ND is away but not as good so that's a wash. The location of OSU plays little difference at this point. Everything else about the schedule is easier.
frank beamer #1
Watch Michigan lose to Michigan State on Saturday was frustrating and somewhat difficult to put into perspective. We want to believe that the coaches are capable of understanding the strengths and weaknesses of their players so the players can successfully execute. We also have to have the right players. It seems that we are still not where we want to be in terms of talent, coaching and understanding. How far away are we before we have the right combination?
Let's just get to the big question first. Michigan is still staring at the crater where their senior class is supposed to be, and reeling from Rich Rodriguez's inept offensive line recruiting. The 2011 class is also not spectacular, as it was a few in-state true believers, Blake Countess, and guys with little recruiting profile thanks to Rodriguez's sinking profile and Michigan giving Hoke three weeks to pile ten guys in. The talent on this team is mostly underclass.
That will not be the case on next year's defense. A projected starting lineup:
This defense is an okay unit still beset by personnel issues. Snaps at NT not given to Quinton Washington against MSU went to… Jibreel Black. Yup. 250-pound Brennen Beyer is now the starting SDE. Before that the existence of Black was the only thing separating the situation the SDE and 3TECH positions from the one Michigan is dealing with at guard: one sophomore with a middling recruiting profile (Bryant on OL, Heitzman on DL) and a pile of freshman who are still freshman no matter how touted. I expect Michigan's defense to take a significant step forward from good but not great to maybe great next year.
The situation on offense is much more frightening. Michigan hasn't been able to move snap one away from Fitzgerald Toussaint, which is an indictment of Michigan's recruiting or development or both there. Michigan hasn't had a QB who wasn't massively turnover prone since Borges arrived, and there are zero seniors on next year's OL. Does a starting line of Magnuson-Bosch-Glasgow-Kalis-Braden featuring four sophomores and a junior who is a former walk-on entice? No.
Michigan's probably a 9-3 team next year and then you're putting all your eggs in Shane Morris's basket at QB the year after. So… not for a while.
[After the JUMP: oh good the "when can we fire this guy" tag is back. Yost: not really Yost.]
I once asked you a question regarding what would it take you to abandon your support for Rich Rod. You were kind enough to post it and respond.
I'd like to ask the same question for Hoke and company.
All I look for as a fan is player development. I figure Michigan will win and lose, but as long as the players are developing and they put in a strong effort I am happy. I don't expect perfection or anywhere near it. The players are still kids and I don't lose sight of that fact like so many others. But I just want to see them get better as the year goes. Compare the joke State was on offense at the beginning of the year with a crap line and few highly recruited players and look how Dantonio develops them. There is a plan. There is clear training that the players absorb. He molds them. The players clearly improve as a unit. Does Hoke do that? Is there evidence of that?
I don't know for sure, but just like with Rich Rod I just don't see the development.
Yet I don't feel as critical toward Hoke as so many others do. I think it has to do with recruiting acumen. But the thought that Hoke can't develop his players has been nagging at me.
What's your opinion? Specifically, what would it take you to abandon your support for Hoke? Do you think the player development is there? Why has Sparty been able to develop lower ranked players on offense (ignore their great D for the purpose of this question) into a more consistent superior unit than Michigan?
Thank you -
If we're comparing things to MSU, Dantonio started out 7-6, 9-4, 6-7 and then had an 11-win, turnover-fueled season of fortune that ended with a 49-7 loss to Alabama. In year five is when they actually seemed like a double-digit-win team, nearly winning the Big Ten and beating Georgia in the Outback. Hoke got off to a faster start thanks to Michigan's own lucky-as-hell 11-win season but right now he's in a similar doldrums as the previous guy's crappy late recruiting enters their upperclass years. Dantonio had a similar attrition issue because just about the only good players in JLS's last class were JUCOs.
Dantonio was also hired in late November instead of January, giving him more time to assemble a first class that would include late pickups Kirk Cousins and BJ Cunningham. Michigan's QB from their first class was Russell Bellomy—slight difference there—and they took a pass on Devin Lucien. (Who has nine catches for UCLA this year, FWIW.)
It takes time to assemble a winning program when you're coming from a botched transition, and I'll take a pass on another transition just yet.
