Brian on WTKA 1/20/11
Well, not quite the big discussion point as last week, but at least the suicide watch can be called off. I think.
10 - Brian Cook segment 1
http://www.wtka.com/index.php?fuseaction=home.podcasts_sel&id=10415
11a - Brian Cook segment 2
http://www.wtka.com/index.php?fuseaction=home.podcasts_sel&id=10416
11b - Brian Cook segment 2
http://www.wtka.com/index.php?fuseaction=home.podcasts_sel&id=10417
12 - Brian Cook segment 3
http://www.wtka.com/index.php?fuseaction=home.podcasts_sel&id=10418
(Last one is really short, and on hockey mostly)
January 20th, 2011 at 3:29 PM ^
Legit question - If the Hoke regime turns out to be a huge success, given the failure of Rich Rod, what affect does that have on Brian's credibility?
I have to feel that openly supporting a failed experiment, as well as being a huge critic of Hoke's in the early stages would be somewhat damaging. However, people tend to forget/forgive easily, so maybe this is just a stupid thought I had.
In the end he can still be relied upon for having access to "insiders" and those UFRs...
January 20th, 2011 at 3:33 PM ^
You would hope that intelligent fans would look at all of the factors that went into RR's failure and not just that he failed. Hoke got more support in his first day on the job than RR got in his entire tenure. I am not defending or supporting either coach, but there were a lot more factors that went into this then just Ws and Ls.
January 20th, 2011 at 3:37 PM ^
Brian's opinions are often wrong, but that hardly takes away from his credibility. If he was running around making stuff up Ryan Ermanni style it would be different. As it is, smart consumers of information are going to realize that ANYONE's published opinions come with both a slant and an agenda.
January 20th, 2011 at 4:29 PM ^
Exactly. And if Hoke is a huge success, I'm sure Brian will recognize that and admit he was wrong (he's done it before). That it the mark of credibility. Everyone has opinions. Everyone has been wrong. Credibility is about admitting when you were wrong
<br>
<br>Now, let's just hope Hoke is a huge success...
January 20th, 2011 at 4:44 PM ^
I agree and I'll bet Brian would agree that the coordinators (especially Mattison) could make Hoke look really good.
One of the problems I had with RR was his unwillingness to truly delegate.
January 20th, 2011 at 5:47 PM ^
He either really delegated compliance or ...
He seems to have delegated defense for the first half of 2008, and the first half of 2009 (or maybe all of it), and maybe up through Penn State this year, then step in a swap stuff around so much mid season it made things worse. (It appeared to me like he said we're doing 3-3-5 in the spring, and then didn't pay attention again until Penn State.)
So I think he may have totally delegated in year one and two, and set a direction and then delegated in year three. Who knows, maybe he felt if he got the offense up to speed, that would buy him enough time to then get the defense fixed and it didn't work out.
January 20th, 2011 at 3:39 PM ^
On Rodriguez, I think he supported only parts of that experiment (as opposed to the Lloyd Loyalists here, who still believe that Carr could have coached Threet to an All Big Ten season in '08 running the best offense ever, the PRO-STYLE offense). I specifically remember him openly questioning much of what was taking place on defense. Still, agreed, he would have to be classified as a RichRod supporter.
In the case of Hoke, much of his anger was directed at the process rather than Hoke the coach.
January 20th, 2011 at 3:48 PM ^
I think some of the stuff he said about Hoke prior to Rich Rod even being fired negates your last sentence, but the rest of your point is totally valid.
In the end, he's still the boss of this site. I just hope he can take some good natured ripping when/if Hoke has the Michigan machine rolling again.
January 20th, 2011 at 4:11 PM ^
But what is the criteria for the machine to be "rolling again"? I think that is central to Brian's criticism of the Hoke hire. We hired Rich Rod to turn Michigan into Florida. That didn't happen the way we hoped and may never have happened if Rich had been given more time. Now it seems like we hired a guy to get us back to Michigan circa 2007 because we didn't know how good we had it, but is that really the standard to which we should be aspiring?
January 20th, 2011 at 4:28 PM ^
January 20th, 2011 at 4:49 PM ^
Reasonable expectations, but does that include Michigan winning the conference at all? Have we knocked OSU off their perch as the big dog? Are we even in command of the Legends division or are we second fiddle to Nebraska? We saw a lot of success in the 2002 - 2006 timeframe, but we were still the 2nd best team in the Big 10, which is what fans ultimately found unacceptable.
January 20th, 2011 at 4:59 PM ^
Good lord Ferris, I just you my perspective and you're still asking for more? Shit man I haven't gone that "micro" in terms of my expectations of Michigan greatness.
That being said, you've lost your mind if you think people found the overall period from 2002-2006 to be "unacceptable".
The 2005 season was a disaster, and people began to call for Lloyd's head. 2006 fixed that. Then the Horror/Oregon happened and all those Lloyd bashers were back in full force.
It wasn't the full body of work - it was one disappointing year followed two years later by one of the worst losses in college football history.
