Hackett: Hoke will be evaluated at the end of the season
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/201…
Nothing shocking in the headline, or the article for that matter.
However, the quote at the end appears to tip Hackett's hand:
Brady's a man of extreme integrity. … And he knows more than any of us that we're not performing at the level we should as a Michigan program.
My personal, amateur reading of things: Hoke's cooked, and he knows it.
November 13th, 2014 at 11:27 PM ^
He gone
November 14th, 2014 at 12:49 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 13th, 2014 at 11:31 PM ^
Wins and losses are just meaningless stats ya know?
November 13th, 2014 at 11:55 PM ^
November 14th, 2014 at 2:26 AM ^
November 13th, 2014 at 11:36 PM ^
November 14th, 2014 at 8:02 AM ^
In fact, isn't there a clause in every Michigan football coach's contract that says if you lose by more than two touchdowns to Minnesota at home then you're automatically fired? No? Well, there should be.
November 14th, 2014 at 8:24 AM ^
Precisely, the conference slate was time to start anew and Hoke's team failed miserably.
November 13th, 2014 at 11:37 PM ^
So, if anything, the department is being consistent with prior habits. I know we've seen coaches removed in midseason in other places, but it just isn't something this department would do no matter the situation. I still don't know that there are any really likely scenarios which result in Hoke being retained in 2015 but I could be wrong as usual - Hackett hasn't said much about this situation at all yet really, which part of me wants to interpret as telling in a "Hoke will likely not be here next year" way but I do try to hold off on committing totally to that in the absence of certain knowledge.
November 13th, 2014 at 11:43 PM ^
I keep thinking of making a snowflake thread of my own about Hoke, but it's not really thread-worthy. I'm sad for him, but I'm also sad for us because I think he would've been a great fit if he could have gotten the team to perform. People have said it before, and I agree: his loyalty to position coaches who are in over their heads will eventually have cost him his dream job. You gotta wonder whether a less incompetent Athletic Director might have been able to support Hoke in a way that led to success on the field instead of Appalachian State rematches and PR disasters.
November 13th, 2014 at 11:53 PM ^
November 14th, 2014 at 12:04 AM ^
I'm sad for him, too, but he only has himself to blame. He would've been a great fit if he were a big-time coach, but he's proven he's not. He's shown to be over his head as much as his position coaches. He had near unanimous fanbase support, great momentum from a spectacular--if lucky--first season, and recruiting success. An he did nothing with it.
November 14th, 2014 at 7:11 AM ^
spot on Magnum, spot on.
November 14th, 2014 at 12:11 AM ^
he's going to get paid a lot of money to coach d-lines in the NFL until everyone forgets the Morris thing and he can walk into some low level MWC gig. A happy ending for all
November 14th, 2014 at 3:38 AM ^
How is Hoke at the NFL level of DL coach?
November 14th, 2014 at 7:42 AM ^
we would absolutely love him. It would be no surprise if he got bigger opportunities. That sounds familiar somehow.
November 14th, 2014 at 2:14 PM ^
November 13th, 2014 at 11:46 PM ^
Brady is a nice guy but he has to go. Otherwise the stadium will have a lot of empty seats next year.
November 13th, 2014 at 11:52 PM ^
Pretty simple. Hoke stated his goal as Big Ten championships (even going so far as proclaiming the Sugar Bowl season a failure) and he hasn't delivered. Not much else needs to be evaluated.
November 14th, 2014 at 12:03 AM ^
we haven't even sniffed a Big Ten Title game appearance let alone a conference championship.
November 14th, 2014 at 8:43 AM ^
Not entirely true, we finished 2nd in our division in 2011 and 2012, one game behind the division winner.
IIRC @ State in 2011 we were driving down the field to tie until Denard threw a late INT that led to an MSU TD to seal the game for them.
Also, had Denard not gone down at Nebraska in 2012 (or the coaches had a competent plan) and we won that game, we would've been in the title game.
So I certainly think we've at least sniffed a title game appearance, but that was also before last year's and this year's debacles.
