A comparison of what Urban Meyer inherited and what Coach Hoke inherited (now with edits!)

Submitted by Erik_in_Dayton on

We have of course been talking about the state of the football program lately.  Some posters are apparently disappointed at the different tracks that OSU and Michigan have taken since 2011, when Michigan went 11-2 and OSU faltered at 6-7.  Some also seem frustrated because of their shared perception that Urban Meyer has out-coached Brady Hoke since they took over their respective programs.  The extent of this frustration has surprised me, though it occurred to me that I may be more familiar with OSU’s program than the average Michigan fan.  I decided to take a look at where the programs stood when the two coaches took over, and what I came up with is below.

 

Recent Records

 

First, let’s take a look at the recent records of the two programs prior to Hoke’s and Meyer’s arrivals.  We’ll specifically start with 2007 for Coach Hoke, the first year that a redshirt senior in Hoke’s first year of coaching would have been on campus.  Well take 2008 for Meyer, because he took over one year after Hoke. 

 

The 2007 Wolverines went 9-4, beat Notre Dame and MSU, lost to Ohio State, beat Florida in the Citrus Bowl, and may have played an FCS team of some sort.  It’s tough to say on that last point.  What isn’t tough to say is that this was the best year that any of the players inherited by Coach Hoke would enjoy prior to his arrival. 

 

The 2008-2010 Wolverines went 3-9, 5-7, and 7-6 while never beating MSU or OSU.  They did manage to beat Notre Dame two times.  They made it to one bowl – my memory is hazy, but I believe Mississippi State won by a point or two, possibly on a controversial call by a ref.

 

Coach Hoke accordingly inherited a group of players who had been members of a team that had enjoyed consistent success against Notre Dame and no other rival.  They were 1-3 against MSU at best, and none of them had ever defeated OSU.  Worse – at least according to the internet (again, I don’t recall) – they had has many losses to FCS teams as they did bowl victories. 

 

The 2008 Buckeyes went 10-3, beat Michigan, won the Big Ten, and lost in the Fiesta Bowl to Texas.  The 2009 Buckeyes improved to 11-2, beat Michigan, won the Big Ten, and beat Oregon in the Rose Bowl.  The 2010 Buckeyes improved yet again to 12-1, beat Michigan, won the Big Ten, and won the Sugar Bowl.  The 2011 Buckeyes, in the chaos surrounding the loss of Jim Tressel, fell (as noted) to 6-7, lost to Michigan for the first time since 2003, failed to win at least a share of the Big Ten title for the first time since 2004, and lost the Gator Bowl. 

 

EDIT:  The (Tattoo) Needle and the Damage Done (a further thought on the 2011 OSU squad):  

I couldn't resist that title.  Someone probably used it back in 2011, but anyway...As I discuss more below, the most signifigant damage from the OSU tattoo scandal was always likely likely to be most profoundly felt in 2011.  OSU lost its best coach since Woody Hayes, its offensive coordinator, and its quarterback coach - Tressel was all three.  (Compare the putrid design of OSU's 2011 offense under formerly-nominal OC Jim Bollman to the offenses when Tressel was present.)  OSU also lost 60% of its yards from scrimmage in Pryor, whom the Buckeyes had not expected to replace that year, meaning they only had Joe Bauserman and true freshman Braxton Miller to take over.  Finally, OSU lost its leading rusher in Boom Herron and its leading receiver in Devier Posey - the team improved noticeably when Herron returned in the sixth game and again when Posey returned in the eleventh.  

The above were all problems that OSU was - in my view - always highly likely to rebound from.  OSU didn't have time to replace Tressel using a full hiring search in 2011 (he resigned in May - not coach-hiring season) leaving them with the untested Luke Fickel.  They did have time for a full coaching search in 2012.  Further, talented and now-experienced players recruited by Tressel - Miller, Carlos Hyde, Devin Smith, etc. - were positioned to replace Pryor, Herron, and Posey by 2012.  Accordingly, any good coach would have righted the ship relative to the Buckeye's 2011 season.

