Better Coaching Staff?: UM or OSU
In each of these five major aspects of modern college football coaching, which staff do you think is superior?
Recruiting Talent - recruiting rankings predict future success
Player Development - strength and conditioning, instilling fundamentals, avoiding attrition
Scheme - devising superior offensive and defensive tactics
Game Management - 4th down decisions, play calling, clock management
Public Relations - ability to handle the press, university administration, and alumni
I think your last paragraph misses one key point. The expectations at OSU and Michigan are very different than MSU. MSU had no problem letting Dantonio stick around to see if he could build a good program as he was showing a little bit of promise. Look at Dantonio's first three years compared to the MSU season results posted above. He's right in the wheelhouse of expectations. OSU and Michigan have vastly different expectations. I know you like to point out all of the very real circumstances to explain Meyer's vs. Hoke's results. But the perception (read expectation) of the broad Michigan fan base (not just those ingrained in MGoBlog) is not to have back to back years of 5 or more losses...regardless of circumstances. You can say that is not fair, but that is what a history of success breeds.
That is the perception/expectation for the majority of the fanbase. Many in the fan base believe that Hoke should be able to win right away, and shouldn't need time to build his program. I think it's wrong that that is the perception/expectation, but I probably differ from the majority there. I think he deserves time to build a program, as long as the wheels aren't completely falling off (which they aren't as of yet).
I'm a believer in giving a coach 4 years (5 if there are extenuating circumstances) to prove they have things headed in the right direction. That gives them time to bring in their people and implement any neccessary culture change. That is the cycle of college atheletics. As part of that 4 year cycle, they should be showing upward promise by year three. It should not take longer than that in college sports where the coaches have so much control and influence. That is why I think it is fair for Hoke to be under pressure this season to deliver significant improvement. He constantly talks about the expectation being for the position and competition is good for the kids. That should be true for the coach as well. Year three was in many regards a disaster. Not just on the field results, but there were internal issues as well (this is evident in the firing of Borges and the public comments made by both players and coaches). Year 4 is when Hoke and staff should be delivering to Michigan fan expectations. I'm not expecting a national championship, but a viable chance for playing in the B1G title game going into the final two weeks should be expected. I think an 8-4 campaign (or even 9-3 if two of the three losses are to MSU and OSU) is not acceptable. The history of Michigan football demands more than that.
I want the guy to win big this year because I think he is an excellent coach for the players at Michigan. He brings in the right kids, keeps them focused on the right things. I think he and his staff truly believe in the concept of a student athelete. Those are reasons I am proud to be a fan of Michigan. I would be sad to see that go. But ultimately, with the salaries coaches pull in and the expectations at Michigan, he has to deliver the W's first and foremost.
It was a young team that WHATEVER the record should have shown IMPROVEMENT as the year went by. If they lost EVERY game close but it looked like a well tuned engine that was just overwhelmed...but played better in late October than mid September I'd be like - ok that's a young team that is growing.
What sucked more than the losing to me last year was the lack of progress as the year went by. That's the troubling part. So until i see otherwise I see a coach who will collect elite top 15 classes every year and make some progress with them, enough to get them to 9 or 10 wins most years but is it raises serious questions of can be take them to elite. Small things like NOT changing the play on the 2 pt conversion allowing OSU to see our tendency are things that make me question things. That said maybe that was Borges decision but as a HC it falls to you to overrule him and say WTF are you doing.
This past season ( and may be this season) is probably Hoke's low point due to the youth bubble that was was not his fault. I would say if Robinson did not get injured in the UN game Hoke would have had another 10 or 11 win season after his first great season as coach. As long as Hoke can make it through this season, I see him on a major upward trajectory of 10 or more wins per seasons. The only thing I'm uncertain about Hoke, is he able to win that big game. Be it against Urban, The B1G championship or even a playoff game in the future?
but they've now settled in and built their program and I think earned their right to be called a great staff. Maybe Hoke's staff has the same ability given 5+ years, but I suppose we really don't know at this point, do we?
The fact that MSU won a Rose Bowl with (yet another) crushing defense made up of guys that Michigan and Ohio (largely) took a pass on is enough for me. Hopefully three years from now we'll say Hoke's staff is equally as capable...but I'm not so sure
I think they have a very good staff too. I'm just pointing out how easily and quickly this perception changes, and how a single year drastically sways public opinion, rightly or wrongly.
