Why did Brandon Fire Rich?
1. The record. I'm not going to list the details we all know, and pile on. But it obviously wasn't good. Was that the primary, or overriding factor?
2. The atmosphere around the program. Fans, alumni unhappy, media circling, national perception. Had it just gotten to the point that it had all gotten so ugly, that it didn't seem like there was enough momentum to turn it around, or fight through it?
3. The other 95%. Brandon says the W-L and the stuff we saw was only a small part; so he did like the whole picture?Maybe he didn't like either the state of the program, the talent level, or what he saw behind the scenes; whether in practice, or in interactions with players, staff, the department, the public. Everything seemed like it was good, but was Brandon saying he was seeing stuff we can't? Because if he thought 2 and 3 were great, wouldn't he put up with #1 against all fan pressure?
It's surely some combo of any number of things, but now that we've had a day away from it, we can consider why it didn't work, and why Brandon came to the conclusion he did (whether you agree with it or not).
January 6th, 2011 at 10:12 AM ^
He got fired because his record was atrocious. That is all. Lock the thread.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:15 AM ^
Winning cures all. I know that RR had to deal with insider BS at the program, but fans are unhappy because of our record in conference.
I honestly believe that if we won or were strongly competitive against OSU or Miss St., fans would have been happier/ RR would still be here.
Look at Auburn (Cam) or OSU's (ebaygate) issues. Nobody cares, the media is brushing it off, and it's not a big deal. Imagine both of these programs were at historic lows in their on-field performance. Do you think the media, fans, and alumni would react the same?
January 6th, 2011 at 10:17 AM ^
Could have been the fact that anyone with any knowledge of football more than JV could tell that the team regressed, again, and are not anywhere near good enough. Fundamentals were a joke, and being at the Gator Bowl I can tell you the plays were predictable. Both on offense and defense. Young or not, these kids have played football for years and should be able to comprehend more than this. It was the coaching.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:26 AM ^
When the first offensive play was run some 5 weeks after the last play, I told my daughter it was a hand off to Vincent Smith for no gain, sure enough, they ran the same play. Way too predictable. Defences knew what we were going to do, especially without Tate backing up, they knew Denard was not going to be unleashed to run wild. I am thankful that in hind sight they did this, because burning a year of Devon's eligibility could have been worse for the program than any coaching change if Denard leaves.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:32 AM ^
Gotta believe that the assistant coaches where the one's most out of their league and depth. We saw only RR, but the team on the field spent most of their time being coached by the assistants RR brought with him. Bet they were the real issue and the problem that RR did not see nor fix.....
January 6th, 2011 at 10:36 AM ^
In my opinion, you're statement is dead nuts accurate. And to put an even finer point on it: Tony fucking Gibson.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^
The offense became predictable. If the opposing defense would just play their gaps and not get out of position we were very defensible. That is why the better teams handled us. Our defense regressed and was not fundamentally sound. You can not disregard that whole aspect of the game. I wonder if during the evaluation richrod was not willing to take blame for the D or willing to give up some control of the scheme to whole new defensive staff.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:30 AM ^
kind of guy that would give up control for ~1/2 of his team to a new DC. He has a particular style and team scheme (Barwis, high tempo...) that wouldn't mesh with a new DC and the DC's assistants.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:19 AM ^
Every day that goes by without a coach is another day closer to Brady Joke as the next coach at Michigan.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^
I'd be happier with Les Smiles, myself! Or even K. C. Keeler Instinct!
January 6th, 2011 at 10:24 AM ^
Much of the toxic atmosphere, as evinced by the media and heard in many conversations with people not in the know, came about from an attitude of "I want it to be so, therefore it is so." Add a fair amount of Michigan man BS; stir in a helping of regional prejudice; mix a huge helping of pride, and you have a rather untenable situation. This is not to downplay the on-the-field failures, but to
BTW, this morning I saw, on Channel 4 (Detroit) a claim by one Katrina Hancock that Rodriguez approached an unnamed university offering to completely cut ties with UM if they would offer him their head coaching position. This supposedly happened very recently. However, their link to the story appears to have been withdrawn as of 10:00 (if it, indeed, ever existed). I mention this because the story itself, along with the tone of Hancock's reporting, was the typical sanctimonious rot that spews from our local media outlets. I can only imagine the tale disappeared from Channel 4's site because someone realized it was just one more piece of s**t with no factual basis.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^
something in DB's ear on the sidelines and DB wasn't smiling like Demens ...