What would it take for me to want Hoke gone? A lot. Nothing that can happen this year. Michigan could get bombed five straight times to close out the year and it would still make more sense to forge ahead instead of try another transition. In that case I'd probably be advocating for some staff changes, but haven't we seen enough of what happens when you change course wildly after three years of trying something?
And assuming there's notable progress on the field from a team that is shedding most of the baggage associated with that disastrous senior class, I would advocate a fifth year. So much of what's going on now is Rich Rodriguez and Mike Rosenberg and Dave Brandon's fault.
Hoke's recruiting does buy him quite a bit in my book. He's stabilized the program with the 2012 class, which still has 24 of 25 guys on campus; this year's 27 is all present and accounted for, and Michigan is finally entering a year in which they are struggling to add 18 guys to a single class. He's winning recruiting battles with powers and managing his roster sensibly*. You can see the direction things are going in terms of retention and recruiting stars.
MSU guys are good because they're around all the time. MSU has reached Wisconsin levels of retention, redshirting damn near everyone and keeping almost all of them around for four or five years. Michigan has taken a step and a half towards that.
Are people developing? Individuals, surely. Clark is coming along this year; Beyer has developed; I like both ILBs; Wilson and Taylor are moving forward. Gallon's great, and Funchess is now a weapon even if he can't block. The DL has taken a step back but I'm liking Willie Henry a lot.
Some units are not. Michigan hasn't developed a tailback since… Chris Perry? (Mike Hart came fully-formed out of high school.) Fred Jackson's talent evaluation has been a running joke for years now and it gets less and less funny every year; Michigan has no one who can pick up a blitz and is getting zero from two touted freshmen. Thomas Rawls is a ghost even after Drake Johnson's ACL tear.
The offensive line is hard to judge because of the recruiting crater but has been handled awfully—IMO Michigan is better off if they just stick with Glasgow-Miller-Kalis across the front and hope, and every snap on which a guy flips to an unfamiliar position in practice is a waste of time. The tight ends have almost gone backwards in terms of their blocking and Michigan insisted on using them extensively for half the season; AJ Williams's suspension for the MSU game is like seeing Robbie Findley pick up two yellows in the World Cup. Special teams have also been a consistent disaster from dinosaur punts to erratic punters to Michigan's horrible return units.
If Michigan does end up in a spot where a shakeup is required—emphasis on required, as that's the only way someone's getting forced out—the heat would fall mostly on Funk, Jackson, and Ferrigno. And Borges, who in addition to the we're-stretch-we're-power-we're nothing executive decisions that have exacerbated the line issues has fielded a turnover-mad QB for the third straight year.
*[For the most part. Not taking a QB in 2013 was a mistake.]
Imagine it's January and Hoke has to break it to the players that Borges and Funk were sent off to frolic around a nice farm. Who are valid candidates for OC/OL that Michigan would be able to hire next year? Of course, we'd all love to have an Art Briles, Gus Malzahn, or Chip Kelly heading up the offense, but that's not happening. Who would choose to leave their current positions for the Michigan job? Loeffler? Matt Canada? Ron Zook (just kidding I know he was a defensive coach)? Lane Kiffin (maybe just kidding, but a total buttwipe)? Before we call for heads to roll, I think some nominations are in order.
This is not happening, man. Let's start with that. And I don't know anything about OL coaches; nobody knows anything about them except their OL coach, who they usually hate. As far as OC: given Hoke's predilections I wouldn't get your hopes up if they center around the Briles/Malzahn/Kelly axis. That has about as much chance of happening as Al Borges getting replaced by Tony Franklin again.
If I'm picking from realistic candidates who might be available, I'm looking at Nebraska's Tim Beck. He has an option system that's one coherent whole and has been the productive half of the Cornhusker outfit for the last few years without amazing talent at the helm. He is also likely to be a free agent after the year. You'd have to figure out if he can run a passing-oriented offense first since Shane Morris isn't going to be running around like a maniac. But this is all fantasyland anyway.
I know your mailbox is full with football questions but I have a a couple hockey related questions.
