Tradition and Michigan Football
There has been a lot of talk on here about how Michigan football is supposed to be played. What I seem to hear the most is that Michigan football is "3 yards and a cloud of dust" and a pro style offense, and this is how Bo ran the program so we need a Michigan Man to come back and run it that way. I also hear complaints about how RR should have learned to play how Michigan plays and should have run the program more like Bo, Carr, and Mo. I respectfully disagree.
Before I go to far, a slight background of me. Bo was somewhat before my time. He retired when I was 8 and I only really knew who he was because of some of the stories my parents would tell me about how he would destroy opponents. I have since then, read everyone of his books, and become a huge fan of his as both a coach and a person. I consider my first true Michigan coach to be Carr, and I loved the way he ran his program, and would defend him against his detractors.
So why do I disagree that Bo and Carr's ways were wrong? I don't. They ran the program how they were supposed to run their program, but I disagree that this is what Michigan football is. Our football program has been around for well over a hundred years, and to me it is not defined by only "3 yards and a cloud of dust". It has been defined by men who were innovators, who lead and did not follow (leaders and best). Yost helped mold and shape the game it is today, by believing 100,000 people would want to watch Michigan play among others. We had the Mad Magicians who ran an innovative offense, that left everyone baffled as to who had the ball. We added wings to our helmets to help our quarterback see our recievers, and were the first to utilize the two platoon system.
You may not like RR, but he is an innovator to the game. His new type of offense has been copied by many around the country. He knows how he wants his team run, and his offense so far has shown he knows what he is doing.
Hate him for his losses, but don't tell me that Michigan can't be innovative and change. Michigan has proved over the last century that this is exactly what Michigan football is.
November 24th, 2010 at 9:55 AM ^
"Bo" of Michigan football coaches. I hope to be saying "remember when everyone wanted Rich Rod gone" in 10 years.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:31 AM ^
But no one can ever compare to Bo
November 24th, 2010 at 11:07 AM ^
who had worked for Woody Hayes when Don Canham hired him from Miami (OH). There were more than a few people who were not happy about it.
The stuff with Bump Elliot and Bo together in the transition was not about Bo showing his respect to Bump. It was about Bump propping up Bo to make the transition easier. Until Bo started wining in 1969, the Michigan football scene was rather distressed.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:36 AM ^
I have been a Michigan fan for 40 years. I was a student in 1984 when we went 6-6. That year everybody was calling Bo a dinosaur, saying he needs to open it up and not run off tackle on every first and second down. The next year was one of his best teams, finnishing 2nd in the polls. All of a sudden he was a genius again. The bottom line is you have to win. It does not matter how, pro-style offense or spread offense. Four years ago, the same people who are complaining now were saying Lloyd Carr has to go, the game has passed him by. Again, you just have to win. I personally,would like to see RR get one more year, three years is not enough. If he does not show continued improvement then get rid of him. I, like everyone else, have my concerns about the defense and ST. I don't think we should let Harbaugh hold us hostage, although I am a big fan of his. Above all we need to support our team. Go Blue!!!
November 24th, 2010 at 9:55 AM ^
through his career.
He ran many different offenses. "3 yards and a cloud of dust" is more of the Bo / Woody Power I years. Bo also ran wishbone and option styles later as these became in vogue. You have to keep changing the offense because DCs will learn how to defend you eventually.
November 24th, 2010 at 1:00 PM ^
Go look at the ridiculous rushing stats tallied by the mid-70s teams, especially 1976. The Wolverines teams of the 1970s had dual-threat quarterbacks like Steve Smith and Rick Leach. Bo wasn't always this pro-style dust-cloud guy everyone thinks he is.
