Reality Check - UM Football Has Been Mediocre by "Blue Blood" Standards ...for 20 Years
Preface: (a) I am prepared for the downvotes and hate messages and (b) this has little to do with the Penn State game and more to do with the now years of sweating out games with the likes of UConn / Akron and knowing a typical game versus a program like Purdue or Illinois is now a sweat it out game with a >35%+ chance of a loss.
I cannot remember the last time we had a servicable OL that did not require a superman QB to create offense. I am sure it was 2007 but it sickens me to see we have a MAC level OL - whatever the age - with an All American holding down 1 of the 5 spots, and a theoretical NFL pick at another. It sickens me that this is not a 1 year issue, or a 3 year but with the youth of 2014 will be a year 7 issue. At Michigan.
We have let the Big 10 down, and our biggest rival down. It is not just since Rich Rod got here, but aside from one special season, and a few other very nice ones, UM football has been quite "average" (I don't know the right adjective and I know the board police will attack whichever adjective I use so insert your own) not for 6 years but 20 versus our "pedigree". 5 Big 10 titles, outright or shared in 20 years. Wisconsin has more in that time.
Being a statistic geek I took a look at the top programs in all time wins, excluded the Harvard/Yales and added in Florida and we don't compare very well at all for the past 20 years. By that I mean 0, 1, or 2 loss seasons. [i.e. my ARBITRARY signal of what would indicate you have a pretty damn elite team, allowing for 1 screwup a year - it's a basic eye test, not science] We have been consistently meh (insert your adjective here) - and well below our rival OSU who both share a very average conference for about a decade now. We laugh at Notre Dame here on so many levels but frankly we have become Notre Dame North. For comparison sake, the previous 20 year period, we had 13 seasons of 2 losses or less; we had an elite program.
Since 1993, the # of years UM has lost less than 3 games: 4.
We sit here on our boards and so many are all high and mighty and mock Notre Dame. Yes they have only had 2 of less than 3 losses in 20 years. Somehow they have been even worse. But what a lame yardstick at this point. Hey we are better than Charlie Weiss and Bob Davie - yippee.
Our rival? They are making us look pathetic. OSU with 12 years of 2 losses or less.
- PSU with a "over the hill Paterno": 6
- Nebraska: 8
- Texas: 7
- Oklahoma: 7
- USC* (*cheaters): 9
- Florida: 11
- Georgia: 5
- Tennessee: 6
- Bama: 6
Aside from consistency over 20 years most of the teams above had 4-5 year periods of super elite status where they were "dominant", before cycling back down. Unfortunately while we got our 1 NC, we also have not had that sort of "consistent elite/feared for a # of years". Georgia is probably the only other one along with our friends in South Bend.
Our recruiting classes have, aside for maybe 2-3 years out of 20 been consistently top 10ish. We tsk tsk at Texas for doing less with more but the reality is many of us (myself included) are living in glass houses as we have been doing the same.... or one could argue less with the same.
I get caught up in the day to day and week to week analysis as much as anyone, but when you really sit back and look at the big picture it has been a relatively mediocre era, thankfully to a degree covered up by a supernova in 1997. Just very frustrating to analyze and compare to what Ohio is doing - we are not in the same conversation anymore. Hopefully our "cycle" comes soon (latter 2010s) but it's been a long time waiting for it.
October 14th, 2013 at 12:10 PM ^
I won’t repeat what’s already been said by the media and the boards after Saturday’s loss.
But the one thing that bear’s repeated noting is for all of Brady Hoke’s talk about toughness, man-ball and yadda, yadda this team is soft and passive.
To be clear - I love him to death - think he's the right man for Michigan, but this rah-rah talk he spins is wearing thin. I'm also getting weary of hearing how young this team is.
Many schools around the country at all levels plays young . We got beat by a freshman. A freshman won the Heisman last year. Beilein took a young team to the national championship game. So, I'm not sure how much water the "young team" argument holds these days. Instead of age, I would focus more on the rate of development of young talented four and five-star players - I'm looking at you Borges and Funk.
And speaking of Beilein, he reassesed staff after three years and made, I'm sure, hard critical changes. Similarly the coaching issue goes beyond the assistants; it rests at the feet of Brady Hoke, who, also after three years on the job is at a critical juncture in his tenure at U of M. You all know the ol’ adage, I’m sure: the team takes on the personality of its coach.
