So I have the entire day to fart around and catch the latest on the coaching search. I think I might play video games instead.
Afternoon Open Thread
And so it begins . . . Have fun with the planning! Friendly advice: Stay out of it as long as you can. And if you are forced to make a decision, choose something ridiculous and she won't ask you opinion anymore.
We have an appointment Monday to go look at a potential spot for the reception. Joy. Supposedly, the place serves bacon so I'm satisfied.
the only problem with bacon is that it makes you thirsty...for more bacon
Tell her you want to have input into the decision-making/ cost.
Stay out of the details, but make her a least give you options on things like colors. There is nothing worse than coming down to the day and realizing your entire wedding is frilly pink...
Unless of course that is exactly what she's always wanted, then it's best to keep your mouth shut and deal with it (that's what open bar is for...)
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
inability to do anything that would give me faith in him disturbing.
Let's see what the man does before we start digging his grave. It's frustrating that we don't have a coach, but we have no idea what he's been doing this week and that's not because he hasn't been doing anything.
For all the veneration the man was getting around here - like the silly Internet "pimp hand" nonsense - he has done almost nothing to merit his stratospheric reputation.
I will try to reserve judgment, but if he truly is as bad of an AD as he appears to be right now, what is the process for firing DB?
Do you know for a fact Dave Brandon is doing nothing? Come on. It's day 4.
I don't understand the knee-jerk panic. At all.
but it's January 8th, and we announced yesterday that we were hiring a search committee. There don't appear to be any candidates on the board other than two guys who wouldn't be very good hires. Is it possible that we'll end up with a surprise coach a week from now? Sure. But there's a time factor here that is really, really important. We're going to miss out on two guys today who were very highly rated recruits at positions of need and who would be going to Michigan if we weren't lacking a coach (well, one for sure would-the other we'd just have a good shot with). Recruiting is the life blood of a program and we're in line for quite possibly Michigan's worst recruiting class since people started caring about recruiting , and it's directly traceable to the fact that it's January 8th and no one has any idea who our coach is going to be. That's just plain bad.
I can understand somewhat why RR was fired. It was not a decision that I agreed with, but there were some plausible reasons for his termination. What does not make sense to me is that DB failed to line up a replacement before letting him go. I thought his CEO background was supposed to be a plus?
I mean, this is elementary stuff in the business world - a company needs a clear succession plan or things start to go south quickly. DB supposedly had a "dynamic list" of candidates - which basically is a CYA phrase for "I haven't started yet." He fired a good coaching mind for a high-risk gamble on Harbaugh that didn't work out, left a power vaccuum in the football program, and failed to have a back-up plan.
We might still get a good coach, but it's hard not to argue that DB hasn't spectacularly bungled the process, and reflects poorly on his leadership ability.
Recruit for character not for talent. We won't know the value of this class until at least 2 years down the road anyways. Why so much negativity? Every post I've seen of your's is a downer, try to have some faith not a debbie downer. Not saying the views are wrong, just in a time like this we have to try to stay positive, no matter how minscule that positive is.
Dude would be ice fishing or something right now. Good riddance.
the hate that Bill Martin gets. in his watch he hired Beilein, hired Rich Rod (yeah, it didn't work out -- he still hired the best candidate on the market at the time), kept Maloney, made the Athletic Department insanely profitable, got the Big House renovated etc. etc.
And need I remind you that the coach we missed out on because of the fishing incident has since eaten grass on national television, proven himself incapable of telling time, told his team to spike the ball with 0 seconds left, and gotten rid of kids in an incredibly shady fashion and then lied about it?
All of that is true. The only mistake Martin made is underestimating the power of angry Michigan fans/alumni/boosters. Because of that he will go down as a failure, despite all the good he did to right the ship after the Goss catastrophe.
he won a national championship since then
For you to criticize David Brandon's handling of the coaching search while praising Martin's is the height of cognitive dissonance. Martin flailed around for three weeks before RR fell into his lap. Brandon has been searching for three days.
