Can someone eventually give brief recap? I'd like to know what our fearless leader had to say.
fair point that
Can someone eventually give brief recap? I'd like to know what our fearless leader had to say.
It should also be posted on the wtka website shortly after its completed.
Get Moose and Squirrel!
I'm legitimately worried about Brian here - he may just sit in the chair and rock side-to-side when Brady Hoke is brought up and they'll have to throw to a commercial.
I know I'm not Brian but last night I layed in the fetal position sucking my thumb everytime I heard the name Brady Hoke...
There goes your workday....
Since when do we throw to a commercial? Is this because Tacopants used up his eligibility?
BHGP has a piece on the CC situation here. Not saying anyone will like it but it brings in a different perspective.
Thanks for this - I don't agree, necessarily, but in the comments someone finally said what I've been thinking - Brian Kelley would have been a good hire...
Why? Brian Kelly would have been almost identical to RR. Unless he was more flexible in adjusting his offense to the current players when he came in, and then maybe.
I actually agree with DB (can't believe I just said that) that Michigan needs a defensiveminded coach who has a deep understanding of Michigan and the Big Ten.
Wouldn't have been anything like rich. First of the fanbase would have backed off about his ties to Michigan because he coached two schools successfully here. Also he could have adapted his sysystem better than rich could have. Less people would have left etc etc.
It's about the person. Listen to Sam Webb who said it like it is RR had no chance here as he wasn't accepted by the powers that be (Big money donors, down in front crowd) because he wasn't like them. Kelly would have the same problem not to mention an issue with inner city recruiting after his comments at Central.
of a homer on crack. Iowa is not a better job and there is no way they are going to have better facilities in 2-3 years.
Sometimes it takes an outsider's view to see things clearly. But I agree. This article is mostly an Iowa fan's wishful thinking. True, they have been better than us the last 3 years. And true it has been unexpectedly difficult to lure a big name coach to Michigan. But they are still Iowa.
They were supposed to contend with a senior laden team but instead imploded and finished 7-5, then a bunch of scandals. While they did win their bowl, 8-5 is pretty poor for a team that started ranked #9 in the polls.
But they do have Michigan pinned pretty well. Dissatisfied with the success of Carr (although he didn't get run out), dissatisfied that Rod wasn't Carr, and a bit full of ourselves because of our history and pageantry. Iowa may not be a better job, but the Michigan job isn't as desirable as I'd hope it would be. The scariest thought I had when reading the front page article yesterday of "Non-Hoke Options" was - "Are any of those guys going to want to come here?" For every one, there's a strong possibility Brandon calls and they say "no thanks" and hang up.
Biggest problem I had with the article was the assertion that we ran Lloyd out. Lloyd left on his own terms.
And, truthfully, I wasn't all that sad to see him go. The diarist the other day said it best when he described Lloyd as a good coach and a good man -- but not a great coach.
I was never a big Lloyd fan (admittedly had to eat some major crow in 1997) because I hate Lloyd Ball. I thought it cost us far more games than it won us (Brian once did an analysis that supported that feeling), allowed for the possibility of an Appy State, and guaranteed that, other than a miracle like 1997 (Lloyd Ball would have cost us a few games but for the fact that we had a Football God on the roster), Lloyd's ceiling was always going to be 2 losses, with a mean of 4 losses. It frustrated me to no end that we seemed to have the ability to open it whenever we wanted to -- we had a great bowl record against the SEC -- but instead chose to curl into the fetal position against the Pac 10 and even the preseason MAC cakes (we can't let ND know we can do more than run up the middle, run up the middle, run up the middle...).
I was really excited about RR because I thought his aggressiveness would put the ceiling at 0 losses but understood that the tradeoff was the potential for more than 4 losses. I was willing to accept the bigger swing because I'd rather win a national championship more than once in 60 years, even if some seasons would be ugy.
I kind of have the feeling that, after the wild ride of the last 3 years, the fan base (maybe even me, I reluctantly admit) is willing to go back to the play-it-safe-but-never-win-big mentality. And that's why Hoke seems like a likely candidate.
I love how after the last 3 years our fans still take 9- and 10-win seasons for granted like they just magically grow on trees. Can we please stop bashing Lloyd and give him the credit he deserves for being a great coach?
is to be expected. After the Mizzou game there was talk about competing with any of the SEC teams (despite the B1G implosions of the regular season.)
