November 28th, 2014 at 10:55 PM ^
So basically Hoke's career prior to accepting the job at Michigan was equivalent to Rich Rod's low point of his career, that being the 3 years he spent at Michigan.
November 28th, 2014 at 7:19 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 28th, 2014 at 7:35 PM ^
I never was anti-RR. I was anti-losing. After the 2010 I believed--and still do--that he had to go. He didn't do a good enough job. Hoke is now in the same boat.
You are a fanatic. That much is clear.
November 28th, 2014 at 7:56 PM ^
I wonder if he's fanatic enough to chalk up a loss after one series into the game.
November 28th, 2014 at 8:04 PM ^
Your approach indicates that you haven't watched many Lions games.
November 28th, 2014 at 8:24 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 28th, 2014 at 8:28 PM ^
or I'm just not a miserable sad-sack.
November 28th, 2014 at 8:42 PM ^
to see what he could have accomplished with 100% support of all people involved. Even if he had the support that Hoke had, he would probably have done phenomenal things.
November 28th, 2014 at 8:48 PM ^
You are discounting his own failures.
November 29th, 2014 at 6:49 AM ^
He wasn't given time to rebuild the nightmare of a roster he inherited, let alone change the personel to match his coaching philosophy. The funny thing is that he preached patience from day 1. So many failed to listen and understand the state of the roster. Sad.
November 29th, 2014 at 8:56 AM ^
or are we the failures? The evidence is making it pretty obvious.
November 28th, 2014 at 10:57 PM ^
For being "anti-losing", why do you find fault in a coach who has done nothing but win outside of his time at UM, but defend a coach who lost more than he had won prior to being hired as HC at UM?
November 28th, 2014 at 7:20 PM ^
Out of curiosity one 12 win season means winning now? Wow, what a warped view of things to help ones point.
Pete Lembo has done more "winning" at BSU than Hoke could dream of.
November 28th, 2014 at 7:23 PM ^
When's the last time Michigan won 12 games?
November 28th, 2014 at 7:41 PM ^
It was an impressive accomplishment. He also won 9 at SDSU.
It isn't warped to say that he achieved a level of success at his previous stops. That is 100% true and that is what I said. He did in fact win at his previous stops.
November 28th, 2014 at 8:22 PM ^
Hoke was an under 500 coach even with 12-2 and 9-4 seasons. Basically he had one good year at each school. Given his track record of one good season per school, he should have been fired after year one.
November 28th, 2014 at 8:30 PM ^
.... that would be the rational approach.
November 28th, 2014 at 9:47 PM ^
That's your logic here.
And yes, it is kind of easy to win for one year at a school like Ball State (look at Marshall this year, every year one of those type teams goes near undefeated). In 5 years before that last one, he was 24-37 coaching there. How on earth is that any good? You are picking by far the best season he's had at any spot and acting like it's the norm. Hoke has gotten significantly worse each year here.
Rich Rod, though, slowly improved at Glennville State finishing T-1st of better his final 4 years there in their conference, then took over a sub mediocre WVU team and made them into a squad that finished top 10 three years in a row. Then the Michigan struggles. Now at Arizona he's taken an average PAC12 team and made them one of the best in the conference, won 2 straight bowl games there, and potentially hitting the Rose Bowl this year.
Rich Rod has maintained a high level or improved upon every team he's coached except Michigan. Hoke has had exactly 3 good seasons in his entire head coaching career, and Michigan is the only place he's actually sustained winning seasons...except they've gotten worse earch year and this year won't be one.
November 28th, 2014 at 8:44 PM ^
yes. Most emphatically yes.
November 28th, 2014 at 7:21 PM ^
I understand where you are coming from. But I look at Brady Hoke at Ball State and I see a coach who underperformed or -- at best -- matched that school's historical averages in football. He had one admittedly great season there, and after he left that program immediately tanked. Not 3-4 years later, which would indicate he had built some kind of foundation. He has never won a conference championship.
He was at SDSU for two years, and he seemed to have things trending in the right direction. But two years is very short and his successor, Rocky Long, has maintained a moderate level of success there -- like he had at New Mexico earlier in his career. So maybe he was building a winner at SDSU, maybe not.
It's certainly something to be debated. I just think hiring a coach who spent damn near a decade at non-Power 5 schools and only had a .500 record to show for it was a massive reach for Michigan, and always would be. He was not in the same universe as Rich Rod in terms of success prior to each of them taking the Michigan job.
November 28th, 2014 at 7:23 PM ^
November 28th, 2014 at 7:43 PM ^
Show where I said their records were comparable? All I said was that Hoke won at previous stops as well. That isn't saying that they had comparable levels of success.
November 28th, 2014 at 7:57 PM ^
November 28th, 2014 at 8:03 PM ^
another before Arizona. He has succeeded at two of his three stops. Hoke "won" at his previous stops. By this I meant achieved a level of success.
That people interpreted it as me saying Hoke was equal to RR I cannot help. Obviously, they were not comparable.
Dave Brandon was a fucking idiot for hiring Hoke. I hated the hire at the time(something which can be verified if you go back) and it turns out I was correct.
But my statement that previous success can be misleding still stands. In the history of college football there have been guys who won at one place, failed at another, and then re-captured success at another place.RR's story isn't that unique.
November 28th, 2014 at 8:53 PM ^
"a level of success"
That is so wishy-washy. Any amount of winning or losing is "a level" of success.
November 29th, 2014 at 3:45 AM ^
November 28th, 2014 at 8:02 PM ^
So by your definition a HS coach that has won some games is qualified to be HC at Michigan? Because they have won at previous stops? And if not HS, than any winning MAC coach should be considered? Your standards are shit.
Stop being contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian. It devalues what have been some of your good points in the past.
