Poll: Not just change for change's sake?
Everyone's got an opinion, and it can be hard to find the trends in the community due to the wave of all of the submissions and yelling that can go back and forth. Otherwise our beloved sports forum will devolve into the worst politics forum on the internet and we will have to avoid...ourselves.
To all of you who have been purposely avoiding the CC topics, I apologize for not putting CC in the title. I don't want to exclude you from this community though (you do come here and read the blog!) Hopefully you don't hate me for this misdirection. I take zero responsibility for the comments below this post. So if you have been avoiding CC topics, vote, then move on to the next topic.
So here is a link to a poll where you can provide your input and a few (short, respectful) comments. I will aggregate these later and turn them into a diary post. What can I say, I do education research for a living, and this is kind of what I do. :)
October 13th, 2014 at 11:34 AM ^
It's not for change's sake. It's because the football team stinks and appears to be getting worse each year. The same goes for the Athletic Department.
October 13th, 2014 at 11:36 AM ^
October 13th, 2014 at 11:40 AM ^
I think we need a new face on the sideline just for a different look.
Along with clamoring for those UNIFORMz, I'm also calling for some new COACHz and ADz.
October 13th, 2014 at 11:20 AM ^
FIRE BRANDON!!!
...wait a while, then count the upvotes to my opinion and plug them into your poll.
You're welcome!
October 13th, 2014 at 11:32 AM ^
I see two down votes as opposed to one up vote as I post this.
October 13th, 2014 at 2:00 PM ^
really like Brady Hoke even though the record is poor. The drive for change is about developing the talent on this team and winning football games plain and simple. We are regressing in each year and are now in year 4.
October 13th, 2014 at 11:20 AM ^
Is Monkey Rodeo.
October 13th, 2014 at 11:35 AM ^
October 13th, 2014 at 3:14 PM ^
October 13th, 2014 at 11:45 AM ^
I think "change's sake" is not the reason people want change.
October 13th, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^
Then go to the poll and say why! And note the question mark. I'll edit the title to see if it makes people happier.
October 13th, 2014 at 11:37 AM ^
Brandon is tarnishing the brand and preventing a great coach from coming here with his micromanaging ways. Hoke clearly is not cut out for the big time. He is incompetent and is holding the program back.
October 13th, 2014 at 11:42 AM ^
October 13th, 2014 at 11:39 AM ^
that we are advocating hiring coaches of the same level we already have. That's an interesting question. Would we prefer Mike DeBord or Ron English just to make a change? Nobody wants that, but we might be better off.
Fortunately there's a third option, aim much higher. Getting someone who looks like a sideways hire seems like it's nearly a worst case scenario. I'm in favor of taking that chance.
October 13th, 2014 at 11:43 AM ^
Ron English did such a bang up job at Eastern, why not? :)
October 13th, 2014 at 11:42 AM ^
October 13th, 2014 at 7:57 PM ^
With every fiber of my being I hope this isn't true, but sometimes I swear this is what is coming.
October 13th, 2014 at 11:48 AM ^
Fire Hoke.
Have John Beilein and Carol Hutchins lead or at least be a part of the new coach search committee.
October 13th, 2014 at 11:58 AM ^
2 problems with that:
1. Bielien and Hutchins have zero experience looking for coaches (especially coaches in football)
2. Bielien is probably going to be a little busy with some stuff about the time we are looking for a coach.
October 13th, 2014 at 12:04 PM ^
1. They both hire assistant coaches so I assume that hey know a good "coach" when they see one. They are two successfull people at UM so I would at least want their opinion. I wouldn't give them a final say.
2. You're right. Beilein needs to be focued on MBB.
October 13th, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^
They know good *basketball* coaches. Because that's the sport they coach.
Red Berenson wasn't part of John Beilein's hiring process, because that would make no sense. Being a "successful person at UM" is not a criterion for being able to identify a good next football coach.
October 13th, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^
Not that I believe Hutch or Beilein should have much say in who the next football coach is, but what exactly makes Dave Brandon qualified then to hire the next coach? His total of one game played at the college football level? Or his time running a major pizza company?
I don't really know who U of M should involve in this next coaching search, but to claim Beilein and Hutch would bring nothing to the table in finding a quality football coach seems off-base when I am not sure what qualifications a normal AD, let alone Dave Brandon bring.
October 14th, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^
October 13th, 2014 at 12:22 PM ^
I bet Beilein and Hutch know a lot of the right questions to ask. It's not as if the search committtee is going to be made up entirely (or even partially) of great football minds.
October 13th, 2014 at 12:23 PM ^
"What are your favorite drills for improving ball handling?"
"How do you teach proper baserunning technique?"
They have zero experience with football or football coaches. I see no rational basis for this "coaches know good coaches in other sports when they see them" hypothesis.
October 13th, 2014 at 1:01 PM ^
It is common to have multiple interviews. A "fit" interview and then a technical interview. While Beilein and Hutch would not be qualitied to run a technical interview for a football coach I would trust them to be a part of a "fit" interview.
October 13th, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^
They can ask a lot of useful questions. The qualities that are needed to be successful coaches don't vary that much by sport. They should be able to spot BS better than most too.
They can ask how they structure practices and what responsibilites they give their assistants to judge their organizational skills.
They can ask how their football philosophy has evolved during their career, How or whether they've adjusted to the skill sets of their players. They won't be able to judge all the technical parts of those answers, but they're going to see how flexible, innovative and thoughtful the candidates are.