 

An opinion:  I believe that programs have cultures, and I believe that those cultures promote winning and losing to varying degrees.  Most may find that obvious, but a few might disagree.  I further believe that the above shows it to be very likely that OSU had a very strong, winning culture by the time Urban Meyer arrived in Columbus.  Only his first and second year players had ever not defeated Michigan, won the Big Ten, and won a BCS game.  The rest of his players were used to being at the top of the college football world. 

 

Coach Hoke, on the other hand, inherited a program that had – for whatever reasons (I’m not wading into the RR debate) – been losing regularly in big (and not so big) games.  It accordingly seems safe to say that there was not a strong culture of winning at Michigan when Coach Hoke arrived in Ann Arbor.  It’s worth repeating that no one on the 2011 roster had ever enjoyed a better season than 2007, when the 2011 players who were on that team watched from the sidelines as Michigan lost in disastrous fashion twice to start out and finally rebounded to beat Florida in the Citrus Bowl (since renamed as the Bank of Capital One FedEx Visa Goldman Sachs Bowl). 

 

The Rosters

 

I looked at the 2011 Michigan and 2012 OSU rosters by noting the rosters’ cumulative experience and recruiting rankings (stars).  I used Scout for the recruiting rankings.  They tend to have rank Midwestern players higher than to other services, but that should not favor OSU or Michigan, because both tend to recruit Midwestern and non-Midwestern players in about equal fashion. 

 

I credited player experience as follows:  A redshirt freshman was given credit for 0.5 years of experience, because he was on campus but didn’t play.  A true sophomore was given credit for one year of experience, because he had played for one year.  A redshirt sophomore was given credit for 1.5 years, etc.

 

The players I counted:  I wanted to capture the teams as Coach Hoke and Coach Meyer inherited them.  I did this by only giving the teams credit for the years of experience and recruiting stars of players who joined the programs prior to the arrival of the given coach.  Accordingly, though both Michigan and OSU had verbal commitments from recruits prior to the arrival of the two coaches, I did not count those players.  Hoke and Meyer at least had to close the deal on those recruitments – meaning that they were not completely inherited – and I frankly didn’t have a good way of distinguishing between whom it was that was in the bag for the relevant coach and who wasn’t.

 

A quick note:  Any player who started out as a walk-on is not counted as a scholarship player below.  Jordan Kovas is therefore counted as a walk-on even though he earned a scholarship after arriving in AA.  I simply didn’t have a good way of tracking down all of the players who followed the Kovacs route for both teams. 

 

What I found is this:

 

OSU – Urban Meyer inherited a team with 55 scholarship players, and their average Scout ranking was 3.69 stars.  Those 55 players had an average of 1.91 years of experience (again, note that I only gave credit for 0.5 years for a redshirt season).  Meyer also inherited 43 walk-ons, and they had an average of .8 years of experience.  The experience of the scholarship and walk-on players combined was an average of 1.42 years.

 

Michigan – Coach Hoke inherited a team with 56 scholarship players, and their average Scout ranking was 3.38 stars.  Those 56 players had an average of 1.96 years of experience.  He inherited 46 walk-ons who had an average of 1.26 years of experience.  The experience of the scholarship and walk-on players combined was an average of 1.65 years.

 

What we can take from this: Coach Hoke inherited a slightly more experienced roster (at least when we only compare the scholarship players), but Urban Meyer inherited a solidly more talented one.  Another way of looking at the above numbers is this: roughly one out of every four of Meyer's players had one more star than did their Michigan counterpart (Meyer's 55 players had 14 more total stars than Hoke's 56, and 14/55 is .254).  In addition to what’s above, it’s worth remembering that not all four stars are alike, and I frequently noticed while compiling the rankings that OSU was much more likely to have high-four star guys (as an example – the same seemed true for 3 star guys) than was Michigan. 

