well that's just, like, your opinion, man
Long Dave Brandon Interview in Detroit News
Wojo hit all the hot topics. I had a chance to personally ask DB about a couple of these topics myself this summer and he gave the exact same answers. As a matter of fact, he had some very strong opinions for the B1G with regard to playing at East Lansing two years in a row. He does a very good job of raising money for all of our facility upgrades. Do I agree with everything? No, but I am very happy to have him over Bill Martin. CFB is changing and we need to adapt.
Because of Bill Martin you have a renovated football and basketball arena. Not to mention John Belein
Have you seen what Coach Rodriguez has done at ARIZONA? Something tells me it isn't all Coach Rodriguez's fault it didn't work out here... in fact, I lay a minority of the blame at his feet.
Then you don't know what you're talking about.
I just prefer DB ove Bill. I like the direction of the Athletic Dept.
I do get tired of the hot seat talk. I can't imagine doing another coaching overhaul would be the right move. Hoke is gathering the pieces. If in 2-3 years Michigan isn't where it should be, his recruiting will have a full stable ready. He needs a chance to play with an experienced O-line and depth at other positions.
While I agree Hoke needs to be afforded more opportunity, his predecessor should have been given the same patience and support.
the major difference was the almighty dollar. If the donors are not "all-in" and you have some portion of the Alumni and fan base against him he was not going to be afforded the same opportunity. The general feeling around the program was described as disconnected, divided, and struggling. Oh well, we have beaten that horse to death. I am moving forward.
When you've won 6 conference games in 3 years, got investigated for breaking rules, AND have the worst defense in 120 years of football, you don't deserve anything.
At least RR has won a conference title
The fuck? Hoke won one too. What's your point?
RR finished tied for NINTH, TENTH, and SEVENTH while at Michigan.
But has Hoke ever won a conference title as a head coach? A quick wiki search says no.
My quicky Wiki search showed him with a 1st place MAC finish. I hastily posted my reply without considering a lost championship game. +1 for more thorough research than me, but I stand by my point.
that was just the division actually, got handled in conference title game.
When the hell do I get my Big Ten Champions shirt then? Hoke has had one fluke good year with Coach Rodriguez's players and managed to shit the bed since then. Ooooohhh recruiting rankings! Tell me when that matters in November and December. Michigan couldn't rush the ball forward for TWO STRAIGHT WEEKS and nearly lost to what, three MACish teams in the first weeks of the season?
Simply being a "Michigan Man" (not even a damn graduate, just being a position coach for a few years doesn't earn you that title in my book) does not buy you unlimited time. You know what other alumni don't donate money? Ones who see the Michigan brand and tradition driven into the fucking ground by Dave Brandon and his incompetent hires.
Ohio State got the University of Florida's old coach. We got San Diego State's. That should tell you enough about this program's problems. Dave Brandon and Brady Hoke have watched this team drop from a 1b level program, to a 2b level program. We got our asses handed to us on a national stage by a mediocre Big 12 team in Kansas State. Didn't even look like we wanted to be there. Alumna like me who pay big money to go see a bowl game don't donate to programs who look like they just want to go home. Great job Coach Hoke, you've really earned your top-5 coaching salary.
Did a RichRod argument just break out??!? What year is this???
from now to eternity. Please let's just move on...
While I get it is fun to say RichRod's defense was the worst in 120 years, his offense put up more then negative 48 yards rushing. Every coach has their weaknesses, I'm just glad we learned from the RichRod hire and can give Hoke some time to correct his.
Does anyone think Nuss might be a legitimate option for the next HC (2-3 seasons down the road, I would say) if Hoke wouldn't work out?
If Hoke loses his job, it's most likely due to a shitty offense. Why would you promote the offensive coordinator to head coach if his offense sucks?
For a minute, I thought you were listing Hoke's stats. Right up until I got to the worst defense in 120 years part. Worst rushing offense in 120 years is Hoke's calling card.
Let's try a zone guru. Oh, he's not a good ol' boy. Not acceptable. Let's go back to man blocking. Oh, we don't have the recruiting profile for that anymore and in-state demographics don't favor building a beefcake OL like Wisconsin without even trying too hard. Let's go back to zone after 3 years of moving from zone to man blocking.
Thanks, old rich white men. Thanks a lot.
"Thanks, old rich white men. Thanks a lot." Hey. I'll take back Coach Carr any day.
And let's not let Mary Sue Coleman escape without taking her share of the last decade's fiasco.
But don't pretend like the hard-liners would never cut off their nose to spite their face ten times out of ten.
I do believe that Brandon is being truthful when he says that Hoke's job is safe right now, I think it is foolish to think that this is not a make or break year for Hoke on certain levels. I think he would all out of excuses by next year, not this year, but he needs to clean some things up before the AD really has no way to defend the extension of his tenure. His team did not perform last year, and in some cases looked bordering on uncoached and incompetent. You combine that with certain off the field miscues in terms of the handling of certain events and the choices made by his players, and you have a combination of failures that can prematurely end a coach's stay with a particular program, especially one under a constant unrelenting microscope.
We are getting the horses again in recruiting. This program is about a year away from being a very, very desirable head coaching assignment once again. That seat is going to get uncomfortably warm if this season does not plant the seeds for high level success in the very near future.
Hoke is in year 4 of 5. We have not heard anything about an extension to his contract. If DB and the administration was completely confident they would be talking about a contract extension to provide security and that translates into recruiting kids for the future. Recruits want to know if the coach will be there long term. I think DB is taking a wait and see approach this year. My sense is that 7-6 will be unacceptable. What the magic number is for Hoke is up to the decision makers.
with a win over OSU or MSU would go a long way toward that extension. Nobody is expecting the world. He needs to deliver the bottom line though or I don't think any extension is likely.
I'm not saying 8-4 gets him fired, it doesn't, but I find it really odd (actually sad for the state of UM football) that you're using 8-4 as the hurdle towards and extension, like that's some great achievement. That something an Illinois fan should be saying.
not taking into account the power shift that has occurred in the BIG over the last ten years. There are three, arguably four, more established programs than Michigan in the conference right now. And we go to Notre Dame, to East Lansing, and to Columbus. If we had those 3 games at home my bottom line may be different, but those are 3 of the most difficult places to win in all of college football my friend. This year, 8-4 and a Capital One/Outback bowl will buy him some time, probably not an extension, but some breathing room. 2015 would be the year to do damage (if Sugar Shane can sling like it looked like he could against KSU)
Staee beat fucking Stanford in the Rose Bowl last year. Ohio can compete with any team in the country. These teams do not "blow." Get serious. This is not the toughest conference in the country but it isn't complete bullshit either.
Man, now I am the one defending Hoke when I said he should be on the hotseat to a certain degree. No, we are not going to win a national championship next year, let's just get that settled and got on with things.
Hoke pretty much has to be extended after this year if he's not going to be fired. Coaches almost never go into the last year of a contract without an extension. It hurts recruiting too much.
First of all, Hoke's deal is for six years. An extension isn't an issue until after 2015--and even then, not really. They could just tack on another year or two, which keeps him out of his last year while avoiding a long-term commitment.
The contract won't force Michigan to do or not do anything. It's just a matter of performance.
Garbage. The B1G has been as weak as it has ever been in history in the last three years, and Michigan hasn't even made a championship game. That is Michigan failing, not the conference excelling.
Michigan and OSU traditionally have always been the conference powers. Sure, a Wisconsin or an Iowa or PSU or a State will develop good teams that compete at the top too, but not every year. Michigan is supposed to be there every year.
A major reason (perhaps the biggest one) that the Big Ten has had such a bad run is that Michigan has not held up our end of the deal.
8-4 with losses to ND, MSU, and OSU is unacceptable. I don't care whether they're on the road or not; Michigan needs to win. Beating OSU once in 11 years is not enough. Beating MSU once in 7 years is not enough. And if the season goes like you say, you won't think so either after Michigan loses to a team it should beat and after it is embarrassed by MSU again or OSU again.
but it has not been Hoke not living up to his end of the deal for the last 10 years. He has been here 3. That is the conversation, what does Hoke need to do. Yeah, Michigan needs to do a hell of a lot better than 8-4 to be Michigan, but the question is what does Hoke need to do in terms of job security. If he goes 8-4 this year, with a victory against Notre Dame or Michigan Staee or Ohio, I think he will probably get extended or that he is at a minimum safe for another year.
1. Originally the proposition was 8-4, losing to all three teams, job still safe. I don't agree with that.
2. The Notre Dame game actually not that important this year, because it will either be a negative blip on a decent B1G record that would save his job anyway, or a meaningless plus on a lousy B1G season (like last year) that will still have the wolves howling for his dismissal.
3. If he loses four games but wins at MSU or OSU he probably keeps his job, but remember that by that point he will have a lot of losses and fans will be upset and he may be coaching for his job, not a great situation. But if he beats one do them he ought to have at most three other losses; more than that would worry me. These are regular season records, as I think he should not have his job at stake in a bowl game; we've been there before.
with a win at Notre Dame in primetime in the "show me" game of the series + "respectable losses" (if there is such a thing) to MSU and OSU + New Years Day bowl win = his job is 100% safe for another year.
