Richrod update
Story today about Richrod in the NYT (link below), discussing his time at Michigan and his impending move to (the state of) Florida. Money quote:
“To imply that we didn’t understand a tradition or you had to be there to understand all the things that are at Michigan, I kind of laugh at that,” he said. “We tried to embody that since the day we got there.”
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/rodriguez-reflects-on-his-d…
February 6th, 2011 at 3:50 PM ^
You get negged for dignifying the term "major violations."
February 6th, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^
Wrong!!
We all focus on the practice time as the big issue, but the NCAA was more concerned about having quality control assistants monitor off season workouts. That is something RR did when he was at WVU and we didn't do here before his arrival.
I'm a fan of RR but this is his contribution to the probation, not something that was part of the institution before he arrived.
February 6th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
and is something the NCAA report stated was occuring under LLlllloyd's country club regime. oh, but rosie's report conveniently left that out....
February 6th, 2011 at 2:04 PM ^
Butterfield please read this:
http://mgoblog.com/content/names-named-heads-should-roll
since I doubt you'll actually spend the time to read the whole thing here's the money shot quote from Brian himself:
"the documentation problems started before Rodriguez even arrived"
In the future, before posting inane arguments here please find sources to back up your claim that do not include the ignorant local media who don't understand the concept of "countable hours"
February 6th, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^
Not documenting it isn't a violation. Not correcting it is. Don't have Brian spoon feed you everything.
February 6th, 2011 at 2:54 PM ^
I don't even understand your comment. The lack of documentation regarding the job descriptions for the quality control staff directly lead to the most serious portion of the NCAA violations leveled against UM.
To me the lack of documentation and the failure to correct that problem are two sides of the same coin. It's a lack of organizational competence within the athletic department. But in that regard I place blame on the AD not the head football coach.
This wasn't a football specific breakdown, it was an athletic department breakdown, so I don't blame RR for that.
And I'll take my information from Brian over the Freep any day of the week thank you. Brian is obviously biased towards UM but he backs up his arguements with logic and facts that have been well thought out. That's more than I can say for Freep or even DetNews for that matter.
February 6th, 2011 at 3:15 PM ^
I think I let my attitude towards others overflow to you. That wasn't fair.
I was never saying it was all on Rich, just that he wasn't blameless. It was obviously something he did at WV, didn't think was wrong (rather than the Freep's attitude of "Ha ha HA, CHEATER!"), and continued doing it here. It wasn't ok in the NCAA's eyes (though minor it may have been). Was the department structure to have the paperwork that would catch such errors in place? No, it was woefully screwed up. But not tracking something isn't a violation...committing it it. Did it contribute into minor violations becoming major? Yes. There was a lot of blame to go around. It wasn't just one guy...in most bureaucracies it's not one guy making mistakes (unless it's someone knowingly cheating, which wasn't the case), but breakdowns in communication and checks and balances. Rich brought with him a practice that was on the edge enough that people on both sides didn't think it was wrong. Our follow-up on it didn't catch it, or didn't think it was wrong, and let it continue. But when your people are the ones messing things up, and you don't stop them, that's on Rich. And then, on his boss too, yes, the AD, Martin.
There's plenty of blame to go around. No one was calling for his firing for the lame violations. But the notion that he was just an innocent bystander through the process, which some others have claimed, is just silly.
February 6th, 2011 at 3:39 PM ^
It is also silly to think that these same "major" violations don't go on at every school and happen under every coach's watch...even Lloyd....which was what the origianal point was. We get that Rich was the head guy so some of the blame falls on him. Just like if we prodded into every program in the country, we would find similar things and their head coaches would have some of the blame. But we don't because other team's local papers don't have it out for the coach. I think that was the whole point.
February 6th, 2011 at 4:00 PM ^
Forgive me for seeing past Brian Cook's obvious biases against the Carr regime and let me lend more credence to the NCAA's report, which specifically lists January 2008 as the start date for the violations.
I wish there was a catchy synonym for lemming - the over abundance of posters who preach the Gospel of Brian Cook (with no critical thinking abilities of their own) has made that term played out.
February 6th, 2011 at 4:06 PM ^
Whatever biases Brian has against Carr are not nearly as great as the biases old coots like you (spiritually old, if nothing else) have for him.
Still nostalgic for 1-6 vs. Tressel? Great days, I'll tell ya!