 

It’s also worth noting – and I suppose you’ll just have to trust me on this – that the players Meyer inherited fit his schemes much better than did the players whom Coach Hoke inherited.  We can argue all day about how flexible a coach should be, but I don’t think there’s any question that it is at least easier to work with players who fit your preferred scheme.  Examples: We all love Denard (Scout's 16th-ranked cornerback in 2009) and Drew Dileo, but they do not fit what Coach Hoke wants to do in the way Braxton Miller and Jordan Hall fit what Meyer wants to do. 

 

Edit: The Needle and the Damage Done II (further thoughts on OSU's 2011 turmoil):

Meyer deserves credit for the recruiting and coaching that he did in the shadow of NCAA sanctions.  However, it is of course true that not all NCAA trouble is created the same.  First, as poster Dr. Steve reminds us below, Meyer was allowed by the NCAA to recruit fafter being hired in November of 2011 despite the fact that OSU still had a full staff coaching the team.  Meyer had no responsibilities but to recruit.  Further, OSU knew within roughly three weeks of Meyer's hire that they would only be hit with a one-year postseason ban and a three-year cap of 82 total scholarships.  This was not an ideal situation, but it was hardly the harsh blow to the OSU program that some had predicted.  As I said above, the more severe penalty was the damage done to OSU's 2011 season, when they hoped to win an NCAA championship.  Take this for what it's worth, but OSU fans regret the loss of that season far more than they do last season's postseason ban or the loss of the scholarships.

 

Conclusion

 

Meyer may well have out-schemed and/or out-recruited Coach Hoke at times since the two took over at OSU and Michigan.  I am not arguing one way or the other as to who is the best coach.  However, we must when comparing the two realize that they did not take over equivalent programs (as much as this might pain us).  Coach Hoke took over a less talented team and a team that was not accustomed anything close to the success Meyer’s players had enjoyed.  Further, Meyer admittedly had to overcome what turned out to be notable but not-severe NCAA trouble, but this trouble was minor compared to what OSU suffered prior to his arrival, and that trouble (the loss of Tressel et al.) was always most likely to affect the 2011 more than any other.  In my opinion, this created the perception that Meyer rescued OSU from a far worse situation than he did.  Meyer had to recruit and coach against a one-year bowl ban, while Hoke had to recruit and coach against four years of failure.  I would take the former any day.

  

 

 

Comments

oriental andrew

November 1st, 2013 at 5:27 PM ^

you mention low and high 4 stars, or even 3 stars.  May be interesting to break out in a table (or CHART) the relative rankings, e.g., grouping them by 5 stars, other Top 100, and Next 100 (or something to that effect).  Or maybe do a similar analysis on the offenses and defenses, similar to how you did it for the entire rosters.  

Given that it's msu week, could also be interesting to this for sparty.  You have your assignment.  Now go!  ;)

Bucktheworld

November 2nd, 2013 at 11:29 PM ^

Bhahaha ha just listen to you babies. They took over good programs. Hoke isn't half the coach Meyer is and you see it this season. Go enjoy you next losses to Iowa, need western and the ass kick you're gonna take from ohio state. I hope we put up 90 on you pus3ies.

EGD

November 3rd, 2013 at 1:48 AM ^

Okay, so your football team is better than ours.  Here is your cookie.

Be sure to chew it carefully before swallowing--wouldn't want you to choke on it or anything.

Wolverine 73

November 1st, 2013 at 6:06 PM ^

it seems to me that Hoke inherited a roster overstuffed with 5' 8" slot receivers and guys who could play "spur" or whatever in the 3-3-5, and woefully short on underclass OL and DL.  So not only were the players not as high caliber as those Urbs inherited, there was a real dearth of guys at positions you need to be strong at to win in the Big Ten.  I have felt all along that it will be 2015 before we are back to where we want to be.  It is hard to be patient.

blueheron

November 1st, 2013 at 9:42 PM ^

"... Hoke inherited a roster overstuffed with 5' 8" slot receivers and guys who could play "spur" or whatever in the 3-3-5 ..."

Stick to that narrative, Hoss, if it makes you feel better and eases the pain of the RichRod years. Please.