How can the fanbase possibly accept two non-rivalry losses? What are they? Do they drop games at Northwestern and Maryland, continuing a trend of horrible play on the road? Do they loss the marquee home game do the year, at night to ascendant Penn State? A fluke non-conference loss to Utah? A dud against Minnesota that ends with the team booed off of their own field?
Do you know how much the fanbase will melt down after any of these losses? A lot. A home loss of any kind completely cancels out any good feelings from the Notre Dame game. So, really, do non-rivalry road losses. 9-3 is the pivot point because Michigan fans believe Michigan OUGHT to win all the games except those road rivalry games which are very losable. So any loss that isn't in South Bend, East Lansing, or Columbus is unacceptable because it would be in a game fans believe Michigan should win if it is developing as it should.
I would hate 9-3, but at the very least I know that beating MSU or OSU would be tough for anyone; losing to a lesser team will result in madness.
once said, "he just convinced me, give me my dollar back." 9-3 with ND win and State/OSU losses and he does keep his job, but you are right, 8-4 may not do it considering what the other losses would have to be.
Pretty fucking sad if 8-4 saves Hoke's job.
Or maybe you're right, a team of primarily sophomores on offense should be expected to win 75% of its games. Because that happens a lot.
Stop with this "need more time" crap. This is Michigan. You're not given 8 years to win. People were easy to give Hoke credit for the 2011 season. Funny how they don't give it to RR. I personally hope Flounder fails this year but that's just me
that almost got you killed in Germany.
Give it up.
And for those that think no one wants to see Michigan fail, we have Clark to prove that some do hope for failure this year.
But then he also gets blamed for no upper classmen two years on a row.
It's just you. In fact, I am thinking a lot of your life problems probably are "just you."
...And my 80's-themed avatar can beat up your 80's-themed avatar. See, anyone can be an internet tough guy.
with a 2nd year starting 5th year senior QB, with a talented group of recievers, a large group of talented RBs, a large group of talented OL (young I will give you that), and a very telented and veteren defense to win 75% of their games. Actually higher. If Michigan is 9-3 with 3 losses to ND, MSU, and OSU, I will not be happy, as it does not meet the Michigan Metric of winning the BIG. Hoke set this standard his first year when he turned around a team to be 11-2 yet didn't win the BIG and was in his mind a dissapointment.
Michigan has high standards and should have high standards. And, outside the OL, I don't see any position group on the team that can't get us a BIG chamionship. The Coaches are surely aware of this, and I'm sure are taking the steps to get this group where they need to be to compete.
I pretty much agree here. I should note that the coaches knew the OL was a problem last year, too, though.
I will not be happy with rivalry losses, but I think the ND game is pretty much equal with others: if Michigan beats them but loses to, say Northwestern, it will be just as bad and just as frustrating. The key is that the third loss will magnify the pain of the two big losses in this hypothetical scenario. Win ten games and lose only those two (to probably top ten teams) and I think most fans will be frustrated but generally pleased with the progress. More losses would suggest insufficient growth.
Why does Hoke get that right but not RR? When RR said the defense was young all the time he got ripped to shreds around here.
It is valid to suggest that RR and Hoke were not treated equally by people in the program. But if you think Hoke hasn't been ripped to shreds on these boards you haven't been watching closely.
I was as happy and hopeful about the Rodriguez hire as anybody, but firing him after his third season was the right decision.
His predecessor lost his last three games (after three years at the helm) by 20, 30 and 38. He had to go.
Goddamn right. Anyone who clings to "RR needed more time" should have your post permanently attached to their signature, along with "6 conference wins in 3 years"
turn things around under other circumstances. With the toxic atmosphere around Michigan at the time, it never would have worked. Yes, I wish he was given more support initially, but it didn't happen and more time wasn't going to change it.
We can watch Arizona and get an opinion if his system could work. What we can't do is go back and give RR a chance at Michigan. Brady Hoke shouldn't be penalized because of what happened to RR unless you want to totally destroy Michigan football. Hoke has had good recruiting classes and deserves time to develop the talent he has brought in. Rich Rod isn't a factor in that. Bringing up RR doesn't help show support for Hoke.
There is always attrition when coaching staffs change. Hoke did very well in keeping the remaining players,but it's very likely that there will be roster will be hurt if Hoke left. He is very popular with the players. I also think there are a lot of schools who would be looking for a coach that can recruit like him and this staff. Don't think recruiting wouldn't be hurt going forward if the staff is at another school and very possibly another B1G school.
Part of the difference between Rodriguez and Hoke, though, is just how bad the program was under Rodriguez. His last (and best) team barely managed a 7-5 record, their closest loss was by 10 points. And as we have discussed a lot recently, his recruiting was pretty abysmal, and the program is still suffering for it. At the time, a lot of people (myself included) saw the incremental increase in wins every season and thought he deserved more time, but with some added hindsight, it should be clear that the program was in even worse shape than I think a lot of us realized.
Conversely: Hoke has been gangbusters at recruiting (at least on paper). His 7-5 season (his worst) was not as bad as Rodriguez's 7-5 (his best). Plus, Hoke has already shown his willingness to address his albatross: firing Borges to fix his horrible offense, as opposed to Rodriguez's downward trending defensive debacles.
You said it perfectly. RR never made adjustments defensively and was very unorganized on game day.
Do you read what you write?
nail meet head
Overall I like your comment. The defense in that era along with a "fancy offense" that did cool things against weak to average teams than got steamrolled by nearly every competent defense was bad. So even RR's strong point (offense) was not a good thing once the competition came around. That surprised me - because his WVU offenses were pretty spectacular. That said RR never had a RB like he had at his height at WVU here - if you put an elite RB behind a Denard it would have been a lot more interesting offense.
Not a RR fanboy but I'd like to point out IMOo Hoke is afforded MANY advantages RR did not get; especially in budget. He is walking around with 2 coordinators making close to a million each. RR couldnt get the budget to sign an average market rate DC. How would RR done if he was afforded a million to hire coordinators? (well he didnt need one offensively but you get the point) That was unfair to him.
Your most important comment was about recruiting. RR laid the seeds for ANY coach's demise in 2012-2013. The OL in 2012 had 2 very good players and 3 meh upperclassmen and then 2013 was just horrid due to things like recruiting 5 WRs in 1 class and 2 OL. But if Lombardi had been coaching those issues would be there. That said even with those disadvantages I think an elite coach finds a way to win more in 2013 and make the wins we did have (Akron, UConn, Northwestern) not look so bad. And the awful non competitive performance at KSU would not have happened.
Earlier up the thread I do want to say the "8-4 is cool" ethos around here is troubling. I hope that is a 1 year situation due to the youth on offense and not people's expectations. Our friends in EL have put together 3 years out of 4 of 11+ wins. Double digit wins should be an expectation from 2015 forward with the type of talent coming in and the relative weakness of the Big 10. In any year you are going to play 2 bottom dwellars in the Big 10 and 3 bad to average non conf teams so that is 5 wins a year. Getting to 10 wins then requires a 5-3 record against teams with a heartbeat. If you cannot do that with the talent coming in, brand, facilities, salaries of your coordinators etc you dont deserve to be coach at UM long term. Go 5-3 or 6-2 annually versus teams with a heartbeat ... this is Michigan fergodsakes. And yes i get some years there will be a major injury or just a bad season but double digit win seasons should be the floor for a program of this caliber spending this type of money on the program.
Very well said.
So what? That's over and done with.
The difference as far asI can tell was that RR lost his team prior to the bowl game. While Hoke has had some lackluster seasons, he still has the support of his team.
Is this the Monday drinking thread?
True. Depressing. Everyone is making good points, but horse is still dead. No need to beat the poor thing. (where's the guy where the horse beating is his avatar? we need him....)
Good article, there's a few quotes in there that I'm sure will bring out the anti-Dave crowd (almost everyone here). While I don't agree with everything he does, I appreciate his frankness here.
"Almost everyone here"? From someone who wants to see Dave gone, I have gotten the opposite impression from the boards, as it appears it's the pro-DB crowd negging and responding to the anti-Dave'rs out there. This thread alone, with 150 responses, is from just a couple weeks ago: http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/dave-brandon-appreciation-thread But that's just my opinion, man.
"20-30% of the fanbase" getting upset at his decisions seems low... Virtually every fan I know talks about how it feels too gimmicky these days at the stadium. Heck, I was at a Tigers game the other night and overheard two separate conversations about it without provocation.
I read it more along the lines that no matter what decision he makes, 20-30% of the fanbase will hate it automatically. The Bando's and Professor X's of the world, then obviously whoever is adversely affected by the decision.
That's true but as far as in game atmosphere currently it's gotta be significantly over 30%
This may have been covered in past threads, but I can't help but think as long as Brandon is AD, Hoke will get at least 5 years. The main differences between this coaching staff and the last coaching staff is that Brandon inherited RR, while he personally interviewed and made the decision to hire Hoke. That goes a long way. To fire Hoke before the traditional 5 years expires amounts to an implied admission of making a wrong decision - something I am not so sure Brandon is willing to make yet. In my opinion, the only way Hoke does not get a fifth year is if Schlissel ousts Brandon, which likely won't happen. All this talk about a win threshold this year for Hoke seems to miss that point.