That said, the general sentiment I've seen on BHGP is that they want Michigan footbal back on its feet. Minnesota? Not so much. jNW? F*ck 'em to holy hell.
Given Brian's comments on how Brandon handled the situation thus far, it was interesting to read Fast Company's analysis on the same. Fast Company is a business magazine, if you haven't heard of it before, so they bring a different perspective, I suppose. Here's the link: http://www.fastcompany.com/1714730/dont-let-hysteria-get-in-the-way-of-deliberation
Thanks for posting a different perspective.
355 comments and counting.
These guys have more to say about the situation than we do.
I agree with some of the other guys here in that there is no way Iowa can even begin to match Michigan's facilities in 2-3 years. Everything we have is brand new or in the process of being renovated.
It's not that they have more to say; they just don't have their posting privileges partially suspended.
Remember this, Greg Schiano, let me repeat that, Greg Schiano decided that Rutgers offered more long-term promise than did Michigan. He turned them down, with Ryan Mallet on the roster. Alum Les "LSU Fans Wish I Were Nick Saban" Miles decided he had more long-term promise in the vacillating confines of Baton Rouge than in Ann Arbor
because there's little or no truth in that quote. First, it's pretty well established that Martin never offered the job to Les Miles, so there was no "decision" for him to make. In addition, there's no reason to believe Schiano thought he could win more at Rutgers -- that seemed to be a question of comfort and acceptance from the fan base, no matter what the won-loss record.
I think I like his work better when he's playing the regular fan than the college football expert. Because while he does a pretty chart, I don't know that you can "chart" some so human involved as football. But he has a talent like no other to feel the pulse of the fan, and a way with words to perfectly express it in an entertaining way. "Brady Hoke Sucks" doesn't strike me as a knowledgeable football assessment. But reflecting how the average fan feels? Yup.
To me, it isn't that Brady Hoke s*cks. He has had his moments as a coach and seems like a genuinely good guy. How could you not like him after seeing this?
No, what s*cks is that a guy of his overall stature is being strongly considered for a job of ... this stature. As others have intelligently noted, Brady wouldn't be in the conversation if you replaced "Michigan" with "Penn State" on his CV. His accomplishments are unimpressive when placed alongside those of Patterson, Harbaugh, et al.
What does this mean? I think it means that the brains of many Michigan fans have turned into mush. (This didn't necessarily happen recently.) They're itching to turn back the clock to ... what, exactly? I'm not sure. But, I've been reading ridiculous ideas like "Hire Hoke and get a cast of all-star assistants." Um, yeah.
Northwestern's coach, who has a completely unimpressive record. Everyone has candidates based on intangibles rather than record.
Fitzgerald is 36 (as opposed to 53). You could at least make the "age upside" argument (however shaky) with him.
As well, he has, unlike Hoke, coached for a few years at the highest level (i.e., BCS) of college football. He has had modest success at a place where there isn't much *tradition*. I certainly wouldn't call it "completely unimpressive." How many coaches have won big there in the modern era? (I realize that he falls short of Gary Barnett.)
Aside from "Defensive Line Coach, Michigan," what exactly does Hoke bring to the table in terms of intangibles?
I tried to go "apples to apples" with the interviews.
Which one would you take? I'll take Fitzgerald. It's not even close. Brady (bless his big old heart) sounds like Lloyd Lite in that interview. He doesn't sound like a high D-1 coach to me.
is give Hoke a chance?
Well, maybe. My two cents:
Cent #1: Brian's and other prominent MGoBloggers have to be careful here in stoking the anti-Hoke sentiment/nascent rebellion. The tendency for groupthink -- wherein folks adopt their fearless leaders' epinions with minimal debate -- on this site is considerable. (I'm somewhat reminded of DailyKos.com's sky-high support for John Edwards early in the 2008 primary season, if that means anything to anyone.) At worst, if Hoke gets hired he comes in with a large segment of the fan base ready to pounce on every misstep, real or imagined. Which is exactly what we (MGoBlog readers, that is) were critical of Carr faction folks of doing regarding RR three years ago.
Cent #2: Hoke deserves a fair hearing. His track record strikes me as, while less impressive than Harbaugh's or P(e/a)tterson's, better than or on par with those of people like Tressel, Dantonio, Bielema, Kelly, and (less, I'm going there) Chizeck (sp?). And unlike most of those guys (i.e., or at least the Dantonio and Bielema), he's not a prick.
