The Triumph of Mediocrity
The University of Michigan claims to be the leaders and best. Whether it be in the classroom or on the football field the U of M strives for excellence. From the most wins all time, to the hightest winning percentage, to the largest stadium in the country the University of Michigan has staked its claim in the college football world. The football program, however, has failed to evolve with the ever changing college football climate, and nothing proves this more than the hiring of Brady Hoke. This hiring is more a triumph of mediocrity than the pursuit of excellence.
The Bowl Championship Series has forever changed the college football landscape. No longer is it good enough to win the Big Ten and defeat a good team in the Rose Bowl. Now, in order to be called the champions, you must defeat another excellent team - the best of the best if you will. Does this mean that every championship prior to the BCS is worthless? Certainly not, but the method to be considered the champion has changed. In the 13 years of the BCS, Michigan has failed to recognize this change of culture. Sure, Michigan has won their share of Big Ten titles in the BCS era, but they have consistently failed to compete when going up against elite competition in BCS bowl games.
Three years ago, it seemed like the Michigan fanbase had come to recognize that a paradigm shift was necessary with regards to our football program. In other words, we were ready to stop throwing rock on first, second and third down. The fanbase clammored for change and a change was made. We dipped our toe in waters of chage, and many found that it was to cold or to uncomfortable. Instead of being the leaders and best, we have opted for the saftey of the past and the comfort of what was familiar.
Winning the Big Ten championship isn't enough anymore. Or at least it shouldn't be if we consider ourselves the "leaders and best". That is the old way of thinking, and it clearly has not been working in the BCS era. I have no doubt that the current coaching staff can stabilize the program and bring it back to where it was under Lloyd Carr. I am confident they can lead the program to Big Ten championships and even win a bowl game every now and then. But I want more. I expect more. This university and its fans should demand more.
Please don't misinterpret the point I am trying to make here. I don't believe that we should play in the BCS championship game every season. Programs have good years and bad years, injuries take their toll on every team, and sometimes you just aren't lucky. But, there is no reason why the Universy of Michigan cannot compete with the best teams in the country on a consistent basis.
January 15th, 2011 at 3:45 PM ^
Brady Hoke isn't Lloyd Carr. I disagree with Brandon's philosophy that we needed a coach with Michigan lineage. But it's not as if he went out and hired Ron English or Jim Herrmann or Mike DeBord. Hoke obviously has his own coaching style and he was never calling plays to any extent under Carr. I'm not worried about that at all.
As for my opinions on the 2006 squad that I commented on earlier; there were obviously flaws. But the pieces were there. Michigan needed a fresh, youthful personality to run the team, but the program didn't have to be turned upside down like it was. That team was full of talent, it just needed to be educated on how you play football in 2007, not how you played it in 1980 like Carr had them doing. The extent to which the program was changed was not necessary, though.
January 15th, 2011 at 3:51 PM ^
I am highly sceptical of the Hoke hiring. And I believe your point to be complete and utter bullshit.
Thanks for playing.
January 15th, 2011 at 5:08 PM ^
How about we wait for actual football to be played before we declare the end of civilization as we know it? I have said in many threads already, and will repeat it here, I have some doubts about this. I won't claim to know the future, though, so I will be keeping an open mind.
January 15th, 2011 at 4:21 PM ^
You're making the same point as Drew Sharp, namely, that Michigan is becoming "regional" in placing its emphasis on the B1G and not the BCS. And further, that this coaching hire somehow reinforces that.
A few points of disagreement:
First, the whole point of a conference is regional competition first and foremost. If you want to claim that you're a "national" team, take a look at how far that claim has gotten, say, Notre Dame, a school that is too self-absorbed to realize that regional competition is a good beginning.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to win the B1G, and then see what happens.
Second, the SEC is set up with different values that increase their chances of winning football games (but they're not necessarily good values). Among these are oversigning, more encouragement of JUCO transfers like Cam Newton than schools like Michigan allow, lower admissions standards, etc.
While that difference in values does make them more powerful in football, I'm not really excited about the B1G becoming like the SEC.
You want us to jump into the BCS era, and I do understand that, and won't criticize it.
I will simply say that my feeling - and I speak only for myself here - is that the BCS has ruined college football. It's taken a lot of the tradition and fun away, it has cheapened winning a conference title or a good bowl game like the Rose Bowl, it has reduced the worth to the players of conference wins.