He needs to stop saying that we're the "winningest program in the history of college football". Notre Dame has a higher percentage due to playing fewer games. This burns my soul, but that's what we get for the last 7 years of "This is Michigan".
Also, did anyone else think, "uh-oh", or "try winning" when reading this quote regarding the fireworks vote:
"We’ll figure out other ways to create excitement"
You're right about the percentage thing. That's a shame. But as long as we have the most wins in the history of college football we will be the "winningest program in college football." Notre Dame can claim it too I guess, but more specifically they have the "highest winning percentage in college football."
Give him a break. It's still the truth.
I will respectfully disagree. This to me feels like the Cal Ripken thing. Yes, he played the most consecutive games, but for those of us who saw him play over the last several years he did it at a detriment to his own team. It was about ego.
Notre Dame wins more often than we do. That is what winning percentage is. If they had played as many games as we had, they'd be ahead of us. As it is, they're only 36 wins behind us. We'd need more imbalance like the last seven years (minus Hoke year one) for that total to change, but I think the significant stat has already shifted against us.
Conversely, if we played as few games as they have, then we'd have the better %. Who's to say ND won't go into a down cycle like we have the last few years? These %'s are not static variables that go unchanged as the seasons go by.
Regardless of your argument, which is up for debate, the FACT is that we are the winningest program in college football history.
I don't think that anyone will argue that we've been the best program in the last 10 years. And I don't know if anyone is all that impressed by being the all-time winningest program in the context of today. But as far as tradition and history and truth are concerned -- we are still the winningest program in college football history.
I don't quite get the Ripken analogy by the way. A political statement trumpeting the program's history is nowhere near the same as Ripken playing every day at ~37. It's not like we have Rick Leach out there at QB.
Well, again, we're literally one game behind in the percentage department. You make it sound like an insurmountable obstacle.
And what's this about Cal Ripken? In 1998, the year in which he ended his streak (and three years after he broke Gehrig's record) he hit .271. Last year only seven shortstops hit .271. Two-thirds of the teams in the league would kill to find a shortstop that hit .271. The year after, he hit .340. There's no basis at all for claiming Ripken kept his streak alive at the expense of the team.
"Notre Dame wins more often than we do"...have you seen them at all over the past 20 years?
Most wins = winningest. And the percentage stuff has been swinging back and forth for years. One win by us and one loss by them is all it would take to put it back where it belongs.
Q: How did that happen, two straight trips to Michigan State?
A: There’s no conspiracy, although people want to think that. There’s a computer firm in Chicago and the Big Ten has this algorithm, and you plug in all the variables and the computer spits out what’s do-able.
They sent me the schedule and I called and said, ‘Is this some kind of mistake? Have you people lost your mind?’ Well, then you dig a little deeper, and Minnesota’s coming here two years in a row and they’re not too happy. Everybody is a little bit sore about something, and that was our thing to be sore about.
But in 2015, we got BYU here for the first time ever, we got Oregon State here, we got UNLV here for the first time, we got Michigan State at home, we got Ohio State at home. That’s a schedule that’s gonna be wow."
I guess UM fans should just learn to steal. I am sure that Minnesota fans have been laying out $1000 PSLs for a pair of tickets and then paying $75 per ticket per game on top of that for 20 years now. I am sure that the conference got totally rich off so many great Minnesota moments of the past 20 years and formed a tv net work based on so many great Minnesota games, so it guess if they are upset too, Michigan shouldn't be.
No longer be angry, UM fans, Minnesota is mad too!
Minnesota's tickets in the same location where my tickets are cost $330 for the year, per seat with no donation. At Michigan, mine are about $1000 donation plus tickets at another $1000 or so.
really, BYU, Oregon State and UNLV?
I translate that to "Wow I can't wait to raise ticket prices again"
He really wants us to believe that with the Big Ten basically starting from scratch for conference scheduling there was no way to avoid having our two biggest rivals on the same home/away cycle?
I don't know what happened and I doubt it was an active "conspiracy," but there's just no possible way that the computers only spit out circumstances where our MSU schedule got flipped. If anything, the programming should have started with maintaining the Home/Away pattern for all protected Big Ten matchups. That it didn't work that way is amazing.
So all this talk of Hollis strong arming DB into 2 games at home in a row in return for being in the division was just an internet meme? I've seen it so many times on this board and a few others you'd think it was reality...
I haven't read the article yet but all I want is to have the gosh darn snare drum taps back.
Well, he doesn't explain exactly what happened. He explains that this is the schedule the Big Ten office gave us (which was obvious anyway), and that it was done by a computer program (probably equally obvious), but he doesn't explain why.
He said "There’s a computer firm in Chicago and the Big Ten has this algorithm, and you plug in all the variables and the computer spits out what’s do-able." Several questions come to mind, including "why wasn't alternate home-and-away dates between Michigan and Michigan State one of the 'variables' in the algorithm?" And "what do you mean by 'do-able'"? There are probably 80 million or so schedules that are "do-able," why was this particular one selected? And after it was selected, why was it approved?
I'm certainly not saying that it was Mr. Brandon's fault--I don't think it was--but why was the computer not programmed correctly, and why was the programming not corrected once this schedule was produced?
Actually he stretched the truth there. There were several options and several rounds. Brandon didn't voice complaint until it was too late. That's why Michigan's "thing" is having played both OSU and MSU on the road or home every year, and Minnesota's thing is just having to play two games in a row at Michigan (when Michigan played two in a row at Minnny in '02 and '03).
It wasn't just some firm in Chicago who wrote a computer program. They were given input.
You can help me search: it was an interview with Hollis. They were asked to put down what was non-negotiable and Hollis has no idea what Brandon wrote but it's a good guess it was Michigan-Ohio State in same division and playing the last day of the season. Then I guess there was a dinner or something where everyone was told how the decision was to be made and they got to give input on a couple alignments and scheduling plans (9 games, protected crossovers). Then later they got back an a, b, or c schedule and rated them individually. Then they got the resulting schedules. Then Brandon supposedly complained and was told it was too late. It's hard to know what DB did since I only have
Nothing new. Wojo was picked for this so they'd be assured of softball questions and no follow-up when there was a dodge; at one point WoJo himself repeated the myth that Brandon should be credited for the stadium expansions when those renovations were Bill Martin's. I don't like that WoJo started with the tired coach hot seat shit because it seems like they only did that at the beginning to frame the opposition to Brandon as a reactionary tinfoil hat society. From reading this article it would seem that bloggers' biggest complaints are 7-6 seasons and fireworks. fireworks got three words on the front page of the site. So I'm really disappointed that WoJo was chosen to do this interview because he did the worst possible job anyone could do with the opportunity.
As for Dave Brandon it's his same explanations (eg he's still deluding himself that the fans he priced out and ran off really left for 50-inch plasmas) except the MSU one, where he compared MSU switching to OSU years to Minnesota playing at Michigan twice, though I totally understand this isn't the spot to scream at the big ten's idiocy for hiring "Chicago computer guys"-- Brandon is referencing a conversation that took place far later than his opportunity to do something, btw. He's building a strawman; nobody's claiming it was a conspiracy--the allegation is Dave Brandon was asleep at the wheel and allowed this to happen out of his own incompetence. There were a bunch of options they were given and DB wasn't paying attention according to Hollis.
The life after sports initiative got way too little play. It's not Dave's pet but he's behind it and this interview would have been the perfect vehicle to use it for positioning Michigan as the program that's leading the way in providing lifetime support to its athletes.
Two years in a row is beyond belief to me. That was worth a very public fight if needed.
It would have been nice if an interviewer could have called him out for completely lying about student tickets:
It works for a lot of other places, not for us. This year, we went back to reserved seating for our students, and we didn’t have price increases for any of our tickets, and yet we see this big drop-off. We think it’s a combination of factors and a bit of an anomaly.
We’d gone seven years in a row without raising ticket prices, then did it two years in a row. So we’ve increased prices twice in 10 years. Is that out of control? Right now down in Columbus, you spend 14 dollars a ticket more than you pay at Michigan for a season ticket.
So, he's saying that student ticket prices were raised in 2012 and 2013 and before then they were stagnant for 7 years. Well, I was a student between 2006 and 2010. Looking at the tickets stubs I still have, it's pretty effing obvious that ticket prices were raised each year.
He also said that student tickets ebbed and flowed with the success of the team, but I don't remember there's being a student section crisis in 2009 after 3-8. I liked a lot of the interview - but Dave Brandon is still totally out-of-touch with students. He still thinks that Michigan having an alternate uniform is needed to sway a recruit (ahem Alabama). He still considers students second-class citizens. Maybe he's just too old. His attitude seems to very much be "Kids these days..." and it's just not the case.
But, I appreciated his take on most other things not involved with students.
I've actually seen it couched as a conspiracy many times on these boards the past few years. So when you say no one says it was a conspiracy I'd disagree. I'd lose count of the times I read Hollis demanded 2 home games in a row or he'd walk and take MSU to the west division, and DB buckled to that.
That's ridiculous. Hollis wanted to be in the West with like nobody but that was shot down. From appearances he did go in with an agenda to get MSU fans what they wanted, which you can't fault him for. He was also in a better position since Michigan has another rivalry it needs to protect more, and I don't doubt Rutgers and Maryland were clamoring to have Mich and OSU games.