January 6th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^
If the short term health of the program (i.e. How good are we going to be next year?) was a deciding factor, then it makes no sense to fire Rodriguez after three years. However, after the Penn State game (a ten point loss on the road to a team with higher expectations this year that had blown us out two years in a row) the meltdown that occurred in the fanbase proved to me that an enormous portion of the folks following the team were not interested in progress or reasonable expectations, but rather were just pissed that we weren't winning big already.
I never heard Stanford fans ranting about Harbaugh's losing record three years in or how his 90th ranked defense showed that any progress on offense was irrelevant because he had proven he couldn't hire/retain a successful DC. For whatever reason, anger about what had happened (i.e. the bumps along the way in the rebuilding process) overwhelmed the many positive steps and the upward trajectory of the program. There is still a (quite sizeable) portion of the fanbase that remains convinced the only reason we went 3-9 a few years ago is because Rich Rodriguez told Mallett and Boren to suck it before heading to said fans' house to pee in their mouths.
I think Brandon realized that even if Rodriguez won ten games next year there would be division and for that reason he didn't want Rodriguez as the long term face of the school. As such, I agree that it makes sense to fire him now rather than get backed into a corner after a good season makes him that much tougher to get rid of, especially if you can hire another elite coach with Michigan ties to quiet the naysayers (especially after he walks into a ridiculously good young roster and has the kind of immediate success Rodriguez was poised to have next season after doing so much heavy lifting).
Of course, if you make that move and replace him with Brady Hoke simply because he coached the d-line under Lloyd Carr, then Brandon is a shitty athletic director who would rather try to bamboozle us with an unproven head coach than tell the crappy fans to shut up and realize the situation Rodriguez walked into and how long it takes to realistically improve that situation.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:49 AM ^
I never heard Stanford fans ranting about Harbaugh's losing record three years in or how his 90th ranked defense showed that any progress on offense was irrelevant because he had proven he couldn't hire/retain a successful DC.
That's because Stanford had wins against Oregon and USC and you could actually see evidence of Stanford competing with the top of the Pac-10.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:06 AM ^
Also, the USC team they beat went 5-4 in the Pac 10 with a true freshman QB. Not exactly the top of the conference (they finished tied for 5th and went to the Emerald Bowl). They were no better than the ND team we beat this year that dominated Miami in their bowl game.
If you really think the difference in perception is that one win over Oregon then you don't talk to a lot of Michigan fans. From day one the overriding attitude, especially among casual fans, has been "How did Rodriguez screw this up?" From running off players to forcing his system on players, countless theories overshadowed the reality that our roster Rodriguez had for his first game was terrible.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^
7-2 in conference and 11-2 overall and #3 in the country. After 2009, Harbaugh was 2-1 against USC and coming off of a win against the conference champion Oregon. The perception is that he can compete with his rivals.
But it's ok if you have the monopoly on talking to all of the Michigan fans
January 6th, 2011 at 11:31 AM ^
John David Booty broke his hand (he would miss the next few games) but was not taken out of the game and continued to throw the football. He threw 4 second half interceptions with the busted hand and essentially handed (fantastic pun intended) the game to Stanford.
If Pryor had busted his hand and continued to chuck the ball right to our DB's a few years ago, I imagine we would have beaten them to.
If he could compete with his rivals, why did he have a losing record against Cal at that time (his, you know, actual rival) including losing a game that could have put them second in the Pac 10 in year three instead of sending Stanford to the Sun Bowl? If Rodriguez can't, why did he beat Notre Dame two years in a row, despite the fact that they finished both seasons with a better record than we did?
See, anybody can make an argument. The fact that our fans felt they needed to argue in order to dismiss 3 < 5 < 7 as a clear sign of progress (and progress doesn't mean "being as good as I want the team to be") illustrates the kind of problem I think Rodriguez was facing and the reason Brandon thought it was better to cut bait now rather than give Rodriguez a chance to win big next year and secure the job without putting any end to the disgruntlement throughout the fanbase.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:46 AM ^
Oh that gameJohn David Booty broke his hand (he would miss the next few games) but was not taken out of the game and continued to throw the football. He threw 4 second half interceptions with the busted hand and essentially handed (fantastic pun intended) the game to Stanford.
