This is my first time doing this and a lot of people don't like my real and sometimes unintelligent posts but isn't this hot seat talk getting carried away? All the Big Ten stuff and then on sportscenter. Then they have the next clip on Braxton the Miller's daughter primed and ready to go. I guess, whatever. Even when you are down they know they must keep you down. Hail! Probably the most worthless post ever but it just bugs the hell out of me. These people who write this stuff, make it televised and keep bringing it up are the ones pouring the gas on the fire. Not that it's a fire though because we going to whoop some ass this year!
Make me think the seat is not as hot as portrayed by the BTN nor ESPN. Maybe just a little warm..........
Yes, Borges was performing terribly at blocking and running the ball well, and let's not forget he didn't make a single catch last year.
What's the good play when your interior line can't block anybody? Borges was the scapegoat since there needed to be one after a 7-6 season, but he wasn't the problem. I don't see how Funk kept his job after such terrible offensive line play, and Borges got canned after his QB threw for almost 3000 yards, with no running game and terrible pass protection resulting from that offensive line play.
How about being consistent in the style of play so the kids have a clue what they're doing and can improve over the course of the season?
Borges got fired because the running game wasn't up to the standards of the Michigan program. Now, within that failure (by all accounts of the post mortem) his was a scheme that was constantly changing, was overly complex, at a time when the OL in particular had very little chance of assimilating such complexity.
To me, its quite obvious that Funk kept his job because when Hoke assessed his performance in 2013 he felt that it was Borges' schemes, and not Funk's lack of technique coaching. Was he right? I don't know, and we'll know a lot more during this season. But, remember that Funk was Borges' subordinate, and although I'd imagine that the two (Borges' and Funk) worked together with the other coaches in schemeing, at the end of the day Borges was telling Funk what he wanted his OLinemen to do. For all we know, Funk was ready to kick the shit of Borges every week because Borges was (to use a WWI analogy) calling for his guys to go "over the top" and Funk was saying it was suicide.
How can your interior line block anybody when the entire defense knows what play you're going to run? It was bad enough that my wife (who knows little to nothing about football schemes) was able to tell what the play was going to be before the snap.
No, he just kept making it extremely difficult to succeed by calling the worst plays at the worst time.
sure we can all agree brandon was a member of mich football team and we can all agree he has (or certainly should have) a better handle of the daily comings and goings of mich football and B1G in general than most here - and thats due to his current job and daily activities at mich, not acting as mich's rudy in 1970. but id never admit dave brandon "understands football more than any of us" or toss out that type blanket statement....brandon was essentially a cheerleader who never sniffed the field and a member of the program during a totally different age of football. sure hes got a handle on daily football activities at mich bc hes inside, but indicating brandon understands the game more than everyone here is insane - especially re those who actually played and/or coached and offer insightful football commentary on this forum
I was thinking the same thing. A few weeks back I heard an ESPN radio host ask an analyst if Hoke was on the hot seat and he said yes. I'm not an expert or professional analyst but I keep up on UM sports as much as I can and haven't heard anything about him being on the hot seat. So what is the basis of this analyst saying he is on the hot seat? Just pure, blind, speculation? Or real knowledge? I would guess the former. I can't fault someone for assuming he is on the hot seat just due to a couple mediocre seasons but I would expect an "expert analyst" to have some real proof or evidence before making such claims.
It's idle chatter, fuel for the sports media fire that would otherwise die out during a long offseason. As long as you have people whose livelihoods depend on sports-talk ratings, you'll have lots of speculative coverage with dead spots that need to be filled. Just like 24-hour cable news networks and election cycles that last close to two years.
If we win 10 games this year, the narrative changes to Hoke as a program savior, and the pendulum will swing back. Their hyperbole will focus on "The Renaissance in Ann Arbor" and the "Birth of a New 10-year war."
Just how it goes -- best not to take it too seriously.
Do not try to understand the hot seat. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
There is no hot seat.
There is no hot seat?
Then you'll see, that it is not the seat that is hot, it is only yourself...
this is a lie. my car has heated seats and the seats truly do get hot.
I think it was Doyle on CBS a few years back that said Beilein was on the hotseat as well.
It's an overused term by writers that don't have any other thoughts.
I'm not sure that these talking heads don't have any other thoughts. I think because they have so much airtime to fill they're not going to let the facts get in the way of a good story.
and great username as well. +1
I JUST watched Shawshank this past weekend and I'm not seeing what the reference is... help me out here?
...embroidered on the wall hanging that covered the safe in the wall. The OP took some liberties in the quote by adding the word "football", but no big deal.
Either somebody has been drinking or the stream of consciousness writing style is getting more popular than I thought.
all writers drank?
But it's the same as any sports writers trying to sell their stories. People love turmoil and not everybody is as big of fans as this blog's viewership. So the casual fans will see the headline of "hot seat" and be more likely to click on the story because they'll want the inside scoop, thinking that it is an actual scoop and not just fluffy garbage.
I could be way off on this, but that's just like, my opinion, man.
I agree. And the sad part is that it's not like ESPN needs the scandalous headlines and controversial topics to get page views and mentions. They used to be the best at delivering sports news and highlights, but now every minute topic needs to have two polar opinions that are to be intensely debated. And even if it is not a debate, everything needs an opinion now, "What do you think of..."
I guess any attention is still attention, though.
of the program since Bo died. Yesterday's detnews article with Brandon is an example. General apathy among the students the aggravated fan base that feels compelled to take a second mortgage on their houses to finance a football season of going to games. With nothing to show for it but a 7-6 season and not very good success in the "red letter games".
Orange you glad he didn't tell us what program he was talking about?
It's Uncle Gerg's Story Time
I think that the story is a bit misleading on Pasqualoni. Almost all of his big successes came in his first 8 years. Outside of 2001, his last 6 years sucked ass. In those years he went 7-5, 6-5, 10-3, 4-8, 6-6, and 6-6. The Big East was generally pretty weak, so the schedules weren't that tough. In that stretch they lost 62-0 to Va Tech, 34-17 to East Carolina, 59-0 to Miami, 51-7 to Va Tech, 51-0 to Purdue and 51-14 to Georgia Tech, and they had virtually no quality wins. Syracuse was right to get rid of him. Robinson wasn't the answer, but neither was Pasqualoni. Syracuse should expecty better.
I agree though that Hoke's seat is definitely hot this year.
the Mgohandle is chatster.
Edit: good post, chatster. Just busting chops.
On this board, I'm accustomed to having my chops busted. Well done, sir. You've been upvoted.
media is problem, but what can we do? Go Blue!