Bo snarled all the time and it was a tough love he had for his players. His teams responded and pounded that rock down a team's throat and his teams intimidated teams.
Brady’s so laid back - geez he won’t even wear a headset – he pats his players on the behind, wraps an arm around them when they come off the field, when maybe they need a good kick in the ass. His teams would not scare a Pop Warner team. he needs to turn the heat up a little.
During the game is no time to be soft and cuddly with players. Hoke says he likes to coach his players during the game – say what? That’s like the golfer who goes through all his swing mechanics before striking the ball while playing- you go to the practice range for that to work on mechanics not during play. The time for Hoke to coach is on the practice field not during the game – during the game it’s time to play.
October 14th, 2013 at 12:23 PM ^
Many schools around the country at all levels plays young . We got beat by a freshman. A freshman won the Heisman last year. Beilein took a young team to the national championship game. So, I'm not sure how much water the "young team" argument holds these days. Instead of age, I would focus more on the rate of development of young talented four and five-star players - I'm looking at you Borges and Funk.
You say "many schools...play young" but list two teams with two exceptional players. Are those guys the exception or the rule? You'd have to do some in-depth research to prove that they are the rule. Since you make the assertion, I'm assuming you've done the research? I'd be interested in seeing more of it.
And because something worked in basketball, which is a completely different sport for those who don't know, means it should also work in football? I fail to see the argument there.
Brady’s so laid back - geez he won’t even wear a headset – he pats his players on the behind, wraps an arm around them when they come off the field, when maybe they need a good kick in the ass. His teams would not scare a Pop Warner team. he needs to turn the heat up a little.
The whole headset on the sidelines meme is utterly ridiculous. If you really think it makes a difference, please do some research comparing the success of coaches who wear headsets versus coaches who do not. Again, since you make the assertion, I'm guessing you've already done this research.
During the game is no time to be soft and cuddly with players.
Are you saying he should be screaming at his players 'til he's purple in the face? Personally, I don't care how a coach treats his players on the sideline (within reason), but that seems like an odd statement to be making after all the grief this fanbase has given RR and BK for their antics on the sideline.
October 14th, 2013 at 12:16 PM ^
completely agree UM has produced mediocre squads during said 20 year period and aside from 1997 and 2006, theyve failed to field a national title contender. but ill only comment on the current regime since it does not really matter at this point whether john navarre or brian griese led UM to more wins decades ago, it just does not affect current results on field. have to mention hoke walked into an awful situation at his dream school....except lewan, 2 athletic QBs and handful of other nice players, hokes roster not only did not fit his desired scheme/identity, but the players were not good enough to compete at the highest levels in ANY scheme. hoke has started to bring in what everyone believes will be top tier recruits but those players are only 1-2 yrs into program. its never just one thing. the offensive coaching has been awful this year and the team has no identity. mattison does not have the players to effectively run the scheme he wants - he is honestly one of the best coaches in the country but not much he can do when he does not have pass rushers or elite athletes in secondary...hes forced to mix it up with combo of underneath zones and soft man and some pressure packages which expose his secondary in 1on1s. its corny but true....not about x's and o's, its all about jimmys and joes. they need horses. theres only 2-3 players on this roster who have proven they consistently win 1on1 matchups....and if you most of your team cannot beat the guy across from them, youre not going to win, period. theyve had some great performances but for most part have been average to below average. the offensive coaches have been stubborn, foolish and refused to be flexible....recipe for disaster especially when you lack elite talent at every single position except QB and LT. gardner runs on any of those final 3 down in regulation and its first down, game over....but no, lets ram touissant into that brick wall for 3 straight losses....inflexible and stubborn....play to win the game just like herm said. and they did not. hopefully the current young classes and future class or 2 can fit into hoke/borges neat little box...bc theyre doomed if they cannot. and in regards to recruiting...all 85 matter at this level, its not san diego or ball st, you cannot afford to piss away any scholarships since at least 1/3 of the 85 will be busts on almost any team. ive yelled it from mountaintop, in a year when you have limited #s like 2015, they cannot afford to give charity scholarships to guys like pallante and runyans son....those guys are prayers since youre hoping they can both grow and gain weight and also dramatically increase athletic ability they dont have....basically another 2 brennan beyers, nice smart solid kids who are nothing but backups on good teams.. every single recruit should be brought in with the thought that he can start at some point and be impact player, not rotation player, but reliable and potential elite starter....thats UM brady, even carrs worst teams still had big athletic kids who the staff thought could start. they never spent multiple scholarships on role players other than special teams. if you want to beat OSU and urban meyer (who understands this concept better than almost anyone) you have to make all 85 count and bring in absolute studs. if a kid is undersized he better be the best available athlete, no room for rudys if you truly want to win B1G titles and compete for national titles....its not debatable. now the jury is still out on all of hokes players, im just pointing out that even 1-2 scholarships per year cannot be given out unless you truly envision those kids making an impact and starting. if theyre solid role players that might be decent ballers in 4-5 years, let them go to the MAC
October 14th, 2013 at 12:35 PM ^
but "back" in a bad way. We're right back to where we were befor: teams with superior talent playing down to our opponents with ultra conservative play-calling as we watch our double-digit 4th quarter lead slip away.
