How Close Was Greg Schiano To The Michigan Job?

By Brian — July 11th, 2008 at 12:15 PM — 54 comments
Filed under:

The sexiest guy with Shrek ears on the planet.

In recent weeks we've seen two mainstream mediapersons state that Rutgers head coach Greg Schiano either had accepted or was incredibly close to accepting the Michigan job. Michael Rosenberg:

On the night of Dec. 6 - several days after the Les Miles fiasco - Martin told several people he had hired a coach. He thought he had landed Rutgers coach Greg Schiano. But the next day, Schiano turned down the Michigan job, sending Martin scurrying for another plan.

And Stewart Mandel:

And a well-informed source told me after the fact that Schiano got serious cold feet after turning down the Wolverines and tried unsuccessfully at the 11th hour to get himself back in the running.

Are these things true? If there's one thing following the coaching search taught me, it's that everything lives in some sort of limbo, neither true nor false. But we can take these as two sources. I have two more, both of which sort of agree with the mainstream sources above.

The first ended up in my inbox at 11:30 on December 6th; the source was someone in a position to know:

... got a call tonight from a person who has a friend who is a Grad Assistant for Rutgers football and he's saying that Schiano is a done deal to go to Michigan to the point where they are actually going to have an interim coach at Rutgers for the bowl game.

I was out until late and didn't check my email before going to bed; when I awoke the next morning Schiano had publicly rejected the job. The same emailer followed up, saying Schiano had done a last-second 180 after talking to his players.

It was at this point the search careened wildly, with the internet (and myself) seizing upon any vaguely viable or terrifyingly DOA candidate: Jim Grobe. Brady Hoke. Mork and/or Mindy. Eventually opportunity met something that could just barely find its ass with both hands and the Michigan-Rodriguez union was consummated in Toledo, with Elvis presiding. A couple days later I got this email:

Michigan re-offered Schiano on Saturday and he stayed up until 2am with the OC (maybe more-family?) debating on whether to take the job. When he called Michigan on Sunday morning to turn it down, they then offered Rodriguez.

I can't vouch for the emailer, but the path from Schiano to yrs truly was short and left very little room for reinterpretation.

So. Everyone on the planet thinks Schiano got a real offer from Michigan and had actually accepted it before making a last-second 180. Mainstream news accounts even have this version of events. I think this is incontrovertible. For a brief period from about 11 PM December 6th to 11 AM December 7th, Greg Schiano was Michigan's coach. Then he backed out.

I think there's plenty of evidence suggesting that the two parties tried once again to come to an agreement but failed. Mandel says that was Michigan's decision; my emailer says it was Schiano's. I know the asserted provenance of the emailer's rumor, and think there would be very little reason to dissemble in the aftermath of hiring someone else, so I lean towards Michigan making a second run and Schiano having to say no again. FWIW.

Does this matter? If you're a Michigan fan, not much. But if you're a Penn State fan scouring the nation for potential JoePa replacements I think it signals that Schiano is going to be a tough pull. He's getting a huge investment in facilities at Rutgers and is just now ramping up his recruiting. With Rodriguez out of the Big East the only thing standing in the way of Rutgers dominion is Brian Kelly at Cincinnati and maybe the Wannstache's inexplicable recruiting prowess. And he's now turned down serious Miami and Michigan offers in consecutive years. I don't know how much credence to lend the PSU internet's "Schiano dreams of State College" article of faith.

IMO, Schiano is going to be piloting a program not far removed from PSU's by the end of this year or next or whenever Paterno finally calls it quits, but he'll be doing it in a conference without 800-pound gorillas. He'll have to think long and hard about whether he should go.