Dantonio has to clean up a disaster from Bobby Williams and JL Smith back to back. He came in and had a winning record year 1, and 9-4 second year. They had a bad 3rd year - that was the Rather Hall year, they lost players and had distractions. Then 11-2, and 11-3; the type of seasons even Carr rarely had. That was year 4 and 5 with his players dominating the roster. Then they had a bad year with a QB who was not a gamer (Maxwell) combined with a down OL - which we know affects the team. They had a massive run of OL injuries, it wasnt "lack of development" per se. The defense was excellent that year and they lost a ton off games by 1-3 points. Then he had a greart year last year.
And starting in year 3 they began developing one elite unit (the defense) which has been top 10-15 every year since. And they have beaten their rival constantly.
Guy changed an entire culture. They were mental losers. They imploded mentally every time they went down. When they lost to UM the rest of their season was shot. They dont do that now. He has been a massive hire for them.
And again saying every coach should get X years because Dantonio did it in year 4 is naive. You can see if players are developing, culture changed, beating teams with "more talent", etc. You see those glimpses. You don't need 4-5 years to see those things.
Every coach with meh results can then point to Dantonio and say I need 4-5 years because...Dantonio. Charlie Weiss could say that. 90% of coaches won't be Dantonio...but 90% can use that rationale I guess.
State but it's funny that you are making excuses for him for every bad thing that happened when just above this you give no benefit of the doubt to Hoke.
After getting beat up game after game, I'm sure the line was getting beat up and was beginnning to doubt themselves. There is only so much you can do with such a long time. It's something that only time lifting and getting heavier are going to resolve. Granted, experience should help some but other teams are also learning your weaknesses. They were also facing the toughest part of the schedule later in the year.
As far as the play call, Gardner had a broken foot which somewhat limited the play calls. There was also a player who came open immediately after the ball was thrown. Sometimes the best play is the one you are most confident with.
I don't think you can blame Hoke for the lack of upperclassmen on the interior of the line. Guys were playing who should have been redshirted. If I don't see some growth this year and in 2015, I will jump on the anti Hoke bandwagon but the guy deserves the chance to develop the talent he brought in.
The last thing Michigan needs is to get rid of Hoke and start from scratch again because some players will leave. We have suffered through the results of that.
do not understand that player development is tied directly with scheme. It is WHY a certain player can be an outstanding college player yet fail in the NFL and conversely why an "under the radar" player can be an All Pro.
Scheme is the SINGLE reason MSU's defense has overwhelmed the B1G over the last few years. Pressure QB's, because most college QB's are actually very average under pressure. Gap blitzing the LB's can crush the run or pressure the QB ... especially on play fakes when the QB has turned his back to the LOS. Defensive scheme is also osu's weak link (defensive seconadary). They get burned entirely too often and hopefully this is their downfall again this year.
Go Blue!
OSU obviously leads in all relevant categories (PR is irrelevant).
OSU has gone through one coaching change since 2001 (the Fickell year doesnt count). UM has gone through 2 since 2008. OSU brought in a proven winner. UM brought in an unproven coach who is using UM to prove himself. Those are the key differences in terms of where these programs are.
Nuss and Mattison make this a much more even debate, thankfully.
"With the exception of Gibbons"
You can't jsut throw out the primary example. Hoke's handling of Gibbons was vastly more questionable than any of Meyer's questionable handling of players. In today's climate of anti-sexual assault, Hoke f-ed that up, royally. And I think it calls his character into question. Although ultimately PR doesnt matter, if you want to say it does, then Meyer has the edge here. Actually, he has the whole blade.
If t happened two months before Hoke was here, sure, Hole should have done something more. But after two-and-a-half semesters of school and a year for football, the decision had already been made that nothing should be done. It was the wrong decision, but Hoke didn't make it.
I would agree that something like "Program Culture", if you will, is worthy of consideration here as it permeates some of the other things that the OP mentions. At least on this point, I would probably give Michigan an edge when it comes to the day-to-day operations of the program and how things are organized, just based on what I know of the structures of both. There seems to be a stronger atmosphere of personal responsibility and accountability in Ann Arbor, at least overall. Further, I think there is something to be said for the family atmosphere that Hoke has tried to create and I believe it has resulted in a net plus for us on the recruiting front and perhaps to a certain extent in the area of staff as well.
Are there no other topics to talk about? I know this is the offseason, but jebus people are just reaching to get into arguments apparently.
Meyer is the second best coach in the country and we all know who number one is. I think we have better coordinators though.
the OP said "better staff." Which staff would you say is better?