It is hard to praise a guy who offered the job to Greg Schiano. I think Martin got the hire right in the end but he was more lucky than good.
Don't know if he would have come as ND was his dream job, but Brian Kelly was the guy we should have gotten in 2007.
As much as the next coach will be cleaning up Rich's 'mess,' so too is DB cleaning up Martin's. Helluva bean counter, I'll give him that...
Dave Brandon looks like he might be about to hire Brady Hoke.
If you hired a guy with Rich Rodriguez's resume 1 million times and a guy with Brady Hoke's resume 1 million times, which one do you think would end up with better results?
So many assumptions...
We hired a guy with Rich Rodriguez's resume once. And had to let him go 3 years later. It just goes to show you can't gauge how a coach will fit and perform in a program based on prior results.
Why resign Hoke to failure before he coaches a single game at Michigan. if indeed he gets the job?
I'm resigning the idea of hiring a guy like Brady Hoke to failure. I feel like people are missing out on an important point here: even if Brady Hoke ends up being a massive success it is still a bad hire.
Hiring a coach isn't a certainty. You're just buying a probability that your team will be good going forward. Hiring a guy with Nick Saban's resume is virtually guaranteed to make your team awesome. Hiring a guy with GERG's is virtually guaranteed to make your team suck.
Hiring Rich Rodriguez was a high probability move that didn't work out. That doesn't mean it's a bad hire. Hiring a guy with a a career losing record over 8 seasons coaching in the MAC and the MWC is an incredibly low probability move. If Brady Hoke ends up awesome, it will mean Michigan has gotten lucky, and I don't want the success of our next hire to depend on luck.
didn't most of success largely depend on Luck?
I feel like people are missing out on an important point here: even if Brady Hoke ends up being a massive success it is still a bad hire.
Um..... What?! Isn't that a little like saying Tom Brady was a bad draft pick? Or perhaps that Antonio Gates was a bad signing for the Chargers? Or that trading for Brett Favre was a bad move by the Packers?
The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. If DB hires Hoke and he ends up returning Michigan to the college football elite in short order... Given all the skepticism and negativity thrown around about how Hoke has never seen a football before I think massive success would pretty much make it a brilliant hire.
I'm not saying Hoke will do that, but I do think the hate people have for him here is a little irrational. I don't know if he's the best hire for Michigan, but it's pretty clear the guy can coach.
I don't think that's the analogy he's making at all.
Getting Brady really was lucky for the Pats. He was a small gamble that paid off huge. If the organization really had any idea what they were getting they wouldn't have passed on him to draft guys like Greg Robinson (ntGR) and Jeff Marriot.
The situation that analogizes the point is poker.. If you call a couple raises and eventually go all in preflop with 35 against KK, you could still win, and if if you do it enough times you should and will win. Winning doesn't prove that the decision to keep calling was somehow not stupid.
Brady Hoke is 35 off; Rich was KK.
That Rodriguez sucked in his tenure here doesn't mean hiring him wasn't the right decision. You should take an accomplished, impeccably resumed coach every time over a less accomplished one.
That's why even if Hoke does happen to succeed, he's a poor hire. There is no reasonable expectation for success. If he does succeed, it will be due to luck or DB's ability to see into the future.
down to the poker analogy.
The expected value of hiring Brady Hoke is so much less than the EV of hiring Rich Rodriguez that it's absurd.
And being results oriented is a good way to go broke.
Yes, I understood his point from a risk/reward perspective. I concede the Brady anology was not apt, but the Favre anology isn't bad (the Pack gave up a first round pick for him and he hadn't shown anything in his year at Atlanta).
Regardless, I disagree with your poker anology for the same reason I agree with statement to which my post was directed. A deck of cards is a known quantity. We can accurately calculate probabilities with the confidence that we know those quantities. You are assuming that "coaching resume," (defined as wins/losses, championships, perceived success as an assistant, etc.) represents the total quantity from which the probability of success at Michigan can be estimated. My point is that you can't simply quantify what makes a successful coach (or what will make one successful at a given coaching position) with such ease and confidence. People are not cards in a deck.
