Michigan Part Deux, evaluating the USC dynasty, Crush feedback, more

PRINT EMAIL FACEBOOK DIGG TWITTER RSS SHARE

Rich Rodriguez will have to work even harder to win over Michigan fans in the wake of alleged NCAA violations. Tony Ding/Icon SMI Stewart Mandel's Mailbag Submit a question or an opinion to Stewart. Name: Email: Hometown: Question: SEND Follow Stewart Mandel on Twitter

Last week, I led the Mailbag with a discussion about Rich Rodriguez and the state of his rebuilding efforts at Michigan.

That's unfortunate, because while I generally like to cover as many different teams as possible in this space, I see no choice but to pen Michigan Part Deux in light of recent developments.

As a West Virginia alum, I was obviously displeased with how Rich Rodriguez handled his departure to Michigan. However, it seems like the current and former players who are alleging he has violated NCAA rules with his methods really just have an axe to grind. Do you think this is a case of young players not realizing what it takes to succeed or does your gut say there may be some validity to their claims?
-- Chris, Olney, Md.

There's definitely a little bit of both at play here.

As I wrote on Monday, the rigorous, not-so-voluntary workouts described in the Free Press article are not unique to Michigan. That's how most big-time college football programs operate today. That doesn't make it right, and to be sure, a couple of the complaints alleged by those players were indisputably troubling. Requiring guys to put in 10-hour days on Sundays during the season sounds extremely over-the-top. How are players supposed to physically recover from the games? And coaches or staff members should not be tangibly punishing players for missing "voluntary" activities.

But what really stands out about this whole episode is just how truly radical a culture change the Rodriguez transition has been for Michigan. I say that because pretty much every time a new coach takes over a high-profile program, you immediately hear stories about just how much harder the players have been made to work (a colleague and I jokingly refer to these annual offseason articles as "puke-bucket stories"), and inevitably, a segment of players get turned off and leave the program.

But I can't ever remember hearing the type of backlash that's occurred at Michigan ever since Justin Boren's parting shots on his way out of town last year. Why that is, I don't know. While it's true Rodriguez's strength coach, Mike Barwis, is a notoriously demanding guy, there's a Barwis equivalent at just about every major program. However Lloyd Carr used to run things, whether good (it's hard to argue with his record) or bad (the Wolverines had obviously fallen behind Ohio State), it clearly wasn't remotely like the current regime, to the point where some players, and their parents, felt compelled to go public with their ire.

Michigan may end up paying a price with the NCAA (a few docked scholarships or practices), but the more immediate issue here is the atmosphere surrounding Rodriguez's program just keeps growing more toxic. I've always believed the combination of Rodriguez's offense with the type of athletes Michigan is capable of recruiting spelled the makings of a championship program -- but it's hard to get there when a large segment of the public already wants your blood. The continued negativity surrounding Rodriguez (and oh, by the way, he's also being sued over a real-estate deal) is beginning to feel a lot like the doomed tenures of Ron Zook at Florida and Bill Callahan at Nebraska.

Unlike those two, though, Rodriguez is a proven commodity whose system worked in the past. That said, he better get it working again, and in a hurry. As always, winning tends to cure a lot of things. If the Wolverines handle Western Michigan this weekend and follow that up by upsetting Notre Dame, I'm guessing most fans will forget this drama ever happened. But whereas last week I felt like a 7-5 season would appease most worried Wolverines fans, now I'm not sure Rodriguez would survive it. The climate may simply be too divisive.

Unless, of course, he beats Ohio State, in which case he'll probably get a contract extension.

After the three-headed quarterback monster at the top, some (like your colleague Gene Menez) believe Georgia Tech RB Jonathan Dwyer has the best chance to take home the Heisman. If most are so quick to disregard the stats Graham Harrell puts up in a gimmicky pass-offense, don't you see Heisman voters overlooking Dwyer's numbers for achieving them in a gimmicky run-offense?
-- Chase, Durham, N.C.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could just remove the word "gimmicky" from the sport's lexicon altogether? If an offense, like Texas Tech's, is consistently successful and works at the highest level, I fail to see how it's any more "gimmicky" than anyone else's. It's just unique.

But I'm not naïve. I realize any Run 'n' Shoot-type passing quarterback is going to face an inevitable stigma. However, I don't believe voters view run-heavy offenses like Paul Johnson's the same way. The major reason: Option-based offenses used to be a staple of numerous national-championship programs like Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska, which gives them legitimacy. Johnson's offense isn't exactly the same as those -- if anything, it's more advanced -- but it's similar enough that should Georgia Tech morph into a BCS contender (an unspoken prerequisite for recent Heisman winners), and should Dwyer put up big numbers (presumably in the 1,800-2,000-yard vicinity), I believe he'll be taken seriously.