Gorgeous Borges

December 5th, 2011 at 8:56 PM ^

No. This is totally relevant. Rich Rodriguez is hiring back an assistant coach, Tony Gibson, who coached with him at Michigan. Tony Gibson did a pretty horrible job at Michigan, with the passing defense going from 17th to 70th in one season. The fact that Rich Rodriguez is hiring Tony Gibson back suggests that he still does not Get It on defense. He is hiring a man who by all accounts is a good friend but not a good coach. We are watching Arizona to get some better insight into why Rich Rodriguez failed at Michigan (and also for his peanut butter jelly time offense, which is almost always entertaining). The fact that he is bringing back one of the same people responsible for the Great Defensive Coaching Malpractice gives insight into what the hell happened to Michigan over the past 3 years. He's also at a minor Pac-12 school hiring guys whose recruiting experience is all on the east coast, so there's that.

cigol

December 5th, 2011 at 8:50 PM ^

If we are creating entire threads about hiring non-coordinator assistance coaches, then I can safely assume that we will have Hello posts for his recruits.

leftrare

December 5th, 2011 at 9:33 PM ^

I will go out on a limb here. I have no inside info on AZ or RRs other plans.

I can't believe RR would be so numb to his past mistakes as to hire Gibson as a D position coach BEFORE hiring a DC.

So, I think he has hired TG as a special teams guy.

Raoul

December 5th, 2011 at 10:29 PM ^

Sorry to ruin your theory, but Gibson was hired as secondary coach. This is from an Arizona press release:

University of Arizona football coach Rich Rodriguez has named three assistants to his new Wildcat staff - Tony Gibson, Calvin Magee and Tony Dews.

All three coaches join UA from the University of Pittsburgh staff and have direct ties to Rodriguez from his previous tenures at Michigan and West Virginia. Magee will serve as associate head coach and offensive coordinator, Gibson will be Arizona's secondary coach, and Dews becomes wide receivers coach.  

dj89

December 5th, 2011 at 9:38 PM ^

One former player who was back to visit during RR era told the story of his first encounter with Gibson.  "I thought to myself, this dude doesn't know what the hell he is talking about." 

I like RR and I apprciate his loyalty, but I think we can all agree that his defense was not well coached.  Not to stray too far out on a limb, but maybe that had something to do with their coaches! 

UMgradMSUdad

December 5th, 2011 at 9:39 PM ^

Gibson is a real problem for any DC Rodriguez hires, with the possible exception of Casteel, who has already worked as Gibson's boss.  Having Gibson on staff is the equivalent of having the owner's son as your assistant manager.  I wonder how much of a problem that was with Gerg, where the lines of authority and communication get blurred because of friendship and sense of loyalty.  Who has the head coach's ear?  It should be the DC.  What if it's a position coach instead, and the DC's authority is undermined, either in perception or reality? Maybe making Gibson DC would be the best option. 

And for those who are such RR cheerleaders, if the atrocious defenses at Michigan while RR was coach aren't RR's fault and aren't Gibson's fault, whose fault are they?  I mean when it's 3rd and long and the defensive backfield looks like the keystone kops, running around clueless, who's fault is that?

dj89

December 5th, 2011 at 9:48 PM ^

I could not agree more about your observations regarding chain of command.  It seems clear that neither of our coordinators had control of their staffs because the position coaches could just bypass the coordinator and go directly to RR.  No organization can excel under that structure.   No wonder our players did not communicate well on the field!  Our coaches could not communicate off the field! 

WolverineLake

December 5th, 2011 at 10:26 PM ^

  I think watching the RR saga come to pass at Arizona is going to be painful, because it's the same dude with the same schtick again.  The fanbase is geeked, the cupboard is bare and 'you guys are just going to need to be patient.'  The team 'is making progress' but we're not happy with how we're playing right now.  Probably grab some diamond in the rough guys from random states, but definitely a couple from Florida.  Few pan out, most transfer or drop out.

 

  I'm thinking it'll be like watching a guy getting hit in the nuts, in slow-mo, in an infinite loop with Yanni playing in the background.

 

  I hope he does well, but it feels familiar so far.

Magnum P.I.

December 5th, 2011 at 10:42 PM ^

I think that there's a good chance, fair or not, that there aren't a lot of currently employed assistant coaches that would be willing to flip over to RR if he wanted them. Especially on defense. Given what a trainwreck his time in Ann Arbor was, both on and off the field, he may not have much choice but to beg his buddies to come work with him. Any non-desperate soul would be wary of becoming a character in the next Three and Out.

coastal blue

December 5th, 2011 at 11:14 PM ^

Quite frankly, the people disregarding him as a coordinator are clueless

WVU's YPP rank from 2003 to now

52

26

16

56

7

20

32

3

15

Average of 25th. 

