COMMENTARY: OSU could face trouble against Hoke, Michigan

Submitted by The Barwis Effect on

One more article before I turn in for the night.  This one comes from Doug Harris of the Dayton Daily News:

I was talking before the football season to University of Dayton defensive coordinator Landon Fox, who once was a graduate assistant under Brady Hoke, about whether he felt the new Michigan head coach could flip the Ohio State rivalry in the Wolverines’ favor.

Fox had no doubts.

“He’s a great recruiter. And once you get players, the rest is easy,” he said.

I was skeptical then, but I’m not anymore after watching the Wolverines’ implausible win against Notre Dame last Saturday when they scored two touchdowns in the final 72 seconds.

Yes, they still have issues on defense, but that’s not likely to last. Hoke has assembled the nation’s No. 3 recruiting class for 2012, and I imagine the Wolverines have gotten a significant jump with juniors for 2013.

ESPN basically gave them a one-hour commercial after that prime-time game, frequently going back during “SportsCenter” for live look-ins. And announcers Brent Musburger and Kirk Herbstreit  marveled at how the 114,000 fans wouldn’t leave.

Click HERE for the rest of the article.

turd ferguson

September 15th, 2011 at 2:46 AM ^

Honestly, I think OSU will be fine recruiting-wise, since there's more than enough Midwest talent for UM and OSU to share and a lot of kids from Ohio dream of playing for OSU.  It's a different story for MSU.  If Hoke & co. can continue to basically take whomever they want from Michigan (and really, why choose MSU over UM if they're running similar systems?), MSU could be crowded out.  Second-tier recruits from Michigan will only get you so far, and MSU doesn't have the national appeal to consistently pull elite recruits from out of state.

I'm expecting things to return to equilibrium in the next 5-10 years, which (to me) would be Michigan and OSU being major powers that make that one Saturday in November an awful lot of fun.  That would be fine with me.

Swazi

September 15th, 2011 at 4:21 AM ^

MSU will still get the occasional high ranknig recruit (I think the past few years they normally get one 5 star and a couple four stars surrounded by three and two stars), but they normally get the kids that probably wouldn't make it though admissions at UM.  AB is a prime example I believe of this.

Ezeh-E

September 15th, 2011 at 7:11 AM ^

This is the most frustrating meme I see:  that MSU takes athletes that wouldn't make it into UofM.

Quick disclaimer:  I worked at a Top 25 University Admissions office with a BCS football team.

If you're talking legal trouble, you might be right in some cases, as each school handles these differently.  But when it comes to academics, both UM and MSU have the same basic standards for athletes.  If a student passes the NCAA Clearinghouse (combination of SAT and GPA), they will play for any team (including Stanford).  The only difference is that UM might only take 8 to 10 of those players who barely pass the NCAA Clearinghouse per year.  Then they'd want another 10 or so to be within a reasonable range of the average non-athlete's SAT/GPA.  Then they'd want about 3-5 who actually would get in on academic merit alone.  Having not worked for UM, these numbers could be a bit different, but they probably serve a decent guideline.  You want to have a team with a core of academic competancy so that they can help each other and keep the standard higher.

MSU, on the other hand, might be happy with all 20-25 being barely able to pass Clearinghouse, but I doubt that is the case.  Alabama and Auburn, however, are perfectly happy with that and any JUCO who can spell and finds a way to pass Clearinghouse.

I'll put up a diary about admissions at some point when I've got some time.

jblaze

September 15th, 2011 at 9:46 AM ^

1) Adrian Witty, who enrolled into Cincinnati, after not being accepted into Michigan.

2) All of the JUCOs that enroll in other B1G schools, that wouldn't be admitted into Michigan.

I'm sure there are other examples of players that couldn't get into Michigan, but enrolled into other schools the same season.

kalamazoo

September 15th, 2011 at 2:09 PM ^

Swazi says admissions wouldn't let in some players into UM and Ezeh-E says minimum admission requirements are about the same but Michigan could take less of these players...so therefore Swazi's idea still works that some players that make it into MSU wouldn't survive the admission "process" at UM because maybe UM already has enough of these guys. 

It's not a factual statement necessarily but a generalization that still has merit.

I'm just saying "Incorrect" is probably not the best subject line when there's a lot of commonality here.

