Hackett: Hoke will be evaluated at the end of the season

But what about the Stake, bolden brought out Funches ?

Yeah, there were a lot of little deaths along the way, but Minnesota was the big death.

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.

Precisely, the conference slate was time to start anew and Hoke's team failed miserably.

Brandon did everything he could to prop up Hoke. He paid for the best coordinators money could buy. Way more than has ever been spent at M. He simply could not rise to the magnitude of the position. No excuses. No hiding under Dave Brandon's skirt anymore. I feel bad for him, but it is over, and he will be well paid until he can get back on his feet.

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.

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

we haven't even sniffed a Big Ten Title game appearance let alone a conference championship.

Yeah he probably has to beat OSU to have even the slimmest of chances. Even more so, his status should be contingent upon whether a top tier coach is interested in the Michigan job. If one of Harbaugh, Miles, Mullen etc etc want to come to AA, Brady has to go, even with an 8-5 finish.

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.

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.

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. 

Regarding your point one, there's actually a lot of merit to an Interim AD letting go of a coach. To explain, I'll use the transition policy for the Presbyterian Church (no religion/politics). When a pastor moves on or retires, the church, by law, is supposed to bring in an interim pastor for 12-18 months. This gives the church the time needed to get the right replacement pastor. More importantly, part of the interim pastors responsibility is to implement change that would have been difficult for the old pastor or next pastor to make. Churches have equal if not more cultural issues than college athletics. Change does not come easy. An interim pastor can make changes easier because they have no history and no long term relational concerns. Then the new pastor comes in, changes in cultures have already been made, and everyone gets to start fresh. Specific to Michigan, firing Hoke will cause fractions in the base again. The truth is, many alums and current players really love him and Mattison. Hackett comes in, makes the change, he takes all the heat. The new AD comes in and it's not his fault Hoke was fired. The new AD gets to pick his coach and everyone moves on in unified support (although Hackett will be persona nongrata in a few circles). I'm sure he's already anticipated and accepted that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Except he was the coach of those "Patsy's" for the majority of his career. So one could look at that and say he is slightly better than .500 despite coaching at traditional doormats for 8 years.