November 24th, 2010 at 9:57 AM ^
I agree with everything you have said about the Michigan offense being traditionaly inovative. My issue comes with the defense. When you watch a Michigan team that flat out can not tackle that is a problem. Yes we are young but this D has been consistently bad for 3 years. Thats were my problem with the break in Michigan tradition comes in is that we aren't a physical defensive team anymore. When Spielman a damn Buckeye comes out and rips Michigans defense a new one and you can't disagree..... There are no words for that. Rich Rod offensive genius but if he can't find a way to field a more physical and fundamentaly sound defense next year God help us all.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:05 AM ^
I don't know that it's fair to say Michigan can't tackle or Michigan isn't physical on defense. The have struggled at tackling because at that level, you need to use proper technique because you are not the most athletic player on the field, whereas most of these guys were basically stars at their high school and didn't need to worry so much about proper technique until this year. Imagine if you were a 6'5" 17-year-old kid and you went to the park and played basketball with a bunch of 4th graders. You wouldn't have to try as hard as you would if you went to your high school and played with the varsity basketball team. I hope that analogy makes sense, but for some of these guys that is the (probably exaggerated) situation that they are in. That is why it is so difficult for freshmen-laden teams to have success.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:20 AM ^
I see your point with the freshman having relied on pure physical talent in HS. Wich translates to now. Explain everyone else? We have opposing players constanly running through tackles or dragging would be tacklers down the field. At some point this becomes a trend and not a abberation explained by youth. We have a lot of freshman but not all.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
and out of position because you blew your assignment in the first place, you tend not to be in a good position to make a technically sound tackle.
A lot of the attempted arm tackling comes not from laziness or not knowing how to do it correctly, but from be a step too far away and realizing an arm tackle is the only chance they're going to get.
Bad tackling techinque is usually the end result of a lot of bad decisions that went ahead of it. You will be amazed at how well they wrap-up when they're in the gap waiting for the ball carrier ahead of time.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:09 AM ^
Need I remind you of Carr's last couple of years?
November 24th, 2010 at 10:13 AM ^
Yah that 06 10th ranked overall defense in the country must have been horrible to watch.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:18 AM ^
we only lost to the only 2 ranked teams we played that year.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:24 AM ^
Yah that 06 year sure was bad wouldn't want to go through that again.......
November 24th, 2010 at 10:27 AM ^
But we did get blown out by USC, it was not even a game!
November 24th, 2010 at 10:25 AM ^
It’s great to pick out the '06 team, but what about '05 and '07? What about the last 2 games of '06 when it really counted. People like to divide important games and opponents from lesser ones, so let’s go that route. Heck I remember third and long being a problem for years and years. It finally got Jim Hermann (a true Michigan Man) run out of town. Also, people talk about our horrid special teams... and I think back to such sunnier days as Iowa.. when Rivas was running for his life trying to get off a rugby punt.
Our D is bad, but let’s not totally romanticize UM defenses of the past like we always had something resembling the steel curtain. That is just factually wrong.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:31 AM ^
07 definately not a good defensive year. But if you look at 05 we the 36th overall ranked defense and 24th ranked in scores given up. I would give anything for numbers like that the last couple years.
November 24th, 2010 at 9:44 PM ^
People were, and still are, "romaticizing" the wins over Illinois and Purdue this year. And they are romaticizing "improvement" this year, which has come against such powers as UMass, Bowling Green, Notre Dame, and of course, Indiana.
As for your mention of Iowa and the rugby punt, the coach of that infamous formation was swimming with the fishes by the time Lloyd did his post-game presser. He wasn't allowed to hang around for three years.
Rodriguez chose to make Shafer the scapegoat for 2008. The real problem was his offense, which supporters of RR "romanticize" was left in the less than capable hands of Steven Threet and Nick Sheridan. EIGHTY THREE three and outs, numerous turnovers (many on UM's side of the fiels, and several taken by the opposition for defensive TD's), yet the "problem" was Shafer's defense, which was on the field for redunkulous amounts of time (although I NOW understand that with Rodriguez, time of possession is a worthless statistic), AND consistently found itself racing back onto the field to defend 20 yards of turf after yet another turnover.
People always want to point to the defense (and the defensive coordinators) as Reason 1 for the poor performance of Rodriguez's Michigan teams so far. But it is the strict adherence to The Spread, and his forcing the 3-3-5 down the troats of his DC's as the two main reasons this thing is on life support.
He's run The Spread without the proper personnel (or when he's had them, they were too young), and his three-man defensive line--built with ballerinas carefully crafted by Mike Barwis--has been CREAMED by Big Ten road grading offensive lines, and he has not adjusted and has been exposed. His special teams are "special"--if you know what I mean.