If you really look at Michigan's program objectively (as much as we all can), the OP is dead-on. We're barely better than ND
October 14th, 2013 at 12:37 PM ^
In terms of overall success you are right, but Rodriguez, in spite of the recruiting OL issue, had productive offensive lines in 2009 and 2010, and actually I don't even think 2008 was historically bad running the ball. The offensive line has gotten progressively worse despite the "star rankings" under Hoke and Co.
October 14th, 2013 at 1:23 PM ^
Gardner had three turnovers. Again. That's the game. Toussaint being run into the pile over and over is annoying no doubt. But Brian summed it up on the front page: Penn State had three drives start around the Michigan 25. That isn't scheme. That isn't poor play calling. Gardner had one unavoidable fumble, and then two picks. Those weren't unfortunate. Those were thrown directly to defenders.
Once again, we have a quarterback who cannot reliably do half the job of his position. Make it easier for Gardner? These turnovers were not on super difficult throws. This was pretty vanilla stuff. How is an OC supposed to pull out anything exotic when teams prepare for any kind of run and any kind of pass on our part has my chest full of fear?
October 14th, 2013 at 1:27 PM ^
I totally agree with what you are saying. Other than a few years Michigan has not been as good as we all think/hope they are. Save the 97' National Championship and it would have been what 65 years since our last NC. If our recruits pan out like people think, I believe this trend should change but if they don't...watch out...
October 14th, 2013 at 1:28 PM ^
but not your timeline. A lot has happened in the last 20 years for sure, but I think that Michigan ceased being an elite program after the 2004 season. You mentioned 2 loss seasons as a valid metric for establishing an "elite" program along with conference championships. To that, I would also add BCS (or in the previous era, "Alliance Bowl") appearances, 10 win seasons and overall bowl record. And from the 12-year period of 1993-2004, here were the relevant numbers for Michigan:
Overall record: 111-37
Winning percentage: .750
# of 10 win seasons: 5
# of 2 (or fewer) loss seasons: 2
# of Conference Championships: 5
# of BCS/Alliance Bowl Appearances: 4
Record vs. OSU: 7-5
Record in BCS/Alliance Bowls: 2-2
Overall Bowl Record: 7-5
If you want to debate whether those numbers scream "elite" at you, that's fine, but first be sure to compare them against the 12 years immediately prior to them.
1981-1992:
Overall record: 108-35-5
Winning percentage: .755
# of 10 win seasons: 4
# of 2 (or fewer) loss seasons: 5
# of Conference Championships: 7
# of BCS/Alliance Bowl Appearances: 8
Record vs. OSU: 7-4-1
Record in BCS/Alliance Bowls: 3-5
Overall Bowl Record: 6-6
The takeaway here is that our performance from 1993-2004 was mostly in line with what we saw from 1981-1992. Sure, there were two more conference championships and we went to a few more prestigious bowl games, but our bowl record in those incremental prestigious games was shit and the Big 10 overall was weaker than in the mid-late 90's (emergence of Wisconsin as a conference power, addition of Penn State).