I can tell you DB works very hard to get the non-revenue sports the resources, coaches, and facilities they need and there are high expectations on performance.
I read what he says I feel like he insults my intelligence by assuming I will believe a bunch of utter crap.
He wants to turn Michigan into Oregon.
Dude just doesn't get it. He will never get it. He thinks the answer is always to make something shinier, and louder, and that will keep us "competitive".
This is Michigan. We should be setting the standard, not following Oregon, Mr. Brandon.
That’s a schedule that’s gonna be wow.
What does that even mean? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
In an effort to try to solve a problem – they’re either arriving late, or some games we had 5,000-7,000 no-shows – we found out what other stadiums were doing, and they were all doing general admission. It was an incentive to get students there earlier, to get a better seat.
Crazy. Pills. This is Michigan. We should be "creating the future" here, not meekly following along with Minnesota.
The uniform thing was particularly vexing. If he thinks what the teams wear on a given Saturday looks nothing like what he wore, he must not remember what he wore at Michigan. After all, he had a lot of time on the bench to look at his spotless uniform, given he saw exactly two snaps of game action in four years.
We're Michigan so we shouldn't look at what anyone else is doing successfully? I'd call that stupidity.
You say we need to be "creating the future" but don't want any changes because of tradition.
There are traditions that I don't want change and that I see as a core for Michigan. Brandon said the same in the article. While we sit here in our tradition, the world is changing with recruits that like alternate uniforms and other things. You can stick to tradition to the point of being irrelevant. It's not easy to walk the tightrope between the two. You will never make everyone happy. Don Canham was hailed as a innovator. I'm not sure he would hold up to the criticism out there these days.
Having two uniforms makes a program irrelevant? How's that working out for Alabama?
This answer from DB seemed to be the most pointed in the "why DB doesn't get it". I do understand that he does get pressure from the 15-16-17 year olds to be like Oregon. His, and the coaches jobs, is to convince them, or sell them, why Michigan doesn't need to be Oregon, because this is Michigan. Bo got this. When he came to Michigan and the coaches offices weren't as nice as the newer Miami (ntm) offices, he told his coaches how Yost hung his hat on this nail and whatnot. Oregon doesn't have The Victors, the banner, the winged helmet. This is Michigan has been our slogan for the past three years forgodsakes.
Yost isn't better because of the fancy scoreboards. Yost was great because of the fans and the traditions they made. If he wants another Whiskey, he should promote the two kids in the dancing air man costumes to be the mascots, because those are both great and unique, and not something that is canned. That is what makes Michigan and college sports great. The fans being part of the tradition in both creation and continuance.
Because he won 6 national championships. The rest is a footnote if he lost at football.
to me the only traditions that matter are in order
1. Don't cheat.
2. Turn boys into honorable men who represent the school well for the rest of their lives
3. Win football games.
without that, Michigan football is hollow regardless of the uniforms, fireworks, and music played at the stadium.
I was referring to the Fieldhouse in regards to hockey games, not the coach. And a winning tradition is huge at hockey games I agree. However, I don't agree that the scoreboards have made the game anymore exciting. What made me love going there as a student was the fans. I was laughing the whole time as a freshman when I first went, and continued going through my 5 years. Not once did I say, this experience needs a better scoreboard, or this experience needs fireworks or anything else. The atmosphere was great, because of ugly goalie chants, dancing band directors, announcer thankyou's, cowbells and the victors. Winning definetely is a big part, but to discount the rest means Michigan is no more special than any other college team, and I don't believe that.
... my bad on the Yost thing.
The experience part is something we just disagree on. If Michigan had a dominant program, you're not like all the rest. You are the best. There is something special about that, and being the best helps a ton in making the place, the uniforms, the chants more special.
I guess it's all about weights. I weigh winning and integrity much higher than most people on this board compared to the other elements that make up what Michigan means to me. Not to say other's don't value those, they just weigh them relatively less than me, and want other elements as well.
I think many do believe that winning and winning the right way are huge, but those are both part of the Michigan tradition and ethos. The Michigan Man was largely mocked after the whole RR thing, but Michigan fans hold winning the right way, the Michigan Man way, very high on their priorities. Those who say will be champions is the way the team has been run for decades, and championships means winning is a major part of the tradition.
Where we seem to differ is in the rest. I think there are many things that separate Mihcigan beyond just the most wins. Like I said, the tradition, the Big House, the Victors, the winged helmet with simple solid blue jersey and maize pants are all parts of what makes Michigan unique. Michigan doesn't need to strive to be Oregon, because Michigan is Michigan and I expect our AD to be able to sell that to kids.
I think Hoke understands this and would tell you uniform changes is probably one of the smallest points he uses when selling to recruits. When you hear his speach he knows what Michigan wants. Years: 135, Championships: 42, Beat: ohio
If we ran a poll where we asked people how much they would weigh different variables of the Michigan football total experience, how it would shake out.
For example, if I had to distribute 100 points across these four variables (and there are probably more than just four), this is how I would do it.
1) Winning: 30%
2) Graduating good human beings who represent the Michigan brand well in all their endeavors: 35%
3) Not cheating in the process: 20%
4) In game experience (music, cheers, halftime shows, uniforms, etc...) 10%
5) Others? Left over 5%
Like I said, I'm probably way low compared to most people on this blog for "in-game experience".
If you want to win with traditions that change by the wind or the apparel contract, Michigan might not be the program for you. Actually, more accurately, a Brandon-less Michigan might not be the football program for you.
... that wins and wins right any day over a program that doesn't change uniforms. Easiest decision ever. Sure, some people want both. I, personally, am not one of them. A tradition of excellence is much, much harder to maintain, and therefore much more meaningful to me.
Flip it around though - how do a minor league baseball atmosphere and multiple costume changes HELP create a winning tradition? Sure, I'd rather win a national championship in 12 uniforms than go 3-9 in two uniforms, but that's a false dichotomy.
And if wining is all that matters, just be a bandwagon fan for whoever's hot now. After all, you get the most wins that way, and that's the most important thing!
all in my world. He could have a circus at halftime with a musical performance by Kevin Federline, if we were winning big ten titles. I'm not saying I would like it, but I wouldn't complain. Cue up Charles "just win."
Serious question: if all you care about are wins, then why are you a fan of Michigan? I'm not being snarky - something must make you a fan of Michigan rater than some other school. What is it? It's clearly not wins alone. What keeps you coming back in the down years that all programs go through? "Winning fixes everything" only works if you're fine with filling up the stadium with bandwagoners who flee to some other team at the first sign of adversity. I'd hope we aspire to more than that, but sadly there seem to be a lot of fans that care more about being able to lord wins over fans of other programs than anything unique to the Michigan experience.
Damage control, nothing more and nothing less. The thing I really wonder about is if he's really this delusional. "Necessary change," or "I need something to market, even though we were already selling out the stadium"?
So you're telling me DB didn't beg the B1G to have back-to-back road games against MSU? Could've fooled me based on how often I see him getting blamed, on here, for something he doesn't really control.
I thought Brandon's most insightful point was followed by his most frustrating response. He said that the biggest competition for college football and basketball is flat-screen television sets, which I think is exactly right. His response to that is basically this (which comes a little later):
"Whoever is in this job, you have to stay current with the world changing around us, the world of entertainment. The easiest thing we could do is come up with a cookie-cutter approach for a football game."
To me, copying the gimmicks that you see from the rest of the sports and entertainment world is the cookie-cutter approach. I completely understand the need to differentiate and offer an experience superior to the awesome resolution, replays, TV angles, and climate control of living room television-watching. But in my mind what differentiate(d/s) Michigan football is the resistance to all of the stuff that everyone else does. Michigan Stadium can offer a unique, special sports experience rooted in history and dripping with charm. I think that plus winning is the formula. I'm fine with some experimentation and modernity, but what defines the Michigan Stadium experience should be its uniqueness and tradition.
Well said, turd. +1 to you
You'd think if he gets that home viewing is a tough competitor these days, he find a way to use those awesomely huge video boards to show a decently useful collection of replays of on-field action, with a few highlights from other games mixed in. Instead we get pore-o-vision an ads for reting out the stadium.
would be cool. I'm glad we atleast still have game stats. Game highlights would be great, and replays have been something that has been wanted for years. Seeing MSC in high definition isn't what I was expecting when the video boards were first announced.
Here are my problems with this.
1. You talk about how you need to be patient and give Hoke time because change doesn't happen over night. Where was that patience and understanding when Rich Rod was here? He may have had some of the worst records in UM history, but things were demonstratibly getting better. Why not let him get rid of his "D" coordinator like you let Hoke get rid of his "O" coordinator? - I label this hypocrisy.
2. You talk about how you want to get to Indianapolis. What is it with this organization and the liimited sight line. I get that getting to the playoff will involve getting to Indy, but there are games after that one. Ones that matter both to fans and dollars. Why set your goal for second place?
3. You talk about how we only lost by 11 points throughout last season. Congratulations. You lost. How about the fact that our record against our rivals is miserable? How about the fact that we beat Akron and Uconn by a combined 7 points. The thought that after the last 2 seasons you don't have any type of measurement by which to review your coach is extremely concerning.