And Stanford was apparently playing a redshirt sophomore backup quarterback who had only 3 passes in his career. And USC surrendered 4 sacks, more than they had all season, and only had 95 yards rushing. (source)
Please - stop trying to compare Michigan and Stanford - you are only making it worse for RR. As I mentioned above, is it really fair or reasonable to expect that Michigan would go 12-1 next year with a blowout BCS bowl win? That's the bar you're setting by continuing to make this comparison.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:46 AM ^
and this is my honest belief, if RR had a winning record against either MSU or OSU and still had the same overall record, he's still the coach. Maybe you're right and he was doomed from the beginning and people were looking ofr excuses. But the fact that he was 0-6 in those games killed what little chance he had to still be the coach here.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:16 AM ^
Stanford defense 2007-2009 under JH:
Points / game: 28.3, 27.4, 26.5
Yards / game: 435.42, 379.58, 402.69
Avg point differential: -8.7, -1.1, +9
Michigan defense 2008-2010 under RR:
Points / game: 28.9, 27.5, 35.2
Yards / game: 366.92, 393.33, 450.77
Avg point differential: -8.6, +2, -2.4
The trends in the first two years are similar, but that third year really bottomed out for Michigan's defense, especially in scoring and point differential.
Also, it's hard for Stanford fans to complain about 4-8, 5-7, 8-5 when their previous 5 years were 2-9, 4-7, 4-7, 5-6, 1-11.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:25 AM ^
One guy was hailed as one of the best coaches in football and the other got fired, even though both inherited similar situations if you look at the actual teams/rosters they got a chance to coach. Those numbers are also paired with an offense that went from 20.2 points and 290.8 yards/game in year one to 32.8 ppg and 488.7 yards per game with a unit that returns 9 starters next season.
The only difference I see in their resumes is that one guy got a shot at year four (turned out pretty awesome and the defense improved tremendously with another year of seasoning and a new coordinator) and the other guy didn't because "We're Michigan!" and so our fans decided to look for every argument to prove that 3 < 5 < 7 doesn't count as progress/improvement even when you are playing a significantly more difficult schedule.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:37 AM ^
I think it's reasonable to draw some similarities between the first 3 years of JH's tenure at Stanford, and the first 3 years of RR's tenure at Michigan. However, I think it's also important to recognize the differences, especially in the 3rd year and especially considering the context of both programs.
Certainly, the general atmosphere and fan expectations are very different at Stanford than at Michigan, and that made it easier for Stanford's AD to keep JH around. And 8-5 was the best record Stanford had since 2001.
Nevertheless, it's hard to say that Michigan in 2010 is the same as Stanford in 2009, and I believe it's even harder to argue that Michigan under RR in 2011 will be like Stanford in 2010. Do you honestly expect 12-1 and a blowout win in a BCS bowl next year, with your only loss coming to a non-rival team playing for the national championship?
The more people compare JH to RR, the more you cement this year's Stanford team as the benchmark for RR next year. I don't believe that's fair or realistic to RR, so my suggestion is that we stop trying to suggest that Michigan under RR is just like Stanford under JH, "except for a 4th year."
January 6th, 2011 at 11:55 AM ^
Look, Harbaugh is an excellent coach that did a great job there. Maybe we don't win a BCS bowl next year, but I think it is hard to argue that we aren't significantly better and it isn't like Rodriguez hasn't done this before when given a chance to actually build a team into year 4 and beyond.
My point is that one guy was praised even before that fourth year as one of the best coaches in the country while the other just got fired (and the one who got fired had already shown he could build a BCS caliber program if given time to do so). The only reason for this gaping disparity is that one fanbase (because of prior struggles) took a realistic view of their roster while the other (due to years of uninterrupted success) failed to do so and blamed the coach, as if Rodriguez's screw ups were so bad that an awesome Michigan team could lose to Toledo. Then, even when the situation on the ground became apparent, the patience buzzword disappeared when it turned out patience required you to watch the team you like lose football games, some times by a lot of points, especially against better football teams.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^
you still making this comparison? Seriously. Stanford vs. Michigan pre JH and RR. Get a grip.
