Gameday Open Thread
Had to start this because it's hurting me listening to Corso and Herbie try to analyze Michigan. Both are trying to talk about Michigan recruiting poorly especially at the skill positions....where we only have 2 5* backs on the roster and a WR destined for the first round.
September 13th, 2014 at 10:15 AM ^
Well, Brady just got eviscerated on that montage. Also love that the WTKA caller got some airtime.
September 13th, 2014 at 10:17 AM ^
True in many ways, but Michigan's struggles aren't from a lack of recruiting. Lack of devleoping talent more than anything.
September 13th, 2014 at 10:22 AM ^
That's sort of what Corso was getting at, I think (the stroke is really starting to get in the way), which Desmond and Herbie then elaborated on. It's not about 'crootin starz and flashy ratings pitting one group of unproven 17 year olds against another, but what you do after they get to campus. So far, Hoke has really struggled developing his highly-ranked classes.
September 13th, 2014 at 10:23 AM ^
Corso, I love you but you are so off with why Michigan is struggling. Development of players and play calling, not recruiting are the reasons.In fact, recruiting has been our only victories versus Sparty and Ohio state in the past four years. Also, our coach is way in over his head with game planning and we still have Coach Funk on the payroll.
September 13th, 2014 at 10:33 AM ^
"Winner" Hoke is not. Corso was off on that too. He was a .500 coach at SDSU and Ball State. That's not exactly a winner.
September 13th, 2014 at 10:41 AM ^
Lots of reasons to criticize Hoke, but not winning more at SD St. and Ball St. definitely isn't pne.
September 13th, 2014 at 10:58 AM ^
is a major reason people like me, and Brian, and others were underwhelmed when Hoke was hired.
So I disagree - I think it is relevant.
September 13th, 2014 at 11:00 AM ^
Yeah, his overall record was around .500, but he took that Ball State program and turned it into a 12-1 team. Then he turned SDSU into a nine-win program in only his second year. In both cases the trajectory for the program was heading upwards.
September 13th, 2014 at 11:09 AM ^
Ball St won 6 games the 2 yrs after Hoke left. They weren't set up to do diddly poo. Pete Lembo at Ball St is actually "turning it around" as his worse season there is 6-6.
September 13th, 2014 at 11:16 AM ^
You can't have it both ways. You can't on one hand blame Hoke for not winning enough there and then turn around and blame Hoke for the next coach having no success there.
September 13th, 2014 at 11:28 AM ^
Not trying to have it both ways at all....when someone says a program was turned around I would think they meant it was set up for future success. One fluky 12 win season doesn't mean your turned crap around at all.
Consistent winning seasons is turning it around in my eyes. Lembo has improved every year at Ball St. That is what I considering turning it around.
September 13th, 2014 at 12:05 PM ^
Lembo has improved for 3 years in a row.... the same as Hoke and he hasn't won 12 games. Also you either don't understand what fluke means or don't know you are talking about in regards to the 12 win season. All but one of those wins was by at least 12 points and the other was by 7. That is not a fluke.
September 13th, 2014 at 12:30 PM ^
What does margin of victory have to do with turning around a program for future success? If Ball St was set up for future success under Hoke then his OC who took over HC duties should have done more than win 6 games in 2 yrs.
What is so hard to understand about a fluke season and a program being turned around into a consistent winning program? Going from 2 wins to 4 wins to 5 wins isn't squat and we saw that here at Mchigan with RR doing the same thing.
Never in my life have i seen people use that ONE season at Ball St as some kind of barometer that Hoke is some great coach.
Going by that logic Urban Meyer is a mediocre coach because he never won 12 in the MAC. I just dont get it.
September 13th, 2014 at 12:39 PM ^
You said fluke which implies that they were lucky to win 12 games. Clearly they weren't. I never said the 12 win season was justification for Hoke being a great coach. I said that it makes no sense whatsoever to criticize Hoke based on how much he won at Ball St. Criticize play calling, player improvement all you want, but to criticize him for not winning more at Ball St. makes no sense.
Using your criteria James Franklin was a terrible hire by Penn St. as Vandy is an absolute disaster this year.