4. You don't advertise in the stadium. Are you and I going to different games? You can't make it through 20 minutes of play without advertising for something. Perhaps your definition and my definition of advertising aren't the same. To me, when you put something on the loud speaker and screen telling me to buy something, that's called advertising You'd think a the career path you have would have taught you that.
5. I do not disagree with the alternate uniform argument. Football has changed massively in the last 20 years. Whether that's for the better or worse depends on the person and their perspective. I do know you don't win a NC without kids, and kids want what they want. We may not be able to currently pay them, but we can do the side items to ensure we appear relevant and worth coming to. We have the tradition, we have the academics, we have all the great things that make the programs history great. We need the kids to keep that moving forward. I highly doubt the majority of us will look back at the program in 20 years and even remember the alternate jersey's. So on this point, I applaud him for his stance and what he's doing.
6. I'm down on this years schedule. Not really for the conference schedule. I know some are beat up about it, but it is what it is. I don't put that on Brandon's shoulders. I do however put the non conference schedule on his shoulders. It's a joke. There's not a single game in there that is a win for us. We beat the teams, and no on bats an eye. We should have beat these teams. We lose and well, it's because Michigan sucks and isn't relevant. There is no win for Michigan in these games.
7. You're justifying the raise in ticket prices by saying Columbus pays more. I'm no marekting genius, but I gurantee you that the fact that they have averaged 1 loss per season for the last 2 years gives their tickets that value. We are 2 years in a row in a downward spiral in record and strength of schedule.
8. (going back to number 3 partly). You say you hold a coach responsible. Where is the evidence of that? I realize you can't come out and say "Hoke is on the hotseat", but when asked how you approach the fact that the team has gone downhill the last 2 years, don't answer that you don't put pressure on Hoke then 2 minutes later preach that you hold your coaches accountable. Say something like "We make decisions as are necessary on our staffing" You can expound on that without scaring off recruits and can appease the people who are starting to get fidgety without you looking like an idiot of a leader.
9. You say this season will be better and tout it like it's some kind of accomplishment. Have you looked at the schedule? If it's worse than last year, I think you have no choice but to fire Hoke.
I agree with the sentiment that if we are winning, we wouldn't hear a peep. But the what if game doesn't work. We aren't winning. We're going backward in our winning percentage at a time when we're playing what may be our weakest schedules. Rich Rod is to blame for some of this, but last season falls SQARELY on Hoke and Brandon. I'm not saying fire Hoke because he did get rid of Borges. I am saying this year will tell us a lot about the state of the organization. If Brandon's contract is up in 2018, then there may be pressure on him as much as their is on Hoke. Depending on how the cards play out, Brandon may be putting his career entirely on Hoke's shoulder. Baring a 3 win season this year, we'll see Brady for the duration of Brandon's tenure. In 2018 it's possible we will get a new AD and a new coach if things don't play out right.
I'm so sick of the "Hoke needs to be on the hot seat" stuff. He's in the middle of a massive rebuilding project. He's had one excellent season, one so-so season, and one shitty season. He's been an excellent representative of the university, he's recruiting really good players and kids, and he seems as clean as big-time college football coaches get. If one shitty season gets our coach on the hot seat - even when he's doing everything else right - we're in for a long era of wandering around looking for the perfect coach who will probably never come.
I also don't understand the group of people that says (1) we should have been patient with Rodriguez and therefore (2) we should not be patient with Hoke. That's such a frustrating, petty position.
massive rebuilding? little heavy there don't ya think.
Brandon isn't solely responsible for setting this schedule. We announced Oklahoma for 2026 or whatever it was The nonconference schedules are set way in advance for the most part. The good teams likely weren't likely available by the time Brandon came on board. I think some of these games this year were added more recently but he can't be blamed for looking over the scraps and taking the best available.
For Brandonto show anything but support for Hoke is a kiss of death to the program. The rumors would have started immediately and intensified with any losses.
I disagree with most of the rest of what you said but I've already addressed the RR issue in other posts.
I'm pretty sure Appy St was scheduled under Brandon's watch.
So that was obviously his first choice right? Maybe he had the longhorns begging to play up here but chose to go with app st instead?
Look I don't like this schedule but there's only so much a guy can do with what's available.
Delaware State FORFEITED A CONFERENCE GAME in order to play at the Big House. I'm sure it would've been possible to find someone willing to show up.
After what happened a few years ago, the Michigan AD doesn't schedule Appalachian State because it's the best program available that day. That's an active decision to schedule them. I'm sure there are many schools of similar profile that we could have scheduled.
The logic, I think, is that the game has a hook -- a way to sell a few more tickets. Finding nonconference games with a hook isn't necessarily a bad thing... e.g., I like the idea of service academy games, which have more appeal than, say, Bowling Green. I just really dislike this particular hook (Appalachian State). Complete tone deafness from our AD on that one.
I agree with everything you've said here, except you left out what may be the most important part of the "hook" in scheduling Appalachian State: it's less about selling tickets than it is that it gets the game onto a national telecast, and I don't think a MAC team or some other similar team does that. Now, that brings good and bad with it, as some of the critics of scheduling this game point out, it's only of national interest because it allows the commentators to bring up the Horror. I don't really have a problem with it, and I'm guessing in Brandon's calculation, national exposure and the benefits that brings outweighs the negatives.
You may be right, but if you are, let's stop and think about that for a second. If the game is about getting on national TV, that is every goddamn thing wrong with Brandon in a nutshell right there. Does he lust so strongly for eyeballs that it doesn't matter how negative the coverage may be? We're talking about the most embarrassing game in 130+ years of team history. Is national exposure that important that it can be nothing but three hours of bad publicity and it's still better than being on the BTN for a week? Can we really be that desperate for "national exposure"?
And why would you invite more opportunities for the clips of the Gingell kick and the ASU coach being carried off the field to be shown on TV 24/7 in the weeks leading up to the game?
What would happen if, god forbid, we lose...
That is an MLive article from 2012.
From the article: "'I'm kind of a marketing guy and I like setting up games that have a lot of interest,' Brandon said recently. 'We're going to play Appalachian State and I get a lot of advice on that game. The networks were fighting over who gets to televise that game.' [...] 'Everybody's got an opinion about that game. That's why I like that game, because everybody's got an opinion about it.'"
So it has everything to do with the Appalachian State re-match getting attention from people (it doesn't matter to Mr. Brandon whether that attention is positive or negative), and nothing at all to do with Appalachian State being the best opponent available. Also, apparently ESPN2 can beat all of the other networks in a "fight."
I don't think it's ever a good sign when an AD has to talk about a coach being 'safe'.
Secondly, Hoke can be DB's guy and everything... but if DB's not around because the new President doesn't like him... Hoke's job is most assuredly at risk. Just like when Martin hired Rich Rod and DB was put in place.
All of this becomes moot if we win this year, and again next year. If Hoke can put together 9+ win seasons (excluding record in the bowl games), I think he'll be here for the long haul. Ideally that number is 10+, but since we're on the brink of being Notre Dame (we are Notre Dame?) - I'll settle with 9.
I think there's three quotes in there that speak exactly to the dichotomy between Dave Brandon and the Michigan fan base.
First, the regents vote to turn down the fireworks and his response, "we can't always do what we want."
That's the thing—the regents wouldn't have turned it down if it was what "we" wanted. It wasn't. "We" didn't want it. He did. And if he doesn't understand that based both on them turning him down, as well as from the overwhelming applause and attention that it got, then he never will. All the more evidenced by his "surprise" at how much attention it got. Maybe instead of being surprised by the attention, he should ask why it got so much. The answer being: because he finally got told what we've been thinking all along—these gimmicks are superficial and trite.
Second, his belief that "flat-screen" televisions are his biggest competition, and the best way to combat that is with entertainment value.
Literally, not a single fan in the world is attending a game instead of watching it at home because they heard there might be a fly-over at half-time, or fireworks in between. Not one.
The reason people watch at home is because it's cheaper. If it didn't cost $250 to take you and one other person to the game, there would be full attendance every time.
Yes, as he pointed out, those bells and whistles add to the experience. But that doesn't make them the experience in and of themselves. And although Beyoncé was unique, and the parachuters were enjoyable, as someone who was in attendance at both games, when I look back on each of those nights, I think about the game that was played on the field. Truly, I have to be reminded of the other things. They aren't even close to a reason why I would decide to attend. They aren't primary, secondary, or even collateral to deciding factors when I purchase a ticket.
Finally, believing that adding BYU, UNLV, and Oregon State makes for a "wow" schedule is, well, laughable.
In what way does adding teams with little to no dominant football history, from all the way across the country, that aren't very competitive, and have no rivalry or historical ties to Michigan, make a fan base excited? The only "wow" I have right now is towards his utter delusions about Michigan fans' desires and this program's needs.
Literally, not a single fan in the world is attending a game instead of watching it at home because they heard there might be a fly-over at half-time, or fireworks in between. Not one.
The reason people watch at home is because it's cheaper. If it didn't cost $250 to take you and one other person to the game, there would be full attendance every time.
This is a great point. Nobody is going to buy tickets because of fireworks or Seven Nation Army.