  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Yardbarker
  • Ballhype

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 6:59 PM #1
Brian, the inverse to your
Brian, the inverse to your argument that Schiano will be tougher to pull from Rutgers than the PSU people want to admit - and what I'd be grasping to were I a PSU fan - is that his desire to someday be in State College was a major factor in him rejecting both Miami and Michigan. Now, I know there's no assurance he'd have the PSU job, but even he must know he'd be, at worst, in the top group (if not the top choice of all) when that day comes. At some point, I think we'll see him on the sidelines at PSU. Thankfully, he seems to be in the Lloyd/JoePa type, not an innovator like Rich or Urban. Not to say you can't win with those types (Tressell has certainly done well), but I think it's tougher.
n/a
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 4:58 PM #2
On that I do agree. We
On that I do agree. We particularly have had trouble in Pasadena. I get the sense that with that bowl, our staff has always been pretty satisfied to just be there. In the lesser bowls we've played, we know we've messed up the season and we seem to find a little extra.
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 4:12 PM #3
15-13 is POO
Nothing more to add. It is an acceptance of the forty year Michigan Mediocrity that somehow seems to be transformed into excellence in the best way Scout posters know how to do it. OH WOW! There's that "academic excellence" thingy too. HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHLloyd sucks.
n/a
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 3:36 PM #4
It's not quite true to say
It's not quite true to say we've never done well in bowl games. Bo went 0-7 in bowls in the '70s, and everyone remembers that. But he was 5-5 in bowls in the '80s, and then Moeller went 4-1. Then Carr went 6-7. So since 1980 we're 15-13. Given that bowls are supposed to match up two comparable teams, that's respectable.
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 4:50 PM #5
When you break it down, it's not pretty
Let's look at our bowl wins since Bo (i'll use the seaon years): Florida (9-4), Florida (8-5), Auburn (8-5), Alabama (9-3), Arkansas (9-3) Washington St. (10-2), Colorado St. (10-2), NCSU (7-5), Washington (9-3), Mississippi (9-3), USC (9-2), Alabama (7-5), Nebraska (9-3), UCLA (7-4), Washington (9-3). So, that means we beat 3 teams with fewer than 2 losses at the time we played and one of those was Colorado St. Average WPCT before bowl game: 77% Let's check the losses: USC (10-2), Nebraska (8-4), Texas (11-1), USC (12-1), Tennessee (11-2), Alabama (10-3), Texas A&M (9-3), Washington (11-0), USC (9-2-1), ASU (10-1-1), BYU (13-0), Auburn (11-1), UCLA (10-1-1), UNC (8-3-1), USC (12-1), Washington (8-4), USC (11-1), Oklahoma (11-1), Stanford (9-3), USC (10-0-1). Average WPCT before bowl game: 83% Bo won five bowl games and beat one good team (USC) and two decent teams (Washington and Nebraska). Mo beat one decent team (Washington) and LC beat 2 or 3 (Washington St., Alabama, Florida last year). Really, though, most of our bowl wins have come against lesser competition. We're not alone on this, but when play top competition (especially in bowls), we don't usually come out on top. This is one of the big things I'd like to see us change under RR. 
n/a
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 3:25 PM #6
with 13-game seasons...
now the norm, I think averaging 10 wins a season is a fairly realistic goal once RR's program is up to speed. Averaging 10-3 is a .769 winning percentage. I believe Carr was right at .750 over his 13-year span.
n/a
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 4:10 PM #7
2 or fewer losses is a big deal for me...
along with a .500 record against OSU and in the bowls.  But as has been pointed out, that would actually be uncharted territory for M, and would represent a significant spike up from historical performance. Perhaps I'm not being realistic in asking for 10-2 regular seasons and .500 against OSU and in the bowls, but I still firmly believe that should be the expectation.
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 3:12 PM #8
Drowning Man,
I agree with the theme of your post. Great stuff. My only quibble would be that Michigan did chart those dominant waters under Yost and Crisler. One can say that was so long ago it doesn't "count" but most die-hard Michigan fans do consider the Yost and Crisler years important and integral to what makes our program very special.
n/a
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 5:32 PM #9
Yost and Crisler
I would never say those guys don't count, and as someone who was raised on Michigan football, I have what I think is proper reverence for Michigan's football history. At the same time, those records were compiled in the dark ages of college football before things like current conference affiliations, regular post-season bowl links, TV, national recruiting, etc. etc. They are important in making Michigan what it is, but they aren't important in determining expectations for Rodriguez. If RR can win between 75-80% of his games (for reference purposes, the 5 best major conference teams since 2000 are between 78-85%) and consistently win games against rivals and high-quality opponents (let's say, at least 55% of those), then he will be a *great* coach.
n/a
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 3:02 PM #10
Tulane and Clemson
A big part of my belief in RR, and what sets him apart in my eyes, is that he worked wonders at TULANE, then made Clemson an offensive juggernaut with Dantzler, then WVU. If RR's resume just had "a few great years with Pat "4.3 40" White, then I'd be much more skeptical. But it was Tulane. Then Clemson. Then WVU. = SOLD.
n/a
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 2:42 PM #11
I'm not sure what this says