Sarasota13

September 15th, 2011 at 6:33 PM ^

Since you have not worked with either the MSU or  U of M admissions office nor the football programs,  you are really guessing that they have the same standards.  And I surmise that you really are not familiar with the standards of Stanford or Northwestern and how these programs compare with U of M or MSU.

You are right that when a player clears the minium NCAA requirments that the player can play anywhere, but each school does set its own criteria levels, right?

Vasav

September 15th, 2011 at 3:05 AM ^

I think Hoke has changed the tide on the rivalry. Hell people in Ohio are starting to believe him. Never in a million years I would have thought that. Selling Michigan jerseys is a good start. 

Tater

September 15th, 2011 at 8:39 AM ^

If Ohio gets more than a wrist-slap, they might not be able to offer recruits as many illegal benefits as they have for the last ten years, and will be forced to compete on a level playing field with Michigan.  

Funny that the Dayton guy called the WSPN cut-ins a "commercial."  The MSM in Ohio does commercials for THE Ohio State University 24/7/365.  I guess he should know...

Hobbes

September 15th, 2011 at 8:40 AM ^

Notre Dame consistently brings in excellent recruiting classes but still stumbles on the field.  Why does this columnist now think that just because Hoke can bring in a top 3 class, the rest will be easy?  Not to say that Hoke et al. can't bring 'em in and also coach 'em up (Hoke uber alles), but rebuilding a program that can routinely beat Ohio and compete for national championships isn't going to be "easy" just because of recruiting.

48103

September 15th, 2011 at 8:59 AM ^

Just maybe it's because, in this early season, Hoke seems to be getting the most out of the same players that were on the team last year that in everyones opinion, "lacks talent". The effort is there and he has them believing in themselves and they are making plays that, under the last coaching staff they probably wouldn't have made. With better players, some of the plays being call would in fact be "easy" or "easier" to execute.

It made perfect sense to me.

zguy517

September 15th, 2011 at 9:09 AM ^

Huh?  What have these guys done this year that they havent done the past few years?  The offense is a lot worse and the D is only marginally better so far due to being more opportunistic.

We returned virtually everyone from a team that performed just as well if not better through these first 2 games last year.

BigBlue02

September 15th, 2011 at 9:32 PM ^

And this year, we didn't touch 2 of their turnovers until we jumped on the ball and last year we faced an offense with not only Floyd but a 2nd round draft pick and one of the best TE's in the nation and a RB who is also on an NFL roster right now.

zguy517

September 15th, 2011 at 12:47 PM ^

Pts =/= a better offense

WMU did hold us to a couple 3 and outs and do you remember when RR faced them a couple years ago with a supposed future NFL QB?  It was 31-0 at the half

ND our offense was terrible, all we got all game really were the jump balls.  Thats not an offense, thats some guys making plays.  Sure we put up 28 in the 4th, but how many of those came from a sustainable offense? TD1 = jump ball, TD2 = fumble ran in, TD3 = jump ball, TD4 = an actual drive capped off by a good play and call, TD5 = D breakdown and jump ball

jmblue

September 15th, 2011 at 3:41 PM ^

This is silly.  Our offense only had five real possessions against WMU and scored three TDs.  If we had gotten to play a fourth quarter (and weren't denied two possessions by the fact that our defense scored), we'd have almost certainly rolled up a lot more yards/points.  (And yes, we had some three-and-outs in the 2009 game.)

Against ND, we scored 35 points and gained 452 yards.  Are you really going to quibble about style points?  

zguy517

September 15th, 2011 at 5:10 PM ^

When people say "Take what the defense gives you" they mean what the defense leaves open.  Those jump balls weren't open, our receivers just managed to make a play on the ball mainly because they were so well covered and Denard isn't very accurate on the deep ball.

48103

September 15th, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^

Well creating turnovers for one. Tackling better for two. Playing with a lot more enthusiasm for three. Trusting the coaches and everyone 100% buying into the new staff. I didn't say they were world beaters after 2 games in or that they would be this year for that matter. I'm speaking from the defensive standpoint. They gave up big plays on D but seem to be around the football more as well SO FAR. It's a long season so I guess I will save further judgement until the big ten season rolls around.

Promote RichRod

September 15th, 2011 at 11:03 AM ^

Trusting the coaches more and everyone buying in 100%?