February 6th, 2011 at 4:19 PM ^
Then why post here? This isn't Rivals, it isn't Scout, it isn't MLive, and so on. Brian Cook started the blog. He still owns it. It's his. If you have a problem with his editorial bias (which, by the way, I don't think I agree with your characterization of an "anti-Lloyd" bias, per se, more of a "good god, the idea of 'we have better talent than you do, even if you know what's coming, you can't stop it' doesn't work in an era of 85 schollies, and especially when we don't oversign). . . then you have tons of other options for sites which allow discourse. If you find this site's "bias" the least of multiple evils, perhaps start your own blog? I'm just saying it's kind of a b.s. move to come here and talk shit about Brian, frankly.
February 6th, 2011 at 4:35 PM ^
are great. I don't agree with much of Brian's thoughts and guess what, that's okay! What I take issue with is the cadre of people who take Brian's opinion and recite it as if it is fact.
If you like RR, great. If you don't, great. I should be able to have a conversation with you unless the fan club starts getting personal - which it did in this case. If you go back to the beginning of my participation in this thread, my first post was a simple request for a link to information which confirmed Lloyd was officially tied to the infractions. After being called an idiot/moron by mindless BC "repeaters", I decided a little fight would be a fun way to spend a few hours.
February 6th, 2011 at 7:50 PM ^
First, things have gotten out of control with the snark in this thread, and so let's all dial it back a bit. Second, I hear you re: having discourse and debate; obviously that's why I am even writing this, why you commented in the first place, why any of us ever comment on here (when not posting LOLCatz pictures or Lloyd Brady sightings or other stuff). I guess I just think when you come on a blog and take direct aim at the proprietor, it's not a good look, and makes someone like me respect your opinion less because, I don't know, I guess I liken it to going to someone's house and talking shit to them. It's just disrespectful. Without the person you're essentially taking dead aim at, you wouldn't even have this opportunity to express your opinions in this forum, and I think, perhaps, you should keep that in mind. If you have beef with people who you feel mindlessly parrot the "company line" coming out of here, then so be it, and obviously calling that out and offering a different viewpoint is part of what discourse is all about on here. But I guess I just think taking it one step farther, and taking aim at Brian, I don't know, it seems a bit overly inflammatory, and you can probably convince people of your viewpoint on the issues being debated more effectively without taking it to that level.
February 6th, 2011 at 11:17 PM ^
I agree wholeheartedly with pretty much everything that you said. While I don't agree with Brian's views on some stuff (more lately it seems), I respect his ability to form arguments and share his opinions. My intent certainly wasn't to take a shit in Brian's living room, but rather to use some pepper spray to thin out the masses of people who can't think for themselves. I look forward to many good debates in the future my friend.
February 6th, 2011 at 3:21 PM ^
RR fanbois are awesome.
February 6th, 2011 at 12:57 PM ^
Talk about looking for bogeyman. RR was fired because his teams weren't good, and because they consistently regressed, and because his one chance to perhaps save his job (with a healthy team, with a month to prepare) ended disastrously in Jacksonville. Had his teams performed better, he'd still be here.
Any coach with RR's winning-percentage, and his record against major rivals, would have been fired. Lloyd Carr would have been. Hoke will be if he doesn't win.
Accept it. And stop looking for someone else to blame for RR's failures. That's what RR did. Didn't work for him either.
February 6th, 2011 at 1:43 PM ^
any other coach would have been given 4 seasons and would not have had an influential alumni base calling up recruis and negatively recruiting against him from day one.
February 6th, 2011 at 2:07 PM ^
February 7th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
So it is all imaginary when people point out the issues that Rich Rod faced? He was given a depleted depth chart. That's a fact. Sure that might sound like an excuse to you because you are biased. It's simply the truth. If you don't acknowledge the lack of talent inherited by Rich Rod then you are lying to yourself. That's ok, whatever helps you feel better but you're wrong.
Did his teams regress as you stated? Not at all. They got better as evidenced by their record and production. Did the defense regress? Yeah because he was playing more freshman on that side of the ball than any other team in college football. His teams continued to improve at a steady rate based on what he was working with. Did you expect him to rebuild the entire offense AND defense in three years? Wait why am I asking someone who doesn't look at more than the win-loss record.