The only way hoke gets fired this season is if he TOTALLY drops the ball coaching-wise. If we lose 6-plus games, the team self-implodes, there's too much off-field-drama, AND some super attractive "Michigan man" coaching candidate (harbaugh-ish) becomes readily available providing Dave Brandon with a fresh , new, popular outlook for a few more years. I really, REALLY, don't see any of the above happening.
Side note: I really like Brady hoke and the person he appears to be. I hope he succeeds. If he were to get canned it would be a HUGE opportunity for the next guy in line. Hoke has done a great job of getting all the tools..the foundation in place...we just have to get some momentum now and hang onto it. That's my only worry about him thus far is he can't ignite that winning formula. Hoping for a season of exceeded expectations in Ann Arbor.
You could takeout Hoke name and insert TA's name...and wouldn't skip a beat.
Tommy Amaker never accomplished anything close to Hoke's 11-2 season (Winning the NIT is roughly equivalent to that 8-5 2012 team). He also didn't recruit at nearly the level Hoke is AND he was still givien six years. So I don't really see any relevant comparison between the two.
I always listen to the college sports station on siriusxm radio in the mornings. Former Bama QB Greg McElroy has a new show on there called The First Team. I forget the co-hosts name, but last week I caught a segment where they were discussing coaches who were on the hot seat. The first two guys they mentioned were Hoke and Muschamp. McElroy went on to say emphatically that this will be Brady Hoke's last year in AA and that the team will go 6-6, and losing every road game. Now I must say that McElroy does a great job, and he is entitled to his opinion, but 6-6 is mind boggling. Brady has to go if they end up 6-6, but i do not forsee that happening.
On the other hand, McElroy's co-host predicted Michigan to go 10-2 with losses to Sparty and OSU. Im not sure if I see 10-2, but I like this prediction a little better than 6-6. It is funny to see the disparity between these guys when it comes to predicting Michigan football. Im going with 10-3 after you can the bowl win, and a new contract extension for Hoke.
I believe I see where the OP is coming from here and I tend to agree at present. While I believe a good performance this year is important for maintaining some of the recruiting momentum as well as for other reasons, I wouldn't think that Brady Hoke is on the "hot seat" by even most media standards. The person whose evaluation would make the determination, if you will, has said that he is not even in the same neighborhood right now as the so-called "hot seat", so that's perhaps the word we must accept right now. So, to answer - is there drama being created around Michigan where there likely is none? I would say, right now, "yes".
some people are truly forgettting how just god awful Michigan was last year. Michigan was a complete miracle kick play against NW from losing its last 6 games of the year and 7 of its last 8.
Another season like that and it could become untennable for Hoke very easily.
Yes, we were god awful, but arguably for reasons out of Hoke's control. Fix the offensive line, get a viable run game, and that's a pretty decent team. We had (someone correct me if I'm wrong here) a total of 6 scholarship OL on the roster, due to You Know Who's recruiting failures.
Sure, it's easy to blame Rich Rod, but Hoke sure isn't the reason the offensive line was so shorthanded last year.
its on hoke too, as he shouldve tried to get transfers like Lindsay, knowing the problem at OL. its on him too.
Who's to say he didn't try to get transfers?
Hoke chose to keep Borges as his Ocoordinator despite the evidence he had no clue what he was doing. Borges did not just suddenly begin stinking up the joint last year. Every year including 2011 there were games that you could point to where his patholocial logic cost us victories. He has a long tract record of being unable to sustain success and being unable to develop young talent. Borges ultimately is a Weis 2.0 who is more interesting in drawing up plays than teaching. Hoke could not see this when many of us saw this in 2011.
Tactically Hoke did not step up as a coach and insist on moving Scofield to guard. If this were done we might have had a run offense simliar to 2007 where we ran 90% of the time behind Long/Kraus. But it would have been okay. This topic was brought up multiple times as many could see that the young line was going to be a problem. Instead our NFL talent at tackle was completely wasted. Maybe it would not work against an elite defense. But the Nebraska's and Iowas would not have absolutely shut us down. Gardner has the atheltisim to run away from a DE. There is little he can do when preasure comes right up the middle.
Lewan, Barnum, Molk, Hugye, Omameh, Schofield, Mealer, Khoury, Glasgow, Burzynski. Recruits included Posada, Miller, and, Bryant. Jake Fisher was committed before RR was let go. Christian Pace was medicalled and QWash was switched to D. I would prefer this to what LC left RR anyday.
Hoke saw the roster but did he bring in any OL in the class before his first year? Granted he was hamstrung by DB's process.
Molk and Huyge were holdovers from Carr, but point taken. However, there was not much Hoke could do about the OL in 2013. He has been recruiting OL like mad but we won't see the true benefit of that until next year since they take so long to develop. Besides, what Carr left RR is irrelevant in terms of what RR left Hoke on the offensive line, unless you count Molk and Huyge, which should be credited to Carr.
as they had two freshman, a soph, rs soph and jr start on the OL last year. Alex Kozan disagrees as he played in the NC game. There are plenty of 2012 recruited OL that are making significant contributions as starters so don't give me that so long to develop BS. USC has a projected starting OL with two freshman, two RS freshman and a true sophomore for the upcomimg year.
Was UCLAs OL any good? Just because there are a couple of good freshman and sophomore linemen across the country does not mean it's a common phenomenon. We shouldn't have to rely on true freshman and sophomore OL to fill the starting spots in our OL. The reason we had to in 2013 is solely because of Rich Rod.
Not great, but significantly better than Michigan was...
2556 rushing yards (#34)
4.5 yards per carry average (#52)
203 Sack yards lost (#89)
1634 rushing yards (#103)
3.3 yards per carry average (#116)
268 Sack yards lost (#120)
a fallacy during RR's three season's here. In his first, he had one returning OLman, a true soph. The remainder were filled with those that had been in the system but had proven they'd never be capable of being starters during their three or four years on campus. Those eligible for a 5th year, already proven to have been wash outs, declined to accept another year, one in which they would actually have to work. And then the next two seasons, with exceptionally young lines and a very good line coach in Greg Frey, they continued to run the zone blocking schemes and gave us the two most productive seasons of the last two decades.