-------------------------------------------------------

Michigan from 2003 to 2007

17

40

52

7

21

Average of 27th. 

If you take into consideration that WVU recruits at a level that probably puts them at about the same advantage that Michigan has over their conference opponents (possibly less), to say that Casteel "isn't a proven commodity" and might not make a difference is ridiculous.

If Rodriguez's plan is not to bring in Casteel and saddle some other DC with the same guys, then he is probably an idiot who doesn't understand the importance of all phases of football. If he does, then I think he will be quite successful at Arizona. 

-----------------------------

Edit: 

Greg Mattison's run at Florida 2005-07

22

17

50

coastal blue

December 6th, 2011 at 12:39 PM ^

1. He'd be 25th over that time. 

2. His performances would be an improvement over Michigan's. 

3. Mattison is a "God" isn't he? Can you add and divide? In his Florida years, guess where he falls: 30th. Add in Michigan's 39th place finish this year: his defenses have averaged 32nd in the country in yards per play given up. 

I like yards per play better because while it isn't advanced, it takes TOP out of the equation. So Casteel, playing with less of an advantage in recruiting than Mattison over their competition has consistently outperformed the guy who everyone is touting as DC of the year.  This isn't a knock on Mattison, it's just to show the outrageous bias everyone shows in regards to ANYTHING associated with Rodriguez. Suddenly, because people want Rodriguez to fail so badly, they'll disregard the effect having Casteel would have on his team or disregard him as a coordinator, even though he has proven to be on the level of the guy who saved this year's Michigan defense. 

On top of this, if RR's offense is in full flow, 25th best defense in the country is all you need. Probably better. Ask Oregon and Auburn. 

(Note: I don't think TOP matters in wins and losses, but it does matter in total yards and points scored)

If he goes to Arizona, all the bashing on this thread is pointless. 

Butterfield

December 6th, 2011 at 2:03 PM ^

West Virginia 2011, Points Allowed per opponent:

  • Marshall (98th in Scoring Offense -22.0 PPG):  13
  • Norfolk State (FCS):  12
  • Maryland (89th in Scoring Offense - 23.1 PPG):  31
  • LSU (12th in Scoring Offense - 38.5 PPG):  47
  • Bowling Green (64th in Scoring Offense - 26.5 PPG): 10
  • Connecticut (82nd in Scoring Offense - 24.3 PPG):  16
  • Syracuse (84th in Scoring Offense - 24.2):  49
  • Rutgers (66th in Scoring Offense - 26.3):  31
  • Louisville (100th in Scoring Offense - 21.8):  38
  • Cincinnati (28th in Scoring Offense - 33.5):  21
  • Pittsburgh (70th in Scoring Offense - 25.8):  20
  • South Florida (52nd in Scoring Offense - 29.3):  27

Analyze these numbers with your golden-Casteel spin, asswipe.  Not including FCS Norfolk State, 2011 WVU allowed 5 of their 11 opponents to score more points than what they averaged on the season.  Sounds incredibly average.  But wait, it gets worse - WVU's scoring defense is 63rd in the nation despite a staggering 8 of their 11 non-FCS opponents being in the bottom half of scoring offenses in the FBS.  And the 9th, South Florida, is barely in the top 50 percent.  So they gave up lots and lots of points despite playing competition who couldn't score against anyone else. 

Those numbers are atrocious any way you slice it, not what you would see from an elite coordinator.  You can say that points allowed isn't a tempo-free metric, yada, yada, yada - the fact remains that this study shows a subpar defense at best. 