First, after watching the Tech series Nagelvoort is clearly a high caliber goalie saving 56 of 59 shots (95% save percentage). Early in the season Racine looked solid with a 93% save percentage in two and half games before going down with a groin injury. If you are Red, what do you with the goalie situation? Do you split series a la 2011 with Hunwick on Friday and Hogan on Saturday until one emerges? Ride the hot hand with Nagelvoort or go back to the presumed starter with Racine?
Second, I have been a student ticket holder for the past 3 seasons. I hear a lot about the "glory days" of Yost can you talk about what exactly made those years so much better? Are the cheers stale? Is it purely an attendance issue? Did the renovations take away from the "aura" of Yost?
Thanks for the insight.
Sir. I love you. You are the best.
GOALIE STUFF: Racine is on quite a streak himself; I think at the very least when he is ready to play you have to go to a platoon. A lot of teams have done this; I remember going back to ND and Miami stats when previewing them and noting that they had two goalies who had split the games near-evenly. You don't have that much data on either guy; it seems like at this point you should give each guy one game on a weekend until such time as it seems one of them has separated themselves.
This is an excellent situation to be in. I mean… last year versus this year.
YOST STUFF: Hey man I don't want to harsh on you. Those students who are in the building nightly singing O Canada the 10 minute mark are my guys. I love that. Hagelin flag, etc.
Back in the day the entirety of that side of the ice was students, and there were about 30-40% more seats available before two different renovations, both of which screwed over the students. The first added that overhang for people who like to spend lots of money to not attend hockey games. (You probably don't know this since you're directly under them but the club seat section is never more than 50% full. Never.) That instantly cut out 3-4 rows and made about 4 more crappy seats where you had to duck to see anything, and made a big chunk of the student section almost separate from the rest of the arena. I was back there one year. It was awful.
The second stripped out most of the glass-level seats and altered the row structure such that there is very little student presence behind either of the benches. Back in the day, the oldest, meanest students sat behind the opposing bench and said horrible things about the opposition on the ice such that it was a not-infrequent occurrence for the parents of those players to trundle back into the student section trying to punch someone. This was scary and ridiculously awesome. It probably couldn't last. It hasn't.
Combine that with hostility to the penalty box cheer (band playing over it, Red exhorting it to stop) and the student section has necessarily gotten way less weird and unique and awesome over the past decade. About 80% of this is on the athletic department, and about 80% of that 80% was the Bill Martin department. They looked at SI articles describing the student section's cheer as a blight instead of a treasure and reacted accordingly. They've been crapping on the students ever since. None of this is actually the students' fault, except insofar as they were unable to come up with completely clean cheers that would show up in SI.
(The other 20% was that season-ending game where the dancing spread to the entire section, and now the student section is a bunch of FUN PEOPLE who LIKE CANDY and LIKE DANCING and LIKE FUN instead of terrible twisted misanthropes taking their frustrations on life out on innocent student athletes. Some people.)
The cost is becoming apparent. These days the student section is probably a quarter of what it was at its heyday and the corresponding drop in enthusiasm is obvious. In the heyday you knew that it was a football Saturday because the game was relatively muted, and you knew that Michigan had lost when the crowd was barely alive; after Saturday's game there was basically no difference in crowd enthusiasm from Friday. Yost is just another arena now.
ND is away but not as good so that's a wash. The location of OSU plays little difference at this point. Everything else about the schedule is easier.
ND is not as good next year? How do you figure that?
I like what I saw out of Chesson last week - until that game he seemed more like a special teams ace than WR, but the easy dismissal of Gallon as quite easily replaceable is interesting. There will be a lot of depth at WR next year with all of this year's RS Freshman and some freshman like Harris coming in next year but the ONLY proven commodity next year will be Funchess and sorta Chesson. Darboh right now is practice hype. That is all he is. Until proven on a football field against opponents he is a projection. And as much as everyone hates on Fitz in some circles, Green has shown little to nothing thus far in terms of major upside to Fitz.
7 out 11 defensive starters, Narduzzi may be gone(UConn?), and they lose 3/5's of their OL. Now factor in their average talent at the offensive skill spots and I don't see MSU has much of a threat.* Not with games at Oregon(LOL!) and homes games with Ohio, Michigan, and Nebraska.