When Borges took over, he had no choice but to keep intact what was working. Actually Brady had 730 days, along with two bowl practices to have his OL ready to at least become "adequate," actually not asking much from kids rated this high. Inasmuch as he's the HC and is not going to fire himself, a decision that would not have been good for the school, he was right in ridding himself of Borges, who had two full seasons to see what a good, but not over abundant amount of star power could do, given the right assignments and keeping things pretty simple. The fact our current OC who came from what some consider a decent program has opted to move us back to that scheme in his first decision aimed at improving the line in terms of scheme & efficiency is completely opposite of what you are saying. As I stated, RR didn't inherit an experienced line either, and they certainly didn't possess the rankings these kids do. But the majority had been in the program about as long. And even odder yet was the injection of RR's kids into the OL as they came in actually improved the offense. Weird, huh? Personally, I think Frey was a tremendous teacher, and he was a hell of a ball player. I believe these attributes, married to an ability to motivate were instrumental in getting maximum production from his charges. I do think it might have backfired with the most talented from time-to-time. Because the season was going nowhere, it wasn't difficult to laugh at the stupid shit N0. 77 would do after the whistle. I'd often make bets with my son - non monetary - on how many yards Taylor would get before they announced the penalty whenever we saw a flag fly into that area right after the play.
Actually what you saw on offense last year was reminiscent of what we saw on defense during the RR era. It's a bitch when there are no replacements and you haven't proven a thing on that side of the ball. Yet, I didn't notice you attacking LC for leaving the program with less than a full two deep on that side of the ball, and the fact we were graduating about 9 out of 11 starters. Yes, that was the year we saw three walk-ons on the D. 65 players on a Michigan roster? How many walk-ons do you think we see in the future? Now just how long does the cover up go back? Inquiring minds want to know. LIke I said, it's ok to attack, although I don't see what good it does. But when you do, you should be fair about it.
Personally, I don't see where that gets us. I think we should just hope Brady doesn't prove to be a Weiss and we can get back to M football. There can be no argument to talent now. Yost brought this university many things other than being the then no. 1 program in the nation. But his most important lesson, imo anyway, was that fans and players alike should all pull together, especially when times aren't as easy as we've come to expect. I see no more reason for attacking past coaches than I do the present one. In fact, I think a public attack on whomever is manning the position in no way improves our situation.
didn't show up in Chicago, they had to sensationalize something because God forbid the "news" we watch today not be sensational.
"Hot Seat" = instant offseason story (see also "QB controversy")
As stated in other recent blog posts, I feel like the deficit of upperclassmen is being erased and the recruits are of high quality. Putting Michigan back in the upper half of the Top25 is something that's going to help everything going forward, of course. I believe our new perfectionist OC and guru-level DC are the guys to get 'r' done!
Because they really depend on the expectations of the AD. On one hand, Nebraska fired Frank Solich for going 9-3 (and, ironically, how many years in a row has Bo Pelini gone 9-4). On the other hand, Purdue fans might storm the field if they finished the regular season 9-3. Of course, coaches (at least in some conferences) get fired for bad behavior too, but record-based firing varied greatly by school.
This in part reflects fan base expectations, but the fans themselves do not hire and fire coaches--that's the AD's job. A secure AD can (if they choose) take heat for a coach and really change the hot seat narrative by saying the coach is safe. The AD can also give "the dreaded vote of confidence," which I'm guessing means saying something very different off the record. And an AD who him or herself isn't powerful (sort of like a miniature version of an embattled GM of a pro team) may throw out the coach to save their own job.
All this to say that it doesn't matter what media thinks about hot seats unless they are reflecting the thinking of the decision maker: the AD. So as long as Dave Brandon isn't trying to create a future without Hoke on it, the hot seat chatter is idle for now .
It's just narrative based on perception. Unfortunately, we're set up as Rocky with OSU as Apollo Creed.
for the University of Michigan, but in my honest opinion he is in over his head as the HC of the program. Everyone brings up the OL, but it is hard to have success when you have 6 or 7 blockers going against 8 to 9 in the box. Borges fault for the play call and not audibling out of it- yes, but Hoke is the HC and should have stepped in and told Al to change the freaking play. Of course that is HARD to do when you don't wear a damn headset so you can know what is going on.. Insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expect a different result and we saw it repeatedly last year.
I hope Hoke is successful this year because I don't want to see another coaching change. People complained about RR meddling with the D, but Hoke seems to be just the opposite and doesn't meddle with anything even when things are going really bad. A true HC would not allow his OC to continue to run the ball up the gut into a stacked box for nothing over and over and over and over..............
The reality is that Michigan football was unwatchable for a good part of last year and I use to wake up after three hours sleep to watch them on TV when I lived in Cali.
You do realize that hones didn't fall on Borges to make audibles, right?
Were you going for onus?
You do realize that football coaches signal audibles to the players all the time, right?
Do you really think that Hoke was incapable of changing the gameplan because he wasn't wearing a headset? If Hoke wanted them to mix in a pass or two, he didn't need a headset to pass that message along.
think he should just wear a headset and be done with it. It only makes sense. Yeah, I agree that you can coach without one but I can also send a two sentence message by way of the US Postal Service but I think email is a little more efficient. I guess the question becomes, why doesn't he wear one?
"You ever watch guys on headsets? They don't say a word. This gives me an opportunity to coach kids during the course of a game. The game is a mental game. It's a game of emotion and enthusiasm, a game of teaching. No. 1, not wearing a headset, I get to teach on the sideline, and I get to be a real part of it. The other thing is, I do know what the calls are, because there's a guy standing right behind me who tells me every call that's going in."
first sentence is just untrue. Is he saying that Spurrier and Meyer and Saban and Harbaugh and Carrol do not teach or are somehow not able to speak words to their players due to the presence of this ultra-prohibitive headset mechanism?
He didn't just change the bad play call, he changed the bad play caller.
I will know we are heading in the right direction offensively this year, if we get to the line with a stacked box, and throw quick slants and screens via an audible enough to the point, where we force teams to stop stacking the box against us.
Hell, Ohio gets to the line on every play and makes calls based on what the defense is showing them. Teams are running no huddle, signal type plays ALL the time in college football now. It is not a gimic any more, it is the norm.
It is extremely difficult to line up against another power conference team, and just push them back when they have 8 or 9 guys in the box on defense. You have to be both physical and smart about how you call and execute your plays. All teams are training 365 days a year now. The chances of you "outworking" every other team in the FBS and just dominate them with sheer strenght, are about zero in the modern college game.
I want our offense to be physical, but equally smart, adaptive and unpredictable. So far, Hoke hasn't come close to scratching the surface of where our offense needs to be. This is the year. No more excuses. If it was the OC fault, then this year we should see vast improvement. If not, the common cause is Brady. Nice guy. But it is get it done, or get the F%^* out of dodge Brady, for me.
To me, this is a product of today's 24/7 in your face media. College football has a long offseason so these guys have to stretch to come up with stories. It's easy to look at Michigan's disappointing season last year and, without any inside info, fabricate an article detailing why Hoke is on the hot seat and 90% of college football fans would eat it up.
The media talked about us this way BEFORE the season, we won the MNC.
Remember M stands for mediocrity?
