Mailbag question: Coach Rod, Michigan and West Virginia
Mailbag question: Coach Rod, Michigan and West Virginia
Well I have to be a smart a$$ and ask because I was a member of another site; were Brad Labadie and Scott Draper working at West Virginia when Coach Rod was there? I ask since Coach Rod made the same mistakes at WVU as he did at Michigan.
How can people keep blaming the Michigan compliance office, football office, etc., when practically the same exact violations happened at two different places?
I am starting to think that the only way Coach Rod stays at UM is if he goes 8-4 or 9-3, unless David Brandon decides to use breaking the rules, being on probation, etc., as an “excuse” for firing Rodriguez after the season.
UM4Life
————————————
Thanks for the question and timely comments.
Labadie and Draper were not at West Virginia with Coach Rodriguez. Both have never worked at West Virginia in any capacity. In fact, Mr. Draper has been with the UM family since 1997.
We at GBMWolverine throughout this mess have never labeled any single individual as the sole origin or continued architect of Michigan’s now highly public compliance difficulties. We simply are not privy to such really, really inside knowledge, but have read the NCAA documentation.
As a site reader of other sites you may have seen this happen and then plenty of spin was later applied that added further confusion.
GBMWolverine categorizes the compliance “problem” as falling within two separate situations.
The first is the use of the staff, GA’s, or quality control people within the allowed framework of stated rules; some of which are a little vague, but most are crystal clear and known pretty much universally throughout the world of college football. The growing complexity of all the interactions and rule implications has caused high-level programs to hire a half a dozen or more compliance personnel.
Whether other programs are non-compliant, disorganized, or dysfunctional from an administrative standpoint, is not for discussion in this article. However, readers have likely noted how quiet other major programs have remained about Michigan’s situation
Lay aside the window dressing, the spin, the drama, and the convenient Sergeant Shultz answers. Having a mess in the area of compliance over such an extended period of time is inexcusable. The eventual accountability for compliance, even with organizational flow-charts outlining responsibilities, lands primarily at the feet of Coach Rod and the football coaching staff.
The entire football operation must not partake in activities that are clearly against stated rules (commission errors), as well as not failing in areas such as documentation and properly outlining procedures (omission).
There are three major links to a typical responsibility chain; the football staff, mid level management personnel with assigned duties such as football compliance officials, and upper management, namely the athletic director.
Breakdowns, caused by poor communication or ineptitude is one manner of mishap. A coaching staff not taking seriously the mandate for compliance through shoddy reporting or outright cheating is a second manner of potential error. A third type that has been posited by some is sabotage that is purposeful and with malicious conduct, intended to hinder the progress of a program or selected individuals.
Regardless, the guys on the firing line, the coaches, know more about the happenings of a program than all others combined.
And so the blame game emerges as a result of the stirrings of the NCAA investigation. As stated from the onset by GBMWolverine, there is plenty of blame to go around, and some of the key players in the drama are no longer with U of M. And some may still be held as poker chips to appease a suddenly muscle-flexing NCAA compliance division.
The first compliance issue discussion ends thusly: readers is it not a little naïve, or even intellectually dishonest, to assert that the head coach of a major program truly knows nothing about the happenstance of the current difficulties?
The second compliance issue centers upon the voluntary/mandatory summer workout issue(s) and is inherently different from the previous issue.
It is reasonable to expect a collegiate level athlete to do what is necessary, within reason, to become a better athlete and player. Most players want to get better and are intrinsically motivated to do so. Others need outside, extrinsic pressure to show up and go through the workouts.
Many other coaches, including Ohio State’s Coach Tressel, stood up for Coach Rod regarding the reality of what voluntary workouts really encompass in Division 1 football. The reason for the support is that most, if not all, coaches expect players to do what is now common and necessary during the summertime, that is be there every day and work harder than your opponent to get better.
Those who have followed our site for some time remember that at Coach Rod’s and Coach Barwis’s first coaches’ clinic, it was reported by the GBMWolverine staff that Coach Barwis summarized the nature of voluntary workouts thusly, “Breathing is voluntary, but I don’t see you stop breathing”.
Coach Rod also shed light on his (and almost all coaches) philosophy about voluntary workouts by stating “Playing time is voluntary, so if you don’t want to participate you won’t be playing.”
Soon we heard that the players were busting down the doors trying to get in and workout. The staff had to go and open up the building because the players wanted to get in and work.
So, players know if they don’t show up to voluntary workouts, they are likely not going to be playing. Players sitting around somewhere else also know those going through the extra work are not sympathetic to team members choosing not to participate. This combination of extrinsic/intrinsic pressure becomes peer pressure in the workout room, sometimes this method works and sometimes it does not.
College football has become a year round sport, even though the regular season is three months in length. Starting in August players get little time off until January, especially if the team makes a bowl game, which extends the season by two to three weeks.
After the formal season is over, winter conditioning commences and then comes spring practice, followed by summer “voluntary” workouts. Years of upping the ante in major college football has resulted in a time consuming and intense venture, one that, as stated here before, leaves the participants (coaches and players) searching for any little edge in every program facet.
As far as how many games Coach Rod needs to win to keep his job, any answer is most likely pure speculation and only David Brandon’s assessment counts. Almost certainly, Mr. Brandon does not have a rigid, already preconceived magic number. He will follow a protocol after the season when he can evaluate, in entirety, the team, the coaches, and the general status and needs of the collective program. Much of the decision-making will center on improvement and perceived upswing, taking into account both the quantitative record and associated contributing variables.
Is seven wins indeed enough? Some will say yes, but others put forth a scenario of five losses to Ohio State, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Iowa and Penn State as losses, not to mention UConn or Notre Dame that clearly are games the Wolverines could end up on the short side of the stick. This would lead to a question of whether Michigan finally beat a top-notch team that actually had better talent.
Eight and nine games, one would assume, should move Coach Rod and staff into a “safer” zone. But the conclusion that such a number in and by itself guarantees employment past this year is far from a proven summation.
Many circumstances can bring forth an effect on the final decision as to the status of year four of Coach Rod’s program. It is assumed here that a year four (and year five) status has not yet been finalized. Will the team be together and play better football? Can Michigan stay out of the negative news circle for an entire football season, lowering the circus of distractions and negativity??
The NCAA meeting with Michigan is soon, the final penalty may not be known immediately.
Does the West Virginia investigation play into the punishment of being a repeat offender? Does being the coach at West Virginia at the time and then coming to Michigan show the NCAA a pattern of intentional rules violations? Time will tell.
The bottom line is the athletic department, headed by the athletic director, and the head football coach, are responsible for the football program.
Michigan uses the slogan “Leaders and Best.” It is past time to get back to that vision and again make it a reality. Most, or all, would agree with the above sentiment, the real question is the plan of operation to bring back the luster, on and off the field, of one of college sports greatest programs, Michigan football.
We also believe it is time for Michigan fans to stop worrying what other programs are doing, or not doing. Michigan got caught with its hand in the cookie jar, no matter how slight you believe the charges are.
Michigan the last two years can best be described as mediocre and fans need to stop acting like Michigan is above other programs and face the cruel reality that the program is still a reconstruction effort.
The question and implications from the mailbag letter are important and very worthy of discussion. But, it is time to move on and play some football and win some games.
Written by GBMWolverine Staff
Go Blue — Wear Maize!