• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Rich Rodriguez (official thread of last laughs)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Best Buckeye;1581760; said:
Would you want to be the next coach coming in if you know you have only two years to turn the program around? especially if you are not a spread offense coach?
I don't [think] UM would can a coach after 2 years no matter who he is. NO, Three years at least.
Click to expand...
Being serious, I think the "you have to give a guy a certain amount of time" principle is correct in general, but not absolute. Even in the first year or two, there are some vague, minimum requirements of competitiveness and/or improvement that have to be met, especially at a historically successful program. Suppose Tressel retired after next year, and the guy OSU hired to replace him went 0-12 his first year, and 0-12 his second year. Do you think he would or should get a third year? No way. I'm not sure he'd get a second. UM under Rodriguez hasn't been as bad as 0-12, and I think Rodriguez will get a third year, at minimum. But I don't think three years is, or should be, automatic regardless of performance in the first two at UM or anywhere else, and I do think you have to evaluate performance the first couple of years, to some extent. How much Rodriguez has flirted with the vague, minimum requirements for the first two years is hard to say, but I think he's in the ballpark.
Bucklion;1582202; said:
Thing is they seem to think they were the best program in the country and magically dropped off recently or something. Ain't so, and hasn't been for a while. Carr had a good record, but in the 13 years he coached, he lost at least 3 games in 10 of those. By contrast, with Bo it was 7 times in 21 years, most of those towards the end after his glory run of the 70's...
Click to expand...
I'm not saying Carr was as good of a coach as Schembechler, but some of that "drop-off" was due to scholarship limits. There were no limits until '73, schollies were limited at 105 from '73-'77, limited at 95 from '78-'91, and limited at 85 from '92-present. It was considerably easier for programs like OSU and UM to dominate their conference when they had the option of taking players they didn't really need, just to prevent Wisconsin and MSU from getting them.
 
Upvote 0
I imagine the juco conversation didn't go over too well with admissions.

More notes from Tuesday?s Big Ten teleconference

? Rodriguez said he?d like to sign ?a junior-college guy or two at certain positions,? but that isn?t likely to happen because of Michigan?s admission policies.

?There?s not a lot of transferrable credits for junior-college guys to come in here,? Rodriguez said. ?Sometimes people look at that as a quicker fix. That?s not going to really be an option for us just because of the academic differences.?
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Merih;1583021; said:
Why would you say that during a conference? Basically says that "hey current players, I have no faith in you, I'm gonna go the JuCo route to fill these gaping holes. PS You Suck."
Click to expand...
If he follows his MO, he's likely already started the out-grouping of those that he'd be looking to replace anyway. It's also a convenient way to pre-establish that any potential struggles aren't really his fault. In both respects, these comments are just a standard part of his process.
 
Upvote 0
LightningRod;1583019; said:
I imagine the juco conversation didn't go over too well with admissions.
Click to expand...

So, i guess, according to this statement, that he would have told J. Turner to "Take a Hike" if those ultra-high admission standards actually made him go to JUCO if he didn't graduate from HS...........oh, wait.:sneaky:
 
Upvote 0
LightningRod;1583019; said:
I imagine the juco conversation didn't go over too well with admissions.
Click to expand...

Admissions probably told him to get bent.

Merih;1583021; said:
Why would you say that during a conference? Basically says that "hey current players, I have no faith in you, I'm gonna go the JuCo route to fill these gaping holes. PS You Suck."
Click to expand...

This jackass doesn't develop players. either they develop on their own are you get a massive bucket of fail, like what scUM is currently experiencing.
 