Let's hope the team get some of that same motivation of this year. Go blue!
I kind of think all the hot seat talk is because Brady is kind of on the hot seat. I think his team needs to perform this year or it will be very hot. Sorry, I don't think this is an example of the media creating the story. Sure, if some other high profile coach kind of crapped the bed last year they would talking about that coach, but then again that coach would probably be in a crunch to perform at a high level the next year as well, so either way they are just reporting the reality of the situation, albeit too much, but they have to fill air time somehow.
Why I do not watch that tripe (ESPN, etc). It's not news, it's speculation and opinion.
But I think this has almost become a meme similar to "Craig James killed 5 hookers". The Brady Hoke Hotseat meme. We all know the dude's job is safe(despite what several reactionary/hyperimpatient idiots are trying so damned hard to make you believe). Even bringing this up is promulgating the meme.
I move for swift and harsh punishment for those who would bring this up in the future(at least until the guy has a losing season).
Being a meme isn't mutually exclusive with being true. "Urban Meyer heart problems" is a meme, while also being accurate.
I am saying that it is not accurate. And that repeating the meme can do nothing but lend credibility to it, potentially hurting recruiting. And no, things don't have to be true to be used against you by integrity-challenged weasel coaches in ohio.
Hoke is probably a bad year away from being on the hot seat. This also happens to describe about 90% of coaches in revenue generating sports.
Fair enough. But the only people that know what the status quo really is are people inside the department. So when the rest of the college football hive is left to speculate about people's jobs, it isn't unreasonable to put Hoke's in the conversation. Sure it's probably been said too many times already, but that's ESPN and it always has been.
caused by banging Florida coeds? Or did he just miraculously get better?
Are you saying that Craig James didn't kill 5 hookers? (allegedly)
I mean, what do you expect? Hoke is on the hot seat. Because the team's performances and losses to rivals are piling up against him just like the coach that preceded him. Except that Hoke had a magical first year that seemingly has bought him more patience with the fans and admin.
The first year helps, but its more DB believes in Hoke and knows a 4th coach in 9 years would likely be worse in the short haul...which is all DB will be here.
Is a 4th coach in 9 years worse than the program being considered 'toxic' and watching our main rivals benefit while UM fades into the Big Ten second tier? Now I'm not saying that would happen, but just keeping a coaching staff because you don't want to have a 4th coach in 9 years, regardless of whether that staff can actually create a winning program, seems just silly to me.
You can't look at the roster being built and really believe that, can you? Also, changing coaches 4 times in 9 years would be the definition of "toxic" for a program.
I don't believe in an arbitrary number of wins to save a job or an arbitrary year in a coaches tenure where "he has to win, or else." I also don't believe in keeping a coach at all costs just because of 4 in 9 years.
I do think its too soon to judge the long term effectiveness of Hoke, and there is enough reason to keep him (short of unexepectedly drastic failure/scandal) rather than gamble on finding the "right" coach -- again.
but don't agree entirely. Hoke is different from RR in that he
- Beat OSU (and played very competitively in 2 losses FWIW)
- Beat MSU
- Is recruiting vastly better
- Has been a part of making the defense not earth-shatteringly awful
- Does not reference Josh Groban in public
The losses are piling up a bit, but Hoke has done way better than Richrod in almost every aspect so far
If you have a sweet gig at ESPN talking about college football, you will find something to talk about. Because, you know, it's your job.
Hoke came in and had to build depth damn near from scratch on both the lines. We are almost back to having talented depth at all positions. I don't think coach is on a hot seat unless this season is an absolute trainwreck (7 wins or less) and we look horrible against our rivals.
I'd like for someone tell me the 4th and 5th year guys ((other than DG & JMFR)) Hoke will have this season who under ANY coach would be draftable?? Maybe 3 guys out of those 2 classes and all are middling draft choices except maybe Ryan. No one else even comes close. Is it Hoke's fault that the talent level he inherited??
With that said...player development HAS to improve this year.
While Hoke's seat may not be "hot" from the perspective of his relationship with the AD, this is a pivotal season for Michigan. If the program wants to continue the recruiting momentum it's enjoyed the past few seasons, then Hoke needs to get a contract extension to extinguish the perception that his position as coach is tenuous. The only way Brandon can credibly give Hoke an extension is for Michigan to have an impressive season. An 8-4 season with losses to MSU and OSU again, and it's going to be a tough sell to extend Hoke's contract, and without that, it's going to be tougher to keep pulling in top recruits and keep morale high around the program.
A lot of us are pointing to 2015 as the year Michigan really gets "back", but I'm concerned that 2015 might be too late. The trajectory for this program is going to be set this season and there are enough question marks surrounding this team to make all of us nervous. Here's to being pleasantly surprised this season.
To me, the situation you described is pretty much the 'hot seat'. If the program really is facing such a pivitol season that winning big, and/or against our rivals on the road, is necessary for the program to be succesful as a whole in the near future, then the coach is on the hot seat. A coach isn't on the hot seat if his team goes 7-5 and everyone is like "Huh, well that sucked. Oh well, we'll be back to kicking ass next year.".
For me, "hot seat" simply means whether Hoke's job is in danger this season, which I don't think it is. We could have a meh performance this season and Hoke could save his job by the team going out next season and winning a conference title.
I think you can differentiate between Hoke's job status and the trajectory of the program. It's easy for me to see scenarios where Hoke manages to hang on as head coach, but the program overall continues to limp along, mired in uncertainty over his leadership, but the team doing just enough to allow Hoke to hang onto his job for 4 or 5 more years. On the other hand, I think a great season from the team this year could energize the fanbase behind Hoke and the staff, punctuated by a big contract extension from Brandon, ensuring recruiting momentum is maintained, and the foundation is laid for the next decade or so of Michigan being a major player on the national scene. It's feels to me that the program has kind of arrived at that fork in the road now, which sucks because we all want to believe we have one more grace year before what looks to be a very promising 2015.
Guess we differ in opinion then. Unlike last year, I can totally see a realistic season outcome where Hoke loses his job after this year. Again, that may not come to pass, but a 6-6 or 7-5 season, depending on the losses/wins, I think could see Hoke shown the door. And I don't think a 6-6 or 7-5 season is completely out of the relm of possibility. I could also see a 10 win season. There's just been so much damn inocnsistanncy in Hoke's tenure so far that I don't even know what to expect. That's what I'm looking for. Consistancy. Which means a solid foundation.
The seat is a four legged stool - 1 & 2) administration 3) fans and 4) media. The media is set on medium high because that's what's best for them. A very vocal minority of fans are on high, but most are on low and the administration hasn't turned up the heat at all.