January 6th, 2011 at 1:17 PM ^
Stanford had a better roster than Michigan when the two coaches took over. Don't even try and say Michigan was set up to win. Just because Stanford had a losing record before Harbaugh got there does not mean his team's roster was worse. He had young talent on his team. In year 3 Harbaugh had the luxury of playing upperclass players who contributed heavily. RR did not have this luxury.
Purple is one of the only people who continually tries to use reason on this issue. Most Michigan people cover their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears and say "but, but it's Stanford versus Michigan". That's bullshit. Being Michigan or Stanford does not change the circumstances that the two coaches were faced with. The rosters tell the whole story. Stanford was left with a better football team than Michigan.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:45 AM ^
However, after the Penn State game (a ten point loss on the road to a team with higher expectations this year that had blown us out two years in a row) the meltdown that occurred in the fanbase proved to me that an enormous portion of the folks following the team were not interested in progress or reasonable expectations, but rather were just pissed that we weren't winning big already.
I never got this either, especially the certainty that McGloin would suck. Other teams try hard to win, too. Michigan doesn't win any games based on its proud history, and the truth is that PSU had beaten the crap out of us for two years, and we were playing a white out game in Happy Valley. That is not an easy place to win, and we lost by 10 points. I never understood how so many people felt that that games was the turning point for them. At the beginning of the season I had us at 8-4 with losses to PSU, OSU, Iowa, and Wisconsin. The only one I got wrong was that I thought we'd beat Sparty.
I certainly didn't anticipate getting destryed by Wisconsin, OSU, and eventually MSU (NTMSU), but then I don't think anyone knew how much the decimated secondary would affect us.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^
January 6th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^
Any other coach? Are we that arrogant?
January 6th, 2011 at 12:39 PM ^
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat the hell are you talking about?
January 6th, 2011 at 10:50 AM ^
If Dave Brandon doesn't come out with the best coach since Bo Schembechler, he's going to have a similar stint to Rodriguez. I hope he realizes this. This program is on the edge of an absolutely catastrophic meltdown that should (but won't) shut up the over-60 crowd for a while. They got what they wanted. There's a damn good chance it will fail and fail hard.
God I hope I'm wrong but this is an awful time to be looking for a coach. This has Urban to not Notre Dame written all over it.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:11 AM ^
Don't devolve this into personal demographics.
I'm a middle-aged, white, professional Victors Club member, who attended Michigan with Rick Leach and with Bo Schembechler as our coach and Don Canham as our Athletic Director.
There is no more ardent defender of Rich Rodriguez than me.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:14 AM ^
Thank you for posting that message. I appreciate it. But you have to admit (?) that there is a very vocal, wealthy, and senior minority of alumni donors that were ardent detractors of Rodriguez. Maybe I overestimate their pull, but maybe not.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:32 AM ^
Older fans supported Rich more than younger one's. The reaction from students in the paper yesterday didn't really do anything to out those numbers in doubt.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^
I don't remember seeing that but I have been talking more about "quality" versus quantity. And by quality I only mean the strength of their message in the athletic department. I would guess that the most influential alumni are those that give big and have previous/current actual ties (as opposed to myself, a 30-something who gives small and has no contacts within).
January 6th, 2011 at 11:27 AM ^
While I disagree with broad generalizations and stereotypes, there is some evidence (polling data) that there was a significant shift in support away from RR among Michigan fans 65+ this season (from 65% wanting him to continue in May, to only 18% in December). Interestingly, however, there was also a significant shift in support away from RR among African-American fans over that same time period (from 75% wanting him to continue in May, to only 40% in December).
January 6th, 2011 at 2:47 PM ^
To my understanding you are in the minority.
To other responses in this thread: let's be honest, there could be a 10% reduction in student ticket orders and nobody would care about that specifically. The people with money are the people whose opinion counts.