Upvote 0
zincfinger;1582752; said:
Being serious, I think the "you have to give a guy a certain amount of time" principle is correct in general, but not absolute. Even in the first year or two, there are some vague, minimum requirements of competitiveness and/or improvement that have to be met, especially at a historically successful program. Suppose Tressel retired after next year, and the guy OSU hired to replace him went 0-12 his first year, and 0-12 his second year. Do you think he would or should get a third year? No way. I'm not sure he'd get a second. UM under Rodriguez hasn't been as bad as 0-12, and I think Rodriguez will get a third year, at minimum. But I don't think three years is, or should be, automatic regardless of performance in the first two at UM or anywhere else, and I do think you have to evaluate performance the first couple of years, to some extent. How much Rodriguez has flirted with the vague, minimum requirements for the first two years is hard to say, but I think he's in the ballpark.
Click to expand...

You've got a good point. I've always said that you have to give a guy a certain amount of time. And, for some reason, I always said that you give a guy 2 years, and then that 3rd year is when it really counts. (Basically, he gets 3 years.) But you're right - if a coach doesn't win a game in a year, perhaps it's time to jump ship before he gets a chance to really screw things up. Especially in college football, when a team like Michigan should beat a team like Toledo 11 times out of 10.

But I think an important factor in determining whether to keep or let go of a coach is his trend. RR started with 3 wins, and he's already up to 5 wins this season. Even if Michigan doesn't win another game this year, I think that the improvement (however slight it is) warrants a third year. In 2010, they might win 7 or 8 games - still, not "great" by Michigan standards, but the trend, in my opinion, is impressive. However, 3-4 consecutive seasons of 7 or 8 wins after that, and you need to find yourself a new coach. I think that RR needs to be winning 10 games consistently by his 4th year to find his job at Michigan safe.
 
Upvote 0
Zurp;1583852; said:
You've got a good point. I've always said that you have to give a guy a certain amount of time. And, for some reason, I always said that you give a guy 2 years, and then that 3rd year is when it really counts. (Basically, he gets 3 years.) But you're right - if a coach doesn't win a game in a year, perhaps it's time to jump ship before he gets a chance to really screw things up. Especially in college football, when a team like Michigan should beat a team like Toledo 11 times out of 10.

But I think an important factor in determining whether to keep or let go of a coach is his trend. RR started with 3 wins, and he's already up to 5 wins this season. Even if Michigan doesn't win another game this year, I think that the improvement (however slight it is) warrants a third year. In 2010, they might win 7 or 8 games - still, not "great" by Michigan standards, but the trend, in my opinion, is impressive. However, 3-4 consecutive seasons of 7 or 8 wins after that, and you need to find yourself a new coach. I think that RR needs to be winning 10 games consistently by his 4th year to find his job at Michigan safe.
Click to expand...


All good points as well. I tend to agree more with your post. Even the slightest of improvements, going from 3 wins to 5 or 6 wins, will definately warrant a third year, especially if they hit a bowl game. His third year is where he needs to hit 8 or 9 wins and a significant bowl game to see another year.

I also think there is a very good chance he is gone after three. Not only trying to get 8 or 9 wins next season, he has to win over a new AD, probably get at least a win against Ohio State (or at least show some competitiveness - getting blown out 3 times won't be good) and finally Get to and win a significant bowl game.

We have all seen his resume and so far it isn't very good...the only highlight so far was a fluke win against ND. With losses to toledo, Mich State, a terrible Illini Team, no bowl game yet, Blown out by us, to name a few...I wouldn't hold your breathe for RRod in AA past his third year.
 
Upvote 0
Zurp;1583852; said:
But I think an important factor in determining whether to keep or let go of a coach is his trend. RR started with 3 wins, and he's already up to 5 wins this season. Even if Michigan doesn't win another game this year, I think that the improvement (however slight it is) warrants a third year.
Click to expand...

Really? Even if that "trend" includes losing your last seven games of the year against I-A teams (all in-conference)? You'd keep a coach who went from 2-6 to 1-7 in-conference?
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;1584542; said:
Really? Even if that "trend" includes losing your last seven games of the year against I-A teams (all in-conference)? You'd keep a coach who went from 2-6 to 1-7 in-conference?
Click to expand...
If he coached at Michigan or UGa, I would.


I'd probably be a terrible AD for either of those schools.:biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top