November 28th, 2014 at 8:12 PM ^
Again, you are misinterpretating what I said. This was never about Hoke's qualifications. I in fact thought he was not qualified when he was hired.
Rather, this was about the assumption that previous success was an absolute indicator of success. It isn't.
There is winning and then there is achieving success. Hoke attained the first. Big difference.
November 29th, 2014 at 8:19 AM ^
November 28th, 2014 at 7:26 PM ^
then went 4-8 and 9-4 at SDSU. Never won a conference championship. Career record of 47-50.
Meanwhile, Rich Rod won 4 conference titles at Glenville State en route to a 43-28-2 record. Then went to West Virginia and won 4 Big East titles in 5 years from '03-'07. 60-26 overall.
Now tell me, who was more qualified to be Michigan's head coach?
November 28th, 2014 at 7:42 PM ^
I never said Hoke was as or more qualified than RR for the job.
November 28th, 2014 at 7:31 PM ^
November 28th, 2014 at 7:38 PM ^
He achieved success at his previous stops. That is exactly what I said. His record indicates that. You are calling ridiculous what is actually fact.
November 28th, 2014 at 7:48 PM ^
November 28th, 2014 at 7:58 PM ^
But not enough. So too did Hoke. But again not enough.
November 28th, 2014 at 8:43 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 28th, 2014 at 8:12 PM ^
Gonna link my own old diary here
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/improvement-quantified
Michigan got better every year under richrod.... and was fired. Your laughable excuse of it didn't work at Michigan is just wrong. We didn't work for richrod. The stupid people around the program and in the program actively destroyed him. We are where we are now because of our collective failures, not his.
November 28th, 2014 at 8:43 PM ^
The one thing we don't know is how UM would have faired under RR in 2011. His defenses were atrocious. Would GERG have changed things up? What we also don't know is if he would have figured out how to score on OSU and MSU enough to beat them. 0-6 is a pretty damning record. You are assuming that he would have based on nothing but faith. That isn't a strong argument.
RR did contribute to this fall as Brian himself has pointed out. But the lion's share does indeed belong to the inbreeders. I won't dispute that.
November 28th, 2014 at 9:27 PM ^
November 29th, 2014 at 7:05 AM ^
He lost some of the only effective upperclass players he was given. He was playing freshman and sophomores all over the field out of necessity. He would have improved the offense, defense, and special teams as players aged and got stronger. You can't just improve an entire empty cupboard all at once. It takes time to get players to improve the crater that he inherited. Michigan was a mess and he brought in many, many good players. As time went on we saw how well he can identify talent.
Arizona by contrast was a better team from the start because they had more talent on the roster from the time he took over. Yeah there wasn't much but much more than the disastrous roster Michigan began with. At least Arizona had some talented underclassmen to help the transition. Michigan had a few talented guys but most were juniors or seniors. RR had very little to work with and had little talent to bank his future on. So he had to go out and play freshman, sophomores and walk ons to fill holes. That is not a winning formula and that is the reason the defense got worse. Yes GERG was a disaster but not nearly as disastrous as the talent on the roster. No defensive coordinator would succeed with the underclassmen we had. Mattisons defense had more talent and played an easier schedule. He was not some magic coach.
November 28th, 2014 at 11:01 PM ^
That thread's comments are epic in hindsite.
November 28th, 2014 at 8:15 PM ^
Ball State went 5-6, 5-6, 6-6 in the three seasons prior to Hoke's arrival. In Hoke's first five years, he went 4-8, 2-9, 4-7, 5-7, 7-6. Congrats on your one big season at BSU, Brady. You've had exactly one of those at each stop.
November 28th, 2014 at 8:54 PM ^
Why do you guys keep perpetuating this myth?
Most of us have considered where Ball State started.
Bill Lynch went 5-6; 5-6; and 6-6 in the three years before Hoke arrived at Ball State. Very, very average.
Hoke proceeded to tank the Cardinals to 4-8; 2-9; 4-7; 5-7 seasons - all four WORSE than the three seasons that preceded Hoke's arrival.
Hoke went on a tear the next season - finishing with a 7-6 winning record. WOW! Hoke was rapidly approaching "Michigan expectations", which he reached the next year - going 12-1 before abandoning his "sons" before a losing bowl game for the deep blue (if not the greener pastures) of the Pacific Ocean and SDSU.
Rodriquez just won the Pac-12 South. I'm trying to imagine when Michigan might have won a division that included USC, UCLA, and ASU. I was born in the 50s, and I can't. He couldn't get any meaningful support from the AD or the fans in Ann Arbor when he was 7-3, ten games into his third season. Next year, he won't be breaking in a new QB for the first time since Pat White in 2007. Methinks the trajectory in Tucson is "up". Ann Arbor? Not so much (unless someone pulls a Harbaugh out of a hat).
The problem isn't that Hoke needs to be fired. The problem is that someone thought it was appropriate to hire him in the first place - for 6 years at $3.5m+ per year. The person that thought that - and any persons who've supported that person in any way over the past four years - need to be further isolated so that their illness can be treated.
Two famous quotes come to mind that Hackett and Schlissel would do well to ponder:
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." - Pogo.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - Santayana
November 29th, 2014 at 12:22 AM ^
They're in that division but we already know how the Utah game went. As of last week all but Colorado were ranked in the top 25 but USC or Utah may have dropped out.
November 28th, 2014 at 7:59 PM ^
Or your definition of "winner" is laughable....barely winning more than half the games you coach over your career is a very low bar indeed.
So much for leaders and best.
November 28th, 2014 at 8:09 PM ^
That is a factually true statement. Did I say he was a winner? No. Did I say he had a winning record as a coach? No. Did I say he was as good as RR? Again no.
The responses to my post have largely been misinterpretations of what I originally said. I said he had won at his previous stops. That's it.