I'm not sure what this says about any possible Schiano-PSU move down the road. I remember some PSU guy claiming last winter that "Godfather Joe" (his words) warned Schiano not to take the Michigan job. Of course, it's possible the guy was just making it up. I do agree that he's got a great thing going at Rutgers. He's a living divinity there as long as he stays. And it's the only school in a fairly talent-rich state, so it's really not a bad setup.
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 2:41 PM #12
Go back to December 1
Would any of you say you preferred Schiano to RR? I know it may be hard to do now, because RR is now the guy, but I remember when the reports started to come out that Schiano was going to be the coach. I had to literally work hard to get myself excited for the hire. I was a bit lukewarm on it, but eventually came around to the idea just as we were told he was not going to be our coach. I am much happier to have RR as the coach. I was immediately excited and shocked when his name surfaced. (As Chris Matthews would say, I felt a tingle go up my leg...)
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 3:06 PM #13
Going back, I was 'meh' on Schiano, but...
for me, 'meh' was magnitudes better than the 'God no we're fucked!' feelings I had for the other alternatives that were being bandied about (e.g. Ferentz, Hoke).  I would have been fine with Schiano, considering the other abysses that we were considering jumping into...
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 6:13 PM #14
yea I'm with you
I was the same way C. I was very happy that it was 'meh' instead of what we were hearing just prior to him and would have been much happier with him than Grobe, Hoke, Ferentz etc. It just didn't compare to the excitement I had upon hearing we might get Rodriguez
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 2:49 PM #15
Going back
Your right on Dark Knight, Schiano was not very appealing. RR has a better track record and just brings a more exciting brand of football. 
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 2:39 PM #16
"Dude, it's fucking Rutgers"
Actually, the fanbase is not happy at all about going 8-5 last year vs. a so-so schedule. Not enough to fire him or even make the seat hot, but several losses were directly attributable to poor preparation and terrible S/T play. Schiano is definitely the right man for the job, but Brian's profile of him, and some of the other stuff I've read from non-RU fans have glossed over his many flaws.
n/a
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 2:13 PM #17
Rich Rod vs. Grobe
For all the dick slobbering that Rich Rod gets for turning WVU into what it is, WVU has a minor, occasional, history of being good at football. Wake Forest is fucking Wake Forest, with the tie-dye basketball crowd and a mascot that looks like a Civil War general on meth. I'm not trying to say Rich Rod < Grobe, because believe me I'm 100000% for Rich Rod, but I don't know how Grobe managed to get lumped into this "nightmare" category by so many during the search. I mean, it's fucking Wake Forest. Wake fucking Forest.
n/a
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 2:30 PM #18
It was the jowls, Dex...
The stern, jawsetted look of Grobe, combined with his less-than-ideal age made some people think Grobe = Lloyd-5yrs.  Brian was guilty of this, IMO. Brian and others couldn't look past his "look" and grasp the fact that Wake Forest is Wake fucking FOREST!, and thus any success there was a sign of a good coach.  The consistent success that Grobe has brought to Wake Forest is IMO a sign that he is a great coach.  Sadly, we'll probably never know for sure how good Grobe is, because Wake Forest is still Wake fucking FOREST! and he'll never have enough talent to get over the hump and become a powerhouse.
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 2:44 PM #19
I was down on Grobe for a lot
I was down on Grobe for a lot of reasons:
  • Age. At 56 he's probably winding down in terms of energy level and your upside is limited.
  • Recruiting ability. I don't have much evidence for or against him, but again: age, and he's never brought in anyone notable at Wake. It's Wake, sure, but that was a major uncertainty.
  • His ACC championship year was pretty overrated. Play that season again and they're probably 7-5 or something.
n/a
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 3:02 PM #20
Valid points, but...
My big hope for our next coach was what we now know as the "Silver Spoon, Coal Spoon" theory of coaches.  There are coaches out there who believe in "execution" as the panacea to winning, and there are coaches out there who believe in using any and all tools available to win, not just through "out-executing" the other guy but up to and including aggressive, deceptive playcalling.  I felt that the only way we were going to upgrade from Lloyd was if we switched from an Executor to a Scrabbler.  Grobe, IMO, is a Scrabbler. Definitely there was uncertainty and risk attached to Grobe, which you very neatly pointed out at the time and again in your comment.  But considering the context in which we were dealing with the possibility of Grobe (Miles gone, Martin clueless, Hoke/Ferentz/MyGodDebord! as serious possibilities), Grobe would've been as close to an optimal outcome as we could have expected.  The luck of Rodriguez falling into our lap aside, there were no realistic alternatives that were better than him, IMO. Given that, I always felt that your evaluation of him was a little too harsh.
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 3:24 PM #21
It should also be said
I didn't think Grobe was a long term, return to dominance type of candidate that RR could be. My vision of Grobe was a capable coach, Solich-esque if you will, that could keep steady in the 8-9-10 range for a few years before we could make a grand slam hire of the new hotness. Which is, admittedly, a gamble, but one that seemed a lot better than forcing ourselves to believe Hoke could be the new hotness. 
n/a
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 2:51 PM #22
Valid
