Fitz staying at NU
January 6th, 2011 at 8:36 PM ^
Patterson get the job. He said today Michigan is a great school yada yada.. but he has not been contacted yet, he will cross that bridge when he comes to it. Sounds like he is open to the idea...why on earth would he not receive even a phone call unless Brandon has made his choice and is going to shove it down our throats.
Sooo afraid right now.
January 6th, 2011 at 8:55 PM ^
I'm in this school of thought. I think DB has already made his choice and is waiting a week, per state law a job posting must be up one week before being filled, before announcing who he's chosen. It makes me nervous that Hoke is even mentioned in this conversation. It makes me think that his cronies who are still affiliated with the program are pushing for him.
January 6th, 2011 at 8:57 PM ^
Well, Brandon could still be discussing a deal for Patterson without speaking to him directly right away. That is what agents are for - so technically, Patterson can say he has not been contacted - directly anyway.
January 6th, 2011 at 9:07 PM ^
Patterson has as many Rose Bowl victories as our last three coaches combined. I'd take him in a heartbeat. We could do a lot worse (Hoke).
January 6th, 2011 at 9:39 PM ^
not so fast my friend...
January 6th, 2011 at 9:59 PM ^
January 6th, 2011 at 9:42 PM ^
Not going to be anyone left BUT Hoke by the end of the weekend.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:15 PM ^
Couldn't agree more. I've always had an appreciation for TCU and what they've been able to do. I would love for his defensive mind to arrive in Ann Arbor. ANYONE but Brady Hokem, as far as I'm concerned
January 6th, 2011 at 6:22 PM ^
Nothing of tremendous value on his resume, although I like him and root for NW to beat everyone in the B10 but us.
January 6th, 2011 at 6:24 PM ^
I am definitly in panic mode now. Those brady hoke quotes on the front make me actually want to vomit.
January 6th, 2011 at 6:29 PM ^
I'm very low on Hoke, but there is a strong argument that Fitzgerald's resume is certainly no more impressive than Hoke's. Fitz staying is really no big deal.
January 6th, 2011 at 6:34 PM ^
Pat Fitzgerald has a winning record as a college head coach.
With the resources at his disposal and the recruiting restrictions he has in comparison to Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio State, Illinois, etc., finishing middle of the pack in the Big Ten just about every year isn't a bad job.
January 6th, 2011 at 6:39 PM ^
Since 85 scholarship limit, Barnett averaged 4.0 wins in B10, Walker 3.4, and Fitzgerald 3.6. Fitzgerald is at Northwestern's par.
January 6th, 2011 at 7:37 PM ^
Right, he's doing an average job. Hoke has done fundamentally an average job at his stops. I don't want either, but I guess between them we would have to be better off with the guy who'd work for free, right?
January 6th, 2011 at 7:51 PM ^
if improving Ball State or maintaing Northwestern is a more impressive....just tells you how bad Brandon (appears) to have messed this up.
January 6th, 2011 at 9:53 PM ^
we have no idea who brandon has or hasn't talked to. or who is or isn't on his list of candidates.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:08 PM ^
wrong place.
January 6th, 2011 at 6:30 PM ^
I found that to be truly amusing. Teams that run the spread cannot field defenses that can stand up to traditional "smash mouth football" offenses?
Was he asleep when Oregon held Michigan to 7 points in 2007? Or during Strong's years at Florida?
January 6th, 2011 at 6:44 PM ^
Sure he isn't the "sexy" hire that JH or Patterson or others might be, but he just may be the best candidate out there for UM to return to the top of the B10 consistently. I do not want someone that is going to see UM as a stepping stone(JH), or another notch on his resume(Meyer). I don't want a hired gun. I want someone who will run through a brick wall for UM if asked to do it. I want someone who will lock down this job for decades and create a coaching tree of his own sprouting from the Big House.
January 6th, 2011 at 6:50 PM ^
Please explain what he has done as a head coach to justify Michigan hiring him over every available candidate in the country, especially after the athletic director has said money isn't any object? He loses the comparison with everyone on Brian's list and a few dozen other guys I could come up with. Firing a proven head coach to hire a guy with a losing record over eight seasons would be absolute insanity.