I am not advocating to retain Hoke, so I hope nobody construes my comments as such. Second place is just first loser.
November 14th, 2014 at 9:03 AM ^
November 13th, 2014 at 11:57 PM ^
November 14th, 2014 at 12:02 AM ^
is due to his friend Dave Brandon. Hoke's a nice guy and a true Michigan guy but really did not have the resume to be coach here.
If Hoke wins his last two games he will have a 50/50 chance of coming back and getting a new contract.
If Hoke loses to OSU he is out! 100 percent!]
If Hoke losses to Maryland but beats OSU he may have a 30 percent chance of being retained.
I don't see how Michigan can beat OSU, so I think Hoke will fired after the OSU game..
November 14th, 2014 at 1:16 AM ^
However, if we get shot down by every decent candidate, and Hoke wins each remaining game, maybe he gets another year. I suppose an argument could be made for that being the appropriate decision, if the alternative meant taking a flyer on another fairly unproven, mid-major coach that's only had moderate success.
November 14th, 2014 at 11:08 AM ^
I've just reviewed the history of UM-Ohio State game. Based on what I see in the historical record, the stark disparity between OSU and Michigan this season means that a victory down in Columbus would be the biggest upset in the long history of the rivalry, including 1969.
November 14th, 2014 at 12:29 AM ^
November 14th, 2014 at 12:43 AM ^
November 14th, 2014 at 1:04 AM ^
I'm not convinced at all that Hackett will fire Hoke and not sure why everyone is.
I don't think he will look through a lens that filters everything down to how many wins we got this year. Important, yes. But, it isn't the only thing he is going to consider.
One, it probably is not a move he wants to make as an interim AD. No reason to think the AD situation is going to resolve quickly based on Schlissel's comments.
Two, Despite the losses, Hoke has not lost his team. They are playing hard, depsite the lack of results. They are graduating. He is bringing in talent and kids that do seem to fit the Michigan mold a little more than perhaps the last regime. Yes, there is a lack of success with that talent, but it won't be a huge leap for him to give one more year.
Three, A new OC was hired and had only 1 year to implement his system. This also gives him some cover to let Hoke continue 1 more year, given the issues have primarly been inconsistency of the offense. He can argue that you change that and the win totals change.
Lastly, I don't see an interim AD reeling in a Harbaugh or other big coaching prospect, due to the uncertainty with the AD. So, is he really going to place a bet on lesser known guy after we just had multiple regime changes?
If a new AD isn't named quickly, I would not be surprised to see it play this way.
EDIT: I reserve the right to change this opinion if Hoke starts crying to Josh Groban tunes in public. That will get him fired.
November 14th, 2014 at 1:10 AM ^
The ''implement his system'' argument is garbage. Schools fire and hire new OCs all the time and get improvements right away.
Why do people think it takes years to do this at Michigan?
It wouldn't matter anyway because so far both QBS that Hoke recruited have also looked terrible. I hate to say it but Bellomy looks so bad that we are literally almost better handing it off or taking a knee when he's in.
Another year would be the same thing as the last two years.
November 14th, 2014 at 1:31 AM ^
November 14th, 2014 at 1:59 AM ^
Hackett is in a perfect position to play the hatchet man.
November 14th, 2014 at 9:50 AM ^
My MiL was up last weekend. She used to work for Steelcase. She has no love for the man and calls him 'Jim Hatchet'.
November 14th, 2014 at 10:22 AM ^
If Hackett is the one to fire Hoke, he will most likely be the one to hire his replacement. Unless Hoke is fired and a new AD is named the next day, there's just not enough time to pull it off.
November 14th, 2014 at 11:25 AM ^
There is plenty of time. Hoke could be let go at any point in Dec. The new AD could come on board soon afterwards. A new coach could be in place by the first or second week of January. This would give them a few weeks to solidify what ever recruits may be left. As has been previously mentioned, this is a very small recuriting class this year. If this one is ruined, it will not have significant long term impact.