Those are good points, and all are reasons why RR is a much better pick. The age thing was disconcerting. As far as the ACC title season goes, I get that the team was pretty lucky that year. But they came back again and had a solid season, and to me Wake Forest is anything but a major university in terms of football. There's no reason they should be good at football. None. And he made them competitive, so that's an accomplishment. I expected Wake to be good around the same time Duke was good. 
n/a
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 2:03 PM #23
Schiano
The interesting side story to all the Schiano to PSU rumors are the multiple reports from recruits saying the PSU coaching staff is assuring them Joe's successor will come from the current staff.
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 4:13 PM #24
Mike, I recognized that
Mike, I recognized that myself, but I suspect that the recruits are being "told" that to ease their minds.  And by told, I don't mean being lied to, but done in such a way as for the recruits to conclude that it will [likely] be an internal hire.  And over time, situations change (hey, kind of like what losing to App. State does) and then all bets are off. I do not at all discount that PSU will pursue Shiano when JoPa retires.
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 2:47 PM #25
Mike
What's the PSU cognizati's impression of Bradley?  Would it be the rough equivalent of U-M hiring Ron English.  A decent recruiter that would be an underwhelming choice, but not a total disaster.
n/a
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 1:59 PM #26
In 3 years or 4 years...
...I think it will be plainly evident that Michigan hired the single best person for the job, BAR NONE. Better than Carroll, better than Miles, better than Spurrier, or Brown. I think Carroll's personality lends itself to the SoCal atmosphere. I don't think Carroll could recreate that same atmosphere in the relatively dreary, overcast Upper Mid-West. RR's blue coller, hard-scrabble background plays well to the Mid-West, which will always be his recruiting bedrock (even if he does manage to pluck a lot of Florida kids). I think a few years from now Michigan will be like USC or OSU: they'll be losing zero, one, or two games a season as the norm. The days of losing 2, 3, or 4 games a year will be gone for quite a while. And the fact that HE called Martin only means that Bill, as a young man, must've had a horseshoe surgically implanted up his ass.
n/a
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 2:19 PM #27
Pop quiz...
When was the last time Michigan finished with: 1.  A bowl win, and; 2.  Two or fewer losses? I believe 1999(!) is the answer.  The requirement that Michigan win the bowl game may seem like an arbitrary way to throw out 2006, but in order for a 2 loss season to be considered a "success" that generates "momentum" yada yada, it does need to end on a high note, IMO. Michigan has been a perennial 4 loss program for far too long, and I look forward to seeing this sleeping giant awaken.  10-2 should be the average, not the outlier.
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 3:08 PM #28
Another quiz
Since Bo took over, how many times has UM finished with 2 or fewer losses and a bowl win? Answer: 5: 1999, 1997, 1993 (3 ties), 1988 (2 losses+1 tie), 1985. That's 40 years of football and 5 "successful" seasons. I hope, as you do, that we go 10-2 on average, but the facts are the facts. We've never been a 10-2 team (or 9-2, or 10-1 or whatever...since 1977 we average 9-3 independent of the coach), we've never won bowl games (losing record under Bo), we've never beat the best teams with regularity (losing record vs. .750 teams under Bo, Mo, and LC) and we've never consistently competed for national titles (another quiz--how many undefeated/untied Septembers did we have in the 20 years before Carr arrived? 5 (the same number we had in the 13 years after he arrived). So, when you say we are a sleeping giant, just know that we've been sleeping for a very long time. I would go so far as to say that Michigan's status as a "giant" is entirely the result of consistent 9-3 seasons as opposed to occasional spectacular performance (on this, see Miami: NC, probation, NC, destruction). Do I hope Rich makes us consistently spectacular? Absolutely. But a USC-style run wouldn't be a return to the glory of the Bo years, it would be uncharted territory for Michigan football.
n/a
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 3:15 PM #29
Huh. Good points. I didn't think of it that way
but I obviously should have.  I guess I've always felt the Bo years were the proper ideal/norm for Michigan, with 10+ wins and conference championships, but you rightly point out that Bo couldn't win the Rose Bowl to save his fucking life. I'm just tired of the 3-4 loss seasons that were the inevitable results of Mo and Lloyd and feel that Michigan is naturally a 10-2 program.  But as you point out, the fact of the matter is that an average of 10-2 is, historically speaking, an unrealistic expectation and is uncharted territory for U-M. +10 to you for keeping it real.
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 3:30 PM #30
Right on
Unfortunately, I spent plenty of new year's days in the late 1970s and early 1980s the same way I spent them in 2004, 2005, and 2007. We were indeed a Big 10 powerhouse in the early 1970s, but not really a national force. It will be cool to see RR try to take us to new heights (actually, it will only be cool to see us reach those heights, but it will be fun to watch the new Michigan no matter what). Go Blue. 
n/a
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 1:46 PM #31
Simmons
I bet that if Grobe were five years younger, he gets the job.
n/a
Posted on: July 11th, 2008 at 1:41 PM #32
Struggles at Rutgers?
Dude, it's fucking Rutgers. 7-5 and he's golden. And by the by, I hope RichRod doesn't forget about New Jersey as a recruiting ground. I know the Scout Neurotics are all about being in the top ten on alot of guys from Florida or Mississippi, but so f