September 13th, 2014 at 12:19 PM ^
Bill Lynch's final three seasons at BSU:
5–6
5–6
6–6
Brady Hoke's first five seasons at BSU:
4–8
2–9
4–7
5–7
7–6
It took Hoke five years to surpass the final season of his predecessor—a predecessor who was fired because he was not winning enough.
September 13th, 2014 at 12:53 PM ^
I have posted those numbers repeatedly, because the myth of the Ball State "turnaround" is one of the most persistent and pernicious. I'd modify your last sentence, though, in that it took Hoke five years to surpass any of Bill Lynch's last three years (not just his final season). (I.e., each of Hoke's first four years was worse than each of Lynch's final three years.)
September 13th, 2014 at 10:25 AM ^
When will Lee Corso just go away? At this point, it must be plain old sympathy that's keeping him on. You just stick to picking teams to win by a field goal, Lee.
September 13th, 2014 at 10:27 AM ^
the end of gameday picks are hilarious
September 13th, 2014 at 10:25 AM ^
Desmond hit the nail on the head. It all comes down to development. Herbie is usually OK, but his homer minute saying the Big Ten went 0-for during the 2011 January Bowls was down right disgusting. He blatantly called out U of M and completely passed on the fact that OSU won, but vacated the win and hasn't won a bowl game since. The Big Ten is terrible because they haven't adopted the win at all costs mentality that the SEC and Pac-12 have.
I don't get his Lee Corso has any room too talk about how the Big Ten hasn't adapted to today's college football. That man was past his prime 20 years ago and still doesn't know when to quit.
September 13th, 2014 at 10:34 AM ^
Well when it comes to being past their prime at least Corso has something in common with the Big Ten.
September 13th, 2014 at 10:28 AM ^
This is the first season we can make something of a judgement on Hoke and company based on the fact the roster has matured some and is substantially theirs. Next year is the final exam.
People going off on this staff for the last three years are failing to consider where they started.
September 13th, 2014 at 11:28 AM ^
You really want another year of this?
September 13th, 2014 at 12:01 PM ^
There is not a draw to coach at Michigan right now. We will not get a big name. Are you willing to bet on an unproven at the top tier D1 level? That is all to be hoped for now.
September 13th, 2014 at 12:02 PM ^
It was a joke - too cryptic I guess. Hoke's response to Cold War's post suggesting that Hoke will be back for 2015
September 13th, 2014 at 12:37 PM ^
How do you know it will be the same? And if you say because of the last three, you're sorting of proving my prior point.
September 13th, 2014 at 10:26 AM ^
It's Pile-On-Michigan Morning at Gameday. Yamahama.
September 13th, 2014 at 10:27 AM ^
Why is anyone still watching these guys? The bias was bad enough before, but now that they launched the SEC network, it's unwatchable.
September 13th, 2014 at 10:37 AM ^
What bias? Honestly what do you want them to say about the Big Ten? It's been a shitty conference for the better part of a decade. Meanwhile the SEC has won 7 titles and the other conferences at least field teams that are competitive with top teams. If it wasn't for a massive alumni base that drives ratings the Big Ten wouldn't be talked about at all.
September 13th, 2014 at 10:44 AM ^
The SEC bias definitely helped get them in position to win some of those titles. People also forget that Bama only beat Texas because McCoy got hurt. If he doesn't Texas wins that game.
September 13th, 2014 at 11:37 AM ^
You're out of your mind. Kids didn't start going to the SEC because ESPN was talking about them. They went there because there's more talent in the south, it's warm, and they all dedicate themselves to football from top to bottom. Most of the Big Ten still treats their football programs like hobbies.
September 13th, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^
And if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle -- what's your point? You can't say that with certaintity.
September 13th, 2014 at 12:13 PM ^
And congrats on that one. What about Florida, LSU, Auburn and Alabama's other titiles?
September 13th, 2014 at 10:55 AM ^
They have a point about the B1G but what I meant was the SEC knob slobbing they do to promote their own product is distasteful to say the least. Yeah, the SEC is good, but when hype gets your one loss team in the NC game over everyone else, it becomes a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.
September 13th, 2014 at 11:39 AM ^
Not to mention recruits watch espn and read espn's tweets......major sports media is the B1G's number one enemy. The constant bashing of the B1G surely pulls a lot of good Midwestern guys south and west, as well as helping keep southern and western guys closer to home.