Only two college teams make the national championship game. In my world, the college game is poorer for that. Fewer fans and fewer teams can really celebrate.
Bowls like the Rose were an important and joyful part of my college experience, and later in life, as a UM fan.
I was just as happy with the Rose Bowl wins we had as I was in '97-8 when that team won the Rose and then the MNC. The MNC does what for the fans that a bowl win doesn't do? To me, it's just another bowl and not as interesting as many.
Again, I'm speaking for myself here, not implying a different opinion is "wrong." But I detest the BCS and all it stands for.
January 15th, 2011 at 5:46 PM ^
You are not speaking for only yourself when you say:
"I will simply say that my feeling - and I speak only for myself here - is that the BCS has ruined college football. It's taken a lot of the tradition and fun away, it has cheapened winning a conference title or a good bowl game like the Rose Bowl, it has reduced the worth to the players of conference wins."
I remember a few years ago - this is from memory, so I hope I get it right - USC lost to UCLA. And because of that, they were knocked from the top two. Their consolation prize? The Rose Bowl. Never before had I seen a team disappointed to make the Rose Bowl. I've still followed college football just as religiously since then, but it does feel as though something was taken away.
January 16th, 2011 at 8:19 PM ^
It was even worse that year, Michigan was voted out of the MNC game simply because they didn't play a conference title game, and Florida did. At the time, could you really argue that Michigan DIDN'T deserve a shot at the title? They were 11-1 with the 1 loss being AT the #1 team in the nation by 3 measly points. The Rose Bowl was a consolation prize that year too.
...
...damnit.
January 15th, 2011 at 6:08 PM ^
Interesting thread, not sure I can agree we will go back to mediocrity with Hoke (yet). I was excited about RR when he came hoping that the general thread of loss to much speedier athletic teams that seemed to be the perception I remember in Bowl games over the years would end. Yes, it was a very good thing to win the B10 title and play in the bowl game but how many times do you all remember, going back to Bo's days, the game thread being Michigan getting beaten by more athletic and faster teams. I remember the broadcast teams saying this over and over (yes exceptions along the way but the general threme was this). My general belief was that RR was bringing a faster scheme (more SEC like) to the playing field. He seemed to get there on the offense (and yes it took longer than some wanted) but obviously failed on the defense. But then again it appeared the M community and the media were against him from day one. Not sure if it was the down home country boy image and persona (though it appeared this turned a whole lot of people off) but he was a round peg in a square hole from the beginning and as some have said really not given the support he needed. He meant well but I am not sure anyone could have succeeded in the climate he began with. He then compounded it with decisional mistakes one after the other. So we reboot and start again even with somewhat of a censorship of negative posts on this blog (would we ever have censored RR thoughts at the beginning) hoping to unite and prevent dissension. Thankfully, I suspect that Hoke will be given more time and patience by both the M community and media to mold his team then RR got along the way. When I first heard Sharps comment on the radio I said yep that's what it appears we are going back to, maybe a good thing, maybe not, but if Michigan football gets back to winning B10 titles but getting beat in bowl games by faster more athletic teams how far will we have gone (back to what Sharp says is mediocrity??). We went out on the edge with RR and took a chance (when the M community was apparantly demanding change) and we either did not let it go its full course or we gave up and went back to what worked part of the time in the past may be the legacy of this change. It will be very interesting to see the threads along the way. Will the community indeed be more patient this time? And what outcome will the community be happy with, will winning the B10 (a good thing yes) be satisfying if we fall back to getting beat by faster more athletic teams in bowl games.
January 15th, 2011 at 7:14 PM ^
Paragraphs are alive and well though. Consider this latter assertion please as a friendly suggestion. Go Blue.
January 15th, 2011 at 8:59 PM ^
until I see the actual product on the field. If the offense can remain top 20 in the country and the D gets progressively better year after year, I see no reason why we won't be competing with the elite. This assumes recruiting remains in the top 10 or 20 as well.
January 15th, 2011 at 8:25 PM ^
Yours is an interesting take. Back in my day (before the interwebs and ink pens), we constantly bitched about our conservative play calling and fixation with a Big Ten championship (as opposed to National Championship). Even when Mo and Carr had tons of talent, they maintained that boring, predictable style. Eventually, we won a national championship (unless you're Mike Valenti...then it was a "shared title...shared title...doesn't count...shared title).