Total winning percentage was nearly identical, as was our record vs. OSU and number of double digit win seasons. We had a few more seasons with 2 or fewer losses in the 1981-92 timeframe, but we also had a national championship/undefeated season in the 1993-2004 timeframe. For good measure, there was 1 Heisman trophy winner in each of these two periods.
While I believe that Michigan football was slightly better from 1981-92 than it was from 1993-2004, it was not by a large margin. In my estimation, we were either elite in both periods or we weren't elite in either one. Therefore, I don't think the OP's post about us being in a 20 year period of medicority is accurate. We've either been a mediocre program for over 30 years (which I seriously doubt) or we've been a mediocre program since our last conference championship in 2004 (much more likely).
The entire jaded nature of the fanbase, the calling for coaches' heads, the inability to blow out shitty teams, the perpetual fear of losing to OSU......this truly manifested itself in the mid-2000's and has continued to present day. Were it not for the 2006 season, there wouldn't be one dominant Michigan team we could point to in the last decade.
But the key is that this is a fairly recent phenomenon and as such, this is not a 20-year hole of "suck" that we're trying to dig ourselves out of.
October 14th, 2013 at 2:15 PM ^
Good analysis. I just went back 20 years as an easy cutoff date of "1 generation". I agree the first half of these 20 years has been obviously much better than the last half. But even in the first half I felt based on what some of these kids did in the NFL once they left, the coaching staff underachieved. No way some of those teams in the mid/late 90s should have lost 4-ish games if this program was running on all cylinders. I look back at some of those rosters and am very perplexed at how we lost to some very serious Big 10 also rans almost yearly.
Getting crushed by Florida State or McNabb's signular one man show with Syracuse is one thing, but the constant "what the hell??" games against inferior competition (one to two a year, almost like clockwork) was mind boggling based on the talent discrepency alone.
October 14th, 2013 at 2:54 PM ^
is that in the Post 10-Year War Era, an unfortunate part of Michigan's football legacy has been to lose at least 1 WTF game almost every year against inferior competition and sometimes 2. In the mid-late 90's, there were a number of those games such as the '95 losses to Northwestern and MSU, the '93 losses to Illinois and MSU, the '94 loss to Wisconsin, the '96 loss to Northwestern and the '99 loss to Illinois.
But life wasn't so great on this front in the 80's and early 90's either. Classic stinkbombs include the '84 loss to MSU, the '86 losses to Minnesota (when we were undefeated no less) and Arizona State (Rose Bowl), the '85 tie against Illinois, the '87 losses to Indiana and OSU and the '90 loss to MSU.
Hell, the 1990 team was a complete mirror image of the disappointment that happened in 2000. Two teams with crazy good offenses and legitimate defensive talent that each went 9-3 when they should have gone 11-1. Two of the biggest "what if" games in Michigan history ("What if" the refs threw the PI flag against MSU and "what if" Anthony Thomas held on to the ball vs. Northwestern?) that ended up costing each team a trip to the Rose Bowl and, in the case of 1990, possibly a national championship.
Losing 1-2 WTF games/year is and has been part of Michigan's program history for the better part of 30 years. It's the stuff like losing regularly vs. OSU or being challenged by MAC teams, APP state, etc that are a relatively recent development. Those are the incidents that took the program from the more familiar "borderline elite underachiever" status to " straight up mediocre, yo" status over the last 9 years.
October 14th, 2013 at 3:15 PM ^
I would include top-10 rankings as well. Carr teams finished in the top 10 6 times. I would also point out Woodson, Perry, David Baas, Edwards, Woodley, all national award winning players.
Certainly since Carr left we've had big problems. The claim going back 20 years is just wrong.
October 14th, 2013 at 2:23 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 2:28 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 3:04 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 2:34 PM ^
They SHOULD have won. It's unlike Penn State 2010 in that that was never a game. This was a victory, a solid victory despite 3 first-half turnovers that led to touchdowns...until every conceivable thing went wrong at the end (PSU circus catches, delay of games, THREE(!!!!) missed game-winning field goals). As much as we are piling on the coaches for their mistakes, and they made aplenty, the bottom line is Michigan was going to win that game. Several times.
So, I do think some people are overreacting quite a bit.
And there are some very serious concerns from this team, no doubt. But there is still a lot of season left, and I (perhaps, naively) doubt that Borges will try to keep running up the middle on 1st down over and over again for the remainder of the season.