I'm in a rare situation where I kinda do get to decide on whether I'll go to a game on a weekly basis (I know, lucky me and I do appreciate how lucky I am). I live in AA and am a recent alum. I don't have season tickets but I have enough friends around that do and often have an extra. Last year I went to 4 games, including the OSU and ND games. The games I chose not to go to were because I didn't think it was financially worth it to go (I always pay my friends full price if I use their ticket). I wasn't going to pay $60 to see a horrible MAC game and be annoyed by 7NA being blasted in my ear. Had there been been control of the RAWK and more emphasis on the Marching Band, then maybe. The biggest in-game environment issue I have is one that nobody brings up, however: The TV timeouts. They make attending games miserable at times. What used to be a few short timeouts are now frequent and long. And during them we get to hear the M marketing department tell us to get married in the stadium.
DB's right about one thing: At home I can switch to another game during TV timeouts. Why not do that at the game???
Well I've heard people complain about wifi. I know I'd like to check scores on games not necessarily on scoreboard updates and currently can't without paying out my ass for roaming.
Wifi would greatly enhance my gameday experience for football and hockey.
The thread where everyone argues about the same stuff as always. Starting the week off on a good foot.
Then don't click on it.
Not once did I say this wasn't thread worthy or should be taken down, just said the arguments going on inside it are dumb. I don't understand your point.
"...the arguments going on inside it are dumb." I guess you lead by example.
Oh, the sweet, sweet irony of this post.
Pot kettle black.
You are so blind. So, so, gloriously blind, it's just amazing. Does making these inane comments make you feel cool? You should really ask yourself, honestly, why do these things seem to annoy so many people? You are bearing witness to the program that you have devoted your life to, morph into some kind of chintzy, gimmicky - oh look, shiny thing!- ... what was I saying?
The sweet irony I was referring to was Bando's post of "don't click on it".
Even though he pissed and moaned about my equipment update thread the other day when he could have just used his own advice by not clicking on it.
You? I don't know why you're butting in. But you do quite frequently reply to my opinions that supposedly mean nothing to you, don't you dude?
I know what you were referring to, kiddo. You're not picking up what I'm laying down.
Just wait until they wear blue pants at home. It will happen sooner rather than later.
If someone has already said something like this I apologize....
For all the RR backers who said he needed more time. I will completely agree he had some good ideas(victors walk, BBQ) and never got anything really close to a fair shake. But, honestly do you all forget how shitty it was to be a fan during his tenure? There were definitely high moments like denard and when we played notre dame, but we were getting blasted off the field each fall. Especially because of denard and our offense I was hoping for a fourth year; until his last two games. To just go into playing Ohio state and realizing you don't have a snowballs chance in hell is a pretty bad feeling as a fan. And you all know what happened we lost by 30 points. Then the bowl game we lost by 38. His team had quit, whatever backers he once had were gone, and josh groban happened.
He provided us with 3 of the worst seasons in program history and people still somehow defend him. Hoke has his flaws and the jury is still definitely out on him, but he is by far better for this program than RR. 25-13 is far better than 15-22. Recruiting and lack of attrition has been far better. It was rich rods classes that are the reason we are hovering at 10 seniors per year. His highest ranked recruit didn't even make it on campus.
So I guess the point of the rant was even though the backers can and probably will
Ignore this. Just all I ask is you put yourself back into how you felt about him and this program November of 2010 compared to right now with hoke. If you honestly feel like we would be in better shape with rich rod then by all means carry on.
I think most of them would argue that RR would have been better judged if he had that fourth year. They see what Hoke did with mostly RR's players and mostly RR's system and they think "we didn't need to rebuild again, it was turning around." I personally don't know. The MisSU game was barely enough for me to say "ok, move on" but Hoke has don't little aside from that first year to make it seem like it was a slam dunk move.
There are a number of reasons why Rich Rod didn't succeed, so I think it's wrong of anyone to pin it on one particular thing.
But Rich Rod hadn't shown any real improvement in the B1G or late in the season.
So I think he could've been better, sure. But his teams consistently struggled in games that mattered.
---In his first year we won ONE game after October 1 (@ Minnesota with Feagin)
---In his second year we won ONE game after October 1 (vs. 1AA Deleware State)
---In his third year we won three games after October 1 (@ Indiana by 7, vs. Illinois in 3OT, @ Purdue)
In 3 years Rich Rod won 5 games after October and didn't beat anyone of note...in fact, the teams he beat were AWFUL. Minnesota finished 7th, Illinois finished 5th and Indiana was dead last.
It's weird how people forget these facts. I'm not placing blame on these folks, but I mean look at that data right there. That's a HUGE reason why he was fired. He had no quality wins other than ND. We were awful once the weather got cold and the B1G season began.
---In Hoke's first year we won SEVEN games after October 1!
---In Hoke's second year we won SIX games after October 1!
---In Hoke's third year we only won three games after October 1 :-(
Still Hoke's worst year in wins after October 1 matches Rich Rod's best year. Hoke doubled Rich Rod's best in both his first and second years. Hoke has also beaten 3 ranked teams in after Oct. 1 - and a win over unranked OSU in year 1 and unranked MSU in year 2.
Rich Rod would always start hot with the warm weather and an injury free team...but once the B1G started, he was toast. Yet people act like that stuff didn't happen. Again, I've always found that weird. But how can anyone, even Rich Rod himself dispute this?
running for his life at the beginning of the season against weak teams. Once the schedule toughened up and DR was beat up from the hits, the offense was stagnant. We did little offensively against most of the quality teams. There was no way things were gong to suddenly get better in year 4.
Win-loss record was not why Rodriguez was let go. How do I know this? Simple; if past record was the primary determining factor, Rodriguez would not have been around to coach the 2010 season. This requires no further explanation except to those that believe Dave Brandon in January 2010 and Dave Brandon in January 2011 are not the same person.
There is only one type of argument in either direction that mattered, and those involve future projections of how good Rodriguez's teams would be later, when Rodriguez is graduating players he recruited in a continuous system. Arguments for typically cite the awesome offense in 2010, showing how far it had come since 2008 and how much better it could have become given that the team had essentially zero seniors. Arguments against usually point towards the okay recruiting rankings, poor player retention, and the defense/special teams performance. In the end, the latter arguments won out according to Brandon, though I still don't know why he needed to wait til after the bowl game to decide.
This also means that Hoke's 11-2 season gives information to the large improvement in defensive performance, establishing the expectation that Hoke's staff can coach defense, and... nothing else. However, his recruiting and player retention have been very strong thus far, which bodes promising for the future.
What? Come on man, that made NO sense.
What coach is fired after 2 years, especially with the most exciting player in CFB on his team as a Freshman?
You're REALLY not going to wait around to see what that kid can do as a sophomore?
Unless Rich Rod had some type of scandal, you can't name 5 ADs in the COUNTRY that would've fired him after year 2.
That was a beyond ridiculous statement.
Rich Rod was given 3 full years and threw up the awful stats that you responded to. Beat OSU and Mississippi State and I bet you every MGoPoint I have Rich Rod is coaching in 2011.
And I even said, it's not based off of any ONE thing. Did you READ my post?
Even with that, win/loss was DEFINITELY a main factor. How can anyone deny or argue the stats that I threw out? The man was plan awful once the B1G hit, once the weather turned, once his QBs got banged up in his offense. 5 wins! 5 after October 1 in 3 seasons! That's soooooo bad.
His defense was 120 in the country! Hoke took the same players, hired Mattison and finished in the top 20, right?
I mean, we can argue about personality, or level of fan support, or a lot of things. But these are just numbers.
At the end of the day win/loss was a HUGE factor. So was the probation. So was the awful defense. So was the divided fan base. So was the fact that DB didn't hire Rich Rod. So was the awful recruiting. So was the problems Rich Rod had with Admissions. So was the traditions Rich Rod changed or didn't acknowledge (like captains).
All of this played a role and I'm sure we could think of 10 other factors. But don't honestly sit there and tell me win/loss didn't determine Rich Rod's face.
I'll blow your argument up in one question. If Rich Rod goes 12-0 in 2010...is he fired?
Boom. Win/loss was a factor and it always will be a factor in a non-scandal related firing. This is division 1 football, brother.
because I'd actually have a meaningful response to give it. Instead I'll leave you with a "You're missing the point," and hope to continue this discussion when you next decide to dance on Rich Rod's grave.
very bright future. I am confident in Hoke and staff, the quality of recruits, etc. All of this rabble will be in the rear view mirror within 1-2 years. Go Blue
Makes me want to throw up.
The guy isn't perfect, but some of you act like he literally DESTROYED Michigan Football.
I don't even like the guy, but I find myself defending him all the time because you all act like he moved the team or something. You sound like Sonics and old Browns fans. At least they have a legitimate gripe.
We still have our team, he hasn't done anything to the core of our tradition, he's just f-ed up with some corny/gimmicky stuff.
It's worth being upset over, but not Browns/Sonics chasing with the pitchfork upset.
When he changes the Block M to comic sans, gets rid of the winged helmet and puts random advertisements on our jerseys like a WNBA team...then I'll be right there with you. Hell, I'll lead the pack.
He's making money in a tough time with a football team that hasn't been even remotely good (by our standards) since 2007 except for one season.