Then RichRod came in to (assumedly) take the program over the hump from very good to great. There was never an acceptance of mediocre. That is now why RichRod is gone. Over three years, he set the record for worst defense...annually. His offense improved on the whole but still, three years in, lagged (coincidentally) SDSU in scoring.
Michigan has won their share of Big Ten titles in the BCS era, but they have consistently failed to compete when going up against elite competition in BCS bowl games.
Forget "BCS bowl games", RR wasn't even able to compete with the top half of the Big Ten! His team, at its best, was mediocre.
Mediocrity, despite the OP's analysis, is not tolerated at Michigan. If the goal is "Big Ten Championships", I'm all for it. That level of performance (which should still place us in NC contention) works for me. It also worked for OSU on their way to playing for BCS titles. Let's see what happens on the field before we worry about Hoke being "mediocre".
January 15th, 2011 at 8:27 PM ^
As a fan, I'll enjoy watching our team with the Big Ten on a consistent basis...when we have a playoff and a real NC, I'll enjoy watching our team win those, too. Until then, let the media bias and cheating conferences have their way with the MNC.
January 15th, 2011 at 9:31 PM ^
January 16th, 2011 at 1:10 AM ^
A few points:
Many people say that the BCS is a new way of crowning a champion. To that I say horse puckey. If I remember correctly, 67% of the BCS ranking is still based on the human polls. The rest is based on the computer polls. This mostly means that the National Champion is selected the way that it used to be selected...through the polls. One of those polls is the Coaches Poll...and we know that there are no shenanigans there...right? And I'm sure the Harris Poll is Shenanigan Free as well. The only real difference between the BCS and pre-BCS is that 1 and 2 are matched up. Given that some undefeated teams don't have a chance to play for it, it's still not a true champion in my books.
Now given that, I don't see what is wrong with trying to win the Big 10. At least that is controlled on the field and not done like figure skating. You can control winning the Big 10 by your actions and you can't necessarily control your poll rankings.
January 16th, 2011 at 1:12 AM ^
Coach Hoke may turn out to be one of the best coaches in Michigan history or just an average Joe Michigan coach. Only time will tell! DB must hold the Coach in high regards and I trust in his decision making. I wish it was a month or so earlier but I'm liking Coach Hoke more than I ever thought. IMO...Coach Hoke will be very successful here!
January 16th, 2011 at 2:43 AM ^
January 16th, 2011 at 3:46 AM ^
Haven't you ever played sports in your life? Whether it is pro or college you take one step at a time and you don't look ahead.
In the NFL the goal is to make the playoffs. Why? Because you have to make the playoffs to win the Super Bowl. But if you worry about winning the Super Bowl before you get there you are a dumbass, because looking ahead and losing focus is how you fail at the easier goal so that you never get to the harder one..
The same is true in college. Sure Michigan wants to win National Chapionships. Does the OP and Drew Sharp seriously think that the U-M would turn down an invitation to the BCS national championship game to play in a lesser bowl? But if you are going to get to the national championship you HAVE TO WIN THE BIG TEN FIRST!
That is what Hoke said to Drew Sharp, and that is what Hoke meant. It is just too bad that Drew Sharp, and the OP, seem to think that it is good to just skip step A and go right to Step Z. But that's OK, not everybody can understand such concepts, they are just too complex for some folks.
This garbage about setting your sights higher and shooting for the National Championship as a goal just means that youa re either a fan or a sportswriter and you probably have never played sports in your life.
January 16th, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^
he could just be a moron. He's still condescending though, which is impressive considering his cognitive impairments and illogical argument.
January 17th, 2011 at 9:48 AM ^
January 16th, 2011 at 8:41 AM ^
For three years Rodriguez supporters dominated this and other Michigan boards. With the introduction of Sissy Points, they were allowed to rid these pages of anyone doubting the greatness of Rodriguez. And they were allowed to whine to Daddy on other boards as well and get the <i>Banhammer</i> dropped down on people who were always invariably labeled as "trolls" because they thought differently and had the unmitigated gall to say so.
And with that, the Rodriguez Army not only pushed, but CONVINCED people that new mantras such as "Ah only talk about players who done play fer Michigan" AND:
"We are here to win national championships, not Big Ten championships"
"negative 300 star from Doohickey Florida is better than a 5 star from Michigan"
"I don't CARE where we get players, we don't need no stinking Michigan recruits to win!"