The seat's temp is tepid in reality and would need something like a losing season and total disarray heading into next year (coaches infighting, players making publicly negative statements, lots of drama etc.) to get DB to do something.
Gardner justified its existence by mentioning it.
He was answering a question.
Fine, but there are ways to answer without saying those actual words.
It wasn't till I found out that Brandon's contract is through 2017 that I realized we have Hoke pretty much no matter what. Initially I thought he had to have a 9 win season with a win against a rival to not be getting warm and toasty. Now I see that Brandon is as tied to Hoke as Hoke is to Brandon. it would take a monumental break down like a loss to App State or a 5 win season for Hoke to be on the hot seat. Brandon just can't afford to bring in a new coach that would likely be directly tied to his renewal and a huge variable. If Hoke wins 7 or 8, he's safe. There will be another sacrificial lamb (O line coach possibly) to the fanbase by the time 2017 rolls around, it'll be all sunshine and roses or all but over for both.
The only variable in all this is the new President. I don't get the feeling he will delve into the world of sports that much, but I could be wrong. He's only been there a couple weeks now.
So last night Im watching the film Patton, and I see Karl Malden as General Bradley, and thought to myself...I wish Hoke was in shape like he is, like Carr and Bo were and that we had a statuesce coach. I dont like how Hoke is fat. To each his own but he doesn't look the part of the imposing Michigan coach.
and I thought to myself, Rex Qwon Do is right ... you really do have to "learn to discipline your image."
Clearly, we'd be defending B1G champs if Hoke looked like Starla:
the only right answer is to replace Hoke with Pedro
let's just play some football and not worry.
As long as Brady stays north of .500, he'll be here a few more years. It's obvious that Brandon has bought in, and it's obvious that Brandon doesn't let the fans make choices for him. Hoke is feeling pressure to win, but what coach isn't?
So if he's north of .500 by a win or two would you grant him a contract extension after 2016?
To 2015 with head coach Nuss.
hows that even possible? For if they do well, then hoke stays. If they do poorly then Nuss will be associated with it
If the team suceeds, he looks awesome because he saved Michigan's offense and the team did better as a result
If the team fails and (worst case scenario) everyone is let go, he's still a-ok because all he has to say is "I had one season, we all know that's not enough time to turn a team around. Look at what I did at Washington and Alabama" and bam, he's an NFL OC
7-6 this year probably does not get Hoke fired but it makes next year a need to win year. I would say he is on the pre-hot seat. There are win-loss combinations this year that would probably see him get canned. I mean if he went less than .500 this year would you want to keep him? Maybe but that is a lot of faith and goodwill to ask of the program that is paying him Top Ten dollar to be our head football coach and who so far hasn't delivered those results.
This is partly coming from reading that Dave Brandon article yesterday. He just comes off as being hypocritical especially to how he handled the last regime.
With all that said I hope he has a good year this year to put any idea of hot seat to rest since I'm tired of being in transition.
IDK man, 7-6 might just do it. Think about it- that's either 6-6 and a win in a crappy bowl or 7-5 with a loss in a slightly-better-than-crappy bowl.
The schedule this year looks pretty tough b/c the big 3 are all on the road- but realize that M skips Wisco, Iowa AND Neb from the West division this year. The home schedule is infamously turrible.
M should have a floor of 9-3 this year. 8-4 is worst case scenario.
a four legged stool (nice!), pre-hot seat. This is great, valid points all, but I say Hoke will win and will build the program back to prominence. Go Blue
He is safe unless he has another season like last year. If he goes 7-6 with another embarrassing loss in a mediocre now New Years bowl game, he could be in serious trouble. This season he'll have a senior QB, and he's already said he has more depth than he's ever had. Couple a poor season with poor attendance, meaning not over 105,000, Dave Brandon may receive some serious pressure by November to be "looking for" someone else...IE-one of the Harbaugh's. At some point, we need to start beating MSU and OSU, if we lose again, Brady will be 2-6! This program cannot keep saying, "next year will be the year." People talk about 2015 as being the year, but we'll be breaking in a new QB, if this year is like last year, I don't see 2015 being different, Hoke has to win now.
the current media culture (let's call it the Bleacher Report mentality) makes that usage nearly irreversible. Talking heads get that little gleam in their eyes when they use the term, like it's a new toy or gadget that they just invented. The only expression that rivals it's supposed novelty is "quarterback controversy." Both expressions become all-consuming, ensnaring a mess of people into arguments about whether the seat is hot or not hot, or whether it's okay to have two good quarterbacks or whatever.
When a promising team hits the skids like ours did last year (and 2009, 2010), even the dope reporters who can't spell can count - 11-2, 8-5, 7-6 is not a good trend.
Inexperience at key positions and overly complex offensive strategy were the biggest problems last year. Time may fix the first and Hoke's replacement of Borges with Nussmeier may fix the second.
For many reasons:
1) Mattison and Nuss are awesome coordinators
2)Hoke recruits well
3) Hoke presents Michigan the way that the we want him to
4) He's Lloyd (and therefore Bo) approved and backed
5) Former players love him (Tom Brady came back to campus to speak to the players)
6) Aside from Harbaugh (pipe dream), who would replace Hoke that is a significant upgrade? If you present such a man, who would the coordinators be?
All this optimism regarding Nuss comes to fruition....talk about pressure...
Jesus people go back and re-read the Nuss hiring post or the requiem for a Borges thread that Brian wrote. Hoke had a gaping hole on his staff and he FIXED IT - I am optimistic as Hell about this year regardless of the schedule because:
1. Borges is gone & Nuss replaced him
2. We have an excellent SENIOR QB
3. We have an excellent Defensive Coordinator
4. We are in year 4 of excellent recruiting
I've said and will continue to say this year ends up 10-3 with Michigan a pre-season top 10 pick next year. We are all going to be sad Panda's at the losses but damn it 10-3 is not going to get Hoke fired nor should it. Funk is a legitimate question mark but I believe the absence of Borges is going to make everybody on the staff (Hoke & Funk included) look a hell of lot better.
I wish this stupid "hot seat" crap would go away. It serves no purpose other than to fuel the negative recruiters against our team with ammo.
No hot seat for Hoke, unless the absolute worst happens; they win only 3-4 games and the team quits on him.
But, most indications point to most if not all the players loving Hoke and the coaching staff. The program was bogged down in a funk, no momentum, no energy. They have changed things up by replacing Borges (*who I feel may have had a negative impact), switched up the coaching duties. All attempts to jumpstart the team.
I think it will work and if they get something figured out regarding the offensive line, this could easily be a 10 win team. Right now, July 29th, they have a better roster than almost every team they will face during the regular season.