 

 

Butterfield

December 6th, 2011 at 2:18 PM ^

Michigan 2011:

  • Western Michigan (18th in Scoring Offense - 35.6 PPG):  10
  • Notre Dame (43rd in Scoring Offense - 30.5 PPG):  31
  • Eastern Michigan (104th in Scoring Offense - 22.3 PPG):  3
  • SDSU (50th in Scoring Offense - 29.8 PPG):  7
  • Minnesota (111th in Scoring Offense - 18.4 PPG): 0
  • Northwestern (51st in Scoring Offense - 29.5 PPG):  24
  • Michigan State (39th in Scoring Offense - 30.8 PPG):  28
  • Purdue (69th in Scoring Offense - 26.1 PPG):  14
  • Iowa (53rd in Scoring Offense - 28.7):  24
  • Illinois (91st in Scoring Offense - 22.8): 14
  • Nebraska (43rd in Scoring Offense - 30.5):  17
  • Ohio (76th in Scoring Offense - 25.1):  34

So Casteel allowed 5 of his 11 opponents to exceed their per game points averages.  How did Mattison fair in this department?  Michigan allowed 2/12 to exceed their PPGs - and one of those - Notre Dame - only did so by a half point, while OSU put up almost 9 more than average.  This is a far cry from the 25 points more than average WVU allowed to Cuse or the 16 more than Louisville averaged). 

But maybe this is because Michigan faced far worse offensive football teams?  Well, no - Michigan 7 opponents whose PPG were in the top half of the FBS.  Remember, WVU faced a grand total of 3 opponents that match this description. 

Mattison's performance this year shouldn't even have the indignity of being compared to Casteel's trainwreck. 

coastal blue

December 6th, 2011 at 3:32 PM ^

WVU's opponents run 10-12 more plays a game than Michigan's opponents.

Also, scoring average: Do you know how many of those points came from special teams or defensive touchdowns? Get back to me. 

Finally, the reason I used YPP is because it takes out the area of TOP which contributes to total yards and total scoring. 

And really, the point wasn't ONE YEAR. It was based over a series of time. So when I show you the numbers from 2007 and Casteel is better than Mattison, is Mattison now a trainwreck coordinator? No they are both consistent on a similar level, with ups and downs based on talent and circumstances such as the offenses used to support them or coaching staffs. But of course you take a defense of Casteel as some sort of shot at Mattison when really I just used Mattison as an example of how delusional some Michigan fans are. That's you. 

But hey, go ahead and hate Casteel because he is tied to Rodriguez. That seems productive. 

Butterfield

December 6th, 2011 at 3:41 PM ^

I think you're a giant douche and judging by your series of hidden posts, i'm not the only one who feels that way.  Seems as if your peers think you're the delusional one, tough guy. 

YPP doesn't take into account how effective a defense is at forcing turnovers - which is absolutely a facet of the game that some coaches schemes rely upon more than others.  YPP  is a flawed statistic just as much as PPG is, but go ahead and use the one stat that makes it seem like your guy is amazing. 

Go ahead and love Casteel because he is tied to Rodriguez and would have made things all better in Ann Arbor from 08-10.  Keep hoping that you'll wake up and the Hoke hire will be one big happy nightmare and you can return to being an RR fanboy. 

coastal blue

December 6th, 2011 at 4:41 PM ^

because you just proved the lack of perspective so many Michigan fans have:

So a defense of someone's track record as a DC who is getting trashed on is now "RR fanboy status"? Right. He is now "my guy"? I'm merely pointing out how wrong people are to say he would make no difference at all, when over time, his defenses stack up favorably in comparison to the guy people are hailing as the greatest DC of all time here at Michigan. Like I said, if we use your assessment of one year, then I guess I'll use 2007, where Casteel's defense was better than Mattison's so therefore he must be better always all the time and Mattison must be a trainwreck. Except I wouldn't because my mind doesn't work like a simpleton's mind. 

Seems like my assessment is far more accurate. 

Turnovers...we can have this argument all day. I guess you need to explain to me how in two years Mattison's Florida teams could average 2.2 takeaways per game, but then in 2007 only average 1.5. I guess he really stressed them more in 2005 and 2006 eh? Or wait, I guess when WVU averaged 2.6 Takeaways in 2007, Casteel was stressing them way more than he was this year, when they only averaged 1.7?? Yeah, you're take on teams forcing turnovers is an argument with no holes. Sounds like its either A. Blind luck on the bounce of the ball or B. depends greatly upon the talent your team holds. But hey, you keep thinking that YPP isn't a good indicator of a strong defense. 

By the way: you have no point. The people agreeing with you have no point. You took ONE YEAR and made it your whole argument, when I took a look at a body of work over time. No one has bothered arguing that fact, because, as usual, it would reflect positively on someone  tied to Rodriguez. 

But like I said, carry on with your blind hatred while I carry on being reasonable and fair. I expect people who agree with someone's ridiculously slanted opinions to neg me. I'm just glad you opened your mouth to prove how right my assessment of those doing the negging was. 