If you're feeling energetic, though, why don't you go here and tell me how 5'8" receivers you count:

http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/mich-m-footbl-roster-201…

I got two. You? I couldn't help noticing that Odoms and Gallon, to degrees, have been valued by the new regime. They've even been called "tough." Imagine that.

You're not entirely off-base. I can think of at least a couple 'tweeners (Mike Jones and Brandin Hawthorne) whose moments on field were few-and-far-between. As well, the recruiting on the lines was definitely lacking in volume. You ruined your post, though, by being simple-minded.

Wolverine 73

November 4th, 2013 at 1:44 PM ^

Without looking at rosters, I believe Odoms, Terrence Robinson, Roundtree, Dileo and Gallon were all recruited in three years as slot receivers.  How many OL were recruited in those three years?  Five for each position would mean 25 were signed.  Was it even half that number? It is nice that Roundtree was able to play outside (although his production suffered) and Gallon has been great.  Odoms and Dileo have been serviceable players.  But that's a lot of guys for one spot, and not many guys for five spots.

And you can add Marvin Robinson and Josh Furman as guys who were recruited to play positions that do not exist in a conventional defense.

Yeoman

November 4th, 2013 at 2:15 PM ^

It's not a coach's job to recruit for the next coach--you need to recruit for your own system. I don't hold the large number of smallish slottish receivers and dearth of tight ends against RR any more than I blame Carr for not recruiting running QBs.

But it doesn't matter what system you run, you have to put five offensive linemen out there on every snap. And if I'm not mistaken scholarships were left on the table every year. Why weren't those scholarships used to get numbers on the line? Even if you're just going to toss offers out there at the last minute, poach some guys from Indiana or Minnesota or Purdue, it'd be better than getting no one at all.

Half of a lineman's time in college is spent learning the position. That means you need ten on scholarship just to fill the spots, plus more to allow for the inevitable attrition.. If you aren't getting at least two or three every year your program can't survive, and that's an absolute bare minimum assuming everyone will develop into a viable player.

We had successive years of three, one and two. Of those six we moved one to defense. Another quit football; a third got a career-ending injury, a fourth has also been hurt but is thankfully still plugging away and hopefully will see action someday.

There are very few truly stupid football coaches, or people generally for that matter, so I always start from the assumption that decisions make sense. They may not be right, but there's some set of assumptions that, if you make them, the decision is plausible. If I don't get it, that's my problem and I need to use my imagination a bit more to come up with the assumptions that were used.

And I've tried.

But I don't get it.

 

MichiganBuckeye222

November 1st, 2013 at 6:45 PM ^

While I may be a little biased here, i have to cry foul here.

 

Hoke is a great recruiter, no doubt.

HE IS NOT A GREAT coach, and he is not as good as Urban Meyer.

 

Here are things that Hoke seems better at

  • gaining the trust of a recruit
  • keeping an even keel

Here are the things that Meyer is better at

  • game day coaching
  • wearing a headset (which seems to be important)
  • Recruiting on a national basis
  • Flipping recruits
  • hiring and organizing his staff

Make no mistake, Meyer isnt the 2nd best coach in college football for nothing.

MichiganBuckeye222

November 2nd, 2013 at 5:22 PM ^

i would think that since most coaches use their headsets, it is becasue they are getting inteligence from an assistant obve, with a different view.  The fact that Hoke doesn't seems to be one of those quirks that set him at a disadvantage.

EGD

November 1st, 2013 at 10:23 PM ^

That is kind of an inapposite comparison though.  Meyer is the main show in Columbus; Hoke is more a delegator.  If you compare the overall staff that Hoke has put together against Meyer's overall staff, I don't think there is a signficant difference in quality.  Ohio State has just had better players than Michigan in recent years and, Tatgate notwithstanding, much more program stability.   Smiilarly, Bill O'Brien is at least as good a coach as Meyer, but their sanction-depleted roster has cost Penn State wins--not bad coaching.