I will say this...Michigan playing the way it did against PSU would have been beaten by Notre Dame earlier this year. I think the coaches were more affected by the Akron and Uconn scares than even Devin was. They need to get back to trusting Devin to run the offense. They HAVE to trust that the ND game wasn't some fluke. Otherwise every game going forward will be close...nothing is guaranteed.
October 14th, 2013 at 5:07 PM ^
Complete Lunacy. Because your post is one of the most sane posts on this Board today. Thank you for that. It was a team loss, we should have won, get back to what we do, and move on. Hopefully we will win more, maybe not. Either way, I'll be there Saturday with my kids, cheering like crazy for the team I love.
October 14th, 2013 at 2:54 PM ^
We've been consistently good, not mediocore. The defense now is on pace to become consistiently awesome and the offense is on pace to be consistently average.
For how much talnet we have on offense, this is embarrassing.
October 14th, 2013 at 3:09 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 3:48 PM ^
I hope our peer group isn't Michigan State football and a mediocre Notre Dame. Like the OP said, against the other top programs in college football, we are super mediocre. Especially when you consider 'talent' on each team. Top 10 classes every year, rarely top 10 finishers
October 14th, 2013 at 5:15 PM ^
at the records of USC, Texas, and Alabama for the last 13 years. It's not as fabulous as you all think. Here are some Alabama highlights: 3-8 in 2000 and 4-9 in 2003 6-7 in 2006 and 7-6 in 2007. USC: Between 1996-2001, their best record was 9-6. Now they stink, too. Srsly. Look it up. mcubed.net. All records of all teams.
October 14th, 2013 at 5:29 PM ^
Their lows have been as low as Michigan's, but their highs have been higher. Michigan has not been consistently winning 11 or mores games the last 20 years. Only done it 3 times. Alabama has done it 6 times, Texas 6, USC 7, OSU NINE.
October 14th, 2013 at 5:55 PM ^
^This.
UM until Rich Rod had been remarkable in avoiding .500 type seasons for a long time. In return it was a consistent 3,4 loss team for many years beginning in early 90s. There were 2-3 years of exception but we were damn consistent. If it means a few more 7-5 or 6-6 seasons rather than 8-4, in return for a few more 12-1s or 11-2s over 2 decades, I would take that since it means for 5-6 years we were a legitimate national threat - not a pretender who eases in at #11 or #14 at the end of the year.
I do feel I might be in the minority however as a large portion of the fan base is content to "play the Michigan way" and lose 4 games most years with an occassional 2 loss season twice a decade. At least some of the comment here indicate it - not that they are "happy" doing that, but they sure seem content. Going for the NC is just talk for this program I guess.
October 14th, 2013 at 6:20 PM ^
their highs are higher. You know there is nothing that we, as fans, or even alums, can do about it, right???? Since you are not content, what are you going to do about it? (I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm really asking.)
October 14th, 2013 at 8:34 PM ^
is to watch the game for the first quarter. You will know by our third offensive series whether or not the head man has the team ready. If they are not there, change to an SEC game and catch the score on score tracker. That is my plan. I know I'm not about to watch this much talent, talent that was on display in our first two games play non-Michigan football any longer. There is no need for it. I'm not asking for a change of coaching. I hope it works out. Something mysterious has happened since those first two weeks, and it's definitely on the offensive side of the ball, attributable in large part to Borges being afraid, for good reason, to start off the games in the same manner he did the first two. However, I will submit inasmuch as we have nothing to lose by abandoning our running game completely and just throw the ball instead of attempting to minimize turnovers by having Devin hand the ball off knowing the end result is not the answer. So in answer to your question, that's what I will do. See if they're ready-Defense has been ready and plays hard. If not, turn the channel. No big deal. Like the OP said, this has been going on for decades. Just like Carr would sleep walk through the first two games of each season, Brady seems to be sleep walking through the first half of every game.
October 15th, 2013 at 10:58 AM ^
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
October 14th, 2013 at 3:49 PM ^
What worries me is that, under Hoke, we have not yet beaten a decent team on the road. And there's little progess in that regard in year 3. As long as we cannot win road games against average or above-average teams, we willl most likely be disappointed every season. We will always end up losing at least 2 to 3 road games without any sort of championship. 11-2 record including a BCS victory (like 2011) is probably our ceiling.