Butterfield

December 6th, 2011 at 5:01 PM ^

Saying Casteel would have made a positive difference at Michigan is as foolish a thought as those (i'm guessing you were definitely one of those) that used Hoke's 47-50 record entering the season as an indicator of impending failure at Michigan.  What you and your kind just don't understand is that the past track record of a coach or coordinator at a previous school is not an indicator of future success at a different school, particularly when that school is in a different conference and faces different types/qualities of opponents.  Could he have improved Michigan's defense?  Definitely.  Likely?  Maybe.  Certainly?  Definitely not.  You have to look no further than Charlie Weis at UF and Brian Harsin at UT to see guys who enjoyed success in previous stops taking their new teams backwards. 

In regards to turnovers:  Teams which employ a Tampa 2 bend-but-don't-break style of defense are less likely to force turnovers but are more likely to limit YPP since they keep everything in front of them.  Teams that play agressive man coverage and do more blitzing will tend to allow higher YPP but produce more turnovers.  Is there variation from year to year based on talent and other uncontrollable factors?  Sure, but it certainly isn't entirely random. 

I don't have the time nor desire to do what I did for the last 5 years.  Frankly, you're just not worth the effort to satisfy someone who so obviously is emotionally connected to an ex-coach who failed and was fired as a result. 

Your arrogance is nauseating. 

coastal blue

December 6th, 2011 at 5:11 PM ^

 

Did Mattison's defense produce so many fewer takeaways in 2007 than they did the years before and why did Casteel's defense produce more takeaways in 2007 than they did in 2011? Why do Casteel and Mattison have similar YPP in some years and wildly different YPP in others? Oh you answered that with my own caveat on how certain defenses perform due to factors such as - gasp - talent and experience. That is ALWAYS the biggest factor. Once again, your response makes little sense. 

And no, I held my doubts about Hoke to myself. Most of them left after Mattison was hired (hey, look! A guy with a proven track record!). After that, my only concerns were whether they (Borges and Hoke) would try to enforce the wrong style on Denard (happened somewhat, figured it out) and cost us some games we should have won. I'm different from you. I don't trash someone just because I think Rodriguez got a raw deal, while you are here, trying to prove that a good DC isn't a good DC because you hate our ex-HC. 

You're right about one thing: We don't know things for certain. But there's a good chance he would have made a difference for a variety of reasons. 

I'm sorry you can't handle the fact you've been so blindingly wrong in all your responses but I can't help that. 

Butterfield

December 6th, 2011 at 6:06 PM ^

You conveniently failed to address the most important part of my last post - how do you explain the failures of Weis and Harsin after having wild success coordinating high flying offenses. And both went to programs that are talent rich....why couldn't they replicate their previous success?  It's because the world is imperfect and you just don't know how a coach will fit in a new environment when faced with new challenges. 

Casteel has done an above average job at WVU, if I implied that over the course of his tenure that he hasn't, it was unintentional.  In my opinion, he has not created a spectacular defense, but they have certainly been servicable.  My main point isn't that he is a good man or bad man, good coach or bad coach, it's that his ability to transform Michigan's defense into a better unit is unknown, and to simply assume he would have had the impact Mattison has had ignores the many examples of coordinators who have failed when moving from one job to the next.  Frankly, it's unintelligent to do so.   

coastal blue

December 6th, 2011 at 6:50 PM ^

I didn't. 

In fact I gave you credit for being right in saying that we don't know FOR CERTAIN whether someone will succeed at a new job based on their previous line of work. 

But, why do coaches/coordinators fail at the college level? You say Weiss failed: He looked pretty good when he had the Brady Quinn teams did he not? Two BCS bowl appearances, 19-6, 1-1 vs. Michigan. Oh right, he had talent. Then it left. Suddenly he is no longer successful. Now you can make a case that he didn't recruit correctly, but when he had talent in 2005 and 2006, he was successful. 

Mattison's defense was fantastic at Florida in 2005 and 2006 in both metrics we used. Then in 2007, it wasn't. Why? Because most of his talent left. In 2006, Casteel's defense suffered steep drops in most stats. Then in 2007, it was a top 10 unit. Why did Hoke go 12-2, then 7-6 at Ball State? The examples go on and on. 

What people fail to realize about Casteel is this: Bringing him in would have cut many of the problems that Shafer faced off from the beginning. Rodriguez would not have mettled in Casteel's affairs. It is far less likely he would have fired him after one year - I doubt we would have been as bad - and we would have kept stability there, plus not hired GERG. 