September 13th, 2014 at 11:05 AM ^
I agree. However, are you telling me that if SEC whiffs and B12 or PAC 12 does better, they will talk like that about SEC. Until SEC goes down, we would never know if they are biased.
September 13th, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^
It's all cyclical. Before everyone was big on the SEC it was the Big Ten. And if the SEC doesn't do well this year you might see it switch to the Pac12
September 13th, 2014 at 11:39 AM ^
Meant to say it was the Big 12 before it was the SEC. Can't edit from my phone.
September 13th, 2014 at 12:16 PM ^
Let us hope the cyclical wins eventually lands on B1G and M returns yo stardom in a year or two.
September 13th, 2014 at 12:24 PM ^
shit in the other, see which is filled first.
September 13th, 2014 at 12:58 PM ^
Here's where it get depressing, if you're relying on the cyclical nature of things to return the Big Ten to its past glory, you're going to be waiting a lot longer than 1-2 years. Think more along the lines of 10-20 years. These cycles tend to last for about a decade. The Big Ten had theirs in the 1980s, the 90s probably belonged to the Big 12, and the 2000s have been the SECs. Like I said elsewhere, I think the Pac-12 is positioned to be next. Lots of good QBs, lots of good talent and coaches...the pieces are there.
The Big Ten meanwhile is firmly #5 out of the five power 5 conferences, and the CFB landscape for the next decade only has room for 4 playoff teams. So I'd say for the better part of that next decade the Big Ten is going to be on the outside looking in more than any other conference when it comes to the playoffs. And that's really bad for the conference and recruiting.
And given the way they've pissed away the financial advantage they had with the BTN (they had more money than anyone for a while and could have bought every top coach in CFB...but did jack shit with that money) and the geographical disadvatage they now have working against them (people are leaving the midwest and going south), I think its really, really doubtful the Big Ten returns to relevance any time in the next 10-15 years if ever. Its that bleak.
September 13th, 2014 at 10:27 AM ^
Anyone know if the golf course is open? On my way from IN and it's raining here ...
September 13th, 2014 at 10:36 AM ^
According to Sam Webb's retweet
September 13th, 2014 at 10:36 AM ^
I still think we need a true stud WR ... Devin isn't a major deep threat and we need 1
September 13th, 2014 at 10:38 AM ^
Deep threat doesn't matter if he doesn't have time to get deep. We need an OL that can give WRs time to get open first. And then possibly a QB that doesn't melt down and make bad decisions.
September 13th, 2014 at 10:40 AM ^
I think Funchess is a stud WR and a deep threat. And Gallon was a stud WR too? If those guys don't qualify, then who does?
September 13th, 2014 at 10:50 AM ^
Tell me about the deep threats at WR Brian Kelly unleashed on us last week?
Funchess is a potential 1st round pick. We dont have a WR issue other than the fact our QB doesnt get to his 2nd read; whomever is the first read is going to get the ball 90% of the time or its going to be a sack or run out of the pocket. That's the issue.
Good coaches calibrate their team to their strengths. No team in college is perfect. They all have weaknesses, you scheme around each year's weaknesses - it is a constant adjustment. You don't have a stud CB for 8 years or a stud RB for 7 years or a stud anything like you do in the NFL - the team is constantly in flux and strengths and weaknesses change EVERY year.
Golson wiped the floor with Devin last week - one guy looked like a NFL pick, the other guy looked like he was lost after the 1st quarter. It had nothing to do with WRs or even our lousy RB game - ND didnt exactly run well either. Our 5th yr senior does not look like one right now when facing a team with any form of 4 star talent - you can pick a reason but that is the situation right now.
September 13th, 2014 at 11:18 AM ^
game completely hinging on the performances of the QBs - just like the game last year. Great Devin, bad Tommy. Great Everett, bad Devin.
Should the RBs run to the whole? Should the OL control things better? Should the CBs cover better? Of course, but Devin (really the QB position) has to perform reasonably well or the whole system fails. The TOs are obvious. Poor reads, bailing on plays too early - drive killers on multiple occasions.
If Devin cannot get over the hump, then Nuss has to find a new solution whether it's Shane or adjusting the playcalling.
Herbstreit was right about the need for NFL skill at QB.
September 13th, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^
We all love Devin but if Hoke wants the team to win he will make the switch to Shane if DG doesn't turn it around immediately.