Recruiting? Well, we ARE stealing a huge amount of recruits from the MAC. But, of course, we "romanticize" that the coaching staff knows talent and is really good at finding diamonds in the rough. STARZZ BE DAMNED!
There are no "facts" when dealing with opinions--expecially in sports. But this program is in serious trouble unless we fire Rodriguez and bring in TEACHERS and coaches--and accept this hire was misguided, poorly researched, and is not working out at all in ANY way.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:52 AM ^
running QB and got absolutely shelled by the two good offenses it faced? Yeah, great to watch.
Michigan's D has had problems since 1998. Bad tackling and being out of position have been hallmarks of this D for over a decade.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:19 AM ^
Yeah. What happened to the whole "Michigan was great before Rodriguez got here! Why would he need to rebuild!?" stuff? They conveniently forget that the 2007 defense was the worst defense statistically speaking since Bo's arrival in '69. They gave up over 600 yards to Oregon. They lost to App State. They put up 91 yards of offense against OSU. Things were not fine-and-dandy when Rodriguez arrived.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:22 AM ^
So you take one year under Loyd admittedly not a good year and use one year to say M has traditionaly been bad on D?
November 24th, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^
Actually that's the opposite of what I said, considering I said it was the worst year in ~40. But that is the point... one year under Lloyd and it was the last year. That is a sign that things are sliding in the wrong direction. I don't want to take anything away from Lloyd Carr because honestly, he's a great man, a great coach (at one time) and not only is Michigan better because of him, but so is all of college football. I just think that his time had come and gone, and things were not as flowery as some would say at the time of his departure.
November 24th, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^
You say the one year at the end of Carr's career indicates a slide but I was mocked when I pointed out 06 which was only the year before? People say you can not count the 06 d but man that 07 d it's telling. Sorry if I don't understand that logic
November 24th, 2010 at 1:39 PM ^
Okay that's a fair point, but there were 3 guys on that defense who were future pro-bowlers, 4 were drafted in the first two rounds that very year and another went in the later rounds, and two more guys were drafted the next year. I think the step back in talent happened when that transition took place. Because of all those guys I just mentioned, how many of their replacements have made it/will make it in the pros, replacements that were recruited by Lloyd Carr?
November 24th, 2010 at 1:52 PM ^
Your right there has been a drop off in defensive talent thats undeniable. I think it is due to a lot of factors. My whole point here has been to refute the claims that Michigans defense had sucked long before Rich Rod got here.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:35 AM ^
innovated when installed the pro-set offense (sometimes people called it the West-coast style) and had great early success.
I believe he kept it too long which is why Michigan struggled a bit in the last Lloyd years - teams adjust and learn to defend you.
As you stated, there we troubles on the defensive side too.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:49 AM ^
Take everything for what it was... In 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2007 we played ohio for the Big Ten championship.
7 out of the last 8 years playing the last game of your regular season for a championship is alright in my books.
Coach Rod will be there soon enough too!!! There is no need to divide on why its better now and why its going to be better soon. It doesn't do any good. Everyone's point is valid, let coach Rod turn this program around and he can start racking up Big Ten championships, just like Lloyd and just like Bo.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:17 AM ^
Without looking it up, those look like the years that at least one of the teams was playing for the title. Which is nice, but you can add this year to it.
2000 we already had 2 conference losses to Purdue and NW giving up 35 and 54 points in the process. We beat the bucks and went to the Citrus bowl. Don't see how we were playing for the title that year. (just looked it up.. with the win we tied for 1st) +1 to you.
Sure didn't have the feel of playing for titles all those years.
November 24th, 2010 at 6:53 PM ^
know which Michigan you've been watching, but not tackling well goes a whole hell of a lot further back than the last 3 years.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:03 AM ^
November 24th, 2010 at 10:16 AM ^
Yes, indeedy.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:07 AM ^
I will say one thing. No matter how bad our defense is this year, they still play with a lot of heart. That is one thing that Michigan has had throughout the years, heart. And it's one thing we haven't lost with RR.
