Mason NEEDS this, Pistons, after all you've put him through
Sporting News' Steve Greenberg ranked the coaches of the B1G and Hoke came in at 4th place. Somewhat of a shock considering last season he was coach of the year for the B1G and in the running for National Coach of the Year. Ahead of him are:
1. Urban Meyer
2. Bret Bielema
3. Mark Dantonio
While those are the 4 best coaches in the B1G, I think the order is interchangable and would have thought Hoke would have gotten more credit for turning a 7-6 team into an 11-2 BCS Champ with players that were recruited to run a spread. Think about that... even with all the talented Michigan teams we have had, we only had 1 BCS victory and Hoke matched that in his first season. Granted, most of our losses were against a talented USC team in their back yard.
The rest of the order for those interested is:
5. Kirk Ferentz
6. Bo Pelini
7. Pat Fitzgerald
8. Bill O'Brien
9. Jerry Kill
10. Tim Beckman
11. Danny Hope
12. Kevin Wilson
Of course, over at annarbor.com, Hoke leads with 70% of the votes, followed by Dantonio(15%), Meyer(8%), Bielema(5%), Other(2%). What are your thoughts and non-homerish picks?
This could have been already posted but buried in the poop storm of late, but just a reminder for all you lucky ones still in Ann Arbor, Fans are invited to attend the live Coach's Radio show at Pizza House in Ann Arbor at 7pm.
• Listen Live from 7-8 p.m.
Listen live Wednesday night (Nov. 24) to the final Rich Rodriguez Coaches Radio Show of the regular season on WXYT radio (affiliates). Fans are invited to attend the live show at Pizza House in Ann Arbor. Read More
Obviously, we're seeing a number of arguments to either keep or fire RichRod at the end of the season. On both sides, there are some valid points. Without addressing the overall argument of whether he should be kept or fired, I do want to put an end to one point suggested by the keep-RR crowd that pops up from time to time. It is some version of the following:
We have to keep RichRod because if we switch to a pro-style offense, all our players will flee and we'll have to completely rebuild with years of doom to muddle through.
1. Who said that the next coach has been determined? We might run a "pro style", we might run a "spread" or we might run a combination of styles. There are not just two offenses in college football.
2. Even if we were to switch to a "pro style" coach like Harbaugh, there need not be a major drop-off for a number of reasons. First, Harbaugh has recruited a number of our current commits (roughly half the class). Second, Harbaugh even recruited Tate (thus eliminating the "but the QB" refrain). Third, Harbaugh has recruited a top-10 class. You think he wouldn't be able to recruit at Michigan at least as well as a non-legendary school like Stanford?
3. Even assuming a drop-off on offense, does anyone really think Dave Brandon is going to bring in a coach whose defense is as bad as RichRod's?
To finish, let me drop this quote from our current recruiting class's star recruit, Dee Hart, discussing the possibility of RichRod losing his job:
"I liked Michigan either way and if he were to leave it wouldn't affect me because I think I can play in any offensive system," Hart said. "So it really wasn't my concern."
An interesting strain of questioning seems to be developing to which I don't know the answer and wonder if anyone here has good insight...How involved are most head coaches with their non-strength side of the ball? Does a "defensive wizard" ignore the offense? Do "offensive masters" hand off the defense? What's normal?
Check out this from AnnArbor.com today from RR's press conference:
Rodriguez said he will personally spend 15 to 20 minutes with Michigan's defense Monday in practice.
And, this quote that Tim presented from RR's presser:
"I'll probably spend a little bit of time with them today. Our defensive staff I think knows what we've gotta do."
The defensive staff "knows what we've gotta do"? 15 to 20 minutes? That's it? Your defense is ranked #100 out of #120 teams and you show you concern by spending 15 to 20 minutes with them? How much time was he spending before? 5 minutes? 2? Maybe we're losing so many players on defense (1/3 of RR's recruits) because the head coach is an absentee manager? Or...maybe that's standard practice. I guess, if the defense were doing well, it's a question that no one would care about. Since our defense is (and has been) poor, I'd imagine that the coach would want to be very involved. If anyone has good insight, I imagine I'm not the only one interesting in learning.
So, I was listening to the radio early today (1130 I believe) as they discussed Michigan football, the recent misery and need to win now. Then they proceeded to delve into the Harbaugh talk. They argued that if we have another bad year, we'll be in a bigger hole the following season because Harbaugh runs a different style of football with completely different players.
Without getting into the how-many-games-does-RR-need-to-win discussion, I just don't get why it's either RR or Harbaugh. Are RR and JH the only coaches in the nation? ** disclaimer - I'd rather just win now with RR than even have to wait for 2011 **
That being said, I want to attack the notion that a coaching change (even to an "old school" coach like Harbaugh) would require completely different players. Here is a list of our commits who also fielded offers from, wait for it, Stanford:
-That's nearly half of our current commits who also had offers from Stanford. Then, taking a look at top-100 rated "targets" (Rivals list), both schools have offers out to the following (although some have already committed elsewhere): George Farmer (WR), Christian Westerman (OT), Doran Grant (CB), DeAnthony Arnett (WR), Trey DePriest (LB).
So, here's the quick summary:
1. Win now and don't worry about a coaching change,
2. If we need to change coaches, why the hell is Harbaugh the only other option, and
3. Even if we lose and hire Harbaugh, the notion that his program would require a destruction of the current roster is inaccurate...but still, just win now