People keep saying this is a young team. But we just got beaten by a true FRESHMAN quarterback. (I know this is my rant.)... In this rate, I foresee 2014 season a down year as well with road games at Ohio, MSU, ND, and Northwestern.
October 14th, 2013 at 4:33 PM ^
Anyone who thinks that Hoke isn't the right man for the job at this point needs to get a life. He had double digit wins in his first season with a team that had very little talent. As for his supposed "problem" winning on the road, I merely point out that in 2012, he lost to the #1 (Alabama), #2 (Notre Dame); and #3 (OSU) ranked teams on the road. While it would have been nice to win at least one of those games, losing all three -- two of which were very close -- is nothing to be ashamed of. Yes, we should have beaten Penn State, however, they played out of their minds on the final possession of regulation. Shit happens. Enought about the headset. Enough about the play calling. You guys sound like a bunch of losers.
October 14th, 2013 at 5:58 PM ^
one of the coaches just joining the blog today to defend yourselves
October 14th, 2013 at 6:03 PM ^
Whereas your 27 points give you loads of credibility.
October 14th, 2013 at 6:02 PM ^
It really is amazing how one loss - in quadruple overtime no less - can cause everyone to do a 180 on the guy. There was none of this criticism before the game. Some people were worried about this year's team, yes, but no one fretted about the program as a whole. One game should not make people lose all faith in the program. That's a massive overreaction.
October 14th, 2013 at 6:10 PM ^
on the internet, where can you massively overreact? Freak out two days later over a football game at work or at home, and you end up getting a psych consult.
October 14th, 2013 at 6:28 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 6:07 PM ^
You just joined because the whiny "fire Hoke" posts got to you and you just had to say something, right?? FWIW, I agree with you.
October 14th, 2013 at 6:33 PM ^
I can't wait for the "oh you're overreacting" and "you're a bunch of chicken littles!" to come back and admonish people again. I doubt it.
Those who are pissed off right now actually get it. They at least acknowledge that the 2013 Michigan football team really is that team that should have lost to Akron and at UConn.
The rest of you no doubt have doctorate degrees in wishful thinking. As if being pissed off is inappropriate or "unacceptable!" after Michigan loses in 4 OT by 3 points to the worst and arguably least-talented Penn State football team in a generation and quite possibly in ther college football history - a team QBed by a true freshman no less, during Brady Hoke's 3rd year. You are probably the same guyz who called for Rodriguez's balls in his year 3, when Michigan also started out 5-0, lost badly to MSU on it's way to 3 straight defeats vs. Iowa and PSU again. It's horseshit.
Now just look at the damn schedule. Name one game where you think this Michigan team is a viable favorite anymore. Hoke might be sitting pretty at 24-8 right now. But the way this team is playing, and with upcoming games against the best this shitty league has to offer: at MSU, Nebraska, at Northwestern, at Iowa, Ohio State, Hoke's butt is definitely going to have griddle marks by end the of November.
A week ago I considered Michigan the most terrifying team in the conference, next to Northwestern maybe. Not anymore. Michigan is pretty much Indiana, except the kind of Indiana that really loses to Penn State for the 4th time in a row.
October 14th, 2013 at 8:21 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 10:59 AM ^
If we actually beat MSU or Northwestern....
October 14th, 2013 at 6:43 PM ^
Michigan will win another game this year. I just don't think they are that good. But I don't think that yelling "fire Hoke" is the solution. We fired a guy after 3 years and had to start all over. I don't want to jump on the coaching carousel. I would give him 2 more years. But it doesn't matter what I, or any other fan thinks. I also think that some posts seem rather hostile and don't understand the immense hostility after a football game. But that's me. Maybe i'm a lame "fan".
October 14th, 2013 at 8:04 PM ^
Let's just accept your analysis, the question is not what has been done, but what has to happen next to move toward whatever you want to define as non-mediocre. Whining about the last loss or Gary Moeller or Lloyd Carr or Rich Rodriguez or Brady Hoke for that matter is debating water that has already gone under the bridge. In the world of business, it is sunk cost, spent money, gone and it matters not what your analysis says except how that impacts what to do next. Now, the options are:
1) See if this head coach and his assistants can get you to that promised land.