Mork is a boom-or-bust coach. He has as many 5 plus loss seasons(3) as he will have double win seasons(assuming MSU wins at least two of their next three games) Next year will be a bust for Sparty.
ND has to find a QB, a WR to take Jones spot, and lose at least 6 defenders.(7 if Tuitt leaves)
UM does NOT play at Nebraska next year, but they do play at Northwestern. However, Northwestern loses Colter and Mark.
Ohio is Ohio. That game will be a bitch.
My main concern is Hoke's inability to win on the road. They are reaching Lionian ineptitude when it comes to pillaging other universities stadiums. UM has the talent to win consistently on the road, yet they continue to struggle. What the cheese, bro?
*Where's the threat?
We don't play Nebraska next year. We do play at Northwestern again though.
[EDIT: Good lord, it took me seven minutes to write this?]
Seconded on 2014. All this talk of "the OL can't be worse" has me in groundhog day since it was the same stuff said 12 months ago. It can be worse. Or the same. Or marginally better - all of which are bad results. Hoke hasnt beaten any decent team on the road - maybe ND they will beat because even RichRod could pull out ND wins on the road but MSU and OSU have superior physical dominance over us.
And when Brian compares UM under Hoke to MSU under Dantonio recall UM gets recruiting classes in the 5-20 range each and every year. Dantonio gets classes in the 30s and 40s most years. His worst recruiting class would be UM's best on paper. So its not even the correct program to compare to. UM should be compared to similar recruiting profiles when judged on player development. UM has far more raw material to work with. Period. They should be compared to OSU and Oklahoma and Oregon as they recruit in the same neighborhood. By that measure what is happening in player development is poor.
At this point I can't say I am a fan of Borges, there is zero consistency from game to game. There is no identity for the offense, there hasen't been for 3 years. The only thing that these offense's can point to is the QB, this is Denard's offense or Devin's offense...nothing else. Michigan used to have plenty of RB's and FB's where have they all gone. Why can anyone who can't block be called a tight end? It is a misnomer.
I like Hoke, I like Mattison, but I am just not on board with Borges...I don't think I ever was...I don't look at his record at other schools and think to myself "this guy knows what he is doing"...I don't see his upside. Nice guy, but he isn't coaching this offense worth a dang.
I remember when Brian was analyzing the new staff after Hoke was chosen. He likened Borges to Gerg as in - coach who has had some success when he had stellar players, but has not shown much aside from that. Unfortunately I think our Fearless Leader was correct.
There is no identity for the offense, there hasen't been for 3 years.
Is that the product of not having the guys to run the style of offense Borges wants? I mean, we're still on a Rich Rod recruited QB. I just wonder if the inconsistency in our offense is due to Borges not having the big, bruising line he wants and the pocket passing QB.
I don't know, I really think it may be some of both, but at the same time the 3rd year is usually all most coaches get to prove their mettle at a new school. So far we got bumpkiss on offense.
Gardner couldn't be a pocket passing QB? When there's been a pocket to pass from, he's done pretty good.
Is this out of reverence or am I just missing those posts? Chris Perry was a long time ago...
I believe when his son committed, Fred basically said he would coach as long as he was in school. I bet he's retiring soon either way. Doubt he ever gets straight up "fired".
Hello Mike Hart!
Fred Jackson never gets straight up anything. It's always got extra sauce.
I agree with SC that it is this year or next at latest with FJ. Jeromy graduates this spring and maybe some of this situation is being used to scrutinize Jackson. Hoke even made a comment about RB development...
Absolutely NO to Mike Hart unless Tyrone Wheatley turns it down. Wheatley has been a successful coach and recruiter (of the Detroit area too which was always what everyone said was/is FJ's strengths). Wheatley is at Buffalo getting some even better experience after moving from the Syracuse gig. Hart may be very good but you are getting the better of the two with Wheatley. TW would literaly be a plug-in-play in every high school in the region.
Space Coyote - very impressed with the work you have assembled elsewhere. Kudos.
I have to agree--I love Mike Hart but Wheatley is the more proven commodity at this point.
I highly doubt Wheatley is walking away from NFL money to coach running backs.