I could get a homeless guy to run through a brick wall in exchange for a ham sandwich. Doesn't mean that qualifies him to coach one of the biggest (at least we like to think so) programs in college football. Hiring Hoke would be the ultimate in bush league cronyism.
January 6th, 2011 at 7:21 PM ^
Hoke exhibited steady, long-lasting, progress at Ball State and rapid progress at SDSU. Know that critiques of the Mountain West won't seem very convincing when their best just beat the Big10's. Ball State didn't immediately jump to 9 wins a year but they improved within the conference steadily from 2 or 3 wins to 4,5,5, then 8. SDSU almost/shoulda won @ Missouri and made an impressive comeback to come within a score @TCU this year. They lost 4 games, but thats three of them were on the road and all were close, including some very tough teams. All of Hoke's former players rave about him and he has the support and respect of people who coached with him including, supposedly Lloyd Carr. That means something right? Mgoblog supported RR and Carr did not. 1-0 Carr.
Fitzgerald, hasn't improved Northwestern over what Barnett and Walker did there. He has a losing record in conference.
Even Harbaugh, prior to this year, had a resume that didn't look better than Hoke's. He had a losing record at Stanford and what he did at San Diego is nice, but he was playing Butler, Valapariso, etc. In basketball, thats impressive; in football...not so much. Harbaugh can turn an 1 win team into an 11 win team. Michigan is not a 1 win team. Its also unclear if Harbaugh can win without Luck, a once-a-generation talent for most schools.
I'm not saying Hoke has to be the guy but the disparity in resume between Hoke and Harbaugh isn't the gaping chasm some want to make it out to be.
January 6th, 2011 at 7:27 PM ^
...but you can look at the numbers in a different way. Aside from the 12-1 year, the next best record was 7-6. He was 34-38 in his career at Ball State, 22-37 in his first 5 years. In 2 years at SDSU he's a bowl win over .500.
Did he improve those programs? Kind of, I guess if you want to be technical about it. But there are far more qualified candidates out there than Brady Hoke...
January 6th, 2011 at 8:00 PM ^
could refer to Harbaugh too.
Keep in mind that for a program like Ball State their non-conference schedule largely a function of how often you can stomach being a sacrificial lamb. Part of the reason Hoke won 12 games in 2008 was that they stopped playing BCS teams in the non-conference. But FWIW, in 2008 they lost @Nebraska by one and in they lost to the 2006 Michigan team by just 8.
All this is why I'm pointing to his conference record as a clear sign of improvement.
January 6th, 2011 at 7:28 PM ^
It took Hoke five years at Ball State to exceed the win total in any of his predecessors final three seasons. In year six they won 12 games. He left. The next year they won 2 with one of his assistants at the helm. A year later they won 4. How is that long lasting progress?
SDSU is better because Chuck Long recruited well and then got hosed after just three seasons.
If we want a magical couple of seasons where Hoke gets all the credit for righting the ship (i.e. winning as Rodriguez's freshmen/sophomores become juniors/seniors) before slumping back into mediocrity, then sure, let's go ahead and do what Notre Dame would do and hire an unproven head coach because he has some fleeting connection with the university.
January 6th, 2011 at 8:03 PM ^
Your critique is that after he left the team did poorly? That seems like a sign that he has a lot of value to me.
You could be right about Long and SDSU, yet their best player is a true freshman.
I generally think you need at least 4 years to put your stamp on a program, so Hoke doesn't have a track record at SDSU, but what he did at Ball State was impressive.
January 6th, 2011 at 8:06 PM ^
Either you get credit for turning someone elses players into a winning season (SDSU), or you give a free pass for not winning with someone elses players in the first few years (Ball State)
January 6th, 2011 at 8:17 PM ^
won a national title with someone else's players, then was fired merely 4 years later and now is coaching the University of Texas - San Antonio. Beware that type!!! That said what Hoke did at Ball State was extremely impressive and I wouldn't be mortified if he's the hire.