That being said, I'm not 100 percent certain RR will succeed at Michigan anymore (hence my negative point total). But, I'm also not certain he'll fail. I will say my heart is still, and always will be, Blue. RR, or Harbaugh, or whomever is coaching when I'm 80, I'll support them while they're our coach.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:40 AM ^
I agree they play with a lot of heart and there is no quit. Which I love. I just wish they were a little more fundamentaly sound in tackling.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:17 AM ^
Much like an earlier poster, I too am sick of watching this 3-3-5 crap. It is horrible, and I think even if it is run right it has no place is a power conference like the Big Ten. I think it's a great defense to combat the spread attack, and might be useful in that sense. However, when you can't stop someone from running almost 40 times in a row it's sad. You can't blame the DB's when it's the front 7 (6 in this scheme) that are responsible for the run.
Any defense that has DB's as thier leading tacklers is bad. I think RR is forcing his Defensive coaches to run his defense, and it is a fail. Having smaller, quicker guys on defense is also a fail. These ideas work really well on offense, but the other side of the ball is a horror show. If I were the buckeyes I would run up the middle every play this weekend. Tressle will be happy to call the same plays over and over just like Whisky did.
I just heard a writer from the wolverine.com talking on rivals radio this morning. He was saying that the buzz in Ann Arbor is that RR is gone if we lose this game. I thought RR was in the clear, and that he had bought himself another year already. Anybody hearing similar peeps? I guess the amount of bad phone calls after last week's game from former players was large.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:28 AM ^
on the fact that the defensive scheme may be a problem. I'm not familiar with it, beyond the fact that it has worked well at TCU and was effective at WVU. I do have a complaint about the defense being to small though. My freshman and sophmore years I remember being amazed by the fact that everyone of our defensive lineman was smaller than Ron Dayne. Yet both years they limited him by being fast and strong, and getting to him before he got any steam. 98 and 99 were some of the best defenses we fielded, using smaller lineman. I actually believe that Martin and Van bergen would have been the biggest guys on the line if they played.
I am not sure why RR earned a reputation for loving small guys. I think he just happened to like fast guys, which meant, at WVU, small guys. I think he likes his guys in shape, but has no problem if they grow bigger (see his comments about Roh adding another 15-20 lbs this coming off season).
November 24th, 2010 at 10:17 AM ^
...I'm about the same age as the OP, and I have been fortunate enough to never seen Michigan endure a losing season until two years ago.
While I support Rich Rod, I know I could be wrong, and that it could turn out that he wasn't the man to take Michigan back to the top. But that doesn't mean that Rich Rod won't have been a Michigan Man or that what he did was an affront to all that is Maize and Blue. It just will have meant that he wasn't able to achieve the success of Bo or Lloyd (there are plenty of great coaches out there who can't make that claim).
The tradition of Michigan isn't a system, or defense, or offense. It's a team that represents a university that we all care deeply about that has given me some of the fondest memories of my life and given me another reason to be proud of where I grew up and where I studied. That will always be the case whether we keep the spread, go back to three years + dust, or if we eventually resort to drawing out plays in the dirt before every snap.
I know the past few years have been tough, but I believe enough in the university and our tradition to know that we'll be back. Whatever form our return to the top takes, it will be glorious, it will be well worth it, and it will be Michigan (even if it doesn't quite resemble what Michigan looks like or has ever looked like before).
(Sorry that this post came with a little extra cheese and a side of platitude. I do that sometimes)
November 24th, 2010 at 10:19 AM ^
I love your take on how the "tradition" is defined. If it were merely based on the type of offense we ran then you could argue that we aren't very unique. We may run certain offensive schemes better than other teams but we aren't the only pro-style, I form, or spread in the nation, or even in the B10. What sets us apart are the personalities of the men that we call coach and the innovations they've brought to the university.
I also think that there isn't a clear cut obvious decision where we go from here in the program. If it were that obvious then there wouldn't be so many differing opinions. Keep RR, Fire GERG or clean house... will or won't Harbaugh come... we don't know the "right" decision. All we can do is have faith that the people with the majority of the information are making the right decision. I am not sure how I feel about RichRod & Friends but I do know that I believe that Dave Brandon is an outstanding man with a great focus on Michigan Football's future. I trust he will do what's needed to lead us to glory and continue the tradition that's been here since the beginning.