Also I'm very angry/depressed and only 35% rational right now.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:50 AM ^
Because the old white people with all the money didnt like him or that dag gum run around QB. I only consider Rich here for 2 years that first year was a scratch. Also going into the season I thought we had a 6-6 team, don't you remember the how many wins to save his job posts most said 6 or 7 wins so don't kid yourself and say it was performance based. Please go get a coach like Guz Mahlzon or another innovator, not Les Miles or Brady Hoke PLEASE
January 6th, 2011 at 11:11 AM ^
I highly doubt race had anything to do with this decision. Leach ran around too and nobody complained because those teams won. RR was done in because he didn't win enough, couldn't beat the big rivals, and fielded atrocious defenses. Alumni are not going to be happy with 30+ point losses in 3 straight games, and there simply weren't enough positive growth signs, especially on defense, at the end of the year to put much faith in a leap forward next year. Maybe if RR could have promised a big-time DC like Casteel would come he might have been saved, but even then that was a problem.
Alums expect winning, not a white QB in a pro-style offense.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:43 PM ^
really talking about race? I want to slap you. Please, stop posting.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:50 AM ^
MSU and OSU (and Wisconsin!) had 11-1 seasons, while the Big 10 went 2-5 (at the time) in bowl games.
Iowa tanked to 8-5, MSU gets blown out in a bowl (neither team was really THAT strong)
Notre Dame, under a first year coach, showed improvement over the course of the season and won their bowl game.
NTMSU beat Michigan handily in the 2nd year of their coach's tenure.
Stanford went 12-1 this year and won handily in their bowl game.
Nebraska (member of Big 10 next year, and considered to be one of the stronger teams in the conference) loses to a mid-level Pac 10 Washington team (that got blown out by Stanford, btw).
Even Stanford's bowl loss last year, in JH's 3rd year, was much more competitive (against Oklahoma) without Andrew Luck (didn't play due to injury). Heck, even Northwestern's bowl loss this year was more competitive without Dan Persa. What would the Gator Bowl have looked like without Denard?
It's hard not to compare Michigan's situation under RR unfavorably to those competitive benchmarks. For a business mind like DB's, I have to think the competitive context played a significant role as well.
January 6th, 2011 at 1:31 PM ^
If you look at the whole context then you also have to consider what each coach was working with. Stanford in year three was lead by a roster that fielded most of its players from the previous coaching regime. Michigan did not haver that luxury.
The previous coaching regime at Michigan failed to produce the kind of players that could contribute by their junior and senior years. This is the most telling stat of all but no one mentions this. The rosters of the two teams are different so if you don't acknowledge this then you miss the reason why Michigan was not as competitive with the higher ranked teams. The higher ranked teams had a huge advantage over Michigan. Both have talented players but Michigan's players were too young. No team wins with the kind of youth that Michigan was fielding this year.
I believe RR did a much better rebuilding job than Harbuagh. Stanford had the players that Michigan did not. RR had to rebuild both the offense AND the defense. Stanford was throwing out players in year 3 that would have started whether Harbaugh was the coach or not. RR will show what a big mistake Michigan made, so I say hold off the judgement of RR coached teams until he has a team that has more upperclassmen than underclassmen. The future will be very telling, watch how successful he will be. Don't give me the bullshit that he couldn't do it at Michigan because he would have if he was given the oppurtunity to improve on the mistakes of the previous coaching regime.
January 6th, 2011 at 2:54 PM ^
Kept the players in the program, and developed them.
Though I still think this truckload of young talent Walt Harris recruited in one recruiting year (he doesn't get credit/blame for the first one he had, right?) is laughable. No matter how many times you say it. And no one was saying there had to be a better record at Michigan in his third year. Keeping games close and not getting killed every game (and winning a few big) is what Stanford did that Michigan didn't. Not one more game.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:58 AM ^
Lots of really good discussion on here. This is a board with a lot of really bright people. That definitely isn't the case regularly on line.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:05 AM ^
I agree with you wholeheartedly. This is exactly why I put much more stock in the thoughts/opinions of the MGoCommunity than the average fan base and media.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:08 AM ^
I agree. Unfortunately, rarely does logic beat out the bleating masses.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:18 AM ^
It is very simple, once Harbaugh started winning that was the end of RR. Fans assumed that because he was a "MIchigan Man" that he would run through walls to get back to UM, regardless of what he said about Michigan a few years ago. Michigan Man blood is not as think as most people want to think. Fans were making up reasons why he would (Standfords lack of excitement, wants to bring UM back to glory, follow in Bo's footsteps), come back. I thought most of us would have learned from the Les Miles situation. Because most (not me) thought that we had a great option for a coach change in JH, RR had to go. I will bet 10.00 that if fans knew Brady Hoke was going to be the most available option, fans would be singing a different tune. Fans are not only the guilty party, the media had JH a lock to come back to UM which helped to mold public opinion. This is just like politics.