Whoever get's this job is going to be given a longer grace period because of the current turmoil and the brutal 2012 schedule. Anything good in the the first two years would be a bonus
January 6th, 2011 at 7:31 PM ^
I am just wondering if Hoke is such a qualified candidate, why are no other colleges or NFL teams busting through the doors of SDSU to offer him buttloads of money and contracts?
January 6th, 2011 at 7:39 PM ^
Because they know he'd only run through a brick wall for MICHIGAN MEN, of course.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:10 PM ^
I don't really think the situation calls for steady, long-term progress.
Current parameters for judging a coach, apparently, are: 3 years, no excuses.
Hoke is not going to fix this or mend any broken fan base, he would take us backwards and leave us there
January 6th, 2011 at 6:50 PM ^
So unless he's Joe Pa 2.0, decades os out of the question. Also, I don't give a crap if the coach hates Michigan; I just want to win again.
January 6th, 2011 at 7:18 PM ^
Brandon said Michigan would pay top dollar for a coach to get Michigan on par with the elite, Brady Joke is coaching nowhere near the elite status at SDSU. For Brandon to hire him makes Les MlLies of LSU a regular Abe Lincoln of honesty.
January 6th, 2011 at 6:50 PM ^
Like it or not, whomever becomes the next coach, we have to give them a chance and support them for atleast three years.
January 6th, 2011 at 7:03 PM ^
Usually I'd say support them for four, but it looks like three years is the way we are doing it around here.
January 6th, 2011 at 7:23 PM ^
jesus people get with the times
edit: NB: that was directed at bighouseinmate (hard to tell with all the intervening comments)
January 6th, 2011 at 6:25 PM ^
What are you all drinking tonight?
Me? Blue Light that I 'borrowed' from a party last week
January 6th, 2011 at 7:29 PM ^
My wife and her family have been there many times and say it's awesome, so when I was the grocery store and saw it I had to pick some up.
It is quite delicious.
January 6th, 2011 at 6:25 PM ^
Schad tweeted that Fitzgerald plans to stay at Northwestern. I think every target but Harbaugh currently plans on staying in their current job (except the unemployed and Hoke pending an offer).
January 6th, 2011 at 6:31 PM ^
I'll edit the title.
January 6th, 2011 at 6:43 PM ^
also said "he was a coach of interest for Michigan" which seems to imply that he is out. I think this is news.
January 6th, 2011 at 6:46 PM ^
If the board would let me. Hopefully people see your clarification.
January 6th, 2011 at 6:25 PM ^
Joe Schad -- because someone has to fill the dead air in between reports of actual news.
January 6th, 2011 at 6:26 PM ^
but I would have rather had the REALLY young guy with midwest ties than the 50 year old from TX.
January 6th, 2011 at 6:29 PM ^
Well, you can't always get what you want, can you?
January 6th, 2011 at 6:36 PM ^
Fanbases, AD's, alums, and presidents are so impatient that almost nobody stays more than about ten years anywhere anymore. I am guessing that, as the trend continues, we don't see too many coaches stay in high-profile positions for more than ten years. There will always be outliers, and Paterno may coach until he is 100, but it seems to me that there is no such thing as a coach who spends his entire career at one school anymore.
Coaches get antsy and "burn out," new AD's and presidents come in and throw their weight around, and even the ACC coach of the year just got fired. Besides, with all the pressure and salaries going through the roof, a coach does 25 years worth of work in ten years and gets paid a couple of powerball jackpots for it.
Then there's that little place in Bristol that offers cushy analyst jobs to ex-coaches...
January 6th, 2011 at 6:59 PM ^
I agree. The hiring arc should be 5-10 years. This still makes anyone aged 55 or older iffy, however.
January 6th, 2011 at 6:26 PM ^
I don't care who coaches us as long as Denard stays. And I mean that entirely.
January 6th, 2011 at 6:28 PM ^
Can't blame Fitz for staying with his school.
January 6th, 2011 at 6:28 PM ^
Anyone with me? Think his act would work really well in college and he would adapt to use Denard's skills.