I personally believe that Meyer has been more successful than Hoke because he's has been more willing to use spread offenses and other innovations, whereas Hoke is more of an old-school fundamentals guy who does some things I find kind of arbitrary.  I think it's ultimately possible to succeed either way, but if Hoke doesn't reach the level of performance that Michigan fans are hoping for I think that will be the reason.  

 

MichiganBuckeye222

November 2nd, 2013 at 5:26 PM ^

After reading SIs account on what happens on the headset during tOSU games, i think it says a lot....For those of you with an open mind look into it.

I got a couple things out of it.

 

1.  Meyer did a great job getting his assistants on the same page and with different strengths.  After readin it, you may even believe that the staff is one of the best....

2.  THERE IS A LOT that happens during the game, and I am surprised that this stuff doesnt happen at U of M.

3.  Meyer has been getting superior results....both on the recruiting trail and in games.

GotBlueOnMyMind

November 1st, 2013 at 9:34 PM ^

1) How is Meyer that much better at hiring his staff? Name me one guy on his staff on par with Mattison. And, I'd say Borges v. OSU D-Coordinator is a draw, given that their defenses have seemed to underperform their talent (from what little I've seen)

2) Wearing a headset doesn't matter.

3) Recruiting on a national basis? Jabreel Peppers and George Campbell would like a word.

4) You don't need to flip recruits when you are getting your primary targets, and when Hoke hasn't, I remember him having flipped recruits from Illinois, Penn St, Iowa, and even OSU (if he was the one to flip Kalis, which I think he was)

5) As for game day coaching, superior talent that fits the scheme can make a coach look better. I'm not saying that is not true, just saying it is too early to tell.

MichiganBuckeye222

November 2nd, 2013 at 5:32 PM ^

1.  read the SI article.

2.  read the SI article...headsets seem to matter.

3.  Look at tOSUs classes from top to bottom.  they seem more balanced.  YES, you got peppers, campbell and Hand (i actually hope you get him).  tOSU has a better class from top to bottom....and we are getting from all corners.  Texas, NJ, FL, IL and Georgia

4.  Fair point.

5.  Michigan's talent on the field is better than the competition they are facing...by a ton.  You have better talent than PSU...much better.  

with the 2nd bast talent in the B1G, you should be dispensing with the rest of the conference with ease

In reply to by MichiganBuckeye222

snarling wolverine

November 3rd, 2013 at 12:43 AM ^

Hoke does occasionally wear a headset.  I saw him in today's game with it on a couple of times.  He's not that different from a lot of coaches - many (most?) do not wear it all game long.

BILG

November 3rd, 2013 at 2:41 PM ^

1) Cheating on his wife

2) Letting inmates (literal in the case of Hernandez / Pouncey) run the prison

3) Lying about physical ailments when his issues are actually personal (wife) and personnelle (Florida getting out recruited by LSU, Bama, FSU) in his later years

4) Running away from Saban

MichiganBuckeye222

November 3rd, 2013 at 5:31 PM ^

BILG;

Way to stay on the subject.  if you want to discuss which coach is better and why, I guess you should stick with the facts that make him better (or worse).

 

If all else fails, then dig up the dirt and throw that around to divert attention from the truth.  Urban Meyer is one of the top coaches in college football.  Coach Hoke, while a nice guy is not.  

Not even sure why there is an argument over this.

 

NOW IF YOU WANT TO SAY that Michigan wants coaches like Hoke over coaches like Meyer, then that is something that can be taken into account.

Be honest...would you rather have Hoke or Meyer..

nickb

November 1st, 2013 at 7:07 PM ^

According to you Hoke inherited more 3-4 star players than Meyers. The reality is before Meyers took over many were claiming that OSU was about to experience what Michigan has been experiencing over the past several years. Below average performance. The proof was OSU lost to Michigan for the first time in years and had a 6-7 record.

What pissed off RR about getting fired is he maintain that the team was about reach its full potential and he needed a couple of more years. Hoke took over RR's team and in the first year had an 11-2 record exactly what RR was predicting.