Do you know the difference in pay between an NFL RB coach and Michigan's RB coach? I don't, but I bet it's not that big.
Michigan would be the more comfy job, and he'd be in Ann Arbor, and he might get to be with his son. That said, if he's looking to advance in the NFL or in his career, Buffalo is probably in his best interests unless Michigan is willing to add something to his title (assistant head coach, special teams coach, something of that nature).
As for Hart, I honestly don't know if he's the best option because I don't know to what extent he's been good at EMU. Hart was a great RB at Michigan, but that doesn't necessarily make him a great coach or a great recruiter. I have no doubt of his love for the game and the love of this university, which would add something, surely, but he still needs to be good at actually coaching the position. Michigan fans like Hart, but he does rub others the wrong way. I honestly think you have to carefully evaluate him compared to other candidates when it comes time to get a new RB coach, but I wouldn't be surprised if that next guy isn't Hart.
I agree that they should've stuck with the 3 in the middle that started the season, though I wasn't happy with how they were playing and wanted changes myself. It likely would've been better long term, as the continuity increases and they become more experienced. It would also have saved Bosch's redshirt.
I think the shadow of last year's bad OL play was partly what spurred the shuffling this year. They stuck to their guns last year, held Kalis, Glasgow, Burzinyski, etc out and rolled all year with the starters and hoped for improvement. This year, I think they looked back and decided they might have been able steal a game or two by tweaking things earlier.
I think benching Miller, and Glasgow to C and Bryant to LG was probably a sensible change at the time. After the seal was broken so to speak and we rotated through Burzinyski, Magnuson, and finally Bosch I think things kinda got away from the coaches a bit. They were sorta stuck, ie they couldn't hit undo and go back and give the reps back to the original starters, but yet the new guys absolutely were not even close to acceptable. Throw in tackle over, zone/power schizophrenia and you've got a lot of guys that have tried everything but are good at nothing. As you said, this is totally a hindsight is 20/20 situation as each decision at the time was defensible, but looking back it all kinda reeks of desparation.
We have 3 games coming up against not great DLs so hopefully the same 5 guys can finally get so consistency doing the same thing. Ohio is probably a loss as much as I hate to say it, but then we have a month plus of bowl practice. There's still some time for this unit to improve under live fire before next year.
The question is if the fan base will have enough patience to allow them to stick with one thing even if they're not good at it initially, because they won't be. They're not good at anything right now. I'm firmly in the re-building mindset right now where I'd rather lose some games this year getting these guys to do one thing well than trying to mess around with things more trying to squeeze out an extra win. I'm not sure how many people here agree with me.
I can understand last season weighing heavily on the coaches decisions on the line, but that line wasn't as bad as folks made them out to be. Of course they struggled when M tried to run power because all but 1, I believe (Mealer) were recruited for a different offense. But as we saw when M went to spread concepts and genuine passing formations, they were generally solid.
Could this be the coaches conforming, somewhat, to the media/fans/alumni who perhaps thought that change was necessary? I doubt it but for someone like Hoke who has his ideals and beliefs to makes so many changes to the line seems like it could be outside influence.
I was as disappointed as anyone when in the Akron and UCONN games that M struggled to run the ball but that line did what needed to be done.. Late in the games against ND, Akron and UCONN they rallied a bit, hung in there and got the job done. I don't think you can ask for any more than that, really, all things considered.
It might have been better for this year, but then we might be seeing a 0-start versions of Bosch and Magnuson. I'd rather have 4 guys with 5-6 starts apiece than spreading those starts between fewer guys. That will keep us out of a predicament like we face this year.
here, Brian. I won't inject my own opinions - just trying to understand your position.
You argued stridently that RR inherited a mess and the cupboard was bare, etc. Yet, by the end of year 3 you were on board with the RR firing. The reasons were many and no need to re-hash.
Now, you are saying that Hoke inherited a mess with certain positions and even if we went 6-7 this year with massive losses for every game and getting smashed in the bowl you would still want years 4 and probably 5?
Have you simply changed your perspective on these coaching change issues or are there other issues at play? Again, I'm not advocating for one position or the other and I think it's perfectly fine if your perspective has changed, just trying to understand the thought process.
