Did Rich Rodriguez Have a Teachable Moment in the Big 10?

This is an opinion article. Everything in this article is based solely on the observations and feelings of the author. As such, it can be taken for what it is worth. 

There is a missing element in the media bombardment of the University of Michigan football program.

While there is no doubt that this is one of the most respected and accomplished college football programs of all time, another element lurks below the surface.

When Rich Rodriguez moved from West Virginia to Michigan, he brought a recipe for a winning program with him.

There is no doubt he was one of the best and brightest football coaches in the nation. He had been pursued by some of the most accomplished football programs in the nation. What happened?

One thing the press has covered very well is the time necessary to adapt to the spread offense. It takes some teams longer than others. While some point to Auburn doing it in one year, is this true?

First, Auburn had a failed attempt to move to the spread in 2008. Then there was a mostly successful attempt in 2009. Auburn expects to be fully operational in 2010. This leaves two complete seasons where some variation of the spread offense was recruited for at Auburn.

There were still parts of the Auburn offense that needed improvement in 2009. While it was the 12th most productive offense in the nation, the lack of sustained drives and ultra fast scoring left the thin defense on the field far too long.

While this is certainly one element, it is not the element this article is about. There is still another missing link here. Everyone knows the 2009 Michigan football season statistics were bad.

Is there something to be learned in these statistics? Maybe not if one simply looks at this one team's statistics. What if they were compared to another team going through a similar transition?

There are some remarkably similar trends. The defenses of both teams suffered in similar ways. If one thinks, there are other similarities as well. It does seem the press has found one constant element. There is a transitional period for the spread, or at least the rushing-based spread.

When making these comparisons, keep in mind that Auburn was already a team based on speed. The rushing-based spread offenses of Rich Rodriguez and Gus Malzhan are both speed-based. Michigan was not a speed-based team when the transition started. It would seem to me this would indicate a little longer transition would be necessary.

This brings this article to the actual point. Michigan was forced into a huge change of players' physical skills quickly. This lead to many younger players having to hit the field early before proper strength and conditioning could be achieved. The injury toll was devastating as the season rolled on.

This is another element of converting so completely in a physical conference. The intensity of the physicality of play simply took its toll on young offensive players. This led to the defense being exposed to higher doses of the same physical pressure of the Big 10 season.

The combined effect of these two factors left Michigan with the results of the 2009 season. If this transition had been occurring in the Big East where the schedule has bye weeks and lesser competition mixed in with the better teams, the results would have been better. 

Remember, Auburn lost five of the last eight games in 2009. Again, this is another remarkable similarity. Auburn had three of the games in that stretch that were decided by one score, does this look familiar to Michigan fans? 

This is simply a part of the process to be expected when transitioning in a physical conference. I think most would agree the SEC and Big 10 are physical conferences.

I am not a Michigan fan. When Auburn started this process, I looked at Michigan and thought that the year two Michigan team would be similar to what I could expect at Auburn in year one of Gus Malzhan.

At this point looking at 2010, I think Auburn might have been a little closer with personnel. I think Michigan fans can expect similar results to the 2009 Auburn Tigers, or maybe a little better. 

If Michigan does not get similar results in 2010, then I would say point fingers and panic at will. Until then, sit back and look forward to a very exciting brand of football in 2010 with some positive results.