Downside to coaching speculation

Submitted by PeteM on

All of the local papers, Twitter, Facebook etc. are full of speculation about Hoke's future.  That's understandable given last weekend's debacle.

That said, I think that an ongoing tsunami of posts this week and the coming weeks about possible changes at the top on the board are destructive to the program.  People can obviously post whatever they want subject to the mods/Brian, and I'm neither a mod nor Brian so this is just my 2 cents.  My point though is that Hoke will certainly be the coach throughout the 2014 season.  Posts listing possible replacements or reasons to make a change may get the attention of the Athletic Department, but may also get the attention of current recruits and players in different way than a Terry Foster column since this site is largely made up of true fans.

While i'm sure that the commits realize that football coaches don't get tenure I still think that multiple Mgoboard posts about the potential longevity of the current staff, their perception nationally etc can't do anything but hurt us with the players we hope to see wearing the maize & blue in future  years and the current team. 

I hope and expect that there will a serious discussion/evaluation of the direction of the program at the end of the season, and that all options will be on the table.  I just think the discussions I see now are premature.

mgowill

September 9th, 2014 at 11:38 PM ^

You make a great point if the recruits don't have access to the internet or the outside world. 31-0 says a lot more than some random poster/commenter on a sports blog.

evenyoubrutus

September 9th, 2014 at 11:48 PM ^

I think what we say on this board is far less impactful than, for example, the athletic director refusing to give direct answers to questions about a coach's future and then waiting until a week after the bowl game to make a decision on whether he is going to be fired.

Blue NY Gold

September 10th, 2014 at 10:50 AM ^

Although the posters are right that kids (16-18 yrs old) do make decisions based on crazy things other than football. That does not diminish the point the OP makes. We as fans contributing to a message board after the "2nd game" of the season can most definitely impact the mind of recruits.

As we stated before the internet doesn't go away and everyone has access to it...recruits, rival coaches, and the media. If you think all of these people are not looking at message boards to feel out the temperature of a programs support, then you are probably still using a pager as your main tool for business.

Honestly, I get it, conflict and drama sells, ..... So some of it is unavoidable. But I, personally choose to keep a level head. Especially when we are only at Game #2

Wolverine Devotee

September 9th, 2014 at 11:53 PM ^

I was Caesarean born, but you really can't tell... except that when I leave my house, I always go out through the window.

turd ferguson

September 9th, 2014 at 11:57 PM ^

I believe three things and I'm not sure how they fit together:

1.  I think you're right that this kind of speculation is destructive.  Even if the coaches can block it out, most college kids can't, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if the fan meltdowns contributed to the problems we saw (and other problems we couldn't see) from a very young team last season.

2.  I also think it's stupid.  We're two games into a 12+ game season that will provide a lot of ups, downs, and additional information -- and all in the next few months.  Funny things happen in early season games, especially when there's no preseason, which we've seen from recent Michigan-ND games.  Hell, we're two games into our current OC's tenure - one of which was an excellent showing - and people are acting like we've seen all that we need to see.

3.  On the other hand, I think it's foolish and pointless to try to censor people like this.  Personally, I'd rather have people avoid speculating about coaching searches right now because they agree with my #2 above (that it's silly to do that now) than because they agree with my #1 above (that doing so might somehow hurt the team).  I don't think it's healthy or realistic to tell people not to say what they believe because it might hurt the program.

Reader71

September 10th, 2014 at 11:05 AM ^

Nobody said Hoke has been better than Dantonio, nor that Hoke has been as good as Dantonio, so #1 is true but totally immaterial to my claim.

Nobody said Michigan shouldn't be better than MSU based on talent, so #2 is true but totally immaterial to my claim.

I do want to argue about #3 a bit. Michigan was OK in 2011 and 2012. They were terrible in 2008 and 2009. When Michigan is good, the B1G is good. Also, MSU is good now, whereas they usually aren't; that's one more tough game than Michigan used to have. Whatever. I'll concede your point, but I'd suggest you take a lot of those > out.