"Those who stay will be champions.." - I support my team through ups and downs, confusion, and championships. Go blue.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:34 AM ^
It's funny, as I was heading through the stadium, I was sitting in a section that was near all the pictures of the National Championship squads so I took pictures of them. I decided to post them on my blog and of course in the process of posting the pictures, I had to look up the teams and sort of what made them special. And what made them special is that they were innovators and on the cutting edge.
It's amazing that Knute Rockne gets so much credit for being innovative when Yost was just as innovative in many things and that continued with the Michigan coaches that followed him. In fact it seems that alot of the things Rockne gets credited for were tried first by a certain coach from West Virginia. You don't get to be at the top by remaining stodgy.
As people knock Rodriguez for not being a Michigan Man, I wonder if those same people would have knocked on Yost, Crisler and the rest of them for the same thing?
November 24th, 2010 at 10:46 AM ^
As people knock Rodriguez for not being a Michigan Man, I wonder if those same people would have knocked on Yost, Crisler and the rest of them for the same thing?
Yes. I hate the term "Michigan Man." If you come here to coach our team then that makes you a Michigan Man. Rich hasn't disgraced the University. He hasn't turned us into Thug U. He hasn't brought anybody to our community who isn't an upstanding citizen. He has tried and been very patient with our horrible media (something no Michigan Man would do). He has tried to be more transparent (something I really appreciate). I just wish he could be himself, let his own personality shine through. I used to wish that I would someday work for UofM in some capacity, but now I am not so sure. I would like to work at a place which allows for employees to work within the structures and rules of the entity, but also allows for employees to be themselves. Diversity and competition drive innovation. We don't need to assimilate Rich. He is a grown man. He can cut his own path here. I think we should have allowed him that.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:04 AM ^
that people think it is a literal term. If I ask 10 people (and I have) where Bo, Crisler, and Yost were from, they are wrong 90% of the time. Yost is the most fun, I have actually been yelled at over him. They seemed to feel I set them up. I'm innocent, of course, I am a Michigan Man, after all. BTW, most of them can't name Oosterbaan as the coach who actually was from Michigan.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:45 AM ^
College football has evolved alot since the days of Bo and Woody and allows for choices. The current Michigan choice is for RR and a high-powered spread offense trending to be like Oregon versus the power game of a Wisconsin or a Stanford. We are there with our offense. However Michigan needs to make a massive correction on the defensive side of the ball after this season. This is no longer a choice but an absolute requirement. The offense can get a little better on its' own next year but will improve even more if we get better on defense. There is no reason with improved coaching, a well executed scheme, improved player skills, maturing of talent, and priority in this area that we can not have at least a 60th ranked defense next year and a top 20 defense in 2012. Illinois has shown how a program can improve quickly with a good defense and marginal offense and Oregon shows how you can have a decent defense and a great offense and go undefeated. We will get there but we have to adapt and make the necessary changes to move in the right direction to become the "Leaders and Best" again.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:48 AM ^
I am more intersested in seeing what happens with the bowl game than the battle with the bucknuts. We know what we have for them, but when we have the 15 practices do we see any improvement with these young defenders. that to me will be a better picture of the future, if we get totally outplayed there I would worry, but during the regular season you dont get a lot of time to coach up young replacements which is what we have.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^
*** This is not about Rodriguez. He's another issue. ***
It seems to me that many older Michigan fans have hazy memories when it comes to the '70s and (to a lesser extent) the '80s. Too often "3 yards and a cloud of dust" turned into "2 yards and a crowd of defenders" when the very predictable SMASHMOUTH offense went up against an out-of-conference team in a bowl game. Did the Michigan coaches take a moment to reconsider their approach? No sir -- keep a-runnin' that ball!
Jeopardy time: 1-9 (Answer: What was the Big Ten's Rose Bowl record in the '70s?)
November 24th, 2010 at 11:20 AM ^
Back then, a Big 10 Championship and a prestigious bowl appearance were a respectable goal. Today, that won't buy a cup of coffee on the national scene.
I do not know the '70's bowls off the top of my head, but the answer to the question is easy - not one single win, none, nada, zip. You won't find a bigger fan of Bo than me, but it is not 1970 today.