Sure we will have fans like Mackbru who sing the praises of Hoke when the defense improves. Just remember Michigan fans, Hoke will actually have a very deep defensive roster, with loads of young players to develop. RR had no such luxury. Sure RR won't enjoy the fruit of the labor he put into rebuilding this thing from scratch but Michigan will enjoy success in large part to the roster put together by RR. Remember that when these young players are actually juniors and seniors. This is why it's very important to look at more than win-loss record when judging a coach.
To all the rational fans that do not have a bias against RR just remember this. RR will be rehired very quickly by another college? Why? Because he is a HIGHLY respected coach by people with actual football knowledge. When RR wins big again at some other school, even these Michigan fans with blinders on will acknowledge the disastrous situation he inherited at our great university. Until then we will have people with zero knowledge of football carrying on about how terrible of a football coach RR is. I for one smile at them and will have a big chuckle at their expense when RR wins big at another program.
February 6th, 2011 at 12:39 PM ^
Do people understand that the ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION threw RRod under the bus? You think the Freep got their info just from former players? Really?
The day that the Free Press info started coming out I knew Rich was going to have an uphill battle. They really, really wanted to fire him internally.
We will be what we were - beating quality teams on occasion but never really being a powerhouse. Oh well - it was a good thought while it lasted....
The only real mistake RRod made was not getting rid of the defensive cronies. Big, big mistake...
February 6th, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^
That whole meme of outside guys not being able to comprehend and act as M men is so completely ridiculous. Too bad apparently DB buys into it. It has no credibility and is a triumph of insular thinking over common sense.
February 6th, 2011 at 11:18 AM ^
Yeah, it makes me think DB is a moron.
February 6th, 2011 at 11:45 AM ^
Yep. Just any old moron can run a Multi national company.
February 6th, 2011 at 2:05 PM ^
Uh...you forgot the "/s"
February 6th, 2011 at 2:50 PM ^
Goldman Sachs
<br>JP Morgan
<br>Enron
<br>All the Autos!
<br>All the Banks!
<br>Countrywide
<br>Should I go on...
February 6th, 2011 at 2:56 PM ^
don't lump in the ford motor company in there. They were the only automaker to prepare for the downturn in the economy.
February 6th, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^
You may not always agree with him--I certainly don't--but DB knows a hell of a lot more about Michigan football than any of us here.
February 6th, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^
if the tail - influential alumni/boosters - ultimately wagged the dog. Brandon certainly didn't seem to be out in front leading the discussion from OSU on through and past the bowl game. Regardless, the 'Michigan Man' meme is the easy way to dump a coach a lot of key people didn't like, and to hire a coach with 1) an established, mediocre resume 2) ties that please a lot of those same key people. In the end, DB may be more concerned about pleasing those people than other factors - common sense, but not of the sort that you and I appreciate.
February 6th, 2011 at 11:11 AM ^
February 6th, 2011 at 12:07 PM ^
well that and not having an alumni base attempting to undermine you at every opportunity. Our alumni base makes domers look sane.
February 6th, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^
Not that I disagree with you on the way RR was treated by the alumni base, but I think it is a stretch to think RR's on-field failures were a direct result of his treatment by fans and the media. I think those are really two separate things.
February 6th, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^
Disagree. The Old guard was negative recruiting against us at every opportunity. We could have had some legendary classes if it wasn't for these so called Michigan men. I hate that phrase with every ounce of my body.
February 6th, 2011 at 4:10 PM ^
You're going to have to be way more specific than that. The "old guard" being whom? Victors Club bluehairs?
What were they doing in recruiting? Finding the kids on official visits and bashing the program to them?
You can't make statements like that and not elaborate if you want anyone to take you seriously.
February 6th, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^
RichRod's biggest problems were no D, no special teams, a very spotty offense and a miserable won-loss record. The alumni base would have been fine had he won...it would have taken time, but with winning only good things would have happened. He didn't and that's that. Things don't always work out.
February 6th, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^
Except that many weren't "fine" with him to begin with because he was an "outsider".
February 6th, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^
Winning wouldn't have made people like RichRod. We just hired a coach with a losing record and people are happy as shit. To suggest his winning was what got him fired and then to go out and hire a coach with Hoke's resume doesn't compute. Also, RichRod's special teams weren't bad. They actually were the opposite of "no special teams." One of his 3 years here had the best special teams units in the B10. The problem was the freshmen and redshirt freshmen that were supposed to be on special teams were all starting due to lack of depth.