November 14th, 2014 at 1:41 AM ^
You don't think a big name coach would like the opportunity to have a say in which AD he works with? Especially a guy like Harbaugh who is currently having problems with his superiors? I don't think Hackett will have trouble reeling in one of our top candidates, especially if he's given the authority to use a blank check.
Hoke needs to go, there is no logical reason to retain him and it will cost the program dearly to retain him for his lame duck season. Two OCs have failed to get the job done, Mattison's defense has regressed, and talent development clearly isn't there. Hoke was given ample opportunity to succeed. Hell watching guys like Gardner and Funchess playing so lackadaisacally it's hard to say that he hasn't lost the team, or at least a decent chunk of it. Hoke has no more excuses to hide behind. Can't blame the OC, can't blame the AD. He's done.
November 14th, 2014 at 7:37 AM ^
It speaks to the way Hoke connects with his players. Unfortunately, so do the plethora of sloppy mistakes.
The rest really doesn't make much sense. The transition to the new OC excuse is laughable. Nussmeier was brought in to simplify the offense in a way that would take advantage of our current personnel. That in no way should be a painful transition. It certainly wasn't sold to anyone as one. I can't think of an example at any other school where it has been, either. You only need to look at TCU. They brought in new co-OCs this year who made a big change to their offense.
November 14th, 2014 at 9:59 AM ^
I am not disputing that Hackett will or will not fire Brady, but I do not agree with most of your assessments of this team. You said "Hoke has not lost his team. They are playing hard, depsite the lack of results."
I couldn't disagree more. The most disappointing thing about the team over the last two years under Hoke is that they do not look prepared, do not look motivated and when the going gets tough fold up like a lawn chair and those are not characteristics of a team that is playing hard. In their defense, I think they believe they are playing hard, but they have not met the level of passion and intensity of their oppoentents. It was obvious against Notre Dame, clearly evident against MSU and embarrassingly present against Minnesota. They were not even able to match the effort of Utah at home.
Somewhere along the line Hoke has not been able to reach these kids, they are not playing for him, nor their teammates. The lasting impression I will have of this team is the final play in the ND game, when Garnder was blindsided after throwing an INT in a lopsided game and not a single UM player came to his defense. They took their beating like they have all year and have shown no fight, and sadly it reflects in their record.
November 14th, 2014 at 10:24 AM ^
Agreed. There have been plenty of times where we have been down, and the cameras cut to the UM sideline to show players joking and laughing with one another. That is not a team playing hard.
November 14th, 2014 at 2:31 PM ^
I 100% agree with this. Hoke is clearly a "player's coach." I think that the vast majority of the team like Hoke and enjoy the enviornment that he creates in team meetings, practices, etc. The problem is, that enviornment--although fun on the micro level--does not create a winning program on the macro level.
When it comes to athletics or any other type of skill or recreational outlet, there's two types of approaches--the casual approach that focuses on the day to day fun, and the competitive level--the folks who grind it out in practice, have a burtally competitive mindset, and then get their "fun" when they destroy the competition on the field. The second type of approach is deeply emotionally invested in winning. The first is not. Perhaps if there is starting to be a fracturing in the locker room at all, it's the hyper competitive/intense kids getting frustrated at the kids who seem to be too casual about the lousy record.
But barring a lot of locker room drama, it doesn't prove that Hoke lost the team, it proves that the team and Hoke may be (unfortunately) on the same casual wavelength, although the kids may have (up until recently) lacked self-awareness. Now the heat may be turned up more since the seat is red red hot and the kids are staring at another bowl-less season. But this was likely the dynamic up through at least the middle part of this year.
And with such a huge percentage of the roster being pretty young and Hoke's recruits, there is no basis for comparison that these kids might have at the D1 level. They're in a bubble. To them they may FEEL like they are working hard, doing everything possible, focused, etc. but it's possible in reality they aren't.