January 20th, 2011 at 5:49 PM ^
I think Nebraska is not all the way back yet.
January 20th, 2011 at 7:21 PM ^
Well, considering we currently have our hands full dispatching the Indianas and Purdues of the world, I don't think taking a step back towards consistent winning and the upper echelon of the Big 10 sounds all that bad right now. I'm not saying this should be the end goal, but one step at a time, please.
January 20th, 2011 at 3:39 PM ^
because the failure of Rodriguez doesn't mean hiring him was anything but a great move, just like Hoke succeeding wouldn't mean Brian's criticisms of the hire were wrong.
There's enough uncertainty/variance in these things that you're really just playing poker and trying to get your money in good.
In reality, it'll probably hurt some, because people suck at statistics.
January 20th, 2011 at 3:44 PM ^
I think that it's different when you state an opinion as opposed to treating something like fact. For example, when and newspaper reporter comes out with allegations that they present as facts, and they turn out to be false and intentionally embellished, then that affects their credibility (we hope). But when one expresses their opinion, which they may also hope is wrong in the end, and it does turn out wrong, then that doesn't really affect one's credibility.
January 20th, 2011 at 4:01 PM ^
I think it's misleading to characterize Rodriguez's tenure as a "failed" experiment. More accurate to call it an "incomplete" experiment.
As far as being critical of Hoke in the early going, I think skepticism is warranted. The main criticism with Michigan pre-Rich was a program with loads of talent that never reached it's full potential. That was the major difference between Lloyd and Tressel. Ever since Tressel got OSU humming, it's been 10, 11 win seasons without much trouble. Lloyd wasn't quite that prolific towards the end. Rich brought the promise of building a program where the talent recruited would perform to it's maximum potential. Whether or not we would have achieved that, we'll never know.
Whether Hoke can deliver on that promise in a shorter span of time than Rich Rod did remains to be seen.
January 20th, 2011 at 4:53 PM ^
I am just glad I am a fan of a school that saw it is a failed experiment. Completing it had me and a lot of fans even more worried.
January 20th, 2011 at 5:11 PM ^
Rich brought the promise of building a program where the talent recruited would perform to it's maximum potential. Whether or not we would have achieved that, we'll never know.
Yes, he did. And people loved that promise. They cherished it and pet it and held it close to their heart and some are still holding on. It was so precious to them that they wanted to keep it, no matter what mounting evidence there was that the promise would not be fulfilled.
No, we'll never know. But given how God-awful many aspects of the regime was in Year 3, I think it is safe to say that we probably weren't going to get what we wanted.
January 20th, 2011 at 5:12 PM ^
First, do you mean Brian's credibility here? I think nothing would affect that.
Second: do you mean affect his credibility at large? No. Bloggists aren't regarded as particularly credible. And in terms of credibility--no one is ever held accountable anymore for opinions expressed on any subject--and that's OK with me because they are just that--OPINIONS. Opinions, arseholes, birthdays and kids--we all got 'em.
January 20th, 2011 at 6:48 PM ^
Bloggists?
January 21st, 2011 at 7:04 AM ^
I look to Brian for news and analysis of that news.
I do not look to Brian for being 100% accurate on predicting which coaches will be good and which ones won't.
Brian is a fan who had some very good ideas for a blog and, in a sense, cornered the Michigan market with his writing style. As far as I know, he didn't start this blog with any significant football experience or cache.
So I don't really care if he's right or wrong about Rodriguez and Hoke. Those are his opinions, and he's entitled to them. As long as he continues providing solid information and writing funny stuff, people will continue to flock here.
January 20th, 2011 at 3:31 PM ^
suicide watch called off for Brian - or for all of us?
Me thinks we need to wait till next season to make that call. Till then, I will have zippers installed in my wrists.
January 20th, 2011 at 3:32 PM ^
Being critical of the process and the choice is different than turning your back on the program.
Brian was ticked off and not happy that Hoke, in his opinion, was the only real candidate seriously considered by Brandona and MSC. However, he's still a Michigan fan and someone who will continue to support the teams.
January 20th, 2011 at 3:37 PM ^
to Hoke before the "process" went down. How many of us though "Yes, Hoke is the guy!" as soon as RR was fired? I know I wasn't one of them. I'm behind Hoke as coach. I'm sure Brian is too. In time whether or not he succeeds or fails Brian's thoughts on him aren't going to hurt his credibility for running an awesome site where we all come for information about Michigan sports.
January 20th, 2011 at 3:47 PM ^
I didn't hear Brian on WTKA last week, but I caught the beginning this week. He sounded pretty depressed. When asked what he thought about Mattison, he moaned something like (paraphrasing here), "At least he's better than Robinson." Eek.
Oh...and I learned that Brian doesn't like dogs and is a fan cats. I believe that hurts his credibility more so than being wrong about RR and initially hating on Hoke. Alas, we all have opinions, but sources of good info (like mgoblog) are very limited.
January 20th, 2011 at 3:48 PM ^
than the cats v. dogs issue.
