Hoke's Record
January 11th, 2011 at 10:17 PM ^
With research and logic.
January 11th, 2011 at 10:27 PM ^
Somewhat understand logic??
January 11th, 2011 at 11:20 PM ^
Mister I'm done with Michigan and never coming back. And yet, here you are. Logical?
January 12th, 2011 at 4:18 AM ^
It comes down to emotion and arbitrary (i.e. not necessary) ties. It's not as though we went through the whole list of Division I college football programs and selected the most logical one to affiliate ourselves with. The majority of us were (a) born into it, (b) inducted into it via undergrad, or (c) both (a) and (b). Sports are so compelling because they're based on emotional, illogical, irrational responses. And when emotions come into play, they cloud our judgement on matters, making us say irrational things that we don't mean. While the act of typing a response should provide ample cool-down time for someone to reflect on a response like the above poster's pledge to abandon Michigan, this isn't true for everyone. Accordingly, I just wanted to urge a little caution before continuing flame wars across threads.
Or, (s)he's a Walmart Wolverine who just decided to pick up a Michigan State shirt instead, in which case: flame away.
January 11th, 2011 at 10:19 PM ^
Not good at doing this on the touch. Anyway, that's a .582 winning percentage against his peers. I realize this is cherry picking stats, but I think it's encouraging.
January 12th, 2011 at 2:36 AM ^
.582 in the MAC/MWC is encouraging?
January 11th, 2011 at 10:19 PM ^
What my point of contention has been is the notion that Hoke turned ball state around. Yes, he had the 12 win season at the end, but in the 5 years before that he was 22-37. Bill lynch in the 3 years before hoke took over was 16-18, never fewer than 6 losses a season. So relative to the competition, I'd argue that ball at actually regressed for the first 4-5 years if his tenure there. Doesn't mean it'll happen here, but I don't see the big turnarounds that others seem to.
January 11th, 2011 at 10:29 PM ^
Interesting stat.
January 11th, 2011 at 10:30 PM ^
I think the upward trajectory of his record is noteworthy.
<br>
<br>Over the past 4 years, he's 32-19, and that included his transitional year at SDSU when he went 4-8.
<br>
<br>To me, this looks like a guy who was still figuring out how to win as a head coach during those first 4 years, but has got it pretty well figured out now.
<br>
<br>I also like that he didn't just walk into a winning program and continue what was put in place before he got there, but rather took over two struggling programs and molded them in his image into contenders. That is exactly what Michigan needs right now, and I expect youll hear brandon stress that tomorrow as a major factor in his decision to hire Hoke.
January 11th, 2011 at 10:31 PM ^
Take away the losses, he's a good coach?
January 12th, 2011 at 12:14 AM ^
Your comment made me laugh on an otherwise difficult day. IOU +1 when we return to normalcy
January 11th, 2011 at 10:37 PM ^
Is how he does at Michigan. His record may not be eye-popping but I think he can be successful and I really hope he is. I'm very interested in seeing how well he recruits
<br>
January 11th, 2011 at 10:38 PM ^
but in the spirit of getting there... He got Ball State to a #12 ranking at one point in 2008. Ball bleeping State. Now they fell out of the Top 25 by year's end, but not bad.
<br>Borges OC'd the 2004 Auburn offense that finished 13-0 (Chizik was DC), #12 Offense, Jason Campbell was #3 in QB rating.
<br>YOU'D BETTER MENTION DENARD BY NAME TOMORROW, as in "amazing, so lucky to have a QB of his skills, can't wait to get started in working our O around him"
January 11th, 2011 at 11:20 PM ^
Literally, he had better do that at some point soon. Hearing that would make me feel so much better about the future. The more I think about Hoke, the more I worry we're going back to the days of winning the big ten every few years, and then getting waxed when we step out of the conference to good teams. He needs to have offensive flexibility to find true success.
January 11th, 2011 at 11:43 PM ^
This sounds simple-minded, but I don't think Denard liked being hit, not so much. Therefore I don't think he would mind being hit not so much. There MUST be a way to use his incredible running skills in the new O, albeit not every down. He's improved his passing dramatically, and shown the desire to work. Any offensive coach should be giddy to have him at QB.
January 11th, 2011 at 11:49 PM ^
Where he's bigger than the guys hitting him. He's got to run less, so he can play the whole games and not go out hurt. Because it doesn't sound like Tate's going to be around to bail us out.
<br>
<br>I'd like to see less of the straight designed sweeps and leads, and at the very least get more option into it, so he can at least decide if he's open enough to run with it. But if he wants to be a QB, and not a RB (and I think he's most effective as a QB), we need him to run more off the pass, where the defensive is in coverage, and he's taking off for yards and sliding. That's what drives a defense crazy.
