Gameday Open Thread

Submitted by gwkrlghl on

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.

MGoBoard
Football

Bando Calrissian

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.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 68117

NFG

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.

Joined: 04/24/2012

MGoPoints: 47985

JT4104

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.

Joined: 10/25/2008

MGoPoints: 12328

ghost

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. 

Joined: 09/02/2011

MGoPoints: 4140

JT4104

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.

Joined: 10/25/2008

MGoPoints: 12328

ghost

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.

Joined: 09/02/2011

MGoPoints: 4140

Don

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.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 148337

newtopos

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.)

Joined: 09/26/2009

MGoPoints: 3434

njv5352

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.

Joined: 06/28/2010

MGoPoints: 472

Cold War

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.

Joined: 01/15/2012

MGoPoints: -3144

I Like Burgers

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.

Joined: 10/06/2012

MGoPoints: 30575

I Like Burgers

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.

Joined: 10/06/2012

MGoPoints: 30575

I Like Burgers

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.

Joined: 10/06/2012

MGoPoints: 30575

alum96

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. 

Joined: 04/28/2012

MGoPoints: 82457

YoOoBoMoLloRoHo

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.

Joined: 11/01/2012

MGoPoints: 18049