2) Make this head coach fire his assistants and hire ??????????
3) Fire this head coach and his assistants and hire ??????????
??????????????????
Here is what we have seen from your analysis, Michigan has hired 1 name coach since 1969 (Bo was not a name coach when we hired him, trust me, I am old enough to remember that) and that became an unmitigated tire fire for all sorts of reasons that we have not yet recovered from at least based on your analysis. So, if you pick anything other than option 1, that is fine. Who do we hire and why do you think he will do better? Not some theoretical guy, but specifically who? Because if you are the AD at this school that is the real question. You want Les Miles? What makes you think Les Miles wants you? You want John Gruden? What makes you think John Gruden wants you? You wanted Jim Harbaugh, but did he want you? In the real world, you have to pick from what you can get and move on. Pat Fitzgerald was pursued, would have been a great coach for us if you ask me, but he did not want us. We got the best coach for this school that was available and wanted to be here near as I can tell, and he has a fairly experienced staff that he is comfortable with.
Easy to sit on the sidelines and abuse the coaches and the players and recruiting classes and whatever, but the final question remains. WHAT ARE YOU SAYING WE OUGHT TO DO???? And if it is fire any assistant or head coach, who do we replace them with that will come here?
I choose option 1 for now guys, because I do not have any better names that I see available that want to be here. I will let this head coach decide what he wants to do with his offensive and defensive coordinators and see if he can get us there because the alternative is to start over again. Have we not proven the cost of that from Moeller to Carr to Rodriguez to Hoke????
October 14th, 2013 at 8:22 PM ^
They are not going to answer you. It's because they know. There is no one else out there!! Wasn't it embarassing enough in 2011 when people were turning us down without even being asked?
October 14th, 2013 at 11:42 PM ^
I basically agree with you but I have one quibble. Just because you or I don't see a better option doesn't mean that one does not exist. I am very much against option 3 but I am warming up to option 2. No, I don't know off hand who would be better. But Brady or people actually in the business might. I am worried that Borges (and maybe Funk too) is a problem rather than a solution. I do not know this--I suspect it and have concern. I'd stick with option 1 for now, but it wouldn't take much to sway me to option 2. I'll bet Brady has contacts in the coaching business where he may be able to find someone good. And I'll bet plenty of people have potential to be good but we don't know about them yet.
October 14th, 2013 at 8:55 PM ^
If Gary Moeller would not have had to step down, we would be where Bama currently is today. I honestly believe he would have been the greatest coach in UM history had the whole situation not arose. I am thankful that Lloyd took his place and won an NC, but it was a steady decline from then on. Now here we are today.
Great post man, agree with everything you have said. I have been saying this for a while, and have received much disdain from other UM fans for saying it.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:52 PM ^
Everyone who wanted RR gone is getting exactly what they wanted: a Lloyd Carr guy. I have written here often that I see 9-3 as a baseline with a toss-up for the bowl game.
Lloyd Carr was a 3.5 loss a year guy. Why is everybody criticizing Brady Hoke for being exactly what Dave Brandon was looking for? Why are all of the people here from the Carr faction criticizing Hoke for getting pretty much the same results Carr got, especially considering that Hoke is only in his third year.
We don't yet know whether Hoke will be better than Carr, nor do we know if Borges will be a great OC. You can't judge either until year five. But nobody who sided with the Carr faction has the right to expect anything more than 9.5 wins a year and 3.5 losses a year out of Brady Hoke.
I am encouraged enough by recruiting that I think Hoke will be better than Carr was. But if he isn't, it's not his fault. He was hired to bring "Michigan Football" back. For Carr's tenure, that meant around 3.5 losses per year.
Mission accomplished. Stop bitching.
October 14th, 2013 at 10:09 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 10:25 PM ^
Again, RR is water under the bridge, sunk cost, decision that seemed good at the time but turned out to be not so good. The man had a 3-9 season, a 5-6 season, and a 7-5 season and is gone. If Hoke has three such seasons, he will be canned too, and rightfully so.
Your venom for Michigan fans and alumi who thought RR was not the answer after going 15-22 over 3 seasons seems a bit overblown to me. I'd assume any football coach who goes 15-22 over a three year period is going to get fired at Michigan, whether he is a Lloyd Carr or Brady Hoke or Tom Brady guy....