January 20th, 2011 at 4:09 PM ^
Soccer players. Are you shitting me? Cats over dogs? Really?
January 20th, 2011 at 4:22 PM ^
cat's shit you're in the privacy of your own home, not out on the street with a f*ucking grocery bag in your hand.
January 20th, 2011 at 4:54 PM ^
OTOH, in the wisdom of the Onion, "Like Boxes of Shit in Your House? Get a Cat."
January 20th, 2011 at 5:12 PM ^
I bet AAB owns a Joey Harrington jersey.
January 20th, 2011 at 3:53 PM ^
I rather have a Brian who is transparent in his thought process as to why he reaches a particular conclusion - which makes it easier for everyone to evaluate and debate - than someone who has a "gut feeling" about that same conclusion but cant back it up with any supporting evidence. For me the process is just as important as the outcome.
January 20th, 2011 at 4:08 PM ^
And if Brian is wrong (which I think he is with respect to Hoke) so be it. He still has an entertaining and informative site.....
People too often treat this and other sites (scout, rivals, etc.) as if there opinions must be the gospel, rather than just merely opinion.
January 20th, 2011 at 4:18 PM ^
It's all about the wins. If RichRod had more wins, Hoke is not here.
January 21st, 2011 at 5:51 AM ^
Or even 7-6 with more competitive losses.
January 20th, 2011 at 4:21 PM ^
Brian's credibility will be gone when he blatantly attacks Hoke without the facts to back it up.
So far I have seen nothing wrong with Brian's point of view. He was upset with the process and yeah a little upset with who got hired, but it was with good critical reason. Brady Hoke has had a so-so head coaching career so far, all the statistics back that up. While everyone, including me and my grandmother, are hoping he will be successful and believe he will be, you have to understand that from one side this wasn't an impressive hire.
I will continue to follow Brian, solely for the fact that he is one of the most objective sports fans I have had the honor of knowing/reading about.
January 20th, 2011 at 5:09 PM ^
If Brady Hoke had taken Ball State or SDSU and turned them into the terror of their respective conferences, nobody would have reason to complain about the hire. As it is, all Hoke has proven is that he can take a losing mid-range football program and make it a winning mid-range football program. That's good, but if that's all he's able to accomplish here, it won't be good enough in the long run.
Bear in mind, Brady Hoke has never won a conference championship as a head coach. This is just one of many fair reasons why some are uninspired by the hire. Skepticism is warranted, but skepticism doesn't mean any of us want Hoke to fail. I want Hoke to reveal to us all that he is the non-evil version of Jim Tressel. I really do.
January 20th, 2011 at 7:48 PM ^
If Brady Hoke had taken Ball State or SDSU and turned them into the terror of their respective conferences, nobody would have reason to complain about the hire.
Going 12-1 at BSU doesn't qualify? And the "no conference titles" thing is kind of silly given that he won two MAC division titles. Would your opinion of him be that different if he had two more wins?
January 20th, 2011 at 5:18 PM ^
Didn't the Rodriguez regime teach Brian or other Rebellion guys (of which I was one, believe me) about how little the splash over the hire and actual results have to do with each other?
The problem is some people still don't want to admit Rodriguez was a disaster. They'll say "Well, yes it's been a disaster, BUT..."
That's the main divide left in Michigan fandom. Some of us, even those who were extremely excited about RR, just saw enough to lose the "BUT" in that sentence and some still haven't.
January 20th, 2011 at 5:50 PM ^
Disasters are when people get killed or maimed, as in earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and so on.
RR's reign was a rebuilding and modernization of the program. If he had gotten the backing he deserved from the so-called "Michigan Men" who sabotaged him and fought him from the word "go," it would have gone a lot smoother. Besides, if Hoke and Borges are forced to use a 21st century playbook on offense instead of the one LC used, RR's tenure at A2 would still have to be considered successful.
As it is now, the only grade anyone without an axe to grind can give RR is an "incomplete."
January 20th, 2011 at 6:54 PM ^
I want this to be true, but after watching the last three games this season, the team just wasn't getting better despite hitting 7 wins. They looked completely unprepared, which to me was always a hallmark of the Carr era - we had to be twice as talented to beat anyone. If we're going to keep being unprepared, then we should have kept the system that kept us respectable - anything less is fairly called a "disaster."
With another year, there was some chance it would have changed, but I had more or less lost faith in RR's ability to make a positive change when the team failed to get 1% better after 2 weeks of practice.
January 20th, 2011 at 4:22 PM ^
in this instance, i dont think brian would mind being wrong
January 20th, 2011 at 5:05 PM ^
"Guys with cats . . . I don't know."
-George Costanza
January 20th, 2011 at 7:10 PM ^
thanks for the links - not in A2, or MI, or even the USofA for god's sake. Would have no idea he were on. Will go give a listen. I'll +1. If the interview is a waste of my time, I will hold you accountable and neg you.
January 20th, 2011 at 9:37 PM ^
was when they talked about Coach Schiano's graphs :)
thanks Dennis from the OC!