I'm guessing a lot of it has to do with the fact that Hoke is recruiting at a clip Michigan has not seen since the start of the Rivals era, while RR was not recruiting near that level.
Correct. Also the bowl game debacle was a needle-mover, as it featured open rebellion from big chunks of the players. I didn't now that then, but do now.
Oh God none of this matters and I hate myself for asking this, but how much of Gatorgeddon do you think was open rebellion (doesn't really seem like Denard or RVB or Molk) and how much was deflation due to certain knowledge that RR was gone no matter the outcome?
I ask because there was something between a rumor and a Bacon-verified fact going around that Brandon told seniors in exit interviews that RR was gone (EDIT: prior to the bowl game, which, if true, is pretty inexcusable on DB's part and bothers me WAY more than Skywritinggate or Noodlegate or Cushiongate or any other gate). Any further substantiation of that on your end?
On the one hand, it doesn't really make sense b/c then you figure DB would have just fired RR after OSU; on the other hand, maybe just prior to the Gator Bowl he discovered that Harbaugh wasn't walking through the door but Hoke was willing to crawl on his knees on broken crack vials to coach.
I don't see how John Bacon could verify something that would have happened when he wasn't present.
Contrary to what has been posted here today, that guy doesn't exactly have the best track record regarding passing off rumor as fact anyway.
Until we get someone on record saying this, that was there, this should remain as a rumor.
You'd think there'd be ONE who would come out and say "Yeah, Brandon told us."
It seems like this particular story never got much play because it didn't make it into 3 and Out, either because Bacon didn't want to include it or because it happened or he heard about it after press time. I think probably the latter.
And to be clear, I'm not even sure it was Bacon whom I heard this from (though I think it was--in one of those long posts on MGoBlog where he answered readers' questions).
But in any event, it would only explain some of the collapse, not (1) excuse anyone for the collapse, nor (2) make the decision to fire RR any less defensible. I only ask because I think it is fair to accurately portray a Michigan football coach's demise, and not to after the fact argue that an additional bit of ammunition in support of his ouster was that "his team quit on him."
Finally, to totally fucking belabor this point, I guess what I am saying is that it seems like there's just as much (or little) evidence for the "players quit on him" narrative (in the form of players' saying "yeah, we quit on the guy") as there is for the "the players were demoralized" narrative. You discount that narrative because of lack of evidence, but I could just as easily discount the "players quit on him" narrative for lack of evidence, right? That's what I was asking Brian about.
That's why I said somewhere else that revolting on him was too strong, because I think that means they actively were trying to sabatoge the guy. I don't see much difference between "quiting on the guy" or "being demoralized." Or would "disillusioned" get the point across better? You don't have to hate a guy to quit on him. Just be "man, this blows, I'm sick of all this losing shit, I give up." You may not be quitting because you don't like the coach, but if you quit on the team, you're quitting on the coach.
And I think that narrative has some steam because of the way the game went down. We fought for a little, but folded pretty badly after we went down. And I don't think anyone really thinks that team was THAT much worse than MSU (ntMSU).
I haven't heard about this. Can you provide some info? Thx.
Is there any more info about this rebellion you speak of??? Somehow I missed this.
but does the end of the season change if DB comes out early and often in favor of RR getting another year and publicly supporting him? The answer almost has to be yes. Of course there's going to be apathy and rebellion playing for a fired coach. Chicken and egg thing.
We were 7-3 going into the final two weeks of the regular season. It was by no means a foregone conclusion that he was going to be fired then, so I don't know if I buy your reasoning here.
Anyhow, teams often rise to the occasion when their coach is in trouble - if they believe in him.
since Brian called it a needle-mover. I think it was more or less 100% clear he was gone after OSU so IMO taking the results of the bowl game into consideration seems pointless.
OK. When you said "end of the season" I thought you meant November.
Whether he was definitely gone after OSU is hard to say. Probably only Brandon knows for sure.
Quitting on the staff is more apathy than outright "screw this guy." Though when things are going badly there's always a little of that too. There might have been less of that, but what results do you really see changing with a vote of confidence? Particularly in games? You don't think if we had beat OSU that year it would have gone without saying?