February 6th, 2011 at 11:36 AM ^
that addresses the notion that RR & staff weren't "welcoming" to alumni players, something Reuben Riley alleged recently. Lamarr Woodley, Shantee Orr, and Jon Runyan all specifically refuted the assertion in different ways.
February 6th, 2011 at 12:10 PM ^
http://annarbor.com/sports/um-football/topic-of-how-rich-rodriguez-trea…
And the civil war continues to rage ...
I'm inclined to respect Woodley; I don't know as much about Riley. Interesting, isn't it, that it's "unnamed" players that weren't enthusiastic. Why would they hold back, now that they got their guy? In their defense, they might not want to be classified with Michael Taylor.
February 6th, 2011 at 12:14 PM ^
"In their defense, they might not want to be classified with Michael Taylor."
I think that would be exactly the reason why if I had to guess.
February 6th, 2011 at 4:11 PM ^
Then they should shut the fuck up if they don't have the conviction to put their name with their words.
February 6th, 2011 at 12:20 PM ^
Reuben Riley's fat.
February 6th, 2011 at 3:24 PM ^
Good one.
February 6th, 2011 at 11:36 AM ^
"It doesn't matter, it's in the past".
February 6th, 2011 at 11:36 AM ^
The Michigan man thing is a classic red herring. It is actually used more by Rich's still bitter supporters as a sword against the people who had enough of the beatings by our rivals and wanted a change. The cover is that old guard Michigan Man phantoms and ignorant football minds undercut the coach, not the on-field performance. It sure seems like a Michigan man gets his ticket punched into that fuzzily defined club by winning when it matters. That's the way it has always rolled.
Their loyalty is admirable and folks are gonna say what they are gonna say. Today is the focus. We got our program back. At least that's the hope.
February 6th, 2011 at 11:53 AM ^
Nate, MICHIGAN MAN is a completely ridiculous thing regardless of whether or not you liked Rodriguez. I will continue to want to punch anyone who seriously uses that term square in the balls probably for the rest of my life. It's just an arrogant meme one way or another. Do the RR supporters use it as a talking point? You bet. They talk about, however, because it is blindingly stupid rather than for it to be a clever guise used to mask Michigan's record.
February 6th, 2011 at 12:36 PM ^
Funny, I always thought that the true "Michigan Man" was really the 42,000+ hard working men and women who get their degree(s), go out into the world and become successful at just about anything they choose to do. They are the ones who should be honored and deserve our respect.
February 6th, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^
I guess that makes me a MICHIGAN MAN, but damn I hate that term. It just stinks of arrogance. I went to a really good school that has a really good football tradition. That does not create some magical aura of character which somehow supersedes all other university degrees or football programs. This is an awesome university, but the magical MICHIGAN MAN bullshit really needs to stop because in my opinion it stains our reputation.
February 6th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^
What do you think about that damn fight song, "leaders and the best?" How arrogant is that for a program with so few national championships?
Seriously, only someone who has no idea what "Michigan Man" means would make these statements. I'd love to see have seen your mighty punch to the balls of James Hall when he recently dared use the term.
February 6th, 2011 at 12:52 PM ^
Fight songs are all meant to be that way; this is why they are fight songs. I know what MICHIGAN MAN means and I guess I qualify as one, but it's just a stupid term that leads to needless entitlement. There is not some magical power that you get when you've been associated with the university, and the last time I checked I did not have to pass through some kind of moral labyrinth in order to be certified as a MICHIGAN MAN before I got my degree. It's a school that gives degrees and plays football.
February 6th, 2011 at 4:16 PM ^
That's the problem, it has nothing to do with entitlement. It's a culture, a set of expectations and a love of the university. It has nothing to do with where you came from, it's about who you are and for some, who you become when an athlete at Michigan. That's not arrogance.
Rodriguez, in some of his first public comments after being named head coach, called the "Michigan Man" stuff a lot of hyperbole. That told me right there that he didn't understand what it meant. Three years later he's playing ridiculous music saying he wants to be a Michigan Man as if something other than his own love of the university and dedication to the culture could appoint him.
I don't like how the term is misused but that doesn't mean it's wrong, or arrogant or some ancient relic.