Hoke's record is nowhere close to what Tressel or Kelly had accomplished. Both of them had won multiple national championships in lower divisions. The problem with Hoke is that aside from his great 2008 season, and to a lesser extent, his most recent 9-4 season, his record is woefully uninpressive. Hell, aside from those two seasons, he only has one other season in which his team finished above .500, and in that year, it went 7-6. Based upon his overall body of work, he's not qualified for this job. That's the problem with his coaching candidacy.
OK, maybe I should water down my point a bit. I will claim that none of those guys had a Harbaugh-like resume, especially if you consider "But he has no Div.I experience" a legitimate objection (and it was certainly made).
But if you want to focus on former assistants with mediocre records, how about Chizik -- 5-19 at Iowa St. to coach of the year in 3 or 4 years.
If you're going to this argument, then how can anyone be so high on Rich Rod? He is a 43-43 career coach that, save three seasons AFTER MIAMI (YTM), BC, AND VTech left the BigEast, didn't and does not have much of a track record of success.
Bottom line is that you cannot look at a candidate and say well, inferior competition, rabble rabble rabble...
If Hoke is the higher, I think it would be good for the University. If Miles is the hire, I think it would be good for the University. If Coker is the hire, I think it would be good for the University. You following me?
Sure, makes perfect sense -- so, in other words, since Rodriguez was the hire, it was good for the University.
And save your "Mikey math" for someplace else. Rodriguez was 60-26 at WVU and 15-22 here, for a overall head coaching record of 75-48. At that rate, he could have gone 0-12 for the next two years and still had a winning record -- more than Hoke can say.
but i'm not impressed with Hoke. he's at a blip of the radar school where he's had moderate success. his biggest selling points are that he "almost beat" some heavy hitters. who may very well have overlooked SDSU completely and simply wanted the W and nothing more. by this logic, Wisconsin is only 3 points better than SDSU. omgz!
he's campaigned so hard for the job, and that's admirable, but his resume of "success" in of itself a hindrance - if he were so good, why did it take 5 years to put the MAC on its ass? and he left before he could prove it was continued success rather than a fluke season. now he's had a 9-4 season in which, if he were as good as he's being built, his team should have nuked a 6-6 BYU team that was a UTEP bowl away from a losing season.
You know what's really damn weird? Brady Hoke, Lloyd, and to a lesser extent Miles and Bo all kind of talk the same way.
I'm guessing if you slowed down the speed of this clip (which would lower the pitch of the voice) and closed your eyes you would swear you were listening to Lloyd.
add Ron English to that list
But I'm on the 2b part. They were talking about the law were the job has to be posted for a week before It can be filled so 12th Jan for a target date unless there is a loop-hole M can get around.
nothing posted yet on the UM job search site (i'm assuming i was looking in the right place - umjobs.org). i know we are a public university and all but I actually thought someone was joking when they said we had to post a job listing online.
It'll appear soon enough.
online - we have this requirement in my company for openings too so internal employees can apply - but we often post a notice on a corner of a bulletin board in the break room
It may be posted on a board in the lobby of SH or Tappan where anyone could walk by and see it - but it doesn't HAVE to be online
But that's how the U does it. I don't know where you work, but public law requirements wouldn't allow a "posting to the general public" be on a board in the lunch room. I don't know what public requirements your business is subject to, but if they have the same requirements, your company is flirting with a lawsuit.
there is an entire print (= not online) journal devoted to publishing academic job listings in my discipline, and the reason it isn't online is that chairs of departments at public universities think they have to post jobs in print. it's not actually true that they can't do this online--posting online can count as posting in print--but the point is that any given job listing needn't necessarily turn up online.
I guess it just depends on the organization....my company, for one, requires that we post all new job listings online. they have a couple of fairly important positions posted - i.e. Chief Compliance Officer - so I would have thought they might be required by law as a public institution to put all postings online. i was actually looking forward to reading the job description and the required/desired qualifications.....
followed the last coaching search. Anyone can apply. Literally.
They post it for legal reasons, but already know who they want to hire.
I think applied last time, just so I can say I was a candidate for the Michigan Head Coaching job (thinking I wouldn't have another chance for 15-20 years. Uhm, yeah...)