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

Reader71

November 1st, 2013 at 10:31 PM ^

Go on Shaun. Huge Hoke supporter here. One of the reasons I like him is because he has won games for us after the dreadful previous regime. Meyer may have an easier schedule and he certainly inherited a better situation, but he has won every fucking game. There is no argument here. He has been better than Hoke. Period. End of story. I don't think he's a better coach, and I would never want him to coach Michigan, but he has been better. He's undefeated. The end.

1974

November 1st, 2013 at 9:46 PM ^

Suggestion for the OP: In the case of upperclass players, find a way to work their NFL draft position (if they had one) and NFL roster presence (e.g., Kovacs) into the equation.

Recruiting classes from '05 to '08, to take some examples, were long on players with lots of stars but poor production. (I realize only '07 and '08 would be relevant here.)

harmon40

November 1st, 2013 at 11:06 PM ^

We currently have 14 scholarship OL on our roster; 10 have freshman eligibility. 

Given that it was the previous staff that whiffed on OL recruiting for 2-3 years in a row, should we evaluate Hoke based on:

a) his staff's ability to coach up redshirt frosh OL so that they can manhandle experienced junior and senior DL, or

b) how he and his staff are progressing in rectifying a bad situation?

Hoke fails by one measure and succeeds by the other. 

Personally, I prefer b) over a), but neither measure applies to Meyer.  That's obviously not a critique of Meyer, he's done a great job - I'm just saying that we're not exactly comparing apples to apples here.

 

newtopos

November 1st, 2013 at 11:11 PM ^

Meyer inherited a 2-9 Bowling Green team (2000).  His first year, Bowling Green went 8-3 (2001), and the next year they went 9-3 (2002).

He then inherited a 5-6 Utah team (2002).  His first year, Utah went 10-2 (2003), and the next year they went 12-0 (2004). 

Three times in six years in the SEC (admittedly the toughest conference right now), his team went 13-1.  He won two national championships.

He has won his first 20 games for OSU, and the comparison of how OSU and UM dealt with Penn State speaks volumes.

Hoke inherited a Ball State team that had gone 5-6 the previous two years (2000 and 2001).  It took six years before Hoke had a team break .500 at Ball State (7-6 in 2007). 

He had 4 win and 9 win seasons at SDSU.  (His successor has had 8 win and 9 win seasons.) 

He has never won a conference championship.

He is undoubtedly a great recruiter.  (If you go back and read clippings from his hiring, this is what his brother points to as his greatest strength.)  He is neither an offensive nor defensive genius, which he is the first to admit.  He (and Brandon's willingness to open the purse strings) brought in a top-notch DC.  He also attached himself to Borges and Funk.  As a delegator, his success will rise and fall with the quality of the coaching staff he brings in. 

To attribute the relative success of the two coaches to one snapshot of recruiting ranks or a "culture of success" seams a stretch.  Other coaches are having more success with less talent.  Furthermore, to the extent that we want to attribute success to a "culture," there is an argument that Meyer, as someone with the highest level of success previously (conference championships and national championship), can foster that culture, while Hoke, who has never experienced even a conference championship, cannot.  

All of this is a long way of saying that while Hoke may be the right person for the job (great character, reunited the fanbase and the factions within the program, priorities aligned with Michigan values), he really isn't on the same level as Meyer as a coach.  For the success of the program, I hope he has some metric that he is using to evaluate his coaching staff, and that he does not put loyalty to them or a softness on personnel issues (nobody with a heart likes to fire someone who is loyal, but simply not talented or good enough for the job) above the welfare of the program.  E.g., how bad does the line need to be (with multiple NFL-level seniors, 5 star redshirt freshmen, etc.) before Funk is replaced?  How many 27 for 27 games against opponents that OSU decimates (by taking what the defense is giving) need to occur before Hoke decides that Borges is limiting the upside of this program?  I'm not saying I know the answers, but if there are not metrics in place, we might as well say that coaching does not matter and that whoever Hoke hired at his first stop should be with the program forever.  That seems extremely narrow-minded.

 

Sopwith

November 2nd, 2013 at 1:45 PM ^

remind me to keep an eye out for more of your posts.  You wrote the hell out of that.  Nice work!

We'll see how attached Hoke is to Borges and Funk if all that stellar recruiting isn't turning into B1G championships in the next couple years.  I can't imagine Brandon lets that marriage go on without an intervention if the results aren't matching the considerable top-to-bottom talent.

