Write On Sports LLC - "Give 'Em Hell, Lloyd" by Mathew S. Weiler

Give 'Em Hell, Lloyd

2006-09-05 19:42:36 | By: Mathew S. Weiler

I have gone in circles with Lloyd Carr. From impassioned defenses of his character to (in one Alamo Bowl induced fulmination) drunkenly ranting that the plane back to Michigan should be stopped at the border and those responsible for the collapse, especially Carr, should be prevented from ever crossing the state lines again. He has led Michigan to heights unknown in the modern era -- his 1997 team methodically took teams apart, the picture of consistency and execution. Fierce, not fancy, just like their coach. I was there for the culmination, rushing the field after the 1998 Rose Bowl, the student body mixing with the team and singing "it's great/ to be/ a Mich-i-gan Wol-verine. It's great/ to be/ the Nat-ion-al Champ-ions." But under Carr Michigan has struggled against Ohio State like no other time in forty years. Walking out of the Big House after last year's Ohio State game, numb with grief after watching a late lead evaporate thanks to conservative defensive play-calling, tentative offense play-calling (and, OK, Troy Smith's fleet feet), I wondered to myself if I would trade the 1997 year to undo the last four losses in the Game.

Let me say at the outset that I like Lloyd Carr. Especially the persona he presents as Michigan's head football coach: intense, avuncular, and plain-spoken. He gets apoplectic on the sidelines -- screaming himself contorted at referees, eyes bulging from his head and hair wild. This is how I will remember Carr: fuming, stalking the sidelines. His rapier wrath the Wolverine spirit: give 'em Hell. I also like his commitment to the amateurism of the college game. He has spurned corporate sponsorship of the Michigan-Ohio State game. He is always the first of the Big Ten coaches to rail against proposals seeking to turn the format of the college game more like that of the Pros. Then there are his charitable pursuits: he actively contributes to the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Mott's Children's Hospital, and the United Way, to name a few. In short, I think he is a man of considerable character.

However, it is getting harder to overcome the dossier against Carr by reference to his character, or to 1997. Under Carr, Michigan has struggled in winnable games against Notre Dame and in the bowls as well as losing an unforgivable four of the last five against Ohio State. Michigan has not won a road opener since 1999. Last year, for the first time since the Bump Elliot era, Michigan went o-fer-varmit, losing to both Minnesota and Wisconsin, perennial punching bags for the Wolverines. Troubled times indeed when the Wolverines are not assured varmit family dominance.

It occurs to me that there is more at stake in this debate than simply whether Carr's performance meets expectations of Michigan fans, students, and alumni. This debate is really about the reasonable expectations of this constituency. Some have come to see the football program as an investment, and that the performance of the team has direct bearing on the University's prestige and the value of the Michigan experience. Get consistently top recruiting classes, the argument goes, and you should be competing for the National Title every year. These expectations require reexamination.

It's the investor approach to Michigan football that I detest the most. The prestige of a University is not a product of a sport's team's success -- in fact, the academic reputation of a University requires that the athletic department and its team understand their role in the larger University. Read "Beer and Circus: How Big-Time College Sports Has Crippled Undergraduate Education" by Murray Sherber for further (over?) elaboration of this point. An arch cynic that I know (who also happens to be an Ohio State fan) once smugly proclaimed that Carr's ability to ingratiate himself with the University administration ( i.e., his politically correct views) will ensure his continued tenure. Right as this may be (those waiting for Bill Martin to fire Lloyd Carr should not hold their breath), it could not be more wrong-headed. Carr's commitment to ideals is an asset to Michigan, not a weakness. It is Carr's respect for the University that ensures the program is not run like, well, Ohio State. Michigan is more -- much more -- than a football school. Any Michigan graduate should put the integrity of the University ahead of the performance of its football team. Ahead of even beating Ohio State. And so should the head coach of the football team. Earlier this year, Carr told Gene Wojciechowski of ESPN "I love the game. I love the competition. I love the relationship with the players and the ability to have some kind of positive impact as they try to pursue a degree and play this game." Michigan's graduation rates are always among the best of the nation's top programs; USA Today put it at 68 percent for the entering classes of 1995-1998.

Winning titles is important, but over the last ten years, no program has competed for the title year-in-year-out. And no Michigan coach since Fielding Yost (who coached in a dramatically less competitive time in college football) has managed to do so. I find this phenomenon the unpleasant by-product of a culture with (1) an unhealthy obsession with being "number one," and (2) an addiction to instant gratification. If a coach's team has a bad year, throw him away and buy a 'better' one. A brief survey of recent college football past shows the folly in this approach. Alabama, Miami, Nebraska, and Notre Dame have all experienced down years after a performance-induced coaching change. And the jury is still out on Florida. Firing a coach for poor performance introduces instability to the program. Carr once told an audience of Michigan students, "[the] kind of mindset - when winning is the only thing that matters - is only warranted on the professional (sports) level…. But as a college football coach, I value the discipline and determination that players need at this level." Moreover, Carr's teams are 102-34 entering the 2006 seasons, making Carr the one of three coaches to win 100 games at Michigan (legends Fielding Yost and Bo Schembechler being the other two). While not the only yardstick, winning is important. And by this metric Carr is one of the best.

Nor do I place any stock in the widely-held belief that Lloyd Carr routinely gets out-coached. Michigan does not need ingenius play-calling with the athletes they recruit. Carr's game plans are simple and rely on execution. Jim Tressel, Mack Brown, and (yes) Lloyd Carr have recently won championships relying on that model. And Carr routinely beats more innovative offensive teams at Purdue, Northwestern, Michigan State, and Minnesota. More to the point: in the college game, execution trumps play-calling on a game-in-game-out basis.

But then again, unrealistic expectations regarding wins and offense ingenuity notwithstanding, to coach at Michigan you have to beat Ohio State. Regularly. Period.

Not all of the rationales advanced in support of Carr are good ones, though. Much has been made of the fact that Carr came up through the ranks, in the tradition of the "Michigan Football Family." The relevant tradition, as far as the history of the program is concerned, is winning. Fielding Yost came from Stanford, Bo Schembechler was an Ohio guy through and through, and Crisler was an innovator who played at Chicago for Amos Alanzo Stagg and coached at Minnesota and Princeton before taking over the program. Although all three of these men stayed at Michigan in some capacity after their tenure, none were products of the program. So much for the myth of the "Michigan Football Family." So where does all of this leave us? For all of my respect for Lloyd Carr -- his fiery sideline demeanor, his commitment to amateurism when the college game is becoming more like the Pros every day, and his love for Michigan -- continued struggles against Notre Dame, Ohio State and in the bowls simply cannot be tolerated. (And did I mention he needs to beat Ohio State?) Michigan is Lloyd Carr's Rushmore. And do you know what? It's mine too. I hope the modest changes Carr made this year -- "musical chairs," it's the same guys with different titles -- translates into a return to form. I hope to see him stalking the sidelines for years to come, the embodiment of Wolverine ferocity, his teams displaying the discipline, execution, and precision that defined his 1997 team.

But this piece is no apologia. For me, it comes down to this tough-but-fair proposal: give Carr three years. If Michigan does not have a winning record against Notre Dame and Ohio State after three seasons, he should bow out gracefully.

Post a comment