They can ask what they look for in the players they recruit and in the assistants they hire. They could also ask how they would deal with some of the specific challenges in recruiting and working at Michigan.
Asking the right questions is important. They won't be the only ones judging the answers. They won't be making any final decisions, but they have useful expertise that no one else on the committee is likely to match.
October 13th, 2014 at 12:01 PM ^
October 13th, 2014 at 12:03 PM ^
October 13th, 2014 at 12:08 PM ^
"Sorry for lying to you and insulting your intelligence. Please do me a favor for no reason!"
October 13th, 2014 at 12:09 PM ^
if we would have flipped our last two coaching hires, would we still be in the same predicament? If we hired BH after Carr, would we still be in this mess? I understand that Hoke would have had zero experience but all of the key players who eventually transferred or left (Mallett, Manningham, Arrington, Boren) when RR was hired more than likely would have stayed so I imagine we wouldn't have had that huge drop off from 2008-2010. However, if BH turned out to be a bust during that period, then maybe we could have turned to someone like RR to take over and lead us in another direction from 2011 to present.
I'm Spitballing right now...
October 13th, 2014 at 12:40 PM ^
So this assumes that if Hoke had been hired in 2008, he'd have been fired in 2011 (when RR would have been hired). I'm not sure the premise is valid.
I think that Rich Rod was doomed by two things:
- Philosophy change on offense, especially early in his tenure
- His terrible defenses.
A third could be added (the cupboard was bare), but I tend not to believe that as much since he'd done more with less at WVU. I doubt that 3-9 would have happenned under fictional Coach Hoke in 2008, due to, in some part, philosophical similarities with Carr. RichRod was asking Steven Threet to run the read option offense. Part of his failing that season was pushing the players he had into an offense that didn't suit them.* So my question is, if RR were hired for the 2015, what offense would he run with Shane Morris, Russell Bellomy, and Wilton Speight as his 3 scholarship QBs? Does anyone see one of these guys running the Zone Read more than once or twice a game?
* And before the spread zealots say, "but what did you expect, to have him run the pro-style offense?" my response is, "Of course not." But he could have run an offense more like he did back at Tulane: http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/shaun-king-1.html It wasn't exactly the spread and shred back then...
October 13th, 2014 at 12:46 PM ^
While the 2008 offense did indeed involve some read-option stuff, both Sheridan and Threet were given PLENTY of opportunities to drop back, go through a progression, and make a terrible throw. There were some pretty serious differences between the 2008 and 2010 offenses schematically. This "square peg in round hole" during 2008 was mostly overblown. The truth of the matter is that the offensive players were just not very good at football.
Personally, I think Morris has the athleticism to run a passing spread with some option elements.
October 13th, 2014 at 12:56 PM ^
RRod's biggest initial failing was losing Terrelle Pryor to OSU. If he landed Pryor then Michigan would have had its spread QB in 2008. In hindsight this probably isn't anything to wish for given the dirt on Pyror but it is relevant IMO.
October 13th, 2014 at 2:56 PM ^
I think he had no shot at getting Pryor. I always felt Pryor knew where he was going for a long time. He just dragged out his recruitment for the attention. He couldn't just wait though. He had to talk about another school to keep the media interested. We were the perfect candidate for that.
October 13th, 2014 at 5:01 PM ^
October 13th, 2014 at 1:12 PM ^
but it's an interesting take. I think we all agree that the hiring of RR was too drastic of a climate shift offensively that we just weren't ready for. Our offense didn't have the playmaking pieces and it really put our defense, which I thought had talent, in bad spots. RR was ridiculously stubborn trying to run a read option with Threet and Sheridan and it led to his demise.
If RR were hired today and had Morris as his QB, I definitely think the offense would be in better hands than when he took over in 2008 - if anything I think it better suits Morris' skillset. The more I think of it, the more I believe that if we flip-flopped BH and RR, we wouldn't be in this mess - but it is what it is.
October 13th, 2014 at 6:39 PM ^
great. What are you even talking about. His offense works fine with gun slinger that, it's just that it operates out of the shotgun. But go an and keep prending to know what you are talking about.
October 14th, 2014 at 2:11 AM ^
While we're pretending, i guess we're supposed to pretend that we never went 3-8 with RR trying to force Steven Threet and Nick Sheridan to run a zone read? If RR avoiding making the same mistake again at Arizona then good for him, that's just not what happened here.
October 13th, 2014 at 1:29 PM ^
October 13th, 2014 at 4:59 PM ^
October 13th, 2014 at 6:41 PM ^
Because 3 and Out says that Carr encouraged Mallet to leave along with other players. Also, rumors at the time were that was that after the QB spot cleared up at Arkansas Mallet was gone no matter who the coach was.
Don't just make shit up dude.
October 13th, 2014 at 8:11 PM ^
October 13th, 2014 at 9:42 PM ^
October 13th, 2014 at 12:20 PM ^
It's time to clean house. There's been enough time to be successful, and it hasn't happened. We are playing football in the 90s when the game is changing. Michigan needs to change with it.
October 13th, 2014 at 12:27 PM ^
October 13th, 2014 at 1:09 PM ^
+1 for making me laugh
October 13th, 2014 at 3:04 PM ^
October 13th, 2014 at 12:36 PM ^