Link?

There's nothing worse than passing off your opinions or pure speculation as unassailable facts.  Did all the transfers buy in 100% and play with enthusiasm?  I'm thinking not.  What about players that started or had a role in the schemes last year and are sitting or marginalized this year?  Are they "all-in?"  Is everyone out there giving 100% and agreeing with the playcalls?  We have no idea and I won't speculate.

Hell, even the "better tackling" claim is purely subjective and the sample size is tiny to even begin making comparisons.  We do have more turnovers to date, which is nice.  But at the same time we are giving up similar or worse yards and a good number of the turnovers have been complete unforced errors.  I'd be careful about extrapolating too much until we see more games against better competition.

48103

September 15th, 2011 at 11:26 AM ^

When Hoke and the coaching staff was hired, there was an article saying that rich rod told Denard that if he was going to stay, buy in 100% and went on to mention that was a problem that he had when he was hired. That the team didn't buy in 100%. This has also been mention by multiple players during interviews around the time hoke was hired and during spring camp. Do I know every single player that didn't buy in? Of course not. Now you can go find the links for yourself. Also when did I state any of my opinions to be fact? They are opinions just like everyone else who takes the time out to post here. If you disagree with them fine.

48103

September 15th, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^

Well creating turnovers for one. Tackling better for two. Playing with a lot more enthusiasm for three. Trusting the coaches and everyone 100% buying into the new staff. I didn't say they were world beaters after 2 games in or that they would be this year for that matter. I'm speaking from the defensive standpoint. They gave up big plays on D but seem to be around the football more as well SO FAR. It's a long season so I guess I will save further judgement until the big ten season rolls around.

48103

September 15th, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^

They've shown they can give up big plays but so far this year, they've also shown they can make big plays as well. I will wait until B1G season before I say they were better than last year sure. But I have seen small things in these first 2 games that has me feeling positive about the teams direction. If you haven't, fine.

BigBlue02

September 15th, 2011 at 9:38 PM ^

So basically, you are going to wait until B10 season before you decide if a team that brings back 90% of the team including 20 starters will be better.  Great perspective.

Tagg

September 15th, 2011 at 10:34 AM ^

I think the fact that a lot of these kids also have 11 more games experience versus last season helps more than coaching or scheme at this point. Say what you what about coaching but that trial by fire players like Kovacs went through pays off as this year goes on and Mattison will only add to that.

48103

September 15th, 2011 at 11:02 AM ^

Obviously a lot of factors go into a team being successful. Experience is a big part of it as well. A lot of people are taking the "wait and see" approach and thats fine. I was not attacking the old coaching staff, not saying you said I was, but I just feel a little better with this team and the program moving forward with who they have in place right now.

Tagg

September 15th, 2011 at 12:27 PM ^

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I don't see why your comment here got modded down.

I feel this team is an engima at this point. After 7 quarters I really can't see where this team is at and therefore can't see if the coaching change was right or wrong or if it has even made a difference. That is something that I feel will take a little more time and 2-0 start with a good start to recruiting  just isn't enough for me to say 'this is much better'. Just as you feel more comfortable with the new staff I need to see a little more after the great starts the past two years our guys have gotten off to.

Regardless of the coaching staff I am sure we agree (hopefully EVERYONE agrees) that we really want these players to be successful because they deserve it. After what they have been put through by fans, alumni, and media these kids have all kept working hard and never quit playing for either coach.

SysMark

September 15th, 2011 at 9:35 AM ^

ND has what appears to be an unstable lunatic on the sideline as HC who is looking increasingly counterproductive (previous coach had different issues but was similarly ineffective).  Hoke is projecting an air of calm confidence, letting highly respected coordinators deal with the Xs and Os.  One is making his team worse than it shoud be, the other the opposite.  That is why you can expect Michigan's recruits to perform at or above expectations.

mgoblue0970

September 17th, 2011 at 5:19 PM ^

That was the difference in the game under the lights.  Kelly was screaming at his players for mistakes.  Hoke was coaching em up and telling them they'll be needed later.  I'm sure Hoke made em pay for stupidity on Monday.  But in the heat of battle, Michigan's players know the staff has their back.  ND's players are afraid of the the psycho.  Leaderhship 101 IMHO.

Go Blue!!!