Just because Brandon doesn't come our and say Hoke is on the hot seat doesn't mean he isn't. An AD would never say that because it affects recruiting.
If we go 8-4, 9-3 and lose to OSU and MSU, AND someone like Jim orJohn Harbaugh, or some other no brainer, is available, then of course we'd be fools to not hire them. Hoke's at the point where only a clear upgrade would be worth changing coaches (assuming he continues his trend of being a .540% winning coach).
We're at the point where the next hire has to be the perfect one. Here's hoping that means we're just bumping up Nuss in a few years after Hoke has a successful run, but we can't do what we did with Rich Rod and just start making changes to make a change.
It's just a worn-out line that untalent media hacks use to push their HOT SPROTS TAEKS and pretend that the endless stream of inane bullshit oozing from their mouths isn't totally worthless.
I'm rather enjoying the media counting us out this year, all the hot seat idle speculation, etc. I think we're going to surprise some people and make some "experts" feel pretty silly at the end of the season. I'm sure it hasn't gone unnoticed in the team either. A little extra motivation and a chip on the shoulder never hurts.
Honest question - Outside of offensive line (2 NFL tackles), is there a position group that people feel is going to go backward in 2014?
Maybe I'm underestimating the loss of guys like Gallon, Gibbons (still a good kicker, regardless of his off-field problems), and Washington, but I just really don't see a group outside of the mess/question mark of offensive line that gets worse next season. The team is certainly losing some starters and depth, but they're adding so much and should improve so much given how many guys are back.
Even look at special teams, where Wile is back and Hagerup will be playing again. Again, off-field issues excluded, Gibbons was a pretty good kicker, or at least pretty consistent, but you're returning a good kicker with experience and adding a potential All-B1G type punter.
Maybe I've moved too far into the optimism part of the summer, but I'm just finding it hard to see these team move backward in terms of performance and talent. The schedule will be tough, but I think there's a lot to say this team will be better.
And even on the offensive line, I can't see us getting any worse. What would worse look like? Will our two tackles in 2014 be inferior to the two tackles last year? Yes. But for overall O-Line performance, there's no direction to go but up. I'm optimistic that the O-Line will turn in at least a below average performance this year, which is a marked improvement from last year. A below average O-Line last year would have enabled us to beat PSU, maybe one other game, and win with more breathing room against Akron and U Conn. You take that team and improve in other areas, and 10 wins is not an unrealistic result.
Ok so here is my question: is 9-3 with losses to ND, MSU, and Ohio acceptable? Yes it is a better record but Michigan needs to make progress against their rivals. I am sick of losing to Staee.
Yes. As long as we are competitive in those three games. Sure, it would suck to lose all three, but you have to look at the whole body of work. 10-3 would mean the team is playing better, talent is getting developed, and we can continue to recruit that level of talent. The expectation being that by 2015 we will go back to being up there with Ohio and superior to Sparty. After showing that improvement, would you really want to start over again with a new coach? That would be insane.
Gone Too Soon
I define "hot seat" as:
1. The fans are getting restless
2. There is a W-L record for the upcoming year that would get the coach fired, and you don't have to squint very hard to see that record materializing.
"Check" and "check' for Hoke. If he doesn't win big this year, he has got to show encouraging signs that big wins are coming in future years.
All this talk about the "hot seat" -- whether from the media or the fan base -- is illustrative of a complete lack of perspective and totally unrealistic expectations based upon the reality of Michigan's roster.
Pundits who purport to know CFB should know how the cycles play out, and how many times when a program has a hicup the results of that spasm aren't felt until several years down the road.
I've said this many times and my resolve in my position has only strengthened over time. Michigan's pipeline was broken, or at least reduced to a trickle, and its facilities were substantially subpar relative to those of its biggest rivals. The recruiting cycle that is the lifes blood of a program BROKE DOWN -- most noteably in the OL -- and low and behold Michigan saw its worst OL play ever 4 years after the 2010 recruiting class debacle. While programs like Wisconsin and Alabama are flipping over OLinemen like shark teeth, Michigan was forced to start true freshmen, walk-ons, and guys who had not come up within a culture of a "wait your turn" development cycle -- and it showed.
If your espousing that Hoke's job is in jeopardy and you DO NOT mention this, IMO, you're not giving the discussion it's full due.
These are factors that are BEYOND the control of the current coaching staff. They've been tasked with doing what they can while reestablishing the pipeline -- which they have. I think last season started with these issues firmly within the mind of the coaching staff, but as soon as the OL was exposed, Borges basically flailed about trying to find something, anything, that would work, and it actually made things WORSE -- which is why he was let go. Of course, all this falls on the desk of the head coach. But, again, if you're constantly dismissing the reasons why things are happening as "excuses" and continually looking for someone else to come in and save the day, you run the risk of finding out the hard way that it wasn't, in fact, the former coach's shortcomings, but the short comings of the roster that was the major factor. Unfortunately, by that time, it's too late and your roster could potentially go to shit again and the whole shit storm starts all over.
so if you want to place blame where blame is due, you'll have to go back a bit farther than the transition from '07 to ''08. You can honestly state we needed more OLmen, but decisions have to be made at some point and it's difficult to maintain the consistency on one side of the ball if you are tasked with almost completely rebuilding the defensive roster at the same time. Just as Brady has had to spend an unusual number of ships on the offensive side of the ball, RR had to use far, far more ships on the D side just to get the numbers close to what they're supposed to be on. It is difficult to play in this league when your defensive roster is less than 50% capacity. I don't know why people are so eager to give LC a pass on the bullshit he pulled his last two, three years in coaching, especially when '07 proved that '06 was a result of '02, '03 recruiting. After that, with the English/Hermanns fiasco as the best example, it was a given that he was just trying to finish up his time extending forth as little as possible in terms of effort. Actually, allowing DeBord to use the offense he used in the bowl game following the '07 season was his best work in his final three year period.
Just as I am not comfortable dumping on the man in charge, I think we should let those that no longer have a say in UM sports actually enjoy that status. So why so quick to jump to the defense of RR? For that very reason, coupled with the fact that truth should always play a role, however inconvenient for those that don't want to hear it.
That is why I think Brandon should let BH do his job and not even worry about what temperature his ass is until his contract is about to expire. It's obvious he's building this team based on the type of athlete he wants to see on the field. No, it hasn't been proven whether he can lead once he collects the other pieces of his grand scheme, but it does bother me a bit that Brandon's ego is so large that he might not allow Brady to finish what he started. He has shown a tendency to become a bit paranoid of how people may judge him, as if that's part of his job description. It's my guess that Hoke will answer his critics this year and then he'll probably not be bothered for awhile. As he said, "8-4 sucks" and once he hits the double-digit mark in Ws with his players, even if it's in the manner LC seemed to favor, in the bowl game, Brady's seat will become climate controlled at a comfortable level and then we can discuss restocking every off season and that, my firends, is actually the Michigan way.