I don't disagree that Meyer is a better coach than Hoke, but coaching football is only part of what we (at least Michigan fans) expect out of our coaches. We expect them to be a leader and developer of men, whether they're bound for the NFL or not. And in this regard, I think Hoke has the lead over Meyer. Yes, U. MF'er M. is a better football coach, but what price do those wins come with? I have said it before and I'll say it again, the deal osu has made with the (Meyer) devil will come back to bite them some day in the future.
I don't care what the OP asked. I still posted my opinion about the coaches.
Also, I am just a fan and only care about one thing - winning games. That other stuff is find and dandy, but life is better for us when M is winning. The players' becoming better men does nothing for us. I hope it happens for the players, but I care more about winning. I know this post will get down voted a million times, but I don't care.
I wasn't trying to be critical, I was asking for a follow on to your answer.
Go have a cup of coffee or something, sheesh.
Perhaps if coffee tasted good...
So go ahead with the "or something" then.
Michigan leads in the WOW factor
I don't see why that really matters. He's had two years. Hoke has had three. Basically, you're saying that we must wait five years before comparing coaching staffs. That's really ticky-tacky. By this point we have a pretty good idea of what each staff has to offer, although mini caveats apply here and there (Hoke just hired Nussmeier, Meyer just hired Larry Johnson, etc.).
By the way, Tressel hasn't coached OSU since the 2010 season. They've been without him as long as Michigan has been without Rodriguez.
Expect this year to be the turning point with likely starts/meaningful contributions coming from those mentioned before, as well as Schutt, Elliott, Lee, McMillan, Tyquan Lewis, Lindsay*, and any combination of freshman and sophomore OLs, receivers, and DBs, those positions with young potential/lack if veteran depth.
If there is reason to question the staff's ability to develop talent, this is the year that you will see it, with only Miller, Smith, Bennett, Heuerman, and both Grants as pre-Meyer veterans slated to feature. Other guys like Steve Miller, Antonio Underwood, and Nick Vannett are pre-Meyer guys that figure to contribute, but if the young guys don't carry a big portion of the load, the team will not succeed.
This is not even a debate. One coach has 2 national titles and has not lost a regular season game in 2 years. The other is .500 lifetime .
Coaching staff? Only person michigan has that OSU would want is Mattison.
keep_em_stupid is back.
Player Development - closer but still think ose
Scheme - offense osu / defense michigan
Game Management - push (osu has rarely been in tight games over the last 2 years to judge)
Public Relations - osu...
I honestly think they have top to bottom a better coaching staff right now outside of defense.
I hate that we are in a position with our program where we have to have moral victories talk about eithics and other seemingly immeasurable aspects. I miss the Cooper (Carr/Moeller/Bo) years where we owned OSU despite them being a 10 win team every year.
Pretty sure he understands that, hence he "misses" those days.
Dude. Seriously. You're a dick.
I was agreeing with him. Not sure how that makes me a dick but okay
Look at OSU. In 2010 Tressel coached them to a 12-1 season. He's fired and Fickell comes in (2011) with nearly the same team and goes 6-7. Then Meyer comes in and goes 24-2 in 2 years with all previous recruits.
Look at Michigan. RichRod was terrible with 3-9, 5-7, and 7-6 records from 2008 to 2010. Then Hoke comes in and goes 11-2, 8-5, and 7-6. Both Hoke and RichRod went 7-6 in year 3 (scary).
It's strange but the head coach and coaching staff make a huge difference to a college football team when it comes to W's on the field. And right now OSU has the significant edge.
2011 OSU was not even close to 2010 OSU. The major glaring difference would be no Pryor and starting a freshman Braxton Miller...and about 5 or 6 other key missing people.
It's all about results.
Until Michigan gets better results on the field, OSU's staff has the clear edge in every facet listed.
expect major improvements on offense. The negativity in this thread does not compromise my enthusiasm. I believe the future is bright, and this program is on the rebound.
How is this even up for debate? Over the last 13 years theres no question we have gotten shoveled.
Unless you are running an asylum all that matters is winning. On that end Urbz alone supersedes everything else - he did it at Utah, and Florida and has 2 losses in 2 years at OSU. All the other "categories" you listed are for schools looking for moral victories. Again my exception to this is if you are running an asylyum full of players gone nuts like Miami late 80s.
and OSU has been better under Meyer than Michigan has been under Hoke. I think OSU has the edge in all five facets mentioned. Here's to hoping things change quickly (as I take another swig from my stiff vodka cocktail).