RR record: 15-22
MIchigan Men as coach: 0-2 ( I hope im wrong)
January 6th, 2011 at 11:28 AM ^
Sure, there is a faction that would have never accepted him regardless, but they simply wouldn't have mattered if the record in wins and losses were reversed. "Fit" is just one of the many lame assertions about RR that are peripheral to the real problem. If the first year had been 9-3 and the second year 8-4 and 2010 had been 10-2—with victories over MSU and OSU in the bargain—people complaining about "fit" would have been laughed off the internet.
And RR didn't lose so many games because he didn't "fit", either. He lost because of the reasons that many teams lose—lousy defense, poor special teams, offense only sporadically potent, and fundamentals of blocking and tackling that are consistently poor. He inherited significant roster issues, but was able to only partially remedy them due to circumstance and recruiting decisions that didn't work out. And perhaps most importantly, he made the single worst hire at the coordinator position on either side of the ball at any major program in the last 10 years.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:30 AM ^
Honestly Rich Rod is a very good person and a great coach but three factors did him in:
1) Zero support from media or the athletic department - one or the other is survivable. Both is not - if anyone believes that the compliance issues with the NCAA weren't leaked by someone INTERNAL to the athletic department then they are sorely mistaken. Rich has been on the hit list since day one.
2) Lack of traditional level of talent - Michigan usually has a cup board full of talent. I don't know if it was a ton of negative recruiting at the end of Lloyds tenure but Michigan was not really as deep as they traditionally are. I believe schemes can make up for it so I don't weigh it as heavily as others but it is a reality.
3) Rich's own obstinence - honestly the guy is insanely stubborn. Must use Vincent Smith at all costs, hiring GERG and then MAKING GERG run the 3-3-5. Inability to actually adjust to Miss State's fire blitz by rolling the qb TO THE OTHER SIDE.
If Rich was winning - 3 would matter less. It didn't matter at WVU when he would lose to South Florida or Pittsburgh for no explainable reason other than his inability to adjust his scheme to fit the situation.
However would it surprise if he went to UConn recruited his players and kicked our ass. Not in the least...
January 6th, 2011 at 12:03 PM ^
There are only two statements that can be completely wrong here. The first one is that record has nothing to do with it. Of course our record has everything to do with his firing. If we had been winning, the fan base would be much happier and firing him would be a PR nightmare. End of.
The second is that it was all about his record. It clearly wasn't. If RR had fit in better and if JH hadn't succeeded so much that the grass looked a lot greener with a Stanford HC, then a lot more people would have thought RR deserved another year. DB does not make his decisions in a vacuum. No one does.
Everything else is speculation and only very few insiders know something close to the complete picture (what were the alternatives, what options was RR offered, what has been said before and during the season, who is putting pressure on DB, etc).
This is why I think this discussion has been excellent, and the OP was well worded to initiate it. Thank you all for restoring my faith in our fan base, which has gone a bit off the hinges during a difficult time. Go blue!
January 6th, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^
Why did Brandon fire Rich Rod?
Occam's razor. The simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.
Rich Rod lost too many games. He lost all the big games. He lost by a lot. He had no defense. He had no kicking game. The so-called improvement on offense (that never really scored a lot of points against good competition) consisted entirely of one player. After OSU and Miss State, Brandon's email in-box must have been a sight to behold.
Because of all that the fanbase and alumni were on the verge of revolt. They were starting to vote with their feet and their wallets. When, aftet two years with no bowl game anywhere, Michigan cannot sell out its full alotment of tickets to a New Year's Day bowl game in Florida, something is seriously wrong. From that, one can make a pretty educated guess about the emails Brandon was getting that threatened the ticket base in Mich Stadium.
If UM does not sell out UM Stadium the whole house collapses. DB knows that. No way could Brandon toletate in 2011 a repeat of the 2009 OSU game where there seemed to be as much scarlet & gray in Michigan Stadium as maize & blue and the S&G was more vocal. Brandon had no choice but to terminate.
Pretty simple, really.