The thing about using the youth & recruiting excuses is that the coach has to show progress towards fixing those probelms. We have seen examples in our football program of young players getting better as the year went on, but last year's O-line reminded me of a Brian Ellerbe basketball team that would start off shaky and then just tank worse and worse as the year went along. The same goes with RichRod's defenses. They started off bad and ended terrible. On the recruiting front, Hoke has restored the program to where it needs to be, but the development side has been very poor so far. That includes not just last year's young guy, but the disappointing crop of seniors that graduated after 2012. I don't think that anyone's denying that it would be nice to have a couple of 4* fifth year seniors available to start this year, but has Darrell Funk shown any evidence that he could develop those guys the way that we need them? We need to see that evidence this year, along with progress from the young stud recruits on the other side of the ball. If the sophomores on the O-line don't look considerably better than they did as freshmen, then at least Funk has to go too.
"The thing about using the youth & recruiting excuses is that the coach has to show progress towards fixing those probelms."
I agree 100% Hannibal. However, I would phase your point a bit differently. I would say that in an ideal world, the coach would show progress towards fixing those problems. Unfortunately, sometimes that is not possible as the causes of those problems are just too much to overcome. To me, it seemed that the main guy who should (I hate using tha word) have effectuated progress might very well have been making matters worse, and he's no longer with the program. I posted about Borges, Funk, and the OL specifically above.
"On the recruiting front, Hoke has restored the program to where it needs to be, but the development side has been very poor so far. That includes not just last year's young guy, but the disappointing crop of seniors that graduated after 2012."
I don't know if one can genuinely make that assessment of the young players just yet -- I think we'll know a lot more after this season. But, in regards to the 2012 senior class, they were few in number and, IMO, relatively low in talent -- remember who recruited them. I respect them for what they gave to the university and the program, but they personify what I've been saying for a while now, the program was in a very low state in terms of both quantity and quality.
"has Darrell Funk shown any evidence that he could develop those guys the way that we need them?"
Again, I think we'll see more during this season. But to answer specifically, yes, I think Funk has shown he can develop OLinemen. Watch the results of players pressed into service too soon and making that the benchmark of a coach's ability a bit unfair. I thought he did a very nice job with Molk, Schofield, Huyge, and perhaps a few others.
Nice to see you still toeing the party line. I think most of the reasonable posters here understand that poor recruiting, player development, attrition, and all of the other problems michigan encountered during Carr's last few years through RichRod's take some time to fix. We can agree on that much, but your absolute and unquestioning support of Hoke and staff is a little over the top given what we've seen the last few years.
Is this 'hot seat' talk pointless and counter-productive? Sure, but it's hard to take your opinion all that seriously when after multiple games last year you were guaranteeing that the entire staff, Borges included, would be back for 2014. You don't seem to grasp the fact that many reasonable people are getting fed up with this team's lack of progress.
If we see another 5 loss season, the negativity might reach toxic levels, and at that point, all bets are off.
I was wrong about Borges, and admitted such. Further, after I read the post-mortem after his departure, it was clear that he had a lot of trouble dealing with the challenges of the roster.
I said this to you before DB (and I think you threatened me), I do not have an unquestioning support for Hoke. I have an unquestioning support for Michigan. I too am "fed up" with the lack of progress that Michigan has shown. However, I've been fed up since 2005, and thus have a different perspective on why things aren't progressing as quickly as we all would like. To me, the struggles are indicative of from whence the program is coming. To you (seemingly) and others, it's indicative of inability on the part of the coaching staff. Personally, I feel that I am taking a holistic view of the issues -- I am trying to view everything together -- while you're looking at them like you can simply drug and cut them out and everything will be better. While not wanting to start a holistic vs. western medicine debate, I am reluctant let to people whom I feel are shortsighted and impatient, and thus have irrational opinions, poison and mutilate the program I love because they think it will work.
It's one thing to have opinions, but you throw around your beliefs and treat them as indisputable truths. Then you start calling people names when they don't agree with you.
Here's the thing, almost everyone on this board cares about michigan, and the football team, as much as you or I. Some people have seen enough to believe that Hoke can't get us to where we need to be. I'm not quite there but I'm pretty close. That doesn't make me less of a fan or supporter of the university than you. I get your point that coaches need time to build a program, but assuming that Hoke isn't the guy who can fix this mess, wouldn't it be better to cut ties sooner rather than later?
But I think he will. In his most important assisngment, he nabbed Mattison, a guy I don't know if he would have been able to had it not been for his daughter going to school here. Worked out nice for him there too as a bonus on his salary, although I never even thought of that angl before. Damn, he's done nice by his kids, MI, ND, MI. No wondering he's so good, always thinking.
I think he's got everything he needs to get the job done now. His choice of OC is going to cut down on the need for these kids to overthink on the line and go back to what thy were recruited for, play football and have fun. He's got the talent. In fact the only two non-proven are he and Funk, and as I'v said, judging by Nuss and Mattison's salaries, he's apparently received the green light from Brandon on who he could hire, so I think he has total faith in him.
Ideally, we'd have RR on offense, Mattison on defense and Brady as recruiting coordinator. But seeing that won't happen, I think your support will prove to be well placed. I think our return starts this season and will just grow from there. He really does have himself surrounded by some of the top in his profession, read..............recruiting.
Where did I call people who disagree with me names?
To me, my opinions are indisputable truths. Should I state them with less conviction simply to keep you from feeling inadequate? If you take issue with a point or stance I take, by all means state your case. But, don't expect me to capitulate, debating is too much fun.
It's the assumption with which I take exception DB. I feel that many fans, as you aptly point out, feel that Hoke isn't up to the task. To me, however, I think the assumption is premature, based upon emotion and unreasonable expectations given the recent past. You point to all the things he's not done, while I point to the limitations on his ability to perform. I think, as I've said, that those limiting factors are enough to make even a great coach look less than stellar. So if we just assume he's the wrong guy, and cut ties, and we're wrong, what then? What if Michigan starts to chase the dragon and can never be caught.
I know we all love Michigan. That's why I love coming in here to talk about it so much. I just think that impatience and a "throw away" mentality has infected our society and I don't want it to consume Michigan. We'll know a lot after this season. Personally I think Hoke's going to look really really good, as will silence a lot of the detractors.
Wow, where to begin? You called people names after multiple games last year during your misguided pro-Borges tirades. And who said anything about feeling inadequate? You make ridiculous statements that make you come off as a pompous douche, and that makes me want to argue with you. That's about the extent of it.