January 12th, 2011 at 12:03 AM ^
But one of the RBs also has to step up. I must have seen 20 running backs during the bowl season that were preferable to ours, in terms of making their own yards. Including the SDSU freshman. In whatever this new O looks like, RBs must make their own plays.
January 11th, 2011 at 10:56 PM ^
Let's not forget that previous records don't mean much. Gene Chizik was 5-19 as a head coach before getting the Auburn job. I don't think anyone is questioning his record now. Go Blue!!!
January 11th, 2011 at 11:16 PM ^
I agree that the 47-50 record is deceiving, but my concern is that beyond 12-0 at Ball St. 1 year, his record the past 3 years is 20-18, and that is at non AQ schools. Plus, he's older than people think (52, or 5 years older than RR) so I'm not sure how flexible he will be moving forward. To be fair, Chizik is 49, so maybe not a big deal.
<br>
<br>But it is weird that UM will be his first BCS HC stop. I think he has grown as a coach and is closer to a 9-4 coach than 4-9, but I'm still not sold he's an upgrade over RR at this point. I do hope I'm wrong.
January 12th, 2011 at 12:19 AM ^
Based on your methodology I have RR @12-11.
January 12th, 2011 at 2:47 AM ^
So.. he's 1-17 against teams that would fall into the "common opponent" category at his new head coaching job?
How does saying "He went 46-33 against teams at or below his team's level, and when he played teams that were challenging he went 1-17" seem like a positive spin? What's that say for our games against Ohio State, Nebraska, Wisconsin.. even little brother lately?
I'm still on the fence about Hoke, but this "He only lost a lot to good teams!" talking point isn't doing much for me..
January 12th, 2011 at 4:08 AM ^
Maybe it's just me, but I see that 1-17 mark against schools we currently play as excusable. There is a reason large schools pay schools like BSU to come play them. It's often a guaranteed win for the home team. It's like me being a solid 1A high school coach and never getting the opportunity to coach 5A because my record against 5A teams is horrible. The bigger teams are naturally going to have a better talent pool/ facilities to dominate the little guy. I'm not saying hoke is going to work out because we can spin numbers all we want. But let's give the guy a chance with matched talent.
January 12th, 2011 at 7:27 AM ^
I think you're missing the point. It's not reasonable to expect someone in the MAC or at a bottom half MWC team to have an equal record against BCS teams because they're in, you know, the MAC and MWC. The guy with the high school example above made the point better.
January 12th, 2011 at 3:00 AM ^
The Hokeamaniacs are going to be running wild all over the BigTen.
January 12th, 2011 at 6:09 AM ^
ok at first i was unhappy with the hire, i wanted JH then i wanted LM. but after calming down and doing some research i think hoke is a coach on the rise. i know his 47-50 record does not sound good but keep in mind that he has coached at bsu and sdsu!
both teams have been long time door mats in there conferences and in one way or another hoke turned them around. i know it took a while to turn bsu around but in his last season he did lead them to a #12 ranking at the end of a 12-0 season (12 wins most in the schools history) heading in to the mac champ game. he was named the 2008 mac conference coach of the year.
then he goes to sdsu who had not enjoyed a winning season or been to a bowl game in 10 years! and they were coming off a 2-10 season.
hoke went 4-8 his first season but then this year goes 9-4! all 4 loses were by 5 pts or less including a 40-35 loss to #2 tcu. he led sdsu to there first wining season and bowl game in 12 years and led them to there first bowl win in 40 years!! with a 35-14 beat down of navy and he was named the 2010 mwc coach of the year.
so in the last 3 years at bsu and sdsu hoke has gone 25-13 and been named the conferences coach of the year twice!
January 12th, 2011 at 6:26 AM ^
Hoke in 5 years did get Ball State up to 12-1 then left right before the bowl game. Ball State was known as a scrub school and he got them up to their highest ranking ever in school history, gave us a handful in 2006, and had national attention.
At San Diego State he took over in 2009. San Diego State had not had a winning record since 1998 (7-5). He then proceeded to turn the program around in 2 years, where he gave the school a 9-4 record this 2010 season. The last time that SDSU had a better record was in 1977 before most of us were born.
I think it is important to understand with the 47-50 record that he took over 2 programs in bad shape and in 5 and 2 years had the program peaked.
January 12th, 2011 at 7:46 AM ^
So you're saying we need to give a coach 5 years to turn around a troubled program?
January 12th, 2011 at 8:14 AM ^
I was thinking the same thing.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:54 AM ^
We're not Ball State bad that team was happy with 4 wins when he took over. All I am saying is that he took over and improved 2 programs - 1 in horrid shape and 1 in bad shape. Both were performing very well when he left.
Let's give him a chance.