Ron Utah

November 2nd, 2013 at 12:26 AM ^

This is why I love MGoBlog!  Thanks OP.

There is no doubt that Meyer inherited a FAR better situation: better players, better culture, better fit.  Hoke was saddled with players on both sides of the ball that did not fit his philosophy and still found fabulous success (a bit lucky, perhaps) in year one and decent success (a bit unlucky, perhaps) in year two.

But I really don't think you can put Hoke in Meyer's league as a scheme-and-execute coach at this point.  Meyer has been successful everywhere he's been, and, while I tend to believe he's a bit of a douche and is definitely a win-at-all-costs type, you can't argue with success.

Let me be clear: I would not want Meyer to coach at Michigan.  I'd rather have a Lloyd Carr type than a dude with as much shady history as Meyer.  But it's awfully hard to look at their records and not conclude that Meyer is more likely to produce a winner.

All that said, I am very pleased with coach Hoke so far, and feel he has generally overachieved.  His roster will not be adequately re-stocked until next season, and not really in full bloom until 2015.  Time will tell if Hoke is an elite coach.  Meyer has already proven it.

Dr. Steve

November 2nd, 2013 at 10:20 AM ^

Meyer signed his contract on Nov.1. For the next 60 days he was on the recruiting trail. He had no responsibility for the then, current team. Every coach in the country was busy coaching and Meyer had a 2 month "free reign" on the recruiting trail. This was the NCAA pat on the back for a school whose coach was implicated in the violation. Contrast that with USC who was kept in limbo for years and when they were penalized it was very severe even though no one in the University including the football coaches etc. were ever implicated. I do believe that OSU has some type of inside support at the NCAA. Dr Steve (PS I am not a USC fan).

 

BlueRude

November 2nd, 2013 at 10:51 AM ^

On all the opinions for both coaches and. programs past and future there were great comments from everyone. I'll be watching match ups, coaching and improvising, adapting, and overcoming the game. We need to make a state ment ' for recruits which concerns me. It's college football enjoy, our guys will give their all. Go Blue.

You Only Live Twice

November 2nd, 2013 at 11:08 AM ^

.....is just now beginning to show signs of stability.  I'm very encouraged by how Hoke runs things as a leader, and hopefully he (and all of us) also benefits from lessons learned.  The sabotage of RR showed a side to our program that was unflattering and certainly less than cohesive.  Yes, it started with the Free Press attack but there was so much that could have been handled differently.  (John Bacon's "3 and Out" is my Bible on the subject). 

nickb

November 2nd, 2013 at 12:00 PM ^

 coach is necessary at this point in the program. He needs to be held accountable for all aspects of the program direction. Beating inferior teams to inflate your record and getting invited to a bowl game just does not cut it.

Michigan with its resources and academic reputation should be judged alongside Stanford and in the discussion of not only Big Ten but National Championships. OSU recruited a coach who has been there and he is producing immediate results.

Meanwhile, we at Michigan continue to sing the refrain "in a couple of years we will be there. We are young and have great recruiting classes."

When do we say ENOUGH?

Reader71

November 2nd, 2013 at 2:17 PM ^

It will be ENOUGH when we start to lose. Right now, we're winning. I think you're looking for the next Nick Saban. Most of us think that's a stretch, and are looking for the next non-Rich Rodriguez. We don't want to lose. The winning of championships will come, but first we want to make sure we never finish last in the B1G. Having a good coach like Hoke is a good thing. These first 2.5 years have been a raging success.

MichiganBuckeye222

November 2nd, 2013 at 6:26 PM ^

if you truly think he can get you a championship, then you must be seeing something that I don't.  He is not one of the top coaches in College football.

 

Urban is.  

snoopblue

November 3rd, 2013 at 1:13 AM ^

Hoke is failing at the one thing he is supposed to be good at. Delegating tasks and making great picks for his assistants. Seems like he's been doing that for so long and letting them run the show during the games that even if he decided to put the headset on he wouldn't be able to do anything anyway. Not to mention, the defensive line is not very good, but that has a lot to do with Mattison rarely bringing much pressure and doing so at strange times.