I will stipulate that Hoke's resume is not as gilded as some other potential candidates. From there, though, you conclude that if he is hired and succeeds, Brandon must therefore have simply gotten lucky. I would conclude that Brandon likely knew something that we didn't, or at any rate used more factors in estimating the probability of success than you did. You say that Rich Rodriguez, despite all that has happened, was still a smart hire-- because you assume that your criteria for determining the quality of a candidate is accurate and complete. But perhaps if other things besides "coaching resume" are taken into account (like "program fit," or regional knowledge/recruiting ties, or ability to handle recruiting for a more academicaly demanding school, for instance), the hire doesn't look quite as smart and his failure here can be more logically explained instead of resorting to an assumption of "bad luck." By the same token, perhaps there are other factors not as easily taken into account that may make Hoke a better candidate than some others with apparently better resumes. If we don't take as our premise that Dave Brandon is an incompetent moron who doesn't know the first thing about football, then it may make more sense (given a Brady Hoke success) to conclude that Brandon understood those factors and took them into account when making his decision.
So where is Bo Force One right now?
But it is only there to pick up a load of severed heads and will be gone in two hours.
This is the first +1 I've been able to give out in the past three days.
Maybe Denard could just be player-coach....
I am also still on board with going after the ghost of Bo.
Two possible drawbacks:
1. Ghost would be considered a spirit rather than a man so "Michigan Man" title may not fit therefore acceptance by Michigan family questionable.
2. Recruiting could be an issue for those who don't believe in ghosts.
Posted this on another thread but I'll put it here where there aren't many replies yet:
Does anyone else wonder what coaches think about the '11 and '12 schedules? We've got a fairly brutal schedule in '11 then you add Alabama in '12. I wonder how enthusiatic any coach would be to come into a situation where a team got mauled by all of it's tough opponents the year before and then has two brutal schedules up coming. Add to the fact that our fanbase/alumni doen't seem to be the most realistic folks in the world. I'm starting to wonder who the hell would set themselves up to fail like that.
My immediate reaction is that football coaches are arrogant as hell and would see the tough schedule as a plus. I doubt they contemplate failure.
I was thinking that too, but then I thought that they're not idiots so their arrogance probably falls within reasonable limits.
That is a much easier schedule. Swapping Wisky and PSU for Northwestern and Minnesota is a win. ND, Nebraska, and OSU are at home. Iowa, MSU, and OSU also lose high quality senior classes.
If you are going to enter the new Big Ten as a head coach, this is probably the easiest way to do it.
Fair enough. I wasn't really considering NU any easier than PSU but Wisky for Minn is a win. I'm not sure with our current team home or away for Iowa, MSU, and OSU really makes a difference.
I was laying in bed this morning wondering what potential coaches think about THE GAME. Love him or hate him, Tressel's a coach.... and our next coach will come on campus knowing he'll win or lose his job according to his record against OSU. That could play on someone's decision.
I then concluded that if any coach might be afraid to come here to face the damn Buckeyes, then I never wanted his frilly dress-wearin' ass anyway.
That I agree with you about Tressel, but after this bowl game he's absolutely cemented his spot in the win-at-all-cost-ethics-be-damned hall of fame and there is no excusing that. Coaches are supposed to be teachers also and what had Pryor learned?
That future schedules have anything to do with a coach's decision to take a job. Not that they've been great hires or anything, but if the schedules were take into account, ND would NEVER have a coach.
I was thinking about the schedule in respect to the team you play the schedule with. The ND teams that new coaches transitioned to seemed to have a bit more talent than the current UM team does.
that Brennen Beyer is reconsidering at this point, which yes, of course...
Been thinkin' alot about Les this morning. That's a heckuva lot of wins he's racked up down there. I like wins....?