As far as your last paragraph, I can get on board with that. I'm trying to not get overly optimistic, but Nuss replacing Borges should go a long way towards improving the team. I'm definitely hoping you're right, for what it's worth.
I don't recall calling anyone names -- but I guess you're allowed to huh?
I make you argue with me? How? By stating my opinions? Which statements do you find ridiculous? If I express them as the reality as I see it that makes me a douche? How should I express them, since you seem to be the self appointed judge of such things. I'm glad you want to argue with me, that's a significant portion of the utility of message boards. Seems to me that most people state their view if things. Why am I a douche for doing so? Is it my word choices? It befuddles me that I get your hackles up so powerfully. I mean you really hate me don't you? All because I hav strong convictions and am willing to express them.
I think you just want to win, but you can't beat me. I run mental and linguistic circles around your infantile mind like the kid that could just juke everybody with Bo Jackson on TechmoBowl, and it infuriates you. Wait, is this that douche thing again? Sorry. I'll let you win next time. Just hit the reset button.
While programs like Wisconsin and Alabama are flipping over OLinemen like shark teeth, Michigan was forced to start true freshmen, walk-ons, and guys who had not come up within a culture of a "wait your turn" development cycle -- and it showed.
While I generally agree - even for the quality of those "true freshmen, walk-ons, and guys who had not come up within a culture of a "wait your turn" development cycle" they weren't acceptable. It's one thing to get pushed around by Ohios State. It's a whole other ball of wax to get pushed around by Akron.
These are factors that are BEYOND the control of the current coaching staff.
I diagree. They were CHALLENGES to the current staff - but the failure to prepare those freshmen/walkons adequately and the failure to attract qualified transfer (either Juco or Grad transfer) offensive lineman were not beyond the control of the coahing staff.
"the failure to prepare those freshmen/walkons adequately and the failure to attract qualified transfer (either Juco or Grad transfer) offensive lineman were not beyond the control of the coahing staff."
This wins the "Asinine Statement of the Day Award."
So what I hear you saying (please correct me if I am wrong) is that coaches are failures if they're unable to get true freshmen OLinemen, whose well known developmental cycle is usually a minimum of three years, prepared. Further, that their inability to coerce an OLine transfer or JuCo guy to come in and save the day is another strike against them?
Ok dude, if you say so.
I guess you don't get out on the internet much...
What point do you disagree with?
1) Freshmen/Walkon offensive lineman at Michigan should not be dominated by Akron and the like.
It is understandable to get manhandled by OSU/MSU due to youth. It is inexcusable for 2 seniors, 2 RS SO's, and a 5 star "college ready" RS FR to get manhandled by Akron.
Michigan shouldn't get manhandled by Akron starting 5 true freshmen scholarship OL.
2) It is the coaches duty to adequately fill the roster, using recruiting including transfers to do so.
Did the coaches not know the offensive line cupboard was bare? Did the coaches not only get 2 OL out of 20 recruits in their first recruiting class? Are the coaches not allowed to recruit Juco/Grad transfer offensive lineman?
Michigan's OLine wasn't "manhandled" by Akron. They weren't great, but Michigan ran for 5.53 yards/carry against Akron. That was the highest yards/carry average Akron allowed to any team all season, and they played #10 UCF. Also, Michigan also only averaged over 5 yards/carry two times, against CMU and Akron. If you want to talk about manhandling, talk MSU, or Nebraska, or Iowa, or running into Penn State's 4 DT defensive line.
says it well I think.
I agree with what seems to be the consensus from other posters that the idea that Hoke is on a hot seat is quite ridiculous. Otoh, I think too many here seem willing to let Hoke off the hook for last season's woes by blaming almost all the problems on Al Borges.
Now, there's not much anyone could do about how young the team was. However, Hoke is the head coach and he's just as much responsible for the offense, defense, and special teams as anyone else, and in some ways bears more responsibility. My one fear about Hoke has nothing to do with wearing or not headsets and not being intimately involved in playcalling (and again, I do not think he's on a hot seat at all), but it has to do with what seems to be his overall philosophy of winning by chewing up clock and just out-muscling opponents at the line of scrimmage. It seems like when Borges was given the green light to move the ball and score as quickly as possible, good things happened, but most of the season was spent trying to hold onto the ball as long as possible on offense and being paranoid about giving up the big play on defense. I would be surprised if those approaches were solely or even mostly from the coordinators instead of from the head coach.
is hot? and given how Brady dresses in cold weather I'm sure he's immune to heat as well. or maybe he'll start wearing a parka before going to short sleeves in October.
Ranking all FBS head coaches, is Brady Hoke in the top 25?
Seriously though, tough question. Hard to be objective when answering this. I think there are probably a good 20 or so coaches I would rather have over Hoke. I guess that puts him on the cusp of a top 25 coach.
To be clear, I don't want to fire him this year (unless there is a meltdown) - he deserves his 5 years.
One way I like to look at this is think about what other schools would rather have Hoke over what they currently have. I understand there are factors, such as fit, that look beyond the pure performance aspect, but looking at it this way helps you get to an "objective" equilbrium on his overall ranking.
I fully agree with the OP, and think this hot seat nonsense is ridiculously overblown. Obviously, in the 4th year, expectations are greater. And obviously the buck stops with Hoke. And we expect Michigan to compete for the Big 10 Championship, as Hoke does himself.
But I really believe that blame can be placed on the recruiting cupboard being rather bare under the preceding coach, both Carr & RR. RR was hurt by both the pipeline not being full, and by recruiting for a different stype of game.
Hoke has been hurt in multiple ways.
- First, RR recruited a very different style of player, looking for small and shifty dudes for the spread game, reaching out to a different kind of player.
- Second, RR was particularly bad in recruiting for the OL, and this is the single biggest factor.
- Third, the defense was atrocious under RR, with terrible defensive coordinators. No-one on defense in their right mind would come to Michigan.
- Hoke coming in only in mid-January completely hamstrung him with the first recruiting class. I do not blame that on Hoke.
Starting in 2015, Michigan should have both depth and experienced upper-classman in both the OL and DL. I can't remember when or where, but the mathlete or someone like him (Seth?) have done extensive analysis looking at who can come in and succeed immediately as a freshman. The numbers of true freshmen (even redshirt freshmen) starters who are solid is particularly bad on the OL, DL, and at QB.
You can blame Dave Brandon for many things. However, I strongly believe that he will give Hoke the time he needs to succeed. If Hoke just has a mediocre season, that will buy him next year, when he'd be on the hot seat. My personal belief is that the record is 9 - 3 this year. Not satisfactory, but certainly not some stupid "Hot Seat."