The second year under Hoke was an eye opener. The team regressed. Many claimed it is because Hokes recruits did not have enough time to adjust. But for DR and DG superlative play the record could have been much worse.

Meanwhile Meyers took over a program most thought was in a death spiral given the NCAA sanctions. Yet he went undefeated beating MSU and Michigan. This year he remains undefeated. Hoke on the other hand after almost two years of recruiting has a team that has offensive and defensive lines that could not crack an egg with their charge.

Clearly inferior teams take Hoke's teams to the bring of defeat. PSU had to beg players to stay on the team and started a true freshman and he beats the defense scoring more than 40 points. IU scores over forty.

This is coaching? Does anyone on the site believe for an instant that Michigan will beat OSU this year?

To compare Meyers to Hoke is like comparing DG to Tom Brady and is an insult to Meyers.

Erik_in_Dayton

November 1st, 2013 at 7:48 PM ^

Michigan fans *hoped* OSU was in a death spiral, but it never was. The Tat-gate stuff took away Tressel (when OSU wasn't prepared to replace him), Pryor, and (to some extent) Posey and Herron for 2011, and that made things seem worse than they were. By December of 2011, OSU knew that it faced only a one-year bowl ban and a three-year cap of 82 scholarships. That was it, and so there was no mass player exodus or major impediment to recruiting. Meyer deserves credit for retaining players and recruiting well, but so does Hoke, who took over an essentially losing team.

nickb

November 1st, 2013 at 8:08 PM ^

When Meyer took over OSU, they were not playing his type of offense. He was making adjustments to accomodate the talent he inherited. 

Ostensibly, Hoke does recruit well but he clearly has not developed the the players he has recruited. None of the highly recruited players have shown promise. Watching Green sickens me. This guy was a stud in high school but watching him at Michigan he looks like a deer caught in the headlights. As soon as he is touched he goes down. He does not employ field of vision to locate holes and appears robotic. This is coaching.

Do you believe Lewan is playing better this year? For the most part, whenever they run behind him they get stuffed.

We have a serious coaching disparity between ourselves and top tier teams. Should Hoke lose tomorrow, it will be three years without an type of championship. 

EGD

November 1st, 2013 at 10:16 PM ^

OSU may not have been running Meyer's offense before Meyer arrived, but they defiinitely had the personnel for it.  Asking Braxton Miller to run a spread is not a stretch; asking Ricky Barnum and Patrick Omameh to block Power O is.

And certainly you must agree that James Ross has shown promise.  Devin Funchess has shown promise.  Jarod Wilson has shown promise.  Jake Butt.  Joe Bolden.  Jourdan Lews & Channing Stribling. Ondre Pipkins. Mario Ojemudia........

 

triangle_M

November 1st, 2013 at 11:52 PM ^

I knew you couldn't resist showing up here to shit on everything.  

MSU 2012, OSU 2011, ND 2011, Nebraska 2011, ND 2013, VT (Bowl).  By most sane Michigan fans, those are BIG games.  I'm not sure what you consider a big game outside of those teams.  Are we not beating enough SEC teams that aren't on the schedule?  

You really can't say he hasn't developed his any of his players.  Are you crediting Jake Ryan's play to RR?  What about Gallon's emergence?  That's all RR too?  Noone is pleased with everything, but I'm a whole hell of a lot more pleased winning and going to bowl games than I am eating spleen every week after losing to the likes of Akron.   At this point you can call it settling for mediocrity like your buddy, mgouser BIGhouse, and be that as it may, I feel like we are in every game we play (except Bama and Nebraska 2012).  

As far as your last point is concerned, 2004 was the last Michigan championship.  Hoke is responsible for 2 of 8 of those seasons without a championship.   They don't grow on trees and all the other teams in the conference are trying to win them.  Winning the B1G championship isn't your birthright as a Michigan fan, in spite of what your sense of aggrieved entitlement is telling you.

