Brady Hoke's seating chart
http://annarbor.com/sports/um-football/brady-hokes-michigan-football-re…
A lot of it is the same things people around here have already heard, but the beginning part of how he likes players to sit, whether his team or not, was an interesting insight to attention to little details. (It's a slow weekend)
Wow. That just speaks volumes to how Hoke is a Michigan-Man wheras his predecessor, ehhh, not so much.
You're kidding me, right? Please tell me I missed the sarcasm?
This doesn't speak "volumes" about anything apart from how Brady Hoke chooses to run a team meeting. Lloyd Carr didn't start every practice citing Michigan football history, and I doubt he prioritized or ran team meetings the exact same way as Hoke. Time to put the "Michigan Man" meme to bed.
The 1:40 post of tigers17fan seems to indicate that no sarcasm was intended.
- - -
Quibble time: Do "Michigan Men" have a monopoly on ideas like teamwork? I doubt it. Assuming the little "friends on the team" claims are true (no idea here), why not just say that Hoke has good "people skills" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCC_PxRWVI4) and be done with it? Why is it necessary to say "Michigan Man?"
Also, was it necessary to simultaneously beat the dead RichRod horse? If Rodriguez was such an interpersonal disaster, do you think the team would have rallied around Hoke last January the way they did? As well, if Lloyd was all about teamwork, why did some his players apparently quit on Rodriguez? (Don't tell me -- they were perfect angels corrupted by the hillbilly. Actually, I'd accept that to some degree.)
I get it, but discussing the good and the bad of RR has been beaten to death. There is literally nothing more to talk about, unless (god forbid) some NCAA bombshell shows up. At this point any talk about it is reviving the dead horse, and beating it to death again
Actually, I was talking about the difference between Hoke and Rich-Rod. Like Hoke said (and i paraphrase) the team didn't sit near each other and didn't have that team feel like it did when he was an assistant at Michigan. Lloyd still had that feel when he was there (according to friends of mine who were on the team), but after Rich-Rod it wasn't. I may be reading too much into it, but this is how I take it.
That's just my opinion though, and I respect that you have a different one
sigh...
Wow...didn't realize how against talking about Rich-Rod you all are. haha. Not gonnna make that mistake again! I was just giving my opinion, sorry you all feel so strongly against it.
yourself for the past few years, but we have been here discussing RR. We have heard the pros, the cons, and all the rest. In fact, we have pretty well beaten it into the ground. I will guarantee you that if you search the archives and begin reading, you will learn things you didn't know before you began. We have heard it to the point where some of us are a bit edgy when the subject is broached.
....the Mgouser who starts a thread, I believe.
I think I'll write a diary titled, "RR SUX Compared to Hoke," and, in the body, write, "I've calculated that, statistically, RR sux 11.4 times more than Ellerbee sucked. And Hoke's Michigan Man-o-meter is already equal to Lloyd Carr's, and rising."
Then I'll sit back and see what happens.
The reasons people disapproved of your comments are four-fold.
1) People are tired of the idea that everything that Hoke does as somehow being related to RichRod, and that we must therefore make the comparison
2) People are tired of the fallacy that says that Hoke does X, and RichRod did Y, and Hoke won more games, therefore X>Y
3) People are tired of the myth of the magical Michigan Man. We get it; the RichRod Era was a disaster, but to reduce everything to "lulz RR wasn't a Michigan Man" is too simplistic by a mile. Hoke does some things differently than his predecessor. He does some things the same. He even kept some of the changes RichRod made, and changed some stuff that RichRod kept from the Lloyd Era. Defining a Michigan Man thing as "that which Hoke does, because Hoke is a Michigan Man who does Michigan Man things" is circular. And annoying.
4) DEAD HORSE IS STILL DEAD PLEASE NOT TO BE HITTING HIM ANYMORE
I actually don't mind reasonable discussions of the pros and cons of RRs system, but "lulz not a MICHIGAN MAN" is a cheap shot, and frankly rather petty (I mean, seriously, you need to have the right seating chart to be a MICHIGAN MAN?)
" That means we're going to be side-by-side. That's how it starts."
The seating arrangement in a meeting is crucial sometimes, especially if you want everyone in that room to be on the same page, as Hoke definitely would in a team meeting, and this is a great general lesson to start impressing on kids now as they get closer to becoming student-athletes at the university level. We even set up rooms strategically for corporate functions that use a little social psychology, if you will.
The disconnected, "sit anywhere" style basically says exactly what it looks like, but having people sit together actually does foster a sense of community and, perhaps more importantly to teams, it de-powers conflicts, particularly if the seating arrangement is such that the focus is not on other members of the group but on another person or item, such as, say, Brady Hoke. You don't need a dramatic message to be influential in that situation, and Hoke definitely is succeeding here.
Don't get me wrong, I love the philosophy. That said, this it means absolutely nothing in some of the comments above insinuating that its the way of the ill-defined "Michigan Man" or evidence that Coach A is better than Coach B (rather Coach H is better than Coach R).
You're right, of course. It's really the case in any setting where people have to work as a team to solve a problem, or in the case of football, win a game. What Hoke is doing at these meetings is as true in business as it is in sports. If you don't do these little things - such as introduce the base elements of a "team" (some companies even hire consultants to arrange the chairs in a meeting room so they can achieve this) - from the start, that team will ultimately perform below potential even if with the best talent, and it doesn't really matter who is ultimately in charge.
RRR (richrodrhetoric)
Since this your thread M-Wolverine and I figure you'll get back. Do you have the old MGoHall of Fame stories? Mine apparently never migrated when I migrated laptops. If so I'll ask the mods to give you my email and we can get them posted again (now that she doesn't teach here anymore).
At this level, the little intangible things like this really add up. Lots of teams have elite players and very good coaching. The team concept, when properly implemented, lifts the performance of everyone involved on a football team. You could make an argument it is meaningless in every other major team sport. You'd lose that argument in football.
Fail in these team building areas in football and you are headed to failure in games when you can't just overwhelm the other team with talent.
I like Hoke, everything he does just seems to be honest coaching and not some made-for-ESPN Pete Carroll chicken shit self-promoting. I still remember watching a 60 Minutes story on Carroll where they were literally slobbered over him (not surprising for 60 Minutes). Behind the scenes, he's a loon. Hoke, I can't ever see him appearing on Good Morning America and giggling with Katie Couric about how much he loves the team and then discussing recipes for his favorite food. Okay, maybe I can see the last part, but I'd imagine Hoke just eats the manliest foods possible dipped in toughness sauce with a side of grits.
~Herm
"... Pete Carroll chicken shit self-promoting ..."
+1
I can't stand that @#$%ing guy.
Is it September yet?
/looks at calendar
/sighs
How about now?
"I can't believe we're allowed to do this," Meyer said. ... 'You can't do that,' and [Ohio State] compliance said, 'You sure can.'"
Hoke pointing at the empty seats, and they immediately get filled. Big surprise.