You saying that he has been "serviceable" or reluctantly conceding he is "above average" is fine. It's at the bare minimum of a compliment, which is more than I would ever expect from someone with such an anti-RR standpoint. 

I personally think that coaches can only do so much. I think GERG affected a youthful defense that suffered every bit of injury and attrition imaginable as much as a coach can negatively. I think Mattison did the same in a positive matter with a much more experienced unit and that explains your wide swing. I think that if you look at someone like Casteel, he consistently has an above average defense that occasionally puts in a great year. This is more than enough to win a bunch of games with a Rodriguez offense in full gear. 

The point is, if he gets the right players, he will be successful. If he doesn't, he will be like most coaches and suffer the consequences. People look at Team 132 like they are the Bad News Bears. As if they have no talent and the coaches are responsible for every bit of improvement. While they are the reason for SOME, the biggest factor in the success this season is that we have a talented, experienced team...the most in those areas since 2007 and we are much healthier this year. You add the Mattison effect and you get the wild swing we've seen. 

I just don't see how you can look at the stats and numbers over a 10 year period at WVU and say its unlikely he would be of any help to Rodriguez. It's not a SURE thing, but it's a probable thing. 

 

Butterfield

December 6th, 2011 at 7:06 PM ^

First of your posts that you didn't lob a personal insult my way, much appreciated.  This is my last post on the topic, just don't have energy for it anymore today. 

My opinion is that you overrate the importance of talent.  Not that it isn't important, but I think coaching is equally important. Texas always has talent and had a pretty poor offense two years running.   Harsin had significantly more talent at his disposal than he did when he was at Boise - but was far more successful at Boise, even against decent opponents.  Oklahoma has always recruited 5 star defensive talent, but hasn't had great success in that department since losing Stoops to Arizona.  And Stoops wasn't able to replicate any shroud of defensive success at Arizona, granted with a promotion to HC.  Wisconsin and MSU make the most out of 3 star recruits and contend, recently at least, for Big 10 titles.  And on and on....

At least we agree that there aren't any guarantees that everything that made a coach good at one place will move with the coach as he changes jobs. 

coastal blue

December 6th, 2011 at 7:40 PM ^

You also need experienced players. Football isn't like basketball, its rare that you can just plug in a freshman and he will dominate. 

The coaching aspect of it: Oklahoma's YPP this year is 5.1, which has them in a tie for 32nd in the country. So out of 120 teams, they are at the top end of the spectrum in performance. My point would be: that's pretty good. So if you had a better coordinator/coaches, maybe you get to that 15-20 range (that WVU range!). 

That fact is, coaches often stay at places for longer periods of time than players are able too. In those tenures, you see wild swings. How can you explain that? How can you explain Mattison's defensive stats dropping significantly in all categories in 2007 when he is clearly a great coordinator? It's talent and experience. The next year, Florida shoots back up the rankings, but Mattison is gone...

Michigan in 2006: Great defense. Came up against equal talent at the end of the year and got beat. There is your coaching difference. 

Michigan in 2007: Good against bad teams. Against the spread? 30+ three different times. There's your coaching difference. 

 

MichiganTeacher

December 5th, 2011 at 11:10 PM ^

This says to me either:

1) RR thinks that what happened in AA was beyond his control. He doesn't see himself at fault at all. He sees himself as a victim. So it's ok to hire these guys because they were successful at WVU and what happened in UM was not their fault.

2) RR just doesn't care that much. He is milking his name and WVU accomplishments for another contract or two. Oh sure, he'll do the work, but he's not going to be crazy about it. Hanging out with his buddies is pretty important too.

I think it's a lot of both. I was a big fan of M hiring RR initially, but when he said at the start of year two, "I was like anyone else, I thought, it's Michigan. Just roll them out there and you'll win your share," I have been RR Hater #1. I wouldn't want someone with that attitude running my 7-11, let alone my school's team.

robpollard

December 6th, 2011 at 1:25 AM ^

I agree with #1 - that's a very valid assessment and quite possible.

But if you seriously think, with #2, that RR, who worked himself up from a student assistant job 30 years ago and has been in football ever since, got a multimillion dollar job, puts his reputation (which was seriously damaged at Michigan) on the line and moves his family across the country just so he can "hang out with his buddies" and not really "do the work" that's just weird.

All evidence from stories that have been written (see that one in SI this week for just one example) say that he wants to win badly at AZ.  You can certainly criticize his coaching choices, offensive philosophy, etc, but I would need hard evidence to say he doesn't really care and he's just "milking it."  You don't have any shred of that.