Louie C

November 2nd, 2013 at 12:19 AM ^

Hoke has won UTLs I and III, broke the losing streaks to both State schools, curb stomped Nebraska in his first year, and won a BCS game-yet again in his first year. I'm not even going to touch your asinine claim about his inability to recruit nationally. I wondered why you were posting from La Paz. Now I see why.

Cake Or Death

November 2nd, 2013 at 12:33 AM ^

Green was dominating high school teams a few months ago.  And still could.

In previous regimes we would have seen him sporadically in his sophomore season, and been really excited for his junior/senior year.  He would never have been close to the top of the list.

I think you missed the point of the post.

BlueHills

November 1st, 2013 at 7:21 PM ^

I think it's dangerous to compare teams by looking at recruiting stars. Wisconsin is an example of a team having success well beyond its purported recruiting prowess. There are highly ranked recruits, and then there is development of those recruits, and both are things that Tressel and Meyer have been very good at.

The fact is that an average ranking difference of three tenths of a star or so isn't a big deal, especially if players are developed well by their coaches. Of more importance is your point that Hoke coaches a different style of football then the recruits he inherited.

Of course, all this begs the question of whether Meyer is the better coach.

His overall record indicates that Meyer is one of the finest coaches in college football. Hoke's record at Michigan for 2011 and 2012 isn't as elite, but it's also excellent. Hoke's overall record as a head coach is far lower than Meyer's, but is mitigated by the fact that he took over losing programs.

A Meyer-coached team would more than likely not have the inconsistencies we have seen this season from Michigan. His teams play at a consistent level. The man knows what he is doing. We have never seen an abomination like the Penn State game from a Meyer-coached team. Sure, Meyer loses occasionally, but his teams play more soundly, and the play calling is superior to what we have seen from Hoke and Al.

Upon further reflection, I agree that Hoke is a good coach, but it's also evident that he does not have Meyer's chops when it comes to game management or play-calling.

There is a difference between an elite coach and a very, very good coach, simple as that.

Erik_in_Dayton

November 1st, 2013 at 7:53 PM ^

First, I am not arguing that Hoke is Meyer's equal. I think we're in agreement on where they stand. That said - and second - I think your point about recruiting rankings and player development favors Hoke. The talent Meyer inherited had been cultivated by Tressel - winner of Big Ten titles and BCS games - while the talent Hoke inherited had been coached by Carr (for one year only and for a small number of players) and Rodriguez, whom I like, but...

MichiganBuckeye222

November 2nd, 2013 at 5:52 PM ^

Meyer has STILL recruioted better than Hoke...even though Hoke is a very good recruiter.

 

One COULD argue that Hoke has more 5 Star players, but from top to bottom, Meyer (without the S) has recruited better.

 

Those who can't see it are fooling themselves.

Reader71

November 2nd, 2013 at 1:15 AM ^

PSU-style abominations by Urban Meyer coached teams: 2003: His excellent #23 ranked Utah shits the bed at home against New Mexico, 47-35. 2007: #4 Florida loses to unranked Auburn at home, 20-17. Also loses bowl game to a Michigan team that had been beaten by Appalachian State. That Michigan team was coached by one of the worst coaches in football history, Lloyd Carr. 2010: Tebow-less team loses enough games that the coach's heart breaks. 5 losses, 4 in conference, 3 at home. Urban Meyer is a great coach. But even great coaches lose games they ought not to. Why do people who have good arguments always cloud them with shitty emotional overreactions?

bjk

November 2nd, 2013 at 9:48 PM ^

to see you call Carr "one of the worst coaches in football history," expecially since he was shaken out of the Bo coaching tree; is this /s? I tend to disagree, although I am no fan of his post-January-2008 behavior. I believe he was kept around a little longer than he wanted. I wonder if it might not have helped M to go through the painful transition to a post-Bo coaching tradition a year or two earlier, especially while Bo himself was still around to vaporize mutineers, defeatists, spies and traitors at a glance with his mighty heat-ray vision. But it was Bo himself who asked Carr to stay on after Carr's heart was still in the recruiting process and the other gruelling aspects of the HC job. Easy to see the trouble to come with hindsight.