Somebody several weeks ago wrote a diary about the psychology of mental toughness and road wins. They pointed to the fact that Hoke is a "player's coach" and likely to pat a player on the ass and tell them to "try harder next rep" whereas a guy like Schembechler would be a player's worst nightmare in practice. The theory being, that the kids are coddled under Hoke and so when they hit a truly hostile environment they fold like cheap tents whereas once the game started, Schembechler became your best friend and anything the opposing team/crowd would throw at you would be nothing compared to the intensity you suffered under Bo in practice. Hoke as cheerleader, Bo as drill sergaent.
Some of the great men in history were not necessarily good or nice men. So too with footbal coaches. I'm not saying we go and hire a sadist. But we do need to go out and hire somebody who is going to light a fire under the behinds of the kids. The "fun" should be reserved largely for the scoreboard, watching the team climb up the national rankings, ESPN highlight clips of the game, and the occasional social outing like bowling or movie night. Practices and film sessions should be stone-cold business.
November 14th, 2014 at 2:40 PM ^
you said it better than I did.
November 14th, 2014 at 10:16 AM ^
Hoke graduates his players and we all know how much Schliss seems to value that. If they simply make a bowl game I would not be surprised at all to see Hoke stay.
November 14th, 2014 at 11:16 AM ^
then UM has a serious problem.
Firslty, Michigan is already suffering on the recruiting trail. Letting a man who is widely seen as a "dead coach walking" continue on will only further harm the program and set back the rebuilding further than it needs to be.
Secondly, he may not have "lost them", but they are not playing up to their talent(as you indicate). Keeping him for another year when Hoke has established a pattern of underachievenment really makes no sense.
Thirdly, the OC has done a poor job of preparing these players. Mistakes come from all positions, not just QB. The lack of development on Morris' end is particularly troubling. Gardner's lack of development can perhaps be chalked up to being a "bad fit" or bad offensive line play that has shattered his confidence. But how can one explain Morris' ineptitude as a sophomore??
You only keep Hoke if you think he can turn things around. If one judges the body of Hoke's work at UM they will have a real hard time believing that. His win-loss record has declined each season since he has been here. This is by the far the best measure of the quality of a coach. How has he performed over multiple seasons? In Hoke's case not well. His teams have gotten worse.
Then you must look at the particulars of the situation. Certainly he did not have the players to run his preferred offense at first, but for one season they adjusted. Than the bottom started to fall out. From 2012 on the offense has steadily deteriorated to the point where it is now. Instead of a one season step back it has turned into a multiple season decline. That is a sure sign of inadequate coaching.*
It astounds me that anyone can think it wise to bring back Brady Hoke for another season. He has established a track record of decline, overseen a fractious lockerroom, been dominated by rivals, failed to maximize the potential of his recruits, and most painfully of all, failed to live up to the standards he himself set in his introductory press conference--to compete and win Big Ten championships. He has conducted himself with class and graduated his players. These are wonderful accomplishments. But a coach is judged by wins and losses, not by how swell of a fellow he is.
*One must ask if the coaching was ever any good?Denard Robinson's amazing ability as a runner covered up a lot of mistakes.(See: Denard's ability to gain yards vis a vis running backs) One then might conclude that perhaps the 2011 offensive was not well-coached so much as a beneficiary of a great player performing at his peak.Just as Barry Sanders made Wayne Fontes look good Denard Robinson made Hoke and Borgas look good.
November 14th, 2014 at 4:17 PM ^
November 14th, 2014 at 1:48 AM ^
November 14th, 2014 at 3:32 AM ^
Brady Hoke is slightly above a .500 college coach. With 4 patsy on the schedule each season...being slightly above .500 for your career pretty much means: You suck.
November 14th, 2014 at 6:37 AM ^
November 14th, 2014 at 8:09 AM ^
November 14th, 2014 at 10:40 AM ^
Bill Lynch of "I'm so mad that PI was not called that I am going to toss my gum onto the field" fame. Just because he won at a pasty for a season or two that does not make him a good coach. It's been done before by bad coaches.
November 14th, 2014 at 4:31 AM ^