"There ain't no such thing as a 'Michigan Man' Michigan MAn means poop to me"
"This program needed to be totally revamped, changed, everything was wrong from Gittleson to not enough restrooms at the Big House"
"Rodriguez was hired to totally change the culture"--despite the fact that he was the third choice; oh, and he DID change the culture all right!
"The spread offense is the onliest offense in the world that can work!"
"Michigan needed to be modernized"
"I am an insider and I saw David brandon at Arby's and he told ME Rodriguez is OK"
"Every coach needs at least four years to turn a program around"
And now, here we are. Everything is all mixed up, mumbo jumbo. We got away from what Michigan was, and is. Now we think the term "Michigan Man" is a crock of dookie.
Well, I do not. I think the term does mean something good; I think it means, in part, you understand where you are, you respect it, and you build on it. And you don't denigrate it because the guy you supported was a fraudulent hack who didn't work out because HE SUCKED and instead of admitting he sucked, found everyone to blame but himself, and so did his supporters.
great people who have done great things for Michigan were also trashed on the Road to Hell. Kids were blamed and roasted here and on other boards. Fans turned on each other--beginning with the lambasting of those who started off wondering if this was the right hire.
Oh, diaries like this don't surprise me, and neither will the 900 Millions of threads to come that will disparriage Hoke and every decision he makes (before sprong ball even), question "Michigan Man", cry over Rodriguez, and now, apparently, give in to the Dew Sharps of the world and criticize Michigan for wanting to win the championships and games that control its larger destiny.
January 16th, 2011 at 10:10 AM ^
can't we all just get along? We are not all going to agree on who should be hired to coach.....maybe DB should just hire some really hot bikini model with large round - er uh eyes. Hey wait that actually isn't a bad idea.....quick somebody call DB
January 16th, 2011 at 3:40 PM ^
I don't think the OP is suggesting that national "championships" should be the standard. I think he's saying that UM isn't "back" if they get to where Carr had gotten them. Carr really had two careers at Michigan. There was the first half where he won the "championship" as well as part or sole conference championships. They generally played well in bowls and represented the university very well. Then there was the second half, where UM didn't sniff a national "championship" game (sans 2006) and was brutal in bowl games.
I think the OP point was that Hoke getting back to the level Michigan was at in the second half of Carr's tenure is not good enough. I agree with him. There is no reason Hoke can't have this squad back to those levels in just a couple years....especially if he's as good a coach as everyone says. If that's the case, then for me, he has another three years (5 years total) to show me that he is able to put a team together worthy of national "championship" discussion.
I don't care much for the BCS. Winning it is of no real interest to me because I have such a low opinion of it. However, UM needs to get to a position where they are routinely considered for a playoff should one actually happen. I can think of ONE team (the 2006 team) that would have been a legit consideration for a playoff. That's it. I think the OP is suggesting UM needs to be in those talks a lot more often and getting the program back to where it was in Carr's second half isn't going to be good enough.
If that's what he's saying, I agree with him 100%
January 16th, 2011 at 5:39 PM ^
Are we talking 1997 Carr or 2007 Carr?
January 16th, 2011 at 6:13 PM ^
The University of Michigan should have expectations higher than what Carr was doing in 2007. The OP is free to correct me, but I believe that's all he's saying. Yes, getting back to mediocre is the first step, but if that's as far as they go, what was the point?
I'm a five year guy for any coach in any situation. I didn't care for the RR hire, but he was and I was disappointed he wasn't given the time to develop his team. I was even more disappointed that he couldn't bring the defense along. I give Hoke that same timeframe, but see no reason for him NOT to be back at 2007 Carr type teams in two years. If they don't continue to improve and get to playoff type standards I'll be first in line to question Brandon and his decision making.
January 16th, 2011 at 8:12 PM ^
What I don't understand is why the assumption that we're automatically going to jump straight into the declining period of Hoke's tenure. Carr had many good years before things started slowing down... if we can replicate the good times, which Hoke was a part of... then I'm all for it. Interestingly, Hoke's departure correlates somewhat with the beginning of the decline in the Carr era... hm...
January 16th, 2011 at 8:33 PM ^
I think the distinction that the OP was trying to make was between what Michigan did prior to the BCS and what Michigan during the BCS. Not necessarily early Lloyd years vs later Lloyd years.