BlueDragon

December 6th, 2011 at 12:44 AM ^

but I have no faith in Tony Gibson as a coach.  Good thing Pac-12 defenses are already used to giving up 30+ points a game, because these guys will probably fit right in.

BRCE

December 6th, 2011 at 2:02 AM ^

Let's look at the common refrain of Gibson sucked because Mallory took the same players and turned them into a good secondary.

The "same" players:

Thomas Gordon: Switched positions from backup spur in the 3-3-5 to starting free safety in the 4-3. Also made the expected leap in play that goes with being a redshirt freshman to sophomore. Blaming Gibson for Gordon not being as good last year as this season is as dumb as blaming Jeff Hecklinski for Roy Roundtree's drop off in production after switching from slot to outside receiver.

Jordan Kovacs: Made a significant leap from '10 to '11 BUT ALSO made a significant leap, under Gibson and the old staff, from '09 to '10. Probably just a guy who is going to get better if he can and squeeze every bit of potential out of himself no matter who his position coach is.

J.T. Floyd: The most fair example to cite when talking about improved positional coaching. Went from a relatively slow player with decent instincts to still a relatively slow player whose instincts can get him to play the position at an above-average standard for the conference. Part of that is probably on an extra year of experience.

Blake Countess: Never coached by Gibson. Makes youthful mistakes but is more physically gifted than any player the secondary had available in 2010.

Courtney Avery: Showed some promise as a true freshman, especially for being new to the position. Improved at about the standard exchange rate one would expect from frosh to soph.

Troy Woolfolk: Hard to evaluate for either staff. Didn't settle on a position in 2009, had 2010 washed out, couldn't sustain health in 2011 and again bounced between corner and safety.

Go Blue Beau

December 6th, 2011 at 5:54 AM ^

The best thing I've took from this topic is the posts from some you unwavering Rich Rod loyalists who are finally seeing the light. John U. Bacon, take notes.

Section 1

December 6th, 2011 at 7:36 AM ^

It is the same old Rodriguez-haters who have been complaining all along.  And doing the same old fact-twisting and quote-mangling.

The sportstalk radio-fanboyz are talking past the rest of us.

We say, "Rodriguez was treated badly, and unfairly, when he was at Michigan."  Three and Out documents that fact rather exhuastively.

The fanboyz respond with, "Rodriguez wasn't a good coach," or worse, "Hoke is tremendous!"  We are talking past each other, with arguments that are fundamentally non-responsive to each other.  And worse, become proxy arguments for our respective sides.  (Proxy arguments in which the sickest Freep-subscribing elements of the Michigan fan base hope for Rodriguez to fail, which would somehow excuse the way Rodriguez was treated here.  And those who demanded fairness for Rodriguez thereby feel pressed to root for the new Arizona program or worse, for Brady Hoke to experience the same problems that Rodriguez had.)

I am not going to waste my time arguing with some anonymous fans on the internet who probably don't know any more about football coaching than I do (which is next to nothing) about who is a better coach.  My argument was always, "Rodriguez was treated unfairly by my university."  I thought I always had the best of that argument, and now there is a book reporting from the inside of the program that largely proves me correct.  I don't need anything more.  It isn't my job to win games.

UMgradMSUdad

December 6th, 2011 at 8:13 AM ^

If it just ended at "Rodriguez was treated unfairly by my university," I would have no problem with it.  I think it's when some people then go on to imply "Rodriguez would have been a stunning success at Michigan if only he were treated better" that many are not convinced. And that's why there will never be an end to this argument: there is no way to prove one way or the other how much different, if any, the outcome would have been if Martin weren't incompetent (at least at some things), and L.C. weren't a big ol' meanie, and the fans and former players were more supportive, and so on.

The best test might very well be RR's performance at Arizona.  If in 4-5 years he starts churning out an occasional Big 12 champ and fairly regular BCS bowl participation, that'll be pretty good evidence he's the great coach his fan club thinks he is.  Depending on how far below that mark he hits, that'll be evidence that he's not so great.

Section 1

December 6th, 2011 at 8:26 AM ^

Rodriguez was treated badly at Michigan.  I think that argument has been won.  If it was ever in doubt, or otherwise beyond argument.

I just don't have a lot to fight about beyond that.  I'm not a faux-expert on college football.  Although having won the argument and established that Rodriguez was treated badly, I am mostly interested in who treated him badly, how they did it and why they did it.