It's no excuse for him, because I think even if we were 12-0 and selling out and he didn't have to make up revenue in "creative" ways, he'd still be doing some of this dumb shit. But again, we still have a team. As far as I know we still have the bulk of our tradition. We still play in the best stadium in the world, with the best uniform in the world (outside of our servicemen and servicewomen), with the best fight song, and best traditions.
I'm pretty neutral when it comes to Brandon, because everyone brings up fireworks and skywriting...but why don't those same people bring up the good he's done? UTL 1 and UTL 2? Don't they outweigh the fireworks blunder? If not, isn't at least a wash? What about all of the renovations? The addition of Men's LAX? The paying of assistant coaches so we can get coaches like Mattison and Nussmeier and keep coaches like Jordan and Alexander?
Why don't we compare the good with the bad and see where we fall? I don't think it's going to swing you too far one way or the other when you take it all into account.
Hopefully some Browns, Sonics, Baltimore Colts, etc. fans can chime in and provide some perspective.
No issues with ANY of those. I'm right next to you on each one. I'm an Associate AD for Facilities & Event Management. You really think I don't feel you on ALL of those?
If there's anyone in the world that understands those event-related blunders, it's me.
That said, that wasn't the tone of your post. It was the freakout, blame game.
And again, I'm not throwing my title out there...but I work in Athletics and understand that Brandon has done a TON of good as well. So I keep a level head when referring to him.
If there were AD rankings, IMO, Brandon is probably somewhere in the 30s for D1.
Obviously that's not great, especially for "THIS IS MICHIGAN." But it could be far worse. Hell, I've worked for far worse. Twice. Part of the reason I chose to work at a D1 non-football school is because I've worked for a couple awful ADs - neither who is employed at the institution I was at when I was there. Both fired.
Perspective. That's all I try to bring. Again, 30s isn't great. But it's better than the vast majority of schools around the country, just not necessarily better than the schools we (Michigan) compare ourselves against.
He hasn't destroyed Michigan Football. That isn't the point. He's well on his way to his stated desire of providing "entertainment value" (the best value he could provide to me would be a simple Michigan Football game, nothing else), and creating a "mini Super Bowl". That is decidedly not what Michigan Football is, or has ever been about. It's a very, very slippery slope, and he seems to have zero awareness of what people actually want.
He's a mass marketing guy, I suppose we should all have seen this kind of thing coming. Lowest common denominator and all of that. The thing that I think is most detrimental is his ego, as I think that's where most of the tone-deafness comes from. I want the guy gone.
But do you realize that what you had before him was NO better.
Bill Martin was not a good AD at all. Our football program would be in no better shape. We wouldn't be able to afford or retain assistant coaches and the man had no real vision for most of his career.
So can we get better? Absolutely. Brandon is far from the best. But you can definitely get worse. In fact, the majority of schools have worse.
You're exactly right about the Marketing mind...I suppose I did see it coming. Especially with his coorperate background. It was obvious to me that we'd make money like crazy, but we'd become a lot more hollywood.
I lived with it because at the time EVERYONE was getting more 21st century EXCEPT for Michigan...so I welcomed Brandon. Now it's probably time to settle back in for another 20-30 years. But we were such an old, prehistoric athletics department before Brandon. Creativity and innovation was passing us and people forget back 05-08 when Oregon and other schools burst on the scene, we REALLY were upset with the athletics department. Not over uniforms, but renovations, facilities, and certain things recruits becoming attracted to.
Gene Smith was everywhere...he was building OSU into a powerhouse and Michigan was basically 100% Brady Hoke, chilling without using a headset or e-mail.
Brandon has caught us up, and it's probably time to find someone who can settle us in...but Brandon's done a ton for this University and it's athletics department.
I don't disagree that he has done good things as well as bad things. For me, the bad far outweigh the good (with the one exception of coaching salaries). I think arguing that he brought us all of the facility upgrades is a false pretense, as those were happening with or without DB. Martin started those wheels in motion, and once we made that jump, the money was bound to follow. Giving DB credit for the extra revenue generated is weak sauce. He is responsible for incrementally improving revenue, but again, revenue was going to increase after stadium upgrades anyhow.
The problems that DB has created are his, and his alone. He has been the driving force behind all of the things that people are up in arms about, and there's no way to deny that. It's for that reason that I want him out, and that reason alone. He has the potential to bring our whole culture down, and that frightens me more than I can say.
This is Michigan, fergodsakes.
It's pretty obvious that the Big Ten intends to have Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and Penn State play at either Rutgers or at Maryland in alternate seasons. This year, UM and PSU are paying RU while OSU and MSU are at MD, then it flip flops next season. The B1G clearly wants its biggest brands to regularly play on the East Coast.
Once you get past that objective, then you put together the rotation for the four remaining Eastern Division teams on Michigan's schedule. When Nebraska joined the conference and the new divisions were set up based on parity, the top three programs in each of them were Michigan-Nebraska-Michigan State and Ohio State-Penn State-Wisconsin. All this was based on who the teams did since 1993, i.e., when PSU joined the Big Ten.
Fast forward 3.5 years and we still see that the Big Ten thinks PSU > MSU, even with the sanctions against Penn State and Michigan State's recent success. That tells you a lot of what the B1G thinks about where the Spartans stand in the conference's larger hierarchy, not to mention their relative national and regional appeal. So if we're ranking the remaining Eastern Division teams 1 through 4, this is what you get:
1. Ohio State
2. Penn State
3. Michigan State
So the Big Ten decides to put 1 & 3 in one home/away rotation and 2 & 4 in the other home/away rotation. That's why we're seeing Michigan State and Ohio State both home or away.
Michigan then gets a balanced schedule because the B1G also opted (starting in 2016) to pair up the Eastern Division teams with a Western counterpart that is roughly on par with them. In UM's case, from 2016 to 2019, that program is Wisconsin. The Badgers join PSU, Indiana and Maryland on the same schedule rotation opposite Ohio State, Michigan State and Rutgers for those four years. In 2020, if this practice holds, it'll likely be Nebraska replacing Wisconsin through 2023.
I'd like to make one more point. Brandon's "wow" comment about 2015 was having Oregon State, UNLV, Brigham Young (who replaced Notre Dame), Michigan State and Ohio State on the home schedule--he didn't confine his comment to just the non-conference portion (he also didn't mention the home games with Northwestern and Rutgers). If you step back from the "wow" comment and who made it, that assessment is right.
I wouldn't be shocked to read that Michigan has one of the top non-conference schedules in the country. There are two Pac 12 teams on it (Michigan opens the season at Utah) plus one of the two major independents (BYU). There may be some schools that have a very big matchup in one of their non-conference games, but in total, Michigan's overall OOC slate will probably be judged as one of the best in the Power 5.
One other comment on the schedule. It appears Brandon is moving Michigan away from playing MAC teams. The only one on the schedule after this year is Ball State in 2020--the team Hoke used to coach. The no return date home non-conference games are programs from the Mountain West (AIr Force, Hawaii, UNLV) and the American Athletic (Cincinnati, Fiesta Bowl winner UCF, SMU). Is that better than playing Akron, Toledo, Bowling Green or Miami (Ohio)? I certainly think so.
Just to echo what so many have said in this thread: I do believe that Michigan has the talent to be very successful over the next 4-5 years. Hoke has definitely laid the groundwork on the recruiting trail to get this program back to where it needs to be. However, I won't sit here and say that I am convinced that Hoke is the right guy to lead them to the promised land.
Does that mean I think he is the wrong guy? No, not all all. I am still undecided. I think he has made all the right moves - recruiting, coaching changes, and reunited the fan base. I just want to see this team have some fight on the road; furthermore, I want to see them attack and not be tentative both offensively and defensively.
He needs to win every game at home this year. We complain about the home schedule which means one thing to me: we should start another home winning streak. There's no excuse in year four of the Hoke regime to lose to Appalachian State, Utah, Miami (OH), Minnesota, Penn State, Maryland, or Indiana. He also needs to take two out of the three big rivalry games. I'd obviously prefer MSU and OSU over Notre Dame but beggars cannot be choosers.
That puts you at 9-3 with games at Northwestern and Rutgers to snag win #10 or #11. What I fear is us sweeping the schedule and losing all three big rivarly games. That would be a major disappointment if you ask me. Michigan, in the weakest Big Ten in recent memory, has fallen short of expectations. Year number four is where we begin to get our mojo back. I can sense it.
Very thoughtout post. Great read.
Don't even have to agree with all of it (and I don't)...but excellent stuff. Rather than the irrational screaming, this actually made sense and was reasonable.
I'm right there with you in the boat of "Hoke's done a great job laying the foundation, but I don't know if he's the man to build the house...we'll see" boat.
I don't like saying he needs to win this game and all that, so I'm going to stay away from that. Because the moment you say he needs to win all of the rivalry games, he'll lose them all, win a tiebreaker, win the B1G and B1G Championship game and everyone will be happy.
My expectations are simply this...
We need to show improvement each week. I've said this countless times this summer. The team we see in November should beat the team we see vs. App St. by 2 touchdowns. Why do I say this? Because we've got a BUNCH of guys getting experience and jumping into major roles for the first time. Or we've got guys that got a taste last year that are going to be key contributors this year.
So I want to see improvement and development and I want to see promise for 2015.
