Quite the opposite. A full range, including issues that are mundane and those of national importance carried out by all levels of sophistication and experience.
Micromanaging means being aware of every detail that matters and setting the pace. It is not synonymous with being a jerk or of legislating on details that are of no importance.
On an unrelated note, If I was to guess that you were an engineer would I be wrong? That seems to be one of the occupations most Often crying out that there are micro managers impeding them
In any event if one was to believe that being a micromanager was a bad traait for a football coach, especially one that is needed at this tenure time for Rutgers, I would only say that I could not disagree more
My guess is we're talking past each other a bit and are probably more aligned than not aligned. To me the key part in your post is "being aware of every detail
that matters." And in that, the details that "matter" depend greatly on the situation. I think most of us (and certainly me) are assuming that a "micromanager" is someone who is often/usually kind of an overbearing jerk, who is often focusing on details that really don't matter and often being a dick about pointing out failures, rather than trying to coach/teach to prevent future failures. The details that are relevant to a CEO are far different from those that are relevant to a department head, which in turn are far different from those that are relevant to a first line manager.
In football, if we take the head coach to be the CEO of the team, he can't be aware of every detail of every player's performance, nutrition, grades, etc., because knowing all of those details is simply impossible and more importantly, unnecessary to do his job well. He does need to trust that his coordinators and his position coaches (akin to first line managers) will alert him to issues in any of these areas, to which he then might respond (if the position coach's directions are ineffective). Yes, in football, a head coach is a lot "closer" to the players, organizationally, than a CEO is to workers in a large company, so he'll likely be tied in to more relevant day-to-day details than a CEO is, but the concept of not being an overbearing micromanager still applies.
We completely agree that being a jerk in any setting is likely counterproductive, although in small doses it can be an effective motivating tool, especially in highly regimented situations like sports or the military (I hated coaches like that, but I saw some players respond to it, from a macho, "I'll show you, you prick" perspective). I have rarely seen it be an effective tool in the work world, where people don't expect it or like it and rarely respond well to it. Different worlds.
And I didn't think it was any secret that I'm an engineer, but I also have managed/led cross-functional teams containing engineers, chemists, analysts, purchasing agents, financial specialists, union operators, mechanics, etc. And I've rarely seen anyone in any of these areas, who is highly competent, who likes being micromanaged in the sense I've discussed.