Welcome to 2010, folks.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^
You still need to win the Big 10 to have any consideration for the national picture, so the two aren't necessarily exclusive. The problem is a similar problem that the Wings seem to have. Their team can win them the regular season fairly well but isn't grindy enough for the playoffs.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:39 AM ^
| 1979 | USC | 17 | Michigan | 10 | |||||
| 1978 | Washington | 27 | Michigan | 20 | |||||
| 1977 | USC | 14 | Michigan | 6 | |||||
| 1976 | UCLA | 23 | Ohio State | 10 | |||||
| 1975 | USC | 18 | Ohio State | 17 | |||||
| 1974 | Ohio State | 42 | USC | 21 | |||||
| 1973 | USC | 42 | Ohio State | 17 | |||||
| 1972 | Stanford | 13 | Michigan | 12 | |||||
| 1971 | Stanford | 27 | Ohio State | 17 | |||||
| 1970 | USC | 10 | Michigan | 3 |
Winners are on the LEFT. B10 teams are bolded.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^
First of all, great post. We need more stuff like this right now.
Bo took a boatload of shit during his middle years, too; a lot of "fans" were extremely unhappy with his bowl record. For a couple of years, a lot of "fans" thought it was the epitome of humor to say that Linda Lovelace was going to be the new head coach because she "doesn't choke on the big ones." Bo didn't really become a beloved figure at Michigan until Texas A&M offered him a job and people suddenly realized how much it would suck to lose him.
RR hasn't accomplished anything at Michigan yet, but it would really suck to lose him right now, too. The choices in another HC are basically two: hire someone who learned offense from RR, which to me looks like a lot of wasted paperwork and risking the loss of a lot of recruits for a paralell hire. The other choice is to hire a pro set coach and have to go backwards again before going forward.
Basically, the people who are so pissed at losing that they want RR fired may get more losing if they get what they want. Then, because they got what they wanted, they will say the same things about the new coach that they call "excuses" when someone says them about RR.
Funny how things go in a big circle sometimes.
November 24th, 2010 at 12:04 PM ^
all the times I told Carr haters to be careful what they wish for. I do remember a couple, of course, and yep, they are Rodriguez haters too. I am far too classy to mention that, of course. I prefer to rub their faces in it.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:22 PM ^
Bo Schembechler after the '89 Notre Dame loss (Rocket Ismael 2 kick return TDs):
Media dolt: " Who coaches the special teams?"
Bo: (With less than a nanosecond delay) "BO SCHEMBECHLER coaches the special teams!!"
See, that's how you take responsiblity and establish a chain of responsiblity and command.
November 25th, 2010 at 10:10 AM ^
Bo could be nasty to his staff and the players, but he also respected some of the things that had come before him. Not playing styles, but things like numbers and banquets and former players and academics. He also changed a lot of things, but because he was a very successful coach he was forgiven those things.
Carr may not have been the world's greatest play caller, but he never passed the buck and he also stood for academics and Michigan traditions. Of course, he had the example of Moeller just behind his back until the 97 season. The media hounded him out for a little drinking and ranting--50 miles from campus--after winning 3/4 of his games.
RichRod swept into office, he cleaned out a lot of traditions, stripped memories off the walls, started/brought back some new/old traditions. Fine. He didn't bring the wins to back that up. Not fine. With Tate and DRob he should be #1 or #2 on both polls. He neglected the defense for whatever reason so instead Michigan is number 60.
That means RichRod does not get a break. In fact, he burned his breaks already with the QC scandal--and for Michigan that is a huge scandal, almost as bad as the fab 5. Then he piled on with the bank loan scandal.
With RichRod's performance, every single decision against "The MIchigan Way" gets torched. Every alumni who walks through the Hall or the locker area, and see one thing missing or moved since (insert a date anywhere between 1970 and 2000 here) jumps on the "RichRod is destroying the tradition" bandwagon. Fair? No. Real life? Yes.
RichRod could have been the next Bo, and the latest tradition touchstone for Michigan for the next 60 years. Instead he is going to have a three season resume for why he should be an offensive coordinator somewhere.