Afternoon Open Thread

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.