could be said that Michigan fans would be well-served by focusing on Tressel's downfall rather than doing any kind of comparisons between the Michigan and OSU programs.  As we all know, the Michigan program does not necessarily have unclean hands (NCAA investigations, several questionable characters, etc.)

 

bronxblue

June 1st, 2011 at 11:37 AM ^

I don't disagree, though the doctrine you speak of typically applies in circumstances where specific performance is the only option for making the aggrieved party whole, and is a means of protecting against abuse by the party seeking the remedy.  In this case, UM did nothing to abuse OSU or lead to their violation of NCAA rules, and any violations by UM are likely unreleated to the circumstances at OSU.  Plus, outside of UM asking for their losses to OSU during the Tressel period to be replaced with wins (specific performance, since financial renumeration would be inappopriate), the only relief UM can derive from this situation is cool, sweet schadenfreude.  

My question is whether or not this is appropriate given the fact that most major college programs have their fair share of dirty underbellies.

Coach Kyle

June 1st, 2011 at 10:03 AM ^

RR is not only a guy with morals, he is a football genius. Unfortunately I think he lacks the leadership qualities to really succeed. Hoke is the complete opposite. I don't think he's a football genius, but he's certainly a leader who surrounds himself with good people.

Sopwith

June 1st, 2011 at 10:16 AM ^

But he sure as hell had a rough stretch on putting the right guy in charge on the other side of the ball, though at least some of that seemed to be because he was forcing his DC choices into a ready-made staff, and to some extent, a narrow choice of scheme. 

It's a shame.  But it's also promising to see how differently Hoke operates.  You're right-- Hoke is not a football IQ genius, but he may be a people-management IQ genius, and for a head coach, that's far and away more important.  Decided schematic advantages are for coordinators, not HC's.  I don't think I ever understood that before the RR Era, much as I enjoyed the O last year.