I did say that road records can change. And Mark Dantonio's road record has changed; it has improved. It took him about 4 years to get over the hump. Hoke hasn't had 4 years yet.

One could argue that due to M's talent, it shouldn't take 4 years to turn it around. That's actually a good argument. We can discuss it if you want. But you didn't make that claim.

UMxWolverines

September 10th, 2014 at 11:59 AM ^

I like how everyone used the argument last year that it took Dantonio until year 4 to be good. Now Hoke hasnt coached the whole year so we dont know if we'll still be good. Was Mark Dantonio losing to top 25 teams not named Alabama by 31? And if you think ND is anywhere near Bama level of 2010...please just stop posting.

Reader71

September 10th, 2014 at 12:05 PM ^

This isn't at all what I'm saying. I am not comparing Brady Hoke's accomplishments to Mark Dantonio's. Dantonio's are more impressive because he wasn't losing to Notre Dame by 31 and he did what he did with a less talented team. Mark Dantonio is God, Brady Hoke is Satan.

All I'm saying is that Mark Dantonio's road record improved dramatically after his fourth year. That road woes are not something that has to be permanent. This is not hard to understand. My words aren't minced. It's not a muddled argument.

Chill out, take a deep breath, and then either read or don't read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote.

pescadero

September 10th, 2014 at 12:00 PM ^

I did say that road records can change. And Mark Dantonio's road record has changed; it has improved. It took him about 4 years to get over the hump. Hoke hasn't had 4 years yet. 

 

Rain is wet. Road records can change. Dantonio's got better. 

 

Your implication is that Hoke will likely experience a change (as opposed to staying where it is) and that it will change in the direction Dantonio's did.

 

One could argue that due to M's talent, it shouldn't take 4 years to turn it around. 

 

I would argue that.

I would also argue that nothing in Hoke's time at Michigan shows an ability to change in the direction Dantonio did.

I would also argue that nothing in Hoke's time at his previous stops shows an ability to change in the direction Dantonio did.

 

Hoke is a caree .500 MAC level coach. Nice guy.... but what you're seeing is what he is and what he always has been. A miracle may occur, but generally the best predictor of future performance is past performance.

 

Reader71

September 10th, 2014 at 1:48 PM ^

I'd ask that you don't dimiss the data as "wet water". There was statistically no evidence of Dantonio's trajectory w/r/t road record after 4 seasons. That's what his .500 record means: we couldn't tell if his record would improve or get worse.

At least in Hoke's case, you have the absolute minimum required to suggest he will get worse: 1 game. He is 6-7. But it is still the absolute minimum. What I'd argue is that we at least see how the season plays out. More data is good.

You also bring up a good point about past performance. I don't really weigh non-Michigan performance for a Michigan coach. Maybe I ought to. But as I see it, Coach Rod showed us it is hard to win here even if you are a good coach (he was good before and looks pretty good after). Another reason is because Lloyd Carr was never a head coach before he started his Hall of Fame career. 

Just because I feel this way, though, doesn't make me feel the need to dismiss your point. It's a good one. Hoke's track record pre-Michigan is unremarkable.

BTW I'm not the one negging you. I think your point is good.

EDIT: Because more data is always good, here's some more. If Hoke is a .500 coach, Dantonio was a .500 coach. His pre-MSU record at Cincinnatti: 18-17, including 4-13(!) on the road. You read that right. 4-13 in three years. And it wasn't trending upwards: 2-4,1-5, 1-4.

So, Dantonio was a .500 coach who was awful on the road for 3 years. He had 4 years of being a winning coach with a .500 road record, and has since become a God in the Pantheon of Coaches.

I actually feel a lot better about Hoke than I did a few minutes ago. At least there is precedent.

pescadero

September 11th, 2014 at 12:39 PM ^

I'd ask that you don't dimiss the data as "wet water". There was statistically no evidence of Dantonio's trajectory w/r/t road record after 4 seasons. That's what his .500 record means: we couldn't tell if his record would improve or get worse.