It's hard to be patient when you see teams like Auburn, UCLA, A&M rising again. Auburn just won a NC but they were bad with Chizik in the years after Newton. Can't help but think that we took a pretty big risk with RichRod and then went safe with Hoke and now it's just like WTF. I do want Borges and Funk gone, but also then realize we have no one to really call plays because our head coach certainly won't be able to given that he is a defensive coach. That's a pretty big problem to me,

McFate

November 3rd, 2013 at 6:11 AM ^

My one quibble is that it seems a bit spin-heavy in places.  For example, in the "Rosters" section, you compare two quantities:

1.42 years of experience vs 1.65 (~16% higher) in Michigan's favor and call it "slightly" (italicized for emphasis in your original) more experienced.

3.38 stars vs 3.69 (~9% higher) in Ohio's favor and call it "solidly" more talended.

I think the real issues are likely found in individual positions (others have noted OL recruiting) -- rather than in trying to read things into negligible differences in across-the-roster averages.  (Meyer walked into some depth issues as well.  Ohio started the season with only one servicable LB, but they play only two LB a lot of the time.  But that was more a matter of attrition than failure to recruit numbers.)

Erik_in_Dayton

November 3rd, 2013 at 11:26 PM ^

I stand by what I said, though, because Hoke only inherited a slightly more experienced roster if you compare scholarship players to scholarship players, which I think is more relevant. The percentage difference in stars is also misleading, I think, because guys who commit to Michigan or OSU are given three stars almost as a matter of course (I'm pretty sure I remember Jake Ryan and Desmond Morgan both being given third stars post-commitment, for example). The real difference in talent can be seen between the three, four, and five-star guys.

Hokeadoke

November 3rd, 2013 at 6:13 AM ^

This is an interesting comparison--but without comparing other assistant coaches, I was wondering what you think about the condtioning at Michigan.  At OSU, Meyer brought strength coach Mickey Marotti with him and that signified a big change from the year before (at least),  Marotti brings a fierceness in both the physical and psychological side to the training regimen that has been one of the most important aspects of the success for Meyer and the program.  I believe that at least after the 2011 season (and perhaps a year or two before), many of the OSU players were undisciplined and not working hard.  Marotti put the players through a stringent program designed to not only make them work their hardest physically, but also to break them down a bit mentally, in order to build them into tougher players.  I'm not saying that they are tougher than Michigan players or anyone else for that matter, but I am saying that they are much tougher mentally and physically than they were the year before.  Watching the game yesterday against a very physical MSU defense, the Wolverine offense looked pretty worn out physically and mentally in the 4th quarter.   What do you think about the teams conditioning?  

Here's an interesting article about Marotti:  http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1787239-meet-mickey-marotti-urban-meyers-secret-weapon

Hokeadoke

November 3rd, 2013 at 10:21 AM ^

Every change year in college football has a decent amount of change and newness.  A new coach has to establish his philosophy and system and tweak and renew it each year.  Hoke has not done that very well.  At OSU, Meyer has a system that seems to break them down and whip them into shape physically and mentally.  Marotti is the leading edge of that system.   I think that Hoke should have already made more strides that he has in the area of mental and physical toughness for his team.  Northwestern brought in the Navy SEALS--although they have been spiraling down the last five games in a row.  Still, Michigan could perhaps benefit from something similar to help instill a tougher climate.  I'm not saying that OSU players are tougher, but I am saying that the 2012 and 2013 teams are mentally and physically tougher than they were in 2011.  Michigan needs for its team to be mentally and physically tougher than they are now.  A mentally and physically tough team will execute the majority of the plays that Borges calls and make the plays that it needs to make when it needs to make them.

tbuck

November 3rd, 2013 at 5:32 PM ^

I do think that you are right that cultures of success are very important but I think you are judging Hoke against the wrong standard. I don't have the time, energy or interest to do the research, but I think if you compared Hoke to Dantonio's first three years, you would come away very disappointed and in a harder position to rationalize Hoke's results. I think that Dantonio is very underated for the change in culture that he has put in place at MSU. It's getting harder and harder to expect the Spartans to play with the lack of discipline that was so common under John L and Bobby Williams.

From where I stand, I think Dantonio has made  UM pay a heavy price for Mike Hart's little brother comments.  He has shifted the power in that series.

I am not nearly as anti-Wolverine as many of my Buckeye brothers, but it strikes me as a little funny that the comparison was made to OSU.  Michigan really needs to measure against MSU first.  Michigan has not been at OSU's level on the football field for better than a decade on a consistent basis.