January 16th, 2011 at 9:03 PM ^
I'm not assuming anything. I am simply providing my personal measuring stick for success. I don't know what Hoke is going to do. I am hopefully that he succeeds. I don't have anything against the guy and I'm not his biggest homer. I am simply saying, getting back to the late Carr years will not be enough for me. He needs to get there, PLUS advance the team back to where the early Carr years had them and then a little bit more.
January 16th, 2011 at 6:55 PM ^
Tressel's philosophy is that if you focus on winning the B1G, everything else will work itself out. He seems to be doing OK.
January 16th, 2011 at 9:41 PM ^
Think this idea is kind of bogus.
Carr started off with two 4-loss seasons, won a national championship in his 3rd, had two more 10+ win seasons, had two more <10 win seasons, then 2 more 10+ win seasons, then two more <10 win seasons, another 10+ win season, and then finished with a <10 win season.
I don't see any dividing lines in there, just some ebb and flow.
January 17th, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^
this is like saying RR "improved" every year because he was getting more wins. During Carr's last years, the B10 was in a downward spiral and mediocrity was the order of the day. Racking up wins in a conference in that condition then getting smashed in bowl games isn't my cup of tea. Yes, on paper Carr "maintained". On paper RR was improving.
January 18th, 2011 at 1:20 AM ^
Where's the proof the Big 10 was "in a downward spiral?" Isn't it just as possible that people were, well, underestimating the SEC?
Proof: prior to Florida beating the hell out of OSU, only two SEC teams were invited to the BCS National Championship Game: Tenessee in 1998 (they won) and LSU in 2004 (they won). Why? Because it's so damned hard to escape conference play undefeated. Even then, like in 2004, it was no guarantee: an undefeated Auburn team was locked out of the National Championship Game in favor of Oklahoma and USC. Since 2006, though, when a 1-loss SEC team dismantled the assumed-to-be-invincible Troy Smith Buckeyes, an SEC team has been invited to--and won--the national championship game every single year.
Conclusion: there's nothing wrong with the other conferences, per se, except that they're simply not as competitive as the SEC. This is something we've known since 2006, but were mostly unaware of before. Massive, regional recruiting advantages don't just materialize overnight, after all.
That's not to say Carr's 1997 wouldn't have beaten all of the southern teams that year--they would have--nor to say that there wasn't some drop-off in 2 of Carr's 3 final years. It's just that the "decline of the Big 10" meme is spurious, and there's no simplistic distinction between "early Carr" and "late Carr," given that his 2nd best season was his 2nd to last, and his worst season was his 2nd.
January 18th, 2011 at 9:13 AM ^
Any evidence I give you is going to be anecdotal at best. Through the mid-late 2000s it was brutal to watch B10 football. It just was. Watching UM yearly they were destine to win almost all the games they should and lose to OSU. What was UM's biggest win from say 2002 - 2007? I can tell you what the worst loss was.
January 18th, 2011 at 10:26 PM ^
In 2002, we finished ranked #9. We beat #9 Washington 31-29, Little Brother 49-3, then beat Florida 38-30 in the Outback Bowl.
In 2003, we finished #6. We beat #14 Notre Dame 38-0, #9 Little Brother (away) 27-20, and #4 OSU 35-21.
In 2004, we finished #12. We beat highly ranked Minnesota and Purdue teams (can you believe that) and Little Brother.
In 2005, we finished unranked in Lloyd's second worst year. But we still managed to beat #11 Little Brother away 34-31, as well as #8 PSU 27-25.
In 2006, we finished ranked #8. We beat #2 Notre Dame (away) 47-21, Little Brother 31-13 and #23 Iowa 20-6.
In 2007, we finished ranked #18. We did lose those two horrible ones early, and OSU late, but we also beat Notre Dame 38-0, #10 PSU 14-9 and #9 Florida (with Heisman-winner Tim Tebow) 41-35.
Of those years, I see three very good ones (2002, 2003, 2006), one solid one (2004), one schizophrenic one (2007) and one thoroughly mediocre one (2005).
One could argue that the fact that 3 of Carr's last 4 years were subpar, but if you take a longer view, you see that his first 2 years were also subpar, as were his 6th and 7th. This is why I think the Carr 1.0/Carr 2.0 argument has no legs. There are actually three peaks in his career, 1997-9, 2002-4 and 2006.