 

...or stay the same. That is why it's pointless data. It indicates nothing.

 

One can easily find coaches that had a .500 road record after 5 years and improved.

One can easily find coaches that had a .500 road record after 5 years and got worse.

One can easily find coaches that had a .500 road record after 5 years and stayed at .500

 

So what does the fact that Dantonio got better tell us? That is it POSSIBLE for a coach with a .500 record to improve? That is "wet water". It's also possible for him to maintain or regress - and all those examples would be just as useless also.

 

...unless your implication is that Hoke is going to take the same trajectory as Dantonio for some reason.

 

At least in Hoke's case, you have the absolute minimum required to suggest he will get worse: 1 game. He is 6-7. But it is still the absolute minimum.

 

Hoke is 7-12 in road/neutral site games.

 

If Hoke is a .500 coach, Dantonio was a .500 coach. His pre-MSU record at Cincinnatti: 18-17, including 4-13(!) on the road. You read that right. 4-13 in three years. And it wasn't trending upwards: 2-4,1-5, 1-4.

 

Dantonio pre MSU vs Hoke pre Michigan:

 

Overall: 

Dantonio: 19-17 (52.8%)

Hoke: 47- 51 (48%)

 

Road/Neutral:

Dantonio: 6-13 (31.6%)

Hoke: 21- 32 (39.6%)

 

Bowl Games:

Dantonio: bowl 2/3 years, 2-0 bowl record

Hoke: bowl 3/8 years, 1-2 bowl record

 

Top 25 wins:

Dantonio: 2 Wins over top 25 teams in 3 years

Hoke: 1 win over top 25 team in 8 years

 

Top 25 losses:

Dantonio: 41% of losses vs. top 25 teams (7/17)

Hoke: 25.5% of losses vs. top 25 teams (13/51)

 

I'd say Dantonio showed a lot more.

 

So, Dantonio was a .500 coach who was awful on the road for 3 years. He had 4 years of being a winning coach with a .500 road record, and has since become a God in the Pantheon of Coaches.

 

Dantonio achieved more in his 3 years at Cincinnatti than Hoke did in 8 at Ball St./SDSU... and even given that, there was no objective reason for State fans to believe after his 1st four years that he would turn it around.

 

He DID turn it around - but prior to it happening nothing in his career (like Hoke) suggested he would do so.

 

UMfanKT

September 10th, 2014 at 9:08 AM ^

Yeah but at least you could see they were improving and gave you the warm fuzzy that they were heading in the right direction.  What have we seen from this current staff to install any type of confidence we are headed in the right direction?  Anything to dispute the fact that this clown is no better than a .500 coach?

ontarioblue

September 10th, 2014 at 7:32 AM ^

Can't let that go without your clarification of what is a "true fan"?  Is a true fan the one who pays his seasons, pays his PSD, sits for the entire game, never stands for fear of blocking someones virew?  Is he also the one who believes that the program is still led by Bo?  I guess we should all put duct tape on our mouths and tie our hands behind our backs so we can't type anything that can be construed as critical of the program.  Then we will all be true fans.

alum96

September 10th, 2014 at 12:13 AM ^

Is this where I put a new thread "Downside of losing 31-0 on national TV in front of a massive group of recruits that you are vying with versus ND, OSU, and MSU?"

Kids arent stupid.  The team looked like a complete mess versus a "peer".  They dont need a message board to figure out what is happening.  I cannot even imagine the text messages from their friends and recruits going to other schools that night. 

clarkiefromcanada

September 10th, 2014 at 12:13 AM ^

While I'm sure that recruits or their families might spend a bit of time at the MGoBlog; they have a lot of other sources of information in making commitment decisions. Academic considerations, family considerations, program of study, MPACT, Big House etc. would certainly have more impact than a bunch of "ultras" (to categorize MGoBlog posters like Italian soccer fans) ranting non-stop and getting their panties in a bunch every time Michigan doesn't meet their expectations on the field or in coaching performance.