mackbru

November 3rd, 2013 at 12:44 PM ^

That Meyer's team has been better than Hoke's doesn't mean that Meyer's team has been much better. Meyer's team narrowly beat Hoke's in Columbus. Beyond that, Meyer hasn't had one truly impressive win over a top-notch team, largely because OSU hasn't yet played a top-notch team under Meyer. OSU has played one of the softest schedules imaginable; it has narrowly beaten the better teams on its schedule -- none of which qualify as top-notch -- and has struggled to beat several meh teams. Just wait till January, when OSU finally has to play a team like Oregon, Bama, or FSU. They'll get obliterated. And everyone knows it.

ST3

November 1st, 2013 at 9:19 PM ^

I don't think the story is complete until you look at the schedules they faced. In their first years, Hoke went 11-2 and Meyer went 12-0. That's close enough that it's basically a punt. Add in the inevitable loss to an SEC team in a bowl game and Meyer goes 12-1. The difference is one game. In year 2, Hoke's team played and lost to the eventual National Championship team, the runner-up, and three more strong teams, all away from home. So far, Meyer's team has played who of any consequence? Wisconsin at home? Big deal.

Shaun

November 1st, 2013 at 10:10 PM ^

Well that is one way to spin it.

Another is that Meyer has not lost in 20 games so far.

Meyer won 1 more game and lost 2 less his first year.

Then Meyer started 8-0 his second year, while Hoke went 8-5. Meyer could lose every single game for the rest of the season, and his first 2 years would still have a better record than Hoke's.

Yes, Hoke played Alabama and Notre Dame, but take those away and Meyer is still easily ahead.

ST3

November 1st, 2013 at 10:20 PM ^

and Hoke played at Ohio, and a very good South Carolina team. So far this year, Ohio has played at Cal, now 1-7, and at Northwestern, now 4-4. That's it. Those are their two away games. In Meyer's first year, they went to OT twice and beat STAEE by one point.

Shaun

November 1st, 2013 at 10:31 PM ^

Yes, spin.

You are trying to make Hoke losing to good teams as a positive, while trying to make Urban beating some bad teams as a negative.

At the end of the day, the fact is that Urban has yet to lose, while Hoke did 7 times over that time span. Yes, Urban has more games to play this year, but he has already matched Hoke's win total for that year and still has 5-6 more games to play. And Meyer will be the favorite in every game scheduled for the rest of the season, at least until whatever bowl game they end up in.

ST3

November 1st, 2013 at 11:41 PM ^

Hoke is 16-4 over his first 20 games. The four losses were at Ohio, at Iowa, vs. Bama, and at ND. In Meyer's first 20 games, he went to OT at home against a bad Purdue team, went to OT at Wisconsin, beat State by 1 point, and has had zero tough road games so far this year. A few plays here and there, and correcting for SOS, there really isn't that much difference. I'm not trying to make Hoke look better. I'm trying to explain a 4 game difference in their records through 20 games. You are saying Hoke lost 7 times in 20 games which is patently untrue. Who is spinning whom?

Shaun

November 2nd, 2013 at 1:45 AM ^

Please read my post again. I already addressed your concerns. I was comparing the first 2 years, and stated that even if Urban lost every game from here on out, he would still be ahead. And that doesn't seem very likely.

And football is all about a few plays here and there. The difference between beating MSU on the road by 1, or beating Wisconsin in their own house in OT, or coming back to prevent a loss to a bad Purdue team, versus losing? That difference is coaching.

Games that aren't close often are that way because of talent disparities. The games that are close are when coaching decisions truly determine the win or the loss.

 

Meyer hasn't lost at OSU. Not once. He's currently +4 on Hoke in the loss column and is headed towards being +6 or +7.

MichiganBuckeye222

November 2nd, 2013 at 5:55 PM ^

it isnt even based in reality, and none of you ever did it before Hoke uttered it.

 

If you beat tOSU, then you should have the right to call them whatever you want...I just think it sounds stupid.