I know that's painful to not even have this year in our belt and be looking for 2015, but 2015 we have a schedule that sets up and a team that, IMO, should be in the CFB playoff. I don't care if it's Hoke, Harbaugh, Miles, or the ghost of Yost coaching...that is the expectation next year.
I see this year being a year where we have some early struggles and hit our stride late and we all say "UGH! Why couldn't we have played like this all year?!" Kind of like the UF game in '08.
Win the OSU game, win the bowl game and hit next offseason with crazy hype and momentum. 2015 is make or break for me. We'll have talent, experience, depth, everything. A new QB is all we'll have and the new QB will likely be a highly rated junior with playing experience. I'll take it.
Agree generally. Hoke is no sure thing. He appears to be a CEO coach who requires great coordinators. Also it's not all about Hoke. Position coaching IMO is the most underrated part of CFB. I have a full confidence at this point in maybe 2 of the position coaches as anywhere near elite (and I am being generous on Manning as 1 of them due to his recruiting prowess). Outside of WRs and LBs the past few years I don't think any unit has reached anywhere near its potential and that is more on position coaches than the HC (granted Hoke was a DL position coach as well) All the work that happens between Sunday and Friday is what makes Saturday happen.
With all that said with the way Hoke is recruiting I am confidant this program will return to a Lloyd Carr type of era as its floor. Thay would be a lot of 3-4 loss seasons and some griping by the fan base of untouched potential. But aside from his age that was one of the reasons many wanted Carr to go - there seemed to be 1-2 losses almost every year that made you scratch your head and when you look at the NFL talent we did develop it seemed like the sum of the parts was less than the individual parts most years under Carr. So I think Hoke has recruited to the point we return to the Carr era starting in 2015 as a base. But what is the ceiling under Hoke? Can he be a Stoops level guy that gets us to a playoff game say once every 3 years? And "BCS type" bowls almost every year? Will he show us he can be elite and get us to 11-12 wins more years than not. I think that is the question from here. Especially with OSU running a machine and MSU now churning out 3 out of 4 seasons of 11 wins - it smacks of low expectations when people here are cool with 8-4 when our in state rival with worse facilities, finances, etc now has 10 wins as their expected floor.
2015 will tell me a lot about the state of the program - if there is "only" a 10 win season with how stacked the schedule is in our favor and all the talent returning, it tells me we are just back to where we were with Carr and we'd should expect a lot of 3-4 loss seasons rather than reaching the next rung up in the ladder when in any general year your team is viewed as a legit contender for top 5 in the country as OSU is now viewed. The schedule will be tough every even year so if Hoke cannot make hay with the off year schedules (esp 2015 which is the easiest we will have in a decade) and get to 11+ wins, we just have returned to where we started in this whole mess.
Please win so everyone can STFU and be normal...or as least "normal" as far as fans go.
This is all ridiculous. Hoke was left with CRAP, seriously, didn't anyone read Ace's threads on the Rich Rod recruiting classes? I believe it was 08, 09 and '10.
No coach is going to take what Hoke was given and have much more success.
Hoke has built a foundation and his judgement starts right now. Unfortunately he doesn't get another 3 years, but this year he'll have HIS guys all getting experience and next year he'll have HIS guys all WITH experience (and a schedule that sets up beautifully).
People said the same thing about Carr's recruiting classes when RR took over but half conveniently ignored it.
I didn't mention it right then, but I've always said Rich Rod was given shit to start with...especially when you look at his system.
But Rich Rod isn't the coach at Michigan so I didn't feel the need to comment on him. If I commented on him, then why not look at what every other Michigan coach has gotten?
Rich Rod was surely in a bad spot in terms of what Carr left him, but he blew it up from the beginning unlike Hoke who phased his style of players in with Rich Rod. Rich Rod blew it up and went with freshman and rolled. So it sort of sped up his timeline, because he had "his guys" sooner than Hoke did. Obviously this wasn't the biggest factor, but that's definitely a significant difference between the approach of each Coach.
Also, Carr left Rich Rod with BODIES. Rich Rod didn't even do that. Go back and look at the recruiting classes for 08, 09 and 10 and see who all the guys who never even played a down at Michigan.
That's why Hoke gets so much of a pass. He didn't even have enough scholarship OLmen. He didn't have enough LBs or DBs. He got Koger for a year (which I believe was a Carr player) and didn't have another TE.
Rich Rod took a bunch of guys who never even made it to campus or never made it past year 1 at Michigan. So Hoke was always put in an awful situation.
Unlike said, Rich Rod at Arizona or Meyer at OSU who had Braxton Miller fall in his lap.
I'm not sure anyone was going to have much more success than Hoke had, just based off of numbers. So now there aren't anymore excuses. We've got depth and bodies everywhere. It's time to gain experience this year and then "we're back" at least on paper.
I think you nailed it. To me, progress is the biggest thing to expect from this years team. I want to see improvements, corrected mistakes, and better play on a week to week basis. What made last year so frustrating was the general lack of progress throughout the season. In fact, it looked like we took steps backwards as the season went on.
Now I don't know if that was a product of the schedule or abysmal offensive line play. As you stated, the team in November should look considerably better than the team in September. I hope Hoke can pull this off.
Agree 100% - I am not that worried about the W/L this year due to the OL issues. But the team needs to look well coached and playing at a higher level in Nov then Sep even if that means losses due to the higher competition late in the year. You see that in basketball every year now - we never feel "cheated" in terms of thinking the bball team is playing near the top of their potential. You do feel that with the football program and that needs to change even if it means a 8-4 year.
So what you're saying is that Hoke should start doing a hybrid system instead of a drop back pass system like he's trying to implement? I mean with that hybrid system we won 11 games including a premier bowl game. Ever since then he's been trying to change the system to what he wants it to be and we're seeing the results.
That was pretty fun to watch though.
I don't think you were being serious, but I will say this.
I never had ANY issue with Borges' plays. I've always said I think he's a master play designer.
I think he's an AWFUL playcaller. I would've much preferred Heck or literally anyone else on the staff call the plays. Shit, I could've honestly done a better job of calling the plays.
But the plays he'd come up with were pretty damn good. If we kept the playbook, I wouldn't be upset. But he can't sit up in that booth and call plays for Michigan, it was, well...you know how it was.
the "wow" I want is Denard-like wow, or Desmond-like wow, or ...
Who needs "wow" like giant noodles.
The night games have been awesome productions. Every game doesn't need to be that way. Especially when the excitement starts happening on the field. Not to mention "wow" costs money and I'd bet people don't care to pay for "wow".
Want to beat the couch: increase game day excitement thru better play on the field (hopefully coming), use the scoreboards like the TV is used at home (detailed replays - score updates and highlights from around the B1G and the nation) and not for "have your wedding at the Big House" or "I can't hear you!" and fix cell phone and wifi coverage (reportedly coming), and reduce the hassle and price gouging at every turn.
Still, I have no major issues with Dave Brandon. It's actually a bit strange to read how much some people dislike him and his ideas. In forty years, if Russell Bellomy becomes the AD, I just can't imagine hating him, not over the things that most fans complain about anyway.
I'm also not a fan of the Hoke-hot-seat talk if the team doesn't win X amount of games. Another head coach change seems like the last thing the program needs (unless Harbaugh or similar is available). I like the current coaches and players, though, and I believe they can succeed.
their HTTV copy in the mail? I'm still waiting on mine.
I've not received mine yet either.
Finally he's acknowledging the fan base's discontent over some of his policies. That's a good thing. He also acknowledges that the students hated the change in seating. Also good.
But he still insists that he needs to do thw "wow" stuff. So while he's listening to the criticism, it doesn't seem to affect his thinking. He's just too stubborn, and that's also reflected in his statements about Hoke.
I appreciate his fundraising skiills with donors. That's important. But everything else about this guy really disturbs me for some reason.
This doesn't come off to me as him "acknowledging" anything. He's very dismissive of all the criticism. This is just false lip service, orchestrated to make him look good. Nothing more.
I've never said this before, but I'm saying it now. Fire DB.
''Michigan fans must acknowledge one truth – if the football team wins, none of the noise matters.''
I wish people would stop saying that because it's not true.
It's definitely not the end-all or the cure to everything. You're always going to have pissed off people though, you think Alabama and Stanford don't have pissed off people?
That's just the world we live in.
But if we win...I'd say 65% of this all goes away. 30% will still be people who fight because these are some legitimate reasons to be upset. And then you'll have 5% who want to bitch just to bitch and we can go 15-0 and show Kate Upton .gifs on the jumbotron after every touchdown and they'll still be upset.
So winning doesn't solve everything. But I'll say this...if you win, you can take the biggest chunk out of the poor approval ratings.
Winning will help more than any other thing Brandon could do. He can fix the tickets, the prices, the fireworks and event management, he could fix all of that...and it would help, but nothing is going to do more than winning football games.
How do I know? Because people put up with shit win you win.
We played a stupid fucking CHICKEN song after we won a game and people didn't nearly as bothered by it had we lost that game.
Have a Beyonce halftime show during an OSU win and see how many people complain...have the same show during an OSU loss and people will literally be buning MGoBlog and Michigan Stadium to the ground.
Winning shuts people up even if they are unhappy. High ticket prices? Oh well, we're winning, it's justified. Stupid in-game gimmicks? Oh well, we won, we're undefeated.
That's your majority.