Incidentally, the worst of that bunch (2005) still exceeds the best of three years with RR, as we beat two highly ranked teams, one of which was Little Brother, and didn't get blown out in our bowl game.
January 17th, 2011 at 8:27 AM ^
Right now I see that we are going to play Western Michigan, Notre Dame, Eastern Michigan, San Diego State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Michigan Stae, Purdue, Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, and Ohio State.
How about having as a goal to win each of those games the week we play it (with maybe some look ahead to Ohio State, provided it doesn't distract from the task at hand)?
Depending on how the team does, they may or may not play one other conference game and one other non-conference game. However, those games are still very TBD.
January 17th, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^
I think (apropos to your directive not to misinterpret the point you're trying to make, we have desperately searched - in vain - to find your point, or any point) that your intended message is this: instead of hiring a nationally-known coach, UM will continue to wallow in mediocrity because they hired the first Michigan Man (TM) who didn't turn them down. Get over yourself- you just were rudely reminded of the fact that the world doesn't revolve around UM football. It won't be the last time, either. Ask yourself: if this really were the pinnacle of college football, don't you think Harbaugh or Miles would've taken the job? Harbaugh took a look and said, "I want to coach in the NFL and Mike Singletary's going to single-handedly cement my rep as a football genius." Miles took a look (I believe he focused on the defensive 2-deep) and said, "I love Michigan enough to put an out clause in my contract, but I could contend for a national championship here at LSU almost every year, or put Humpty Dumpty's pieces back together at Michigan, take 2-3 years just to contend with the Sweatervest, and get mercilessly nitpicked at every turn by the bluehairs who say I'm not 'ethical' enough for UM? Thanks, Pizza Guy, but no thanks. Love the Philly Cheese Steak pie though, that's stuff's awesome!"
Basically, you just put out a diary whining about how Michigan settled just because they didn't hire a 'name' coach. College football is rife with profiles of seemingly underwhelming coaches who go on to excel at that program, just as it is with profiles of 'name' coaches who faceplant big-time in a new gig; you can think of close-to-home examples of each. No one knows right now if Hoke will turn around Michigan or not, and only a moran (ha ha, love that image) would claim that they know in advance how it will work. In other words, you (and Drew Sharp, but we're all safe to assume his presence).
January 17th, 2011 at 9:40 PM ^
I have to agree with Token_Sparty on this one, who wanted Tressel when he was at youngstown? And im sooo sick of hearing all the comparisons of Hoke and Carr why because he was in Carrs staff, because hes a pro style guy? Lets see, Harbaughs a pro style guy and wanted to be on Carrs staff and was turned down. I bet we wouldnt be hearing all this if Harbaugh wouldve got the job. In fact Harbaugh reminds me alot of Carr w/o that conservative edge, pro style is still an effective way to win games case in point the orange bowl this year. Stanford blew up Techs version of the spread and mobile qb and hung with the mighty ducks for a half. Now i have to admit i did not want to see RR and his explosive offense go i feel if given a couple more years he couldve possibly turned things around but we had to have a middle of the pack D which we didnt. RR was not DBs hire and i think DB wants to leave his footprint on the program by hiring the coach that turned the program around...Hoke is a gamble but i like the odds. I for one dont want to be part of the division that utimately caused RR to fail and if Hoke turns out to be another Carr (with balls and plays aggresively) we will be more than ok we will be the leaders and the best.
January 18th, 2011 at 9:15 AM ^
Personally, I think you are missing on the "why" people are comparing him to Carr. A lot of folks liked things just the way they were under Carr and that's why we get the comparison to Carr, not because Hoke was on his staff. There is a lot of belief out there that if they get to winning 9-10 games a year and about .500 in bowl games then Michigan is "back".
January 18th, 2011 at 2:01 PM ^
I certianly wouldnt say back but it would be a vast improvement. I was reffering to the "backwards progress" to pro style. Just because we are going back to our old scheme doesnt mean we cant be more than mediocre or cant win bowl games/ national titles. To qoute DB Hoke isnt very polished and hasnt had alot of pr work, obviously he looked like a deer in the headlights at the press confrence. But i believed everthing he said and more importantly i think he did too! Hoke the sexxy pick not really but definately very passionate and intense. I dont think we as fans should put a cieling on Hokes career before they even play their first game.
Comments