And if he does come out and says that, and the bowl game goes the same, what does he do then? Go against the vote (the old NFL vote of confidence/you're fired) and still get rid of him? That looks even more awful. Or keep him with all the swirling and a truly hot seat and hoping there are enough early wins that it doesn't kill the 2011 AND 2012 recruiting class? Because it was going to be hard to recruit in that environment. And we weren't doing great to begin with.
I won't argue my opinions.
Asks questions about RR.
Username: "Promote RichRod"
everytime this is brought up. Can anyone else see my join date during the 2008 season?
Also, I didn't give an opinion. If you want it, it's that all coaches should generally be given 5 years. Same as Brian's noted above, so I pointed out that Brian's opinion obviously differed a few years ago so I asked why and got my answer. I was wondering if concerns about becoming ND/a coaching carousel informed his recent opinions re: Hoke's status.
Recruiting/stability is the big difference. On field performance is very hard to judge for 1,2, and even 3 year coaches sometimes, depending on personell issues from the previous regime.
Recruiting, however, is not as hard to judge. If you can't bring them in by year 2/3, odds are you are never going to make huge strides in that area (or at least it will take quite a bit longer to establish that trust with recruits). Rodriguez's 2nd year class was quite mediocre and his 3rd year class wasn't shaping up to be any better. Closely tied to that was the fact that large portions of the old school michigan fan base hated him and that scared away recruits even more.
As long as Hoke continues to recruit the way he currently does, he gets a much longer leash than RR.
and makes sense. I suppose I put a lot more value in player development than recruiting rankings but I do agree it makes things a hell of a lot easier when there's more raw talent to mold (or not...).
I think RR had to go, because there was just too much momentum against him. There was no real honeymoon period and things just continued to pile on. Despite a few poor game outings, Hoke pooped a lot of gold in that first season, and has shown a lot of momentum in the recruiting trail. While RR had lost a lot of his own recruits in the 3 years, Hoke has kept his recruits intact.
I generally agree with the 5 year plan, but I think RR just had too much going against him. I hadn't heard about the rebellion thing, but could definitley tell the players quit in the bowl game.
Part of it is perception too. Under RR, we were a laughing stock. We were lucky this period coincided with ND also sucking, but we we're run off the field against MSU and OSU every year, and the one year we made a bowl we we're run off the field then too. I know the game last weekend wasn't pretty, but we have two close games each with MSU and OSU before that, going 2-2 in those games. We've had a couple beat downs in the Hoke era (though against good teams) but we had a lot under RichRod.
Not to be that guy, but we're = we are
Thank you Zapata, I didn't know what a contraction was until just now. I appreciate the help.
By the way, every time you say "not to be that guy" you are that guy.
all this RR stuff because it's rather pointless but one thing I think everyone forgets - the B10 was light years better top to bottom during the RR years as opposed to recent history. I'd say the B10 was competing for being the second-best conference during the RR years whereas now I'd put the B10 well below the SEC, PAC12, ACC and B12 without hesitation.
Bowl Records for the Big Ten-
I mean, it 2009 it was modestly better, by a game or so, but it's been pretty awful consistently all those years. And the worst was his worst season. (And worst team, obviously). I mean, the Big Ten sadly has just sucked. (And all that's before PSU or OSU vacated anything).
but bowl results certainly do not tell the whole story. I won't come at you with stats because I don't have the attention span for that, but here's my general thoughts.
OSU was awesome, went to national title game/Rose Bowls etc., exploded in 2011 and was terrible and didn't have a coach (they since rebounded, obviously, and are back to awesome, probably even better).
MSU has been from above average to good during the RR years. Pretty much the same during Hoke.
Wisconsin was during Bielema's prime, contending for Rose Bowls, etc. for RR. He's now gone and they aren't the same.
PSU was above-average to good for RR. Now they are a gutted program and a tire fire.
Iowa was also solid to good most years and even had one really good year in there for RR. They are now average to pretty terrible.
Illinois and Purdue were below average to average, could surprise teams from time to time for RR. Now they are tire fires.
Minnesota always sucked, but perhaps improving lately.
Northwestern is generally all over the place throughout the RR/Hoke years.
Nebraska wasn't around for RR but they are definitely trending way down since joining the conference.